Traditional medicine

Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (1917-1918).

The local cathedral of 1917–1918, known mainly for the fact that it restored the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), has been dedicated to many historical literature. However, with regard to issues related in one way or another to the overthrow of the monarchy, the position of the Council continues to remain practically unexplored. The purpose of this article is to partially fill this gap.

Local cathedral was opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917. To participate in its work, 564 people were elected and appointed: 80 bishops, 129 persons of presbyteral rank, 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. The cathedral worked for more than a year. During this period, three of its sessions took place: the first - from August 15 (28) to December 9 (22), 1917, the second and third - in 1918: from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20) and from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20).

On August 18, Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow was elected chairman of the Council: as the archpastor of the city in which the church forum met. Archbishops of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov Anthony (Khrapovitsky) were elected co-chairmen (deputies, or in the terminology of that time - comrades of the chairman) from the bishops, and protopresbyters N.A. from the priests. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, from the laity - Prince E.N. Trubetskoy and M.V. Rodzianko (until October 6, 1917 - Chairman of the State Duma). “All-Russian” Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) (in 1892–1898 he was Exarch of Georgia, in 1898–1912 – Metropolitan of Moscow, in 1912–1915 – of St. Petersburg, and from 1915 – of Kyiv) became honorary chairman of the Council.

To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, decisions " general issues internal regulations and unification of all activities" a Cathedral Council was established, which did not cease its activities even during breaks between sessions of the Cathedral.

On August 30, 19 departments were formed as part of the Local Council. They were in charge of preliminary consideration and preparation of a wide range of conciliar bills. Each department included bishops, clergy and laity. To consider highly specialized issues, the named structural divisions of the cathedral could form subdepartments. According to the Charter of the Council, the procedure for considering cases at it was as follows. To present their materials to the Council, departments could nominate one or more speakers. Without instructions or permission from the department, no issues discussed could be reported at the council meeting. To adopt a conciliar resolution, they had to receive information from the relevant department to in writing report, as well as (at the request of the participants in its meetings) special opinions. The department's conclusion should have been presented in the form of a proposed conciliar resolution. Written minutes were drawn up about department meetings, which recorded the time of the meeting, the names of those present, issues considered, proposals made, resolutions and conclusions.

Since in the spring-summer of 1917 the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church in the center (the Holy Synod) and locally (bishops and various church congresses) had already in one way or another expressed a point of view regarding the overthrow of the monarchy, then at the Local Council consideration of issues related to the political events of the February revolution was not planned. This was brought to the attention of the Orthodox, who sent at least a dozen corresponding letters to the Local Council in August-October 1917. Most of them were directly addressed to Metropolitans Tikhon of Moscow and Vladimir of Kyiv.

The letters expressed a certain confusion that arose among the laity after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. They talked about the inevitable outpouring of God's wrath on Russia for the overthrow of the monarchy and the actual rejection by the Orthodox of God's anointed. The council was asked to declare the inviolability of the personality of Nicholas II, to stand up for the imprisoned sovereign and his family, and also to fulfill the provisions of the charter Zemsky Sobor 1613 about the need for loyalty of the people of Russia to the Romanov dynasty. The authors of the letters denounced the shepherds for their actual betrayal of the tsar in the February-March days of 1917 and for welcoming various “freedoms” that led Russia to anarchy. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were called to repentance for their activities in supporting the overthrow of the monarchy. Urgent requests were made to the local council to allow the people of Russia to renounce their previous oath of allegiance to the emperor. (In March 1917, as you know, the Holy Synod ordered the flock to swear the oath to the Provisional Government without releasing the flock from the former - loyal subjects, previously sworn to the emperor).

Thus, according to the authors of the letters, the people of Russia from the first days of spring 1917 were burdened with the sin of perjury. And this sin needed a certain collective act of repentance. The Orthodox asked the church authorities to clear their conscience from perjury.

However, despite the long period of its work, the Council did not take any response to the mentioned letters: no information about this was found in the minutes of its meetings. There is every reason to believe that Metropolitans Tikhon and Vladimir, considering these letters “unsuitable” for publication and “useless” for discussion, put them, as they say, “under the carpet.” This position of the hierarchs becomes all the more understandable if we consider that both bishops in February-March 1917 were members of the Holy Synod, with Metropolitan Vladimir being the leader. And the questions raised in the letters of the monarchists, one way or another, prompted a revision and reassessment of the political line of the Russian Church in relation to the overthrow of the autocracy, asked by members of the Holy Synod in the first days and weeks of the spring of 1917.

Nevertheless, one of the letters, similar to those mentioned, was given the go-ahead at the Local Council. It was written on November 15, 1917 by the peasant of the Tver province M.E. Nikonov and addressed to Archbishop of Tver Seraphim (Chichagov). The letter began with the words: “Your Eminence Vladyka, I ask for your Hierarch’s blessing for transmitting this message to the Most Holy All-Russian Council.” Thus, in fact, it was a message to the Local Council. Vladyka Seraphim, accordingly, submitted it for consideration by the highest body of the Russian Church.

In a letter to M.E. Nikonov, among other things, also contained assessments of the actions of the hierarchy during the period of February 1917. The author said: "[...] We think that the Holy Synod made an irreparable mistake, that the Eminences went towards the revolution. We do not know this reason. Was it for fear of the Jews? Or out of the desire of their hearts, or for some good reason, but all- However, their act produced a great temptation among the believers, and not only among the Orthodox, but even among the Old Believers. Forgive me for touching on this issue - it is not our business to discuss this: this is the matter of the Council, I just raised the opinion of the people among us. people such speeches that the alleged act of the Synod has misled many sensible people, as well as many among the clergy [...] The Orthodox Russian people are confident that the Holy Council is in the interests of the Holy Mother of our Church, the Fatherland and Father the Tsar, impostors and all traitors. , who scoffed at the oath, will be anathematized and cursed with their satanic idea of revolution. And the Holy Council will indicate to its flock who should take the helm of government in the great State [...] The act of the Holy Coronation and anointing of our kings with the Holy Chrism in the Assumption is not a simple comedy. The Council [of the Moscow Kremlin], which received from God the power to govern the people and give answers to the One, but not to the constitution or any parliament." The message ended with the words: “All of the above that I wrote here is not just my personal composition, but the voice of the Orthodox Russian people, a hundred million rural Russia, in whose midst I am.”

The letter was transferred by Bishop Seraphim to the Council Council, where it was considered on November 23 (through the communications of Patriarch Tikhon). In the production documentation the day after this, the “Message” was described as “... about anathematizing and cursing all traitors to the motherland who violated the oath, and about taking measures to encourage the pastors of the Church to comply with the requirements of church discipline.” The Council Council forwarded the “Message” for consideration to the department “On Church Discipline”. The chairman of this department at that time was Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, who was killed in Kyiv by unidentified people on January 25, 1918 (not without the assistance of the inhabitants of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra).

Approximately two months after the publication of the Soviet decree “On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church” of January 20 (February 2), 1918, a special structural unit was created within the cathedral department “On Church Discipline” - the IV subdivision. His task included consideration of several issues, the first of which was “On the oath to the Government in general and to the former Emperor Nicholas II in particular.” On March 16 (29), 1918, the first organizational meeting of this subsection took place in the Moscow diocesan house. In addition to its chairman, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky and secretary V.Ya. Bakhmetyev, 6 more people were present. The second (first working) meeting of the subdepartment took place on March 21 (April 3), 1918. It was attended by 10 persons of clergy and lay ranks. A report written back on October 3, 1917, to the department “On Church Discipline” by priest Vasily Belyaev, a member of the Local Council by election from the Kaluga diocese, was heard. It touched upon essentially the same problems as M.E.’s letter. Nikonov: about the oath and perjury of the Orthodox in February-March 1917. The report was as follows:

“The revolution caused such phenomena that, while remaining on the church-civil plane, extremely confuse the conscience of believers. Such phenomena, first of all, include the oath of allegiance to the former Emperor Nicholas II. That this issue really worries the conscience of believers and puts pastors in a difficult position, visible at least from the following facts. In the first half of March, one of the teachers of the zemstvo schools approached the writer of these lines, demanding a categorical answer to the question whether she was free from the oath given to Emperor Nicholas II. If she is not free, then she asks to be released so that she will be given the opportunity to work in the new Russia with a clear conscience. In May, the writer of these lines had a public conversation with one of the Old Believers, who called all Orthodox Christians oathbreakers because they, without being released from their oath to Emperor Nicholas II, recognized the Provisional Government. Finally, in the month of September, the author of the report received the following letter from one of the priests: “I dare to ask you, as a delegate of our diocese, whether it is possible for you to raise a question before the members of the Council about the release of Orthodox believers from the oath given to Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne, since the true believers are in doubt regarding this matter."

And in fact, the question of the oath is one of the cardinal issues of church discipline, as a matter of conscience in connection with the practical implementation civil rights and responsibilities. The attitude of an Orthodox Christian to politics, the attitude towards the creators of politics, no matter who they are: emperors or presidents?.. And it is absolutely necessary for the Orthodox Christian consciousness to resolve the questions:

1) Is an oath of allegiance to rulers generally acceptable?

2) If permissible, then is the effect of the oath unlimited?

3) If the effect of the oath is not unlimited, then in what cases and by whom should believers be released from the oath?

4) The act of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II is a sufficient reason for the Orthodox to consider themselves free from this oath?

5) Are the Orthodox themselves, each individually, in known cases Do they consider themselves free from the oath, or do they require the authority of the Church?

7) And if the sin of perjury lies upon us, then shouldn’t the Council free the conscience of believers?”

Following the report of Fr. Vasily’s letter to M.E. was read out. Nikonova. A discussion arose. During it, it was said that the Local Council really needed to exempt the flock from the oath of allegiance, since in March 1917 the Holy Synod did not issue a corresponding act. However, judgments of a different kind were also expressed: that the solution to the issues raised should be postponed until the socio-political life of the country returns to normal. The question of anointing was considered by some members of the subdepartment to be a “private issue,” that is, not worthy of conciliar attention, while by others it was considered a very complex problem, the solution of which requires great intellectual effort and time of discussion. Skeptics voiced the point of view that the permission of priest V.A. Belyaev and peasant M.E. Nikonov’s questions are beyond the power of the subdepartment, since they require a comprehensive study from the canonical, legal and historical sides, and these questions relate not to church discipline, but to the field of theology. Accordingly, a proposal was made to abandon their development. Nevertheless, the subdepartment decided to continue the discussion at further meetings. It was necessary to involve scientists from the participants of the Local Council.

The next consideration of the identified issues took place at the fourth meeting of the IV subdivision, held on July 20 (August 2). There were 20 people present - a record number for the IV subdivision, including two bishops (for some reason the bishops did not sign up as participants in the meeting). The report “On the oath of allegiance to the government in general and in particular to the former Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II” was made by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy S.S. Glagolev. After a brief overview of the concept of an oath and its meaning from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. the speaker summarized his vision of the problem in six points. The last one sounded like this:

“When discussing the issue of violating the oath to the former sovereign Emperor Nicholas II, one must keep in mind that what happened was not the abdication of Nicholas II, but his overthrow from the Throne, and not only the overthrow of him, but also the Throne itself (principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality). If the sovereign had retired of his own free will, then there could have been no talk of perjury, but for many it is certain that there was no moment of free will in the act of abdication of Nicholas II.

The fact of violating the oath in a revolutionary way was calmly accepted: 1) out of fear - undoubted conservatives - some part of the clergy and nobility, 2) out of calculation - merchants who dreamed of putting capital in the place of the aristocracy of the clan, 3) people of different professions and classes, who believed to varying degrees in good consequences of the coup. These people (from their point of view), for the sake of the supposed good, committed real evil - they broke their word given with an oath. Their guilt is undoubted; we can only talk about mitigating circumstances, if any. […] [Apostle] Peter also denied, but he brought worthy fruits repentance We also need to come to our senses and bear the worthy fruits of repentance."

After Professor Glagolev’s report, a debate arose in which 8 people participated, including both hierarchs. The speeches of the parish pastors and laity boiled down to the following theses:

– It is necessary to clarify the question of how legal and obligatory the oath of allegiance to the emperor and his heir was, since the interests of the state sometimes conflict with the ideals of the Orthodox faith;

– We must look at the oath taking into account the fact that before the abdication of the sovereign, we had a religious union with the state. The oath was mystical in nature, and this cannot be ignored;

– Under the conditions of the secular nature of power, the formerly close connection between the state and the church is broken, and believers can feel free from the oath;

“It’s better to have at least some kind of power than the chaos of anarchy.” The people must fulfill those demands of the rulers that do not contradict their religious beliefs. Any government will demand that the people take an oath to themselves. The Church must decide whether the oath should be restored as it was or not. The oath to anti-Christian power is illegal and undesirable;

– Given the theocratic nature of power, an oath is natural. But the further the state moves away from the church, the more undesirable the oath;

– Members of the State Duma in the February-March days of 1917 did not violate their oath. Having formed an Executive Committee from among their members, they fulfilled their duty to the country in order to contain the beginning anarchy;

– One could consider oneself freed from the oath of allegiance only in the event of the voluntary abdication of Nicholas II. But later circumstances revealed that this renunciation was made under pressure. Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich refused to take the throne also under pressure;

– Any oath is aimed at protecting peace and security. After the restoration of order in Russia in the state and public life The pastors of the Russian Church need to fight left-wing radicals who propagate the idea that it is unnecessary to take any oaths. It is necessary to instill loyalty to the oath among the people;

– The Holy Synod back in March 1917 should have issued an act on removing the Anointing from the former Sovereign. But who dares to raise his hand against the Anointed One of God?

– The Church, having ordered that prayers for the emperor be replaced by commemoration of the Provisional Government, did not say anything about the grace of royal anointing. The people were thus confused. He was waiting for instructions and appropriate explanations from the highest church authorities, but still had not heard anything about it;

– The Church was damaged by its previous connection with the state. The people's conscience must now receive instructions from above: should it consider itself free from the previous oaths taken first of allegiance to the Tsar and then to the Provisional Government? to bind or not to bind oneself to the oath of the new government?

– If Orthodoxy ceases to be the dominant faith in Russia, then the church oath should not be introduced.

In the speech of the Archbishop of Astrakhan Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), the point of view, common since the spring of 1917, was voiced that by abdicating the throne, the sovereign thereby freed everyone from the oath of loyalty. At the end of the debate, Bishop Anatoly (Grisyuk) of Chistopol took the floor. He said that the Local Council needed to make its authoritative opinion on the issue of the oath to Emperor Nicholas II, since the conscience of believers should be calmed. And for this, the issue of the oath must be comprehensively studied at the Council.

As a result, it was decided to continue the exchange of opinions next time.

The fifth meeting of the IV subdivision took place on July 25 (August 7), 1918. Like all meetings of the Subdivision, it was not very large: 13 people were present, including one bishop. A report was made by S.I. Shidlovsky - a member of the Local Council by election from the State Duma. (Previously, Shidlovsky was a member of the III and IV State Dumas, since 1915 he was one of the leaders of the “Progressive Bloc”, and in 1917 he was also a member of the Provisional Duma formed on the evening of February 27 executive committee State Duma, which played a well-known role in the February Revolution). The speech was only indirectly related to the original subject of discussion. It boiled down to the assertion that the abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II was voluntary.

During a small debate, Bishop Anatoly of Chistopol said: “The renunciation took place in a situation that did not correspond to the importance of the act. I received letters stating that the renunciation, especially voluntary, should have taken place in the Assumption Cathedral, for example, where the wedding took place to the kingdom. Abdication in favor of a brother rather than a son is a discrepancy with the Basic Laws: it contradicts the law of succession to the throne.” In another of his remarks, the Eminence pointed out that the highest act of March 2 stated that the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II was carried out “in agreement with the State Duma.” However, after some time, “the Emperor was deprived of his freedom by the government that arose at the initiative of the same Duma.” Such “inconsistency” of the Duma members served, in the opinion of Bishop Anatoly, as evidence of the violent nature of the transfer of power.

During the discussion, some members of the subdepartment were inclined to believe that the abdication was illegal. To which Shidlovsky noted: “Before the State Duma, given the situation created at that time, two paths were open: either, remaining on the basis of strict formal legality, to completely distance itself from ongoing events that in no way fell within its legal competence; or, by breaking the law, to try to direct the revolutionary movement along the least destructive path. She chose the second path and, of course, she was right. And why her attempt failed, all this will be revealed by impartial history.”

In response to a proposal from one of the participants in the discussion (V.A. Demidov) to the Local Council to declare that the Orthodox have the right to consider themselves exempt from the oath of allegiance, the chairman of the subdepartment, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky noted: “When the Law of God was expelled from the school or one of the priests was sent to Butyrka prison, the Council reacted to this in one way or another. Why did the Council not protest when the mockery of the sovereign began; isn’t breaking the oath criminal?” . Bishop Anatoly supported him, pointing out that the highest acts of March 2 and 3, 1917 were far from being legally flawless. In particular, they do not talk about the reasons for the transfer of power. In addition, the bishop made it clear to those present that by the beginning Constituent Assembly Grand Duke (uncrowned emperor? - M.B.) Mikhail Alexandrovich could abdicate in favor of further successors from the House of Romanov. “The team to which the power transferred by Mikhail Alexandrovich passed,” continued Bishop Anatoly about the Provisional Government, “changed in its composition, and meanwhile the oath was given to the Provisional Government. It is very important to find out what we sinned in this case and what we need to repent of ".

From the side of V.A. Demidov, among other things, said: “The Council would not have calmed the conscience of many believers if it had not made its final decision on this issue. The Church crowned the Emperor and performed anointing; now it must perform the opposite act, annul the anointing.” To which Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky noted: “This should not be brought up to the plenary session of the Church Council. It is necessary to find out what threatens the church ahead; whether the oath will be pressure from the state on the church, whether it would be better to refuse the oath.” At the suggestion of the secretary of the subdepartment, a commission was formed to develop the following questions: “Is the oath necessary, is it desirable in the future, is it necessary to restore it.” The commission included 3 people: Professor S.S. Glagolev, S.I. Shidlovsky and Archpriest A.G. Albitsky (the latter was also previously a member of the IV State Duma, being one of the representatives in it Nizhny Novgorod province). At this point the meeting was completed.

To what extent does Mr. S.I. Shidlovsky, the rapporteur of the Subdepartment on “royal issues” and a member of the corresponding commission, mastered the topic under discussion, one can conclude from his question asked on August 9 (22) at a meeting of the Subdepartment to priest V.A. Belyaev: “I’m interested in knowing what the coronation (of an emperor – M.B.) is and whether there is a special rank[?].” To which from Professor S.S. Glagolev received the answer: “The coronation is not a prayer service, but a sacred rite of high importance and significance, performed according to a special rite.”

In this regard, in our opinion, it seems highest degree paradoxical: what the Tver peasant knew about the royal coronation and its religious significance was unknown to the member ... of the highest body of church power (!) ...

Thus, the initial focus of the work of the subdepartment, set by the report of priest V.A. Belyaev and a letter from the peasant M.E. Nikonova, has been changed. Questions from a purely practical plane were transferred to an abstract and theoretical one. Instead of discussing the pressing issues of concern to the flock about perjury during the February Revolution and the people's permission to take the oath of allegiance, they began to consider problems of general content that have very little to do with reality.

The sixth meeting of the subdivision, in the presence of 10 people, took place on August 9 (22), less than a month before the closure of the Local Council. On behalf of the commission formed two weeks earlier, Professor S.S. Glagolev outlined “Provisions on the meaning and importance of the oath, on its desirability and admissibility from the point of view of Christian teaching.” (The text of this document was not preserved in the records of the IV subsection). There was an exchange of opinions. During the process, some speakers talked a lot about the terminology of the issue: the need to distinguish an oath (a solemn promise) from an oath. Others have asked whether an oath according to the teachings of the gospel is permissible? Can the church serve the affairs of the state? What is the difference between the state oath and the oath taken in courts? what if the Local Council recognizes the civil oath as unacceptable, and the government demands that it be taken? It was said that in the future the ceremony of taking the oath of allegiance to rulers should not take place in a church setting, that the Name of God should not be mentioned in its text. At the same time, questions were seriously raised: if the government demands making swearing an oath to the Name of God, then how should the Russian Church behave in this case? can she make an appropriate concession to power?

Other questions were also proposed for discussion: can the coronation of a ruler take place under conditions of separation of church and state? and the same - but with the liberation of the church from enslavement by the state? or should the coronation be canceled under these conditions? Is coronation acceptable if the obligatory church oath is abolished?

One of the speakers, speaking about the relationship between church and state, puzzled the audience with the statement new problem: “We can expect that we will have to go through another five or six [state] coups. The current government has decisively severed all ties with the Church; but it is possible that another – and more dubious – power will emerge, which will want to restore the union of the state with the Church. What to do then? "

There were arguments both for and against almost all the issues discussed. Overall, the discussion resembled “mind games.” It is clear that the realities of intra-church life, as well as socio-political life, were far from the new problems that began to be discussed in the subdepartment.

Very noteworthy are some of the statements made at that time by one of the “masters of thought” of the IV subsection - S.I. Shidlovsky. For example: “Now we live in such conditions that the question of the oath is untimely, and it is better not to raise it. The question of obligations towards Emperor Nicholas II can be considered completely eliminated. Before the coup, the sovereign was the head of the Church: he had an institution which he used to exercise his power over the Church, as well as all other state institutions, truly church people have always protested against the fact that the Orthodox Church was a government body... The separation of the Church from the state was accomplished, and one should not return to the previous position. things." In his last remark, questioning the “old regime” view of the oath of allegiance, he summed up the general discussion of the issue as follows: “Now the atmosphere [in the country] is such that it does not make it possible to concentrate and engage in an abstract examination of this issue (about the oath in general and the oath of allegiance in in particular. - M.B.) Therefore, it is better to refrain from a direct categorical answer to it." Immediately after these words, the subdepartment decided: “To continue the discussion at the next meeting.”

A day after this, on August 11 (24), the Soviet government adopted and published on the 17th (30) the “Instructions” for implementing the decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church.” According to it, the Orthodox Church was deprived of property rights and legal personality, i.e., it, as a centralized organization, Soviet Russia legally ceased to exist. And the clergy, among other things, were deprived of all rights to manage church property. Thus, from the end of August, the Russian Church found itself in new socio-political realities, due to which (primarily due to lack of funds) the meetings of the Local Council were prematurely terminated on September 7 (20).

Judging by the fact that in the records of the highest body of church authority there is no information about the seventh meeting of the IV subdivision, we can conclude that it did not take place. In "Memoirs" S.I. Shidlovsky, in which the author briefly described the work of the named subdepartment, also does not talk about the outcome of its meetings. In the list of reports submitted by cathedral departments, but not heard by the Local Council, the issue considered in the named subdepartment does not appear. Accordingly, the question “On the oath to the Government in general and to the former Emperor Nicholas II in particular,” which has worried the conscience of the Orthodox since March 1917, remained unresolved.

It is worth noting the fact that on all days (except March 21 (April 3)), when the IV subsection was discussing the first issue on its agenda, members of the Local Council were free from attending general meetings. Based on this, and also taking into account the consistently small number of participants in the discussions, it can be argued that the issues considered at the meetings of the named subsection seemed either irrelevant to the majority of council members or worthy of much less attention than other problems being developed in other structural divisions of the Council.

In general, the withdrawal of members of the Local Council from discussing the issues raised is understandable. Behind the actual revision of the official church policy in relation to the oath of allegiance, the next step could be the question of the need to disavow a series of definitions and messages issued by the Holy Synod in March and early April 1917. And members of “that same” composition of the Holy Synod not only constituted the leadership of the Local Council, but also stood at the helm of the Russian Orthodox Church: on December 7, 1917, the members of the Holy Synod (of 13 people), which began to work under the chairmanship of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon (Bellavin), included Metropolitans of Kiev Vladimir (Epiphany), Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Vladimir Sergius (Stragorodsky). All four were members of the Holy Synod of the winter session of 1916/1917.

However, questions about perjury and the need to free Orthodox Christians from the oath of allegiance remained important and of concern to the flock as the years passed. This can be concluded from the contents of the “Note” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas (since September 12, 1943 - Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'). Dated December 20, 1924, it was called: “The Orthodox Russian Church and Soviet Power (towards the convening of the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church).” In it, Bishop Sergius shared his thoughts on issues that, in his opinion, needed to be submitted for consideration to the next Local Council. Among other things, he wrote: “Conciliar reasoning […], I think, must certainly touch on that extremely important fact for believers that the vast majority of the current citizens of the USSR, Orthodox believers, were bound by an oath of allegiance to the tsar at that time (until March 1917 - M.B.) to the emperor and his heir. For an unbeliever, of course, there is no question about this, but a believer cannot (and should not) take this so lightly. An oath in the name of God for us is the greatest obligation that we can. No wonder Christ commanded us: “not to swear in every way,” so as not to run the risk of lying to God. True, the last emperor (Michael) (sic! – M.B.), having abdicated the throne in favor of the people, thereby freed his own. subjects from the oath. But this fact remained somehow in the shadows, was not indicated with sufficient clarity and certainty either in conciliar decrees, or in archpastoral messages, or in any other official church speeches of that time. Many believing souls, perhaps. , and now they are painfully perplexed by the question of what to do with the oath. Many, forced by circumstances to serve in the Red Army or in Soviet service in general, may be experiencing a very tragic duality [between] their current civic duty and the previously given oath. There may be many who, out of the sheer need to break the oath, later gave up on faith. Obviously, our Council would not have fulfilled its pastoral duty if it had passed over questions about the oath in silence, leaving the believers themselves, who knows, to sort it out."

However, none of the subsequent local or bishops' councils of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the issues of the oath, which began to be discussed in the IV subsection of the department "On Church Discipline" of the Local Council of 1917–1918. and repeated in the said “Note” of Metropolitan and future Patriarch Sergius. The clergy, as they say, “put the brakes on” these issues.

----------------------

In the "Code of Laws" Russian Empire"and in other official documents up to 1936 (in particular, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917–1918 and in the famous “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) dated July 16 (29, 1927) the name was mainly used “Orthodox Russian Church.” However, the names “Russian Orthodox”, “All-Russian Orthodox”, “Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian” and “Russian Orthodox” were often used due to the fact that on September 8, 1943, by the resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, the title of the Patriarch of Moscow. was changed (instead of “... and all Russia” it became “... and all Rus'”), the Orthodox Church received a modern name, called “Russian” (ROC), and in historiography the use of the abbreviation “ROC” and not “PRC” was established. .

See for example: Kartashev A.V. Revolution and Council 1917–1918 (Sketches for the history of the Russian Church of our days) // Theological Thought. Paris, 1942. Issue. IV. pp. 75–101; Tarasov K.K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917–1918 as a historical primary source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1993. No. 1. P. 7–10; Kravetsky A.G. The problem of liturgical language at the Council of 1917–1918. and in subsequent decades // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1994. No. 2. P.68–87; It's him. Holy Cathedral 1917–1918 about the execution of Nicholas II // Scientific notes. Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Theologian. Vol. 1. M., 1995. P. 102–124; Odintsov M.I. All-Russian Local Council 1917–1918: disputes about church reforms, main decisions, relationships with authorities // Church Historical Bulletin. 2001. No. 8. P. 121–138; Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest. The question of diocesan administration at the Local Council of 1917–1918 // Church and Time. 2003. No. 1 (22). pp. 156–167; Solovyov Ilya, deacon. The Cathedral and the Patriarch. Discussion about higher church governance // Church and Time. 2004. No. 1 (26). pp. 168–180; Svetozarsky A.K. Local Council and the October Revolution in Moscow // Ibid. pp. 181–197; Peter (Eremeev), hieromonk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and reform of theological education // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2004. No. 3. P. 68–71; Belyakova E.V. Church court and problems of church life. Discussions in the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the 20th century. Local Council 1917–1918 and the pre-conciliar period. M., b/i. 2004; Kovyrzin K.V. Local Council of 1917–1918 and the search for principles of church-state relations after the February Revolution // Domestic History. M., 2008. No. 4. P. 88–97; Iakinthos (Destivel), priest, monk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and the principle of conciliarity /Trans. from French Hieromonk Alexander (Sinyakov). M., Ed. Krutitsy Patriarchal Metochion. 2008.

Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. M., State Archive of the Russian Federation, Novospassky Monastery. 1994. T. 1. pp. 119–133.

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. Vol. 1. Act 4. pp. 64–65, 69–71.

Holy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. M., Ed. Cathedral Council. 1918. Book. 1. Issue. 1. P. 42;

The draft “Charter” of the Local Council was developed by the Pre-Conciliar Council, on August 11, 1917 it was approved by the Holy Synod and finally adopted by the Local Council on the 17th of the same month (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. Vol. 1. P. 37, Act 3. 55, Acts 9, 104–112).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. T. 1. P. 43–44.

See about this: Babkin M.A. The parish clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2003. No. 6. P. 59–71; It's him. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2005. No. 2. P. 97–109; It's him. Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia (spring 1917) // Domestic history. 2005. No. 3. P. 109–124; It's him. The reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia. (Participation of the clergy in revolutionary celebrations) // Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 8: History. 2006. No. 1. P. 70–90.

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 36–37rpm; D. 522. L. 37–38v., 61–62, 69–70, 102–103, 135–136, 187–188, 368–369v., 444, 446–446v., 598–598v., 646– 646 rev.

The letters in question are published: The Russian Clergy and the Overthrow of the Monarchy in 1917. (Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church) / Compiled by author. preface and comments by M.A. Babkin. M., Ed. Indrik. 2008. pp. 492–501, 503–511.

See about this: Babkin M.A. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917). M., Ed. State public historical library Russia. 2007. pp. 177–187.

That is, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. – M.B.

Paraphrasing the Gospel words: [John. 19, 38].

Obviously, this refers to a set of measures taken by the Holy Synod in March 1917 to welcome and legitimize the overthrow of the monarchy.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 36–37 rev.

Ibid., l. 35.

See about this, for example: Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 7. Act 84. pp. 28–29; Orthodox encyclopedia. M., Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia". 2000. T. 1. pp. 665–666.

News of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Peasants', Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Pg., 1918. No. 16 (280). January 21. S. 2; Additions to the Church Gazette. Pg., 1918. No. 2. P. 98–99.

Among the other 10 questions planned for discussion of the IV subsection, the following were: “On the reverent performance of divine services”, “On penitential discipline”, “On trampling the images of the Cross”, “On trade in the temple”, “On the behavior of the laity in the temple”, “ About the behavior of singers in the temple,” etc. (GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 1).

Ibid., l. 1, 3.

Ibid., l. 33–34.

In the records of the IV subdivision of the church department “On Church Discipline” preserved in the GARF funds, another letter (message) was preserved, similar in content and timing of sending to the letter from the peasant M.E. discussed above. Nikonova. Its authors were listed anonymously: “Patriots and zealots of Orthodoxy of the city of Nikolaev [Kherson province].” In this message, addressed to the Local Council, much was said about the need to restore Tsar Nicholas II to the Russian throne, that the patriarchate “is good and very pleasant, but at the same time Christian Spirit incongruous." The authors developed their thought as follows: "For where the Holy Patriarch is, there must be the Most Autocratic Monarch. Big Ship need a helmsman. But the Ship must also have a Compass, because the Pilot cannot steer the Ship without a Compass. Likewise, the Patriarch without the Monarch will not set anything on his own. […] Where the legal Monarchy does not reign, lawless anarchy rages there. This is where the Patriarchy will not help us."

On the original of the message, at the top of the sheet, a resolution was written by an unidentified person: “To the department on church discipline. 1/XII. 1917” (Ibid., l. 20–22v.). Along the office corridors it ended up in the IV subdepartment of the named structural unit Local cathedral. But judging by the transcripts of the meetings of the IV subsection, the message was neither read out nor mentioned in any way. That is, it actually “went under the carpet”, thereby sharing the fate with a dozen other similar above-mentioned letters from monarchists to the highest body of church power.

Ibid., l. 4–5.

The third meeting in the presence of 6 people took place on March 29 (April 11). It was entirely devoted to discussing the issue “On trade in the temple.” After a short discussion, the subdepartment developed an appropriate conclusion, submitted to the “head” department (Ibid., l. 6–7).

This refers to the Gospel account of the denial of the Apostle Peter, see: [Mark. 14, 66–72].

Paraphrasing the Gospel words: [Matt. 3, 8].

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 41–42.

This refers to the words of the Holy Scripture: “Touch not My anointed” and “Who, raising his hand against the Lord’s anointed, will remain unpunished?” .

On March 6–8 and 18, 1917, the Holy Synod issued a series of definitions, according to which at all services, instead of commemorating the “reigning” house, prayers should be offered for the “Blessed Provisional Government” (see for more details: Babkin M.A. Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church... Decree. Op. pp. 140–176; Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. pp. 27–29, 33–35).

Ibid., l. 42–44, 54–55.

GARF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2104, l. 4. See also, for example: Church Gazette. 1917. No. 9-15. pp. 55–56.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 47 rev.

During the 238 days of its existence, the Provisional Government changed 4 compositions: homogeneous bourgeois (02.03–02.05), 1st coalition (05.05–02.07), 2nd coalition (24.07–26.08) and 3rd coalition (25.09–25.10) ( see more details: Higher and central government agencies Russia (1801–1917) / Rep. comp. D.I. Raskin. In 4 vols. SPb., Publishing house Science. 1998. T. 1. Higher government institutions. P. 232).

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 48.

Ibid., l. 45–49.

Ibid., l. 52.

Obviously, this means the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor's Office.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 49–52 rev.

News of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Peasants, Workers, Soldiers and Cossacks Deputies and the Moscow Council of Workers and Red Army Deputies. 1918. No. 186 (450). August 30. S. 5; Collection of laws and orders of the workers' and peasants' government for 1918. M., used. 1942. No. 62. pp. 849–858.

At the very beginning of the 1920s, sharing with future readers his memories of the work of the Local Council, Shidlovsky wrote:

“At the council, I don’t remember in which commission and why, the question of the abdication of the sovereign was raised: whether it was forced or voluntary. This had something to do with the question of the oath: if the abdication followed voluntarily, then the obligations under the oath disappear, and if it was forced, then they remain. This purely scholastic question was of great interest to some priests, who attached enormous importance to it.

Since I was the only member of the council who was aware of this, I was invited to a meeting of this commission to give relevant testimony, and then asked to write a history of this entire revolutionary episode, which I did.

What interested me most in this whole matter was what should be considered forced and what should be considered voluntary: is a renunciation made under the pressure of circumstances tantamount to forced; or those who were forced were to recognize only such renunciation that was made under the influence of direct violence. This kind of casuistic reasoning, in general, always found many amateurs in the cathedral, although they, of course, had no practical significance.

A characteristic feature of the council, I don’t know whether in general or just this composition, was a great tendency to discuss such purely theoretical issues that have no significance; the current of life in his works was felt very little." ( Shidlovsky S.I. Memories. Berlin, Ed. Otto Kirchner and Co. 1923. Part 2. pp. 180–181).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 2000. T. 11. Protocol 170. P. 218.

From the pages of the official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church about the Local Council of 1917–1918. sounds pathetic: “It can be said without exaggeration that the Council considered almost the entire range of issues facing the Church in connection with the changed (first after February 1917, and then after October of the same year) state system” ( Tarasov K.K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917–1918 as a historical primary source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1993. No. 1. P. 7). However, as materials show, for example, the discussion discussed above about the oath of loyalty, about perjury in February 1917, etc., the consideration of these issues did not at all lead to their solution. And therefore cannot be presented as any kind of achievement of the Council.

On July 20 (August 2), July 25 (August 7) and August 9 (22), 1918, general meetings of the Local Council were not held (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. T. 8. P. 258, 2000. T. 10. S . 254–255).

For example, at the conciliar meetings held in the last decades of March and July (Old Art.) 1918, there were from 237 to 279 present (of which 34 to 41 were in the episcopal rank), as well as from 164 to 178 (in bishopric - from 24 to 31) people, respectively. Similar figures for the first ten days of August (Old Art.) 1918: minimum - 169 meeting participants and maximum - 180 (among which bishops - from 28 to 32) (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. Vol. 8, 2000. Vol. 10).

These acts legitimized the overthrow of the monarchy, the revolution was actually declared “the will of God accomplished,” and prayers of this kind began to be offered in churches: “...prayers for the sake of the Mother of God! Help our blessed ruler, whom you have chosen to rule over us, and grant them victories against their enemies" or "All-Singing Mother of God, ...save our faithful Provisional Government, You commanded him to rule, and grant him victory from heaven" (our italics - M.B.) (Church Gazette. Pg., 1917. No. 9-15. P. 59; Ibid. Free supplement to No. 9-15. P. 4 , Free supplement to No. 22. P. 2, Free supplement to No. 22. P. 2).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1996. Vol. 5. Act 62. P. 354.

Quote From: Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon. Collection of documents based on materials from the Central Archive of the FSB of the Russian Federation / Responsible. comp. N.A. Krivova. M., PSTBI, Monuments of historical thought. 2000. pp. 789–790.

The full version of the article is published on the website"ReligioPolis"

The highest administration of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period 1917-1988.

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, held in 1917-1918, was an event of epochal significance. By abolishing the canonically flawed and completely outdated synodal system of church government and restoring the Patriarchate, he paved the line between two periods of Russian church history. The local council chronologically coincided with revolutionary transformations and the collapse of the Russian Empire. The political structure of the old state collapsed, and the Church of Christ, guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, not only preserved its God-created system, but also at the Council, which became an act of its self-determination in new historical conditions, managed to cleanse itself of alluvial slag, straighten the deformations that it suffered during the synodal period. period, and thereby revealed its unworldly nature.

The actions of the Council took place in revolutionary times, when the face of the country was rapidly changing. The Council could not and did not want to completely withdraw from public life. Although in their reaction to the current events some members of the Council, mainly from the laity, revealed political naivety, on the whole, however, the Local Council managed to refrain from superficial assessments and “with its conciliar mind (despite individual remarks) chose the path of enlightening the entire Christian world with the light of the Gospel truths.” life, showing care that private issues and political interests did not obscure absolute moral values.”

The Holy Synod and the Pre-Conciliar Council were called to participate in the Acts of the Council. in full force, all diocesan bishops, as well as by election from each diocese two clergy and three laymen, protopresbyters of the Assumption Cathedral and military clergy, vicars of the four Laurels, abbots of the Solovetsky and Valaam monasteries, Sarov and Optina Monasteries, representatives of monastics, co-religionists, Theological Academies, soldiers of the active Army, representatives of the Academy of Sciences, universities, the State Council and the State Duma. In total, 564 church leaders were elected and appointed to the Council: 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons and 26 psalm-readers from the white clergy, 20 monks (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity.

Such a wide representation of elders and laity is due to the fact that the Council was the fulfillment of two centuries of aspirations of the Orthodox people, their aspirations for the revival of conciliarity. But the Charter of the Council also provided for the special responsibility of the episcopate for the fate of the Church. Questions of a dogmatic and canonical nature, after their consideration by the Council, were subject to approval at the Conference of Bishops, to whom, according to the teaching of St. John of Damascus, the Church was entrusted. According to A. V. Kartashev, the Episcopal Conference should have prevented too hasty decisions from calling into question the authority of the Council.

The activities of the Council continued for more than a year. Three sessions took place: the first met from August 15 to December 9, before the Christmas holidays, the second - from January 20, 1918 to April 7 (20), the third - from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20) (in brackets the date corresponding to the new style is indicated).

The Council appointed the oldest hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan of Kyiv Hieromartyr Vladimir, as its Honorary Chairman. Metropolitan of Moscow Saint Tikhon was elected Chairman of the Council. The Council Council was formed. The Council formed 22 departments that preliminarily prepared reports and draft Definitions that were submitted to plenary sessions. Most of the departments were headed by bishops. The most important of them were the departments of higher church administration, diocesan administration, church court, parish improvement, and the legal status of the Church in the state.

The main goal of the Council was to organize church life on the basis of full-blooded conciliarity, and in completely new conditions, when, following the fall of the autocracy, the previous close union of Church and state disintegrated. Therefore, the themes of the conciliar acts were predominantly church-organizing and canonical in nature.

Establishment of the Patriarchate

On October 11, 1917, the Chairman of the Department of Higher Church Administration, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan, spoke at a plenary session with a report that opened the main event in the actions of the Council - the restoration of the Patriarchate. The Pre-Conciliar Council in its draft for the structure of the highest church government did not provide for the rank of Primate. At the opening of the Council, only a few of its members, mainly bishops and monastics, were staunch supporters of the restoration of the Patriarchate. But when the question of the First Bishop was raised in the department of higher church administration, it was received there with great understanding. At each subsequent meeting, the idea of the Patriarchate acquired more and more adherents, transforming into a confession of the conciliar will and conciliar faith of the Church. At the seventh meeting, the department decides not to delay the great task of restoring the Holy See and, even before completing the discussion of all the details of the structure of the highest church authority, to propose to the Council to restore the rank of Patriarch.

Justifying this proposal, Bishop Mitrofan recalled in his report that the Patriarchate has been known in Rus' since its very Baptism, for in the first centuries of its history the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Under Metropolitan Jonah, the Russian Church became autocephalous, but the principle of primacy and leadership remained unshakable in it. Subsequently, when the Russian Church grew and became stronger, the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was installed.

The abolition of the Patriarchate by Peter I violated the holy canons. The Russian Church has lost its head. The Synod turned out to be an institution without solid ground on our land. But the thought of the Patriarchate continued to glimmer in the minds of the Russian people as a “golden dream.” “In all dangerous moments of Russian life,” said Bishop Mitrofan, “when the helm of the church began to tilt, the thought of the Patriarch was resurrected with special force; ... the time imperatively demands feat, boldness, and the people want to see a living personality at the head of the life of the Church, who would gather the living forces of the people.”

Addressing the canons, Bishop Mitrofan recalled that the 34th Apostolic Canon and the 9th Canon of the Antioch Council imperatively demand: in every nation there must be a first bishop, without whose judgment other bishops cannot do anything, just as he can do nothing without the judgment of all.

At the plenary sessions of the Council, the issue of restoring the Patriarchate was discussed with extraordinary severity.

The main argument of those who supported the preservation of the synodal system was the fear that the establishment of the Patriarchate would infringe on the conciliar principle in the life of the Church. Without embarrassment repeating the sophisms of Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich, Prince A.G. Chagadayev spoke about the advantages of a “collegium”, which can combine various gifts and talents, in comparison with individual power. “Conciliarity does not coexist with autocracy, autocracy is incompatible with conciliarity,” insisted Professor B.V. Titlinov, contrary to the indisputable historical fact: with the abolition of the Patriarchate, Local Councils, which were regularly convened in pre-Petrine times, under the Patriarchs, ceased to be convened.

Archpriest N.P. objected more wittily to the Patriarchate. Dobronravov. He took advantage of the risky argument of the champions of the Patriarchate, when in the heat of controversy they were ready to suspect the synodal system of government not only of canonical inferiority, but also of unorthodoxy. “Our Holy Synod is recognized by all the Eastern Patriarchs and the entire Orthodox East,” he said, “but here we are told that it is not canonical or heretical. Who should we trust? Tell us, what is the Synod: Holy or not Holy?” The discussion at the Council, however, was about a matter too serious, and even the most skillful sophistry could not relieve the need for its solution.

In the speeches of supporters of the restoration of the Patriarchate, in addition to canonical principles, the most weighty argument was the history of the Church. Sweeping aside the slander against the Eastern Patriarchs, Archpriest N.G. Popova, professor I.I. Sokolov reminded the Council of the bright appearance of the holy Primates of the Church of Constantinople; other speakers resurrected in the memory of the participants of the Council the high exploits of the holy Moscow Primates.

I.N. Speransky in his speech traced the deep internal connection between the primate service and the spiritual face of pre-Petrine Rus': “As long as we had the Supreme Shepherd in Holy Rus', His Holiness the Patriarch, our Orthodox Church was the conscience of the state; she did not have any legal prerogatives over the state, but the whole life of the latter passed as if before her eyes and was sanctified by her from her special, heavenly point of view... The covenants of Christ were forgotten, and the Church in the person of the Patriarch boldly raised its voice, no matter who there were violators... In Moscow there is a reprisal against the archers. Patriarch Adrian is the last Russian Patriarch, weak, old, ... takes upon himself the boldness ... to “sorrow”, to intercede for the condemned.”

Many speakers spoke about the abolition of the Patriarchate as a terrible disaster for the Church, but the most inspired of all was Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky): “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where does the Russian heart beat in Moscow? On the stock exchange? IN shopping arcades? On Kuznetsky Most? It is fought, of course, in the Kremlin. But where in the Kremlin? In the District Court? Or in the soldiers' barracks? No, in the Assumption Cathedral. There, at the front right pillar, the Russian Orthodox heart should beat. The sacrilegious hand of the wicked Peter brought the Russian High Hierarch from his centuries-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church with the power given to it by God will again place the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful inalienable place.”

During the council discussion, the issue of restoring the rank of First Hierarch was covered from all sides. The restoration of the Patriarchate appeared before the members of the Council as an imperative requirement of the canons, as a necessity to fulfill the religious aspirations of the Orthodox people, as a dictate of the time.

On October 28, 1917, the debate was terminated. On November 4, the Local Council passed a historic resolution by an overwhelming majority of votes: “1. In the Orthodox Russian Church, the highest power - legislative, administrative, judicial and supervisory - belongs to the Local Council, convened periodically, at certain times, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity. 2. The Patriarchate is restored, and church administration is headed by the Patriarch. 3. The Patriarch is the first among his equal bishops. 4. The Patriarch, together with the church governing bodies, is accountable to the Council.”

Professor I.I. Sokolov read a report on the methods of electing Patriarchs in the Eastern Churches. Based on historical precedents, the Council Council proposed the following election procedure: council members must submit notes with the names of 3 candidates. If no candidate receives an absolute majority, a second vote is held, and so on until three candidates receive a majority. Then the Patriarch will be chosen by lot from among them. Bishop Pachomius of Chernigov objected to the election by lot: “The final election... of the Patriarch... should have been left to the bishops alone, who would have made this election by secret vote.” But the Council still accepts the proposal of the Cathedral Council regarding the drawing of lots. The prerogatives of the episcopate were not infringed upon by this, since the bishops voluntarily deigned to leave the great matter of electing the High Hierarch to the will of God. At the suggestion of V.V. Bogdanovich, it was decided that at the first vote, each member of the Council would submit a note with the name of one candidate, and only at subsequent votes would notes with three names be submitted.

The following questions also arose: is it possible to choose the Patriarch from the laity? (this time it was decided to choose from persons of holy orders); Is it possible to choose a married person? (to this, Professor P.A. Prokoshev reasonably remarked: “It is impossible to vote on such questions to which the answer is given in the canons”).

On November 5, 1918, from the three candidates who received the majority of votes, Metropolitan of Moscow Saint Tikhon was elected Patriarch.

08/15/1917 (08/28). – Opening of the Local Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918.

Local Council 1917-1918

On August 15, 1917 in Moscow, on the holiday, the long-prepared All-Russian Local Council opened with a solemn divine service (ended on September 7/20, 1918). The decisions of the Council were prepared by the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906 and the Pre-Conciliar Conference of 1912-1913.

564 members took part in the activities of the Council: 80 bishops and 185 clergy, the majority were laymen. The Council approved the honorary chairman. He was elected chairman. The following were elected as comrades of the chairman: from the episcopate - Archbishops of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky) and Kharkov, from the clergy - Protopresbyters N.A. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, from the laity - and the Chairman of the State Duma M. Rodzianko, replaced after his departure by the former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.D. Samarin.

The Council, in addition to the ruling bishops and five elected members from each diocese, included: protopresbyters of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, military and naval clergy, governors of the Lavra (Kievo-Pechersk, Trinity-Sergius, Pochaev, Alexander Nevsky), abbots of the monasteries (Solovetsky, Valaam, Optina Hermitage, Sarov), members of the Pre-Conciliar Council. By election, the members of the Council were: ten people from the monastics, ten from fellow believers, three from each of the four Theological Academies, one from eleven Universities, fifteen people from the State Council and the State Duma.

In addition, representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs and Orthodox Autocephalous Churches were members. At the first meeting of the Council, the following arrived: 4 metropolitans (Kiev, Moscow, Petrograd and Tiflis), 21 archbishops, 43 bishops, over 375 other members of the Council.

The council had two sessions, each lasting about six months. The main issues to be decided by the Council were:

1. Development of regulations on the Supreme Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church, on diocesan administration, on the parish Charter.

2. Restoration of the Patriarchate.

The grand opening of the Cathedral - with the removal of relics from the Kremlin and crowded religious processions on Red Square - coincided with the rapidly growing turmoil, news of which was constantly heard at the meetings. The provisional government was losing control not only over the country, but also over the army. Soldiers fled from the front, killing officers, causing riots and robberies, and instilling fear in civilians. In the wake of this chaos, fueled by German money, rapidly.

Alexandra answers

PRIEST VLADIMIR SERGEEV ANSWERS

The actions of the 1917 council on the issue of the oath to Sovereign Nicholas II have been declassified
A lot of historical literature is devoted to the local council of 1917–1918, known mainly for the fact that the patriarchate was restored in the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). However, with regard to issues related in one way or another to the overthrow of the monarchy, the position of the Council continues to remain practically unexplored. The purpose of this article is to partially fill this gap.

The local cathedral was opened in Moscow on August 15, 1917. To participate in its work, 564 people were elected and appointed: 80 bishops, 129 persons of presbyteral rank, 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. The cathedral worked for more than a year. During this period, three of its sessions took place: the first - from August 15 (28) to December 9 (22), 1917, the second and third - in 1918: from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20) and from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20).

To coordinate the activities of the cathedral, resolve “general issues of internal regulations and unify all activities,” a Cathedral Council was established, which did not cease its activities even during breaks between sessions of the cathedral.

On August 30, 19 departments were formed as part of the Local Council. They were in charge of preliminary consideration and preparation of a wide range of conciliar bills. Each department included bishops, clergy and laity. To consider highly specialized issues, the named structural divisions of the cathedral could form subdepartments. According to the Charter of the Council, the procedure for considering cases at it was as follows. To present their materials to the Council, departments could nominate one or more speakers. Without instructions or permission from the department, no issues discussed could be reported at the council meeting. To adopt a council resolution, a written report had to be received from the relevant department, as well as (at the request of the participants in its meetings) special opinions. The department's conclusion should have been presented in the form of a proposed conciliar resolution. Written minutes were drawn up about department meetings, which recorded the time of the meeting, the names of those present, issues considered, proposals made, resolutions and conclusions.

The letters expressed a certain confusion that arose among the laity after the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. They talked about the inevitable outpouring of God's wrath on Russia for the overthrow of the monarchy and the actual rejection by the Orthodox of God's anointed. The council was asked to declare the inviolability of the personality of Nicholas II, to stand up for the imprisoned sovereign and his family, and also to fulfill the provisions of the letter of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 on the need for loyalty of the people of Russia to the Romanov dynasty. The authors of the letters denounced the shepherds for their actual betrayal of the tsar in the February-March days of 1917 and for welcoming various “freedoms” that led Russia to anarchy. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were called to repentance for their activities in supporting the overthrow of the monarchy. Urgent requests were made to the local council to allow the people of Russia to renounce their previous oath of allegiance to the emperor. (In March 1917, as you know, the Holy Synod ordered the flock to swear the oath to the Provisional Government without releasing the flock from the former - loyal subjects, previously sworn to the emperor).

“The revolution caused such phenomena that, while remaining on the church-civil plane, extremely confuse the conscience of believers. Such phenomena, first of all, include the oath of allegiance to the former Emperor Nicholas II. That this issue really worries the conscience of believers and puts pastors in a difficult position, it can be seen from the following facts: in the first half of March, one of the teachers of the zemstvo schools approached the writer with a demand for a categorical answer to the question of whether she was free from the oath given to Emperor Nicholas II. If not, then she asked to be released. so that she would be given the opportunity to work with a clear conscience in the new Russia. In May, the writer of these lines had a public conversation with one of the Old Believers, who called all Orthodox Christians oathbreakers because they, without being released from their oath to Emperor Nicholas II, recognized the Provisional Government. Finally, in September, the author of the report received the following letter from one of the priests: “I dare to ask you, as a delegate of our diocese, whether it is possible for you to raise a question before the members of the Council about the release of Orthodox believers from the oath given to Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne. , since the true believers are in doubt regarding this matter."

Indeed, the question of the oath is one of the cardinal issues of church discipline, as a matter of conscience in connection with the practical implementation of civil rights and obligations. The attitude of an Orthodox Christian to politics, the attitude towards the creators of politics, no matter who they are: emperors or presidents?.. And it is absolutely necessary for the Orthodox Christian consciousness to resolve the questions:

1) Is an oath of allegiance to rulers generally acceptable?

2) If permissible, then is the effect of the oath unlimited?

3) If the effect of the oath is not unlimited, then in what cases and by whom should believers be released from the oath?

4) The act of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II is a sufficient reason for the Orthodox to consider themselves free from this oath?

5) Do the Orthodox themselves, each individually, in certain cases consider themselves free from the oath, or is the authority of the Church required?

7) And if the sin of perjury lies upon us, then shouldn’t the Council free the conscience of believers?”

The fact of violating the oath in a revolutionary way was calmly accepted: 1) out of fear - undoubted conservatives - some part of the clergy and nobility, 2) out of calculation - merchants who dreamed of putting capital in the place of the aristocracy of the clan, 3) people of different professions and classes, who believed to varying degrees in good consequences of the coup. These people (from their point of view), for the sake of the supposed good, committed real evil - they broke their word given with an oath. Their guilt is undoubted; we can only talk about mitigating circumstances, if any. […] [Apostle] Peter also denied, but he bore worthy fruits of repentance. We also need to come to our senses and bear the worthy fruits of repentance."

After Professor Glagolev’s report, a debate arose in which 8 people participated, including both hierarchs. The speeches of the parish pastors and laity boiled down to the following theses:

– Under the conditions of the secular nature of power, the formerly close connection between the state and the church is broken, and believers can feel free from the oath;

– Given the theocratic nature of power, an oath is natural. But the further the state moves away from the church, the more undesirable the oath;

– Any oath is aimed at protecting peace and security. After the restoration of order in state and public life in Russia, the pastors of the Russian Church must fight left-wing radicals who propagate the idea of the unnecessaryness of taking any oaths. It is necessary to instill loyalty to the oath among the people;

– The Holy Synod back in March 1917 should have issued an act on removing the Anointing from the former Sovereign. But who dares to raise his hand against the Anointed One of God?

– If Orthodoxy ceases to be the dominant faith in Russia, then the church oath should not be introduced.

As a result, it was decided to continue the exchange of opinions next time.

The fifth meeting of the IV subdivision took place on July 25 (August 7), 1918. Like all meetings of the Subdivision, it was not very large: 13 people were present, including one bishop. A report was made by S.I. Shidlovsky - a member of the Local Council by election from the State Duma. (Previously, Shidlovsky was a member of the III and IV State Dumas, since 1915 he was one of the leaders of the “Progressive Bloc”, and in 1917 he was also a member of the Provisional Executive Committee of the State Duma formed on the evening of February 27, which played a well-known role in the February Revolution) . The speech was only indirectly related to the original subject of discussion. It boiled down to the assertion that the abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II was voluntary.

In response to a proposal from one of the participants in the discussion (V.A. Demidov) to the Local Council to declare that the Orthodox have the right to consider themselves exempt from the oath of allegiance, the chairman of the subdepartment, Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky noted: “When the Law of God was expelled from the school or one of the priests was sent to Butyrka prison, the Council reacted to this in one way or another. Why did the Council not protest when the mockery of the sovereign began; isn’t breaking the oath criminal?” . Bishop Anatoly supported him, pointing out that the highest acts of March 2 and 3, 1917 were far from being legally flawless. In particular, they do not talk about the reasons for the transfer of power. In addition, the Bishop made it clear to those present that by the beginning of the Constituent Assembly, the Grand Duke (uncrowned emperor? - M.B.) Mikhail Alexandrovich could abdicate in favor of further successors from the House of Romanov. “The team to which the power transferred by Mikhail Alexandrovich passed,” continued Bishop Anatoly about the Provisional Government, “changed in its composition, and meanwhile the oath was given to the Provisional Government. It is very important to find out what we sinned in this case and what we need to repent of ".

From the side of V.A. Demidov, among other things, said: “The Council would not have calmed the conscience of many believers if it had not made its final decision on this issue. The Church crowned the Emperor and performed anointing; now it must perform the opposite act, annul the anointing.” To which Archpriest D.V. Rozhdestvensky noted: “This should not be brought up to the plenary session of the Church Council. It is necessary to find out what threatens the church ahead; whether the oath will be pressure from the state on the church, whether it would be better to refuse the oath.” At the suggestion of the secretary of the subdepartment, a commission was formed to develop the following questions: “Is the oath necessary, is it desirable in the future, is it necessary to restore it.” The commission included 3 people: Professor S.S. Glagolev, S.I. Shidlovsky and Archpriest A.G. Albitsky (the latter was also previously a member of the IV State Duma, being one of the representatives of the Nizhny Novgorod province in it). At this point the meeting was completed.

In this regard, in our opinion, it seems extremely paradoxical: what the Tver peasant knew about the royal coronation and its religious significance was unknown to a member of ... the highest body of church power (!) ...

The sixth meeting of the subdivision, in the presence of 10 people, took place on August 9 (22), less than a month before the closure of the Local Council. On behalf of the commission formed two weeks earlier, Professor S.S. Glagolev outlined “Provisions on the meaning and importance of the oath, on its desirability and admissibility from the point of view of Christian teaching.” (The text of this document was not preserved in the records of the IV subsection). There was an exchange of opinions. During the process, some speakers talked a lot about the terminology of the issue: the need to distinguish an oath (a solemn promise) from an oath. Others have asked whether an oath according to the teachings of the gospel is permissible? Can the church serve the affairs of the state? What is the difference between the state oath and the oath taken in courts? what if the Local Council recognizes the civil oath as unacceptable, and the government demands that it be taken? It was said that in the future the ceremony of taking the oath of allegiance to rulers should not take place in a church setting, that the Name of God should not be mentioned in its text. At the same time, questions were seriously posed: if the government demands that the Name of God be included in the oath, then how should the Russian Church behave? can she make an appropriate concession to power?

One of the speakers, speaking about the relationship between the church and the state, puzzled the audience by posing a new problem: “We can expect that we will have to go through another five or six [state] coups. The current government has decisively severed all ties with the Church; but another one is possible - and more so.” of the dubious dignity of the authorities who wish to restore the union of the state with the Church. What to do then?

A day after this, on August 11 (24), the Soviet government adopted and published on the 17th (30) the “Instructions” for implementing the decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church.” According to it, the Orthodox Church was deprived of property rights and legal personality, that is, it, as a centralized organization, legally ceased to exist in Soviet Russia. And the clergy, among other things, were deprived of all rights to manage church property. Thus, from the end of August, the Russian Church found itself in new socio-political realities, due to which (primarily due to lack of funds) the meetings of the Local Council were prematurely terminated on September 7 (20).

----------------------

In the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” and in other official documents up to 1936 (in particular, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917–1918 and in the famous “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) dated July 16 (29), 1927 .) the name "Orthodox Russian Church" was mainly used. However, the names “Russian Orthodox”, “All-Russian Orthodox”, “Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian” and “Russian Orthodox” church were often used. Due to the fact that on September 8, 1943, by a resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, the title of the Patriarch of Moscow was changed (instead of “... and all Russia” it became “... and all Rus'”), the Orthodox Church received its modern name, called “Russian” (ROC). Accordingly, in historiography the use of the abbreviation “ROC” and not “PRC” has been established.

See, for example: Kartashev A.V. Revolution and Council 1917–1918 (Sketches for the history of the Russian Church of our days) // Theological Thought. Paris, 1942. Issue. IV. pp. 75–101; Tarasov K.K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917–1918 as a historical primary source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1993. No. 1. P. 7–10; Kravetsky A.G. The problem of liturgical language at the Council of 1917–1918. and in subsequent decades // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1994. No. 2. P.68–87; It's him. Holy Cathedral 1917–1918 about the execution of Nicholas II // Scientific notes. Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Theologian. Vol. 1. M., 1995. P. 102–124; Odintsov M.I. All-Russian Local Council 1917–1918: disputes about church reforms, main decisions, relationships with authorities // Church Historical Bulletin. 2001. No. 8. P. 121–138; Tsypin Vladislav, archpriest. The question of diocesan administration at the Local Council of 1917–1918 // Church and Time. 2003. No. 1 (22). pp. 156–167; Solovyov Ilya, deacon. The Cathedral and the Patriarch. Discussion about higher church governance // Church and Time. 2004. No. 1 (26). pp. 168–180; Svetozarsky A.K. Local Council and the October Revolution in Moscow // Ibid. pp. 181–197; Peter (Eremeev), hieromonk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and reform of theological education // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2004. No. 3. P. 68–71; Belyakova E.V. Church court and problems of church life. Discussions in the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the 20th century. Local Council 1917–1918 and the pre-conciliar period. M., b/i. 2004; Kovyrzin K.V. Local Council of 1917–1918 and the search for principles of church-state relations after the February Revolution // Domestic History. M., 2008. No. 4. P. 88–97; Iakinthos (Destivel), priest, monk. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. and the principle of conciliarity /Trans. from French Hieromonk Alexander (Sinyakov). M., Ed. Krutitsy Patriarchal Metochion. 2008.

Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. M., State Archive of the Russian Federation, Novospassky Monastery. 1994. T. 1. pp. 119–133.

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. Vol. 1. Act 4. pp. 64–65, 69–71.

Holy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. M., Ed. Cathedral Council. 1918. Book. 1. Issue. 1. P. 42;

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1994. T. 1. P. 43–44.

See about this: Babkin M.A. The parish clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2003. No. 6. P. 59–71; It's him. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 // Questions of history. 2005. No. 2. P. 97–109; It's him. Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia (spring 1917) // Domestic history. 2005. No. 3. P. 109–124; It's him. The reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia. (Participation of the clergy in revolutionary celebrations) // Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 8: History. 2006. No. 1. P. 70–90.

See about this: Babkin M.A. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917). M., Ed. State Public Historical Library of Russia. 2007. pp. 177–187.

That is, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. – M.B.

Paraphrasing the Gospel words: [John. 19, 38].

Obviously, this refers to a set of measures taken by the Holy Synod in March 1917 to welcome and legitimize the overthrow of the monarchy.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 36–37 rev.

Ibid., l. 35.

Ibid., l. 1, 3.

Ibid., l. 33–34.

In the records of the IV subdivision of the church department “On Church Discipline” preserved in the GARF funds, another letter (message) was preserved, similar in content and timing of sending to the letter from the peasant M.E. discussed above. Nikonova. Its authors were listed anonymously: “Patriots and zealots of Orthodoxy of the city of Nikolaev [Kherson province].” In this message, addressed to the Local Council, much was said about the need to restore Tsar Nicholas II to the Russian throne, and that the patriarchate was “good and very pleasant, but at the same time incompatible with the Christian Spirit.” The authors developed their idea as follows: “For where His Holiness the Patriarch is, there must be the Most Autocratic Monarch. A large Ship needs a Helmsman. But the Ship must also have a Compass, because the Helmsman cannot steer the Ship without a Compass. Likewise, the Patriarch without a Monarch cannot do anything on his own.” will set [...] Where the legal Monarchy does not reign, lawless anarchy rages. This is where the Patriarchy will not help us."

On the original of the message, at the top of the sheet, a resolution was written by an unidentified person: “To the department on church discipline. 1/XII. 1917” (Ibid., l. 20–22v.). Along the office corridors it ended up in the IV subdivision of the named structural unit of the Local Council. But judging by the transcripts of the meetings of the IV subsection, the message was neither read out nor mentioned in any way. That is, it actually “went under the carpet”, thereby sharing the fate with a dozen other similar above-mentioned letters from monarchists to the highest body of church power.

Ibid., l. 4–5.

This refers to the Gospel account of the denial of the Apostle Peter, see: [Mark. 14, 66–72].

Paraphrasing the Gospel words: [Matt. 3, 8].

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 41–42.

This refers to the words of the Holy Scripture: “Touch not My anointed” and “Who, raising his hand against the Lord’s anointed, will remain unpunished?” .

On March 6–8 and 18, 1917, the Holy Synod issued a series of definitions, according to which at all services, instead of commemorating the “reigning” house, prayers should be offered for the “Blessed Provisional Government” (see for more details: Babkin M.A. Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church ... Decree, pp. 140–176; Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917, pp. 27–29, 33–35).

Ibid., l. 42–44, 54–55.

GARF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2104, l. 4. See also, for example: Church Gazette. 1917. No. 9-15. pp. 55–56.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 47 rev.

During the 238 days of its existence, the Provisional Government changed 4 compositions: homogeneous bourgeois (02.03–02.05), 1st coalition (05.05–02.07), 2nd coalition (24.07–26.08) and 3rd coalition (25.09–25.10) ( see for more details: Higher and central state institutions of Russia (1801–1917) / Author: D.I. Raskin, 4 vols., Publ., 1998. Vol. 1. Higher state institutions. .232).

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 48.

Ibid., l. 45–49.

Ibid., l. 52.

Obviously, this means the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor's Office.

GARF, f. 3431, op. 1, d. 318, l. 49–52 rev.

At the very beginning of the 1920s, sharing with future readers his memories of the work of the Local Council, Shidlovsky wrote:

A characteristic feature of the council, I don’t know whether in general or just this composition, was a great tendency to discuss such purely theoretical issues that have no significance; the current of life in his works was felt very little." (Shidlovsky S.I. Memoirs. Berlin, Publisher Otto Kirchner and Co. 1923. Part 2, pp. 180–181).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 2000. T. 11. Protocol 170. P. 218.

From the pages of the official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church about the Local Council of 1917–1918. sounds pathetic: “It can be said without exaggeration that the Council considered almost the entire range of issues facing the Church in connection with the changed (first after February 1917, and then after October of the same year) state system” (Tarasov K. K. Acts of the Holy Council of 1917–1918 as a historical primary source // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, M., 1993. No. 1. P. 7). However, as materials show, for example, the discussion discussed above about the oath of loyalty, about perjury in February 1917, etc., the consideration of these issues did not at all lead to their solution. And therefore cannot be presented as any kind of achievement of the Council.

On July 20 (August 2), July 25 (August 7) and August 9 (22), 1918, general meetings of the Local Council were not held (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1999. T. 8. P. 258, 2000. T. 10. S . 254–255).

These acts legitimized the overthrow of the monarchy, the revolution was actually declared “the accomplished will of God,” and prayers of this kind began to be offered in churches: “...prayers for the sake of the Mother of God! Help our faithful ruler, whom you have chosen to rule us, and grant them victories over their enemies.” or “All-Singing Mother of God, ... save our faithful Provisional Government, which You commanded to rule, and grant him victory from heaven” (our italics - M.B.) (Church Gazette. Pg., 1917. No. 9-15. P. 59; Ibid. Free supplement to No. 9-15. P. 4, Free supplement to No. 22. P. 2, Free supplement to No. 22. P. 2).

Acts of the Holy Council ... 1996. Vol. 5. Act 62. P. 354.

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, held in 1917 - 1918, coincided with the revolutionary process in Russia, with the establishment of a new political system. The Holy Synod and the Pre-Council Council were called to the Council in full, all the diocesan bishops, as well as two clergy and three laymen from the dioceses, the protopresbyters of the Assumption Cathedral and the military clergy, the governors of the four laurels and the abbots of the Solovetsky and Valaam monasteries, Sarov and Optina Monasteries , representatives from monastics, co-religionists, military clergy, soldiers in the active army, from theological academies, the Academy of Sciences, universities, the State Council and the State Duma. Among the 564 members of the Council there were 80 bishops, 129 presbyters, 10 deacons, 26 psalm-readers, 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots and hieromonks) and 299 laity. Representatives of the same-faith Orthodox Churches took part in the actions of the Council: Bishop Nicodemus (from the Romanian) and Archimandrite Michael (from the Serbian).

The wide representation of elders and laity at the Council was due to the fact that it was the fulfillment of the two-century aspirations of the Orthodox Russian people, their aspirations for the revival of conciliarity. But the Charter of the Council provided for the special responsibility of the episcopate for the fate of the Church. Questions of a dogmatic and canonical nature, after their consideration by the fullness of the Council, were subject to approval at a meeting of bishops.

The Local Council opened in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin on the day of its temple holiday - August 15 (28). The solemn liturgy was performed by Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, co-served by Metropolitans of Petrograd Benjamin and Metropolitans of Tiflis Platon.

After singing the Creed, the members of the Council venerated the relics of the Moscow saints and, presenting the Kremlin shrines, went to Red Square, where all Orthodox Moscow had already flocked in processions of the cross. A prayer service was held in the square.

The first meeting of the Council took place on August 16 (29) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior after the liturgy celebrated here by Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. Greetings to the Council were announced all day long. Business meetings began on the third day of the Council in the Moscow Diocesan House. Opening the first working session of the Council, Metropolitan Vladimir said parting words to the layer: “We all wish the Council success, and there are reasons for this success. Here at the Council spiritual piety, Christian virtue and high learning are presented. But there is something that raises concerns. This is a lack of unanimity in us... Therefore, I will recall the Apostolic call to unanimity. The words of the Apostle “be like minded one another” have great meaning and apply to all peoples, to all times. Nowadays, differences of opinion affect us especially strongly; it has become a fundamental principle of life... Diversity of thoughts is shaking the foundations family life, schools, under his influence many moved away from the Church... The Orthodox Church prays for unity and calls on us to confess the Lord with one mouth and one heart. Our Orthodox Church is built “on the foundation of the apostle and prophet, the cornerstone of Jesus Christ himself. This is the rock against which all kinds of waves will break.”

The Council approved the Holy Metropolitan of Kyiv Vladimir as its Honorary Chairman. The Holy Metropolitan Tikhon was elected Chairman of the Council. A Council Council was formed, which included the Chairman of the Council and his deputies, Archbishops Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov, Protopresbyters N.A. Lyubimov and G.I. Shavelsky, Prince E.N. Trubetskoy and Chairman of the State Council M .V. Rodzianko, who was replaced in February 1918 by A.D. Samarin. V.P. Shein (later Archimandrite Sergius) was approved as the Secretary of the Council. Metropolitan Platon of Tiflis, Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky and Professor P.P. Kudryavtsev were also elected members of the Council Council.

After the election and installation of the Patriarch, most of the cathedral meetings were presided over by His Grace Arseny of Novgorod, who was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. In the difficult task of leading conciliar actions, which often acquired a turbulent character, he showed both firm authority and wise flexibility.

The cathedral opened in the days when the Provisional Government was in its death throes, losing control not only over the country, but also over the collapsing army. Soldiers fled the front in droves, killing officers, causing riots and looting, and terrorizing civilians, while the Kaiser's troops moved rapidly into Russia. On August 24 (September 6), at the suggestion of the Protopresbyter of the Army and Navy, the Council appealed to the soldiers to come to their senses and continue to fulfill their military duty. “With mental pain, with grave sorrow,” the appeal said, “the Council looks at the most terrible thing that lately has grown throughout the life of the people and especially in the army, which has brought and still threatens to bring innumerable troubles to the Fatherland and the Church. The heart of the Russian man began to grow cloudy light image Christ, the fire of the Orthodox faith began to go out, the desire for feat in the name of Christ began to weaken... Impenetrable darkness enveloped the Russian land, and the great mighty Holy Rus' began to perish... Deceived by enemies and traitors, betrayal of duty and oath, murders of their own brethren, Having sullied your high sacred title of warrior with robberies and violence, we pray to you - come to your senses! Look into the depths of your soul, and your... conscience, the conscience of a Russian person, a Christian, a citizen, will perhaps tell you how far you have gone along the terrible, most criminal path, what gaping, incurable wounds you inflict on your Motherland.”

The Council formed 22 departments that prepared reports and draft definitions that were submitted to meetings. The most important departments were the Statutory Department, the Higher Church Administration, diocesan administration, the improvement of parishes, and the legal status of the Church in the state. Most departments were headed by bishops.

On October 11, 1917, the Chairman of the Department of the Supreme Church Administration, Bishop Mitrofan of Astrakhan, spoke at a plenary meeting with a report that opened the main event in the actions of the Council - the restoration of the Patriarchate. The Pre-Conciliar Council in its draft for the establishment of the Supreme Church Administration did not provide for the First Hierarchical rank. At the opening of the Council, only a few of its members, mainly monastics, were convinced advocates for the restoration of the Patriarchate. However, when the question of the First Bishop was raised in the department of the Supreme Church Administration,

it met with widespread support. The idea of restoring the Patriarchate gained more and more adherents with each meeting of the department. At the 7th meeting, the department decides not to delay on this important issue and propose to the Council the restoration of the Primate See.

Justifying this proposal, Bishop Mitrofan recalled in his report that the Patriarchate became known in Rus' from the time of its Baptism, for in the first centuries of its history the Russian Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The abolition of the Patriarchate by Peter I was a violation of the holy canons. The Russian Church has lost its head. But the thought of the Patriarchate never ceased to glimmer in the minds of the Russian people as a “golden dream.” “In all the dangerous moments of Russian life,” said Bishop Mitrofan, “when the helm of the Church began to tilt, the thought of the Patriarch was resurrected with special force... Time imperatively demands feat, boldness, and the people want to see at the head of the life of the Church a living personality who has gathered would be living people's forces." The 34th Apostolic Canon and the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch imperatively demand that there be a First Bishop in every nation.

The issue of restoring the Patriarchate at the plenary sessions of the Council was discussed with extraordinary severity. The voices of the opponents of the Patriarchate, at first assertive and stubborn, sounded dissonant at the end of the discussion, violating the almost complete unanimity of the Council.

The main argument of supporters of preserving the synodal system was the fear that the establishment of the Patriarchate could fetter the conciliar principle in the life of the Church. Repeating the sophisms of Archbishop Feofan (Pro-kopovich), Prince A.G. Chaadaev spoke about the advantages of a “collegium”, which can combine various gifts and talents in contrast to individual power. “Conciliarity does not coexist with autocracy, autocracy is incompatible with conciliarity,” insisted Professor B.V. Titlinov, despite the indisputable historical fact: with the abolition of the Patriarchate, Local Councils ceased to be convened. Archpriest N.V. Tsvetkov put forward an ostensibly dogmatic argument against the Patriarchate: it, they say, forms a mediastinum between the believing people and Christ. V.G. Rubtsov spoke out against the Patriarchate because it is illiberal: “We need to be on par with the peoples of Europe... We will not return despotism, we will not repeat the 17th century, and the 20th century speaks of the fullness of conciliarity, so that the people do not cede their rights to some then the head." Here there is a replacement of church-canonical logic with a superficial political scheme.

In the speeches of supporters of the restoration of the Patriarchate, in addition to canonical principles, the history of the Church itself was cited as one of the most weighty arguments. In the speech of I.N. Speransky, a deep internal connection was shown between the existence of the Holy See and the spiritual face of pre-Petrine Rus': “While we had a supreme shepherd in Holy Rus'..., our Orthodox Church was the conscience of the state... The covenants of Christ were forgotten, and the Church, in the person of the Patriarch, boldly raised its voice, no matter who the violators were... In Moscow there is a reprisal against the archers. Patriarch Adrian is the last Russian Patriarch, weak, old..., takes upon himself the boldness... to “sorrow”, to intercede for the condemned.”

Many speakers spoke about the abolition of the Patriarchate as a disaster for the Church, but Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) said this wiser than anyone: “Moscow is called the heart of Russia. But where does the Russian heart beat in Moscow? On the stock exchange? In shopping arcades? On Kuznetsky Most? It is fought, of course, in the Kremlin. But where in the Kremlin? In the District Court? Or in the soldiers' barracks? No, in the Assumption Cathedral. There, at the front right pillar, the Russian Orthodox heart should beat. The eagle of Peter the Great, based on the Western model of established autocracy, pecked out this Russian Orthodox heart, the sacrilegious hand of the wicked Peter brought the Russian High Hierarch from his centuries-old place in the Assumption Cathedral. The Local Council of the Russian Church with the power given to it by God will again place the Moscow Patriarch in his rightful inalienable place.”

The zealots of the Patriarchate recalled the state devastation experienced by the country under the Provisional Government, and the sad state of the people's religious consciousness. According to Archimandrite Matthew, “recent events indicate a distance from God not only of the intelligentsia, but also of the lower strata... and there is no influential force that would stop this phenomenon, there is no fear, no conscience, no first bishop at the head of the Russian people... Therefore, we must immediately choose a spirit-bearing guardian of our conscience, our spiritual leader, the Most Holy Patriarch, after whom we will follow to Christ.”

During the council discussion, the idea of restoring the rank of First Hierarch was illuminated from all sides and appeared before the members of the Council as an imperative requirement of the canons, as the fulfillment of age-old popular aspirations, as a living need of the time.

On October 28 (November 10) the debate was terminated. The Local Council, by a majority vote, made a historic decision:

1. “In the Orthodox Russian Church, the highest power - legislative, administrative, judicial and supervisory - belongs to the Local Council, convened periodically, at certain times, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity.

2. The Patriarchate is restored, and church administration is headed by the Patriarch.

3. The Patriarch is the first among his equal bishops.

4. The Patriarch, together with the church governing bodies, is accountable to the Council.”

Based on historical precedents, the Council Council proposed a procedure for electing a Patriarch: during the first round of voting, the Council members submit notes with the name of their proposed candidate for Patriarch. If one candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, he is considered elected. If none of the candidates receives more than half the votes, a repeat vote is held, in which notes are submitted with the names of the three proposed persons. The person who receives the majority of votes is considered to be elected as a candidate. The voting rounds are repeated until three candidates receive a majority of the votes. Then the Patriarch will be chosen by lot from among them.

On October 30 (November 12), 1917, a vote was held. Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov received 101 votes, Archbishop Kirill (Smirnov) of Tambov - 27, Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow - 22, Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod - 14, Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir, Archbishop Anastasy of Chisinau and Protopresbyter G.I. Shavelsky - 13 votes each, cop Vladimirsky Sergiy (Stragorodsky) - 5, Archbishop Jacob of Kazan, Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) and former Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.D. Samarin - 3 votes each. Several more persons were proposed to the Patriarchate by one or two council members.

After four rounds of voting, the Council elected as candidates for the First Hierarchal throne Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod and Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow - as people said about him - “the smartest, most strict and kindest of the hierarchs of the Russian Church...” Archbishop Anthony , a brilliantly educated and talented church writer, was a prominent church figure in the last two decades of the synodal era. A longtime champion of the Patriarchate, he was supported by many at the Council as a fearless and experienced church leader.

Another candidate, Archbishop Arseniy, an intelligent and powerful hierarch who had many years of church-administrative and state experience (formerly a member of the State Council), according to Metropolitan Eulogius, “was horrified by the opportunity to become Patriarch and only prayed to God that “this cup should pass from him.” . And Saint Tikhon relied in everything on the will of God. Not striving for the Patriarchate, he was ready to take on this feat of the cross if the Lord called him.

The election took place on November 5 (18) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At the end of the Divine Liturgy and prayer singing, Hieromartyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev, brought the reliquary with lots to the pulpit, blessed the people with it and opened the seals. Alexy, the blind elder and schema-monk of Zosimova Hermitage, came out of the altar. After praying, he took the lot out of the reliquary and handed it to the metropolitan. The saint read loudly: “Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow - axios.”

The jubilant thousand-mouthed “axios” shook the huge crowded temple. There were tears of joy in the eyes of those praying. At the funeral, Protodeacon Rozov of the Assumption Cathedral, famous throughout Russia for his powerful bass voice, proclaimed many years: “To our Lord, His Eminence, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Tikhon, elected and named Patriarch of the God-saved city of Moscow and all Russia.”

On this day, Saint Tikhon celebrated the liturgy in the Trinity Metochion. The news of his election as Patriarch was brought to him by the embassy of the Council, headed by Metropolitans Vladimir, Benjamin and Plato. After the singing of many years, Metropolitan Tikhon said the word: “...Now I have spoken the words according to the order: “I thank and accept, and not at all contrary to the verb.” ...But, judging by the person, I can say a lot contrary to my real election. Your news about my election to the Patriarchate is for me that scroll on which it was written: “Weeping, and groaning, and grief,” and such a scroll was supposed to be eaten by the prophet Ezekiel. How many tears and groans I will have to swallow in the Patriarchal service ahead of me, and especially in this difficult time! Like the ancient leader of the Jewish people, Moses, I will have to say to the Lord: “Why are You tormenting Your servant? And why did I not find mercy in Your sight, that You laid on me the burden of all this people? Did I carry all this people in my womb and did I give birth to him, that You say to me: Carry him in your arms, as a nanny carries a child. I I cannot bear all this people alone, because they are too heavy for me” (Num. 11:11-14). From now on, I am entrusted with the care of all the Russian churches and will die for them all the days. And whoever is happy with this, even the weakest! But God's will be done! I find confirmation in the fact that I did not seek this election, and it came apart from me and even apart from men, according to God’s lot.”

The enthronement of the Patriarch took place on November 21 (December 3) on the Feast of the Entry in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. For the celebration of the ceremony, the staff of St. Peter, the cassock of the holy martyr Patriarch Hermogenes, as well as the mantle, miter and hood of Patriarch Nikon were taken from the Armory Chamber.

On November 29, an extract from the “Definition” was read out at the Council Holy Synod on the elevation to the rank of metropolitan of Archbishops Anthony of Kharkov, Arseny of Novgorod, Agafan Gel of Yaroslavl, Sergius of Vladimir and Jacob of Kazan.

* * *.

The restoration of the Patriarchate did not complete the transformation of the entire system of church government. The brief definition of November 4, 1917 was supplemented by other detailed “Definitions”: “On the rights and duties of the Holy Patriarch...”, “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council”, “On the range of affairs subject to the jurisdiction of the bodies of the Supreme Church Administration”. The Council granted the Patriarch the rights corresponding to canonical norms: to take care of the well-being of the Russian Church and represent it before the state authorities, to communicate with the autocephalous Churches, to address the all-Russian flock with teaching messages, to take care of the timely replacement of bishops' sees, to give fraternal advice to bishops. The Patriarch, according to the “Definitions” of the Council, is the diocesan bishop of the Patriarchal region, which consists of the Moscow diocese and stauropegial monasteries.

The Local Council formed two bodies of collegial government of the Church in the intervals between Councils: the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. The competence of the Synod included matters of a hierarchical-pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council included matters of church and public order: administrative, economic and school-educational. And finally, particularly important issues - about the protection of the rights of the Church, about preparations for the upcoming Council, about the opening of new dioceses - were subject to a joint decision of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

The Synod included, in addition to its Chairman-Patriarch, 12 members: the Metropolitan of Kiev by cathedral, 6 bishops elected by the Council for three years, and five bishops summoned in turn for one year. Of the 15 members of the Supreme Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, three bishops were delegated by the Synod, and one monk, five clergy from the white clergy and six laymen were elected by the Council. The elections of members of the highest bodies of church government took place at the last meetings of the first session of the Council before its dissolution for the Christmas holidays.

The Local Council elected to the Synod the Metropolitans of Novgorod Arseny, Kharkov Anthony, Vladimir Sergius, Tiflis Platon, Archbishops of Chisinau Anastasius (Gribanovsky) and Volyn Evlogiy.

To the Supreme Church Council, the Council elected Archimandrite Vissarion, protopresbyters G.I. Shavelsky and I.A. Lyubimov, archpriests A.V. Sankovsky and A.M. Stanislavsky, psalmist A.G. Kulyashov and laymen Prince E.N. Trubetskoy, professors S.N. Bulgakov, N.M. Gromoglasov, P.D. Lapin, as well as the former Minister of Confessions of the Provisional Government A.V. Kartashov and S.M. Raevsky. The Synod delegated Metropolitans Arseny, Agafangel and Archimandrite Anastasius to the Supreme Church Council. The Council also elected deputy members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

On November 13 (26), the Council began discussing a report on the legal status of the Church in the state. On behalf of the Council, Professor S. N. Bulgakov drew up a Declaration on the relationship between the Church and the state, which preceded the “Definition on the legal status of the Church in the state.” In it, the demand for the complete separation of Church and state is compared with the wish “that the sun should not shine and the fire should not warm. The Church, according to the internal law of its existence, cannot refuse the calling to enlighten, to transform the entire life of humanity, to permeate it with its rays.” The idea of the high calling of the Church in state affairs lay at the basis of the legal consciousness of Byzantium. Ancient Rus' inherited from Byzantium the idea of a symphony of Church and state. The Kyiv and Moscow powers were built on this foundation. At the same time, the Church did not associate itself with a specific form of government and always proceeded from the fact that the government should be Christian. “And now,” the document says, “when, by the will of Providence, the tsarist autocracy is collapsing in Russia, and new ones are coming to replace it government forms“The Orthodox Church does not have a definition of these forms in terms of their political expediency, but it invariably stands on such an understanding of power, according to which all power must be a Christian service.” Measures of external coercion that violate the religious conscience of people of other faiths were recognized as incompatible with the dignity of the Church.

A heated dispute arose around the question of the compulsory Orthodoxy of the Head of State and the Minister of Confessions, which was assumed in the draft “Definition”. Council member Professor N.D. Kuznetsov made a reasonable remark: “In Russia, complete freedom of conscience has been proclaimed and it has been declared that the position of every citizen in the state... does not depend on belonging to one or another religion or even to religion in general... Count on success is impossible in this matter.” But this warning was not taken into account.

In its final form, the “Definition” of the Council reads: “1. The Orthodox Russian Church, forming part of the One Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies a leading public legal position in the Russian state among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine the vast majority of the population and as the greatest historical force, which created the Russian state.

2. The Orthodox Church in Russia is independent of state power in the teaching of faith and morals, worship, internal church discipline and relations with other autocephalous Churches...

3. Decrees and instructions issued for itself by the Orthodox Church, as well as acts of church administration and court, are recognized by the state as having legal force and significance, since they do not violate state laws...

4. State laws concerning the Orthodox Church are issued only by agreement with the church authorities...

7. Chapter Russian state, the Minister of Confessions and the Minister of Public Education and their comrades must be Orthodox...

22. Property belonging to the institutions of the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation and confiscation...”

Some articles of the “Definitions” were anachronistic in nature, not corresponding constitutional foundations new state, new state-legal conditions, and could not be implemented. However, this “Definition” contains the indisputable provision that in matters of faith, in its internal life, the Church is independent of state power and is guided by its dogmatic teaching and canons.

The actions of the Council were also carried out during revolutionary times. On October 25 (November 7), the Provisional Government fell, and Soviet power was established in the country. On October 28, bloody battles broke out in Moscow between the cadets occupying the Kremlin and the rebels in whose hands the city was. Over Moscow there was the roar of cannons and the crackle of machine guns. They shot in courtyards, from attics, from windows; dead and wounded lay in the streets.

During these days, many members of the Council, having taken on the responsibility of nurses, walked around the city, picking up and bandaging the wounded. Among them were Archbishop of Tauride Dimitri (Prince Abashidze) and Bishop of Kamchatka Nestor (Anisimov). The Council, trying to stop the bloodshed, sent a delegation to negotiate with the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Kremlin commandant's office. The delegation was headed by Metropolitan Platon. At the headquarters of the Military Revolutionary Committee, Metropolitan Platon asked to end the siege of the Kremlin. To this I received the answer: “It’s too late, too late. We weren't the ones who spoiled the truce. Tell the cadets to surrender." But the delegation was unable to penetrate the Kremlin.

“In these bloody days,” Metropolitan Eulogius later wrote, “a great change took place in the Council. Petty human passions subsided, hostile bickering fell silent, alienation was erased... The Council, which at first resembled a parliament, began to transform into a genuine “Church Council”, into an organic church whole, united by one will - for the good of the Church. The Spirit of God blew over the congregation, comforting everyone, reconciling everyone.” The Council addressed the warring parties with a call for reconciliation, with a plea for mercy for the vanquished: “In the name of God... The Council calls on our dear brothers and children fighting among themselves to now refrain from further terrible bloody warfare... The Council... begs the victors not allow no acts of revenge, cruel reprisals and in all cases spare the lives of the vanquished. In the name of the salvation of the Kremlin and the salvation of our dear ones throughout Russia, there are shrines in it, the destruction and desecration of which the Russian people will never forgive anyone, the Holy Council begs not to expose the Kremlin to artillery fire.”

The appeal issued by the Council on November 17 (30) contains a call for general repentance: “Instead of the new social structure promised by the false teachers, there is a bloody feud of the builders; instead of peace and brotherhood of peoples, there is a confusion of languages and bitterness, the hatred of brothers. People who have forgotten God, like hungry wolves, rush at each other. There is a general darkening of conscience and reason... Russian guns, hitting the Kremlin shrines, wounded the hearts of the people, burning with the Orthodox faith. Before our eyes, God's judgment is being carried out on a people who have lost a shrine... To our misfortune, a truly people's power worthy of receiving the blessing of the Orthodox Church has not yet been born. And she will not appear on Russian soil until we turn with sorrowful prayer and tearful repentance to Him, without Whom those who build the city labor in vain.”

The tone of this message could not, of course, help to soften the then tense relations between the Church and the new Soviet state. And yet, on the whole, the Local Council managed to refrain from superficial assessments and speeches of a narrowly political nature, recognizing the relative importance of political phenomena in comparison with religious and moral values.

According to the memoirs of Metropolitan Eulogius, the highest point that the Council reached spiritually was the first appearance of the Patriarch at the Council after his enthronement: “With what reverent awe everyone greeted him! Everyone - not excluding the “left” professors... When... the Patriarch entered, everyone knelt down... At these moments there were no longer the former members of the Council who disagreed with each other and were alien to each other, but there were saints, righteous people, inspired by the Holy Spirit, ready to carry out His commands... And some of us on this day understood what the words really mean: “Today the grace of the Holy Spirit has gathered us together...”

The meetings of the Council were suspended for the Christmas holidays on December 9 (22), 1917, and on January 20, 1918, the second session opened, which continued until April 7 (20). They took place in the building of the Moscow Theological Seminary. The outbreak of civil war made travel around the country difficult; and on January 20, only 110 members of the Council were able to arrive at the Council meeting, which did not provide a quorum. Therefore, the Council was forced to adopt a special resolution: to hold meetings with any number of Council members present.

The main topic of the second session was the structure of diocesan administration. The discussion began even before the Christmas holidays with a report by Professor A.I. Pokrovsky. Serious controversy flared up around the provision that the bishop “governs the diocese with the conciliar assistance of the clergy and laity.” Amendments were proposed. The goal of some was to more sharply emphasize the power of the bishops - the successors of the apostles. Thus, Archbishop Kirill of Tambov proposed to include in the “Definition” words about the sole management of the bishop, carried out only with the help of diocesan governing bodies and the court, and Archbishop of Tver Seraphim (Chichagov) even spoke about the inadmissibility of involving lay people in the management of the diocese. However, amendments were also proposed that pursued opposite goals: to give clergy and laity broader rights in deciding diocesan affairs.

At the plenary meeting, an amendment by Professor I.M. Gromoglasov was adopted: replace the formula “with the conciliar assistance of clergy and laity” with the words “in unity with the clergy and laity.” But the episcopal conference, protecting the canonical foundations of the church system, rejected this amendment, restoring in the final edition the formula proposed in the report: “The diocesan bishop, by succession of power from the holy apostles, is the Primate of the local Church, governing the diocese with the conciliar assistance of the clergy and laity.”

The Council established a 35-year age limit for candidates for bishops. According to the “Definition on Diocesan Administration”, bishops must be elected “from among monastics or those not obliged by marriage to the white clergy and laity, and for both of them it is obligatory to wear the cassock, if they do not take monastic vows.”

According to the “Definition,” the body through which the bishop governs the diocese is the diocesan assembly, elected from clergy and laity for a three-year term. Diocesan assemblies, in turn, form their own permanent executive bodies: the diocesan council and the diocesan court.

On April 2 (15), 1918, the Council adopted the “Decree on Vicar Bishops.” Its fundamental novelty was that it was supposed to allocate parts of the diocese under the jurisdiction of suffragan bishops and establish their residence in the cities by which they were titled. The publication of this “Definition” was dictated by the urgent need to increase the number of dioceses and was thought of as the first step in this direction.

The most extensive of the resolutions of the Council is the “Definition on the Orthodox Parish,” otherwise called the “Parish Charter.” In the introduction to the “Charter” there is a brief outline of the history of the parish in ancient Church and in Russia. The basis of parish life should be the principle of service: “Under the leadership of successively God-appointed pastors, all parishioners, forming a single spiritual family in Christ, take an active part in the entire life of the parish, as best they can with their own strength and talent.” The “Charter” gives the definition of a parish: “A parish... is a society of Orthodox Christians, consisting of clergy and laity, residing in a certain area and united at the church, forming part of the diocese and being under the canonical administration of its diocesan bishop, under the leadership of an appointed priest - abbot."

The Council declared the parish's sacred duty to take care of the improvement of its shrine - the temple. The “Charter” defines the composition of the nominal parish clergy: priest, deacon and psalm-reader. Its increase or reduction to two persons was left to the discretion of the diocesan bishop, who, according to the “Charter,” ordained and appointed clergy.

The “Charter” provided for the election of church elders by parishioners, who were entrusted with the acquisition, storage and use of church property. To resolve matters related to the maintenance of the temple, the provision of clergy and the election of parish officials, it was planned to convene a parish meeting at least twice a year, the permanent executive body of which was to be the parish council, consisting of clergy, the churchwarden or his assistant and several laymen - on the election of the parish meeting. The chairmanship of the parish meeting and the parish council was given to the rector of the church.

The discussion about unity of faith, a long-standing and complex issue burdened by long-standing misunderstandings and mutual suspicions, became extremely tense. The Department of Edinovery and Old Believers failed to develop an agreed upon project. Therefore, two diametrically opposed reports were presented at the plenary meeting. The stumbling block was the question of the Edinoverie episcopate. One speaker, Bishop Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Chelyabinsk, spoke out against the ordination of bishops of the same faith, seeing this as a contradiction to the canon-based territorial principle administrative division Church and the threat of separation of fellow believers from the Orthodox Church. Another speaker, Edinoverie Archpriest Simeon Shleev, proposed the establishment of independent Edinoverie dioceses; after sharp polemics, the Council came to a compromise decision on the establishment of five Edinoverie vicar departments, subordinate to diocesan bishops.

The second session of the Council carried out its acts when the country was engulfed civil war. Among the Russian people who laid down their lives in this war were priests. On January 25 (February 7), 1918, Metropolitan Vladimir was killed by bandits in Kyiv. Having received this sad news, the Council issued a resolution which states:

"1. To establish the offering in churches during services of special petitions for those confessors and martyrs who are now persecuted for the Orthodox Faith and the Church and who have committed suicide...

2. Establish throughout Russia an annual prayerful commemoration on January 25 or the following Sunday (evening) ... of confessors and martyrs.”

At a closed meeting on January 25, 1918, the Council adopted an emergency resolution that “in the event of illness, death and other sad opportunities for the Patriarch, propose to him to elect several guardians of the Patriarchal Throne, who, in order of seniority, will guard the power of the Patriarch and succeed him.” At the second special closed meeting of the Council, the Patriarch reported that he had fulfilled this resolution. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, it served as a saving means for preserving the canonical succession of the First Hierarchal ministry.

On April 5, 1918, shortly before dissolution for the Easter holidays, the Council of Archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a resolution on the canonization of Saints Joseph of Astrakhan and Sophrony of Irkutsk.

* * *

The last, third, session of the Council lasted from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20), 1918. There, work continued on the compilation of “Definitions” on the activities of the highest bodies of church government. The “Definition on the procedure for electing His Holiness the Patriarch” established an order basically similar to the one by which the Patriarch was elected at the Council. However, wider representation at the electoral Council of clergy and laity of the Moscow Diocese, for which the Patriarch is the diocesan bishop, was envisaged. In the event of the release of the Patriarchal Throne, the “Decree on the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne” provided for the immediate election of a Locum Tenens from among the members of the Synod combined by the presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.

One of the most important resolutions of the third session of the Council was the “Definition on Monasteries and Monastics,” developed in the relevant department under the chairmanship of Archbishop Seraphim of Tver. It sets the age limit for the tonsured person - not less than 25 years; To tonsure a novice at a younger age required the blessing of the diocesan bishop. Definition restored ancient custom election of rectors and vicars by the brethren so that the diocesan bishop, if approved, submits him to the Holy Synod for approval. The Local Council emphasized the advantage of community life over individual life and recommended that all monasteries, if possible, introduce community rules. The most important concern of the monastery authorities and brethren should be a strictly statutory service “without omissions and without replacing the reading of what is supposed to be sung, and accompanied by a word of edification.” The Council spoke about the desirability of having an elder or old woman in each monastery for the spiritual care of the inhabitants. All monastery residents were required to carry out labor obedience. The spiritual and educational service of monasteries to the world should be expressed in statutory services, clergy, eldership and preaching.

At the third session, the Council adopted two “Definitions” designed to protect the dignity of the priesthood. Based on the apostolic instructions on the height of sacred service and on the canons, the Council confirmed the inadmissibility of second marriage for widowed and divorced clergy. The second resolution confirmed the impossibility of reinstatement of persons deprived of their rank by sentences of spiritual courts, correct in essence and form. The strict observance of these “Definitions” by the Orthodox clergy, who strictly preserved the canonical foundations of the church system, in the 20s and 30s saved them from discredit to which the Renovationist groups were subjected, who trampled both the Orthodox law and the holy canons.

On August 13 (26), 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church restored the celebration of the memory of all the saints who shone in the Russian land, timed to coincide with the second week after Pentecost.

At the final meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, the Council decided to convene the next Local Council in the spring of 1921.

Not all departments of the Council carried out conciliar acts with equal success. Having been sitting for more than a year, the Council did not exhaust its program: some departments did not have time to develop and submit agreed reports to plenary sessions. A number of “Definitions” of the Council could not be implemented due to the socio-political situation that developed in the country.

In resolving issues of church construction, organizing the entire life of the Russian Church in unprecedented historical conditions on the basis of strict fidelity to the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Savior, the Council stood on the basis of canonical truth.

The political structures of the Russian Empire collapsed, the Provisional Government turned out to be an ephemeral formation, and the Church of Christ, guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, preserved its God-created system in this turning point in history. At the Council, which became an act of its self-determination in new historical conditions, the Church was able to cleanse itself of everything superficial, correct the deformations that it suffered during the synodal era, and thereby revealed its unworldly nature.

The Local Council was an event of epochal significance. Having abolished the canonically flawed and completely outdated synodal system of church government and restored the Patriarchate, he drew a line between two periods of Russian church history. The “definitions” of the Council served the Russian Church on its arduous path as a firm support and an unmistakable spiritual guide in solving the extremely difficult problems that life presented to it in abundance.