Russian Orthodox Church Patriarchate. Patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church
The number of churches in America is ten times greater than the number of churches in Russia, said the head of the press service of Patriarch Kirill, Alexander Volkov, at a press conference of the Rossiya Segodnya news agency. “There (in the USA. - Kommersant), in my opinion, there are about 300-400 thousand - approximately in these qi
Kommersant 20 days ago 2Materials with such headlines were published in RIA Novosti, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Lente.ru and others Russian publications. But we are not talking about the continent from Game of Thrones, but about a real city in Sweden. According to the press secretary of Patriarch Kirill Alexander Vo
The Russian Orthodox Church compared the protests at the temple in Yekaterinburg with the execution of the royal family
The head of the Yekaterinburg Metropolis emphasized that people who oppose the construction of churches in some cities are “our brothers, our children, lost due to lack of faith.”
ITAR-TASS 21 days ago 4The French newspaper Le Figaro writes about the trip of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to France. As reported on the official website of the patriarch, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church arrived in Strasbourg on Saturday, May 25, to consecrate the new Orthodox church All Saints
Patriarch Kirill said that the Russian Orthodox Church is building three churches a day
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', after the consecration of a Russian church in Strasbourg, said that the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is building three churches a day. “Today we build about three temples a day, in 24 hours. 30 thousand churches in ten years,” - sk
Kommersant 22 days ago 1The transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church is supported by about 17% of St. Petersburg residents
Senior researcher at the Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Tatyana Protasenko noted that over the course of several years the number of city residents who clearly oppose the transfer of the cathedral has changed
TASS 24 days ago 1The Russian Orthodox Church called for postponing the survey on the temple in Yekaterinburg and stopping the persecution
They suggest postponing the survey for at least a month to allow emotions to subside. The Yekaterinburg diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church called for postponing the poll on the fate of the Church of St. Catherine so that city residents calm down and vote “in a balanced manner.” The appeal was read by the abbot of the Russian Orthodox Church
IA REGNUM 24 days ago 0Tsukanov on the situation in Yekaterinburg: “This is not a conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and society”
The Ural plenipotentiary did not hear that people were against the temple. The protest in Yekaterinburg against the construction of the Church of St. Catherine on the territory of the park is not a conflict between society and the Russian Orthodox Church. The Ural regiment announced this at a meeting on May 22
IA REGNUM 26 days ago 5The Russian Orthodox Church does not consider the complex being built in Pushkin to be the residence of the patriarch
Press Secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) Alexander Volkov that a complex is being reconstructed near St. Petersburg, where premises will be provided for the stay of Patriarch Kirill. Mr. Volkov, in a conversation with Moscow Speaks, clarified that this should be called
Kommersant 27 days ago 8The Russian Orthodox Church regrets the violence around the temple in Yekaterinburg
A representative of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) commented on the situation with the construction of a temple in Yekaterinburg, which caused protests. “The Church regrets that violence occurred at the construction site,” said the chairman of the Department of External Affairs
Kommersant 1 month ago 3The senior priest of the Church on the Blood in Yekaterinburg, Maxim Minyailo, called on protesters against the temple on the site of the park and supporters of the construction to refrain from harsh expressions, since both points of view have the right to exist. Read d
The Russian Orthodox Church believes that the struggle between schismatic ambitions will not solve the real problems of Ukrainian believers
The head of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations between the church and society and the media, Vladimir Legoyda, emphasized that a schism can only give rise to a schism
TASS 1 month 3 days ago 0The construction of a temple in Yekaterinburg on the territory of a public garden, in whose defense protests are being held, is being carried out legally. This was stated by the head of the synodal department of the Moscow Patriarchate for relations between the church and society and
The Russian Orthodox Church accused opponents of the construction of the temple in Yekaterinburg of trying to split society
The Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society and the Media believes that the demolition of the fence and opposition to the construction of the Church of St. Catherine in Yekaterinburg were attempts to split society. “I also believe that actions such as demolition
Kommersant 1 month 4 days ago 1Catholic Press Review. The topics of media publications from the Vatican, Catholic dioceses and organizations during the week of May 6 - 12, 2019 were: Pope Francis on the new attitude towards sexual crimes; Italian neo-fascists opposed the pontiff;
The head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion, on the Rossiya 24 TV channel, expressed the hope that during the reign of the elected President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, the country will no longer consider Russian-speaking people as people of the “second
The Russian Orthodox Church said that Filaret “changed his shoes” after the presidential elections
The Russian Orthodox Church believes that the head of the UOC-KP Filaret, having congratulated showman Vladimir Zelensky on his victory in the presidential elections in Ukraine, “changed his shoes on the go.” This was stated by the head of the Synodal Department of the Russian Orthodox Church for relations between the Church and society and the media, Vladimi
sharij.net Ukraine 1 month 25 days ago 47The welfare of the Orthodox Church rests not only on considerable assistance from the state, the generosity of patrons and donations from the flock - the Russian Orthodox Church also has its own business. But where the earnings are spent is still a secret
The primate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), Patriarch Kirill, spent half of February on long journeys. Negotiations with the Pope in Cuba, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil, landing on Waterloo Island near the Antarctic coast, where Russian polar explorers from the Bellingshausen station live surrounded by Gentoo penguins.
To travel to Latin America, the patriarch and about a hundred accompanying people used an Il-96-300 aircraft with tail number RA-96018, which is operated by the Special Flight Detachment “Russia”. This airline is subordinate to the presidential administration and serves the top officials of the state ().
Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill at the Russian Bellingshausen station on the Island of Waterloo (Photo: Press service of the Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church/TASS)
The authorities provide the head of the Russian Orthodox Church not only with air transport: the decree on allocating state security to the patriarch was one of the first decisions of President Vladimir Putin. Three of the four residences - in Chisty Lane in Moscow, Danilov Monastery and Peredelkino - were provided to the church by the state.
However, the ROC's income is not limited to the assistance of the state and big business. The church itself has learned to earn money.
RBC understood how the economy of the Russian Orthodox Church works.
Layered cake
“From an economic point of view, the Russian Orthodox Church is a gigantic corporation that unites tens of thousands of independent or semi-independent agents under a single name. They are every parish, monastery, priest,” he wrote in his book “The Russian Orthodox Church: current state And actual problems» sociologist Nikolai Mitrokhin.
Indeed, unlike many public organizations, each parish is registered as a separate legal entity and religious NPO. Church income for conducting rites and ceremonies is not subject to taxation, and proceeds from the sale of religious literature and donations are not taxed. At the end of each year, religious organizations draw up a declaration: according to the latest data provided to RBC by the Federal Tax Service, in 2014 the church’s non-taxable income tax amounted to 5.6 billion rubles.
In the 2000s, Mitrokhin estimated the entire annual income of the Russian Orthodox Church at approximately $500 million, but the church itself rarely and reluctantly talks about its money. At the 1997 Council of Bishops, Patriarch Alexy II reported that the Russian Orthodox Church received the bulk of its money from “managing its temporarily free funds, placing them in deposit accounts, purchasing government short-term bonds” and other valuable papers and from the income of commercial enterprises.
Three years later, Archbishop Clement, in an interview with Kommersant-Dengi magazine, will say for the first and last time what the church economy consists of: 5% of the patriarchate’s budget comes from diocesan contributions, 40% from sponsorship donations, 55% comes from earnings from commercial enterprises of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Now there are fewer sponsorship donations, and deductions from dioceses can amount to a third or about half of the general church budget, explains Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, who until December 2015 headed the department for relations between the church and society.
Church property
The confidence of an ordinary Muscovite in the rapid growth of the number of new Orthodox churches around does not greatly contradict the truth. Since 2009 alone, more than five thousand churches have been built and restored throughout the country, Patriarch Kirill announced these figures at the Council of Bishops in early February. These statistics include both churches built from scratch (mainly in Moscow; see how this activity is financed) and those given to the Russian Orthodox Church under the 2010 law “On the transfer of religious property to religious organizations.”
According to the document, the Federal Property Management Agency transfers objects to the Russian Orthodox Church in two ways - into ownership or under a free use agreement, explains Sergei Anoprienko, head of the placement department federal bodies authorities of the Federal Property Management Agency.
RBC conducted an analysis of documents on the websites of territorial bodies of the Federal Property Management Agency - over the past four years, the Orthodox Church has received over 270 pieces of property in 45 regions (uploaded until January 27, 2016). The real estate area is indicated for only 45 objects - a total of about 55 thousand square meters. m. The largest object that became the property of the church is the ensemble of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitages.
A destroyed temple in the Kurilovo tract in the Shatura district of the Moscow region (Photo: Ilya Pitalev/TASS)
If real estate is transferred into ownership, Anoprienko explains, the parish receives a plot of land adjacent to the temple. Only church premises can be built on it - a utensils shop, a clergy house, a Sunday school, an almshouse, etc. It is prohibited to erect objects that can be used for economic purposes.
The Russian Orthodox Church received about 165 objects for free use, and about 100 for ownership, as follows from the data on the website of the Federal Property Management Agency. “Nothing surprising,” explains Anoprienko. “The church chooses free use, because in this case it can use government funding and count on subsidies for the restoration and maintenance of churches from the authorities. If the property is owned, all responsibility will fall on the Russian Orthodox Church.”
In 2015, the Federal Property Management Agency offered the Russian Orthodox Church to take 1,971 objects, but so far only 212 applications have been received, says Anoprienko. The head of the legal service of the Moscow Patriarchate, Abbess Ksenia (Chernega), is convinced that only destroyed buildings are given to churches. “When the law was discussed, we compromised and did not insist on restitution of property lost by the church. Now, as a rule, we are not offered a single normal building in large cities, but only ruined objects that require large expenses. We took a lot of destroyed churches in the 90s, and now, understandably, we wanted to get something better,” she says. The church, according to the abbess, will “fight for the necessary objects.”
The loudest battle is for St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg
St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg (Photo: Roshchin Alexander/TASS)
In July 2015, Metropolitan Barsanuphius of St. Petersburg and Ladoga addressed the Governor of St. Petersburg Georgy Poltavchenko with a request to give the famous Isaac for free use. This called into question the work of the museum located in the cathedral, a scandal ensued - the media wrote about the transfer of the monument on the front pages, a petition demanding to prevent the transfer of the cathedral collected over 85 thousand signatures on change.org.
In September, the authorities decided to leave the cathedral on the city's balance sheet, but Nikolai Burov, director of the St. Isaac's Cathedral museum complex (which includes three other cathedrals), is still waiting for a catch.
The complex does not receive money from the budget, 750 million rubles. He earns his annual allowance himself - from tickets, Burov is proud. In his opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church wants to open the cathedral only for worship, “jeopardizing free visits” to the site.
“Everything continues in the spirit of the “best Soviet” traditions - the temple is used as a museum, the museum management behaves like real atheists!” — counters Burov’s opponent, Archpriest Alexander Pelin from the St. Petersburg diocese.
“Why does the museum dominate the temple? Everything should be the other way around - first the temple, since this was originally intended by our pious ancestors,” the priest is outraged. The church, Pelin has no doubt, has the right to collect donations from visitors.
Budget money
“If you are supported by the state, you are closely connected with it, there are no options,” reflects priest Alexei Uminsky, rector of the Trinity Church in Khokhly. The current church interacts too closely with the authorities, he believes. However, his views do not coincide with the opinion of the leadership of the patriarchate.
According to RBC estimates, in 2012-2015 the Russian Orthodox Church and related structures received from the budget and from government organizations at least 14 billion rubles. Moreover, the new version of the budget for 2016 alone provides for 2.6 billion rubles.
Next to the Sofrino trading house on Prechistenka there is one of the branches of the ASVT group of telecommunications companies. Parkhaev also owned 10.7% of the company until at least 2009. The co-founder of the company (through JSC Russdo) is the co-chairman of the Union of Orthodox Women Anastasia Ositis, Irina Fedulova. ASVT's revenue for 2014 was over 436.7 million rubles, profit - 64 million rubles. Ositis, Fedulova and Parkhaev did not respond to questions for this article.
Parkhaev was listed as the chairman of the board of directors and owner of the Sofrino bank (until 2006 it was called Old Bank). The Central Bank revoked the license of this financial organization in June 2014. Judging by SPARK data, the owners of the bank are Alemazh LLC, Stek-T LLC, Elbin-M LLC, Sian-M LLC and Mekona-M LLC. According to the Central Bank, the beneficiary of these companies is Dmitry Malyshev, ex-chairman of the board of Sofrino bank and representative of the Moscow Patriarchate in the authorities state power.
Immediately after the renaming of Old Bank to Sofrino, the Housing Construction Company (HCC), founded by Malyshev and partners, received several large contracts from the Russian Orthodox Church: in 2006, the Housing Construction Company won 36 competitions announced by the Ministry of Culture (formerly Roskultura) for the restoration temples. The total volume of contracts is 60 million rubles.
Parhaev’s biography from the website parhaev.com reports the following: born on June 19, 1941 in Moscow, worked as a turner at the Krasny Proletary plant, in 1965 he came to work at the Patriarchate, participated in the restoration of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and enjoyed the favor of Patriarch Pimen. Parkhaev’s activities are described not without picturesque details: “Evgeniy Alekseevich provided the construction with everything necessary,<…>solved all the problems, and trucks with sand, bricks, cement, and metal went to the construction site.”
Parkhaev’s energy, the unknown biographer continues, is enough to manage, with the blessing of the patriarch, the Danilovskaya Hotel: “This is a modern and comfortable hotel, in the conference hall of which local cathedrals, religious and peace conferences, and concerts are held. The hotel needed just such a leader: experienced and purposeful.”
The daily cost of a single room at Danilovskaya with breakfast on weekdays is 6,300 rubles, an apartment is 13 thousand rubles, services include a sauna, bar, car rental and organization of events. The income of Danilovskaya in 2013 was 137.4 million rubles, in 2014 - 112 million rubles.
Parkhaev is a man from the team of Alexy II, who managed to prove his indispensability to Patriarch Kirill, RBC’s interlocutor in the company producing church products is sure. The permanent head of Sofrino enjoys privileges that even prominent priests are deprived of, confirms an RBC source in one of the large dioceses. In 2012, photographs from Parkhaev’s anniversary appeared on the Internet - the holiday was celebrated with pomp in the hall of the church councils of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. After this, the guests of the hero of the day went by boat to Parkhaev’s dacha in the Moscow region. The photographs, the authenticity of which no one has disputed, show an impressive cottage, a tennis court and a pier with boats.
From cemeteries to T-shirts
The sphere of interests of the Russian Orthodox Church includes medicines, jewelry, renting out conference rooms, Vedomosti wrote, as well as agriculture and the funeral services market. According to the SPARK database, the Patriarchate is a co-owner of Orthodox Ritual Service CJSC: the company is now closed, but a subsidiary established by it, Orthodox Ritual Service OJSC, is operating (revenue for 2014 - 58.4 million rubles).
The Ekaterinburg diocese owned a large granite quarry "Granit" and the security company "Derzhava", the Vologda diocese had a factory of reinforced concrete products and structures. The Kemerovo diocese is the 100% owner of Kuzbass Investment and Construction Company LLC, a co-owner of the Novokuznetsk Computer Center and the Europe Media Kuzbass agency.
In the Danilovsky Monastery in Moscow there are several retail outlets: the monastery shop and the Danilovsky Souvenir store. You can buy church utensils, leather wallets, T-shirts with Orthodox prints, and Orthodox literature. The monastery does not disclose financial indicators. In the territory Sretensky Monastery there is the “Sretenie” store and the “Unholy Saints” cafe, named after the book of the same name by the rector, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov). The cafe, according to the bishop, “doesn’t bring in any money.” The main source of income for the monastery is publishing. The monastery owns land in the agricultural cooperative “Resurrection” (the former collective farm “Voskhod”; the main activity is the cultivation of grain and legumes, and livestock). Revenue for 2014 was 52.3 million rubles, profit was about 14 million rubles.
Finally, since 2012, structures of the Russian Orthodox Church have owned the building of the Universitetskaya Hotel in the southwest of Moscow. The cost of a standard single room is 3 thousand rubles. The pilgrimage center of the Russian Orthodox Church is located in this hotel. “In the “University” there is Big hall, you can hold conferences and accommodate people who come to events. The hotel, of course, is cheap, very simple people stay there, very rarely bishops,” Chapnin told RBC.
Church cash desk
Archpriest Chaplin was unable to realize his long-standing idea - a banking system that eliminated usurious interest. While Orthodox banking exists only in words, the Patriarchate uses the services of the most ordinary banks.
Until recently, the church had accounts in three organizations - Ergobank, Vneshprombank and Peresvet Bank (the latter is also owned by structures of the Russian Orthodox Church). The salaries of employees of the Synodal Department of the Patriarchate, according to RBC's source in the Russian Orthodox Church, were transferred to accounts in Sberbank and Promsvyazbank (the banks' press services did not respond to RBC's request; a source close to Promsvyazbank said that the bank, among other things, holds church funds parishes).
Ergobank served more than 60 Orthodox organizations and 18 dioceses, including the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and the Compound of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. In January, the bank's license was revoked due to a hole discovered in its balance sheet.
The church agreed to open accounts with Ergobank because of one of its shareholders, Valery Meshalkin (about 20%), explains RBC’s interlocutor in the patriarchate. "Meshalkin - church man, an Orthodox businessman who helped churches a lot. It was believed that this was a guarantee that nothing would happen to the bank,” the source describes.
Ergobank office in Moscow (Photo: Sharifulin Valery/TASS)
Valery Meshalkin is the owner of the construction and installation company Energomashcapital, a member of the board of trustees of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the author of the book “The Influence of Holy Mount Athos on Monastic Traditions” of Eastern Europe" Meshalkin did not answer RBC's questions. As a source in Ergobank told RBC, money was withdrawn from the accounts of the ROC structure before the license was revoked.
In what turned out to be no less problematic, 1.5 billion rubles. ROC, a source in the bank told RBC and was confirmed by two interlocutors close to the patriarchate. The bank's license was also revoked in January. According to one of RBC's interlocutors, the chairman of the board of the bank, Larisa Marcus, was close to the patriarchate and its leadership, so the church chose this bank to store part of its money. According to RBC's interlocutors, in addition to the Patriarchate, several funds that carried out the instructions of the Patriarch kept funds in Vneshprombank. The largest is the Foundation of Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine and Helen. An RBC source in the Patriarchate said that the foundation collected money to help victims of the conflicts in Syria and Donetsk. Information about fundraising is also available on the Internet.
The founders of the fund are Anastasia Ositis and Irina Fedulova, already mentioned in connection with the Russian Orthodox Church. In the past - at least until 2008 - Ositis and Fedulova were shareholders of Vneshprombank.
However, the main bank of the church is the Moscow Peresvet. As of December 1, 2015, the bank’s accounts held funds of enterprises and organizations (RUB 85.8 billion) and individuals (RUB 20.2 billion). Assets as of January 1 were 186 billion rubles, more than half of which were loans to companies, the bank’s profit was 2.5 billion rubles. On accounts non-profit organizations- over 3.2 billion rubles, follows from the reporting of Peresvet.
The financial and economic management of the ROC owns 36.5% of the bank, another 13.2% is owned by the ROC-owned company Sodeystvie LLC. Other owners include Vnukovo-invest LLC (1.7%). The office of this company is located at the same address as Assistance. An employee of Vnukovo-invest could not explain to an RBC correspondent whether there was a connection between his company and Sodeystvo. The phones at the Assistance office are not answered.
JSCB Peresvet could cost up to 14 billion rubles, and the share of ROC in the amount of 49.7%, presumably, up to 7 billion rubles, IFC Markets analyst Dmitry Lukashov calculated for RBC.
Investments and innovations
Not much is known about where ROC funds are invested by banks. But it is known for sure that the Russian Orthodox Church does not shy away from venture investments.
Peresvet invests money in innovative projects through the Sberinvest company, in which the bank owns 18.8%. Funding for innovation is shared: 50% of the money is provided by Sberinvest investors (including Peresvet), 50% by state corporations and foundations. Funds for projects co-financed by Sberinvest were found in the Russian Venture Company (the press service of RVC refused to name the amount of funds), the Skolkovo Foundation (the fund invested 5 million rubles in developments, a representative of the fund said) and the state corporation Rusnano (on Sberinvest projects have been allocated $50 million, a press service employee said).
The press service of the RBC state corporation explained: to finance joint projects with Sberinvest, the international Nanoenergo fund was created in 2012. Rusnano and Peresvet each invested $50 million into the fund.
In 2015, the Rusnano Capital Fund S.A. - a subsidiary of Rusnano - appealed to the District Court of Nicosia (Cyprus) with a request to recognize Peresvet Bank as a co-defendant in the case of violation of the investment agreement. IN statement of claim(available to RBC) it is said that the bank, in violation of procedures, transferred “$90 million from the accounts of Nanoenergo to the accounts of Russian companies affiliated with Sberinvest.” The accounts of these companies were opened in Peresvet.
The court recognized Peresvet as one of the co-defendants. Representatives of Sberinvest and Rusnano confirmed to RBC the existence of a lawsuit.
“This is all some kind of nonsense,” Oleg Dyachenko, a member of the board of directors of Sberinvest, does not lose heart in a conversation with RBC. “We have good energy projects with Rusnano, everything is going on, everything is moving - a composite pipe plant has fully entered the market, silicon dioxide is at a very high level, we process rice, we produce heat, we have reached an export position.” In response to the question of where the money went, the top manager laughs: “You see, I’m free. So the money wasn’t lost.” Dyachenko believes that the case will be closed.
The press service of Peresvet did not respond to RBC’s repeated requests. The chairman of the board of the bank, Alexander Shvets, did the same.
Income and expenses
“Since Soviet times, the church economy has been opaque,” explains rector Alexei Uminsky, “it is built on the principle of a public service center: parishioners give money for some service, but no one is interested in how it is distributed. And the parish priests themselves don’t know exactly where the money they collect goes.”
Indeed, it is impossible to calculate church expenses: the Russian Orthodox Church does not announce tenders and does not appear on the government procurement website. In economic activities, the church, says Abbess Ksenia (Chernega), “does not hire contractors”, managing on its own - food is supplied by monasteries, candles are melted by workshops. The multi-layered pie is divided within the Russian Orthodox Church.
“What does the church spend on?” - the abbess asks again and answers: “Theological seminaries throughout Russia are maintained, this is a fairly large share of the expenses.” The church also provides charitable assistance to orphans and other social institutions; all synodal departments are financed from the general church budget, she adds.
The Patriarchate did not provide RBC with data on the expenditure items of its budget. In 2006, in the Foma magazine, Natalya Deryuzhkina, at that time an accountant for the Patriarchate, estimated the costs of maintaining the Moscow and St. Petersburg theological seminaries at 60 million rubles. in year.
Such expenses are still relevant today, confirms Archpriest Chaplin. Also, the priest clarifies, it is necessary to pay salaries to the secular staff of the patriarchate. In total, this is 200 people with an average salary of 40 thousand rubles. per month, says RBC’s source in the patriarchy.
These expenses are insignificant compared to the annual contributions of the dioceses to Moscow. What happens to all the rest of the money?
A few days after the scandalous resignation, Archpriest Chaplin opened an account on Facebook, where he wrote: “Understanding everything, I consider concealing income and especially expenses of the central church budget to be completely immoral. In principle, there cannot be the slightest Christian justification for such a concealment.”
There is no need to disclose the items of expenditure of the Russian Orthodox Church, since it is absolutely clear what the church spends money on - for church needs, the chairman of the synodal department for relations between the church and society and the media, Vladimir Legoida, reproached the RBC correspondent.
How do other churches live?
It is not customary to publish reports on the income and expenses of a church, regardless of denominational affiliation.
Dioceses of Germany
Exception in Lately became the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), partially disclosing income and expenses. Thus, the dioceses of Germany began to reveal their financial indicators after a scandal with the Bishop of Limburg, for whom construction of a new residence began in 2010. In 2010, the diocese valued the work at €5.5 million, but three years later the cost almost doubled to €9.85 million. To avoid claims in the press, many dioceses began to disclose their budgets. According to reports, the budget of the RCC dioceses consists of property income, donations, as well as church taxes, which are levied on parishioners. According to 2014 data, the diocese of Cologne became the richest (its income is €772 million, tax revenue is €589 million). According to the plan for 2015, the total expenditures of the diocese were estimated at 800 million.
Vatican Bank
Data on the financial transactions of the Institute of Religious Affairs (IOR, Istituto per le Opere di Religione), better known as the Vatican Bank, is now being published. The bank was created in 1942 to manage the financial resources of the Holy See. The Vatican Bank published its first financial report in 2013. According to the report, in 2012 the bank's profit amounted to €86.6 million, a year earlier - €20.3 million. Net interest income was €52.25 million, income from trading activities was €51.1 million.
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Unlike Catholic dioceses, reports on the income and expenses of the ROCOR are not published. According to Archpriest Peter Kholodny, who was the treasurer of the ROCOR for a long time, the economy of the foreign church is structured simply: parishes pay contributions to the dioceses of the ROCOR, and they transfer the money to the Synod. The percentage of annual contributions for parishes is 10%; 5% is transferred from dioceses to the Synod. The wealthiest dioceses are in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the USA.
The main income of the ROCOR, according to Kholodny, comes from renting out the four-story Synod building: it is located in the upper part of Manhattan, on the corner of Park Avenue and 93rd Street. The area of the building is 4 thousand square meters. m, 80% is occupied by the Synod, the rest is rented to a private school. Annual rental income, according to Kholodny’s estimates, is about $500 thousand.
In addition, the ROCOR's income comes from the Kursk Root Icon (located in the ROCOR Cathedral of the Sign in New York). The icon is taken all over the world, donations go to the budget of the foreign church, explains Kholodny. The ROCOR Synod also owns a candle factory near New York. The ROCOR does not transfer money to the Moscow Patriarchate: “Our church is much poorer than the Russian one. Although we own incredibly valuable tracts of land—particularly half of the Garden of Gethsemane—it is not monetized in any way.”
With the participation of Tatyana Aleshkina, Yulia Titova, Svetlana Bocharova, Georgy Makarenko, Irina Malkova
The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is the largest religious association within the Russian Orthodox tradition, one of 16 local Orthodox churches. From the 10th to the 15th centuries it existed as metropolis(ecclesiastical region) of the Patriarchate of Constantinople; since 1448 actually independent(as a result of refusal to support the union of Constantinople with the Roman Catholic Church); in 1589 autocephaly The Russian Orthodox Church is officially recognized by the Eastern Patriarchates and established Moscow Patriarchate, which takes fifth place in a diptych of local Orthodox churches.
In 1721, the patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church was abolished and a state body was established Russian Empire for church administration affairs - Holy Governing Synod, the formal head of which was the Emperor. The Patriarchate was restored in 1917, when the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church elected Tikhon (Belavin) Patriarch. After his death in 1925, the authorities prevented the convening of a new Council for the election of the Patriarch, allowing them to be held only in 1943 at the Council of Bishops, consisting of 19 people. Currently, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church is Patriarch Alexy II, elected at the Local Council on June 10, 1990. He is the 15th Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The Patriarch has three residences- official (in the St. Daniel Monastery), work (in Chisty Lane in the center of Moscow) and suburban (in Peredelkino). Chairs of the Patriarch located in three capital cathedrals - the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin, the Epiphany Cathedral in Yelokhov and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The Russian Orthodox Church has 128 dioceses in Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan (these countries are considered the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church), as well as in the diaspora - Austria, Argentina, Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, USA and Canada. There are parishes, representative offices and other canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Thailand, Australia, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. The Russian Orthodox Church nominally includes Japanese Autonomous Orthodox Church, which is governed by an independent Metropolitan of All Japan, elected at the Council of this Church, and Chinese Autonomous Orthodox Church, which currently does not have its own hierarchy. The highest doctrinal, legislative, executive and judicial power in the Russian Orthodox Church belongs to To the local council, which includes all ruling (diocesan) bishops, as well as representatives from the clergy and laity of each diocese. According to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was in force from 1988 to 2000, the Local Council was to be convened every five years, but in practice this requirement was not fulfilled: from 1990 to the present there has not been a single Local Council. In August 2000, the Council of Bishops adopted a new Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church , which does not stipulate the frequency of convening the Local Council, the exclusive competence of which only includes the election of the new Patriarch. The real fullness of ecclesiastical authority has been transferred Bishop'scathedral, which includes permanent members of the Holy Synod and ruling bishops. According to the Charter, in force since August 2000, the Council of Bishops is convened by the Synod at least onceevery four years(the previous Charter required its convening at least once every two years). The list of powers of the Council of Bishops is very wide. Even during the work of the Local Council, which theoretically can cancel the decisions of the bishop, all full church power belongs to Bishops' Conference, consisting of bishops - members of the Council. If a majority of the members of the Local Council votes for a particular decision, but this decision does not receive a majority of votes of the members of the Bishops' Council, it is considered adopted.
In the period between Councils of Bishops, the Church is governed by the Patriarchs Holy Synod, which is considered an advisory body under the Patriarch. In practice, the Patriarch makes the most important administrative decisions only with the consent of the Synod. The Holy Synod includes, in addition to the Patriarch, seven permanent members(Metropolitans of Krutitsky and Kolomna, St. Petersburg and Ladoga, Kiev and All Ukraine, Minsk and Slutsk, Chisinau and All Moldova, as well as the Administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate and Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations - DECR MP) and six temporary summoned by the Synod itself to participate in meetings during only one synodal session. The meetings of the Synod are divided into two sessions - spring and autumn, each of which consists of two or three meetings, usually lasting two days. As a rule, the Holy Synod hears reports on major events church life that took place between its meetings (such events include visits of the Patriarch, visits to the Russian Orthodox Church by heads of other local Churches, participation of official representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church in major events of an all-Russian or international scale), and also establishes new dioceses, appoints and moves bishops, approves the opening of new monasteries and their appointment governors and abbess, opens and reorganizes religious educational institutions, opens new canonical structures of the Russian Orthodox Church in foreign countries and appoints their clergy. In exceptional cases, the Synod issues Messages that reflect the point of view of the church leadership on certain significant social problems (the last such Message was devoted to the problem of Taxpayer Identification Number and, more broadly, digital identification of citizens).
Over the past 10 years, the number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church has doubled, and parishes almost tripled. According to information announced by Patriarch Alexy II at the Jubilee Council of Bishops in August 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church includes more than 19,000 parishes And about 480 monasteries.Pastoral service in the Russian Orthodox Church is carried out by more than 150 bishops,17,500 priests, 2,300 deacons. The dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by the diocesan bishop, are directly subordinate to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod (the Patriarch has his own diocese on the territory of Moscow, which is actually governed by his vicar). In the management of dioceses, bishops are assisted by the diocesan council and deans(priests who head church districts, usually uniting churches of one or more neighboring districts of a large city or region). For example, the territory of Moscow (more than 400 churches) is divided into 11 deaneries. Some large dioceses have vicars- auxiliary bishops, on whom the ruling bishop entrusts part of his responsibilities. There is a slight difference in the titles of diocesan and suffragan bishops - the diocesan bishop has a “double” title (for example: “Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga”), and the suffragan has a “single” title (for example: “Archbishop of Istra”). The Moscow diocese has the most vicars – about 10. This is due to the fact that some of them are titular bishops holding administrative positions in the central church apparatus (for example, heads of Synodal departments).
The hierarchy of the Orthodox Church is called “three-order” because it consists of three main levels: diaconate, priesthoodand bishops. Depending on their attitude towards marriage and lifestyle, the clergy is divided into two categories - "white"(married) And "black" (monastic). Deacons and priests can be either married (but only in their first marriage) or monastics, and bishops can only be monastics. Deacons They are assistants to bishops and priests during divine services, but they themselves cannot perform any of the seven main church sacraments. Priests Only by the authority of their bishops and on their “instructions” can they perform all the sacraments, except for the priesthood - that is, ordination to the priesthood (this is performed only by the bishop). The bishop himself is ordained by several bishops, according to the decision of the Holy Synod. Bishops possess full sacramental and administrative-canonical power in the Church, therefore their persons are surrounded with special honor, and their divine services are performed according to a special, solemn rite (it is customary for bishops to address "lord", and to deacons and priests, as well as to monastics who do not have a hierarchical rank - "father"). Representatives of the “white” and “black” clergy have their own structures of honorary titles, which are awarded for “length of service” or for special services to the Church. These structures can be represented in the form of a table.
|
Hierarchical degree |
"White" (married) clergy |
"Black" (monastic) clergy |
|
Deacon |
Hierodeacon |
|
|
2. Priesthood |
Priest (=priest) |
Hieromonk |
|
3. Bishopric |
Bishop |
Monasticism has its own internal hierarchy, consisting of three degrees (belonging to them usually does not depend on belonging to one or another hierarchical degree itself): monasticism(Rassophore), monasticism(small schema, small angelic image) and schema(great schema, great angelic image). The majority of modern monastics belong to the second degree - to monasticism proper, or the small schema. Only those monastics who have this particular degree can receive ordination to the rank of bishop. To the name of the rank of monastics who have accepted the great schema, the particle “schema” is added (for example, “schema-abbot” or “schema-metropolitan”). Belonging to one degree or another of monasticism implies a difference in the level of strictness of monastic life and is expressed through differences in monastic clothing. During monastic tonsure, three main vows are made - celibacy, obedience and non-covetousness, and a new name is assigned as a sign of the beginning of a new life.
In the modern Russian Orthodox Church, monasteries are managed by viceroy in the rank of archimandrite (less often in the rank of abbot or hieromonk; the vicar of one monastery has the rank of bishop), who “represents” in it rector- diocesan bishop. The largest and most famous monasteries, as well as monasteries of the capital, are "stauropygial"- their abbot is the Patriarch himself, represented in the monastery by the viceroy. Convents run by abbess having an honorary title abbess(less often the abbess is a simple nun). In large monasteries, there is an advisory body under the governor - Spiritual Cathedral. Monasteries may have their own farmstead(representative offices) in cities or villages, as well as monasteries and monasteries, located at some distance from the main monastery. For example, the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius has Gethsemane and Bethany monasteries, and metochions in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
In addition to the clergy who belong to one of the three levels of the church hierarchy, the Russian Orthodox Church also has clergy, or lower clergy, - subdeacons and readers. The former almost exclusively serve the bishop, while the latter read in the choir or perform sexton functions in the altar.
Under the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church there are a number of “branch departments” - Synodal departments, the most important of which is DECR MP(Chairman: Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill (Gundyaev)). The DECR MP itself defines the range of its tasks as follows: “Carrying out the hierarchical, administrative and financial management of dioceses, monasteries, parishes and other institutions of our Church in the far abroad; making decisions by the clergy concerning church-state and church-public relations; maintaining relations with the Russian Orthodox Church with local Orthodox churches, heterodox churches and religious associations, non-Christian religions, religious and secular international organizations, state, political, social, cultural, scientific, economic, financial and other similar institutions and organizations, the media." The chairman of the DECR MP, Metropolitan Kirill, is considered the most influential hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In most cases, future clergy receive a “professional” education in theological educational institutions, a network of which is led by Educational Committee Moscow Patriarchate (chairman - Archbishop of Vereisky Evgeniy (Reshetnikov)). Currently, the Russian Orthodox Church operates 5 spiritual academies(before 1917 there were only 4), 26 theological seminaries, 29 theological schools, 2 Orthodox universities And Theological Institute, women's religious school, 28 icon painting schools. The total number of students in theological schools reaches 6000 people. Patriarch Alexy II and diocesan bishops began to increasingly pay attention to a new alarming trend that has appeared in the system of theological education of the Russian Orthodox Church: only a small percentage of ecclesiastical graduates educational institutions continues his service to the Church in the priesthood.
Synodal Department of Religious Education and Catechesis(Chairman - Hegumen John (Ekonomtsev)) runs a network of educational institutions intended for the laity. This network includes Sunday schools at churches, circles for adults, groups for preparing adults for baptism, Orthodox kindergartens, Orthodox groups in state kindergartens, Orthodox gymnasiums, schools and lyceums, Orthodox catechist courses.
Under the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church there are also Department of Church Charity and Social Service(acting chairman - Metropolitan of Solnechnogorsk Sergius (Fomin)), Department for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies(acting chairman - Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov), Missionary department(chairman - Archbishop of Belgorod and Stary Oskol John (Popov)); Youth Affairs Department(chairman - Archbishop of Kostroma and Galich Alexander (Mogilev)); Publishing Council(chairman - Archpriest Vladimir Silovyov; he is also the editor-in-chief Publishing houses of the Moscow Patriarchate, issued by the official organ of the Russian Orthodox Church - "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate"), a number of temporary councils and commissions. Current administrative affairs are handled Case management(headed by Metropolitan Sergius (Fomin) of Solnechnogorsk) and office(headed by Archpriest Vladimir Divakov) of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Patriarchate is under direct control (and is considered the main source of its income) Artistic and production enterprise of the Russian Orthodox Church "Sofrino" And hotel complex "Danilovsky".
If you open the website of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2018 and look at the members of the Holy Synod, of which there are more than 400, you will notice that only black monks are at the helm of the church. It is not easy to meet a parish priest in the Synod, because they only carry out the decisions made by the monks.
A more careful analysis leads to another discovery: less than a quarter of the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2018 have a higher secular education. On the contrary, approximately half in their youth were promoted from the positions of subdeacons under the bishops then in force. But the fact that the majority of the Synod members have roots in Bessarabia and the south-east of Ukraine, in Donetsk and Lugansk, is almost impossible to calculate. Although this is the holy truth and the root of all modern troubles of Russian Orthodoxy, the author of the Lenta.ru investigation argued in 2018.
It is in southeastern Ukraine and eastern Moldova that the Russian Orthodox Church has traditionally maintained its most patriarchal views. It was here that hundreds of Orthodox Christians committed suicide back in tsarist times. This is where the hatred of TIN and any passport comes from. It was here that cheerful fellow villagers most often disappeared. It was here that the “Black Hundred” was born. This is where Father Peter Kucher and many other princes of the Russian Orthodox Church come from.
Metropolises and dioceses
As of July 2018, the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church includes 79 metropolises and 356 dioceses, including:
Influence groups
Assets
Parishes
As of July 2018, almost 40 thousand elders, more than 5 thousand deacons and almost 400 bishops serve in the church.
In 1991, when the USSR collapsed and the religious revival began, the Russian Orthodox Church had about 6.5 thousand parishes, two-thirds of them in Ukraine. As of August 2018, there are more than 36 thousand parishes in the Russian Orthodox Church, of which about 25 thousand are in Russia. The number of monasteries has exceeded a thousand - there was never such a number before the revolution. Three new parishes open every day.
In mid-2017, the thousandth monastery opened in Russia, and as of January 1, 2018, there were 1010 of them. For comparison: before the Khrushchev persecutions there were only 14 monasteries in the USSR (the majority were in the Ukrainian SSR), in the 1980s there were four ( Trinity-Sergius and Pskov-Pechersk Lavra, Riga Hermitage (nunnery) and the Assumption Monastery in Pyukhtitsa, Estonia).
commercial activity
- "Artistic and production enterprise (HPP) "Sofrino"
- Hotel "Danilovskaya"
- management of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, owned by the Moscow Government
- OJSC "Ritual Orthodox Service" (as of 2016)
State support
Funding from the budget
According to RBC estimates, in 2012–2015, the Russian Orthodox Church and related structures received at least 14 billion rubles from the budget and from government organizations. Moreover, the 2016 budget version alone provides for 2.6 billion rubles.
In particular, in 2014–2015, over 1.8 billion rubles were allocated to Russian Orthodox Church organizations. for the creation and development of Russian spiritual and educational centers under the federal program “Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia.”
Another program supporting the church is “Culture of Russia”: since 2012, almost 10.8 billion rubles have been allocated for the preservation of religious objects within the program. In addition, 0.5 billion rubles. in 2012–2015 it was allocated for the restoration of objects of religious significance, said a representative of the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage.
Among the major recipients of contracts on the government procurement website is the Orthodox Encyclopedia church-scientific center (founded by the Patriarchate), which publishes a tome of the same name in 40 volumes edited by Patriarch Kirill. Since 2012, public schools and universities have spent about 250 million rubles on purchasing this book. And the subsidiary organization of the Orthodox Encyclopedia - the Orthodox Encyclopedia Foundation - received 56 million rubles in 2013. from the Ministry of Culture - for the filming of the films “Sergius of Radonezh” and “Snake Bite”.
In 2015, the Ministry of Education allocated about 112 million rubles from the budget. Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University.
The Central Clinical Hospital of St. Alexis under the Moscow Patriarchate received 198 million rubles from the Ministry of Health in 2015, and the new budget provides for another 178 million rubles for the hospital.
The budget for 2016 includes about 1 billion rubles. “To the Charitable Foundation for the Restoration of the Voskresensky New Jerusalem Stauropegial monastery Russian Orthodox Church" - the founder of the fund is the monastery itself.
In addition, from 2013 to 2015, Orthodox organizations received 256 million rubles. within the framework of presidential grants. The Russian Orthodox Church has no direct relationship with the recipients of the grants, they simply “were created by Orthodox people,” explains Archpriest Chaplin. Although the church does not directly participate in the creation of such organizations, there are no random people there, says Sergei Chapnin, former editor of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.
According to the same principle, he says, money is distributed in the only Orthodox grant program, “Orthodox Initiative” (the funds were allocated by Rosatom, two sources familiar with the program told RBC; the corporation’s press service did not answer RBC’s question).
The “Orthodox Initiative” has been held since 2005, the total amount of funding over the years of the competition is almost 568 million rubles.
Tax benefits
As of August 2018, the Russian Orthodox Church, like any officially registered religious organization in Russia, has benefits, but every single one of them is key. She is completely exempt from paying:
That is, in fact, the Russian Orthodox Church does not pay anything to the budget at all.
The Tax Code of the Russian Federation clearly stipulates: exemption comes only from religious activities, and all commercial activities, even those carried out by the Russian Orthodox Church, are subject to mandatory taxation. Therefore, according to reports, the church does not conduct commercial activities at all. And there is no point in arguing with this. However, according to a high-ranking Russian official, in reality they simply do not want to get involved with the church.
| “Priests are now included in absolutely all elected bodies of all levels of government, from local parliaments to various kinds of public councils and supervisory commissions - right up to ministerial and federal ones. This, of course, is correct, but it opens the door for them to managers of any rank, where they can simply complain so that the commission is recalled or they turn a blind eye to the identified shortcomings. And believe me, the clergy take advantage of this. Moreover, on the direct orders of his leadership,” he explains. |
As paradoxical as it may sound, state support makes the entire economy of the Russian Orthodox Church black. Or gray - after all, not a single parish is accountable to anyone. No one checks them except the Church itself.
Transfer of real estate
No less strange story happened to a woman who worked for many years as an agent for an employee of the apartment fraud department and uncovered the schemes of several gangs of “black realtors”. She was infiltrated into a group suspected of legalizing the apartments of old women who allegedly sold their homes and went to a monastery. She suddenly cut off all contact with the officer supervising her and shut down the operation on her own, and then sent her daughter to a church school, changed her clothing style and began attending church regularly.
Experienced criminals know that they will always find shelter in the monastery - the Russian Orthodox Church categorically refuses to give law enforcement agencies any information about those who have found refuge behind the church wall. In the summer of 2017, a certificate from the Ministry of Internal Affairs was even leaked to the press with a complaint about the abbots of churches obstructing the investigation. The answer to it from Archpriest Sergius was also made publicly available. He reports that the church sees no reason to provide passport data of persons in the dioceses.
Father Sergius himself, in the world Sergei Privalov, a native of Bryansk, served in the armed forces of the USSR and the Russian Federation until 2001. Having retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel, he exchanged his green field uniform for a black church uniform, and over the next 11 years made a dizzying career: he became an archpriest, a cleric of the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos in Petrovsky Park, a candidate of theology, a member of the Supreme Synodal Council, and also the chairman of the synodal commission for interaction with armed forces and law enforcement agencies. In other words, he is the highest official of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose decision practically cannot be reversed.
So it is not surprising that it is Archpriest Sergius who regularly refuses to allow law enforcement officers to take fingerprints from monastery employees and seize genetic material from them.
Pursuit of fugitives from monasteries
As you know, one of the most terrible church sins is escaping from the monastery. According to the rules, you can’t just leave the monastery - you have to break your vow, that is, become undressed. And this is a slow procedure, so it’s easier to escape - the secular authorities still don’t consider this an offense. As of July 2018, between 300 and 400 men and women were reported to have escaped from monasteries in the Russian Federation. The police do not formally accept such statements - escaping from a monastery is not considered a criminal offense, but such people need to be looked for and punished so that others are discouraged. This is done by the security service of the Russian Orthodox Church. True, such an organization does not officially exist. In the structure of the Church there was only one private security company, Sofrino, but in June 2017 it stopped working and handed over all weapons to the licensing system of the Russian Guard.
Previously, the Russian Orthodox Church was among the founders of the Peresvet bank. It is there that, as of 2018, one of the most serious security services in Russia operates. In October 2017, it was headed by Oleg Feoktistov, a former FSB general, the author of an operational combination that resulted in a prison sentence for the Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukaev. Peresvet security officers were seen at at least two crime scenes associated with the Russian Orthodox Church, and at one of them, as a police operative would later write in an explanatory note, they were engaged in “fixing trace objects using forensic equipment.” That explanatory report was never put into action, and the crime itself remained unsolved. We are talking about the murder of a priest on the threshold of the St. Nicholas Monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky. The same monastery, the rector of which is Archimandrite Dimitri, the confessor of Mother Lyudmila from the ill-fated village of Moseytsevo.
The Security Service of the Russian Orthodox Church actively conducts operational search work - that is, it secretly collects information about people, including using technical means. For example, it identifies the phone numbers from which girls from Moseytsevo accessed the Internet. After all, few people can see a profile on VKontakte and quickly find out from which phone number the person was online and calculate his location. Someone from the environment of the Moseytsev mothers did this in a matter of seconds. And a certain Matrona Yaroslavskaya, within a few minutes after discovering the girls’ profiles, knew not only their mobile numbers, but also the address of their newly created email. The identity of Matrona herself could not be established.
The same fate befell several journalists who wrote on church-related topics: they suddenly learned that the contents of their personal letters were becoming known to the highest church hierarchs. In other words, the security service of the Russian Orthodox Church does not formally exist, but in reality it is actively working. In any case, in December 2017, after the sentencing of the mothers from Moseytsevo, someone wanted to find out the fate of their adopted children. By that time, absolutely all their documents had been changed, but in the registry office Yaroslavl region tried to get a list of issued birth certificates, and the directorate of the orphanage received a request allegedly from a legal bureau demanding to provide the girls’ personal files. And someone else searched and opened their email accounts, and did it very professionally.
One can argue for a long time whether there is a special unit of hacker monks within the Russian Orthodox Church, but dozens of priests with whom the author of the Lenta.ru investigation spoke in 2018 said one thing: the metropolitans knew verbatim the contents of their emails and correspondence in closed social network groups. And, despite the motto “the Internet is sinful,” followers of the church actively use the World Wide Web. Especially when you need to find someone.
There were many rumors that the princes of the Russian Orthodox Church had titles of the KGB of the USSR and party cards. This cannot be asserted - many priests in the 1980s were very oppositional and even opportunistic. But this cannot be considered an absolute lie either. In any case, in 2015, special religious departments operated within the structures of the territorial departments of the FSB, which essentially acted as arbitrators, especially at a time when conflicts gained resonance. In Moseytsevo, for example, it was the FSB officers who assured the criminal investigation operatives that no one would interfere with their investigation of the criminal case, but there was no need to dig to the side. In Bogolyubovo, officers from specialized FSB units also smoothed out rough edges. At the same time, it is the FSB in Moscow that is preventing the adoption of changes to laws that would make the budget of religious organizations transparent.
It is often said in the Western press that money for bribes to officials and payment for intelligence information, especially political, goes to various countries precisely through church channels. But in our country, this data, even in translated articles, does not appear. And not because someone formally prohibits it, there is internal censorship. In rare cases - the authority of the editor. It is no secret that it is Orthodox parishes that often provide assistance to compatriots.
Lack of labor legislation
In 2017, the educational commission of the Moscow Patriarchate came to conduct an inspection at the Vladimir Theological Seminary, and almost by chance found out: out of a dozen reputable professors, only two were formally employed - the rector and the first vice-rector. And the rest worked for many years without registration, work books and contributions to the Pension Fund. They received their salaries in envelopes and thought that was how it was supposed to be. Having learned the truth, we went to bow to the Patriarchate. And there they said: the pension will be paid by those whom you have now trained. In fact, the matter was put on hold. People quit their jobs, but no one will make up for the years they missed - neither in length of service, nor in mandatory deductions. And these teachers have nowhere to go - the Russian Orthodox Church has a monopoly on spiritual education.
Russians will be very surprised when they find out: priests have absolutely no rights. Yes, they were forced to issue work books for them, but not everyone still has them - in every church, in every monastery they were written out for the required minimum of clergy. But no one has employment contracts. They didn’t even develop a standard form.
Priests' salaries
As of 2018, the salary of a Russian priest ranges from 20 to 40 thousand rubles per month. Some say that personal income tax is withheld from them, some say that they are completely exempt from taxes. The abbot receives much more.
Moreover, in the conditions of the hierarchy, issues of prestige manifest themselves especially clearly. Therefore, an ordinary priest will never buy a car more prestigious than that of a rector; the rector will not appear in public wearing a watch more expensive than the bishop's; and the bishop will not have a rarity that the patriarch does not have. Therefore, the desire to stand out manifests itself differently.
In June 2018, one of the recruitment agencies was looking for a personal chef for the abbess of the holy monastery. The salary was promised at 90 thousand rubles. According to agency employees, the abbess was going to pay her personal money.
Workers' and Peasants' Army
In the early 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, a fundamental problem of the Russian Orthodox Church arose: there was essentially no one to revive the religion and its institutions. After all, all the churchmen were exterminated as a class.
| “The growth rate of the Russian Orthodox Church is colossal,” said Father Nikolai in July 2018, in the world - Nikolai Dmitrievich Gundyaev (namesake), a former priest who left the Church after criticizing the structure of the church. In the early 1990s, during the period of reconstruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, tragic utopianism was superimposed on bookish Orthodoxy: the world was going to hell, it would not last long, the third world war was ahead, we had to save ourselves - and a mass of destitute people from broken families flocked to monasteries in search of, if not better life, then with the thought of where to save your children from debauchery, from alcohol, from drugs, from prostitution. Then the monasteries were still such utopian communities of Tommaso Campanella (the author of “City of the Sun”, according to V.I. Lenin, is one of the predecessors of scientific socialism) and represented not so much Orthodoxy as military communism. People have all left Soviet Union, having the collective farm before my eyes as a model. This is what they built, not the apostolic community. Therefore, what turned out to be not God’s houses, but the same collective farms, only with the Gospel in their hands. People from Bessarabia and south-eastern Ukraine were especially valued. And it naturally happened that out of all possible Orthodoxies we began to build a peasant one. Again, with all the ensuing consequences - with the promotion of subsistence farming and peasant culture, as well as the rejection of city life. Why do peasants need passports? "Taxpayer Identification Number" (TIN)? Books? Cards? Travel abroad? Peasants have always lived from subsistence farming! Well, that is, such peasant practicality. It was then that the roots of the current troubles of the Russian Orthodox Church were laid - it so happened that the monastic, black clergy in Russia is traditionally less educated than the white clergy. This is our specificity, in contrast, for example, to Catholics: their monks are more educated than parish priests. Since then, since the revival of the Church, people who have taken monastic vows have made a crazy career. Lightning fast. Where a white priest had to plow and plow, serve and serve, blacks could, in two years, decorate themselves with everything they could, and occupy positions that an ordinary priest had never dreamed of. Accordingly, from rags to riches, without education - without corresponding length of service - forward. These are again Stalin’s falcons, non-commissioned officers who became generals of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, who studied on the principle of “takeoff - landing - ready to fight.” . |
At the end of the period of stagnation, the profile of the average district-level chief looked like this: eight years of education, technical school, service in the ranks of the armed forces of the USSR, proletarian (or collective farm) specialty, University
Serf prisoners
In 2018, a defrocked pop singer living in the Baikal region easily explained the everyday tricks of the lower echelon of Russian Orthodoxy.
| - If you want to recover, go beyond Ural-Kamen. They take everyone there - the last bandits and convicts. The more serious the crime, the further east you have to go. It’s very difficult here, but they count a day as three. I personally know a dozen completely officially ordained elders, each of whom is a convict and murderer, on their conscience not one or two, but ten to twenty victims, including those added already in the ministry. There is REAL serfdom here, because you can’t leave here. They don't pay you money, but they ask for work. |
Beyond the Ural Mountains, even officials and the leadership of security forces openly speak about serfdom in the monasteries and hermitages of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2018. This is a problem that needs to be solved, but no one knows how to solve it. Although there are many advisers. Already in December 2017, one Siberian journalist, having learned the story about Moseytsevo, looked into the narrator’s eyes for a long time and uncomprehendingly, and then said: “You don’t know life there at all in Europe.” We don’t make a fuss about such nonsense. The law is the taiga. Look for fistulas.
According to him, dozens of people, mostly released prisoners, are missing. They end up in distant villages, where they work for free for the benefit of the church.
He clarified that these so-called Orthodox monasteries are often protected by law enforcement officers. But they protect - the word is not very accurate: they do not take money for concealment. Another thing is more curious: since the 1990s, those released from prison began to actively settle in monasteries in Central Russia, and later in the Russian south. There is even a term for them - “winter monks,” that is, those who take monastic vows for the winter in order to sit out the harsh times in warmth and satiety. In fact, according to law enforcement officials, a unique symbiosis has arisen: the bearers of criminal culture ensure order in monasteries using Zonov methods, which guarantees an influx of material wealth, and the church gives them protection from law enforcement agencies and the flock.
External Relations
2016: The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church met with the Pope for the first time
In February 2016, the first meeting of their primates in the history of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches took place in Havana. Its result was a joint document designed to draw the attention of the world community to the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and the decline of moral values in the world.
The meeting of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the Pope of Rome was prepared for almost twenty years. It was first planned to be held back in 1997 in Austria. During the preliminary negotiations, a draft joint statement was then prepared, which, in particular, contained a rejection of Uniatism as a means of reunifying churches and of Catholic proselytism in Russia and other CIS countries. But at the very last moment the leadership Roman Catholic Church decided to exclude these points from the joint document, and the meeting had to be cancelled. In 2002, there was a new round of aggravation in relations between the churches, when Pope John Paul II raised the status of the administrative structures of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia to the level of dioceses without prior consultation with the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. As a result, the possibility of a meeting between the two first hierarchs was reduced to zero for a long time.
Only after the accession of Pope Benedict XVI to the Holy See, who managed to relieve the tension that existed during the previous pontificate, Orthodox-Catholic relations took on a positive and progressive character. Most likely, if Pope Benedict XVI had not retired in 2013, his meeting with Patriarch Kirill would have taken place. Pope Francis continued his predecessor's policy of normalizing relations between the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate, which ultimately allowed the historic meeting to take place.
The first meeting of Orthodox and Catholics “at the highest level” after the division of the Christian Church into Eastern and Western in 1054 (not counting the Council of Florence in 1439) took place almost 53 years ago: on January 5, 1964, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI met in Jerusalem. As a result, mutual anathemas were lifted in 1965. The meeting was made possible by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which “opened” the Catholic Church to dialogue with other religions: “Truth is to be sought through exchange and dialogue.”
It was decided to hold the first meeting of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' with the Pope in Cuba at the José Martí International Airport. This was due to the fact that Patriarch Kirill from the very beginning did not want it to take place in Europe, since it was there that the centuries-old difficult history of divisions and conflicts between Christians unfolded.
The main topic of the negotiations in Cuba was the discussion of acute social, political and moral problems modernity. The final document, which was signed by the patriarch and the pope, spoke, in particular, about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The hierarchs called on the international community "to take immediate action to prevent further displacement of Christians from the Middle East." In addition, they made a call to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. One of the fundamental points of the document is the recognition by the Pope that union is not a means of restoring church unity. The document also spoke about the protection of family values and the rapprochement of Orthodox and Catholic positions on the issue of proselytism: the parties called for abandoning it, since it “has practical significance for peaceful coexistence.” At the same time, both churches emphasize that neither theological nor canonical issues were discussed at the meeting. This suggests that it was organized not to resolve dogmatic differences, but to attract the attention of the world community to existing problems- in particular, to armed conflicts, persecution of Christians and the decline of moral values in the world. The Patriarch and the Pope demonstrated to the world that, despite dogmatic differences, Christians are ready to jointly defend common Christian values in an increasingly secular world.
1980s: 4 thousand out of 6.5 thousand parishes in Ukraine
At the end of the 1980s, when the church revival, officially called the “return to faith,” began in the USSR, there were 6.5 thousand parishes in the Russian Orthodox Church. Of these, almost 4 thousand are in Ukraine, with the majority in its southeastern part. There are about 500 more in Moldova - more precisely, in that part of it that was traditionally called the Bessarabia province, or Bessarabia. At that time there were three seminaries in the USSR - Zagorsk, Leningrad and Odessa, and two Theological Academies - Moscow and Leningrad. State policy was such that most of their applicants already had incomplete higher secular education.
The content of the article
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. Tradition connects the spread of the Orthodox faith within Russian borders with the preaching of the Apostle Andrew, who, as early church writers testify, was given by lot to Scythia for the gospel (Byzantine writers use the term “Scythians” or “Tavro-Scythians” to designate the Russian people). Subsequently, the veneration of St. Andrew was the basis of the church unity of Rus' and Byzantium, which was also under his holy patronage. The legend of the visit to Rus' by the Apostle Andrew is recorded in the oldest Russian historical chronicle The Tale of Bygone Years. According to this legend, St. Andrey, following by water, known as the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” visited Kyiv and reached Novgorod.
CHRISTIANIZATION OF Rus' (9th–11th centuries)
The Slavs repeatedly carried out raids, invading the Byzantine Empire. In 860, a Russian fleet appeared just under the walls of Constantinople. The response to the military action of the Slavs was the intensification of the missionary activities of the Byzantine Church among the neighbors of the empire. In 963, the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles brothers Cyril and Methodius were sent to the Slavic lands and began their apostolic mission in Great Moravia. Indirect evidence suggests that Rus' also entered the sphere of activity of Cyril and Methodius. The district letter of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (9th century), addressed to the heads of the Eastern Churches, testifies that “the people, surpassing all others in ferocity and bloodthirstiness, called Ros, received the bishop and shepherds, and also accepted Christian worship with great zeal and joy.” It was the so-called the first baptism of Rus'. However, it had no practical consequences, except that the contacts of the Slavs with the Christian empire intensified. Sources are replete with information about baptized merchants “from the Russians” who visited Constantinople, about Varangians who entered military service with the emperor and returned to Rus' as Christians, contributing to the spread of Christianity in the Russian state. The chronicle reports about the first holy Russian martyrs, Saint Fyodor and his son John: “But that Varangian came from the Greeks and held the Christian faith.”
A new stage in the Christianization of Rus' began after the death of Prince Igor, when his wife Princess Olga (c. 945 - c. 969), who was baptized in Constantinople, took the reins of government. Her plans certainly included the introduction of church organization into Russian society. In 959, Olga turned to the German king Otto I with a request to send a bishop and priests to Rus'. Bishop Adalbert was sent to Rus'. However, for reasons unknown to us, he was unable to cope with the task of establishing a new diocese. After Olga's death and in connection with the rise to power of Olga's warlike son, the pagan Svyatoslav Igorevich, a pagan reaction began. Further prehistory of the baptism of Rus' is reconstructed from Byzantine, Russian and Syrian sources as follows. In 987, a rebellion began in Byzantium under the commander Vardas Phokas. Emperor Vasily II (reigned 976–1025), in view of the danger looming over the Macedonian dynasty, sent an embassy to Kyiv and asked Prince Vladimir for military assistance. In return, he offered him the hand of his sister, Princess Anna, which, of course, implied the baptism of the Russian prince. The Russian army sent to Byzantium decided the confrontation between Bardas Phocas and Vasily II in favor of the emperor, but he was in no hurry to send the bride promised to the prince to Kyiv. Then Vladimir besieged Korsun (Chersonese), the main fortress of the Byzantines in Crimea, and took it, after which Anna arrived in Korsun and their marriage took place here (989–990). Upon Vladimir’s return to Kyiv, mass baptism of the population began in Kyiv and Novgorod, and no later than 997 the Russian Metropolis was established, subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is believed that simultaneously with the metropolis, episcopal sees were founded in Belgorod, Novgorod, Chernigov, Polotsk and Pereyaslavl. Cm. METROPOLITANS IN THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. For the maintenance of the church, Prince Vladimir put the so-called. tithe.
Under the son of Prince Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, the role of the church in the state system was strengthened. This is evidenced, first of all, by monumental church construction: it was during this period that the majestic St. Sophia Cathedrals were erected in Kyiv, Novgorod, and Polotsk. By patronizing the church, Yaroslav contributed to the emergence of the first Russian monasteries, libraries and schools. During his reign the first Russian original literary works (A Word on Law and Grace Metropolitan Hilarion). At the same time, the church church was reworked Charter, written under Vladimir. Charter Yaroslav was compiled taking into account local customs. The most important events in the church life of the era of Yaroslav the Wise were the glorification of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb (under Yaroslav their relics were found and transferred to a church specially built for them), as well as the election of the first Russian bishop - Hilarion - to the metropolis. Cm. BORIS AND GLEB; HILARION. Under the sons of Yaroslav, the decisive role of princely power in the Christianization of Rus' remained. According to the chronicles, we know about the pagan disturbances that arose during this period, during which the prince and his squad acted as support and protection for the bishop, while “all the people supported the sorcerer.” In the second half of the 11th century. marks the heyday of the ancient Russian Kiev-Pechersk monastery, which during this period turned into a leading religious and Cultural Center Rus'. Cm. KIEV-PECHERSK LAVRA . The all-Russian national chronicle was born here ( The Tale of Bygone Years), the traditions of Russian hagiography are laid (Nestorovo Reading about Boris and Gleb). The communal charter of the Pechersk Lavra, borrowed from the Studite Monastery in Constantinople, was the basis on which other Russian monasteries were subsequently created. People from the Pechersk brethren occupied in the 11th–12th centuries. episcopal sees, and cathedrals erected in dioceses were dedicated, like the cathedral church of the Pechersk Monastery, to the Dormition of the Mother of God. Being one of the ecclesiastical provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rus' did not avoid participating in the controversy with the “Latins” that arose in 1054 after the division of the Western and Eastern churches. Russian metropolitans and bishops responded to him with writings defending the dogmas of the Eastern Church.
Rus' BEFORE THE MONGOL-TATAR INVASION (12th–13th centuries)
By the middle of the 12th century. In Ancient Rus', a polycentric state system was established, caused by feudal fragmentation. In the new conditions, the metropolis turned out to be the only force capable of resisting centrifugal tendencies. However, before the metropolitans realized their historical mission, they were drawn into long-term turmoil between the princes fighting for the Kiev throne. This struggle led to the fact that Metropolitan Michael II left Kyiv, closing the Metropolitan St. Sophia Cathedral with a special handwriting. In response, the new Kiev prince Izyaslav (1114–1154) independently installed the Russian bishop Clement Smolyatich as metropolis. ( Cm. CLIMENT SMOLYATICH.) Many Russian hierarchs refused to recognize him as the head of the church. Many princes and opponents of Izyaslav did not accept the metropolitan. The Metropolis found itself divided into two warring camps. Under these conditions, Kliment Smolyatich behaved like a protege of the Grand Duke, providing him with all possible support. When Izyaslav died, he immediately retired to Volyn. Yuri Dolgoruky, who took possession of Kiev, sent to Constantinople for a new metropolitan. Soon Constantine II (1155–1159) arrived in Kyiv. The excessively drastic measures he took (anathematizing Izyaslav and Clement) aggravated the unrest. In 1158 Kyiv passed into the hands of Mstislav Izyaslavich, who expelled Constantine and insisted on the return of Kliment Smolyatich, while Rostislav Mstislavich stood for Constantine. As a result of disputes, the princes came to the decision to ask Constantinople for a new hierarch. The sent Theodore died a year later, and John IV appeared in Kyiv only two years after his death, since the Kiev prince did not want to accept him. Only the admonitions of Emperor Manuel II himself forced the prince to come to terms with this candidacy.
In the 1160s, Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky first tried to divide the Russian metropolitanate, with the goal of establishing an independent department in the capital of his principality, Vladimir on Klyazma. With this request, he turned to Constantinople to Patriarch Luke Chrysovergus. Despite the saint’s decisive refusal, Andrei Yuryevich “installed” a certain unordained Theodore as the metropolitan of the Vladimir land. In 1169, Theodore went to Kyiv, where, by order of Metropolitan Constantine II, he was captured and executed: his right hand was cut off and his eyes were “taken out.” The unusual cruelty of the execution confirms the reality of the existing threat of division of the metropolis. The unity of the metropolis was preserved, and the metropolitans subsequently concluded for themselves that it was necessary to direct efforts to reconcile the princely groups and preserve the unity of the church.
At the beginning of the 13th century. Constantinople was captured by the crusaders, and for almost half a century it became the capital of the Latin Kingdom. The Patriarch of Constantinople left the city and moved to Nicaea. The victories of the knights contributed to the fact that the idea of subordinating the Russian Church to the power of Rome revived in the West. There are several known appeals to Russian princes written by the popes of Rome, in which they called on them to “submit to the easy yoke of the Roman Church.” In large Russian cities lying on trade routes with the West, the missionary activity of Catholics exceeded acceptable limits. In 1233, Prince Vladimir was forced to expel the Dominicans from Kyiv, who until then had their own monastery here.
Rus' UNDER THE RULE OF THE MONGOL-TATARS (13th–14th centuries)
In 1237–1240, Rus' survived the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Russian cities were destroyed and burned. The princes lost their independence and had to ask the Mongol Khan for the right to a great reign. The Russian Church was experiencing a deep crisis. Under these conditions, the burden of metropolitan power was assumed by Cyril II, the protege of the Galician-Volhynian prince. Kirill II entered into close cooperation with the Grand Duke of Vladimir Alexander Nevsky. The prince and the metropolitan agreed that at this stage, bloodless Rus' needed a respite, which could only be given by recognition of the power of the Mongol khan. This political move allowed Alexander Nevsky to gather forces in order to defend the northwestern borders of Rus' from the encroachments of the Teutonic Order. In turn, Metropolitan Kirill II directed efforts to restore intra-church life. The council he convened in 1273 laid the foundation for the creation of a code of laws, the so-called Russian helmsman. The Mongol policy towards the church, which exempted the church from paying tribute, contributed to the rapid restoration of its strength. Metropolitan Kirill II never tired of traveling around the dioceses, but at the same time he remained for a long time in Vladimir and appeared less and less in Kyiv, which lay in ruins after the sack of 1240.
Maxim, who replaced Cyril II, finally chose Vladimir as his place of residence. The transfer of the metropolitan see from Kyiv to Vladimir was due not only to purely practical circumstances. Both contemporaries and historians view it as a political act, as a result of which the authority of the princes of Vladimir increased, and the princes themselves acquired the opportunity to directly influence the policies of the metropolitan. The current situation caused strong discontent among the Galician princes. Threatening to come under the jurisdiction of Rome, they obtained from the patriarch the establishment of an independent Galician metropolis. However, it did not last long. In 1305, when two applicants for the metropolitan rank arrived in Constantinople, one from the Galician prince and the other from the Vladimir prince, the patriarch elected Peter, who had come from Volhynia, as the primate of the Russian Church, consecrating him as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'. The attempt to divide the metropolitanate was repeated ten years later: on the initiative of the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, the Lithuanian metropolitanate was created, which was abolished only with the installation of Metropolitan Theognost (1327/28–1353). The political development of Eastern Europe increasingly separated the historical destinies of southwestern and northwestern Rus', so that the final division of the metropolis became inevitable and was only a matter of time.
THE RISE OF THE KINGDOM OF MOSCOW (14th–15th centuries)
Metropolitan Peter chose northwestern Rus' as his place of residence. He linked the future of the Russian Church with the rising Moscow, choosing the Moscow prince as his associate. Peter's choice received symbolic formalization in the act of his will, according to which Peter was buried in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which from that moment became the resting place of the primates of the Russian Church. The Greek Theognostus, who replaced Peter, arrived directly in Moscow and, occupying the metropolitan see, followed the line of Peter, supporting the Moscow prince and contributing to the growth of his authority among the Russian princes. During his lifetime, Theognost appointed Alexy, who came from an ancient boyar family, as his successor. Constantinople sanctioned this election due to the exceptional qualities of the extraordinary politician, inherent in Alexy. Alexy's priesthood is marked by the fact that it was during this period that the metropolitan court was formed, similar in structure to the princely court, and the church turned into a large land owner and her possessions were legally registered. The successes of the unification policy of Moscow Prince Dmitry Ivanovich were also to a large extent due to the authority that Metropolitan Alexy enjoyed in the Russian lands. More than once he managed to subdue the opponents of the Moscow prince and stop princely conflicts, and he often resorted to very drastic measures. So, in order to stop the enmity of the Nizhny Novgorod princes in 1362, Alexy ordered all Nizhny Novgorod churches to be closed.
The strengthening of Moscow could not please its main rival, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, whose ally was Mikhail Tverskoy. The Lithuanian prince Olgerd “besieged” Constantinople with demands to install an independent metropolitan in Kyiv so that his power would extend to the lands that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After unsuccessful attempts to reconcile Olgerd and Mikhail Tverskoy with Alexy, Patriarch Philotheus resorted to a compromise measure, appointing his former cell attendant Cyprian to the metropolitan of Kyiv with the condition that after the death of Alexy he would lead the entire Russian Church. This measure had no effect, but only intensified the church unrest. When, after the death of Alexy, Cyprian declared his rights to the metropolis, the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich did not accept him, considering him a Lithuanian protege. Dmitry Ivanovich made several attempts to elevate one of his chosen ones to the rank of metropolitan, but none of them were successful. The death of Prince Dmitry in 1389 put an end to the Troubles.
The new Moscow ruler, Prince Vasily Dmitrievich, called Cyprian to Moscow. Taking into account the experience of the turmoil of 1375–1389, Cyprian paid special attention to the Lithuanian dioceses, visiting them several times and maintaining friendly relations with the Lithuanian prince. The metropolitan's actions were aimed at preserving the unity of the metropolis and the world within it. Metropolitan Cyprian put a lot of effort into developing liturgical practice. He is the author of a number of significant works of a liturgical nature. On his initiative, the Russian Church began the process of transition to a new liturgical charter, from Studite to Jerusalem. Cyprian and his successor Photius did a lot to resolve issues of church courts and church land ownership. However, in the agreement concluded by Vasily Dmitrievich and Cyprian, a tendency towards a reduction in the property and administrative privileges of the church is clearly visible. Thus, the church was obliged to participate in the payment of tribute, and was also prohibited from ordaining the grand ducal servants as priests and deacons.
During the priesthood of Photius, the heretical Strigolniki movement broke out in Pskov. Apparently, the teaching messages of Photius and other measures he took had an effect, since soon information about the heresy disappears from the sources.
AUTOcephalous RUSSIAN CHURCH (15th–16th centuries)
The main content of the following historical period, starting in the mid-15th century, is the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church and the determination of its legal status among the churches of the Christian world. In 1453, the Byzantine Empire, which traditionally acted as a guarantor of the preservation of Orthodoxy, fell under the blows of the Turks. Under these conditions, the positions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were so weakened that it was unable to resist the final division of the Russian Metropolis into Moscow and Kyiv, and an unprecedented installation of a metropolitan to the Kyiv Metropolis took place in Rome. Even before the fall of Constantinople in 1439, in search of allies to confront the Turks, the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople agreed to conclude a union with the Catholics. The Uniate Council took place in Florence. However, his decision was not accepted by the majority of the hierarchs of the Eastern Church. The Russian Church also reacted negatively to them. The conclusion of the union put the Russian bishops in a difficult position. Following the tradition of “receiving” a metropolitan from Constantinople in the new conditions lost its relevance primarily because it did not meet the main requirement - to have an Orthodox metropolitan. Cm. UNIA.
After the death of Photius, Ryazan Bishop Jonah was named to the Russian metropolitan throne (1433). Difficult historical circumstances made his trip to Constantinople impossible. When Jonah's embassy was ready to leave in 1435, Moscow learned that Constantinople had installed a supporter of the union, Isidore, as Russian metropolitan. After long negotiations, not daring to break tradition, Prince Vasily II accepted Isidore. Soon the new metropolitan left Moscow for Florence to participate in the Uniate Council. He returned in 1441 and entered the city as papal legate and cardinal. The Russian authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, showed unanimity in their rejection of the newly made cardinal. Isidore was immediately captured and taken into custody. Vasily II convened a church council, at which a message addressed to the patriarch was drawn up. It very clearly stated the position of the Russian Church’s rejection of Isidore as a hierarch who publicly preaches heresy, and also contained a request to allow the council of Russian bishops to independently appoint metropolitans with their subsequent blessing in Constantinople. An embassy with a message was sent, but for unknown reasons returned without reaching Constantinople. By that time, Isidore was given the opportunity to escape, and in 1448 Prince Vasily again convened a council, which this time ordained Jonah as metropolitan. It is from this moment that we can talk about the actual autocephaly of the Russian Church. The metropolitans following Jonah were elevated to the rank without any appeal to Constantinople. From now on, when electing and installing a metropolitan, they first of all attached importance to the consenting will of the metropolitan predecessor, the grand duke and the consecrated cathedral, which corresponded to canonical church norms and corresponded to the principle of the symphony of the kingdom and the priesthood, on which the administration of the Orthodox state was based.
The growth of the authority of the church during this period was uniquely reflected in changes in the face of Russian holiness. Now it was replenished not with holy princes, but with saints and monks. Metropolitan Jonah already in 1448 established a church-wide celebration of St. Alexis, and in 1472 Metropolitan Philip established the day of memory of St. Ions. The main problem that the Russian Church faced in conditions of independence were issues of internal structure, opposition to Latinism and the fight against heresies. The Grand Duke of Lithuania and King Casimir IV of Poland did not give up attempts to extend their power to the northern Russian lands. They even managed to get Patriarch Dionysius to transfer all the fullness of metropolitan power to Metropolitan Gregory of Kyiv. A strong opposition was organized in Novgorod, agreeing to ecclesiastical subordination to Lithuania. Metropolitan Philip and Grand Duke Ivan III repeatedly appealed to the Novgorodians with exhortations to remain faithful to Orthodoxy, but the “great rebellion” continued. Under these conditions, the mutual decision of the prince and the metropolitan was to organize a campaign against Novgorod, which was given the meaning of protecting Orthodoxy from Latinism. However, the situation of the “symphony of the kingdom and the priesthood” did not last long. Already the priesthood of Metropolitan Gerontius (1473–1489) was marked by conflicts with the princely authorities. So, in 1479, a dispute broke out between the prince and the metropolitan about how to perform the religious procession - “salting” or against the sun. Defending the traditional Russian tradition of walking against the sun almost cost Gerontius his metropolitan rank, although this time the prince reconciled himself and admitted that he was wrong. During this period, the relationship between the church and the Grand Duke was very difficult due to the heresy of the Judaizers. The prince did not support the “searches” against heretics undertaken by the church. During his stay in Novgorod, Ivan III met priests involved in the heretical movement and invited them to Moscow, making them archpriests of the Kremlin cathedrals. Disagreements between the church and the prince continued until 1504, when nine heretics were excommunicated and sentenced to death. The Council of 1503 discussed issues of church land ownership. Ivan III proposed a program for the alienation of land holdings of the church in favor of state power. In fact, this was the first attack by secular authorities on church property, but church hierarchs managed to defend their rights.
An important event in church life in the 16th century. was the restoration of ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople: in 1518, the embassy of Patriarch Theoliptus arrived in Moscow with a request for financial assistance. The title of the letters testified to the patriarch's recognition of the Metropolitan of Moscow.
A significant stage in the history of the Russian Church was the priesthood of Metropolitan Macarius (1542–1563). This shepherd, on the one hand, managed to resist the chaos of boyar rule, and on the other, restrained the angry impulses of the first Russian Tsar Ivan IV. During his primacy, a number of councils were held that were extremely important for the life of the church and state. The councils of 1547–1549 established official church celebrations for a large number of Russian saints, the spontaneous veneration of which already had its own history. At the Council of 1551 (Stoglavy Council) the norm of a symphony of royal and saintly power was legally established - a change made in connection with the crowning of Ivan IV in 1547. Here the question of the church's land holdings was again raised. Now the tsar managed to limit the growth of church land ownership by a number of measures, and the possibility of confiscation of church lands was also envisaged.
After the death of Metropolitan Macarius, the harmony of interaction between church and secular authorities was disrupted. The king established a regime of terror in the country, which extended to the saints. Now he raised and overthrew metropolitans, guided only by his own will. In 1568, Ivan IV publicly humiliated Metropolitan Philip II, tearing off his holy robe during a service in the Assumption Cathedral. Metropolitan Philip II became the last high priest who was not afraid to openly oppose the unjust power of the tyrant. Cyril, who replaced him, and the later metropolitans could no longer offer any resistance to the authorities.
INTRODUCTION OF THE PATRIARCHATE IN RUSSIA (16th century)
During the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich in 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch came to Moscow for alms. This was the first ecumenical patriarch to visit Russia. The Moscow government took advantage of his visit to raise the issue of establishing a patriarchate in Russia. Joachim promised to intercede for the Russian Church before other patriarchs upon his return to the East. Two years later, Moscow solemnly welcomed Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. However, contrary to the expectations of the sovereign, it turned out that he was not vested with the authority to install a Russian patriarch. Negotiations on the establishment of the patriarchate were resumed. Unexpectedly for the Russians, Jeremiah expressed a desire to stay in Rus' and become the first Russian patriarch. Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich agreed, but on the condition that the department should be located not in Moscow, but in Vladimir. Jeremiah, which was what Moscow wanted, did not accept such a humiliating condition, according to which he would be away from the court, having no chance to influence public policy. In 1589, a council of Russian bishops elected Metropolitan Job to the established patriarchal throne. He was elevated to the rank of Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah. In 1590 and 1593, at the Councils of Constantinople, the high priests confirmed the legitimacy of the act and assigned the Patriarch of Moscow the fifth place among the ecumenical primates.
In 1591, with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry, the Rurik dynasty came to an end (Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich had no children). Boris Godunov was elected to the royal throne. Patriarch Job contributed in every possible way to his elevation to the throne, and subsequently, after the death of the latter, he opposed the impostor False Dmitry I, who instilled Catholicism and Western customs. The new self-proclaimed ruler managed to force the council of bishops to remove Job from the throne and send him into exile. The former Archbishop of Ryazan Ignatius, who was loyal to the Westernizing innovations of False Dmitry, became the patriarch. After the overthrow of the impostor, his protege Ignatius was also removed from the patriarchal throne. Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan was elected as the new patriarch. In 1611–1612, it was he, in conditions of Polish-Swedish intervention and virtual anarchy, who led the national liberation movement, appealing to the people to protect the Orthodox faith from infidels. The Poles imprisoned Hermogenes in the Chudov Monastery, where he suffered martyrdom from hunger. Thanks to his appeals, the liberation movement took on a nationwide character and led to the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow.
In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne. The father of the young tsar, Metropolitan Philaret of Rostov, who was in Polish captivity, was given the title of “nominated patriarch.” Filaret returned from captivity in 1619 and was installed as patriarch by Patriarch Theophan IV of Jerusalem, who was in Moscow at that time.
One of the first acts of the new patriarch was the restoration of the Printing House, where work began on correcting liturgical books, since during the years of unrest, liturgical use had become a large number of books of the southern Russian press, which demanded that they be brought into conformity with the Greek canon.
An important event in the church life of this time was the council, convened on the initiative of Filaret and devoted to the issue of rebaptism of Catholics, whom many priests accepted into Orthodoxy through confirmation. The Council decisively decided on the need to rebaptize Catholics. Special “ranks of accession”, drawn up by Patriarch Hermogenes, were even approved.
The further policy of Patriarch Filaret, based on his personal experience in Poland, was aimed at completely protecting the Russian Church from Latin influences. The official doctrine declared Russia to be the only custodian of ancient piety whose religious experience was not subject to Western influences. In accordance with this point of view, with the blessing of Philaret, public readings of new theological works created in Ukraine or Poland were organized in Moscow, during which they were subject to detailed analysis and criticism by Moscow “reference experts.” Several of these writings were condemned for Latin influences and burned.
In addition to establishing strict control over book publishing and liturgical activities, Filaret, as the de facto co-ruler of Mikhail Romanov, most actively participated in resolving the most important state issues. Under him, the authority and power of the patriarch were raised to previously unprecedented heights.
His successors, Joasaph (1634–1640) and Joseph (1640–1652), did not possess such power. During the period of their priesthood in religious life, issues of streamlining parish and monastic life came to the fore, the imperfection of which began to cause acute concern for both the laity and representatives of the clergy. Significant number The teachings and messages written by Joseph expose sorcery, buffoonery, drunkenness among the white and black clergy, and all kinds of violations of liturgical regulations by priests. In addition to pointing out the darker sides of Russian religious life, the patriarch’s writings indicate that during this period the laity became much more actively interested in issues of faith and church life.
At the end of the 1640s, a circle of zealots of piety formed around the confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Stefan Vonifatiev. He set himself the goal of streamlining church life by restoring ancient traditions. The increased activity of religious life in all segments of the population could not but contribute to the emergence of new heretical movements. Among them, the heresy of the monk Capito stood out, who saw the only means of achieving salvation in strict asceticism, and also denied the sacraments and hierarchy.
In the 1630s–1640s, the world community established the idea of Russia as the defender of the peoples conquered by the Turks. This circumstance contributed to the development of the process of rapprochement with the Orthodox peoples of the East and, as a result, the weakening of the policy of isolationism. The experience of the religious life of other peoples began to intensively penetrate Russian church life. In 1649 the king issued Cathedral Code, which had the meaning of a legislative code that consolidated the dominant position of the Orthodox Church in the Russian state system. By this act, the authorities took under the protection and patronage of both the church and the Orthodox doctrine itself, while it established civil status for persons of clergy rank and limited the power of the church by creating a Monastic Order, which transferred judgment over the clergy, from metropolitans to clerics. Code caused sharp rejection among the clergy. The response to the publication of this document was the publication Helmsman's books, Where civil law was brought into line with the church according to the ancient Byzantine tradition. Edition Helmsman And Code demonstrated a tendency towards the division of law into secular and ecclesiastical.
REFORM OF PATRIARCH NIKON
In 1652, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod ascended the patriarchal throne. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself indicated his candidacy, contrary to the opinion of many zealots of piety. In the young, energetic and ambitious bishop, the tsar saw a close-minded person with whom, as it seemed to him, he had much in common in his views on the future of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1653, the energetic Nikon, with the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, began carrying out church reform, the main content of which at first was to organize the correction of liturgical books according to Greek models. In fact, the reformers used books from the Belarusian and Ukrainian press, which in turn relied on Venetian publications. The church council convened by Nikon supported the course chosen by the tsar and the patriarch.
In addition to the problem of correcting liturgical books, the reform also affected the ritual side of church life, which caused resistance to Nikon’s innovations not only among the clergy, but also among the people and ultimately led to a split in the church and the emergence of the Old Believers.
The first successes towards the transformation of the Russian Church and the patronage of the sovereign contributed to the fact that Nikon began to act just as decisively in other matters, and at times even despotic, clearly exceeding his authority. The rise of patriarchal power, unprecedented since the time of Filaret, and its active interference in the affairs of government ultimately aroused the tsar’s dissatisfaction. Feeling the “thunderstorm,” Nikon decided to leave the department without permission, hoping that the tsar would return him. Nikon's wrong step was immediately taken advantage of to file charges against the patriarch. The Council of 1666 decided to deprive Nikon of his rank and elect a new primate of the Russian Church. The decisive position of Nikon, who through his intermediaries proved the non-canonical nature of the conciliar decision, delayed its execution. Nikon insisted that the priesthood is above the kingdom and only the ecumenical patriarchs can judge the patriarch. In 1666, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria arrived in Moscow. The council deposed Nikon from the throne and sent him into exile. The successor to patriarchal power was Joasaph II, who resolutely continued Nikon's liturgical reforms, realizing that Nikon's condemnation had caused serious damage to the authority of the church.
Those who replaced him, first Pitirim and then Joachim, had difficulty restraining the decisive attack of secular power on the rights of the church. Patriarch Joachim achieved the abolition of the Monastic Order and the return of financial, judicial and administrative power in resolving issues related to the church to the hands of the clergy. The patriarch also contributed a lot to limiting the spread of the Old Believers. He authored a number of anti-schism works. With his blessing, schismatic monasteries and monasteries were destroyed; Instead of old printed books, priests were given free liturgical books of a new printing. In 1682, a church council decided to consider remaining in schism a civil crime. In the same year, under pressure from the Streltsy and their leader, Prince Khovansky, Patriarch Joachim agreed to an open dispute with the leader of the Old Believers, Nikita Pustosvyat. The debate was so heated that the regent, Princess Sophia, threatened to leave the capital for the debaters. The dispute was stopped. Nikita Pustosvyat was soon captured and executed by order of Sophia. During the patriarchate of Joachim, the problem of the increasingly widespread Catholic influence remained acute. Its powerful source was the writings of Simeon of Polotsk, a writer who was under the personal patronage of the tsar. An important event of this time was the return of the Kyiv Metropolis to the jurisdiction of Moscow. see also SPLIT.
RUSSIAN CHURCH UNDER PETER THE GREAT
In conditions of weakness of state power at the end of the 17th century. Joachim managed to consolidate the forces of the clergy and defend the property rights of the church. Joachim's successor Adrian followed the policies of his predecessor in everything, but he managed to achieve little along this path - he was faced with the strengthened will of the young Tsar Peter I. The tsar's interference in church affairs became systematic; he completely ignored, and sometimes publicly insulted, the patriarch. The Tsar reintroduced strict state control over church property. Joachim's successes were reduced to nothing by the end of the century.
After the death of Adrian in 1700, Peter I took decisive steps towards achieving complete submission to the church. The election of a new patriarch was constantly postponed. To fulfill the role of locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Peter appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom Stefan (Yavorsky). Metropolitan Stephen was raised in Catholic schools in Lviv and Poznan. Peter's choice fell on him as a pro-Western bishop. However, in reality, Stefan Yavorsky turned out to be a champion of the patriarchate and the high authority of the church. He did not always agree with Peter's policies. Apparently, Metropolitan Stefan was involved in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, although the tsar was unable to find any evidence against him.
In 1718, Metropolitan Stefan submitted a request to be released to Moscow under the pretext that, while in Moscow, it would be more convenient to govern the Moscow and Ryazan dioceses. In connection with the departure of the saint, Peter instructed the Bishop of Pskov, Theophan Prokopovich, to draw up a project for the establishment of a Spiritual College, which would replace the sole power of the patriarch and, thus, would not be dangerous for the autocracy. Formally, the Collegium was endowed with judicial, administrative and legislative powers, but it could exercise the power given to it only with the consent of the sovereign himself. Under pressure from the monarch, the bishops signed a document creating a new state board - the Holy Synod. Its opening took place in 1721. From that moment on, the church completely lost its former independence from secular power. Stefan Yavorsky became the President of the Holy Synod. In 1722, the emperor established the position of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, to which an officer was appointed who performed the function of “the eye of the sovereign” in the Synod. As a result, Stefan Yavorsky found himself practically removed from the management of the church. After the death of Metropolitan Stephen, the position of president was abolished.
From now on, the state controlled all aspects of church life. In accordance with Peter's educational reform, the compulsory education of children of clergy was proclaimed (under pain of exclusion from the class). In different cities of Russia - Nizhny Novgorod, Vologda, Kazan, etc. - seminary-type theological schools were created; in Moscow, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was transformed into the Theological Academy according to the Kyiv model. New rules were also introduced regarding monastic life. Military personnel and officials were prohibited from entering the monastery. An age limit was introduced: men could enter the monastery starting at 30, women at 50 years old. The establishment of monasteries was strictly prohibited. The founding of new monasteries was possible only with the permission of the Synod. Many monasteries were closed under the pretext of lack of funds for their maintenance. These government measures quickly led to the desolation of monastic life and the extinction of the tradition of ascetic monastic practice, the life of which was “fed” by only a very few of its representatives.
AFTER PETER
After the death of Peter during the reign of Catherine I, the Holy Synod was subordinated to a new state body - the Privy Council, which in fact meant the subordination of the church not to the anointed sovereign, but to a government body devoid of any sacredness.
During the short reign of Peter II, the son of Tsarevich Alexei, there was a movement towards the restoration of the patriarchate, but the sudden death of the fifteen-year-old emperor did not allow these hopes to come true.
Anna Ivanovna, who ascended the Russian throne, proclaimed a “return” to the precepts of Peter. Her policy was primarily manifested in a wave of so-called episcopal processes. A significant role in their organization belonged to Feofan Prokopovich, who sent the saints into exile and imprisonment, thus dealing with his “enemies.” The monasteries were subjected to new severe tests. Now only widowed priests and retired soldiers could be tonsured into the monastery. The abbots of the monasteries were charged with the duty of reporting to the Synod about the slightest offenses of the monks who were subjected to cruel punishments: they were either exiled to the mines or given up as soldiers. By the end of Anna Ivanovna’s reign, some monasteries stood completely empty, while in others only the very elderly remained.
The situation changed somewhat with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna. Being very pious, the empress returned innocently convicted shepherds from imprisonment and exile, allowed young monks from any class to be tonsured, made generous donations to many monasteries and restored the monastic system of managing the lands belonging to the monasteries. However, Elizabeth, who sacredly revered her father’s reform activities, responded to the proposal to restore the patriarchate with a decisive refusal. During the reign of Elizabeth the first occurred in the 18th century. canonization: Dmitry of Rostov was canonized.
In the Peter and post-Petrine eras, the intensive expansion of the borders of the empire continued. In this regard, the missionary activities of the Russian Church received serious support from the state. Newly baptized foreigners were provided with serious benefits, to the point that taxation and conscription duties were transferred to unbaptized fellow tribesmen. Missionary activities were carried out by a specially established Office of New Epiphany Affairs.
CHURCH DURING THE REIGN OF CATHERINE II
The church policy of Catherine II, who replaced the short-reigning Peter III, is clearly characterized by her statement: “Respect faith, but not allow it to influence state affairs.” It was during her reign that the centuries-old dispute about monastic estates was summed up. The manifesto issued by the empress announced the secularization of church real estate. Funds for the maintenance of monasteries were now provided by the College of Economy. Staffs were introduced for monasteries. Monasteries that were not included in the states were abolished or had to exist on the offerings of believers. As a result of this reform, the number of monastics decreased from 12 to 5 thousand, and many ancient monasteries were closed. Closed monasteries turned into barracks and insane asylums. Despite the new wave of persecution, the surviving monasteries were able to derive considerable benefit from the current situation, seeing in it an opportunity to revive the ancient ascetic monastic spirit. Metropolitan Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburg contributed to ensuring that from now on the monasteries were headed not just by “learned monks,” but by people experienced in spiritual life. The institution of eldership was revived, the roots of which are associated with the name of Paisius Velichkovsky, who labored in the monasteries of Athos and Moldavia.
RUSSIAN CHURCH IN THE 19th–21st centuries.
Catherine's son Paul, during his short reign, contradicted his mother's initiatives in everything. He somewhat improved the position of clergy, freeing them from corporal punishment and increasing the staffing levels of the clergy. Alexander I Pavlovich at first took very little interest in the affairs of the church. The question of the state of church affairs was raised before the sovereign by M.M. Speransky. Speransky began to intensively study the problem of spiritual education. Together with Archbishop Theophylact, he developed new statutes for academies, seminaries and schools, according to which the emphasis was not on mechanical memorization of educational material, but on its creative assimilation. In 1809, classes under new programs began at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and in 1814 - at the Moscow. Both academies soon became real centers of theology.
At the beginning of the 19th century. in Russian society, what was happening during the 18th century became really tangible. division of national culture into folk culture, which remained faithful to ancient religious and moral customs, and noble culture, nourished by Western sources. After the War of 1812, mystical sentiments intensified in high society, which was the reason for the emergence of religious sects.
A significant event in church life in the 19th century. The Georgian Exarchate was founded in 1811. The Catholicos of Georgia was henceforth a permanent member of the Holy Synod. The inclusion of the Georgian Church in the Russian Orthodox Church created favorable conditions for missionary activities to restore the Orthodox faith in the Caucasus. In 1814 the Ossetian mission opened. Metropolitan Theophylact translated liturgical texts into Ossetian and Catechism.
With the coming to power of Nicholas I (1825), state policy towards the church acquired a strict “protective” character. The tsar tried to protect the official church from the influence of a large number of Masonic lodges and various kinds of sects. Spiritual censorship intensified, some especially zealous representatives of which put the works of Macarius the Great and Isaac the Syrian on a par with the works of sectarians. Chief Prosecutor of the Synod N.A. Protasov (1798–1855, Chief Prosecutor 1836–1855) tried to carry out a new educational reform designed to lower the cultural level of theological schools under the pretext of adapting training courses to the conditions of rural life. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow strongly opposed the reform. He managed to prevent the implementation of a plan for extreme simplification of secondary theological education. In 1842, Protasov achieved the removal of Metropolitan Philaret from the Synod, but he remained the spiritual leader of the Russian bishops even after his removal from the Synod. A new phenomenon was the creation in 1841, on the initiative of the chief prosecutor, of spiritual consistories - advisory and executive bodies under the diocesan bishops. The consistories consisted of bishops and secular officials, headed by a secretary appointed by the chief prosecutor himself. Any decision of the diocesan bishop could be protested by the secretary. Thus, the diocesan administration, which received its own chief prosecutor in the person of the secretary, was also brought under strict state control. In the 1820s and 1830s in western Russia, the number of Uniates converting to the Orthodox faith increased. In 1839, a council of Uniate clergy was held in Polotsk, which drew up an act of accession to the Russian Orthodox Church. During the same period, a movement to join Orthodoxy emerged among Estonians and Latvians, who perceived Lutheranism as the religion of the German barons. Russian bishops (Filaret Gumilevsky, Platon Gorodetsky) managed to strengthen the position of Orthodoxy in the Baltic states. In 1836, the opening of the Riga Vicariate of the Pskov Diocese took place in Riga. In 1847, the Russian spiritual mission opened in Jerusalem.
The system of church administration that developed under Nicholas I and Chief Prosecutor N.A. Protasov caused sharp criticism in different strata of society during the change of sovereign. A. Muravyov, who served under the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, criticized formalism and bureaucracy in church administration. He submitted a memo to the new Chief Prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy On the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia. The period of chief prosecutor of A.P. Tolstoy (1856–1862) was marked by a softening of strict control over the church. A.P. Tolstoy himself was a man of sincere faith, who respected the church, and quite often made pilgrimage trips to Optina Pustyn. In the second half of the 1860s, the post of chief prosecutor was taken by D.A. Tolstoy (1865–1880), who tried to revive the times of Protasov. He contributed to the removal of the clergy from organizing the primary education of peasant children.
At the end of the 1860s, great changes were made in the position of the parish clergy. Hereditary rights to church positions were abolished. The sons of clergymen received rights similar to those of the children of personal nobles or hereditary honorary citizens. They were given the opportunity to enter military or civil service and join merchant guilds. Thus, the class of the clergy was legally eliminated. Missionary work remained an important activity of the church at this time. In 1865, the Orthodox Missionary Society was formed in St. Petersburg. It trained missionaries and provided material assistance to existing missions. Particular attention was still paid to the Christianization of the peoples of the Volga region. In Kazan, Professor N.I. Ilminsky (1822–1891) opened the first school for baptized Tatar children with teaching in the Tatar language. In 1869, a divine service was held in the Tatar language for the first time in Kazan.
IN church seal In the 1860s, the issue of reforming secondary and higher religious education was widely discussed. By 1867–1869, a special committee developed the statutes of seminaries, religious schools and academies. Now the management of theological schools belonged to the Educational Committee under the Synod instead of the previous management, subordinate to the chief prosecutor. The internal administration was built on the principles of collegiality and self-government. The curriculum has undergone significant changes. The range of sciences has shrunk. Physics and mathematics disciplines were excluded from the curriculum of the Academies. Only the best students were retained to work on their candidate's and master's theses. Master's theses were subject to public defense. After the reform in the 1870s, fast growth number of religious educational institutions. Through the efforts of Metropolitan Philaret, work on the translation of the Bible was resumed in the 1860s, and in 1876 the first edition of the Bible was published in Russian. see also BIBLE.
The era of Alexander III went down in history as the era of reaction to the liberal reforms of the 1860s. Church policy was now carried out by K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827–1907, Chief Prosecutor 1880–1905). The new head of the Synod stated that the government was committed to the practical application of ancient canonical church law and to discuss the most important issues in a conciliar manner, but in reality, strict state control over the church was maintained. The Russian episcopate received only the right to convene district councils of bishops. At the end of the 19th century. The class isolation of the spiritual rank has finally become a thing of the past. The rise of the clergy on the class ladder brought him closer to the noble intelligentsia and representatives of academic science. Canonized John of Kronstadt, a shepherd who belonged to the white clergy, became famous not only for his sermons, but also for his deep theological writings. However, this phenomenon also had its downside: an excessively large number of graduates of seminaries and academies began to go to universities and secular science. Pobedonostsev did not fail to strengthen church protective measures in the system of religious education: they abolished the elective beginning of management, and abolished specialization by department. On the other hand, Pobedonostsev sought to expand the influence of the clergy on public education and contributed to a significant increase in the number of parochial schools.
When Nicholas II ascended the throne, the number of canonizations increased. During the short reign of the last emperor, Theodosius of Chernigov, Joasaph of Belgorod, Hermogenes of Moscow, Pitirim of Moscow were canonized, and the veneration of Anna Kashinskaya was restored. The glorification of Seraphim of Sarov was a great celebration. At the beginning of the 20th century. The Russian Church continued to carry out extensive missionary activities. The Japanese spiritual mission, headed by the subsequently canonized Metropolitan Nicholas (Kasatkin), and the Korean spiritual mission, whose work took place in the difficult conditions of the Russo-Japanese War, became especially famous at this time. In 1898–1912, the head of the Russian episcopate was Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga (1846–1912). In 1905, he led a church movement aimed at reviving the conciliar principle in church governance. For his part, Pobedonostsev opposed this movement in every possible way, declaring that the chief prosecutor's supervision is a reliable guarantee of collegiality and conciliarity. Under pressure from Pobedonostsev, the tsar postponed the convening of the council, citing the troubled times, but gave permission to open the Pre-conciliar meeting. The meeting was convened in 1912, but its work was interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War. The tragic moment of the collapse of the Russian Empire was approaching.
March 2, 1917 Nicholas II abdicated the throne. Governance of the country passed to the Provisional Government. A new chief prosecutor, V.N. Lvov, was appointed to the Synod. First of all, he dismissed from the Synod all the bishops who were suspected of sympathizing with the previous regime. In its new composition, the Synod, chaired by Metropolitan Platon, tried to improve relations between the church and the Provisional Government. The result was the convening of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which began its work in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on August 15, 1917. Cm. LOCAL CATHEDRAL 1917–1918.
The main decision of the council was the restoration of the patriarchate. Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) was elected Patriarch. The council took place in the days when the Provisional Government could no longer govern the country. The desertion of soldiers from the front became widespread. The country was in chaos. After the October Revolution, the cathedral issued an appeal in which it described the events as “raging atheism.” The second session of the cathedral opened on January 21, 1918, and on August 7 its activities were terminated due to the confiscation of the premises where its work took place. Having come to power, the Bolshevik government immediately began preparing a law on the separation of church and state. The adoption of this law was regarded by the church as the beginning of persecution of clergy. Indeed, at this time the persecution of priests, monks and nuns had already begun in the country. Patriarch Tikhon tried to stop this process by appealing to the Council people's commissars with a message. However, the patriarch's calls remained unanswered. During the Civil War, the new government won one victory after another. First, the Red Army defeated the troops of A.V. Kolchak, then the army of A.I. Denikin. With the retreat of the White Army, many priests and bishops left Russia. Patriarch Tikhon was faced with the task of protecting the remaining shepherds, and he called on the clergy to abandon all political speeches.
In the first post-revolutionary years, the picture of church life in Ukraine was complex. The idea of separating the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Church and introducing a union arose again. The government of S.V. Petliura proclaimed autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church and arrested Metropolitan of Kyiv Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Archbishop of Volyn Evlogiy. However, soon, due to the arrival of the Red Army in Kyiv, the Ukrainian Church was left without a bishop. Trying to end the church unrest in Ukraine, Patriarch Tikhon in 1921 temporarily abolished the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, giving it the status of an exarchate. Despite this, Ukrainian separatists in October of the same year proclaimed autocephaly of the church, and Kyiv priests consecrated married Archpriest Vasily Lipkovsky to the rank of metropolitan. Then, within a week, a whole false hierarchy appeared, called “Lipkovism”.
The Civil War and the defeat of the White Army led to the fact that a large number of Russian people were forced to emigrate. By 1920, there were more than two million Russians in European countries alone. Among them were clergymen. On November 21, 1921, in Sremski Karlovci, with the consent of the Patriarch of Serbia, a meeting of the all-church foreign meeting was held, which was later renamed the Russian All-Foreign Church Council. It included bishops who were in Karlovtsi and members of the Local Council of 1917–1918. The Karlovac Council formed the Higher Church Administration Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), which headed the church life of the Russian diaspora.
The Bolshevik campaign of 1920 to open and destroy the relics of saints was a strong shock for believers of the Russian Church. In the summer of 1921, a drought began in the Volga region, leading to a terrible famine. In February 1922, a decree was issued on the confiscation of church valuables to find funds to combat hunger. In a number of cases, during the confiscation, bloody clashes between believers and police occurred. Arrests began, and then a trial of a group of clerics who were sentenced to death. In connection with these events, Patriarch Tikhon was subjected to house arrest. In the atmosphere of the outbreak of terror, several Petrograd priests, led by A.I. Vvedensky, entered into an agreement with the GPU and seized church administration. In April 1923 they announced the defrocking of Tikhon. While the patriarch was in custody, a show trial was being prepared against him. However, it did not take place due to international protests and fears of possible popular unrest. Patriarch Tikhon was released, having previously demanded that he publicly admit his guilt before the Soviet authorities. The saint considered it necessary to compromise with the authorities and fulfilled the condition. Upon his release, the patriarch began to put in order the church administration, which had been upset by the turmoil of the “renovationists.” Quite soon he managed to restore the hierarchical apparatus and give the church organization, in the words of the Bolsheviks themselves, “the appearance of an ideological and organic whole.” Patriarch Tikhon died in 1925. Cm. TIKHON, ST.
By the will of the deceased patriarch, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. There could be no talk of convening a council and new elections of the patriarch, since the Church was actually in a semi-legal position, and the Soviet government recognized the renovationist group as the Orthodox Church. In 1925, the renovationists held another council, at which they accused Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter of having connections with monarchist emigrants. The political accusation they brought forward was immediately picked up by the Soviet press. Metropolitan Peter, foreseeing the further course of events, drew up a will and appointed successors in the event of his death. Soon Metropolitan Peter was arrested. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) took over the temporary duties of patriarchal locum tenens. Cm. SERGY.
Meanwhile, another schismatic group arose in the Russian Church: ten bishops spoke out against Metropolitan Peter as the head of the church and formed the Supreme Church Council. This body was legalized by the authorities.
In the 1920s–1930s, the former Solovetsky Monastery became the main place of detention for clergy. In 1926 there were 24 bishops there. They compiled and addressed to the government the so-called. Aide-memoire. In it they recognized the legitimacy of the separation of church and state and expressed their loyalty to the authorities. At the same time, the document emphasized the incompatibility of the Christian worldview with atheism, which is an integral part of communist doctrine, and expressed the hope that the church would be allowed to elect a patriarch and organize diocesan administration. Metropolitan Sergius also addressed the government with a request to legalize the church. The authorities' response was a new arrest of Sergius. In April 1927, Metropolitan Sergius was released. Returning to Moscow, he convened a meeting of bishops who elected the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod. This body was officially registered for the first time.
The Synod issued a decree on the resumption of commemoration of state power during divine services, which was introduced by Patriarch Tikhon. The decree confused many bishops. Some of them even declared their separation from the “graceless St. Sergius Church.” It is now obvious that Sergius’s policy was dictated by the desire to preserve the church and its ministers, without putting the people before a tough choice between “renovationism” and a catacomb existence. In 1929, after a short lull, persecution of the church began again. L.M. Kaganovich declared religious organizations to be a legally operating counter-revolutionary force. A number of new decrees were issued prohibiting religious associations from charitable activities and private religious education. Mass closures of churches and monasteries began. Many of them were simply destroyed, others were turned into warehouses, prisons and colonies. In 1934, arrests and exiles of clergy resumed. In 1935, the deputy locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, was forced to dissolve the Synod. Only the secretary and the typist remained in the Metropolitan's office.
In 1936, false news came about the death of the locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (shot in 1937). Metropolitan Sergius officially assumed the position of Patriarchal Locum Tenens.
Great Patriotic War forced the government to change its attitude towards the church. In 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai met with Stalin, who agreed to conduct church cathedral and the election of a patriarch. The council, held in September 1943, elected Sergius as patriarch. As high priest, he began active efforts to restore the greatly weakened church hierarchy. In the new conditions, NKVD employees, using their own methods, contributed to the abolition of the Renovationist Church, which was once under their patronage.
Patriarch Sergius died in 1944. Alexy I became the new patriarch ( cm. ALEXI I). In the post-war years, the Russian Orthodox Church restored communion with the universal churches and acquired international authority. The urgent task remained to replace the bishop's sees. By 1949, the Russian episcopate already numbered 73 bishops. However, significant changes in the life of the church occurred only after Stalin's death. Many priests were granted amnesty; in 1956 the relics of St. Nikita of Novgorod were transferred to the church; For the first time after the restoration of the patriarchate, the Bible was republished.
Once again the threat of persecution loomed over the church in 1958. By order of N.S. Khrushchev, the church was required to reform parish administration. According to the requirements, the rector, together with the clergy, became legally hired personnel, with whom the parish council entered into an agreement. Thus, the goal of eliminating the priest from participation in the economic affairs of the parish was achieved. The number of parishes has almost halved. Many churches were closed under the pretext of restoration, others were simply destroyed. In 1963 the Kiev Pechersk Lavra was closed.
After the change of government and the coming to power of L.I. Brezhnev (1964), the position of the church remained almost unchanged. The project submitted to the government to introduce parish priests into the parish council was not successful. By the beginning of the 1970s, a situation had developed when more than half of the country's population had been raised outside the influence of church and religion. The situation began to change towards the end of the decade, when the number of converts who consciously came to church life increased. A wide circle of parishioners formed around the parish priests, consisting mainly of the intelligentsia. One of the most popular churches in Moscow was the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznetsy, where Father Vsevolod Shpiller (d. 1984) served as rector. Archpriest Alexander Men (killed in 1990), priest Dmitry Dudko and others showed special care for the neophytes. Despite the small number of active monasteries, the tradition of eldership did not fade away in them. The flow of pilgrims to Schema-Hegumen Savva and Archimandrite John Krestyankin from the Pskov-Pechersk Monastery and Archimandrite Kirill from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra did not stop.
The 1980s were marked by preparations for the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. In connection with the upcoming holiday, Patriarch Pimen appealed to the government with a request to transfer the St. Daniel Monastery to the church. This event took place in 1983. On the eve of the anniversary celebration, three conferences were held - church history in Kyiv, theological in Moscow and a conference on problems of liturgics and church art in Leningrad. They clearly demonstrated that the church has preserved ancient traditions. At the anniversary Local Council of 1988, for the first time in many years, the canonization of a number of Russian saints took place. During the anniversary celebrations, a radical shift occurred in society towards the church. Churches began to return churches and monasteries, and the canonization of Patriarch Tikhon became the first step towards glorifying the clergy who suffered during the years of Soviet power. Since 1991, services began to be held regularly in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Diocesan administration was completely restored. By 1994, the number of dioceses reached 114. A notable event was the adoption of the new law of the Russian Federation On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, the text of which was compiled taking into account the wishes of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church (1997).
Under Patriarch Alexy II, more than 20 thousand churches and monasteries were opened (sometimes rebuilt) and consecrated, monastic life was resumed in many monasteries, many new saints were included in the calendar, including new martyrs and confessors of the 20th century, who became victims of revolutionary terror and persecution. One after another followed such significant events as: the discovery of the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov, their solemn transfer to Diveevo, the discovery of the relics of St. Joasaph of Belgorod and their return to Belgorod, the discovery of the relics of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and their solemn transfer to the Great Cathedral of the Donskoy Monastery, discovery in Trinity -Sergius Lavra of the relics of St. Philaret of Moscow and St. Maxim the Greek, discovery of the incorruptible relics of St. Alexander of Svirsky. With the blessing of His Holiness, more than 100 religious educational institutions were opened: seminaries, colleges and parochial schools. The Patriarch supported the idea of reviving charity towards the poor and mercy, in particular serving in hospitals, nursing homes and prisons. Alexy II saw the role of the Orthodox Church in establishing and maintaining peace and harmony.
In May 2007, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II and First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus, signed Act of Canonical Communion, establishing norms for the relationship between the two Orthodox churches and aimed at restoring the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, the almost century-long division of the Russian Orthodox Church was put to an end. In conditions of social stratification, the church under Alexy II tried to spread its influence and unite various segments of the population, contributing to the formation common system values. The merits of Alexy II include the return of the Church to broad public service, the revival and spread of the Orthodox religion and culture.
APPLICATION. DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY OF HUMANITY OF THE X WORLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S COUNCIL
Realizing that the world is experiencing a turning point in history, facing the threat of a conflict of civilizations that have different understandings of man and his purpose, the World Russian People's Council, on behalf of the original Russian civilization, adopts this declaration.
Man, as the image of God, has a special value that cannot be taken away. It must be respected by each of us, society and the state. By doing good, a person gains dignity. Thus, we distinguish between the value and dignity of the individual. Value is what is given, dignity is what is acquired.
The eternal moral law has a solid foundation in the human soul, independent of culture, nationality, and life circumstances. This foundation is laid by the Creator in human nature and manifests itself in conscience. However, the voice of conscience can be drowned out by sin. That is why the religious tradition, which has God as its Primary Source, is called upon to promote the distinction between good and evil.
We distinguish between two freedoms: internal freedom from evil and freedom of moral choice. Freedom from evil is valuable in itself. Freedom of choice acquires value, and personality acquires dignity, when a person chooses good. On the contrary, freedom of choice leads to self-destruction and damages the dignity of a person when he chooses evil.
Human rights are based on the value of the individual and should be aimed at realizing his dignity. That is why the content of human rights cannot but be connected with morality. The separation of these rights from morality means their profanation, for there is no such thing as immoral dignity.
We are for the right to life and against the “right” to die, for the right to creation and against the “right” to destruction. We recognize human rights and freedoms to the extent that they help the individual rise to goodness, protect him from internal and external evil, and allow him to be positively realized in society. In this light, we respect not only civil, political rights and freedoms, but also social, economic and cultural rights.
Rights and freedoms are inextricably linked with human duties and responsibilities. A person, realizing his interests, is called upon to correlate them with the interests of his neighbor, family, local community, people, and all humanity.
There are values that are no lower than human rights. These are values such as faith, morality, shrines, and the Fatherland. When these values and the implementation of human rights come into conflict, society, the state and the law must harmoniously combine both. We must not allow situations in which the exercise of human rights would suppress faith and moral tradition, lead to insult to religious and national feelings, revered shrines, or threaten the existence of the Fatherland. The “invention” of such “rights” that legitimize behavior condemned by traditional morality and all historical religions is also seen as dangerous.
We reject the policy of double standards in the field of human rights, as well as attempts to use these rights to promote political, ideological, military and economic interests, to impose a certain state and social system.
We are ready to cooperate with the state and with all well-intentioned forces in ensuring human rights. Special areas of such cooperation should be the preservation of the rights of nations and ethnic groups to their religion, language and culture, upholding freedom of religion and the right of believers to their way of life, countering crimes on national and religious grounds, protecting individuals from the arbitrariness of authorities and employers, taking care of the rights military personnel, protecting the rights of children, caring for people in prison and social institutions, protecting victims of destructive sects, preventing total control over a person’s private life and beliefs, countering the involvement of people in crime, corruption, slave trade, prostitution, drug addiction, gambling.
We strive for dialogue with people of different faiths and views on issues of human rights and their place in the hierarchy of values. Today, such a dialogue, like nothing else, will help avoid a conflict of civilizations and achieve a peaceful combination of different worldviews, cultures, legal and political systems on the planet. Their future depends on how well people succeed in solving this problem.
Literature:
Borisov N.S. Church leaders of medieval Rus' 13th–17th centuries. M., 1988
Volkov M.Ya. Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. – In the book: Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. M., 1989
Shchapov Ya.N. State and Church of Ancient Rus' 10–13 centuries. M., 1989
Meyendorff I., archpriest. Byzantium and Muscovite Rus':Essay on the history of church and cultural relations in the 14th century. St. Petersburg, 1990
Chichurov I.S. " Walk of the Apostle Andrew» in the Byzantine and Old Russian church-ideological tradition. – In the book: Church, society and state in feudal Russia. M., 1990
Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church, vol. 1–2. M., 1991
Orthodox Church in the history of Russia. M., 1991
Tolstoy M.V. History of the Russian Church. M., 1991
Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church, vol. 1–7. M., 1994
Tsypin V., archpriest. History of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1990. M., 1994
Firsov S.L. The Orthodox Church and the state in the last decade of the existence of autocracy in Russia. M., 1996
Rimsky S.V. Orthodox Church and state in the 19th century. Rostov-on-Don, 1998
Sinitsyna N.V. Third Rome. Origins and evolution of the Russian medieval concept. M., 1998
Uspensky B.A. Tsar and Patriarch: charisma of power in Russia. M., 1998
