Глава IV. На владимирской кафедре. 1917–1922 годы

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Vladimir diocese remained perhaps the most extensive in territory and numerous in the number of churches, prayer houses, monasteries and chapels. In addition to Vladimir, it included such large cities that were originally Orthodox centers as Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Shuya, Kovrov, Pereslavl-Zalessky, Alexandrov. During the February period, in the Vladimir province, as elsewhere, a new government was established. The leader of the Vladimir nobility V. Khrapovitsky hastened to notify the Provisional Government of his allegiance, telegraphing to the capital: “On behalf of the nobility of the Vladimir province, I declare to you, Mr. Commissar, that the Vladimir nobility recognized the power of the present Provisional Government of the Russian state, appointed by the State Duma, the people and the army to rule Russia until the decision of the Constituent Assembly to be convened on the way of government of the Russian state." A reassessment of values ​​also occurred in the church environment. The meeting of the clergy of the city of Vladimir, which met on March 21, 1917, passed a resolution banning political speeches in churches, meaning, of course, monarchical speeches, and declared “the obligation of subordination to the Provisional Government.” At the same time, distrust was expressed in the ruling Archbishop of Vladimir Alexy (Dorodnitsyn), who was accused of his connection with Grigory Rasputin and monarchist beliefs, as well as his manner of despotic rule of the parish clergy and flock. Of the 372 members of the congress, there was not a single one who would speak out in defense of Alexy, and the congress unanimously decided to remove him from the diocese and send him to retirement. Expelled from Vladimir, he went to seek ecclesiastical happiness in Ukraine, from which he came. Subsequently, in Kyiv, he took the path of a “church revolutionary,” denounced the Local Council in Moscow in print and orally, and led the way toward the separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Church, hoping to become a “Ukrainian patriarch.” In general, Alexy Dorodnitsyn was a colorful type of Russian bishop. He had a wonderful voice and was an excellent regent. And at the same time he was disproportionately obese, so that he could not finish the liturgy without changing his vestments, for he was exhausted from the heat. His appetite amazed everyone who knew him, and when he was thirsty, he could drink almost a bucket of water. The question of a new bishop was submitted to an extraordinary diocesan congress, scheduled for August 1917. In the meantime, various candidates have been put forward. Among them was Sergius Stragorodsky. In the pre-election confrontation, the biography of Archbishop Sergius of Stragorodsky, published in the Vladimir Diocesan Gazette (No. 31), is of particular interest. The spirit of the times depicted “hostility to the overthrown autocracy,” opposition to Grigory Rasputin and his companions, opposition to the appointment of Barnabas to the episcopal see and his unauthorized discovery of relics. For the latter, he was awarded, as the newspaper wrote, “the highest moral award” - a reprimand and displeasure from Tsarskoye Selo. This is what Empress Alexandra Feodorovna wrote in one of her letters to the sovereign: “Agafangel spoke so poorly (from Yaroslavl). He should be sent to rest and replaced (in Yaroslavl. - M.O.) by Sergius of Finland, who should leave the Synod... The Synod must be given a good lesson and a strict reprimand for its behavior” (Tsarskoe Selo. September 9, 1915). “What have they come to! - exclaims the empress in another letter. “Even there, anarchy reigns!” The newspaper also pointed out such a fact of Sergius’s biography as a “connection” with revolutionaries. The story with M.V. Novorussky was meant. He graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1886, then joined the “People's Will” movement and, together with A.I. Ulyanov, prepared an assassination attempt on Emperor Alexander III. He was arrested and sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment in the Shlisselburg fortress. In October 1905, in the wake of the first Russian revolution, Novorussky was released. And at that moment, Archbishop Sergius of Stragorodsky took him on bail and provided him with a place to live. While living in the bishop's house in Vyborg, the failed “regicide” wrote his memoirs “Notes of a Shlisselburger.” The newspaper article summarized: “It is known that Novorussky, released from Shlisselburg, initially found shelter and affection with His Eminence Sergius; other Shlisselburgers, for example, the famous Morozov, visited him with confidence. This sympathy for everything sincere and worthy, as well as for unhappy and sometimes embittered humanity, was always unfeignedly true in him, alien to showmanship or politicking” 61. An extraordinary congress of clergy and laity of the Vladimir diocese opened literally a week before the start of the Local Council. After a rather lengthy discussion, it became clear that the meeting settled mainly on four candidates: Archpriest Nalimov, Archbishop Sergius, Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) and Bishop Evgeniy, vicar of the Vladimir diocese. These candidates were voted on by notes at the evening meeting. When counting the votes, it turned out that Archpriest Nalimov received a majority, but not an absolute one (207 out of 526), ​​Archbishop Sergius received 187 votes, Bishops Evgeniy and Andrey received less than a hundred votes each. On August 9, the solemn election of a bishop took place in the Assumption Cathedral. An eyewitness to the events described the election procedure as follows: “Voters were called from a list; approaching the ballot box, they presented their delegate tickets and cast the ballot. Thanks to these measures, the ballot papers were cast in perfect order... The names of the candidates named in the notes were called out loudly, and voters followed the progress of the voting with keen interest. By the end of counting the notes, it turned out that the majority of votes were in favor of Archbishop Sergius. Apparently, the mood of some voters changed overnight; Bishop Andrei's candidacy was withdrawn, and those who nominated him the day before went over to the side of Archbishop Sergius; Some of those who had voted the day before for Bishop Eugene also went over to the same side. The voting results were as follows: Archbishop Sergius received an absolute majority of votes (307), Archpriest Nalimov - 204, Bishop Evgeniy - 27.” The correctness of the elections was monitored by a commission led by Archbishop Tikhon of Moscow. So Archbishop Sergius of Finland became Archbishop of Vladimir and Shuisky, managing to attract an additional 120 people to his side in one night. The refusal in his favor by Andrei Ufimsky was not accidental. This bishop, also anti-monarchist, was a faithful ally of Sergius of Stragorod and did not hesitate to persuade his supporters to vote for the latter. Here is what Bishop Andrei wrote in the previous months about the causes of the February Revolution: “My opinion is this: this happened because this regime was recently unprincipled, sinful, immoral. The autocracy of the Russian tsars degenerated first into autocracy, and then into a clear autocracy that surpassed all probability.” Sergius made priority appointments of the parish clergy, and also formed a new composition of the diocesan council, which was supposed to deal with church problems in his absence. There was no time left for more; the Local Council was about to begin in Moscow. For a short time, Sergius will return to his diocese after the end of the first session of the Council. On December 23, 1917, the clergy of the diocese solemnly met their bishop near the Assumption Cathedral. He chose the Nativity of the Virgin Mary Monastery as his place of residence, located in the old part of the city, on a hill dominating Klyazma and the part of the suburb beyond the river. However, although he stayed in the diocese a little longer than other bishops in their dioceses, since he had to get to know her and establish church life, already at the end of January a telegraph call came to Moscow, to the Council. ...On the morning of February 16, 1918, Metropolitan Sergius returned to Moscow. Immediately from the station, he hurried to the Diocesan House, where, as he had been informed by telephone the day before, the first joint meeting of the newly established supreme bodies of church government was to take place. The Metropolitan entered the cathedral chamber at the moment when the secretary of the Council, P. V. Guryev, ascended the pulpit to announce the draft conciliar definition on the highest church bodies, adopted on January 31 after heated debate. His voice sounded firm and convincing: – The Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council entered into the exercise of their ministry on February 1, 1918 and accepted from the Holy Synod all matters of church administration. Sergius quickly went to his usual place. He was unpleasantly struck by the significant number of empty bishop's chairs. He counted his fellow bishops at just over thirty. And many seats in the hall were empty: barely a third of the Council members were present. A little later, the meeting was interrupted - Patriarch Tikhon appeared in the hall. After teaching the blessing to the cathedral members, he went to the presidium. The members of the Council greeted him standing and chanted: “These are the people, the despot.” Slowly, but somehow muffled, Tikhon began his speech: – Information that appeared in newspapers about the murder of Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) in Kyiv, unfortunately, has now been confirmed. – The members of the Council stood up from their seats and made the sign of the cross. – The soldiers who came to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra conducted a search, and then ordered Metropolitan Vladimir to get dressed and go to the commandant. The next morning, Metropolitan Vladimir was found murdered near the Lavra. Two mortal wounds and several bayonet wounds were found on the corpse... Let us pray for the repose of the pure and holy soul of Metropolitan Vladimir. His Holiness the Patriarch, with the members of the Council singing together, performed a memorial service for the murdered man. At the end, the patriarch, co-served by several archimandrites and archpriests, performed a prayer service. Then he addressed those gathered with a short speech, calling them to sacrificially work together with him for the benefit of the Holy Church of Christ in these “evil days.” P. V. Guryev ascended the podium again and finished reading the text of the conciliar resolution on the rights and responsibilities of the church institutions being opened. After this, the patriarch asked the members of these institutions to remain in the hall, and the first joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council began. Metropolitan Sergius, like the other members of these bodies, felt the unusualness of what was happening. A line was drawn under an entire era in the life of Russia, the church and the Russian people. Almost 200 years ago, in 1721, Peter the Great established the Holy Governing Synod, and now its powers were transferred to new church bodies. The Church had to live outside of state support, in a hitherto unknown political system. They talked that day about the upcoming priority work of the Synod and the council, about the current economic and organizational problems of the Local Council, about the actions of pastors and laity in defense of the trampled church. Metropolitan Sergius also spoke repeatedly that day. Referring to his impressions from a trip to the Vladimir diocese, he pointed out that in the conditions of revolutionary chaos in many places, the people, fearing the repressions of the godless authorities, fled from the church councils, and there were church buildings that were not properly looked after and protected, which created a reason for the authorities to rob churches, citing their ownerless condition, and the church people did not protect them. Therefore, it is necessary, Sergius urged, to strengthen church councils with people faithful to Orthodoxy, so that there will be someone to take charge of the churches. “It is necessary,” he said, “for local bishops and parish clergy to develop principles and conditions for the existence of parishes in relation to the situation, not to wait for a miracle, so as not to end up in the position of people who are always five minutes late for the train.” Being in Moscow throughout the session, Metropolitan Sergius was extremely active, constantly participating in services in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, performing services in the church at the Valaam courtyard and, at the invitation of believers, in other churches in Moscow. He paid a lot of attention to the leadership of the department “On the Church Court,” where draft conciliar rulings on church disciplinary issues were developed. ...On March 15, in the morning, the Council began discussing the Council’s resolution “On the reasons for the dissolution of a marriage consecrated by the Church.” Speaking on behalf of the department and on behalf of its head, Archbishop Sergius, V.V. Radzimovsky and F.G. Gavrilov proposed adding new ones to the previous reasons for divorce (adultery, premarital incapacity, exile with deprivation of wealth rights and unknown absence): deviation from Orthodoxy, inability to cohabitate during marriage; infringement on the life, health and honorable name of the spouse; entering into a new marriage while the marriage with the plaintiff exists; incurable mental illness, syphilis, leprosy and malicious abandonment of a spouse. In order to clearly hear the arguments for and against the department’s proposals, Sergius sat closer to the speakers, immediately behind the presidium of the Council, in the first row of bishop’s chairs. The controversy over the reports suddenly became very heated. One after another, Archbishop Anastasy (Alexandrov) of Chisinau, Bishop Seraphim (Gribanovsky) of Chelyabinsk, Archpriest E.I. Bekarevich, priest A.R. Ponomarev, Count P.N. Apraksin, members of the Council A.V. Vasiliev and peasant A.I. Iyudin, who sharply criticized the project for excessive liberalism and connivance, reached the podium. Few of the speakers supported the project - Bishop Tikhon of the Urals, Prince A. G. Chegodaev, Professor N. D. Kuznetsov. During the discussion, Sergius had to take the floor several times. Objecting to those who accused of liberalism and demanded a reduction in the “permitted reasons” for divorce, he emphasized: – Whenever there was a debate in the church about the use of severity or leniency, she always took the side of leniency. Church history testifies to this. Sectarians and Pharisees have always stood for severity. The Lord Himself, our Savior, who was a friend of tax collectors and sinners, said that He came to save sinners, not the righteous. Therefore, you need to take a person as he is and save him, the fallen one. In the first times of Christianity, for an ideal Christian there could be no question of divorce: after all, if for one’s salvation one must suffer for the sake of Christ, then why divorce, why the convenience of life? But to prohibit divorce in our days, for our weak Christians, means to destroy them. The severity of the discussion led to the fact that the draft definition drawn up by the department on church discipline was returned after discussion by the Conference of Bishops. Only months later, during the third session, the department managed to defend most of its proposals and the Council’s definition was nevertheless adopted. In the evening of the same day, Sergius invited the members of the department to meet again, since many questions had accumulated and answers to requests from the Council had not been prepared. This time the conversation turned to the wearing of secular dress by the clergy and cutting their hair. The discussion was surprisingly lively. Two main points of view collided: the first was to abolish the obligation to wear a beard and long hair and allow the clergy to wear secular dress outside the church; the second is to leave everything as it is, without encroaching on pious traditions. During the debate, it became clear that the existing spiritual attire was never legalized by any Council and that before Patriarch Nikon, the clergy wore caftans, no different in clothing from the ordinary man in the street. As for cutting hair, it turned out that wearing long hair is prohibited even by church rules as a kind of dandy. The debate became so heated that the presiding Metropolitan Sergius more than once called for calm and reminded that the department is obliged to prepare its opinion on these issues, based not on someone else’s ideas, but on a church-historical basis, the practice of the Russian Church, and at the same time, one should take into account modern attitudes both in society and in the church itself. After more than two hours of discussion, a consensus was eventually reached. Sergius read it out in the form of a draft: “First. Recommend that the clergy wear the prescribed dress - a cassock. The wearing of the cassock is left to the discretion of the clergyman himself. The second is to recommend moderate hair cutting.” – Are there any objections? – Sergius asked after reading. The representative of the Sukhumi diocese, Archpriest Georgy Golubtsov, stood up: – As I remember, we talked about the clergy abroad and the outlying Russian dioceses. How can we be there anyway? “Yes, they did,” responded Metropolitan Sergius. “But from all that was said, I could not form a clear opinion of those present. In order not to leave the question asked unanswered, I propose to write down the following wording in the draft of our decision: “The clergy abroad, of outlying dioceses, teaching in secular educational institutions, serving in secular institutions, when performing physical work, on the road and in general, when their pastoral conscience allows, are allowed to wear secular dress and cut their hair.” – After a pause, Sergius concluded: “If there are no objections, I propose to vote.” Those present unanimously raised their hands. The issue was resolved. Everyone slowly began to leave with a feeling of satisfaction. Metropolitan Sergius, looking around the gradually emptying conference room, noticed Father Georgy Golubtsov, called out to him and invited him to his place. “The patriarch told me about his conversation with you,” he turned to his interlocutor. – Both the Synod and the Council are extremely concerned about the needs of the Orthodox flock in the Caucasus and the situation there in general, which has developed in connection with the proclamation of the non-canonical autocephaly of the Georgian Church. His Holiness asked you to prepare a written report and your proposals for organizing church affairs there... Will a week be enough for you? – Of course, and we have already discussed some things in our Caucasian department. – Let’s agree this: when you’re ready, let me know. And I also convey to you the patriarch’s request to participate in the patriarchal service on Orthodoxy Week in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. ...On Sunday, March 24, early in the morning, the festive service began in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. It took place here, because the ancient Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, where it took place for the last four and a half centuries, was inaccessible to believers. The Divine Liturgy was served by Patriarch Tikhon, who was co-served by Metropolitans Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Sergius (Stragorodsky) and a dozen other bishops, archimandrites, and archpriests. The church, which can accommodate about twenty thousand people, was full. The place in the middle of the hall, where so recently the highest Moscow officials stood during services, was now occupied by members of the Council. Metropolitan Anthony delivered a sermon on the theme of the holiday. At the end of the liturgy, Patriarch Tikhon came out into the middle of the church at the head of a host of bishops and clergy. The inimitable Patriarchal Archdeacon Konstantin Rozov, meaningfully, beautifully and touchingly with his unusually thick, velvety bass, highlighting all the thoughts of the ceremony, exclaimed: - Who is the great God like our God? You are the only God who can create miracles! Having repeated this phrase three times, the archdeacon, with unusual solemnity, emphasizing each word, read the Creed. Every word he uttered penetrated the soul of those present. At that moment, Sergius’s gaze fell on Patriarch Tikhon, who was standing slightly ahead, and he saw tears rolling down the patriarch’s cheeks. Whether these were tears of tenderness or sorrow, God knows! But it seemed to Sergius that in the person of the primate of the Orthodox Church, all believers, pure Russia, were shedding tears. After reading the Creed, Archdeacon Rozov again sang the ancient solemn and touching chant: – This is the apostolic faith, this is the fatherly faith, this is the Orthodox faith, this is the faith that establishes the universe. When Rozov finished his marvelous singing, the audience fell into stupor for a minute. Everyone was possessed by a common feeling of confidence that no forces really could destroy the Orthodox faith, that it was established in Russia for centuries and, above all, in the hearts of believers, and therefore no forces of hell could destroy it in the human race, only if together with this race. The climax of the service had arrived. Father Konstantin began to speak with extraordinary force about those who, considered among the children of the Orthodox Church, do not share the Orthodox faith. He began to proclaim “anathema” to them, and with such force that it became creepy. For every cry of the archdeacon “anathema!” echoed an equally strong “anathema!” presbyters of the Assumption Cathedral. An “anathema” was also proclaimed to the powers that be, the current rulers of Russia, according to a formula specially developed for this purpose. At the end of the service, Georgy Golubtsov went to the place where the carriages of the bishops who participated in the service stood, looking for Metropolitan Sergius. But he was already walking towards him. – Greetings, Father George. Happy holiday! Why are you so confused and worried? – Vladyka, today will remain memorable for me for the rest of my life. The Rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy is celebrated annually here in Sukhumi, but it has never made such an amazing impression on me. “Father Konstantin was good, good today, that’s why everything went so sublimely and solemnly, touchingly.” Yes, perhaps, it’s scary, because this is the time. “Everything is extraordinary for me: the patriarchal service with a host of bishops, and Rozov, and the powerful bass voices of the protopresbyters of the Assumption Cathedral, and a huge gathering of worshipers who gathered fearlessly in this painful time... - You are right, father, you are right. By the way, about business. I watched your report yesterday and liked it. Now I’m taking him to the patriarch in the Trinity Compound, where a meeting of the Synod is scheduled for three o’clock. By the way, where are you staying? “Then get into my carriage, I’ll give you a ride and we’ll clarify some things along the way.” The service that took place became an impressive demonstration of the believers’ support for the church and the efforts of its head, Patriarch Tikhon, and prompted the church leadership to appeal directly to the authorities with a demand to cancel the decree on the separation of church and state. A few days later, on March 28, a special commission formed by the Council, headed by A.D. Samarin, visited the Council of People's Commissars. The commission was accepted by the manager of the Council of People's Commissars, V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, and the People's Commissars D.I. Kursky and M.T. Elizarov. The head of the delegation, A.D. Samarin, stated: “We know well what a unanimous feeling of deep and heartfelt indignation aroused in all Orthodox people devoted to the Church by the decree you issued on freedom of conscience and all your orders, by which the Church is embarrassed in its life and deprived of its property. The Orthodox Church looks at all this, and cannot look at it otherwise, as a serious and unprovoked insult to religious feeling on its part, as violence that most blatantly violates that freedom of conscience and those principles of impartial justice and equality that you yourself proclaim... You will know that the religious tranquility of one hundred million Orthodox Russian population, undoubtedly necessary for the state good, can be achieved only by canceling all orders encroaching on the life and freedom of the Church” 62. As soon as the door closed behind the church delegation, V.I. Lenin unexpectedly entered the office. He sat the negotiators down and demanded a report from each. People's Commissar of Justice D.I. Kursky limited himself to pointing out that there were no legal grounds for repealing or any revision of the decree on the separation of church and state, and then he said somehow wearily: – It would be necessary to introduce stricter control over the implementation of the decree on the ground and abandon militant anti-religious rhetoric. For some reason V.D. Bonch-Bruevich fell into historical analogies: “And remember, Vladimir Ilyich, how Plekhanov in 1905, during the most fundamental debate about the essence of the Social Democratic movement, said: “With our victory, the first and unchangeable thing is the separation of church and state.” And then he literally shouted: “But we will immediately trample these mitron-bearing scoundrels from all state and public institutions!..” And no one objected to him, he concluded. Quite unexpectedly, the words of the People's Commissar of Railways M.T. Elizarov sounded, who, contrary to his revolutionary past and what he had just heard, suggested with a naive intonation: – What if we tell the higher clergy that they are, at least a little bit, recognized by the Soviet authorities as such? How they would ring all the bells!.. And tomorrow they would proclaim a toast to Soviet power, and the entire church people would follow them... “That would be terrible,” Lenin interrupted the commissar’s tirade, “the people should follow us, not them.” Despite their, all this priestly, opposition. And we must keep a watchful eye on them, more than anyone else... Don’t forget,” he patted Elizarov’s shoulder, “these are our tried and tested, eternal enemies, and remember: “A claw gets stuck and the whole bird is lost!” Everyone except Elizarov laughed in unison. And Lenin, after hesitating, suddenly slashed the air with his palm and concluded: - Yes, we will not retreat. But one should not rashly follow the path of confrontation either. We will gradually implement the provisions of the decree, explain its essence to the masses, and move towards the adoption of a constitution with a special article on freedom of conscience. The presumptuous party members,” here he looked at Kursky, “and with the help of your department, Dmitry Ivanovich, should be corrected.” And you, Vladimir Dmitrievich, take care of the literary and propaganda forces. And you, Mark Timofeevich, need to think not about bells and toasts, but about carriages for the cathedral members, which should be used to quickly take them out of Moscow... It’s calmer this way. Look, they won’t come to the next session. ...At the end of the second session of the Council, Sergius, with the permission of Patriarch Tikhon, went to his diocese. Here he was able to turn to urgent diocesan matters: he divided the diocese into metropolitan districts and vicariates with the right of the vicar to independently govern the diocese under the leadership of the metropolitan. Made a number of trips to parishes. In sermons, addresses and letters to diocesan councils, deans and vicars, Sergius invariably called on clergy to “kindle the fire of the Christian faith in the souls of people,” to intensify preaching and educational activities in every possible way, and to organize the teaching of the Law of God at churches within the framework allowed by the decree on the separation of church and state. Although Vladimir is located relatively close to Moscow, getting there when called by the patriarch to participate in the work of the Holy Synod became more and more difficult each time. The railways were under martial law, and it was possible to obtain a pass to travel to Moscow only from the authorities. During the civil war, they were very reluctant to hand them over to the church hierarchs, considering their travel around the country undesirable, especially since for the authorities the church had become a force acting on the side of the whites or sympathizing with them. For example, in 1919, one of the reports of the Vladimir gubchek reported the following: “The attitude of the clergy towards the authorities is hostile, they do not dare to speak out openly, but often in “religious conversations”, criticizing the Soviet government, they strike the tense strings of the population - about food and other issues of the grain monopoly, free trade” 63. But, be that as it may, at the very beginning of October 1919, Sergius, after much ordeal, painful and tedious efforts, managed to obtain permission to travel to Moscow for a period of three days. ...Early in the morning the train moved slowly through the Moscow suburbs. Passengers, exhausted from the journey, crowded around the windows, watching buildings, bridges, churches, roads, and occasional groups of people passing by. Here is the platform of the Kursk railway station. “Gra-zhda-ne,” the conductor shouted loudly and in a singsong voice, “Mos-kv-ah, the capital!” - And, after a little hesitation, he added: - Dad, go out and don’t forget your little things! Together with the crowd, which was dominated by gray military overcoats, Sergius went out onto the station square. Quickly finding a free cab driver, sitting down comfortably and placing his luggage next to him, he said: The morning chill was refreshing and drove away road fatigue. All at once the worries and difficulties experienced during the trip, which, due to endless stops and checks, lasted for 12 hours, were put aside. “Finally, I’m at my goal,” thought the Metropolitan. “Now all that remains is to get to the courtyard, and we can consider the job done.” In Sergius’s pocket was a blue telegram form from the patriarch - his pass and explanation for all unforeseen circumstances. The text stated that the meeting of the Synod was scheduled for 16:00 on October 8. “Wait,” Sergius turned to the cab driver. He thought that there was still a lot of time left, and there was no point in disturbing the patriarch so early. – Let’s go to the Kremlin first, I haven’t been there for a long time. The towers and walls of the Kremlin and Pashkov's house appeared. The carriage descended from the Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge. We stopped at the Manege. Having released the cab driver and having previously agreed on a meeting in Okhotny Ryad, being left alone, Sergius slowly walked through the Alexander Garden. He recognized and did not recognize him: the sun suddenly peeked through the gray autumn clouds, and it became clear that the mighty trunks of centuries-old linden trees were painted lilac, violet, crimson and yellow. Against the background of the brick-red wall, they looked like some kind of phantasmagoric obsession. An ordinary man sitting on a bench, seeing Sergius looking around in amazement, kindly explained: “Then avant-garde artists, with the permission of the authorities, decorate the city in this way for the second anniversary of the October Revolution. “Get away, get away from here,” the Metropolitan began to pound in his head. “Run away from this kingdom of ghosts.” Immediately outside the gate he saw hundreds of people: old people, women, children. They all pulled in one direction - towards the Iveron Icon. I thought: “At least here everything is the same. The same crowd of suffering, beggars and wretched people with equally tender faces. Here it is, the real believing Russia, being saved and saving from all adversity and troubles. And the heart of Russia is the Iverskaya Chapel with a miraculous shrine. By rallying around her, we will all be saved together.” ...At three o'clock in the afternoon, Metropolitan Sergius, having rested a little in the Valaam courtyard, went to the meeting of the Synod. Here is the metropolitan courtyard: behind a high stone wall there is a modest two-story house, although spacious, but without any special architectural features. Adjacent to it is a small garden, a vegetable garden, flower beds and a bathhouse. Having entered the house and ascended to the second floor to the meeting room of the Synod, Sergius joined the already assembled invitees: members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council, Moscow deans, abbots of large Moscow churches and abbots of monasteries. At exactly four o'clock Patriarch Tikhon entered the hall. “As you know,” he began his opening speech, “this spring, on behalf of the entirety of the Orthodox Church, we appealed to the Council of People’s Commissars with a demand to stop the desecration of the remains of saints revered by the people, pointing out that the opening of the relics obliges us to defend the desecrated shrine and, if it continues, will force us to paternally proclaim to the people that they must obey God more than man. But the current rulers do not heed the voice of the church. As reported from Totma and Novgorod, Tver and Yaroslavl, Rostov and Belev, from other Russian cities, the autopsy continues, dozens and dozens of holy remains have already been exposed to shame and ridicule. A month ago, the Synod appealed to the liquidation department of the People's Commissariat of Justice. I will now inform you of the response received. The Patriarch took out his glasses and slowly wiped them, then put them on, took a sheet of paper from the table and read: “In response to your letter, the VIII Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice informs us that outrages during the opening of relics are, of course, unacceptable, about which a circular has been sent out. It is impossible to dissuade old women. But there are masses of letters and messages from the field that the impression among the masses at the opening of the relics is not in favor of superstition, but on the contrary.” “It seems,” the patriarch continued, “those present have an idea of ​​how all this is done and how millions of believers feel about it. But we recently learned that not everyone is united with us. There are also Judas-traitors among the clergy under our jurisdiction. I ask you to inform Archimandrite Peter about this. “In my hands,” he began, “is the statement of the “Executive Committee of the Spirit.” As stated here, this is “an organization of parish clergy concerned about the situation in the church.” I read selectively some of the provisions of the message: “In view of the mass of victims from among the clergy, both previously due to the appearance of the guiding appeals of the Bishop Patriarch, directed against the Bolshevik government and its actions, and at the present time, due to the absence of a direct prohibition to turn divine services and religious processions, as well as church pulpits, into means and places of propaganda and for the expression of political sympathies, it is necessary to ask the Bishop Patriarch to indicate by circular mailing his new appeal. If this follows, it will have a categorical impact on the clergy, since doubts on the part of the Soviet government about the loyalty of the masses of the clergy are really based on the facts of the widespread ringing of bells, religious processions and prayers on the occasion of the victory of the troops advancing on Central Russia.” - Thank you, father. So what are the opinions? – asked the patriarch. The hierarchs who spoke then called on the Patriarch and the Synod to condemn the authors of the message, expel them from the priesthood, and expel them from churches. They were unanimous that the signatories were presenting a brazen ultimatum to the church, and therefore it was necessary to notify all believers about the negative attitude of the church leadership towards this arbitrary organization. As the issue of a new message about the “desecration of relics” was discussed, it became clear that the majority of those gathered were inclined to repeatedly petition the Council of People’s Commissars so that the holy relics would not be opened, they would not be taken to museums, but these Orthodox shrines would be left in the custody of the believing people. “Your Holiness, your Eminences and venerable fathers,” Metropolitan Sergius entered the discussion. “I agree that we should reject the advances of this, as we now like to say in letters, not words, organization “Executive Committee of the Spirit.” But I think we should wait a bit with the repeated appeal to the holy relics. Firstly, not everyone has yet managed to carry out the order of the patriarch to eliminate in all churches and monasteries any reason for mockery and temptation in relation to holy relics. And secondly, it is now desirable to urgently provide the pastors of the church with the appropriate materials for theological understanding of the essence of understanding the word “power”. It must be convinced that the church has never linked the worship of miraculous relics with the obligatory presence of “whole” bodies of the saints of God. For the church, any remains of Christian saints that have come down from the depths of history are sacred. This must be discussed in sermons, in the press, and during meetings with believers. And one more thing... - Sergius fell silent, as if wondering whether he should utter the next phrase, and yet said: - Is it necessary to go for a new aggravation of relations with the authorities? It is obvious that strength is on her side, and many believers are with her. Are the authorities using this appeal to once again accuse us, in their terminology, of being counter-revolutionary? Maybe it’s time, given the situation, to demonstrate some neutrality towards political life, politics and politicians? Take some kind of conciliatory step? “So, everyone has spoken,” the patriarch summed up. – As for this “Executive Committee of the Spirit”, everything is clear. We will instruct the Synod department to prepare a message exposing their lies, especially since there is a lot of information about the connection of this organization with the Cheka. Regarding the letter to the Council of People’s Commissars,” Tikhon paused, as if choosing his words, “we won’t send anything to anyone from the authorities for now. Let’s meet again a little later and discuss this issue... I think that you,” he turned to Sergius, “are right in some ways.” And now I declare the meeting closed. The next day, a messenger from the Trinity Compound came to the house on 2nd Tverskaya-Yamskaya. The Metropolitan was urgently asked to come to the Patriarchal chambers. Less than an hour later, Sergius Stragorodsky entered the Trinity Compound. Having invited the visitor to sit next to him on the sofa, the patriarch began the conversation: - Forgive me, sir, for the urgent call, but I think you will understand me. Your words at yesterday’s meeting about “counter-revolutionism” and “neutrality” excited me and directly coincided with my thoughts in recent months. “Your Holiness,” Sergius began, “this is like a cry from the soul.” They stuck us in place... we found ourselves between a rock and a hard place. The authorities accuse people of being “counter-revolutionary,” sympathizing with the White movement, arresting priests even for the most innocent critical words addressed to them. And believers demand that the priest “serve God” and not touch the rest. The laity say to your face: “It’s none of your business what kind of power is in the yard and what kind of power we serve. Your job is to correct the service and correct the needs. And whoever of you doesn’t like the Soviets, go to Denikin and Kolchak, and leave us alone, we will make our own choice.” “And news reaches me from everywhere about the persecution of the clergy for “politics.” Moreover, as they report, the local authorities for some reason point to Moscow, saying: “There is a nest of counter-revolution in the church ruling circles, and you, the locals, take their example from them. And if so, then your suffering is right!” – But what kind of “nest of counter-revolution” are we, members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council? – We are, of course, not a “nest”. But the fact remains: the arrests continue and the conversation with the authorities is not working out. – I was repeatedly invited to the Cheka in Vladimir. They showed me all sorts of leaflets, brochures, messages that had arrived from the other side. They asked: “Are these authors hierarchs, priests, laymen, members of the Russian Orthodox Church?” “Yes,” I answer. “Patriarch Tikhon is recognized as your head?” “Yes,” I answer. “Why are they fighting with us and getting bogged down in politics?” I'm silent. They continue: “And you convince us that the church is outside politics, neutral.” I'm silent. For it is difficult to object to anything. “And I tried to explain myself to the authorities.” I wrote to Lenin, Bonch-Bruevich, Kalinin... I talked to Latsis and Krasikov at the Cheka! They don't believe us. Much more than that - he undertook to comply with the decree on secession and the Constitution of the RSFSR with its thirteenth clause on freedom of conscience. He didn’t even speak out against the damned eighth department of the People’s Commissariat of Justice, together with the Judas Spitsberg and Galkin who were entrenched there. But guess what... they don’t believe it. Everyone is suspected of connections with foreign countries, of the counters that we are allegedly building against the Soviet regime. – Your Holiness, perhaps you could address the congregation directly with some kind of message? Explain how the clergy should behave and how they should treat the authorities. - You're right on point. I prepared just this. I wanted to discuss it at the meeting yesterday. – The Patriarch handed Sergius several typewritten sheets of paper. – But after your speech I decided to meet and talk with you. Read it. Sergius carefully read the message given to him, under which there was a date: October 8, but there was still no signature of the patriarch. – Your Holiness, I subscribe to every word you say. This is what is needed for the church today. The message will bring peace to the ranks of the church and will give the authorities an answer to all their claims against us... Now, if only we preface the text of the message with a different epigraph... You know, the lines from the Epistle to the Romans: “I pray you, brethren, beware of those who create strife and strife... turn away from them.” - I agree, so be it. Let me correct it and sign it. Let's leave the date the same. That was the message of Patriarch Tikhon to the Orthodox clergy and flock about non-interference in the political struggle. It may have become Tikhon's first public step towards recognizing the new political status quo in Russia. This can be confirmed, for example, by the following words: “Many archpastors, pastors, and simple clergy have already become victims of a bloody political struggle. And all this, with perhaps very few exceptions, is only because we, the ministers and heralds of Christ’s Truth, have come under suspicion among the bearers of modern power of a hidden counter-revolution, supposedly aimed at the overthrow of the Soviet system. But we decisively declare that such suspicions are unfair: the establishment of one form of government or another is not the business of the church, but of the people themselves. The Church does not associate itself with any particular form of government, for this has only relative historical significance” 64. “Your Eminence,” the patriarch continued the conversation, “I have one request for you.” You see how the ranks of our episcopate are melting. God knows what lies ahead for all of us. But to the best of our ability, we should look for and call worthy persons to the episcopal service. And although the time is threatening and troubled, there are those who exist among the Orthodox Russian people. – I am of the same mind with you and, just as you are in Moscow, so am I in the diocese, I strive not only to fill all priestly vacancies, but also ordain assistants for myself - diocesan vicars. “Yes, yes... I want,” the patriarch continued his thought, “to talk with you about one candidate and would like to know your opinion.” I'm talking about Pyotr Fedorovich Polyansky. You know him from his work on the Synod Educational Committee, right? – The Patriarch looked questioningly at his interlocutor. Metropolitan Sergius, not at all surprised by the name being heard and even as if expecting it to be pronounced, replied: – The good qualities of Pyotr Fedorovich’s soul are known. He gained the respect of many, many as a zealous person who knew church affairs. At one time he traveled a lot around Russia, being an auditor in the Educational Committee of the Synod, and left behind a good memory. He also proved himself to be a practical person at the Council during the revolution... The Patriarch, clearly delighted by Sergius’s words, interrupted him: “Vladyka, then be his spiritual father.” Complete monastic tonsure and ordain to the priesthood. And later I will ordain him Bishop of Podolsk, Vicar of Moscow. End of the Civil War By the end of 1920, the political situation in Soviet Russia had changed significantly. In the European part of the country, the Civil War ended in victory for the Soviets, and its remaining fronts rolled further and further beyond the Urals - into Siberia and the Far East. Russia is a peasant country, and much, if not all, was determined by the position of this predominant part of the population. The “man,” who suffered more than anyone else in the bloody civil strife, who experienced both red and white power, nevertheless made a choice in favor of Soviet power. For he saw that “gentlemen” were following the white army, that the old order, against which he had always rebelled, was returning. And it turned out that the commissars and Bolsheviks were closer to him than the governors and constables. By the way, this was realized not only by the authorities and society inside Russia, but also outside its borders. Pavel Milyukov, the leader of the Cadets, at a party meeting held in Paris in December 1920, polemicizing with those who blamed the “peasant” for the defeat of the White movement, who allegedly failed to make the right choice between the Bolsheviks and the Cadets, and who openly called for organizing a new interventionist campaign against Russia with the help of the West, said words that do him honor: “You speak disparagingly about the “peasants” who do not managed to choose from the 21st batch. Of course, it is easier for non-men to choose according to the limited qualification law. But I'm starting to respect these ignorant men. It was not we, but they, who exercised their will, instinctively and passionately resisting all our attempts to “liberate” them from the outside. They obviously do not want such liberation, with such accompaniment: and because of this, the civil war dragged on. It’s time to stop being stubborn and take a closer look at what is really happening inside Russia. But here, too, there are no two ways to go. If armed struggle, under favorable conditions, every time encountered resistance from the population... then what can one hope for now, without territory, when the cards are open and relations are established? 65 The victory of Soviet power in the Civil War meant the end of the internal political confrontation in Soviet Russia. It is clear that this would not have been possible without the support of the new government from the majority of the population. Patriarch Tikhon was also aware of this. In none of the oral or written speeches known to us, in the documents, messages and addresses of the patriarch after the Civil War, there is not a shadow of doubt about the legitimacy of the new government or a hint of its non-recognition by the church. On the contrary, the need for the clergy and believers, as well as the church as a whole, to have a loyal attitude to the authorities was emphasized. From that time on, the patriarch himself desired and strove to cooperate with the authorities. In the emerging new political conditions, the Soviet government had to, abandoning the techniques and methods of “war communism”, find other approaches to the state and social development of Russia. With regard to the problems of state-church relations, different opinions clashed in the party-Soviet structures. Some (F.E. Dzerzhinsky, P.A. Krasikov) continued to see in religious organizations, primarily in the Russian Orthodox Church, a “political enemy”, a “rudiment” of the old denied world and considered it necessary to carry out a tough policy towards them, seeking their “collapse” and “decay”. Others (A.V. Lunacharsky, M. Latsis, and later, in part, L.D. Trotsky) said that in the church, along with “conservative” ones, there are also “progressive” elements, which, with the appropriate policy, can be attracted to “Soviet work” and ensure that the church itself becomes “Soviet”. In December 1920, People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky sent several personal letters to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, V.I. Lenin, about the need and possibility of changes in the policy of the party and state on the religious issue. The ideas they contained were to some extent due to the rapprochement of the People's Commissar with the former Archbishop Vladimir (Putyata), who was defrocked by the Council of Bishops in April 1918 for “violating canonical norms.” Meetings with Putyata, with whom the People's Commissar had known since pre-revolutionary times, stirred up his long-standing God-seeking sentiments in him and gave rise to the assumption of the possibility of dialogue between the party and the church. In one of these letters we read: “Today I had Archbishop Vladimir of Penza, known to you by rumor, the founder of the so-called free Orthodox Church, the enemy of Patriarch Tikhon. He claims that the Tikhonov Church (Black Hundred) is going through a severe crisis, that the majority of the clergy, seeing the strength of Soviet power, is reaching out to officially recognize it in order to defuse the atmosphere of hostility that naturally surrounds the official clergy... One of these days, the famous theologian and Orthodox philosopher Bishop Antonin will allegedly officially go over to him, and finally, Metropolitan Benjamin of St. Petersburg seems to be very inclined towards a freely established church. All this, according to Vladimir, makes it possible, with the slightest, by no means official, help from the Soviet government, to overthrow Tikhon and lead to recognition by the church of the principles: 1) God-ordained Soviet Power; 2) The correctness of the principle of separation of church and state; 3) Complete harmonization of the communist ideal with true Christianity" 66. Reporting this, Lunacharsky wanted to receive from the leader, albeit not official, but approval of his contacts with Vladimir and permission to continue their “private conversations” for the sake of “informing about the fermentation taking place in the church.” Knowing very well the addictive nature of Lunacharsky, Lenin decided to consult with the chairman of the Cheka F.E. Dzerzhinsky and the head of the “liquidation” department of the People’s Commissariat of Justice P.A. Krasikov. But neither one nor the other supported Lunacharsky’s initiative. Dzerzhinsky sent Lenin reports from department heads who, in their direct activities, encountered the clergy and religious activists. And in an accompanying note to them he wrote: “I think that you should not deal with priests officially or semi-officially. It will only result in compromise.” Krasikov also did not support the idea of ​​bringing the authorities and any church closer together. He also gave a sharp rebuke to the personality of Vladimir, who, in his opinion, “has nothing behind his soul, and he does not imagine any new church, he does not dare to raise any rebellion against the Tikhonov Church, but simply wants to restore himself to the rank of bishop, from which he was expelled for acts that were rather indecent for a bishop... I consider it unprofitable for the revolution to contribute to the creation of even a sham reformation and prefer an unkempt Russian priest, completely discredited by the entire past, combed Putyata, who went through the Jesuit school" 67. Krasikov knew what he was writing. The essence of the conflict between Vladimir Putyata and the church authorities had no fundamental basis. The fact is that at the end of 1914, under enemy pressure, Vladimir, together with diocesan institutions, was evacuated from the Polotsk province, where he was the ruling bishop, to Penza. At his new place of service, a letter was received from a young lady denouncing his immoral actions. A formal investigation began with the involvement of forensic medical experts. The judicial commission, chaired by Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany), issued an acquittal in December 1917, but it was not accepted by the Synod. He decided to release the archbishop from the administration of the Penza diocese and, in order to “pacify” the local church society, indicated to Vladimir his further place of residence in the Florishcheva Hermitage in the Vladimir diocese, known as a monastery prison. Vladimir did not obey the decisions of the Synod, and a new case was launched against him, now on charges of “violating canonical norms” or, as they said then, “ecclesiastical Bolshevism.” The church court deprived him of his episcopal rank, “throwing him into a primitive state” - that is, the monk Vladimir. In 1919, Vladimir announced the creation of the People's Church in the Penza diocese, opposing Patriarch Tikhon. At that time, the “Chekist line” still prevailed; it dominated the state, and to some extent, the Bolshevik Party. The Orthodox Church remained under the vigilant surveillance of the Cheka. One of the secret reports of the Cheka, dating back to 1921, gives an idea of ​​the nature and measures of this “observation”. It proposes: to “stir up” information and intelligence work among the Orthodox clergy as much as possible, using blackmail, intimidation, bribery, provocations, inciting rumors, and inciting them. The task was set to prepare for such work after “getting acquainted with the spiritual world and finding out the detailed character traits of each clergyman,” obtaining the necessary materials through any legal or illegal means. Let us note that this type of activity of special agencies in relation to religious organizations is not an “invention” of the Cheka; this is how the special agencies of the Russian Empire acted, and this is how today’s special services operate in all countries, when all means are good for the sake of the goal declared by the political patron. One of the most zealous “controllers” of the activities of church government bodies in those years was I. A. Spitsberg - before the revolution, an intercessor on divorce issues, and after October - an investigator of the Cheka for particularly important cases, an expert in the “liquidation department” of the People’s Commissariat of Justice. On his initiative, searches in the office of the patriarch, hours-long interrogations of hierarchs, and orders for the administrative expulsion of bishops from Moscow became commonplace. Spitsberg's next visit to the Trinity Compound at the end of March 1921 turned into a total check of everything. The security officers carefully inspected all the premises, opened desk drawers and bookcases, and shamelessly rummaged through the papers of the Supreme Church Council and the office of the Patriarch. First of all, the patriarch's correspondence with hierarchs inside Russia, as well as letters to him from abroad, were confiscated. Gradually, the large box that stood on the table in front of Spitsberg, who was seated in the Synod meeting room, was filled with dozens of confiscated documents. In the next heap of documents brought, Spitsberg’s attention was attracted by a folder with the inscription “Correspondence with the Roman Throne.” Anticipating good luck, he opened it. But it contained only blank forms of the Patriarch and the Synod and envelopes. I was about to put it off, when at the last moment I noticed a stamp on one of the sheets in the upper corner - “Member of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church.” He looked at the signature under the letter: “Sergius, Metropolitan of Vladimir.” The result of the “reading” of the seized documents in the depths of the Cheka was not long in coming. The very next morning, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who had been urgently summoned, sat in Spitsberg’s office. Without further ado, the investigator presented Sergius’s letter to the Secretary of State of the Roman See, Cardinal Gasparri, which had been seized the day before in the Patriarch’s office. It was written by Sergius on behalf of Tikhon back in March 1919 and contained gratitude for the Pope’s appeal to the Soviet authorities to “stop the persecution of representatives of the Orthodox Church.” The investigator read a fragment from his letter to the Metropolitan: “Your noble call could not, of course, change the God-fighting policy of our rulers and did not lead them to realize their guilt, as Chicherin’s impudent answer to you shows, filled with a shameless denial of direct facts and obvious lies against our Church. But in the hearts of all the faithful children of this Church and of us, Her humble servants, this truly Christian act of the Roman Throne, dictated by sympathy for the defenseless and suffering, and especially for us, amid all the hardships we are experiencing, among the horrors of lawlessness and uncertainty about the future, evokes an indelible response and a lively feeling of gratitude.” 68 They demanded an explanation and repentance from Sergius for the “slander of Soviet power” contained, according to the Cheka, in the letter, while persistently asking who and how transferred it to Rome. After a three-hour conversation “on nerves,” Sergius was put away in Butyrka on charges of distributing “counter-revolutionary materials.” Spitzberg’s last words were: “Sit for a month or two, remember!” By the evening of the same day, an employee of the Cheka appeared at the Trinity Compound and announced that the patriarch was again being placed under house arrest, since an “anti-Soviet” document was found in his papers - a letter from Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Along the way, it was also reported that the author of the letter had been arrested and an investigation had begun against him. We can judge the mood of Patriarch Tikhon at that difficult moment from one of his letters to Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) in Paris: “We can say about ourselves that we are just alive. They have disappeared almost to nothing. What remained from the Synod were me (and even then under house arrest), Metropolitan Eusebius of Krutitsky (formerly of Vladivostok) and Archbishop Mikhail of Grodno. In the Supreme Church Council - Bishop Alexy Borovsky... Protopresbyter Lyubimov, Archpriest Stanislavsky and Professor Gromoglasov. The rest are some in prison (Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Kirill, Archbishop Nikandr), some in dispersion.” Vladimir Putyata took up the trouble for Sergius. At his request and under his guarantee “of Sergius’s loyalty,” Lunacharsky asked Dzerzhinsky in writing to release the Metropolitan, hinting at the possibility of using him for “Soviet purposes.” Dzerzhinsky wrote back bitterly: “She really shouldn’t raise the old issue. This is yet another hobby of the “God-seekers.” Sergius is absolutely not fit for this purpose.” But still, a month later, the authorities released the metropolitan, although they reserved the right to expel him at any time administratively to Nizhny Novgorod. After Sergius was released from prison, the disgraced former Archbishop Vladimir Putyata frequented his apartment in the house on 2nd Tverskaya-Yamskaya. He courted the Metropolitan, asking for intercession before the Patriarch and the Synod in a positive resolution of his case. Just before Easter, Tikhon, yielding to Sergius, gathered members of the Synod: Metropolitans Eusebius (Nikolsky) and Sergius of Stragorod, Archbishops Seraphim (Alexandrov), Nazarius (Kirillov) and Mikhail (Ermakov). We heard the case of the former Archbishop of Penza Vladimir. He was so confident of a favorable outcome that he sat in the next room, joking and out loud speculating about his future fate, and saw himself in the near future almost as the Metropolitan of Kazan. Finally the door opened and members of the Synod came out. Sergius' upset face made Vladimir wary. “Nothing could be done,” said Sergius. - Five against one. They decided that the Synod does not have the authority to decide the issue of returning you to your rank. A decision of the Council is required. Not expecting such a turn of events, Vladimir exploded. - I love you all! - he shouted. - I’ll press three buttons on the phone and you’ll fly to hell... I’ll unleash the Cheka on you, sit down!.. Heated, he immediately sat down at the table, wrote an abusive report addressed to the patriarch, threatening to “get even with the old man.” He threw it on the secretary's desk. Metropolitan Sergius, gently hugging Vladimir by the shoulders, took him aside and began to reassure him: they say, not everything is lost, we must wait and strengthen ourselves, we cannot rashly commit rash acts. Right from the door, having cooled down somewhat, Vladimir returned and took away his report. He soon left Moscow and returned to Penza, where he continued to lead the self-appointed “folk” Orthodox Church. “To remove from church property...” The course of the New Economic Policy (NEP) announced in the spring of 1921 by the Bolshevik Party not only entailed constructive changes in the economic and economic life of the country, but also gave rise in the church environment to the expectation of liberalization of the state’s religious policy. For example, some Protestant associations approached the Council of People's Commissars with requests to change the decree on the separation of church and state, in particular, to allow the acquisition of ownership of buildings and other property, and the conduct of charitable and other social activities. However, the expectations were not destined to come true, and all projects of religious organizations were rejected. The state, in the difficult conditions of the transition to the NEP, when a sharp turn in the political course had to be explained and combined with the revolutionary destructive psychology widespread among the masses of workers and poor peasants, was unable to dramatically change church policy. It was difficult to immediately abandon the military-administrative measures of its implementation that had become customary, just as it was difficult to refuse to see in religious and church organizations, although defeated, but still “political enemies.” The weight of the military-communist past, the psychology of the political struggle with religious organizations had an impact during the campaign to open the “holy relics” in 1919–1920 and especially tragically during the mass confiscation of church valuables in 1922. In the spring of 1921, an unprecedented drought engulfed the most grain-producing regions of the European part of Russia and part of Ukraine. In the summer, it became obvious to the government of the RSFSR that the country could not avoid serious difficulties with food. At the direction of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, V.I. Lenin, the republican people's commissariats and departments begin to seek food and other resources to combat the impending disaster. The Russian Orthodox Church also responded. Patriarch Tikhon, with special messages addressed to the Eastern patriarchs and heads of other Christian churches, called for collections of food and money for the hungry in Russia. Under the chairmanship of the patriarch, the All-Russian Public Committee for Relief to the Starving (Pomgol) was formed, and in some places they began to collect funds in churches. Not without hesitation, but still the Soviet government turned to the governments and publics of Western countries for help, although it was aware that certain circles in the West, like the Russian emigration, would invariably try to use the famine for political purposes. The autumn of 1921 confirmed the emergency situation. Bread was harvested less than half of the usual harvest for these places. A territory with a population of more than 31 million people is in the grip of a looming famine. The country did not have any large grain reserves. Already the first attempts to purchase food or obtain loans in the countries of Western Europe and the United States showed that in the conditions of the political and economic boycott they are carrying out against Russia, this will be extremely difficult. One could only count on individual private companies, charitable organizations and the solidarity movement among Western workers. But in the first case, commercial transactions were possible only on a “golden basis”, and in the second, it took time to collect and deliver aid to Russia. Whereas it was needed immediately, because the number of starving people by the end of 1921 approached fifteen million people. Where can I get funds? This is a question that was constantly discussed in the highest party and government bodies. It was necessary to find extraordinary ways to get out of the crisis situation. One of them was the intention of the authorities to quickly take into account, and then seize and export to Moscow gold, silver, precious stones, currency, artistic and other valuables, wherever they were previously located. In November 1921, at the suggestion of V.I. Lenin, L.D. Trotsky was involved in the seizure case. He proposed the following course of action. Under his leadership, a special commission was created, for short called the “Jewelry Commission.” Trotsky himself received the title of specially authorized Council of People's Commissars and several deputies, who put his plans into practice day and night. “Extraordinary troikas” were created locally, consisting of the chairmen of the Gubernia Chek and the Gubernia Military Commissar, the head of the financial department of the Gubernia Executive Committee with dictatorial powers in terms of confiscation of valuables. First of all, the seizure was supposed to affect banks, warehouses, and storage facilities. Then - inactive monasteries, churches and other religious buildings. And a little later - museums, palace ensembles, estates. It was planned to carry out all the work within six months and collect valuables worth five to six billion gold rubles. This amount, according to the organizers, was supposed to significantly replenish the gold reserves, provide funds for the restoration of the national economy, the purchase of food abroad and to increase the country's defense capability. The commission and its local representatives, as well as the local authorities who carried out their orders, acted in the strictest secrecy. The official body called upon to carry out the campaign to combat hunger on behalf of the state was the Central Commission for Famine Relief (Central Committee Pomgol), formed in the fall of 1921, headed by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. I. Kalinin. Her efforts to mobilize scarce internal resources, strength and capabilities by January–February 1922 yielded some results: redistributed remnants of food funds, medical and humanitarian aid arrived in the affected areas; The army, trade unions, Komsomol, public and religious organizations joined in providing assistance to the distressed population; from the melting gold reserves, another 62 million gold rubles were added to those previously allocated; provided the necessary assistance to children and the sick who were taken to more prosperous areas. And yet, Pomgol alone clearly failed to master the situation: the number of starving people had already exceeded 15 million people. The food situation, especially in the Volga region, was becoming catastrophic. Mortality increased sharply, outbreaks of epidemics began to emerge, and cases of cannibalism and corpse-eating were noted. More than six billion poods of food purchased abroad were awaiting shipment at foreign ports due to the lack of means of transportation. The general economic and political situation in the country also worsened. Railway transport was destroyed and could barely cope with the volume of transportation to the “hungry” areas. Cities froze due to lack of fuel. Factories and factories stopped. The spiral of inflation was unwinding. Unemployment was growing. The wave of strikes and refusals to go to work expanded. Hundreds and thousands of workers left the ranks of the Communist Party. Discontent was brewing in military units, and unrest broke out in some places. The mood of depression and fear of possible death by starvation reigned among the peasant masses. There was growing dissatisfaction with the withdrawal of the compulsory tax in kind and the actions of the food detachments, which completely exported grain. There was a growing feeling of hopelessness and impending collapse in society. It seemed that the state had exhausted all possibilities and nothing could give hope for salvation. The question was: either funds will be found to purchase food, or famine will provoke a social explosion and the country will plunge into the abyss of new chaos with the inevitable consequence - the complete collapse of the entire state. The ruling circles realistically assessed the current situation and feverishly searched for a way to salvation. In the critical situation of the winter - spring of 1922, hope for salvation was seen in the former church, and now nationalized property, which was traditionally considered a significant fortune. Preliminary calculations made at the same time were encouraging that, in terms of silver, 525 thousand pounds of valuables were stored in Orthodox churches, monasteries and houses of worship. And every pound of silver could save a family of five people from starvation. It is hardly possible today to name with confidence who was the first to publicly speak out for the removal of valuables from existing religious buildings. But back in November-December 1921, believers, clergy and individual bishops from starving areas spoke about this as a possible step, and they were supported by peasants, workers and Red Army soldiers in relatively prosperous areas. Responding to this kind of sentiment, on December 9, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, by a special resolution, authorized “religious departments and individual religious societies of believers” to make money and food collections in favor of the hungry. Special instructions, jointly developed by representatives of government authorities and religious organizations, provided for the opportunity to donate religious objects that were in use by communities. At the beginning of the winter of 1922, in a number of regions of the country, believers, on their own initiative, voluntarily donated individual items from church property to the needs of the hungry. The leaders of religious centers and organizations encouraged them to do this in their oral and printed appeals. Patriarch Tikhon, in a message dated February 6, 1922, by the way, approved and distributed with the knowledge of the Politburo, informing the flock about the compromise reached between the authorities and the church in the fight against hunger, called for donating not only food, but also church values ​​that do not have liturgical use. And yet, the idea of ​​​​removing valuables from existing churches acquired an organizational and material basis, and thereby the possibility of implementation, largely, if not to a decisive extent, thanks to the efforts of Trotsky. Even at the end of 1921, he believed that it was impossible to do without withdrawal, and in letters to Lenin he spoke of this as a task for which it was still necessary to prepare “politically from different sides,” and therefore did not insist on its immediate implementation. By the beginning of February 1922, in his opinion, the time “had come.” On his instructions, in a short time, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee prepared, adopted, and on February 26 published a resolution (decree), which obligated local authorities to, within a month, “remove from church property transferred for the use of groups of believers of all religions according to inventories and agreements, all precious objects made of gold, platinum, silver and stones, the withdrawal of which cannot significantly affect the interests of the cult itself, and transfer it to the Narkomfin authorities for a special purpose.” to the fund of the Central Commission for Famine Relief" 69. The decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, unexpected for religious organizations, to forcibly, everywhere and completely, remove valuables from prayer buildings in the shortest possible time already carried the preconditions for a conflict between the state and believers. But most of all it hit the Russian Orthodox Church, whose leadership reasonably believed that by that time a certain compromise had been reached between the government and the church on the issue of confiscation and that the church acted as a partner of the state, voluntarily sacrificing church values ​​for the sake of saving people. On February 25, Patriarch Tikhon, in a letter to M.I. Kalinin, calls for abandoning the decision, which, in his opinion, is fraught with unpredictable consequences. And he adds that if there is no response, he reserves the right to explain to believers in a special message the position of the church in connection with the actions of the authorities. It remains unknown whether Kalinin showed this letter to anyone from the Politburo. But there was no answer from him to the patriarch. And then Tikhon, as promised, on February 28 published his message to the believers. In it, he called “an act of sacrilege” the removal from churches, among “precious church things,” of sacred vessels and liturgical church objects, “the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons.” Explaining his position, the patriarch pointed out: “Due to extremely difficult circumstances, we allowed the possibility of donations of church objects that were not consecrated and had no liturgical use. We call on believers through the churches today to make such donations, only wanting these donations to be from a loving heart for the needs of their neighbors, if only they really provide real help to our suffering brothers. But we cannot approve the removal from churches, even through voluntary donation, of consecrated objects, the use of which is not for liturgical purposes is prohibited by the canons of the Universal Church and is punishable by it as sacrilege: for the laity - by excommunication, for the clergy - by deposition" 70 . The authorities regarded the position of the patriarch as “counter-revolutionary.” However, we note that the patriarch’s message itself did not immediately lead to any dramatic events on the ground. And no repressive measures were taken against Tikhon. Moreover, on March 15, Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee published a conversation with the patriarch 71. In it, he outlines the main ideas of his message of February 28 regarding the church’s support for the initiative of believers to donate church property to the hungry. At the same time, he polemicizes with the authorities, convincing that “the churches do not have such a quantity of precious stones and gold that if they were liquidated, some monstrous sums of money could be obtained,” that “despite all the favorable attitude towards the matter of helping the hungry on the part of church communities,” the seizure of church property will not give the expected result. At the same time, Tikhon also talks about the other side of the matter: during the confiscation, numerous highly artistic and historically significant objects stored in Orthodox churches, monasteries and houses of worship may suffer or be completely lost 72 . By mid-March, the difficulties that the authorities encountered in implementing the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee became increasingly obvious. In essence, the seizure never began. On the ground, there were protracted and difficult negotiations between believers and the authorities. At first, the latter were in no hurry to use coercive measures and limited themselves to accepting what was given voluntarily. As the inventory of valuables in the churches was carried out, it became clear that the assumptions about their quantity were clearly exaggerated. Firstly, during the First World War and the Civil War, much of what was stored in religious buildings was lost, including taken abroad by fleeing white units. Secondly, the spontaneous process of hiding by believers the most valuable church utensils was accelerating. Thirdly, the believers rejected forced confiscation, and it was clear that in the richest churches complete confiscation could only be carried out by force. The question arose: what to do? Retreat, content with voluntary donations? Looking for a compromise with religious centers? Or go to extreme measures, not stopping at military-administrative violence? Everyone hesitated: both “at the top” - members of the Politburo and the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of Pomgol, and “at the bottom” - party workers and activists in the provinces, cities and regions. But there was another point of view; those who adhered to it were inclined to see the difficulties with the confiscation of valuables in the opposition of a narrow group of people from among the leaders of religious organizations, pursuing, as they believed, certain selfish goals. In addition, they assured, the organization of work on confiscation of valuables was everywhere lame, and unacceptable liberalism and concessions to religious societies were widespread. The most prominent representative of this group was Leon Trotsky. Taking advantage of the tragic events in the city of Shuya, Vladimir region, where on March 15 there were unrest during the confiscation of valuables from churches, he actually blackmails the Politburo with the danger of armed clashes around churches throughout the country and, in a letter to members of the Politburo, formulates his 17 theses of a plan for a campaign to confiscate valuables. They provided for: violent agitation and demonstrations on the ground for the seizure; causing a split in the Orthodox clergy and supporting that part of it that advocated the unconditional implementation of the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee; constant surveillance, control and arrest of persons opposing the seizure; the use of military force and complete withdrawal in the shortest possible time, stopping at nothing. The richest city churches, primarily those where “loyal priests” served, were considered the primary “victims” of the confiscation. A precondition was put forward such measures as active propaganda and agitation among the population with the involvement of representatives of the starving provinces, the concentration of special forces (CHON), communists and sympathizers around the churches. The entire campaign was scheduled to begin no later than March 31 and it was recommended that it be carried out as soon as possible 73 . The rigidity of Trotsky’s position was explained, on the one hand, by his ideas about the need for a firm policy when carrying out the confiscation of valuables, and on the other hand, by the fact that he linked this campaign with the intensification of the fight against the Orthodox (“Tikhonov”) church and support for the renovation movement emerging in its depths. For Trotsky, the latter gradually came into first place. It is no coincidence that on March 12, in a letter to members of the Politburo, he indicated: “Our entire strategy in this period should be designed to create a split among the clergy on a specific issue: the confiscation of valuables from churches. Since the issue is acute, the schism on this basis can and should become very acute, and that part of the clergy that speaks out for the withdrawal and helps the withdrawal will not return back to the clique of Patriarch Tikhon” 74 . On March 20, Trotsky’s plan was considered at a meeting of the Politburo. In addition to Trotsky, those present were: Kamenev, Stalin, Molotov, Tsyurupa and Rykov. Each of them expressed his opinion about Trotsky's plan. Due to health reasons, Lenin could not come to Moscow for the Politburo meeting, so his letter 75 was read out. It was not discussed separately, but was taken into account as the opinion of one of the absent members of the Politburo. Lenin did not add anything new to Trotsky’s proposals, fully supporting them when he wrote: “Precisely now, when people are being eaten in hungry places and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, without stopping at the suppression of any resistance... We must now give the most decisive and merciless battle to the Black Hundred clergy and suppress their resistance with such cruelty, so that they will not forget this for several decades.” The rigidity of the position, the rhetoric of violence and bloody revenge of the letter were not something special for that time. This is the language of a fierce era that included the First World War, the February and October revolutions, the Civil War and foreign military intervention, hunger and hardship, the suffering and death of millions of people. This language was spoken by opposing and mutually embittered and bitter classes, social groups, supporters of various political parties, and leaders of all political movements. Without any serious comments or additions, Trotsky's plan was accepted. With regard to Patriarch Tikhon, it was decided to postpone the arrest and establish round-the-clock surveillance of him and his connections. On the same day, Trotsky convened a meeting of his commission. As a result, the fate of the churches of Moscow, Petrograd and the Moscow province was determined, the confiscation of valuables from which it was decided to begin during the days of the XI Party Congress; It was proposed that if there was a danger of excesses around churches, the seizure should be suspended until the congress, and continued where the situation was generally normal; the attitude towards the clergy is determined: some (dissenters) should be arrested, others (who agree) should be brought into cooperation; it was proposed to “sort out” those workers whose signatures were on letters protesting the seizure, etc. At the same time, with the knowledge of Trotsky, the GPU held a representative meeting of employees of central and local intelligence agencies with the participation of a significant number of clergy from Moscow, Petrograd and the “starving regions”, who agreed to “help” the authorities in confiscating church valuables. Having received the “blessing” of the leader and the support of the Politburo, Trotsky developed a frantic initiative to ensure a change in the mood of the party-Soviet apparatus and activists in favor of offensiveness in carrying out the seizure. He constantly raised the question of accelerating the progress of the campaign to the Politburo, bombarding its members with more and more new proposals for launching a “war” with the church. On March 22, the Politburo discussed a note by Deputy Chairman of the GPU I. S. Unshlikht “On the activities of the clergy in connection with the seizure of valuables from churches.” In it, the position of the church was outlined as follows: “Patriarch Tikhon and the surrounding pack of senior hierarchs, members of the Synod... in contrast to the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 11/26–22 on the confiscation of church valuables, they are conducting certain counter-revolutionary and undisguised work against the confiscation of church valuables.” This note for the first time directly raised the question of the possibility of arresting the patriarch. Its necessity, among other things, was linked to the desire to create favorable circumstances for bishops “opposing” the patriarch. They, as Unschlicht pointed out, do not dare to openly oppose the patriarch and the Synod, and only after the arrest of the patriarch will they be able to “arrange a church council” and elect hierarchs loyal to the Soviet regime to the patriarchal throne and to the Synod. The Politburo authorized the arrest of the patriarch and members of the Synod (“in 10–15 days”), as well as a tough line against the clergy who opposed the confiscation of valuables 76 . ...In these last days of March 1922, Metropolitan Sergius meets with Patriarch Tikhon in the Trinity Metochion. The very fact of his visit to the patriarch, as well as his absence at the extended meeting of the official authorities, the GPU and part of the Orthodox clergy who supported the seizure, indicated that the authorities did not see him as a possible negotiating partner, even despite the fact that Shuya was part of his Vladimir diocese. However, both the Patriarch and Sergius could not ignore the topic of confiscation of church valuables that day. They were unanimous in the need to convince believers and the clergy not to resist the authorities when they carried out the decree to remove objects made of precious metals from churches to transfer them to a fund to help the starving population. As before, the patriarch insisted that his message of February 28 did not contain a call for violence against the authorities. And if somewhere it was understood this way, then it is wrong. Sergius, in turn, acquainted the patriarch with the text of his message to the flock. The Patriarch, having read it, approved it. The message also contained Metropolitan Sergius’s assessment of the Patriarch’s message of February 28, expressed in the following words: “The Patriarch, having indicated to us in his message the church rules protecting the inviolability of sacred vessels for everyday use, did not in a single word call us to any specific action: neither to protests, much less to defend our shrines with violence. His message only warns us to treat with a light heart the confiscation of church things when there is something to replace them with, that is, when our own treasures remain with us” 77 . Just before parting, Sergius spoke out in favor of the urgent convening of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council, since only with their help, in his opinion, the highest church authority could be reliably preserved. To his surprise, the patriarch, in his characteristic gentle manner, but categorically refused, saying that he does not see the need for this yet, moreover, he regularly consults and consults with members of these bodies when they are in Moscow. Most likely, such a response was caused by the patriarch’s reluctance to give the authorities another reason for repression against the hierarchs and clergy who were in contact with him. On March 27, the meetings of the XI Party Congress opened. In his speech at the congress, Lenin said nothing about the confiscation of valuables. This was explained by the desire to maintain the secrecy of the campaign, and in addition, the delegates were already informed about the principled position of the party. The materials distributed the day before also included a written report from the Central Committee, in which “the clergy, merchants and philistines” were accused of a “fierce and criminal struggle for accumulated wealth” and at the same time it was proposed that all party organizations “expand hard work” to combat hunger, “provide extensive assistance” to the starving from the “source of treasures” - confiscated church valuables 78 . The tactics of attack chosen by Trotsky in two directions - against local party-Soviet bodies and against the church, in order to ensure a shock seizure during the days of the congress - were clearly followed. On March 28, Tikhon was summoned to the GPU, where they announced an official warning of responsibility in the event of a “repetition of facts similar to the events in Shuya” and proposed to take measures to prevent them from happening in the future. At the same time, he was held responsible for the “anti-Soviet” actions of the Orthodox clergy, who fled during the Civil War outside Soviet Russia, and demanded their public condemnation. This meant that one of the decisions of the Russian All-Abroad Church Council (November 1921, the city of Sremski Karlovci, Serbia) expressed support for the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, the return of the Romanovs to the throne and the continuation of the armed struggle with Soviet Russia. Tikhon promised to do this only after providing him with documentary materials confirming the participation of “Karlovites” in “politics” 79 . The patriarch's negotiations with the authorities were lively discussed in the church environment. There was still hope that acute conflicts around the churches could be avoided. An interesting testimony about this was left, for example, by Bishop Alexy (Simansky) of Yamburg. In a letter to Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod, he wrote: “The Patriarch was called to the Cheka... The attitude was very kind. They took us there and from there by car. The interrogation concerned two events: the Council in Karlovac and the Shuya events. On both issues, written feedback is required, which must be provided within three days. During the interrogation, the thought kept coming through: is it possible to somehow carry out the inevitable selection as painlessly as possible and in this regard change the message” 80 . In a statement submitted a little later to the GPU, Patriarch Tikhon actually dissociated himself from some of the political decisions of the Karlovac Cathedral. At the same time, he continued to convince the authorities that his message of February 28 did not contain a call for resistance. Defending himself, the patriarch cites an excerpt from the message of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), the same one with whom he had recently become acquainted: “The Patriarch, having indicated to us the church rules in his message...” 81 Moreover, the patriarch expressed his readiness to issue a new message to believers and the clergy in order to clarify his position and that of the church. He reported that he had already presented his project to M.I. Kalinin, in which the patriarch instructed the believers so that “your alms should come as a blessing, and not as a demand, so that it should be according to the disposition of the heart, not with grief and not with coercion, for God loves the donor,” so that they more actively use the possibilities of exchange and redemption of church items scheduled for confiscation 82 . But the patriarch was not given the go-ahead, because the authorities had already relied on the loyal renovationist clergy. The line of a tough struggle for values ​​was also confirmed at a secret meeting of representatives of party delegations present at the congress held on March 30. None of them questioned the need for coercive measures. Some doubts were expressed only about the correctness of the chosen timing of the campaign, as evidenced by the notes preserved in the archives and received by the presidium of the meeting. The Easter holidays were approaching, and combining the seizure with them was considered inappropriate. But still, an exception was made for Moscow and Petrograd: it was necessary to start already during the days of the congress, thereby showing the rest of the provinces an example of “shock work.” In the European part of Russia and Ukraine, the end date of the campaign was set as May 15–20, in other regions – June 1. At the meeting, “suggestions” were made to those party delegations whose seizure results were considered “unsatisfactory.” They were required to carry out a second seizure, and not be content with only voluntary donations. Confirming this installation, a telegram signed by M.I. Kalinin and V.M. Molotov was sent to the localities with the indication: “Incomplete confiscation of church valuables will be considered as negligence of local authorities. Where an incomplete seizure has been made, additional seizures must be made immediately in accordance with the decree and instructions.” It seems that it was these decisions that led to tragic consequences. If in the meeting room of the party congress there was unanimity when discussing the fate of church values, then outside the meeting the situation was not so certain. Of course, the propaganda and organizational work of the party committees produced tangible results - during various types of mass events, resolutions were adopted by an absolute majority in favor of the withdrawal. Let us add that in March–April 1922, numerous appeals from the Orthodox clergy and believers, decisions of church congresses and meetings in support of the confiscation of valuables, including more than a dozen appeals and appeals signed by the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church 83, were published in central and local newspapers, in other propaganda publications, and also broadcast on the radio. It would be incorrect to consider all these documents solely as some kind of opportunistic or “forced” support for political power. No, they expressed the sincere desire of representatives of Russian Orthodoxy to help the starving population, including its believing part. Only in isolated cases, during meetings and rallies at factories, factories, military units and educational institutions, were critical statements and complaints made against the policies of the ruling party, which consisted of a call for the renunciation of violent measures during confiscation, for the “admission” of the church to control the collection of valuables, etc. For example, in a certificate prepared for the political authorities about the mood “among the masses” in connection with the confiscation of church valuables, it was reported about this kind of questioning rallies questions: “Comrade. Communists, it’s time to end the robbery, give an account of where all the Kremlin gold went, as well as all the other robberies of all institutions and enterprises. The church is not for you Jews, but for religion. Take it from the Jews, it’s enough for us to shed blood” 84. After the 11th Party Congress, the actions of the local authorities became tougher, and the pressure on religious organizations increased. In fact, the seizure was now carried out without any coordination with the believers, taking the form of military operations. Accordingly, the number of valuables arriving in Moscow increased. True, Trotsky still believed that the campaign was being waged “extremely slowly and sluggishly,” and to “spur it on,” he repeatedly suggested that the Politburo make more active use of the press, involve punitive authorities, and conduct a series of show trials of “church members” 85 . ...In April 1922, Sergius was still in Moscow. All his attempts to travel to Vladimir were harshly suppressed by the GPU. Realizing that his absence in the diocese, on the territory of which there was an active and widespread seizure, will subsequently be used by the authorities against him, he sends a message to Vladimir with the opportunity. In it, he appeals to his flock not to treat the confiscation “with hostility and irritation”, not to allow violent opposition to the confiscation, but to strive in parishes to collect objects and jewelry to replace the confiscated icons and church objects. “Let us calmly submit,” he wrote, “to the grave necessity of parting with the kindly splendor of our churches, in order to at least thereby cover the crying need, unparalleled in its size and horror. If we have something to donate in return for church items, let's not miss this opportunity. If there is nothing to sacrifice, then even without gold and silver our churches will remain churches and holy icons – holy icons. The Monk Sergius served mass on wooden vessels, in painted vestments and with a torch instead of candles, but as a result his prayer did not become further from God, Who Himself was born on earth not in golden palaces, but in a wretched den and manger. Even at the last test, he will ask us not whether we decorated churches and icons with gold and silver, but whether we gave drink to the thirsty, or clothed the naked. On this path of submission to the will of God, but also an ardent readiness to sacrifice, and to the diligent collection of such donations, I call upon my fellow Eminence vicars, and all the clergy under my jurisdiction, and the entire Orthodox flock of the Vladimir diocese” 86. But even this kind of appeal could not avert repression. Literally a few days after returning to the diocese (or maybe it was calculated that way?), on April 12, the Holy Week of Lent, Sergius and his suffragan bishops - Archbishop Pavel (Borisovsky) of Suzdal, Bishop Vasily (Zummer) and Bishop Afanasy (Sakharov) of Kovrov were arrested. They were accused of involvement in the plunder of the sacristy of the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimievsky Monastery, as well as of concealing valuables from seizure and agitation against their surrender to the state. In those same April days, it now became clear to Trotsky that it was impossible to find “incalculable riches” in existing religious buildings and monasteries. They simply weren’t there in such numbers. But, not wanting to admit his mistake, he takes a different route: he accuses the “top of the church hierarchy” of the fact that, on their initiative, “the main church values ​​floated away during the years of the revolution” abroad. In a letter to the leaders of the GPU, the NKVD of the RSFSR and the People's Commissariat of Yugoslavia, he demands to “request and interrogate the main leaders of the church” about the fate of church valuables that were in the churches before the revolution, about church capital in foreign banks; check the presence of valuables against pre-revolutionary inventories. The “inquiry” on all these points was required to be carried out with “the greatest energy” 87. It is this instruction that can be considered the starting point of all subsequent high-profile trials on charges of opposing the Decree B of the Central Executive Committee of February 23, 1922. In pursuance of Trotsky’s instructions, a search and collection of materials are underway everywhere that directly discredit the patriarch, “proving” his personal involvement in the facts of countering the seizure of church valuables in Orthodox churches. It was at this moment that they “remembered” the message of February 28th. A special circular of the Supreme Tribunal ordered local tribunals in verdicts in cases related to the confiscation of church valuables to “indicate the presence in the case of intellectual perpetrators of excesses on the part of dark elements in the person of the highest church hierarchy (Patriarch Tikhon, local bishops, etc.), as long as it is possible to detect ideological leadership (the appeal of Tikhon and Metropolitan Benjamin) or connivance in the case” 88 . It was proposed to send all such sentences to Moscow, thereby “enriching” and “multiplying” the accusations against the patriarch. At the end of April, a trial began in Moscow of clergy and church activists accused of opposing the seizure of valuables. In total, more than fifty people were brought to justice. However, their fate was decided not in the auditorium of the Polytechnic, where the trial took place, but in the hall where the Politburo met. The agenda of its meeting on May 4 included the issue “On the Moscow trial in connection with the seizure of valuables.” Trotsky, Kamenev and the chairman of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal, Beck, reported. Unfortunately, the protocol records of this meeting have not reached us (and it is unknown whether they were kept at all) and we cannot know what the assembled members and candidate members of the Politburo were talking about that day: Lenin, Stalin, Zinoviev, Rykov, Molotov, Kalinin and the invited member of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) M.V. Frunze. But the minutes of the meeting recorded the following decision on the issue discussed: “a) Give a directive to the Moscow Tribunal: 1) immediately bring Tikhon to trial; 2) apply capital punishment to priests; b) Due to insufficient press coverage of the Moscow trial, instruct Comrade. Trotsky, on behalf of the Politburo, today instruct the editors of all Moscow newspapers about the need to pay incomparably more attention to this process and, in particular, to clarify the role of the top of the church hierarchy” 89. And the very next day, May 5, Tikhon appeared before the tribunal - for now as a witness in the case of the Moscow clergy. Archbishop Nikandr (Phenomenov) of Krutitsky was also interrogated with him. The Revolutionary Tribunal found both guilty of “counter-revolutionary agitation and inciting religious psychosis.” The verdict specifically emphasized that the patriarch’s appeal of February 28 caused “numerous excesses and clashes between citizens, misled, and representatives of the Soviet government during the seizure, which ended in many cases with riots, which resulted in deaths, seriously or lightly wounded, and victims of beatings.” Based on the testimony given by Tikhon and Nikandr, as well as the materials of the preliminary investigation, the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal, considering Tikhon the main organizer of opposition to the implementation of the decree, issued a ruling to bring him to trial. The investigation was entrusted to the secret department of the GPU. This is how the patriarch's court case began. At first, he was required to sign a written undertaking not to leave Moscow without the permission of the GPU. Armed guards were assigned to the patriarch's house. From now on, a narrow circle of people who served the patriarch were allowed into the courtyard. On the initiative of the GPU, seeking to completely remove Tikhon from church affairs, on May 12, a delegation of the Renovationist clergy led by Petrograd Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky was allowed to visit him. She manages to “snatch” from the patriarch a letter addressed to the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin, in which the patriarch reported that he “considers it useful” for the good of the church to temporarily, until the Council, place at the head of the church administration either Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl or Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd 90 . But neither one nor the other could go to Moscow. At the same time, a similar trial against the clergy was unfolding in Petrograd. The departure of Metropolitan Agafangel was opposed in every possible way by the local bodies of the GPU. Thus, the highest church authority turned out to be “ownerless”: the head of the church is under arrest, members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Administration - some abroad, some in exile, some outside Moscow, some in prison... The leaders of the emerging renovationist movement took advantage of the moment of vacuum in church power. On May 18, they again appeared at the Trinity Metochion with the goal of “persuading” Tikhon to temporarily transfer to them - until the situation was clarified and Metropolitan Agafangel arrived - the matter of church administration. To this day, the motives that guided the patriarch when he gave written consent to uninvited visitors “to receive and convey to His Eminence Metropolitan Agathangel, upon his arrival in Moscow, synodal affairs” through the mediation of Bishop Leonid (Skobeev) of Verninsky, who was then in Moscow, remain unclear. The Renovationists regarded the Patriarch's resolution, or, in any case, presented it to everyone and everything as an official act of transferring church power to them. They immediately began the planned church reforms, in which there was now no place for Patriarch Tikhon. He is “expelled” from the Trinity Metochion on Samotek, and he finds refuge in the Donskoy Monastery. In the empty patriarchal chambers, a new church authority was established - the Higher Church Administration (HCU), chaired by Bishop Antonin (Granovsky). In addition to him, the administration included Bishop Leonid (Skobeev), priests A. Vvedensky, V. Krasnitsky, E. Belkov, S. Kalinovsky. At the same time, on these same days, another church group of renovationists was constituted, which received the name “Living Church,” headed by a central committee chaired by Archpriest V. Krasnitsky. The schism in the church became a fait accompli. The Renovationists declared their political loyalty to the authorities and support for the social course of the state, called on their supporters to remove the “counter-revolutionary Tikhonov’s” high clergy from power everywhere and prepare for the convening of a Local Council. Spring - summer of 1922 was a period of rapid growth of the renovationist movement within the Russian Orthodox Church. The general goals and objectives of the renovation movement were reduced to carrying out reforms in church administration, in the dogmatic and ethical spheres. A wave of renovation swept across Russia. Meetings of deans in Moscow and Petrograd supported the renovationists. Vologda, Kazan, Tula, Tambov, Ufa and many other diocesan administrations recognized the VCU as the highest church authority. It was very important for the leaders of renovationism to win over both authoritative hierarchs and the largest dioceses. The focus of their attention during this period was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the Vladimir diocese. On June 9, the trial of Metropolitan Sergius and his vicars took place in Vladimir. They were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison, but were released the next day under an amnesty. Probably, in this case it was more about demonstrative intimidation. And at the same time, the fact of prosecution was used to split the clergy in the Vladimir diocese. But A. I. Vvedensky, V. D. Krasnitsky and other leaders of the VCU were not confident that Sergius would take their side. Then, with the help of the GPU, he is expelled from the diocese and administratively exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. At the same time, numerous groups of supporters of the “Living Church” are being formed in the diocese, which are demanding a diocesan congress and switching to the side of the VCU. The conference of the clergy of the “Living Church” group of the Vladimir diocese decided: “Priests who deliberately disobey the newly established church authority... are removed from service immediately, without stopping even at the highest measure of ecclesiastical punishment, i.e. defrocking.” Thus, the diocese “floated” from the hands of Metropolitan Sergius and, with the appointment of a renovationist bishop here, could become a bastion of this movement, seducing the clergy and believers into schism. In the June issue of the renovation magazine “Living Church,” to a complete surprise for the church world, and even at the very moment when the trial of Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky) and a group of clergy, accused of resisting the seizure of valuables, was in full swing in Petrograd, the so-called “memorandum of three” was published. It was an official statement by the venerable hierarchs - Metropolitan of Vladimir and Shuisky Sergius (Stragorodsky), Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Evdokim (Meshchersky) and Archbishop of Kostroma and Galich Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) with the recognition of the Renovationist Higher Church Administration as the only canonically legitimate supreme authority. The hierarchs recognized all orders of the new church authority as “completely legal and binding” and called on the clergy and believers to follow their example. By publicly recognizing the VCU, Metropolitan Sergius obviously proceeded from the desire to protect his diocese from various unrest. He hoped to outwit the renovationists and the GPU standing behind them and, having stood at the head of the All-Russian Central Church, gradually straighten the church course in the Orthodox-canonical direction. There was also a fear of losing the church center and thereby harming the cause of church unity. In addition, at that moment it was impossible to verify the veracity of the words of the renovationists about the legality of the transfer of power to them by the resolution of Patriarch Tikhon. But, whatever the motives of Sergius and the other two hierarchs, the consequences of the appeal were sad for the Patriarchal Church: a massive transition of believers to renovationism. Reasoning among the hierarchs was common: if the “wise” Sergius considered it possible to submit to the “Living Church,” then we should follow him. And dozens of bishops flocked to renovationism, not to mention the numerous ordinary clergy. Sergius's statement allowed him to return to Vladimir again, where he tried not to show himself in any way. He did not travel to Moscow or Petrograd, did not get involved in the scandalous scams of the Renovationists. He avoided speaking on the pages of Renovationist magazines and did not participate in consecrations (ordinations) of the Renovationist episcopate, avoided participating in mass forums of Renovationists, did not correspond with foreign Renovationist hierarchs, and did not participate in the campaign of persecution of Patriarch Tikhon. It did not take Sergius long to become convinced that the declarations of the renovationists were sharply at odds with their deeds. Church bodies included immoral people, violators of church canons. Something incompatible with the Orthodox consciousness was being introduced into the life of the church: married episcopate, the abolition of monasticism and monasteries, refusal to venerate holy relics, etc. And although from the church pulpits, from the pages of the renovationist press, toasts were still being distributed in honor of the “foresight,” “political prudence” and “wisdom” of Metropolitan Sergius, it became obvious to him that this time he was being cruel I was wrong. At the beginning of July in Moscow, the “Living Churchers” approved the charter of their organization. Since the majority in the VCU was behind them, at their suggestion, on behalf of the VCU, special circulars were sent to the localities, ordering the widespread creation of “Living Church” groups. By July, of the seventy-three diocesan bishops, 37 supported the VCU. The political declarations of the renovationists provided them with the support of ordinary believers: up to 70 percent of the parishes followed them. In August 1922, the All-Russian Congress of representatives of the white clergy, supporters of the “Living Church,” was held in Moscow. It was there that the Living Church program was finally formulated and approved. Let us highlight two main provisions in it: loyalty to power and the destruction of the patriarchate. In addition, the congress decided to submit for consideration to the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, planned for 1923, questions about lifting the excommunication of L. N. Tolstoy; on the excommunication of participants in the Local Council of 1917–1918; on the deprivation of Patriarch Tikhon of the priesthood for counter-revolutionary activities against Soviet power and for organizing “church unrest.” The decisions of the August congress of the white clergy were actively implemented by the “Living Church” groups, which formed in large numbers in the regions and provinces of Soviet Russia and gradually subjugated the parishes that remained faithful to the Patriarchal Church. At the same time, the confrontation of the leaders of the “Living Church” in relation to the episcopate and opponents in their own ranks led to splits beginning within the renovationist movement. Initially, the “Church Revival” group was formed, led by Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), and after this, the Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church, led by A. Vvedensky and Boyarsky. Archpriest Belkov founded the Union of Religious Labor Communes. Many other small renovationist groups, parties and synods were formed in the provinces: “Puritan Party of Revolutionary Clergy and Laity” in Saratov. “Free Labor Church” – in Penza. Between them all there was a sharp struggle for church power, in which the ideas of church renewal often faded into the background. The August decisions also led to the fact that some of the bishops who had recently joined renovationism distanced themselves from them. In particular, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in September–October 1922, first in the press and then at a plenary meeting of the All-Russian Orthodox Church, declared: “I strongly protest against those resolutions of the “Living Church” congress, which were adopted to abolish the basic requirements of church discipline, and especially doctrine. Some of these resolutions are absolutely unacceptable for me, some exceed the competence of our Local Council, and some are unacceptable before this Council.” The Metropolitan's protest was caused by the cancellation of the Holy Synod's resolution on the excommunication of Leo Tolstoy and the decision on the permissibility of second marriage for priests and marriage for bishops. In connection with the latter, Sergius ordered that in his diocese second-married priests should be defrocked, and that married bishops should not be recognized as such. The last trace of Metropolitan Sergius in the renovationist press can be found in the magazine “Conciliar Reason” (No. 2, 3) dated November 13 (26), 1922. The note reported that from October 29 to November 3, meetings of the VCU plenum were held in the Trinity Metochion under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Antonin. Discussed and decisions were made on such issues as the fight against the consequences of famine, the celebration of the fifth anniversary of the October Revolution, the fight against church (parish and diocesan) counter-revolution, and the actions of the Karlovac Foreign Council. The metropolitan’s judgments expressed in the fall of 1922 regarding the resolutions of the Living Church congress made him persona non grata in the Renovationist environment. Essentially, it was a rebellion against renovationism and an open departure from it. The scandal turned out to be so loud that the renovationists rushed to the authorities for help. They did not want Metropolitan Sergius to become a participant in the Council they were preparing and spread his views and undermine the authority of renovationism. As a result, the Metropolitan’s act was even considered at a meeting of the Anti-Religious Commission under the Central Committee of the RCP(b), which decided: “Bishop Sergius should be left in his previous disgraced position.” And at the very beginning of 1923, he was again sent to Nizhny Novgorod, where he was isolated from church life both in the city and in the country. At the same time, the metropolitan was expelled from the Supreme Church Administration. In the absence of Sergius, the Vladimir provincial congress of clergy and laity, led by renovationists, adopted a resolution that said: “We brand with shame all the highest hierarchs, led by Patriarch Tikhon. Long live the world revolution, which freed the workers and peasants from the oppression of capital. Long live the revival of the country of workers and peasants. Shame on all enemies of the proletarian republic." In order to aggravate the situation of Sergius, the Anti-Religious Commission set the GPU the task of beginning interrogations of the Metropolitan regarding his active activities during the time of the Local Council and as a member of the Holy Synod; after which, having collected incriminating material, bring Patriarch Tikhon as a defendant in the “case”. The latter was already charged on April 19 and transferred from the Donskoy Monastery, where he was under house arrest, to the internal prison on Lubyanka. In the spring of 1923, the authorities, having cast aside indecision and hesitation towards the renovationists, nevertheless gave the green light to holding the renovationist Local Council. The calculation was obvious: to judge not the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the “former patriarch,” an ordinary layman, whom the flock itself abandoned and who no longer had a multimillion-strong believing mass behind him. On April 29, 1923, the Second Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church opened with a solemn service in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. By giving their church meeting the name “second,” the renovationists deliberately emphasized their exclusive “right to continuity” of the historical Orthodox Church and thereby “continued” the history of the church in new, Soviet conditions. For Tikhonov’s followers, this Council went down in history as the “Robber Cathedral.” The working sessions of the Council began on the evening of May 2 in the III Moscow House of Councils (formerly the Moscow Theological Seminary). There were 476 people present, representing 72 (out of 74) dioceses of the church and various church-party groups: “The Living Church”, the Council of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church, “Renaissance”, as well as “non-party” groups. Although the majority still remained with the Living Church. Metropolitan Peter (Blinov) of Siberia was elected Chairman of the Council. The agenda consisted of ten questions, including: about the attitude towards the social revolution, towards Soviet power, towards Patriarch Tikhon; about the veneration of holy relics; about monasticism and monasteries. By its decisions, the Council legitimized the reforms previously voiced by the Supreme Church Administration: the closure of monasteries, the permissibility of second marriage for the clergy. Although, with the voices of “moderate renovationists,” the Council refused to accept the dogmatic and liturgical innovations that Vvedensky and Krasnitsky insisted on in their reports. The council members began to address the main issue—the attitude toward the revolution, toward Soviet power, and Patriarch Tikhon—on May 3. Archpriest A.I. Vvedensky made a presentation. He spoke out for depriving Patriarch Tikhon of his rank and at the same time for the abolition of the very institution of the patriarchate. Judging by the shouts recorded in the transcript: “That’s right!”, “That’s right!” – it was these proposals that aroused the greatest approval and support among those listening. “I know,” said Vvedensky, “sometimes to church people (especially those outside this hall) this act seems unchristian, an act of settling personal scores, an act of revenge. It’s not true... I have no doubt that the Council, deposing Tikhon, will do it with a clear conscience, that this is not an act of revenge, but the Judgment of God, acting through our unworthiness... The Church welcomes the power of workers and peasants. She wants the fullness of truth, she says: from now on we all follow Christ and with Christ we will realize his social truth, which is now being born in the world. We are not destroying the Church, we love her, and we are lifting the anathema” 91. The day before, the Council of Renovationist Bishops specifically discussed the fate of Patriarch Tikhon and adopted a special verdict regarding him. The text, on behalf of the Council, was read by Metropolitan Peter: – Based on the former judgment about Patriarch Tikhon, the Council of Bishops came to the sole decision that Patriarch Tikhon, before the conscience of believers, is subject to the strictest responsibility and punishment - deprivation of the dignity and title of patriarch - for the fact that he directed all the power of moral and ecclesiastical authority to overthrow the existing civil social order of our life. “Announce the signatories,” came a voice from the hall. “I’ll bring it to your attention,” answered the Metropolitan. – The document bears the signatures of fifty-four bishops, that is, all the bishops present at the Council. Of these, sixteen are pre-revolutionary bishops. The condemnation of Patriarch Tikhon and his activities “as counter-revolutionary” was also enshrined in the council resolution, which read: “The Council, on the basis of the canons of the Church, hereby declares Patriarch Tikhon deprived of his dignity and monasticism and returned to his primitive worldly position. From now on, Patriarch Tikhon is a layman Vasily Belavin.” The Council recognized the very fact of the restoration of the patriarchate at the Local Council of 1917–1918 as “definitely political, counter-revolutionary” and therefore canceled the council resolution adopted at it on the restoration of the patriarchate. In order to acquaint the deposed patriarch with the documents of the Council, on May 8 he was transported from the Lubyanka prison to the Donskoy Monastery, where a delegation from the renovationists headed by Metropolitan Peter showed up. Tikhon signed the documents provided to him, although he stated that he did not recognize the legality of these decisions, since they violated canonical rules. The decisions of the “robber council” finally strengthened Sergius in his thoughts about returning to the Patriarchal Church. As soon as at the end of June 1923, the patriarch appealed to the Supreme Court of the RSFSR with a statement in which he repented of his “counter-revolutionary acts”, he was released from custody, placed in the Donskoy Monastery and even received the opportunity to receive visitors and leave the monastery, Sergius Stragorodsky hastily leaves for Moscow with only one purpose - to meet with the patriarch. This step was difficult, for it had to be accompanied by remorse and repentance. For a month, Sergius received the same answer to his calls: “The Patriarch does not accept.” Sergius eagerly listens to the rumors that reach him about the life of the “Tikhon” church. He knew that the patriarch had formed a temporary Holy Synod with him, which included Archbishops of Tver Seraphim (Alexandrov), Ural Tikhon (Obolensky), Bishop Hilarion (Troitsky) of Vereya, who became the patriarch’s closest assistants. He also knew the responses to the solemn patriarchal services with thousands of crowds of believers who came to their patriarch, be it the Donskoy Monastery, Moscow churches or churches in the Moscow region, where Tikhon went with the permission of the authorities. He also read with special attention the August appeal of the Patriarch and the Synod, which declared a decisive dissociation from any counter-revolution, expressed in the following words: “A return to the previous system is impossible, the Church is not the servant of those insignificant groups of Russian people, no matter where they live - at home or abroad, who remembered it only when they were offended by the Russian revolution, and who would like to take advantage of it for your own personal purposes. The Church recognizes and supports Soviet power, for there is no power that is not from God” 92. This position of the patriarch was both shared and supported by Sergius. He understood that it was knocking the main trump card out of the hands of the renovationists - a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet regime. And the result was not long in coming. Soon a wave of renovationist priests returning to the Patriarchal Church swept across Moscow. Moreover, Renovationists are almost universally expelled from churches, beaten, and spoken of with more hatred than even atheists. Confusion and vacillation began within Renovationism: one part of its supporters began to treat “Tikhonovism” with even greater embitterment, cursing it and calling on the authorities with demands to “destroy the church counter-revolution,” while the other - various groups of Renovationists, who had previously argued among themselves for power and flocks, faced with a common danger, had to take steps towards unification. The figure who the renovationists hoped would be able to carry out this unification process was Metropolitan Evdokim (Meshchersky) of Nizhny Novgorod. The same one that a year ago, together with Sergius Stragorodsky, signed an appeal recognizing the canonicity of the power of the renovationist Supreme Church Administration. They beg him to come from Nizhny Novgorod to Moscow and lead the movement. Immediately upon arrival in Moscow, Evdokim holds a meeting of representatives of various renovationist groups. Decisions are made to abolish the previously existing renovationist Supreme Church Council and to establish in its place a Synod headed by Evdokim. To give the appearance of “church legality”, bishops of the old (pre-revolutionary) order are being introduced into the Synod. Evdokim managed to accomplish the seemingly unthinkable in a short period of time - to stop centrifugal processes and consolidate renovationism. With him, the renovationists felt calmer and more confident. The majestic and arrogant prince of the church Evdokim at that time impressed absolutely everyone. The Renovationist priests obsequiously bowed before the high spiritual dignitary, finally sensing the domineering hand of the Old Church bishop that was familiar to them. In foreign embassies, Evdokim assumed the appearance of an educated European, which was greatly facilitated by his excellent English speech and the skills he acquired while he was Archbishop of North America and the Aleutians (1914–1917). Representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs in Moscow and scientific theorists of renovationism from former academic professors were impressed by the master's degree in theology and the academic career of Evdokim - inspector, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy (1898–1908). Finally, the people, who unceremoniously pushed the renovationist priests out of the churches, fell silent when the old bishop appeared in a white hood, with a general’s bearing, and with lordly disdain in his address. Under Evdokim, the first timid attempts of the Renovationists and “Tikhonovites” began to move from confrontation and public denunciations of all kinds of sins to groping the ground for possible negotiations on the fate of Orthodoxy in Russia. Renovationists put forward the idea of ​​holding a unification Council, which was supposed to make a final decision on the fate of Patriarch Tikhon. Receiving the latest news about church life from numerous friends, acquaintances and admirers, Sergius Stragorodsky was tormented and worried that at such a crucial moment for the church he was unable to do anything, since he remained in a position not recognized either by the Renovationists, from whom he left, or by the “Tikhonovites”, who did not invite him to join them. He saw this as an indication of his “non-Orthodoxy” and the reluctance on the part of the patriarch to forgive him. On August 25, a telephone call suddenly rang in Sergius’s apartment. An unfamiliar voice said: - Come, the patriarch is waiting for you. At the gates of the Donskoy Monastery, Sergius was met by Archimandrite Neophytos, the patriarch’s secretary. On the way to the Holy Gate, where Tikhon’s chambers were located, he quickly said: – His Holiness is terribly tired and weak. He needs to have a good rest today, because tomorrow is a very troublesome day - the patriarch’s name day, there will be services, meetings with hierarchs who have arrived from all over Russia, but still he wanted to meet with you. However, I ask you. “The archimandrite looked sternly at Sergius in a childish way and completed the sentence: “Try to take no more than ten minutes from the saint!” Having received such a unique instruction, Sergius entered the patriarch’s cell. Tikhon, surrounded by pillows, was reclining on the sofa, closing his eyes. On a table pulled close together are bottles, a decanter of water, some medical equipment, a photograph of his father - John Belavin, archpriest of the cathedral in Toropets. Now, after more than a year of separation, the patriarch seemed very old and exhausted. The Metropolitan coughed, wanting to attract attention. Tikhon opened his eyes and, leaning forward, said quietly: - Glad, glad to see you, sir. Okay... it's good that you came. “Your Holiness...” Sergius approached the sofa and, unexpectedly for himself, dropped to one knee. “Your Holiness...” Because of the overwhelming feelings, he could no longer utter a word. “Well, what are you saying... Sit down closer,” said the somewhat embarrassed patriarch, pointing to the chair standing next to him. Having mastered his excitement, Sergius said: - Your Holiness, do you deign to serve with you... tomorrow, on the day of your heavenly patron Tikhon of Zadonsk? - But how, how can you “serve” right away? After all, you sinned against the church... you went into renovationism. No, no, it’s so easy... to take it back, no... I can’t. - It’s not like that. There is no sin on me. I did not commit treason against the church. I was only formally with them, and then only to save and preserve the disintegrating church... And was there any other way? “There is another path...” the patriarch repeated after Sergius, and after some silence he concluded: “There was, and many took it, although it was fraught with difficulties and torment.” They did not abandon me as the head of the church, nor did they abandon holy Orthodoxy, bequeathed to us by our ancestors. They took care of us and to this day endure hardships for the sake of us who are free. And you, Vladyka, in your weakness forgot about them, and about me, and about the church. You have also served as a great temptation to many who are unstable and weak in spirit. How many have your actions seduced into the abyss of renovationism?! “Sorry,” Sergius breathed out. The Patriarch rose and sat down. From under one of the pillows he took out a crumpled piece of paper. He put it on his knees and smoothed it out. “Here,” he turned to the Metropolitan, “if you please, greetings from the suffering.” Read it! It was a letter from prisoners of the Solovetsky camp, which became a place of detention for the exiled clergy. “We exiles,” the Metropolitan began to read to himself, “are becoming more and more numerous here. Laymen, priests, and hierarchs arrive with each ship. We live in the monastery hotel and do the work we can do. At five in the morning there is daily liturgy - as long as it is allowed. A couple of times they allowed me to serve in the church. We live on government rations. Thanks to those who have not forgotten us: who sends food, who sends things. We give the shag that comes from the outside to the “punks” - the criminals sitting here, who in return do some backbreaking and inappropriate work for us. Thank God, they are still healthy and alive, in good spirits. They say here that the exiles in the Kyrgyz steppes are much worse off than ours. How can I help them..." Sergius looked up from reading the letter: – Your Holiness, do not reject me. Take into your flock, albeit small, but faithful. Believe my repentance, it is sincere. How can I be outside the church?! - Well, Vladyka, the church knew and loved you. We remember you too. Come to the service tomorrow... Now go... The next evening, Sergius went to Donskoy to participate in the patriarchal service in the Great (summer) church of the monastery. By his arrival, hierarchs and priests invited to patriarchal service had already gathered in the church. Everyone was joyfully excited, talking quietly: some were reporting about a meeting that had already taken place with the patriarch, others were just getting ready to ask him questions. Those gathered were looking forward to a festive meeting with the patriarch, long and leisurely conversations with hierarchs who had finally arrived from exile or imprisonment, and some from distant provinces, previously cut off by fronts, arrived in the capital for news. Seeing Sergius, who was beginning to put on his clothes, they became worried. Gathering in groups of two or three people, they whispered about something, looking towards Sergius. He felt a vacuum form around him: those standing nearby suddenly moved away, the general conversation fell silent, and an oppressive silence reigned. But then the archbishop emerged from the ranks and, turning to Sergius, said: “Forgive me, sir, but you cannot and should not serve here.” - Do you give orders in the church? “After all, you are a “live bait”, a “Christ seller,” he continued, as if not noticing Sergius’s attempt to object. – I am clean before the church... the patriarch blessed me to participate in today’s service. “The Patriarch is weak,” was the answer, “and not only physically, but also in will.” He has become more compliant than he should be and does not have the same firmness. – What are you allowing yourself to do? – Sergius flared up. - We care about the church. And the patriarch... Well, even he knows human weaknesses. Therefore, we stand guard over the purity of our native Orthodoxy. And we will stand like this. If you, as you claim, honor the patriarch and the church, then leave here. - What if not? The Patriarch knows that I am here and wanted me to serve him. “And if not, then we,” the archbishop turned towards the crowded clergy, “we will all leave the church.” We won’t serve with you, you’ll be left alone. – But I am not a sinner, I am clean before the church court and I want to serve the Patriarchal Church. – You have only one way – public repentance. And there... if it is accepted, serve with us. Sergius dejectedly headed towards the exit. Having already descended from the high stairs of the cathedral and stepped onto the path leading to the Holy Gate, he met the patriarch. Having reported what had happened, he humbly waited for an answer. It was clear from the patriarch’s face that he, too, was upset by what had happened. “Out of Christian duty,” said Tikhon, “I forgive you.” But your guilt is great not only before me, but also before your fellow bishops and all the Orthodox people. Since they did not accept you, you must publicly repent. Apparently, this is God’s will, and we must fulfill it. In a painful state of mind, Sergius returned to his apartment in the Valaam courtyard. A cell attendant, preoccupied with something, came out to meet him, approached Sergius, and quietly said: “You have a guest,” and, responding to the Metropolitan’s puzzled look, he added: “Metropolitan Evdokim.” The meeting was more than unexpected, and, perhaps, unwanted. Evdokim remained in the alien renovationist camp and was preparing to give battle to Tikhon and the “Tikhon” church. Sergius hesitated at the closed door, delaying the meeting with the uninvited guest. But Evdokim was already leaving the room. Still the same – majestic, proud, self-confident. Smiling and spreading his arms wide, he walked towards Sergius. “Let’s go into the room,” said Sergius dryly and as if not noticing his former comrade, who was preparing for hugs and kisses (they had known each other for more than twenty years). Slamming the door and not offering to sit down, he asked: Evdokim, accustomed to such surprises, pretended that nothing unpleasant had happened and spoke: – I just met with a delegation from Patriarch Tikhon. We jointly came to the conclusion that in the “Tikhon” church there is confusion, chaos and complete decay. Quite a few hierarchs, among them the closest supporters of the patriarch, agree to reunite with us subject to the deposition of Tikhon and his removal to the Gethsemane monastery. The delegates, and I also had Tikhon’s right hand, Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), consider it possible to jointly prepare for the Local Unification Council, with the election of a new patriarch. And let me say, not for boasting, but to clarify positions: they agreed with my candidacy for the patriarchal throne... What? “Forgive me,” Sergius interrupted Evdokim, who was carried away by his fantastic prospects, “but I cannot talk to you in this spirit and listen to your malicious words.” There is not and can no longer be any relationship between us, everything is in the past. And besides, I was in Donskoy today... You are telling a lie. Go away! Evdokim left without saying goodbye. He was furious, because he was counting on attracting Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod - a noticeable, well-known figure who attracted his flock. And here... such an embarrassment. The uninvited guest was still not wrong about everything. Indeed, during those hours when Sergius visited the Donskoy Monastery, a group of hierarchs - Archbishops Hilarion (Troitsky), Sergius (Alexandrov) and Tikhon (Obolensky) - with the knowledge of the patriarch, visited Evdokim in his apartment at the Trinity Compound. The conversation concerned the specific conditions of a possible unification. “Tikhon’s followers” ​​set the following conditions as mandatory: rejection of the married episcopate, prohibition of second and third marriage clergy, recognition of Tikhon as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the part of Evdokim and the secretary of the Renovation Synod, A.I. Novikov, it was the third point that caused sharp disagreement. They demanded the immediate removal of Tikhon from governing the church. His further fate, in their opinion, was to be decided by the Local Council, assembled “on equal terms” from representatives of the Patriarchal and Renovationist churches. Tikhonov’s envoys arrived at the Donskoy Monastery after the patriarchal service. Archbishop Seraphim reported to the Patriarch on the progress of the negotiations and on the latest conditions of the renovationists. They boiled down to the following: Patriarch Tikhon solemnly opens the joint Local Council and immediately declares his voluntary resignation of patriarchal powers and his desire to retire to one of the monasteries. The council accepts the patriarch's request and elects a new one. This puts an end to the division of the church, which is painful for everyone. Tikhon listened in silence. He seemed lost in thought. Maybe he remembered how just three months ago he was overthrown from the patriarchal throne by the Renovationists. And now the threat of abdication from church authority again loomed over him, but with the “complicity,” it seemed, of the bishops who had previously been faithful to him. But then he perked up, as if having come to some final decision, and his answer was simple: - If you are tired of me, brothers, then take a broom and drive me away... Now go, they are waiting for you in St. Michael’s Cathedral. As you decide, so it will be. About thirty Tikhonov bishops gathered in St. Michael's Cathedral of the Donskoy Monastery. Seraphim conveyed to them both the proposals of the renovationists and his conversation with Tikhon. This time the discussion did not help to develop a common position. In order not to aggravate relations within the Patriarchal Church, it was decided to leave the door open for negotiations with the renovationists, provided that the “Tikhonites” are united in the fact that there can be no talk of Tikhon’s immediate removal from power. On the evening of the next day, August 27, on the eve of the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Sergius Stragorodsky again came to Donskoy. The bulk of the Assumption Cathedral rose in front of him. They were waiting for him there. The windows were illuminated by warm candlelight. Low singing could be heard. Pilgrims were already crowding around the church where the patriarchal service was to take place. On this day there were especially many of them, for Moscow was already filled with rumors about an unusual event - the public repentance of the most famous Russian hierarch, a former renovationist metropolitan. There were so many good and glorious things associated with his name in the past of Russia and the Russian Church. Sergius walked slowly along the path to the cathedral; some of those standing on both sides recognized him, and he responded to their greetings. This was the path of the prodigal son, the path of the sinner to Canossa. There were also many worshipers in the cathedral: monks of the monastery, parishioners of neighboring churches, Moscow clergy, and hierarchs. The service went on as usual. But its course, fine-tuned over centuries, stopped. A majestic elder in a simple monastic hood stepped onto the pulpit. Following him, a panagia, a cross and a white hood were brought out on a platter. The saint's staff was carried separately. On the pulpit stood a man stripped of all hierarchical distinctions - the glory and pride of the Russian Church. His mournful face, watered with stingy tears, breathed with deep remorse. Turning to the center of the hall, where Patriarch Tikhon sat on the pulpit, Sergius bowed low. With effort, as if overcoming an invisible barrier, he uttered the first words of repentance. But then the patriarchal subdeacons approached the bowed hierarch and slowly led him to the center of the hall. Stop again: bow to the ground and words of repentance, pronounced in a voice trembling with emotion. Those gathered silently looked at the scene of repentance. And for the third time, Metropolitan Sergius, accompanied by subdeacons, stops, now in front of the patriarch. Once again he bows to the ground, and again the trembling voice pronounces words of repentance and repentance addressed to the patriarch, clergy and people. The believers who listened to this voice could no longer stand it, and instead of the usual in such cases, “God will forgive!” shouts rang out: - Holy One, forgive him! Sorry!! The Patriarch leans towards Sergius and affectionately pats his thick, thick beard. “Well, let the others leave, aren’t you ashamed to leave the church and me,” he quietly says to Sergius. And then he kissed him three times and returned to him the signs of bishop’s dignity. He put the bishop's cross and panagia on Sergius. The subdeacons threw the bishop's mantle over the shoulders of the forgiven bishop. Archbishop Hilarion served Sergius a klobuk on a platter. The pangs of suffering and shame, difficult experiences are left behind. Metropolitan Sergius, together with others, participates in the ongoing service, in a service that reconciles everyone. And for a long time there were stories among the church people about the accomplished repentance: “We saw repentance brought from the clergy, occasionally from bishops, but we had not heard of such repentance, and did not know, and had not seen. How much courage and spiritual strength it was necessary for such a great man of the church as Bishop Sergius, and even in a church overcrowded with worshipers, to publicly admit his guilt and ask for forgiveness.” For the Renovationists and for Evdokim personally, the repentance of Sergius of Stragorod and his return to the Patriarchal Church was one of the most difficult blows of recent times. They felt that the entire building of the renewed church they were building was shaking. The triumvirate, which once published an appeal that had such a detrimental effect on the position of the Patriarchal Church, also disintegrated. Following Sergius, Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) also repented and went to the North to atone for his guilt before the Russian Church. After a short time, he was thrown off the renovationist church ship by the renovationist comrades themselves and Evdokim. He left the church service, without removing his rank, and put on secular dress. Then he left for the Caucasus, where for a long time vacationers saw a strange old man selling sweets, seeds and all sorts of cheap food from a stall. It was Vladyka Evdokim. Vladimir Diocesan Gazette. 1917. No. 31. Church Gazette. 1918. No. 13–14. Odintsov M.I. State and Church. XX century M., 1999. P. 153. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia: Later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917–1943. M., 1994. S. 163, 164. GA RF F. 579. Op. 5. D. 15. L. 39. RGASPI. F. 2. Op. 1.D. 16 341. L. 1. Right there. D. 16 345. L. 2 vol. Science and religion. 1997. No. 11. P. 33. Izvestia. 1922. February 26. GA RF. F. A-353. Op. 5. D. 254. L. 6. Mystical coincidence: it was on this day that famous events took place in Shuya, which were subsequently “used” by L. Trotsky for administrative and criminal prosecution of the clergy and believers and introducing a schism into the Russian Church. News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. 1922. March 15. RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 2. D. 48. L. 16, 17. News of the CPSU Central Committee. 1990. No. 4. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 3. D. 284. L. 4, 9. Quote from: Science and Religion. 1997. No. 11. P. 34. See: XI Congress of the RCP(b): Verbatim report. M., 1961. S. 643, 657. Central Election Commission of the FSB of the Russian Federation. Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon (D. N. – 1780). T. 6. L. 20. Historical archive. 2000. No. 1. P. 72. Central Election Commission of the FSB of the Russian Federation. Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon (D.N.–1780). T. 2. L. 58. Confiscation of church valuables in Moscow in 1922: Collection of documents from the fund of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic. M., 2006. P. 160. GA RF. F. 1235. Op. 1. D. 59. L. 68. RGANI. F. 89. Op. 49. D. 17. L. 4, 5. Fomin S. Guardian of the House of the Lord: Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Sergius (Stragorodsky). M., 2003. pp. 174–176. Odintsov M.I. We must be sincere towards Soviet power: Documents and materials about Patriarch Tikhon // Issues of scientific atheism. M., 1989. Issue. 39. pp. 319, 320. See: Domestic archives. 1993. No. 2. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 3. D. 291. L. 2. Central Election Commission of the FSB of the Russian Federation. Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon (D.N.–1780). T. 29. L. 54. Levitin-Krasnov V., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. M., 1996. P. 263. Quote by: Tsypin V. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal period. Recent period. M., 2004. P. 403.