Выборы патриарха

But the main focus of Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) during the Council of 1917–18. concentrates on issues of higher church government of the Russian Orthodox Church and, especially, on the question of the patriarch. Archimandrite Hilarion is not only a member, but also a rapporteur of the Department on Higher Church Administration (usually together with Professor P. D. Lapin) 279. He participates in the debate, makes explanations as a rapporteur of the Department on the VCU, defends the position of the cathedral department he represents 280, and deserves gratitude on behalf of the Council for his activities as a rapporteur of the Department on the VCU 281. The most famous, in terms of its significance for the main decision of the Council, was the word of Archimandrite Hilarion, spoken in defense of the patriarchate. Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin speaks of this word as “glorious” and “textbook” 282. It is known that the issue of restoring the patriarchate in the Russian Church was not included in the range of issues presented for consideration at the Local Council of 1917–18. An official proposal for the Council to consider this issue was first made in the report of the Chairman of the Department on Higher Church Administration by Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), Bishop of Astrakhan at a meeting on October 11, 1917 283 . From that day on, heated debate flared up at the Council around the question of the patriarchate, which did not subside until the decision was made on October 28. The ratio of supporters and opponents of the patriarchate among the speakers who spoke on this issue was, respectively, 39 versus 12. One of the speakers could not speak out either for or against the election of the first hierarch of the Russian Church due to the uncertainty of the boundaries of his power 284 . Two of the speakers expressed scattered doubts and a change in their views in favor of the patriarchate 285. Thus, opponents of the patriarchal election made up less than a quarter of the speakers. If we take into account their (that is, opponents) increased activity, then we can assume that among the members of the Council this part was even smaller. This understanding is also heard in the speeches of the opponents of the patriarchate themselves, who speak of their position as contrary to the opinion of the majority. The ratio of 141 votes to 112 does not correspond to the number of supporters and opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church, as it is presented by some historians 286, since the given figures were obtained as a result of voting on another issue, namely, on the issue of early elections of the patriarch, initiated by the intensification of revolutionary unrest in Moscow. Many members of the Council were unable to attend the meeting on October 30 due to street fighting. The members of the Council decided whether to elect a patriarch immediately or wait for a more complete Council. Most of the 112 people who voted against the urgent election of the patriarch were not opponents of the elections as such. The overwhelming majority of the Council members had no doubt not only about the need to restore the patriarchate, but also that the patriarch would be elected. They only doubted the justification of early elections, carried out in the absence of those who were stopped on the way to the Cathedral Chamber by the whistling of bullets and exploding shells. “There are few of us here,” Council member A. A. Papkov convinced his employees, “many of our fathers and brothers are sitting in different places in Moscow and, with all their desire, cannot come here. And without them we will discuss the issue of electing a patriarch. In this matter too, we need the agreement that we reached earlier. We haven’t had a patriarch for 217 years, we just have to wait a few weeks and he will be there. Why rush today? We will elect a patriarch under the thunder of guns in a depressed state of mind: is this permissible? Have respect for the fathers and brothers who cannot come here. We can make a huge mistake, compromising the cause of election” 287. As for Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech in defense of the patriarchate, we can say that it sounded the signal for the end of the debate on this issue. Father Hilarion in his speech showed the illusory nature of the choice being discussed. The speaker based his speech on the following “truth about the patriarchate”: “We cannot help but restore the patriarchate; we must certainly restore it, because the patriarchate is the fundamental law of the supreme government of each local Church” 288. Following church canons is a necessary condition for resolving issues of church governance and church life in general: “N.D. Kuznetsov wanted to accuse me of some kind of tendency,” Father Hilarion later answered his opponents. “But this tendency is one – to observe church rules and canons.” 289 Archimandrite Hilarion’s words combined scientific argumentation, appealing to the intelligence of those gathered, and fiery speech, expressing the unity of the heartfelt feelings and aspirations of the Russian church people. One of the members of the Council, V. Ya. Malakhov, said that from a “historical point of view” in the speech of Archimandrite Hilarion (and Professor Sokolov) “the most characteristic arguments in favor of the patriarchate were presented” 290, and the talent of his speech was recognized even by ideological opponents 291. After this speech, the final polarization of supporters and opponents of the patriarchate took place. In the camp of those who considered the restoration of the patriarchate unacceptable for the Russian Church, there remained, basically, only its principled opponents, who, like, for example, Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky, only became confirmed in their opinions after the speech of Archimandrite Hilarion 292. By this time at the Council, according to priest P.M. Volkov, which received its confirmation in the events of the Renovationist schism, “those who want to take church governance into their own hands do not want the patriarchate” 293. After the words of Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky), sounded on October 23, 1917, the debate on the issue of the patriarchate takes place only at the meeting on October 25, and it is clear that the majority of speakers are impressed by this word, and at the next meeting on October 28, the question of the early election of the patriarch is raised, which was facilitated by well-known historical circumstances. Thus, Archimandrite Hilarion at the Local Council of 1917–18. was not only among the initiators of the election of the patriarch, but also significantly contributed to the positive resolution of this controversial issue for many at the Council. The talents, ecclesiastical position of Archimandrite Hilarion and his activities at the Council, aimed at restoring the patriarchate, could not go unnoticed. “One of the participants in the Council, a member of the State Duma, Prince I. S. Vasilchikov, recalled: “With his speeches, always smart and beautifully presented, and with his entire appearance, he very soon acquired general sympathy at the Council.” 294 The young archimandrite was nominated by six votes as a candidate for membership in the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church from the monastics, but, like most monks, he refused to run 295. He was also among the candidates for election to the patriarch, and received three votes in the first round of voting, overtaking such well-known hierarchs as Archbishops Agathangel of Yaroslavl (2 votes) and Evlogii of Volyn (1), Bishop Andrei of Ufa (2), as well as the chairman of the Department of the All-Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan (1) 296. In the second round, four members of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church voted for the candidacy of Archimandrite Hilarion 297. The newly elected Patriarch Tikhon also drew attention to Archimandrite Hilarion, as evidenced by the participation of Father Hilarion in the rite of enthronement of His Holiness 298. A member of the Council, an opponent of the restoration of the patriarchate and the future Renovationist bishop, Archpriest Dmitry Rozhdestvensky, ironized about the three votes received during the preliminary elections of the patriarch by his colleague in the academic professorship: “Of course, for the patriarch this is not enough... not enough... However, to be... the donkey on which His Holiness the Patriarch will subsequently ride, then it... it seems to me... maybe quite enough" 299. Whether Fr. assumed this or not. Dimitri, but his ironic assessment is not without a share of insight, since in the years following the Council, Archimandrite Hilarion becomes the suffragan bishop of the patriarch, one of his closest assistants (including in the fight against renovationism, to which Archpriest Dimitri also joined), managing the affairs of the Moscow diocese, that is, a kind of “donkey of the patriarch.” Acts of the Holy Council... T. 5. P. 117; Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VI: Acts LXVI-LXXVII. pp. 141, 246, 261. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 5. P. 203–206, 208, 220, 221; Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VI: Acts LXVI-LXXVII. pp. 250, 251, 257–259,262–267, 270–284. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 5. P. 221; Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VI: Acts LXVI-LXXVII. P. 284 Tsypin Vladislav, Rev. Russian Orthodox Church: 1917–1925. – M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 1996. P. 40. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts XVII-XXX. T. 2. pp. 225–231. For example: Safonov Dmitry. Great joy on earth and in heaven: Saint Hilarion (Trinity) and his contribution to the restoration of the patriarchate. URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/5852.htm Acts of the Holy Council... Acts XXXI-XL. T. 3. P. 39. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts XVTI-XXX. T. 2. P. 377. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 6: Book. VI: Acts LXVI-LXXVII. P. 109. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts XVII-XXX. T. 2. P. 425. Quote by: Safonov Dmitry. Great joy on earth and in heaven: Saint Hilarion (Trinity) and his contribution to the restoration of the patriarchate. Acts of the Holy Council... Vol. 5. P. 364, 365. Acts of the Holy Council... Acts XXXI-XL. T. 3. P. 51, 53. Acts of the Holy Council... T. 4: Book. IV: Acts XLVI-LI. P. 41. Quote by: Golubtsov Sergiy, protod. Materials for biographies of professors and teachers of the MDA: Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) // Theological Bulletin, 1998. Vol. 2. P. 119.