“Great joy on earth and in Heaven” Saint Hilarion (Trinity) and his contribution to the restoration of the patriarchate

Saint Hilarion (Trinity) belonged to the theological movement, at the origins of which stood Bishop Michael (Gribanovsky) of Tauride, who proclaimed the principle of returning to the patristic heritage and primary sources, the revival of the canonical norm, including in relation to the form of government of the Church. Having entered the Moscow Theological Academy in 1906, young Vladimir Troitsky was imbued with the beneficial influence of learned monasticism, which was planted in the academy when he was its rector, Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a student and follower of Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), faithful to his teacher’s behest to fight for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia. Stingy with praise, Bishop Anthony highly valued the works of Archbishop Hilarion, and after his death he called him a genius 1 . Traveling through the Orthodox East with a group of professors and students of the Moscow Theological Academy in 1908, young Vladimir Troitsky became increasingly aware of the Byzantine norm and the role that the patriarchal service played in it. He understands that, according to the Byzantine norm, in the absence of the king, it is the patriarch who plays the role of ethnarch - the head of the people. Seeing the honor and respect of the Greek people for the patriarch, he wrote that “Russian people can only envy” 2. The future saint also notes the conclusion of historians that the patriarch became “in some way the successor of the Byzantine emperors” 3. After all, according to the Byzantine norm, the patriarch was a “spiritual assistant,” exarch or vicar of the Orthodox emperor 4. For the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov, Archimandrite Hilarion prepared an article with a review of the history of the Russian Church, in which he substantiated the historical need for the restoration of the patriarchate 5. Here, Archimandrite Hilarion, pointing to the promise of Emperor Nicholas II to convene a Church Council, expresses the hope that this will help the cause of “restoring 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.” As Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) emphasized, “there is no doubt that the restoration of the patriarchate was delayed primarily by fear of weakening autocratic power” 6 . Having well understood the traditional role of the patriarch and emperor in the history of the Church, Archimandrite Hilarion reacted differently to the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 than many hierarchs. Recognizing the role of the tsar in the Church indicated by the Byzantine norm, but seeing the severe distortions of this norm committed by Peter I, Saint Hilarion saw the Providence of God in the fall of the monarchy, for only through this could the patriarchal form of church government be restored in reality. In the summer of 1917, he wrote: “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” 7 . Many hierarchs welcomed the collapse of the Constantinian period of church history. Thus, Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) believed that “the service of God’s truth was replaced by the service of the royal truth,” and also that the ministers of the Church “made an idol out of the former power, regularly worshiped it, which caused considerable temptation” 8 . Such bishops, figuratively speaking, threw out the child with the dirty bathwater when, condemning the unconditional distortions of the norm in the synodal era, they refused to recognize the traditional Byzantine norm with its indication of the special place of royal and patriarchal service in the Church. By the way, Bishop Andrei then became a consistent critic of Patriarch Tikhon and his policies, and Saint Hilarion became his most faithful assistant, his “right hand.” From the very beginning of the Council, Archimandrite Hilarion took an active part in its meetings, being elected from the Moscow Theological Academy. One of the participants in the Council, member of the State Duma Prince I. S. Vasilchikov, recalled: “The professors of the academy were interesting in their reports, but sometimes they were too talkative. Their group also included one of the most significant and talented participants in the Council, the still young inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Hilarion. With his speeches, always intelligent and beautifully presented, and with his entire appearance, he very soon gained general sympathy at the Council” 9 . Stormy discussions around the topic of restoring the patriarchate overwhelmed the Council. Archimandrite Hilarion mainly concentrated his activities at the Council in the Department of Higher Church Administration, where the issue of restoring the patriarchate was considered. 32 members of the department expressed their dissenting opinion, which boiled down to the fact that it was inappropriate to restore the patriarchate. The question sparked furious controversy. Many argued that the sole patriarchal power violates conciliarity. Moreover, among the opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate were not only future renovationists, but also very authoritative specialists, such as Professor A.I. Brilliantov, Archpriest N. Tsvetkov, Professor I.M. Gromoglasov, who believed that the question of patriarchy “is not raised by either canonical or historical grounds” 10. One of the opponents of the patriarchate at the Council was professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy B.V. Titlinov, future ideologist of renovationism. In his speech, which was given on October 21, he tried to substantiate the thesis according to which the restoration of the patriarchate would lead to absolutism in the Church 11 . Many opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate demonstrated the amazing secularism of their church consciousness. They perceived the Church as a social institution that must adapt to changes occurring in society. In particular, B.V.’s argument was built on this thesis. Titlinov, who argued that the patriarchate is an institution that existed under the monarchy, and the republican system should give rise to a new form of church government. His speech “Why is it necessary to restore the patriarchate?” 31-year-old Archimandrite Hilarion spoke at the general meeting of the Council on October 23, 1917. “We cannot fail to restore the patriarchate,” he said, “we must certainly restore it, because the patriarchate is the fundamental law of the supreme government of each Local Church” 12. He ended his speech with the famous words: “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where does the Russian heart beat in Moscow? On the stock exchange? In shopping arcades? On Kuznetsky Most? It is fought, of course, in the Kremlin. But where in the Kremlin? In district court? Or in the soldiers' barracks? No, in the Assumption Cathedral. There, at the front right pillar, the Russian Orthodox heart should beat. Peter's eagle, looking at the Western model of established autocracy, pecked out this Russian Orthodox heart. The sacrilegious hand of the wicked Peter brought the Russian High Hierarch from his centuries-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church with the God-given power will again place the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful, inalienable place. And when His Holiness the Patriarch goes to his historical sacred place in the Assumption Cathedral to the ringing of Moscow bells, there will be great joy on earth and in Heaven” 13. In his speech, Archimandrite Hilarion refuted the arguments of B.V. Titlinov, who saw a papist idea in the patriarchy. Archimandrite Hilarion opposed the attempt of opponents of the patriarchate to prove that the latter contradicts the Orthodox Eastern Byzantine tradition. The 34th Apostolic Canon demands: “It is fitting for the bishops of every nation to know the first of them and recognize him as the head, and not do anything beyond their authority without his judgment. <...> But even the first does not create anything without the consideration of everyone. For in this way there will be one mind and God will be glorified in the Lord in the Holy Spirit - Father and Son and Holy Spirit" 14. Here are indicated the two highest principles of the life of any Local Church: the Council and the First Hierarch. In his speech, giving a historical overview of the emergence of the patriarchate, Saint Hilarion showed that already from the 2nd century a system of governing the Local Church by the “first bishop” had been taking shape and that the apostolic norm of individual primate leadership was in effect everywhere and irrevocably. Archimandrite Hilarion showed that, although in the 1st and partly 2nd centuries there was a different system of church government, when dioceses-parishes governed by bishops were not united by any common church government, it is impossible to consider this system traditional. He said: “If someone now decided to restore the church government of the first two centuries, then he should demand the destruction of all higher government of the Local Churches and the granting of complete independence to each diocese headed by a bishop” 15. He showed that already in the 3rd century large church centers - metropolises - were emerging. As a result of the unification of all dioceses and metropolises within the framework of the Roman Empire, which became Christian, the need naturally arose to have first hierarchs of new church formations consisting of several dioceses. The patriarch in these church centers was placed in the same position with the metropolitans as the metropolitans in their church districts were with the bishops. Archimandrite Hilarion cited numerous canonical rules of the Councils of the ancient Church, emphasizing: “All these rules establish that at the head of the administration of the Local Church is the Council and the Metropolitan with the special rights of the First Hierarch that personally belong to him. And no one then believed that the existence of the first hierarch contradicted the beginning of conciliarity” 16. Although Archimandrite Hilarion did not specialize in the history of the Church in his scientific work, his speech at the Council proves that he understood these issues better than many church historians. It is precisely the view on the history of the formation of the highest church government in the Church that Archimandrite Hilarion outlined in his report that modern church historical scholarship considers correct 17 . The saint also brilliantly demonstrated that the abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I was a violation of the canonical norm and was caused by his desire for absolute power. Addressing opponents of the patriarchate, Archimandrite Hilarion urged them to abandon their “proud and arrogant” attitude towards church tradition and come to terms with it. A contemporary of these events, M.E. Gubonin pointed out that “there was a conviction that it was this speech of Archimandrite Hilarion that brought the final triumph to the idea of ​​​​restoring the patriarchate at the Council, for only after its delivery did the cathedral renovationists stop their endless attacks against the patriarchists, and the patriarchate was restored” 18. Archimandrite Hilarion's speech even caused applause in the hall, although it was not accepted at the meetings of the Council. According to D.V. Pospelovsky, the position of the future martyr at the Local Council was “to the left of center,” so his apology for the patriarchate was especially convincing 19 . Archimandrite Hilarion, unlike such defenders of the patriarchate as Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who had a reputation as a “monarchist” and “reactionary” 20, was not associated with the idea of ​​restoring the monarchy, as the patriarchists were accused of. 35 members of the Council asked to immediately print Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech: “We, the undersigned, ask the Council 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 church terms” 21. Undoubtedly, the speech at the Council was delivered brightly, with the temperament characteristic of Archimandrite Hilarion. According to S.A. Volkov, the author of famous memoirs about the academy, “he could not calmly narrate... but had to burn, ignite his listeners, argue, polemicize, prove and refute” 22. Archimandrite Hilarion could not ignore his beloved academy, where there were also those who opposed the patriarchate. S.A. Volkov recalled that “a day or two” after delivering his speech on October 23, the saint “rushed to the academy and that same evening urgently gave a lecture on the topic “Is it necessary to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church?” Most likely, this happened on October 24, when there were no meetings of the Council. Pointing to the imperial origin of the patriarchal miter as a royal diadem 23, Archimandrite Hilarion in his speech to teachers and students of the Moscow Academy of Arts in October 1917 said: “Now the time is coming that the patriarchal crown will not be a “royal” crown, but rather the crown of a martyr and confessor, who will selflessly guide the ship of the Church in its voyage through the stormy waves of the sea of life.” 24. Eyewitness to the events S.A. Volkov recalled: “Most of the professors and all the students gathered for the lecture; it lasted about three hours. Of course, it was read as brilliantly as only Hilarion could do: the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia was his cherished desire, as if the meaning of his life, to which he devoted all his strength” 25. The lecture ended with a standing ovation. The majority of students and members of the teaching corporation were on the side of Archimandrite Hilarion. The very next day he went to Moscow to take part in the meetings of the Council. Let us recall that Archimandrite Hilarion, while remaining an inspector and professor, from May to September 1917 served as rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. In this capacity, he often communicated with Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow, elected in June 1917. The MDA collection has preserved one of Archimandrite Hilarion’s letters to Metropolitan Tikhon dated September 13, 1917 regarding the admission of Georgian students to the MDA 26 . On October 28, the Local Council decided to begin voting on the issue of restoring the patriarchate. The motion was carried by 141 votes to 112-27. As we see, a significant part of the Council members retained their negative attitude towards the idea of ​​​​restoring the patriarchate, however, the fact that supporters of this were able to gain a majority of votes was largely the merit of Archimandrite Hilarion. After all, when this question was first introduced, it seemed to many that the question was completely undeveloped and its very formulation was incorrect 28 . Under these conditions, everything was decided by the votes of the still undecided council members, and it was they who were able to convince Archimandrite Hilarion in favor of restoring the patriarchate. An eyewitness to the events, Bishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky), recalled that opponents of the patriarchate were divided into two groups: those who, for some reason, did not understand its necessity, and bearers of a democratic and renovationist spirit alien to the Church 29 . For us, who know what contribution the patriarchs of the 20th century made to church affairs and what His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II is currently making, the question of the need to restore the patriarchate in 1917 is beyond doubt. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) turned out to be right, who said in October 1917: “Subsequent generations will be amazed at ... the whole polemic against the patriarchate and ask why such a clear question aroused debate” 30. In the secret ballot in the first round on October 30, 1917, 257 notes were submitted with the names of candidates. After opening the notes, it turned out that Archimandrite Hilarion was among the 25 candidates, who received four votes, which was recognition of his role in the restoration of the patriarchate. On November 5, Saint Tikhon was chosen by lot. A.I. Trotsky, Hilarion’s former classmate at the academy and an eyewitness, told S.A. Volkov that Archimandrite Hilarion cried with joy during the religious procession that took place on this day 31. However, opponents of the patriarchate did not calm down even after the decision was made to restore the canonical norm. Very authoritative members of the Council, such as N.D. Kuznetsov, tried to belittle the importance of the patriarch, significantly limiting the range of his powers. Speaking against this on December 2, 1917, Archimandrite Hilarion said: “But it is desirable for them to put the patriarch in third place and read the article like this: “The highest church government 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 to do if, according to canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council and canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, the first hierarch has 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 idea is 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, all church government goes back to him as the head... 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” 32. Released from prison at the end of June 1923, Saint Hilarion became one of the most active defenders of the patriarchate, which was subject to aggressive attacks by the Renovationists, for whom the government ensured the seizure of the central and local bodies of church government. The most important point in the ideology of renovationism was the rejection of the imperial experience of the existence of the Church and the “return” to the norms of the Church of the first three centuries, that is, the fight against the Constantinian paradigm of the existence of the Church in the empire. In their polemics against the Patriarchal Church, the Renovationists, as one of their main arguments, put forward the fact that the Patriarchal Church is a continuation of the Church of the Constantine period, that is, in fact, following the Byzantine norm was in the eyes of the Renovationists the main “fault” of the Orthodox Church. In his book “The Church of Patriarch Tikhon” A.I. Vvedensky wrote: “Tikhonov’s Church is the heritage, flesh and bone, bone of the Church that existed before the revolution of 1917, the Autocratic Church, the Romanov Church” 33 . In his public speeches during debates with the renovationists in 1923, Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) brilliantly refuted the attacks of the renovationists, proving that “the patriarchate is not a counter-revolution,” as the renovationists said 34. At their council in 1923, the Renovationists announced the abolition of the patriarchate. V.D. Krasinitsky proposed “to abolish the institution of the patriarchate as a relic of the past and as completely unfulfilled and harmful to the cause of church renewal” 35 . According to the Renovationists, expressed in the decision of the false council of 1923, “the very restoration of the patriarchate was a decidedly political, counter-revolutionary act” 36 . “Metropolitan” A. Vvedensky, like other renovationists, argued that the institution of the patriarchate was “absolutely tsarist” 37 and therefore consistently opposed it. Vvedensky declared “arbitrary” the traditional imperial prerogatives in the Church since the time of St. Constantine: anointing and entering the altar through the royal doors during the coronation and communion at the throne. According to Vvedensky, this was done “bypassing all church rules” “for the political elevation of the tsar” 38. Recognizing the fact of the historical connection between the Church and the Orthodox empire, the renovationists sought to abandon this norm and radically change the order of things. The existence of the Church not in the Orthodox empire, but under the conditions of the Bolshevik decree on the separation of the Church from the state, was proclaimed the norm of state-church relations. The traditional imperial-church paradigm was initiated by the creation of renovationist structures L.D. Trotsky called it “Black Hundred-monarchist ideology” 39. It was precisely to fight it that, on Trotsky’s instructions, all the forces of the renovationists were directed. Defending the principles of the patriarchal Church was the main reason for the new arrest of Archbishop Hilarion. At his last public debate with the renovationists on September 4, 1923, the Bishop made the justification of the patriarchate the main topic of his speech 40. Pointing out the distortions of the Byzantine norm in the synodal era, the saint argued that the restoration of the patriarchate was a natural return to the norm. He rejected accusations that the institution of the patriarchate was counter-revolutionary, calling its restoration a sign of a revival of church life. At the same time, he referred to his work published in 1915, which we mentioned above. In November 1923, the saint was arrested, then exiled to Solovki, and died as a martyr in 1929. Until the end of his days, Saint Hilarion remained a true warrior of Christ in the struggle for the Patriarchal Church against her enemies. Letter to Count Yu.P. Grabbe dated July 8, 1930 // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Selected works, letters, materials. M., 2007. P. 772. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations. M., 2004. T. 3. P. 103. Gidulyanov P.V. Eastern Patriarchs during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908. P. 467468. See: Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Russian Orthodox Church from ancient times to the present day // Russia in its past and present. M., 1915. Speech on October 18, 1917 at the Local Council // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Selected works, letters, materials. P. 772. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations. T. 3. P. 542. Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 / Comp., prev. and comm. M.A. Babkin. M., 2006. P. 134. Vasilchikov I.S. What I remembered // Our heritage. 1990. 2. P. 120. Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918: Review of deeds. First session / Comp. A.G. Kravetsky et al. M., 2002. P. 98. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations. T. 3. P. 545. Canons, or Book of Rules, of the holy apostles, holy councils, Ecumenical and Local, and holy fathers in Russian. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 18. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations. T. 3. P. 547. Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest. Higher administration of the Local Church // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2005. T. 10. P. 8586. Contemporaries about Patriarch Tikhon / Comp. and comm. M.E. Gubonin. M., 2007. P. 190. Pospelovsky D.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. M., 1995. P. 40. Yakovlev A.I. Church warrior // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archbishop. Selected works, letters, materials. P. XXXII. GA RF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 227. L. 130. Quoted. by: Krivosheeva N.A. The activities of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) at the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918. // Annual theological conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials, 2000. M., 2000. P. 356363. Volkov S.A. The Last at the Trinity: Memories of the Moscow Theological Academy (1917-1920). M.; St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 115. See about this: Awards of the Russian Orthodox Church / Comp. N.N. Lisova. M., 2001. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations. T. 3. P. 593. Volkov S.A. The last ones are at Trinity. P. 119. OR RSL. F. 172. Cardboard 143. Unit. hr. 2. L. 1. Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918: Review of deeds. First session. P. 102. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archbishop. Selected works, letters, materials. P. 772. Anastasy (Gribanovsky), metropolitan. The election and installation of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon: The nature of his personality and activities // Theological collection of PSTBI. Vol. 13. M., 2005. P. 355. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918. M., 1996. T. 4. P. 164165. Vvedensky A.I. Church of Patriarch Tikhon. M., 1923. P. 10. Safonov D.V. Academic ministry of the Holy Martyr. Hilarion (Troitsky) and his fight against renovationism (based on materials from public debates at the Polytechnic Museum) // Theological Bulletin. Sergiev Posad, 2006. P. 365, 354. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1923 (Bulletins). M.: Publishing house. Protoprev. V.D. Krasnitsky, 1923. P. 11. Vvedensky A.I. Church of Patriarch Tikhon. P. 30. Politburo and the Church. 19221925 (Kremlin Archives) / Comp. and comm. N. N. Pokrovsky and S. G. Petrov. M.; Novosibirsk, 1998. Book. 1. P. 162. Safonov D.V. Academic ministry of the Holy Martyr. Hilarion (Troitsky). S. 361362.