Saints Hilarion (Troitsky) and Victor (Ostrovidov): on the question of their attitude to the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky)

In modern publications on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century, there are a number of puzzling questions related to the reaction of the Russian clergy and the Orthodox people to the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of July 16/27, 1927 on the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Soviet power. This declaration often became a dividing line between Orthodox hierarchs, many of whom in our days are ranked by the Russian Orthodox Church among the host of holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia. It is known about the energetic activity of Hieromartyr Hilarion, aimed at pacifying the unrest that arose in the Russian Church and especially in its episcopate in 1927 regarding some actions of the deputy locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). The main subject of controversy was the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of July 16/27, 1927 on the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Soviet power. In the autumn of the same year, the danger of separation from the deputy locum tenens was increased by the actions of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov), dissatisfied with the transfer from the Leningrad episcopal see to Odessa. Confusion, hesitation and division began to penetrate among the hierarchs imprisoned on Solovki. Already in November 1927, “Archbishop Hilarion managed to gather up to fifteen bishops in the cell of Archimandrite Theophan, where everyone unanimously decided to remain faithful to the Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Sergius. “No schism!” declared Archbishop Hilarion. “No matter what they tell us, we will look at it as a provocation!” “No schism!” Archbishop Hilarion proclaimed. “No matter what they tell us, we will look at it as a provocation!” 1 How important this initiative of the ruler was later can be seen from the following incident. His contemporary, comrade-in-arms in the fight against the Renovationists and fellow prisoner, Bishop Manuil (Lemeshevsky), after being released from the camp upon his arrival in Moscow on February 10/23, 1928, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) made an offer to join the schism with the promise of immediate elevation to the rank of metropolitan, to which Bishop Manuil gave the following answer: “I am a representative of the “Solovetsky” episcopate. All of us, unanimously and unanimously, in the number of 17 people, under the chairmanship of Archbishop Hilarion, swore an oath not to separate from Metropolitan Sergius, to maintain church unity and not to join any dissenting group. I have been instructed by the “Solovetsky” episcopate to report all this to Metropolitan Sergius” 2. In a letter dated July 8/21, 1928, Bishop Hilarion wrote: “I see absolutely nothing in the actions of Metropolitan. Sergius and his Synod, whatever would exceed the measure of leniency or patience... Nonsense is written everywhere, who writes on the contrary. What kind of thing did they come up with? He is supposedly an apostate. And as they write, it’s like they’re crazy. They themselves fall into the pit and drag others along with them” 3. Archbishop Hilarion made a lot of efforts to admonish Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), who had separated from Metropolitan Sergius, formerly of Glazov, and then of Izhevsk and Votkinsk, who temporarily ruled the Vyatka diocese, and in 1928 ended up in Solovki. This task was very difficult. Many hierarchs had not been able to solve it before. Here is what Bishop Hilarion himself said about this: “Who is Glazov, well, this is just one temptation. God forbid you talk to him. It’s as if everything is topsy-turvy for him, and he keeps saying that all his relatives are for him, and doesn’t want to listen to anything... Well, the man has completely gone astray and considers himself alone to be right” 4 . Metropolitan John (Snychev) writes that through the efforts of the Solovetsky hierarchs and especially Archbishop Hilarion, Bishop Victor was reconciled and entered into communication with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), about which he notified the Orthodox in Vyatka and its neighboring dioceses in writing, calling on them to follow their example, after which the schism in these areas soon came to naught 5 . Modern researchers of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century usually perceive the testimony of Metropolitan John (Snychev) about the reconciliation of Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) under the influence of Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) as an obvious falsification, since the reference to Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky) is considered not credible and has not been confirmed documented, while the anti-Sergian position of Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) is widely known and reflected in many sources of the 20-30s of the 20th century. In particular, during the interrogation on December 22, 1932, Bishop Victor said: “According to my religious convictions, I am a follower of Patriarch Tikhon, I do not recognize renovationism and Sergiusism” 6. Nevertheless, there are some circumstances that make Bishop Victor’s position not as monolithic and unchangeable as it might seem at first glance. “On May 18, 1928, a Special Meeting of the OGPU Collegium sentenced Bishop Viktor (Ostrovidov) to three years in a concentration camp” 7 . Let's look at the situation in the diocese, which Bishop Victor ruled before his arrest In order to more clearly understand the mood in which Bishop Victor arrived in Solovki, it seems useful to briefly outline the situation in the diocese, which he ruled before his arrest. Bishop Victor perceived the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of July 16 (29) negatively, but did not enter into open confrontation with His Eminence Sergius until he received a decree on the dissolution of the Votkinsk diocese and (a little later) on his appointment as Bishop of Shadrinsk. Bishop Victor did not accept this appointment and at the end of 1927 announced a severance of relations with Metropolitan Sergius, whose message he defined as “a regrettable renunciation of one’s salvation or a renunciation of the Lord Savior Himself” and, therefore, “a sin, as the Word of God testifies, not less than any heresy and schism, but incomparably greater” 8 . In answers to questions from the OGPU, Eminence Victor announces the peaceful nature of his intentions: “Personally, both until now and in the future, I do not intend to wage any struggle, but only protect myself and my flock so that we do not become participants in the sins of others (Synod). To those of my loved ones who contact me about the new trend in church life, I explain it as I understand it myself. The matter did not go further than this and, I think, will not go, due to the fact that I am too insignificant a person in comparison with Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod. And in general, I do not consider myself capable of any administrative organizational activity, since I have never had practice in it” 9. Despite such modest intentions of Bishop Victor, the activities of him and his flock in many cases took not just active, but also openly aggressive forms. “At the beginning of 1928, letters from Bishop Victor were distributed throughout the province with a proposal to parish councils to expel Sergian clergy from churches. So, he imposed such a resolution on the petition of the parish joining him and the parable with. Rozhentsov of Yaransky district: “If anyone does not agree, then drive them out and elect others or leave them to me.” Bishop Victor’s activities in this direction continued almost until his arrest on April 4.” The shepherd’s call to “drive” was perceived by the flock directly and often in a physical sense This call of the shepherd to “drive” was perceived by the flock directly and often in a physical sense: “Instead of the Sergian ones, Bishop Victor sent his own priests or ordained those who wanted, most often from local deacons and psalm-readers. In the eyes of the Victorians, the use of brutal violence against their opponents, primarily priests who refused to remember Bishop Victor during the service, seemed completely justified: “spitting,” “pulling by clothes, hair, beard,” pushing, kicking, throwing from the church porch, etc. <...> For example, in March 1928, on behalf of the Diocesan Council, Archpriest Peter Trapitsin came to a parish meeting in s. Vozhgaly, where the rector of the church was the Victorian priest Simeon Yurlov... As a result of the vote, it turned out that the entire parish was for the “old faith,” to which Bishop Victor was attributed. After which the believers kicked Pyotr Trapitsin out of the church and “rewarded” him with kicks, shoves and selective “square abuse.” At the same parish, “a crowd of believers staged a real fight in the church. Priest Sherstyanikov was dragged out of the church by the hair by the believers; a new priest was introduced in his place - Pitirimov, who said from the pulpit in a sermon: “The Sergiusites are heretics, they have given themselves over to the Antichrist and the Soviet regime, they need to be driven out of the church.” In 1929, priest Teplyashin seized the parish into his own hands and pointedly expelled Sergius' priest Frolov from the church. After which a meeting was held in the church, at which Teplyashin said: “Frolov wants to put the devil in the church - he is a traitor, he surrendered to the Antichrist, we need to drive these people out of the church.” After this, the women attacked Frolov, stole his robe and drove him out of the church. In the village Sezenevsky Victorian “active” invited the priest Vladimir Zamyatin under the pretext of a business conversation into the house and there beat him until he lost consciousness, broke his leg, making him disabled. In the village In Voskresensk, the Viktorians set fire to the house of a priest, who and his family barely managed to escape in their underwear. The dean of the 3rd district of Kotelnichsky district reported to the Vyatka Diocesan Council that in the first half of March 1928, conflicts arose over the recognition of Bishop Victor as their leader... It should be noted that in the village of Novo-Troitskoye, the beating of their opponents by the Victorians was common and, one might say, a regular occurrence. So... in this village in 1928, the Victorians, after the liturgy, beat their clergy in the church. Monk Innocent had his hair and beard torn out, and in the end, only one nun bit him. Only the intervention of the police prevented the murder.” Researcher of the Victorian movement A.G. Polyakov says that “we have identified at least 2,730 such cases.” Despite the extremely low assessment given by Bishop Victor himself of his administrative abilities, remarkable organizational talent is clearly visible in the actions of his followers: “Nuns from liquidated monasteries made a significant contribution to the adoption of Victorianism, especially among the female population. They spread rumors that all the grace had retreated from the priests and transferred to the nuns... The nuns of the Resurrection Cathedral in Vyatka organized several “sisterhoods” consisting of followers of Bishop Victor. They played the role of parish councils and seized churches by force, often with the use of physical force, with the help of peasants. The effectiveness of the harsh, violent methods of counteracting the Victorians against Sergianism is clearly illustrated by the activities of the Victorians of the 1st deanery district of Kotelnichsky district. In individual Victorian parishes, “cells” of laymen were organized with the aim of visiting neighboring churches to purposefully organize and carry out mass riots and hooliganism, disrupting parish meetings at which issues undesirable for the Victorians were discussed. The Victorians started scandals. Speakers were forcibly removed, often using physical force, and meetings were closed. The activities of such “cells” were so effective that it was not possible to hold meetings in the district that were objectionable to the Victorians” 10 . From the above facts it is clear that, despite the initially stated rejection of the atheistic government, extreme zealots of the purity of Orthodoxy often acted completely in the Bolshevik spirit, becoming similar in their methods of struggle to those against whom they, in fact, rebelled. Torn out by the force of power from the midst of such serious passions, Bishop Victor at the beginning of summer arrives at the Solovetsky special purpose camp, where Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky) was at that time. Archbishop Hilarion, as noted above, belonged to the group of Solovetsky bishops who recognized Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), which is also mentioned by Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky: “Less furious, but still a Sergianist, was Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who condemned the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, but did not break off communication with him as canonically correct High Hierarch of the Russian Church" 11. No matter how difficult it was for Archbishop Hilarion, he still achieved the desired admonition of Bishop Victor Naturally, Bishop Hilarion tried to use his gift of persuasion to avoid the strengthening of centrifugal forces in the Russian Church. According to Metropolitan John (Snychev), “at every opportunity, he talked with the Right Reverend Victor, despite the fact that he fiercely opposed his arguments and continued to be in error... But no matter how difficult it was for Archbishop Hilarion, he, with God’s help, still achieved the desired admonition. This most likely happened at the beginning of 1929. Having finally agreed with the “Solovetsky” episcopate, Bishop Victor joined Metropolitan Sergius, reported this to the Vyatka diocese and gave it the appropriate order” 12. We find confirmation of this reconciliation in the memoirs of Oleg Volkov, who mentions the names of both bishops among the participants in the services in the Solovetsky cemetery church of St. Onuphrius the Great: “We walked together with Father Mikhail. He quietly told me the names of passing bishops: His Eminence Peter, Archbishop of Zadonsk and Voronezh; His Eminence Victor, Bishop of Vyatka; His Eminence Hilarion, Archbishop of Tula and Serpukhov..." 13. Church services include the commemoration of the Primate of the Local Church, and for Archbishop Hilarion at that time this was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Bishop Victor’s participation in such services can only mean that he truly recognized Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as the primate of the Russian Church. At this time, parishes in the Vyatka land were returning en masse to the control of Metropolitan Sergius At this time, a massive return of Orthodox parishes under the control of Metropolitan Sergius took place in the Vyatka land. In particular, in the Glazov district, “Victorianism... by the end of 1928 not only ceased to dominate Sergianism, but was practically heading towards self-liquidation. The departure from Bishop Victor occurred in organizational terms as massively and quickly as in December 1927 from Metropolitan Sergius” 14. “By February 1929, “four dean districts emerged from the schism and reunited with the Patriarchate.” In Glazov, according to Bishop Nikifor, the city clergy and spiritual administration “repented before Metropolitan Sergius and were accepted into communion by him.” By July, three more parishes of the Glazov diocese had renounced Victor” 15. We also know that in this situation, some former followers of Bishop Victor turned to him with calls for repentance and an end to the division he initiated. So, “already in October 1928, Dean O.V. Lobovnikov, on behalf of his district, addressed Bishop Victor with a letter. It insisted that the bishop repent before the highest church authorities for himself and the clergy and stop the schism he had caused. Otherwise, as the author of the letter pointed out, the clergy of the Glazov diocese planned to look for a way out of the schism on their own, in addition to Bishop Victor” 16. It is possible that a letter of this kind was sent by Bishop Victor, but so far, apart from the testimony of Metropolitan John (Snychev), we have no confirmation of this assumption. Eminence Sergius: about Bishop Victor “to pray during divine services... is permissible” Indirect confirmation that Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) was in communication with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1929 is the fact that “On September 3, 1929, the temporary administrator of the Glazov Vicariate, Bishop Abraham of Urzhum, addressed a report to Bishop Stefan of Vyatka, in which he asked how to pray for the former Bishop of Glazov Victor, whether it is permissible to offer his name is behind the service. Finding it difficult to answer this request, Bishop Stefan forwards it to Metropolitan Sergius in Moscow.” The answer received from Metropolitan Sergius in October 1929 is indicative, which said, “that praying as “for a private person is, of course, permissible, but raising his name in the place where the ruling bishop is commemorated is completely inappropriate, especially since Bishop Victor has not been a member of Glazov for a long time.” 17 As can be seen from the text, we are talking only about the inadmissibility of commemorating Bishop Victor as the ruling bishop, while praying for him during divine services is “of course, permissible,” that is, Bishop Victor here is perceived by the Right Reverend Sergius as a legitimate member of the Church, only alien to the management of the Glazov diocese. It is unlikely that the noted attitude can be reconciled with the mention of “the most severe punishments imposed by Metropolitan Sergius on the “rebellious”” 18. When Archbishop Hilarion was taken away from Solovki, Bishop Victor, like many others, returned to anti-Sergianism The likelihood of a temporary change in the attitude of Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) to the primacy of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in the Russian Church under the influence of communication with Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) can be illustrated by the example of Bishop Nektary (Trezvinsky): “While on Solovki, Bishop Nektary, under the influence of the senior bishop Hilarion (Troitsky), accepted the metropolitan’s declaration Sergius. However, on February 8 (1929 - A.G.) he refused to submit to the deputy patriarchal locum tenens" 19. Apparently, something similar happened to Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov). Under the influence of Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), Bishop Victor resumes communication with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) (tentatively at the end of 1928), but after Bishop Hilarion’s departure from the Solovetsky camp he returns to his previous views. The end of the term of imprisonment of the Hieromartyr Hilarion coincided with the arrival in the camp at the end of October of the catacomb bishop Maxim (Zhizhilenko). “The arrival of Bishop Maxim to Solovki extremely strengthened the (previously dominant) influence of the “Josephites”... Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) was soon taken away from Solovki, and with him the “Sergian sentiments” disappeared among many” 20, including, probably, Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov). John (Snychev), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei: Life and Testimonies. Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 1999. P. 20. John [Snychev], Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky): Biographical sketch. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 104. John [Snychev], metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century. Samara, 1997. pp. 272–273. Vyatka Confessor: Saint Victor (Ostrovidov). Biography and works / Comp. L.E. Sikorskaya. M., 2010. P. 251. Hieroconfessor Victor (Ostrovidov), Bishop of Glazov, vicar of the Vyatka diocese // Damascene (Orlovsky), abbot. Martyrs, confessors and devotees of piety of the Russian Orthodox Church of the twentieth century. T. 4. Tver, 2005. P. 142. Second letter from Bishop Victor of Glazov to Metropolitan Sergius (12/16/1927) // Vyatka Confessor: Saint Victor (Ostrovidov). P. 293. Answers of the Right Reverend Victor, Bishop of Izhevsk and Votsk (aka Glazovsky), to 15 questions from the OGPU regarding the “appeal” of Metropolitan Sergius of July 29, 1927 // Ibid. P. 313. Polyakov A.G. Victorian movement in the Russian Orthodox Church: factors of spread (late 1927 – 1928) // Religious Studies. 2012. No. 1. P. 42–43. Polsky M., protopresbyter. New Russian Martyrs: In 2 volumes. Volume 2. Chapter 3. Maxim, Bishop of Serpukhov //http://www.paraklit.org/eres/MP/Poljskiy.Novie_mucheniki_Rossiyskie.t.2.htm. John [Snychev], metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century. pp. 325–326. Volkov Oleg. Plunge into darkness: from the experience. M., 2009. P. 78. The dynamics of the spread of the Victorian movement in the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 1920s. / Comp. A.G. Polyakov // News of higher educational institutions. Volga region. Humanities. 2011. No. 4 (20). S. 8. Kochin G.A. The city of Glazov in the fate of Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) // From the history of the Orthodox churches of the Glazov district [Materials of the 11th local history conference “From the past to the present: pages of the history of the Orthodox Church in the Glazov district” dated October 25. 2012]. P. 12 //http://http://glazovskaya-zbc.3dn.ru/stranicy_pravoslavija_v_glazovskom_uezde1.pdf. The dynamics of the spread of the Victorian movement in the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 1920s. S. 8. Polish Mikhail, protopresbyter. New Russian martyrs. T. 2: Chapter 3. Maxim, Bishop of Serpukhov. Polyakov A.G. Management of the Victorian movement in the Russian Orthodox Church (April 1928 - May 1931) // Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin. 2011. No. 2. T. 4: History. P. 109.