Renovationist schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Renovationists - a missed chance for the Russian Orthodox Church

The movement for church renewal emerged among the Russian Orthodox clergy back during the 1905 revolution. The renovationists did not have a single program. Most often, they expressed wishes: to allow second marriages for widowed priests, to allow bishops to marry, to switch completely or partially to the Russian language in worship, to accept Gregorian calendar, democratize church life. In the context of the decline in the authority of the church among the masses of the population, the renovationists tried to respond to new trends in public life.

Revolution of 1917

After the February Revolution of 1917, Renovationism gained great strength and popularity, but for now it operated within the framework of a single church. Some of the renovationists sympathized with the revolution for ideological reasons, considering it necessary to combine Christianity with its commandment “let him who shall not work, let him not eat!” and socialism. Others hoped to make a career in the church hierarchy with the help of the new authorities. Individuals aspired directly to a political career. Thus, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky organized the “Workers’ and Peasants’ Christian Socialist Party,” which even put forward its list in the elections to the Constituent Assembly in the fall of 1917.
Both had high hopes for the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which opened in August 1917 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The Renovationists were supported by a member of the Provisional Government, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V. Lvov.
The majority of the Council took a conservative position. By restoring the patriarchate, the Council disappointed the renovationists. But they liked the decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the separation of church and state. In it they saw the opportunity to carry out church reforms under the new government.
During civil war The Bolsheviks had no time for a systemic struggle against the traditional church. When the aforementioned Alexander Vvedensky (the future head of the renovationist Russian Orthodox Church in the rank of metropolitan) in 1919 visited the chairman of the Petrosoviet and the Comintern G.E. Zinoviev and suggested that he conclude a “concordat” between the renovationist church and the Soviet government, the authoritative Bolshevik replied that this was not yet appropriate. But if the renovationists manage to create a strong organization, it will receive the support of the authorities, Zinoviev assured.

Organization of the Renovation Church

After the victory in the civil war, the Bolsheviks were left in the ashes, and in order to have at least something to reign over, they had to raise the country from the ruins they had created. The wealth of the Russian Church accumulated over centuries was seen as one of the important sources of funds. There was also a reason: mass famine in the Volga region (due to the previously pursued policies of the Bolsheviks). A campaign began in the Soviet press for the confiscation of church valuables for the benefit of the starving. Renovationists were actively involved in it. As is now reliably known, many of them were already part-time employees of the GPU. Moreover, some of them, before the revolution, were listed as prominent participants in the “Union of the Russian People” and other Black Hundred organizations. Perhaps nowhere more powerfully than in the Renovationist Church did this “pragmatic” “red-black bloc” assert itself.
The leaders of the renovationists, with the support of the GPU, created the Supreme Church Administration (later the Supreme Church Council, and then the Holy Synod) and called for a trial of Patriarch Tikhon, but at the same time presented themselves as the only legitimate leadership of the church. True, several movements immediately emerged among the renovationists: “Living Church”, “Union of Church Revival”, etc. Disagreements between them were skillfully maintained by the security officers, who were not interested in a single church organization, even if loyal to the authorities.
The renewal movement was still fed by impulses from below, from believers who vaguely desired some kind of reform of Orthodoxy. Therefore, many groups managed to overcome differences and convene the Second Local All-Russian Council in April-May 1923 in the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior. At it, Patriarch Tikhon was defrocked, the transition to a civil calendar was announced, marriages of bishops and remarriages of widowed priests were allowed, and monasticism was abolished. Some of the renovationist churches went even further: they removed the iconostases and choirs, and moved the altar to the center of the temples. Priest barbering became fashionable among the Renovationists.

Favor of Communists towards Church Conservatives

Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks saw that the renovationist church enjoyed quite a lot of support from believers (more than 12 thousand parishes were represented at the 1923 Council) and, instead of killing, as they expected, the church as such, they gave it new life. It was difficult to accuse the Renovationist Church of being retrograde and inert, but these were precisely the pain points that anti-church propaganda hit. Therefore, the Bolshevik leadership decides to partially legalize the traditional church with its conservative hierarchy and stagnant customs.
Already in June 1923, they released Patriarch Tikhon from prison and allowed his clergy to serve. Many believers began to return to the traditionalists. For some time the Bolsheviks stirred up competition between both churches. The renovationists are trying to enlist the support of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, convene an Ecumenical Council of Orthodox Churches in Jerusalem, win (with the help of Soviet diplomacy) a number of foreign parishes, and finally convene their last local council in October 1925. It already shows the decline of the Renovationist Church. Since the late 20s, she has been dragging out a miserable existence. At the end of the 30s, repressions unfolded against many of its hierarchs, especially those who had previously collaborated with the Bolshevik secret police - the NKVD removed witnesses. Renovationist churches are closing en masse.
With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War The renovationist church, like the traditional one, is experiencing a rise. But in 1943, Stalin made the final choice in favor of the traditionalists. Through the efforts of the state, in 1946 the Renovationist Church disappeared, its surviving clergy and parishioners transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church MP or left the religion.
The main reason The collapse of the renovation movement should be considered that it turned out to be closely connected with the Bolshevik secret police and could not give people a spiritual alternative to the dictatorship established over Russia. At that time, adherence to traditional Orthodoxy became one of the forms of passive resistance to Bolshevism. Those who were loyal to the Soviet regime, for the most part, did not need religion. Under other conditions, renovationism could have great potential.

The immortal words are perfectly suited to characterize the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church: “they have not forgotten anything and have not learned anything.” Just like a hundred years ago, the Russian Orthodox Church appears before infidels and secular society as a servant of the state, obsessed with money-grubbing and besotted with obscurantism.

Did the church have a chance to avoid its current sad fate? In the twentieth century, there was an attempt at a large-scale reformation of the Russian Orthodox Church, which, strange as it may seem, was associated with its worst enemies - the Bolsheviks.

First of all, we note that the policy of the revolutionary government towards believers in the first post-October years was incomparably more flexible than the bourgeois media are trying to present to us today. Islam, the Old Believers and some areas of Protestantism were largely seen in the eyes of the Bolsheviks as anti-imperialist and popular faiths with which they could cooperate. At the congress of Muslims held in December 1917, the Bolsheviks returned to believers the Koran of Caliph Osman, the Caravanserai mosque in Orenburg and the Syuyumbike tower in Kazan, which had once been confiscated by the tsarist authorities. Until the mid-1920s in the Caucasus and Central Asia Sharia courts operated. In 1921, the Soviet government invited Orthodox sectarians who had become victims of religious persecution to return to Russia. Tsarist Russia. People's Commissar of Education Anatoly Lunacharsky wrote that the Old Believers carried “the germ of the reformation in Russia. The revolution makes reformation unnecessary, but these reformations are divided into many shades, many of which are close to us.”

The Bolsheviks developed much more complex relations with the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, whose political, ideological and economic structures were connected by thousands of threads with the ruling classes and the old regime. The Catholic Church dotted all the i's back in the days of Pontiff Leo XIII, who branded communism, socialism and class struggle in one fell swoop as the path to fiery hell. In 1918, the Russian Orthodox Church in the person of Patriarch Tikhon, who anathematized the workers' and peasants' government, also expressed its attitude towards the revolution. Sadly, over the following years, the Bolsheviks had to act as the “scourge of God,” instilling in the unreasonable and sinful “holy fathers” that not only the power of swindlers and thieves, but the regime of the proletarian dictatorship comes from God.

Of course, repressions against the church clergy were an emergency measure dictated by the realities of the civil war. Being realistic-minded politicians, the Bolsheviks could not help but think about developing a long-term strategy in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. The head of the Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinsky, believed that the church should have been “fed” by his department, which consolidated a tough confrontational approach towards the Russian Orthodox Church for an indefinite period. People's Commissar for War Leon Trotsky had a different view of the problem. In his opinion, the extreme reactionary nature of the Russian Orthodox Church was a consequence of the fact that the Russian church did not go through its bourgeois counter-reformation. At this stage, the leaders of the bourgeois reform movement in the church are ready to cooperate with the Soviet government, and this should be used to disintegrate the church organization through its split.

Note that the use of schism as the most effective method of combating the Catholic church organization after World War II was proposed by the famous Soviet intelligence officer Joseph Grigulevich (in 1952-1953, under the name Teodoro B. Castro, he represented Costa Rica under the papal throne in Rome , and then defended his dissertation on the topic “The Vatican. Religion, finance and politics” - ed.). According to Grigulevich, “history catholic church full of splits, unrest and fronts. Schisms and various fronts caused acute crises in the Catholic Church and have repeatedly threatened the existence of the Vatican itself. Over a relatively short history, one can count 28 antipopes, each of which symbolized a certain crisis in the Catholic Church. But only those splits were successful that had the support of the state apparatus.” In practical terms, Grigulevich proposed no more and no less than the nomination of a “red antipope,” adding that “Krakow is ideal city for a new Avignon." Unfortunately this most interesting project was never implemented.

The most important difference between the Russian Orthodox Church of the early twentieth century and the current Orthodox Church was the presence in its ranks of people ready to cooperate with the Soviet regime, not out of fear or self-interest, but due to a deep inner conviction that the ideas of social justice and collective labor do not contradict Christian doctrine.

Let's take, for example, Alexander Boyarsky (grandfather of film actor Mikhail Boyarsky - editor's note). In 1901, he was expelled from the seminary for “Tolstoyanism” and “freethinking.” Since 1915 he served in the Trinity Church in Kolpino, near Petrograd. People called Boyarsky a “working father,” and the “History of Factories and Works,” published in the thirties, noted his influence on the workers of the Obukhov plant. Under him, a free canteen, a parish cooperative, a vegetable garden and an apiary were created in the Kolpino parish. A supporter of Christian socialism, he said that he accepted everything in Bolshevism except the issue of attitude towards religion and asked not to confuse him with counter-revolutionary priests. Father Alexander said that “if any capitalist wants to be guided by Christian norms, he will go bankrupt in exactly two days.” His response to the accusation of collaborating with the Cheka became widely known: “Alexander Nevsky also went to the Horde. He had to - and he went. And we: we need it - so we run!” (A phrase that is still striking in its ambiguity and relevance today).

“A populist, a man of practical insight, who knew life well, who knew how and loved to speak simply and clearly about the most difficult things“Boyarsky enjoyed great respect in the working environment,” the famous dissident Anatoly Krasnov-Levitin later recalled.

However, the true leader of the renovationists was Alexander Vvedensky, who positioned himself as a Christian socialist. Even before the revolution, he became the author of publications castigating the inertia and conservatism of the clergy, the transformation of a priest into a priest. In 1917, Vvedensky founded the Workers' and Peasants' Christian Socialist Party, which took part in the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

In 1919, he met in Smolny with the head of the Petrograd party organization Grigory Zinoviev, proposing to conclude a concordat between the church and the Soviet government. Zinoviev’s answer was as follows: “A concordat is hardly possible at the present time, but I do not exclude it in the future, since in general I am a supporter of religious freedom and, as you know, I am doing everything in my power to avoid any unnecessary aggravation in relations with the church here in Petrograd. As for your group, it seems to me that it could be the originator of a large movement on an international scale. If you can organize something in this regard, then I think we will support you.”

In the twenties, Alexander Vvedensky gained wide fame as a participant in disputes on religious issues organized by the authorities. Here is how Bolshevik oppositionist Grigory Grigorov described one such dispute:

“The whole of Tomsk became excited when Metropolitan Alexander Vvedensky, patriarch of the so-called new church, arrived. ...Alexander Vvedensky is a brilliant speaker, a great scholar in the field of the history of religion, philosophy and even modern science. ...I essentially became a co-speaker of Alexander Vvedensky. Our debate lasted three hours straight. The topics of the debate were: “Is there a God?”, “The essence of religion”, “Religion, marriage and family”. Many sectarians and representatives of official science in the fields of physics, astronomy, and biology spoke at the debate. The disputes were conducted within the framework of mutual respect, no one offended the religious feelings of believers.”

In 1921, when fundraising began to help the famine-stricken Volga region, Father Alexander gave a passionate sermon about the torment of the starving people, branded the priests who did not want to share their accumulated wealth with the people, and then took off his silver cross and donated it to the fund for famine victims. Events related to the collection of funds for the famine-stricken Volga region became a turning point in the history of the church. As in the 15th century, it split into “non-acquisitive” (who called to give the wealth of the Russian Orthodox Church to the people) and “acquisitive” (who called to prevent the “robbery of the church”). But this time it was the “non-possessors” who enjoyed the support of the state.

On the evening of May 12, 1922, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, accompanied by Alexander Boyarsky and Evgeny Belkov, arrived at the Trinity Compound where the residence of Patriarch Tikhon was located. In the best traditions of Stevenson, the renovationists gave Tikhon a “black mark.” Accusing the patriarch of provoking a conflict with the workers' state, they demanded his abdication. After some hesitation, Tikhon signed a paper transferring church power to the Yaroslavl Metropolitan. The modern Russian Orthodox Church considers this event a key episode of the “renovationist schism.”

During recent years, by the will of God, without which nothing happens in the world, there is a workers' and peasants' government in Russia.

It took upon itself the task of eliminating the terrible consequences of the world war in Russia, the fight against hunger, epidemics and other disorders of state life.

The Church actually remained aloof from this great struggle for the truth and good of humanity.

The top clergy sided with the enemies of the people. This was expressed in the fact that, at every suitable occasion, counter-revolutionary protests broke out in the church. This happened more than once. And now, before our eyes, such a difficult thing has happened with the conversion of church values ​​into bread for the hungry. This was supposed to be a joyful act of love for a dying brother, but it turned into an organizational protest against state power...

By refusing to help the hungry, church people tried to create a coup d'etat. The appeal of Patriarch Tikhon became the banner around which counter-revolutionaries, dressed in church clothes and sentiments, rallied...

The death of those dying of hunger falls as a heavy reproach on those who wanted to use the people's disaster for their own political purposes...

The Church, by its very essence, must be a union of love and truth, and not a political organization, not a counter-revolutionary party.

We consider it necessary to immediately convene a local council to try the perpetrators of church ruin, to resolve the issue of governing the church and establishing normal relations between it and the Soviet government. The civil war of the church against the state, led by the highest hierarchs, must be stopped...

Bishop Antonin.

Representatives of the progressive clergy

from Moscow: priest Sergei Kalinovsky;

mountains Petrograd: priest Vladimir Krasnitsky, archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, priest Evgeny Belkov, psalm-reader Stefan Stadnik;

mountains Moscow: priest Ivan Borisov, priest Vladimir Bykov;

mountains Saratov: Archpriest Rusanov, Archpriest Ledovsky.

The renovationist movement, which by the end of 1922 controlled up to two-thirds of Russian churches, attracted into its ranks both true ascetics and opportunists, who saw in the “Living Church” an analogue of the “sworn priests” of the Great Age. french revolution. They considered their task to be the modernization of the Russian Orthodox Church. This meant introducing the institution of marriage for bishops, allowing remarriage for priests, using the Russian language during services, using a modern calendar, strengthening the conciliarity of the church and eliminating the patriarchate.

Why did this so remarkable movement come to naught? First of all, we note that, unlike the Orthodox, supporters of the Renovationists were split into many groups who fiercely argued with each other regarding the nature of the reforms necessary for the Church. The same issue of translating liturgical books from Church Slavonic into Russian was fiercely debated until 1928 and ended with the actual preservation of the status quo in the practice of worship.

The second point was the softening of the position of the orthodox wing of the Russian Orthodox Church, which set a course for de facto recognition of Soviet power. Finally, the removal of supporters of the renovationists in the government apparatus - Trotsky, Zinoviev and others - from responsible positions led to the authorities adopting the “Dzerzhinsky policy” as the main method of control over the church. The Russian Orthodox Church began to gradually turn into the fiefdom of the GPU-NKVD-KGB. In turn, renovationism gradually faded away. In the early thirties, many renovationist churches were closed as part of an anti-church campaign. The last renovationist parishes, under pressure from the authorities, returned to the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church during the war years. With the death of Alexander Vvedensky in 1946, renovationism completely disappeared.

Today, the prerequisites for the emergence of a leftist movement within the Russian Orthodox Church, apparently, do not exist. It is more natural for supporters of the bourgeois reformation in the Russian Orthodox Church to take liberal bourgeois circles as their allies, rather than appeal to the oppressed. The conservative church opposition will also find allies in the ranks of nationalists and fascists. The Russian left movement must take these realities into account when forming its line in relation to the church.

In 1922, to fight the Russian Orthodox Church, the Bolshevik government organized a movement among the clergy, which, with the light hand of L.D. Trotsky acquired the name "".

Trotsky speaks in Copenhagen on November 27, 1932 with a speech about the October Revolution (speech “In Defense of October”)

The reformist ideas of the “renovationist” programs originate in the “neo-Christian” movement, which used the ideas of Russian religious philosophy in the formation of its teachings. In 1901-1903 its founders met with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church at . They were visited both by priests sent for missionary purposes, and by clergy from Moscow and St. Petersburg and students of theological academies who were interested in the issue of church reform. The bishop spoke at them, the bishop and future activists of the reform movement of 1905 – 1907 visited them. priests K. Aggeev, P. Raevsky, P. Kremlevsky, V. Kolachev, I. Albov and others. This is where the “neo-Christian” movement was born. The meetings showed that the majority of the Russian religious intelligentsia is outside the church and makes the introduction of dogmatic, canonical and liturgical changes the condition for their return.

Starting with the demands of church reforms (democratization of intra-church relations, separation of church and state, the adoption by the church of an active role in public life, the introduction of simplification of worship and its translation into Russian, limitation of the power of the black clergy, convening of the Local Council), this direction later began to present itself as movement for the renewal of the doctrinal foundations of Christianity. It was guided by the doctrine of a “new religious consciousness and public”, which was formed as a conglomerate of ideas aimed at the religious transformation of society after social revolution. The doctrine was based on ideas about the sacred nature of social life and the approach of a religious era in which the “truth” about the unity of “heaven and earth” (the equality of the spiritual and the carnal) would be revealed. The teaching contained the theses that “historical Christianity” in the person of the existing Church did not reveal this gospel “truth about the earth” (flesh), does not fight for “the organization of society as the Kingdom of God,” but took a “destructive” direction for these tasks - “ Byzantineism" with its priority of an ascetic attitude towards "flesh".

For a decade and a half, the formulations of the “new religious consciousness” appeared on the pages of periodicals, in reports and writings of the founders of the movement - writers and philosophers, D. Filosofov, N. Minsky, A. Meyer - as well as in articles by public and church figures: “the church’s failure to fulfill its historical mission,” “a return to the chief apostolic times,” “the church’s sanctification of science and culture,” “expectation of new revelations,” recognition of the “sacredness” of gender and family. As a result of innovations, they believed, society would receive an updated, “living” religion of “genuine communion with God”, revival of “dead dogmas” and the introduction of new ones (including about collective “salvation in the world” instead of “personal salvation”), liturgical hymns connecting pagan and Christian elements, and a “creative” approach to worship. The gospel covenants were postulated by “neo-Christians” as covenants of “freedom, equality, fraternity.” The teaching was based on the idea that Christianity is dynamic and the New Testament should have its development in the same way as the era of the Old had its religious development, and the Third Testament will be revealed in the era of the Holy Spirit, which will come after the social change, with the birth of the new church. For this, according to the concept, a sacred act was required on the part of the “democratic clergy”: removing the “anointing from the head of the autocrat” as an act of debunking or dissolving the metaphysical union of Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian autocracy.

Members of the new St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Society of 1907 - 1917, which grew out of the meetings. (PRFO) continued to promote these ideas until the summer of 1917, perceiving the February Revolution as a positive act. The society's council drew up a program of speeches on religious revolutionary topics. On March 23, the society’s manifesto with recommendations to the Provisional Government was published in “Russian Word”. In it, the Council of the Russian Federal District stated the need to commit to emancipate the people's conscience and prevent the possibility of restoration, a corresponding act on behalf of the church hierarchy, abolishing the power of the sacrament of royal confirmation .

Bring to the attention of the government the following: 1) the main principle that should determine the relationship of the new state system to the Orthodox Church is the separation of church and state... 3) the implementation... of the separation of church and state... is possible... only under a republican system... 5) the church’s own internal structure determines at a council, which can be convened after the establishment of a new government system. The church council, convened prematurely... will become an instrument of the counter-revolutionary movement in the country. 6) pending the entry of the church on the path of free self-determination... the provisional government must remove from responsible posts all the hierarchs who formed the stronghold of autocracy... 7) the provisional government... must abolish... the collegial-bureaucratic form of government of the church. 8) the government should form a new body of supreme church government, which should be called the Provisional Holy Synod.

After February, the “official” reformation began to be carried out by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.N. Lvov, which in April joined the Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity, organized by a priest. The activity of the union was revived when in July it received permission to freely use the services of the synodal printing house. By the beginning of August, about 4 thousand copies of brochures and deacon T. Skobelev were printed.

The social aspect of the “new religious consciousness” was present among the “renovationists” and S. Kalinovsky. Former member of the PFRO I. Tregubov wrote about the same thing. A return to the main dogma of the “new religious consciousness” about the “holiness of the flesh” and the “holiness” of human creativity was postulated in an article by an unnamed author in the magazine “Conciliar Reason”.

The programs of church reforms adopted by the founding meeting of the Living Church on May 16, 1922 also included the theses of the “new religious consciousness.” Here the 1st paragraph was “dogmatic reform”, and the 2nd paragraph set the task restoration of the evangelical early Christian doctrine, with the deliberate development of the doctrine of the human nature of Christ the Savior. Paragraph 6 declared the task of the church to be the implementation of “the truth of God” on earth. Paragraph 8 abolished the teaching of the church about “ Last Judgment, heaven and hell,” declaring them “moral concepts.” In addition, the program postulated the “development” of “the doctrine of salvation in the world” and “the refutation of the monastic doctrine of personal salvation.” Finally, it contained a clause about bringing worship closer to popular understanding, simplifying the liturgical rite, reforming the liturgical charter .

The use of the provisions of “neo-Christianity” in the articles of the “renovationists” and the programs of the “Living Church” indicates that the reformism in 1922-1923. was approved by the Bolshevik leadership as an instrument of church schism and the subsequent rapid defeat of “Tikhonism.” And here the “dogmatic differences” introduced by his group could not have come at a better time: further it was planned to quarrel between the groups, and after the council of 1923, to cease the existence of the “Renewal Church” as having completed the task.

On the 20th of August 1922, the Union of Church Revival was created, headed by a bishop. The Union came out for the preservation of monasticism and the black episcopate, against married bishops and second-married clergy, for the reform of worship and free liturgical creativity.

Meanwhile, the Commission for the Confiscation of Church Valuables under the Central Committee of the RCP(b) was replaced by the Anti-Religious Commission. The decision to create it was made by Stalin and Molotov. Trotsky was not included in its composition. Happened transition from Trotsky's tactics of destroying the church in one fell swoop to a more protracted struggle. According to Stalin’s tactics, the “Renovation Church” should have been preserved after the council, relying on the “Living Church” group, and with it the Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church should have been “coalized” (in the protocols of the Anti-Religious Commission of 1922-1923, members of the union were called “leftists” "). The bet was placed on V. Krasnitsky’s “Living Church” because the “fundamental role in its creation” belonged to the GPU.

At the “Renovation” Council of 1923, the “Living Church” group announced the opinion that the “Renovation Church” places emphasis on differences with the “Tikhon’s” church not on reformism, but on differences of a political nature. On behalf of the “Living Church” as a “leading group”, V. Krasnitsky declared at the council that the “Living Church” from now on puts the “slogan” and “banners of the struggle for the church revolution” white episcopate, presbyteral administration, single church treasury .

Meanwhile, in the “Conciliar Reason”, the publisher of the magazine published “Theses on the upcoming reform of the Russian Orthodox Church at the local council”, developed by the “Pre-Conciliar Commission of the Supreme Church Administration,” which contained the entire set of accusations of the “renovationists” against “ historical Christianity". The most revealing in this regard were the “Explanations of Theses”, which were a summary of the ideas of the social version of “neo-Christianity”.

V. Krasnitsky’s speech officially put an end to the topic of radical reforms in “renovationism.” Since that time, despite the continued speeches of the “red reformer,” the propaganda of differences with the Russian Orthodox Church has ceased in the publications of the “renovationists.” Although B. Titlinov continued to talk about reforms after 1923, they received permission to do so from the GPU less and less often. In most cases, such performances took place in the provinces. After 1925, brochures by “renovationist” priests and bishops were published there, in which they rejected the reforms.

It is noteworthy that the “neo-Christians” did not recognize the “Living Church” (they used this name in relation to all “renovationism”) as their own. Z. Gippius wrote in exile that her appearance would only worsen the situation by delaying the approach of the church to a new religious era. attributed the reason for the emergence of the “Living Church” to the accumulation of shortcomings in the previous church. And regarding the religious content (that is, the fact that the supporters did not assimilate the mystical side of the “new religious consciousness”) he noted: Not a single religious thought, no creative religious impulse, no signs of consciousness standing at the height of those themes by which Russian religious thought lived in the 19th-20th centuries!.. There has been a decline, “democratization” of the qualities of religious themes .

Thus, the involvement of reformist ideas of “neo-Christians” in the “renovationism” programs of 1922-1923. was, first of all, a component of the political moment, allowing, as the Bolshevik leadership hoped, to aggravate the “revolutionary” contradictions in the Russian Orthodox Church to the point of a “schism.” On the other hand, for his like-minded people, this was a means to interest in “renovationism” those representatives of the intelligentsia who, at the beginning of the century, were attracted by the idea of ​​religious renewal of the church and society. However, the effect of this measure was short-lived and subsequently led to counterproductive results.

I.V. Vorontsova

Notes

Gaida F.A. The Russian Church and the political situation after the February Revolution of 1917 (Towards the formulation of the question) // From the history of the Russian hierarchy. M., 2002. pp. 61–63

All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin. 1917. No. 76. P. 4

Lashnyukov V. Once again about the intelligentsia // All-Russian Church and Public Bulletin. 1917. 24 Aug. S. 3

Labor Bulletin. 1918. No. 2. P. 1

Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state, 1917 – 1941: Documents and photographic materials. M., 1996. P. 259

Right there. pp. 159–160

Kremlin archives. Politburo and the Church, 1922 – 1925. Book. 2. M.; Novosibirsk, 1998. P. 416

Right there. With. 396

Right there. With. 308

See: Kremlin Archives. Politburo and the Church, 1922 – 1925. Book. 1M.; Novosibirsk, 1998. P. 162

The truth about the Living Church // Light (Harbin). 1923. No. 1203–1204

See: Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and later documents on the succession of supreme church authority, 1917 - 1943. M., 1994. P. 420

Vvedensky A. What should the coming council do? // Living Church. 1922. No. 2. S. 4

Belkov E. Harbingers of the Living Church // Living Church. 1922. No. 2. P. 7

Vvedensky A. Who will follow the path of church renewal? // Living Church. 1922. No. 3. S. 2, 3

Semenov K.V. Revolution of the Spirit // Living Church. 1922. No. 10. P. 15

Belkov E. Decree. op. P. 8

Kalinovsky S. What is the essence of the “Living Church” // Living Church. 1922. No. 2. P. 13

Tregubov I. Church revolution, its enemies and friends // Living Church. 1922. No. 2. P. 13

Our tasks // Cathedral Reason. 1922. No. 1. P. 5–7

Living Church. 1922. No. 10. P. 16

24 Not to be confused with group B of Krasnitsky “Living Church”. The division of renovationism into groups began in August 1922.

Kremlin archives. Politburo and the Church, 1922 – 1925. Book. 1. P. 102

Towards the convening of a church council // Conciliar Reason. 1923. No. 1–2. S. 1

Krasnitsky V. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1923 (Bulletins). M., 1923. P. 3

Theses of the upcoming reform of the Orthodox Church at the local council // Conciliar Reason. 1923. No. 1-2. pp. 17–20

Explanations of theses // Church life. 1923. No. 3. P. 13–16

See, for example: Adamov Dm. Political justification for church renovationism. Voronezh, 1925; Minin N. The influence of renovationism on religions on a global, universal scale. Semipalatinsk, 1926.

See: Intellect and Ideas in Action: Selected Correspondence of Zinaida Hippius. Voll. 11. Munchen, 1972. P. 171

Berdyaev N. “The Living Church” and the religious revival of Russia // Sofia: Problems of culture and religious philosophy. Berlin, 1923. pp. 130–131

On March 7, 1917, the movement of church “renovationists” began in Petrograd - the All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy and Laity was created, led by priests A. I. Vvedensky, A. I. Boyarsky, I. Egorov. They attempted church reforms, but the result of these attempts was tragic.

By the beginning of the 20th century, many clergy began talking about the need for reforms in the Church. The years of the First Russian Revolution became for the clergy a time of hope for the revival of Orthodoxy, which meant, first of all, gaining independence in resolving internal church affairs. Even the members of the Synod, contrary to the position of the Chief Prosecutor, in March 1905 unanimously spoke out in favor of reforms, for which they considered it necessary to convene the Local Council as soon as possible.

But in 1917, many were confused. Most reformers wanted the state to help the Church free itself from supporters of the old understanding of church life.

For its part, the “Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity” proclaimed main goal movement “to be in unity with the people in the great work of creating a new state system, in which all pressing religious, cultural, political and socio-economic issues would be resolved in the best possible way.”

But the Bolsheviks who came to power decided to use the church liberals for their own purposes - to destroy the Patriarchal Church, in which they succeeded.

In preparation for the confiscation of church values, the authorities, in order to avoid a new civil war, now religious, through the hands of the renovationists, created a puppet church administration completely controlled by the regime.

On the night of May 12, 1922, priests Alexander Vvedensky, Alexander Boyarsky and Evgeny Belkov, accompanied by employees of the GPU, arrived at the Trinity Metochion in Moscow on Samotek, where Patriarch Tikhon was kept under house arrest, and accused him of a dangerous and rash policy that led to confrontation between the Church and state, demanded that he renounce his powers during the arrest. And the patriarch signed a resolution on the temporary transfer of church power to Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl.

And already on May 14, “An Appeal to the Believing Sons of the Orthodox Church of Russia” appeared in Izvestia, demanding a trial of “the perpetrators of church destruction” and a statement about ending the “civil war of the Church against the state.”

The next day, the delegation of the renovationists was received by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Mikhail Kalinin. The establishment of a new Higher Church Administration (HCU), consisting entirely of renovationists, was immediately announced. And to make it easier for them to seize the patriarchal office, the patriarch himself was transported to the Donskoy Monastery.

From the secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) directives were sent to the localities on support for the renovationist structures being created. The GPU actively put pressure on the ruling bishops, forcing them to recognize the VCU and the “Living Church” established in parallel with it; persecution began against the “Tikhon’s” clergy.

The meaning of the renovation movement itself was seen by its inspirers in the liberation of the clergy “from the deadening oppression of monasticism,” which prevents them from “getting into their hands the bodies of church government and certainly gaining free access to the rank of bishop. But like any schismatics, they immediately began to split into “talks.”

Already in August 1922, Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), chairman of the VCU, also organized the “Union of Church Revival” (UCR), which saw its support not in the clergy, but in the laity - as “the only element” capable of “charging church life with revolutionary religious energy." The charter of the Central Eastern Church promised its followers “the broadest democratization of Heaven, the widest access to the bosom of the Heavenly Father.”

Vvedensky and Boyarsky organized the “Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church” (SODATS). Many smaller church reform groups appeared, and each had its own program of church reforms aimed at a radical renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church.

By the end of 1922, the renovationists, with the help of the authorities, captured two-thirds of the 30 thousand churches operating at that time. As the authorities had hoped, the campaign of looting churches and desecration of shrines did not cause mass popular protests simply because the Church was split from within, and individual pockets of resistance could easily be destroyed by the forces of the GPU.

In May 1923, in Moscow, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the first Renovation Council was held, which passed a resolution supporting Soviet power and announced the defrocking of the “former Patriarch” Tikhon. The patriarchate was abolished as a “monarchical and counter-revolutionary way of leading the Church,” the institution of a white (married) episcopate and the Gregorian calendar were introduced, and the VCU was transformed into the Supreme Church Council (SCC).

Naturally, Patriarch Tikhon did not recognize the decisions of the Renovation Council, and anathematized the Renovationists themselves as an “illegal gathering” and “an institution of the Antichrist.”

Then, in order to counter the “Tikhonovism,” the authorities decided to give the renovationist schism a more respectable appearance, subordinating all its movements to a single central body: the All-Russian Central Council was transformed into the “Holy Synod,” and all renovationist groups were ordered to dissolve and unite their members into the “Renovation Church.” . The “Living Church”, which did not submit to this decision, simply ceased to exist without the support of the authorities.

In June 1924, the renovationist “Pre-Conciliar Meeting” appealed to the Council of People’s Commissars with a request to grant clergy the rights of members of trade unions, to allow children under 11 years of age to be taught the Law of God, to conduct civil registration, and to return confiscated goods to churches. miraculous icons and power. Naturally, all this was denied.

In October 1925, the renovationists held their second council, at which they officially abandoned all previously announced reforms not only in the field of dogma and worship, but also in the field of the liturgical calendar.

After this council, renovationism began to catastrophically lose its supporters.

Ultimately, in 1935, the VCU dissolved itself, and the renovationists were hit by a general wave of anti-church repressions, and mass arrests of their episcopate, clergy and active laity began. The final blow to the movement was the decisive support by the authorities of the Patriarchal Church in September 1943. By the end of the war, all that remained of all renovationism was the parish of the Church of Pimen the Great in Novye Vorotniki (New Pimen) in Moscow.

In the photo in the center is A.I. Vvedensky

This final article, dedicated to renovationism, is based on documents that were found in the archives of Moscow on the renovationist schism. They are scattered and little connected, but they give an idea of ​​what the situation was like in the parishes at that time. Some documents are published for the first time.

Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky - archpriest, in the renovationist schism - metropolitan Contents:

From the very beginning, the Renovationists tried to get to the administrative and church center - Moscow. Happened in this city key events Renovationist Church: the illegal seizure of the patriarchal office and the formation of the Higher Church Administration (VCU), the All-Russian Congress of the White Clergy, as well as the Second and Third All-Russian Local Councils were held here. Moscow was the administrative center of the renovationist movement: in the Trinity Metochion the VCU (Higher Church Administration) was located, in the Polytechnic Museum there was a heated struggle in public discussions between two well-known speakers throughout Moscow - the renovationist Alexander Vvedensky and the Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Vereisky - a zealous and firm champion of Patriarch Tikhon and his right hand. The same museum hosted a trial at which 11 people, mostly clergy, were sentenced to death. It was in this city, Lubyanka, that the GPU developed a strategy to destroy the Church.

So, if we talk about documents covering the events of those years in the Church, first of all it is worth special mentioning the campaign to confiscate church values ​​that preceded the Renovation schism.

The work of confiscating church valuables was very dangerous. The authorities feared a sharp protest and unrest associated with the seizure. In order to avoid mass bloodshed, local authorities first forced the rectors of the robbed churches to take responsibility for all possible unrest and resistance.

A telephone message has been preserved, which contains the indicated principle of action of the Soviet authorities:

“Secret. Telephone message No. 17.To the Chairman of the Krasno-Presnensky District Commission for ConfiscationvaluesComrade Pashinev

Call the rectors of about twenty to thirty churches and get them to sign that they personally bear full responsibility for possible unrest and excesses of parishioners during the seizure of valuables from churches, and also oblige them to prepare clergy records and an inventory of church property and have the keys ready from churches at any time of the day, so that the Commission could begin work on the seizure without delay, while finding out the addresses of church officials. Summon them today to the Council to the Chairman of the District Commission.

Any resistance shown to the seizure commission by Orthodox believers was grounds for the arrest and deportation of their priest.

Any resistance shown to the seizure commission by Orthodox believers was grounds for the arrest and deportation of their priest. The well-known process of confiscation of church valuables took place at the Polytechnic Museum, at which Patriarch Tikhon himself acted as a witness. By decision of this court, 11 clergy were sentenced to death, and only at the request of Patriarch Tikhon, 6 people were pardoned, as discussed in more detail in one of the previous articles.

Renovation documents that reveal their position in Moscow are also very important for us.

As soon as the Renovationists took power into their own hands, they immediately began sending out circulars throughout Moscow and the Moscow diocese, in which all clergy obligated themselves not to remember the name of Patriarch Tikhon during services, calling it “a sign of political counter-revolutionism.” It is quite obvious what threat lay behind these words.

“Circularly for the Deans of Moscow and Moscow. Diocese No. 929.

To the name MEU[Moscow Diocesan Administration] The following decrees of the VCU were received:

1) dated November 17, 1922for No. 1446 that the VCU in meetings of the Prezidium from 15-IXthis year [this year]Pstopped in order to combat church reaction and parish counter-revolution, uniting under the common name “Tikhonovtsy” - accept the deans and rectors of Moscow under the direct jurisdiction of the VCU Head of the Administrative and Organizational ISTB.VCU;2) dated November 17, 1922 for No. 1447 that the VCU at the meeting of the Prezidium from 15-IX this year. [this year], recognizing the name of the Patr. Tikhon, with a counter-revolutionary act and the introduction of politics in the affairs of the Church, decreed: prohibit commemoration of patriarchs. Tikhon in all churches of the Russian Church and entrust it to the head of the Administrative and Organizational Istb. VCU Deputy Chairman Prot. IN.D.Krasnitsky to monitor the implementation of this decree in the churches of Moscow, placing responsibility for failure to comply with this decree personally on the deans and rectors of churches;

3) from November 281922for No. 1551 that the VCU reaffirms the strict execution of the order dated 1-IX this year. [this year]for No. 821 on the cessation of offerings during Divine services in churches of the diocese named after Patr. Tikhona warns that failure to comply with this order will be taken as a sign of obvious political counter-revolution, for the commemoration of Patr. is not even an act of “church” under existing conditions, but an obvious public political demonstration and also not just non-submission to the orders of the VCU, but a certain political game under church cover. Bearing responsibility for the Social Peace, the church VCU offers the Managementdto speak about persons who disobey this,themselves immediately dismissing from their positions all rectors of churches where such orders will not be carried out. About this, the MEU issued an urgent decree to the deans and the clergy under their supervision.

Dry, stingy, laconic lines cannot convey everything that happened then in Moscow

This decree was carried out. The following document depicts how a dedicated man and his family were thrown into the street without a piece of bread:

“Meeting of members of the Moscow Diocesan Administration on 13Aug. 1923

Listened:Dean's statementVIth env. Bronnitsky districtmouth. V. Sobolev about the dismissal of Deacon Konstantin by the Milin churchyard parishNikolsky for his reluctance to remember during the service b. Patriarch Tikhon.

Resolved:Explain through Fr. dean of the Parish Council of St. George's churchyard, Milin, Bronnitsy districtO illegal removal Deacon ConstantineNikolsky from his service, and the rector of the same church, Demetrius of Kazan, for inciting one part of the masses against another, was dismissed from his position with a ban on priestly service, and the parish was entrusted to the supervision of Fr. deanSobolev."

The following circular makes it clear that renovationism did not take root in Moscow: ordinary believing people did not want to accept the renunciation of the Patriarch and innovations. In times of disaster, as has always been the case, it is the simple people who are the incorruptible and undaunted repository of the true faith.

"To the fathersDean Orthodox churches Moscow No. 1581.

The sad Church events that played out,which led to the rupture of Church unity, the cause of which was the speech of the former patriarch. Tikhon, who cause irreparable harm to the Orthodox Church and have a serious impact on the clergy, are subject to serious attention and resolution. To our deepest regret, the clergy is again involved in the mass of “believers” flocking around the church, using the name of the former. Patr. Tikhon to create an organization of resistance against the power of Workers and Peasants, using for this the influence of the Church and the clergy;DiocesanThe Council created by the Renovation Church Movement,takes into account that the new involvement of the clergyin a political counter-revolutionary adventure will bring colossal harm to the church and personally to the clergy himselfwu, because a whole series of undesirable excesses have already occurred, where the suffering party is mainly the clergyin the interests of the Orthodox Church and the clergy themselves personally, invites you to arrive at the Trinity Compound together with the rectors of the churches on August 3 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon to receive information and appropriate instructions.

As you know, the renovationists wanted to resolve these “sad phenomena” at the so-called “Local Council”.

As was already said at the end of the first chapter, the renovationists set out to ensure the election of loyal delegates before convening the Local Council. To do this, they resorted to the simple method of expelling patriarchal priests from churches and replacing them with renovationists. All that was needed was a reason, which was always there. A striking example this document serves.

« Protocol No. 3 WithAnnouncements of the Commission for the Approval of Religious Societies from 20 sSeptember this year

Listened: Application for registration from a religious island attached to the so-called church. Peter and Paul, which included 82 people in the Transfiguration.

Reference:No statements were submitted from the previous group of believers, and the leaders of this group considered various kinds of unrest at the temple in the person of the minister of worship, Count. Polsky and gr. Kholodnago and Losnikov,were held accountable for counter-revolutionary activities.

It was decided: to approve the society by transferring to it the temple along with the property under the contract and to propose to submit an inventory of the church’s property within 2 weeks.”

The next one is very similar to the previous one.

With the release of Patriarch Tikhon, the rapid loss of influence of the Renovationists on the souls of believers begins, and this is clearly visible in their messages and circulars,

Listened:Applications from two religious societies of the churches of the Vagankov cemetery for the use of religious buildings.

Information: The former group of believers, using churches under an agreement, violated paragraphs 4 and 5, in addition, they allowed preachers with a counter-revolutionary direction to speak, and were engaged in the sale of anti-Soviet literature; admitted repeated violation public silence and order.

Resolved: To refuse approval of the charter to the former group,approve the charter of the second group of 70 people and transfer the building to themcult with property under contract".

They found another, no less original reason:

« Protocol hmeeting of the Commission for the approval of religious societies from 13 daysDecember this year(1923).

Listened:Application from a group of 68 believers about the transfer of a religious building for their use, so-called.n. Peter and Paul, on Novaya Basmannaya,and on the registration of their charter;Statement from another group of believers in the stake. 102 people about re-registration of the right to use a religious building, etc.n. Peter and Paul, on Novaya Basmannaya Street.

Resolved:Taking into account that the previous group of believers who applied for re-registration in the stake. 102 people,previously did not sufficiently care about preserving the national property transferred to it under the agreement and allowed the theft on the night of March 31, 1921, when the attackers stole all the valuable property, and therefore considered it likely that the same attitude towards their responsibilities on the part of this group would continue decided to refuse the application for re-registration, and to approve a new community of believers in the number of 68 people, giving it a religious building under the contract and obliging it to submit an inventory of property to the Administrative Department of the Moscow Council within 2 weeks.”

Now these are just archival documents gathering dust on a shelf. But it is difficult to imagine what kind of grief and suffering lies in the words “hand over the temple”, “ban from priestly service”, “not remember the former Patriarch Tikhon”. Dry, meager, laconic lines cannot convey everything that happened then in Moscow, what torments and pains, fears and concerns the clergy faithful to the Patriarch experienced. But even from these documents one can judge the tragedy that swept through Moscow at that time.

With the release of Patriarch Tikhon, there was a massive return of believers, especially the clergy, from renovationism under the omophorion of the Patriarch. The Renovationist Church was rapidly losing its influence - people did not support it, this became especially noticeable by 1924. In this situation, the renovationists began to massively issue propaganda circulars against the Patriarch. In the document below you can read point by point all the accusations that the renovationists used to discredit His Holiness (the most significant parts of the document are highlighted by me. - Ed.).

“Response of the Holy Synod to “Messages of the Group (...) of the Orthodox Canonical Church”, headed by P. Tikhon from 7-VI-24 years at 8 points.

Holy Synod [renovationist], acceptable final words epistles with the covenant of the apostle: do nothing out of selfish ambition or vanity. Let each one not take care of himself, but each one of others (Phil. 2-3-4), considers it his duty to clarify all the untruths of the message[Patriarch Tikhon], both to those who wrote and to those to whom they sent, may they “not remain in lies,” “but may they know the truth and the truth set them free.” Let’s not engage in “dispute”; let’s ignore the abuse and unproven accusations of individuals. It's not a matter of personality, but an idea.

The first three points of the message indicate that the acceptance of Krasnitsky and other members “Living Church” by P. Tikhon has not yet been accomplished, that Krasnitsky must publicly repent andin the Church and in the press, abandon the “Zh.Ts.” program and before the Council, not to take part in the affairs of government, otherwise the Church would have separated from him, would have looked at him as the person heading the “Zh.Ts.” and voluntarily left the Orthodox Canonical Church.

What can the authors of the message say now that in Izvestia Central Election Commission No. 146 from 3 02 VI authentic documents with the signatures of Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Tikhon, Seraphim and Peter were printed, where, without any conditions, Krasnitsky and co. included in the VCS,when Krasnitsky, on the basis of this agreement, arrangedwanders around templesMoscow meeting and in No. 151 of VII explains the legality of its actions.

Renovationists raised the issue of Russification of liturgical texts.

The Holy Synod was formed in August 1923, when P. Tikhon, by the Council of 1923 in May, was already deprived not only of the patriarchate, but also of monasticism. There is no point in trying to overthrow the deposed; it would mean breaking into an open door. On the contrary, from the first days of its existence the Holy Synod has been striving for reconciliation, and It was not the fault of the Synod, but due to Tikhon’s lust for power, that negotiations were interrupted. The Holy Synod has never refused to petition for the release of those prisonerswho turned to him, abandoning the counter-revolutionary Church policy.

Saint Tikhon (Belavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Soviet authority, possessing a powerful state apparatus, does not at all need the agency services of the Synod. The Holy Synod has never degraded itself to the role of a political agent. Not considering itself morally responsible for the good of the Church, the Holy Synod had to explain to the Orthodox people the double-mindedness and criminal deception of those hierarchs who, at the direction of their head, under the guise of true, canonical Orthodoxy, dragged the Church into politics, and the gullible people into the horrors of counter-revolution.

By doing this, the Holy Synod fulfilled the true covenants of Christ and the Apostles,who forbade us to confuse the work of God with the work of Caesar and commanded us to obey the powers that be.

Regarding the concerns of the Holy Synod of the Church, the bestproof is what the Synod managed to do: the opening of theological academies and schools, publishing and petition to the government on behalf of the Holy Synod on the legal and financial situation of the Church and the spirit.

P. 5 rejects the invitation of the Holy Synod to come to the Pre-Conciliar Conference. The meeting already took place on June 10-18, there were 400 delegates,elected through organized congresses of all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church. Of the 216 bishops who recognize the Holy Synod, 83 participated in the meeting. To call them all graceless and prohibited from the priesthood is madness, for according to the canons of Rightsfamous Tikhon Church, condemned by the Council, not only does not have the right to prohibit others, but he himself should not dare to perform sacred acts. The 1923 cathedral is also canonical,like the cathedral of 1917, The Synod is recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs and does not recognize it - means to separate from the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

The resolution of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII and his Holy Synod of May 6 on the removal of Tikhon from the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church calls “trifles.” Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Councils (II, 3; IV, 7 and 28 and VI, 30) - awarded the title of Ecumenical to the Patriarch of Constantinople - he alone is given the right to accept appeals to Local Councils, he is the Supreme Judge for Orthodox Christians of all countries. Russia, in addition, received baptism precisely from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the entire Russian Church has always considered and continues to consider the Church of Constantinople as its Mother. I have always held this opinion b. Patriarch Tikhon and only now, clinging to power, shows believers the criminal temptation of church anarchy and church schism.

On paragraph 8 with a call for a Conference on repentance and submission “His Holiness” - the Great Pre-Conciliar Conference has already answered categorically: “The Holy Synod is the only canonically legitimate Supreme governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church: the only dogmatic-canonical basis of church building is the conciliar principle: “the patriarchate, having brought enormous disasters to the Russian Church, must be irrevocably, forever buried.” .

Tikhonovtsy,in most cases, those who are deceived can be accepted into canonical communion. Former patriarch, and now layman V.I. Bellavin henceforth a member or head of the Tikhonov sect or schism, but not the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is only one outcome for him - national repentance for their grave sins in front of the Church and humble expectation as a favor, forgiveness, but without any hope of leading church affairs.

The Holy Synod offers the above for the attention and guidance of the Diocesan Administration.

For the Chairman of the Holy Synod, MetropolitanBenjamin."

Two months later, a circular was issued again, in which the renovationists took a new step: they propagandized not so much against Patriarch Tikhon, but against the very institution of the patriarchate.

Circularly.Moscow Eparch. Control

After hearing the report of Professor A. Pokrovsky.

The institution of the Patriarchate, rising with its historical roots to the ideals of pagan Rome, was a reflection of the political system. It was in Byzantium and here in Russia (worldliness, bureaucratization). This growth on the body of the Church, without giving anything positive to the Russian Church, was the source of enormous disasters in the Church, disorder, division of Churches, the Russian schism of the Old Believers, the Ukrainian Lipkovshchina, our modern church devastation. Therefore, regardless of even the personality of its modern bearer that worries us all, the very institution of the Patriarchate must be completely eliminated from us and irrevocably and forever buried in the grave of historical oblivion, from where it was accidentally and mistakenly recently removed in a difficult moment of our confusion and loss of spirit, which is why we are now and we can consider ourselves finally liberated.

For Pres. Holy Synod MetropolitanBenjamin."

In September, an appeal is already being issued that is not as calm and measured in content as the above circulars. This document shows all the fervor of the information struggle of the renovationists with the Patriarch. One gets the impression that in the address a powerless anger that cannot do anything is splashed out. At this time there was a large outflow of clergy and believers from the Renovationist Church to the Patriarchal Church. The document is very interesting, and we decided to give it in full

“Circular No. 198.September 1924Moscow Eparch. Control

Appeal to the Archpastors and Pastors of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Holy Synod.

From the long-term devastation of the church, the hearts of true and sincere believers are bleeding: they carefully (correction: in vain) are looking for a way out of the created impasse. And along with them, the majority of those led by “their patriarch,” who raised the church storm, do not see and do not want to see this sad church storm. They think everything is fine in the church. They idolize “their patriarch”; they consider his every action, no matter how prudent it may be, to be a sacred act. And who dares to point out his wrongness, who seesinto what abyss he is leading the Church of Christ,and boldly declares this, they, with the blessing of their “high leader,” curse them and revile them in every possible way, not being embarrassed by any techniques : lies and slander are their usual companions in the fight against dissenters. They don't want to see and understandthat in this way they, like no one else, are destroying that great and holy cause, which they think to honestly serve.

We would not like to pay attention to this shamefully destructive activity of theirs - its lies are too obvious for the sighted and reasonable, but such must be the inexorable law of the attractiveness of lies that it is precisely to it that the masses are drawn and move away from the truth. Its dirty waves reach and confuse even those who were with us, and now, unfortunately, some of them have left us. And how many are there who, exhausted in the fight against a dishonest enemy, call us to a shameful reconciliation at all costs with Tikhon and his followers. All this forces us to turn to you, honest fighters for church-Christian truth, with an invigorating word of appeal to your prudence.

You tired of the struggle, not seeing success from it. You suffer hardships and insults. Your moans reach our ears. But tell me honestly, could you really hope for a quick victory in such a complex and difficult matter as the revival of church life? If so, then you have forgotten the past history of the church. Remember in what torment it always developed and took shape. What sacrifices did its creators make? But they did not lose heart, did not retreat back, and, moreover, did not reconcile with the obvious enemies of church truth (correct: untruth). Surely now, after two years of struggle and labor with stubborn enemies, we must return back to the old church past; to that past, which erased the last of all ideological ideas from our souls, which forced us to serve not so much God as Caesar, which drove out all living and better things from our ranks. After all, the voices of protest from the best archpastors, pastors and laity have long been heard against the monarchical monastic government that has taken root in the church and the substitution of the foundations of church life given by Christ and the Apostles with the “traditions of the elders” and the types and goals of the autocratic civil power, which divided subjects into classes in worldly life and carried out that the same principle, to our shame, into church life. Remember the diocesan congresses during the period from 1905-1917. What strong calling voices were heard then for a new church life. What accusatory speeches were heard against mustiness in all aspects of the church system. For an illustration, read “Journals and minutes of the Meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Conference for 1906-1907.” or diocesan statements for the specified period. In them you will see what reforms were planned then and what bright prospects opened up for the future. But unfortunately, all this was erased by the cathedral of 1917-18. It reflected with particular depth the reactionary mood of the leaders of life who had outlived their time, who were naturally dissatisfied with the emerging new system of state and social life. It was through the churchmen that they decided to give a desperate battle to both the new government and the best aspirations of the clergy, especially the white ones. For this very purpose, the patriarchate was restored and Patriarch Tikhon was elected as a proven and firm monarchist. To be convinced of this, read the speeches in the acts of the Council of 1918 before the election of the patriarch. And Tikhon brilliantly justified the hopes of his voters: he, like a mannequin, turns in the direction they want, completely forgetting that he is the patriarch of the Church, and not Caesar. Words of Christ’s truth were never heard from his lips, but only anger came out, intensifying the already inflamed passions in society. He clothed the Church of Christ with a gloomy shroud. Before us pass the shadows of those who died prematurely, unaccountably surrendering to his leadership. We are trying to find at least one bright spot in his activities, but we are not finding it. Horror emanates from his senile personality, which in his deeds is related to the worst hierarchs of a long time ago, and, however, you say, they are following him, but they do not recognize us and do not listen to us. Really, we, the leaders of people’s religious life, should follow Tikhon only because the people follow him. After all, this is the most unreliable argument: they go and should go after the truth, and not after those, albeit the majority, for whom the truth is concentrated in the stomach and pocket. Those who bear the title of archpastors and shepherds, of course, should not be guided by such interests. We must firmly remember our title and calling and not rush around to please the politicos and stomachs of both banks, like our powerful brothers who welcomed us, and then shamefully and perjuriously bowed down to Tikhon.

True, we are called to unite with Tikhon and his followers in the name of Christian forgiveness and church peace - honorable reasons and, of course, worthy of attention. But do you really think that we are alien to Christ’s love and do not want church unity? We are ready to embrace everyone with love and cover everyone with forgiveness. But if this love is not accepted. If the perpetrators do not admit their guilt, but on the contrary, they place it on others, if those blinded by pride cut us off from the Church of Christ without any guilt or judgment, declaring us graceless and extra-church, if in the structure of church life they are guided by the former monarchical principles, then is it really possible to cover their actions with love and from uniting with them? wait for peace for the church. No, let the church storm rage. Let the waves rise and carry those who are unstable away from us to Tikhon’s untruth. We cannot and refuse to combine truth with untruth, reaction with progress. We cannot return the church to its former structure - the henchmen of earthly nobles and the bishop's autocracy, who often turned it into their fiefdom with slave shepherds. For all who value the interests of the Church, who love Christ and His truth, there is no other way to the confirmation and glory of the Divine Founder of the Church than to guide the collective mind of her faithful children. Another path, although it now seems smooth, tempting and easy to many, will undoubtedly lead the Church to destruction. External greatness combined with internal falsehood is short-lived, it can blind the unreasonable, it can please the ears and delight the hearts of people who live in the moment and in a certain selfish mood. But the Church, being eternal in its purpose, should be built not according to the external forms dominant in the world at a certain moment, not according to the changeable whims of the crowd, but according to the eternal principles of Christ corresponding to its nature. Compare, but only impartially, the Church of the past, led and supported by the now former Patriarch Tikhon, in its internal and external structure, from the church times of the Apostles and say what remains of their spirit in it. Isn’t everything here petrified, isn’t everything secularized? The head of the church - Christ the Savior - is forced out of national consciousness by the worldly head - Tikhon, the meekness and humility commanded by him by his successor - were replaced by anger and pride. “You will know them by their fruits,” Christ said about his followers. Look at Tikhon, who calls himself the father of fathers, look at his followers and tell in all conscience what he sows around him and with what [they]breathe. But what of this? They followed Caiaphas, considered Barabbas higher than Christ, preferred the Severians (...) and the like to the great Chrysostom.”

Literally a month later, the renovationists issue a new circular, according to the content of which they are more concerned not so much about luring away believers, but about confusion and confusion within their church. From the circular one can judge that there were strong sentiments of repentance and returning back under the omophorion of the Patriarch.

Renovationist reformers also demanded that the iconostasis be abolished so that the actions of the priest would be visible to those praying.

Recently, under the influence of false rumors spread everywhere by Tikhonites about the Synod and the clergy subordinate to it,Locally, even the leaders of church life notice confusion and confusion. The fight against the former Patriarch Tikhon seems fruitless to many, and they believe the best way out from the current situation for the church to reconcile with Tikhon, which they strongly suggest that we do.

The Holy Synod indignantly rejects this measure, considering it not salvation, but destruction for the Church: the one who once plunged the Church into the crucible of disasters cannot be its savior. This former church leader, despite the fact that he still has a numerical superiority in followers and capital on his side, cannot organize any government under himself. Everyone should take this into account and not get carried away by its illusory power. Peace with Tikhon, we repeat, is death for the Church, this should be remembered by everyone who is not devoid of common sense;The sharper the line between Tikhon and us is drawn, the sooner victory will come. There is no reason to give up our positions especially now. Tikhon is at the moment weaker than ever: life itself will sweep him away and uproot him like a barren fig tree. “Already the ax lies at the root of the tree.” Don’t give up, honest and faithful workers. Don't look back -“ stretch forward, forgetting the past.” Once and for all, give up the idea of ​​conciliating with those who disagree: anyway, the Synod will never follow this path. He can see the salvation of the Church more clearly than you, so trust him, and with redoubled energy expose Tikhonov’s lies and do not look in vain for ways to reconcile with the irreconcilable. Remember, Tikhon is not the leader of the Orthodox Church, but the head of a sect, going against the life and interests of the true Orthodox Church of Christ. Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople, when asked by the Greek churches of Vladikavkaz which bishop to obey: the Synodal or Tikhonovsky, replied that the only legitimate bishop is the Synodalny.
Deputy Pred. Holy Synod MetropolitanBenjamin."

1924-1925 - a time of mass return of the clergy and believers to the Patriarchal Church. The renovationists did not expect such a turn of events. Until this moment, everything had gone well for them and foreshadowed complete victory. However, with the release of Patriarch Tikhon, a rapid loss of influence of the Renovationists on the souls of believers begins, and this is clearly visible in their messages and circulars, where any lie and slander are used to discredit His Holiness. This was, first of all, an indicator of their weakness and lack of confidence in their abilities. At the same time, renovationists began to be active in another, no less important aspect of the life of the Church - liturgical, where they tried to attract believers to themselves through reforms and innovations.

In the early 20s. Renovationists called for liturgical reforms. This was a period of the most rapid innovations and searches. True, later they had to abandon all this - the people did not support it.

In 1924, the head of the renovationist union “Church Revival” Antonin Granovsky stated: “The reformation trend is the basis, nerve and soul of the Union of Church Revival [“Union of Church Revival” - one of the renovationist groups].” A. Vvedensky, on the eve of the council of 1923, called: “The liturgical reform is no less necessary... Tikhonov’s Church does not want reform: it is inert in psychology, reactionary politically, it is reactionary in the religious field. No justification for what has already become obsolete is possible; Church reform, the most radical reform, is inevitable.”

The program of church reforms outlined by the Living Church (another of the renovationist groups) in 1922 put forward the following demands:

"1.Revision of the church liturgy and the elimination of those layers that were introduced into Orthodox worship by the experienced period of the union of church and state and ensuring freedom of pastoral creativity in the field of worship.

2. Elimination of rituals that are a relic of the pagan worldview.

3. The fight against superstitions, religious prejudices and signs that grew out of popular ignorance and monastic exploitation of the religious feelings of the gullible masses.

4. Bringing worship closer to popular understanding, simplifying the liturgical rite, reforming the liturgical charter in relation to the requirements of local and modern conditions.

5. Exclusion from worship of expressions and ideas that are contrary to the spirit of Christ’s all-forgiving love.

6. Wide involvement of the laity in worship, up to and including church teaching.”

Renovationists raised the issue of Russification of liturgical texts. Here is what the journal of living churchmen “Church Time” wrote about this: “We would like to make certain changes in the area of ​​church services and the missal with the admission of new rituals and prayers in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. What is most desirable is changes in the liturgical language, which is largely incomprehensible to the masses. These changes must be strictly carried out in the direction of bringing the Slavic text closer to the Russian one. Renewal must proceed gradually, without wavering in the beauty of Orthodox worship and its rituals.”

The same can be read in the program of another group of renovationists SODATS (“Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church”), compiled by A. Vvedensky: “We stand for the purification and simplification of worship and bringing it closer to popular understanding. Revision of liturgical books and monthly books, introduction of ancient apostolic simplicity into worship, native language instead of the compulsory Slavic language."

Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) moved from words to deeds and in 1923 compiled a reformed rite of liturgy in Russian. The Liturgy was served in the evening in Moscow at the Zaikonospassky Monastery. At the council of the Union of Church Revival in 1924, the following resolution was adopted:

"1.The transition to the Russian language of worship is recognized as an extremely important and valuable acquisition of the cult reform and is steadily carried out as a powerful weapon for emancipating the believing masses from the magic of words and driving away superstitious servility before the formula. Living dear and everyone mutual language one gives rationality, meaning, freshness to religious feeling, lowering the price and making a mediator, translator, specialist, sorcerer completely unnecessary in prayer.

2. RThe Russian liturgy, celebrated in Moscow churches of the Union, should be recommended for celebration in other churches of the Union, displacing with it the practice of the Slavic, so-called Chrysostom liturgy.”

Renovationist reformers also demanded that the iconostasis, a centuries-old tradition of the Church, be abolished so that the actions of the priest would be visible to those praying. This is what Bishop Antonin did in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, moving the throne from the altar to the solea. This is what he said about it: “The people also demand that they be able to contemplate, to see what the priest does in the altar during the service. People want not only to hear the voice, but to see the actions of the priest. The Church Revival Union gives him what he needs.”

The “Living Church” was unanimous in this with the Church Revival: “We warmly welcome the celebration of the most important service of the Holy Eucharist openly in front of those praying, with the direct participation of the entire Body of the Church of Christ - archpastors, pastors and laity.”

All of the above innovations were practiced mainly in the SCV. In renovationism there was no specific unified reformed charter. But the following document is an attempt to streamline and bring uniformity to liturgical life.

Great All-Russian Pre-Conciliar Conference,Having heard the report of His Eminence Demetrius on the liturgical language and liturgical reform,defines:

1. Form a permanent commission under the Holy Synod,directing private and collective efforts to correct and simplify the liturgical text and on issues of liturgical reform in general;

2. recognize reading Russian as acceptable and desirable Synodal translation proverbs, gospels and apostles, as well as the singing of stichera and canons,already translated into Russian,where lay believers are prepared for this;

3. introduce partially, where possible, the performance of private and public divine services, not excluding the liturgy in Russian, in the edition approved by the Holy Synod;

4. worship serviceUkrainian and other languages ​​are allowed without hindrance;

5. changes in liturgical rites and regulations,regulating in general the life of believing monks and laity, is not allowed without the sanction of the Council;

6. to present freedom of creativity for Divine services, in accordance with the resolution of the Council of 1923, with the indispensable condition of the blessing of new reforms of the service by the local Diocesan authorities, which, if necessary, communicates with the Holy Synod.

Pred. St. Syn. metropolitanBenjamin."

As noted above, many of the documents are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time and are cited in full in this article. This is due, first of all, to the fact that today there is no complete collection of documents on the Renovationist schism.

In conclusion, we repeat that renovationism did not last even a quarter of a century as an independent movement. It didn't catch on for a number of reasons. Due to specific historical and political circumstances, when sincere reformers were pushed into the background by opportunists of the state apparatus. The renovationists also made a mistake in their tactics - believers were not ready for such radical reforms. Finally, their scandalous connection with the GPU dealt a big blow to the reputation and authority of the reformers. Renovationism became, as Trotsky originally intended, a “miscarriage.”

Babayan Georgy Vadimovich Right there. L. 112-113. "Church Banner" 1922. 15 September No. 1 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 37.

"For Christ." 1922. No. 1-2 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 37.

Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V. Essays on the history of Russian church unrest. - M.: Krutitskoye Patriarchal Compound, 1996. - P. 580.

Proceedings of the first All-Russian Congress or Council of the Union “Church Revival”. - M., 1925. - P. 25 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 40.

"Church Banner" 1922. 15 September No. 1 // Modern renovationism - Protestantism of the “Eastern Rite”. P. 40.

CIAM. F. 2303. Op. 1. D. 12 h. 2. L. 93.