III. Приложения
Machine translation from the original · Show original
1. Works by M.A. Novoselova
(compiled by S. M. Polovinkin)
1. N. M. A. Police-medical protocol and Christian virtues. St. Petersburg, 1904.
2. Letters from M.A. Novoselova to L.N. Tolstoy. Publication E.S. Polishchuk. - The past. 15. – M.-SPb., 1994.
3. L.N. Tolstoy. Complete (Anniversary) collection. op.: In 90 gt. – M.-L., 1928–1958. T.63. No. 554: T.64. No. 42. 113, 419; T.65. No. 45; T.66. No. 42, 507.
4. An open letter to the Orthodox brothers. "Moscow Voice". 1906, April 6, No. 1.
5. On the question of the “decisive” vote. - “Moscow Voice”. 1906. April 13, No. 2.
6. Responses I–VI. - “Moscow Voice”. 1906. April 20 – June 22, Nos. 3–7, 12.
7. “Where is the truth?” "Moscow Voice". 1906, July 20, No. 16.
8. Spiritual guest performer Grigory Rasputin. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1910, March 2, No. 49.
9. Something else about Grigory Rasputin. "Moskovskie Vedomosti". 1910, March 30, No. 72.
10. B/p. About Grigory Rasputin, Hieromonk Iliodor, etc. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1910, April 30, N97.
11. Grigory Rasputin and mystical debauchery. – M., 1912.
12. In a quiet harbor. (Dedicated to the brethren of Zosima Hermitage). – 2nd ed. Sergiev Posad, 1911.
13. The voice of an Orthodox layman. (Letter to the editor). – Voice of Moscow. 1912, January 24, No. 19.
14. Archbishop Nikon is a distributor of “heresy”. – Voice of Moscow. 1913, July 17, No. 164 (apparently, this article was written by Father Pavel Florensky, and only signed by Novoselov).
15. Papism in the Orthodox Church. – M., 1913.
16. Among severe bewilderments. Results of life. 1914, March 7, No. 8.
17. Appeal from the “Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment” to teachers of the law. "Results of life." 1914. March 30, No. 11.
18. Church and theology. Excerpts from a letter from N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov to the rector of the Astrakhan Seminary Arch. Benjamin. "Theological Bulletin". 1913. February.
19. Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Teaching about salvation. Reported by Mikhail Novoselov. - “Theological Bulletin”. 1914. January.
20. Letters from Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) to various persons. Reported by Mikhail Novoselov. - "Theological Bulletin". 1914. January. February. March. April.
21. His Eminence Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Lesson for the week about the Samaritan. Reported by Mikhail Novoselov. - “Theological Bulletin”. 1914. May.
22. Letters from Prince Dimitry Alexandrovich Khilkov. Reported by Mikhail Novoselov. Letters to Ya. I. K-chu. "Theological Bulletin". 1915. April. May. Nyun. July-August.
23. A few words about the author of the letters. - “Theological Bulletin”. 1915. April.
24. Letters from Prince Dimitry Alexandrovich Khilkov to P.V. Kovalev. Reported by Mikhail Novoselov. "Theological Bulletin". 1916. June. July-August.
25. Letters from Prince Dimitry Alexandrovich Khilkov to M.S. Dudchenko. "Theological Bulletin". 1917. January. [Publication and notes].
26. Message from M.A. Novoselov at the Meeting of the Brotherhood of Moscow Saints on December 1, 1916. In the book: To Fyodor Dmitrievich Samarin († October 23, 1916) from friends. – Sergiev Posad. 1917.
27. M. N. Letters and diaries. "Renaissance". 1918, No. 5, 7.
28. Letters to friends. Letter one. Bulletin of the RHD. No. 115.
29. Letters to friends. Letter two. Bulletin of the RHD. No. 118; Orthodox conversation. 1992. No. 8–9.
30. Letters to friends. Letters five, ten and fourteen. - “Hope”. 1984, co. K).
31. Letters to friends. Letter five (fragments). – Orthodox conversation. 1994. No. 3.
32. Letters to friends. Letter nine. - "North-East". App. "Siberian newspaper". Novosibirsk 1992. 8 (12).
33. Letters to friends. Preface, commentary and scientific preparation of the text by E.S. Polishchuk. M., 1994.
34. I.S. Aksakov and F.M. Dostoevsky on measures of material support for the clergy. - “Peaceful work.” Kharkov. 1905. No. I.
35. Layman. On the need to restore the parish as a church-social unit. "Russian Business". 1905. January 29. .N 3.
36. Letter to the editor of “Russian Affairs” S.F. Sharapova. - “Russian Business”. 1905. February 19. No. 6.
37. On the re-creation of living churchliness. "Russian Business". 1905. March 24. Special supplement to No. 11.
38. The voice of a layman. - “Russian Business”. 1905. March 31. No. 13.
39. The voice of a layman. - “Russian Business”. 1905. April 23. No. 17.
40. About the holidays. - “Church Bulletin”. 1904. No. 23.
41. On the issue of the participation of the clergy in elections to the State Duma. - “Church Bulletin”. 1905. No. 35.
42. Lessons of faith and piety from patristic theology. - “Voice of the Church.” 1912. No. 1.
43. Lights of the Orthodox Church of Christ. - “Voice of the Church.” 1912. Nos. 3, 7, 11, 12; 1913. No. 4.
44. Fyodor Samarin, Victor Vasnetsov, Nikolay Druzhinin, Vladimir Kozhevnikov, Alexander Kornilov, Pavel Mansurov, Mikhail Novoselov, Pyotr Samarin, Dmitry Khomyakov, Count Pavel Sheremetev. Holy Synod and Bishop Hermogenes. The voice of the laity. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1912. January 24 (February 6). N19; dept. imprint
45. Fyodor Samarin, Nikolai Druzhinin, Vladimir Kozhevnikov, Alexander Kornilov. Pavel Mansurov. Mikhail Novoselov, Peter Samaria, Dmitry Khomyakov, gr. Pavel Sheremetev. Regarding the official report on the case of Bishop Hermogenes. "Moskovskie Vedomosti". 1912. March 18 (31) and March 20 (April 2). Nos. 65 and 66; dept. imprint
46. M. N. Regarding the message of the Holy Synod. "Voice of Moscow". 1913. November 21. No. 269.
47. M. A. N. A. N. Schmidt at the funeral of V. S. Solovyov. In the book: From the manuscripts of A.N. Schmidt. – M., 1916. pp.VII–VIII.
48. Notes of St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings (1902–1903) - St. Petersburg, 1906. - Speeches by Novoselov: p. 198–199. 271–278. 356–360, 497–498, 527–530.
2. “Religious and philosophical library”
Vol. I. Novoselov M.A. The forgotten path of experimental knowledge of God (in connection with the question of the nature of the Orthodox mission). Vyshny-Volochek, 1902. Decree. Op. Reprint edition. M., Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1991. The Forgotten Path. 2nd ed. Vyshny-Volochek, 1903. Novoselov M.A. The forgotten path of experienced knowledge of God. Appendix: The mystical meaning of the existence of God. 3rd ed., revised. M., 1912.
Vol. II. Seeking God. Vyshny-Volochek. [region:] 1903; [title:] 1902. Decree. Op. 2nd ed. Vyshny-Volochek, 1904. The search for God. Sat. 3rd ed., add. M., 1913. Decree. Op. Reprint edition. M., Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1991.
Vol. III. E. S. Eternal life as the highest good. Vyshny-Volochek, 1903. Decree. Op. 2nd ed., revised. and additional Vyshny-Volochek, 1906. Decree. Op. 3rd ed., revised. and additional M., 1917.
Vol. IV. Social significance of a religious personality. Vyshny-Volochek, [region:] 1904: [title:] 1903. Social significance of religion and religious personality. Sat. 2nd ed., revised. M., 1913.
Vol. V. Tikhomirov L. Personality, Society and Church. M., 1904. Tikhomirov L. Pobedonostsev K. Personality, society and the Church. 2nd ed., revised. and additional Sergiev Posad. 1913.
Vol. VI. Novoselov M. From conversations about war. Vyshny Volochek. 1904. Replaced by: The Lord's Prayer as explained by Vlad. Solovyov and M. Moscow Filaret. Vyshny-Volochek, 1911.
Vol. VII. The meaning of free speech for the individual, society and the Church. (According to the views of the Slavophiles and Vlad. Solovyov). Vyshny-Volochek, 1904.
Vol. VIII. About the purpose of upbringing and education. Vyshny-Volochek, 1905. On the purpose of upbringing and education. Sat. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1913.
Vol. IX. Tikhomirov L.A. Altruism and Christian love. Vyshny-Volochek, 1905. Tikhomirov L.A. - To her. Feofan. Altruism and Christian love. Appendix: Thoughts of Rev. Isaac the Syrian about Christian love, mercy and almsgiving. 2nd ed., add. Sergiev Posad, 1915.
Vol. X. Religion and morality. L.N. Tolstoy. Prof. V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. Prof. A.F. Gusev. Vyshny-Volochek, 1906.
Vol. XI. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky). The moral meaning of basic Christian dogmas. Vyshny-Volochek, 1906.
Vol. XII. What is the Bible? 1st Bible edition. – M., 1907.
Vol. XIII. How to read the Bible? Appendix: Testimonies of the Church Fathers and church writers about the Bible. 2nd Bible edition. Vyshny-Volochek, 1907.
Vol. XIV. The meaning of world history. (Theological and philosophical commentary by Vl. S. Solovyov on the Easter Gospel. (3rd biblical edition). - Vyshny-Volochek, 1908.
Vol. XV. John Mason. Prof. V.N. Karpov. Self-knowledge. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1908.
Vol. XVI. Samarin Fedor. The original Christian Church in Jerusalem. – M., 1908.
Vol. XVII. Auguste Nicolas. About the Church. – M., 1909.
Vol. XVIII. Auguste Nicolas. About grace and sacraments. Vyshny-Volochek, 1909.
Vol. XIX. Vlad. Soloviev. Church. Archbishop Anthony. The moral idea of the dogma of the church. – M., 1909.
Vol. XX. About the purpose and meaning of life. Part I: a) Eudaimonism, utilitarianism and stoicism as principles of life, b) The logical connection of faith in the meaning of life with faith in immortality. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1909.
Vol. XXI. About the purpose and meaning of life. Part 11: Christian worldview. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1909.
Vol. XXII. Kozhevnikov Vlad. On the meaning of Christian asceticism in the past and in the present. Part I. - M., 1910.
Vol. XXIII. Decree. Op. Part II. M., 1910.
Vol. XXIV. Church . Its properties and gracious life. (According to A.S. Khomyakov). – M., 1910.
Vol. XXV. The meaning of suffering (Sat.) – M., 1911.
Vol. XXVI. Moral conditions for the knowledge of God. – M., 1911.
Vol. XXVII. Humanism. Its meaning and significance in the new history of mankind. – M., 1911.
Vol. XXVIII. Novoselov M.A. Psychological justification of Christianity. Contradictions in human nature according to the testimony of the ancient and new worlds and their resolution in Christianity. M., 1912.
Vol. XXIX. On direct revelation according to the teaching of the Word of God. M., 1912: M., Publishing House of the Brotherhood of St. Alexis, 1995.
Vol. XXX. Novoselov M.A. Dogma, ethics and mysticism as part of the Christian faith. Appendix: Psychology of mystical perception. – M., 1912; M., Publishing House of the Brotherhood of St. Alexis, 1995.
Vol. XXXI. Salvation and faith according to Orthodox teaching. – M., 1913; M., Publishing House of the Brotherhood of St. Alexis, 1995.
Vol. XXXII. Salvation and faith according to Catholic and Protestant teachings. M., 1913; M., Publishing House of the Brotherhood of St. Alexis, 1995.
Vol. XXXIII. Church, Catholicism and Protestantism. A brief outline of their history according to A.S. Khomyakov. – M., 1914.
Vol. XXXIV. Strossmayer - Dellinger. Papal infallibility. – Sergiev Posad, 1914.
Vol. XXXV. The idea of Catholicism in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky. – Sergiev Posad, 1914.
Vol. XXXVI. Jesuitism and the Jesuits. (According to Yu. F. Samarin). – Sergiev Posad, 1914.
Vol. XXXVII. Mysticism of the Church (compared to Catholic mysticism). – Sergiev Posad, 1914; The mysticism of the Church and the mysticism of Western confessions. M., Publishing House of the Brotherhood of St. Alexis, 1995.
Vol. XXXVIII. Saint John of Tobolsk. Divine Providence. – Sergiev Posad, 1916.
Vol. XXXIX. The providence of God according to the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian. – M., 1917.
3. Publications of the “Religious and Philosophical Library”
1.On the revival of the Russian Church. A.A. Paykov, Prof. N.A. Zaozersky, Prof. A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov, bishop. Porfiry Uspensky, N.P. Aksakov, Prof. A.P. Lebedev, D. Sinitsky, M.A. Novoselov. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1905.
2. Higher church administration in Russia. – M., 1905.
3. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Collection of lectures and articles on pastoral theology. – M., 1909.
4. Kozhevnikov V. A. The attitude of socialism to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. 2nd ed. – M., 1909.
5. Social significance of monasteries. (From the report of attorney N.D. Kuznetsov to the 4th Department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence on the issue of church real estate in Russia). – Vyshny-Volochek, 1908.
6. F.M. Dostoevsky as a preacher of Christian revival and universal Orthodoxy. – M., 1908.
7. Kozhevnikov V.A. On conscientiousness in faith and in unbelief. [To students]. – M., 1909.
8. Novoselov M.A. Open letter to Count L.N. Tolstoy regarding his response to the resolution of the Holy Synod. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1902.
9. Mansurov P. Church of Constantinople. An outline of the main beginnings of its construction in the 19th century. Part I. Central Administration. – M., 1909.
10. Novoselov M. Courts of honor among teachers. 2nd ed. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1904.
11. Novoselov M. The Universal Church of Christ and the World Christian Student Union. With a letter from a student attached. Collection. 2nd ed. add. M., 1913.
12. Novoselov M. From conversations about war. – Vyshny-Volochek, 1904.
13. Kozhevnikov V.A. Confessions of an atheist. (Regarding Le Dantec’s book “Atheism”). 2nd ed. M., 1911.
14. Religious and philosophical evenings. Evenings I-V: The religious question before the judgment of modern humanity. – Modern science and religion. – God and evil in the world. – Christianity among other religions. - Christ. (From the book by M. Morawski “Abende am Genfer See”). 2nd ed. M., 1913.
15. Kozhevnikov V.A. Thoughts on the study of patristic works. – M., 1912.
16. Kozhevnikov V. A. Modern scientific disbelief. His growth, influence and changing attitudes towards him. – M., 1912.
17. Leontyev K.N. Hermitage, monastery and peace. Their essence and mutual connection. (Four letters from Athos). Sergiev Posad, 1913.
18. Jerome. Ignatius. In search of the Living God. – M., 1913.
19. Prof. A.M. Tuberovsky. The sweetness of life. (Against suicide). (Lecture). – Sergiev Posad, 1913.
20. Kozhevnikov V. A. Religion of man-theism in Feuerbach and Comte. – Sergiev Posad, 1913.
21. Dostoevsky F.M., Vl. S. Soloviev. Justification for war. – M., 1915.
22. Kolemin Yu.A. Authority in matters of faith. – Sergiev Posad, 1915.
23. Israel in the past, present and future. Collection. Sergiev Posad, 1915.
24–25. Letters from Prince Dimitry Alexandrovich Khilkov. Vol. I-II. – Sergiev Posad, 1915–1916.
26. Durylin S.N. Chief of silence. – Sergiev Posad, 1916.
27. Khomyakov D.A. Cathedral, conciliarity, parish and pastor. M., 1917.
M. N. Who did Vladimir Solovyov consider Leo Tolstoy to be? M., 1913.
Index of books to read for an Orthodox Christian. Vol. I. Books on the history of the Old and New Testaments. – St. Petersburg, 1913.
I. Anthony (Bulatovich). Apology of faith in the Name of God and in the Name of Jesus. – M., 1913.
Oh, holy Rus'! (Russia in Russian poetry). – M., 1914.
Ern V.F. Analysis of the Message of the Holy Synod on the Name of God. – M., 1917.
Sergei Durylin. Complainer. Story. – M., 1917.
4. Chronicle of the Athos affair
Elder of Optina Hermitage Fr. Barsanuphius (Plikhankov, 1845–1913) talked about the elder Disiderius, who moved from Mount Athos to the Caucasus, where he retired to the mountains. His student Fr. Hilarion was with him until his death. “He gradually wrote down his conversations, and when the third Athos resident, Fr. Benedict, then found all these conversations in manuscripts. It occurred to him to publish them, and with this proposal he came to our monastery. Not having sufficient funds for this undertaking, I sent him to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, who gave him the opportunity to publish this wonderful book. I have several copies of it and can give it to someone. This book must be read several times to fully comprehend the depth of its content. It should bring enormous benefit to people who have a penchant for a contemplative life. God grant that reading this brings you not only high spiritual joy, but also help in saving your soul.” [111, p. 204–205]. This is how Schemamonk Hilarion’s book “On the Caucasus Mountains” appeared in print.
Publication of the book by Schemamonk Hilarion “On the Caucasus Mountains” [I] The book is distributed to monasteries, including Athonite. Sending out the book, Fr. Hilarion asked for feedback. The monks of the Thebaid skete of the Panteleimon Monastery were the first to familiarize themselves with the book on Mount Athos, for Fr. Hilarion left this monastery. It is read and approved by many monks. Patriarch Joachim III initially approved the book by Fr. Hilarion [80, September 6].
Hegumen of the Panteleimon Monastery, Fr. Misail, senior confessor Fr. Agathodorus, who “instructed to criticize” [82, p. 13] book about. Hilarion O. Chrysanth (Minaev) - schemamonk of the Elias monastery [83. p.7]. A manuscript review of Fr. Chrysanthus on the book about. Hilarion "On the Caucasus Mountains". Fr. Agathodor gave me a notebook with a manuscript to read. Martinian. who lost sleep from indignation. and then wrote a letter in which he denounced the “destructive malice” of Fr. Chrysanthes. The letter was signed by Fr. Izmaragdom, o. Irenaeus and Fr. Martinian [82, p.7]. Manuscript of the review by Fr. Chrysanthus was sent by Archbishop. Anthony Volynsky and Fr. Hilarioiu. The abbot of St. Andrew's monastery of the Vatopedi monastery Jerome gave a book to read by Fr. Hilarion O. Anthony (Bulatovich), saying that it was “harmful and written in the spirit of Farrar” and that it was necessary to present a judgment about it [83, p.13]. O. Anthony (Bulatovich) “at first he was on the side of the monastic intellectuals and he himself laughed at the “Thebaid peasants” who invented “their own dogma” [70, p. 143]. The division of the monks into supporters and opponents of the book of Fr. Hilarion and, accordingly, reviews by Fr. Chrysanthes.
Simple, uneducated monks accepted the book of Fr. Hilarion, they were outraged by the review of Fr. Chrysanthes. Their opponents were intellectuals or semi-intellectuals. The Imyaslavites accused Fr. Agathodora, Fr. Chrysanthus, Fr. Alexey (Kireevsky).
The 2nd edition of the book about. Hilarion with objections to the still handwritten review of Fr. Chrysanthus [2]. The disputes escalated and spread from the Thebaid monastery to other monasteries. Complaint about the persecution of the name-glorifying simpletons of St. Andrew's Skete to Senator P.B. Mansurov [82, p. 10–11].
“Confession” of the Athonite name-slavers [82, p. 16].
Autumn: an attempt at pacification.
“Message” of Abbot Misail, where he “on pain of excommunication from communion, forbade talking in the monastery even in spirit with confessors about the name of Jesus” [82, p. 18].
March 1911 – January 1912 – Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) in Ethiopia.
January 8 – Anthony (Bulatovich) returned to Athos and led the Imenaslavites [82, pp. 22–23; 83, p. 13–18].
The first printed speeches of Fr. Anthony in defense of name-glorification: “On the veneration of the Name of God” (journal of the St. Andrew’s monastery on Athos “Instructions and consolations of the Holy Christian Faith.” April 1912 - under the pseudonym “Svyatogorets”) [83. pp. 77–81|. “On the Jesus Prayer” [83, pp. 81–86]. Revelation to Father Anthony | 82, p.29].
February - March - in Pochaev in the magazine “Russian Monk” appeared without a signature “Review of op. Schemamonk Fr. Hilarion. called: “On the Caucasus Mountains” by the monk Chrysanthus [4]. “A copy of the review of the monk Chrysanthus on the book “On the Caucasus Mountains” and the review of Archbishop Anthony, with the objections of the copyist” [83, pp. 86–112].
May 7 – letter from Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) on behalf of the name-slavers with a request to publish it in “Russian Monk” signed “Monks of Athos” [82, pp. 31–34]. Bishop Anthony’s refusal to receive a “kind letter” [82, p.35]. Published May 14, 1913 [20].
May – an article by Arch. appeared in “Russian Monk” No. 10. Anthony “More about the book of schema. Hilarion “On the Caucasus Mountains”: “The very name of Jesus is not God...” [5, p.62].
Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) in the book “Archpriest John Sergiev” (manuscript 1954) wrote: “Finally, I will mention one sad fact. The famous Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was the most ardent opponent of the Athonite “name-worshippers,” - it turned out that he himself had not read the sensational book in which this expression about the name God was expressed, “On the Caucasus Mountains” - and with which the opposite trend actually began. Once, when Metropolitan Anthony was already the Metropolitan of Kyiv, Elizaveta Fedorovna began a conversation with him at dinner: why did he rebel so strongly against this book; and it was published at her expense and after the approval of knowledgeable persons. Metropolitan Anthony, to the great surprise and grave embarrassment of Elizabeth Feodorovna, answered her that he himself had not read this book, but the missionary reported to him!
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), as the main opponent of this teaching, was known not only for his harshness and frivolity (his report at the Synod was unacceptable, impossible, abusive), but also for his tendency to allow human thought, the so-called “moral-psychological” concept, in his views and explanations. And often he crossed religious boundaries, carried away by the originality of his speculations. This was his attitude towards dogmas in general; especially in the false, human interpretation of the atonement” [92. p.426].
In response to Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) writes a short essay, which got lost [83, p. 112]. After this Fr. Anthony writes “Apology of Faith in the Divinity of the Names of God and the Name “Jesus”. (Against those who fight the name)", which is distributed in lithographed form.
June – about. Barsanuphius of Optina, novice of the Kazan Golovin Monastery Elena Shamonina, about the book “On the Caucasus Mountains”: “This is what happens. It turns out there are some mistakes there. Remember, power is not in the word, not in the name, but in Christ Himself, who is named. That's it. It turns out that the entire preface of this book should be thrown out, but the book itself is good!” [134, p.533].
July 23 – placed at the end of this work [9]. This is the day of the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God.
July 24 – Abbot Jerome, at the request of the lord. Anthony, demanded from Fr. Anthony stopped writing and broke relations with the name-glorious people of the Thebaid monastery [82, pp. 44–45].
July 25 – Abbot Jerome orders the “Apology” to be burned, but Fr. Anthony refused to comply. In response, Abbot Jerome forbade Fr. Anthony to serve as priest and receive communion. Father Anthony left St. Andrew's monastery and was received in the Annunciation cell by Elder Parthenius [82, p.45–46; 83, p.25; 70, p.144].
Beginning of August - Bishop left Athos. Tryfon (Turkestanov), expressing sympathy for the name-slavers and advising Fr. Alexei (Kireevsky) to leave Athos, which he did [83, p.27].
August 20 – the name-fighters of the Panteleimon Monastery, led by Abbot Misail, drew up the “Act on the Unworship of the Name “Jesus”” [82, pp. 54–55]. They sought the signature of all the elders. The denunciation of Schemamonk Dosifei thwarted this plan. Fr. Dosifei was forced to flee the monastery, which was a new impetus for indignation [83, pp.33–34].
August - Fr. Alexey (Kireevsky) and Fr. Kirik went to Constantinople to Patriarch Joachim III to seek condemnation of the Pmyaslavites. Complaint to the Russian Ambassador in Constantinople M.I. Birsa for the name-slavers.
August 13 – letter from Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to the Patriarch with a request to protect the glory [82, pp. 66–68]. Following is a letter from the name-glorifying monks to the Patriarch [82, pp. 68–70].
August - Archbishop Anthony “Letter to the editors of the “Russian Monk””: “On Mount Athos, disputes continue over the book of Schemamonk Hilarion, who fell into delusion: “On the Caucasus Mountains,” which is very similar to Khlystovism...” [6. p.60].
September 12 Message of Patriarch Joachim III to Athos with a ban on reading the book of Fr. Hilarion “On the Caucasus Mountains” signed “Prayer Book of Constantinople in Christ” [82. p.71]. Analysis of the message was made by Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) and sent to the Patriarch 182, pp. 76–77].
September 12 – complaint from Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) to the Patriarch and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod [82, pp. 80–83].
October - clashes over the veneration of the Name of God, Abbot Jerome, and the brethren of St. Andrew's Skete. A “seditious paper” appears, which calls for beating supporters of Abbot Jerome at dinner at the signal of hitting the plate. The name-wrestlers attributed its origin to the name-wrestlers, and the name-wrestlers to the name-wrestlers. The brothers did not go to dinner [83, pp. 31–32].
October 9 – The First Balkan War began between Turkey and the Balkan Union (Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece). The result of the war was the loss of almost all European territories by Turkey.
November 2 – Greek troops occupied Mount Athos, expelling the Turks [8, p.83]. At 12 noon, the Greek destroyer Fiella appeared near Athos, from which a landing force of 67 people landed at the Daphne pier. They raised the Greek flag over the pier. The senior officer of "Fiella" Telemachus Kurmulis became the temporary ruler of Athos. The Turks surrendered without resistance.
On November 3, a Greek landing party arrived by transport approx. 800 people who headed to Korea. A detachment of Bulgarian troops arrived approx. 70 people [127].
November 13, death of Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople.
November 19 – Hegumen Jerome left for Macedonia on business.
December 30 – Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) was going to leave Athos, but miraculously remained [83, p.43].
January 7 - Hegumen Jerome returned to St. Andrew's monastery and immediately felt the brethren's distrust of him [70. p.146].
January 8 – Hegumen Jerome convened a council of 80 senior brothers to expel active name-glorifying people from the monastery. Collision at the cathedral between Abbot Jerome and Fr. David. The expulsion failed. Dissatisfaction with Abbot Jerome on the part of the brethren increased [83, pp. 38–39; 75, pp.764–766].
January 9 cathedral in the presence of 4 Vatopedi proestos. Abbot Jerome was deposed. Fr. was elected as the new abbot. David [83, pp.39–41; 75, pp.766–768].
January 10 – Hegumen Jerome and his supporters submit a complaint to Vatopedi, which was in charge of St. Andrew’s monastery, and ask for help from Consul Belyaev in Thessaloniki [83, p.42; 75, p.769].
Statement on the change of abbot Jerome: “I, the undersigned, believe and confess that the Name of God and the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ is holy in itself, inseparable from God and is God Himself, as many Holy Fathers have confessed. I reject the blasphemers and destroyers of the Name of the Lord as heretics, and therefore I demand the change of Abbot Jerome" [83, p. 44]. This confession was sent to the Holy Synod. For the Greeks, another formula was drawn up: “We, the undersigned, having lost love and trust in our abbot, Archimandrite Father Jerome, demand his change" [83, p.45].
January 11 – Vatopedi refuses to approve the re-election of Abbot Jerome. Reason: violation of election rules.
January 12 - 300 brethren - ⅘ of the monastery - signed a “confession". Then they began to re-elect a new abbot. Father Anthony proposed several candidates, as Vatopedi demanded, but the elders objected: “What other candidates are there, we all ask Father David.” Father Sergius exclaimed: “Whoever wants Father David, go to the right, whoever does not want, go to the left!” 300 monks crossed to the right, and the election was considered accomplished. Thus, a repeat vote according to the form proposed by the pro-Estos gave the following result: all signatures - 375, against Fr. Jerome 302, for 70 [83, p.51].
O. Anthony (Bulatovich) with several of the brethren went to Vatopedi to confirm the voting results, but received a paper where:
1) deposition of Fr. Jerome was considered a fait accompli,
2) elections about. David were considered invalid,
3) o. Anthony (Bulatovich) should be removed from the monastery,
4) those who “accept the new faith preached by Fr. Anthony and Fr. Hilarion in the book “On the Caucasus Mountains”, will be recognized as heretics, expelled from the Holy Mountain and excommunicated from the church” [83. p.53]. The delegation did not take the paper and returned to St. Andrew's monastery.
Message from the Vatopedi monastery to St. Andrew’s monastery regarding the new heresy and unrest in the monastery [73, p.5].
The forcible expulsion of Abbot Jerome and his supporters from St. Andrew's monastery [83, pp.55–59:30; 73, pp. 8–9: 70, pp. 149–157; 75, pp.770–775].
Memo from the abbot of St. Andrew's monastery to the Russian Embassy in Constantinople about the unrest in the monastery [73, pp. 6–9].
18 people found themselves outside the gates of the monastery, then another 30. The Greeks reported to the governor about the riot, and a company of Greek soldiers took up posts at all the gates of the monastery.
January 14 - General Fraternal Council of St. Andrew's Skete, where it was proposed to elect an abbot as indicated by the Vatopedi Monastery: 4 candidates with closed voting. The brethren refused this procedure and gave 307 signatures for Fr. David [83, p.61]. A seal taken from Abbot Jerome was attached to the decision of the council; this was demanded by the Vatopedi Monastery [75, p.776].
Evening - a deputation from St. Andrew's monastery sent a request to Vatopedi to approve the election of Fr. David [83, p.62].
January 15 – Vatopedi’s paper, “which stated that although Vatopedi is dissatisfied with the fact that the election was made by open voting and without the preliminary election of four candidates, it is nevertheless recognized by them as correct (canonical), and therefore on January 19 the Vatopedi proestos are to arrive at the monastery to install Archimandrite David as abbess” [83, p.62]. It was a “skillful maneuver” [75, p.776].
January 18 – Vatopedi announced that, due to the requirements of the Russian Embassy, he was postponing the installation of abbot for several days.
The brethren of St. Andrew's monastery sent reports to the Thessaloniki consul, the Constantinople ambassador and the Holy Synod. But: “This report was not presented to the Synod and the confessional formula was not considered either, because Archbishop Anthony completely dominated the Synod at that time. He convinced the Synod that we are heretics and that this heresy requires the most energetic eradication...” [83, p.63].
January 20 – Vice-Consul Shcherbina and Fr. Clement arrived on Athos and spent the night in the Panteleimon Monastery.
January 21 - Shcherbina attended the council of the brethren of the Panteleimon Monastery, in Karei he asked Fr. Jerome and arrived at St. Andrew's Skete. Here he stated that the government would not agree to the choice of Father Superior. David and demands the restoration of Fr. Jerome. Shcherbina shouted in the church and threatened punishment: “We will hand you over to be torn to pieces by the Greeks” [83, p.65].
On January 27, a council of all the brethren of the Panteleimon Monastery in the presence of Shcherbina. Hegumen Misail signed the “Confession of the Name of God” compiled by the brethren, destroyed the “Act on the unworship of the name “Jesus”” dated August 20, 1912 and agreed with the removal of 8 of his supporters from the monastery, including Fr. Agathodora, Fr. Depasia, Fr. Kirika [13]. “The monastery celebrated this day as Holy Easter. The brethren greeted each other with exclamations:
Kissed each other. They cried with joy. The solemn ringing of bells did not stop all day... This day was rightly called the “triumph of Orthodoxy.” [70, p.471].
February 2 – “Decision of the Athonite Kinot in the case of a new heresy and rebellion in St. Andrew’s Skete”: “hieroschim. Anthony and Archimandrite David, as the slanderers, as well as all those who agree with them, is subjected to church prohibition from all sacred rites and the entire sacred monastery to church excommunication” [73, p. 10].
February 5 – enthronement of Patriarch Herman V of Constantinople.
February 13 – Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) left Athos: Thessaloniki - Odessa - St. Petersburg. Motives: “The eyes of all Pmyaslav residents turned to the fatherland; there the whole truth of the situation had to be found out, someone had to go there and tell everything, and everyone’s choice fell on me” [83, p.67]. At the Synod, listen to Fr. They didn’t want Anthony. Slander began to spread about him: about his Abyssinian wife, about the fact that Fr. Hilarion was Fr.'s orderly. Anthony [22]. The “dean of the monasteries” demanded a signature on the immediate departure of Fr. Anthony from the capital [83, p.67]. Father Anthony petitioned the government to provide the Pmyaslavites with a good translator at the trial in Constantinople and to send proxies from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (P.B. Mansurov was supposed) and from the Synod. It was decided to respect the requests [82, p.VIII].
February 15 - Letter to Athos from the new Ecumenical Patriarch: “Considering Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich and Archimandrite David to be the culprits of the lawless uprising, in the seizure of the monastery and in general what is happening in St. We determine the grief of your place of conflict and confusion between Russian monks, in accordance with the decision of the synod: as soon as you receive our patriarchal message, notify the above-mentioned persons on behalf of the Church so that they immediately appear in the Royal City and give an answer to the Holy Synod for the teaching they are disseminating about the name “Jesus”. which gave rise to these sad events, otherwise the Church will take the strictest measures against them” [73. p.11].
February – June “blockade” of Pmyaslav residents on Athos: deprivation of mail, food supplies, money transfers. parcels. The exiled abbot Jerome settled in Korea and “was concerned, first of all, that the extensive correspondence of the monastery would not fall into the hands of rebels who forcibly seized power, and asked the Supreme Russian government to suspend delivery to Athos in St. St. Andrew's Skete of letters, packages and parcels of all kinds, temporarily” [129, 1913, August, pp. 378–379]. The “blockade” lasted 5 months. It was established by the Russian embassy in Constantinople and consulates. Complaints against the Highest Name did not go further than the embassy [70, p.479].
February 11 – letter to Athos to Archbishop. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) to Fr. Denasius: “Of course, he greatly mourned the efforts of heresy, or rather a gang of madmen led by an ambitious hussar who wanted to imitate Iliodor and would soon inherit his fate” [57, p.62].
March 7 – letter to Athos to Archbishop. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) to Fr. Jerome: “Bulatovich is forbidden to be allowed into St. Petersburg. Bulatovich, without a passport, is hiding somewhere, as they say, around St. Petersburg with his friends and hiding. O. Misail repents of his lack of will, which was expressed in signing the absurd paper of the mischievous people” [57, p.63].
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.K. Sabler informed Hieromonk Anthony, rector of the Athos Metochion in St. Petersburg, to be informed of the appearance of Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich). O. Anthony (Bulatovich) came to the courtyard two days later. The abbot told him: “They are looking for you to arrest you” [104].
O. Anthony (Bulatovich) was sympathized with: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, Prince. Vasilchikov (close to the Emperor, godfather of Father Anthony), Prince. G.N. Trubetskoy (second deputy minister of foreign affairs S.D. Sazonov) [104].
March 7 – senator, actual state councilor P.B. Mansurov arrived at St. Andrew's monastery. He was greeted as a “royal envoy” with the ringing of bells. Mansurov remained neutral, not condemning the name-glorifying people and not flattering them. The brethren said:
- If only someone could be the judge in our dispute.
Complaints from the brethren about the blockade. Mansurov replied that he had come on the matter of establishing control over the Russian monasteries on Mount Athos from Russia, but promised to talk with Ambassador Beers [70. pp.480–486].
March 30 “Review of the Khalkin Theological School on the teachings of the name-worshippers” “the opinion that they are [the Names of God. – S.P.] the essence of God’s energy is newly revealed and vain, and their argument is that every word of God, as His energy, not only gives life and spirit. life itself, God itself - this argument, applied widely, leads to conclusions that, despite all their denials, smell of pantheism" [73, p. 14]. The review was signed by: head of the Khalka school, Metropolitan of Seleucia Herman I. Strinopoulos (1872–1951), professors of the school, Archimandrite. John Efstratiou, archimandrite. Dmitry Georgiadis, Deacon Vasil Stefanidis, Vasil Antoniadis, Panteley Komninos. Only Panteley Komninos studied in St. Petersburg. and spoke Russian. The rest received their education at German universities and defended their dissertations there, except for Archimandrite. Dmitry, who studied in Switzerland. Deacon Basil in 1908–1912 studied with Harnack [128, courtesy of S.S. Demidov].
The influence of Protestant theology was manifested in a suspicious attitude towards the spirit of mysticism, towards a living religious feeling, towards the movements of the heart, so characteristic of the book “On the Caucasus Mountains”, which, as the Khalkinites understood, “in the study and understanding of religious truths follows rather the suggestions of the heart and immediate feeling than the mind” [73, p. 41].
Great Lent – “Apology of Faith in the Name of God and in the Name of Jesus” is published by Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) with an unsigned preface “From the Editor” by Fr. Pavel Florensky, which includes a letter from M.D. Muretova – also without a signature. In the archive about. Pavel Florensky preserved 48 pages of the typewritten “Apology” with editorial corrections by the hand of Fr. Pavel. The book is designated as a publication of the “Religious and Philosophical Library”, which was published by M.A. Novoselov.
April 2 – Fr. David arrived in Constantinople. Girs urged the patriarch to judge Fr. David, without waiting for Fr. Anthony and deputations from Russia [82, p.VIII].
April 5 – trial of Fr. David: “... and, when the patriarch explained the controversial teaching to him, he realized his mistake and, rightly referring to his illiteracy, blamed all the blame for the spread of heresy and disorder and rebellion in the monastery on Bulatovich, and asked the patriarch not to punish him (David) for his participation in the rebellion. The Patriarch forgave him, but on the condition that he renounce power forever and no longer interfere in monastery affairs. He gave his word and left for Athos and settled outside the monastery where he lived before. At first he strictly kept his promise to the patriarch. No requests from the rebels could persuade him to betray his word to the patriarch75 | ״, p.780].
“They did not demand from Archimandrite David either repentance or renunciation of his “heresy,” but they freely released him back to the Holy Mountain under the condition only of renouncing the abbess at St. Andrew’s Skete, which our embassy sought” [80].
April 5 – “Certificate on Mount Athos of the Ecumenical Patriarch Herman V”: “And since this new and unfounded doctrine, which arose from error and a perverse, ignorant interpretation, constitutes blasphemous slander and heresy, as identifying and merging the unfused and thereby leading to pantheism (all-theism) ...” [73, p. 16].
April – Archbishop. Anthony, Archbishop Nikon and S.V. Troitsky read reports on books by Fr. Hilarion “On the Caucasus Mountains” and Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) “Apology”: “The report was read in the presence of some members of the Synod and other persons in a private evening meeting at Liteiny...” [80, September 6].
“On May 16, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg, an emergency meeting of the Holy Synod was held dedicated to the question of whether the teaching of the Athonite hieromonks Hilarion and Andrei Bulatovich about the divinity of the very name of Jesus agrees with the teachings of the church or is it heretical? The Church of Constantinople, which administers the Athonite monasteries, recognized this teaching as heretical and requested accordingly regarding the opinion of the Russian Church. Three reports were presented and heard at the Holy Synod: Archbishops Anthony of Volyn, Nikon of Vologda and professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of Trinity. In all these three reports, the teaching of Hilarion and Anthony Bulatovich is recognized as heretical. Archbishop Anthony of Volyn goes even further and says that calling false teaching a heresy means doing him a great honor. because this is simply Khlyst’s extravagant nonsense. On behalf of the Synod, Archbishop Sergius of Finland compiled a summary of all three reports in the form of a “message to the children of the Orthodox Church.”
This message was heard at yesterday's meeting of the Synod and approved and will be read in all churches. The resolution of the Synod was unanimous. The doctrine is recognized as Khlysty due to the idea of reincarnation of the Divine” [May 15, 17].
May 18 - “Church Gazette” No. 20: “By the grace of God, the Holy Governing Synod to the all-honorable brethren who strive in monasticism”: “The Holy Synod fully joins the decision of the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the great Church of Constantinople, which condemned the new teaching, “as blasphemous and heretical,” and for its part begs all those who are carried away by this teaching to abandon erroneous wisdom and humbly submit to the voice of the Mother Church...” [16, p.284].
“Objection of Athonite monks to the decrees and messages of the Holy Synod” [49. pp.98–153].
Archbishop's reports Nikon [17], archbishop. Anthony [18] and S.V. Troitsky [19].
May 19 - Resolution of the Holy Synod, approved by His Imperial Majesty, on the sending of a member of the Holy Synod and the State Council, Archbishop, to Mount Athos. Nikon [23].
On May 26, the Kolokol newspaper published an article by V. Skvortsov, “The Athos Troubles and the “All-Russian Discord” Archimandrite Arseny (1841–8/20/1913), who arrived to fight the Athos Troubles, but became the head of all Athonite name-glorifiers, established the “Union of the Archangel Michael of the Confessors of the Name of God”, signing the “synodal” appeal missionary." The Union sent out its leaflets throughout Russia [21].
June 8 – “From the Office of the Holy Synod”: The former rector of the Resurrection Monastery of the Novgorod diocesan abbot Arseny is not a synodal missionary, was not sent to Athos to investigate the “name-borrowing heresy”, in 1909 he was banned from the priesthood, in 1912 he was allowed; in 1912 he filed a request “for permission to leave for Athos, where he would like to end the days of his life in repentance and prayer.” [24].
May 23 – Archbishop. Nikon left St. Petersburg: Moscow - Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius - Kyiv - Odessa.
May 27 - a colloquium was held at the Imperial Kyiv DA, at which the teacher of St. Petersburg. Alexander Nevsky Antonievsky Theological School, candidate of theology S.V. Troitsky defended his master’s degree essay “Deuteramy of Clerics. Historical and canonical research" (St. Petersburg, 1912). Then he joined the archbishop. Nikon [38].
May 29 – unsuccessful conversation with Archbishop. Nikon with the brethren of the Panteleimon Monastery in Odessa, “in quite a significant number infected with heresy” [33, p. 1504].
May 31 – reception with Patriarch Herman V in Constantinople. Consul Shebunin and consulate employees Serafimov and Shcherbinin joined in Constantinople.
June 4 – arrival on Mount Athos at the Donets station. In the church of Panteleimon Monastery, Archbishop. Nikon inspired the “simple monks” not to indulge in dogmatic research and to humble themselves so as not to be subject to trial and excommunication [33, p. 1508]. The Consul said that it was necessary to obey the Patriarch and the Synod [33. With. 1509].
June 10 - entry in the Chronicle of the Optina Hermitage monastery: “Today the sketes went to the monastery for a prayer service, which was served on the following occasion: in the recently published book of Schemamonk Hilarion “On the Caucasus Mountains,” the Holy Synod and the Eastern Patriarch found a false teaching about the Name of Jesus Christ. The Holy Orthodox Church believes that the Name of Jesus Christ is Divine, and Fr. Hilarion teaches that It is God, and thus makes God dependent on man, and this is blasphemy. In addition, Fr. Hilarion and his like-minded Athonite Hieroschemamonk Bulatovich and their other followers draw other conclusions from this new dogma that are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The book “On the Caucasus Mountains,” as containing the teaching of the Jesus Prayer, found wide circulation among monastics and threatened to infect many with its heresy. St.
The Synod, calling on all Orthodox Christians to reject the new blasphemous teaching and destroy the book whoever has it, ordered a prayer service to be held in all monasteries, with the gathering of all the brethren, so that the Lord would enlighten the lost and turn them to the path of truth.” All the brethren signed the synodal message [134, pp. 531–532].
June 11 - the steamer "Tsar" delivered 118 soldiers and 5 officers with commander 3.A. Shipulinsky.
June 13 - Protat declared that if the Russians do not remove the heretics, then the Greeks will. The soldiers landed on the shore and, not without some resistance, occupied the monastery [33, p. 1511].
June “unfruitful attempts at exhortation.” Archbishop Nikon was called a Freemason and a heretic: “Extreme intolerance is their accusatory feature” [33, p. 1512]. Leaflets published by Nikon on Athos: “As St. teaches. The Church about the Names of God (Extracts from the Holy Fathers and Church Definitions)”, “What does the word “believe” mean, “My good word” to the name-glorifiers” [53, pp. 45–58: 103].
“Objection of the Athonite monks-confessors against the leaflet published by Archbishop Nikon in June 1913 (on Mount Athos), about how the Holy Church teaches about the Names of God” [49, pp. 82–97].
June 14–17 – a census was taken in the Panteleimon Monastery under the guard of soldiers: name fighters – 661, Pmyaslavites – 517, did not show up – 360 [73, p.34].
June 30 – message from the archbishop. Nikon with a proposal to fast on July 2, 3 and 4, and on July 5, on the day of Athanasius of Athos and Sergius of Radonezh, to arrive at the Panteleimon Monastery “for a vigil and liturgy for a general fraternal prayer with the cross of the monastery for the admonition of the lost and the establishment of church peace” [33, p. 1517].
July 3 - arrival of the steamship "Kherson", the forcible expulsion of the Myaslav monks from the Panteleimon Monastery and their landing on the "Kherson" [33, p. 1517:73. pp.34–35; 82, pp.IX-XIII; 30].
July 5 – liturgy in the Church of the Intercession of the Panteleimon Monastery: “petitions and prayers for the conversion of the lost” [33, p. 1518].
July 6–7 – the boarding of the Nameslav monks from St. Andrew’s Skete on the Kherson took place without violence.
July 8 – Archbishop. Nikon left Athos on the Donets. July 8 - at 7 a.m. Abbot Jerome was brought into St. Andrew's monastery. 52 exiles returned with him. They were met by 156 monks. Hegumen Jerome “was clothed in a mantle, the archimandrite cross and the order of St. were placed on the Persian. Anna of the 2nd degree,” granted on November 3, 1912 [129, August, p.380].
Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna and Archbishop. Nikon: “Nikon (this villain is from Athos)” (letter dated September 8, 1915); “he has the sin of Athos in his soul” (letter dated September 9, 1915) [112].
July 9 – 621 Nameslav monks were sent to Odessa.
July 11 – Archbishop. Nikon in Constantinople presented the Patriarch with lists of “leaders” and “ordinary” Pmyaslavites.
July 13 – the Imyaslav monks were brought to Odessa: “At 7 o’clock in the morning the ship stopped at the internal roadstead. The steamship visited and. Deputy Head of the Port, Rear Admiral S.N. Akimov and administrative authorities. Soon the ship was installed at the breakwater and customs and gendarmerie officials and a reinforced squad of police with 30 police supervisors arrived on board. With the managers invited from the Panteleimonovsky and Andreevsky farmsteads, the director of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, d.s.s., who arrived yesterday on a business trip from St. Petersburg, also appeared on the ship. V.I. Yatskevich. The heads of the farmsteads were invited to identify the arriving monks, among whom there could be persons who only pretended to be monks of the monasteries, but in fact had nothing in common with the monks. The members of the commission sent by St. who were under Archbishop Nikon also returned on the ship.
The Synod to investigate the riot that arose and the reasons for the indignation of the monks on Mount Athos was the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Troitsky and the secretary of the Russian embassy in Constantinople Shcherbina, who informed V.I. Yatskevich with the circumstances of the case.
Visited the ship "Kherson" and the city of Odessa. Mayor of the Horse I.V. Sosnovsky, as well as representatives of the prosecutor's supervision, detective police, etc. Throughout the day, the authorities carried out an inquiry on the ship. The monks were interrogated in detail" [29].
“Persons recognized in the order and monasticism by the Russian church authorities, numbering 8, were sent to the courtyard of St. Andrew's monastery. 40 people accused and suspected of criminal offenses were sent to prison, and the rest were sent with passage certificates in lay attire for resettlement in their homeland at their place of registration” [73, p. 35].
July 17 – another 212 monks were brought to Odessa on the ship “Chikhachev”.
“From the reports of Archbishop Nazarius and the petitions of the monks, it is clear that the imported and voluntarily arrived name-worshippers are conducting propaganda among the people, but that some of them repent of their error and ask permission either to return to Athos or to settle in one of the monasteries located in Russia. The situation of some of the monks is very difficult, since they themselves, due to old age and weakness, cannot earn food for themselves, and have neither their own means nor relatives who can support them” [73, p. 36]. Some monks were dressed in Jewish yarmulkes [83, p.37].
Some expelled Athonite monks “go to monasteries, visit village priests, diligently talk with the laity, presenting themselves everywhere and in front of everyone as martyrs and sufferers for the true faith, accusing Orthodox patriarchs and bishops of heresy, Freemasonry and Judaism” [129, 1913, September, p. 426].
July 31 – “Act of the Kinot meeting”: “so that everyone who has been expelled and returning so far, under no condition or pretext, should be accepted into Your Sacred Monasteries...” [73, p.29].
July on Valaam, the book “On the Caucasus Mountains” was burned [31, p.894].
Telegram: “We most respectfully ask Your Excellency to lay down at the feet of His Imperial Majesty our most ardent gratitude for the liberation of our monastery from the danger of ruin that threatened it from revolutionaries and sectarians. The rector of the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon, Archimandrite Misail, with all his brethren.”
On August 4, the Emperor wrote: “I wish the Panteleimon Monastery peace, silence and prosperity” [32].
August 23 – from a letter from the archbishop. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) to the rector of the St. Andrew's monastery, Archimandrite Jerome: “at the head of the movement was a man who obviously did not believe in anything, an embittered hooligan Bulatovich, similar to the Russian outrageous Iliodor” [129, 1913, December, p.545].
August 27 - The Holy Synod listened to the reports of the archbishop. Nikon [33] and S.V. Troitsky [36] about a business trip to Athos, “a statement by the elders - the abbots of the Russian monasteries (kelpy) and the kalives of Mount Athos about the rejection of the new false teaching,” two reports of Archbishop. Kherson and Odessa Nazariy about the arriving monks, etc. [34, p.426].
The definition of the Holy Synod “on the revision of the decision of the Holy Synod regarding name worshipers” [34]. “Form of address for name-worshippers returning to the teachings of the Orthodox Church” [34].
August: letter to V.F. Erna to A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky with the idea of publishing the collection “The Dispute about the Name of God.” The idea was supported by G.A. Rachinsky. S.I. Bulgakov, Fr. Pavel Florensky. Doubts M.K. Morozova supported the prince. E.I. Trubetskoy in a letter to her in September 1913: “... I am worried about the latest enterprise of “Put.” My brother Grisha visited me and told me a lot that makes me very cautious about the material we received. There are a lot of lies on both sides. It must be said that if the name-glorifying people were treated disgustingly, then their behavior was below all criticism...” [105, p.152]. The publication did not materialize.
September 22 - The Tsar in the city of Alupka received the abbot of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery, Hieromonk Pakinthos, the confessor of Hieromonk Meliton, who conveyed to the Tsar a letter of gratitude “for saving the monastery from destruction”: “The Sovereign Emperor honored the merciful questions presented and deigned to express the wish that such sad events would not be repeated in the future” [44].
October 14 “In commemoration of the successful deliverance of the Holy Mount Athos from the heresy of name-worship, His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch German V was pleased on October 14 of this year to award the abbot of the Russian on Mount Athos Panteleimon Monastery, Archimandrite Misail, and the abbot of the monastery, Hieromonk Iakinthos, with golden pectoral crosses along with the following certificates” |48].
December 11 “Reply message of the Patriarch Herman of Constantinople to the Holy Synod”: “And since now these persons, being outside the authority of our Most Holy Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne, are no longer subject to our ecclesiastical justice, but in ecclesiastical and political relations are subject to the justice of the fraternal Most Holy Russian Church...” “And since it is not incredible that these persons, even having shown repentance, would cause trouble and not cause temptation by appearing again on the Holy Mountain, we decided that none of these persons should appear on the Holy Mountain, and we consider this fair and worthy” [82. pp. XVII - XVIII].
Answer: “Repentant monks should have the full right to return again to Athos to their monasteries - this is their inalienable right, which cannot be refuted by any tricks on the Phanar.” “The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to not allow even repentant monks back onto the Holy Mountain calls into question the sincerity and internal convincingness and purity of the intentions and plans of the Phanariots..\” [82, C.XVIII–XIX].
Elder Silouan was asceticizing at this time on Athos: “Disputes about the Name of God coincided with that period of the Elder’s spiritual life when he was in an intense struggle with all manifestations of the passions of vanity and pride, as the main causes of his severe suffering. Carrying in his heart the sweetest Name of Christ constantly, since the Jesus Prayer never ceased its action in him, he, however, moved away from any dispute about the nature of this Name. He knew that through the Jesus Prayer the grace of the Holy Spirit comes into the heart, that the invocation of the Divine Name of Jesus sanctifies the whole person, burning passions in him, but he avoided the dogmatic interpretation of the experience he was experiencing, fearing “to make a mistake in mental reasoning.” Quite a few such mistakes were made by both sides before the correct dogmatic understanding was found. The disputes took on a very unseemly and stormy character, and this saddened the soul of the Elder, who spent his nights in “Adam’s lament” [113, p.90].
From the memoirs of Archimandrite Mikhei (Kharkharov) of the Glinsk Hermitage: “In 1913, many Russian monks were expelled from old Athos due to the unrest caused by the “Imyaslavites”. Father Isaac (in the schema of Isaiah), the abbot of the monastery, willingly received them in the desert, built cells for them in the monastery in the name of the righteous Godfather Joachim and Anna, so that they could live in solitude" [114, p. 145].
February 5 – “To the Holy Governing Synod. From Hieroschemamonk Anthony Bulatovich” [49, pp. 3–64]: “We humbly ask the Holy Synod, having become convinced of the Orthodoxy of these our theses, to recognize that we openly confess the Divinity of the Name of God “Jesus”, in no way deviate from the creeds and dogmas of the Orthodox Church and thereby give us the opportunity, with a clear conscience, to devote ourselves to spiritual care the Holy Synod and the pastors of the church to cease all further dogmatic disputes” [49. p.64].
From “Memoirs” by S.P. Beletsky: “Touched at a dinner with the prince. Andronnikov’s theme of name-worshippers revived Rasputin, and from his words I understood that he himself was a supporter of this teaching among monastics. And, indeed. subsequently he defended the name-worshippers all the time. Shortly before Rasputin's death, Kolokol published articles by V.M. Skvortsov for the same purpose. These articles entailed great complications for Skvortsov with the synod, and he wrote them to please Rasputin, dreaming with his help of returning to the synod in the role of comrade chief prosecutor. Rasputin presented these articles to the palace. The conversation about the name-worshipers turned to Sabler as their opponent, and under the influence of both the conversation on this topic and the general considerations we expressed, in the end, Rasputi decisively declared that he would “under no circumstances” support Sabler’s candidacies” [115, p. 24].
February 13 – Nicholas II received in Tsarskoye Selo a deputation of Athonite monks-Imyaslavites: Hieroschemamonk Nicholas, Schemamonk Isaac, Schemamonk Martinian, monk Manasiy. Their photo [64, p. 10]. Nicholas II wrote in his diary: “They accepted four Athonite elders from those expelled from there” [94, p.447].
February 14–18 – Resolution of the Holy Synod regarding the message of the Ecumenical Patriarch of December 11, 1913. regarding name-worshipping monks: “To instruct the Moscow Synodal Office to accept for judicial review the case of the above-mentioned twenty-five name-worshippers” [59, p.62].
February 27 – March 7 – The Holy Synod adopted the “Instruction” (paragraphs 1–29):
§1. Members of the court: first present: Metropolitan. Macarius of Moscow, archbishop. Alexy former Tverskoy, bishop. Trifon Dmitrievsky, bishop. Misail former Olonetsky, bishop. Ioannikiy former Arkhangelsk, bishop. Euthymius the former Balakhninsky, ep. Anastasy Serpukhovskoy, bishop. Theodore of Volokolamsk. Ep. Modest Vereisky, abbots of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra Toviy and the Moscow Miracle Monastery Arseny.
§2. For the private admonition of the defendants before the start of their trial, the Office, at its discretion, calls upon elder monks known for their strict monastic life and spiritual experience...
List of name-worshipping monks of the Panteleimon Monastery and St. Andrew’s Skete (19+6=25) [60, pp. 70–73].
There were invitations “for the cell admonition of the accused Athonite monks” to the Optinsk elders Archimandrite Agapit and Hieromonk Anatoly (Potapov). Due to “health reasons,” Archimandrite Agapit did not go to Moscow. He regarded the harsh criticism of the book by Fr. Hilario “On the Caucasus Mountains”, which appeared in the “Russian Monk” as a “strange thoughtlessness”, however, as well as all the brethren of the monastery, agreed with the decision of the Holy Synod (OR RSL F.213. 3.25) [117, p.179].
February 23 – a meeting on the case of the Athonite monks in the chambers of Moscow Metropolitan Macarius at the Trinity Metochion: “In addition to Metropolitan Macarius, the meeting was attended by bishops - Trifon Dmitrievsky, Anastasy Serpukhovsky and Modest Vereisky, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.K. Sabler and prosecutor of the Moscow Synodal Office F.I. Stepanov.
V.K. Sabler reported to the meeting that the Synod had instructed the Moscow Synodal Office to carry out a trial of the Athonite monks, the “name-worshipers.” The trial will begin after St. Thomas Week.
For office work, the office is replenished with the following persons: assistant manager of the Synod Office S.G. Runkevich, legal consultant of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.V. Radzimovsky and secretary of the 5th department of the Chancellery of the Synod I.N. Sudnitsyn" [63].
Attitude of Metropolitan Macarius to the “Imyaslavites”: “Heading the Moscow Metropolis in 1912–1917, the saint found himself in the very center of the Athos disputes. Vladyka did not condemn anyone, neither Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who took an irreconcilable position in relation to the name-glorifiers, nor the Greek theologians, who hastily analyzed such an important theological question about the Name of God, nor the Patriarch of Constantinople, who hastened to declare the Athonite monks-name-glorists “heretics”: Vladyka Macarius carefully and carefully treated the matter of great importance and tried to put an end to the discord that had protracted due to troubled times and, postponing the final decision of the church teaching on the Name of God until the time of the Council discussion, brought peace and restored justice.
The Holy Synod, in the person of the Supreme Church Administration, requested in writing the elder Schema-Abbot German, rector of the Zosima Hermitage, to give his judgment on the Athonite disputes about the Name of Jesus, to which the elder replied: “The Jesus Prayer is a secret matter, and therefore the disagreements that arose should be covered with love,” which Metropolitan Macarius, under the command of his conscience and obedience, did in practice, under presided over by the court of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Consistory, which pronounced an acquittal for the Pmyaslavites” [116. c.LXXIII].
February 27 – article by Al. Lvov “What does this mean?”: “As you know, in the synod spheres the attitude towards the “Imyaslavites” has changed. Undoubtedly, this change occurred as a result of the highly merciful reception of the deputation of Athonite monks-exiles in Tsarskoe Selo. At the secret meeting of the Synod that followed, it was decided to eliminate one way or another a high-profile issue, reconsider the Athonite case again (the chief prosecutor also spoke in favor of revision), withdraw the charge of heresy against the “Imyaslavites” and ask the Patriarch of Constantinople to allow the Athonites, if they are “amnestied,” to return to the swap monastery on the Holy Mountain.
An honorable way out was also invented for Archbishop Nikon, the author of an unprecedented worldwide scandal that threatened to split the Orthodox Church in two. It consists in the recognition that “the Greek spiritual authorities, with their incorrect information, introduced the archbishop. Nikon is misled." Of course, such an excuse is weak: it was not the Greeks who led the archbishop’s hand when he wrote his famous Farar pamphlet-objection to the “Pmyaslavites”, and it was not the Greeks who could have forced him to carry out harsh reprisals with torture of Russian monks: but still, such an admission of guilt on the part of Nikon is comforting, for it speaks for the fact that in the Athos case a turning point in the direction of justice and truth has taken place.” [64, p.4].
March 7 – State Duma of the 4th convocation. 2nd session. Meeting 47. 31st last item on the agenda: discussion of the urgency of request No. 332. Kovalevsky, Karaulov, Zamyslovsky, Novitsky spoke. Kovalevsky: “No less alarming at the present moment is the uncertainty of the legal status of persons who forcibly lost their monastic orders.” The “business side of this issue” must be urgently discussed, without touching on “religious and dogmatic errors” [65, p. 1550]. There were 101 votes for haste, 118 against. Haste was rejected. Accepted: transfer to the commission according to requests. The authors asked to give them 2 weeks.
March 18 “Confession of faith of the Athonite monks, submitted to the Holy Synod”: “Presenting this confession to the Holy Synod, we, the undersigned, ask and pray that the Holy Synod, before the trial of them, deigns to revise the Message of May 18 and change the theses expressed in it about the Name of God, agreeing with them with the teaching of the Holy Fathers, for the disagreement of the guiding theses with the teaching of the Holy Fathers does not allow us to accept the challenge to the Church Court and submit to its decision” [49, p. 165].
“However, the Holy Synod did not deign to enter into consideration of the merits of the dogmatic dispute for the Name of the Lord, and only allowed the Moscow Spiritual Court to determine which of the accused would agree with the opinions expressed by the Church Authority in the synodal message of May 18, and to acquit those, and to condemn those who did not agree with the said opinions. In view of this, the accused considered themselves forced to submit to the Holy Synod an application for their dismissal from it and refuse to appear at the Moscow Court” [82, p. XX].
On March 20, in Optina Hermitage, decree of the Kaluga Consistory No. 5221 dated March 18, 1914 was received: “The Moscow Holy Synod Office decided: to summon [...] Fr. archim. Agapit and Fr. Hieromonk Anatoly for the cell admonition of the accused Athonite monks.” Ooh. Agapit and Anatoly did not go to Moscow; they made a detailed judgment about the teachings of the “name worshipers” [134, p.532].
March 25 – letter from Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to Nicholas II: “We do not want a schism, we mourn the disaster that has now befallen our Church, we would like peace to come again in the Church and all dogmatic disputes to cease, but we do not consider ourselves entitled to deviate from the confession of the Divinity of the Name of God, and we consider it to be apostasy to submit to the unfair opinion of the Holy Synod. Command those personally known to you and who enjoy your trust, clergy and secular, to gather in a special commission and examine the foundations of the teachings of the name-glorifying people. so are the teachings of the name fighters. The side that turns out to be in agreement in its teaching with the teaching of the Holy Fathers and with the words of Scripture should be recognized as right. If, Your Imperial Majesty, you do not find it possible to appoint such a commission in fulfillment of our request, then we ask, at least, to command that the Synodal Office, when discussing the Orthodoxy of our teaching, would not be guided by the synodal message of May 18, but would be guided only by the Orthodox catechism, Holy Scripture and the words of St.
Fathers. , and to what further disasters this will lead Russia, only God knows...” [81].
April 11 "To the Holy Governing Synod. Monks of Athonite Statement": "Concluding from this that the above-mentioned incorrect teaching about the Name of God is not an error that has crept in by chance, but has now been accepted irrevocably by the Synod as a dogma. - We are forced with regret and grief, for the sake of preserving the purity of the Orthodox faith, to put aside ALL SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION WITH BY THE ALL-RUSSIAN SYNOD AND WITH ALL WHO ARE UNITED WITH IT. BEFORE THE CORRECTION OF THE SIGNIFIED ERRORS AND BEFORE THE RECOGNITION OF THE DIVITY OF THE NAME OF GOD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOLY CATHESIS AND WITH THE HOLY FATHERS.
Therefore, we also declare that we refuse to appear in court at the Moscow Synodal Office.” First signature of Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) and about 300 signatures. “As a result of the ensuing reconciliation, additional statements of dismissal from the Holy Synod were not submitted to the Synod” [49, p. 168–169].
April 15: letter from Livadia from Nicholas II to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.K. Sabler: “On the feast of holidays... my soul grieves for the Athonite monks, from whom the joy of communion of the holy mysteries and the consolation of being in the church have been taken away. Let’s forget the strife... the trial should be abolished and all the monks... should be placed in monasteries, their monastic rank should be returned to them and they should be allowed to serve in the priesthood” [106, p. 187].
April letter from Nicholas II to Metropolitan Macarius with a favorable opinion about the name-glorifying people [99].
May 1 - Determination of the Moscow Synodal Office, entrusting the bishop. Modest of Vereisky's relations with the Athonite monks-nameslavs.
May 3 – meeting of Bishop. Modesta with Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich). Bishop's question Modesta: “How would it be possible to avoid the division of the church, which is undesirable for either side?” Answer o. Anthony (Bulatovich):
"1. Recognize that the confession of the Divinity and Divine Power of the Name of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, understood spiritually, can be recognized as a “Private Opinion” existing in the Orthodox Church, which was expressed by many Holy Fathers and church writers.
2. Therefore, postpone the final resolution of the dogmatic dispute and the formulation of the Name of God until the Council; to call the abandoned monks to church communion and obedience to the Hierarchy, demanding that they testify to their faith in the dogmas established by the church by kissing the Cross and the Gospel” [49, pp. 170–171|.
May 4 – meeting of Bishop. Modest with a group of monks at a dacha near the Babino station on the Nikolaevskaya railway. d. The monks did not agree with the term “Private Opinion”, finding it derogatory for the recognition of the Divinity of the Name of the Lord. Bishop's question Modesta: “How do the Athonite monks think it is possible to avoid their unwanted separation from the Holy Synod?” The monks' answer:
1. Notify the dioceses that they have always been in the Orthodox Church. The name “name-worshipers” is cancelled.
2. Abandon all priestly and monastic titles.
3. Religious questions about the veneration of the Name of God should be postponed until the Ecumenical or local Council.
4. Provide the Pitsunda monastery.
5. Reward the expelled monks from the sums of the monasteries that expelled them [49, pp. 71–73].
Verbal report by Bishop. Modesta: “... given the simplicity of their book education and insufficient familiarity with the methods and forms of expression of theological thought accepted in church science, they cannot always in their verbal and written statements accurately express their actual thoughts on the subjects of their beliefs in accordance with those they draw from the Holy and patristic writings and about the name of God, in particular, they explain that “calling the name of God and the name of Jesus God and God Himself, they alien to both the veneration of the name of God for His essence, and the veneration of the name of God separately from God Himself, as some kind of special Deity, and the deification of the very letters and sounds and random thoughts about God"" [82, p. XXIII].
May 7 – Determination of the Moscow Synodal Office: the name-glorifying monks “have no reason to depart from the Orthodox Church for the sake of the teaching about the names of God.” The statement of postponement is the fruit of “their insufficient understanding of their actions and intentions” [82, p.XXII]. Due to the fact that the monks allowed “in explaining the doctrine of the veneration of the name of God some inaccurate expressions and opinions that do not correspond to the generally accepted explanation in the Orthodox Church about the divinity of the holy name of God, spiritual guidance and instruction” [82, p. XXIII]. 13 monks, including Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) was entrusted to bishop. Modest. 25 “leaders” were installed in the Intercession Monastery [82, p.XXV].
Rating o. Anthony (Bulatovich): “A copy of this decree was handed to us, and on the basis of this justification, we were soon allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries and worship. Metropolitan Macarius, having received an official telegram from Chief Prosecutor V.K. Sabler (in August 1914), in which he was given permission to admit to priesthood those of the acquitted monks whom he found worthy, immediately allowed about 20 people and reported this by telegram to the Chief Prosecutor, and then allowed others. On the basis of this permission, the Chief Prosecutor officially reported to the Main Directorate of the Red Cross about those hieromonks expelled from Mount Athos who were allowed to serve in the priesthood, and the Red Cross appointed some of us to its hospitals and forward detachments to perform priestly duties, which we still perform today” [84, pp. 211–212]. Appointment Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to live in the Intercession Monastery in Moscow [106, p.187]. “... the copy that was officially handed to us from the synodal decree of May 24, 1914.
No. 4136, which we just talked about, did not contain the very significant last reservation of the Holy Synod, in which the Holy Synod approved the decision of the Synodal Office, but at the same time declared that it remained with its previous opinion and, “while showing leniency towards the weaknesses of those who are mistaken, DOES NOT CHANGE ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT ABOUT ERROR ITSELF.
Regarding the last reservation of the Holy Synod, hidden from us for unknown reasons, in that decree, which we consider exonerating us from the accusation brought against us, we can note the following: if this reservation had not been hidden from us, then we would hardly have decided to return to church communion and follow the call of the bishop. Modest" [99]. “The condemnation of name-glorification as a heresy was announced and publicized in the squares, being published not only in the Church. Ved.”, but in all newspapers; It was also announced publicly that the “leaders of the name-worshippers” were being brought to trial in Moscow. synod. offices, their acquittal was announced “secretly” and is still in the “Church.
Ved." the condemnation of name-glorification is hushed up by the command that solemn prayers for the conversion of those who have fallen into heresy should be served in all monastic monasteries of Russia, but when the court found “no grounds” for the deposition, which equally means “no heresy”, among the leaders of the name-worshipers, then not only were prayers of gratitude not served for this, but to this day they continue to be vilified in the synodal officialdom name-glorifying and name-glorifying people, as “name-worshippers,” preachers of “false teaching,” etc.” [80, 6 Sep]. “Thanks to this, an extremely ambiguous and unlawful attitude of the church authorities towards the monks taken from Athos was created. The main culprits were restored to their sacred and monastic rights, received the opportunity to partake of the Holy Mysteries without restriction, received permission to perform sacred services, while in the dioceses the priests continue to be guided in relation to other monks by the decree of the Holy Synod of August 29, 1913 and continue to demand a formal written renunciation of the non-existent heresy, not allowing them to the Holy.
Communion and even refusing parting words on his deathbed” [82, p.XXV].
May 14 – letter from Bishop. Modest to the publisher of the magazine “Smoke of the Fatherland” A.L. Garyazin: “Thanks be to the Lord God, all the name-glorifying monks turned out to be true children of the Church. Father Anthony and all the Athonite monks I saw were appointed to the brethren of the Znamensky Monastery. I will make every effort to ensure that they are satisfied with their stay in the monastery. Differences of opinion should not interfere with unity in love. When the Lord God puts into the Heart of the Tsar the desire to assemble a council that is very necessary for the Church, He alone will know. Before the council, a literary struggle is possible, but it would be good if it were not sharp” [68].
May 17 – “Act of the Russian inhabitants of the Holy Mount Athos”: “we beg you not to return the revolutionaries to us, since we see from the newspapers that even the supposedly repentant ones throw slander and dirt at us” [73, p.44].
May 18 – “To His Eminence, Metropolitan Macarius from the monks of Athonite. Statement. Gratitude for the removal of the charge of heresy. We take back the application for postponement. Archbishops Anthony and Nikon are the main culprits of the Athos Troubles. We ask that the Athonite exiles be placed in the Pitsunda monastery [49, pp. 174–177].
May 24 - Decree of the Synod No. 4136, which approved the decision of the Court of the Moscow Synodal Office on the Orthodoxy of the confession of the name-slavists.
July 1 – the newspaper “Russkoe Slovo” quotes Rasputin’s words: “Or else we’ve arrived here. They said that they could not understand how Christ is the holy name, but Jesus is not? It’s a sin, of course, that they made a fuss. You would have to silently pray, and they would make noise. Father Misail arrived and told them to sign. Is it about “signing your name” in spiritual matters? How can you sign in faith? This is Mount Athos for you, not the ministry. And they sign for them, sign for them! I also told Vladimir Karlovich [Sabler] that this is a sin! And whoever needed it, he told everyone that this was impossible. Well, we realized that I was right. And he “sign it!” [116, p.LXXXII-LXXXIII].
“Peace was restored, but not for everyone: heated by “disputes,” some name-slavers did not submit to the Synod and did not support Fr. Anthony in his Statement. Some opponents of the name-glorifying movement did not calm down and ignored the decision of the Moscow Synodal Office and the Synod, and continued to accuse the name-glorifying people of heresy. However, one cannot assume that the name-slavers were always impeccable in everything. Understanding their ardent zeal for the Name of God in disputes with name-fighters, we believe that the truth would not only not have suffered, but would rather have acquired greater strength with greater spiritual caution and restraint in the expressions of its defenders, since with meekness and love often the most ferocious enemies, as St. Tikhon of Zadonsk teaches us, bow down and are reconciled" [116, c.LXXXIX-XC].
Nun Sergia (Klimenko) recalled: “Blinded by passion, ignorance and jealousy beyond reason, the name-slavers behaved aggressively towards Orthodox monasticism” [118, p. 11].
August 21: petition by Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) “about permission... to devote oneself to serving the spiritual needs of Christ-loving soldiers” [106, p. 189].
Father Anthony (Bulatovich) is sent to the front as a priest in the 16th advanced detachment of the Red Cross.
March: oh. Anthony (Bulatovich) in the Carpathians; assigned to the 10th New Ingermanland Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division. He raised the soldiers to attack, for which he received the Military Order of Vladimir, 3rd degree with swords [106, p. 189].
Schemamonk Hilarion: “I must also say that I am greatly offended by the actions of the spiritual authorities towards me. Why, when she examined my book and condemned it, did not treat me with a single word or question about all those places in my book that were the cause of the bewilderment that arose” [71, p. 31]. “It seems to us, the most venerable L. Z-ch, that this terrible “straight talk” with God, mainly the highest members of the Russian Hierarchs, is a sure omen of the proximity of the times in which the last enemy of truth, the all-pernicious Antichrist, will come” [71, p. 33].
June 2 – death of Fr. Hilarion in the Temnye Buki tract near the village of Glazovskaya, near the Sanginsky Transfiguration Monastery in Tiberd (reported by G.P. Chinyakova).
October 7 – 2nd letter from Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) to Nicholas II: “Isn’t the hour now come? correct a deep and glaring mistake in the Athos case? Remember, Your Majesty, how generously the Lord rewarded you when you broke the stubbornness of the Synod in its reluctance to glorify St. John of Tobolsk: at that very moment, as the Synod deigned, the Lord delivered into your hands, quite unexpectedly with small losses, the impregnable Erzurum, and in the spring, when the Holy Synod promulgated the rite of glorification, our unexpectedly extraordinary successes began in Volyn and to the south. Remember also the opposite coincidences: the defeat of the Third Army coincided with the moment when you deigned to honor Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov with a particularly gracious letter and then, amazingly, the enemy stopped when he took the Pochaev Lavra, the same Lavra from which the first blasphemies of Archbishop Anthony in the Name of the Lord were heard. Remember also the death of the Donets boat: it was the first to perish in the Odessa raid, sunk by a Turkish destroyer without even firing a shot!..
Today's people do not believe in these signs, but your life is so full of these wonderful omens that you, Sovereign Sovereign, cannot help but believe them. The mortal wound that the son of the devil wanted to inflict on you in Japan was not foreshadowed by the Japanese War and the terrible year of 1905. But God’s grace miraculously preserved both you and Russia. Didn't the bloody celebration on the coronation day foreshadow the bloodshed of your reign? Wasn’t it also a sign of this terrible war, which should confirm your reign over the entire Orthodox East? Your birth on the day of righteous Job, didn’t this foreshadow the cross of patience that fate was preparing for you and the glorious end with which you would be rewarded for your patience? Now God's providence is WAITING TO deliver Constantinople to YOU, BUT SATISFIE GOD'S JUSTICE AND RESTOR THE SAME HONOR OF THE NAME OF THE LORD! There is still a stubborn, stubborn struggle ahead, and not only with the Germans, but also with the allies after the capture of Constantinople. Try to gain God's help and grace.
I submit the two attached memos to the Chief Prosecutor and ask him to reconsider this case on the theological side, although only. This is the only way out of the current situation. But the solution is both simple and easy. It would be necessary to appoint a commission of several worthy hierarchs and scientists who would examine the confessions and the synodal message of May 18, 1913. There is no doubt that they would not find any heresy in us, and opposing opinions would be brought to Orthodox unanimity, and the matter would take a natural course, and at the end of the war the monks would have the opportunity to be returned to the Holy Mountain "[81']. After 2 letters later, Fr. Anthony added: “The Sovereign did not heed the good advice and spiritual warning, the desecrated honor of the Name of the Lord was not restored, and the deviation from the true dogmas brought upon the country and the people the great wrath of God and grave punishments. It is especially significant that the coup took place precisely on the week of St.
Gregory Palamas, who fought against Varlaam, whose opinions are now repeated by name fighters and the notorious Synodal Message. It is also significant that the name is “Volyn”, from whose chief shepherd the first blasphemies against the Name of the Lord came, and this name turned out to be the leading one in the revolution, for this entire spontaneous revolution was started and carried out by the “Volyn” regiment... Let anyone who has ears hear about the terrible punishment to which the Metropolitan was subjected. Vladimir, most responsible for the entire Athos affair, as the first shepherd who sanctioned all the most criminal actions of the arch. Nikon on Mount Athos, who agreed with the completely non-Orthodox opinions of Arch. Anthony, and stubbornly, until very recently, opposed to the Athos case being authoritatively reviewed and sorted out” [81].
November: letter from Fr. Anthony to the head of the 16th branch of the Red Cross: “I cannot hide from you that after suffering from relapsing typhus in the Carpathians, my health has completely deteriorated, not to mention my eyes, but the activity of my heart has also weakened, and rheumatism makes it impossible to endure cold and dampness as much as in the past...” [106, p. 189].
March 20 – Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) was dismissed “due to old age” [102].
The Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church raised the question of the Name of God: “But here the name-glorification had authoritative supporters among scientists and the episcopate, and the Council allocated a special subcommission (chaired by Arch. Theophan of Poltava) to study this issue. Father Sergius became a member of it, but the Council, having completed the most urgent church tasks, had to cease to exist as a result of revolutionary events, and the work of the subcommittee was limited to two introductory meetings. The commission, however, managed to distribute its main tasks among the members, and Fr. Sergius was entrusted with the introductory report on the issue of imyaslaviya. “The philosophy of name” was supposed to answer this task and be a philosophical and theological justification for name-glorification..,” [95, p.53].
January 28 – from a letter from S.N. Bulgakov to Fr. Pavel Florensky: “The cathedral is very small, Rev. Theophan, the chairman of the subdepartment on the Name of God, is still absent, and the department cannot meet. However, in the current atmosphere of Bolshevik brigandage and the threat of dispersal, work would still be impossible, so the anathematization of vulgarity (i.e., the “psychologism” of I.V. Popov, which is somehow especially cold) can be postponed” [96, p. 86].
End of February - o. Anthony (Bulatovich): “... I was appointed as a priest to the 16th advanced detachment of the Red Cross, and spent 3 years at the front, in advanced positions, and, having suffered relapsing fever in the Carpathians, completely undermined my health. Returning from the war, I found myself in a completely hopeless situation, for, having served without compensation, I had no savings, my mother lost all her property, and one Athonite monk brought me, half-blind, to Moscow at the end of February of this year. Here I turned to the Holy Patriarch with a request to give me shelter in the monastery, and I was assigned to the Intercession Monastery, but WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLERIC SERVICE.
The deprivation of my priestly service plunged me into great sorrow, for, having learned, with the blessing of the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt, to serve the Divine Liturgy daily, I unforgettably served it every day, both during battles under fire and during campaigns, with rare exceptions of real impossibility, and in this priestly service I was accustomed to finding life nourishment for my sinful and dead soul. Therefore, assuming that priestly service was caused by the formal requirement of the law of 1918 for a preliminary three-year test for those ordained in the East, I turned to the Holy Patriarch with a request to allow me to serve as priest, imputing to me three years of unblemished service at the front as part of the required three-year test. But this request of mine was left unanswered by the Holy Synod” [88].
June - Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich): “Having learned from private conversations with some hierarchs that the reason for not allowing me to serve in the priesthood was the confusion of the Members of the Holy Synod regarding the grounds on which I was allowed in 1914, I again (in June of this year) submitted a petition to the Holy Patriarch outlining the circumstances under which I was allowed, and asked if the Holy Synod had doubts in the Orthodoxy of my hope, to be convinced of the complete Orthodoxy of my divine veneration of the Name of the Lord and of my complete unanimity with the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Scriptures about this, by confessing me. But there was no response to this request either” [88].
July – about. Anthony (Bulatovich): “At this time the Holy Council met, and in July 1918 I again submitted a petition to the Holy Patriarch for permission to serve in the priesthood, asking that in case of doubt about the Orthodoxy of my confession of the Name of the Lord, it would be entrusted to interrogate me by that section of the Holy Council that was formed under the Missionary Department to judge the dispute over the veneration of the Name of God essentially it. This petition was submitted to the Presidium of the Council, which, in turn, having heard it, transferred it to the Missionary Department for execution. Unfortunately, lack of time made the fulfillment of this desire of mine impossible” [88].
August 1 - “Appeal of the Confessors of the Name of the Lord to the Court of the Holy Council”: “Now the long-awaited hour of conciliar consideration of the dispute about the Name of the Lord that took place on the Holy Mountain is coming, and a decision is expected from the Holy Council: I - Is it appropriate to render the Name of God - GOD veneration, or, as St. Tikhon of Zadonsk put it - “to give all respect as GOD HIMSELF, - without separating in our consciousness the Name of God from God, or only the RELATIVE, as the Holy Synod requires of us by decree of August 29, 1913. II Is it appropriate to honor the Name of God as DIVINE REVELATION, and in this sense, as DIVINE ENERGY AND DIVINE, or is it sufficient to consider it only as a verbal SYMBOL of created origin, and only reminiscent of God. III – Is it appropriate to believe in the ACTIVE POWER of the Name of the Lord in the sacraments, in miracles and in prayer, or to see in it a SIMPLE HUMAN WORD, HAVING no Divine POWER IN ITSELF and not giving the one who names it real contact with God Himself.
The name of the Lord is given to us as a means for real contact in prayer with GOD HIMSELF, as a ray of His Divine light for illuminating our soul...” [97].
September O. Anthony (Bulatovich): “After the departure of the Council, the Intercession Monastery, in which I had a stay, was subject to requisition for military needs: the monks were expelled from their cells, the kitchen ceased to exist, bread was also almost not given out, occasionally only an eighth of a pound was given out, and I was forced to buy my own food with personal funds, but I did not have any. The disastrous financial situation and spiritual grief over the spiritual punishment that continues to burden me innocently forced me again (in September of this year) to submit a petition to the Holy Patriarch, and to ask, in view of the fact that the section of the Council, which was supposed to summon me and interrogate me about my hope, did not have time to do this, then interrogate me about my hope before the Holy Synod, and having been convinced of my Orthodoxy, allow priesthood" [88].
A memo to the Holy Patriarch, submitted by missionary V.I. Zelentsov on the dissolution of the Council: Zelentsov “... is armed most of all against us precisely because we believe that the church authorities, by this decision, acquitted us, when in fact, in his opinion, this decision and the decree approving it retain the meaning of a guilty verdict, making only some leniency towards those convicted of error for the sake of their low consciousness. He demanded that the church authorities take strict measures against the “name-worshipers” who are allegedly spreading their heresy in Russia and sowing church unrest, and to deprive them of church communion if they do not bring the repentance established by the Holy Synod and renounce their imaginary heresy” [88].
“As for Zelentsov’s assertion that both our acquittal at the Moscow court, and the permission to receive communion and sacred services, without requiring us to renounce, were due to the Emperor’s pressure on the church authorities and were made by Metropolitan Macarius to please B. Emperor, we believe that such a statement by Mr. Zelentsov is not only contrary to the truth, for the decision of the Synodal Office clearly states on the basis of what exactly it considers us worthy to remain in church communion, namely on the basis of our indisputable assertion that we are alien to the deification attributed to us of the very name by which God is called, on the external side of this name and in abstraction from God, and on the other hand, this is an accusation of Mr. Zelentsov Metropolitan Macarius that, to please the Emperor, he admitted known heretics to the priesthood, without requiring them to renounce heresy, would be an accusation that fell with all its weight on more than one Metropolitan. Macarius, but also for the entire Synod of that time, whose members, for example. Metropolitan Sergius and many others from St.
The patriarch is at the head, and now they sit in it” [88].
October 8–21 - “Resolution of the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church: ... Upon consideration of the case, in view of the fact that 1) the decree of the Moscow Synodal Office of May 7, 1914, considered by Hieroschemamonk Anthony to justify the very teaching of the name-worshippers, is in fact only a decree on the acceptance into communion of some of the Athonite people named in this decree monks involved in the name-worshipping teachings, brought to the court of the Moscow Synodal Office and who expressed submission to the Holy Church, after a proper test of their faith, with the termination of the court case about them and permission to serve as priests for those of them who were in the priesthood - 2) that such a resolution of the Moscow Synodal Office in this case was approved by the Holy Synod by definition of May 10-24 1914
for No. 4136, with the assignment of the Synodal Office and His Eminence Modest to bring the admonished monks to the consciousness that the teaching of the name-worshippers, prescribed in the writings of Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) and his followers, was condemned by His Holiness the Patriarch and the Synod of the Church of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, and that, by showing leniency to to the infirmities of the erring, the Holy Synod does not change its previous judgment about the error itself, and that - 3) therefore, the above-mentioned resolution of the Office, regarding individuals, in no case abolished the general rule according to which name-worshipers, as condemned by church authority, can be accepted into church communion (with permission, to whomever it is appropriate, to serve in the priesthood) only upon renunciation of name-worship and upon declaration of their subordination to the Holy Church, - DECIDED:
I. Given by Metropolitan Macarius, b. Moscow, the permission to serve in the priesthood for the duration of the war to the Athonite monks: Archimandrite David, Hieroschemamonk Anthony, Silas, Barachia, Nicholas, Hyacinth, Fedim, Philaret, Sergius, Iliodor, Vincent, Onuphrius, Pachomius and Macarius, shall be considered terminated.
II. The petition of Hieroschemamonk Anthony for permission to serve in the priesthood is considered undeserving of satisfaction, as long as he continues to disobey the church authorities and spread his own speculations, condemned by the church hierarchy, to seduce the Church, and
III. explain to Hieroschemamonk Anthony that the matter of the teaching of the name-worshipers has been transferred by the Russian church authorities to the Holy Council, on which the resolution of the entire matter on its merits will depend - about which to send a decree to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Kolomna, and
IV. At the same time, in order to avoid any possible misunderstandings and for guidance on the issue of attitude towards the Athos monks, the monks should communicate this resolution to the diocesan bishops by circular decrees.
SIGNED: Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Agafangel, Metropolitan Arseny, Sergius Metropolitan of Vladimir, Archbishop Eusebius, Archbishop Michael” [87].
November 8 – Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich): “All this that I have stated above forces me, with great sorrow, to return in turn to the application that we submitted on April 11 to the Holy Synod in 1914, and again to declare to the Church Authority THAT I, CONFESSING THE GODLY REVERENCE OF THE NAME OF THE LORD AND NOT AGREEING TO HONOR IT ONLY IN RELATIVENESS, AS THE CHURCH AUTHORITY NOW REQUIRES FROM ME. I REMOVE ALL SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION WITH HER UNTIL THE ESSENCE OF THE CASE IS DETERMINED BY THE SACRED COUNCIL” [88].
Protopresbyter M. Polish: “The compiler of this book was with him [Paul Dometich Grigorovich, in monasticism Panteleimon. – S.P.] is personally acquainted, as well as with other imyaslavtsy, because in 1918, during the civil war and white power in the Kuban, Kuban missionaries (among whom he was) had several meetings with the imyaslavtsy in order to reconcile them with the Orthodox Church in a dogmatic dispute about the name of God. A whole series of dogmatic provisions were developed, which were signed by both parties” [101, p.248].
O. Anthony (Bulatovich) lives all year on his estate Lutsykovka. On the night of December 5-6 – killed by robbers [100, p.31].
December 12 – on “Thursday” at G.A. Lemana (Ostozhenka 35, apt. 12) G.A. Rachinsky read the report “The Philosophical Side of Name-Glorification” (Archive of Priest Pavel Florensky).
July 29 – letter from D.F. Egorova to St. To Pavel Florensky: “We haven’t had the opportunity to see you for a long time. A lot has happened during this time. The most important thing is the joint ministry of the Patriarch with Father David. In addition, in the deanery of Fr. S.V. Uspensky expressed a desire to listen to your conversation about imyaslaviya. and it would be necessary to arrange this somehow. Thus, for several reasons it would be necessary to see you” (Archive of St. Pavel Florensky).
December - at the Moscow Congress of Diocesan Plenipotentiaries, “The beginnings of church renewal according to the view of the Living Church group” were adopted, where among the problems facing church-religious consciousness the problem “about the meaning of the name “JESUS”” was named [119, p. 14]. However, in the materials of the Second Local All-Russian Church Council, which took place from April 29 to May 8, 1923, there are no traces of a discussion of this problem.
February 6 – “Excerpt from a letter written by P.A. Florensky at the request of Fr. Archimandrite David in response to a letter from the Athonite name-glorifying people from the Caucasus: “You ask how the matter of name-glorifying is going. Slowly, but unstoppably, the restoration of truth is taking place, and more and more people are being found who understand the error of name-fighting. But the success of this matter, insofar as human considerations mean anything, depends on a cautious and careful approach to souls” [92, p. 336]. “The Synod divides what is inseparable, but you want to merge what is not merged” [92, p.338].
The beginning of the 1920s - a “name-slav circle” was formed, meeting in the apartments of the Losevs, D.F. Egorova, P.S. Popov, where reports on A.'s name-glorification were heard. Loseva, Fr. Pavel Florensky and others. Circle meetings were attended by: M.A. Novoselov, A.F. Losev, V.M. Loseva-Sokolova, D.F. Egorov, P.S. Popov, O. Pavel Florensky, H.M. Soloviev, N.N. Buchgolts, A.V. Suzin, G.A. Rachinsky, M. N. Khitrovo-Kramskoy, N.V. Petrovsky, V.A. Baskarev, M.A. Sverchkov, G.I. Chulkov, V.N. Ponomarev and others.
1925 – the meetings of the “Imyaslavl circle” ended: “Meetings with Imyaslavsky reports ended in 1925, when systematic arrests began and those arrested were no longer released as before (entry in the diary of V.M. Loseva 3/XII-25, [135, p. X].
Spring-August - moving from place to place, in deep secrecy, the “Nomadic Council” of the catacomb True Orthodox Church took place; under the influence of M.A. Novoselov (Bishop Mark) the name-glorifying clauses were introduced into the text of the Council’s Definition; unhindered access to the TOC was opened to the name-slavers (reported by Bishop Ambrose (Count Alexei von Sievers)).
“In 1928 or early 1929, in the Caucasus mountains, a group of Imenaslavists, ascetic monks, expelled from Athos after the well-known Imenaslav movement, was found and shot. They were led by Pavel Dometich Grigorovich, a nobleman, landowner and captain from the Kyiv province, who, after 20 years of monasticism, was drafted into the Army in the war of 1914 and after its end, during the revolution, returned to the Caucasus Mountains and bore the name of Panteleimon” [101, p.248].
The Chekists fabricated the case of the “All-Union Center of the Church-Monarchical Organization “True Orthodoxy””, in which they united very heterogeneous religious groups, among which they assigned a special role to the “counter-revolutionary monarchical organization “Imyaslavtsy””. She was credited with the role of the Jesuits of Orthodoxy [130, p.343]. M.A. was included in the case. Novoselova, A.F. Loseva, V.M. Losev-Sokolov, D.F. Egorova, priest. F.K. Andreeva, priest. N.K. Prozorov and others. They were credited with a plan to overthrow Soviet power as the “power of the Antichrist” and restore the monarchy. The connection between all groups was attributed to M.A. Novoselov. 27 cells in the North Caucasus, among which there were also name-glorifying ones, were allegedly led by Bishop. Varlaam (Lazarenko). 50 cells in the Voronezh region were led by Bishop. Alexy (Bui), closely associated with the leadership of Imyaslavia [131].
April 18 – A.F. was arrested. Losev; O. David blessed him to suffer. In the investigative file, the “Certificate on the role of Professor A.F. Losev” was preserved. in a/sov. movement": "Being an irreconcilable enemy of Soviet power and a supporter of Orthodoxy in its most Black Hundred, wild forms, Losev back in the 23-24s. became close to the leaders of the name-glorification movement, regarding this movement “as the most active and vital current within the church.” Losev’s wife states in her testimony: “According to our religious views, Alexey Fedorovich Losev and I profess imyaslavie, which is the most perfect form of expressing the essence of Orthodoxy” [125, p. 94]. From the testimony of A.F. Losev: “blasphemy of the Name of God by non-recognition of the name-glorifying teaching is the removal of the seal with which Satan was sealed” [131].
From the indictment: “Illegal meetings were held in the apartments of Professor Egorov and Losev, at which questions about the name-slavers were discussed. These meetings were attended by representatives of the name-slav k.r. organization in the Caucasus, which was illegal and hiding in the mountains. “Egorov and Losev “issued the document “Great Name-Glorification”, in which the Soviet government was interpreted as a punishment for the entire Russian people, as a “terrible satanic decade” and proposed to rally around the church to fight it, taking the name-glorious point of view.” The charges were: “Active struggle against collectivization, work to disrupt grain procurements, preparation of an insurrectionary movement with the aim of overthrowing Soviet power, establishing connections with White Guard organizations abroad,” including with Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) [131].
September 3, 1931 A.F. Losev received 10 years in the camps; M.A. Novoselov - 8 years in prison.
April - liquidation of the name-slavers in the Pskhu valley with the village of Pskhu; is located in Abkhazia 80 km from Sukhumi beyond the pass. For six months the valley is cut off from the outside world. “The Columbus of today's Pskhu” is Anton Zhilinsky, who settled here in 1904 [110, p.25]. Bishop Andrei of Sukhumi (Prince Ukhtomsky Alexander Alekseevich, 12/26/1872 – 9/4/1937) came to Pskhu in 1911 and founded monasticism here [110, p.34]. After the revolution, there were more and more monks, and whites also took refuge in Pskhu. In 1920, General Khvostikov ruled here. His successors held official positions and indulged the monks. The last of them was Baron von Drin, who hanged himself the day before the arrival of the commission from Sukhumi. Applications of monks and nuns for land allocation were satisfied until 1928. Teacher Apanasenko back in 1929 “every Sunday took the children to church, began and ended lessons with prayers” [110, p.84]. The new wave of arrivals to Pskhu is associated with collectivization and increased repression. In 1928–1930 214 people arrived on Pskhu, of which 188 were monastics, the rest were assessed as kulaks [110, p. 36]. By 1930
on Pskhu there were 100 monks, 12 priests, 8 houses of worship. The cells were scattered throughout the valley. Result: “For the entire ten years, not a single Komsomol member or a communist grew up in Pskhu” [110, p. 86]. A legend spread that “there is a valley called Pskhu, where there is no Soviet power” [110, p.64].
The Imyaslavites brought to Odessa dispersed throughout Russia. “The main core stopped in the Caucasus mountains. Their main areas are Tuapse, Krasnaya Polyana, Sochi and, especially, the Pskhu Gorge” [NO, p.55]. Founded the “Black Hundred militant sect of the Nameslavists” on Pskhu Fr. Gabriel [110, p.62]. Pskhu became the center of name-glorification in the South of Russia. The monasteries and cells of Pskhu received pilgrims, some of them stayed throughout the winter. By spring, some of them became monks, many left, but remained “religious fanatics” for the rest of their lives [110, p.64]. The monks received parcels from different regions. During the winter of 1929–1930. On Pskhu, about 12 icons were updated [110, p.46]. Leaflets were sent out from Pskhu, which spoke of the imminent coming of Christ, and the collective farms were called the “Antichrist Jewish commune” [110, p.63]. Fedot Ivanovich Sazonov spoke about the sentiments of the Imenaslavtsy: “... Among the Imenaslavtsy, as if by God’s law, it is impossible to come close to the Soviet government. You cannot take Soviet money - this means it is a sign of the Antichrist. You can’t buy anything at the warehouse, because there are antichrists there too...
Like a conversation, they are against the authorities, and against the authorities, and against the communists, and against Lenin. This, they say, is the first Antichrist” [110, p. 36]. The commission that arrived from Sukhumi on April 22 was not sold food: “We do not sell to these Antichrists” [110, p.75].
Hieromonk Theodosius (Volkov) negotiated with government officials: “The growth of the right-flank palace guard. Wide priestly step. Yellow belt wrinkles on the face...” [110, p.40]. He is characterized as “a Tikhonovite and an outspoken monarchist” [110, p.42]. The interrogation of Hieromonk Grigory Mamchenko (“He is small, thin, dry and hunchbacked” [110, p. 52]) took place in the village council under the only portrait of Lenin on Pskhu, “thickly covered with flies,” about whom Fr. Gregory said: “This is Lenin, the predecessor of the Antichrist.” The interrogation proceeded as follows:
– ... how do you feel about Soviet power?
- Like the power of the Antichrist.
– Mamchenko, do you really believe that Nicholas II with his Grishka Rasputin, with the all-Russian prostitute Vyrubova, with his monstrous pack of stranglers, executioners, robbers – was God’s anointed?... So, are you for the return of tsarist power?
“It goes without saying” [110, p.54]. The author accurately noted his condition: “He infuriates me” [110, p.54].
Monk Grivnitsky (“He is also in a black robe. Luxurious resin hair, under the soft breeze, fluffily spreads over his shoulders. He himself is tall, thin and slender. He is 33–35 years old” [110, p. 58]) said: “I am a Christian and, according to my convictions, I cannot support the power of the Antichrist” [110, p. 58]. More monks are mentioned: schema monk Starchenko, Matvienko, Semenenko. They did not give their monastic names. Nuns are also mentioned: mother Theoktista and her daughter, Matryona Smelova. Deputy prev The Central Election Commission of Abkhazia Malania compiled a list of monks and kulaks subject to eviction not only from Pskhu, but also from Abkhazia. On April 30, a large group of deportees was sent to Sukhumi. At this time, arrests of name-slavers and Christians of other confessions were made throughout the Caucasus.
“After special raids into the mountains by the OGPU-NKVD troops, most of those who hoped to take refuge in the mountain deserts were found and taken into custody. More than ten thousand monastics were divided in half in two stages. One batch of prisoners was sent to Novorossiysk, the second to Tiflis (Tbilisi).” Nun Sergia (Klimenko) recalled “heavily loaded barges floating on the sea, crowded with arrested monks.” In Tiflis they formed a labor artel [118, p.24]. “Old and young, women and men, were driven through several passes from the Pskhu valley and other places and settlements. By the sea, everyone was loaded onto barges, transported in unbearable crowded conditions, like blacks during the slave trade. The monks swam and sang prayers” [132, p.112].
Summer - security officers fabricated the case of “a monarchical rebel organization that operated in 1927–1930 in the Pskhu Valley and Lake Ritsa.”
October 8 – The OGPU board sentenced some of those arrested to death under Article 58 paragraphs. 10, 11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (counter-revolutionary propaganda and organizational activities aimed at preparing and committing counter-revolutionary crimes).
October 26 – the sentence was carried out in Novorossiysk [120].
Information about the existence of a “sect of name-slavers” in Maikop, where they call themselves “Solyanovtsy” [121].
Silent information about the existence of the “name-glorifying sect” [122].
May 20 – Russian monks were expelled from the St. Elias monastery on Mount Athos; the new abbot and monks of the Pantocrator Monastery, as well as Greek officials and police, arrived at the monastery; given 2 hours to get ready [123, pp.68–69].
1. . In the Caucasus Mountains. A conversation between two desert elders about inner unity with the Lord of our hearts through the prayer of Jesus Christ. Or: {Spiritual activity of modern hermits}. In three parts. Compiled the hermit of the Caucasus mountains, forests and gorges. – 1907. Batalpashinsk, Type. L.Ya. Kochka, c.XVIII+329. The Moscow Spiritual Censorship Committee is allowed to print. June 21, 1907. Censor Archpriest Nikolai Bogolyubsky.
2. Compiled by Schemamonk Hilarion, a desert dweller in the Caucasus Mountains. On the Caucasus mountains. A conversation between two hermits about inner unity with the Lord of our hearts, through the prayer of Jesus Christ, or the spiritual activity of modern hermits. 2nd edition corrected and greatly expanded. – 1910, Batalpashinsk, Type. L.Ya. Kochka, p.XXV +438. The Moscow Spiritual Censorship Committee is allowed to print. Moscow. October 7, 1909. No. 735. Censor Archpriest Nikolai Bogolyubsky.
[Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna provided assistance in these two editions].
3. On the Caucasus mountains. A conversation between two desert elders about inner unity with the Lord of our hearts through the prayer of Jesus Christ, or the spiritual activity of modern desert dwellers. Compiled by Schemamonk Hilarion, a desert dweller in the Caucasus Mountains. Part 1. – Kyiv, Edition of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, 1912, p.XXVlIl+367. It is allowed to print from the Kyiv Spiritual Censorship Committee. Kyiv September 24, 1911. Censor, Academy Professor, Priest A. Glagolev.
4. Review of the essay by schemamonk Fr. Hilarion, called: “On the Caucasus Mountains.” - “Russian Monk”. Pochaev. 1912. February, No. 4, pp. 71–75; March, no. 5, pp.57–59.
5. A. Anthony. More about the book of schemas. Hilarion "On the Caucasus Mountains". - “Russian Monk”. Pochaev. 1912, May, No. 10, pp. 62–63.
6. More about the book “On the Caucasus Mountains.” Archbishop Anthony. Letter to the editor of Russian Monk. - “Russian Monk”. 1912, August, No. 15, pp. 60–62.
7. A letter from the author of the book “On the Caucasus Mountains,” Schemamonk Hilarion, to Athos to his spiritual father, Hieroschemamonk Fr. N. Reported by Svyatogorets Denasius. - “Russian Monk”. Pochaev. 1912, August, No. 15, p.62.
8. I. A. News from Athos. - “Russian Monk”. Nechaev. 1912, November, No. 21–22, p.83.
9 . I. Anthony. Apology of faith in the Divinity of the Names of God and the Name “Jesus”. (Against those who fight against names). – Lithograph from typescript on 72 pages with notes by Fr. Pavel Florensky. At the end there is an autograph: “† I. Anthony. Holy Mountain. July 23, 1912" (Archive of Priest Pavel Florensky).
10. I. Anthony (Bulatovich). Apology of faith in the Name of God and in the Name of Jesus. – M., Publication of the “Religious and Philosophical Library”. 1913, C.X1V+189. Pavel Florensky From the editor. pp. VII-XIV. . pp. XI-X1V.
11. Materials for the dispute about the veneration of the Name of God. Vol. 1. – M., Edition “R. F. Libraries", 1913, p. 48; 2nd edition, expanded. – M., Printing house of A. I. Snegireva. 1913, p. 104.
12. Monk Pavel (Kustomartsev). Thoughts of the Church Fathers about the Name of God. Material for clarification of the Athos theological dispute. – St. Petersburg. Publishing house "Confessor". 1913, p.87.
13. Afonets. The sad chronicle of modern Athos. - “Russian Monk”. 1913, April, No. 7, pp.445–454.
14. S. Ivolgin [= S. A. Tsvetkov]. About the Athonite unrest and dogmatic disputes. - “New Time”. 1913, April 11 (24). No. 13320.
15. S. Ivolgin [= S.A. Tsvetkov]. Our diplomacy and Mount Athos. - “New Time”. 1913, 10 (23) May. No. 13347.
15'. B/p. The end of the Bulatovich case. - “New Time”. 1913, May 17.
16. “By the grace of God, the Most Holy Governing Synod to the all-honorable brethren who strive in monasticism.” - “Church Gazette”. 1913, May 18. No. 20, pp. 277–286. (Included in [126]).
17. Archbishop Nikon. Great temptation near the most holy name of God. - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913, May 18, No. 20, pp. 853–869. (Included in [126] along with the commentary of St. Pavel Floreneky).
18. Archbishop Anthony. About the new false teaching, about idolizing names and about the “Apology” of Anthony Bulatovich. – Ibid., p.869–882.
19. S. Troitsky. Athonite Troubles. – Ibid., pp. 882–909 (Included in [126] along with the commentary of Priest Pavel Florensky).
20. Arch. Anthony. The essence of the Athos dispute. - “New Time”. 1913.19 May.
21. V. Skvortsov. The Athos Troubles and “All-Russian Discord.” - “Bell.” 1913, May 26.
22. D. Filosofov. Athonite strife. - “Russian Word”. 1913, May 29.
23. - "Church Gazette". 1913, June 1. No. 22, p.22, p.317.
24. From the Office of the Holy Synod. - “Addition to the Church Gazette.” 1913, June 8, No. 23, p. 330.
25. B/p. A word of brotherly love. (Regarding contemporary debates about the name Jesus). - “Russian Monk”. 1913, June. No. 11, pp. 764–775.
26. B/p. Athonite Troubles. - “Bell.” 1913, July 2.
27. V. Skvortsov. Athonite Troubles. - “Bell.” 1913, July 5.
28. M. K. Athonite rebel. (From our Sumy correspondent). - “Russian Word”. 1913, July 9.
29. B/p. Athonite monks. - "Odessa Leaf". 1913, July 14.
30. How Athos was conquered. Letter from Archimandrite David. – “Voice of Moscow”, 1913, July 25.
31. News from Valaam. (About the book “On the Caucasus Mountains”). - “Russian Monk”. 1913. July, No. 14.
32. . - “Russian Monk”. 1913, August, No. 15, p.965.
33. Archbishop Nikon. The fruits of the great temptation near the name of God. (From a report to the Holy Synod on a trip to Athos). - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913. August 24. No. 34, p.1504 1521.
34. Resolution of the Holy Synod of August 27 “On the revision of the decision of the Holy Synod regarding name worshipers.” - “Church Bulletin”. 1913, August 31, No. 35, pp. 426–428.
35. A conversion formula for name-worshippers returning to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. – Ibid., p.429.
36. S. T. The fight against the Athos Troubles. - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913, September 7, No. 36, pp. 1636–1643.
37. S. Troitsky. The teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the names of God and name-worshippers. - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913, September 14, No. 37; December 21, No. 51–52.
38. S.V. Troitsky master's thesis>. - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913, September 21, No. 38, p. 1736–1737.
39. N.A. Berdyaev. Spirit extinguishers. - “Russian rumor”. 1913, August 5 (18), No. 232.
40. S.N. Bulgakov. Athos case. - “Russian Thought”. 1913, September, pp. 37–46.
41. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). Regarding the so-called “Certificate” of Patriarch Joachim. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1913, May 9.
42. Hieroschemamonk Anthony. The essence of the Athos dispute. (Letter to the editor). - “New Time”. 1913, May 14.
43. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). Petition to the Governing Synod. – St. Petersburg. Type. T-va "Our Century". 1913, p.64.
44. The highest reception of the delegation from the Athos Monastery. - “Russian Monk”. 1913, October, No. 19–20, p.1250.
45. The end of the rule of Islam on Old Athos. - “Russian Monk”. 1913, November.
46. Mikhail Novoselov. Papism in the Orthodox Church. As a manuscript. – M., Printing house of A. I. Snegireva. 1913.
47. M N . Regarding the message of the Holy Synod. - “Voice of Moscow”. 1913, November 21.
48. . - “Additions to the Church Gazette.” 1913, November 23, No. 47, pp. 2199–2200.
49. Name-glory. Theological materials for the dogmatic dispute about the Name of God according to the documents of the Imyaslavtsev. – St. Petersburg, “Confessor”, Type. P.P. Soikina. 1914, p.188.
50. Holy Martyr Justin Philosopher on the Name of God. – M., “Confessor.” 1914, p.32.
51. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). My thought is in Christ. About the Activity (Energy) of the Deity. – Pg., “Confessor”, Type. P.P. Soikina. 1914, p.244+111.
52. . The Orthodox Church is about the veneration of the Name of God and the Jesus Prayer. – St. Petersburg, “Confessor”, Type. P.P. Soikina. 1914, p.192.
53. Archbishop Nikon. Name worshipers. The great temptation near the most holy name of God and its fruits. - Sergius Lavra. Own typ., p.II + 138.
54. S.V. Trinity. About the names of God and name-worshipers. (The teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the names of God and the name-worshipers. - Was Fr. John of Kronstadt a name-worshipper. - The fight against the Athos Troubles. - Defenders of the name-worshippers. Answer to S.N. Bulgakov). – St. Petersburg, Synodal typ., 1914, c.VIII + 200+XXVII.
55. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). Analysis of the book by Troitsky “The Teaching of the Athonite Name-Worshippers and its analysis,” “Smoke of the Fatherland.” 1914, April 17. No. 15–16.
56. S.N. Bulgakov. The meaning of the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa about names. - “Results of life.” 1914, no. 12–13, pp. 15–21.
57. Monk Pachomius. The history of the Athos Troubles or the name-worshipping heresy. SPb. 1914.
58. S.V. Troitsky >. - "Church Gazette". 1914. No. 8, pp. 51–52.
59. . - "Church Gazette". 1914, no. 9, pp. 62–65.
60. . - "Church Gazette". 1914, no. 10, pp. 70–74.
61. The trial of the Athonite elders over the name-worshippers. (Act of the meeting of the Protat - the council of all Athonite monasteries). - “Russian Monk”. 1914, January, No. 1, p.52.
62. Hegumen and brethren of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery. The truth about the events that took place in the first half of 1913 in the Panteleimon Monastery. - “Russian Monk”. 1914, January, No. 2, pp. 94–104.
63. Athonite monk Chrysanthus. About the new-found heresy of name-worshippers and its spread on Mount Athos. - “Russian Monk”. 1914, February, nos. 3–4, pp. 164–172, 214–225.
63'. B/p. The case of the Athonite monks. - “Russian Word”. 1914, February 26.
64. Al. Lviv. What does it mean? - “Smoke of the Fatherland.” 1914, February 27, No. 9, pp. 4–5.
65. Verbatim report. State Duma. 4th convocation. Session II. Part II. Session 47. 1914, March 7, pp. 1545–1566.
66. Hieroschemamonk Anthony and others. Statement of the Athonite monks to the Holy Governing Synod. - “Smoke of the Fatherland.” 1914, April 17, No. 15–16, pp. 4–5.
67. In the case of the Athos people. Conversation with one of the respected hierarchs. – Ibid., pp. 7–8.
68. To the Athos case: 1. V. Skvortsov. Athonite pacification. II. Letters to the editor: 1) Hieromonk Anthony (Bulatovich) and others. Letter May 18, 1914 2) S. Troitsky. Letter. 3) Letter from Bishop. Modest to A.L. Garyazin, publisher of "Smoke of the Fatherland", dated May 14, 1914 - "Bell". 1914, May 24.
69. On the case of the Athonite monks. - “Russian Monk”. 1914, May, No. 9, p.559.
70. E.N. Kosvintsev. Black “revolt” (Pages from the history of the “Athos Troubles”). - “Historical Bulletin”. 1915, January, t.139, pp.139–160; February, vol. 140, pp. 470–487.
71. Correspondence with the hermit Hilarion, author of the book: “On the Caucasus Mountains.” - “Zealot.” Voronezh. 1915, no. 3, pp. 23–35. (Included in [126]).
72. Holy Orthodoxy and the name-theorizing heresy. In three parts. – Kharkov, Diocesan type. 1916, p.IV +278+Х1П.
73. Collection of documents related to the Athos name-worshipping turmoil. – Pg., Edition type. “T-va gas. Light". 1916, p.48.
74. In search of the truth. In the case of the Athonite name-worshippers. – Pg., Type. "Bell". 1916, p.65.
75. Monk Clement. Name-worshipping revolt or the fruits of the teachings of the book “On the Caucasus Mountains.” - “Historical Bulletin”. 1916, March, vol. 143, pp. 752–785.
76. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). The true understanding of the Name of God by St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Simeon the New Theologian. - "Missionary Review". 1916, no. 5–6.
77. V. Skvortsov. In the service of the one Divine Truth. - “Bell.” 1916, May 4.
78. N. Bolkhovetsky. Lying to an official body. - “Bell.” 1916, August 14.
79. V. Skvortsov. "WITH. T." - “Bell.” 1916, September 1.
80. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). And Rhetor Tertillus is slandering us again. - “Bell.” 1916, September 3 and 6.
81. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). Sowers of temptations. - “Bell.” 1916, September 18.
81 .̀ Copy of my letters to the Sovereign Emperor regarding the Athos case (typescript from the Archives of Father Pavel Florensky). (Included in [126]).
82. History of the Athos Troubles. Vol. 1. Contents: 1) Preface: The Athos case. I. Antonia. 2) 1st part of the History of the Athos Troubles. E. Vykhodtseva. (Years from 1909–1912). – Pg., “Confessor.” 1917, p.108.
83. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). My struggle with the Name Fighters on the Holy Mountain. – Pg., “Confessor.” 1917, p. 170.
84. B/p. Name-fighting propaganda. – n/d, p.209–228.
85. Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich). Justification of faith in the Invincible. Incomprehensible. Divine Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Pg., “Confessor.” 1917.
85'. V.F. Ern. Dispute about the Name of God. (Letters on name-glorification). Letter one. Origin of the dispute. - “Christian Thought”. Kiev, 1916, September.
86. Vladimir Ern. Analysis of the Message of the Holy Synod on the Name of God. – M., “Publishing the “Religious and Philosophical Library”. 1917, p.38. (Included in [126]).
87. Resolution of His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church from October 8–21, 1918 (typescript from the Archive of St. Pavel Florensky).
88. To the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, a statement by the Hieroschemamonk of the St. Andrew's Skete on Mount Athos, Anthony (Bulatovich), about his resignation from spiritual communion with church authorities for the sake of his confession of the splendor of the veneration of the Name of the Lord. November 8, 1918 (typescript from the Archives of St. Pavel Florensky).
89. A.F. Losev. Philosophy of the name. – M., Author's publication. 1927, p.256; the same in the book: A.F. Losev. From early works. – M., “Truth.” 1990; the same in the book: A.F. Losev. Being. Name. Space. – M., “Thought.” 1993.
89'. A.F. Losev. Name-glory. (Preface to the publication by A.A. Taho-Godi). – “Questions of Philosophy”, 1993, No. 9.
90. Arch. Seraphim (Sobolev). New teaching about Sophia, the Wisdom of God. - Sofia. 1935, ch. 18–20.
91. S.N. Bulgakov. Philosophy of the name. – Paris, YMCA-PRESS. 1953, p.279 (written in 1942).
92. P.A. Florensky. Name-glorification as a philosophical prerequisite. About the Name of God. – In the book: P.A. Florensky. Op. T.2. At the watersheds of thought. – M., “Truth.” 1990 (written 1922).
93. P.A. Florensky. Names. – M., “Kupina”. 1993, p.320 (written 1923–1926).
94. Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. – M., “Orbit”. 1991.
95. L.A. Zander. God and the world. T.1. – Paris, YMCA-PRESS, 1948, p.53.
96. Letters from Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov to Fr. Pavel Florensky (1918) - “Beginnings”. 1993, no. 4, p. 86.
97. Appeal of the confessors of the Name of the Lord to the court of the Holy Council. Index to the literature of the Athos case and the most important data for judging it. (Typescript from the Archives of Father Pavel Florensky).
98. From the stories of a wanderer about the grace-filled effect of the Jesus Prayer. Preface by Bishop Nikon. – Sergiev Posad, 1911. – Ott. from the “Trinity Word” for 1911
99. I. M. How to learn the Jesus Prayer? – Publication of Optina Pustyn. Odessa, 1913; Kuibyshev, 1990; Brest, 1994.
100. I.S. Katsnelson. A.K. Bulatovich - hussar, explorer, schema-monk. – In the book: A.K. Bulatovich. With the troops of Menelik II. – M., “Science”. 1971, p.31.
101. Protopresbyter M. Polish. New Russian martyrs. T.2. - Jordanville. 1957, p.248.
102. Church Bulletin. 1917. April 8, no. 9–15, p.69.
103. Archbishop Nikon. My diaries. Vol. IV. 1913. -Sergiev Posad. 1914; reprint, b/g. - From the Trinity Word. 1913, nos. 151–200.
104. Memoirs of the catacomb schema-bishop Peter (Ladygin). - “Church life”. Published every two months by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. - New York. 1984, no. 7 8.
105. E. Gollerbach. Religious and philosophical publishing house "Put" (1910–1919). – “Questions of Philosophy.” 1994, no. 2.
106. I. Katsnelson, G. Terekhova. Through the uncharted lands of Ethiopia. M., 1975.
107. Priest Robert Slesinski. The beginning of a unique Russian philosophy of language; name-glorification and name-fighting. - “The Path of Orthodoxy.” 1994, no. 3.
108.N. A. Semenov. Factory of Saints or Holy Mount Athos. – M., 1924; 2nd add. – M., L., 1925.
109. N. A. Semenov. Mount Athos is holy. – M., “Atheist.” 1928.
110. I. Polovnev. Country of Pskhu. Essays. – Sukhum, Abgosizdat, 1931.
111. Conversations of Elder Barsanuphius of Optina with spiritual children. Memories of spiritual children about Elder Barsanuphius. – M.-Riga, 1995.
112. Correspondence between Nikolai and Alexandra Romanov. 1914–1915 T.Z.M.Pg., 1925.
113. Elder Silouan. – M., 1994.
114. Priest Alexander Chesnokov. Glinskaya hermitage and its elders. – Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1994. (Indicated by Evgeny Lukyanov).
115. Archive of the Russian Revolution, published by I. V. Gessen. HP. – Berlin, 1923; M., 1991.
116. Faithful to the king of heaven and earth. Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow, Apostle of Altai (Parvitsky - “Nevsky”). 1835–1926. Author compiled by Tatyana Groyan. – M., 1996.
117. Chronicle of the Optina Hermitage Skete. Featured Pages. 1845–1882. According to the plan of the monk Barsanuphius (Plikhankov). Publication and comments by R.V. Bagdasarova. //Orthodoxy and Russian folk culture. Scientific collection (issue 1). M., 1994. (Indicated by Evgeny Lukyanov).
118. Biography of Elder Hieroschemamonk Stefan (Ignatenko). Compiled by G.P. Chinyakova. – M., 1996.
119. Local Council. – Simbirsk, 1923.
120. “We are counted as sheep of the slaughter” (Ps. 43:23). - “Orthodox Abkhazia”. 1996. May, No. 21, pp. 4–5.
122. Atheist's Pocket Dictionary. – M., 1983, pp. 104–105. (Indicated by S. Antonenko).
123. Russian Shepherd. San Francisco. – 1992, No. 13.
124. V. Kapitanchuk. Name-glory. - “Tsar Bell”. 1990. No. 6.
125. A. V. Gulyga. Dialectics of life. - “Motherland”, 1989, No. 10.
126. “Beginnings”, 1995, No. 14; Name-glory. Issue 1.
127. A.A. Dmitrievsky. Athos and its new political international position. St. Petersburg, 1913.
128. Constantine K. Papoulides. Russian name-glorification on the Holy Mountain. / Thessaloniki, 1977. (in Greek; provided by S.S. Demidov).
129. Magazine “Instructions and Consolations of St. Christian faith." Publication of the Russian St. Andrew's Community Skete on Mount Athos. Odessa.
130. True Orthodox in the Voronezh diocese. Publication M. V. Shkarovsky // Past-19. M. St. Petersburg, 1996.
131. S.S. Demidov. Professor of Moscow University Dmitry Fedorovich Egorov and name-glorification in Russia in the first third of the 20th century (manuscript).
132. V.D. Prishvina. Hieromonk Onisnm (Paul) (1899–1930) // Man, 1991, No. 5.
133. Great ascetic of Mount Athos. Hadji-George and his disciple Schemamonk Parfeniy. Compiled by St. I. Khodorovsky. Nizhny Novgorod, 1909. (Indicated by Evgeny Lukyanov).
134. Unknown Nilus. T.2. Compiled by Roman Bagdasarov and Sergey Fomin. M., 1995.
135. A.A. Tahoe-Godi. From the history of the creation and printing of manuscripts by A.F. Losev //A. F. Losev. Name. St. Petersburg, 1997.
5. From the Definition of the Holy Synod of May 18, 1913
The Orthodox wisdom about the Names of God is as follows:
1. The name of God is holy, and venerable, and desired, because it serves for us as a verbal designation of the most exalted and holiest Being - God, the Source of all good things. This name is divine because it is revealed to us by God, speaks to us about God, lifts our mind to God, etc. In prayer (especially Jesus prayer) the Name of God and God Himself are recognized by us inseparably, as if identified, they cannot and should not even be separated and opposed to one another; but this is only in prayer and only for our hearts, in theology, as in practice, the Name of God is only a name, and not God Himself and not His property, the name of an object, and not the object itself, and therefore cannot be recognized or called either God (which would be meaningless and blasphemous), or the Divine, because it is not the energy of God.
2. The Name of God, when pronounced in prayer with faith, can also work miracles, but not by itself, not as a result of some divine power forever contained in it or attached to it, which would already act mechanically, but in such a way that the Lord, seeing our faith (Matthew 9:2) and by virtue of His false promise, sends His grace and with it performs a miracle.
3. In particular, the holy sacraments are performed not by the faith of the performer, not by the faith of the recipient, but also not by virtue of the utterance or image of the Name of God; and through prayer and faith St. The Church on whose behalf they are performed, and by virtue of the promise given to it by the Lord.
This is the Orthodox faith, the paternal and apostolic faith.
"Church Gazette". 1913. May 18, no. 20. p. 285.
6. From an article by S.V. Troitsky Athos Troubles" (theses of Hieroschemamonk Anthony and antitheses of S.V. Troitsky)
“Additions to the Church Gazette,” 1913. May 18, No. 20, pp. 906–909.
Beloved Father in the Lord!
We hasten to tell you the good news for your consolation. On February 13th of this year, the Lord vouchsafed us to be received by our Father the Sovereign and the Empress and to behold the Blessed Child of Their Heir, the Tsarevich.
The Emperor made it possible for us sinners to report to Him in every detail about the persecution, for the Name of Christ, against us “name-glorifiers,” about our deprivation of Holy Communion, our conversion to a worldly state, and about all the torment that we endured during our arrest on Mount Athos and our transfer to Russia, as well as about our difficult life at the present time without a holy monastery.
We asked the Father of our Sovereign to command us to consider our case fairly and to allow all of us, Athonite monks, forcibly expelled to Russia, to unite again in one common monastery for further service to the Lord our God.
Our humble words were mercifully and tenderly listened to by the Emperor, and He gave us full hope for a speedy [2 unintelligible] end of the matter and for the provision of a holy monastery to us, the monks of Athos, in the near future.
Let us continue to remain in humility and trust in the mercy of the Lord God and hope in the kind and always just heart of the King, which heeded our prayer.
We are staying in St. Petersburg, Zagorodny Ave., house No. 36, apartment of Alexander Lvovich Garyazin. where we intend to stay until the end of our business.
We sent several letters so that you could forward this consolation to your loved ones and acquaintances of the Athonite monks, who were transferred to Russia from the Holy Mountain on the second ship.
8. Righteous Fr. John of Kronstadt about the Name
Praying! May the name of the Lord or the Mother of God, or an angel, or a saint, instead of the Lord Himself, the Mother of God, an angel and a saint; let the closeness of your word to your heart be a guarantee and indication of the closeness to your heart of the Lord Himself, the Most Pure Virgin, an angel or a saint - the name of the Lord is the Lord Himself - the Spirit who is everywhere and fills everything; the name of the Mother of God is the Mother of God Herself, the name of the angel is angel, the name of the saint is saint. - How is this? Don't you understand? “That’s what your name is, Ivan Ilyich.” If you are called by these names, you will recognize yourself fully in them and respond to them. it means you agree that your name is you yourself with soul and body, and so are the saints: call on their name, you will call on them themselves. But they, you say, have no body. What of this? The body is only the material shell of the soul, its home, and man himself, the essence of man, or his inner man, is the soul. When you are called by name, it is not your body that responds, but your soul, through a bodily organ.
Biography of Fr. John of Kronstadt. Good Shepherd. Letters to Father and memories of him. – St. Petersburg, Publishing house of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. 1994. p.29. (Indicated by Evgeny Lukyanov).
9. Letters from Ahmet Ihsan to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
December 28, 1939 Istanbul.
Dear Sergei Nikolaevich!
I am very familiar with your close friend, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov. For about nine years I spent time together with him in check prisons. He is both my friend and my spiritual father. M.A. He really asked me to tell you about him, and not only about him. Of course, you will not refuse to know about our suffering. A lot of memories. If I receive an answer to my letter, I will tell you everything, everything. I arrived a month ago from Russia. I am a Turk - I was in the Cheka prisons for 11 years and 27 days. M.A. He often told me about you. I'm waiting for an answer. May the Lord our God protect you.
My address: Turquie – Istanbul
Halici oglu, tursucu mahlesi, Sivaci Ahmet sokak No. 44
Boy Ahmet Ihsan Tasdelen.
March 12, 1940 Istanbul.
My dear friend and brother Sergei Nikolaevich!
I am writing late, please forgive me for this: I was sick with the flu. Thank you very much for your letter. You want to know whether Our dear Abba remains a layman. I want to assure you that the last time you saw him or left him, he remained a deeply religious person. In prison, many called him a theologian, but he did not want to be called that. He was not a priest. Abba said that he was an Orthodox Christian! I have heard the word “layman” many times, but I don’t really know the meaning of this word, it seems to me that a “layman” is a believer and goes to serve the Church!.. Do I understand that? Young people, among whom there were even (former) Komsomol members, always surrounded Avva and listened to him. Nadezhda Borisova, a Pushkin scholar, always asked Avva to write the legends of the Apostles, adverbs, prayers, because it seemed easier to her. Abba always celebrated the day of saints. In the summer, then we had a vegetable garden and a flower garden, Ava loved to water and care for the flowers. His favorite flowers were: snapdragon, dwarf aster, godetia.
You write that several years ago someone came from Russia and brought information about Avva. You know what I’ll tell you: if a person goes to prison for the first time, he will be surprised that there are such prisons in the S.S.R. People released from prison do not have the right to speak freely about the regime and about the Cheka prison, I don’t remember if I wrote to you that, for example, Anna Iv. After her release, she told her close friends about how she was in prison, and again they gave her 8 years in prison; it seems she died. I want to say that if this man came from “our” prison, it’s not true, he doesn’t know Ava. During our walk, Abba was greatly respected - as a strong, believing man, although he was cautious. The essence of the Bolsheviks knows those who were in prison. In 1936, Mukhanova, a mentally ill woman, was sitting in cell No. 153 in the Yaroslavl prison. She is a non-party member, before her arrest she worked in the Kremlin library, she was tried in 1935 at the second trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. As a result, under the influence of threats, she signed the investigator’s protocol, which he drew up.
Of all the participants in the trial, she was called to the courtroom and the verdict was read to them. She was sent to the Upper Ural prison. She told someone there that when I was in the investigative prison, I said a lot, and because of me, my friends, who were innocent, were arrested. These words spread to the prison and G.P.U. called her to Moscow, threatened her with death if she continued to behave, then she was sent to our prison, put in solitary confinement (No. 153). She was completely alone - she didn’t see anyone. Her relatives knew that she had been shot, her friends, Nadezhda Borisovna Barut, Nina Aleksandrovna, were in the south of the prison, and she was in the west. I corresponded with her, her friends forgave her, and when I was free, I went to my parents and told them that Mukhanov was alive. The unfortunate woman could not bear it alone, and hysterical screams and laughter began, then she was removed (in 1937). You ask how I knew your approximate address. Avva told me, I didn’t ask him how he knew. I am allowed by the Manager. General Security Print and write my memories. A famous and tragic day in Yarosl.
prison: January 13, 1937 The prison was transferred to the new regime of Yezhov’s regime. The windows were blocked with bricks, and shields were placed on the outside of the windows. Sending is prohibited, correspondence is only with the permission of Moscow. They didn’t give me any books at all, only one book from the library once a month. Punishments and punishment cells. They didn't give me a newspaper. On January 17, a hunger strike was announced, the following took part: 2 Socialist-Revolutionaries - Ber and another (forgot the name) Trotskyists: Lodokha, Satonievich, Chekan, Pekar, Rubinstein, Sizov, Maria Korob. Social democrats: Shub, Rakov, Martov (Martov’s nephew) and 4 more people (forgot the name) aiarchists, dashnaks... more than 30 people in total. On the eighth day of the hunger strike, they were fed artificially. They shouted in the cells “Stalin’s prison is cleaner than the fascist one” and “Down with the tyranny of the security officers”... Eser Ber wrote an insulting letter to Moscow: The General Executioner of the Soviet Union - to Yezhov. For this letter he was put in a punishment cell for 20 days. Maria Matkovskaya is Molotov’s stenographer; her skirt was torn during the search. Do you know why she was imprisoned? The wife of People's Commissar Lyubimov was invited to a banquet in the Kremlin.
At the banquet there were: she, Stalin’s wife Alliluyeva, Voroshilov and their circle. We started drinking. Stalin began to hug and insult his wife in front of everyone, then Alliluyeva freed herself from the room and went to the next room, took a revolver and committed suicide. Lyubimova herself told the stenographer, and she told the dentist; the doctor turned out to be an agent. For distributing such things, Matkovskaya was given 5 years. After five years they gave me another 5. The hunger strike in prison ended, as one might assume, without results, they went on hunger strike for more than 70 days (Baker) with artificial feeding. One Armenian was going wildly crazy. General Serebryannikov (Ava’s friend in prison) was not one of the starving people, but he also went crazy. On the third day, one Zionist died from a hunger strike (he was generally sick - scurvy). On April 26, 1937, new rules were hanged, I, that is, we knew all the prisoners almost by heart, and my friend Fredik - his mother now lives in Latvia (I correspond with her). These rules, what was allowed in these rules, was not allowed by the boss, the boss had additional instructions.
“I affirm. Yezhov General Commissioner of State Security N.K.V.D. S.S.S.R.
Internal regulations in State Security prisons N.K.V.D. S.S.S.R. for convicts
§ 1 – comply with all demands of prison supervisors.
§ 2 – prisoners must stand up during the tour of the commanding staff’s cells.
§ 3 – prisoners must treat prison officials politely. supervising Prisoners must go to the bathhouse.
§ 4 – dishes are washed in the chamber; wash the floor in the cell and in the restroom, maintain cleanliness; disinfect the bucket in the restroom 2 times a day - during the morning and evening cleaning.
II. Prisoners are allowed:
§ 5 – (with the permission of the boss) take a daily walk for no more than one hour a day. The time and duration of the walk is determined by the boss himself.
§ 6 – (with the permission of the warden) use the prison library.
§ 7 – receive money monthly (with the permission of the boss) from close relatives (no more than 50 rubles per month).
§ 8 – (with the permission of the warden) prisoners may correspond with close relatives. (For letters, pencil and papers are provided on certain days. Unused papers are returned to prisoners).
§ 9 – Prisoners can write a statement on certain days addressed to the head of the prison: head of the prison department N.K.V.D.; Deputy People's Commissars, People's Commissar, Prosecutor, 11 highest party and Soviet bodies.
§ 10 (with the permission of the warden) prisoners can prescribe products specified by the warden.
III. Prisoners are prohibited from:
§ 13 – keep any items in the cell (except for a toothbrush, powder, soap and things issued by the prison administration).
§ 14 – talk to prisoners in other cells.
§ 15 – talk in a loud voice in the cell, come closer to the door, open the window.
§ 16 – when walking along the corridor, break absolute silence.
§ 17 – by some means to knock or correspond with prisoners in other cells.
§ 19 – violate the established order while walking, in the bathhouse, or in the restroom.
In case of violation of internal regulations, the head of the prison has the right to apply the following penalties:
a) without correspondence from 1 month to 3 months.
b) no walks for up to five days.
c) without books for one month.
e) for five days in a punishment cell.
Regarding malicious prisoners:
a) without correspondence for 6 months.
b) without walking for 15 days.
d) without books for 3 months.
Transfer to a worse prison, and the prisoner who committed a malicious violation of the rules of V.R. is brought to trial.
Senior Major State security, head of the prison department T.U.T.B. N.K.V.D. S.S.S.R. Weinstock."
The boss had these rules - “Additional Instructions”. For example, no one was in our cell without punishment. At night, because Ava covered his head with a blanket, he received five days in solitary confinement. One book was given every 2 months for 6 people. The walk was 20 minutes, and not every day the boss had the right to allow or not to allow. I spent 36 days in a punishment cell. 'I have developed tumors on my neck - you can see from the photograph I took after my release from prison. I received 100 francs from Mr. Yazykov, for which let me express my gratitude to you. The Tsar's Messenger asked me to send my memoirs. I won't send it. I don’t know if there will be any help from America. Here I am asked to write translated articles about Russian classical literature (about poetry, about art, individual artists, about Russian critics). But, unfortunately, I can’t get such Russian books here. Savodnik found one book “on the history of Russian literature” - 10 lire - almost 400 francs.
If there was a collection about the work of Russian writers and artists with biographical sketches, you could make some money. In addition, I am a beekeeper, but I do not have a diploma. If there were French magazines on beekeeping, I would translate some interesting things for Turkish beekeeping. The difficulties are great. I really don’t know what to do. Please forgive me for such long letters, because I am bothering you too much. How is your health? Oh, how joyful it would be for Abba to know that you, that is, I, fulfilled his wishes, but the poor man has recently suffered greatly from diarrhea. Black bread and cod (fish) soup spoiled his health greatly. In 1935 he was 70 years old. I have many addresses of prisoners; their relatives live in different countries. The duty of conscience requires me to write to them too - and I write. I often wonder how miraculously I escaped from there. Every day I thank the Lord God for His mercy towards me, a great sinner. I also had one brother friend, like you, Ava - Alfred Aderkas. He is still suffering. His spiritual father is Abba. I will think and grieve about him until I die. God, there were so many good people in prison.
In Russia, when I was free, I couldn’t make friends with anyone. Although my position is not important, I am still far from there, there are people who feel a thousand times worse than me and suffer. Yes, God will not leave them. I wish you health, vigor and strength. I pray for your health, only God would accept my prayers. May our Lord God protect you all.
Letter from E.V. Aderkas to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
The other day I received a letter from Constantinople from Ahmet Ihsan. He wrote to you and asks me, for my part, to write to you so that you treat his letters with greater confidence.
I fulfill his request and address you with the following lines, although I am fully aware that you have every right to treat my letter with distrust.
Ahmet Iksan is my son Alfred's best friend; they lived together for more than 8 years in Yaroslavl; Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov, my son’s spiritual father and comforter, was also there with them. They loved each other very much and helped each other in any way they could. My son Alfred wrote to me about all this more than once.
Unfortunately, I can’t tell you anything more.
Emanuel Viktorovich Aderkas, who sincerely respects you and is ready to serve you.
My address: Lettouik, Saiga. Skriveri post. Rasa Spunde E. Aderkas.
From the Archive of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, kept in the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (provided by A.P. Kozyrev). The letters retain the features of the original.
10. Information on the case of prisoner M.A. Novoselov dated January 14, 1938
Novoselov M.A. born 1864 being hostile to the Soviet Power and to the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Government and the activities carried out by them, he systematically carried out counter-revolutionary propaganda among those around him, for which a Special Meeting at the Collegium b. OGPU May 17, 1929 under Art. 58–10 4.1 Criminal Code of the RSFSR sentenced to 3 years. September 13, 1931 New settlers by the OGPU Collegium for crimes under Art. 58–11 U.K. was sentenced for the second time to imprisonment for 8 years. On February 7, 1937, Novoselov was sentenced for the third time to imprisonment for 3 years by a Special Meeting at the Collegium of the NKVD of the USSR for counter-revolutionary activities.
Novoselov arrived at the Vologda prison on June 29, 1937. While in cell No. 46, he systematically distributed slanderous information among his fellow prisoners. VKPb and the Soviet Government with the aim of causing discontent and organized actions against established prison rules and struggle in prison conditions.
Meeting of the 3rd committee on the case of Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov January 17, 1938 Shoot.
From Case No. I-7377, vol. 2 and vol. 8. Revised 12/24–26/95 in St. Petersburg.
(Provided by the daughter of Father Theodore Andreev, Anna Fedorovna Mozhanskaya.)
It would be worth explaining in what sense the word “name” is used here, whether in the sense of the revelation of God, or in our naming of God.
The words “the name of God” is holy in itself (or in itself) only means that it is holy by nature, regardless of whether it is holy by people or not, but not at all that it is holy regardless of God, the essence of God.
It must be said, however, that in the sense of the revelation of God, the expression “name of God” is used only in biblical language and, moreover, in rare cases, but even in these cases the word “name” does not mean objectively, like “(δόξα).” the side of revelation, not action, not God’s “revelation” of truth to man, but the subjective side, these very truths as they are assimilated by man. Therefore, to insist without any reservations on the correctness of the expression “the name of God is Divinity or Divinity,” an expression not found either in Holy Scripture or in patristic writing, although this does not mean falling into heresy, in any case, it means using words not in the meaning in which they are used by everyone, and through this leading into temptation people who are not familiar with such a peculiar and. essentially incorrect terminology, and create a not unfounded suspicion that the name-glorifiers agree with the understanding of the word “name” in the sense of revelation only for appearances, but in fact, when they say that “the name of God is God,” by name they also mean the pronunciation of the name of God.
Since the name, as the energy of God, is different from the essence of God and is not the essence itself, but only the action of the essence of God, it cannot be said that it is divine in essence, for one cannot speak “essentially” about something that in itself has no essence. But one cannot say that it is divine by grace, for the revelation of God is the same energy of God as grace. In other words, the definitions “essentially” and “by grace” are not applicable here, for the revelation of God is neither the being of God nor the object of the action of the being of God, but the action of God itself.
The concepts of “God-revealed truth” and “church dogma” cannot be recognized as equivalent, because by dogma we mean revealed truth, expressed in a form of human words that is inadequate to it. Therefore, dogmas are only a symbol of the revealed truth in which we believe, a “symbol of faith.” Therefore, the addition of “and church dogma” is unacceptable here.
Both of these expressions belong to St. Gregory Palamas.
Nothing of the sort is expressed here.