The restoration of the patriarchate took place in 1943 1941 1942. Restoration of the patriarchate in Russia. To gain control over the population of the USSR, and later Russia, through the deceased “old sign”. And it seems that right now we are approaching the final

Note by G. G. Karpov on J. V. Stalin’s reception of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church // M. I. Odintsov. Russian patriarchs of the twentieth century. M., 1994.

On September 4, 1943, I was summoned to Comrade Stalin, where I was asked the following questions

a) what Metropolitan Sergius is like (age, physical condition, his authority in the church, his attitude towards the authorities),

b) a brief description of Metropolitans Alexy and Nicholas,

c) when and how Tikhon was elected patriarch,

d) what connections does the Russian Orthodox Church have with abroad,

e) who are the Patriarchs of the Ecumenical, Jerusalem and others,

f) what do I know about the leadership of the Orthodox churches in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania,

g) in what material conditions are Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai now,

h) the number of parishes of the Orthodox Church in the USSR and the number of episcopates.

After I had answered the above questions, I was asked three personal questions:

a) Am I Russian?

b) from what year in the party,

c) what kind of education do I have and why am I familiar with church issues.

After this, Comrade Stalin said:

It is necessary to create a special body that would communicate with the leadership of the church. What suggestions do you have?

Having made the reservation that I was not quite ready for this issue, I made a proposal to organize a department for religious affairs under the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and proceeded from the fact that there was a permanent Commission for religious affairs under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.

Comrade Stalin, correcting me, said that it was not necessary to organize a commission or department for religious affairs under the Supreme Council of the USSR, that we were talking about organizing a special body under the Government of the Union and we could talk about the formation of either a committee or a council. He asked my opinion.

When I said that I found it difficult to answer this question, Comrade Stalin, after thinking for a while, said:

1) it is necessary to organize under the Government of the Union, i.e. under the Council of People's Commissars, a Council, which we will call the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church;

2) the Council will be entrusted with the implementation of relations between the Government of the Union and the Patriarch;

3) The Council does not make independent decisions, reports and receives instructions from the Government.

After this, Comrade Stalin exchanged views with Comrade. Malenkov, Beria on the question of whether he should receive Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy, Nikolai, and also asked me how I think the Government will receive them.

All three said they thought it was a positive thing.

After this, right there, at Comrade Stalin’s dacha, I received instructions to call Metropolitan Sergius and, on behalf of the Government, convey the following: “A representative of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Union is speaking to you. The government has a desire to receive you, as well as Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolay, to listen to your needs and resolve your questions. The government can receive you either today, in an hour or an hour and a half, or if this time does not suit you, then the reception can be organized tomorrow (Sunday) or on any day of the next week.”

Immediately, in the presence of Comrade Stalin, having telephoned Sergius and introducing myself as a representative of the Council of People's Commissars, I conveyed the above and asked to exchange views with Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolai, if they are currently with Metropolitan Sergius.

After this, he reported to Comrade Stalin that Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai thanked for such attention from the Government and would like to be received today.

Two hours later, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai arrived in the Kremlin, where they were received by Comrade Stalin in the office of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. Comrade Molotov and I were present at the reception.

Comrade Stalin's conversation with the metropolitans lasted 1 hour and 55 minutes.

Comrade Stalin said that the Government of the Union knew about the patriotic work they were carrying out in the churches from the first day of the war, that the Government had received a lot of letters from the front and from the rear, approving the position taken by the church in relation to the state.

Comrade Stalin, briefly noting the positive significance of the patriotic activities of the church during the war, asked Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai to speak out about pressing but unresolved issues that the patriarchy and they personally had.

Metropolitan Sergius told Comrade Stalin that the most important and most pressing issue is the question of the central leadership of the church, since for almost 18 years [he] has been a patriarchal locum tenens and personally thinks that it is unlikely that there are such lasting harms [difficulties] anywhere. that there has been no Synod in the Soviet Union since 1935, and therefore he considers it desirable that the Government would allow the convening of a Council of Bishops, which would elect the Patriarch, and also form a body of 5-6 bishops.

Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolay also spoke out in favor of the formation of the Synod and substantiated this proposal for formation as the most desirable and acceptable form, also saying that they consider the election of the patriarch at the Council of Bishops to be completely canonical, since in fact the church is headed continuously for 18 years by the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Sergius.

Having approved the proposals of Metropolitan Sergius, Comrade Stalin asked:

a) what will the patriarch be called,

b) when the Bishops' Council can be convened,

c) is any assistance needed from the Government for the successful holding of the Council (is there a premises, is transport needed, is money needed, etc.).

Sergius replied that these issues had previously been discussed among themselves and they would consider it desirable and correct if the Government allowed the patriarch to accept the title of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', although Patriarch Tikhon, elected in 1917, under the Provisional Government, was called “patriarch Moscow and all Russia.”

Comrade Stalin agreed, saying that this was correct.

To the second question, Metropolitan Sergius replied that the Council of Bishops could be convened in a month, and then Comrade Stalin, smiling, said: “Is it possible to show Bolshevik tempos?” Turning to me and asking my opinion, I expressed that if we help Metropolitan Sergius with appropriate transport for the fastest delivery of the episcopate to Moscow (by plane), then the Council could be assembled in 3-4 days.

After a short exchange of views, we agreed that the Council of Bishops would meet in Moscow on September 8.

To the third question, Metropolitan Sergius answered that they were not asking for any subsidies from the state to hold the Council.

The second question Metropolitan Sergius raised, and Metropolitan Alexy developed, was the question of training clergy personnel, and both asked Comrade Stalin to be allowed to organize theological courses in some dioceses.

Comrade Stalin, agreeing with this, at the same time asked why they were raising the question of theological courses, while the Government could allow the organization of a theological academy and the opening of theological seminaries in all dioceses where this was needed.

Metropolitan Sergius, and then even more Metropolitan Alexy, said that to open a theological academy they still have very little strength and need appropriate preparation, and with regard to seminaries, they consider it inappropriate to admit people at least 18 years old in them due to time and past experience, knowing , that until a person has developed a certain worldview, it is very dangerous to train them as shepherds, because there is a large dropout, and, perhaps, in the future, when the church has the appropriate experience of working with theological courses, this question will arise, but even then the organizational and programmatic side of seminaries and academies must be sharply modified.

Comrade Stalin said: “Well, as you wish, this is your business, and if you want theological courses, start with them, but the Government will not have any objections to the opening of seminaries and academies.”

The third question Sergius raised was the question of organizing the publication of a magazine of the Moscow Patriarchate, which would be published once a month and would cover both the chronicle of the church and articles and speeches of a theological and patriotic nature.

Comrade Stalin replied: “The magazine can and should be published.” I Then Metropolitan Sergius raised the issue of opening churches in a number of dioceses, saying that almost all diocesan bishops had raised [questions] with him about this, that there were few churches and that churches had not been opened for many years. ! At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius said that he considers it necessary to grant the diocesan bishop the right to enter into negotiations with civil authorities on the issue of opening churches.

Metropolitans Alexy and Nikolay supported Sergius, noting the uneven distribution of churches in the Soviet Union and expressing a desire, first of all, to open churches in regions and territories where there are no churches at all or where there are few of them.

Comrade Stalin replied that there would be no obstacles from the Government to this issue.

Then Metropolitan Alexy raised the question with Comrade Stalin about the release of some bishops who were in exile, in camps, in prisons, etc.

Comrade Stalin told them: “Imagine such a list, we will consider it.”

Sergius immediately raised the question of granting the right of free residence and movement within the Union and the right to perform church services to former clergy who had served their sentence in court, i.e. the question was raised of lifting the prohibitions, or rather, restrictions associated with the passport regime.

Comrade Stalin suggested that I study this issue.

Metropolitan Alexy, having asked permission from Comrade Stalin, specifically focused on issues related to the church fund, namely:

a) Metropolitan Alexy said that he considers it necessary to grant dioceses the right to transfer certain amounts from the treasuries of churches and from the treasuries of dioceses to the treasury of the central church apparatus for its maintenance (the Patriarchate, the Synod), and in connection with this, Metropolitan Alexy gave the example that the inspector according to the administrative supervision of the Leningrad City Council, Tatarintseva did not allow such deductions to be made;

b) that in connection with this same issue, he, as well as Metropolitans Sergius and Nicholas, consider it necessary that the Regulations on Church Administration be modified, namely, that clergy be given the right to be members of the executive body of the church.

Comrade Stalin said that there were no objections to this.

Metropolitan Nicholas in the conversation raised the issue of candle factories, saying that at this time church candles are made by artisans, the selling price of candles in churches is very high and that he, Metropolitan Nicholas, considers it best to grant the right to have candle factories in dioceses.

Comrade Stalin said that the Church could count on the full support of the Government in all matters related to its organizational strengthening and development within the USSR, and that, as he spoke about the organization of theological educational institutions, without objecting to the opening of seminaries in dioceses, there could be no obstacles and to the opening of candle factories and other industries under the diocesan administrations.

Then, turning to me, Comrade Stalin said: “We must ensure the right of the bishop to dispose of church funds. There is no need to create obstacles to the organization of seminaries, candle factories, etc.”

Then Comrade Stalin, addressing the three metropolitans, said: “If necessary now or if necessary in the future, the state can issue appropriate subsidies to the church center.”

After this, Comrade Stalin, addressing Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai, told them: “Comrade Karpov reported to me that you live very poorly: a cramped apartment, you buy food at the market, you have no transport. Therefore, the Government would like to know what your needs are and what you would like to receive from the Government.”

In response to Comrade Stalin’s question, Metropolitan Sergius said that as premises for the Patriarchate and for the Patriarch, he would ask to accept the proposals made by Metropolitan Alexy to provide the Patriarchate with the former abbot’s building in the Novodevichy Monastery, and as for providing food, these products are they buy it on the market, but in terms of transport I would ask for help, if possible, by providing a car.

Comrade Stalin told Metropolitan Sergius: “Comrade Karpov looked at the premises in the Novodevichy Convent: they are completely unfurnished, require major repairs, and it still takes a lot of time to occupy them. It's damp and cold there. After all, we must take into account that these buildings were built in the 16th century. The government can provide you tomorrow with a completely comfortable and prepared premises, giving you a 3-story mansion in Chisty Lane, which was previously occupied by the former German ambassador Schulenburg. But this building is Soviet, not German, so you can live in it completely calmly. At the same time, we provide you with the mansion with all the property, furniture that is in this mansion, and in order to have a better idea of ​​​​this building, we will now show you its plan.”

A few minutes later, the plan of the mansion at Chisty Lane, building 5, presented to Comrade Stalin by Comrade Poskrebyshev, with its outbuildings and garden, was shown to the metropolitans for review, and it was agreed that on the next day, September 41, Comrade Karpov would provide the opportunity for the metropolitans personally inspect the above premises.

Once again touching on the issue of food supply, Comrade Stalin told the metropolitans: “It is inconvenient and expensive for you to buy food at the market, and now the collective farmer throws little food into the market. Therefore, the state can provide you with food at state prices. In addition, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow we will provide 2-3 passenger cars with fuel at your disposal.”

Comrade Stalin asked Metropolitan Sergius and other metropolitans if they had any other questions for him, if the church had any other needs, and Comrade Stalin asked about this several times.

All three stated that they no longer have any special requests, but sometimes in the localities there is re-taxation of the clergy with income tax, to which Comrade Stalin drew attention and suggested that in each individual case I take appropriate measures of verification and correction.

After this, Comrade Stalin said to the metropolitans: “Well, if you have no more questions for the Government, then maybe you will have them later. The government proposes to form a special state apparatus, which will be called the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, and it is proposed to appoint Comrade Karpov as chairman of the Council. How do you look at this?

All three stated that they very favorably accepted the appointment of Comrade Karpov to this post.

Comrade Stalin said that the Council would represent a place of communication between the Government and the church, and its chairman should [report] to the Government on the life of the church and the issues that arise in it.

Then, turning to me, Comrade Stalin said: “Choose 2-3 assistants who will be members of your Council, form an apparatus, but just remember: firstly, that you are not the chief prosecutor; secondly, through your activities, emphasize more the independence of the church.”

After this, Comrade Stalin, turning to Comrade Molotov, said: “We must bring this to the attention of the population, just as later it will be necessary to inform the population about the election of the patriarch.”

In this regard, Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov immediately began to draw up a draft communiqué for radio and newspapers, during the drafting of which appropriate comments, amendments and additions were made both by Comrade Stalin and individual ones by Metropolitans Sergius and Alexy.

The text of the notice was adopted as follows:

“September 4th. A reception was held at the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, T. I. V. Stalin, during which a conversation took place with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and the Exarch of Ukraine, Metropolitan Nicholas of Kiev and Galicia.

During the conversation, Metropolitan Sergius brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars that in the leadership circles of the Orthodox Church there is an intention to convene a Council of Bishops to elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and form the Holy Synod under the patriarch.

The head of the Government, T. I. V. Stalin, was sympathetic to these proposals and stated that there would be no obstacles to this from the Government.

Deputy Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR, Comrade V. M. Molotov, was present at the conversation.”

The communiqué was handed over to Comrade Poskrebyshev for broadcast on the same day and to TASS for publication in newspapers.

After this, Comrade Molotov turned to Sergius with a question: when is the best time to receive a delegation of the Anglican Church wishing to come to Moscow, led by the Archbishop of York?

Sergius replied that since the Council of Bishops will be assembled in 4 days, which means elections of the patriarch will be held, the Anglican delegation can be received at any time.

Comrade Molotov said that, in his opinion, it would be better to receive this delegation a month later.

At the end of this reception, Metropolitan Sergius spoke with Comrade Stalin with a brief word of gratitude to the Government and personally to Comrade Stalin.

Comrade Molotov asked Comrade Stalin: “Perhaps we should call a photographer?”

Comrade Stalin said: “No, it’s late now, two o’clock in the morning, so we’ll do it another time.”

Comrade Stalin, having said goodbye to the metropolitans, escorted them to the door of his office.

This reception was a historical event for the church and left great impressions on Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nicholas, which were obvious to everyone who knew and saw Sergius and others in those days.

The Russian Orthodox Church connects its origin with the Baptism of Rus', i.e. since the creation of the Kyiv Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

It had the status of autocephaly in fact since 1448, when the Moscow Local Council condemned the Union of Florence and installed Bishop Jonah of Ryazan in the Russian Metropolis without prior approval from Constantinople.

In 1589, Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople, with his Charter, confirmed the status of autocephaly and installed Job as the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

After the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, a new Primate of the church was not elected. In 1721, Emperor Peter I established the Theological College, renamed the Holy Governing Synod, which was a permanent church-state governing body - under the supreme authority of the emperor.

The Patriarchate in Russia was restored on October 28 (November 11), 1917 by the decision of the All-Russian Local Council.

Saint Tikhon (Bellavin), Metropolitan of Moscow, was elected the first Patriarch in the post-synodal period. Before the October Revolution, the Russian Church had the status of a state institution in the Russian Empire.

After the revolution of 1917, the Church was separated from the state and experienced a period of severe persecution.

After the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), who was soon repressed, became the Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

The next locum tenens was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). In the period from December 1925 to December 27, 1936, he was called the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

In 1927, Metropolitan. Sergius issued an Message (known as the “Declaration”) in which he recognized the Soviet Union as a civil homeland, called upon members of the Church to civil loyalty to Soviet power, and also demanded full political loyalty to the Soviet government from the clergy abroad.

The message led to protests and refusal to submit to it on the part of a number of groups within the Patriarchal Church and to the formation of other “old church” organizations that did not recognize the legitimacy of the church authority of the Deputy Locum Tenens, as well as to the “cessation of relations” with the Patriarchate of the majority of Russian bishops in exile.

The existing church authorities and management structures emerged in their modern form in the mid-1940s on the basis of the “Old Church” (as opposed to the “renovationist” wing of the Russian Church) group of hierarchs, led by Metropolitan Sergius, recognized in September 1943 by the state bodies of the USSR as loyal to the state regime. (Stragorodsky).

In September 1943, during a meeting between Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and other church hierarchs, with the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars I.V. Stalin, an agreement was reached on the election of the Patriarch.

The convened Council of Bishops elected Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as Patriarch.

In 1946, renovationism, supported until 1943 by the USSR authorities, completely disappeared.

The Moscow Patriarchate was recognized as the only legitimate Orthodox Church in the USSR by all other local Orthodox Churches.

The name Russian Orthodox Church was adopted as official and recognized by the state in the fall of 1943, but without being granted the status of a legal entity. The latter was received in full on May 30, 1991 on the basis of the USSR Law of October 1, 1990 “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” when the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR registered the Civil Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church.

A. Sokolovsky

The content of the article

PATRIARCHES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. In 1453, the great Orthodox empire, Byzantium, fell under the blows of the Turks. The Muscovite kingdom, on the contrary, remaining the only independent Orthodox power, acquired the authority of a stronghold of the Orthodox faith. The once powerful Church of Constantinople quickly lost its power and fell into decay. Its authority in Moscow was finally undermined by the conclusion by the Greeks of a union with the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Florence ( cm. UNIA). Distrust of the Greeks and doubts about their Orthodoxy led to the fact that Russian bishops decided in 1480 not to admit Greeks to episcopal sees. Russian bishops no longer went to Constantinople to ask for the blessing of the patriarch for elevation to the metropolitan rank and were installed in Moscow. In fact, the Russian Church gained complete independence, however, according to the canons of the ancient church, the real independence of the church, headed by the patriarch, is possible only if there is an institution of the kingdom accompanying the priesthood. When Ivan IV was crowned king in 1547 according to the Byzantine rite, the last formal obstacle was removed.

The implementation of this idea took place during the reign of Ivan IV’s son, Fyodor Ivanovich. In 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch came to Moscow for royal alms. Deciding to take advantage of the circumstances of this visit, the tsar declared in the Duma that he wanted to establish “the highest patriarchal throne” in Moscow. Patriarch Joachim volunteered to bring the king’s desire to the attention of the Greek Church, so that when establishing a new patriarchate, the canonical rules, which provided for the participation of all eastern patriarchs, would be observed. In 1588, Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople arrived in Russia. The tsar expected that he would bring with him the resolution of the ecumenical council on the establishment of the patriarchate in the Russian state, but at the very first audience it turned out that the main purpose of the visit was to receive financial assistance. Then it was decided to detain the patriarch in Moscow and force him to bless the establishment of the Moscow patriarchal throne. Jeremiah was offered to become the Patriarch of Russia, stipulating that he would not live under the sovereign in Moscow, but in ancient Vladimir, and thus the Russian metropolitan would remain the de facto head of the church. As expected, Jeremiah rejected such a humiliating offer. He also refused to appoint any of the Russian metropolitans as patriarch. Then the Greek was made to understand that he would not be released from Moscow until he conceded. On January 26, 1589, Jeremiah elevated Metropolitan Job to the patriarchal throne, whose candidacy was proposed to the Tsar by Boris Godunov. After this, the Greeks were released from Moscow, having given them rich gifts.

Two years later, Moscow received a letter signed by three patriarchs, 42 metropolitans and 20 bishops, approving the patriarchate in Russia. Recent research has shown that most of the signatures were not genuine. Apparently, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, interested in receiving material support from the Russian Tsar, hastened to confirm the act of the Moscow Council, and therefore the signatures of some patriarchs were reproduced, who were unable, for one reason or another, to sign the letter in person. From now on, the Patriarch of Moscow was to occupy fifth place (after the Patriarch of Jerusalem) and was appointed by a council of Russian bishops. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich was extremely dissatisfied with the latter circumstance and sent a letter to Constantinople, in which he reminded of the promised third place, after the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria. However, on this issue the Ecumenical Council remained adamant and in 1593 confirmed its decision on the fifth place of the Moscow Patriarch. All the signatures of the hierarchs on the charter of this cathedral are authentic.

The founding of the patriarchate was an important milestone in the history of the Russian Church. The transformation of the Moscow Metropolis into a patriarchate consolidated the fact of the independence of the Russian Church in the norms of canon law and significantly strengthened the influence of the Russian Church in the international arena. From now on, the ritual of ordination to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

Election of the Patriarch.

The order of delivery was as follows. On behalf of the tsar or the guardian of the patriarchal throne, letters were sent to all the highest church hierarchs and abbots of the most significant monasteries, notifying them of the death of the saint and inviting them to Moscow to elect a new patriarch. On the appointed day, all those invited were to appear in the Kremlin in the Golden Chamber, where the Tsar opened the cathedral. The patriarch was elected by lot. The king named six candidates. Papers with their names were doused in wax in the presence of the Tsar, sealed with the Tsar's seal and sent to the church where the Council of Bishops met. The lots were placed on the panagia (breast icon of the Mother of God, a sign of the episcopal rank) of the deceased patriarch and were taken out one by one until the last one remained. This lot was handed over unopened to the king, who opened it and named the name of the new patriarch.

In a liturgical sense, the patriarch received certain advantages. During ceremonial exits, not only a cross, but also candles were carried in front of him. Entering the temple, he put on liturgical clothes in the middle of the church, and while in the altar, he sat on a high place and gave communion to the bishops from his own hands. The high priest's vestments were also somewhat different. Like the Metropolitan, he wore a white hood, but the patriarch's headdress was decorated with a cross or cherubs. The patriarchal miter had a cross at the top. The patriarch was supposed to wear a colored robe over his holy vestments.

The introduction of the patriarchate in Russia was accompanied by a reform of the church structure, which was due to the need to bring it into line with that established in the eastern patriarchates. The Church was divided into metropolitan districts, which included several dioceses. All hierarchs in their dioceses were equal and subordinate to the patriarch, as before to the metropolitan.

Job (d. 1607)

He actively began to implement the conciliar decisions, but he did not manage to implement all the decisions. The time of Job's patriarchate was marked by the establishment of several new church holidays in honor of Russian saints (St. Basil, Cornelius of Komel, Roman Ugletsky, Joseph of Volotsky, etc.). The patriarch worked hard and effectively to preserve Orthodoxy among the newly baptized Tatars, in poverty-stricken Georgia, and in the conquered lands of Siberia and Karelia. Despite the fact that Job was actually Boris Godunov’s protege and subsequently contributed greatly to his ascension to the throne, he greatly valued Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and was extremely devoted to him. After the death of the sovereign, the patriarch compiled his life, glorifying the meek disposition and mercy of the king. When the first False Dmitry appeared on the historical stage, Patriarch Job firmly opposed him. He anathematized him and in his messages proved that False Dmitry was none other than the runaway Miracle monk Grishka Otrepiev. Having taken the Russian throne, the impostor removed Job from the patriarchate and sent him to Staritsa. The procedure for depriving Job of his dignity was reminiscent of the removal of Philip from the metropolitan throne by Ivan the Terrible. Job died in Staritsa on June 19, 1607.

In 1605, False Dmitry, despite the fact that Job formally remained the head of the Russian Church, independently elected a new patriarch. He became Archbishop Ignatius of Ryazan, a Greek by birth, who before coming to Russia occupied the episcopal see in Cyprus. He recognized False Dmitry as prince and was loyal to Latinism (Catholicism). After the overthrow of False Dmitry, Ignatius was defrocked and exiled to the Chudov Monastery.

Hermogenes (1606–1612)

Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan, who under False Dmitry was a member of the Senate established by the Tsar and most consistently opposed his pro-Catholic policies, was elected as the new patriarch. Despite the fact that discord soon emerged in the relations of the new patriarch with the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky, Hermogenes supported him in every possible way as a crowned tsar. In 1609, when the boyars, dissatisfied with Shuisky, seized Hermogenes and at the place of execution demanded his consent to change the king, the patriarch defended Vasily Shuisky. During the Time of Troubles, the patriarch remained one of the few statesmen who remained faithful to Orthodoxy and the national idea. When trying to elevate Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne, Hermogenes made it an indispensable condition for Vladislav to accept the Orthodox faith and protested against the entry of the Polish army into Moscow. From the Kremlin, he sent letters to Russian cities, in which he blessed the militia units that were being formed there. The Poles put the patriarch into custody and imprisoned him in the Chudov Monastery, where he suffered a painful death from hunger. Patriarch Hermogenes is canonized. Cm. HERMOGENES, ST.

Filaret (1619–1634)

From the moment of the death of Hermogenes (1612), for seven years the Russian Church remained without a patriarch. In 1619, Metropolitan Filaret, the father of the newly elected Tsar Mikhail Romanov, returned from Polish captivity. Mikhail elevated his father to the rank of patriarch. Patriarch Theophan IV, who was then in the capital of Jerusalem, elevated him to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow. The accession of Mikhail Romanov and the enthronement of the patriarch marked the restoration of Russian statehood. The power of the patriarch under Mikhail Romanov reached unprecedented heights, but it was during this period that the consonant actions of the tsar and the patriarch, connected by blood ties, most fully corresponded to the ideal ideas about the “symphony” of the kingdom and the priesthood. As the father of the tsar and his de facto co-ruler, Filaret was called the “great sovereign” and took an active part in state affairs. From Polish captivity, Filaret brought out a firm conviction about the inadmissibility of union for the Russian Church and during the years of his patriarchate he made a lot of efforts to protect Russia from Western religious influences. At the same time, Filaret closely followed the development of theological literature in neighboring countries and hatched plans to create a Greek-Latin school and printing house in Moscow. Worried that the unlimited power he had acquired in the future could be identified with the patriarchal rank and this would introduce complications into the relationship between the successors to the throne and the high priestly throne, he himself chose as his successor the Pskov Archbishop Joasaph, whose main virtue was “insolent” loyalty to to the king. Cm. FILARET.

Joasaph (1634–1640)

no longer occupied such a high position as belonged to the tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret, and did not bear the title of great sovereign.

Joseph (1640–1652)

After Joasaph, Joseph took the patriarchal see. Under him, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued Code, aimed at reducing the role of the church hierarchy and the patriarch in government. The Patriarch humbly accepted the document.

Nikon (1652–1666)

Patriarchal power again achieved its former power under Patriarch Nikon. Born into a peasant family, Nikon (in the world Nikita Minov) made a dizzying career from a village priest to the head of the Russian Church and the “lover” and “companion” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. At first, Nikon imagined the relationship between royal and patriarchal power in the general structure of state life as a co-government of two equal forces. Trusting the patriarch, the tsar left the appointment of bishops and archimandrites at his complete discretion. The will of the patriarch was the final authority in all church matters. The monastic order, which previously limited the judicial power of the patriarch, was inactive under Alexei Mikhailovich. During the Polish-Lithuanian campaigns, Nikon remained the king's deputy. The most important documents were sent to him for signature, in which, with the consent of the tsar, the patriarch was called, as Filaret once was, a great sovereign. Gradually, contradictions emerged in the relationship between the young tsar and the patriarch, primarily due to the fact that Nikon tried to place the patriarchal power above the royal one. Disagreements led to Nikon voluntarily leaving the patriarchal throne in the hope that he would be asked to return. However, this did not happen. After a long period of doubts and hesitations, in 1666 the Council of Bishops, which was attended by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, deposed Nikon, who had voluntarily left the see, and deprived him of his bishopric and priesthood. Alexei Mikhailovich himself acted as the accuser at the council. The “competition” between the patriarch and the tsar for primacy in power, unprecedented in Russian history, led to the fact that in the future the policy of the sovereigns was aimed at limiting the power of the high priest. Already the Council of 1666–1667 paid special attention to the relationship between state and spiritual authorities. The Council decided that the king had primacy in worldly affairs. The spiritual life of the state was given to the patriarch. The resolution of the Council that the patriarch is not the sole ruler of the church organization, but only the first among equal bishops, was dictated by the sharply negative attitude of the bishops to Nikon’s attempt to demand for himself the special status of the patriarch as the highest and not subject to anyone’s jurisdiction. Cm. NIKON.

Joasaph II (1667–1673).

At the end of the Council, they elected a new patriarch, the quiet and modest Joasaph II. From this moment on, the patriarchate begins to lose the state significance that it previously had.

Pitirim (1673), Joachim (1673–1690), Adrian (1690–1700)

occupied the patriarchal throne after Joasaph II. These were patriarchs who did not interfere in state politics, aiming to preserve at least some of the privileges of the clergy, which were consistently attacked by state power. In particular, Joachim managed to achieve the closure of the monastery order. Patriarchs of the second half of the 17th century. They did not welcome Russia’s rapprochement with the West and tried in every possible way to limit the growing influence of foreigners on Russian life and culture. However, they were no longer able to really resist the power of the young Tsar Peter Alekseevich. At the beginning of his patriarchate, the last patriarch Adrian enjoyed the support of the tsar's mother, Natalya Kirillovna, who, in turn, had influence on her son. After her death in 1694, the conflict between the patriarch and the tsar became inevitable. The beginning of their open confrontation was Adrian’s refusal to forcibly tonsure Evdokia Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter Alekseevich, into a nun, and its culmination was the tsar’s public insult of the patriarch, who came to him as an intercessor for the Streltsy sentenced to execution. Peter expelled the high priest in disgrace, thus destroying the ancient custom of the patriarch grieving for the condemned. Consistently pursuing a policy of undermining the authority and power of the church, in 1700 the tsar ordered the preparation of a new code that would destroy all its privileges.

Abolition of the patriarchate.

After the death of Adrian, the tsar, by his will, placed the Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky at the head of the administration of the church with the title of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, effectively abolishing the institution of the patriarchate. Peter viewed the church exclusively as a governmental institution, so he subsequently replaced the power of the patriarch with the Spiritual College (the Holy Governing Synod), turning the church into one of the state departments that were under the constant control of the monarch. Until 1917, the Holy Synod remained the highest church and government institution in Russia. Cm. JOAKIM.

Restoration of the patriarchate in Russia.

A new era in the history of the Russian patriarchate began in 1917. After the February Revolution, the Holy Synod addressed the archpastors and pastors of Russia with a message, which said that with the changed political system, “the Russian Orthodox Church can no longer remain with those orders that have outlived their time.” " The main issue in the planned reorganization was the restoration of the ancient form of church governance. By the decision of the Synod, the Local Council of 1917–1918 was convened, which restored the patriarchate. The cathedral opened on the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary and was the longest lasting in the history of the Russian Church.

Tikhon (1917–1925)

On October 31, 1917, elections were held for three candidates for the patriarchal throne: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow. On November 5, 1917, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, after the Divine Liturgy and prayer service, Elder Alexy of the Zosimov Hermitage drew lots, and the name of the new patriarch was announced, who became Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow.

In accordance with church canons, the Local Council of 1917–1918 granted the patriarch the right to convene church councils and preside over them, communicate with other autocephalous churches on issues of church life, take care of the timely replacement of episcopal sees and bring guilty bishops to church court. The local council also adopted a document on the legal position of the church in the state system. However, the October Revolution of 1917 entailed fundamental changes in the relationship between the church and the new atheistic state of the Soviets. By decree of the Council of People's Commissars the church was separated from the state, which was regarded by the council as the beginning of persecution of the church.

Patriarch Tikhon occupied the cathedral during a difficult period for the Russian Orthodox Church. The main direction of his activity was the search for a way to establish relations between the church and the Bolshevik state. Tikhon defended the right of the church to remain the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, emphasizing that it should be neither “white” nor “red.” The most important document aimed at normalizing the position of the Russian Church was Appeal Patriarch Tikhon dated March 25, 1925, in which he called on the flock to understand that “the destinies of nations are arranged by the Lord,” and to accept the advent of Soviet power as an expression of the will of God.

Despite all the efforts of the patriarch, an unprecedented wave of repression hit the church hierarchy and the believing people. By the outbreak of World War II, the church structure throughout the country was almost destroyed. After Tikhon's death, there could be no talk of convening a council to elect a new patriarch, since the church existed in a semi-legal position, and most of the hierarchs were in exile and imprisonment.

Sergius (d. 1944)

According to the will of the saint, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky took over the management of the Church as the patriarchal locum tenens. Then this feat was taken upon by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, who called himself the deputy of the patriarchal locum tenens. The official act of transferring the duties of locum tenens to him took place only in 1936, when the news of the death of Metropolitan Peter (who was shot in 1937) arrived, which later turned out to be false. Nevertheless, in 1941, on the very first day of the war with Nazi Germany, Metropolitan Sergius wrote a message to his flock, in which he blessed the believers to defend the Motherland and called on everyone to help the country’s defense. The danger looming over the country prompted the Soviet state, led by Stalin, to change its policy towards the church. Churches were opened for worship, many clergy, including bishops, were released from the camps. On December 4, 1943, Stalin received the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius, as well as Metropolitans Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich). During the conversation, Metropolitan Sergius announced the church’s desire to convene a council to elect a patriarch. The head of government said that there would be no obstacles on his part. The Council of Bishops took place in Moscow on September 8, 1943, and on September 12 the newly elected Patriarch Sergius was enthroned. Cm. SERGY.

Alexy I (1945–1970)

In 1944, the high priest of the Russian Church died. In 1945, the Moscow Council elected Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) as Patriarch. At the same council it was decided Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church, which finally legalized the institution of the church and streamlined the relationship between the church and the Soviet state. During Alexy's patriarchate, relations between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and other autocephalous churches were restored, and the publishing activities of the Moscow Patriarchate were resumed, but during his presidency there was a difficult period of new persecution of the church under N.S. Khrushchev. Cm. ALEXIY I.

Pimen (1970–1990)

After the death of Alexy (1970), Metropolitan Pimen of Krutitsky and Kolomna was elevated to the rank of patriarch. During the patriarchate of Pimen in 1988, under the conditions of “perestroika,” the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' took place. The celebrations dedicated to this event took on a nationwide character and marked the onset of a new era in the history of the Russian Church, which, after a long period of direct and hidden persecution, found hope for freedom. Cm. PIMEN.

Alexy II (1990–2009)

Since 1990, the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church has been Patriarch Alexy II - the fifteenth patriarch from the beginning of the patriarchate, whose activities were aimed at reviving and strengthening the traditions of church life in the context of the beginning of the process of democratization of society. Cm. ALEXI II.

Kirill (2009)

In 2009, by the decision of the Local Council, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, was elected Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church - the sixteenth Patriarch from the beginning of the Patriarchate.

On September 4, 1943, Stalin summoned the three remaining free metropolitans of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Kremlin to talk about the prospects for the life of the church and its needs. A few days later, 19 bishops who survived in the camps and exiles were brought to Moscow to hold a council, which elected a patriarch, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). The Church received “full support from the Government in all matters related to its organizational strengthening and development within the USSR.” This “support” was called upon to be provided by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by NKGB Colonel Georgy Karpov. The consequences of the “second restoration of the patriarchate” for the life of the Russian Church were discussed at the St. Philaret Institute.

The historical and ecclesiological significance of Stalin's meeting with the three bishops in the Kremlin and the subsequent council still receives very different assessments. Some see the revival of the church in the events of 1943 (the very term “second restoration of the patriarchate” refers to the “first restoration” in 1917). Others speak disdainfully of the establishment of a “Stalinist church.” Participants in the seminar, dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the “second restoration of the patriarchate,” tried to see this event in a historical perspective, talk about what preceded it and what consequences it led to in the modern life of the church.

Now there is a widespread point of view that it was the restoration of the patriarchate that became the main act of the 1917 Council. Although there was no unanimity on this issue at the Council itself, many people did associate hope for the independence of the church with the patriarchate. However, it was rather a symbol of such independence and conciliarity. Thus, 34 of the Apostolic Canon, which was used as an argument for the restoration of the patriarchate in 1917, does not provide unconditional canonical grounds for the introduction of this form of government. Formulated in the Roman Empire, it only secured for each of the nations the right to have its own national first bishop, which is what the words say: “the bishops of every nation should know the first of them.”

The decision to elect the patriarch, which was made in the context of a coup d'etat and civil war, was not flawless from a procedural point of view. A minority of the Council participants were able to take part in the voting; the rights and responsibilities of the future patriarch were not previously determined.

“Patriarchate is an unclear term that has not manifested itself in any way in the history of the Russian Church,”- said Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov, head of the department of church history of St. Petersburg. Each “patriarchate”, starting from 1589, had a new meaning, and the real meaning of the patriarchs was not much different from the meaning of the primates who did not have such a title. By the 20th century, the Russian Church had practically no experience of an independent primacy canonically defined in the tradition and embodied in specific institutions or church decrees of conciliarity.

The year 1943 legitimized that type of church-state relations when, for the legal existence of the church structure, it was necessary to unquestioningly obey all the recommendations of the authorities, moreover, broadcasting and justifying them on its own behalf, without referring to secular authorities. The events of 1943 were prepared by both centuries-old history and a number of difficult compromises made by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who, after the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925, became the deputy of the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), who was under arrest, and at the end of 1936 actually made himself as patriarchal locum tenens. “The representative of the church hierarchy, who arrogated to himself the rights of its primate, compromised with the authorities, which set as its task not just the destruction of the church, but the use of the under-destroyed church in its own anti-Christian interests,- Father Georgy Mitrofanov described this step of Metropolitan Sergius. — In this situation, no external forces are needed. In the minds of many clergy, their own inner commissioner begins to grow, which ultimately begins to change church life from the inside.”

“Re-education” of the bishops and priests who survived by 1943 through exile and hard labor and the constant concern of the council for delda. Soviet features began to appear in the appearance of the church. Taboo topics appeared, including primarily those with which the renewal of church life was associated in 1917 - topics of preaching, the language of worship, the role of the laity in the church. A rigid “vertical of power” was built with complete distrust of the church people. The Russian Orthodox Church’s plans to train new church personnel in accordance with the needs of the Soviet government brought their fruits

Was Metropolitan Sergius the founder of “Sergianism” as a special type of relationship between the church and state power, or did he continue to act in the logic in which church life had developed for centuries? Could the hierarch of the church, which initially adopted the Byzantine model of relations with the state, act differently? Was there any other response to the unprecedentedly harsh historical conditions within the Constantinian paradigm of church life? For centuries, the Russian Church existed as if on two planes - real and symbolic. The very idea of ​​the symphony, the idea of ​​a Christian state, is symbolic, since, as David Gzgzyan, head of the department of theological disciplines and liturgics at SFI, noted, there cannot be a Christian state; the state simply does not have the task of embodying the gospel maxim that the church faces. Whereas an anti-Christian state, as history has shown, is quite feasible.

The main significance of the Council of 1917-1918 is that it became perhaps the only attempt in the history of the Russian Church to respond to the collapse of the centuries-old Constantinian period, associated with a certain view of its relations with the state, the rector of the SFI, priest Georgy Kochetkov, is convinced. For the first time in many centuries, the Council remembered the Church as a Church and tried to turn the clock to a new historical era. The “Second Restoration of the Patriarchate” made a U-turn in 1943 and became a terrible attempt to return to the idea of ​​a symphony, which was not justified by the realities of life.

A typical document from 1945, read by the head of the department of church-historical disciplines of the SFI, candidate of historical sciences Konstantin Obozny, is an article by Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), who sharply criticized the Soviet regime in the 1920s. He already writes about the Local Council of 1945, which elected Patriarch Alexy I, and gives the following characterization to the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Major General of the NKGB Georgy Karpov: “He is a loyal representative of state power, as he should be. But beyond this and personally, he is a completely sincere, frank, direct, firm, clear person, which is why he immediately inspires confidence in all of us in himself, and through himself in the Soviet government... He, like the government in general, openly wants to help the Church in building it on the basis of the Soviet Constitution and in accordance with the needs and desires of the church people. I fervently believe and wish him complete success.” Father Georgy Mitrofanov called this attitude “Stockholm syndrome”: “A state that does not physically destroy the church and gives it a place of honor is already the best for it, be it the Golden Horde, the Turkish Sultanate or the USSR.”

Another consequence of the “second restoration of the patriarchate” can be considered the fact that a new type of church structure appeared for Orthodoxy - extreme clericalism. “It’s hard to say whether it arose in 1943 or 1993,- said Father Georgy Kochetkov. — It’s as if he’s meant to show how not to live in church. Maybe if people see this, they will ask themselves: how should it be done? When you read about church life in pre-revolutionary publications, you get the impression that we live in different churches, on different planets, and when you read about the ancient church, this is another planet. It seems like the faith is the same, the Lord is one, baptism is the same, but the churches are completely different.”

The “second restoration of the patriarchate” set into motion a mechanism that led to a change in ideas about the norm of church life. In post-Soviet Orthodoxy, there seems to be no place left for faith in the church as a community of people united by the Gospel revelation, as a collection actually, and not symbolically, led by Christ himself.

As a result of the church’s loss of the fundamental principles of its existence, phenomena that participants described as a “dark force” began to make themselves felt in it. In the 1990s, it united with certain political forces and splashed out on the pages of odious anti-Christian media, at pseudoscientific conferences in the spirit of “Orthodox Bolshevism,” and in slanderous collective letters against clergy and hierarchs. It is with the need to limit the action of this “dark force” generated by Soviet power that many modern experts associate the centralization of church power.

The seminar participants also reflected on possible ways to overcome in church life the traits that it acquired during the era of the “second restoration of the patriarchate,” in particular aggression, obscurantism, nationalism, clericalism, internal and external sectarianism, mistrust, disbelief and cynicism. In this regard, the conversation turned to the problem of spiritual enlightenment. “The more enlightened a Christian becomes, the more integral his church life becomes and the more he can resist aggression,”— Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Sergei Firsov (St. Petersburg State University) is convinced.

However, what is meant by Christian enlightenment? Can it be directly linked to the increase in the number of certified clergy? Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov believes that enlightenment cannot be reduced to education. The main thing that is missing in modern church life, including in theological schools, is a change in relationships between people. The church needs preaching not only in words, but also in life. Father Georgy Kochetkov agrees with him; he connects the main task of Christian education with a change in attitude towards life, towards man, towards the church, towards society. It is precisely this purpose that true catechesis, catechism, which normally precedes spiritual education, serves, he added.

Genuine enlightenment, associated with a return to the evangelical foundations of church life, with the assimilation and comprehension of different layers of church tradition, is capable of reviving not only an individual person, but also entire communities of people, creating an environment in which it is possible to overcome the diseases of both the post-Soviet church and post-Soviet society. This is one of the conclusions reached by the seminar participants.

The 20th century, associated for the Russian Church with the end of the Constantine period, opened up new opportunities for it. For the first time, deprived of support from the state, she was faced with the question of what the real foundations of her life were. According to the prophetic words of nun Maria (Skobtsova), this “godless and non-Christian time at the same time turns out to be predominantly Christian and called upon to reveal and establish the Christian mystery in the world.” It was along this path of revelation and affirmation that a few spiritual movements such as communities and brotherhoods followed. The “second restoration of the patriarchate,” judging by its historical consequences for the church and the country, was in many ways a movement against the course of history, but Christianity by its nature cannot escape dialogue with historical reality, and its defeats are perhaps most clearly indicated in front of the church new tasks.

The conversation between specialists about difficult issues of modern church history within the walls of the SFI will most likely continue.

Sofia Androsenko