Search

The article examines the contemporaries’ perception of the Renovationist “Local Council” of 1923, the central event of the largest church schism in the history of Russia. It shows the view of its main unofficial initiators and curators: Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council L. D. Trotsky (Bronstein) and other Party and Chekist figures and institutions, which makes it possible to understand why this pseudo-council was needed and how it was guided to the intended goal. A brief overview of publications dedicated to this «Council» in the Communist press (“Pravda”, “Izvestia VTsIK”, “Bezboshnik”) is given. Next, the renovationist press is considered, both time-based and targeted (three editions of the false council materials, carried out in the 1920s). The publications of the schismatics fully convey the pathos of the church revolutionaries, on the one hand, and on the other — expose their spiritual and moral inconsistency (that is particularly evident in case of bishop Antonin (Granovsky), nominal chairman of the “Local Council”). The last part of the article shows the reaction to the false council of the Orthodox zealots of that time — from the hierarchs led by Holy Patriarch Tikhon, to the outraged church commoners who expressed their attitude to the “Judases” (Antonin, etc.), using the materials at hand. The most obvious historical analogy that the Orthodox saw when assessing the Moscow schismatic assembly of 1923 was the “Robber Council” in Ephesus, held in 449. In general, almost all concerned contemporaries of the event saw it primarily as a political action. The apparent lack of ecclesiality of the Renovationist «Local Council» strongly exposed the schismatics themselves and largely predetermined their ecclesiological collapse.

The article describes the liquidation process of the renovationist schism in the Ural which took place during the Great Patriotic War. It is also tackles the reunion of the former renovationist hierarchs with the Russian Orthodox Church. The work presents vivid episodes of relations between bishop of Molotov and Solikamsk Alexander (Tolstopyatov) and well known renovationist representatives — hieromonk Sergius (Larin) and former renovationist “bishop” Seraphim (Korovin). The study is based on the correspondence between bishop Alexander (Tolstopyatov) and Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1943–1944, preserved in the State Archive of Russian Federation (GARF) and Perm diocesan archive. Using bishop Alexander’s personality as an example, the author analyzes the reaction of a part of the Russian Orthodox Church episcopate to the reunification of renovationist leaders with the Church. Such hierarchs-confessors (unlike the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Sergius himself) who passed through the Stalin’s camps were very cautious in accepting this reunification, considering repentance of renovationists as hypocrisy and discrediting factor for the Moscow Patriarchate itself.

The proposed article, based on the sources of various types (official, clerical, journalistic, and personal ones) and origins (ecclesiastical, schismatic, and state), examines attempts — under the guise of church reconciliation — to impose on Patriarch Tikhon and his supporters the de facto subordination to the schismatic renovationists and the Soviet authorities that stood behind them. These attempts began shortly after the reorganization of the renovationist governing bodies in August 1923 and the establishment of a schismatic “Holy Synod” (later recognized by the Constantinople Patriarchate). Patriarch Tikhon was subjected to the strongest pressure, including threats of repression, partially implemented against his closest associates. An active disinformation campaign was launched by the Soviet and schismatic press. Its echoes for a long time formed a stereotypical idea that Patriarch Tikhon and his associates, such as Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), were at some point ready to make extreme concessions to the renovationists, up to agreeing with the dismissal of the Patriarch and uniting with the schismatics in a single structure. The story received a particularly tempting turn for Orthodox believers in spring and summer of 1924, when Soviet newspapers began to circulate reports about the allegedly reached agreement between the Patriarch and the “protopresbyter” Vladimir Krasnitsky (the most odious representative of the schism) and the unification of “Tikhonites” with “zhivotserkovniki” for the purpose of subsequent joint struggle against “church counter-revolution”. In fact, although Patriarch Tikhon was forced to enter into negotiations with the Renovationists personally or through his authorized representatives, a mandatory condition for the restoration of church communion with the schismatics was their public repentance, which they did not intend to do. The most important task for the Patriarch was not so much to normalize relations with the state (although he tried to do this), but to preserve internal peace within the Church. As a result, St. Tikhon was able — under the most difficult conditions — to preserve the canonical purity, spiritual and moral authority, as well as unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch did not make compromises with the schismatics, which would degrade the dignity of the Church.

The proposed article, based on the sources of various types (official, clerical, journalistic, and personal ones) and origins (ecclesiastical, schismatic, and state), examines attempts — under the guise of church reconciliation — to impose on Patriarch Tikhon and his supporters the de facto subordination to the schismatic renovationists and the Soviet authorities that stood behind them. These attempts began shortly after the reorganization of the renovationist governing bodies in August 1923 and the establishment of a schismatic “Holy Synod” (later recognized by the Constantinople Patriarchate). Patriarch Tikhon was subjected to the strongest pressure, including threats of repression, partially implemented against his closest associates. An active disinformation campaign was launched by the Soviet and schismatic press. Its echoes for a long time formed a stereotypical idea that St. Tikhon and his associates, such as Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), were at some point ready to make extreme concessions to the renovationists, up to agreeing with the dismissal of the Patriarch and uniting with the schismatics in a single structure. The story received a particularly tempting turn for Orthodox believers in spring and summer of 1924, when Soviet newspapers began to circulate reports about the allegedly reached agreement between the Patriarch and the “protopresbyter” Vladimir Krasnitsky (the most odious representative of the schism) and the unification of “Tikhonites” with “zhivotserkovniki” for the purpose of subsequent joint struggle against “church counter-revolution”. In fact, although Patriarch Tikhon was forced to enter into negotiations with the Renovationists personally or through his authorized representatives, a mandatory condition for the restoration of church communion with the schismatics was their public repentance, which they did not intend to do. The most important task for the Patriarch was not so much to normalize relations with the state (although he tried to do this), but to preserve internal peace within the Church. As a result, St. Tikhon was able — under the most difficult conditions — to preserve the canonical purity, spiritual and moral authority, and unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch did not make compromises with the schismatics, which would degrade the dignity of the Church.