Activities of the Hieromartyr Archbishop Hilarion (Trinity) in 1923

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) 1 was the closest associate of Patriarch Tikhon. The role of Saint Hilarion in the fight against the Renovationist schism was especially significant. The Bolshevik authorities feared this bright and authoritative bishop, so they sought to remove him from Moscow. So in 1922 he was exiled to the Arkhangelsk region for a year and returned to Moscow only at the beginning of July 1923. In the few months spent in Moscow before his arrest on November 15, 1923, the saint managed to do a lot. This article is dedicated to this short period of the life of St. Hilarion. Immediately after his arrival, he began active anti-renewal activities. So on July 5, 1923, he re-consecrated the church of the Sretensky Monastery, which was occupied by renovationists - supporters of Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) and “delivered a sermon in which he appealed to the priesthood who had joined the renovationist groups so that they would repent publicly in the church, otherwise he would not allow them to serve at the altar. The clergy present publicly repented, and Hilarion sanctified the church from the desecration of heretics,” 2 and on July 6, he took part in a service in the same monastery together with Patriarch Tikhon and delivered a bright speech directed against the renovationists, which quite excited the latter. Thus, Krasnitsky, in his letter to the GPU dated July 9, wrote: “I earnestly ask you to pay attention to the extremely provocative, counter-revolutionary activities of Tikhonov’s essence (as in the text - D.S.) Hilarion, preaching in the Sretensky Monastery on 6/VII, he made such a pogrom speech... in the crowd, in the fence and on the street, physical interpretations were made and the matter ended with arrests. Over the past 10 days, Tikhon’s followers have become extremely insolent, they behave defiantly and are ready to move on to beatings - and this mood, definitely pogrom and clearly anti-Soviet, is created by him, Bishop Hilarion. If a limit is not put on his clearly counter-revolutionary activities, then social unrest and the beating of renovationist churchmen will be inevitable.” 3 On the same day, Krasnitsky sent a second letter to the GPU, in which he reported that in the apartment where “three Tikhonov’s bishops live - Hilarion, Philip 4 and Nicholas 5 ... late at night, around 2 o’clock, regular secret meetings take place ... a very warm counter-revolutionary nest has gathered there.” 6 This is how one of the GPU agents who observed him characterized Archbishop Hilarion: “Hillarion enjoys enormous popularity among believers and is loved for his sermons, imbued with the purest Tikhonism.” 7 The archbishop always accompanied the patriarch at his services and delivered vivid sermons; in addition, along with the patriarch, he received clergy almost every day. It was to him, as they said in the church environment, that the patriarch sent everyone who came to him to bring repentance for going into renovationism 8 . The activities of the archbishop immediately aroused concern among the GPU; already on July 17, he was summoned, as stated in the report of a GPU employee, “regarding the reading of the proclamation 15/VII in the Church of the Resurrection Kadashi” 9 . Particularly famous were the public debates with the renovationists, which were conducted by Archbishop Hilarion. The GPU closely monitored these activities of Hilarion, as evidenced by the reports of GPU workers who observed him. From these reports we know the content of these public speeches by Archbishop Hilarion. On August 17, 1923, a public speech by Archbishop Hilarion took place at the Polytechnic Museum, in which he condemned all Renovation groups as schismatic and anti-canonical, in addition, he condemned the decision of the Renovation Council of 1923 to defrock Patriarch Tikhon. 10 The next speech of Archbishop Hilarion known to us took place on September 4, 1923, its theme was the Renovation Council of 1923. In his speech, he consistently and methodically showed the anti-church and non-canonical nature of the council, in particular, pointing out a number of forgeries carried out by the renovationists: the appropriation of patriarchal powers by a group of Living Church members in May 1922; “a forgery of public opinion—the printing of victorious reports about supposedly universal renovationism”; he pointed out that supporters of Patriarch Tikhon were not allowed to attend the council, and that the married episcopate was present at it. The archbishop pointed out the complete uncanonical nature of defrocking the patriarch, who was not even sent a summons to the council; the council “sanctioned all crimes against the church committed at different times by representatives of the Living Church and other renovationists” 11 . Hilarion’s last public appearance took place on October 13, 1923, during a debate with A. Vvedensky on the topic “Enemies of the Church.” In his speech, the archbishop pointed out the close connection between the authorities and the renovationists. About the patriarch, he said that the latter was not a counter-revolutionary and did not oppose the confiscation of church values, and emphasized that the patriarch’s supporters were never enemies of the Church, “and if we are enemies, then not of the church, but of the schismatic-renovationist church, which is why we consecrate cathedrals after the renovationists.” Concluding his speech, the archbishop emphasized that Patriarch Tikhon would never compromise with the renovationists. 12 Vvedensky suffered a complete defeat in this debate. It is also necessary to point out the erroneous opinion of Rev. V.P. Vinogradov, 13 who, in his memoirs about Patriarch Tikhon, indicates that Hilarion was only a bishop and was never consecrated archbishop: “At the time of his last arrest, in the fall of 1923, the Right Reverend Hilarion was undoubtedly only a bishop.” 14 This opinion is refuted by many sources, primarily the materials of the investigative case of Archbishop Hilarion, where during interrogations and arrest in the fall of 1923 he was named archbishop in the arrestee’s questionnaire, 15 the resolution on prosecution, the arrest warrant, 16 in addition, he was named archbishop in his joint with Archbishop Seraphim (Alexandrov) and Archbishop Tikhon (Obolensky) in a letter to the renovationist Evdokim (Meshcheryakov) 17, in Tuchkov’s reports 18, and in a petition for his release, which was written by Patriarch Tikhon 19, as well as in a number of other documents. The period from the release of the patriarch until approximately November 1923 is characterized as a period of relative weakening of state pressure on the Church, frequent services of the patriarch in Moscow and Moscow region churches, as a period of weakening repression and a significant weakening of the renovationist movement. However, the authorities did not abandon their attempts to discredit Patriarch Tikhon and his entourage and support the renovationist movement. Taking advantage of the fact that the Patriarchal Church did not have legalization, the GPU tried, in order to undermine the authority of the patriarch, to force him to make decisions and implement measures that could compromise him in the eyes of believers. As an eyewitness to the events, Fr. V. Vinogradov “The Soviet government did not want to come to terms with the fact of the revival and strengthening of the patriarchal power of Patriarch Tikhon, and therefore began, in the person of the head of the church department of the central GPU - Tuchkov, hidden behind-the-scenes, but continuous subversive work, with the goal of blowing up the patriarchal authority and patriarchal government from the inside. Tuchkov’s attitude towards the Patriarchal Administration was something like a cat and mouse game.” 20 Tuchkov presented demands to the patriarch in the form of an ultimatum, “the implementation of which was tantamount to acts of self-collapse, self-destruction.” 21 Tuchkov promised the legalization of church governing bodies if his demands were met and threatened reprisals in case of refusal. One of Tuchkov’s demands was negotiations and reconciliation with the renovationists. Particular attention should be paid to the role played by Archbishop Hilarion in the “negotiations” with the renovationists in August-October 1923. In the literature devoted to this topic, Saint Hilarion is usually portrayed as a supporter of a compromise with the Renovationists. But does this point of view correspond to reality? In the summer of 1923, the Holy Synod was formed, headed by the self-appointed Metropolitan Evdokim (Meshchersky). 22 As Tuchkov wrote in his reports, Evdokim was provided with comprehensive support by the GPU so that he could attract old-style bishops and prominent priests to his side. In particular, Tuchkov pointed out: “Of course, Evdokim’s attraction of such bishops and priests without our tacit assistance would have been zero, but thanks to all the same information, the influx turned out to be very impressive, for example, to date, the synod of bishops alone has more than 200 people.” 23 With such active support from the GPU, the Evdokimov Synod was able to strengthen itself in a certain way and, at the direction of the GPU, tried to begin negotiations, which from the very beginning were intended as a provocation. The idea of ​​the GPU was to organize a meeting between Evdokim and the “Tikhon’s” bishops, then to compromise the latter by presenting them as supporters of the patriarch’s abdication and reconciliation with the renovationists on their terms. For this purpose, the possibilities of newspapers and the fact that the “Tikhon’s” bishops did not have the opportunity to refute the slander of the renovationists were used. Unfortunately, this provocation was largely successful. Indeed, on August 26, 1923, a meeting was held between representatives of the Patriarch, Archbishops Seraphim (Alexandrov) 24, Hilarion (Troitsky) and Tikhon (Obolensky). 25 In the investigative file there is an interesting document that was not known to researchers and which helps to shed true light on the history of negotiations with the Evdokimovites. This is a copy of a letter from the three above-mentioned bishops to “Metropolitan” Evdokim, dated November 10, 1923, and telling the history of these negotiations. From this letter it follows that, having received an invitation from Evdokim with the blessing of the patriarch, these three bishops on August 26, 1923 “conducted only preliminary negotiations to familiarize themselves with your proposals, which we were then obliged to submit to the discretion of the saint.” Patriarch Tikhon and for discussion by Orthodox bishops" 26. Further, the bishops add: “It is quite clear that we could not accept any conditions in the form of resolutions before clarifying the views of ... the bishops, having no right and no authority to do so. At the same time, we declared in the most decisive form that we could not accept any resolutions. At our meeting on August 26, no resolutions were adopted and no resolutions were passed, no protocols were even drawn up or signed, your expressed wishes (about the abdication of the patriarch - D.S.) ... of course, did not oblige you to anything.” 27 Another eyewitness to the events, Archpriest, also describes the situation. V. Vinogradov, who also participated in this meeting: “Trying by all means to undermine the authority of the patriarch and his closest collaborators in the eyes of the people, he... notified the patriarch, then he, deeply grieving over the church division that had taken place, continued to sincerely honor the patriarch... wants to negotiate reconciliation... with the patriarch. But at this meeting, Archbishop. Evdokim, to the amazement of the patriarchal delegation, did not talk at all about “reconciliation” between him and the renovationists with the patriarch, but about the fact that the patriarch, for the sake of peace and the good of the Church, must renounce power and that all members of the patriarchal delegation must make a proposal to the patriarch in this sense. The delegation, after listening to the long speech of the archbishop. Evdokima, with difficulty suppressing her indignation, replied that she was entrusted with negotiating the reconciliation of Evdokim and the renovationists with the patriarch, but she had no authority and could not discuss the issue of the patriarch’s abdication.” 28 Patriarch, as reported by Archpriest. V. Vinogradov reacted as follows: “So I assumed deception; one could not expect anything else from Evdokim.” 29 Then the actions planned by Tuchkov and Evdokim began to be implemented. This is how the bishops write about this in the said letter: “On that very day of August 29 (emphasis added by me - D.S.), when we proposed the proposals you made for discussion at the council of 27 bishops, you wrote to the Ryazan church administration: “Complete disintegration and confusion began in Donskoy, Tikhon has already sent three deputies to us with a request for a truce and reconciliation. At the joint meeting, even his supporters passed a resolution “to resign all powers and await the judgment of the council of bishops.” The resolution was handed to Tikhon.” 30 A few days later, an interview with Evdokim appeared in the newspapers, in which he stated that now “even such close associates of the patriarch as Bishop Hilarion came to the conviction of the need, for the benefit of the Church, for the patriarch to renounce power and that they had already persuaded the patriarch to agree to this renunciation.” 31 No attempts by the bishops to publish a refutation in the press, of course, were unsuccessful, because this was not beneficial to the GPU. The flow of lies did not stop there. October 25, 1923 The newspaper Izvestia published an official statement from Evdokim addressed to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) with the following content: “B. Patriarch Tikhon was completely confused and, realizing this, submitted an application to the Holy Synod for reconciliation with the clergy and people who had deviated from him. The mixed commission, through the mouths of even his ardent defenders (Bishop Hilarion), gave him the following resolution: “to resign all powers and retire to a monastery and await the judgment of a council of bishops.” 32 The bishops in their letter to Evdokim indicated that all this was a lie. On October 19, the bishops again received an invitation to participate in the negotiations, signed not by Evdokim, which admitted that such messages from Evdokim were untrue, and it was reported that the “Evdokimov” synod no longer insisted on the removal of the patriarch. Finally, on October 26, Evdokim again sent a letter to the bishops, where he proposed to continue negotiations on his previous conditions: “a) removal of clause. Tikhon from administrative affairs b) removing him to live until the council in the Gethsemane monastery and c) transferring the final decision of the case to the council” 33. At the same time, Evdokim said that these conditions had allegedly previously been recognized as acceptable by the “Tikhon’s” bishops. 34 This caused extreme bewilderment of the latter: “We note with extreme bewilderment such a strange inconsistency of your synod and with great chagrin we meet the obviously false news you spread; we consider it our duty to declare that these facts are a serious obstacle to the cause of church peace. We believe that before any new negotiations, the damage caused to the cause of the church world by your news, which is contrary to the truth, must be corrected.” 35 The bishops asked in vain to publish refutations of these slanderous fabrications, as well as the messages published in Evdokimov’s “Bulletin of the Holy Synod” that the patriarch was allegedly “uniting social forces for a new political rebellion and explosion” and that he was connected with “terry Black Hundreds and White Guards.” However, of course, there were no denials. Moreover, from the pages of the “Bulletin of the Holy Synod” streams of slander against the patriarch continued to pour out. Thus, as it irrefutably follows from the letter of the named bishops to Evdokim and the testimony of Archpriest. V. Vinogradov, no negotiations were actually held between the Evdokimov Synod and the “Tikhonov” bishops. A single meeting took place on August 26, which ended in nothing and was limited to Evdokim’s speech demanding the patriarch’s abdication, which caused understandable indignation among the bishops, who left the meeting, subsequently reporting Evdokim’s demands to the patriarch and on August 29 to a meeting of 27 bishops for information. This was followed by the indicated publications of Evdokim’s false fabrications, who, of course, was guided by the instructions of E.A. Tuchkova. Already in 1927, in the “Bulletin of the Holy Synod” 36 there appeared a story by Bishop Gervasius (Malinin), who had deviated from the Renovationist schism, 37 where he talks about a meeting of 27 bishops that allegedly took place at the end of September 1923 in the Donskoy Monastery, in which he allegedly took part. The following words are attributed to Archbishop Hilarion here: “...there is no other way out but one thing - to approach the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, to come to an agreement with the renovationists without violating the canonical foundations of the Orthodox Russian Church. Our entire division is based on dissatisfaction among some hierarchs and Orthodox laity with the personality of Patriarch Tikhon.” Archbishops Hilarion (Troitsky) and Seraphim (Alexandrov) are depicted here as supporters of a compromise with the renovationists. The following words are attributed to the patriarch himself: “I’m tired of you, brothers, take a broom and drive me away” 38, and the opinion is expressed that the patriarch was ready to leave the management of the Church. In conclusion, it is said that the project of reconciliation and unification with the renovationists was defeated by a majority vote and the meeting was closed. As shown above, the meeting of bishops took place on August 29 and could not have taken place at the end of September, when numerous publications of Evdokim’s false fabrications appeared. As follows from the letter of the bishops to Evdokim, no meetings or negotiations were held after August 26, and Bishop Gervasius could hardly have been present at the meeting on August 26, because he was consecrated bishop only on August 28. In addition, as follows from the reports available in the file of Archbishop Hilarion on the content of his public lectures, he was uncompromisingly disposed towards the Renovationists and his following words are quoted: “Tikhon will never back down and will not go with the Renovationists, and if he were to compromise, then he, Hilarion, would recoil from him.” 39 Another fact confirming the unreliability of Gervasius’ information is that from one of the reports on the 6th branch of the GPU it follows that on September 27 there were only 19 bishops in Moscow. 40 Thus, this publication is on a par with earlier publications of deliberately false information with the aim of denigrating the patriarch and his associates. This kind of unreliable information was repeated in the “Brief Information Report of the Anti-Religious Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b)” to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the work done, which was compiled between September 15 and 25, 1923. This document stated: “On the initiative of the Tikhonites, a secret meeting was held with the participation of Tikhonite bishops and two renovationists. It was decided that Tikhon needed to renounce and withdraw himself, and then unification would be possible. Tikhon was informed about this decision. He declared that he had no intention of renouncing the patriarchal title, that if his followers did not want to work with him, then let them go to the renovationists, and he would live without them, since the people loved him, would support him and provide for him.” 41 This information by E. Yaroslavsky was based on the mentioned renovationist publications, which he was inclined to trust. The incomparably more informed E. Tuchkov, on whose initiative the provocation with disinformation was started, not once in his numerous reports to the leadership, which were available to us in full and for the most part published, does not mention these negotiations, and even less so about the supporters of the patriarch’s abdication among his adherents. About the last circumstance, if it were reliable, Tuchkov, who is prone to exaggerating his merits, would not fail to point out. If it had been possible to achieve Archbishop Hilarion’s departure from the patriarch, this would have been a huge victory for Tuchkov, which he would certainly have reported, but nothing like that happened and could not happen, realizing this, the GPU arrested and exiled the archbishop in November 1923. This ARC report even contains information that Tikhon’s adherents “intend to introduce second marriage to the clergy” 42 and that “Tikhon’s supporters intend to carry out this measure through Tikhon himself.” This is completely false information. Not a single “Tikhonovite” bishop is known who would hold such views, and even more so the patriarch would never agree to this. Unfortunately, these renovationist fabrications about negotiations are often perceived uncritically even in modern scientific literature. For the first time, this point of view was supported by Levitin-Krasnov and Shavrov, 43 who fully shared this kind of views on the negotiations between the “Tikhonovites” and the Renovationists, and who cite the memoirs of Bishop Gervasius in their work “Essays on the History of Russian Church Troubles.” This point of view was partially accepted by modern researchers, even church ones. Thus, Levitin-Krasnov is quoted with full confidence by the church historian Archpriest. V. Tsypin, who in his works provides quoted information from Bishop Gervasius about active negotiations that allegedly took place 44. N.A. shares a similar point of view. Krivova 45 and other researchers. The above facts allow us to radically reconsider this established point of view. It also seems unreliable that Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky) allegedly said that Archbishop Hilarion “will destroy Patriarch Tikhon and the Church, and all salvation lies in the patriarch.” 46 These words are attributed to Archbishop Theodore by the same Bishop Gervasius. In September 1923, the position of the patriarch and his supporters stabilized even more. By September, an informal Synod was formed under the patriarch, which had powers personally from the patriarch. It included the above-mentioned archbishops Hilarion (Troitsky), Seraphim (Alexandrov) and Tikhon (Obolensky). As reported in the GPU reports on the 6th department, “from time to time, so-called episcopal councils are organized in the Donskoy Monastery, the number of participants of which reaches 10–12 bishops.” 47 In addition, the Moscow Diocesan Administration was formed under the chairmanship of Archpriest. V.P. Vinogradov, which also included lawyer Ivan Matveevich Glagolev and priest S.M. Sadkovsky During this period, the patriarch actively ordained new bishops (49 episcopal consecrations were performed in 1923) 48 and appointed them to vacant cathedras, however, due to opposition from the authorities, many of them were not able to move to their cathedral cities and they lived in Moscow. So August 1, 1923 Bishop John (Bratolyubov) was consecrated as vicar of the Tobolsk diocese, 49 September 13 - Bishop Gabriel (Krasnovsky) as Bishop of Klin, vicar of the Moscow diocese. 50 During this period, Archbishop Peter (Polyansky) returned from exile and was appointed Archbishop of Krutitsky. In October 1923, as follows from the GPU reports, the patriarch managed to gather up to 50 bishops in Moscow. Archbishop Hilarion’s active work in protecting the Church could not but cause irritation in the GPU, where they understood what irreparable damage he was causing to the renovation movement. Therefore, already on October 25, he was summoned to the GPU to see Yakimova, an employee of the 6th department, but was able to arrive only on October 27 due to his absence from Moscow. On October 27, he was interrogated at Lubyanka. The archbishop was accused of spreading rumors about the connection between the VCU and the GPU, and that “the VCU are agents of the GPU and informers,” that they tried to recruit him as an agent of the GPU and accused the Soviet government of “artificially creating disorder in the church by arresting people in charge of the church administration.” 51 On the same day, a decree was issued to bring Hilarion to justice under Articles 69 and 73 of the Criminal Code, 52, and he himself was released on his own recognizance. On October 29, an indictment was drawn up, in the preparation of which the intercepted correspondence of the archbishop was used, the conclusion stated in particular: “From the intercepted letters it is established that gr. Troitsky spread rumors about the connection of the VCU with the Soviet Power,” according to the GPU, in one of the letters the archbishop called socialism “the greatest abomination” and called the confiscation of church valuables an “unnecessary enterprise,” since the costs of carrying it out were not much less than the funds received; in addition, Krasnitsky’s information was taken into account that Hilarion convenes meetings of bishops at night, the archbishop was accused of having connections abroad. The last argument when passing the verdict was the following: “In addition, gr. Troitsky is an ardent supporter of Tikhon,” 53 and further said: “Taking into account all of the above, I believe gr. Troitsky is subject to administrative deportation for three years.” The archbishop was arrested on November 15 according to a warrant signed by the notorious Genrikh Yagoda, while his correspondence was confiscated, and on December 7 the NKVD Commission on Administrative Expulsions made the following decision: “Trinity should be imprisoned in a concentration camp for a period of three years.” 54 The saint was sent to the Solovetsky special purpose camp. In 1926, when the term of imprisonment expired, a new criminal case was opened against the saint. This time the saint was accused of “informing various people about his conversation that took place in the Yaroslavl detention center with the head of the 6th department of the Secret Department of the OGPU, Tuchkov, and gave it publicity, which aroused a hostile attitude towards the policies of the Soviet government among the population.” The point was that the saint made no secret of the fact that he sharply refused Tuchkov’s offer to become an informant for the OGPU. On October 14, 1929, a special meeting at the OGPU board sentenced the archbishop to three years of exile to Kazakhstan. During this period, the bishop fell ill with typhus and died in a prison hospital in Leningrad on December 28, 1929. Hilarion (Troitsky Vladimir Alekseevich), archbishop. Genus. in 1886. On July 5, 1913, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite, professor of the MDA. In 1919 he was arrested, from March 10 to June 7, 1919 he was in Butyrka prison in Moscow. On May 25, 1920, he was consecrated by Patriarch Tikhon as Bishop of Vereisky, vicar of the Moscow diocese. In 1921 he was involved in the Glavmuseum case. On March 20, 1922 he was arrested in Moscow, on June 20 he was sentenced to serve exile in Arkhangelsk for one year. At the end of June 1923 he was released and went to Moscow. (CA FSB D. R-43193 T.2.) CA FSB D. N-1780.T. 4. L.142. CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L.114. Philip (Gumilevsky Sergei Nikolaevich) (08/04/1877–09/22/1936) - archbishop. In 1920 he was consecrated bishop. Since 1922, Bishop of Balakhninsky, vicar of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese. Since 1923 in prison and exile. In 1925 he was in communication with the Old Believers. He brought repentance. In 1926–1927 in the link. Since 1927, Archbishop of Zvenigorod, vicar of the Moscow diocese, member of the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod. In 1931–1933 he was imprisoned. By resolution of the OSO under the NKVD dated September 21, 1936, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Died in prison. (Archive of the Federal Security Service for the city of Vladimir and the Vladimir region. D. P-8218). Nikolai (Dobronravov Nikolai Pavlovich) (11/21/1861 – 12/10/1937) archbishop. In 1918 he was arrested. In 1921 he was consecrated Bishop of Zvenigorod. Since 1923, Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal. On November 30, 1925, he was arrested in the case of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). I was in exile. In 1928 he was released and was retired in Moscow. In 1937 he was arrested in Moscow and on December 10, 1937 he was sentenced to death. Shot in Butovo near Moscow. (CA FSB D. R-25756, N-3677; Archive of the FSB for Moscow and the Moscow region. D. No. 19597; GARF F.8419. Op.1. D.5. LL.256, 258; D.255. L.184–187; F.8419. Op.1. D.169. L.150–153; D.192. L. 50–51.) CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L.139; D. N-1780. T.4. L.345. CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L.140-rev. Vinogradov Vasily Petrovich, protopresbyter. (03/23/1885–10/24/1968) Professor of the MDA, in 1922 he was ordained a priest by Patriarch Tikhon, 1918–1924 - member and chairman of the Diocesan Council in Moscow. Vinogradov V.P. prot. About some of the most important moments of the last period of the life and work of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon // Church Historical Bulletin. 1998. No. 1. P.10. CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L.144 CA FSB D.N-1780 T.4. L.358. Kremlin archives. T.2. P.419. GARF. F.5263. Op.1. D.55. L.67-rev. Vinogradov V. prot. Decree. op. P.15. Evdokim (Meshchersky Vasily Ivanovich) (04/01/1865 – 1935). – Archbishop, later the Renovationist “Metropolitan”. In 1903, rector of the MDA. 01/04/1904 consecrated bishop. 1914–1917 - Archbishop of Aleutian and North American. Member of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. Since 1918 - Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod. 16.06. 1922 switched to renovationism, one of the ideologists of renovationism. o2.11.1922 – 13.04.1924 renovationist “Metropolitan of Odessa”. From 13.04. 1924 to September 1924 renovationist “Metropolitan of Vyatka”. Since 1922, member of the renovationist All-Russian Central Council (from 05/08/1923 All-Russian Central Council). From 08.08.1923 Chairman of the Renovationist “Holy Synod”. Kremlin archives. T.2. P.404. Seraphim (Alexandrov Dmitry Alexandrovich) (10/19/1866 – 12/02/1937) – Metropolitan. 12/14/1914 consecrated Bishop of Kustanai, vicar of the Orenburg diocese. 03/24/1916 – Bishop of Chelyabinsk, vicar of the Orenburg diocese. 1917-v.u. Ekaterinburg diocese. From April 1, 1918 - Bishop of Polotsk and Vitebsk. From 04/22/1918 - Bishop of Staritsky, vicar of the Tver diocese. From November 29, 1919 - Bishop of Tver and Kashinsky. 1920 – arrested in Tver on charges of counter-revolutionary activities. Soon released. Summoned to Moscow as a member of the Synod. The GPU ordered him not to leave Moscow. 04/04/1921 - arrested in Moscow. Released. in 1922 he was elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Tver. 04/04/1922 – arrested in Moscow in the “case of resistance to the seizure of church valuables.” In the spring (?) 1923 he was released. From 08.1923 - Archbishop of Tver and Rzhev. On March 24, 1924 he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. 12/15/1925 – arrested in Moscow in the case of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). From 11.1926 to 05.1927 in exile in Sverdlovsk. Released in May 1927. Included in the Temporary Patriarchal Holy Synod under the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. From July 15, 1928 – Metropolitan of Saratov. From 08/11/1933 – Metropolitan of Kazan and Sviyazhsk. Arrested in 1937. Shot. (CA FSB D. N-3677; Archive of the FSB Directorate for the city of Tver D. No. 9464; Archive of the FSB Directorate for the city of Kokchetav D. No. 1825). Tikhon (Ivan Ivanovich Obolensky) (05/25/1856 – 05/1926) – metropolitan. In 1901 he was consecrated bishop. Member of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. Since 1918, Archbishop of the Urals and Nikolaev. In 1922 he was expelled from Moscow without the right to enter. In 1924 he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. Since May 1924 - member of the Holy Synod and the All-Russian Central Council. CA FSB D. N-1780. T.4. L.357. Vinogradov V. prot. Decree. op. P.11. Vinogradov V. prot. Decree. op. P.12. CA FSB D. N-1780. T.4. L.357ob. Bulletin of the Holy Synod. 1927. No. 4. P.23. Gervasy (Malinin) 08/28/1923 consecrated Bishop of Arkhgir, vicar of the Stavropol diocese; from 10/7/1923 Bishop of Rybinsk, vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese; 07/14/1925 Bishop of Rostov and Uglich; from 07/30/1925 in the renovationist schism; On April 3, 1932, he publicly renounced the Church. Quote by: Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. (Materials on the history of the Church. Book 9.) M., 1996. P.351. CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L.142. CA FSB D. N-1780. T.4. L.348. Kremlin archives. T.1. P.423. Levitin-Krasnov A. Shavrov V. Decree. op. pp.348–352. Tsypin V. Prot. Russian Church. 1917–1925. M.: 1996. P.258–260. AKA: History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1917–1990. M., 1994. pp.64–65; It's him. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 1917–1997. M., 1997. pp. 104–105. Krivova N.A. Power and the Church in 1922–1925. The Politburo and the GPU in the struggle for church values ​​and the political subordination of the clergy. M.: "Airo-XX", 1997. pp. 197–198. Quoted from: Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Op. P.351. Tsypin V. Prot. Russian Church. 1917–1925 P.274. Those who suffered for Christ. Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1956. Biographical reference book. Book 1. A-K. (Series: Materials on the modern history of the Russian Orthodox Church). M.: PSTBI, 1997. P.504. CA FSB D. R-43193. T.2. L. 144–145.