Speech by Archimandrite Hilarion in defense of the restoration of the patriarchate, November 18, 1917.

I consider it unnecessary to dwell in detail on the structure of church authority proposed by Professor P.P. Kudryavtsev: this would be an anti-church administration, it would contradict all the norms of church life, the traditions of all centuries. But I want to dwell on the amendments made by N.D. Kuznetsov and A.I. Pokrovsky. Apparently, there is nothing new in these amendments: and A.I. Pokrovsky and N.D. Kuznetsov is equally recognized by the Synod and the Council. But at the same time, it is desirable for them to put the patriarch in third place and read the article like this: “The Supreme Church Administration belongs to the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council, headed by the All-Russian Patriarch.” It seems to me that such an amendment is completely impossible to accept. They say that we want to give power to the Patriarch, but what can we do if there are 6 rights? I Universe Sob. and 8 rights. II Omni. Sob., does the first hierarch have influence on all areas of church life? That is why in our country, according to the accepted position, the Patriarch heads the Church Administration. This management goes back to the Patriarch, which is the idea already enshrined in the resolutions of the Council. That is why in our country, according to the accepted position, the Patriarch heads the Church Administration. This management goes back to the Patriarch, which is the idea already enshrined in the resolutions of the Council. That is why it is not enough to say that the Patriarch heads the Holy Synod and Council: no, the entire Church Administration goes back to him as the head. It is assumed that we have two governing bodies, which go back to their original source - the Patriarch. Cases go back to the Patriarch, as a certain head of the Church. We have the 4th point of the general provisions on the restoration of the patriarchate, adopted by the Council. This clause states that the Patriarch is accountable to the Council. If the Patriarch is a complete nothing, then why talk about accountability? The report can only be asked from someone who is vested with known authority. If it is said that the Patriarch is responsible, it means that he has rights. On the other hand, A.I. Pokrovsky took upon himself the responsibility of carrying out reconnaissance everywhere and finding counter-revolution everywhere. If we accept that the highest power in the Church belongs to the Council, which will determine the canonical position of the Patriarch, then we cannot talk about any malicious intent against the Council: no one is encroaching on the Council. For me, the amendment is understandable from a psychological point of view; for me, it is important who the amendment comes from: from N.D. Kuznetsov and A.I. Pokrovsky. Both of them declared themselves ardent opponents of the patriarchate. I believe that they hate the patriarchate, and therefore they want to put the Patriarch in third place. If we have established the patriarchate and in two days we will elevate to the throne the one whom God has shown us, then we love him and are not at all embarrassed to elevate him to the first place.