THE CLERGY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONARCHY
(beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917).
Repnikov A.V., Gaida F.A. M.A. Babkin. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917) // National history. 2008. No. 5. P. 202-207 (review).
In the monograph by M.A. Babkin is considered extremely important and actual topic- relations between the Church and the state in 1900-1917. as the author correctly notes, neither in domestic nor in foreign historiography has there yet been any work covering the attitude of the Orthodox clergy to the overthrow of the monarchy. In those that appeared at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. research by T.G. Leontyeva, V.A. Fedorova, S.L. Firsov, this topic, as a rule, is considered only in the general context of the history of church-state relations at the beginning of the 20th century. Modern church historians and Orthodox publicists also usually avoid it. Moreover, as Babkin believes, “ distinctive feature church historical monographs is a certain idealization of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, the desire to ignore some negative and unpleasant facts and, first of all, the Church’s support for the overthrow of the House of Romanov” (p. 30).
The last 20 years, starting with the memorable celebrations dedicated to the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', have been marked by the revival of Orthodoxy in Russia. Many new studies, collections of documents, memoirs and articles, published with the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church, constituted essentially a new layer of historiography, which is still poorly coordinated with academic science. In this regard, both the criticism by representatives of the Church of scientific monographs and the assessment by employees of scientific institutes of Church publications are more likely to resemble not a constructive dialogue, but a monologue, with the help of which each side tries to prove that it is right, without listening to the arguments of the interlocutor. This is largely due to the fact that Babkin’s book has already caused diametrically opposed responses and even accusations of bias against the author.
While working on the monograph, Babkin examined materials from 40 funds from various federal and regional archives (RGIA, GA RF, RGADA, CIAM, Russian State Academy of the Navy, Russian State Archive of Film and Photo Documents, OR RSL, State Archives of the Sverdlovsk Region, Documentation Center public organizations Sverdlovsk region, United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk region), studied about a thousand cases, a significant part of which was previously unknown to historians. He examined the definitions of the Holy Synod, orders, pastoral messages and sermons of bishops, resolutions of congresses and meetings of the clergy that took place in the spring and summer of 1917, telegrams sent by them to representatives of government authorities, transcripts of the Local Council of 1917-1918. In addition, the author analyzes the legislative acts of the Russian Empire, diaries, memoirs and correspondence of Nicholas II, Empress Maria Fedorovna, bishops Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Evlogiy (Georgievsky), Nestor (Anisimov), Feodosius (Almazov), priests Georgy Shavelsky, Vasily Vinogradov and Vasily Zenkovsky, Ioann Vostorgov and Vladimir Krasnitsky, Nikolai Lyubimov and Sergiy Bulgakov, as well as A.I. Verkhovsky, F.V. Vinberga, V.N. Voeykova, A.I. Guchkova, A.I. Denikin, book. N.D. Zhevakhova, A.V. Kartasheva, A.F. Kerensky, V.N. Lvova, N.E. Markova, S.P. Melgunova, P.N. Milyukova, V.D. Nabokova, M. Paleologa, M.V. Rodzianko and others. Babkin also worked on a large number of newspapers and magazines published in Russia in 1905-1917. He carefully examined more than 90% of all church publications published in 1917.
Thanks to such an extensive source base, the author was able to trace in detail the process of political reorientation of the Orthodox clergy during February Revolution 1917. At the same time, the conclusions he made characterize not only the views and actions of individuals, but also the position of the entire Russian Orthodox Church. According to Babkin, from 1901 until the February Revolution, Orthodox hierarchs tried to limit the emperor’s participation in church governance and sought to “distance” the Church from the state. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to obtain the consent of the monarch to convene a Local Council, bishops increasingly pinned their hopes for the “emancipation” of the Church from state control with “the expected change in the form of state power in Russia, with the final resolution of the issue between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom”” (with 132). Contributing to the “desacralization” of imperial power, the clergy proceeded from the fact that there are no fundamental differences between the power of the king and any other form of power (“there is no power not from God”). Accordingly, the flock perceived the king not as the spiritual leader of the people and the anointed of God, but exclusively as a simple layman at the head of the state. However, Babkin’s conclusion that the clergy worked to “create, to a certain extent, a “theological justification” for the revolution” (p. 134) still seems debatable.
The author believes that in the pre-revolutionary years, the bishops tried to resolve in favor of the Church the historical and theological dispute about the superiority of secular power over spiritual or, conversely, spiritual over secular (the so-called problem of “priesthood and kingdom”). Most clearly, in his opinion, this confrontation between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom” manifested itself precisely in the first days and weeks of the February Revolution. Babkin believes that at a time when church hierarchs welcomed the abdication of Nicholas II, the question of future form rule in Russia was still open. Meanwhile, numerous sources testify that the members of the Holy Synod from the very beginning made a firm choice in favor of new government and against the restoration of the monarchy. They were by no means inclined to consider the political situation in Russia as being in a state of “uncertainty” until the corresponding decision of the Constituent Assembly on the form of government. This position of the Synod, taking into account the influence of the clergy under its jurisdiction on the multi-million Orthodox flock, actually excluded the possibility of implementing a monarchical alternative.
In the fact that in March 1917 “the Church actually refused to defend the emperor” (p. 144), Babkin sees an attempt by the clergy to change the political system of the Russian state. Innovations of an anti-monarchical nature, implemented by the Synod in the spring of 1917, often caused confusion and grumbling among believers. However, only a few shepherds continued to defend conservative-monarchical values at that time (pp. 168-169). In the “Teachings” of the Holy Synod, the tsarist government was accused of bringing Russia “to the brink of destruction,” as a result of which “the people rose up for the truth, for Russia, overthrew the old government, which God, through the people, punished for all its grave and great sins "(p. 175). "The government regime was in Lately unprincipled, sinful, immoral,” wrote Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa and Menzelinsky. “The autocracy of the Russian tsars degenerated first into autocracy, and then into obvious autocracy, which surpassed all probability” (p. 231). Bishop Mikhail (Kosmodemyansky) of Aleksandrovsk, in his Easter sermon, compared autocracy with the “devilish chains” that fettered the lives of the Russian people (p. 232).
Studying the relationship between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom,” Babkin focused his attention on the events of the early 20th century. At the same time, he makes a number of interesting historical excursions, turns to the era of Peter I, and reports that “in the hundred pre-revolutionary years, almost the only case of a priest denouncing the contents of a penitent’s confession to the authorities was known” (p. 63). The theological comments in the book, which are not always found in the works of “secular” historians, are also valuable. The appendices to the monograph provide statistical information about the Orthodox clergy of the early 20th century, a list of bishops who occupied church departments on March 1, 1917, and other materials.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out some issues that were not fully disclosed by the author and require further research. Thus, practically nothing is said about the projects of church reform developed by L.A. Tikhomirov. In the book he is mentioned only once, although his active participation in the affairs of the Church was noticed by Nicholas II and was highly appreciated by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky). Several times in the book it is mentioned about the possible existence of a kind of Masonic lobby among the highest clergy (pp. 39-40, 189). “The unanimity of... the highest hierarchs with representatives of the authorities in terms of overthrowing the tsarist autocracy,” writes Babkin, “suggests that there were also Freemasons among the members of the Holy Synod. First of all, this applies to those hierarchs who determined the course of the highest body of church power: Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland and Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) of Kiev” (p. 189). Unfortunately, the author does not provide any evidence confirming this hypothesis. In connection with Masonic themes and “conspiracy theory”, it should be emphasized the need for a careful attitude towards the books used by N.N. Babkin. Berberova, M.V. Nazarov and O.A. Platonov, containing, among other things, accidentally or intentionally distorted information.
Babkin’s work, which became the basis for his successfully defended doctoral dissertation, shows that “the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole played an important role in the revolutionary process aimed at overthrowing the monarchy in Russia” (p. 412). Of course, one can challenge the author’s concept, but one can no longer ignore the documents introduced by Babkin in scientific circulation. The fact that some of the book’s conclusions caused controversy and conflicting responses only testifies to the fruitfulness of the work done by the author, its scientific novelty and significance, since serious research always gives rise to discussions. Undoubtedly, the monograph under review makes a significant contribution to historical science, and one can only regret that the small circulation has already made it a bibliographic rarity.
A.V. Repnikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences (Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History)
M.A. Babkin’s monograph is devoted to the attitude of the Orthodox clergy to the monarchy and the revolution in 1917. The author covers the preceding events rather sparingly, relying, as a rule, on the works of other researchers (S.L. Firsova, B.N. Mironov, o Georgy Orekhanov, Father Vladimir Rozhkov, etc.). However, based on them, the author draws completely independent, and sometimes diametrically opposed, conclusions. So, he tries to prove that at the beginning of the 20th century. the clergy strove for “independence from the state” and was ready for this to “legitimize the overthrow of the monarchy in the minds of the flock” (pp. 138-139). “The main motive for the revolutionary spirit of the clergy” Babkin sees “in the desire to destroy and overthrow the tsarist power as a charismatic “rival”” (p. 201). However, in his book he never named a single church hierarch who would have expressed such desires before or even after the revolution.
Babkin attributes to the members of the Holy Synod a hostile attitude towards the monarchy and almost sympathy for the republican system. Meanwhile, the presence of such sympathies is not only difficult to prove with the help of available sources, but even to admit as a speculative assumption. The highest hierarchs were well aware that the position of the clergy in the monarchical states of Europe (Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary) was much stronger than in republican France, which experienced at the beginning of the 20th century. another surge of anticlericalism, or in Portugal, where in 1910 the republic was proclaimed simultaneously with the confiscation of monastic property.
It should also be taken into account that the relationship between the Orthodox episcopate and the liberal opposition on the eve of the revolution was extremely tense. Octobrist leader A.I. Guchkov was the main organizer of sharp criticism of the Synod in the Duma. Octobrist I.V. Nikanorov, who spoke on behalf of the faction in the State Duma on church issues, wrote in the Voice of Moscow about the “terrible state” of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is “on the edge of the abyss.” The Cadets spoke even more unkindly about the “synodal bureaucracy” and the bishops, and their leader P.N. From the Duma rostrum, Miliukov called for the release of the Church “from the captivity of the hierarchy.” The close ties that existed between the liberal opposition and the Old Believers were no secret to anyone. Of course, among the Orthodox hierarchs of the early 20th century. there were people of radical liberal political views, such as the Ufa Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) or the retired Vladikavkaz Bishop Antonin (Granovsky). But there were very few of them, and their influence in the Church remained minimal. The cooling between the Synod (and the episcopate as a whole) and the latter Russian Emperor was explained not so much by the mythical “anti-monarchical mood” of the bishops, but by Rasputin’s history, which undermined the authority of the highest church administration in the eyes of society, and attempts by the authorities to drag the clergy into politics, as was the case, in particular, during the election campaign of 1912.
Babkin argues that even after the abdication of Nicholas II, “in case of official support from the Orthodox Church, a very significant and influential part of the electorate could speak out for the monarchical path of development of Russia”: “... From March 3, if the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church supported the monarchical system authorities, in the political field, in our opinion, an alternative between a constitutional monarchy and a democratic parliamentary republic would be discussed (the largest potential electorate of the former was the Cadets and the Right, and the latter - mainly the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries)” (pp. 209-211). However, the author himself writes about “the massive revolutionary spirit that gripped the majority of the country’s population from the first days of March 1917,” and states that “in those days, monarchical ideas were extremely unpopular,” and the right-wing parties not only did not resist, but also did not protested against their ban. At the same time, he admits that “this point of view of the general public influenced the formation of the opinion of the clergy,” and not vice versa (pp. 188, 266).
This obvious contradiction indicates that, speaking about the “monarchical alternative” that was not implemented due to the fault of the Synod in 1917. Babkin significantly and unreasonably exaggerates the political weight of the clergy, and when analyzing the balance of power in society, he passes off wishful thinking. Thus, he writes that “the influential Kadet party was in favor of a constitutional monarchy (although there was still no unity in its ranks on this issue).” But if the program of the People's Freedom party, drawn up back in 1905-1906, spoke of a parliamentary monarchy as the most preferable form of government, then by 1917 the overwhelming majority of the Cadets were already republicans. Immediately after the revolution, corresponding changes were made to the party program.
In fact, the Synod had no influence either on the generals, or on the political parties that led the Duma, or on the rebellious masses. Moreover, as the so-called church revolution that unfolded in the spring of 1917 showed, the ruling bishops often did not enjoy proper authority in the eyes of the parish clergy and laity. Meanwhile, the author seriously assures readers that at the end of February 1917 the Synod, with the help of appeals, appeals and religious processions, could stop the revolution (pp. 204-209).
Babkin resolutely insists that in March 1917 “the monarchy in Russia as an institution - according to the act. book Mikhail Alexandrovich - continued to exist,” and, accordingly, the Synod had to act as if an “interregnum” had been established in the country (p. 210). At the same time, the author completely does not take into account that the Synod was not at all authorized to give its interpretations of government acts, especially such controversial ones from a legal point of view as the acts of March 2-3, 1917. And the definition of the 1st Department of the Senate did not give the slightest basis for "existence" of the monarchy. The senators explained that “the Provisional Government, by the will of the people, is invested with dictatorial power, self-limiting by its own declaration and until the Constituent Assembly.” Upon taking office, the ministers of the Provisional Government took the oath: “As a member of the Provisional Government, by the will of the people at the initiative of the State Duma, I undertake and swear before Almighty God and my conscience to serve with faith and truth the people of the Russian State, sacredly protecting their freedom and rights, honor and dignity and inviolably observing in all my actions and orders the principles of civil freedom and civil equality and with all the measures provided to me suppressing any attempts directly or indirectly aimed at restoring the old system [emphasis added. - F.G.].” It is characteristic that already in March the activities of monarchist parties were prohibited. Of course, theoretically constituent Assembly could re-establish the monarchy (and then the monarchy “by the will of the people”, and not by the “grace of God”), but there were no prerequisites for this. Even on March 2-3, only Miliukov and Guchkov, known, among other things, for their harsh anti-church speeches, actively advocated the preservation of the monarchy as an institution. It was they, in Babkin’s opinion, that the Synod should have helped.
In the situation that developed in the spring of 1917, the Church could not help but take into account the unprecedented expression of the will of the monarch and the need to maintain civil peace and harmony during the period of the most difficult war (in this regard, the positions of Nicholas II and the members of the Synod completely coincided). It is not surprising that even such convinced monarchists as Bishops Andronik (Nikolsky) and Macarius (Gnevushev) were forced to openly support the new government.
Babkin’s coverage of the relationship between church hierarchs and the new revolutionary government also raises eyebrows. The decision of the Synod to establish contact with the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, according to the author, “gives grounds to assert that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church recognized the revolutionary power even before the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne” (pp. 144-145). Meanwhile, the “Committee of the State Duma for the establishment of order and for relations with institutions and persons” did not proclaim itself a body of supreme power and officially declared that it took power in the capital involuntarily, due to the absence of any other power. As early as March 1, the Committee established contact with Headquarters and foreign embassies, after which it was virtually universally recognized. The Synod decided to enter into relations with the Committee on March 2 and only the next day came into contact with it, perhaps the last of the capital's central institutions. There was nothing revolutionary or anti-government in this anymore. Contact with the Provisional Government was established after the refusal. book Mikhail Alexandrovich from the throne.
The relations of the Synod with the Provisional Government are viewed by Babkin as extremely one-sided. The author focuses exclusively on the analysis of the forms through which the Synod expressed its loyalty to the government. The causes and nature of the conflict that immediately arose between the members of the Synod and Chief Prosecutor V.N. Lvov, interest him only insofar as they manifested the desire of the church hierarchy for independence from the state. Babkin puts forward a hypothesis “about the existence of a certain agreement between the Provisional Government and the Holy Synod,” which was subsequently violated by Lvov: “The essence of it was that the Provisional Government would provide the Russian Orthodox Church with freedom to govern in exchange for the Church taking measures to calm the population of the country and form a ideas about the legitimate change of power” (p. 196). However, the author is neither able to prove the existence of such a “conspiracy” based on sources, nor to explain the reasons for its violation by the government.
In an effort to prove the active role and interest of bishops in the revolution, Babkin often ignores the fact that the “church revolution” that began in the spring of 1917 was largely directed precisely against the episcopate, which was indiscriminately accused of “debauchery.” Under pressure from the radically minded part of the parish clergy and laity, 17 bishops lost their departments in the very first months. It is difficult to believe that under these conditions the revolution and the revolutionary government, which in every possible way encouraged local initiative, aroused sincere sympathy among the bishops.
In general, an attempt to depict church-state relations at the beginning of the 20th century. in the form of a struggle between “priesthood and kingdom” seems far-fetched and untenable. Despite the wide range of sources used by the author, the main provisions of his concept (charismatic rivalry between church hierarchs and the emperor on the eve of the revolution of 1917, the leading and determining role of the clergy and the Holy Synod in the overthrow of the monarchy, the election of the patriarch as a victory of the “priesthood over the kingdom”, etc.) ) rely on speculative reasoning and hypothetical assumptions. Trying to prove them, the author is more than once forced to build false connections between facts that did not exist in reality. At the same time, the monograph by M.A. Babkina undoubtedly enriches domestic historiography both new, previously unstudied materials reflecting the attitude of the clergy to revolutionary events, and heated controversial issues. It convincingly demonstrates the need special research the political role and activities of the clergy in the Russian Empire, as well as the worldview of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is still very poorly studied.
F. Gaida, Candidate of Historical Sciences (Moscow State University them. M.V. Lomonosov)
Notes
1. Previously, he had already published a collection of documents on the same topic: The Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917: Materials and archival documents on the history of Russian Orthodox Church/ Ed. 2. M., 2007. Comp. preface and comm. M.A. Babkin. M., 2006. For reviews, see: Domestic History. 2007. No.Z.S. 194-196.
3. State Duma. Verbatim reports. Convocation IV. Session I. St. Petersburg, 1914. Part III. Stb. 1347. April 28, 1914
4. See ., for example: Gaida F.A. Liberal opposition on the path to power (1914-spring 1917). M., 2003. pp. 49-52, 332-335, etc.
5. Quote. from: Power and reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 655.
6. GA RF, f. 1779, op. 1, d. 6, l. 40-40a.
7. For more details, see: Frumenkova T.G. The highest Orthodox clergy of Russia in 1917 // From the depths of time. Vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 74-94; hers. To the biography of Vladimir Nikolaevich Lvov // From the depths of time. Vol. 9. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 95; Gaida F.A. The Russian Church and the political situation after the February Revolution of 1917 (to pose the question) //From the history of the Russian hierarchy: Articles and documents. M„ 2002. P. 60-68.
The time when the first priests appeared in military squads is not known exactly. Peter I legally ordered that there should be clergymen with every regiment and ship, and from the first quarter of the 18th century, the appointment of clergymen to military units(primarily to the navy) become regular.During the 18th century, the administration of the military clergy in peacetime was not separated from the diocesan administration and belonged to the bishop of the area where the regiment was stationed. The reform of the management of the military and naval clergy was carried out by Emperor Paul I. By decree of April 4, 1800, the position of the field chief priest became permanent, and the management of all the clergy of the army and navy was concentrated in his hands. The chief priest received the right to independently determine, transfer, dismiss, and nominate for awards the clergy of his department. Regular salaries and pensions were determined for military shepherds. The first chief priest, Pavel Ozeretskovsky, was appointed a member of the Holy Synod and received the right to communicate with the diocesan bishops on matters of personnel policy without reporting to the Synod. In addition, the chief priest received the right to personally report to the emperor.
In 1815, a separate department of the chief priest of the General Staff and Guard troops was formed (later including the grenadier regiments), which soon became virtually independent of the Synod in matters of management. Chief priests of the Guards and Grenadier Corps N.V. Muzovsky and V.B. The Bazhanov also headed the court clergy in 1835–1883 and served as confessors to the emperors.
A new reorganization of the administration of the military clergy took place in 1890. Power was again concentrated in the person of one person, who received the title of Protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy. During the First World War, Protopresbyter G.I. Shavelsky was for the first time given the right of personal presence at a military council; the protopresbyter was directly at headquarters and, like the once first chief priest P.Ya. Ozeretskovsky, had the opportunity to personally report to the emperor.
The number of clergy in the Russian army was determined by the staff approved by the Military Department. In 1800, about 140 priests served in the regiments, in 1913 - 766. At the end of 1915, about 2,000 priests served in the army, which was approximately 2% of the total number of clergy in the empire. In total, during the war years, from 4,000 to 5,000 representatives of the Orthodox clergy served in the army. Many of the career priests continued their service in the armies of A.I. Denikina, P.N. Wrangel, A.V. Kolchak.
The regimental priest was in double subordination: on church affairs - to the chief priest, on other issues - to the military authorities. Long service in the same regiment was very rare. Usually the clergyman constantly moved from regiment to regiment, on average every five years, and often from one end of the empire to the other: from Brest-Litovsk to Ashgabat, from there to Siberia, then to the west, to Grodno, etc.
 |
According to the instructions of G.I. Shavelsky, in addition to the above-mentioned duties, the regimental priest had to: assist the doctor in dressing wounds; supervise the removal of the dead and wounded from the battlefield; notify relatives of the death of soldiers; organize in their sections of society assistance to the families of killed and maimed soldiers; take care of maintaining military graves and cemeteries in order; set up traveling libraries.
Since 1889, in terms of service rights, military clergy have been equated to the following army ranks: chief priest - to lieutenant general, archpriest - to colonel, priest - to captain, deacon - to lieutenant. In Rus', the defense of the Fatherland has always been considered a holy cause, but in the Russian penitential discipline, murder, even in war, for whatever purpose and under whatever circumstances it was committed, was condemned. Priests and monks, according to the 83rd Apostolic Canon and the 7th definition of the IV Ecumenical Council, are prohibited from participating in hostilities with weapons in their hands. But in Rus', especially in the early Middle Ages, representatives of the clergy sometimes, according to various reasons, took direct part in the battles. In the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, with the blessing of Sergius of Radonezh, schemamonks Alexander Peresvet and Roman (Rodion) Oslyabya fought, later canonized.
V.N. Tatishchev points out the following cases of participation of clergy in wars: “What he remembers about monks and priests during the war, I find a circumstance from history: the Novgorodians Izyaslav the Second against his uncle Yuri the Second sentenced all the monks and clergy to dress up, and went; Sergius, abbot of Radonezh, sent two tonsured soldiers to Demetrius Donskoy, and they were beaten; Old Rus priest Petrila went to Lithuania with an army and won; During the invasion of the Kazan Tatars, the Kostroma abbot Serapion, having gathered monks and priests, defeated the Tatars. Maybe there was more, but the stories didn’t reach us.”
During the siege, many monasteries were turned into fortresses, where monastics sometimes armed themselves. Monks actively participated in the defense of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra from the Poles in 1608–1610; elders Ferapont and Macarius led the cavalry attack of the monks.
Another case is also known. Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod in 1611, during the siege of Novgorod by the Swedes, served a prayer service on the walls of the fortress. Seeing that the archpriest St. Sophia Cathedral Amos fiercely resists his enemies, the Metropolitan removed some kind of church penance from him. Amos fought until his house was burned down along with him.
In the 18th century, the only case known to us of the direct participation of a priest in a battle is reflected in the “Acts of Peter the Great.” It says that “Olonets priest Ivan Okulov in 1702, having gathered up to a thousand willing people, went beyond the Swedish border, defeated four enemy outposts, beat up to 400 Swedes and returned in triumph with the Reitar banners, drums, weapons and horses taken; What he couldn’t take with him, he consigned to fire.”
In the 19th century, we know of several cases of direct participation of clergy in battles. In 1854, the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery defended the monastery from an attack by an English squadron. In the same year, priest Gabriel Sudkovsky was awarded a gold pectoral cross on the St. George ribbon from the office of His Imperial Majesty “for assistance in repelling the Anglo-French steamships that attacked the Ochakov fortress battery on September 22, 1854, when he blessed everyone under gunfire and himself loaded the guns with red-hot guns.” cores." Moreover, later, while serving in the city of Nikolaev, Father Gabriel became famous as a man of prayer and fasting.
During the First World War, there were many among the clergy who wanted to volunteer to serve in the army with arms in hand, and in 1915 the Holy Synod approved a definition categorically prohibiting priests from joining the army for non-clerical positions.
In 1914–1917, clergy often led attacks on foot and horseback, but without weapons, only with a cross in their hands. During the Russian-Japanese War, 16 clergy were killed, at least 10 people were wounded and shell-shocked. The data we have identified suggests that by the summer of 1917, 181 clergy had suffered in the war. Of these, 26 were killed, 54 died from wounds and illnesses, 48 were wounded, 47 were shell-shocked, and 5 were gassed. The number of those killed and those who died from wounds and diseases is 80 people. During the First World War, by 1917, at least 104 Orthodox clergy were or continued to be in captivity.
Speaking about the awards of the clergy, it should be said that by the beginning of the 20th century, the order of awards for white clergy looked like this: a legguard; purple skufia; purple kamilavka; pectoral cross from the Holy Synod; Order of St. Anne, 3rd degree; rank of archpriest; Order of St. Anne, 2nd degree; Order of St. Vladimir, 4th degree; club; Order of St. Vladimir, 3rd degree; gold pectoral cross from the office of His Imperial Majesty; a gold pectoral cross with decorations from the cabinet of His Imperial Majesty; Order of St. Anne, 1st degree; miter. For hieromonks, skufya, kamilavka, and the rank of archpriest were excluded from the above awards and the rank of abbot (given after receiving the Order of St. Vladimir, 4th degree) and the rank of archimandrite (given after receiving the club or the Order of St. Vladimir, 3rd degree) were added. Thanks to the presence of “spiritual” awards (skufia, pectoral cross, etc.), military priests could have a significant number of distinctions and even surpass the officers in this indicator.
Until 1885, clergy could wear orders, medals and other secular insignia over their vestments when performing services. Only since 1885, on the initiative of Emperor Alexander III, the wearing of secular insignia by clergy while performing divine services in sacred vestments was prohibited. “Exceptions to this rule were allowed only for the signs of the Order of St. George and pectoral crosses on the St. George Ribbon.”
For distinguished service in the First World War, military priests were issued until March 1917: orders of St. Anne of the 3rd degree with swords - more than 300, without swords - about 500, orders of the 2nd degree with swords - more than 300, without swords - more than 200 , Orders of St. Anna 1st degree with swords and without swords - about 10, Orders of St. Vladimir 3rd degree with swords - more than 20, without swords - about 20, Orders of St. Vladimir 4th degree with swords - more than 150, without swords – about 100.
From 1791 to 1903, 191 Orthodox clergy received the pectoral cross on the St. George ribbon, for Russian-Japanese war– 86, from 1914 to March 1917 – 243. The Order of St. George, 4th degree, was awarded to 4 clergymen during the 19th century, for the Russo-Japanese War – 1, and from the beginning of the First World War to March 1917 – 10.
The distinctions for which priests could be awarded orders with swords or a pectoral cross on the St. George Ribbon (based on our study of actual award practice) can be divided into three groups. Firstly, this is the feat of the priest in the decisive moments of the battle with a cross in his raised hand, inspiring the soldiers to continue the battle. Risking his life, the priest led the lower ranks. As a rule, this happened when regiment officers were killed or wounded. Hundreds of such cases are known. For example, this feat was performed in the First World War by the priest of the 318th Chernoyarsk Infantry Regiment, Alexander Tarnoutsky (was killed), and the elder hieromonk of the Bogoroditsko-Ploshchanskaya Hermitage of the Bryansk Uyezd, who served in the 289th Korotoyak Infantry Regiment, Evtikhiy (Tulupov) (was killed). The priest of the 9th Kazan Dragoon Regiment, Vasily Shpichak, was the first to lead the regiment into the attack on horseback.
Another type of distinction of a priest is associated with the diligent performance of his immediate duties in special conditions. Parting words and communion to wounded soldiers, blessings for battle were carried out by the clergyman at the risk of his own life. Sometimes, while giving communion to the wounded during the battle, the priest himself was seriously wounded. Often clergy performed divine services under enemy fire. For example, the priest of the 115th brigade of the state militia, Nikolai Debolsky, did not interrupt the service when, right during the great entrance, an enemy airplane suddenly appeared and dropped several bombs near the worshipers. The priest of the 15th Dragoon Regiment of Pereyaslavl, Sergius Lazurevsky, with the few soldiers who voluntarily remained, did not leave service all-night vigil under shrapnel fire until he was shell-shocked.
In 1915, on the Galician front, when the hieromonk of the 311th Kremenets Infantry Regiment Mitrofan was celebrating the liturgy, a shell hit the church, pierced the roof and ceiling of the altar, and then fell near the altar from right side. Father Mitrofan crossed the bomb and continued the service. The shell did not explode, and the worshipers, seeing the calmness of the priest, remained in their places. At the end of the liturgy, the shell was taken out of the church.
In 1915, near the village of Malnov, the priest of the 237th Grayvoronsky Infantry Regiment, Joakim Leshchinsky, one and a half miles from the battle, performed a prayer for the granting of victory. At this time, “a shell hit the wing of the porch and, having evaporated by a miracle of God, immediately exploded in the corner five steps away. The force of the explosion was very great, for the corner of the large temple was torn off by the force of the explosion, a deep hole was formed near the drainage stone, and the stone was thrown aside several steps and was torn into pieces. There is a lot of broken glass in the temple. One bullet hit the wall of the sacristy.” Father continued his service. Among the three hundred people praying there were neither killed nor wounded, only one person was shell-shocked.
The priest of the 6th Finnish Rifle Regiment, Andrei Bogoslovsky, standing on a dais, blessed every warrior who approached him. When the shooting started, he remained standing in the same place. His chest was protected by the monstrance hanging on his neck, giving the bullet flying into the heart a lateral direction.
Sometimes priests were killed while preparing the funerals of slain warriors during the ongoing battle. This is how the priest of the 15th Tiflis Grenadier Regiment, Elpidy Osipov, was killed. The priest of the 183rd Pultus Infantry Regiment, Nikolai Skvortsov, having learned that there were killed and wounded in the village occupied by the enemy, volunteered to go there for farewell and burial. By his example, he attracted several doctors and orderlies with him.And, finally, the clergy performed feats possible for all army ranks. The first pectoral cross received on the St. George Ribbon was presented to the priest of the 29th Infantry Chernigov Regiment John Sokolov for saving the regimental banner. The cross was presented to him personally by Nicholas II, as recorded in the emperor’s diary. Now this banner is kept in the State Historical Museum in Moscow.
The priest of the 42nd artillery brigade, Viktor Kashubsky, when the telephone connection was interrupted, volunteered to look for the gap. The telephone operator, encouraged by his example, followed the priest and fixed the line. In 1914, the priest of the 159th Gurian Infantry Regiment, Nikolai Dubnyakov, when the head of the convoy was killed, took command and brought the convoy to its destination. The priest of the 58th Prague Infantry Regiment, Parthenius Kholodny, in 1914, together with three other ranks, accidentally encountered the Austrians, came forward with the icon “Savior Not Made by Hands” and, showing restraint, persuaded 23 enemy soldiers and two officers to surrender, bringing them into captivity.
Having received the Order of St. George, 4th degree, the priest of the 5th Finnish Infantry Regiment, Mikhail Semenov, not only selflessly performed his pastoral duties, but in 1914 he volunteered to carry the missing cartridges to the front line in an open area that was continuously bombarded by heavy artillery. He attracted several lower ranks with him and safely transported three gigs, which ensured the overall success of the operation. A month later, when the regiment commander, along with other officers and Father Mikhail, entered the room intended for them, there was an unexploded bomb. Father Mikhail picked her up, carried her out of the room and drowned her in a nearby river.
Hieromonk Anthony (Smirnov) of the Bugulma Alexander Nevsky Monastery, who was performing pastoral duties on the ship “Prut,” when the ship was broken and began to sink into the water, gave up his place in the boat to a sailor. From a sinking ship, wearing vestments, he blessed the sailors. The hieromonk was awarded the Order of St. George, 4th degree, posthumously.
Representatives of the parish clergy also performed feats. Thus, the priest of the Kremovsky parish of the Belgorai district of the Kholm diocese, Pyotr Ryllo, was performing a divine service when “shells exploded behind the church, in front of it and flew through it.”
Speaking about the churches of the Military and Naval Departments, it should be said that in the 18th century only camp churches attached to the regiments were under the jurisdiction of the chief priest. Since the beginning of the 19th century, more and more immovable churches were constantly transferred to the department of the chief priest (later the chief priest, protopresbyter): hospital, serf, port, military educational institutions and even churches, the parishioners of which, in addition to military officials, were local residents .
During the 19th century, we see the following change in the number of fixed churches of the Military and Naval Departments: in 1855 - 290, in 1878 - 344, in 1905 - 686, in 1914 - 671 churches. The altars of military churches were consecrated in the name of the saints named after the emperors, in memory of significant events from the life of the royal family and in memory of events related to the history of the institution or the military victories of the regiment. Then the thrones were consecrated in the name of the saint whose feast day fell on the day of the memorable event.In many regimental churches and temples of military schools, memorial plaques with the names of military ranks who died in various campaigns, as a rule, officers by name, soldiers - in total, were fixed on the walls. Banners and all kinds of military relics were kept in the churches. The Cathedral of the Preobrazhensky All Guards kept 488 banners, 12 castles and 65 keys to the fortresses of European and Asian Turkey, conquered by Russian troops during the reign of Nicholas I, and other trophies. Elements of military symbols could have been used in the decoration of churches. Thus, images of the Order of St. George were used in the decoration of the Church of the General and General Staff.
The fate of the career clergy of the Military and Naval Departments after the end of the First World War developed differently. Some people ended up in exile: in France, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Greece, etc. Of the clergy who remained in Russia, many died at the hands of the Bolsheviks during the civil war, such as Alexy Stavrovsky, Nikolai Yakhontov, the chief priest of the armies of the Southwestern Front Vasily Griftsov. Some clergy were repressed in Soviet time, such as priests Vasily Yagodin, Roman Medved and others.
Some clergy, remaining in the Church, lived to see old age and supported Soviet power during the Great Patriotic War. For example, Archpriest Fyodor Zabelin, who was awarded the golden pectoral cross on the St. George Ribbon, died in 1949 at the age of 81. During the Great Patriotic War, he served, with the permission of the German command, as rector of the Pavlovsk Cathedral in Gatchina, and saved from death Soviet intelligence officer, hiding it under the cover of the throne in the altar.
In our time, some former military priests have been canonized. Priest German Dzhadzhanidze was canonized by the Georgian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church canonized former career priests, later bishops: Onisim (before tonsure - Mikhail Pylaev), Macarius (before tonsure - Grigory Karmazin), priests Nikolai Yakhontov, Sergius Florinsky, Ilia Benemansky, Alexander Saulsky and others.
In modern Russia, the traditional activity of Orthodox clergy in the troops, traditional for the Russian army, is gradually being revived.
Unfortunately, at present there is little research devoted to the Russian military clergy. To some extent, this gap can be filled by the “Memorable Book of the Military and Naval Clergy of the Russian Empire of the 19th – Early 20th Centuries: Reference Materials”, published as part of the historical project “Chronicle”, one of the tasks of which was the compilation of a database (Synodik) of the Orthodox clergy Russian Empire. In 2007, the Chronicle project was supported by the rector of the Moscow stauropegial Sretensky Monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov).
The clergy, that is, people who were “professionally” involved in religion, formed the ideological basis of the Russian Empire. The country was Christian, and although other beliefs - Islam, Catholicism and so on - were respected, the Orthodox religion dominated everything
The clergy was a specific, closed class in which following the chosen path - serving God - as a rule, was inherited. Children of male priests themselves became priests, daughters married “their own” and became priests. The network of churches covered almost all corners of the vast empire where people constantly lived. Geographically, residents living near a temple constituted the parish of that temple. Therefore, when we read: “at the Intercession”, “at St. Nicholas’s” - it means that a person lives near the Church of St. Nicholas, that is, in this parish. Here he comes to confession spiritual father(“I was in the spirit”, “speak as in the spirit” in everyday conversation), they bring a newborn child here to baptize, in their church a person is buried (A.S. Pushkin was buried in the church of the Konyushenny Dvor, located near his apartment on Moika, 12).The Russian Orthodox Church, with external independence, was in a subordinate position to the state. Its affairs were in charge of a higher institution called the Synod, the head of which, the chief prosecutor, was appointed by the emperor. Therefore, the Russian church elite did not pursue an active independent policy, like, for example, the Catholic Church, but supported the now living sovereign in everything essential.
The clergy is divided into black and white. Black is monks who move away from the “world” and earthly temptations, living in monasteries, completely devoting their lives to serving God. When tonsured as a monk, after a period of obedience, a kind of probationary period, a person assumed certain responsibilities, including a vow of chastity. The black clergy was divided into five degrees, or orders. The highest ones are the metropolitan and the archbishop, they should be addressed as “your eminence”; then the bishop - "your eminence." All three highest ranks also had a common title - "lord". The lower degrees of the black clergy are the archimandrite and the abbot (who headed the monastery), they were addressed by “your reverence.” The abbess, that is, the abbess of a convent, could be a woman, but women were not allowed into the white clergy.
The white clergy, that is, priests living “in the world,” among people with families and children, were also divided into five orders. These are protopresbyter, archpriest (the title is “your reverence”), priest, protodeacon and deacon (“your reverence”). In everyday life, in private conversation, especially among peasants and middle-class people, the priest was often called by name - “Father Fedor” - or “father”, “father”.
As already mentioned, priests who did not live in monasteries could have a family. The priest's wife, priest (daughter - priest), was often called "mother" in everyday life. But a person could only marry before being ordained to the first rank of deacon. After ordination, the clergyman becomes, as it were, engaged to the Church, and earthly marriage becomes impossible. Therefore, for a person of the clergy, the choice of a life partner is extremely limited in time; as a rule, these are years of study, after which he already becomes a deacon. Either he manages to find his future mother, or he remains lonely all his life. Naturally, the closest thing was to the society of young girls from the clergy class, which is why marriages between representatives of this layer of society were so frequent. And of course, even if among the laity divorce was very rare and was accompanied by long and painful procedures, then for a priest divorce was simply impossible. That’s why the sexton from A.P.’s story suffers so much. Chekhov's "The Witch" - she can never leave her husband, no matter how hateful he may be.
Clergy received their education in special educational institutions: theological schools, theological seminaries and theological academies. There were also lower educational institutions for women.
The ordained priests in the church were assisted during services by choristers, sextons, servers, and so on. These assistants were not officially classified as clergy and could be from other classes.
Attitudes towards members of the clergy were most likely different in Russia. Now, in the 21st century, this is often debated. Some are guided by the search for God of the heroes of L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; religion seems to them to be a binding spiritual force that unites all Russians, and they see the loss of religiosity as the source of many current troubles. Others take as a starting point the greedy Priest from Pushkin’s fairy tale, Chekhov’s deacon from “The Witch,” and religion for a Russian person of the 19th century seems to them to be something official, deceitful, and formal. Real life more complicated than any scheme, and in Russia there were both deeply religious Christians with a capital C, and completely atheistically minded people. Let's say, Levin in L. Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" does not go to church for many years, and only the upcoming sacrament of wedding forces him to perform the required rituals; and at the same time, questions of faith and its essence deeply concern him. And Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy himself, a deeply religious thinker, was anathematized by the official church, that is, excommunicated. And at the same time, demonstrative atheism was considered indecent, violating norms of behavior. The mayor in The Inspector General reproaches the judge: “But you don’t believe in God; you never go to church...”.
The clergy, as the ideological basis of the empire, had certain benefits from the state. Clergy were exempt from taxes and military service. Censorship monitored the compliance of works of art with both political and religious norms of permissibility. By the way, the appearance of a priest as a character in the play was practically excluded. After all, theater, from the point of view of the church, is a “sinful” thing. During Lent, performances were prohibited; artists were presented as people of very dubious morality. In Chekhov's story "Dirge", the shopkeeper's daughter, who became an actress, is called a "harlot" by her father himself. Judas in Saltykov-Shchedrin's "The Golovlev Lords" and Foma Fomich in Dostoevsky's "The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants," for all their aggressive religiosity, cannot have an official relation to the clergy - censorship would never allow such a work to be published.
Children of priests also had civil benefits. If they did not become priests, they had certain advantages when entering secular educational institutions and public service; some of them could receive the title of "honorary citizen" - a kind of "semi-nobility". A few even managed to curry favor with the real nobility, according to departments civil service become major figures in Russian history, such as M.M. Speransky. The priest's son was N.G. Chernyshevsky. But the semi-contemptuous nickname “Popovich”, “he’s one of the priest’s children” sometimes haunted these people all their lives. So, M.Yu. In Lermontov’s plans for planned but unrealized works we read: “The plot of a tragedy (not even a drama! - A.Z.). A young man in Russia who is not of noble origin is rejected by society, by love, humiliated by his superiors (he was from the priesthood or from the bourgeoisie , studied at the university and traveled at government expense). He shoots himself."
Hierarchy is a very interesting thing. The structuring of ranks is common when it comes to the army - even to an outsider it is more or less clear who is who. What if we are talking about the church? It is unlikely that anyone will immediately name all the spiritual ranks, because this class also has many “ranks” (and always has, not inferior in this regard to secular power). And where would we be without this - the Church has always taken a direct part in governing the state, and after the era of Peter I it completely turned into a kind of ministry for religious affairs, which was subordinate only to the Synod.
During the time of the emperors, the Russian clergy was divided into two categories, each of which included five orders. The first, black, included monks. To the second, white one, there are priests conducting services. Representatives of the “white clergy” were allowed to marry.
Chernorizniki
At first glance, this category may seem inferior, but it is the clergy from the black clergy who lead the Russian Orthodox Church. They, like several centuries ago, take a vow of celibacy and take monastic orders. Now the highest position of the structure is the Patriarch, but this was not always the case. The Patriarch was elected in 1589-1700, and from 1917 to the present day. The title consists of two Greek words: “pater” - “father”, and “archo” - “ruler”. Since the split of the Church into two “camps” - Western and Eastern, Catholic and Orthodox, respectively - the title remained with the eastern heads, who were addressed (and continue to be addressed) only as “Your Holiness.”
After the Patriarch comes the metropolitan (“metropolites” - the head of the capital diocese). The first Patriarch was elected in 1589, and until that time the metropolitan was considered the eldest in the Russian Orthodox Church. Until the 14th century, his department was located in Kyiv and Vladimir, and then Metropolitan Theognost moved it to Moscow. With the election of the first Patriarch, four “Your Eminences” were appointed at once: Krutitsy, Rostov, Novgorod and Kazan. By 1917, three sees remained - in Petrograd, Moscow and Kiev. The attire of the metropolitans is similar to the patriarchal - the same white hood, crowned with a cross.
A little lower on the “career ladder” are archbishops and bishops (“archi” - “chief, senior” and “episkopos” - “observer, guardian”). Their task is to maintain order in the dioceses, which are nothing more than administrative-territorial districts, only from the point of view of the Church.
Shepherds from the black clergy, archimandrites (“archi” - “elder”, “mandra” - “sheepfold”, and all together - just “shepherd”) are the fourth in seniority. The title of archimandrite is most often worn by abbots in large monasteries, or heads of spiritual institutions such as seminaries, or persons heading some kind of spiritual mission. An ordinary monk could also be called an archimandrite if his services to the Church were great enough to warrant elevation to the rank of “Very Reverend.”
On the last, fifth step, stands the abbot (“hegumen” - “leading”). Unlike all the previous ones, this title can also be worn by a woman - abbess. The title belongs to the abbots and abbess of male and female monasteries, and the address to them is the same as to archimandrites - “Your Reverence.”
Five levels of white clergy
The highest pre-revolutionary title was protopresbyter (“protos presbyteros” - “the oldest”). By the beginning of the twentieth century, it was worn by four representatives of the white clergy: the heads of two cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin, the confessor of the imperial family (also the head of the court clergy), and the head of the naval and military clergy. They should be called “Your Reverence.” Nowadays this title is used very rarely, because it is awarded in exceptional cases, and only at the request of the Patriarch. In the current Russian Orthodox Church, the protopresbyter was replaced by the archpriest (“protos hiereus” - “senior priest”). Before the revolution, senior priests were called archpriests. Usually an archpriest is the rector of a large church. He is addressed in the same way as a protopresbyter. On television you can often see an archpriest wearing a miter, a special headdress. It is a tall hat in the form of a hemisphere, on which small images are attached. But not all archpriests are entitled to a miter: wearing it is an honor bestowed upon a clergyman for special services to the Church. An archpriest wearing a miter is called a miter.
The second level is priest (“hiereus” - “priest”). This is not only the second most senior title, but also a common name for all priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is with them that ordinary parishioners most often deal - the priest is titled either “Your Reverence”, or, which is much more familiar to church visitors, simply “father” or “father …”.
The third title is deacon (“diakonos” - “servant”). At the dawn of Christianity, the adherents of this religion were called deacons, who were elected to organize and conduct all the economic affairs of the community. Over time, after the appearance of bishops, people who helped them in managing the diocese began to be called deacons. The rank is divided into three, depending on the range of responsibilities and powers: protodeacons (seniors), hierodeacons, and archdeacons.
Distinctive features
The most important difference in appearance black and white clergy - headdress. The first wore a klobuk - a tall cylinder covered with white or black fabric. The second is skufyu or kamilavka. The latter, with special merits of the owner, was covered with purple fabric.
A distinctive feature of deacons is the orarion. In fact, this is a kind of towel that the clergy threw over left shoulder and, raising it from time to time, they gave a sign to the singers to begin their work. Among priests and bishops, the role of the orarion is played by the epitrachelion - it is put on the neck and lowered down the chest. Abbots, archimandrites, archbishops and archpriests, in addition to the epitrachelion, also wear clubs (small pieces of fabric) and leg guards. Bishops can be recognized by their omophorion - a light resemblance to a scarf. It is draped over the shoulders and is removed only at the time of the opening of the Gospel during the service.
Ordinary clergy wear only a pectoral cross, while the upper classes, in addition to it, wear a panagia - a medallion icon.
Table of ranks
Before the revolution, the Ministry of Religious Affairs practically consisted of public service, and, naturally, was listed in the Table.
Until 1917, the head was the Metropolitan. He had the first class rank, which corresponded to the rank of field marshal general. The second class rank is that of an archbishop, as well as that of an actual state councilor or general. The third is with the bishop. The same rank corresponded to lieutenant general. The fourth is with the archimandrite and major general, the fifth is with the abbot, protopresbyter and state councilor. The sixth is for the archpriest and naval captain of the first rank, the seventh is for the priest and lieutenant colonel. The deacon skipped a step and corresponded to the ninth class rank, just like a staff captain in the army and a lieutenant in the navy.
Today the Table of Ranks does not exist, and the clergy have long since broken away from the state. Now they are addressed only in accordance with their clergy.
- Added by user Kallinik 26.11.2016 05:27
- Edited 11/27/2016 01:05
2nd ed., corrected and expanded. - M.: Indrik, 2008. - 632 pp. In the second edition, the inaccuracies of the first and typos were corrected, the number of published documents was increased, appendices were supplemented, the scientific reference apparatus and illustrative material were expanded. The collection of documents compiled by Mikhail Anatolyevich quite fully and comprehensively shows the attitude of the laity , clergy, hierarchs to the revolutionary events of the spring - summer of 1917.
It includes well-known materials and materials introduced into scientific circulation for the first time from the collections of the RGIA, GARF, OR RSL, RGVIA, RGADA, RGA Navy, CIAM, and some regional archives. The compiler used publications from about 40 secular and 100 church periodicals. The definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod, sermons and orders of bishops are collected. The Synod recognized the Provisional Government, but many archpastors criticized and doubted the legitimacy and canonicity of the Synod itself. Sections of the collection - 8 in total - include resolutions of diocesan congresses of clergy and laity, telegrams from hierarchs to members of the State Duma, the Provisional Government, letters and appeals from laity, members of political parties to secular and church authorities, to the people. A separate section is devoted to the appearance and acquisition of the icon. Mother of God“Derzhavnaya” in the village of Kolomenskoye. The appendices contain church calendar for the first half of 1917, list of dioceses, maps of administrative and diocesan divisions, Eastern European theater of military operations in 1917, name indexes, church councils, congresses, meetings. Having noted some shortcomings, the reviewers call the collection not just an anthology, but a full-fledged scientific publication containing 692 main and 39 attached documents and extracts from them. Of course, the book does not answer all the questions that arise when reading it, but for many not indifferent and thoughtful readers , became more distinct and clear - in 1917, as a result of a state-political coup in Russia, the thousand-year-old church-canonical system collapsed and, further, through a political conspiracy, the Russian Tsar was removed from state and church life, and then ritually killed.
The arbitrary Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, inspired by the conspirators, silently justified the complete lawlessness, by the revolutionary election of the patriarch, turning on its head the church anathema and the conciliar oath of 1613, given by the Russian people of allegiance until the end of the century to the tsar from the Romanov family, as the Anointed of the Lord, the sacred Head and guardian of the people of God, the Holy Church.
The apostasy of the clergy and monastics marked the beginning of the clerical revolution, which led to the elimination from church-canonical practice of the entire royal rank in the person of the Tsar, the Synodal Chief Prosecutor's Office appointed by him and the bearers of the ktitor's stauropegial law arising from the royal will, to the humiliation of the dignity of the people of God as the “royal priesthood,” “ kings and priests to God” (Ap. 1:6).
The separation of the Church from the state, proclaimed by the rebels as a slogan in the struggle for the freedom of the Church, in practice meant revolutionary, that is, in agreement with the anti-monarchist-minded clergy in the interests of profanation and subjugation of the people of God, the abolition of the sovereign rank from church-canonical relations, which began with apostasy clergy, expressed in belittling and then denying the ecclesiological and canonical significance of the power of the Anointed of God, the Orthodox Tsar.
Having accepted the revolutionary overthrow of the power of the divinely crowned Tsar as a fait accompli, the Local Council of 1917 fell under the paternal curse of the Russian Land, which swore for itself and for its descendants allegiance to the overthrown Tsar.
Without any conciliar determination, having refused to offer prayers to the name of the deposed blessed Emperor and the entire Reigning House, first the revolutionary Synod, and then the Local Council, found themselves outside of canonical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, which anathematized the tsarist traitors and rebels.
The rank of sovereign, the royal priesthood, and the sovereign Russian people were subjected to cruel destruction. Those who did not renounce the Tsar were tortured and killed. The Russian Church, which turned out to be a widow, in the person of untrue and lukewarm bishops and priests, committed fornication with the atheistic authorities, yielding to it what it did not want to give to the legitimate Sovereign, betraying the very sacred memory of its Christ the Tsar. Preface to the second edition
Preface
From the definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod, sermons and orders of the episcopate, appeals of the spiritual consistories of the Russian Orthodox Church.
From the definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to the citizens of the country
From sermons and messages to the flock of the episcopate, addresses of spiritual consistories
From the sermons of Bishop Andronik (Nikolsky) of Perm, his correspondence with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.N. Lvov and Archbishop of Novgorod Arseny (Stadnitsky)
Resolutions on political issues of the congresses of Orthodox clergy and laity (March - July 1917)
Resolutions of diocesan congresses of clergy and laity
Resolutions of city, district, dean and army congresses and meetings of the clergy, resolutions of city meetings of deans
Telegrams from the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church to representatives of the new government, the Holy Synod and subordinate clergy, correspondence of hierarchs
Welcome telegrams from representatives of the episcopate to the Chairman of the State Duma and members of the Provisional Government
Telegrams and reports to the Holy Synod of Bishops and Spiritual Consistories, letters from hierarchs, orders to subordinate clergy
Welcome telegrams from the congresses of clergy and laity to representatives of the new government and the Holy Synod
Telegrams of diocesan and vicariate congresses of clergy and laity
Telegrams from city and county congresses of clergy and laity
Telegrams from deanery meetings of the clergy, spiritual consistories and spiritual educational institutions
Calls, appeals and telegrams from ordinary clergy to fellow pastors and flocks
Telegrams, letters and appeals of the laity to secular and ecclesiastical authorities and to the people
Texts of church (civil and henchman) oaths of allegiance to service to Russia and the provisional government
On the issue of finding the “Sovereign” Icon of the Mother of God
Applications
Additions to sections I, II, IV-VI
Calendar church holidays for 1917 (February - November)
Chronology of the main events in the history of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917 (February - November)
List of hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church (as of March 1, 1917)
Consolidated list of dioceses and vicariates, diocesan and vicarial bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (as of March 1, 1917)
IV members State Duma- priests of the Russian Orthodox Church - participants in the February Revolution
Maps of the diocesan and administrative division of the Russian Orthodox Church on the eve of 1917
Map of the Eastern European theater of war in 1917
Index of names
Index of church councils, congresses and meetings
Index of organizations and institutions
Subject index
Comparative toponymic index (differences in city names in 1917 and 1991)
List of used archival funds, periodicals and literature
List of published documents
List of illustrations
Source information
Bibliographic information
List of reviews for the 1st edition of the collection of documents
List of abbreviations
List of abbreviations
- To download this file, register and/or log in to the site using the form above.
Loading...