The first big and important question for church life that was resolved by the Church Council is the question of the patriarchate. Soon after the opening of the Council, the activities of the cathedral members were concentrated in numerous departments, each of which had its own more or less close circle of affairs and interests. However, it is safe to say that in the cathedral atmosphere the question of the patriarchate was constantly discussed. Back in September, the Council’s department on higher church government, discussing the question of the conciliarity of church government, involuntarily turned to the question of the patriarchate. The motivation for this was that the Pre-Conciliar Council, which worked in Petrograd in the summer, passed a negative resolution on the patriarchate, finding it incompatible with the idea of ​​church conciliarity. A whole series of meetings of the department on higher management were taken up by debates on the patriarchate and conciliarity in their relationship. But in parallel there was a whole series of private meetings devoted entirely to the question of the patriarchate. In these private meetings of cathedral members, reports were read almost exclusively against the patriarchate. Only Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov read a report in defense of the patriarchate. But after the reports, debates usually opened, often dragging on past midnight and taking up several meetings. At times the debates were quite passionate. Nothing was talked about so much in the community of cathedral members as about the patriarchate. Finally, the department for higher church administration issued a resolution on the restoration of the patriarchate and proposed this resolution for consideration general meeting. On September 12, the Council began discussing the issue of restoring the patriarchate. Up to a hundred people immediately signed up to speak on this issue, but it was already felt that in the general conciliar consciousness and mood this issue was resolved positively. That is why the Council did not listen to even half of the intended speeches; on October 28 it stopped the debate and, by a huge majority of votes, decided to restore the patriarchate destroyed by Peter I in the Russian Church. Meanwhile, events were brewing that indicated a serious illness in the Russian state body. October 28 in Moscow was the first day of bloody civil strife. Shooting thundered through the streets of Moscow, gun shots thundered. The historical Kremlin, along with its shrines, was exposed to an unprecedented danger of destruction. Not without the influence of these terrible events, the Council decided to immediately implement its resolution regarding the patriarchate, and therefore immediately began to elect an All-Russian Patriarch. It was decided to elect three candidates and make the final election by lot. The walls of the cathedral chamber shook from nearby gun shots, and in the cathedral chamber the election of candidates to the All-Russian Patriarchs was underway. Moscow Metropolitan Tikhon, Kharkov Archbishop Anthony and Novgorod Archbishop Arseny were elected candidates. On November 5, as soon as the internecine warfare on the streets of Moscow ended, a solemn liturgy and deliberate prayer singing were served in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At this time, the lots with the names of the three candidates lay in a special sealed ark before Vladimir icon Mother of God. After the prayer service, a member of the Council, the reclusive elder of the Zosimova Hermitage, Hieromonk Alexy, drew lots, and the lot indicated that Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow should be the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. A specially selected embassy from the members of the Council immediately went to the Metropolitan Trinity Metochion with the gospel of the election. After this gospel, the named patriarch left for the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where he remained until the day of his solemn elevation to the patriarchal throne. A special commission was elected at the Council to develop the rite of “enthronement” of the All-Russian Patriarch. Before this commission, first of all, the fact became clear that ancient Rus' did not have its own rank of “seating” the patriarch. Before Patriarch Nikon, we had the rite of episcopal consecration performed for the second time on newly installed patriarchs. But after Patriarch Nikon, the rite of installing a patriarch was reduced to very few rituals, and the importance of the Moscow Tsar was emphasized too much, from whose hands the patriarch received the staff of Metropolitan Peter. The commission therefore developed a special order, combining in it the ancient (14th century) Alexandrian order of installing a patriarch, modern Constantinople practice and some ancient Russian details. The day of the solemn “consecration” of the patriarch was set on November 21. Staying at the Trinity Lavra, the named patriarch celebrated the liturgy on November 19 in the church of the Moscow Theological Academy, after which the corporation of professors brought him their greetings and presented him with a diploma prepared at that time for the title of Honorary Member of the Academy.

The day came November 21st. The winter day was still gray at dawn when members of the Council began to flock to the Kremlin. Alas! Moscow could not come to its native Kremlin even for the great historical celebration. The new owners of the Kremlin allowed very few people in there even on this exceptional day, and even these lucky few had to endure a whole series of ordeals before getting to the Kremlin. All these restrictions and difficulties of access to the Kremlin did not make any sense: they were not a hostile action of the new “government” in relation to the Church. It was just that stupid nonsense in the kingdom of which we now had to live. It was hard to walk through the empty Kremlin and see all its wounds unhealed. Three weeks have passed since the bombing of the Kremlin, but the Kremlin is still in chaos. It is painful to see traces of artillery shells on such historical sacred buildings as the Miracle Monastery, the Church of the Twelve Apostles, and it is absolutely terrible to see the gaping large hole in the middle dome of the Assumption Cathedral. Nothing is fixed; there are fragments of bricks and rubble everywhere. The St. Petersburg period of Russian history ends with such a national disgrace. This period began with the devastation of the Moscow Kremlin. After all, over the past 200 years, the Moscow Kremlin has so often resembled an archaeological museum, where only monuments of a former and now extinct life are kept. But now the spirit of national and church life must once again enter the empty, broken and desecrated Kremlin, together with the patriarch. The picture of the destruction of the Kremlin was hidden and forgotten as soon as they entered the wondrous and sacred Assumption Cathedral. Here, ancient icons and ancient wall paintings look as if they were alive. Representatives of the spirit rest here ancient Rus', rest in incorruptible graves.

Russian bishops in robes and clergy in vestments gather at the Peace Chamber. There is semi-darkness under the arches of the ancient patriarchal chamber. The bishops sing a prayer service, which always happens during the naming of a bishop. Metropolitan Tikhon precedes all the bishops to the Assumption Cathedral. Starts as usual Divine Liturgy. After the Trisagion, those appointed to the patriarchate are sent to a high place. A prayer is read. The usual episcopal vestments are removed from the supplied one. Patriarchal clothes that had not been used for two hundred years were brought from the patriarchal sacristy. Immediately he is transformed into a patriarch. We saw these clothes, this miter of Patriarch Nikon only when we examined the patriarchal sacristy. Now we see all this on a living person. Three times they seat the new patriarch on the ancient patriarchal mountain seat and proclaim: Axios! Protodeacon has been serving for many years to the Eastern Patriarchs and after them " Holy Father our Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” Our Russian patriarch was introduced into the host of ecumenical patriarchs. The Divine Liturgy ended. The patriarch is dressed in a 17th-century cassock, an ancient patriarchal robe and the hood of Patriarch Nikon. The Metropolitan of Kiev hands him the staff of Metropolitan Peter on the salt. Led by two metropolitans, His Holiness the Patriarch goes to the patriarchal place at the front right pillar of the Assumption Cathedral, which has stood empty for two hundred years.

Published according to the publication: Archimandrite Hilarion. Restoration of the patriarchate and election of the All-Russian Patriarch. – Theological Bulletin. 1917.X–XII.

Report on the election and enthronement of Metropolitan Tikhon by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The future All-Russian Patriarch, in the world Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin, was born on January 19, 1865 in the city of Toropets in the family of a priest. He graduated from the Pskov Seminary and in 1888 from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Upon graduation, he was appointed teacher of basic, dogmatic and moral theology at the Pskov Theological Seminary. In December 1891 he took monastic vows, and on December 22 he was ordained a hieromonk. In March 1892, he was appointed inspector of the Kholm Theological Seminary, and in July of the same year, he was appointed first as the rector of the Kazan and then the Kholm Theological Seminary. On October 19, 1897, he was consecrated Bishop of Lublin, vicar of the Kholm-Warsaw diocese. On September 14, 1898, he was appointed Bishop of the Aleutians to North America. During the 19 years of his stay in America, St. Tikhon worked hard to strengthen and nurture Orthodoxy on this continent. On January 25, 1907, he was appointed Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov, and on December 22, 1913, Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna. Two days before the Local Council on August 13, 1917, Saint Tikhon was elected Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. During the Local Council of St. Tikhon presided over its meetings.

On the day of Entry into the Temple Holy Mother of God On November 21, 1917, by the election of the Local Council and the lot drawn in front of the Vladimir Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, Moscow Metropolitan Tikhon was solemnly elevated to the All-Russian Patriarchal Throne. And the crown of the patriarch becomes for St. Tikhon a real “crown of a martyr and confessor,” courageously and wisely defending the faith of Christ and the interests of the Church. On May 25, 1920, Patriarch Tikhon leads the episcopal consecration of Archimandrite Hilarion, and the newly installed bishop becomes the Patriarch’s closest associate and assistant in his service to the Church.

Saint Tikhon rested on the night of Tuesday to Wednesday 1925, on the day of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos. The holy relics were found in February 1992. Canonized as a saint by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on October 9, 1989. Commemorated on March 25/April 7 and September 26/ October 9.

The clearly non-canonical administration of the Russian Synodal Church, which existed since Peter’s reforms, contributed to the ripening of new transformations in the church and public consciousness of the early 20th century. There were more or less sound proposals on how to reform church governance. For example, it was proposed to form metropolitan districts, in which Local Councils are convened twice a year, and All-Russian Councils of Metropolitans as the highest church authority. But, unfortunately, in 1905-1917. reformist ideas led not to a return to the “pre-Constantinian” era of the conciliarity of the Roman catacombs, but to a patriarchal renaissance in the best traditions of Byzantine-Nikonian papism. The consequences of this were not long in coming: the most enormous turmoil and schism arose in the Russian Church, known as “Sergianism.”

It is known that Emperor Nicholas II himself, who was one of the main initiators and organizers of the preparation for the convening of the All-Russian Local Council, sought church reform. It is also known that the attitude towards the then synodal hierarchy royal family was extremely negative, because she was very well aware of her complete moral decay (with the exception of some individuals). Empress Alexandra Feodorovna even once said:

“In the Synod we have only animals.”

Being a supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate, the sovereign did not see a single candidate among the entire Russian episcopate who would be worthy of this high calling. Therefore, he proposed (and this is not a legend!) to make himself patriarch, which caused consternation among the members of the Synod. Another noteworthy fact is the emperor’s serious intention to make the Old Believer “Belokrinitsky” hierarchy dominant in Russia, about which consultations and negotiations were held. However, this caused panic among the Nikonian-Synodal elite and even threats of excommunication of Nicholas II from the church. The Nikonian hierarchy, like a viper, hissed and “hacked” at the sovereign so loudly that it forced him to abandon such an idea.

Finally, the Local Council was convened, but after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, which was enthusiastically welcomed by the synodals as “the liberation of the church from state oppression.” The emperor himself considered the convening of the Council untimely, as well as the resuscitation of the patriarchate in a new political perspective. It soon became clear that the restoration of conciliarity in the Russian Church was only illusory and not real. It was not so much the restoration of conciliarity as the restoration of the patriarchate that became main goal Local Council of 1917/18 The election of the patriarch turned into a new manifestation of papism, which led the Russian Church to the most undesirable consequences.

Patriarch Nikon was recognized as the ideological inspirer and symbol of the restoration of the patriarchate; patriarchists, led by their leader and ardent admirer of Nikon, Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Anthony (Khrapovitsky), regularly made pilgrimages to venerate his “relics.” There, crazy patriarchists performed numerous prayers and memorial services to Nikon for the granting of a patriarch to the Russian Church. In his memoirs, Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N.D. Zhevakhov, gives the following assessment of the events. Despite the fact that he was a supporter of the synodal system of government (but in the presence of the Council!), one can still agree with his views in many respects. The royal official wrote:

“One of the most incomprehensible achievements of the revolution was the so-called. "All-Russian" Church Council, convened in November 1917 in Moscow, not only with the kind “permission” of the Provisional Government, which usurped the power of the Anointed of God, but also under the condition of presenting to this government the decisions of the Council “for respect.”

Neither the humiliating form of “permission” from the godless “government,” which obviously had no right to either authorize or prohibit the convocation of the Council... nor the fact that such permission was only a new mockery of the Sovereign Emperor, who had repeatedly recognized the convening of the Council as untimely... nor the actual impossibility of ensuring compliance with the mandatory canonical requirements - did not keep the hierarchs from convening the Council, which was associated with so many diverse desires, so many joyful hopes... To throw off the “centuries-old shackles of slavery”, to break free, which had to ensure freedom of spirit Church - became a spontaneous impulse of those who saw the restoration of the patriarchate and the convening of the All-Russian Church Council as the only means to achieve these goals. And the Council was convened, and the Church allegedly broke free.

In this spontaneous movement towards the patriarchate, everything was provided for, except for one condition... the personal readiness and ability of the Patriarch sacrifice oneself to the Orthodox Church. But it was precisely this condition that was not only provided for by the Bolsheviks, but on it they built their program for the destruction of the Church, knowing that the times of the Hermogenes had passed and that the fight against one Patriarch was much easier than against a council of bishops...

The Bolsheviks, assessing events from the point of view of real facts and winning the fight against the utopians, not only did not interfere with the Council, but even welcomed the idea of ​​restoring the patriarchate(emphasis mine - L.L.G.), well aware that... in Russia there was not a single hierarch who could be a threat to them. On the contrary, they were confident that the restoration of the patriarchal rank would only make their task easier for them, for they knew what kind of tests were being prepared for the Orthodox Church, and that not one of the candidates for Patriarchs designated by the Council could resist these tests.”

In the opinion of the prince, there were still several worthy hierarchs, but they were either excluded in advance from participation in the Council (like Metropolitan Macarius of Parvitsky) or were not admitted to the patriarchate by the hierarchs themselves (like Archbishop Anthony Khrapovitsky).

The Bolsheviks did not hide their patronage of the Council: Trotsky personally donated two million rubles for its maintenance. And one high Bolshevik official arrived directly at the Council and on behalf of new government greeted the cathedral. In response, Patriarch Tikhon bowed to him, kissed him and even offered to seat the Bolshevik on the presidium next to him as the personification of the new power.

The traditional idea that only renovationists were opponents of the idea of ​​patriarchy is groundless and unfounded. Just as among the renovationists there were supporters of the patriarchate, so among the synodals there were many opponents of it. Prominent professors and theologians, a number of representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as some bishops who had nothing to do with renovationism, warned about the danger of the emergence of papism on the basis of the restoration of the patriarchate and about other possible negative phenomena in this regard, but their voice was not heard at the Local Council. They raised a whole series of questions before the supporters of the election of the patriarch - moral, canonical, dogmatic, which were never fully resolved by the Council.

The debate on the restoration of the patriarchate began after the report of the Chairman of the Department on the Higher Church Administration, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan. The so-called “Formula for the transition” from synodal government to patriarchal government. Let us present the most interesting excerpts from the reports of opponents of the patriarchate.

Professor P. P. Kudryavtsev:

“...If we move on to an article-by-article discussion, we will have to establish the basic concepts included in the proposal, which the Department has not done. Let's take 1 and 2 tbsp. conclusions of the Department: “The Local Council has the highest power in the Russian Church,” “the patriarchate is being restored, which heads the management of church affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Meanwhile, the concepts of patriarch and patriarchate are not clarified in the report. The speaker referred to Apostolic Canon 34, but it says that the bishops of each region should know the first among them. But in this case, the question arises about the Georgian first hierarch and the first hierarchs of other Orthodox peoples living within our state.

What is important is not the term used by the canon, but the concept of it. I'll explain my point. What is important is not the term patriarchy, but the concept of it. They say, applying the 34th Apostolic Canon, that the patriarch will be the first bishop among equals. But in what sense: in the sense of grace-filled powers? After all, in one lecture in this hall it was said that the patriarch is given special grace-filled powers when he is elevated to this rank (here is the fourth degree of priesthood for you! - L.L.G.). The Eminence speaker pointed out that the patriarch can communicate with the eastern patriarchs, visit different dioceses, etc. Which one will be the first among equal bishops?”

Layman N. D. Kuznetsov:

“The authority of the Council requires the presentation of sufficiently substantiated and discussed motives for the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Subsequently, after all, they will refer not only to certain definitions of the Council, but also to the considerations that served as their basis... The task of reforms at the conciliar beginning forces us to first of all talk about the Council and its competence, and only then move on to the patriarchate. This is also required by the logic of the report itself, which, for some unknown reason, contrary to the experience of history, calls the patriarchate “an executive institution under the Council.” Believers in the institution of the patriarchate are led to believe that the center of gravity of the entire reform in their minds lies in the patriarchate, and not in the Council...

The third provision, which, according to the interpretation of the report, lies in the formula of transition, states that the patriarch is the first among his equal bishops. Which patriarch are we talking about here? we're talking about? Is it about how he appears in Byzantine and Russian history, and currently in Constantinople? If this is the case, then the role of the patriarch is not at all limited to being the first among bishops equal to him, but goes further. If here we mean a patriarch who did not exist in reality, but is only depicted in the imagination of many current supporters of this idea, then we need to talk about the first bishop, and not about the patriarch. The very name “patriarch” contains something more than the concept of the first bishop, established, for example, in the 34th canon of St. Apostles, and in practice, holders of the rank of patriarch received or even arrogated to themselves rights that did not fit into the concept of the first between equals - the requirement of the 34th Apostolic Canon, and clearly violated the rights of diocesan bishops established by the canons.

Finally, the fourth provision, derived from the formula: “the Patriarch, together with the church governing bodies, is accountable to the Council.” Try to understand for yourself what this means! How can one be accountable to the Council not alone, but together with the church governing bodies? If the patriarch is the first among equal bishops, then, after all, the latter must also be accountable to the Council (and not to the patriarch - L.L.G.): Otherwise, in what way will the equality of the patriarch with the bishops be maintained? Therefore, accountability to the Council does not constitute an essential feature of the concept of first among equal bishops. If the patriarch only heads the church governing bodies, and does not stand above them or separately from them, then we need to talk about reporting to the Council not of the patriarch, but of these governing bodies...

The complete unsuitability of the transition formula adopted by the Department for resolving the issue of the patriarchate is especially clearly revealed in the fact that even the report itself could not extract from it a very important provision for the entire issue about the Synod, as a permanent body of church government, and about the attitude of the patriarch towards it. Without clarifying the structure of the Synod and its competence, the question of the patriarchate cannot be resolved. This clarification is all the more necessary because the report explaining the transition formula calls the Patriarch the executive body of the Council. If so, then what role will the Synod play in relation to the Council, and why organize another Synod, as independent institution, if the Patriarch himself carries out all the resolutions of the Council? Apparently, supporters of the patriarchate harbor the idea of ​​turning the future Synod simply into an advisory body under the patriarch (in fact, this is how it became - L.L.G.). If this is so, then the good equality of the patriarch with other bishops is prepared by his supporters!”

Layman V. G. Rubtsov:

“...If we are going to ask the Russian Church, we must not forget the distant times when there was no patriarch. At that time the Russian Church was headed by metropolitans. They competed with each other and kept their flock at the height of Christian influence. Let's move on to the era of patriarchy. He receives little power, but he took power from the people and held it tenaciously, began to abuse power and split the Russian people. This ulcer is still festering at the present time... Not in the patriarch, the alpha and omega of church renewal, but in the broad rights that the Lord gave to the people. IN Holy Scripture there are no places that talk about primacy in the Church. Read the book of Revelation. It talks about the angels of the church, that is, the bishops to whom God gave a special revelation. The bishop cannot be called the father of fathers, the head, because there is only one head of the Church - Christ, and was and will be. The patriarchs did not bring us happiness, they did not unite us, but divided us... I see salvation not in the patriarch, but in the elective principle, which protects us and promotes our mental development... The Patriarch is not the Holy Synod, not a collegium, but a person who may have selfish principles of life, putting his own self above others ... Everyone knows what absolute supreme control led to. Church absolutism will also lead to this. You shouldn’t trust him: he will lead to destruction and death.”

Prince A. G. Chagadayev:

“... Sole authority is necessary for those events that require speed, and where speed can be sacrificed for the thoroughness of collegial discussion. A board is needed when a measure needs to be studied, discussed and weighed. And so we think that in church administration every measure should be comprehensively discussed, because mistakes here have enormous consequences, and we say: let these measures be discussed by several people and discussed comprehensively...

They indicate a lack of feat and daring on the part of the board. They say that we need one person, we need a hero who would return what was rejected and save Russia. Give, they tell us, a father, a man of prayer, an ascetic. We join these wishes: give us a father, give us a prayer book. But for this, if the Lord sent us a father and a prayer book, no rank or titles are needed: if the Lord sends him, he will come in a hair shirt. But where will we find such a person in our sinful environment? Will the patriarch make the same mistakes as our former king, who had the best intentions, who, perhaps, wanted the good of the people, but could not do anything. Will he consult with the Council, which is difficult to assemble?

Archpriest N.V. Tsvetkov:

“...I want to say about the patriarchate in essence: why shouldn’t we vote for the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia? We believe in the Apostolic Church. By the apostolic Church I mean the episcopal Church (a very strange definition! - L.L.G.). I imagine a building with a facade and a roof. The roof is the bishops in the Church. Whoever made a hole in the roof, behind the roof would find only the sky, the Heavenly Head. Why do we need to make an unnecessary stronghold? Why this superstructure over the roof, which is higher than the bishop in the Church? Read the Gospel: “James and John came to the Lord Jesus Christ and said to Him: Let us sit with You, one at a time. right side, and to the other on the left in Thy glory... When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John... Jesus called them and said to them: You know that those who are esteemed princes of the nations rule over them, and their nobles rule over them, but let them not be among you. it will be so, but who wants to be big over you, let him be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you, let him be a slave to all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His soul as a ransom for many”... These are the basic provisions for the apostleship, bishopric in the Church. And after the Lord’s ascension into heaven, this is exactly how the Apostles understood their position in the Church: they did not put forward the first among equals, but acted together, collectively, and each acted as an equal among the first. And indeed, this is how the Apostles acted, in the feeling of the living Christ, and commanded the shepherds: “I beg your shepherds, wrote the Apostle Peter, shepherd the flock of God that is among you, not lording it over God’s inheritance, but setting an example for the flock.” One learned patriarchophile said that I am not consistent on the question of the patriarch: if in a parish there is a rector, in a diocese there is a bishop, then in the local Church there must be a head - a patriarch. I ask him: “Who is the head of the Universal Church?” And I received the answer: “The head of Christ is already there.” It turns out that the closer the visible head, the further Christ moves away. I think otherwise. Christ is the head of the Church everywhere: both at ecumenical and local councils, and in diocesan life, and in parish life. Just as in the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ appears entirely in the whole Lamb and in the smallest particles of the Lamb: so in the whole church life and in each individual act of it, Christ is invisibly present and must be felt. He is the one Head of both the universal and local Church and the diocesan Church, where the bishop is an authority not in himself, but as an executor of the will of Christ, and in the parish.

So we are in this holy place and are constituting a Local Council. We look at both our current and honorary chairmen with complete respect and recognize their authority. But this is not the end highest point Council: The Cross and the Gospel, lying on a lectern in front of the presidium table and reviving before us the invisibly present and felt by us Head of our Council - Christ - this is what heads our Council. Bishops, and we clergy and laity - we are all united by the invisible Head of the Church and we say to each other: “Christ is and will be among us.” Who can sit in the place of the lectern with the Gospel and the cross? The Reverend Anastasius painted us such a picture. Our Russian Church is like a building with a beautiful facade, but without a dome: we need to complete this building, give a visible head to our Church. This picture did not make an impression on me. This is nature morte. This is a painting by an old artist depicting something corporeal, something earthly. I would like to see another picture, another artist, where the apostolate, the episcopacy would be depicted in the form, for example, of lights, angels flying among the spiritualized body, and where the Face of Christ, the Head of the Church, would be felt uniting the whole picture.”

Archpriest N. P. Dobronravov:

“The abundance of speeches for the patriarchate leads me to only one conclusion: the passion, the amazing passion of the desire to have a patriarch in the Russian Church and to see in him the salvation of the Church and the state, which is far from consistent with the convincingness of the arguments presented. They say that the patriarchate is required by the canons, that the Church without a patriarch cannot be canonical. But if we read the canons objectively, without bias, we will see that the canons speak neither for nor against the patriarchate...”

Discussing the false theory of universal unity around the patriarch, Rev. Dobronravov further says:

“In 1448 the Russian Church became completely independent. We can say that from that time on the Russian metropolitan became a patriarch, although he was not yet called by that name. Well, did this serve as the glue of the Russian Church? Remember what happened less than 10 years later. In 1485, the Kiev Metropolis separated from Moscow, and remained separated until 1687, for the entire period of the patriarchate. I ask: what is this soldering?... In saying all this, I do not want to say that the patriarchal administration is to blame for this: I am only stating the facts. I want to say: don’t say that if there is a patriarch, then everything will certainly unite with us... For me, the most difficult, most painful page in the history of the Russian Church is the one that describes 1666-67. That's the worst thing for me. Just understand the horror of what happened: Russian people separated from the union with their Church; in the Church of Christ I do not see many Russians of the same blood as me... I will not say that the patriarchs were guilty of this matter, but I am establishing the fact that this happened during the leadership of the Church by the patriarch. A deep, bloody wound was inflicted on the Russian Church in 1666, but tell me, when was the plaster put on this wound? This happened in 1800 during the establishment of Edinoverie. Even if this was an imperfect work, it still brought the Russian people to our Russian Church. Centrifugal or centripetal? Soldering or soldering? I am not saying that the merits of the Holy Synod are here. I am only saying that the beginning of soldering is possible even under synodal control.

They say that if there was a patriarch, then there would be no autocephaly of the Georgian church (we have already been convinced of the opposite - L.L.G.). I can't figure this out. Remember the history of the annexation of Georgia and its entire history in the 19th century. Did Georgia demand that there be a patriarch in the Russian Church? This did not happen. They refer to the Bulgarian church, but this reference is also unclear. The autocephaly of the Georgian church and the Greek-Bulgarian feud are two parallel, similar phenomena: just as the first occurred from the dissatisfaction of the Georgians with the Russians (I do not consider how thoroughly this was) - so the second - from the dissatisfaction of the Bulgarians with the Greeks; but the first appeared under the synodal government, and the second under the patriarchal government. Doesn’t this prove that this or that administration has nothing to do with it, that church disunity is possible both under the patriarchs and under the Synod?...

They say: the patriarch is needed so that the Church has its own spiritual hero, the leader of its flock. Yes, in the life of the Church, in the life of the state, there are moments when heroes are needed. But in such cases, it usually happens that the heroes themselves are visible to everyone, everyone knows them. Then they are offered power. Remember, for example, the time of St. Patriarch Tarasius... Saint Hermogen was in full view. It is not surprising that he was elected patriarch. We now also need a church hero. But where is he? Show me: where is this leader Tarasius or Ermogen? Among whom should one look for him? Tell!

Yes, God shows us a lot: He also shows us that He should not be tempted... So, examples from history say that there can be a leader only when he is in everyone’s sight, but we don’t see such a leader; he is not among us. But that is not all. Have we read the draft patriarchate as given by the Council Department? What do you give to the patriarch with this project? Nothing! This is some kind of pygmy, and you demand that he be a giant. You give him the strength of a midget, but demand heroic feats from him. You don’t give him anything, but say: “go, save”, and you think that later you will say: “he stood up and saved”... One of two things: or say directly that you want to give the patriarch full power (i.e. that is, make him a dad, - L.L.G.). But then we will tell you this: indicate a person whom this power would not crush. The mouse will not become a lion, and you cannot decorate it lion's mane. One born to crawl cannot fly, and it is unreasonable to attach eagle wings to him. Or - stop talking about heroes and leaders, and admit that the patriarch will not be a granite colossus in the church, but will become just a decoration, beautiful indeed, but hardly necessary. The speaker has said more than once that the patriarchate is a golden dream. I am afraid that this dream, when realized, will turn into a gray reality. I am afraid that those who now so passionately desire to have a patriarch would say, when the patriarchate is restored: “dreams, dreams, where is your sweetness?”...

Archpriest N. G. Popov:

“Listening to what was said here about the need for the patriarchate, I, unfortunately, come to the conclusion that we are somehow in a hurry with this issue. Moreover, I developed the conviction that we decided in advance to introduce the patriarchate, failing to cope with what the history of the Church says. But we cannot forget the lessons of history. Our conscience and those who sent us to the Council and who will demand an account do not allow us to do this. And so, out of a sense of my responsibility, I decide to draw the high attention of the Council to what the patriarchs were like in the past, and whether the patriarchate can really be an all-healing remedy against any disorder in church life.

We know that the patriarchate, patriarchs in the specific meaning of the word, appeared in the 4th century (or rather, towards the end of the 4th century - L.L.G.). And indeed, during the Ecumenical Councils we know many high representatives of the patriarchate - the holy names of Anatoly, Gennady, John the Faster, Herman, Tarasius, Nicephorus, Methodius, Photius and many others (how many? - L.L.G.). Although during the Ecumenical Councils the activities of the patriarchs in the person of these Councils largely found the necessary guidance for themselves, however, even at that time the patriarchate was not without its shortcomings... Unfortunately, it was no better later. One of the most prominent patriarchs, Photius, created an entire ideology of patriarchy. He argued that the king is the ruler of the bodies of his subjects, and the patriarch is the ruler of their souls (and of what is Christ the ruler? - L.L.G.). But Photius was unable to correct the people of Constantinople. In his 4 speeches addressed to the Constantinople flock on the occasion of the Rossov invasion, such a description of the inhabitants of Constantinople and the entire empire is given, which far from indicates that the patriarchate highly raised the moral character of the members of the Church. And what could one expect from the patriarchs of Constantinople, when emperors sometimes elevated minors, like Prince Stephen, to the patriarchal throne? And the elderly patriarchs, like, for example, Anthony Cavlei, did not always have the strength and courage to stop the violation of the canons of the Church. Thus, Anthony Cauleus could not do anything when, by order of Leo VI, his third wife Evdokia was buried on the first day of Easter, contrary to 68 rule VI Ecumenical Council. Under the same emperor, the elderly Patriarch Euthymius recognized the 4th marriage of the emperor, despite the fact that this act of the latter caused deep confusion and division in the Church. This division, rather than unification, continued until the beginning of the 11th century. There were also minor patriarchs later on. We know the 16-year-old Patriarch Theophylact, the son of Emperor Roman I. He naturally indulged in the amusements characteristic of his age and youth. His main passion was horses. Sometimes he even stopped worship to visit the inhabitants of his stable. And death befell this patriarch as a result of his fall from the horse he was riding around.

The successor of this patriarch, known as the second Chrysostom, Patr. Polyeuctus anointed John Tzimiskes, the murderer of Nicephorus Phocas, to the throne. He even summed up the basis for this coronation: as anointing with St. Baptism frees people from sin, so the anointing to the kingdom removed the sin of regicide. Something similar, and far from better, was allowed by Patriarch Alexy, the main organizer of the Studite Charter, who, at the funeral of Romanus Argir III, on Great Friday 1034, married his wife Zoe to her chosen one Michael Paphlagon (we are also talking about the imperial court - L.L.G.)…

Patriarch Isaiah once entered the capital accompanied by dancers, and chronicler Nikifor Grigora compares Patriarch Isidore with an unclean domestic animal who loves to wallow in the mud. As for Patriarch Joseph II, it is known that he did not even think about signing even the definition of the Florence Council to please Emperor John Palaiologos.

We could cite many, many other names from among those 130 (approximately) patriarchs who were in Constantinople from the establishment of the patriarchate until the fall of the empire, as proof that the patriarchate in itself does not protect the bearers of this high rank from fall and error . The patriarchate did not save the empire from the fall and conquest of the Turks. Therefore, one can hardly hope that the patriarchate even now can save us from extreme disorder both in the church and in the political life. True, there were worthy bearers of the rank among the patriarchs, but there were many more who were better forgotten rather than remembered.”

At the end of his speech, Rev. Popov concludes:

“Therefore, if the patriarchate were restored in our country in the form in which we see it in the East, then it would be unnecessary foil and tinsel, an excrescence on the living body of the conciliar Church. I could agree at the moment only to a titular patriarchate, in the sense in which, for example. Gregory the Theologian calls his father patriarch, and Gregory of Nyssa calls Meletius of Antioch. Concluding my speech, I once again dare to point out that the history of the patriarchate in general does not give us any solid grounds for hope for our correction and renewal precisely through the restoration of this institution in the Russian Church.”

Layman P. P. Kudryavtsev:

“We disagree in defining the relationship between the conciliar principle and the individual principle, in the composition of the executive body. While you, emphasizing the importance of the individual principle, speak about the beginning of conciliarity only in a concessionary form, we, on the contrary, bring to the fore the beginning of conciliarity. Both we and you alike recognize that our Church is upset and weakened; but while you want to treat it from above, from the head, we consider the means of healing to be the establishment of a living connection between the shepherds and the flock, the involvement in the work of church building of all living elements of the church body, no matter what place they occupy in the composition of the body. Your destiny is designed to create a place at the top that could be used for the good of the Church by a living person placed in this place; ours is to create a form of church structure that would contribute to the manifestation of living church forces at all levels of the church ladder. You place all the strength of your hopes in one person, namely the one who will occupy the patriarchal throne that you are restoring. In the person of the future patriarch you hope to find a man of prayer, and a mourner for the Church and country, and an ascetic, and a leader in the fight against anti-church forces, and an administrator, and so on, and so on, and so on. We thirst no less than you for prayer books, ascetics and mourners for the Russian land; but we think that the patriarchal throne itself does not ensure the combination in the person occupying it of so many and - moreover - heterogeneous qualities, just as placement on other steps of the church ladder does not prevent the manifestation of the spirit of prayer, asceticism, etc. ... I turn to indicating those fears that are associated in my mind with the thought of establishing a patriarchate in our country.

First. Since, in my opinion, the patriarchate is not able to live up to the too broad expectations that are placed on it, then in the near future we will have to experience the collapse of these hopes, which will be all the more painful the more extensive and intense the hopes were. The collapse of church hopes is unlikely to serve the good of the Church.

Secondly, history shows that in the field of government, ecclesiastical as well as civil, the individual principle tends to push aside and even absorb the collective, conciliar principle. Only when the balance between the two principles is ensured precise definitions law, one can hope that it will not fluctuate too much in either direction. Unfortunately, the situation in which the idea of ​​the patriarchate is ripening in our country does not provide grounds for such hope. Remember with what pathos we speak about the patriarchate, and when it comes to conciliarity, the pathos cools down... In such a situation, one cannot help but feel anxious that with the establishment of the patriarchate the conciliar principle will be little by little weakened and even completely suppressed...

Earlier canons speak not of the patriarch, but of the bishop of the first throne, or the first hierarch, who should be revered as the head of the bishops of each people. If we apply this canon to the Russian Church, then on the basis of it each of the Orthodox peoples living within Russian state, can lay claim to a special first hierarch: as many nations as there are as many first hierarchs. The later canons, which treat not the first hierarch, but the patriarch, do not know one patriarch for the Church, which territorially coincides with the boundaries of such a vast state as our Russia. In any case, for the Church located within Byzantine state, the canons affirm four patriarchates independent from each other. The canons say nothing about any body uniting patriarchates located within the same state; the kind of patriarch you are establishing - not for one region, but for the whole state - the canons do not know, and if any region of the Russian state claims to establish an independent patriarchate in it, the canons will not be on your side. Meanwhile, if it were not for the Patriarch in Moscow, who extends his power to all dioceses located within the Russian state, Kiev or Siberia would not have any incentive to ecclesiastical isolation from Moscow: after all, as part of the cathedral (collective) body, representatives of the metropolises are included in on equal footing. The struggle begins where subordination takes place. The means to prevent struggle in this case are not subordination, but coordination.”

Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky:

“My Orthodox conscience obliges me to tell the Holy Council those thoughts that prompt me to object to the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. These thoughts were especially strengthened in me after the talented speech at the last meeting by Fr. archim. Hilarion. He vividly depicted the centripetal force that in the history of the Orthodox Church united and welded together individual parts of the church body. First, the dioceses were united into metropolitan districts, then dioceses were created from several metropolises, and finally the dioceses were divided into patriarchal regions, and each division was headed by a single person. But here, as in the speech of Fr. Hilarion, and in the speech of Prof. P.D. Lapin (in the Department), an end has been put, while in history the centripetal force continued to operate further. In the West, a single center was formed for the entire Church, in the person of the Roman Patriarch; this center was recognized not only in the West, but also in the East there were many voices, even belonging to holy men, who spoke of the Roman Patriarch as the guardian and head of the entire Church. The same centripetal movement that led to the patriarchate ended with the Roman Papacy. And is it really possible that in the East the movement towards the unification of the entire Church in a single earthly head stopped only because it was directed there to another center - to the “universal” patriarch of the new Rome, that they wanted to honor not the Pope of Rome, but the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Church? I think not, that in the East a different, primordial church principle came to the fore - conciliarity, which stopped further movement towards a single head. I think that the Russian Orthodox Church is destined to carry out this conciliar principle from bottom to top, without the slightest deviation, and thereby clearly demonstrate the falsity of the Roman papacy. In fact, if we stand on the point of view of personal unity of command in the local Church, then logic demands that there should be a single head on earth over the entire Orthodox Church, and all the arguments in favor of the patriarchate, pointing to the beauty of the church, to the demands of the time, and so on. , - all this is even more applicable to the entire Orthodox Church and seems to speak, although unfairly, in favor of the Roman Church. They say that the leadership of the entire Church by an earthly high priest is impossible because it entails recognition of him as infallible: the entire Church as a whole is infallible, therefore, so is its representative. The logic is absolutely correct, but the Latins act according to it, citing the fact that if Caiaphas, as “the bishop of that year,” could prophesy, according to the testimony of the evangelist (John ch. XI Art. 51), then the earthly head of the Church can prophesy, even if unworthy, and his prophecy or teaching can be infallible... And so I fear that the establishment of the patriarchate might force some weak souls to go further down the inclined plane and fall into the abyss papism."

Priest L. E. Ivanitsky:

“It seems to me that as soon as the Council decides that the patriarchate, as the primacy in the Orthodox Church, is an accomplished fact, how... before the harsh court of Russian church history, we, the council members, will find ourselves as malicious, insolvent debtors. Now our Council, this spiritual bell of Holy Rus' in these sorrowful days, should strain all its strength, all its understanding exclusively to preserve the church body worthy of its incorruptible and blessed Head (i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ), as human powers. All this can be achieved not by external measures, not by installing a patriarch at any cost, for the patriarch does not Magic wand, by the wave of which everything will have to be transformed, but only by planting on a wide scale true conciliarity, connecting the children of the Church, without any external mediation, with the bonds of fundamentally creative, interpenetrating Christian love - this eternal foundation of the Kingdom of God.”

To some extent, we can even name the speakers who spoke out against the idea of ​​the patriarchate prophets, since everything that they predicted regarding the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church came true to the last letter.

Despite the fact that the Council nevertheless developed several Definitions “On the rights and duties of the Patriarch” and “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council”, where the scope of their power was specified, it immediately became clear that these definitions were only feasible during normal church life. Even such a supporter of the patriarchate as Archbishop Anastasius (Gribanovsky) of Chisinau had to admit in his speech at the Council:

“...In what form the provision on the rights and responsibilities of the patriarch will be developed will depend on the new demands of life, our statehood, our church-state relations, which we cannot predetermine« .

These Definitions were as vague in wording as they were unclear in content. Recent events showed that no restrictions on the scope of the patriarch's powers could prevent the spontaneously developing trend of papism generated by the restored patriarchal system. The idea that it was restored in the Russian Church was firmly established in the minds of the hierarchy and the people. sole control form.

The Patriarchate really did not live up to the hopes and hopes that were placed on it in the widest church circles. On the issue of restoring the patriarchate, a simple majority won and this factor, unfortunately, became the determining factor. But as has happened more than once in history, this notorious majority miscalculated bitterly. The newly elected patriarch, as Prince N.D. Zhevakhov, an eyewitness to the events, notes, under the Bolsheviks

“he used only his title, but was actually in captivity of the Jews, not having the opportunity to show his activity in anything, much less influence the nature of the unfolding events.”

The Patriarch not only did not save the church from Bolshevik terror, but also did not become the guarantor of its unity. Under Tikhon’s patriarchate, the Russian episcopate and clergy literally fell apart into different factions - from Ukrainian autocephalists to various renovationists and living churchists. The Finnish, Polish and Georgian churches unilaterally declared autocephaly. Moreover, Tikhon committed so many anti-canonical acts that he raised a protest even among those who remained faithful to him. This is a shameful concordat with the renovationists, and the introduction of a new calendar style, and the dissolution of the foreign VCU, and, finally, cowardly groveling in their “repentant” statements to the Bolshevik authorities. Tikhon did all this using his sole power granted to him by the Local Council of 1917-18. As a result, all church administration was concentrated in the hands of one person, who was manipulated by the Bolsheviks, who were terrified of convening a new Local Council and therefore prevented it in every possible way. Didn’t opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate warn against everything that happened at the Local Council of 1917?

But the most terrible thing that gave rise to the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia was the emergence of “Sergianism.” If the patriarchate had not been resurrected, Metropolitan Sergius would never have found himself at the helm of the church, that stupid leapfrog with “locum tenens” and their “deputies” would never have arisen, thanks to which Sergius seized church administration into his own hands. And he ended up there only thanks to the system of transfer of church power that was established on the basis of the Determinations of the Local Council, which gave scope for initiative to Patriarch Tikhon and Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter, who acted on the direct orders of the Bolsheviks in violation of church canons (76 Apostles and 23 Antioch). Sobornost, therefore, was soon completely eradicated and only pitiful guises remained of it - either in the form of some completely non-canonical “Patriarchal Synod” (both under Tikhon and Sergius), consisting of bishops specially selected by the Bolsheviks, or in the form of “ Bishops' Conference" in 1925 (this parody of the Church Council), which approved Met. Peter as Locum Tenens. All conciliar institutions of power fell into insignificance, appointment again appeared in the place of elections, the life of the Russian Church began to seem to choke in anticipation of something even more nightmarish.

Tikhon was replaced by Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky, who had the strange title of “Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne”, provided for by the Local Council in 1918. This title once again shows how flawed the generally accepted church-hierarchical terminology is. In the word “locum tenens”, what comes to the fore again is not the national principle, but the territorial one, in a narrow sense. In the literal sense, the bearer of this title guards not the people, not his flock, or even the territory, but an empty place patriarch. So, there is no patriarch, only his place, the throne, remains. It is this place that the locum tenens is called upon to “guard,” like a dog. Even more curious is the title “Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens”, invented by Metropolitan. Peter, contrary to all conciliar decrees. “Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens” is a person appointed for-place the one who watches empty place. Therefore, there is no talk of either the church or the flock. “Woe to the shepherds who feed themselves.”

But also Met. Peter was not the guarantor of church unity. Under him, a new schism arose - the “Gregorian”. However, in fairness, we note that the “Gregorians” opposed Metropolitan. Peter and his “deputy” Metropolitan. Sergius precisely because of dissatisfaction with the sole management of the church, reluctance to convene a Council, etc.

Metropolitan, who came to power in a completely anti-canonical way. Sergius was a real church tyrant, like Nikon. One might think that the best aspirations of the patriarchophiles have come true. Sergius, by the way, considered his power as power, equal to the patriarch. Between the patriarch, the locum tenens and his deputy, he, within the scope of their powers, put an equal sign. Therefore, he managed all church affairs independently, as a “responsible person.” In his church politics, he became a true successor of the work of Patriarch Nikon. According to Dr. W. Moss,

"Sergianism is a subtle and paradoxical form of papism."

The paradox of this phenomenon lies precisely in the fact that it is an ominous synthesis of two extremes - papo-Caesarism and Caesar-papism,

“for on the one hand, Sergianism establishes an absolutely papist structure within the Church, and on the other hand, it completely subordinates the Church to the control of a godless state.”

And indeed, Met. Sergius especially emphasized his sole power in resolving all church issues and based this on his right to “judge and order” according to his own arbitrariness on the decisions of the Local Council of 1917-18. He based the theses of his 1927 declaration on the statements and activities of Patriarch Tikhon, the first who actually proclaimed the church’s loyalty to the atheistic anti-Christian government. Imitating Patriarch Nikon, the founder of Russian papism, Sergius did not think about what methods to achieve his goals. Using the punitive apparatus of the GPU, he physically dealt with the opposition to himself among the hierarchy and clergy and forced the remnants of it to go underground, as the Old Believers once did, avoiding persecution from the Nikonians. In his atrocities, Sergius far surpassed Nikon himself. Having suppressed and destroyed the church opposition, Metropolitan. At the end of his life, Sergius reached the pinnacle of power - he became a patriarch. Since then, patriarchal power in the Moscow Patriarchate has carried within itself elements of the strictest papism, which permeates its entire structure from top to bottom. The entire building of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, its entire “spirituality”, which now reflects the practice of totalitarian sects and even surpasses it in some ways, is built exclusively on papism.

Now it is impossible even to assess the terrible consequences of the actions of the Council of 1917-18. - they are incommensurable with anything, especially when we have to admit that the patriarchal system has given birth to so many lawless people in robes, sold to the Devil, who do not save, but kill the souls of people. And now these false shepherds are still continuing their destructive work, enlisting the support of those whom the spiritually immature blind call “elders” and “spiritual fathers.” These are the grave consequences of the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia in 1917.

By a majority vote of the members of the Department, it was decided to introduce into the project for the transformation of the highest church administration a provision on the restoration of patriarchal power. However, a number of members of the Council, including many prominent scientists and church leaders, considered it necessary to first develop conciliar documents establishing the rights and duties of the Patriarch and the powers of the Council.

Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan objected to them: “You say: construct a Cathedral. But this cannot be done without the first hierarchy; Likewise, it is impossible to form a Synod without a First Hierarch. We are told: introduce a complete regulation on management, and not in the form of a separate formula. What do we do? Quit all work? The question of patriarchy is a very complex one. […] We need the Patriarch as the church-prayer leader of the Russian Church, a representative of feat and boldness and as a champion for the Russian Church. Nothing else matters. […] So that the restoration of the patriarchate does not frighten, we make an adjustment: the Patriarch is only the first among bishops equal to him. This sets the limits of the sole power of the Patriarch. This position is completely definite. The Patriarch will not absorb church power.”

Bishop Mitrofan pointed out that the patriarchate has been known in Rus' since the very adoption of Christianity, since in the first centuries of its history the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Under Metropolitan Jonah, the Russian Church became autocephalous, but the principle of the first hierarchal authority in it remained unshakable. When the Russian Church grew and became stronger, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' appeared. The abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I became an anti-canonical act. The Russian Church was beheaded. “The Synod remained alien to the Russian heart; it did not touch the inner, deep strings of the soul, which were touched upon by a living representative. Therefore, the idea of ​​the patriarchate remained in the minds of the Russian people. She lived like a golden dream."

Opponents of the restoration of the patriarchate accused their opponents of secret monarchical hopes. They argued that history knows many weak patriarchs who were unable to resist state power and obediently followed her lead. Or, on the contrary, they believed that history provides many examples of despotic primates of the Russian Church, next to whom the idea of ​​conciliarity does not live well. They also argued that the restoration of this church institution would not save the Russian Church from the extraordinary circumstances of the time in which it found itself during the revolution, but, on the contrary, would throw it back into the 17th century, hopelessly lagging behind Europe.

Despite the resistance of some council members, the majority at the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918 spoke out in defense of the patriarchate. I. N. Speransky, in his speech at the plenary session of the Council, pointed out the deep internal connection between the existence of the primatial throne and the spiritual face of pre-Petrine Rus'. He believed that the main argument in favor of restoring the patriarchate was that the Orthodox Church was the conscience of the state as long as there was a supreme shepherd in Rus' - His Holiness the Patriarch.

One of the most powerful arguments in defense of the patriarchate was the history of the Church. Professor I. I. Sokolov reminded the Council of the bright spiritual appearance of the primates of the Church of Constantinople: Saints Photius, Ignatius, Stephen, Anthony, Nicholas the Mystic, Tryphon, Polyeuctus. During the time of Turkish rule, the ecumenical patriarchs Cyril Lukaris, Parthenius, Gregory V, Cyril VI died as martyrs. At the meetings of the Council, they also spoke about the high priestly feat of the metropolitans of the Russian Church - Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Philip, and the hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes.

Finally, on November 4, 1917, the All-Russian Church Council issued a ruling “On the general provisions on the highest governance of the Orthodox Russian Church,” which restored the patriarchate. The next step of the Council was the development of a procedure for electing the Patriarch. As a result, the members of the All-Russian Church Council decided that at the first election meeting, members of the Council would submit notes with the name of their proposed candidate for Patriarch. The person who receives an absolute majority of votes is considered elected as a candidate. The voting rounds will be repeated until three candidates receive a majority of the votes. And finally, the Patriarch will be chosen by lot from among them.

As a result of voting by the members of the Council, the three candidates for Patriarchs who received the most votes were: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - 159 votes as a result of the first vote; Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) - 199 votes as a result of the second vote; Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) - 162 votes in the third round of voting.

The election took place on November 5 in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow was elected Patriarch of the Orthodox Russian Church. On the twenty-first of November, on the feast of the Entry into the Temple of the Most Holy Theotokos, the Patriarch was enthroned in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin in an unusually solemn atmosphere. From now on, the Russian Church has again found its mourner and prayer book.

Representatives of that time perfectly understood the scale of what had happened. Professor S. N. Bulgakov recalled that in addition to church-canonical rights, the Patriarch also has a special hierarchical authority, since it reflects the living unity of the Local Church. He is the church pinnacle, rising above the local fence, seeing other pinnacles and being seen by them.

For many years, conciliar definitions concerning the status and competence of the Patriarch were supposed to ensure the stability of the newly formed institution of patriarchal power. History decided otherwise. The whirlwind of revolutionary events, the establishment of Soviet power with its atheistic structure, the persecution of the Russian Church in the first half of the 20th century made it impossible for the normal functioning of the highest church authority in the person of the Local Council, as well as the highest church administration headed by the Patriarch. Created by the All-Russian Church Council in 1917–1918, the system of higher church governance, which included the Local Council, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, in extraordinary historical conditions was deprived of the means necessary for normal work: material, financial, organizational and human resources. The full functioning of the system of higher church government bodies was made dependent on the convening of the Local Council.

On September 20, 1918, the All-Russian Church Council adopted a resolution according to which the Patriarch was to convene a Local Council in the spring of 1921. It was not possible to do this, and therefore it was not possible to choose new line-up Synod and Supreme Church Council. Thus, starting from 1921, the highest church government in the form in which it was formed by the Council in 1917–1918 ceased to exist. All church power was concentrated in the hands of the Patriarch, then the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, and even later - the deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. “If until now,” writes Irinarch Stratonov, “the Patriarch was the bearer of the idea of ​​church unity, now, under certain circumstances, he became the sole concentration of the fullness of church power.”

In 2008, Russia celebrated the 90th anniversary of the restoration of the Patriarchate in Rus'. From the time of Peter the Great, who abolished the patriarchal throne for Patriarch Adrian’s refusal to come to terms with the historical breakdown, and until 1917 in Rus', he was in charge of the affairs of the Orthodox Church Holy Synod. But the main thing is that loyalty to Orthodoxy was maintained. Preserved at the cost of a great spiritual feat.

For seven and a half years of patriarchate, from 1917 to 1925, the name of Patriarch Tikhon was the most dear not only to the Russian people. The entire Christian world anxiously followed the progress of the confessional and martyrdom of the Moscow Patriarch. I admired him, blessed him and prayed for him.

Vasily Bellavin, the son of a village priest, Father John, from the ancient Russian city of Toropets, on the border of Pskov and Tver lands, was born in 1865. Since childhood, he decided to follow in his parents' footsteps. He studied first in theological educational institutions of the Pskov diocese, and in 1884 he was admitted to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. From the very first days, classmates nicknamed him, a sedate, conscientious, zealous believer, “patriarch.”

After completing his studies in 1888, Vasily underwent spiritual and educational service in Pskov, Kazan, and Kholm. In 1891, while a teacher, he applied to become a monk. The tonsure was performed in honor of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, the famous Russian saint, with whose name in our monasticism the establishment of a special direction of spiritual life is associated - eldership. In 1897, Tikhon Bellavin was awarded the bishopric. The following year he was appointed to the priestly post in North America, where he headed the Aleutian and North American diocese. In 1905, the Americans elected Bishop Tikhon an honorary citizen of the United States.

In the same year, Bishop Tikhon received the rank of archbishop and returned to Russia, to Yaroslavl. The people of Yaroslavl with genuine tenderness called him the clear sun. The city of Yaroslav the Wise loved its archpastor so much that it showed him the exceptional honor of electing him an honorary citizen of the city. Then service in Vilna, where Tikhon passed his archpastoral path during difficult times of war. On June 23, 1917, the Mother See of Moscow, when electing an archpastor to the post of Metropolitan of Moscow, preferred the candidacy of the humble, simple Archbishop of Vilna and Lithuania Tikhon to all the loud and glorious archpastoral names.

In the most difficult time for the country, in November 1917, the All-Russian Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church opened. Archpastors, shepherds and church people shone on him: some with learning, some with eloquence, some with a big name, Tikhon did not shine, he was modest and humble. Muscovites complacently joked about him, “He’s quiet.” The main question immediately arose: the restoration of the patriarchate, which was stopped in 1700.

“The overwhelming majority focused their attention not on the stars of the first magnitude in the hierarchy, which were Antony of Kharkov and Arseny of Novgorod,” recalled the Minister of Confessions of the Provisional Government A.V. Kartashev, “but on the modest, good-natured, not learned and not proud, but a shining Russian people's simplicity and humility to the new Metropolitan of Moscow Tikhon. He was immediately given a spectacular majority of 407 votes out of 432 present at the meeting.” When they began to sort through candidates for the All-Russian Patriarchal throne, Tikhon’s name invariably began to be mentioned. True, among the candidates he took third place. On November 5, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the deep elder Hieroschemamonk Alexy, a recluse of the Zosimov Hermitage, took a lot from the casket and read out the name: Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, who was celebrating the liturgy, exclaimed “Axios!”, in Greek - worthy. Both the clergy and the people unanimously echoed: “Axios!” Tikhon said: “How many tears will I have to swallow and groans in the patriarchal service ahead of me, and especially in this difficult time!” The speech turned out to be prophetic.

Entire estates and classes were swept off the face of the earth in a bloody whirlwind of brutal terror. The centuries-old way of state, social, and family life was subjected to violent disruption. But it seems that in no other area was terror brought to such refined cruelty as in the church area.

Already in 1919 there were villages and even cities without priests. Executions of clergy were often carried out without trial or investigation. In the new government system, church ministers were turned into persons without basic civil rights. Anti-religious propaganda has become widespread and systematic. The church was removed from influence on the school, family, and society. Theological educational institutions, house churches, and monasteries were closed. Parishes were taxed. These were the most difficult times for the Church, and therefore for the entire spiritual life of the people. The government, which sought to destroy Christian foundations, demanded concessions not in something secondary, but in the essence of faith. The renovationist schism began.

In the midst of general destruction and decay, Patriarch Tikhon managed to preserve the church canonical body in the strictest accordance with the requirements of holy laws and rules. Amid the storms, he managed to unite the believers into such a strong union that no one could destroy.

In April 1922, the trial of Patriarch Tikhon began. The Revolutionary Tribunal issued a ruling to bring him to criminal responsibility. Soon it was announced to him that he was under house arrest. On the night of May 19, the Patriarch was transported from his Trinity courtyard to the Donskoy Monastery. Here, under guard, in complete isolation from the world, he had to stay for a year. Then a month in the GPU, in Lubyanka, with continuous “conversations”.

They tried to confuse the Patriarch by introducing discord among the church hierarchy. From those convicted by the church court, even those defrocked and excommunicated, they decided to create an opposition to the Patriarch and the Russian Church he heads. Dissenters and sectarians, with the support of the Soviet state, began to create new church formations. Vladimir Putyata, deprived of his episcopal rank and excommunicated from the Church, became the head of the “New Church”. The married hierodeacon Ioannikiy Smirnov, dedicated by Putyata to the rank of bishop, headed the “Free Labor Church.” Former lawyer Alexander Vvedensky, calling himself the Archbishop of London, in company with the pharmacist Soloveichik, named Bishop Nicholas, founded the “Ancient Apostolic Church.” Vladimir Krasnitsky, who called himself protopresbyter, created the “Living Church”. Known throughout Russia for his noisy scandals, Antonin Granovsky, who was named Metropolitan, began building a kind of “church renaissance.” During the arrest of the Patriarch, all these new formations united and convened the “All-Russian Church Council”, which recognized Soviet power, condemned the Patriarch and elected their own “Synod”. The First Hierarch of our Church, exhausted by arrests and interrogations, was under constant pressure from the authorities, who continually presented him with a devilish choice: either accept one of the leaders of renovationism, or the bishops would not be released from prison.

In June 1923, the Patriarch was released, with a statement on his behalf that he was “not an enemy of the Soviet regime.” At the same time, reports began to appear in the press about the bishop’s serious illnesses. These persistent news prepared the public consciousness for something fatal. And on March 25 (April 7), 1925, on the day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the eleventh Patriarch of Russia, died. A message appeared that he died of “angina pectoris.” It seemed that the Patriarch’s angina pectoris, a long-term disease, had some special lightning-fast character. It was clear to everyone that the Patriarch’s death was a martyr’s. “Lived as a confessor, died as a martyr...”

From November 29 to December 2, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Federation was held in the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior Orthodox Church. This meeting represents one of the highest bodies of power and administration in the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

And on December 4, solemn services were held to mark the 100th anniversary of the enthronement of Patriarch Tikhon and the restoration of the institution of the patriarchate in Russia. Also on this day, all Orthodox believers celebrate the Feast of the Entry into the Temple of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' led the solemn liturgy at the Donskoy Monastery, where the relics of Tikhon are kept. On the day of remembrance of the saint, they were transferred from the Donskoy Monastery to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior for the worship of believers.

Attention to the current Council of Bishops is no less than to the Local Council, which operated in 1917-1918. A hundred years later, the attention of the Orthodox community was again focused on the church meeting. This happened largely thanks to the head of the self-proclaimed Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, Patriarch Filaret. But despite the fact that in 1997 the Russian Orthodox Church anathematized Filaret, he does not give up attempts to restore his former status and achieve recognition of the UOC by sending a letter to the Council of Bishops.

The vice-rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University told Istoriya.RF about what decision the Fathers of the Church could make on this matter, why the Local Council of 1917 was important not only for the Russian Orthodox Church, but also for the people, and what was special about Patriarch Tikhon. (PSTGU), professor of the Department of History of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archpriest Georgy Orekhanov.

The Church must have an ideological center

- Father George, tell us why the Local Council of 1917 was needed?

Previously, 10-15 years ago, such a “trend” was very popular: they said that the Local Council, of course, restored the patriarchate, but on the whole it was going in vain, because anyway, in the new historical era it was impossible to implement anything that he planned. But it seems to me that this point of view is wrong. Firstly, during these 25 years, when it was already possible to truly freely study history and study archives, it became clear how important the restoration of the patriarchate was. We understood this especially clearly when we published the investigative file of Patriarch Tikhon (this was in 1997). Before the Local Council, debates about whether the Church needed a primate or not were conducted in a rather abstract form. But events in the 20-30s of the 20th century showed that the main struggle of the atheists was directed precisely against the patriarch, and this is a kind of mystical moment. That is, when the Church has such an ideological center, it can unite around it and can be united and united.

- What, in your opinion, were the main decisions of the Local Council?

The local council formulated several very important principles that constitute what we in the Church call conciliarity. We profess faith in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And although in this historical era, for 70-80 years, these principles could not be realized, they are so important that they will still be implemented in one way or another in the life of the Church. They are gradually being implemented now; this has been happening over the past 25 years.

"Humble Shepherd" and Wise Strategist

As Patriarch Kirill noted, “St. Tikhon led the Church during the most difficult time in the thousand-year history of Russian Orthodoxy.” Does this mean that the figure of Tikhon during that period played a key role for the further existence of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Yes, definitely. It is known that the Council proposed three candidates. Tikhon's competitors were the famous church historian, Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was probably the most popular church figure at that time and the main supporter of the restoration of the patriarchate. But in reality, the patriarch became a very humble person and, perhaps, not possessing any outstanding virtues, but this was exactly the person who was in this moment needed by the Church and, first of all, by the people. The people found themselves in a completely unprecedented situation, when the Church, religion and culture were being destroyed, and they needed a very humble shepherd. This was Patriarch Tikhon.

- You say “humble,” but Tikhon criticized the Bolsheviks - in particular, for the execution of the familyNicholasII. And because of his position, the patriarch was arrested, and attempts were made on his life more than once...

Yes, but here such historical discussions already begin on the topic that his sharp criticism (of the Bolsheviks - approx. ed.) refers to the first period of the patriarchate, this is 1918-1919. And then, when it became clear that this power in Russia would not last for a year or two, then, it seems to me, his strategy changed a little. It turned out that he was capable of some compromises, but not so far that the very essence of the Church would change. Still, this was not a conspiracy with the authorities, but a dialogue and an attempt to work together to develop some common principles.

- Today the Council of Bishops is called upon to implement the ideas of the Local Council, but how successful is it?

From my point of view, the main decision of the Council of Bishops is to increase the number of dioceses and create metropolitan centers. Apparently, this issue was one of the three most important after the restoration of the patriarchate and the convening of the Council. Before the revolution, we had a little more than 60 dioceses, but now in Russia there are already more than 300 diocesan bishops, that is, the number has increased five times! And this, of course, is of great importance.

Filaret's goal is not repentance?

Many are now concerned about the story of the Kyiv Patriarch Filaret, who turned to the Council of Bishops with a request to restore Eucharistic and prayerful communion with Christians in the Ukrainian church schism. Then he, however, stated that his words had been misinterpreted and to renounce independence Ukrainian Church he's not ready. So what was the purpose of this appeal?

We discussed this issue with colleagues and people involved in Ukraine. The fact is that Filaret has made such appeals to Councils of Bishops before, so this is not some kind of extraordinary news. Basically, all these comments appeared before the text of the appeal became known. And many of these comments were not entirely successful, because the text was incorrectly interpreted by the media. But when you read it, you don’t see any repentance on Filaret’s part at all. I think that this was simply such a not very veiled attempt to gain some kind of canonical status, because Filaret speaks to the bishops as an equal with equals, calls himself a brother, co-servant, etc. That is, the purpose of this document in any case was not repentance, and Philaret’s conference in Kyiv confirmed all this very clearly.

- Is reconciliation between Filaret and the Russian Orthodox Church possible in theory?

Filaret does not understand that in the current situation he will not gain recognition in this way. There must be repentance on his part. Then, theoretically, reconciliation will be possible. But the fact is that Filaret is not alone there, he has an entourage. Therefore, I think this process is more complex...