The activities of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) at the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918.

December 28, 1999 marked the 70th anniversary of the death of the recently canonized Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) of Vereya. Combining the gifts of an outstanding scientist, a brilliant publicist, and a golden-mouthed preacher, he was as if hewn from one block of adamantine rock. The numerous facets of the personality of this new Russian martyr were a manifestation of one idea and one feeling - the idea of ​​the Church and the feeling of churchliness. The constant sensation with a trembling heart of the depths of Her existence imprinted the personality of Vladika Hilarion as if with a complete and all-consuming “ecclesiology”. This main and essential feature of the saint’s personality was most clearly manifested during the work of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1918. Long before the opening of the Council, the young theologian emerged as one of the brightest supporters of the restoration of the canonical system in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church: the restoration of conciliarity and patriarchy. On the occasion of the celebration of the tercentenary of the House of Romanov, in the anniversary collection “Russia in its past and present,” Archimandrite Hilarion publishes (an almost inaccessible and currently little-known article) “Historical sketch of the existence of the Orthodox Church in Russia from 1613 to the present,” which ends with a historical note: “The Holy Synod in March 1905 addressed the Sovereign Emperor with “the most submissive report on the need to restore the patriarchate and convene a council of the local Russian Church,” the report was accompanied by an address from the Orthodox Russian hierarchs, which said: “The Church of God is strong in its entire strength only when it preserves the entire structure given to it by God, conducive to the increase of good on earth and the eternal salvation of people. It is not based on human laws, but lives by the guidance of the Divine Spirit. The highest manifestation of her life is the mutual love of Christians, which has as its necessary expression ecumenical and local councils, among which Christ is invisibly present according to His false promise. The urgent need of the Russian Church lies in the restoration of such a conciliar principle, which is no longer active, for in it lies its creative power and highest moral dignity, and the patriarchs and metropolitans who govern local churches, thinking of themselves as servants of all, according to the word of God, are trying to ensure that the normal course of church life continues in strict accordance with the conciliar decrees.” As is known, the Emperor promised to convene the Council at a favorable time, and Archimandrite Hilarion ends his essay with words of hope: “This highest resolution with the promise to convene a church council, which has not been in Russia for more than two centuries, to restore the canonical system in church administration opens up the possibility of a new era in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church, when it will acquire the former freedom and independence in the Orthodox Russian kingdom, but this era has not yet arrived.” But “it took a spontaneous coup, the overthrow of the royal throne itself, so that the favorable time would come for the Orthodox Church to convene a council, which it had been deprived of for 235 years,” wrote Archimandrite Hilarion on the occasion of the opening of the Council. In the same article, he wrote about his feelings on the eve of the start of work: “The composition of the Council is as varied and diverse as the hundred-million-strong Russian Orthodox Church itself... And it was joyful to see this diverse mass of cathedral members, and at the same time eerie and fearful. It is joyful because the dream of many generations of Russian Orthodox people about the return to the Church of canonical conciliar government, which has been so brazenly desecrated since the time of Peter, has finally come true. It is scary because there have been no councils for so long, so many misunderstandings, mutual misunderstandings, and sometimes enmity and ill will have accumulated in the church body. These people are so diverse, so far from each other, so unaccustomed to each other - will they be able to unite in common love and like-mindedness, understand each other, appreciate each other, forgive each other’s past for the sake of a better future? All these troubling questions constantly agitated my thoughts and created a restless state of mind.” He ends the article with the sad remark: “Only in September did the Council begin its activities, which can be discussed later. But we cannot keep silent about one more impression at the opening of the cathedral. The civil government was away from the cathedral...” From the first days of the Council’s work, Archimandrite Hilarion was actively involved in its work. Let us note that he was one of the few members of the Council who did not miss almost a single meeting (misses of several meetings were caused either by emergency circumstances or short-term illness). Prince I. S. Vasilchikov (a member of the Council) recalled: “The professors of the Academies were interesting in their reports, but sometimes they were talkative. One of the most significant and talented participants in the Council, the still young inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy Hilarion, also belonged to their group. With his speeches, always smart and beautifully presented, and with his entire appearance, he very soon gained general sympathy at the Council.” Archimandrite Hilarion's speeches were not frequent at plenary sessions of the Council. Archimandrite Hilarion concentrates his main activities during the work of the Council in four Departments: “Department on the Higher Church Administration”, as well as in the “Department on the revision of the statutes of the present Council and on the statutes of the future Council”, “Department on common faith and Old Believers” and in the “Department on the Statutes of Theological Academies”. Work in the department on the Higher Church Administration occupied almost the entire first session of the Council and half of the second - from September 2, 1917 to March 23, 1918, in total there were 49 meetings of the Department, chaired by Archbishop of Astrakhan Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky). It was the organization of the Supreme Church Administration headed by the Patriarch that, as history has shown, was the main act of the Council. Archimandrite Hilarion spoke at the Council as one of the brightest exponents of the idea of ​​​​restoring the patriarchate. His speech “Why is it necessary to restore the patriarchate?” has become a textbook. It was immediately appreciated by the members of the Council themselves, turning to the Cathedral Council with the following statement: “We, the undersigned, ask the Cathedral Council to make an order for the immediate printing in as many copies as possible and distribution of Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech on the restoration of the patriarchate, delivered at the meeting of the Church Council on October 23, in view of its outstanding significance in ecclesiastical terms.” The statement was signed by 35 members of the Council. Not a single speech delivered at the Council had such an assessment by the council members themselves. According to Rev. O. Nikolai Kontsevich, a member of the Council, after the end of Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech, applause was heard for the only time at the Council. Even obvious opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate called this speech talented and brilliant. Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech was delivered after the speech of Archpriest Nikolai Dobronravov: “Why do we need a Patriarch?”, which was considered the best speech among opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate. Many believed that thanks to the speech of Archimandrite Hilarion, the debate about the restoration of the patriarchate ceased. October 28, 1917 The Council makes a historic decision to restore the patriarchate. It was necessary to announce the election and naming of the All-Russian Patriarch to the Orthodox population in a special message on behalf of the Council; for this, a cathedral commission was elected headed by Archbishop Anastasius (Gribanovsky), which included Archimandrite Hilarion. Among the 25 contenders for the patriarchal throne, the name of the young archimandrite was also named. He was the youngest on the list. Archimandrite Hilarion received four votes. Let us make a small digression and say that the relationship between Archimandrite Hilarion and His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon began even before the opening of the Council, first at the congress for the election of the Moscow Metropolitan, and then at two monastic congresses held in the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra in July 1917. These relations were of a patrilineal and filial nature, which is why the enemies of the Church, the Renovationists, tried Tuchkov, to spread slanderous statements that allegedly Vladyka Hilarion in 1923 was one of the supporters of the Patriarch’s abdication of the throne (according to Archpriest V. Vinogradov, it was Vladyka Hilarion who was the main banner and spokesman for the patriarchate at that time). Unfortunately, these insinuations are repeated by some modern historians. It is the faithfulness of St. Patriarch Tikhon (and then his successor, Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter) and became the main reason first for the arrest and then for the illegal detention of Archbishop Hilarion in the Solovetsky camp for six years, and then for his death in the Leningrad “Crosses.” St. Patriarch Tikhon made repeated attempts to alleviate the fate of the saint arrested and exiled to Solovki, but Tuchkov, well understanding the importance of the archbishop for the Russian Church, invariably refused. Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech in defense of the patriarchate at the Council is quite well covered in the literature, as are other speeches already published in print, so we will focus on archival materials that are still unknown. Speeches at meetings of the Department on Higher Church Administration are of significant interest. When discussing the reports submitted by the Department to the plenary sessions of the Council, the amendments and proposals of Archimandrite Hilarion, as a rule, passed by a majority vote. The discussion that took place at the Council regarding the Supreme Bodies of Church Government is covered in shorthand in the Acts of the Council. An interesting characterization of Archimandrite Hilarion given to the Pre-Conciliar Presence and the Pre-Conciliar Council (in which he should have taken part, but could not): “The Pre-Conciliar Presence worked for a long time, and their work is of scientific value. The Pre-Conciliar Council, which worked for only one month, could not consider everything and therefore did not have the opportunity to make definite decisions. The Pre-Conciliar Presence was guided by historical and canonical considerations. In the Pre-Conciliar Council there are more sentiments. It should not be forgotten that during its meetings in Petrograd, Bolshevik machine guns crackled. Hence, the work of the Pre-Conciliar Council should be treated as carefully as possible. Based on the idea of ​​conciliarity, they frightened everyone with it. When it was formulated, the members of this Council were vaguely presented with the idea of ​​a public with a Constituent Assembly. The members of the Pre-Conciliar Council wanted to establish this impersonal Board in the Church. Against… it is clear that during the organization according to the canons, first the metropolitans appeared, then the patriarchs, around whom and as individuals the church life was united and concentrated. Conciliar awareness does not exclude the individual principle. Unity of thought in the Church is determined by the combination of two principles: conciliar and individual. According to the 34th rule... the first bishop must be recognized as the canonical head, but this first one should not do anything without the judgment of others. Our Pre-Conciliar Council rejected this rule, speaking out against any advantages of the metropolitan. 34 The Apostolic Rule can be applied to each local Church. Previously, the Churches were located within one political whole (hence the name “churches of nations”). The Russian Local Church needs sole representation under the Synodal-Patriarchal or Council-Patriarchal form of government.” From the Department, Archimandrite Hilarion is appointed as a rapporteur at the Council “On the Rights and Duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia” together with Professor P. D. Lapin and alone on the issue of “Regulations on the election of the Patriarch.” When discussing these reports at the Council, a rather heated discussion ensued. Opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate wanted to limit the rights of the Patriarch, giving him third place in the Higher Church Administration, but Archimandrite Hilarion insisted that the Patriarch be given first place and all church administration ascended to him: “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 first place.” . And, as history has shown, the broad rights given to the Patriarch by the Council helped the Church survive during that difficult time. Archimandrite Hilarion was one of the initiators of the application for the appointment of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. Archimandrite Hilarion’s speeches on the report on Edinoverie are interesting in that, while rejecting the very idea of “creating a parallel hierarchy for fellow believers” (and thereby the report itself) and motivating, as always during his speeches, his arguments with canonical, dogmatic and historical examples: “the establishment of an independent Edinoverie hierarchy is a division of the Church, for the unity of the hierarchy is an essential sign of church unity,” at the same time at the end of the report he expressed the wish that in our Orthodox churches there would be the same order and discipline that distinguished our coreligionists. Speech by Fr. Hilarion was supported by many council members. Let us make a short remark about the spirit of the Council and the relations between the members of the Council. If on the issue of the Supreme Church Administration, Archimandrite Hilarion and N.D. Kuznetsov sharply differed in their assessments and each defended their own point of view, then on the issue of unity of faith they were completely in agreement. At the Council there was no spirit of “partisanship”, but there was a desire to follow the truth and benefit of the Church as closely as possible. The speech during the discussion of the Department’s report on theological educational institutions “On the type and management of theological educational institutions” is interesting. “The transformation of theological educational institutions is an urgent and great need of our church life,” said Archimandrite Hilarion. – After all, everything that we decided regarding the parish is only a framework within which living people should then act and create church life. If these people don’t exist, the frames will remain empty. The theological school must give the Church the living figures it so needs. When they talk here about the shortcomings of our theological school, they quite rightly point out its main shortcoming is that it was given a dual task - to serve the Church and to serve the clergy. These two tasks fought each other in the life of the school, and the second task usually won. But it must be said that these two tasks can be in complete agreement with each other. This is when for a spiritual father to educate his son means to introduce him to the priesthood. Whatever happens to our Church, it will undoubtedly draw its best servants from the depths of our clergy. And – I’ll say – thank God! Who should be a priest if not the one who, from childhood, from the age of 6-7, grew up in the church choir, when his father and grandfather were priests at the altar serving in the face of the Lord God. From the choir there is a direct and best road to the altar, to the throne. The church school should not interfere with the children of the clergy on their way from the choir to the altar! The class task of a theological school begins to contradict its church purpose only when the clergy renounces church service. Only this renunciation creates the estate of a theological school in the bad sense of the word. This phenomenon is relatively new and has very sad results. General public education is rising, but the level of education of the clergy has dropped amazingly. In some places, priests who have completed a seminary course are exceptions. There is a theological school, but there are no spiritual leaders from it. Class interests should not be encouraged in a theological school when these interests deviate from church interests, and yet the project under discussion from the majority of the department clearly has such a tendency, unacceptable from the point of view of church benefit. This is precisely the tendency that appears in § 4 and in the note to it. In § 4 we read: “To obtain a complete theological education, it is necessary to first complete a completed course of educational subjects.” But is the concept of general secondary education a definite concept? Not at all. The concept of general secondary education has changed among different peoples and at different times. “Its volume,” we read in the report, “is determined in relation to the programs of other secondary educational institutions.” And in the initial report of the department there is a direct reference to the Ministry of Public Education. Indeed, the concept of secondary education may change in accordance with changes in the ministry. Therefore, secondary education cannot be considered as something without which a person is not an uneducated person and good for nothing. Why, in fact, is a person who has not studied algebra or trigonometry, but knows church history and theology, an uneducated person, and someone who has studied these subjects, but is completely ignorant in church history, in religious knowledge, should nevertheless be considered fully educated, having a “general education”? I personally am inclined to recognize the second as ignorant, not the first. The Church has the right to adhere to its views on “general education” without following the slavishly fickle decisions of the Bolshevik and Menshevik ministries. Perhaps the government of the near future will establish such a type of “general education” that God forbid the future shepherd of the Church of Christ from it!” Archimandrite Hilarion ended his speech with a sharp assessment of the report presented by the majority of the Department: “This project is not for those who will become altar servers, but for those who will go “to secular educational institutions that correspond to their inclinations,” so he proposed to proceed immediately to a discussion of the report presented by the minority of the Department under the leadership of Bishop Andronik (Nikolsky), which was entirely imbued with concerns about the education of true shepherds of the Church. When the issue of learned monasticism was discussed, Archimandrite Hilarion made one amendment. It is known that before the Council in church circles the issue of learned monasticism was discussed quite animatedly, and, in the opinion of many who spoke in the press at that time, the main troubles of our Church were seen in the “dominance of learned monasticism.” Archimandrite Hilarion repeatedly exposed this lie in the pre-revolutionary press. At the Council there were also reproaches against learned monasticism. The main reproach was that tonsure was performed for career reasons. But when Archimandrite Hilarion proposed adding a note to one of the paragraphs of the report on monasteries, according to which “monastics with a higher theological education have the right to occupy administrative and teaching positions in religious schools on an equal basis with other persons”, that “monks occupying professorial chairs should remain in them for the duration of the full term of professorial service” (which was his cherished dream), he was immediately reproached that he wanted to limit church authority in the selection of candidates for church positions, and this amendment did not pass. When discussing the issue of electing monastery abbots, Archimandrite Hilarion sharply opposed the principle of elections in monasteries, stating that “elections in a monastery are a disgusting phenomenon.” When the question arose about admitting persons who had not graduated from religious institutions to the Theological Academies, Fr. Hilarion demanded that an amendment be made to the Charter of Theological Academies, stating that “from those who have completed a course in civil secondary institutions, mandatory knowledge of the Law of God is required in the scope of the course in secondary church institutions.” Without denying the right of women to receive theological education, Archimandrite Hilarion was categorically against the admission of women to the Theological Academies. On August 24, 1918, the People's Commissariat of Justice issued instructions regulating the implementation of the Decree on the separation of Church and state. If in January 1918, after the Decree was issued, some council members still had some illusion that it was possible to regulate the relations between the Church and the state by law, then this instruction elevated the persecution of the Orthodox Church into legal force. When discussing the measures developed by a special Commission for the application of the instructions of the Commissariat of Justice, Archimandrite Hilarion prophetically assessed the current situation in relation to the state towards the Church, disagreeing with the preamble of the article to the provision “On the protection of church shrines,” therefore, we will quote this speech in full: “The Russian Local Church is currently faced with a question that has never faced not only our Church, but not any other local Church for all 19 centuries of historical existence of the Universal Church. The Church has until now lived within the framework of the general capitalist system, and all our canons relating to the property rights and concepts of the Church bear the character of this particular capitalist system, since the world has not known any other system. Undoubtedly, it was within the framework of this very system that the concepts of sacred church property that we are now talking about were created. Now in Russia, for the first time in world history, an experiment is being made in introducing the socialist system on a wide national scale. To say in the face of this socialist experience that churches and sacred vessels are the property of the Orthodox Church means to say nothing. The owner can now only be the state. The Church is no longer the owner. It does not have the rights of a legal entity. This was told to us quite directly and frankly in the decree of January 23. We must appreciate the fact in its fundamental depth. Can our church sacred property, including the Holy Relics and the Holy Gifts, be declared the property of the socialist state? N.D. Kuznetsov assured here that there is no harm in such a renaming, that the government wants to create only a fiction of state ownership of our sacred property, but in fact everything will continue to be as it was before. It is absolutely impossible to agree with such a view. After all, they promise to give us churches and St. items for use only under certain and completely unacceptable conditions. And if the church and St. You do not take the items for your use under the conditions specified in the instructions and with a subscription attached to the instructions, then all this property will be given another purpose, which will be determined by the local Soviet of Deputies and the Commissariat of Public Education. This is not a legal fiction, but actually complete ownership of property, so that the state, represented by the Council of Deputies, can transfer sacred property to other persons or give it a completely non-religious purpose, sending the so-called St. items in the storage facilities of the Russian republic. The Church would have existed if it had been born within the framework of the socialist system, but then it would undoubtedly have had different concepts about its assets. I don’t think that our Church now needs to re-create its property concepts, to transfer them to socialist soil. I don’t believe, just as I hope you don’t believe, that socialism has been established forever in our unfortunate country. There will never be socialism. And if we do not believe in socialism and do not want to adopt socialist concepts when applied to our sacred property, then we must declaratively note in the 1st article the idea that churches and sacred objects cannot, by their very essence, as sacred, become the property of a non-religious state, even in a legal sense, much less can they become its actual possession. We must declare that St. our churches and shrines cannot be socialized. Such a statement of ours, of course, will not convince the Soviet government and the socialization of St. churches and shrines will probably be produced against our will. In the second part of 1 declarative article we must call this “socialization” by name. We must say what this will be like in relation to the Church. Here, in the supposed text of the first article, it is said that the rejection of church property is a lawless seizure and violence. It is not our business to use the word “lawlessness”; yes, in our socialist republic there are now different laws, and those laws from the point of view of which the rejection of church property is lawlessness do not exist; they no longer exist. We can consider this rejection from our church point of view. Let's imagine this picture. Some Jew will appear to take an inventory of the church property; churches will be given a purpose in accordance with the types and goals of various councils and commissariats, church vessels and miraculous icons will be taken to the storage facilities of the Soviet republic. What will this be from our religious point of view? From our point of view, this is, first of all, blasphemy and, of course, violence. So, if the first article is of a declarative nature, in my opinion, two thoughts should be expressed in it: first, sacred churches and sacred objects by their very essence cannot be declared the property of a non-religious state and subject to socialization; second: the removal of churches and sacred church property from the exclusive disposal of the Church itself is violence against the Church and blasphemy. Therefore I propose Art. 1 should be stated as follows: “Holy churches and chapels with all the sacred objects found in them, by their very essence, cannot be declared the property of a non-religious state: they are an inalienable property of the Orthodox Church, which can be torn away from it by civil authorities only through blasphemous violence.” As history has shown, the picture painted by Archimandrite Hilarion was fully realized in the 20s with the confiscation of church valuables, and continues to be realized to this day. The activities of Archimandrite Hilarion as a member of the Holy Council in 1917–1918. did not stop with the closure of the Council. The decisions of the Council and its spirit were later carried by the saint both in his archpastoral activities and in his imprisonment on Solovki, everywhere demanding the unconditional implementation of the resolutions and decisions of the Council, remaining faithful to his ideals of conciliarity and patriarchy in the Russian Church.