The actual process of replacing the dowager patriarchal chair with a new person was multi-stage and extended in time (from two months to several years). It began with the convening by the emperor (but without his direct participation) of a Council of Bishops to discuss and elect three candidates for patriarch (either from the episcopate, or from monks, or even from the laity). Of these, the emperor chose one. Then, through the archons - in the act of the so-called small naming - on behalf of the Council and himself personally, he announced his choice. The latter was secured by the act of the great naming - liturgically and conciliarly, that is, in the face of the entire church people (including the clergy, laity and representatives of the authorities), and if the one being named was not in office, his priestly ordination was performed. Next, the emperor, in the throne room of the Grand Palace, performed a solemn ceremony of elevating the newly-named Patriarch of Constantinople and presenting him with the high priest's staff. This was followed by the first patriarchal service in the Church of St. Sophia - preceded, if the chosen one was not a bishop, by the solemn rite of episcopal consecration. During the first patriarchal service, enthronement took place - the act of proclaiming what had been erected by the patriarch and placing him on the throne as the primate of the Byzantine Church. The process of replacing the high priestly department was completed with an act of fraternal communication of the newly elected patriarch with the heads of other Orthodox local churches in the form of a letter addressed to them outlining the teachings of the faith, as well as an act of addressing his own flock in the form of a district - confessional and teaching in content - message.
Holy Patriarch Job.
The main sources containing information directly related to the procedure for the election, naming and elevation of Metropolitan Job of Moscow to Patriarch of “All Rus'” are: 1) article “On the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia” (RNB, handwritten collection of the 17th century from the library of the Solovetsky Monastery No. 852, l 60-109v.) and 2) a more lengthy document “On the coming to Moscow from Constantinople of the Holy Jeremiah, Patriarch of the Ecumenical” (GIM, handwritten collection of the second half of the 17th century. Synodal Library No. 703, l. 76v.-123v.) . Both sources, along with others (Russian and Greek), have been published. Despite the fact that these sources are relatively late copies of unsurvived evidence from 1589, they are trusted by researchers and make it possible to quite reliably present the ceremonial and ritual details of the first patriarchal enthronement in Russia.
This is what is fundamentally important to note.
1. In the Moscow state of the mid-15th - late 16th centuries. neither the clergy (especially the white ones) nor the church people en masse participated in any way in the matter of electing the primate of the Russian Church, the metropolitan. This right belonged entirely to the anointed one of God - the Grand Duke and then the Tsar, who, or not, relied on the opinion and help of a very narrow circle of people especially close to him: he chose a candidate who, in his opinion, was worthy of primacy, either from the episcopate or from among the monastics. The procedure for a church council decision was formal and predetermined by the sovereign's will.
2. The circumstances of the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus' at the end of the 16th century. well known and described. Leaving the details out of brackets, it is necessary to emphasize: the willy-nilly personal participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II in this process was due to a set of reasons and goals connected by mutual (Moscow and the Orthodox East represented by Jeremiah) interest in the context of the unique geopolitical position of the Moscow state and the Russian Church in the then Christian world; the main role in achieving this goal belonged to Tsar Feodor Ioannovich and his government (primarily in the person of Boris Godunov); The Russian clergy, and in particular the episcopate, were first involved in the task of elevating Metropolitan Job of Moscow to the dignity of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' at the very last - technical - stage, but very passively. At the Council of Bishops, held by decree of Theodore Ioannovich in Moscow on January 17, 1589, headed by Metropolitan Job, firstly, the tsar himself notified the councils of the consent (as a result of lengthy negotiations) of the head of the Church of Constantinople, Jeremiah II, who was visiting Moscow, to establish in Russia Churches of the Patriarchate; secondly, the Council expressed a desire only to prayerfully, and not actively, help the Tsar complete the work he had started; thirdly, the Council sent the sovereign's Duma clerk and the head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, A. Ya. Shchelkalov, to Jeremiah to find out details about the procedure for patriarchal installation in Greece and to receive a written statement of this order.
3. The resulting Greek rank was revised by Shchelkalov on the basis of the actual Russian tradition of elevating the chosen one to metropolitan (with repeated episcopal consecration if the chosen one was a bishop) and already on January 19 was approved by a joint Council of the clergy and boyars. After this, an expanded deputation from the Council delivered to Jeremiah the “sovereign’s verdict” regarding the course of the upcoming celebration and the names of the intended candidates for the patriarchal and new diocesan metropolitan, archbishop and episcopal sees - three candidates for each.
4. On January 23, after the liturgy in the Kremlin Church of the Assumption, the Russian “consecrated Council”, together with Patriarch Jeremiah and his Greek entourage, celebrated, according to the order of the sovereign, the celebration of the election of candidates for the high priesthood - Metropolitan Job of Moscow, Archbishop Alexander of Novgorod and Pskov, Archbishop of Rostov and Yaroslavl Varlaam. The “feedback” is curious: after signing the charter of the chosen ones, Jeremiah appeared with the council members in the golden chamber and personally presented it to the king, and the king, after the announcement of the latter, pronounced his final verdict, naming the name of the Moscow ruler. On the same day and within the walls of the same golden chamber, the primate of the ecumenical throne, for the first time during his entire stay in Russia, met with Metropolitan Job and blessed him as “the named Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.” At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize: ultimately, the rite of patriarchal naming according to the Byzantine model proposed by Jeremiah did not take place; the ceremony took place outside of the divine service, in the royal palace as a secular ceremonial statement by the sovereign of his will regarding the supposedly elected candidates.
5. The dedication of the newly christened Job took place on January 26, Sunday, in the Assumption Church according to a previously drawn up liturgical “rite and charter.” The most important episodes of the sacred rite were: firstly, Job’s confession of faith in the face of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich and the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah in the middle of the temple during the 1st hour (the text he pronounced, with some exceptions, repeated the text of the oath that had previously been given by newly ordained Russian metropolitans); secondly, the full episcopal ordination performed over Job at the liturgy, at the small entrance, by the council of concelebrating archpastors headed by Jeremiah; thirdly, the ceremony, which was a kind of enthronement act (at the end of the liturgy and after the unmasking of Job, in the altar of the temple, on a high place, Jeremiah placed on him the “golden-collared” icon, panagia, hood and mantle, and Theodore Ioannovich, making a welcoming speech , handed him the gold-decorated staff of St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow). The solemn celebration of the accomplished event with divine services, processions of the new patriarch around the city (“on the donkey”), exchange of gifts, and feasts continued for the next three days.
6. The further concern of the Russian government (an urgent and diplomatically intense concern) was Jeremiah II’s own handwritten certification of the “Laid Charter” on the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus' (May 1589) and the recognition of this act by the local Churches (1590 and 1593). At the same time, by the way, the Moscow high priest remained on the sidelines: there was not even his fraternal appeal to the heads of the Eastern patriarchates, so traditional for the Universal Church (the “Laid Letter” signed by Job along with Jeremiah and other persons was not his personal document and in the genre-content was not a message).
So, the procedure for electing and confirming the first Russian patriarch was very different from the procedure adopted in the Orthodox East, in particular in Greece. There is no reason to doubt the legality and goodness of the outcome of all the actions taken (especially in view of the holiness of the first primate of the Russian Church), but externally (procedurally-canonically) and internally (essentially) these actions were fundamentally different, for they were entirely carried out outside the conciliar mind of the Church, inclined even in part of the episcopate under the all-encompassing authority of the tsar (even the most pious), and were completely divorced from the possible aspirations of the powerless and voiceless church people. Truly the cornerstones of Christ's dispensation can be both a treasure and a stumbling block (1 Pet. 2:6-7).
Patriarchs of St. Hermogenes, Philaret, Joasaph I, Joseph, Nikon, Joasaph II, Pitirim, Joachim, Adrian
The conditions, nature and rules for elevation to patriarchal dignity established in relation to Saint Job were preserved in the Moscow state without fundamental changes until the 30s of the 17th century. In any case, with the installation of Saint Hermogenes, Metropolitan of Kazan (June 3, 1606), Philaret (Nikitich, Romanov), Metropolitan of Rostov (June 24, 1619) and Archbishop of Pskov and Velikoluksky Joasaph I (February 6, 1634) to the patriarchate. ) the basics of the “scenario” did not change: the main and all-determining authority was the tsar (in the first case, Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, in the other two - Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov), the time from the selection of a candidate to the naming and appointment of the chosen one was extremely short (several days), the developed Shchelkalov, the rank of patriarchal consecration (through the sacrament of new consecration). However, there were nuances. Thus, when Hermogenes and Philaret were appointed to the cathedral, their names (put forward by the Time of Troubles to the forefront of the life of Russian society) were unique and non-competitive, but at the same time warmly supported by broad popular opinion, which to some extent compensated for the deficit that distinguished the Russian Church of that time conciliarity. As for Joasaph, the choice of king that fell on him (despite the formal presence of two more candidates) was predetermined by the dying blessing of the deceased Patriarch Philaret, so that in fact there was a kind of transfer of power from hand to hand. Obviously, Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich was not indifferent. His dominant role is evidenced, at least, by his message to the heads of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Churches on the death of Patriarch Philaret and the installation of a new Patriarch Joasaph.
The procedure for patriarchal elections underwent a fundamental change after the death of Joasaph I (November 28, 1640) and in two points approached the Byzantine one described above. When electing a new patriarch, now, finally, the conciliar principle is manifested, although only partially, because the names of the applicants were nevertheless determined exclusively by the tsar, popular opinion was not taken into account and the applicants were not discussed at the conciliar. Having personally named six candidates for the primacy (two bishops, one archimandrite and three abbots), Mikhail Feodorovich authorized the diocesan lords, abbots of monasteries and archpriests (rectors of cathedral churches) who arrived at the Council in Moscow in the spring of 1642 at his call to identify one of them. The method of definition was original. According to contemporary evidence, the sovereign ordered the names of the candidates he named to be written on six lots, then twice three lots were inserted into the “panagia of gold” that belonged to all the former Russian patriarchs, and at the same time two lots were selected, of which after the third investment the only one was left. This drawing of lots was carried out in the Assumption Church in front of the miraculous icon of the Mother of God “of Vladimir” in three stages, during the prayer singing “in three stages”: to the glory of the life-giving Trinity, the holy archangels and angels; in honor of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary and in memory of the holy apostles; finally, in honor of the Moscow and all Russia wonderworkers Peter, Alexy and Jonah. This is how the name of Archimandrite Joseph of the Moscow Simonov Monastery was sealed in the last lot. The king appointed him to be the new patriarch. A noticeably different course of the election procedure is described by Adam Olearius. However, it must be emphasized that the latter’s story, although built on rumors and therefore less reliable, still confirms the fact of using a new method of selecting from several candidates the most worthy of the high priestly throne - with hope in God’s providence or, as Joseph’s competitor wrote, “by lot, and not by royal permission." The next day (March 21), as usual, in the royal chamber the elected archimandrite was named patriarch; a week later (March 27) he was ordained patriarch “by the ordination of His Grace Afonius, Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk and the entire consecrated Cathedral” and then (March 28) “erected... in the Church of the Most Pure Mother of God to the patriarchal place, which is on the right side of the pillar,” that is enthroned. The second feature of the beginning of Joseph’s high priestly ministry was that, having taken the see, he resumed (albeit more than a year after his appointment) the ancient tradition of addressing the church people with archpastoral instructions in the form of two printed in August 1643. in one collection of “Teachings” - “the bishop, and the holy monk, and the lay priest, and the entire sacred rank” and “the Christ-loving prince, and the judges, and all Orthodox Christians.” Being literary compilative and not independent, this appeal, nevertheless, remarkably characterizes the compiler, since, unlike all four of his predecessors, he openly and impartially exposed the shortcomings of the spiritual and moral life of his contemporary Russian society, and regardless of rank, and, Apparently, at the same time he outlined his personal understanding of the truly Christian order of life.
As you know, Patriarch Joseph had barely died (in the spring of 1652), and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had already appointed his successor, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod. The history of the elevation of the sovereign’s “friend” to the patriarchate testifies to the fact that outwardly the matter of replacing the chair of the primate of the Russian Church acquired even clearer features of conciliarity. However, in essence, the process of electing Nikon was more like a political action than a church act associated with the will of God and the rules of canonical life. Upon the death of Joseph, Alexei Mikhailovich ordered the writing of the order according to which a new patriarch was to be elected, and convened a very wide circle of the Russian clergy to Moscow for the Council - from metropolitans to ordinary priests. The council members fulfilled his order “to elect twelve spiritual men to the patriarchal throne,” and on July 22, 1652, from among them they chose Metropolitan Nikon “without drawing lots,” about which the tsar was immediately notified. On the same day, in the Church of the Assumption, prayers were performed in the presence of the Tsar and all the cathedrals: to the Most Holy Trinity, to the disembodied spirits, to the Most Holy Theotokos with an akathist, to the holy apostles and holy wonderworkers of Moscow - Peter, Alexy, Jonah and Philip. After the prayers, a deputation was sent to the Novgorod courtyard for the newly elected patriarch. But contrary to expectations, Nikon refused to appear at the Assumption Church in the face of the sovereign and the clergy. Against his will, he was brought to the Council. What followed was a scene of repeated persuasion on the part of the king and the people and repeated refusals on the part of the chosen one. In the end, agreement was reached, but only on the terms of a vow of assurance by Alexei Mikhailovich and the people “to maintain the gospel dogmas and observe the rules of St. apostles and saints fathers and the laws of pious kings” and “obey” the new primate of the Russian Church in everything. The next day was the patriarchal naming of Nikon, and on July 25 - his consecration as a patriarch and the usual traditional festive events associated with this event.
The accession to the Russian primate throne of the next patriarch was associated simultaneously with the deposition of the Grecophile Nikon, who had withdrawn himself from power and was in disgrace, and the final approval of the order of replacing the patriarchal see, which was very close to the Greek one, along with the further development of the conciliar principle. On January 31, 1667, in the Miracle Monastery, as part of the work of the Great Moscow Council, the participants of the latter, in the presence of the Eastern Patriarchs - Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch, elected twelve candidates for first hierarchs (abbots, archimandrites and three bishops). From this list, “not without the knowledge” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (probably on his orders), nine names were crossed out. The act of the selection was read to the sovereign in the Golden Chamber. Of the remaining names - the archimandrites of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Joasaph and the Vladimir Monastery Philaret, as well as the cellarer of the Chudov Monastery Savva - the sovereign, after consulting with Patriarch Macarius (Paisius was absent due to illness), chose the first name. The sovereign's will was immediately solemnly announced to Joasaph, who was present, and then in the Assumption Church, in the presence of the newly elected Russian First Hierarch and Patriarch Macarius, the decision of Alexei Mikhailovich was announced to the people. On February 8, with the recovery of Patriarch Paisius of Alexandria, in the patriarchal chamber of the Chudov Monastery the naming of Joasaph was carried out according to the “Bishop’s Official”; On February 9, in the same Assumption Church, after Vespers, according to the same “Official,” the newly-christened one was evangelized, and the next day, on Meat Week, again in the Church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, he was ordained to the rank of Patriarch through episcopal ordination. At the end of the liturgy and after the exchange of thanks and congratulatory speeches, enthronement took place: the Eastern patriarchs placed a mantle, a white hood and a panagia on Joasaph II, and the king presented his new patriarch with the archpastoral staff. Then the festivities followed as usual, only Joasaph made trips from the Kremlin to the White City not “on a donkey,” but in a sleigh.
Subsequently, the procedure for replacing the patriarchal see was again violated, presumably due to the extraordinary strengthening of secular power in the person of the sovereign. Regarding the election of Patriarchs Pitirim (July 1672) and Joachim (July 1674), the sources do not report anything particularly noteworthy. Both, apparently taking into account the seniority of the diocesan see they occupied - Novgorod, were, in essence, appointed by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich as patriarchs, of course, with the support of the “consecrated Council” and compliance with the canonical tradition of dedication.
Finally, during the installation in 1690 of the tenth and last Old Russian Patriarch Adrian to the high priestly see, while formally observing the canonical norm of order, there was social tension, expressed in the struggle between adherents of antiquity (Greek-Russian party) and enthusiasts of innovation. The first was patronized by the Dowager Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna, the second were attracted and united by the energy of the 18-year-old Tsar Peter Alekseevich. After the death of Patriarch Joachim on March 17, it was in Peter’s entourage that Metropolitan Markell of Pskov, known for his learning, meekness and condescension towards foreigners, began to be discussed as worthy of the high priesthood. But the queen opposed his candidacy and managed to convince Peter that she was right. There are also known unsuccessful attempts to achieve the patriarchal throne on the part of the Jesuit Mikhail Yakonovich, who found himself in Moscow (he himself testified to this in his letters).
Be that as it may, in July 1690 in Moscow, with the purpose of appointing a successor, a Council gathered with a small number of participants (6 metropolitans, 3 archbishops, 1 bishop and 3 archimandrites). Three candidates were identified - Metropolitan Adrian of Kazan, Archbishop Nikita of Kolomna and Archimandrite Vincent of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Of these, for the sake of Natalya Kirillovna, the friend and comrade-in-arms of the late Joachim Adrian was singled out, whom then, at the “consecrated Council” on August 22, the sovereigns (John and Peter Alekseevich), together with the bishops, “barely begged” to agree to “lead the multi-Russian flock.” On August 23, he was named patriarch, and on the 24th, he was installed according to the usual charter. Adrian marked his accession to the post of primate of the Russian Church with a “District Message” addressed with instructions to all classes of Russian society.
So, the review of historical data undertaken here shows that in Rus' during the last century of the pre-Synodal era, the voice of the Russian Church in the election of its head was predominantly auxiliary and limited only to the liturgical framework of the rite, while the voice of the monarch almost always had decisive importance. The balance of interaction of forces could, for various reasons, change in one direction or another, but fundamentally throughout the entire patriarchal period, the fundamental question of the existence of the Russian Church - about its primate - was always decided in the royal palace, and not at the council of representatives of different social strata of the church people from archpastors to laity .
Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Moscow. History of the Russian Church. Book sixth. pp. 327-331; Golubtsov A.P. Entry into the patriarchate and teachings to Joseph’s flock. pp. 344-381.
Kapterev N. F. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1909. P. 106-107; Zenkovsky S. [A.] Russian Old Believers: spiritual movements of the seventeenth century. München, 1969. pp. 186-187.
Gibbenette N. [A.] Historical study of the case of Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg, 1882. T. 1. P. 9-16.
Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Moscow. History of the Russian Church. Book seventh: The period of independence of the Russian Church (1589-1881). Patriarchate in Russia (1589-1720). Section one: Patriarchate of Moscow and All Great, Little, and White Russia - the reunification of the Western Russian Church with the Eastern Russian Church (1654-1667). M., 1996. pp. 374-377.
“The rite of placing Pitirim on the patriarchal throne” // Ancient Russian Vivliofika. Ed. 2. M., 1788. Part VI. pp. 352-357; Smirnov P., priest. Joachim, Patriarch of Moscow. M., 1881. P. 16.
Skvortsov G. A. Patriarch Adrian, his life and works in connection with the state of the Russian Church in the last decade of the 17th century. Kazan, 1913. P. 5-13.
“The rite of installation to the patriarchal throne of His Holiness Adrian, Metropolitan of Kazan and Sviyazhsk” // Ancient Russian Vivliofika. Ed. 2. M., 1788. Part VIII. pp. 329-360.
Russian Patriarchs
On the monument “Millennium of Russia”, erected in Veliky Novgorod in 1862, among the images of outstanding commanders, rulers, politicians and church leaders, there are sculptures of Patriarchs Philaret and Nikon.
Perhaps there are few people in Russian history who are so closely connected not only with our past, but also with our present. Patriarch Filaret (1619-1633) - the first Patriarch after the Time of Troubles, and Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666), from whom the time of the Schism is traditionally counted, lived in a turning point in Russia, when events took place that determined the further course of the life of Russian society for centuries to come.
Secular and church historians quite often do not agree in their assessments of these works. 
Patriarchs. And this should not be surprising. That time itself is contradictory and mysterious. In the same way, its people are complex and multifaceted. So it can completely unintentionally deceive any opinion about them. Moreover, they often try to judge the past using modern standards. And who proved that they are true?
Whatever you want, it seems that man (in essence) has not changed since the days of Adam and Eve, but still the inhabitants of Russia in the 17th century differ from the descendants spinning in the mill wheel of the 21st century, not by special kindness or toughness, but by their rootedness on the earth. And if we think figuratively, then those people are seen as mighty oak trees digging into the earth’s firmament, and we, today, are like tumbleweeds, rushing, driven by the gusty winds of change, across the expanse of the steppe. Therefore, we do not always understand what happened once. That’s why we attribute features of the present to the past. That's why we don't see what is obvious. From the perspective of a tumbleweed, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the existence of an oak forest. But if so, then caution never hurts, especially when thinking about our history.
"Spare family"
Fyodor Nikitich Romanov hardly aspired to a monastic life in his youth. He belonged to a noble boyar family. And after the death of his father he became its head. He regularly served the Moscow sovereigns. Loved hunting. He did not shy away from books, including foreign ones. But he was a deeply religious man.
His career at court was quite successful. However, the storm came suddenly. Although the harbingers of the latter hung over the Romanovs constantly under Tsar Boris Godunov.
Theorists and historians of the monarchy (of which there are a modest number among scientists, compared with researchers of democracy and republicanism) know that in Europe, since the early Middle Ages, there has been a tradition of a “reserve dynasty”, or “reserve clan”. Something similar was observed in the monarchies of China, India and, probably, the Islamic world. The idea is briefly stated as follows: “The ruling dynasty brings a certain family closer to itself through marriage, which, if it is suppressed, must occupy the empty throne.”
Oh, how many absurd nonsenses have been said about monarchs and the monarchy. But no one thinks that the monarch is obliged before God to take care of the country and even provide for the death of his family.
The Moscow Rurikovichs chose the Romanovs as a “spare clan”. In 1547, not only John IV Vasilyevich became king (by the way, the British repeatedly called him “emperor” in diplomatic correspondence), but also at the Moscow Council of the same year, the righteous Procopius of Ustyug, the holy fool for Christ’s sake, was officially glorified as a saint. Which is no coincidence. Coming from Lübeck, a former Catholic, a prince or a well-born merchant (which is not known for certain), who took the name John in Orthodox baptism, and then became Procopius when he was tonsured, as historians established already in 1913, he was the first ancestor of the Romanovs and a number of noble families in Russia. However, the Romanovs and Rurikovichs, apparently, knew this very well, but did not spread it widely. And there is no hiding from the fact that Procopius the Righteous was honored by Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich and had his icon.
Let us note that the oprichnina almost did not affect the Romanovs. And Tsar Ivan the Terrible, before leaving for a better world, “entrusted his children” to Nikita Romanovich (that is, to the protection of the Romanov-Yuryev family). It is not for nothing that after the suppression of the Moscow Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Romanov was considered one of the most likely candidates for the throne. But at the Zemsky Sobor of 1598, Boris Godunov was elected sovereign (his sister was married to the late Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich).
The “spare family” in this case seemed especially dangerous for Godunov. The reprisal against the Romanovs happened quite quickly. In 1600, the Romanovs were accused of witchcraft against the Tsar by denunciation. Fyodor Nikitich was forcibly tonsured a monk and sent in 1601 to a remote monastery. The wife was also tonsured and sent into exile with the children. And the entire family (even the side branches!) were subjected to torture and exile.
But everything has changed. The Godunov dynasty ended. And the son of Tsar Boris, Fedor, was brutally killed by traitors.
Patriarch Filaret. Overcoming the Troubles
During the Time of Troubles, Filaret (Fyodor Nikitich) turns out to be the Metropolitan of Rostov and, together with the residents of the city, resists the troops of the “Tushinsky Thief”. He is captured and taken to False Dmitry II. The ruler is rescued from captivity almost a year and a half later.
In 1610, the situation in Moscow was desperate. Poland entered the war. Smolensk is besieged. Troubles are in full swing. Blood, robbery and destruction cover one land after another. Under these conditions, the boyars decide to invite Prince Vladislav to the throne, but with the obligatory acceptance of Orthodoxy.
Metropolitan Filaret and Prince V. Golitsyn go to Smolensk to the military camp of King Sigismund.
King Sigismund demanded the surrender of Smolensk. Metropolitan Filaret saw through the Polish king (who wanted to subjugate Russia to himself, not his son) and categorically refused to call on the Smolensk people to open the gates of the fortress. In 1611, his long Polish captivity began.
And only in 1619, Metropolitan Philaret returned to Moscow and was elected Patriarch.
This is how a “symphony of authorities” develops in Russia, when secular and spiritual authorities go together. For since 1613, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the son of Fyodor Nikitich, has been on the Russian throne.
Patriarch Filaret, together with Tsar Michael, were forced to solve many problems. Cities and villages are devastated. The population has almost halved. It was necessary to restore the army and besiege the “dashing people”. And there was no peace on the borders of the state.
Zemsky Sobors meet periodically. All classes are taking an active part in the revival of the country.
The Patriarch provides special care to the Church. Temples and monasteries are being restored. The Troubles seriously thinned out the layer of literate people. And they are extremely necessary for both the state and the Church. Patriarch Filaret is also concerned about education. Only, unlike Boris Godunov, the Patriarch does not rely on European (Lutheran and Catholic) models, but on Orthodox ones.
Under Filaret, they are seriously engaged in correcting liturgical books. But carefully and neatly.
We also have to fight manifestations of heresies and imaginary freethinking. The Troubles and contacts with Europe spurred the formation in Russia of a group of people who were anti-Orthodox and Russophobic. Patriarch Filaret promptly stopped the activities of Prince Ivan Khvorostinin, who openly mocked Orthodoxy and forced his servants to do this.
It should be noted that part of the ruling layer did not really like this. The nobility gradually became infected with the habits of the Polish gentry. But anyone was afraid to speak out against the Patriarch.
By the end of the life of Patriarch Filaret, Rus' had become sufficiently strong and was prepared to respond to the aggressive encroachments of its “good” neighbors.
Patriarch Nikon. Victory and tragedy
Anyone who has studied even a little of the biographies of the Russian Patriarchs will never believe the slander about the lack of social justice in the Russian kingdom. In the list of Patriarchs we find people from boyars, nobles, Cossacks, priests, townspeople and peasants. The Russian Orthodox Church before the “reforms” of Peter the Great was completely all-class. Nobility does not give advantages. This is a striking difference from the Catholic Church.
Patriarch Nikon (Minov) came from the family of a Mordvin peasant. At the age of 12, he ran away to a monastery, but then returned home at the request of his relatives. At the age of 21 he becomes a priest. And only at the age of 31 he took monastic vows at Solovki (Anzersky monastery).
In 1649 Nikon was installed as Metropolitan of Novgorod.
In 1652, at the Consecrated Council, Nikon was elected Patriarch. Friendly relations with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich again lead to the formation of a “symphony of powers” that existed under Patriarch Filaret.
In the middle of the 17th century, contacts between Russia and co-religionists in Constantinople and the Balkans intensified. Orthodox Christians from Egypt to Bulgaria honor the Russian Tsar as their protector. And it couldn’t have been any other way. Russia remained the last independent Orthodox power.
The Tsar and Patriarch reflect on the liberation of Orthodox Christians from the Ottoman yoke. This must be recognized as the main reason for the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon. And, of course, correction of services and church books was required. By the way, this was also obvious to Nikon’s future opponents. The same archpriest Avvakum Petrov, together with Nikon, was part of the group of “zealots of piety.”
The split did not appear suddenly. Patriarch Nikon was guided by the idea of unifying all Orthodox Churches, while the Old Believers took a narrower position and rather adhered to a purely national understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church. This was not overcome. Moreover, non-church forces also intervened in the conflict. But the key opposition here was the nobility, which simultaneously intrigued both for the Old Believers and for Nikon and, accordingly, against.
It is possible that intentional mistakes were made when editing the books. This reflected the influence of a variety of anti-patriarchal forces.
But all the same, it was the nobility who sought the removal of the Patriarch. That’s why she sometimes supported the Old Believers. Although the Schism went much deeper, into the very depths of society. Refusal from the usual rituals and books was regarded by people as a rejection of Orthodoxy. This reflected the horror of the Troubles, which had not yet been fully experienced.
One should not think that this argument is far-fetched. Like, how many years have passed? Not much really. In the modern Russian Federation there are still “reds” and “whites”. This means that we did not emerge from the 1917 revolution. And between the end of the Troubles and the Schism, much less than tens of years passed...
Yet history has shown that the Patriarch was right, and not Archpriest Avvakum. The Old Believers were constantly divided into sects and even went so far as to reject the Church by some sectarians. And the “Nikonian” Church went through many troubles and persecutions, but did not disintegrate under any blows of fate and dark forces. And the saints testify to the truth of the Church. In a graceless Church, neither St. Seraphim of Sarov nor Father John of Kronstadt would be possible. God gives us saints for a reason!
The nobility still managed to quarrel between the Tsar and the Patriarch through gossip, slander and rumors.
Patriarch Nikon first retired to his favorite monastery, leaving his staff behind. And then he was condemned at the Council of 1666-1667.
The ever-memorable Metropolitan John (Snychev) quite correctly noted: “For all his natural intelligence and wealth of reading, the tsar did not like arguments; in relations with those close to him, he was pliable and weak. Taking advantage of his kindness, the surrounding boyars became self-willed, sometimes taking power over the quiet sovereign. This, perhaps, is the key to the dramatic relationship between the tsar and the patriarch. The sovereign did not find the strength to resist the boyar pressure, and Nikon did not consider it possible to adapt to the interests of the nobility, sacrificing - even temporarily - the legitimate interests of the Church.”
In historical assessments of past eras, people tend to show maximalism and intolerance. From the height of the past centuries, everything seems simple and clear, the temptation to divide people into “good” and “bad,” “ours” and “theirs” turns out to be so strong that, unnoticed by oneself, the living and complex historical fabric of Russian life begins to be mercilessly cut and crumpled into to please a biased, lifeless scheme. The pain of the human soul, the struggle of the spirit with the sinful, passionate impulses of fallen human nature, which lies at the basis of all human existence, turn out to be completely out of sight of would-be researchers with this approach.
Only by enriching ourselves with the spiritual experience of the Church, with knowledge of the secrets underlying the life of the restless and truth-hungry human heart, can we break the vicious circle of “black and white” historical consciousness, approaching an understanding of its real, uncontrived multicoloredness. Looking into the past, let us kindle in ourselves love and mercy, repentance and sympathy - and it will give us its secrets, seeing in us friends and successors, and not prosecutors and judges.”
Alexander Goncharov,
Candidate of Philology
In previous notes about the Time of Troubles, I already wrote about the rise of the role of the Cossacks in Russian history of this period.
Let me add one more unexpected touch to this issue. It concerns the personalities of the third and fourth Russian patriarchs, the first priests of the Russian Orthodox Church, Hermogenes and Philaret, in the events of the Time of Troubles. Let me remind you of the outline of the events that took place in Rus' at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries.
During the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich, the son of Ivan the Terrible, a grandiose event took place in the Russian state. January 2-3, 1589 The Church Council, with the participation of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, named Metropolitan Job of Moscow, the first Russian patriarch, to the Moscow Patriarchal See. On January 26 of the same year, Metropolitan Job was solemnly installed as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.
Patriarch Job played an outstanding role in the formation of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, he was removed from the patriarchal see after he did not recognize the legitimacy of the reign of False Dmitry I.
The Greek Ignatius was elected patriarch, who was removed from the throne immediately after the coup in Moscow and the coming to power of Tsar Vasily Shuisky. He recommended to the Church Council the candidacy of Filaret Romanov for the patriarchate, but suspecting him of possible treason, he changed his mind and Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan was elected the third Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
At its core, Hermogenes' patriarchal ministry is widely known. He called on the people to fight against the Tushino Thief False Dmitry II and the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. After the Polish prince Vladislav was elected king in Moscow, quite officially, Hermogenes opposed this act. He strongly supported the actions of the second militia of Minin and Pozharsky. The Kazan Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary (from his former Kazan Metropolis) became the main shrine of the militia.
However, the patriarch himself did not live long enough to see the victory of the militia. He was imprisoned by the Poles (and Russian traitors) in the Kremlin, where he died a martyr from hunger and thirst.
After this, a period of “interpatriarchal rule” begins in the state. The Council of the Whole Earth (Zemsky Sobor) elects 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, son of Filaret Romanov (nephew of Anastasia Romanova, the Queen of Moscow, and therefore nephew of Ivan the Terrible), as tsar. But Filaret himself is in captivity in Poland. In Moscow, Filaret is announced as the “nominated” patriarch. And only seven years later during the reign of Michael, after his release from captivity, Philaret was officially elevated to the First Enlightenment See. His enthronement was led by Patriarch Theophan IV of Jerusalem.
I note that the Russian people knew how to correctly and very accurately name the heroes of their history. So, the popular name of the one now known under the nickname of False Dmitry I and Filaret, who was in captivity, are close. Dmitry was called not a false, but a “named” tsar, and Filaret, who could not fulfill the duties of a patriarch, was called a “named” patriarch. Close, isn't it?
This is the well-known outline of events. And now a few words about the little-known.
Patriarch Hermogenes in the world bore the name Ermolai and came from a family of Don Cossacks. It seems that this is an important touch to his biography.
The Cossacks played a rather contradictory, but more than significant role in the events of the Time of Troubles. Largely thanks to them (the famous Ataman Korela), the first Tsar named Dmitry sat on the Moscow throne, and not even a Tsar, but an Emperor.
Judging by the fact that Hermogenes, while at the Kazan See, retained it for himself, under the named Dmitry sharply, he did not speak out against the new power, acquired largely through the efforts of the Cossacks.
However, having become patriarch under Tsar Vasily Shuisky, he spoke out most decisively against False Dmitry II and his Cossacks. It is also possible because Ataman Zarutsky, a Polish subject, became one of the main Cossack leaders during this period.
But this is, of course, something of a joke. The point is completely different. What kind of patriarch would he have been if he had not supported Tsar Vasily? Moreover, Shuisky’s rights to the throne, thanks to the ancient origins of the family, were not in doubt. In addition, the Orthodox Patriarch was very concerned about the massive influx of Polish Catholics and Lithuanian Uniates to Rus'.
And then judge for yourself what happened. Let's just look at the sequence of events of the Russian Time of Troubles and its overcoming.
Metropolitan of Rostov Filaret Romanov (became metropolitan on the recommendation of the said Dmitry) is nominated by Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus'. But the king quickly changes his mind. And according to his new recommendation, the Church Council elects Hermogenes as patriarch.
What about Filaret? It's clear that he's offended. But that’s not the main thing. Filaret, being a monk, could not himself be elected to the Moscow throne, but he was sure that the Romanovs, as the main contenders for the Monomakh's cap, were being pushed further and further away from this throne. But he and his brothers were not just boyars, but cousins of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the last Rurikovich from the Kalita family, to whom the Moscow table belonged. True, he only had one brother left, Ivan. And he was not very capable of ruling, rather of fighting and quarreling. The remaining brothers and their male offspring were destroyed in exile. But Filaret himself had a son growing up, who would become the first tsar of the Romanov family. But he was still small. And the father’s main task was to save his son’s life. And from an early age she was exposed to enormous dangers.
Why are we all this? And Filaret understood that sooner or later, Tsar Vasily would come up with something, and he could lose his son. And then a new tsar is announced in Rus'. God knows who and where, most likely, not a well-born person, as they say, from the lower classes of society, but the Tsar, False Dmitry II. One of his main supports, especially considering that the Poles behaved defiantly towards him, were the Cossacks. And Rostov Metropolitan Filaret becomes patriarch under this suddenly appeared tsar.
This is the situation. There are two kings in the country: Vasily Shuisky and False Dmitry II. And two patriarchs: Hermogenes and Philaret.
The situation is piquant, to say the least. Of course, after the election of Michael to the kingdom and the establishment of Filaret as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', they tried to smooth out the complexity and inconsistency of this situation. It was announced that Filaret was elevated to the rank of “thieves’ patriarch” almost by force. And that Patriarch Hermogenes everywhere emphasized his sympathy for Filaret and urged him to put up with his strange role, to which he was forced by force. But the sediment still remained.
Of course, the Cossacks, the people in the army of False Dmitry II, are not thieves, but they are Orthodox people. And it was necessary for them to perform Orthodox service. Another thing is that Patriarch Filaret, with his enormous authority, one might say more, his royal origin (nephew of Ivan the Terrible) became one of the main pillars of the legitimacy of the false king, whom, after all, Filaret recognized, no less, almost as his cousin. Tsar Fyodor's cousin was clearly supposed to be related to his brother Dmitry. And since Filaret recognized Dmitry as not being false, it means that they became relatives, no matter how you look at it.
True, purely from a human perspective, Filaret can be understood. He, don’t go to the fortune teller here, is an enemy, not even just an enemy, but the primary enemy of Tsar Vasily Shuisky. He also sees the main threat to his son from this king. Well, how was it possible to fight the primary enemy, how was it possible to prevent the Shuisky family from gaining a foothold in the kingdom, how to protect the young son for future achievements? There was essentially only one path, although it smelled bad. Take the side of those enemies of Shuisky who had military strength. So he supported False Dmitry II.
He did the same later. Without blinking an eye, he withdraws from the case of False Dmitry when a new military force appears in the country - the Polish army. And he becomes an ardent supporter of the choice of a Polish prince to the Moscow throne.
The question is, what is the logic of his actions? And from my point of view, of course, it is simple. The goal, the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky, was achieved. But two new contenders for the throne are being announced in the country. And the son is still prohibitively young. Who are these contenders? First, Ivan Dmitrievich. Yes, False Dmitry II is killed by one of his close associates (Prince Urusov). But literally a month later, Marina, and don’t forget, she is a Russian empress, no one has ever deprived her of this title, gives birth to a son, Ivan. The poor child becomes the number one contender for the throne of Moscow. Why poor? Because in the fourth year of his life, he was hanged so that Mikhail Romanov could reign in peace.
And with the birth of Ivan, Filaret finally breaks off relations with his supporters, but not with all. He will continue to have good relations with the Cossacks, and they will remember their Tushino patriarch and will be grateful to him. This will decide the matter of electing Philaret’s son to the throne.
Filaret himself understands that in the new conditions, Prince Vasily Golitsyn is becoming no less a serious candidate for king than Ivan. Despite the fact that he was from the family of the great princes of Lithuania, the Gediminovichs, through the female line the prince became almost the most noble of the descendants of the Rurikovichs. And definitely almost the only Russian candidate for tsar. And several times he was close to replacing Vasily Shuisky on the throne. Hence Filaret's new decision. Only a foreign pretender to the kingdom can save his cause, which in Russian conditions will subsequently be easy to get rid of. This is how the candidacy of the Polish prince Vladislav for the Moscow kingdom arises. History often writes about the betrayal of Russian boyars who called a Pole, a Catholic, to the kingdom. At the same time, forgetting whose initiative it was. Forgetting about the role of Filaret Romanov in the ongoing series of events.
The boyars and many nobles support Filaret. V. Golitsyn is forced to agree with this. Both major figures, Filaret and Prince Golitsyn, decided not to force events and wait for the moment for decisive action.
But Patriarch Hermogenes suddenly intervenes in the stalemate that has arisen. He sharply begins to fight against the invitation of a Catholic. And Filaret and Hermogenes again find themselves on opposite sides of the barricades for the Russian throne.
At this time, in Poland, under the not very capable King Sigismund III, the outstanding crown hetman Zolniewski finds himself. Realizing that the position of the patriarch could seriously complicate the goal of annexing Rus' to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he, without receiving the approval of the king, signed an agreement according to which the assembled Council elected Tsar Vladislav Sigismundovich, the Polish prince. And if not for the stubbornness and short-sightedness of the king, Zolniewski could have succeeded a lot. But this is if only, but for now he decides to remove from Moscow the two main supporters for now, but in the future rivals of Vladislav, V. Golitsyn and F. Romanov. They are placed at the head of the embassy to the Polish king near Smolensk, which Sigismund III was besieging at that time. The purpose of the embassy was to agree to send the newly elected Tsar Vladislav, the king's son, to Moscow.
But the king decides differently. Why give the Moscow crown to your son, he himself can become king.
But this is no longer part of Filaret’s plans. And he begins to resist this decision in every possible way and ends up being captured.
And only from this moment on, the positions of Hermogenes and Filaret begin to coincide.
Moreover, in the eyes of the people, both become martyrs, fighters for the freedom and independence of their homeland from the Polish-Lithuanian invaders.
Patriarch Hermogenes dies in Polish captivity (in Polish captivity in the Kremlin), and Filaret languishes in captivity in Poland itself.
This, as well as the love of the Cossacks for Filaret, who remained the only military force in Rus' after the dissolution of the militia of Minin and Pozharsky and ensured the security of the Council that chose the new tsar, and gave an advantage to Mikhail Romanov over other candidates. After nine years of captivity, Filaret Romanov returns to Moscow and is elected to the patriarchal throne. And he becomes not only the patriarch, but also the co-ruler of his son. This is what his title sounded like: “Great Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret Nikitich.”
During the reign of Patriarch Filaret, an official view of the events of the Time of Troubles was formalized. Well, his controversial role in these events contributed to an important result. The reign of the Romanov dynasty, which lasted just over three hundred years.
The implementation of this idea took place during the reign of Ivan IV's son Fyodor Ivanovich. In 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch came to Moscow for royal alms. Deciding to take advantage of the circumstances of this visit, the tsar declared in the Duma that he wanted to establish “the highest patriarchal throne” in Moscow. Patriarch Joachim volunteered to bring the king’s desire to the attention of the Greek Church, so that when establishing a new patriarchate, the canonical rules, which provided for the participation of all eastern patriarchs, would be observed. In 1588, Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople arrived in Russia. The Tsar expected that he would bring with him the resolution of the Ecumenical Council on the establishment of the patriarchate in the Russian state, but at the very first audience it turned out that the main purpose of the visit was to receive financial assistance. Then it was decided to detain the patriarch in Moscow and force him to bless the establishment of the Moscow patriarchal throne. Jeremiah was offered to become the Patriarch of Russia, stipulating that he would not live under the sovereign in Moscow, but in ancient Vladimir, and thus the Russian metropolitan would remain the de facto head of the church. As expected, Jeremiah rejected such a humiliating offer. He also refused to appoint any of the Russian metropolitans as patriarch. Then the Greek was made to understand that he would not be released from Moscow until he conceded. On January 26, 1589, Jeremiah elevated Metropolitan Job to the patriarchal throne, whose candidacy was proposed to the Tsar by Boris Godunov. After this, the Greeks were released from Moscow, having given them rich gifts.
Two years later, Moscow received a letter signed by three patriarchs, 42 metropolitans and 20 bishops, approving the patriarchate in Russia. Recent research has shown that most of the signatures were not genuine. Apparently, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, interested in receiving material support from the Russian Tsar, hastened to confirm the act of the Moscow Council, and therefore the signatures of some patriarchs were reproduced, who were unable, for one reason or another, to sign the letter in person. From now on, the Patriarch of Moscow was to occupy fifth place (after the Patriarch of Jerusalem) and was appointed by a council of Russian bishops. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich was extremely dissatisfied with the latter circumstance and sent a letter to Constantinople, in which he reminded of the promised third place, after the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria. However, on this issue the Ecumenical Council remained adamant and in 1593 confirmed its decision on the fifth place of the Moscow Patriarch. All the signatures of the hierarchs on the charter of this cathedral are authentic.
The founding of the patriarchate was an important milestone in the history of the Russian Church. The transformation of the Moscow Metropolis into a patriarchate consolidated the fact of the independence of the Russian Church in the norms of canon law and significantly strengthened the influence of the Russian Church in the international arena. From now on, the ritual of ordination to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
see also RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH.Election of the Patriarch. The order of delivery was as follows. On behalf of the tsar or the guardian of the patriarchal throne, letters were sent to all the highest church hierarchs and abbots of the most significant monasteries, notifying them of the death of the saint and inviting them to Moscow to elect a new patriarch. On the appointed day, all those invited were to appear in the Kremlin in the Golden Chamber, where the Tsar opened the cathedral. The patriarch was elected by lot. The king named six candidates. Papers with their names were doused in wax in the presence of the Tsar, sealed with the Tsar's seal and sent to the church where the Council of Bishops met. The lots were placed on the panagia (breast icon of the Mother of God, a sign of the episcopal rank) of the deceased patriarch and were taken out one by one until the last one remained. This lot was handed over unopened to the king, who opened it and named the name of the new patriarch.In a liturgical sense, the patriarch received certain advantages. During ceremonial exits, not only a cross, but also candles were carried in front of him. Entering the temple, he put on liturgical clothes in the middle of the church, and while in the altar, he sat on a high place and gave communion to the bishops from his own hands. The high priest's vestments were also somewhat different. Like the Metropolitan, he wore a white hood, but the patriarch's headdress was decorated with a cross or cherubs. The patriarchal miter had a cross at the top. Over the priestly vestments, the patriarch was supposed to wear a colored robe.
The introduction of the patriarchate in Russia was accompanied by a reform of the church structure, which was due to the need to bring it into line with that established in the eastern patriarchates. The Church was divided into metropolitan districts, which included several dioceses. All hierarchs in their dioceses were equal and subordinate to the patriarch, as before to the metropolitan.
Job (d. 1607) He actively began to implement the conciliar decisions, but he did not manage to implement all the decisions. The time of Job's patriarchate was marked by the establishment of several new church holidays in honor of Russian saints (St. Basil, Cornelius of Komel, Roman Ugletsky, Joseph of Volotsky, etc.). The patriarch worked hard and effectively to preserve Orthodoxy among the newly baptized Tatars, in poverty-stricken Georgia, and in the conquered lands of Siberia and Karelia. Despite the fact that Job was actually Boris Godunov’s protege and subsequently contributed greatly to his ascension to the throne, he greatly valued Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich and was extremely devoted to him. After the death of the sovereign, the patriarch compiled his life, glorifying the meek disposition and mercy of the king. When the first False Dmitry appeared on the historical stage, Patriarch Job firmly opposed him. He anathematized him and in his messages proved that False Dmitry was none other than the fugitive Miracle monk Grishka Otrepiev. Having taken the Russian throne, the impostor removed Job from the patriarchate and sent him to Staritsa. The procedure for depriving Job of his dignity was reminiscent of the removal of Philip from the metropolitan throne by Ivan the Terrible. Job died in Staritsa on June 19, 1607.In 1605, False Dmitry, despite the fact that Job formally remained the head of the Russian Church, independently elected a new patriarch. He became Archbishop Ignatius of Ryazan, a Greek by birth, who before coming to Russia occupied the episcopal see in Cyprus. He recognized False Dmitry as prince and was loyal to Latinism (Catholicism). After the overthrow of False Dmitry, Ignatius was defrocked and exiled to the Chudov Monastery.
Hermogenes (16061612). Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan, who under False Dmitry was a member of the Senate established by the Tsar and most consistently opposed his pro-Catholic policies, was elected as the new patriarch. Despite the fact that discord soon emerged in the relations of the new patriarch with the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky, Hermogenes supported him in every possible way as a crowned tsar. In 1609, when the boyars, dissatisfied with Shuisky, seized Hermogenes and at the place of execution demanded his consent to change the king, the patriarch defended Vasily Shuisky. During the Time of Troubles, the patriarch remained one of the few statesmen who remained faithful to Orthodoxy and the national idea. When trying to elevate Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne, Hermogenes made it an indispensable condition for Vladislav to accept the Orthodox faith and protested against the entry of the Polish army into Moscow. From the Kremlin, he sent letters to Russian cities, in which he blessed the militia units that were being formed there. The Poles put the patriarch into custody and imprisoned him in the Chudov Monastery, where he suffered a painful death from hunger. Patriarch Hermogenes is canonized.Cm. HERMOGENES, ST.Filaret (16191634). From the moment of the death of Hermogenes (1612), for seven years the Russian Church remained without a patriarch. In 1619, Metropolitan Filaret, the father of the newly elected Tsar Mikhail Romanov, returned from Polish captivity. Mikhail elevated his father to the rank of patriarch. Patriarch Theophan IV, who was then in the capital of Jerusalem, elevated him to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow. The accession of Mikhail Romanov and the enthronement of the patriarch marked the restoration of Russian statehood. The power of the patriarch under Mikhail Romanov reached unprecedented heights, but it was during this period that the consonant actions of the tsar and the patriarch, connected by blood ties, most fully corresponded to the ideal ideas about the “symphony” of the kingdom and the priesthood. As the father of the tsar and his de facto co-ruler, Filaret was called the “great sovereign” and took an active part in state affairs. From Polish captivity, Filaret brought out a firm conviction about the inadmissibility of union for the Russian Church and during the years of his patriarchate he made a lot of efforts to protect Russia from Western religious influences. At the same time, Filaret closely followed the development of theological literature in neighboring countries and hatched plans to create a Greek-Latin school and printing house in Moscow. Worried that the unlimited power he had acquired in the future could be identified with the patriarchal rank and this would introduce complications into the relationship between the successors to the throne and the primate throne, he himself chose as his successor the Pskov Archbishop Joasaph, whose main virtue was “insolent” loyalty to to the king.Cm. FILARET.Joasaph (16341640) no longer occupied such a high position as belonged to the tsar’s father, Patriarch Filaret, and did not bear the title of great sovereign.Joseph (16401652). After Joasaph, Joseph took the patriarchal see. Under him, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issuedCode , aimed at reducing the role of the church hierarchy and the patriarch in government. The Patriarch humbly accepted the document.Nikon (16521666) . Patriarchal power again achieved its former power under Patriarch Nikon. Born into a peasant family, Nikon (in the world Nikita Minov) made a dizzying career from a village priest to the head of the Russian Church and the “lover” and “companion” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. At first, Nikon imagined the relationship between royal and patriarchal power in the general structure of state life as a co-government of two equal forces. Trusting the patriarch, the tsar left the appointment of bishops and archimandrites at his complete discretion. The will of the patriarch was the final authority in all church matters. The monastic order, which previously limited the judicial power of the patriarch, was inactive under Alexei Mikhailovich. During the Polish-Lithuanian campaigns, Nikon remained the king's deputy. The most important documents were sent to him for signature, in which, with the consent of the tsar, the patriarch was called, as Filaret once was, a great sovereign. Gradually, contradictions emerged in the relationship between the young tsar and the patriarch, primarily due to the fact that Nikon tried to place the patriarchal power above the royal one. Disagreements led to Nikon voluntarily leaving the patriarchal throne in the hope that he would be asked to return. However, this did not happen. After a long period of doubts and hesitations, in 1666 the Council of Bishops, which was attended by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, deposed Nikon, who had voluntarily left the see, and deprived him of his bishopric and priesthood. Alexei Mikhailovich himself acted as the accuser at the council. The “competition” between the patriarch and the tsar for primacy in power, unprecedented in Russian history, led to the fact that in the future the policy of the sovereigns was aimed at limiting the power of the high priest. Already the Council of 16661667 paid special attention to the relationship between state and spiritual authorities. The Council decided that the king had primacy in worldly affairs. The spiritual life of the state was given to the patriarch. The resolution of the Council that the patriarch is not the sole ruler of the church organization, but only the first among equal bishops, was dictated by the sharply negative attitude of the bishops to Nikon’s attempt to demand for himself the special status of the patriarch as the highest and not subject to anyone’s jurisdiction.Cm. NIKON.Joasaph II (16671673). At the end of the Council, they elected a new patriarch, the quiet and modest Joasaph II. From this moment on, the patriarchate begins to lose the state significance that it previously had.Pitirim (1673), Joachim (16731690), Adrian (16901700) occupied the patriarchal throne after Joasaph II. These were patriarchs who did not interfere in state politics, aiming to preserve at least some of the privileges of the clergy, which were consistently attacked by state power. In particular, Joachim managed to achieve the closure of the monastery order. Patriarchs of the second half of the 17th century. They did not welcome Russia’s rapprochement with the West and tried in every possible way to limit the growing influence of foreigners on Russian life and culture. However, they were no longer able to really resist the power of the young Tsar Peter Alekseevich. At the beginning of his patriarchate, the last patriarch Adrian enjoyed the support of the tsar's mother, Natalya Kirillovna, who, in turn, had influence on her son. After her death in 1694, the conflict between the patriarch and the tsar became inevitable. The beginning of their open confrontation was Adrian’s refusal to forcibly tonsure Evdokia Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter Alekseevich, into a nun., and its culmination was the tsar’s public insult of the patriarch, who came to him as an intercessor for the archers sentenced to execution. Peter expelled the high priest in disgrace, thus destroying the ancient custom of the patriarch grieving for the condemned. Consistently pursuing a policy of undermining the authority and power of the church, in 1700 the tsar ordered the preparation of a new code that would destroy all its privileges.Abolition of the patriarchate. After the death of Adrian, the tsar, by his will, placed the Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky at the head of the administration of the church with the title of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, effectively abolishing the institution of the patriarchate. Peter viewed the church exclusively as a governmental institution, so he subsequently replaced the power of the patriarch with the Spiritual College (the Holy Governing Synod), turning the church into one of the state departments that were under the constant control of the monarch. Until 1917, the Holy Synod remained the highest church and government institution in Russia.Cm. JOAKIM.Restoration of the patriarchate in Russia. A new era in the history of the Russian patriarchate began in 1917. After the February Revolution, the Holy Synod addressed the archpastors and pastors of Russia with a message, which said that with the changed political system, “the Russian Orthodox Church can no longer remain with those orders that have outlived their time.” " The main issue in the planned reorganization was the restoration of the ancient form of church governance. By the decision of the Synod, the Local Council of 1917-1918 was convened, which restored the patriarchate. The cathedral opened on the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary and was the longest lasting in the history of the Russian Church.Tikhon (19171925). On October 31, 1917, elections were held for three candidates for the patriarchal throne: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov, Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow. On November 5, 1917, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, after the Divine Liturgy and prayer service, Elder Alexy of the Zosimov Hermitage drew lots, and the name of the new patriarch was announced, who became Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow.In accordance with church canons, the Local Council of 1917-1918 granted the patriarch the right to convene church councils and preside over them, communicate with other autocephalous churches on issues of church life, take care of the timely replacement of episcopal sees and bring guilty bishops to church court. The local council also adopted a document on the legal position of the church in the state system. However, the October Revolution of 1917 entailed fundamental changes in the relationship between the church and the new atheistic state of the Soviets. By decree of the Council of People's Commissars the church was separated from the state, which was regarded by the council as the beginning of persecution of the church.
Patriarch Tikhon occupied the cathedral during a difficult period for the Russian Orthodox Church. The main direction of his activity was the search for a way to establish relations between the church and the Bolshevik state. Tikhon defended the right of the church to remain the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, emphasizing that it should be neither “white” nor “red.” The most important document aimed at normalizing the position of the Russian Church was
Appeal Patriarch Tikhon dated March 25, 1925, in which he called on the flock to understand that “the destinies of nations are arranged by the Lord,” and to accept the advent of Soviet power as an expression of the will of God.Despite all the efforts of the patriarch, an unprecedented wave of repression hit the church hierarchy and the believing people. By the outbreak of World War II, the church structure throughout the country was almost destroyed. After Tikhon's death, there could be no talk of convening a council to elect a new patriarch, since the church existed in a semi-legal position, and most of the hierarchs were in exile and imprisonment.
Sergius (d. 1944). According to the will of the saint, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky took over the management of the Church as the patriarchal locum tenens. Then this feat was taken upon by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod, who called himself the deputy of the patriarchal locum tenens. The official act of transferring the duties of locum tenens to him took place only in 1936, when the news of the death of Metropolitan Peter (who was shot in 1937) arrived, which later turned out to be false. Nevertheless, in 1941, on the very first day of the war with Nazi Germany, Metropolitan Sergius wrote a message to his flock, in which he blessed the believers to defend the Motherland and called on everyone to help the country’s defense. The danger looming over the country prompted the Soviet state, led by Stalin, to change its policy towards the church. Churches were opened for worship, many clergy, including bishops, were released from the camps. On December 4, 1943, Stalin received the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius, as well as Metropolitans Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich). During the conversation, Metropolitan Sergius announced the church’s desire to convene a council to elect a patriarch. The head of government said that there would be no obstacles on his part. The Council of Bishops took place in Moscow on September 8, 1943, and on September 12 the newly elected Patriarch Sergius was enthroned.Cm. SERGY.Alexy I (19451970). In 1944, the high priest of the Russian Church died. In 1945, the Moscow Council elected Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) as Patriarch. At the same council it was decidedRegulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church , which finally legalized the institution of the church and streamlined the relationship between the church and the Soviet state. During Alexy's patriarchate, relations between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and other autocephalous churches were restored, and the publishing activities of the Moscow Patriarchate were resumed, but during his presidency there was a difficult period of new persecution of the church under N.S. Khrushchev.Cm. ALEXI I.Pimen (19701990). After the death of Alexy (1970), Metropolitan Pimen of Krutitsky and Kolomna was elevated to the rank of patriarch. During the patriarchate of Pimen in 1988, under the conditions of “perestroika,” the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' took place. The celebrations dedicated to this event took on a nationwide character and marked the onset of a new era in the history of the Russian Church, which, after a long period of direct and hidden persecution, found hope for freedom.Cm. PIMEN.Alexy II. Since 1990, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church has been Patriarch Alexy II, the fifteenth patriarch since the beginning of the patriarchate, whose activities are aimed at reviving and strengthening the traditions of church life in the context of the beginning of the process of democratization of society.Cm. ALEXI II.LITERATURE Russian Orthodox Church 9881988. Essays on history , vol. 12. M., 1988One hundred years ago, on November 18, 1917, at the All-Russian Local Council, the eleventh Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, St. Tikhon (Belavin), was elected - this is how the institution of the Patriarchate, abolished for more than two hundred years by the church reform of Peter I, was restored in Russia. According to the modern Charter Russian Orthodox Church, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' is the Primate of the Russian Church. He has primacy of honor among the episcopate of the Russian Church and is accountable to the Local and Bishops' Councils. The Patriarch has care for the internal and external welfare of the Russian Orthodox Church and governs it together with the Holy Synod, being its chairman. The Patriarch, together with the Holy Synod, convenes Councils of Bishops, and in exceptional cases, Local Councils, and presides over them. Meetings of the Holy Synod are convened by the Patriarch.
Initially, the newly formed Russian Church was not independent, but was canonically dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Russian Church had the status of just one of the metropolises of the Church of Constantinople. Russian metropolitans, bearing the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus',” were appointed and consecrated in Constantinople. The overwhelming majority of them were appointed from the Greeks. The site of the metropolitan residence was also approved in Constantinople, which was later moved to Moscow. In 1448, the Council of Russian Bishops elected Bishop Jonah of Ryazan as Metropolitan of the Russian Church without confirmation in Constantinople. This decision was caused by the fact that the Greek Metropolitan Isidore, sent to Rus', like other hierarchs of the Greek Church, signed a union with the Roman Church at the Ferraro-Florence Council. Soon Byzantium was conquered by the Turks, and the Russians, on the contrary, freed themselves from the yoke of the Golden Horde. So in 1448 the Russian Church gained independence or autocephaly. According to Archpriest V. Tsypin, a modern Russian specialist in canon law, the essence of autocephaly lies in the fact that “the autocephalous Church has an independent source of power. Its first bishop, its head, is appointed by its bishops.” The successor of Saint Jonah began to bear the title of Metropolitan of Moscow. The patriarchate in Rus' was established in 1589 under Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. Boyar Boris Godunov took an active part in this enterprise. Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, who collected donations for his Church within the Moscow kingdom (at that time this was a common practice among the Eastern Patriarchs, whose flock was under the rule of the Turks), participated in the naming of the first Moscow Patriarch - St. Job, Metropolitan of Moscow, elected by the Council Russian bishops. Before leaving, Jeremiah II signed the “Laid Charter”, which confirmed the fact of the establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. At the Councils of Constantinople in 1590 and 1593, the establishment of the Patriarchate in Rus' was recognized by other Eastern Patriarchs. In the diptych of the Primates of the Orthodox Local Churches, the Moscow Patriarch was given fifth place, after the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. In total, the Russian Church was headed by 17 Patriarchs, including the living one, but it is generally accepted that there were 16 of them, since Patriarch Ignatius (1605-1606), a protege of False Demetrius I, was deprived of the patriarchal rank and episcopal dignity. The history of the Patriarchate in Russia can be divided into two periods: pre-synodal (1589-1700) and post-synodal (1917 - present).
Let's remember some particularly noteworthy Russian Patriarchs.
Patriarch Job(1589-1605) was born in the city of Staritsa, Tver province in the 30s of the 16th century. His secular name was John. John received his initial education and upbringing in the Staritsky Dormition Monastery, here he took monasticism with the name Job and, after living for 15 years, became the abbot of this monastery. In 1571, Archimandrite Job was appointed rector of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. In the capital, the future saint becomes more closely acquainted with church and state affairs. In 1575 he became abbot of the ancient Moscow Novo-Spassky Monastery. In 1581, Job became Bishop of Kolomna. In 1586 - Archbishop of Rostov the Great. In 1587 - Metropolitan of Moscow. In 1589, Job became the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Under Patriarch Job, 4 metropolises were formed: Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov and Krutitsa, and a number of new dioceses and monasteries were created. The High Hierarch blessed the publication of printed liturgical books, the shortage of which was acutely felt, especially in the conquered lands of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. The following were published for the first time: the Lenten Triodion, the Colored Triodion, the Octoechos, the General Menaion, the Official of the Bishop's Ministry and the Service Book. Work was carried out to identify and correct inaccuracies that existed in the liturgical books. Under the first Patriarch, Saint Basil the Blessed, Saint Joseph of Volokolamsk, Saints of Kazan Gury and Barsanuphius and some others were glorified. The end of the reign of Patriarch Job coincides with the beginning of the Time of Troubles. The High Hierarch sent letters to the cities of the country, calling for the defense of the faith and the Fatherland from the encroachments of the Polish-Lithuanian invaders. After the troops of False Dmitry I entered Russia, in January 1605, Patriarch Job anathematized the impostor and the traitors who had joined him. When False Dmitry I entered Moscow on June 20, 1605, Patriarch Job, who refused to swear allegiance to the impostor, was deposed and exiled to the Staritsky Monastery. After the overthrow of False Dmitry, Job, due to illness, could no longer return to the patriarchal throne, so he blessed Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan to take it, and he himself died peacefully on June 19, 1607.
Patriarch Hermogenes(1606-1612) was born around 1530 into a family of Don Cossacks. It is known that Hermogenes (Ermolai) served as a parish priest in Kazan. In 1579, he witnessed the miraculous appearance of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God. In 1589, Hermogenes was elevated by Patriarch Job to the rank of Metropolitan of Kazan and Astrakhan. The saint was engaged in active missionary work among pagans and Muslims, leading them to the Orthodox faith. In 1606, Saint Hermogenes was installed as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. During the Time of Troubles, when False Dmitry II approached Moscow in June 1608 and stopped in Tushino, Patriarch Hermogenes sent two messages to the rebels calling for admonition. When famine began in Moscow, the High Hierarch ordered the breadbaskets of the Sergius Monastery to be opened for the hungry. In September 1608, a large Polish-Lithuanian detachment surrounded the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The Patriarch inspired the monks to courageously defend the monastery, which lasted for 16 months. In January 1610, having failed to capture the monastery, the enemy retreated. Patriarch Hermogenes did not cease in his messages to convince the people that False Demetrius II was an impostor. In 1610, False Dmitry II was killed, Tsar Vasily Shuisky was overthrown by the boyars, and Polish troops were in Moscow. The boyars wanted to call the Polish prince Vladislav, son of Sigismund III, to the Russian throne, and demanded that the High Hierarch issue a corresponding letter to the people. The Patriarch resolutely refused and threatened with anathema. On the contrary, Hermogenes called on the Russian people to stand up to fight the invaders. The Kazan Icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary was transferred from Kazan, which became the main shrine of the militia. When Muscovites, led by Kozma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky, rebelled against the Poles, the invaders set fire to the city and took refuge in the Kremlin. The Patriarch was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery. The Poles, threatening death, demanded that the Patriarch recall the militia, which began the siege of the Kremlin. Hermogenes refused. He managed to send the last message, calling on the Russian people to fight the interventionists to the end. Saint Hermogenes was in prison for more than nine months. On February 17, 1612, he died a martyr from hunger and thirst. On October 27, 1612, the fierce resistance of the Polish-Lithuanian troops was finally broken.
Patriarch Filaret(1619-1633). Feodor Nikitich Romanov-Yuryev was born around 1553 into a noble boyar family. He was the nephew of Ivan the Terrible. After the death of Tsar Feodor Ioannovich, Feodor Nikitich was a legitimate contender for the throne, but at the insistence of Boris Godunov, he was tonsured a monk with the name Filaret. The disgraced monk accepted his fate and began to worthily undergo the school of monastic asceticism. In 1606, Filaret was ordained Metropolitan of Rostov. False Dmitry II held Philaret captive near Moscow. Then Metropolitan Filaret, as an important participant in the Russian embassy to the Polish king Sigismund III, was captured by the Poles for refusing to accept Polish conditions and was held captive for 9 years. In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Philaret, to the Russian kingdom. In captivity, Filaret showed courage and perseverance, urging his son not to give even an inch of Russian land to the Poles as a ransom. When Filaret received freedom in 1619, he was immediately installed as Patriarch. The High Hierarch was the closest adviser and de facto co-ruler of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich. The Patriarch knew the system of public administration well and had rich life experience. In government decrees, next to the name of the tsar was the name of Filaret, who bore the title “Great Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret Nikitich.” Patriarch Filaret did a lot to restore order in the country after the Time of Troubles: a land census was carried out, taxes were distributed, economic and cultural ties with foreign countries were restored, and the army was reformed. Filaret created Patriarchal orders designed to streamline church affairs, organized schools at bishops' houses, and took care of supplying dioceses with printed liturgical books. A Greek-Latin school was opened in the Miracle Monastery of the Moscow Kremlin. In 1620, a new Tobolsk diocese was established, which was of great importance for the spread of Christianity among the peoples of Siberia. Relations with the Eastern Patriarchs, interrupted by the turmoil, were restored. The Patriarch zealously cared for the purity of Orthodoxy, taking strict measures against heterodox influences that penetrated the country. On October 1, 1633, Patriarch Filaret Nikitich reposed in the Lord.
Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666). Nikita Minich Minin was born in 1605 into a peasant family in the village of Veldemanova, Nizhny Novgorod province. At the age of 12, he secretly went to the Makariev Zheltovodsk Monastery, but with the blessing of his dying father he returned and got married. At the age of 20, Nikita became a parish priest. Nikita's moral qualities and education became known in Moscow, and soon he and his family moved to the capital. Having lived 10 years of marriage, after the death of three children, the couple accepted monasticism. At the age of 30, Nikita was tonsured in Solovki with the name Nikon. At the insistence of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Nikon was appointed archimandrite of the Novo-Spassky Monastery in Moscow. A close friendship began between the king and the archimandrite. On Fridays, Nikon came to the palace for a conversation. He began to intercede with the king on behalf of the oppressed. In 1649 Nikon became Metropolitan of Novgorod. The future Patriarch showed a lot of wisdom to save the Novgorodians from punishment for the hunger riot of 1650. In 1651, Metropolitan Nikon convinced the Tsar and Patriarch Joseph to transfer the relics of Saints Philip, Job and Hermogenes to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. In 1652 Nikon was elected Patriarch. On his knees, Nikon was asked to accept the election by the tsar himself, the boyars and the people. Due to the Tsar’s special affection for the Patriarch, Nikon took part in solving almost all national affairs. Like Patriarch Filaret, Nikon bore the title “Great Sovereign.” With the assistance of Patriarch Nikon, the historical reunification of Ukraine with Russia took place in 1654. Soon Belarus was reunited with Russia. The Patriarch streamlined divine services, corrected liturgical books according to Greek models, replaced two-fingered with three-fingered ones, and took care of raising the moral level of the clergy. Unfortunately, Nikon's church reforms caused a split in the Old Believers. Under Patriarch Nikon, wonderful monasteries were built: Voskresensky near Moscow (“New Jerusalem”), Iversky Svyatoozersky in Valdai and Krestny Kiyostrovsky in Onega Bay. The Patriarch himself collected a rich library. The boyars, whose interests were affected by the Patriarch, slandered Nikon before the Tsar. By the decision of the Moscow Council of 1666, Nikon was deprived of the Patriarchate and sent to prison for 15 years. At the same time, however, the church reforms he carried out were approved by the Council. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich asked Nikon for forgiveness before his death. Tsar Feodor Alekseevich wanted to return Nikon to the patriarchal rank, but on August 17, 1681, Patriarch Nikon died. In 1682, four Eastern Patriarchs sent letters to Moscow restoring Nikon to the rank of Patriarch.
Patriarch Tikhon(1917-1925). Vasily Ivanovich Belavin was born in 1865 in the city of Toropets, Pskov province, into the family of a priest. In 1888 he graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Then Vasily Ivanovich taught at the Pskov Theological Seminary for three and a half years. In 1891, Vasily took monastic vows with the name of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. In 1897 he was ordained Bishop of Lublin. In 1898, Bishop Tikhon was appointed to the United States with the title "Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska." Under Tikhon, a cathedral was built in New York in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, where the see of the American Diocese was moved from San Francisco. Bishop Tikhon organized the Minneapolis Theological Seminary, parochial schools and orphanages. Thanks to the works of Bishop Tikhon in America, Christians of other denominations are beginning to become acquainted with Orthodoxy. In 1907 he was transferred to the Yaroslavl department. In 1914 he became Archbishop of Vilna. On June 23, 1917, Archbishop Tikhon was elected Metropolitan of Moscow. At the All-Russian Local Council, Saint Tikhon was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. On November 21, 1917, on the day of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple, the enthronement of the new Patriarch took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. It fell to the lot of Saint Tikhon to govern the Russian Church in completely new conditions, when state power was hostile and aggressive towards the Church. The saint denounced the atrocities of the Civil War, condemned the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the execution of Emperor Nicholas II. When a terrible famine began in the country, Patriarch Tikhon called on parish councils to donate precious church decorations, unless they had liturgical use. The Famine Relief Committee, headed by the Patriarch, raised large funds and greatly alleviated the situation of the starving. However, on May 5, 1922, the Soviet government arrested the Patriarch in the case of “resistance to the seizure of church valuables.” The persecution of Saint Tikhon began in the Soviet press. But the world community, in particular Great Britain, came to the defense of the High Hierarch. On June 26, 1923, the Patriarch was released. Patriarch Tikhon was a figure who stood as an insurmountable obstacle to the “renovationist” schism, inspired by the Bolsheviks to decompose the Church from within. On April 7, 1925, on the feast of the Annunciation, the Patriarch died at the age of 60.
Patriarch Sergius (1943-1944). John Nikolaevich Stragorodsky was born in 1867 in the city of Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod province, into the family of an archpriest. After graduating from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, in 1890, Hieromonk Sergius was appointed to Japan as a member of the Orthodox Spiritual Mission. In 1894, Father Sergius received the rank of archimandrite and was appointed rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Athens. In 1895, he defended his famous master's thesis “The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.” In 1897, Archimandrite Sergius was reappointed to Japan as assistant to the head of the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Mission. In 1899 he became rector of the St. Petersburg Academy. In 1901 he was consecrated bishop. Since 1911 - member of the Holy Synod. Participant of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918. In January 1921, Metropolitan Sergius was arrested and spent a long time in Butyrka prison. He was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. Since 1924 - Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod. After the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), was arrested in December 1925, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in fact became the head of the Moscow Patriarchate as the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Metropolitan Sergius several times appealed to the NKVD with a request to legalize the highest church administration, diocesan councils, and allow the holding of Bishops' Councils, but was invariably refused. The Russian Church was in a very difficult situation. The country was flooded with a mass of schismatic movements. The renovationists intensified their activities. In November 1926, Bishop Sergius was arrested again, accused of having connections with emigration and preparing illegal elections for the Patriarch. The OGPU, in exchange for state legalization of the entire church-administrative structure of the Moscow Patriarchate, set strict demands for Metropolitan Sergius: a statement in support of the Soviet government, commemoration of it during worship, condemnation of counter-revolutionary actions in the USSR and abroad, approval of candidates for bishops with the NKVD, dismissal from the administration of the diocese arrested bishops, removal from administration of bishops objectionable to the authorities. Metropolitan Sergius, wanting to save the Church, accepted the proposed conditions. On March 30, 1927, he was released. On July 29, 1927, the “Declaration of 1927” signed by Metropolitan Sergius was made public, which confirmed unconditional loyalty to the Soviet government and in which there was no criticism of the government’s church policy. In August 1927, the Patriarchal Synod was registered by the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs. In the first days of the Great Patriotic War, Metropolitan Sergius wrote the patriotic “Message to the Pastors and Flock of Christ’s Orthodox Church.” The Russian Church did its best to help the army and the people win: prayer was performed, clothes and valuables were collected for soldiers, wounded, and orphans. Funds were raised to create a tank column for Dimitri Donskoy. From the autumn of 1941 to the summer of 1943, Metropolitan Sergius was in Ulyanovsk. During the war years, church policy in the USSR began to soften. On September 8, 1943, a Council of Bishops took place in Moscow, in which nineteen hierarchs participated. Eighteen years after the death of Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow and Kolomna was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Patriarch Sergius died nine months later, on May 15, 1944.
Patriarch Alexy I (1945-1970). Sergei Vladimirovich Simansky was born in 1877 in Moscow. He graduated from the Nikolaev Lyceum with a silver medal. In 1896 he entered the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, which he graduated in three years. In 1904 he graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1913, Archimandrite Alexy was ordained Bishop of Tikhvin. During the revolutionary years, Bishop Alexy remained a faithful shepherd. He tried to follow two principles: loyalty to the canonical principles and loyalty to the new system. In the second half of the 20s, Bishop Alexy became a member of the Synod and the closest assistant to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). In 1933, Metropolitan Alexy headed the Leningrad See. Bishop Alexy remained with his flock all the time in besieged Leningrad, testifying to the patriotic position of the Russian Church. The Metropolitan did not cease to serve and console people, despite the bombing, frost, hunger and powerlessness. The collection of funds for the defense of the Motherland and to help the wounded and orphans continued in the churches of Leningrad. Metropolitan Alexy was awarded the medal “For the Defense of Leningrad.” At the Local Council in February 1945, Bishop Alexy was unanimously elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The main goal of the twenty-five-year ministry of Patriarch Alexy I was to preserve the Church under the conditions of a totalitarian atheistic regime. In the post-war period, the Soviet government, taking into account both the patriotic role of the Russian Church and its foreign political interests, decided to soften church policy. Under His Holiness Alexy I, churches began to be restored. Monthly church publications appear. Church structures were given permission to purchase transport and produce utensils. The Moscow and Leningrad theological academies, as well as 8 seminaries, were opened. Prayer life has resumed in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In 1946, renovationism finally disappeared. Despite these positive developments, arrests and persecution of the Church continued. Under N.S. Under Khrushchev, atheistic propaganda and anti-church politics are again gaining momentum, but the methods of brutal physical destruction of the clergy, characteristic of the Stalinist period, are no longer used. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy I contributed to the restoration of relations with the Polish and Finnish Churches. Under Patriarch Alexy I, contacts between the Russian Church and other Local Orthodox Churches are being intensified. Theological educational institutions are beginning to accept students from abroad. Relations are being established with the Roman Catholic Church, non-Chalcedonian Ancient Eastern Churches, and the Protestant world. Patriarch Alexy I was a member of the Soviet Peace Committee for many years. His Holiness Patriarch Alexy I died on April 17, 1970.
Deacon Dmitry TROFIMOV
