Hieromartyr Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan of Krutitsky, locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. The meaning of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne in the Russian language dictionary Lopin

home

Video recorders

According to the Definitions of the All-Russian Local Council -

The Local Council of 1917-1918 established the procedure for electing and electing a Locum Tenens in two definitions dated July 28 (August 10), 1918 “On the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne” and dated July 31 (August 13), 1918 “On the procedure for electing His Holiness Patriarch", which stated:

“Upon the release of the patriarchal throne, the oldest of the members of the Holy Synod, after a preliminary consultation with other members of the Synod, immediately convenes the combined presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council"(dated 07.28.18. § 2);
“In a joint presence, under the chairmanship of the same elder hierarch, the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council by secret ballot elect a Locum Tenens from among the present members of the Holy Synod, and the one who receives more than half of the electoral votes is considered elected” (ibid., § 3);
“elected for the duration of the interpatriarchate” (ibid., § 1);
“The Holy Synod, together with the Supreme Church Council, in a special meeting, chaired by the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, decides to convene a Council within three months to elect the Patriarch” (dated 31.8.18. § 3).

Locum tenens in the USSR and Russia in the 1990s

In accordance with the testamentary order of Patriarch Tikhon, in the event of his death, the rights and responsibilities of the Patriarch were assigned to Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan. If he was unable to accept such rights and obligations, they, according to the order, passed to Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl; if the latter was unable, they were to be performed by Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky. Due to the fact that at the time of the death of Patriarch Tikhon on April 7, 1925, Metropolitans Kirill and Agathangel were in exile, the said Metropolitan Peter became Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Although from 1926 until his death in 1937, Metropolitan Peter was constantly in exile and in prison and could not actively fulfill the duties of a Locum Tenens, however, in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate his name was commemorated as the name of a Locum Tenens. In fact, the duties of the Locum Tenens were performed by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who was called the “Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens” on the basis of the will of Metropolitan Peter that Metropolitan Sergius should fulfill the duties of the Locum Tenens if Metropolitan Peter was unable to fulfill them. However, the Local Council of 1917-1918 did not provide for the position of “Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens”.

After the death of Patriarch Alexy I (April 17, 1970), on April 18, 1970, at an emergency meeting of the Holy Synod, “the fact of the death of His Holiness the Patriarch and the assumption of office as Locum Tenens Metropolitan Pimen of Krutitsa” was stated, who became him as the oldest permanent member of the Synod by consecration. According to Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted on January 31, 1945 (clause 12 of Chapter I). The Local Council of 1971 elected him the 14th Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

In accordance with this provision of the Charter, after the death of Patriarch Pimen in 1990, Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and Galicia was elected Patriarchal Locum Tenens. A local council, held in the same year, elected Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod as the 15th Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Metropolitan Philaret's tenure was the shortest in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church of the twentieth century.

According to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church

According to the current Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, “in the event of the death of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', his retirement, being under ecclesiastical court, or any other reason making it impossible for him to fulfill the patriarchal office, the Holy Synod, chaired by the oldest ordained permanent member of the Holy Synod, immediately elects from among its permanent members the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. The procedure for electing the Locum Tenens is established by the Holy Synod.” And the Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna enters into independent administration of the Moscow diocese.

No later than six months after the vacancy of the Patriarchal Throne, the Locum Tenens and the Holy Synod, in the manner prescribed by clause 2 of Section II of the Charter, convene a Local Council to elect a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

Notes

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne” is in other dictionaries:

Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne- Locum tenens of the Patriarch of the Arch See (official title) ... Russian spelling dictionary

Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne- in the Russian Orthodox Church, one of the permanent members of the Holy Synod, elected by him to temporarily fulfill the office of patriarch in the event of his death or other serious reason that does not allow him to fulfill his duties job responsibilities … Orthodoxy. Dictionary-reference book

LOCATOR, locum tenens, husband. (church). A person temporarily performing the duties of a senior ecclesiastical official. Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Patriarchal Locum Tenens (also Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne) in Orthodoxy, a bishop who temporarily fulfills the duties of the Patriarch as primate local Church. In Russia, Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky, acting as... ... Wikipedia

- (also Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne) in Orthodoxy, a bishop who temporarily fulfills the duties of the Patriarch as the primate of the local Church. In Russia, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan, who served as Moscow Patriarch since ... Wikipedia

HIGH GOVERNANCE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH- Canonical principles of the device of V. at. determined by the 34th Apostolic Canon: “It is fitting for bishops of every nation to know the first in them, and recognize him as the head, and not do anything that exceeds their authority without his judgment: everyone should do ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

- (in the world Semyon Ivanovich) Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom, locum tenens of the patriarchal throne and first president of St. Synod one of the most remarkable hierarchs of the Russian Church under Peter the Great. S., was born in the town of Javor in 1658. Scientists before ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people named Kirill. Patriarch Kirill ... Wikipedia

There are articles on Wikipedia about other people with the name Metropolitan Peter and the surname Polyansky. Metropolitan Peter ... Wikipedia

Books

Guarding the Faith (set of 24 books), Rozhneva O. (compiled). The set of books "On Guard of the Faith" includes biographies of people who were harsh and difficult for the Russian Orthodox years who managed to preserve and strengthen both faith and the church: . Metropolitan Peter...

Beloved in Christ, Your Eminence archpastors, all-honorable fathers, God-loving monks and nuns, brothers and sisters!

“Today the grace of the Holy Spirit has gathered us together.” Guided by the Lord Himself, we - hierarchs, pastors, monastics, laity - came here from many countries and regions to make decisions that will largely determine the path of Russian Orthodoxy in the 21st century. We have to elect the sixteenth Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. We must evaluate the last eighteen-odd years, which became the time of the Second Baptism of Rus'. We are called to reflect on what our Church should be like in the near future.

As we lay the foundation for conciliar discussions and decisions, let us keep in our hearts the words of the holy Apostle Paul: “ My beloved brothers, be strong, immovable, always abound in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord."(1 Cor. 15:58). According to the words of Saint Patriarch Tikhon, “let’s begin church building without malice and guile, as co-workers with God. At the same time, let everyone look at what they are building from. If we build from strong material, then the structure will be strong and durable, but if we build from fragile material, then our work will be fragile. Let us build on a solid foundation, which is Christ, on the basis of this holy book - the Holy Gospel, on the basis of the apostolic, conciliar and patristic rules and church traditions, and not on our own invention.”

Just recently we celebrated the forty-day commemoration of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'. We also prayed today for the repose of his soul in the Heavenly abodes, “where there is no illness, no sorrow, no sighing, but endless life.” At this Council we will remember many, many things accomplished during the years of church revival. And these deeds will be inextricably and forever linked in history with the name of the deceased High Hierarch. They were accomplished with his blessing, and to a large extent - thanks to his peaceful spirit and wisdom, his daily care for the Church. And today we can say about His Holiness Patriarch Alexy in apostolic words: he fought the good fight, he finished his course, he kept the faith; and now there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give him on that day(see Hebrews 4:7-8). Great and eternal gratitude to His Holiness the Patriarch for everything he did for the people of God, for their spiritual revival!

Through all the years of his archpastoral and primate service, he carried concern for the unity of the Church. In difficult times, he defended the Church from the menacing waves of the stormy sea of life. In the newest period of history, when they tried to create a split in the church environment along national and political lines, when the forces that sought to turn differences of opinion into strife became more active, His Holiness the Patriarch did everything so that the Body of Christ, in which different members are necessary, lived as a single organism. Already in his enthronement speech in 1990, he said: “Many questions arise today before the Church, before society and before each of us. And in solving them we need a conciliar mind, we need a joint solution and discussion of them.<...>We must serve as a reconciling force, a unifying force.<...>We must do everything to help strengthen the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church."
The late High Hierarch carried on the ministry of reconciliation and unification until the end of his Patriarchal career. The Council of Bishops held last year was dedicated to church unity. The word spoken at it by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, and the council decisions adopted under his leadership, became the spiritual testament of the Primate. And let the best tribute to his memory, revered by the believing people, be the firm preservation of our unity.

All-honorable participants of the Council! The past eighteen years have become for millions of people living in the space from the White Sea to the Black Sea and from Kaliningrad to Pacific Ocean, a time of familiarization with the unchangeable truths of Christ's Gospel, a time of return to the authentic spiritual and cultural traditions of their peoples. All larger number believers are introduced to the mysterious and spiritual life of the Church, the spiritual enlightenment of millions of people is accomplished, and the witness to the outside world about Orthodoxy is expanding.

The focus of the life of the Church of Christ is the holy Sacraments. By participating in them, a person enters into the closest communication with the Lord, spiritually renewing his own nature. And the Church offers this gift, this transformed life to all “near and far,” by building churches where God’s grace is present, and coming out of them to meet people, as His Holiness Patriarch Alexy has repeatedly called for.

As we well know, in the space of Holy Rus' beyond last years Many monasteries, temples, and chapels were erected. The houses of God continue to be built to this day, which speaks of the still unquenched spiritual thirst of the people. In order to imagine the scale of quantitative changes, it is necessary to provide data on the state of church life published in connection with the Local Council of 1988. At that time, the Russian Church had 76 dioceses and 74 bishops, 6,893 parishes, 6,674 priests and 723 deacons, 22 monasteries with 1,190 monastics, 2 theological academies and 3 seminaries. Now we see a fundamentally different situation. As of the end of 2008, there were 157 dioceses in the Russian Orthodox Church; 203 bishops, of which 149 are ruling and 54 are vicar; in addition, 14 bishops are retired. The Russian Orthodox Church has 29,263 parishes. The total number of clergy is 30,670 people, of which 27,216 are priests and 3,454 are deacons. The situation in Moscow is especially indicative, for which the Primate of the Church is the ruling bishop. The number of operating churches in the capital increased 22 times (40/872). Until 1990 there was one monastery, now there are 8; there are also 16 monastery farmsteads. Within the city there are 3 seminaries and 2 Orthodox universities (previously there was not a single church educational institution). A sign of the spiritual revival of the Russian Church after many years of persecution and persecution was the reconstruction of the Cathedral Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where we now have the opportunity to hold the Local Council.

The primatial ministry of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy was marked by the most active revival of monastic life, based on centuries-old Orthodox traditions. Many monasteries were opened and restored, having general church significance and especially revered by the believing people. Among them are the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the Solovetsky Monastery, the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery, the Svyatogorsk Dormition Lavra, the Novo-Nyametsky Holy Ascension Monastery, the Polotsk Spaso-Euphrosyne Convent and many other monasteries, listing which would be impossible within the framework of this report.

In total, today there are 804 monasteries in the Russian Orthodox Church. Of these, in Russia there are 234 men’s and 244 women’s; in other CIS and Baltic countries - 142 men's and 153 women's; in foreign countries - 3 male and 3 female monasteries. 16 men's and 9 women's monasteries are under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. In addition, in our Church there are 203 monastic metochions and 65 monasteries.

Embodying the conciliar principle of the Church’s existence, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy sought to discuss all the most important issues for the Church and make decisions on them in the assembly of fellow archpastors. During the period of his Patriarchate, 8 Councils of Bishops were held: in 1990, twice in 1992, in 1994, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2008. Finally, the Council of Bishops has just passed, the main task of which was to prepare for the real Local Council. During inter-council periods, church governance was carried out, in accordance with the Charter, by the Holy Synod, which regularly met in meetings under the chairmanship of His Holiness.

During the period under review, a number of new Synodal departments were established: for religious education and catechesis, for church charity and social service, for youth affairs, for interaction with the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies, and missionary. In addition, several commissions were created: the Theological, for the affairs of monasteries.

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy took an active part in the leadership of church life in the regions. Each year of his Primate ministry was full of visits to dioceses, where he, with constant attention and care, sought to help the ruling bishops, clergy and flock in the building of the Church.

The period we are considering included many significant dates that served as reflections on the past, present and future of our Church. I will remember only a few of them. This is the 2000th anniversary of the Nativity of Christ, to which the Anniversary Council of Bishops was dedicated. The great anniversary of Christianity, which marked the change of centuries, gave us the opportunity to evaluate the history of our Church in the complex and dramatic twentieth century and to formulate church responses to the challenges that the beginning of the 21st century posed to us. The celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' allowed us to deeply reflect on what we have done in twenty years of church revival and in what areas we need to strengthen church work. This memorable date reminded us of the common history of the Orthodox peoples baptized in the Kyiv font. It is no coincidence that the Council of Bishops in 2008 was dedicated to the theme of church unity, and the celebration of the 1020th anniversary in Moscow, Kyiv and Minsk became powerful evidence of the community of peoples spiritually led by our Church. One cannot help but recall two remarkable anniversary dates associated with the revival of the Patriarchal ministry in the Russian Church - the eightieth and ninetieth anniversary of the restoration of the Moscow Patriarchal Throne. By celebrating these anniversaries, we have witnessed the consolidating significance of the Patriarchate, thanks to which the works of the episcopate, clergy and church people acquire integrity and proper direction. Just as at the beginning of the twentieth century the name of St. Patriarch Tikhon was a symbol of the unity of all the spiritually sound forces of Russian Orthodoxy, at the turn of two millennia His Holiness Patriarch Alexy became a unifying symbol for Orthodoxy of the Russian tradition throughout the entire territory of historical Rus' and far beyond its borders.

Over the past two decades, more than one thousand seven hundred saints have been canonized, which became the response of the Russian Church to the question posed to it by society about spiritual continuity with the Christians of previous centuries and about the assessment of the feat of the church hierarchy, clergy, monastics and people in the era of severe persecution.

Our Church acquired the honorable relics of many saints, which was perceived by the church people as a sign of God’s special mercy. These are the relics of the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov, Saint and Confessor Luke, Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea, the Venerable Optina Elders, Saint Theophan the Recluse and many other ascetics of piety. The Tikhvin Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary was returned to its historical place, and the Vladimir and Donskaya Icons of the Mother of God stored in the Tretyakov Gallery became available for veneration on the days of remembrance of historical events associated with these images. The ancient revered Vladimir image of the Mother of God also returned to Russia, before which we performed a prayer service today, opening the Local Council. A good tradition established in the Russian Church in the current period has been the bringing to its borders of Christian shrines revered in the world for the worship of believers. In particular, our Church was visited by the venerable relics of the Holy Great Martyr Panteleimon, the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, St. Spyridon of Trimythous, the Holy Martyrs Grand Duchess Elizabeth and nun Varvara and others.

The beginning of the Patriarchal service of the late High Hierarch occurred at a time of rapid and far from painless changes associated with the cessation of the existence of a single state in the space of historical Rus' and with the emergence of new sovereign states, which was often accompanied by the growth of interethnic contradictions. A fundamentally new political reality arose, in which the Russian Orthodox Church was called not only to diligent peacemaking work, but also to consider questions about what changes in the canonical church structure and in the system of church administration would allow the most successful implementation of pastoral service to the many nations that make up it flock. And first of all, these issues had to be resolved in relation to Ukraine, where the situation was complicated by the schism that arose as a result of the introduction of political elements into church life. The response of the Church was the creation of the institution of Self-Governing Churches within the bosom of the united Moscow Patriarchate - Ukrainian, Moldavian, Latvian, Estonian. Each of them received internal independence in carrying out their ministry and in resolving church and administrative issues. At the same time, the peculiarities associated with the situation in a particular country were taken into account, as well as the size and internal potential of the Self-Governing Church. At the same time, the conciliar unity of our common Patriarchate and Holy Rus' itself was preserved - our common civilization and spiritual culture, our common historical choice, going back to the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir.

Over the past years, the improvement of our church structure has continued, which harmoniously combines unity and diversity, independence and mutual support, respect for modern political reality and common history. In 2000, the Jubilee Council of Bishops summed up the main results of this process, including the corresponding changes in the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. And the Council of Bishops of 2008, in its definition “On the unity of the Church,” unanimously confirmed that “the unity of Holy Rus' is the greatest asset of our Church and our peoples, a treasure that we will preserve, devoting all our strength to overcoming temptations, allurements and attempts at division.” At the same time, it was emphasized that “only under such conditions will the Russian Orthodox Church be able to continue to make its unique and significant contribution to pan-European and world civilization, convincingly testifying to the values of the Orthodox spiritual tradition.”

The primate visits to Ukraine and Belarus that followed this Council in connection with the celebration of the 1020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' became a clear confirmation that not only the episcopate, but also the entire people of God firmly support church unity and will not allow it to be destroyed in favor of the selfish desires of some political forces .

As for the problem of overcoming schisms, which has not lost its urgency to this day, the point here is not at all about finding a suitable compromise model, as people with a non-church worldview sometimes think. Saint Mark of Ephesus said this well in his time: “Never what pertains to the Church is corrected through compromise, for there is nothing in between truth and falsehood.” The only viable solution can be achieved only by steadily following the path of canonical truth and evangelical love, including love for erring brothers.

The merit of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II and the late First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, undoubtedly, is the restoration of communion of the Church in the Fatherland and abroad. The saintly wisdom, love and peaceful spirit inherent in His Holiness and Vladyka Metropolitan Laurus contributed to the achievement of the desired goal, despite the obstacles that arose along the way. Day of the Ascension of the Lord on May 17, 2007, when the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was signed Act of Canonical Communion, and then the unity of the Local Russian Church was sealed by the joint celebration of the Divine Liturgy, truly became a historical day of the triumph of Russian Orthodoxy, the spiritual overcoming of the wounds that were inflicted on our people by the revolution, the civil war, the abyss that separated those who bore the cross of exile from their brothers who suffered under the yoke of godless authorities in their homeland. Today in the Russian Church Abroad, whose delegates participate in our Council, there are 10 dioceses, 359 parishes, 25 monasteries.

The late His Holiness the Patriarch repeatedly emphasized that the main task facing the Russian Church today is the revival of human souls, the purification of human hearts, and the introduction of people to the eternal spiritual values of Orthodoxy. In a society in which atheism had been harshly imposed for many decades, the Church had to first of all revive missionary service among own people. The Council of Bishops in 1994 was devoted to mission issues, which adopted the definition “On Orthodox mission in the modern world,” and also answered questions posed by time about counteracting sectarianism, neo-paganism and the occult. Soon the activities of a special Synodal Department began, and a seminary with a missionary orientation was created. Missionary structures appeared in many dioceses. Trips of clergy and laity, including students of Orthodox educational institutions, to remote regions where people especially need the word of God and the voice of the Church have become a common occurrence. In 2007, the Holy Synod adopted the Concept of missionary activity of the Russian Orthodox Church, later approved by the Council of Bishops.

Particular attention was paid to the testimony of Orthodoxy in youth environment. Annual events have become traditional - Youth Christmas readings, the festival of youth and students “The Found Generation”, the All-Russian youth camp “Feodorovsky Town”, the festival of the author’s song “Confession of the Heart”, the St. George Parade of the Brotherhood of Orthodox Pathfinders.

Special mention should be made of mission and pastoral work among military personnel and law enforcement officers, as well as in places of detention. In 2008, the number of pastors carrying out this ministry exceeded 2 thousand people. In many military units and divisions, churches or chapels have been built and prayer rooms have been organized. In total, there are now more than a thousand such places for worship and prayer.

After the collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Iron Curtain, the diaspora of the Moscow Patriarchate began to increase. Currently, it is estimated to be about 30 million people. Compatriots who find themselves far from their homeland feel a special need for spiritual consolation and pastoral care. The answer to this need was the opening of various countries many new parishes that unite people not only churchly, but also culturally. Among others, in distant foreign countries there are parishes, consisting mostly of representatives of the Ukrainian or Moldavian Orthodox diaspora, where clergy from Ukraine and Moldova are sent on the proposal of His Beatitude Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Vladimir and His Eminence Metropolitan of Chisinau and All Moldova Vladimir. Over the past 18 years, the number of church institutions of the Moscow Patriarchate in the “far abroad” has increased significantly and today amounts to more than 330 parishes and monasteries, as well as 90 Sunday schools in 51 countries of the world. Together with the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad, these parishes form a single whole and constitute the pastoral structure of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Russian Orthodox churches were built in European capitals and in countries Latin America, Asia, Africa. Temple buildings at Russian embassies are being restored or recreated.

Church service and witness are unthinkable without the solid foundation laid in the minds and hearts of people by theological education. This area of church life has always been the focus of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy. And this is no coincidence, because from the state of spiritual education Today the state of the Church directly depends Tomorrow- it depends on whether its hierarchs, pastors, and laity will be able to worthily convey the Gospel message to a variety of people, including children, youth, intellectuals, scientists, cultural figures, politicians, entrepreneurs and in general everyone who surrounds us - and the simpletons, and the sages.

The development and improvement of the theological school was accomplished with great difficulties. Having gained external freedom in the early 1990s, the Church entered a phase of rapid growth. At the same time, qualitative growth did not keep pace with quantitative growth. This was especially true in the area of training clergy. The conciliar mind laid the foundation for the process of transformation in theological schools. The Council of Bishops in 1994 set the task for seminaries to provide higher theological education, and for academies to become scientific and theological centers. In connection with this, the terms of study in theological schools have changed. In 2003, the first graduation of five-year seminaries took place, and in 2006, the transformed academies.

Along with the development of theological seminaries and academies - closed educational institutions aimed at preparing candidates for the priesthood, in the period following the Local Council of 1990, church higher education institutions appeared and actively developed educational establishments open type, focused primarily on training the laity - theological institutes and universities. Secular Orthodox theological education also received significant development. As a result of many years of painstaking work, certain progress has been achieved towards state recognition of the system of spiritual education of the Russian Orthodox Church.

One of the forms of educational work was the organization of church-public forums, giving the clergy, church people and representatives of the secular world the opportunity to discuss current issues testimony and service of our Church. Mention should be made in particular of the International Christmas Educational Readings. They host more than 100 conferences, seminars and round tables, uniting about 7 thousand participants who represent not only the teaching community, but also almost all social groups, especially the intelligentsia. It is impossible not to note the growing role of the church-wide exhibition-forum “Orthodox Rus'”, held both in Moscow and in many regions. Today, the exhibition-forum, which is visited by tens of thousands of people, has become a place where almost anyone can get acquainted with the life of the Church, enter into a discussion on issues important to it, and communicate with hierarchs and famous clergy.

Missionary and church-social work brings people to the Church. But then they need to be introduced to liturgical life, teach the truths of Christianity and, moreover, help implement these truths in your life. This is why catechesis and mass religious education are so important today. One of its means was Sunday schools, designed to serve the churching of not only children, but also adults. Today, there are 11,051 Sunday schools operating at the churches of the Russian Orthodox Church.

After the fall of the state's atheistic system, new church publishing houses were created, and Orthodox media outlets arose in large numbers. All of them took an active part in educational and catechetical work. Reprinted in large editions Holy Bible, liturgical, doctrinal and patristic texts. Books of a church-historical, scientific-theological, philosophical and religious-social nature were actively published. Missionary and spiritually edifying Orthodox literature became widespread. Works of art have appeared that make sense of life modern man in the light of the Orthodox worldview.

Over the past two decades, our Church has mastered new forms of preaching, including using modern technologies. In this regard, we are already ahead of many not only in the Orthodox world, but also among the largest religious communities in general. In particular, evangelistic work has constantly been and is being carried out via the Internet. Orthodox TV channels and radio stations, programs and sections on secular radio and television have emerged and are operating stably. The fundamental scientific publishing project “Orthodox Encyclopedia” deserves special mention, expanding its scope to include the space of broadcast and electronic media.

A manifestation of the spirit of Christian love is the social activity of the Church, its service to those who most need to show care and sacrifice: these are the elderly and people suffering from illnesses, orphans, the disabled, and people in prison. Despite the complete destruction of the system of church charity in Soviet times, church shelters, clinics, services for helping the sick and homeless are now successfully operating, rehabilitation centers, schools and courses for nurses, charity canteens, others social institutions. It is impossible not to note the activities of the church-wide St. Alexis Central Clinical Hospital, where several thousand people receive free medical care annually, as well as the Consultative and Diagnostic Center at this clinic. In recent years, our Church has repeatedly provided emergency assistance to victims of armed conflicts and natural disasters. Orthodox Christians provide a variety of support to people suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, and the spread of HIV infection.

Under the constant care of His Holiness the Patriarch, the economic activities of the Church were improved, and issues of providing churches with the necessary liturgical utensils were resolved. The activities of the art and production enterprise Sofrino, a unique church-industrial center reviving the ancient traditions of church craftsmen, were reorganized and significantly expanded.

Thanks to the firm, theologically meaningful, balanced and truly paternal position of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, over the past eighteen years the Russian Church has revealed itself, according to the words of the Apostle Paul, pillar and foundation of truth(1 Tim. 3:15), overcoming both the temptation of renovationist tendencies and the desire to impose on Orthodoxy the role of a fundamentalist ideology or guardian of historical archaisms.

Your Eminence Masters, dear fathers, brothers and sisters! In the next part of the report I would like to talk about the relationship of the Church with the state and society. The grace of God cannot be contained within the walls of temples and monasteries. It is poured into the world to transform earthly life and establish it on the basis of the commandments of Christ. It is this mission that the Church fulfills by interacting with society.

After the destruction of artificial barriers between the Church and the people, many people felt that they belonged to the Orthodox faith and culture. Today, the majority of citizens of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, as well as many residents of neighboring countries call themselves Orthodox, although sometimes they remain people with little church life. This state of society has been and remains a serious challenge for our Church.

Much work is being done today to ensure that children in public schools have the opportunity to become acquainted with the Orthodox tradition. In some countries under the canonical responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate, this possibility is enshrined in law and is practically implemented with the support of secular authorities. However, in other countries there is still no clear solution to this issue, despite the internationally recognized right of parents to ensure, including through school, the upbringing and education of their children in accordance with their own convictions. In recent years, we have been actively seeking changes to the educational program of secondary schools, which would make it possible to introduce the younger generation, on the basis of the free choice of children and parents, to the spiritual, moral and cultural values of Orthodoxy. The church and the school are called upon to cooperate in the spiritual education of new generations. Kindling in young hearts an aspiration for Truth, a genuine moral feeling, love for neighbors, for one’s Fatherland, for its history and culture - should be the task of the school no less than teaching practically useful knowledge. A real school has always been and should always be a mediator that transmits to new members of society the moral values accumulated in previous centuries.

Christianity should not only determine internal state a person, but also his actions. That is why the Church cannot but strive to bring the creative, public and private life of a person in accordance with the revealed truths. Beginning in the late 1980s, the Church needed to gain experience in public service under new conditions. For this, especially in conditions of rapid social change and debate, a serious doctrinal basis was required. That is why the Jubilee Council of Bishops adopted the Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the 2008 Council of Bishops adopted the Fundamentals of its teaching on dignity, freedom and human rights.

From 1990 to 2008, a great many church and public conferences were held, a lot of research was conducted in this area, and texts developed by the collective wisdom on various topics of social theology were published. The World Russian People's Council, headed by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, became an important platform for discussing issues relevant to the Church and society.

The word of the Church and her works are addressed to all spheres public life. Thus, considerable attention was paid to restoring the connection between religion and science, which was artificially destroyed during the years of state atheism, which claimed scientific status. The myth about the antagonism of faith and knowledge began to become a thing of the past. The Russian Church is open to dialogue with the scientific community, as evidenced by many joint conferences of theologians and secular scientists. Nevertheless, the development of science poses new ideological and ethical questions to society. And the Church points out the need to restore the lost connection of scientific knowledge with spiritual and moral values.

Culture is another important dimension of human life. As Christianity spread throughout the world, it carefully embraced the cultures of many peoples, seeing in them a manifestation of a creative gift given from above. The preaching of the word of God has always been carried out through cultural forms characteristic of the era, nation, and various social groups. At the same time, the Church has always strived to make culture Christ-centered, expressing unchanging truths and values. For historical Russia, Orthodoxy has become a culture-creating faith. And when, during the years of theomachism, the direct influence of the Church on society was sharply limited, literature, poetry, painting and music became for many almost the only sources of religious knowledge. The period between the two Local Councils became a time of rapid development of diverse forms of interaction between the Church and the creative world. This is evidenced by the birth of a number of large church-public and church-state projects in the field of culture in many countries over which the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate extends.

Our Church has repeatedly raised its voice in defense of social justice, which is a necessary condition stability and peace in society. She called for social responsibility of entrepreneurs, pointed out the need for a fair distribution of national wealth and state support for the most vulnerable segments of the population. This call of the Church has become especially relevant today, when the consequences of the global economic crisis have affected a huge number of people, most of whom have modest incomes.

Keeping Christ's commandment to create peace, the Church, led by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, acted as a peacemaking force, protecting society from divisions, confrontation and enmity. She became a mediator between warring parties during various conflicts. During the troubled years of 1991 and 1993, the Church did everything possible to prevent civil war in Russia. During the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Russian Church invariably called for an end to the bloodshed, restoration of dialogue between the parties, and a return to peaceful life.

In carrying out its witness, the Church maintained a dialogue with social and political forces. She inspired and supported the return of people's life to the best national traditions, calling for caution in blindly copying foreign experience. And now it reminds us of the sad consequences of forgetting traditional values, and warns against attempts to rewrite the history of countries and peoples. The fundamentals of the social concept of our Church have identified as one of its tasks the preaching of peace and cooperation among people holding different political views.

His Holiness the Patriarch has repeatedly emphasized that the main content of the Church’s works is the revival of faith, the transformation of human souls and hearts, the union of man with the Creator. Responding to the challenges of the secular world, with its obsessive preaching of vice, permissiveness and disregard for moral responsibility, the Church acted as a defender of God-given moral standards and generally accepted human behavior. We reminded both those in power and the entire people that the affirmation of the moral principles of life protects society from self-destruction and provides creative motivation for its improvement.

With changes in political life in the early 1990s, the development of church-state relations received a powerful impetus. From our point of view, these relations should be built on the basis of mutual non-interference of church and state institutions in each other’s affairs and, at the same time, a broad partnership between the Church and the state in various fields. In the countries of canonical responsibility of the Russian Orthodox Church, a new legal framework is gradually being created that makes it possible to build constructive cooperation between the Church and the state. Very constructive relations have developed and are being improved with the state authorities of the Russian Federation, as well as with most other countries of our canonical space. In Belarus, an Agreement on Cooperation between the authorities and the Church has been concluded. Latvia has adopted the law “On the Latvian Orthodox Church,” which, in particular, establishes non-interference by the state in church affairs and special guarantees for clergy. A high level of church-state relations has been achieved in Lithuania, where 95% of church buildings have been transferred to the Church, and educational subjects dedicated to introducing Orthodoxy are taught in schools.

At the same time, many issues in this area remain unresolved. Thus, in Russia it is still not possible to put on a solid legal basis the practice of teaching “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” in secular schools, as well as the systematic work of the military clergy. The problem of the return of church property is awaiting a final settlement. Despite many efforts, the issue of church real estate continues to remain open in Estonia. Many difficulties are associated with the consequences of interference by secular authorities in the internal affairs of the Church in Ukraine. In addition, the problem of obtaining the status of a legal entity by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the aggregate of its dioceses, monasteries and parishes remains unresolved.

The fate of Orthodoxy has never left the Russian Church indifferent. Before 1917 Russian empire occupied a special place in the Orthodox world, being the patron and defender of the entire Orthodox civilization. Today our Church stands for the revival of traditional moral principles in the politics of the states in which the peoples spiritually led by it live, and for the development of their cooperation with other Orthodox countries. Modern forms efforts to strengthen the unity of Orthodox peoples include works in the cultural, economic, political, and peacekeeping fields. This activity is carried out in cooperation with a number of organizations, such as the Foundation of St. Andrew the Apostle, the International Foundation for the Unity of Orthodox Peoples, and the Interparliamentary Assembly of Orthodoxy. Scientific, cultural and educational projects are of great importance “ Orthodox Encyclopedia"and the Moscow Sretensky Monastery.

In the next part of the report I would like to move on to issues of inter-Orthodox relations. Serving the unity of the Church, the importance of which His Holiness Patriarch Alexy invariably emphasized, was a priority in the sphere of external church relations. His Holiness invariably valued the opportunity for fraternal communication with the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, always emphasizing the importance of celebrating the Divine Liturgy together and praying together in general. With great warmth, the deceased received hierarchs and other leaders of Local Churches who came to the Moscow Patriarchate, closely followed events in the life of world Orthodoxy, rightly believing that it represents one family, firmly united by the unity of faith and the Sacraments, mutual love and help. His Holiness wanted to see more effective interaction between the Orthodox Local Churches and tried to do everything that depended on the Russian Church for this. When other Churches experienced difficulties, our Primate always sought to provide effective support - this was especially evident in relation to the Serbian Church, during the difficult period of the collapse of Yugoslavia, as well as Bulgarian Church, when she, without recognition from the state, suffered from schismatics who received the support of the authorities.

At the same time, any disturbances in the area of inter-church relations caused deep sorrow to the late High Hierarch. Unfortunately, during the period of the Patriarchate of His Holiness Alexy II, especially at its beginning, there were more than once encroachments on the canonical boundaries of the Russian Church - just as it happened during the time of St. Tikhon, following the collapse of the Russian state.

In 1992, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church decided to establish the so-called Bessarabian Metropolis with a see in Chisinau, to which a bishop of the Russian Church who had previously been banned from serving was appointed. And in 2007, three new dioceses were established as part of the “Bessarabian Metropolis”, and this church structure began to make territorial claims to the lands on the left bank of the Dniester, including those that are part of Ukraine. However, life has shown that the overwhelming majority of the Moldovan clergy, as well as parishioners, strive to preserve church unity. The rapid successes expected by some politicians in expanding the parallel metropolis turned out to be very insignificant. Our Church has never renounced dialogue or stopped communicating with the Romanian Orthodox Church, recognizing the importance of finding mutually acceptable solutions that would put an end to canonical disorder and contribute to the achievement high level bilateral relations.

In 1996, a parallel jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Estonia was established. Orthodoxy in this land was planted by Russian missionaries and throughout history has been an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church. With the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate, it was under the canonical authority of the Patriarchs of Moscow and all Russia and all northern countries (this is how, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 1593, the Primates of the Russian Church were called until the abolition of the Patriarchate by Peter I). The establishment of parallel jurisdiction led to a split in Orthodoxy in Estonia, to a temporary cessation of canonical communion between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates and to unrest in the field of inter-Orthodox relations, which have still not been fully resolved. But, despite many difficulties, the position of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was also generally able to stabilize. It is strong by the wise position of its leadership and the loyalty of its children, who confidently wish to remain in the bosom of the Mother Church. Negotiations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople on this issue will continue.

Individual hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople also took steps that were perceived public opinion as providing support to schismatic groups in Ukraine, which was in conflict with the official position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir, as the only canonical Church of Ukraine.

Questions about understanding the rights of Local Churches to take care of their flock in the so-called church diaspora remained an area of intense discussions with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In all such cases, the actions of the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church were aimed at preserving church peace, at patient dialogue in the spirit of Christian love, and at maintaining fraternal relations with all Local Orthodox Churches. At the same time, however, our Church has never compromised the foundations of the canonical church system and defended the norms of Orthodox conciliarity, without which it is impossible welfare of the Holy Churches of God and preservation of God established order in interchurch relations.

As in previous periods of history, during the reign of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, the testimony of our Church was not closed to outsiders. The Christian is called, by firmly maintaining and clearly proclaiming his faith, to be, as far as possible, at peace with all people (see Rom. 12:17). It was in this spirit that the Russian Church built its relations with the heterodox world, with representatives of non-Christian religions, with international organizations and with the authorities of states that lie outside our canonical territory and do not belong to the countries of the Orthodox tradition.

The relations of our Church with heterodox confessions during the period under review underwent a number of serious tests. After the political transformations of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the newly opened space of the former Soviet Union a stream of missionaries poured in. They tried to convert masses of people who, as they believed, were all atheists who had long lost their spiritual roots. Instead of the mutual support that we felt from a number of heterodox associations during the years of oppression by the godless authorities, our Church was faced with a desire to squeeze it out, depriving it of the opportunity to restore its spiritual influence on the people. For the most part, active proselytism was carried out by preachers from various Protestant denominations, but we were sad to see representatives of the Catholic clergy and monastic orders in the ranks of the newly-minted “enlighteners of Rus'”.

However, today we can safely say that our people have successfully withstood the strongest proselytizing onslaught from the outside. This happened thanks to the firmness in the Orthodox faith of millions of ordinary people, as well as the unyielding position and decisive actions of the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate. The problems in this area, although they have become less acute, have by no means disappeared, and we must still closely monitor what is happening and, if necessary, quickly and decisively respond to any attempts to weaken the position of Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the alarming trends faced by people calling themselves Christians around the world encourage us to maintain our dialogue with the most sensible representatives of heterodoxy. Today Christianity, on the one hand, is under pressure from aggressive atheism and secularism that dominates Western society. On the other hand, it suffers from attempts by a number of Protestant communities to radically revise Christian teaching and evangelical morality, which essentially contributes to the aforementioned secular onslaught. Our dialogue with heterodoxy is aimed at supporting those partners who are ready, together with us, to counteract the marginalization of religion, to defend the right of believers to build a life in accordance with their beliefs, and to defend the fundamental importance of morality in the life of the individual and society. I want to especially emphasize that we cannot talk about any doctrinal compromises with heterodoxy, the impossibility of which is very clearly evidenced by the words of St. Mark of Ephesus that I have already quoted. On the contrary, many of the non-Orthodox are attracted precisely by our firmness in the Orthodox faith. In it they see hope for the revival of Christianity in Europe and the world.

In a situation where interethnic relations, complicated by political and social contradictions, have become strained in the post-Soviet space, the peacekeeping position of the leaders of leading religious traditions has acquired particular importance. This gave new meaning to interreligious dialogue and cooperation. Religions have significant peacemaking potential. Thus, meetings of Christian and Muslim religious leaders, held through the mediation of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, contributed to the cessation of the armed Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Contacts of our Church with the Islamic clergy helped the processes of resolving the situation in Chechnya and contributed to the relief of tension after the tragedy in Beslan. In most CIS countries, interreligious relations are now close to optimal. This is confirmed by the coordinated response of leading religious leaders to topical events, numerous joint events, and the creation of permanent interreligious structures, in particular, the Interreligious Council of Russia and the Interreligious Council of the CIS.

Yes, we and representatives of non-Christian religions have different ideas about God and His relationship to man, different traditions, and a different way of life. But the basic moral ideas of traditional religions are in many ways close, which allows us to jointly confront the challenges of moral nihilism, aggressive atheism, interethnic, political and social hostility. It is no coincidence that the participants in the interreligious dialogue jointly condemned terrorism, spoke out in support of the traditional family, advocated the return of morality to the economy, criticized the vicious policies of some media, and defended the interests of religious communities in discussions with government authorities. One of the significant initiatives of the Interreligious Council of Russia was the proposal to give the status of a national holiday to the Day of National Unity, celebrated on the day of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God in memory of the events of 1612, when the people’s militia liberated Moscow from the invaders and put an end to the Time of Troubles, as well as the establishment of a new have a wonderful holiday— Day of family, love and fidelity, dedicated to the day of remembrance of Saints Peter and Fevronia of Murom. I am convinced that the model of interreligious dialogue and cooperation that has emerged in recent years is worthy of broad support from the state and society.

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy attached great importance to expanding contacts of the Russian Orthodox Church with international organizations. Interaction with them provides ample opportunities for the voice of our Church to sound convincingly and authoritatively throughout the world. The secular nature of the work of the mentioned organizations for many years excluded the representation of religious traditions. But it was during the years of the Patriarchate of the late High Hierarch that, at the cost of serious efforts, it was possible to achieve an understanding by international organizations of the role of religion in the life of peoples. The world community has become interested in the view of Russian Orthodoxy on current issues of the world order and international relations. There was also a willingness to cooperate.

To develop such cooperation, the Russian Orthodox Church managed to ensure its presence on the platforms of major international organizations. Today it is represented in the European Union and the Council of Europe, and also, through the World Russian People's Council, in the United Nations. Already now, some resolutions of the UN General Assembly bear the imprint of the work of representatives of our Church. Its presence in UNESCO, OSCE and other international organizations is expanding. The result of this interaction was the visit of His Holiness the Patriarch to Strasbourg in 2007 and his speech at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which resulted in the broadest international discussion of the approaches of the Russian Orthodox Church to human rights problems.

Our Church has established strong ties with leaders and representatives of many countries around the world. His Holiness the Patriarch invariably devoted a lot of time to meetings with heads of state and government, members of parliaments, and ambassadors of different countries. These meetings led to an improvement in the situation of our believers abroad, developed interest in Orthodox spirituality and cultural heritage peoples who make up the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Your Eminences, dear fathers, brothers and sisters in the Lord! Having offered you some reflections on the state of church life and on the works accomplished during the First Hierarchal ministry of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, I, as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, would like to express my conviction that in the coming period of its history our Church, under the leadership of the elected Primate, will bring to the Lord a new abundant fruit. God grant that all of us - archpastors, shepherds, monks, nuns, laymen - reveal ourselves to the Head of the Church, Christ, as sincere and unslothful workers of His vineyard. Let those who have not yet found it or have lost it come to faith through our labors. Let churches and monasteries be built, let the mission of spiritual enlightenment and edification expand. Let our concern for those near and far, our good deeds encourage the whole world to glorify our Heavenly Father (see Matt. 5:16).

Let everything we do be based on the strong stone of the holy Orthodox faith. Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, called on Christians to “remember and put into action the memory that the apostles and ancient fathers of the Church established and spread the Church and destroyed the accumulation of heresies not by the force of the external laws of the pagan world, but by the force of strong faith, love and self-sacrifice.” Fidelity to the commandments of Christ, firmness in the confession of the true faith, preservation of the norms of the Holy Tradition, the meaning of which is that the spirit of the Gospel be present among us - may all this be realized in our Church immutably, even until the end of the age. As the work of this Council begins, I again and again call on you all to preserve brotherly love, peace and unity. May the words of the prayer of the Lord Jesus Himself be fulfilled for us, for the Holy Russian Church: “ The glory that You gave Me, I have given to them: that they may be one, even as We are one. I am in them, and You are in Me; that they may be made perfect, and that the world may know that you sent Me and loved them as you loved Me"(John 17:22-23).

Press service of the Local Council

And Decree No. 362

- And here we come to the so-called “Testament of Patriarch Tikhon”...

Right. This refers to the “Testamentary order of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, in the event of his death, on the succession of the highest church authority” dated December 25, 1924 (01/07/1925), according to which the main and first candidate for the position of temporary locum tenens of the patriarchal throne was indicated - the most respected in the Russian Church pastor-confessor, Metropolitan of Kazan Kirill (Smirnov) and two additional candidates - Metropolitans of Yaroslavl Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and Krutitsky Peter (Polyansky). Since the first two candidates - Metropolitans Kirill and Agafangel - were arrested and could not take office, the third candidate - Metropolitan Peter - became the locum tenens...

-...Who, in turn, also left a will, and he appointed Sergius of Stragorodsky as his deputy, according to which Sergius legally headed the Russian Church when Peter was arrested!

Do not rush. Let's look first at the number of wills, and then at their legality. Firstly, Metropolitan Peter left two “wills”: the first, dated November 22, 1925, he confirmed that, “according to the will of the deceased patriarch,” Cyril or Agafangel should become locums after him. To others - dated November 23 (December 6), 1925 - he appointed those who should temporarily perform his duties in the event of his being unable to fulfill the duties of a locum tenens - and among them the first is Sergius. That is, he did not appoint Sergius as a “deputy”. This position - “deputy locum tenens of the patriarchal throne” - is generally absent in any documents, even in the “testamentary disposition” of Metropolitan Peter dated November 23 (December 6), 1925. Sergius invented it and appropriated it to himself. And thirdly, nothing bothers you about this whole wills thing?

Well, it’s confusing, to be honest... I don’t understand how you can transfer power in the Church by will? After all, the patriarchal throne is still not a royal throne to bequeath to someone, even if only temporarily...

You got the point absolutely right. From the point of view of the canons, of course, this is wrong. 76th rule of St. The Apostles and the 23rd canon of the Council of Antioch directly prohibit the transfer of chairs by inheritance and declare such transfers invalid.

Moreover, according to the definition of the Local Council of 1917–18. dated July 28 / August 10, 1918 “On the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne”, the locum tenens should not be appointed by the patriarch, but elected by the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council and only for seven months - the period for organizing the convening of the Local Council.

It turns out that the patriarch’s will on the appointment of locums is completely anti-canonical? But it had to be based on something!

There was another council resolution dated January 25, 1918, adopted at the proposal of 36 members of the Council, which gave the patriarch the right to appoint a locum tenens in emergency circumstances. This right was given as an exception, that is, as an oikonomia and specifically for emergency circumstances - in the event of the cessation of the functioning of all other higher church bodies. However, the following points should be taken into account: this right, although it was given by the Local Council and provided for emergency circumstances, still violates the canonical norm about the inadmissibility of appointing successors by will, as well as the main cathedral determination on the procedure for electing a locum tenens. This means that the locums appointed by virtue of this emergency right must have a rather conditional status - in the form of purely symbolic representatives, and they cannot have any real power.

- What does the definition of the Local Council say about the rights of locums?

The most interesting thing is that locums, even if they are elected in accordance with the normal procedure, have practically no real management rights! In fact, their significance boils down to presiding over the Synod and Council, representing on behalf of the Church in relations with other autocephalous Churches, addressing the Russian Church with teaching and pastoral messages and managing the affairs of the patriarchal region (Moscow diocese) and taking care of replacing dowager sees . And, of course, make efforts to convene a Local Council. But this is if the locum tenens is elected. What if he was appointed on a dubious canonical basis, according to oikonomia?

Then he has even fewer rights than the chosen one... Or, at least, he must even handle the existing, mainly representative and symbolic, rights with extreme caution, so as not to provoke a split.

Absolutely right. But this is if we talk about locum tenens. Here we can at least say that Patriarch Tikhon, by economy, bypassing the canons and the established procedure for election, for the sake of the prevailing emergency circumstances, was given by the Council such a right - to individually appoint a locum tenens (with very modest powers). But this right was given only to Patriarch Tikhon! And Patriarch Tikhon himself understood this very well. Therefore, he did not write or say anywhere that he was transferring this right to someone else.

Do you want to say that the wills of the locum tenens Metropolitan Peter himself about transferring to someone the rights to manage church affairs had no basis at all either in the canons or in the decisions of the Local Council?

Yes. Nowhere in any conciliar or patriarchal acts will we find such a right - to transfer one’s power and rights - to the locum tenens himself. The new martyrs understood this matter in the same way; here, for example, is what Hieromartyr Kirill of Kazan writes:

“The preservation of proper order in church administration from the death of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon until the convening of the legitimate Church Council was ensured by the will of His Holiness the Patriarch, left by him by virtue of the special right given to him only and not transferred to anyone to appoint a deputy.”

And such an establishment, in principle, cannot exist, since then what was an isolated exception allowed by a conciliar decision of the Church for the patriarch becomes the rule and custom. And you and I, when we talked about ecumenism, we already said that oikonomia - an exception to the rule - cannot itself become a rule that destroys the church dispensation. After all, the procedure for transferring chairs and associated power in the Church by will completely destroys the conciliar structure of the Church as the Body of Christ, replacing the apostolic and conciliar-hierarchical system with some kind of monarcho-dynastic one!

- How, then, should we treat the will of Metropolitan Peter on the appointment of Sergius?

To treat him the way the new martyrs and all the bishops treated him: Sergius simply represents the person of the locum tenens and monitors the paperwork in his office, but has no independent authority over the management of church affairs.

In the same letter, Hieromartyr Kirill writes: “If the matter with the choice of the patriarch is delayed, the locum tenens remains in his post until death, or his own voluntary renunciation, or removal by church court. He is not entitled to appoint a deputy with the same rights as his locum tenens rights. He can only have a temporary deputy for current affairs, acting on his instructions.”

That is, the deputy simply must maintain the existing order, without interfering in anything, be a “watchman” of the established flow of affairs and a technical secretary, and not at all an independent head of the Church, “hierarchy”, issuing independent decrees both in violation of church canons and with exceeding the rights of not only the locum tenens, but even the patriarch!

You say that the locum tenens should simply maintain the existing order and not interfere in anything... But how then can one maintain order in the Church if there are no real higher bodies of church authority? After all, it turns out to be a vicious circle - the powers of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council have expired, the Patriarch is no longer there, the Bolsheviks do not allow the Council to be convened, the locums have been arrested, the deputy locum Sergius has only symbolic powers...

This is a vicious circle only within the “administrative model” of the church structure, which I never tire of repeating and which, alas, was in the minds and habits of the majority of bishops who came from the synodal system.

Several things need to be said here. Firstly, the canonical rules of the Orthodox Church do not at all require that the national local Church be headed by any “higher bodies”, in the form of a patriarch, Synod, VCU, locum tenens or any other structure - even a Local Council. As I already told you, the 34th Apostolic Canon originally applied to local church organizations of a different kind - metropolitan districts. However, the bishops did not really understand this point, although it was even enshrined in the corresponding church document.

- What kind of document is this?

This is the famous so-called “Decree of Patriarch Tikhon No. 362” dated November 7/20, 1920. First of all, although this document was sent out by the Patriarch, this is by no means his sole decree, but a Resolution adopted at a joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Higher Church Council Council. That is, this is a conciliar document.

- And what is he talking about?

That if for some reason the activities of the highest bodies of church government headed by the patriarch cease or the dioceses’ connection with them is interrupted, then the dioceses will completely switch to independent governance, co-organizing, if possible, with neighboring dioceses (that is, forming metropolitan districts) or deciding matters completely independently, up to the establishment of new self-governing dioceses, parishes and meetings of believers in homes, depending on the circumstances.

In other words, in emergency circumstances, dioceses can behave as independent local church communities, as if there is no higher church body above them?

Exactly. Moreover, this decree was already applied when the renovationists organized their self-proclaimed VCU. Then the locum tenens Metropolitan Agafangel, appointed by the patriarch, sent out a message in which he called on all dioceses that did not want to recognize the Renovationists to be guided by this decree and arrange matters independently.

- But this means a call for complete decentralization of church government!

Absolutely right! In fact, this decree calls for living in conditions of persecution according to the model of life of the Church of the first three centuries, when there were no centralized patriarchates and the elementary church unit was the local community-parikia. In the conditions of incessant persecution, the dioceses switched to this mode of life, gradually gaining experience in solving problems independently. Moreover, this decree restored the original meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon on the organization of metropolitan districts. But all this was still in its infancy, only slowly emerging, but administrative psychology was very strong. And it demanded the presence of, if not absolute, then at least symbolic leadership. And it is precisely within the framework of such symbolic leadership that the Council affirms the rights of the locum tenens, and at the same time allows the patriarch to appoint a locum tenens for himself in emergency circumstances.

Conversation 11. About Sergianism.

Having become the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Saint Peter was faced with the need to choose an ecclesiastical position. Having continued all the main directions of the activity of the late Patriarch Tikhon, he set his main goal to solve two most important church-historical problems. The first is the preservation of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church in the face of the renovationist schism that intensified after the death of His Holiness the Patriarch. And the second is the establishment of mutually acceptable relations between the Russian Church and the Soviet state, which were to be based on strict compliance by both parties with the decree on freedom of conscience and on the provision of civil registration to the ruling bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia.

“Following the example of his predecessors in this post, the holy metropolitans Peter, Alexy, Philip and Hermogenes, he decided to be the leader and leader, first of all, of the majority of the believing people. Metropolitan Peter was not a politician, nor was he a diplomat; the only clear goal he saw was to be with Christ and the people of God. And therefore, even then he firmly decided not to contact representatives of the GPU on any issues, not to ask them for anything and not to enter into negotiations with them.”

Loyalty to the state, which the Patriarchal Locum Tenens declared, was devoid of statements degrading the dignity of the Church about ideological closeness with it or that the Church enjoys freedom in the Soviet state.

Metropolitan Peter was distinguished by his politeness and gentleness in his interactions with people. While still alive His Holiness Tikhon When Saint Peter was his assistant, it seemed to Tuchkov that it would be easy to come to an agreement with this man. Therefore, in the first months of the activity of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Tuchkov took a wait-and-see attitude and did not try to deprive him of his freedom of action.

The “touchstone” for the pliability of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens was his famous interview with the newspaper Izvestia.

To the question: “When do you intend to purge the counter-revolutionary clergy and Black Hundred parishes, and also convene a commission to try foreign bishops?” - Metropolitan Peter replied: “For me, as the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, the will of Patriarch Tikhon is sacred. But I alone am not competent to carry out these provisions of the will.”

In turn, Metropolitan Peter demanded the consent of the authorities to create a body of the Supreme Church Administration. The NKVD agreed to “legalization” under certain conditions. These were: the publication of a declaration calling on believers to be loyal to the Soviet regime; elimination of undesirable bishops; condemnation of foreign bishops; certain permanent business relations will be established between the Church and the government, which will be represented by Tuchkov.

Metropolitan Peter, like Patriarch Tikhon earlier, did not accept these conditions. Having failed, the authorized OGPU Tuchkov (he combined the positions of head of the 6th department of the OGPU and deputy chairman of the anti-religious commission under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)) began to look for one among the Orthodox bishops who would agree to seize church power and be an obedient instrument in the hands of the Soviet government.

Already a month after the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the GPU began to create a new schism in the Church. GPU representative Polyansky suggested that Moscow Vicar Bishop Boris (Rukin) create an initiative group “Defense of Orthodoxy” (future “Gregorians”) and submit a corresponding petition on its behalf to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Assurances that after this the Orthodox Church would be immediately legalized and disassociated from all innovations, including renovationism, had an effect. Bishop Boris agreed, but stated that he alone could not do anything, and that it was better to turn to the Locum Tenens. But Metropolitan Peter decisively rejected such a proposal.

Bishop Boris, however, did not calm down in his desire to change the order of church government. Being an opponent of the patriarchate, he sought the abolition of patriarchal government and a return to the synodal form of government. He again entered into negotiations with a representative of the GPU and, having agreed on the terms of legalization, began to demand that St. Peter convene a council of bishops. But the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, regarding all his proposals as provocative, told the vicar: “The authorities, undoubtedly, will not allow any free meeting of Orthodox bishops, not to mention the Local Council.”

At this time, the struggle with the Church and persecution against believers intensified. Anti-religious propaganda also intensified. In 1925, under the leadership of the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) E. Yaroslavsky, the “Union of Atheists” was organized, which a year after its creation already numbered 87 thousand members.

To more successfully fight the Church, the authorities again used the Renovationists.

According to statistics, “at the beginning of 1925, the renovationists had 13,650 churches, and they accounted for approximately a third of all parishes. These parishes were small in number, but with an excess staff of clergy. There were no vacancies in the schismatic episcopal sees. The authorities allowed the Renovationists to acquire their own theological schools, even academies in Moscow and Petrograd, and the Higher Ukrainian Theological School in Kyiv. They were not forbidden to publish their own magazines and newspapers.”

As already mentioned in Chapter 2, the Ecumenical Patriarchs also supported the renovationists. According to Rev. V. Tsypina, “the representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Moscow, Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopulo), became a great friend of the leaders of the schism.” When the holy Metropolitan Peter was presented with a message from the Ecumenical Patriarch Basil, calling on the “Old Churchmen” to make peace with the Renovationists, he said: “We still need to check whether this is the Orthodox Patriarch...” And Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod reacted this way to Constantinople’s recognition of the Renovation Synod: “ Let them admit it; Because of this, the renovationists did not become Orthodox, but only the patriarchs became renovationists.”

Therefore, the attempts of the renovationists to hide behind the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch did not in the least shake the firm position of the Orthodox hierarchs, clergy and laity, who, despite any repression, remained faithful to the “persecuted and beaten Patriarchal Church.”

The death of Patriarch Tikhon gave new hopes to the renovationists to strengthen their positions. They began again to look for ways to unite with the Patriarchal Church. Already on April 11, on the occasion of the death of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the Renovation Synod, headed by the false metropolitan Veniamin (Muratovsky), issued a call for unification, which, according to their plans, was to take place at the third council in the fall of the same year. At this council they hoped to see many Orthodox hierarchs headed by the Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

The calls of the Renovationists for negotiations were treated differently in the Orthodox community. There were those who, wishing to overcome the split, considered the proposals of the renovationists acceptable. At such a moment, the firm position of those who stood at the head of the Church was very important.

The hopes of the Renovationists were not justified; moreover, they ended in complete failure, smashed against a “hard stone,” which turned out to be the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter. “He was stubborn as a bull; It was simply impossible to start working on it,” A. Vvedensky said about him.

The most that Saint Peter agreed to was to accept Archdeacon S. Dobrov. It was not by chance that this man was chosen by the Renovationist Synod for such a responsible assignment: “he was the most harmless and unremarkable person who did not evoke any unpleasant associations.” The Archdeacon handed over to the Patriarchal Locum Tenens a letter from Metropolitan Benjamin, Chairman of the Synod. This message contained a proposal for a meeting and a willingness to “conduct a conversation in the spirit of Christ’s love and mutual respect,” to which St. Metropolitan Peter answered briefly: “No, the meeting cannot take place.”

On behalf of the Synod, the archdeacon proposed creating a commission for joint preparation for the Council. And here Saint Peter gave a categorical refusal, citing the insufficiency of his powers, and made any negotiations conditional on the possibility of consultation with imprisoned and exiled bishops.

On July 28, 1925, in order to stop such attempts by the renovationists and in connection with the impending council, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, addressed a message to the archpastors, shepherds and all the children of the Orthodox Russian Church, strengthening all the hesitant and faint-hearted and dealing a crushing blow to the destroyers of the Church.

Pointing to the greatest trials sent down to the Russian Orthodox Church, Saint Peter called on the faithful children of Christ to sacredly preserve the canonically legal unity of the church. “In the Holy Church of God, only that which is blessed by the Divinely established Church authority, which has been successively preserved since apostolic times, is legal and canonical.” “Everything that is arbitrary,” he continues, “everything that was done by the renovationists without the permission of the deceased Patriarch in God, everything that is now being done without the permission of our measure - the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, acting in unity with the entire Orthodox legal hierarchy - all this has no strength according to the canons of the Holy Church (Apostle Prov. 34, Prov. 39), for the true Church is one, and the grace of the All-Holy Spirit abiding in Her is one. There cannot be two churches and two graces."

Saint Peter directly names in his epistle the crimes that the Renovationists have committed and continue to commit against the Church of Christ.

“...Having arbitrarily departed from the legal hierarchy and its head, His Holiness the Patriarch, they tried to renew the Church of Christ with unauthorized teaching (“Living Church”, No. 1-11), they perverted the church rules established by the Ecumenical Councils (post. False Council 21.4 - 4.5. 1923 G.); they rejected the authority of the Patriarch, conciliarly established and recognized by all Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates... and besides this, at their false council they condemned him. Contrary to the rules of the Holy Apostles, Ecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers... they allow bishops to be married and clergy to be bigamists, i.e. They violate what the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church recognizes as law for itself.”

Warning the flock of the Russian Church from participating in the upcoming council, the Saint firmly says that the only possibility of joining (and not uniting!) the Renovationists to the Holy Orthodox Church is the renunciation of their errors and nationwide repentance of their falling away from the Church.

At the conclusion of the message, Saint Metropolitan Peter, as if in response to the slanderous attempts of the renovationists to discredit the legitimate church hierarchy in the eyes of the civil authorities and once again, noting the position of the Church in relation to the state, points out the difficulty of the circumstances being experienced and appeals to the faithful with an appeal: “let us remain in a union of peace and love among ourselves, we will all be one (John X, XVII, 22 - 23), helping each other to protect our Orthodox faith, showing everywhere an example of good life and love, meekness, humility and obedience to the existing civil authority in accordance with the commandments of God (Mark XII, 17; Rom. XIII, 1; Acts. IV, 18 - 19); so that the latter would see this and the Spirit of God would speak good things about the Holy Church (Acts I, Peter XI, 12 - 14).”

The message of the legitimate First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church was perceived by the people as “an act of gracious courage and confession.” Even those who previously perceived the Locum Tenens with some distrust recognized him as a worthy successor to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. The universal support of the Epistle - both in the center and in distant dioceses - showed “how firmly the persecuted Church stood in the spirit of Truth and how great was the canonical steadfastness and internal discipline of the diocesan bishops, pastors and laity.”

In Leningrad - the cradle of renovationism - the message of the Leningrad Orthodox bishops-vicars regarding the upcoming council said that “... The Lord will bless, there will be a legitimate Council, and, judging by the lawless, wicked and godless council of 1923, which deposed His Holiness the Patriarch, we know “What councils are the renovationists calling for?”

Nizhny Novgorod Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), showing his full agreement with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, responded to the renovationist bishop’s proposal for negotiations that he could accept him only as someone who wanted to bring nationwide repentance.

“Everywhere the delegation sent by the synod to one or another diocesan bishop with letters of reconciliation visited, everywhere it met with complete refusal.”

This was a crushing blow to renovationism. Among them, the Message of the Locum Tenens was lively discussed. In their messages and appeals “to the God-loving flock,” they refused to recognize him as the head of the Russian Church, since the patriarchal throne was “abolished” by them back in 1923. They explained the canonical steadfastness of Metropolitan Peter as a political way of protecting the “old” Church from the “revolutionary renewal element” that could undermine Her “monarchical and anti-Soviet interior.”

In fact, they were panicking. Hieromonk Damascene (Orlovsky) in his biography of St. Metropolitan Peter gives vivid examples of the renovationist reaction.

“...The appeal of Metropolitan Peter determined the entire line of behavior of the Old Churchmen... The tone given by the “krutytsy” had already determined in advance the position of the Old Churchmen along the entire front, and in the future only variants of the same policy were possible. At the same time, in places it was easy to simply refer to the center, which is what we actually see...”

“...Before the circulation of the appeal of Peter Krutitsky, the majority of the clergy and parish councils of the Tambov diocese were ready to take part in deanery meetings and the diocesan congress... the peace-loving mood of the “lower classes” was greatly influenced by the appeal of Peter Krutitsky. Tikhonites almost never showed up at the dean’s congresses, convened after the appearance of this appeal...”

“In a number of dioceses... the irreconcilable line of the Tikhonites coming from Krutitsy was expressed in a complete refusal to even talk about church reconciliation. Tikhonovsky bishops of this type either remained silent, or immediately sharply expressed their negative and hostile attitude and were generally afraid to enter into any relations with synodal representatives: obviously, they literally carried out the directives of their superiors, but there were also such bishops where, as they say, they succeeded “start a conversation” with Tikhonov’s leaders, but these conversations usually ended with the same intransigence.”

This is how his enemies wrote about the influence of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. According to M.E. Gubonin, “despite the short-term (only 8 months) leadership of the Church, it was with this act that the Patriarchal Locum Tenens left an indelible mark on the Church in the grateful memory of Her faithful sons.”

The message of St. Metropolitan Peter, which immediately restored a strong spirit in the Church and doomed the hopes and efforts of the Renovationists and the Godless authorities to complete collapse, played a decisive role in the personal fate of the courageous Confessor. The Soviet government, convinced that in the person of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, the Orthodox Church has an incorruptible and fearless head, decided to take all measures to eliminate him.

The anti-religious commission under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Yaroslavsky, decided: “a) to instruct Tuchkov to speed up the implementation of the emerging split among the “Tikhonovites”; b) in order to expose the monarchical aspirations of Peter, the locum tenens of the patriarchate, publish in Izvestia a number of articles discrediting Peter, using for this purpose the materials of the recently ended Renovation Council; c) entrust viewing of articles to TT. Stepanov, Krasikov, Tuchkov; d) instruct them to review the declaration against Peter being prepared by the opposition group; e) simultaneously with the publication of the articles, instruct the OGPU to begin an investigation against Peter.”

This program to split, weaken the Church and eliminate its head (without a doubt it can be called a government program) was brutally and consistently carried out throughout the 20s and 30s.

At the end of the summer of 1925, Tuchkov once again demanded that Metropolitan Peter accept the terms of “legalization,” promising for this the officialization of governance and the immunity of those bishops who would be appointed to the dioceses by agreement with the authorities. Proposing this at a time when the Locum Tenens was already in personal danger, the government, of course, hoped that, wanting to preserve freedom and avoid future trials, he would unwittingly agree to this proposal. But the will of the Holy Martyr Peter was unbending. He is in Once again refused to sign the text of the declaration proposed by Tuchkov.

At the same time, Tuchkov wanted to “arbitrarily make Metropolitan Agafangel Locum Tenens and send Metropolitan Peter to Yaroslavl. The locum tenens responded: “I will willingly transfer power to Metropolitan Agafangel, since he is a candidate for locum tenens before me, but I myself will remain Metropolitan of Krutitsky, since it is not the business of the civil authorities to interfere in purely ecclesiastical affairs.” This was said with such firmness that Tuchkov abandoned his intention...”

The Patriarchal Locum Tenens knew well that no concessions on his part would be useful. The government takes everything and gives nothing. Therefore, “the Metropolitan directly rejected various proposals of the agent of power and even escorted him out of his chambers with the following words: “You are all lying; you don’t give anything, you only promise; now bother to leave the room, we will have a meeting.” The embittered enemy could not tolerate such a removal from church affairs for long.”

The clouds were gathering more and more over the courageous First Hierarch. He found spiritual support and consolation among the brethren of the Danilov Monastery, the rector of which was the outstanding hierarch, Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky). Many prominent bishops belonged to the so-called “Danilov group”: Parthenius (Bryanskikh), Joasaph (Udalov), Ambrose (Polyansky), Procopius (Titov), Tikhon (Sharapov), Nikolai (Dobronravov), Damascene (Tsedrik), Gury (Stepanov) ), Pakhomiy (Kedrov), German (Ryashintsev). All of these were archpastors who shared the views of Metropolitan Peter, both on the renovationist schism and on the nature of possible negotiations with Soviet power.

Metropolitan Peter acted “in accordance with the opinion of Archbishop Foedor and the bishops close to him, and, first of all, because in his eyes they were the most authoritative and faithful exponents of the church judgments of the entire believing people, they were the guardians and guardians of the purity of Orthodoxy.

The locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne often served in the Danilov Monastery. One day during a service on August 30 (September 12), 1925, on the patronal feast day, a miraculous incident occurred.

“The Trinity Church, where the relics of St. Daniel stood, and the entire monastery were filled with people. The path to the saint’s shrine was covered with a carpet of fresh flowers, and the entire shrine was skillfully decorated with them. Metropolitan Peter, entering the church, walked to the relics of the saint and reverently venerated them. Some monks saw that when the Locum Tenens then went to the salt, a kind of cloud formed over the relics, in which the image of the Venerable Grand Duke Daniel appeared. And the entire time Metropolitan Peter walked to the altar, the monk accompanied him.”

Holy Metropolitan Peter did not remain indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox clergy. It is known that Bishop Parthenius (Bryanskikh), who headed the brethren of the Danilov Monastery after the arrest of Bishop Foedor (Pozdeevsky), was given money by Metropolitan Peter to distribute to exiled clergymen. He helped many imprisoned brethren. He himself sent money to Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), Archbishop Nikandr (Fenomenov), Patriarch Tikhon’s secretary Peter Guryev and others. He also blessed parish clergy to donate money and food in favor of imprisoned clergy.

On October 1 in Moscow, in the third House of Soviets, the renovationists opened their cathedral, which they called the “Third Local Cathedral on the territory of the USSR.” It was attended by: “106 schismatics who called themselves bishops, more than 100 false clergy and more than 100 laity.” The representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopulo), also took part in the council.

12 delegates of the council submitted a statement in which they asked to send a delegation to Metropolitan Peter with a peace proposal. But already in the introductory report, the leader of the renovationists, A. Vvedensky, “prepared for his audience such an ominous provocation that the question of peace with the Tikhonites should have disappeared during the conciliar meetings.”

Vvedensky read out a letter from a certain South American “bishop” N. Solovy, in which he reported “ terrible secret": in 1924, Patriarch Tikhon, in the presence of Metropolitan Peter, handed him a message. This “message” said that “The Holy Church cannot bless Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to the throne, since there is a legal and direct heir to the throne, Grand Duke Kirill.”

As if pushing the GPU to deal with Metropolitan Peter, the renovationists characterized him in their resolution as a seasoned bureaucrat of the “Sabler edition”, who had not forgotten the old methods of church government. It relies on people organically connected with the old system, dissatisfied with the revolution: former homeowners and merchants who are still thinking of reckoning with the modern government.”

After this “council” and the “revealing” letter, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens was spoken of as a person who had connections with foreign monarchists and belonged to the Black Hundreds.

A stormy newspaper sensation began. Vulgar articles were written about Metropolitan Peter, accusing him of all sorts of political crimes.

On November 15, in pursuance of the orders of the anti-religious commission, a certain citizen Telyakovsky made accusations and threats against Metropolitan Saint Peter in the newspaper Izvestia. The article reported that the Message of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens was regarded by the renovationists as a counter-revolutionary act. And the recognition of Metropolitan Peter by the Karlovac hierarchy proves the existence of a relationship between the Locum Tenens and the refugee bishops. The author declared the holy confessor to be a tool and protege of foreign monarchists.

After such an article, it was clear that the Locum Tenens would face an inevitable arrest if he did not decide to “justify himself,” as those who stood behind “Citizen Telyakovsky” hoped.

It is no coincidence that immediately after the publication of the article, a delegation of hierarchs dissatisfied with the church government, assembled by Tuchkov, headed by Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky), came to Metropolitan Peter. They demanded from the Patriarchal Locum Tenens a public political rehabilitation of themselves “in the face of the Soviet public” and assurances of loyalty on behalf of the entire Church, along with curses against church emigration. These bishops explained their demands by caring for the good of the Church.

Saint Peter promised to think about the proposals made to him. But in the very tone with which these bishops addressed him, “he discovered both criticism of his line and a certain distrust of him as the Head of the Church and therefore was forced to declare that he was responsible for the fate of the Russian Church as the temporary successor of the deceased Patriarch.” This answer meant that the Patriarchal Locum Tenens made a choice and internally prepared for the feat of confession and prison bonds.”

Meanwhile, the authorities, represented by representatives of the GPU, persistently demanded that the saint accept their proposal for legalization. Metropolitan Peter decided to draw up a declaration addressed to the Soviet government, in which he intended to show how he saw the relationship of the Church with the state in the current circumstances. Based on the draft draft of the Locum Tenens, the text of the declaration was written by Bishop Joasaph (Udalov). But the saint wanted to personally hand it over to the head of government, and not through the intermediaries of the GPU. But, knowing the position of the Locum Tenens, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers Rykov did not want to meet with the head of the Church.

At the end of November, mass arrests were made of clergy close to the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Anticipating that his arrest was inevitable, Saint Metropolitan Peter, expecting worse consequences for himself, drew up two testamentary documents.

The first, dated December 5, stated that in the event of the death of Metropolitan Peter, the rights and duties of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens “until the legal election of a new Patriarch” are transferred temporarily, according to the will of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, to Metropolitans Kirill or Agafangel; and if both are unable to take office - to Metropolitan Arseny of Novgorod. If he does not have the opportunity to carry out this, then the rights and duties of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens pass to Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod.

Another document was written on December 6 in the event that he would not be physically eliminated, but isolated from the outside world, removed from the possibility of governing the Church. This document does not cancel the first one, but complements it. Trying to foresee all possible consequences of his arrest and realizing that Metropolitans Kirill and Agafangel have already been removed from the possibility of governing the Church, Metropolitan Peter entrusts the temporary performance of the duties of Locum Tenens to Metropolitan Sergius. If this turns out to be impossible, the Exarch of Ukraine, Metropolitan Mikhail or Archbishop Joseph of Rostov, assumes the position of Locum Tenens.

This was followed by a very important clarification: “The exaltation of My name during the divine service, as the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, remains obligatory.” Thus, Metropolitan Peter emphasizes the temporary and forced nature of the order he made.

Such a step was taken for only one reason - concern for the good of the Church and the fate of church administration for St. Peter, as once for Patriarch Tikhon, was in the first place. He fervently desired to “protect the Russian Orthodox Church from anarchy and schisms, the seizure of church governance by groups with selfish interests, which always leads to a break with the canons and traditions of Orthodoxy.”

Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsky (in the world Peter Fedorovich Polyansky) was born in 1862 into the pious family of a priest in the village of Storozhevoye, Voronezh diocese. In 1885, he graduated from the Voronezh Theological Seminary in 1st category, and in 1892 from the Moscow Theological Academy and was left with it as an assistant inspector. After occupying a number of responsible positions at the Zhirovitsky Theological School, Pyotr Fedorovich was transferred to St. Petersburg, to the staff of the Synodal Educational Committee, of which he became a member. Being a high-ranking synodal official, Pyotr Fedorovich was distinguished by his disinterestedness and severity. He traveled with audits throughout almost all of Russia, examining the state of theological schools. Despite all his busyness, he found time for scientific studies and in 1897 defended his master's thesis on the topic: “The First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to Timothy. Experience of historical and exegetical research." Pyotr Fedorovich took part in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918. After the revolution, Pyotr Fedorovich served as manager of the Moscow Bogatyr factory until 1920. During the beginning of the persecution of the Holy Church, in 1920 His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon invited him to take monastic vows, the priesthood and become his assistant in matters of church administration. Telling his brother about this offer, he said: “I cannot refuse. If I refuse, I will be a traitor to the Church, but when I agree, I know I will be signing my own death warrant.” Right after episcopal consecration in 1920, Bishop of Podolsk, Vladyka Peter was exiled to Veliky Ustyug, but after being released from the arrest of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, he returned to Moscow, becoming the closest assistant to the Russian Primate. Soon he was elevated to the rank of archbishop (1923), then became Metropolitan of Krutitsky (1924) and was included in the Provisional Patriarchal Synod. In the last months of Patriarch Tikhon’s life, Metropolitan Peter was his faithful assistant in all matters of governing the Church. At the beginning of 1925, His Holiness appointed him as a candidate for locum tenens of the patriarchal throne after the holy martyrs Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan and Metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl. After the death of the Patriarch, the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens were entrusted to Metropolitan Peter, since Metropolitans Kirill and Agathangel were in exile. Vladyka Peter was confirmed in this position by the Council of Bishops in 1925. In his administration of the Church, Metropolitan Peter followed the path of Patriarch Tikhon - this was the path of firmly standing for Orthodoxy and uncompromising opposition to the renovationist schism.

During the short period of his First Hierarchal service in Moscow, Metropolitan Peter often celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Moscow parish and monastery churches. He especially loved to visit the St. Daniel Monastery, whose arrested holy archimandrite, Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky), was highly valued by the Locum Tenens for his unwavering standing on the guard of Orthodoxy, for his strict adherence to the canons, for his extensive theological education and deep intelligence. On August 30 (September 12), 1925, on the patronal feast day, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens served in the Trinity Cathedral of the monastery, where the relics of the blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow rested. The monastery was filled with praying people. The path to the shrine with holy relics was covered with a carpet of fresh flowers. Entering the church, Metropolitan Peter walked to the relics of the saint and reverently venerated them. Some monks saw that when he went to the salt, a kind of cloud formed over the relics, in which the image of the holy prince Daniel appeared; and the entire time the Metropolitan walked to the altar, this image accompanied him. After the service, Metropolitan Peter, foreseeing his imminent arrest, handed over to Archbishop Parthenius (Bryansky), who headed the Danilov brethren after the arrest of Archbishop Theodore, a will about his deputies and money to send to the clergy who were in exile. In November 1925, Metropolitan Peter was arrested - the time of painful interrogations and moral torture began for him. After imprisonment in the Suzdal political isolator, Vladyka was brought to Lubyanka, where he was offered to renounce his priestly ministry in exchange for freedom, but he replied that under no circumstances would he leave his ministry. Agents of the GPU. they offered him to make concessions, in order to share some benefit for the Church, but the Vladyka answered them: “You are lying; you will not give anything, but only promise...” In 1926, Vladyka was sent into exile for three years in the Tobolsk region (the village of Abalatskoye on the banks of the Irtysh River), and then to the Far North, to the tundra, to the winter quarters of He, located in 200 kilometers from Obdorsk. The link was soon extended for two years. The saint managed to rent a house of two rooms from a local old woman. At first, having rested from the Tobolsk prison, the saint felt relief from fresh air, but soon he suffered his first severe attack of suffocation, asthma, and since then he, deprived medical care , did not leave the bed. He knew that parcels were arriving in his name, but he did not receive them; the ship arrived in He only once a year. But in the same exile, Vladyka was arrested again in 1930 and imprisoned in Yekaterinburg prison for five years in solitary confinement. Then he was transferred to the Verkhneuralsk political isolation ward. He was offered to give up his locum tenens position, promising freedom in return, but the saint categorically refused this offer. Neither the extension of the period of exile, nor the transfers to places increasingly remote from the center, nor the tightening of the conditions of imprisonment could break the will of the saint, although they crushed the mighty health of the Bishop. All the years of difficult solitary confinement, he did not even show a word of hostility or dislike to anyone. At that time he wrote: “As the head of the Church, I should not seek my own line. Otherwise, what would happen in church language is called deceit.” When asked by the authorities to take on the role of an informant in the Church, the patriarchal locum tenens sharply replied: “This kind of occupation is incompatible with my title and, moreover, is incompatible with my nature.” And although the high priest was deprived of the opportunity to rule the Church, he remained in the eyes of many martyrs and confessors who raised his name during divine services, a reliable island of firmness and fidelity during the years of retreats and concessions to the atheistic authorities. The conditions of the saint's imprisonment were very difficult. The Bishop suffered from the fact that, feeling responsible before God for church life, he was deprived of any connection with the outside world, did not know church news, and did not receive letters. When information reached him about the release of the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who was his deputy, Vladyka was shocked. He was confident in Metropolitan Sergius, that he recognized himself only as a “guardian of the current order,” “without any constituent rights,” which the saint indicated to him in a letter of 1929, where he gently reproached Metropolitan Sergius for exceeding his powers . In the same letter, Vladyka asked Metropolitan Sergius “to correct the mistake that has been made, which has put the Church in a humiliating position, causing discord and division in it...” At the beginning of 1928, a participant in a scientific expedition, Professor N. Him Vladyka, had the opportunity to meet and talk with Vladyka he said this about his assessment of the activities of Metropolitan Sergius: “For the First Hierarch, such an appeal is unacceptable. Moreover, I do not understand why the Synod was assembled, as I see from the signatures under the appeal, from unreliable persons. This appeal casts a shadow over the Patriarch and me, as if we had political relations with foreign countries, while there were no relations other than church ones. I am not one of the irreconcilable, I have allowed everything that can be allowed, and I was offered to sign the appeal in more decent terms, but I did not agree, and for this I was expelled. I trusted Metropolitan Sergius and I see that I was mistaken.” In 1929, the Hieromartyr of Damascus, Bishop of Starodub, managed to establish communication with Metropolitan Peter through a contact. Through this messenger the saint orally conveyed the following: “1. You, bishops, must yourself remove Metropolitan Sergius. 2. I do not bless the commemoration of Metropolitan Sergius during divine services.” In 1930, from the winter quarters of He, the Saint wrote another, last, letter to Metropolitan Sergius, where he expressed disappointment that he, as a person subordinate to him, did not initiate him into his intentions regarding the legalization of the Church through unacceptable compromises: “Since letters arrive from others, then, undoubtedly, yours would have reached it too.” Expressing his negative attitude towards the compromise with the communists and the concessions made to them by Metropolitan Sergius, Vladyka directly demanded from the latter: “If you are not able to defend the Church, step aside and give way to someone stronger.” Thus, the saint believed that the Russian bishops themselves should impose reprimand on Metropolitan Sergius for his anti-canonical acts. Perhaps this is why the Message of the Hieromartyr Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) was prepared in 1934 on the prohibition of Metropolitan Sergius from the priesthood. In 1931, Vladyka was partially paralyzed. This happened after the visit of Tuchkov, who invited the saint to become an informant for the GPU. Even earlier he had developed scurvy. In 1933, the elderly saint, who was sick with asthma, was deprived of walks in the common prison yard, replacing them with access to a separate courtyard-well, where the air was saturated with prison fumes. On the first “walk”, Vladyka lost consciousness. When he was transferred with a tougher regime to the Verkhneuralsk special prison, he was again placed in solitary confinement, and instead of his name he was given No. 114. It was a regime of strict isolation.There is evidence that Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), expecting the release of the legal locum tenens, sent a letter to the Soviet government that if Metropolitan Peter were released from prison, the entire church policy of concessions would change in the exact opposite direction. The authorities reacted properly, and Vladyka Peter, having waited for the day of his release - July 23, 1936 - in the Verkhneuralsk prison, received instead of freedom new term imprisonment for another three years. By this time he was already seventy-four years old and the authorities decided to declare the saint dead, which was reported to Metropolitan Sergius, who, according to the will of Metropolitan Peter, drawn up on December 5, 1925, in December was given the title of Patriarchal Locum Tenens - while Metropolitan Locum Tenens Peter was still alive . Thus passed another year of difficult imprisonment for the sick elder high priest. In July 1937, by order of Stalin, an operational order was developed to shoot all confessors in prisons and camps within four months. In accordance with this order, the administration of the Verkhneuralsk prison filed charges against the saint: “He shows himself to be an irreconcilable enemy of the Soviet state... accusing its leaders of persecuting the Church. Slanderously accuses the NKVD authorities of being biased towards him, which allegedly resulted in his imprisonment, since he did not accept the NKVD’s demand to renounce the rank of locum tenens.” On September 27 (October 10), 1937, at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, the holy martyr Metropolitan Peter was shot in the Magnitogorsk prison, and thereby crowned his confessional feat with the shedding of martyr’s blood for Christ. The burial place of the Holy Martyr Peter remains unknown. Canonized by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997.

Sections