II VATICAN CATHEDRAL AND ITS BACKGROUND INTRIGUES 1
They (the Latins) dishonored the whole earth with a multitude of their heresies ... There is no eternal life in the Latin faith.
/ Prep. Feodosiy Pechersky /
Unable to spread their views under the harsh rule of Pius XII, liberal progressives awaited favorable conditions under which they could openly declare their position. This happened after the death of the "Atlantic Pope" and the coming to power of John XXIII (1958-1963), during which a period of profound changes in Catholicism began, the most serious since the time of the Council of Trent. They were expressed in the implementation of the "agjornamemento" program, which was understood as openness to new trends in a changed world, "modernizing" the church and bringing it into line with the spirit of the times. At the same time, the idea of the papacy about the earthly centralization of the church, as well as the doctrine of the infallibility of the pontiff and his supremacy over the entire Christian world, were in no way questioned, but, on the contrary, should have strengthened the authority of the Vatican as an ideological and political force in the conditions of liberalization of doctrine ...
The first document that became a manifestation of the new approach can be considered the encyclical Mater at Magistra ("Mother and Mentor") in 1961, which was published on the occasion of the seventieth anniversary of the encyclical Rerum novarum, which laid the foundation for the official social teaching of Catholicism. Unlike the latter, which called for reconciliation and cooperation between labor and capital, Mater at Magistra proceeded from an understanding of the failure of the idea of paternalism and corporatism and recognized the existence of the class struggle. The establishment of large financial and industrial clans in the economies of Western countries, on the one hand, and the successes of the socialist system, on the other, forced the Pope to distance himself from the apologetics of capitalism and recognize "socialization" and the importance of social relations, without challenging the natural right of private property.
The openness of the church to the modern world was also expressed in the recognition of the pluralism of society, in connection with which new, neutral relations began to take shape between the Vatican and the Christian Democratic parties, in which the latter were already considered not as exponents of the interests of the church in politics, but as organs for including Christian forces in social processes. Recognition of the changes that have taken place was manifested in the blessing of the concept of human rights, in the proclamation of the idea of "world authority", an example of which was the UN, as well as in the rejection of anti-communism and in tolerance towards socialist countries. The latter made it possible to establish relations with the Soviet Union in November 1961, which opened the way for the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church in ecumenical activities. An important sign of the beginning of the new Eastern policy of the church was the dad's reception of Kosygin's daughter and her husband Adzhubei, which took place in March 1963.
The main means of implementing the planned religious renewal was to be the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII announced in St. Paul's Basilica back in January 1959 and which he initially thought of as an ecumenical cathedral, designed to bring the church closer to the liberal requirements of the era. To prepare it and in order to centralize all reformist efforts, the Pope, in opposition to the orthodox Roman Curia and the Congregation for Faithful Affairs, created in June 1960 the Secretariat for Christian Unity, headed by the leader of the Progressives, Cardinal Augustine Bea (1881-1968), who was a member of the closest circle of the Pope's advisers.
Bea became one of the key figures in the preparatory process for rebuilding the church. As a member of the Jesuit order, he once directed the Jesuit International Research Center in Rome, and then headed the Pontifical Gregorian University. He was a modernist theologian who was heavily influenced by Protestant ideas, but not only them: Bea appeared on the list of influential Freemasons, which was compiled by the Vatican counterintelligence agents (SD) during the investigation carried out on behalf of Pope Paul VI in 1971. it is no coincidence that, in the course of preparation for the council, a proposal was put forward that all its members should confess the Nicene Creed and take an oath against modernism before the meeting, Bea protested and made sure that this proposal was rejected.
The main task that Bea put before the secretariat was to prepare public opinion for the acceptance of change through personal contacts, contacts and meetings, and in this regard he enjoyed such independence that he was practically not subject to any interference from the curia. The main issues that were in the focus of this group were ecumenism in Christianity and religious freedom, but the main importance was attached to contacts with Jewish organizations.
It should be noted that the first steps towards establishing a "dialogue" between Catholicism and Judaism were taken even before World War II, however, the events of the war period and the conciliatory position taken by the Catholic Church towards the Nazi regime created a completely new situation in which the recognition of the fact by the Church The Holocaust came to be used by Jewish leaders as the main means of pressure on Catholics in order to get them to confess their guilt and re-evaluate Judaism.
From the side of Judaism, it was about a well thought out and consistently implemented strategy aimed at achieving a revision of the fundamental provisions of Christian teaching. The key idea justifying the need to revise Christianity is the provision that it contains a "doctrine of contempt" towards Jews, which is the main reason for secular anti-Semitism in modern times. This teaching, in turn, is associated with the principled Christian position on the deprivation of Israel of promise and grace, which the Jews call the "idea of ousting Israel" by the Church and consider the most dangerous. On this basis, they argue that the Holocaust should be seen as “the culmination of centuries of persecution by Christians” and that Hitler’s policy would not have been successful if it had not been based on the accusations that Christians made against the Jews. As Orthodox Rabbi Solomon Norman of the Center for Jewish Studies in Oxford, for example, wrote, “in essence, Hitler’s attitude towards Jews is no different from that of Christians; the difference lies only in the methods that he used. " “Jews see in Christians, for the most part, persecutors, a relatively small number of them are referred to as victims, and in very few Christians they show sympathy for the affected Jews. After the Holocaust, Jews could no longer seriously believe in the moral consistency of the church. " As Norman pointed out, "from a Jewish point of view, a Christian in general, by virtue of his Christian faith, does not possess moral dignity, let alone any moral superiority."
The formula “l'enseignement du mepris”, with the resulting conclusions, was introduced by the French Jewish historian and writer Jules Isaac (1877-1963), who played a leading role in the development of the Judeo-Catholic “dialogue”. His main ideas were set forth in the books Jesus and Israel (1946) and The Genesis of Anti-Semitism (1956), which severely criticized Christian doctrine, regarded as the main source of anti-Semitism. Both the evangelists and the holy fathers of the Church were presented to them as liars and persecutors, full of anti-Jewish hatred, morally responsible for Auschwitz and the Holocaust. He saw his main task in proving the groundlessness of the accusation of the Jews of deicide contained in the writings of the Evangelists and to achieve a corresponding "cleansing" of the Christian Teaching.
"Purification" meant: changing or removing those prayers that speak of the Jews, in particular, read on Good Friday; a statement that the Jews do not bear any responsibility for the death of Christ, for which all mankind is subject to condemnation; removal of those passages from the writings of the Evangelists, in which the Passion of Christ is narrated, especially this concerns the Gospel of Matthew, whom Jules Isaac accuses of perverting the truth (it was he who said: “And, answering, all the people said: His blood is on us and on our children ", Mt. 27:25); a statement that the Church has always been reprimanded for having been in a state of hidden war for two millennia between Jews, Christians and the rest of humanity; the promise that the Church will finally change her behavior, humbled herself, repenting and apologizing to the Jews and will make every necessary effort to eliminate the evil that she brought them, correcting and purifying her teaching.
In 1946, with the support of American and British Jewish organizations, the first conference was held in Oxford, which brought together Catholics and Protestants to establish contacts with Jews. And in 1947, after holding a number of international meetings with Catholic leaders who sympathized with him, Jules Isaac published a memorandum "Correction of Catholic teachings concerning Israel", the main provisions of which were included in a 10-point declaration adopted at a conference of Christians and Jews convened in the same year in Seelisberg in Switzerland (it was organized by the Judeo-Christian Friendship Societies, created back in 1928, and brought together 70 experts from 17 countries of the world - 28 Jews, 23 Protestants, 9 Catholics and 2 Orthodox).
The Seelisberg Declaration became a program for reforming Christianity, based on the need to recognize the following provisions:
1) in the Old and New Testaments the same Living God speaks to us;
2) Jesus was born of a Jewish mother from the lineage of David and the people of Israel, and his eternal love and forgiveness extends to his own people and the whole world;
3) the first disciples of Christ, apostles and martyrs were Jews;
4) the basic commandment of Christianity, love for God and for one's neighbor, already contained in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, obliges Christians and Jews in all human relations, without exception;
5) avoid belittling biblical or post-biblical Judaism in order to exalt Christianity;
6) avoid using the word “Jew” solely in the sense of “the enemy of Jesus” or the expression “enemies of Jesus” to refer to the Jewish people as a whole;
7) avoid presenting the Passion of Christ in such a way that the blame for the death of Jesus lies with all Jews, or only with Jews. In fact, not all Jews demanded Jesus' death. And not only the Jews are responsible for this, for the Cross, which saves us all, testifies that Christ died for the sins of all of us; remind all Christian parents and educators of the heavy responsibility they bear for presenting the Gospel and especially the story of the Passion in a simplified way;
8) avoid stating biblical curses and the cry of an excited crowd, "His blood be on us and our children," without reminding that this cry cannot prevail over the infinitely more powerful prayer of Jesus: "Father! forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing ”;
9) avoid spreading the blasphemous opinion that the Jewish people were rejected, cursed and doomed to suffer;
10) avoid the idea of the Jews as if they were not the first to belong to the Church.
It should be noted that the declaration was drawn up quite competently and cunningly, since, without requiring a radical change in attitudes towards the Jews and without provoking a sharply negative reaction, it gradually allowed Catholics to be involved in the discussion of the issue of Judeo-Christian relations.
In 1948, in order to implement the decisions made, Jules Isaac created the Association of Judeo-Christian Friendship of France, becoming its honorary president, and then, establishing contacts with the Roman clergy and receiving great support from them, he achieved a short audience with Pius XII, to whom he conveyed “ 10 points of Seelisberg ". This meeting, however, had no consequences, but with the coming to power of John XXIII, the situation changed.
In June 1960, with the assistance of the French embassy in Rome and Cardinal Bea Isaac personally, he met with the pontiff, who tried to convince him of the need to revise the "doctrine of contempt" by giving him a memorandum - "On the need to reform the Christian doctrine regarding Israel." This meeting was an important gesture of John XXIII in relation to the Association of Judeo-Christian Friendship, and it was not for nothing that a few months before it, the Pope ordered the abolition of the expressions “Let us also pray for treacherous Jews (pro perfidies Judaeis)” and “Almighty, eternal God, in His mercy not rejecting even the treachery of the Jews ”, pronounced in the service of Good Friday. In one of his notes, he wrote the following about this: “Recently, We have been concerned about the issue of pro perfidies Judaeis in the service of Good Friday. From a reliable source We know that our predecessor, the blessed memory of Pius XII, had already removed this adjective from his personal prayer and was content with saying "Let us pray ... and for the Jews." Having the same intentions, We have decided that in the coming holy week these two provisions [will be shortened in the same way]. ” At the same time, a new synagogue was opened in Cologne, which was supposed to symbolize a change in attitudes towards Jews.
After the meeting, John XXIII made it clear to the members of the curia that the council was expected to strongly condemn “Catholic anti-Semitism,” and in the fall of 1960, for the first time in the history of the Vatican, the Pope received 130 American representatives of the United Jewish Call, who conveyed gratitude to him for the Jews saved during the Nazi era. The Pontiff greeted them with the words: "We are all children of one Heavenly Father ... I am Joseph, your brother."
To consider the proposals submitted by Isaac, Beah created a special working group within the Secretariat for Christian Unity, which established contacts with the Jewish world and its main associations in France, Israel and the United States - primarily with the World Jewish Congress (WJC), the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and B'nai Brit Anti-Defamation League. Together they developed the basic provisions on attitudes towards Judaism. An important role in this was played by Rabbi Abraham-Joshua Heschel, a Hasidic thinker, head of the Jewish Theological Seminar in New York, who then attended the council as the official representative of the AJC under Cardinal Bea. The chapter also had a great influence on the Pope. CENTURY dr Goldmann.
As a result of the work, a short draft of the decree De Judoeis (On the Jews) was prepared, which was to be presented at the council. However, due to the protests of Arab leaders during the preparation for the council, this text was temporarily set aside. Vatican Secretary of State Cicognani, being unaware of the true plans of the reformers, generally removed the document from the cathedral agenda, since in the extremely tense relations that existed then between Israel and the Arab states, any "concession" to the Jews was viewed as a manifestation of hostility towards the Arabs and a step towards recognition by the Vatican of the State of Israel. Cicognani did not understand at all why this text was needed and at the last meeting of the Central Commission of the Secretariat said: “If we are talking about Jews, why not talk about Muslims? ... Both Jews and everyone else outside the Church should know that if they wish to convert to the Catholic faith, the Church will receive them with great love. " Representatives of the Eastern Catholic Churches, who feared serious consequences for Christians in Arab countries, who represented a minority of the population, also demanded that this topic be excluded from the Council's program. As a result, when the text on the Jews was again submitted for consideration, it was no longer viewed as an independent document, but as part of a general declaration on non-Christian religions.
The Second Vatican Cathedral opened in October 1962 and became the most populous gathering in the history of the Catholic Church, attended by representatives of 18 non-Catholic churches. On the occasion of the death of John XXIII in June 1963, the work of the cathedral was completed under his successor, Cardinal Giovanni Batista Montini, one of the highest-ranking members of the Curia, who ascended the papal throne under the name of Paul VI (1963-1978). The decision to elect him was made a few days before the conclave at a meeting of cardinals in Villa Grothaferrata, which belonged to the famous freemason Umberto Ortolani, whom Paul VI, in gratitude for his hospitality, appointed "His Holiness's Knight". The new pope was a consistent supporter of the "open church" and fully continued the line of John XXIII on the renewal of internal church life and the advancement of the cause of ecumenism. He pioneered a revision of the history of Catholicism, appealing for forgiveness to the divided brothers in September 1963 and demanding mutual tolerance. Requests for forgiveness and repentance for historical sins will be heard from the lips of Paul VI more than once.
It is important to note that by declaring the council "pastoral", that is, not dogmatic, both popes deliberately deprived themselves of the opportunity to intervene in the course of events with their infallible authority, which would serve as a guarantee against mistakes. Thus, the popes, as it were, relieved themselves of responsibility for what was happening, giving freedom of decisions to the audience. Meanwhile, at the council immediately a heated discussion arose between conservatives and liberals, and, although the liberals represented a minority, they managed to occupy a leading position and achieve a decisive influence on the course of events. Why and how this happened was described in detail in his book “They betrayed Him. From liberalism to apostasy ”Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who did not accept the decisions of the council and subjected them to deep criticism.
Talking about the mechanisms of manipulation and "neutralization" of the council members, used by the Renovationists, Lefebvre singled out three, as he writes, "key maneuvers": first, the establishment of full control over the council commissions; secondly, effective activity
The Institute for Documentation (IDOS), which prepared liberal-modernist materials for the participants in the meetings, in comparison with which the activity of the Conservative bishops meant nothing; thirdly, the skillful compilation of conciliar documents, the contradictory wording of which made it possible to hide their true meaning. As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out, they were written "tediously and erratically, since the liberals themselves practiced the following system: almost every misconception, ambiguity or dangerous tendency is accompanied, before or immediately after, a reverse statement designed to appease the conservative delegates." Thanks to the use of these methods, an extremely active liberal minority quickly turned into a majority, implementing the decisions they needed so that few of the conservative-minded participants could realize that this was a real liberal coup.
In December 1965, the council completed its work by adopting 16 documents, the most important of which were the dogmatic constitution on the Church, the pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, the decree on ecumenism, declarations on religious freedom and on the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions. Special documents were devoted to the liturgy, the Bible, bishops, priests, monastics, the apostolate of the laity, spiritual education, upbringing, Eastern Catholic churches, missionary work, and mass media. The content of these documents meant that the cathedral was a dividing line in the history of Catholicism. Demonstrating flexible adaptability to this world, he changed the very essence of Christian teaching, giving it an ecumenical orientation. At the same time, it should be emphasized once again that the texts were drafted in such a way that obvious deviations were not too obvious. Hence the freedom of interpretation that many clergymen allowed themselves in post-conciliar times.
Having set itself as one of the central tasks to achieve the leadership of Catholicism in achieving Christian unity, the council formulated its own ecumenical concept, an alternative to the Protestant path, which allowed it to open up to dialogue with other religions, keeping intact the position of the pontiff's power. The dogmatic constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium) confirmed that the Church of Christ, “established and organized in this world as a society, dwells in the Catholic Church, ruled by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him,” but now it was added that “outside of her composition acquire many principles of sanctification and truth, which, being gifts inherent in the Church of Christ, induce catholic unity. " Thus, the council identified two fundamental points in relations with other churches. He confirmed that “the fullness of saving means” can be obtained only through the Catholic Church, but at the same time he recognized that other church communities associated with it by virtue of baptism “can in many ways, according to the special position of each Church or community, really give rise to life grace "and" they are able to open access to saving communication. " Although the latter "suffer from certain defects, nevertheless they are invested with meaning and weight in the mystery of salvation." The main turn in the ecumenical consciousness consisted in the conclusion that “those who believe in Christ and have received baptism properly are in a certain communion with the Catholic Church, even if incomplete, and full communion is possible only with the recognition of the authority of the successor of Peter, that is, the pontiff of Rome ...
Not limiting itself to the task of uniting Christians, but striving to ensure its spiritual leadership on a universal scale, the council in the same dogmatic constitution on the Church gives a new formulation of the People of God (that is, the Universal Church), which, allowing various interpretations, allowed the Catholic Church to justify its active communion and with non-Christian religions. The constitution recognized that all people are called to “the catholic unity of the People of God, foreshadowing and strengthening universal peace. Both faithful Catholics and other believers in Christ belong to him in different ways or are intended, and finally, all people in their totality, called by God's grace to salvation. " Another statement asserted that “those who have not yet received the Gospel are determined to belong to the People of God for various reasons. First of all, this is the people to whom the covenants and promises were given, from which Christ was born in the flesh ... we worship one God, merciful, who will judge people on the last day. But God is not far from others who seek an unknown God through shadows and images, for He Himself grants life and breath to everything and everything else ... and because the Savior wants all people to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2.4) ” ...
This position actually distorted the truth about the People of God as the Church of Christ, since it made it possible to conclude that those who did not receive baptism and professed a different faith also belong to it “in different ways”. This conclusion, in turn, was possible due to a new assessment of the importance of world religions, including animistic and other pagan cults, which was given in the declaration “On the attitude of the Church towards non-Christian religions” (Nostra Aetate). It said: “The Catholic Church does not in any way reject what is true and holy in these religions. She respects these ways of life, these norms and doctrines, which, although they are in many respects different from her own principles and prescriptions, still carry the rays of the Truth that enlightens all people. " The need to respect the traditions of other nations ("to the extent that they do not contradict the gospel principles") was also mentioned in the decree "on the missionary activity of the Church" (Ad Gentes), in which the missionaries were urged to "open the seeds laid in them with joy and respect. The words".
Later, substantiating the compatibility of faith in Christ with the recognition of the “partial truth” of non-Christian religions, John Paul II wrote in his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” that the idea of “the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word) has long been rooted in the tradition of the Catholic Church. These seeds are in all religions. " That is, in all religions, to one degree or another, Jesus Christ is present as the Son of God, God the Word (Logos). “One could say,” the pope declared, “that the position of the council is truly inspired by its concern for everyone. The Church is guided by the belief that God the Creator wants to save everyone in Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and people, since He redeemed everyone. " “The Holy Spirit works fruitfully outside the visible organism of the Church. He acts on the basis of precisely those semina Verbi, which form, as it were, a common soteriological root of all religions. "
Recognizing the "partial truth" in other religions, the council went further, declaring that truth is generally an object of search: helping each other in the search for truth. " “The search for truth should be carried out in a way befitting the human person and its social nature, that is, in a free way ...” Thus, believers were encouraged to seek the truth together with unbelievers, and this meant rejection of the traditional principles of missionary work proceeding from the commandment of Jesus Christ: “Go teach all nations ”(Matthew 28:19).
It is interesting that this provision, which actually means a call for religious syncretism (that is, the unification of various elements into a single system), reproduces the key idea of Neoplatonism, a religious and philosophical doctrine that was extremely popular among the educated layers of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century. according to R.Kh. It consists in the fact that the revelation of the Supreme Deity is present in all traditional religions and that behind all rituals and legends there is a single deep mysterious meaning. But if among the Neoplatonists the main means of arriving at a true understanding of this revelation is philosophy, then in Catholicism the pope is the guarantor of the infallibility of teaching. Therefore, while allowing such a wide openness in relation to other religions, the council at the same time reliably "insured itself", clearly confirming in the dogmatic constitution about the Church the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, the bearer of full and universal power in the Church, formulated at the First Vatican Council. It says: “This doctrine of the establishment, continuity, meaning and meaning of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching is again expounded by the Holy Council to all the faithful in order to firmly believe in him, and, continuing this undertaking, decides to confess and proclaim in the face of all the doctrine of the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, who, with the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the visible Head of the whole Church, rule the house of the Living God. " Elsewhere it is also argued that “the collegium, or composition, of bishops has power only together with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, as its Head, and the primacy of his power in relation to all: both pastors and the faithful remains inviolable. For by virtue of his office, that is, as the Viceroy of Christ and Shepherd of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power in the Church, which he always has the right to exercise freely. "
Thus, the immutability of papal power guarantees the Catholic Church the preservation of its identity, even if it dissolves in the "partial truths" of other cultures, although then it will already be a truly worldwide church of the Roman pontiff.
A significant number of new ideas in the spirit of "agiornamento" were contained in the constitutions "On Religious Freedom" (Dignitas humanae) and "On the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes), which affirmed the human right to the unhindered exercise of any religion chosen by him, if only does not threaten public peace and morality, and thus, the classical doctrine of tolerance and religious pluralism was supported.
The council allowed the most radical revision of the doctrine in relation to Judaism, while Jewish organizations played a decisive role in formulating the main provisions on this issue.
Even before the opening of the cathedral in February 1962, the World Jewish Congress presented to Cardinal Bea a declaration in which it emphasized the fight against anti-Semitism as the main task, and it was this idea, but in other words, was expressed by Bea's memorandum addressed to Pope John XXIII in December 1962. It spoke about the need to recognize the sin of Christian anti-Semitism, about the responsibility of the church for spreading it through teaching and pastoral practice, and thus for the persecutions that Jews were subjected to, and about the need to consider this topic separately. John XXIII's response was positive and the issue was put on the agenda.
Jewish leaders persistently sought to eliminate from the Catholic doctrine the statement about the Jews as deicides, deprived of their chosenness, and from the liturgical texts - any words disapproving of them. However, the discussion of these issues provoked heated discussions, during which the members of the council, faithful to Christian traditions, who understood the danger of what was happening (although they were not so numerous), did everything possible to prevent the adoption of these provisions. This prompted the leaders of Jewish organizations to intensify their efforts to put pressure on the leadership of the church.
The behind-the-scenes negotiations that they had for these purposes in New York and Rome with Cardinal Bea, representatives of the secretariat and Pope Paul VI himself are detailed in Joseph Roddy's article "How the Jews changed Catholic thinking", published in the January issue of the American magazine Look dated January 25, 1966. The fact is that the management of the journal maintained close relations with B'nai Brit and AEK, whose representatives gave him materials for publication. In particular, it said that in March 1963 in New York, the leaders of the AEK met with Cardinal Bea in deep secrecy, then a meeting was organized between Pope Paul VI and the UN representative Arthur Goldberg (a judge of the Supreme Court), who received instructions from Rabbi Heschel. , and some time later, the Pope received Heschel himself, accompanied by Zechariah Schuster (AEK), provided that no one would know about this meeting.
At the same time, in 1963, in order to exert psychological pressure on Catholics, the German playwright Rolf Hohhut presented to the public the theatrical production "Vicar", which depicted Pope Pius XII, cowardly silent in the face of the mass extermination of Jews. Published as a book, the drama was accompanied by a commentary presented as a historical work. The play was so tendentious that it provoked protests even from the Jews themselves. Thus, a member of the Anti-Defamation League association, Joseph Lichten, wrote a pamphlet in defense of the pope (Pius XII and the Jews), and the consul general in Milan, Jewish diplomat Emilio Lapide, published an article in which he claimed that the pope saved from 700 to 850 thousand Jews. Nevertheless, it was this play and the accompanying commentary that laid the foundation for the stable idea that prevails in our time in the Jewish community about Pius XII as a pope hostile to the Jews.
The first version of the text of the declaration on non-Christian religions, in which the chapter on Judaism was the main one, was put to a vote in September 1964 and received approval. However, the provisions on Judaism were so revolutionary and dangerous that even such a liberal pontiff as Paul VI did not dare to approve this option and postponed its consideration to the next meeting. The text completely denied the responsibility of the Jewish leaders for the death of Christ, rejected the expression "a people who murdered", accused the Church of anti-Semitism, questioned the authenticity of the writings of the evangelists (especially St. John and St. Matthew), discredited the teachings of the Church Fathers and major Catholic theologians. As a result, the document was rewritten in more cautious terms, and although its discussion did not cease to provoke heated debate, on October 15, 1965, the majority of the council members voted for it, and on October 28 it was approved.
Ignoring the differences between the religion of Ancient Israel and modern Talmudic Judaism, the authors of the declaration, distorting the texts of the Gospel, went to the denial of depriving the Jews of the Kingdom of Heaven (“the idea of repression” in Jewish terminology) and to the recognition of the true God of the non-trihypostatic God Jehovah, who is worshiped by modern Jews, the most spiritual kinship of the latter with Christians.
The document said: “Although the Jewish authorities and their adherents insisted on the death of Christ, however, what was accomplished during His Passion cannot be indiscriminately imputed to the guilt of either all the Jews living then, or the Jews of today. Although the Church is the People of God, the Jews should not be represented as either rejected by God or damned, as if this flowed from Holy Scripture. " “The Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel, and many of them even opposed its spread (cf. Rome. 11:28). Nevertheless, according to the Apostle, for the sake of their fathers, the Jews are still dear to God, Whose gifts and calling are immutable ( Rome. 11.28.29)».
This passage was a typical example of the manipulation of consciousness, since the words of the Apostle Paul, to which the authors refer, were taken out of the context of his letter, and it said: ; and not all the children of Abraham, who are of his seed ... not the children of the flesh are the children of God, but the children of the promise are recognized as the seed ”( Rome. 9: 6-8), and further, with reference to the prophet Hosea: "I will not call My people My people, and not my beloved - beloved ... you are not My people, there they will be called the sons of the Living God" ( Rome. 9: 25-26). St. Paul says not only that the Gentiles became the heirs of Abraham according to the promise, but also that the Jews who did not believe in Christ lost the Kingdom of God: “Some of the branches broke off, but you, a wild olive tree, were grafted into their place ... They were broken off by unbelief and you hold on by faith "( Rome. 11,17,20).
Further in the document of the council it was said: “The Church believes that Christ, our world, reconciled Jews and pagans on the cross, and from both He created for Himself one”, and that “together with the Prophets and with the same Apostle, the Church awaits the day known only to God when all nations unanimously call on the Lord and serve Him with one accord. " Meanwhile, in the letter to the Ephesians ( Eph. 2: 14-15) the Apostle Paul says that Christ reconciled on the cross with His flesh and blood those who believed in Him pagans and Jews, i.e. all Christians, but there is not a word about the reconciliation of unbelievers.
Thus falsifying the essence of the Gospel and Divine revelation in general, these provisions actually deny the doctrine of the Church of Christ. Christianity teaches that the chosenness of the ancient Jewish people consisted in preserving the true Monotheism, waiting for the Messiah, and then carrying the Good News of the coming of the Messiah to all the peoples of the earth, which the apostles later did. But, having rejected the Messiah-Christ the Savior, about whom Moses and the prophets testified, the Jewish people completed the period of their chosenness, transferred to the apostles and those Christian communities that became the foundation of the new chosen people of God - the Church of Christ, where there is no longer "neither Greek nor Jew." And if, according to the Apostle, the Church of Christ is "an elect race ... a holy people, people taken as an inheritance" ( 1 Pet. 2: 9), then any statements about the continuing, allegedly, God's chosenness of the entire Jewish people are theologically untenable.
Christ Himself, preaching in the temple and answering “the high priests and elders of the people who came to Him,” said to them: “Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and it will be given to a people bearing its fruits” ( Mt. 21:43). And He predicted: “Many will come from the east and west and will lie down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; and the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth ”( Mt. 8: 11-12). The provisions of the decree ignored these words, as well as the words of the Jews themselves: “And, answering, all the people said: His blood be on us and on our children ( Mt. 27:25).
The value of the Nostra Aetate declaration can hardly be overestimated. One of the Jewish authors called it a "theological earthquake" that led to the emergence of a new world. As World Jewish Congress member Jean Halperin wrote, she "really opened the way for an entirely new dialogue and laid the foundation for a new view of the Catholic Church on Jews and Judaism, demonstrating its willingness to replace the teaching of contempt with the teaching of respect." He is echoed by the Jewish researcher Paul Guinevsky, who stated in his book “Christian anti-Judaism. Mutation ":" The scheme about the Jews, which could be considered as a completion, on the contrary, turned out to be very quickly the beginning of a new stage in the successful development of Judeo-Christian relations. " The door was opened for the Jews, and now it was possible to proceed to the "cleansing of the Christian space."
In Nostra Aetate, it was said about the spiritual closeness in relation to Muslims, who, as the council pointed out, “with us they worship one God, merciful, who will judge people on the last day,” although Muslims who worship Allah deny the Triune True God and Jesus Christ as God, viewing Him as a prophet. The pagans were not forgotten either: recognizing that some of them could "achieve the highest illumination by their own efforts or with the help of Above," the council equated the influence of their deity with the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Of great importance was the adoption of the decree "On Ecumenism", which not only positively assessed the ecumenical movement, but also, recognizing the salutary importance of other Christian communities, allowed Catholics to cooperate with them and even commune in the sacraments (uniting with them in prayers).
The development of ecumenism presupposed the modernization of all aspects of church life and "unceasing transformation", in which the apostolate of the laity was called upon to play a special role. Clause 10 of the decree on the ministry and life of elders "presbyterorum ordinis", which stated that for the implementation of "special forms of pastoral undertakings for the benefit of various social groups within a region, country or whole part of the world," among others organizations can create special dioceses or personal prelatures. This created the opportunity for the formation of a new legal entity, which, being a very flexible entity, could make a special contribution to the spread of Catholic doctrine. Later in 1966, Pope Paul VI, with a special document, will confirm the possibility of uniting the laity into personal prelatures through a bilateral agreement between those who wish and the prelature.
As a result of the decisions of the council, changes were made in the process of worship, in the liturgy, which, according to the plans of the reformers, were supposed to make them more modern and attract the people to more active participation in the service. The priests were practically forbidden to celebrate the classical Trent Mass, instead of which a “new order” (novus ordo) was introduced in national languages (which was actually a requirement of the Reformation). The new Mass also differed in the style of the service: if earlier the priest stood facing the altar and his back to the parishioners, as if leading the community in its prayer, now he stood facing the believers, while in the old understanding there is no altar at all - instead of him a portable table is used. The old and new rites also differed in the text of prayers and chants, and in the movements of the priest. The Mass of Trent could now be served only with the personal permission of the bishop.
THE POST-ASSEMBLY POLICY OF THE VATICAN: THE CONSEQUENCES OF ECUMENIC OPENNESS
Renovation decisions of the cathedral and the practice that followed had the most serious consequences for the church. Their main result was the establishment of religious pluralism and tolerance, which led to the fact that Catholic doctrine began to acquire an increasingly blurred character, and religious indifference began to spread among some Catholics. The attempts of the church to get closer to society, open up to it and become more understandable for it turned out to be a loss of authority and respect on its part, a drop in its overall influence.
Intrachurch divisions have become extremely aggravated, and the polarization between progressives and traditionalists, both in theology and in politics, has intensified. Many progressives perceived the council's decisions as a break with tradition, including doctrinal tradition, and an opportunity to create a "new church." In Latin America and among the Jesuits, a new form of Christian socialism - "liberation theology" began to enjoy wide popularity, which was greatly influenced by the latest trends in sociological and economic thought.
Another part of the believers, on the contrary, believed that the church with its reforms had gone too far - this is how about 40% of Catholics assessed the situation. Many in the church leadership feared that the situation would spiral out of control. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI), who was a theological consultant at the council, wrote in this regard: “The results brought by the council, as can be judged today, severely deceived everyone's expectations .. - The popes and fathers delegating to the council hoped to achieve a new Catholic unity, but instead conflicts began, turning, in the words of Paul VI himself, from self-criticism to self-destruction ... Instead of the expected breakthrough, we, on the contrary, are dealing with a process of gradual decline ... ". Indeed, Paul VI recognized that “confusion and intolerance of consciousness, religious impoverishment, the lack of moral barriers against the onset of hedonism” became a characteristic phenomenon. Once he even said about the post-conciliar riots: "A satanic spirit seeped into the temple of God through some crack."
However, the main ideologists of the council refused to see the reason for this situation in the reforms themselves. So, the same Ratzinger, describing the "avalanche" of deterioration, noted: tie latent polemical centrifugal forces, and outside the church due to the fact that in the West there was a cultural revolution, in which the upper middle class, the new bourgeoisie with its liberal-radical ideology of individualism, rationalism and hedonism won. "
At the same time, among the Catholic traditionalists there were those who refused to accept the decisions of the council. The radicality of the liberal upheaval carried out by the council caused such bewilderment among many of them that Paul VI was called a heretic, schismatic and apostate. Some even shared the opinion that there were two popes: the true pontiff was kept in the basements of the Vatican, and the other, an impostor, a double, ruled to the detriment of the church. Finally, it was believed that Paul VI was not responsible for his actions, being a hostage of the environment.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was the principal opponent of the reforms and the new rite of the Mass, as we have already written. In 1970 he founded the Priestly Brotherhood of St. Pius X and a seminary in Econ (Switzerland) for traditionalist priests, starting an open struggle with the Vatican to preserve the old foundations. After Lefebvre ordained 12 of his seminarians as priests, the Vatican suspended his religious powers, forbidding him to perform divine services and the sacraments, but Lefebvre continued his activities, without stopping his criticism of Renovationism. The influence of the Brotherhood continued to grow, and it extended its influence to many countries, maintaining its strongest position in France.
In the book we have already mentioned, Marcel Lefebvre defined the council as a "turmoil" and a "liberal coup", which the popes present did not oppose. He frankly pointed out that the council, driven by the liberal spirit of apostasy, “committed treason by signing an amicable agreement with all the enemies of the Church”, that he “expressed“ boundless sympathy ”for the worldly man, for the man without God! Even if his goal was to awaken this fallen man, to open his eyes to his mortal wounds, ... to heal him ... But no! The goal was to proclaim to the laity: as you can see, the Church also professes the cult of man. "
In response to Ratzinger's words: "I justify the Council!" - Lefebvre wrote: “I blame the Cathedral! Let me explain: I affirm ... that the crisis of the Church is essentially reduced to post-conciliar reforms emanating from the highest official authorities of the Church and undertaken in pursuance of the doctrine and directives of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, there is nothing extraneous or mysterious about the causes of the catastrophe that happened after the Council. Let's not forget that the same people and, more importantly, the same Pope - Paul VI - organized the Council and then, as consistently and officially as possible, using their hierarchical position, carried out its decisions. "
Lefebvre singled out the fundamentally important role played by the popes. Describing the earlier times preceding the birth of modernism in the church, he pointed out: “The penetration of liberalism into the entire church hierarchy up to the papal curia, unthinkable two centuries ago, was nevertheless conceived, predicted and planned at the beginning of the last century by the Freemasons. It is enough to cite documents proving the reality of this conspiracy against the Church, this "supreme attempt" on the papacy. "
The main document that Lefebvre cites is the secret papers (correspondence) of the leaders of the "Upper Venta" (the highest Masonic group) of the Italian Carbonari in 1820-1846, which fell into the hands of the papal government and were published by Cretino-Julie in his book "The Roman Church and the Revolution" ... The popes decided to make them public, so that the believers would learn about the conspiracy that the secret societies were preparing, could fully meet its possible implementation. We cite excerpts from this text, since it sets out a mechanism for the self-destruction of the church through its highest leadership, which was eventually applied in relation to Catholicism and can be considered as the most effective possible means of undermining the Orthodox churches.
“The Pope, whatever he may be, will never come to secret societies; they themselves should take the first step towards the Church in order to subjugate both her and the Pope ... We do not expect to involve the Pope in our cause, convert them into our principles, make them preachers of our ideas ... We must ask, we must seek, we must wait , like the Jews in anticipation of the Messiah, the Pope we need ... This will lead us more to the capture of the Church than the pamphlets of our French brothers and even the gold of England. Do you want to know why? ... We will have the little finger of the heir to St. Peter involved in the conspiracy, and this little finger will cost more in our crusade than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity ... To get the Pope the required qualities, we need to prepare for him - for this Pope - a generation worthy of the kingdom we dream of. Leave aside old people and people of mature age; turn to young people and, as far as possible, to children ... Among them it will not be difficult for you to create a reputation for good Catholics and patriots. This reputation will give young priests and monks access to our doctrines. Over the course of several years, these young clergy will gradually take over all the functions of the Church; it will lead, govern, judge, it will enter the immediate environment of the authorities and will be called upon to elect a new Pontiff, who, like most of his contemporaries, will certainly be to one degree or another committed to ... universal principles, the principles that we are now beginning to spread ...
If you want to carry out a revolution in Italy, look for the Pope, whose portrait we have presented above. If you want to establish the kingdom of the elect on the throne of the Babylonian harlot, then let the Clergy join you, convinced that they are walking under the banner of the apostolic keys ... cast your nets like Simon. Throw them ... in sacristies, seminaries and monasteries, and if you have patience, we promise you a more wonderful catch than Simon's ... You will preach the revolution in tiara and cassock, with a cross and a banner in your hands, and the slightest impulse will be enough, so that this revolution will ignite a fire in the four extremities of the world. "
“A difficult task has been laid on our shoulders ... We must subject the Church to an immoral upbringing and, with the help of small, precisely measured, albeit still very uncertain means, to ensure that the Pope leads us to the triumph of the revolutionary idea. Now we are only timidly embarking on this plan, behind which I have always seen a superhuman calculation ... ".
As a result of the changes that began, already at the end of the 60s, the church fell into a state of internal crisis and secularism, which accelerated the de-Christianization of Western society, due to its economic modernization and industrialization. This was manifested primarily in such indicators as a decrease in the number of priests (“vocation crisis”) and believers, as well as a decrease in religious practice. Thus, in Italy, the number of priestly appointments fell from 872 in 1961 to 388 in 1977. The number of the Catholic Action organization, which was the main civil stronghold of Italian Catholicism, fell over the same years from 3 million to 650 thousand people. Already in the early 1970s, only a minority of Italians attended church regularly. In France, in 1972, the number of seminarians dropped by a third compared with 1962, and due to the aging of priests and the decline in the influx of young people, the problem of a shortage of clergy arose. To solve this problem, the parishes began to resort to a new practice - to entrust management to groups of laity who were engaged not only in catechesis, but also in preparing believers for the liturgy and receiving the sacraments. But even this could no longer stop the extinction of parish life, a decrease in its spiritual fulfillment and living faith, which were gradually replaced by purely external adherence to rituals and rituals.
The most dangerous phenomenon was the changes that took place in the field of theological thinking under the influence of the asserted religious tolerance, with the proclamation of which the church began to allow serious deviations from the Christian faith. This was primarily manifested in the development of a "dialogue" with Judaism.
"Dialogue" turned into further concessions on the part of Catholicism, which, under the pressure of the extremely offensive position of Judaism, began to create a new theology of Judeo-Catholic relations, which required a further revision of the fundamental provisions of Christian teaching. By the way, what methods were used by certain circles to impose a new view of Judaism is eloquently testified, in particular, by the story of prayer for the Jews, allegedly composed by John XXIII shortly before his death.
The first version of it in French was published in the Swiss magazine La Liberte on September 9, 1966. It said: “ Merciful God! Now we realize that over the centuries our eyes have been blind and we are no longer able to see the beauty of Your chosen people and recognize our privileged brothers in their features. We understand that the mark of Cain is inscribed on our foreheads. Throughout the centuries, our brother Abel lay in blood and tears through our fault, as we have forgotten Your love. Forgive us that we have mistakenly added a curse to the name of the Hebrews. Forgive us that for the second time we crucified You in their face, since we did not know what we were doing ...«
On October 2, 1966, this text was reprinted by the journal La Documentation Catholique (No. 1479, col. 1728), which stated the following: “The Vatican circles confirmed on September 7 the existence and authenticity of a prayer composed by John XXIII a few days before his death, in which the Pope asks forgiveness from God for all the suffering caused to the Jews by the Catholic Church. The existence of this prayer, which, in accordance with the intentions of its author, should have been read in all churches, was recently announced during a speech in Chicago by Monsignor John S. Quinn, who was one of the experts at the Vatican Council. However, a month later, the same magazine published a rebuttal, citing the Vatican Secretary of State. Later it turned out that La Liberte reprinted the text of the prayer from the Dutch newspaper De Tide, which, in turn, took it from an article by a certain F.E. Kartus, published in the Chicago journal American Commentary (January 1965), the official organ of the American Jewish Committee (AEK), and which did not even cite any source. However, it became known that under the pseudonym Kartus was an Irish Jesuit Malasha Martin, who was at one time the personal secretary of Cardinal Bea. During the Second Vatican Council, he played a double game, working for the AEK and passing it on to the representative in Europe, Schuster, secret information from the secretariat. This is where the story should have ended, but in reality, even after the official refutation, the “prayer for the Jews” appeared more than once in various publications. It was last published in 2008 by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.
So, equating modern Judaism with the Old Testament religion, the Vatican began to consistently pursue a policy of rapprochement of fundamentally different religious beliefs and ethical standards, carrying out a one-sided revision of the New Testament and the history of Christianity to please the representatives of Talmudic Judaism, for which the only acceptable Christianity is Christianity without Christ the Son of God. As Helen Fry, an active participant in the Judeo-Catholic "dialogue" and compiler of the corresponding anthology, wrote, “Judaism can do just fine without Jesus: there is a rich Jewish rabbinic tradition that developed parallel to Christianity and testifies to the possibility of a different, non-Christian use of the biblical heritage. But at the same time, the Jews can accept and accept Jesus as the person through whom the Gentiles recognized the God of Israel. "
Since 1971, meetings at the level of representatives of the two denominations have taken the form of annual meetings of the International Liaison Committee (or simply the Liaison Committee) between the Catholic Church and the International Jewish Committee for Interfaith Consultation. " One of its main tasks was the formation of a Catholic "theology after Auschwitz" (as the Catholic leader Johann Baptist Met called it), which seeks to avoid any anti-Jewish formulation and is designed to "enrich Christian thinking with the help of a better understanding of the meaning of this or that term or this or that reality. in Judaism ". Both sides initially agreed that a new understanding of the relationship between Jews and Christians should be reflected in the foundations of catechism and dogmatic education in universities. As the researcher of Judeo-Catholic relations A. Val wrote, ideally "education should be such that Jews can be present in it without feeling poorly understood."
Naturally, the formation of a new theology is carried out in stages, gradually preparing Catholics to accept provisions that do not correspond to church teaching. The first step was to gain a clearer recognition that the Old Testament remains in full force and that the Jews remain the chosen people.
And in April 1973, the French Episcopal Conference, referring to Nostra Aetate, published a revolutionary document - the declaration "Attitudes of Christians towards Judaism" (or "Pastoral instructions on the occasion of the Jewish Passover"), prepared by the Episcopal Committee on Relations with Judaism. It was already clearly stated here that "it is impossible to deduce from the New Testament the conclusion that the Jewish people lost their chosenness", that "the first Testament ... was not canceled by the New", that the doctrine of the Pharisees was not opposed to Christianity and the invariable vocation of the Jewish people was affirmed, which even today is "a blessing to all the peoples of the earth."
Moreover, it was argued that the Jewish people have a worldwide mission in relation to the nations, while the church's own mission "can only be included in this very universal plan of salvation." In this regard, the authors of the document asked such a rhetorical question, which actually united Christians and Jews in anticipation of the Messiah: “Although Jews and Christians fulfill their calling, walking different paths, their paths constantly cross. Doesn't their common concern concern messianic times? "
Finally, while recognizing that “the historical responsibility for the death of Jesus was divided between some Jewish and Roman authorities,” the document strongly condemned “the accusation of deicide on the Jews,” which could be interpreted as a refusal to acknowledge Christ as God. As Archim. Seraphim (Alexiev) and archim. Sergiy (Yazadzhiev), “here is hidden a blasphemous cunning, tantamount to denying Christ as a God-man: once the historical fact is recognized that the Jews are murderers of Christ, but at the same time it is denied that they are murderers of God, then this is tantamount to denying the Divine dignity of the Savior on the part of the French episcopate in full agreement with the rabbi! " Helen Fry, who has already been quoted by us, “let slip” about this, and wrote in the introduction to her anthology on Jewish-Catholic dialogue: “In 1965, the Catholic Church dropped the charge of“ deicide ”from the Jews: it was previously believed that, having committed the murder of Jesus, the Jews killed God himself. "
It should be emphasized that the French Rabbinate highly appreciated this declaration, pointing out that the "Pastoral Instruction" of the French episcopate coincides with the teachings of the greatest Jewish theologians, according to which religions originating from Judaism have a mission to prepare humanity for the coming of the Messianic era announced by the Bible. The most striking embodiment of the fulfillment of this mission was the activity of the Parisian Archbishop Jean-Marie Lustiger, who was appointed to this position in 1981 (in 1983 he will become a cardinal). Israeli radio, commenting on this event, openly stated: "The new Parisian archbishop, who does not hide his Jewish origin, is a Judaist who will implement Judaism in Christianity." Lustiger himself expressed himself quite definitely: “I am a Jew. In my opinion, these two religions (Judaism and Christianity), in fact, are one, and therefore I did not betray my ancestors. " “From the Jewish point of view, Christianity is premature. Therefore, Jewry has a kind of "power control" over Christianity. " “I am convinced that Israel's vocation is to bring light to the goyim. This is my hope and I believe that Christianity is the best way to achieve this. Thinking that I am a follower of a special kind of Christ, I think that I enter this project of God as a partially fulfilled intention. "
It is characteristic that Jewish theologians did not allow themselves any ambiguity in this matter. As the spiritual leader of Judaism, Joshua Yehuda, wrote in his book Anti-Semitism - The Mirror of the World, “Christianity claims to bring 'real' messianism to the world. It seeks to convince all Gentiles, including the Jews. But while there is a monotheistic messianism of Israel, which is present without even revealing itself openly, ... Christian messianism appears as what it really is: only an imitation that disappears in the light of true messianism. " He also stated: “Your monotheism is false monotheism; it is a collateral imitation and falsified version of the only true monotheism, which is Jewish monotheism, and if Christianity does return to its Jewish roots, it will be finally condemned. "
In October 1974, at the Secretariat for Christian Unity, a new structure was created - the Commission on Religious Relations with Judaism, which became responsible for the development of relations and cooperation between Catholics and Jews in all spheres in pursuance of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. It was she who prepared the well-known document "Directions and Additions for the Application of the Conciliatory Declaration of Nostra Aetate", published by the Vatican on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of this declaration in January 1975. It confirmed a new approach to Judaism and became a kind of charter of dialogue between Catholics and Jews, which outlined already practical steps for its implementation. It talked about the need for "respect for the partner as he is", which makes it possible to comprehend the riches of another religious tradition and goes up to the proposal "a joint meeting before God in prayer and silent contemplation where possible." The document highlighted the value of Judaism, listing the provisions uniting the two religions (belief in one God, the Jewish Bible, etc.) and emphasizing the need to preach Christ to the world with caution: “In order not to offend the Jews with their testimony, Catholics, professing in life and spreading the Christian faith, must have the utmost respect for religious freedom ... They must also try to understand how difficult it is for the soul of a Jew - in which the unusually sublime and pure idea of divine transcendence is most surely rooted - to perceive the mystery of the incarnate Word. "
Particular attention in the document was paid to the importance of the appropriate teaching and training of theologians, who were supposed to illuminate the history of relations between Catholics and Jews in a new way. It was after this that Judaism departments began to be created in many universities, and Judaism entered the programs of religious education in schools and seminaries. Self-organization of the Jewish community began, creating its own institutions and institutions, including organizations of continuous learning, open to Christians who can take advantage of this opportunity and deepen their knowledge of Judaism.
Another consequence of the new policy of Catholicism's openness was dialogue with Christian churches and participation in the ecumenical movement. However, if in the case of Judaism the dialogue meant actually unilateral concessions on the part of Catholicism, then the inter-Christian rapprochement, on the contrary, was thought by the Vatican, in accordance with the decisions of the council, as a process of all other churches entering the bosom of the Catholic Church. Not accepting dialogue on an equal footing with other Christian confessions, the Roman Catholic Church did not enter the World Council of Churches, but only sends its observers and participates in the work of its individual commissions.
The Vatican established the most active cooperation with the Constantinople Orthodox Church and with its head, Patriarch Athenagoras, known for his pro-ecumenical and pro-Catholic views. After becoming patriarch in 1949, he immediately sent the Archbishop of America, James, to orally pay his respects to Pope John XXIII, whom he called "the second forerunner." In his ecumenical theology of "unity of churches", he proceeded from the fact that there is no significant difference between the various Christian churches and therefore there are no obstacles to the unification of Catholics and Orthodox. However, this "theology of reconciliation" required a serious revision of Orthodox teaching, especially its ecclesiology (teaching about the Church), which excludes recognition of the visible head of the church on earth, which the Roman pontiff had proclaimed himself to be.
In 1964, the first meeting of the heads of Rome and Constantinople in the past 526 years took place in Jerusalem (except for the meeting of Patriarch Joseph II and Pope Eugene IV in Ferrara in 1438), during which Patriarch Athenagoras read together with Paul VI the prayer “Father ours ”and exchanged the kiss of peace with him. And on December 7, 1965, at the same time in Rome and Phanar, a ceremony of signing the cancellation of the anathema of 1054 was held, after which the Roman Catholic Church was proclaimed “sister church” (the concept of “sister church” was introduced by Paul VI).
It is important to emphasize that the lifting of the anathema was done behind the back of the fullness of the Orthodox Church. Only by a small telegram the primates of the local Orthodox Churches were informed of the fait accompli. Patriarch Athenagoras represented only 1% of Orthodox believers, so the act he committed was non-canonical and did not oblige the Orthodox to accept it. All prominent theologians, canonists and hierarchs spoke about its non-canonicity and illegality at that time. Absolutely everyone emphasized that the lifting of the anathemas of 1054 would be possible only after Rome renounced its delusions and only at the Ecumenical Orthodox Council. But these two prerequisites were not met. The toughest and most principled position among the Orthodox was at that time taken by the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom I, who called the actions of Patriarch Athenagoras a daring challenge to Orthodoxy. This step was not recognized by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) of Moscow, who in his reply telegram to the Primate of the Church of Greece pointed out the impossibility even to speak of some kind of union with Rome due to numerous dogmatic deviations of Catholicism.
In 1967, the pope met with the patriarch in Istanbul, during which they mutually recognized each other, and in October 1967 Athenagoras visited Rome, where he held a joint service with Paul VI. In ecumenical circles, Patriarch Athenagoras was considered a "prophet of modern times", "the spiritual father of the Orthodox Renaissance." So it is on him and his successors that the Vatican will pin its main hopes in striving to achieve the reform of the Orthodox Churches in the East and their recognition of the primacy of the Roman pontiff.
For the same purposes, pontifical diplomacy in Eastern Europe was seriously intensified. Developing the Eastern policy begun by John XXIII, Paul VI began to establish contacts with the leaders of Eastern European countries and the USSR, inviting V.P. Podgorny, A.A. Gromyko, Marshal I.B. Tito, J. Kadar and E. Terek. Vatican Deputy Secretary of State Cardinal Agostino Casaroli played an important role in establishing contacts with Orthodox Churches. He participated in the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki) to "contribute Catholic contribution to the achievement of respect for fundamental human rights, including religious freedom."
THE PEACE CHURCH OF PAUL VI
Along with ideological renewal, organizational changes took place in the church. In order to implement the episcopal collegiality in 1965, a new institution was created - the Synod of Bishops, endowed with consultative powers, which met 5 times under Paul VI. At the same time, in order to centralize the leadership, a reform of the curia was undertaken in 1967, which strengthened the State Secretariat. Changes also took place in the sphere of censorship control: instead of the Holy Chancellery, the symbol of the Inquisition, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith was created, headed by the Yugoslav Cardinal Francis Seper, known for his Renovationist views, replacing the Italian conservative cardinal Ottavini. At the same time, in 1969, the International Theological Commission was formed, which was called upon to implement the decisions of the council, preventing them from being too arbitrary interpretation, which could lead to uncontrollable processes in the church. It consisted of such prominent theologians and leading cardinals as Ratzinger, Balthazar, Kongar and others.
However, more important changes affected the hidden level of government of the Holy See, reflecting the new nature of relations between church hierarchs and the Italian political elite. We are talking about a close alliance that was established between Paul VI and representatives of influential Italian Masonic circles in order to prevent the strengthening of the positions of the left forces in the country, especially the communists.
The main role in ensuring this alliance was played by the same Vatican intelligence services, the Sacred Alliance (SA) and the Sodalitium Pianum (SP). Being in a state of inactivity during the years of the pontificate of John XXIII, under Paul VI they began to work in full force, having actually received a second wind. If traditionally one of the main activities of the papal counterintelligence was the collection of information about the agents of the Masonic lodges in the Vatican in order to counteract their activities, now the tasks have changed to the opposite. Since 1968, for three years, SP has been actively investigating, collecting by 1971 voluminous material that recreated a complete picture of all the connections of the Freemasons in various departments of the Vatican, after which Paul VI personally asked the head of counterintelligence to stop the investigation of this case and ordered to place the materials in Secret archive. Since then, as the researcher Frattini writes, no one has been looking for Freemasons within the walls of the Vatican.
At the head of the SA was put the priest Pasquale Macchi, who became the personal secretary and confidant of the pope, who established an active interaction of intelligence agencies with the Freemasons. The most influential of these was the banker Michele Sindona, who was appointed by the pope as his financial adviser and then placed in charge of the Institute for Religious Affairs (IDR), called the Vatican Bank. In addition to Sindona, the bank's leaders were the already mentioned Umberto Ortolani, as well as Licho Gelli - both members of the Propaganda-2 (P-2) lodge, one of the most powerful and cruel secret neo-fascist organizations in Italy, which aims to destroy parliamentary democracy in the country. As the French journalist Pierre Carpi pointed out, the lodge included many bishops and cardinals and was associated with the English United Lodge. A leaked report claimed that “the Freemasons split the Vatican into eight sections with four Masonic lodges observing Scottish ritual, and that members of these lodges, high-ranking officials of the tiny state of the Vatican, entered the fraternity on their own and, it seems, do not recognize each other even by three taps with the tip of their thumb. "
The list of important Vatican Masons, compiled by the SD and buried in the Secret Archives, included, in addition to the famous Cardinal Bea, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean Villau, Deputy Secretary of State Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, Prefect of the Most Holy Bishops' Congregation, Sebastian Pajopilcio of Liberty, and the Archbishop of Liberty and Sama Piscopalción of Liación
It is also characteristic that when, in 1974, the leadership of the CA and SP, on the personal instructions of Paul VI, began the operation Nessun Dorma ("No one should sleep") to collect information on shortcomings in departments and acts of corruption of Vatican officials, extensive material was collected in connection with this. was abducted by unknown persons. However, the Pope ordered all those involved in the investigation to keep a vow of "pontifical secrecy" in this regard, the violation of which would entail excommunication and expulsion from the bosom of the Catholic Church. Since then, this topic has not been returned to, and such investigations have never been carried out.
As for the Vatican Bank (IDR), along with the intelligence agencies, it is one of the most secret papal services. Founded in 1887, it was reformed under Pius XII in 1942 in such a way as to avoid being inspected by the fascist authorities. It was never considered an official institution of the Vatican, but existed as a special organization, without visible connection with the affairs of the church or other divisions of the Holy See. As researcher T.Zh. Rhys, “IDR is the Pope’s bank because in a sense it is his only and unique shareholder. He possesses it, he controls it. " As a result, the bank was not subjected to any audits by internal or external agencies, it could always easily transfer funds abroad, anywhere in the world, which became possible for other European banks only in the 90s. in connection with the liberalization of the movement of capital. These advantages created opportunities for various types of fraud and violations of international laws on financial activities, so the bank became the cause of countless scandals, being involved in the sale of weapons to conflicting parties, the establishment of ghost societies in fiscal districts, the financing of coups d'état, money laundering of the mafia, etc. writes Frattini, "he violated hundreds of international financial laws, but none of his leaders have ever been tried by any earthly court."
In 1967, Paul VI created the General Accounting Office, which was named the "Vatican Prefecture of the Holy See for Economic Affairs", the head of which was forbidden by the "pontifical secret" to speak on any topics related to it. The one in charge of the prefecture discovered that millions of dollars of unknown origin were flowing into the Vatican Bank every week without explanation, sent to numbered accounts in Swiss banks and to institutions owned by the Pope's personal banker Michele Sindona. This money financed riots and coups d'état, such as that which took place in Greece in April 1967, which resulted in the establishment of the regime of "black colonels".
Over time, the operations of the Vatican Bank became more and more dangerous and began to threaten the stability of the economy of both the Vatican and Italy. The situation became especially complicated after in 1968 the former head of Paul VI's security, a US citizen (by his father of Lithuanian descent), Bishop Paul (Kazimir) Marcinkus, was put at the head of the IDR. He became a vivid embodiment of the pro-Atlanticist orientation of the curia, which sought to enlist the reliable support of the American special services in the struggle against the influence of the left forces. Marcinkus was under the cover of the Central Intelligence Agency and was closely associated with the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Francis Spellman, also closely associated with the CIA. Spellman ensured at one time contacts of the American leadership with Pius XII, his former close friend, and then with Paul VI, who established personal ties with the cardinal (not yet pope) during his visit to the United States in 1951. Paul VI was in close contact with Spellman and during the meetings of the Second Vatican Council during the discussion of the document on the attitude of Catholicism to Judaism.
In 1974, the Private Bank of Michele Sindona went bankrupt, as a result of which the Vatican lost, according to some sources, from $ 240 million to $ 1 billion. After that, IDR began to be suspected of all sorts of crimes. One of the CIA reports, which fell into the hands of the Sacred Alliance and was destroyed by it, spoke of Michele Sindona's close ties with the American families Gambrino, Colombo, and others, involved in the acquisition, transportation and sale of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Sindona covered parts of their proceeds from drug trafficking, prostitution, banking fraud, pornography and secret bank accounts in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Beirut. At the same time, according to reliable sources, Sindona provided services to the CIA, transferring money from the proceeds from the sale of heroin to the accounts of this organization.
The bank "Ambrosiano", headed by the banker Robert Calvi, closely associated with Marcinkus, was especially active in financial fraud. Created in 1896, this "bank of priests" (named after St. Ambrose of Milan) under Calvi turned into a de facto "laundry" for money laundering of the mafia, and the Vatican Bank, as it was later established in the course of a judicial investigation, owned a large stake in it shares.
After the death of Paul VI, the new pontiff John Paul I began an investigation into the activities of the IDR, with plans to reform the financial structures of the Vatican. By September 23, 1978, he already had almost all the materials of the investigation into the Vatican Bank case, collected by the Holy Alliance, among which was the report “IDR - Vatican Bank: state of affairs, progress of affairs”, which belonged to the categories “Top secret” and “ pontifical secret. " However, on the night of September 28-29, John Paul I died suddenly, and although the medical report spoke of "natural death from a heart attack", many unclear questions remained related to the circumstances of his departure. However, all of them remained unanswered, as the materials of the investigation received the status of "pontifical secrets", and the Holy Alliance was ordered not to conduct any investigation by the Vatican secret services. It was one of the shortest pontificates, lasting only 33 days.
.
1 From the book: Olga Chetverikova. Treason in the Vatican, or the Conspiracy of the Popes against Christianity M. Algorithm. 2011 r.
______________________________________________________
The smallest country the Vatican is a financial monster- the assets of the Vatican Bank, according to some estimates, amount to $ 2 trillion ...
Pay attention to the architecture of the Vatican, on the one hand, the iconic building resembles a keyhole in its shape, and on the other - a key.
The relevance of the research topic lies in the fact that the topic of the modernization of the church cannot be not only exhausted, but also unambiguously defined, since in the process of its comprehension it is already being modified. Situations that have sunk into history can be viewed as complete, because they are already known to us in their meaning and no longer exist, but our own situation worries us because the thinking acting in it continues to determine what it will become. Everyone knows that the state of the world in which we live is not final. Global changes caused by military conflicts at the beginning of the twentieth century entailed a crisis of many ideologies, and again a real alternative to the old ideological systems is offered by religion. After the Second World War, in many countries there is a revival of traditional and rapid growth of many non-traditional religions, new relationships are established between churches, states and society. Under such conditions, it becomes extremely important to understand the internal logic of church development, as well as to study the norms of coexistence of traditional confessions and a pluralistic society in a democratic state.
The liberalization of Catholic ideology manifested itself primarily in the question of the position of a person in society. The dignity of the human person is determined, according to the thought of Pius XII, by the totality of its rights, including the preservation and development of physical, intellectual and moral life, to religious education and upbringing, to personal and public worship of God, to work and fair remuneration for him. Pius XII emphasized that the protection and maintenance of these rights cannot be the prerogative of the state, as well as the personal concern of a person. The basis for the protection of human rights should be the all-round strengthening of the institution of the family as a natural guarantee of the material and spiritual well-being of a person. This ideal was formulated by Pius XII as a social-personalist principle.
Despite such an increased attention of Pius XII to the problem of human rights and an obvious gravitation towards liberal-democratic ideology, his pontificate turned out to be the most authoritarian in the entire XX century. The reign of this pope was characterized by an aggressive political style, including fierce anti-Sovietism. Thus, in 1949, Pius XII announced the excommunication of all who supported the communists. No less tough was the position of Pius XII on the issue of interfaith cooperation. This course became one of the reasons for the noticeable weakening of the authority of the Vatican in post-war society. The initiative in the development of Christian ideology was intercepted by the parties that made up the Christian Democracy movement.
In the mid-1950s. the need for the renewal of the Church and its rational reorganization has matured. The church at that time could not demonstrate its understanding of the development of the world. The solution to the existing problems could be achieved by creating a Church open to the world, not to reject and condemn the realities of the modern world, but to carry out long-overdue reforms. At that time, there was a split in the most conservative part of the Catholic community, part of which found itself in a de facto split with the Church, part of which supported the movement to preserve the pre-reform rite within the Church. The renovation movement in the Catholic Church was necessary for its democratization and understanding of the flock in the current picture of the world.
Based on this, the object and subject of research has been determined.
The object of research is the history of the Catholic Church.
The subject of this research is the evolution of the Catholic Church in Western Europe in the second half of the 20th century.
The purpose of this work is to study the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in 1950-1960.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
Consider the ideology of "ajornamento" in the writings of European personalist theologians;
Analyze the main provisions of the II Vatican Council;
Investigate the results of the II Vatican Council;
Study the post-conciliar movements in the Catholic Church in the 1950s and 1960s;
Reveal the significance of the modernization of the Catholic Church in the 1950-1960s.
The territorial scope of the study is Western Europe. This is due to a number of characteristic features inherent in European Catholicism in general and in the period under study. Among these characteristic features, first of all, one should name the high activity of ordinary Catholics-laity, their involvement in the affairs of their parish and their Church.
The chronological framework of the study covers the 1950s-1960s. in the history of the Ecumenical Roman Catholic Church. The lower boundary of the study - the second half of the 1950s, is due to the founding of the Unity and Liberation movement by priest Luigi Giusani in Milan, within the framework of the worship of which the attitude towards Jesus Christ was defined as a real historical person, which differed from the canonical, in which he was perceived only as a son of God. In the 1950s. the ecumenical movement became widespread, the main goal of which was to eliminate divisions between Christian churches and to rally church forces on an international scale. It arose at the initiative of the Protestant churches in the United States and Western Europe. In the early 1960s, the neocatechumenal path, created by the artist Kiko, arose in Madrid, proclaiming the renewal of the Catholic Church and the rejection of dogmatic worship. The neocatechumenal path was at the disposal of the bishops and was a way of realizing - at the diocesan level - Christian initiation and continuous education of the faith. The spread of religious movements exacerbated the existing contradiction between the tradition of the Catholic Church and its flock. Therefore, in 1962. the Second Vatican Council was opened, at which an attempt was made to eliminate the contradiction that had arisen and bring the Catholic Church closer to the life of the laity. This council initiated a series of reforms in the structure and practice of the Church, and the development of these reform initiatives (sometimes quite unexpected) constitutes the main content church history over the next four decades. Completion of the II Vatican Cathedral in 1965 was marked by the adoption of the Papal Constitution, which recognized the Pope as the head of the world Christian church. In addition, provisions were adopted allowing the reading of masses and liturgy in any language, and not only in Latin, as it was originally. The Second Vatican Council served as a starting point for the further democratization of Catholicism, as a result of which, instead of uniting Christian movements, as it was conceived in the ecumenical movement, the Catholic world was divided into a huge number of schools and movements, because each shepherd could, according to his understanding, interpret the word of God and lead the service. That is why the end of the 1960s. - the lower boundary of the study, due to a new stage in the history of the Catholic Church associated with its democratization.
The work of the research is based on the principles of objectivity (an impartial comprehensive assessment of what is being studied) and historicism (consideration of the problem with regard to time). An analysis of the main trends in the modernization of the Catholic Church on the basis of available scientific research, taking into account the principle of objectivity, made it possible to present a comprehensive assessment of the reformatory church movement in Catholicism in the 1950s-1960s. The principle of historicism, which requires the study of the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950s and 1960s. in the temporal development, clarification of the connection between the past and the future, it allows to analyze the tendencies of modernization of the Catholic Church in the 1950-1960s, to reveal some of the reasons and features of the processes in their past.
The work uses the following methods of historical research: the historical-genetic method allows us to trace the modernization of the Catholic Church in the 1950-1960s; with the help of the historical-comparative method, the activities of the reformist movements of Catholicism in the 1950-1960s. viewed through a comparison of the tendencies of dogmatic Catholicism and the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950s-1960s; on the basis of the problem-chronological method, the collected material was comprehended on the problems of the renewal of the Catholic Church in the 1950s-1960s.
The source base of the study was made up of narrative (author's works of contemporaries of the period under study, namely, philosophical and historical publications) and clerical (documents of the period under study) sources. Narrative sources are represented by foreign scientific works dating back to the very time of the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950s-1960s. Among them "The Spiritual Situation of Time" by K. Jaspers Jaspers, K. The Spiritual Situation of Time / K. Jaspers / http://elenakosilova.narod.ru/studia/glaube.htm 05/18/2011, "Being and Time" by M. Heidegger Heidegger , M. Being and time / M. Heidegger / http://lib.ru/HEIDEGGER /bytie.txt 05/17/2011, by the works of K. Ranner Ranner, K. A new look at Catholicism / K. Ranner / http: // lib .co.ua /phylos/hisphil4/HISPHIL4.txt 05/15/2011, "To tragic wisdom and beyond" G. Marcel Marseille, G. To tragic wisdom and beyond / G. Marseille / http: // anthropology. ru / ru / texts / marsel /tragique.html 16.05.2011, “The Hope of the Desperate” E. Mounier Mounier, E. The Hope of the Desperate / E. Mounier / http://krotov.info/lib_sec /13_m/mun/je.htm 05/16/2011, “Personalization. Origins. Foundations. Relevance ”J. Lacroix Lacroix, J. Personalization. Origins. Foundations. Relevance / J. Lacroix / http://iph.ras.ru/page49694845.htm.
K. Jaspers proposed to analyze the history of mankind and theology to determine the further development of mankind as a whole. He argued that the division into a huge number of religions does not lead to development, on the contrary, it generates a split between nations. Jaspers, K. Spiritual situation of time / K. Jaspers / http://elenakosilova.narod.ru/studia/glaube.htm 05/18/2011 M. Heidegger addressed the issue of human existence as such. In his works, he wanted to find the root cause of the creation of the whole world, to reveal the causes of the emergence of life, and saw them only in the presence of a higher force that determines the entire existence of the matter known to us. Heidegger, M. Being and Time / M. Heidegger / http://lib.ru/HEIDEGGER /bytie.txt 05/17/2011 P. Riker in his works argued that the existing dogmatic Catholic Church is a treacherous dictator, governing his flock and without giving them a real understanding of the universe. Ricoeur, P. Conflict of interpretations: essays on hermeneutics / P. Ricoeur. M. 1995.34 p. G. Marseille called on all sane people to unite, tk. in the division into various religious confessions there is no clear meaning and further development of mankind. Marseille, G. To tragic wisdom and beyond / G. Marseille / http://anthropology.ru/ru/texts/marsel /tragique.html 05/16/2011
Clerical circle of sources on the problem of the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950-1960s. represented by normative acts, which include the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy adopted at the Second Vatican Council, which defines the place of man in the modern complex socio-economic and cultural world, tries to consider the whole range of problems that affect the personality of a person in his earthly journey. The dogmatic Constitution on the Church became one of the four constitutions of the Second Vatican Council and one of the most important documents adopted there. It is dedicated to the Church, its mystical role in the salvation of mankind, its hierarchical structure, the rights and responsibilities of its individual members. The Declaration on the Attitude of the Church to Non-Christian Religions and the Decree on Ecumenism, adopted at the Second Vatican Council, were of equal great ideological and political significance. They emphasized the respect of the Catholic Church for the spiritual and moral values of non-Christian religions and for their inherent way of knowing God, for the first time it was recognized that the achievement of ecumenical unity of all Christians is the most important task of the Church, although the idea of "Catholic principles of ecumenism" was affirmed. The decree on the pastoral ministry of bishops in the Church proclaims the Roman Pantiff as the messenger of God and the successor of Peter. The Declaration on Christian Education is aimed at promoting Christian education everywhere. The declaration on the attitude of the Church towards non-Christian religions is based on the main idea of the ecumenical movement, namely the unification of all religious schools into a single one. The decree on the apostolate of the laity indicated the goals facing the Catholic Church - the development of the apostolate of the laity and the work to achieve unity among Christians. The Declaration of Religious Freedom became a kind of response of the Catholic Church to the rapid changes in social order and new challenges that the 20th century brought, such as the growth of atheism, secularism, the emergence of socialist countries, and the horrors of world wars. The charter of the neocatechumenal path proclaimed that this path is addressed to all followers of the Christian church, that given current true and fully approved by the Roman Pontiff and God.
The analysis of these documents helps to comprehend the renovation process in the history of the Catholic Church, to understand the problems of interaction between the church and the laity, and contributes to the creation of a holistic picture of the history of the Catholic Church and its assessment.
The study of the issue of the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church is devoted to the works of Russian researchers, among which N.V. Maksimova, D.E. Puchkina, M.M. Sheinman, V.S. Otrubov and others, who assessed the reasons for the "agjornamemento" and the process of modernization of the Catholic Church in the second half of the twentieth century. So, N.V. Maksimova believes that the renovation movement in the Catholic Church took place at the will of the laity, and began not in the church, but in society. Maksimova N.V. Social doctrine of the Catholic Church and liberal institutions / N.V. Maximova // Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Social aspect. 1998. No. 3. p. 37 According to M.M. Sheinman, the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church began after the Second Vatican Council in 1962, the main goal of which was to introduce church ideals into the everyday life of European citizens. In this regard, the Catholic Church began to take an active part in the social life of society. Sheinman, M.M. The Vatican and Catholicism in the 20th century / MM. Sheinman. M., 1978. p. D.E. 27 Puchkin, on the other hand, argued that the Renovationist movement began long before the Second Vatican Council. Puchkin D.E. The modern situation in Catholic traditionalism / D.E. Puchkin. M., 2003. p. 26 According to V.S. Otrubova, the Renovationist movement began in general theological thought, formulated in the late 1950s. German philosophers-theologians K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Ranner. Otrubova, V.S. Catholicism and the Ecumenical Movement / V.S. Otrubova. Kiev, 1983, p. 31 R.T. Rashkova sees the main reason for the renovationist movement of the Catholic Church in the works of the French theologians, personalists E. Mounier, P. Ricoeur, J. Lacroix, G. Marcel. Rashkova, R.T. Vatican and modern culture / R.T. Rashkova. M., 1989. p. 29 E.N. Tsimbayeva argues that the Renovationist movement originated in the 1920s, it was based on the unification of Catholics and Orthodox laity, caused by the destruction of churches in the USSR. This movement arose on the initiative of the Protestant churches of the USA and Western Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century. church organizations. Tsimbaeva, E.N. Russian Catholicism. Forgotten Past of Russian Liberalism / E.N. Tsimbaeva. M. 1997. p. 21 A. L. Lebedev examines the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950s-1960s. as a natural process, the beginning of which was laid back in the 1920s. Yu.F. Tobacco, on the contrary, considers this modernization of the Catholic school to be the cause of the contradiction between Christian movements, arguing this by the fact that the Roman Pontiff has no right to be considered God's protege on earth.
Thus, the analysis of the historiography of the problem allows us to conclude that the existing works and complex works, one way or another touching on the topic of research and including consideration of the influence of various factors on the Renovationist movement in the Catholic Church in the 1950-1960s. provide an opportunity to consider this problem from different points of view.
The scientific novelty of this work lies in the study of intra-church development in Western Europe: a detailed examination of the changes that took place in the Catholic Church during the period under study, isolation of their causes and prerequisites, analysis of the ideological confrontation of conservatism caused by these changes.
ajornamento catholic church reformatory
Sometimes, some familiar bloggers have a Soviet calendar for 1926-1929, where Orthodox holidays are indicated as non-working days. This calendar is presented as evidence of the dialogue between the Soviet Power and the Church, as a positive "fruit" of this dialogue. But here our comrades are mistaken, this calendar cannot be presented as the "fruit" of a positive dialogue between the Soviet Power and the Russian Orthodox Church, for this "fruit" has been poisoned.
And now we will explain why.
The fact is that in this calendar the most important Orthodox holidays are celebrated according to the Gregorian style, which was introduced almost immediately after the Great October Revolution, which contradicts the canons of the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Church still lives according to the Julian calendar, and the introduction of the Gregorian style in the Church , there is a deviation from the centuries-old Christian canons.
On the occasion of the introduction as a civil - the Gregorian calendar. At the 71st session of the Council of Russian Orthodox Churches, it was decided:
1) The introduction of a new style in the civil life of the Russian population should not prevent church people from maintaining their church order and leading their religious life according to the old style. And before that, the civil new day on January 1 did not prevent the Church from consecrating the new day on September 1 and keeping its score from this date. And now nothing should prevent the Church from celebrating the Presentation of the Lord on February 15 in the new style and on February 2 in the old style.
2) But the Church can not only preserve the old style; she is currently unable to switch to a new style. The Church, in her liturgical routine, leads her children in the true path: for certain weeks she prepares for Great Lent, for repentance, for religious and educational purposes she regulates the life of believers. The introduction of a new style into church use now entails the destruction of the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord and the week of the publican and the Pharisee (February 11) this year, but most importantly, it causes a number of insoluble difficulties in relation to the celebration of Holy Easter. When to celebrate it? April 22, according to the new style, cannot be celebrated, since Easter, according to church definitions, is celebrated after the full moon, and April 22 (April 9) falls before the full moon on April 26 (April 13). Easter in the new style will need to be celebrated on March 31st (March 18th in the old style), for Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the spring full moon, if there is no earlier than March 21st. This year the full moon will be on March 27 (March 14). But if you celebrate Easter in the new style on March 31, then from the present day (January 30 - February 12) to Easter (March 18-31) there are 48 days left. How can the Charter on the preparatory weeks for Great Lent and Great Lent be fulfilled?
3) The introduction of a new style has a different purpose - the establishment of unity. It would, of course, be very comforting if Christians of different confessions had at least unity in the days of celebration. But at present, the transition of the Russian Church to a new style, first of all, would entail not unification, but disunity. All Orthodox Churches lead their ecclesiastical circle according to the old style. This is the case in those countries, for example in Romania, where a new style is used for civilian use. Therefore, the introduction of a new style in the Russian Church would, in some respects, break it with other Orthodox Churches. The issue of changing the style should become a subject of discussion and be resolved by all Orthodox Churches jointly.
4) The rules for celebrating Easter cannot be applied to the Gregorian style. According to these rules: a) Passover is celebrated without fail after the Jewish one, at least for one day, b) Passover is celebrated on the first Sunday after the spring full moon (March 21 and later - new style). But among the Jews, Easter is celebrated on the spring full moon, if it is not earlier than March 14 according to the old style (on the 27th - according to the new). It follows that Jews can sometimes celebrate Easter almost a month later than Gregorian Christians. So it was in 1891 and 1894, and during the century, 1851-1950, there are 15 such cases. But such a celebration runs counter to both history and the idea of celebration.
5) I must admit that the Julian style is imperfect, and its imperfection, its relative unsatisfactoriness was recognized already at the Council of Constantinople in 1583, convened on the occasion of Pope Gregory XIII's proposal to Patriarch Jeremiah II to adopt a new style. A new calendar is needed, and it is desirable that it become a common calendar of peoples. But it is in vain to think that the Gregorian calendar meets the requirements of an ideal calendar and that they are opposed only for religious stubbornness or for love of routine. No. Calendars can have different tasks. Both the Julian and Gregorian calendars had as their task to give such chronology, in which the vernal equinox and the seasons would invariably fall on the same numbers and months. Astronomical year (time from one vernal equinox to another) 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 45-52 seconds (fluctuation here), Julian year 365 days 6 hours (error by 11 1/4 minutes), Gregorian year 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes 12 seconds (error 1/2 minutes). There is no doubt that the length of the year in the Gregorian calendar is determined much more accurately than in the Julian. But this advantage - practically, in fact, useless - was obtained by him through making unacceptable sacrifices. The task of the calendar, in any case, should be that there are no non-existent days in it. Meanwhile, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar began with the fact that in 1582 after October 4 (Thursday) they began to count 15 (Friday), October 5-14 were thrown out. Those engaged in history and chronology will easily understand how this operation of Gregory XIII can complicate chronological calculations. If the 4th was Thursday, but it turns out Friday was the 15th. If there was a new moon on the 4th, then the full moon was on the 18th or 19th, and it was on the 28th or 29th. The Gregorian calendar differs from the Julian calendar only in one rule, according to which at the end of centuries, that is, when the number of years ends in two zeros, the year will be a leap year only if the number of centuries is divisible by 4. This rule is simple, and it achieves greater accuracy of the Gregorian calendar , but the calculations are extremely difficult for them. When calculating a historian or chronologist, it is best to forget about the Gregorian calendar and make calculations according to the Julian, and then add the corresponding number of days.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Legal and Liturgical Departments in a joint meeting decided: 1) during 1918 the Church in her daily life will be guided by the old style, 2) instruct the Liturgical Department to work out in detail the application of the styles throughout the life of the Church.
Now let's figure out what kind of calendar it is, now it is obvious that the canonical Church has nothing to do with this calendar.
After the Great October Revolution, a split took place in the Church into "renovationist" and canonical. The canonical church, even after the "February coup", unfortunately supported the new "provisional government", and the "renovationist", in turn, went over to the side of the Bolsheviks.
"Renovationism" declared the goal of "renewal of the Church": the democratization of government and the modernization of worship. Opposed the leadership of the Church by Patriarch Tikhon, declaring full support for the secular authorities and the reforms carried out by them, after the victory of the October Revolution.
However, one should not assume that the movement for the renewal of the Church was entirely inspired by the Bolsheviks. By the beginning of the revolutionary upheavals in 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church (then called the Russian Orthodox Church) was in a state of deep internal crisis. Therefore, with the beginning of the October Revolution, anti-church actions swept across the country, right up to the arrest of bishops. The first mass pogroms of churches and the beating of the clergy began. The necessity of internal reforming of the Church was then realized by many. Representatives of the "Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity" advocated the unconditional separation of the Church from the state. The All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918 significantly influenced the development of the Renovationist movement.
On January 23, 1918, the decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On the separation of church from state and school from church" was published. The Local Council did not recognize the decree and in its political decisions openly opposed itself to the Soviet state. Many of the definitions adopted by the Council excluded the possibility of cooperation of the clergy with the new government.
Such decisions of the Local Council carried the danger of future schisms. As a result, by the beginning of 1918 the leaders of the "Union of Democratic Clergy and Laity" had matured a plan to break with the official Church.
In 1919, the leader of the "Union", Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky, was received by the chairman of the Comintern and the Petrograd Soviet, G.Ye. Zinoviev and offered him a "concordat" - an agreement between the Soviet government and the reformed Church. According to Vvedensky, Zinoviev answered him: "A concordat is hardly possible at the present time, but I do not exclude it in the future ...".
Alexander Vedensky
From 1918 to the spring of 1922, supporters of church renewal acted within the framework of the Patriarchal Church. During this period, the Soviet leadership, pursuing an aggressive anti-religious policy, apparently was confident in the imminent withering away of the Church. Only after being convinced of its failure, the government changed its tactics in this matter. In addition, the left "church opposition" asked for help from the state in carrying out reforms in the Church. As a result, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Council of People's Commissars came to the conclusion that the leadership of the Orthodox Church in a short time should be taken into their own hands by the clergy, absolutely loyal to the Soviet government.
On May 5, 1922, Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) was arrested. A message was published in the Soviet press that he had withdrawn himself from the management of the Church, therefore collective leadership is now being established in it. On May 15, the deputation of the Renovationists was received by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin, and the next day it was announced the establishment of the Supreme Church Administration (VTsU), created mainly from among the activists of the "Living Church" group, Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky. Its first leader was Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), who was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan by the Renovationists.
During 1922, the organs of Soviet power tried to assert in the minds of the population the uniqueness and legitimacy of the "Renovationist Church." So, a member of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee P.G. Smidovich, in his letters to local councils in 1922, pointed out: "The Living Church" - loyal to the Soviet government - should meet with a particularly attentive and delicate attitude to its needs on the part of the Soviet government. "
Representatives of the Renovationist movement in the church have developed programs of church transformations designed for a radical renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church. These programs were discussed at the so-called local council of 1923 convened by the "renovationists", which expressed support for the Soviet regime and announced the overthrow of Patriarch Tikhon, but authorized only partial transformations of church life, postponing major reforms to a later date. But it was decided to switch to the Gregorian (Western European, Catholic) calendar, which contradicted all the statutes of the canonical church.
From 1922 to 1926, the Renovationist movement was the only Orthodox church organization officially recognized by the state authorities of the RSFSR. During the period of greatest influence - in the middle of 1922-1923 - more than half of the Russian episcopate and parishes were subordinate to renovationist structures.
Now let's move on to the main thing. Why is the "Renovationist calendar" an unfortunate example, or, as they wrote earlier, "poisoned fruit", of a dialogue between the Church and the Soviet State.
First, as stated earlier, this is not a canonical calendar.
Secondly, the "renovationist church", which adopted the Gregorian calendar, violating the centuries-old canons Christian Church, was a temporary phenomenon, so after the death of Alexander Vedensky, this church ceased to exist. Already, after 1923, the gradual extinction of renovationism began, a number of circumstances contributed to this:
1. Word of Patriarch Tikhon on the recognition of Soviet power and his condemnation of attempts to destabilize the country.
2. Awareness of the pernicious schism among the clergy and laity.
3. Declaration of the Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky dated July 29, 1927, that it began with substantiating the actions of the Deputy Locum Tenens and the Provisional Synod with the desire of Patriarch Tikhon before his death “to put our Orthodox Russian Church in the right relationship to the Soviet Government and thereby give the Church the possibility of a completely legal and peaceful existence ”(Acts of St. Tikhon, p. 509). Since, as stated in the Declaration, the peaceful arrangement of church affairs was hindered by the authorities' mistrust of all church leaders because of the speeches of “foreign enemies of the Soviet State,” including the pastors and archpastors of the Church, the first purpose of the message of Met. Sergius and the Synod headed by him announced "to show that we, church leaders, are not with the enemies of our Soviet state ... but with our people and our government."
4. After the reunification in 1939 of Western Ukraine and Belarus with the corresponding Soviet republics, as well as the return of the Baltic states and the former Finnish lands in 1940, the ratio sharply changed in favor of the canonical church.
5. Effective assistance of the canonical church to the efforts of the people and authorities during the Great Patriotic War.
6. U-turn in the church policy of the Soviet government. Stalin's meeting with the metropolitans in 1943.
A detailed analysis of the Renovationist split is beyond the scope of this work. Here we just note that by 1946 the schism was completely overcome by the entry of the Renovationist parishes into the canonical church with the bringing of repentance and forgiveness of the schismatics.
The participants in the Renovationist movement at the first opportunity hastened to take the Church administration into their own hands. They did this with the support of the Soviet government, which wanted not only the disintegration of the formerly united Russian Church, but also the further division of its split parts, which took place in Renovationism between the Congress of White Clergy and the Second Local Council, which was organized by it.
Local Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918
Formation of the "Living Church"
The "Church revolution" began in the spring of 1922 after the February decree on the seizure of church valuables and the imprisonment of Patriarch Tikhon that followed during the spring.
On May 16, the Renovationists sent a letter to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee with a message about the creation of the Supreme Church Administration. For the state, this was the only registered ecclesiastical authority, and the renovationists turned this document into an act of transferring ecclesiastical authority to them.
On May 18, a group of Petrograd priests - Vvedensky, Belkov and Kalinovsky - were admitted to the Trinity courtyard to the Patriarch who was under house arrest (he himself described this event in his message of June 15, 1923). Complaining that church affairs remain unresolved, they asked to entrust them with the patriarchal office for organizing affairs. The patriarch gave his consent and handed over the chancellery, but not to them, but to the Yaroslavl Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), having officially announced this in a letter addressed to the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. But Metropolitan Agafangel was unable to arrive in the capital - after refusing to join Renovationism, he was not allowed into Moscow, and later taken into custody.
On May 19, the Patriarch was taken out of the Trinity courtyard and imprisoned in the Donskoy Monastery. The courtyard was taken over by the Renovationist Higher Church Administration. For the sake of appearance that the management is legal, Bishop Leonid (Skobeev) was inclined to work in the All-Russian Central University. The Renovationists took the helm of church power.As planned, the Renovationists are using a campaign to confiscate church valuables in order to discredit the Patriarch.
Wasting no time, the VTsU (Supreme Church Administration) sends out an appeal to all dioceses "To the believing sons of the Orthodox Church of Russia." In it, as planned, the renovationists use a campaign of confiscation of church valuables in order to discredit the Patriarch. Here are excerpts from it: “Blood was shed so as not to help Christ - the hungry one. By refusing to help the hungry, the church people tried to create a coup d'état.
Saint Tikhon (Bellavin), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
The proclamation of Patriarch Tikhon became the banner around which the counter-revolutionaries, dressed in church clothes and moods, rallied. We consider it necessary to immediately convene a local Council to judge the perpetrators of church devastation, to decide on the management of the church and on the establishment of normal relations between it and the Soviet government. The civil war, led by the highest hierarchs, must end. "
On May 29, a constituent meeting was held in Moscow, at which the following clergy were received at the VTsU: the chairman was Bishop Antonin, his deputy was Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky, the manager of the affairs was priest Yevgeny Belkov and four other members. The main provisions of the living churchmen were formulated: “Revision of church dogma in order to highlight those features that were introduced into it by the system that was in Russia. Revision of the church liturgy in order to clarify and eliminate those layers that have been introduced into Orthodox worship by the people experienced by the union of church and state, and to ensure freedom of pastoral creativity in the field of worship, without violating the rites of the sacraments. " The journal Zhivaya Tserkov also began to appear, under the editorship of first priest Sergiy Kalinovsky, and then Evgeny Belkov.
The campaign began. Everywhere it was announced that the Patriarch had transferred church authority to the VCU on his own initiative, and they were its legal representatives. To confirm these words, they had to win over to their side one of the two deputies named by the Patriarch: “In view of the extreme difficulty in church administration that arose from bringing me to a civil court, I deem it useful for the good of the Church to temporarily, until the convocation of the Council, at the head of the church. management or Yaroslavl Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) or Petrograd Benjamin (Kazan) ”(Letter from Patriarch Tikhon to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. Kalinin). Attempts were made to enter into negotiations with Vladyka Benjamin.
The influence of Vladyka Benjamin was very great on the believers. Renovationists could not accept this.
On May 25, Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky visits him with the notification "that, according to the resolution of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, he is a plenipotentiary member of the All-Russian Central University and is on assignment for Church affairs to Petrograd and other areas of the Russian Republic." Metropolitan Benjamin refused. And on May 28, in an epistle to the Petrograd flock, he excommunicated Vvedensky, Krasnitsky and Belkov from the Church.
Alexander Vvedensky - Archpriest, in the Renovationist schism - Metropolitan
It was a heavy blow to the authority of the Living Church. The influence of Vladyka Benjamin was very great on the believers. Renovationists could not accept this. Vvedensky again appeared to him, accompanied by I. Bakaev, who was responsible for church affairs in the provincial committee of the RCP (b). They presented an ultimatum: the cancellation of the message of May 28 or the creation of a case against him and other Petrograd priests to resist the seizure of church values. Vladyka refused. On May 29, he was arrested.
From June 10 to July 5, 1922, a process took place in Petrograd, according to which 10 people were sentenced to death, 36 to imprisonment. Then 6 those sentenced to death were pardoned by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and four were shot on the night of August 12-13: Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), Archimandrite Sergius (chairman of the Local Council of 1917-1918, in the world - V.P. Shein), chairman of the board Society of Orthodox parishes Yu. P. Novitsky and lawyer N. M. Kovsharov.
Moscow also tried a group of clerics accused of instigating unrest. Patriarch Tikhon was summoned as a witness. After the interrogation of the Patriarch on May 9, 1922, Pravda wrote: “A crowd of people gathered in the Polytechnic Museum for the trial of the" deans "and for the interrogation of the Patriarch. The Patriarch looks down on the unparalleled challenge and interrogation. He smiles at the naive insolence of the young people at the judges' table. He carries himself with dignity. But we will join the gross sacrilege of the Moscow Tribunal and, in addition to the judicial questions, we will boom another, even more indelicate question: where does Patriarch Tikhon have such dignity? " By decision of the tribunal, 11 of the accused were sentenced to death. Patriarch Tikhon appealed to the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Kalinin, to pardon the convicts, since they did not offer any resistance to confiscation and did not engage in counter-revolution. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee pardoned six persons, and five - Archpriests Alexander Zaozersky, Vasily Sokolov, Christopher Nadezhdin, Hieromonk Makariy Telegin and layman Sergei Tikhomirov - were executed. The Tribunal also ruled to bring Patriarch Tikhon and Archbishop Nikandr (Fenomenov) of Krutitsky to trial as defendants.
A similar situation took place throughout the country. An institute of authorized persons of the VCU was created under the diocesan administrations. These commissioners had such power that they could overrule the decisions of the diocesan bishops. They enjoyed the support of state institutions, primarily the GPU. 56 of these commissioners were sent to the dioceses. Their tasks were to gather around them in the localities the bishops and priests who recognized the VCU and to wage a united front against the Tikhonites.
The affairs of the Renovationists were going uphill. A big event for them was the joining of Metropolitan Sergius of Vladimir (Stragorodsky) to the "Living Church" and the appearance in the press on June 16, 1922 of a statement by three hierarchs (a "memorandum of three" - Metropolitan Sergius and Archbishops Evdokim of Nizhny Novgorod and Seraphim of Kostroma, in which the All-Russian Central University admitted " the only canonically legitimate ecclesiastical authority "). As the authors of this document later admitted, they took this step in the hope of heading the VCU and turning its activities into a canonical channel, "to save the position of the Church, to prevent anarchy in it." Also, this act of such a wise hierarch as Metropolitan Sergius was due to the fact that there was no other administrative center, and the life of the Church seemed impossible without it. According to their thoughts, it was necessary to preserve church unity. Many of the bishops went over to Renovationism, following the example of Metropolitan Sergius - such was his authority.
A considerable part of the priests were subordinate to the VTsU, fearing both reprisals and removal from office. The latter was commonplace. The chairman of the All-Russian Central University, Bishop Antonin, in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper correspondent, confessed to the rude methods of work of the renovationists: “I receive complaints from different ends against her (the Living Church), her delegates, who by their actions and violence cause strong irritation against her ".An institute of authorized persons of the VCU was created under the diocesan administrations. These commissioners had such power that they could overrule the decisions of the diocesan bishops.
In July 1922, "out of 73 diocesan bishops, 37 joined the VTsU, and 36 followed Patriarch Tikhon." By August, power in most dioceses had passed into the hands of the Living Church. Renovationists were gaining strength more and more. They enjoyed a great advantage - they had an administrative center and Chekists ready for reprisals. But they did not have what would give them a real victory - the people.
A participant in the events of that era, M. Kurdyumov, recalled that the common people saw the lies of the “Soviet priests”. “I remember one incident in Moscow in the fall of 1922 - I had to find a priest to serve a requiem at the Novodevichy Convent at the grave of my confessor. I was shown two houses nearby where the clergy lived. Approaching the gate of one of these houses, I was looking for a bell for a long time. At this time, a simple woman of about 50 years old, in a headscarf, walked by me. Seeing my embarrassment, she stopped and asked:
Who do you want?
Father, serve the requiem ...
Not here, not here ... she was frightened. Lives live here, but go to the right, there is Tikhonovsky father, a real one. "
“The Red Church,” recalls another witness of events from among the ordinary parishioners of the Renovationists, “enjoyed the secret patronage of the Soviets. Obviously, they could not take it on their own, by virtue of the same decree on the separation of the Church from the state.
Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), Metropolitan
They counted on its propaganda and on attracting believers to it. But they got used to it, the believers did not go, its churches were empty and did not have any income either from demands or from a plate collection - there was not enough funds even for lighting and heating, as a result of which the churches began to gradually collapse. So in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the murals completely deteriorated - the work of our best masters. First, mold spots appeared on it, and then the paint began to peel off. It was like that back in 1927. ” The people stood for the Patriarchal Church.
But the trouble was that there was no administrative center: when the Patriarch was taken under arrest, he was lost. However, the Patriarch, before his arrest, appointed Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), who was at that time in Yaroslavl, as his deputy. The Metropolitan, through the efforts of the renovationists, was deprived of the opportunity to come to Moscow. In view of the current situation, on July 18, 1922, he issues a message in which he calls the VCU illegal and calls on the diocese to switch to independent, autonomous administration. Thus, some of the bishops who did not accept Renovationism went over to autonomous administration. This was a very important matter for the patriarchal Church - a path appeared whereby it was possible not to join the Renovationists, who, with the help of the authorities, were preparing their so-called organizational "Congress".
"All-Russian Congress of White Clergy"
On August 6, 1922, the First All-Russian Congress of White Clergy "Living Church" was convened in Moscow. The congress was attended by 150 delegates with a casting vote and 40 with an advisory vote. The congress decided to defrock Patriarch Tikhon at the forthcoming Local Council.
Bishop Antonin (Granovsky)
At this congress, a charter was adopted, consisting of 33 points. This statute proclaimed "the revision of school dogma, ethics, liturgy and, in general, the cleansing of all aspects of church life from later layers." The charter called for "the complete emancipation of the church from politics (state counter-revolution)." Particularly scandalous was the adoption of a resolution that allowed the white episcopate, widowed clergymen were allowed to enter into a second marriage, monks to resign and marry, priests to marry widows. The center of the Renovationist movement was recognized as the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Archbishop Antonin (Granovsky) was elected to the Moscow cathedra with subsequent elevation to the rank of metropolitan. What kind of person he was can be judged from the recollections of his contemporaries. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) gave the following characterization: “I fully admit the likelihood that among the forty thousand Russian clergy there were several villains who rebelled against the holy patriarch, having at the head of the well-known debaucher, a drunkard and a nihilist who was a client of an insane asylum twenty years ago ". An interesting characterization was given to Antonin by a person from an artistic environment and a Catholic by religion: “Archimandrite Antonin of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra made a particularly strong impression on me. He was struck by his enormous growth, struck directly by a demonic face, piercing eyes and a jet-black, not very thick beard. But I was no less amazed by what this priest began to utter with incomprehensible frankness and downright cynicism. The main topic of his conversation was the communication of the sexes. And Antoninus not only did not go into any kind of exaltation of asceticism, but on the contrary, did not at all deny the inevitability of such communication and all its forms. "
The introduction of the marriage episcopate dealt a strong blow to the authority of the Renovationists. Already at the congress, realizing all the consequences of such a decision, Bishop Antonin tried to object, to which Vladimir Krasnitsky replied: “You shouldn't be ashamed of the canons, they are outdated, a lot needs to be canceled.” This could not be overlooked. The newspaper Moskovsky Rabochy did not miss the opportunity to scathingly comment on the polemics between Bishop Antonin and Krasnitsky: “Now, abolishing all punishments for renouncing monastic vows and granting the episcopal title to the white, married clergy, she (the Church) assures that only at the present time is being elected the path foreseen by the Fathers of the Church, Councils, Church rules. We must tell the believers - look: the church rules, that the pole, where it turned, went there. "They enjoyed a great advantage - they had an administrative center and Chekists ready for reprisals. But they did not have what would give them a real victory - the people.
The council demanded the closure of all monasteries and the transformation of rural monasteries into labor brotherhoods.
The question was raised about the organization of church administration. The supreme governing body, according to the approved project, is the All-Russian Local Council, convened every three years and consisting of delegates elected at diocesan meetings from among the clergy and laity, enjoying the same rights. The diocese is headed by a diocesan administration, consisting of 4 priests, 1 cleric and 1 layman. The chairman of the diocesan administration is the bishop, who, however, enjoys no privileges. That is, as you can see, the white clergy prevailed in the diocesan administrations.
Metropolitan of the New Orthodox Church Alexander Vvedensky with his wife at home
Also, the congress participants made attempts to reorganize the financial system of the Church. The report "On the United Church Treasury" was read out. The first point of this report was directed against the parish councils, which, by a 1918 decree, determined the internal church life. According to the report, it was supposed to withdraw all sources of income from the jurisdiction of parish councils and transfer them to the disposal of the VTsU. However, the government did not accept such a proposal, and the renovationists could only be participants in the disposal of funds in the parish councils.
This convention was the beginning of the downfall of the Living Church. On it the last hopes for the beneficence of the reforms disappeared - the canons were violated, the foundation of the Church was destroyed. It was clear that the Orthodox would turn their backs on such reforms. This could not but cause sharp contradictions within the movement itself. Renovationism has cracked.
An internal struggle began. Metropolitan Antonin, insulted at the council on September 6, 1922, at the Sretensky Monastery, expressed the following about the white renovationist clergy: “The priests close the monasteries, they themselves sit in fat places; let the priests know that the monks will disappear - they will also disappear ”. In another conversation, he stated the following: “By the time of the Council of 1923 there was not a single drunkard, not a single vulgar person who would not have crawled into church administration and would not cover himself with a title or miter. The whole of Siberia was covered with a network of archbishops who ran into the bishops' chairs straight from drunken clerks. "Thus, some of the bishops who did not accept Renovationism went over to autonomous administration.
It became clear that the Renovationists had survived the peak of their meteoric rise - now their slow but irreversible decay began. The first step towards this was a split within the movement itself, eaten by contradictions.
Separation of the Renovationist movement
The process of division of renovationism began in the 20th of August 1922 after the end of the first All-Russian Congress of White Clergy.
On August 24, at the constituent assembly in Moscow, a new group was created - the Union of Church Renaissance (CCV), headed by the chairman of the All-Russian Central University, Metropolitan Antonin (Granovsky). It is joined by the Ryazan committee of the Living Church group, most of the Kaluga group, diocesan committees of the living churchmen of Tambov, Penza, Kostroma and other regions. In the first two weeks, 12 dioceses were transferred.
The All-Russian "Union of Church Revival" has developed its own program. It consisted in bridging the gap between the renovationist clergy and the believing people, without whose support the reform movement is doomed to failure. The NCV demanded only a liturgical reform, leaving the dogmatic and canonical foundations of the Church intact. In contrast to the "Living Church", the NCW did not demand the abolition of monasticism and allowed the appointment of monks and white clergy as bishops, but not married. Second marriage of clerics was not allowed.
On September 22, Bishop Antonin officially announced his withdrawal from the UCC and the cessation of Eucharistic communion with the Living Church. There was a split within the split. Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky decided to resort to a tried and tested force - he turned to the OGPU with a request to expel Bishop Antonin from Moscow, because "he is becoming the banner of counter-revolution." But there Krasnitsky was told that "the authorities have no reason to interfere in church affairs, have nothing against Antonin Granovsky and do not at all object to the organization of a new, second VCU." Trotsky's plan came into effect. Now mass anti-religious propaganda has begun, without exception, towards all groups. The newspaper "Atheist", the magazine "Atheist", etc. began to appear.The introduction of the marriage episcopate dealt a strong blow to the authority of the Renovationists.
The SODATS program occupied an intermediate position between the "Living Church" and "Union of Church Revival" groups. Although in its social tasks it was more radical than the latter, it resolutely demanded the implementation of the ideas of "Christian socialism" in public and internal church life. SODATS strongly advocated a revision of dogma. This revision was to take place at the upcoming Local Council: “The modern morality of the Church,” they said in their “Project of Church Reforms at the Council,” “is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of slavery, we are not slaves, but sons of God. The expulsion of the spirit of slavery, as the basic principle of morality, from the system of ethics is the work of the Council. Also, capitalism must be expelled from the moral system, capitalism is a mortal sin, social inequality is unacceptable for a Christian. "
The SODATS program demanded a revision of all church canons. With regard to monasteries, they wished to leave only those that "are built on the principle of the labor principle and are of an ascetic and ascetic character, for example Optina Pustyn, Solovki, etc." A married episcopate was allowed, and in their speeches, members of the union spoke in favor of the second marriage of clergy. On the question of the forms of church administration, SODATS demanded the abolition of "the monarchical principle of administration, the conciliar principle instead of the sole principle." In the liturgical reform, they advocated "the introduction of ancient apostolic simplicity in worship, in particular in the setting of churches, in the vestments of priests, the mother tongue instead of the Slavic language, the institution of deacones, etc." In the management of parish affairs, the equality of all members of the community was introduced: "Presbyters, clergy and laity participate on equal rights in the management of the affairs of communities, as well as their associations (diocesan, district, district)."
Then, in addition to the three main groups, the Renovationists began to split into other smaller sections. Thus, Archpriest Yevgeny Belkov founded the "Union of Religious Labor Communities" in Petrograd. Internecine war threatened the failure of the entire movement. A compromise was needed. On October 16, at a meeting of the VTsU, it was decided to reorganize the composition. Now it consisted of the chairman, Metropolitan Antonin, the deputies - archpriests Alexander Vvedensky and Vladimir Krasnitsky, the manager of the affairs of A. Novikov, 5 members from SODATS and STSV and 3 from the Living Church. A commission was created to prepare the Council. According to the Renovationists, he was supposed to settle all the differences within the movement and consolidate the final victory over the Tikhonists.This convention was the beginning of the downfall of the Living Church. On it the last hopes for the beneficence of the reforms disappeared - the canons were violated, the foundation of the Church was destroyed.
"Second All-Russian Local Council"
From the very beginning of the seizure of church power, the Renovationists declared the need to convene a Local Council. But the authorities did not need this. According to the Soviet leadership, the Council could stabilize the situation in the Church and eliminate the schism. Therefore, as early as May 26, 1922, the Politburo of the RCP (b) accepted Trotsky's proposal to take a wait-and-see attitude regarding the existing trends in the new church leadership. They can be formulated as follows:
1. preservation of the Patriarchate and election of a loyal Patriarch;
2. the destruction of the Patriarchate and the creation of a loyal Synod;
3. complete decentralization, absence of any central control.
Trotsky needed a struggle between the adherents of these three trends. He considered the most advantageous position "when a part of the church retains a loyal patriarch, who is not recognized by the other part, organizing under the banner of the synod or full autonomy of the communities." It was profitable for the Soviet government to play for time. They decided to deal with the supporters of the Patriarchal Church through repression.
Initially, the Council was planned to be held in August 1922, but these dates were repeatedly postponed due to known reasons. But with the beginning of the division of the Renovationist movement, the demands for its convocation became more insistent. Many hoped that a suitable compromise would be found on it. The Soviet leadership decided to make a concession. According to Tuchkov's plan, "the Cathedral was supposed to be a springboard for the jump to Europe."The All-Russian "Union of Church Revival" has developed its own program.
On December 25, 1922, the All-Russian meeting of the members of the All-Russian Central University and local diocesan administrations decided to convene the Council in April 1923. Until that time, the Renovationists set themselves the task of providing for their delegates. For this, deanery meetings were convened in the dioceses, which were attended by the rectors of churches with representatives from the laity. For the most part, the abbots were renovationists. Naturally, they recommended sympathetic laymen. If there were Tikhonov abbots, they were immediately removed, replaced with renovationist ones. Such manipulations allowed the Renovationists to have the overwhelming majority of delegates to the upcoming Council.
The council was held under the total control of the GPU, which had up to 50% of its notice. It opened on April 29, 1923 and took place in the “3rd House of the Soviets”. It was attended by 476 delegates, who were divided into parties: 200 - living churchmen, 116 - deputies from SODATS, 10 - from STsV, 3 - non-party renovationists and 66 deputies called "moderate Tikhonists" - Orthodox bishops, clergy and laity, faint-heartedly submitting to the renovationist VTsU.
There were 10 issues on the agenda, the main of which were:
1. About the attitude of the Church towards the October Revolution, towards Soviet power and Patriarch Tikhon.
2. About the white episcopate and the second marriage of the clergy.
3. About monasticism and monasteries.
4. About the project of administrative structure and management in the Russian Orthodox Church.
5. On the relics and the reform of the calendar.
The Council proclaimed complete solidarity with the October Revolution and Soviet power.
On May 3, Patriarch Tikhon was deprived of his priesthood and monasticism: “The Council considers Tikhon an apostate from the true covenants of Christ and a traitor to the Church; From now on, Patriarch Tikhon is Vasily Bellavin. "
Since the church society was resolutely opposed to changes in the Orthodox doctrine and dogmas, as well as the reform of worship, the Council was forced to limit the scope of the reform. However, he allowed second marriage to priests - to marry widows or divorced. Monasteries were closed. Only labor brotherhoods and communities were blessed. The idea of "personal salvation" and the veneration of relics were preserved. The Gregorian calendar was adopted on May 5.
The Council as the governing body of the Church elected the supreme executive body of the All-Russian Local Council - the Supreme Church Council (“Council” sounded more euphonious than “Management”) chaired by Metropolitan Antonin. It included 10 people from the "Living Church", 6 people from SODATS and 2 people from the "Church Revival".
According to the approved "Regulations on the management of the Church," diocesan administrations were to consist of 5 people, of whom 4 people were elected: 2 clergymen and 2 laymen. The bishop is appointed chairman. All members of the diocesan administration had to be approved by the WCC. Vicar (county) administrations were to consist of 3 people: the chairman (bishop) and two members: a clergyman and a layman.
"Metropolitan of Siberia" Peter and Archpriest Vladimir
The Krasnitsky Cathedral conferred the title of "Protopresbyter of All Russia" on Archpriest Vladimir Krasnitsky. And Archpriest Alexander Vvedensky was made Archbishop of Krutitsky and after ordination he moved to Moscow, where he approached the leadership of the Renovationist Church.
It seemed that the Council proclaimed the victory of the Renovationist Church. Now the Russian Orthodox Church has taken on a new look and has taken a new course. The Patriarchal Church was almost destroyed. There was practically no hope. Only the Lord could help in such a distressing situation. As the saint writes. Basil the Great, the Lord allows evil for a while to receive triumph and victory, seemingly complete, so that later, when good triumphs, a person would thank no one else but the Most High.
And God's help was not slow to come.
Babayan Georgy Vadimovich
Keywords: renovationism, congress, council, reforms, division, repression.
A. I. Kuznetsov
2002 .-- S. 216.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- P. 18.
Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky compound, 2007 .-- P. 287.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- S. 18-19.
Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky compound, 2007 .-- P. 286.
In the same place. P. 293.
In the same place. P. 294.
Shkarovsky V.M. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- S. 19-20.
Tsypin V., prot., Prof. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods (1700-2005). - M .: Sretensky monastery, 2006 .-- S. 382-383.
Shkarovsky M.V.
Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitskiy compound, 2007 .-- P. 303.
Pospelovsky D.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century. - M .: Republic, 1995 .-- S. 70.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- S. 20.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- P. 101.
I. V. Soloviev A brief history of the so-called "Renovationist split" in the Orthodox Russian Church in the light of new published historical documents // Renovation schism. Society of Church History Lovers. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky compound, 2002. - P. 26.
In the same place. P. 29.
A. I. Kuznetsov Renovation schism in the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky courtyard,
2002 .-- S. 260.
In the same place. P. 264.
Tsypin V., prot., Prof.
In the same place. S. 385-386.
A. I. Kuznetsov Renovation schism in the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky courtyard,
2002 .-- S. 265.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- S. 187-188.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- P. 24.
A. I. Kuznetsov Renovation schism in the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky courtyard,
2002 .-- S. 281.
Tsypin V., prot., Prof. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods (1700-2005). - M .: Sretensky monastery, 2006 .-- S. 393.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- P. 205.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- P. 26.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970. - P. 210; TsGA TASSR. F. 1172. Op. 3.D. 402.L. 43.
See also: The program of reforms at the 1923 Renovation Council proposed by the Living Church on May 16-29, 1922 // URL: https://www.blagogon.ru/biblio/718/print (date of access: 04.08.2017 of the year).
In the same place. P. 214.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- S. 214-216.
Shkarovsky M.V. Renovation movement in the Russian Orthodox Church of the XX century. - SPb., 1999 .-- P. 27.
In the same place. P. 23.
Regelson L. Tragedy of the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky compound, 2007 .-- P. 327.
A. I. Kuznetsov Renovation schism in the Russian Church. - M .: Publishing house of the Krutitsky compound, 2002. - S. 304-305.
Russian Orthodox Church XX century. - M .: Sretensky monastery, 2008 .-- P. 169.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- P. 232.
Russian Orthodox Church XX century. - M .: Sretensky monastery, 2008 .-- S. 170-171.
A. A. Shishkin The essence and critical assessment of the "renovationist" split in the Russian Orthodox Church. - Kazan University, 1970 .-- S. 232-239.
Restoration of the Patriarchate (1917) In the early 1900s, despite the resistance of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, preparations began for the convocation of the All-Russian Local Council, which met on August 15, 1917 in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. His largest decision was the restoration of the patriarchal leadership of the Russian Church on October 28, 1917, which is preserved to this day. The period from 1917 to the present day is called the Second Patriarchal Period. In the early 1900s, despite the resistance of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, preparations began for the convocation of the All-Russian Local Council, which met on August 15, 1917 in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. His largest decision was the restoration of the patriarchal leadership of the Russian Church on October 28, 1917, which is preserved to this day. The period from 1917 to the present day is called the Second Patriarchal Period.
The act was not a mechanical restoration of the patriarchate as it existed before the synodal period: along with the institution of the patriarchate, the Council established 2 permanent collegial bodies (the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council). The act was not a mechanical restoration of the patriarchate as it existed before the synodal period: along with the institution of the patriarchate, the Council established 2 permanent collegial bodies (the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council). The jurisdiction of the Holy Synod included matters of a hierarchical pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature. In addition to its Chairman, the Patriarch, the Synod consisted of 12 more members: the Metropolitan of Kiev by office, 6 bishops elected by the Council for three years and 5 bishops, who were called in turn for a period of one year. The jurisdiction of the Holy Synod included matters of a hierarchical pastoral, doctrinal, canonical and liturgical nature. In addition to its Chairman, the Patriarch, the Synod consisted of 12 more members: the Metropolitan of Kiev by office, 6 bishops elected by the Council for three years and 5 bishops, who were called in turn for a period of one year. In the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council, matters of church-social order: administrative, economic, school and educational. Particularly important general church issues related to the protection of the rights of the Church, preparations for the upcoming Council, the opening of new dioceses, were to be decided by the joint presence of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council. Of the 15 members of the Supreme Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, 3 bishops were delegated by the Synod, and one monk, 5 clergy from the white clergy and 6 laity were elected by the Council. In the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council, matters of church-social order: administrative, economic, school and educational. Particularly important general church issues related to the protection of the rights of the Church, preparations for the upcoming Council, the opening of new dioceses, were to be decided by the joint presence of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council. Of the 15 members of the Supreme Church Council, headed, like the Synod, by the Patriarch, 3 bishops were delegated by the Synod, and one monk, 5 clergy from the white clergy and 6 laity were elected by the Council. Holy Synod and Supreme Church Council
The Bolsheviks and the Church Back in the period of the first Russian revolution, in December 1905, Lenin published an article "Socialism and Religion", in which he wrote: "Religion is one of the types of spiritual oppression that lies everywhere and everywhere on the masses, crushed by country work for others. , need and loneliness. Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual fuzz, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demands for a life worthy of a human being. " In the same article, Lenin demanded the complete separation of the Church from the state and the school from the Church, the transformation of religion into a private matter. During the October Revolution, the teachings of the leader of the world proletariat were put into practice. On the very first day after the seizure of power, October 26, 1917, the Bolsheviks issued the "Decree on Land", announcing the nationalization of all church and monastic lands "with all their living and dead inventory" December 1917, followed by decrees that invalidated church marriage ...
Decree on freedom of conscience January 20 (according to Art. Art.) 1918 SNK RSFSR approved the Decree On the separation of church from state and school from church, which: January 20 (Art. Art.) 1918 SNK RSFSR approved the Decree on separation church from state and school from church, which: the Church was separated from the state Church was separated from the state Church was separated from the state school, religious education and teaching of religion in schools was prohibited The church was separated from the state school, religious education and teaching of religion in schools were prohibited The Church has been deprived of the rights of a legal entity and property. The Church has been deprived of the rights of a legal person and property. Religion has become an exclusively private affair of citizens. Religion has become an exclusively private affair of citizens.
ROC in the Civil War (years) For the Bolsheviks, the Orthodox Church, like any other religious organization, was a priori an ideological enemy. Many clergymen were either monarchically oriented or could not sympathize with the new anti-religious regime. The very first messages from Patriarch Tikhon were perceived as calls for sabotage. For the Bolsheviks, the Orthodox Church, like any other religious organization, was a priori an ideological enemy. Many clergymen were either monarchically oriented or could not sympathize with the new anti-religious regime. The very first messages from Patriarch Tikhon were perceived as calls for sabotage. Immediately after the victory of the October Revolution, severe persecution of the Church began, and the arrest and murder of clergymen. The first victim of revolutionary terror was St. Petersburg Archpriest John Kochurov, who was killed on October 31, 1917. On January 19, Patriarch Tikhon wrote a letter in which he anathematized (i.e. cut off from the Church) everyone who shed innocent blood, i.e. the Bolsheviks. On January 25, 1918, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (Epiphany) was killed in Kiev. Immediately after the victory of the October Revolution, severe persecution of the Church began, and the arrest and murder of clergymen. The first victim of revolutionary terror was St. Petersburg Archpriest John Kochurov, who was killed on October 31, 1917. On January 19, Patriarch Tikhon wrote a letter in which he anathematized (i.e. cut off from the Church) everyone who shed innocent blood, i.e. the Bolsheviks. On January 25, 1918, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (Epiphany) was killed in Kiev.
Soon the executions and arrests of the clergy became widespread. In 1918, several archpastors, several hundred clergymen, and many laymen were killed. The executions of clergymen were carried out with sophisticated cruelty. Many clergymen were tortured before death, many were executed along with their families or in front of their wife and children. Churches and monasteries were destroyed and plundered, icons were desecrated and burned. An unbridled campaign against religion was launched in the press. On October 26, 1918, on the anniversary of the Bolsheviks in power, Patriarch Tikhon, in his message to the Council of People's Commissars, spoke about the disasters that befell the country, people and Church. Soon after this letter, Patriarch Tikhon was placed under house arrest, and the persecution continued with renewed vigor. ROC in the Civil War (gg.)
Patriarch Tikhon TIKHON (Belavin Vasily Ivanovich) (), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (since 1917). Elected by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. During the Civil War, he called for an end to the bloodshed. Opposed the decrees on the separation of church from state and on the seizure of church values. In 1922 he was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet activity. In 1923 he called on the clergy and believers to be loyal to the Soviet regime; released from prison and was under house arrest. Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Opening Campaign (years) On February 14, 1919, the People's Commissariat of Justice issued a decree on an organized opening of the relics. For this purpose, special commissions were appointed, which, in the presence of clergy and laity, publicly desecrated the relics of the saints. The aim of the campaign was to discredit the Church and expose "trickery and charlatanism." In total, until July 1920, about 6 autopsies of the relics were carried out. On April 11, 1919, the relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh were uncovered. On July 29, 1920, the Council of People's Commissars (SNK) issued a decree on the liquidation of the relics, and on August 23, the People's Commissariat of Justice decided to transfer the relics to museums. Not all relics were eliminated: many were subsequently transported to the Leningrad Museum of Atheism and Religion, located in the premises of the Kazan Cathedral.
Campaign to confiscate church valuables in 1922 The economic devastation resulting from the revolution and the civil war, as well as the drought in the summer of 1921, led to famine in the Volga region and some other regions of Russia. Under these conditions, Patriarch Tikhon gave his blessing to donate for the benefit of the starving any church decorations that do not have liturgical use. However, a new campaign was launched in the press against the Church, which was accused of concealing values. The economic devastation resulting from the revolution and the civil war, as well as the drought in the summer of 1921, led to famine in the Volga region and some other regions of Russia. Under these conditions, Patriarch Tikhon gave his blessing to donate for the benefit of the starving any church decorations that do not have liturgical use. However, a new campaign was launched in the press against the Church, which was accused of concealing values. On February 23, 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a decree on the compulsory confiscation of church valuables. This decree became the instrument with which the authorities attempted to destroy the Church. On February 23, 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a decree on the compulsory confiscation of church valuables. This decree became the instrument with which the authorities attempted to destroy the Church. As a result, church items were confiscated in the amount of p. 67 k. In gold rubles. From these funds, it was decided to spend 1 million gold rubles to buy food for the hungry, around which an agitation campaign was launched. The main funds were used for the campaign for the seizure itself, or, more precisely, for the campaign to split the Russian Orthodox Church. As a result, church items were seized in the amount of r. 67 k. In gold rubles. From these funds, it was decided to spend 1 million gold rubles to buy food for the hungry, around which an agitation campaign was launched. The main funds were used for the campaign for the seizure itself, or, more precisely, for the campaign to split the Russian Orthodox Church.
Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s On March 30, 1922, at a meeting of the Politburo, a plan for the destruction of the Church was adopted, including the arrest of the Synod and the Patriarch, the deployment of a new anti-religious campaign in the press, and the seizure of church values throughout the country. Patriarch Tikhon began to be summoned to the GPU (State Political Administration - the successor of the Cheka) and interrogated. Lawsuits began across the country against clergy and laity accused of resisting the confiscation of church property.
In addition to persecuting the Church, the authorities sought to weaken the Church by stimulating contradictions and schismatic groups. In addition to persecuting the Church, the authorities sought to weaken the Church by stimulating contradictions and schismatic groups. By 1922, the "Renovationist split" took shape; which was initially headed by Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), Petrograd priests Alexander Vvedensky and Vladimir Krasnitsky, several Moscow priests. The people called them Renovationists because they advocated a comprehensive renewal of church life. By 1922, a "Renovationist schism" took shape; which was initially headed by Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), Petrograd priests Alexander Vvedensky and Vladimir Krasnitsky, several Moscow priests. The people called them Renovationists because they advocated a comprehensive renewal of church life. Renovationism received the support of the GPU and was officially recognized by the state authorities as the Orthodox Russian Church. At their council in April 1923, the renovationists adopted a resolution in support of the Soviet socialist system, condemned the "counter-revolutionary" clergy, and declared Patriarch Tikhon deposed. Renovationism received the support of the GPU bodies and was officially recognized by the state authorities as the Orthodox Russian Church. At their council in April 1923, the renovationists adopted a resolution in support of the Soviet socialist system, condemned the "counter-revolutionary" clergy, and declared Patriarch Tikhon deposed. Under pressure from the NKVD, the Patriarchal chambers were occupied by the renovationist VTsU (Higher Church Administration), headed by Antonin (Granovsky). On May 29, a constituent assembly of the Living Church (Renovationist) was held in Moscow. Under pressure from the NKVD, the Patriarchal chambers were occupied by the Renovationist VTsU (Higher Church Administration), headed by Antonin (Granovsky). On May 29, a constituent assembly of the Living Church (renovationist) was held in Moscow. By July 1922, of the 73 ruling bishops of the Russian Church, the majority had already submitted to the VCU. Only 36 ruling bishops remained loyal to the patriarch. "Renovation split" (1922)
Renovationists UPNOVELENTSY, a movement in the Russian Orthodox Church that took shape after the October Revolution. They advocated the "renewal of the church", the modernization of the religious cult. The Renovationists made the following changes in worship: the translation of the entire service into civil Russian (from Old Church Slavonic); simplification and reduction of worship; election of parish priests; the possibility of bishops to marry; permission for priests to remarry; transfer of the Church to a new (Gregorian) calendar; keeping women in the church hierarchy (deaconess ) denial of monasticism, admission of the white clergy to the bodies of church government. Renovationists fought against the leadership of the official Russian Orthodox Church, declared support for the Soviet government and a loyal attitude towards it. They self-destructed, joining the Russian Orthodox Church.
Union of Militant Atheists In 1925, on the initiative of the Bolshevik government, the "Union of Militant Atheists" was created under the chairmanship of Yemelyan Yaroslavsky. Primary organizations of the SVB existed in factories, factories, collective farms and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, about 3.5 million people were in the ranks of the SVB. The number of primary cells reached 96 thousand. Emelyan Yaroslavsky Guided by the Leninist principles of anti-religious propaganda and the decisions of the party on these issues, the SVB set the task of an ideological struggle against religion in all its manifestations. He carried out the propaganda of atheistic knowledge, individual work with believers, trained cadres of atheist propagandists and agitators, published scientific and popular science literature and a number of periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, carried out work under the motto "Fight against religion, fight for socialism." With the change in the state policy in relation to religion, in 1947 the functions of the SSC were transferred to the All-Union society for the dissemination of political and scientific knowledge (the "Knowledge" society).
Metropolitan Peter According to the testamentary order of Patriarch Tikhon, after his death on April 7, 1925, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky (Polyansky), became the helm of the church administration. According to the testamentary order of Patriarch Tikhon, after his death on April 7, 1925, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsky (Polyansky), became the helm of the church administration. The current government forbade the convocation of a church council and the choice of a new patriarch (until 1943). The current government prohibited the convocation of a church council and the choice of a new patriarch (until 1943). Peter was arrested on December 9, 1925. By order of the Locum Tenens, the performance of his duties passed to Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky) with the rank of Deputy Locum Tenens. On December 9, 1925, Peter was arrested. By order of the Locum Tenens, the performance of his duties passed to Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky) with the rank of Deputy Locum Tenens. He refused to multiple proposals to resign from the powers of the locum tenens, and new lines were added to the terms of his sentence, and in 1937 Metropolitan Peter was shot. In 1997, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church canonized as a new martyr. On multiple offers to resign from the powers of the locum tenens, he refused, and new lines were added to the sentences he served. And in 1937, Metropolitan Peter was shot. In 1997, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church canonized as a new martyr.
Metropolitan Sergius Since December 10, 1925, the actual head of the church administration with the title of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens was Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky), who made attempts to normalize the position of the Church in the new state. On September 8, 1943, at the residence of the former German ambassador in Chisty Pereulok, a Council of Bishops took place, which elected Sergius as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. From December 10, 1925, the de facto head of the church administration with the title of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens was Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (Stragorodsky), who made attempts to normalize the position of the Church in the new state. On September 8, 1943, at the residence of the former German ambassador in Chisty Pereulok, a Council of Bishops took place, which elected Sergius as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
Declaration of Sergius of 1927 On July 29, 1927, under pressure from the authorities, Sergius issued a declaration that put forward the thesis that you can be an Orthodox Christian and at the same time "recognize the Soviet Union as your civil homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, our failures are our failures." On July 29, 1927, under pressure from the authorities, Sergius issued a declaration that put forward the thesis that one can be an Orthodox Christian and at the same time "recognize the Soviet Union as his civil homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, our failures are our failures." The reaction to Sergius's statement in church circles was contradictory. Some, not being in solidarity with a number of provisions of the Declaration, assessed its nature as forced, retained their confidence in Sergius as the leader of the Patriarchal Church. The rest fully accepted the Declaration. The reaction to Sergius's statement in church circles was contradictory. Some, not being in solidarity with a number of provisions of the Declaration, assessed its nature as forced, retained their confidence in Sergius as the leader of the Patriarchal Church. The rest fully accepted the Declaration. The Foreign (Karlovtsy) Synod rejected and condemned her. Part of the clergy inside the country, considering the act of the Metropolitan as a betrayal of the interests of the Church, went underground, appropriating the name of the True Orthodox Church. The Foreign (Karlovtsy) Synod rejected and condemned her. Part of the clergy inside the country, considering the act of the Metropolitan as a betrayal of the interests of the Church, went underground, appropriating the name of the True Orthodox Church.
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) In 1919, most of the hierarchy and clergy, located in the territory controlled by the "whites", in connection with their defeat, emigrated and created their own church structure "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad" (abroad) abroad. In 1919, most of the hierarchy and clergy, located in the territory controlled by the "whites", emigrated due to their defeat and created their own church structure abroad, the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad" (abroad). In 1920, in Constantinople, a group of bishops, evacuated together with the military and civilian population from Russia, convened a council abroad and formed the Supreme Church Administration Abroad. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected head of the newly established administration. In 1920, in Constantinople, a group of bishops, evacuated together with the military and civilian population from Russia, convened a council abroad and formed the Supreme Church Administration Abroad. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected head of the newly established administration. In 1921, the administration moved to Sremski Karlovtsy (Yugoslavia), where the 1st All-Diaspora Council (Karlovatsky Cathedral) was convened. In 1921, the administration moved to Sremski Karlovtsy (Yugoslavia), where the 1st All-Diaspora Council (Karlovatsky Cathedral) was convened. In 1927, the Synod Abroad expressed its disagreement with the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and decreed: "The foreign part of the Russian Orthodox Church must cease administrative relations with the Moscow Church authorities because of the impossibility of normal relations with her and because of her enslavement by the godless Soviet power." In 1927, the Synod Abroad expressed its disagreement with the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and decreed: "The foreign part of the Russian Orthodox Church must cease administrative relations with the Moscow Church authorities because of the impossibility of normal relations with her and because of her enslavement by the godless Soviet power."
In May 1928, by decree of Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Synod, the Synod Abroad and the Council were declared abolished and all their actions canceled. In 1934, the Synod Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), was condemned a second time, and all its members were banned from serving until trial or repentance. In May 1928, by decree of Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Synod, the Synod Abroad and the Council were declared abolished and all their actions canceled. In 1934, the Synod Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), was condemned a second time, and all its members were banned from serving until trial or repentance. However, the Church Abroad, despite the reprimands from Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, continued to exist and develop. In fact, a split took place between the ROC and the ROCOR, which mutually did not recognize each other until the Patriarchate of Alexy II. However, the Church Abroad, despite the reprimands from Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod, continued to exist and develop. In fact, a split took place between the ROC and the ROCOR, which mutually did not recognize each other until the Patriarchate of Alexy II. On May 17, 2007, the Act of Canonical Communion between the ROCOR and the ROC was signed, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became "an integral self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church." The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became "an integral self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church" Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Catacomb Church Catacomb Church, True Orthodox Church, True Orthodox Christians are collective names for those representatives of the Russian Orthodox clergy and Orthodox communities who, starting in the 1920s, rejected submission to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovs), Archbishops Theodore (Pozdeevsky) and Andrey (Ukhtomsky) are traditionally distinguished among the founders of the Catacomb Church. Around them, respectively, the movements of "Josephites", "Danilovites" and "Andreevtsy" were formed, which consisted of a part of bishops, clergy and laity who did not recognize the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of 1927 on the loyalty of the Church to the Soviet regime. Until the end of the 1950s, the number of underground Orthodox communities in the USSR was apparently measured in the thousands. Organizationally, they were not connected (organizations existed only on paper, in the affairs of the NKVD).
Catacomb Church The brutal persecution of the "true Orthodox" continued with varying intensity throughout the years of Soviet power, primarily during the years of collectivization and Stalinism. The last wave of repressions against true Orthodox Christians began in 1959 and intensified especially after the 1961 Khrushchev decree on the fight against parasitism. Thousands of "true Orthodox" who refused to officially get a job (and, as a rule, worked under contracts) were exiled and imprisoned under it. By perestroika, the scattered movement had almost completely lost its clergy. After 1996, when Guriy (Pavlov) died, not a single “catacomb” bishop remained alive, whose succession would go back to the episcopate of these communities and would not be subject to doubt. The total number of "catacomb" communities now (in 2009), apparently, totals several hundred (hardly more than 1000) people.
However, the hopes of the Metropolitan and his supporters regarding the authorities did not come true. The synod, headed by Sergius, did not receive legal recognition, the arrests of the clergy and the administrative closure of churches resumed with renewed vigor in 1929. However, the hopes of the Metropolitan and his supporters in relation to the authorities did not come true. The synod, headed by Sergius, did not receive legal recognition, the arrests of the clergy and the administrative closure of churches resumed with renewed vigor in 1929. So, in 1937, more than 8 thousand churches were closed, 70 dioceses and vicariates were liquidated. During the course of the NKVD, he carried out several operations to arrest and execute the clergy. So, in 1937 more than 8 thousand churches were closed, 70 dioceses and vicariates were liquidated. During the course of the NKVD, he carried out several operations to arrest and execute the clergy. In 1938, the Union of Militant Atheists planned a five-year plan to fight religion: according to the plan, churches of all confessions should be closed and “by May 1, 1937, the name of God should be forgotten throughout the USSR”. In the 193s, all clergymen were subjected to arrests and executions indiscriminately, including the Renovationists. By the mid-1930s, the Renovationist "synod" self-liquidated. In 1938, the Union of Militant Atheists planned a five-year plan to fight religion: according to the plan, churches of all confessions should be closed and “by May 1, 1937, the name of God should be forgotten throughout the USSR”. In the 193s, all clergymen were subjected to arrests and executions indiscriminately, including the Renovationists. By the mid-1930s, the Renovationist "synod" self-liquidated. New repressions in the 1930s
As a result of the unprecedented persecutions of the 1930s, the Church in the USSR was almost completely destroyed. By 1939, all over the country there were only about 100 functioning churches, not a single monastery, not a single church educational institution, and only four ruling bishops, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow, Metropolitan Alexy (Oshchansky) of Leningrad, Archbishop Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Peterhof, who ruled Novgorod and Pskov. dioceses, and Archbishop Sergius of Dmitrov (Resurrection). Several more bishops served as rectors of churches. Only 3 percent of the pre-revolutionary number of churches remained in Ukraine. As a result of the unprecedented persecutions of the 1930s, the Church in the USSR was almost completely destroyed. By 1939, all over the country there were only about 100 functioning churches, not a single monastery, not a single church educational institution, and only four ruling bishops, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow, Metropolitan Alexy (Oshchansky) of Leningrad, Archbishop Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Peterhof, who ruled Novgorod and Pskov. dioceses, and Archbishop Sergius of Dmitrov (Resurrection). Several more bishops served as rectors of churches. Only 3 percent of the pre-revolutionary number of churches remained in Ukraine. By 1939, the church structure throughout the country was virtually destroyed; dioceses as administrative units virtually disappeared, a significant part of the clergy was exterminated physically or were in camps. Nevertheless, in 1939 it became clear to the authorities that attempts to solve the set task of completely eradicating religion in the USSR had failed. By 1939, the church structure throughout the country was virtually destroyed; dioceses as administrative units virtually disappeared, a significant part of the clergy was exterminated physically or were in camps. Nevertheless, in 1939 it became clear to the authorities that attempts to solve the set task of completely eradicating religion in the USSR had failed. New repressions in the 1930s
The Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War When Hitler's troops attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Metropolitan Sergius called on the country's believers to fight against the fascist invaders: “Fascist robbers attacked our homeland. The times of Batu, German knights, Charles of Sweden, Napoleon ... Our Orthodox Church has always shared the fate of the people. She will not leave her people even now. She blesses with heavenly blessings the forthcoming nationwide feat. " When Hitler's troops attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Metropolitan Sergius made an appeal to the country's believers to fight against the fascist invaders: “Fascist robbers attacked our homeland. The times of Batu, German knights, Karl of Sweden, Napoleon are repeated ... Our Orthodox Church she has always shared the fate of her people, and she will not leave her people even now. She blesses with heavenly blessings the forthcoming nationwide feat. " The patriotic position of the Church did not go unnoticed, and already in 1942 the persecution of the Church significantly weakened. At the request of Metropolitan Sergius, some bishops were returned from exile and appointed to the cathedra. New bishops were ordained (ordained). The patriotic position of the Church did not go unnoticed, and already in 1942 the persecution of the Church significantly weakened. At the request of Metropolitan Sergius, some bishops were returned from exile and appointed to the cathedra. New bishops were ordained (ordained).
However, the turning point in the fate of the Church was the meeting of I.V. Stalin's meeting with Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), which took place on September 4, 1943. However, the turning point in the fate of the Church was the meeting of I.V. Stalin with Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky) and Nikolai (Yarushevich), which took place on September 4, 1943. During the meeting, a number of questions were raised: the need to convene a Council of Bishops to elect the Patriarch and the Synod, the opening of religious educational institutions, about the publication of a church magazine, about the release of bishops who were in prison and exile (the last question was raised by Metropolitan Alexei). Stalin gave a positive answer to all questions; the Moscow Patriarchate was given a mansion in Chisty Lane, where it is located to this day. During the meeting, a number of questions were raised: the need to convene the Council of Bishops to elect the Patriarch and the Synod, the opening of religious educational institutions, the publication of a church magazine, the release of bishops who were in prison and exile (the last question was raised by Metropolitan Alexei). Stalin gave a positive answer to all questions; the Moscow Patriarchate was given a mansion in Chisty Lane, where it is located to this day. Four days after this meeting, on September 8, 1943, a Council of Bishops was held in Moscow, in which 19 bishops took part. The Council elected Metropolitan Sergius patriarch and formed a Holy Synod with three permanent and three temporary members. The enthronement of the newly elected patriarch took place in the Epiphany Cathedral on September 12, 1943. Four days after this meeting, on September 8, 1943, the Bishops' Council took place in Moscow, in which 19 bishops took part. The Council elected Metropolitan Sergius patriarch and formed a Holy Synod with three permanent and three temporary members. The enthronement of the newly elected patriarch took place in the Epiphany Cathedral on September 12, 1943, the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War
On October 8, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was formed under the chairmanship of G.G. Karpov. This body was commissioned by the Soviet government to maintain contact with the Church and control over it. On October 8, the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was formed under the chairmanship of G.G. Karpov. This body was commissioned by the Soviet government to maintain contact with the Church and control over it. The period from September 1943 until the beginning of Khrushchev's persecutions in the late 1950s was for the Russian Orthodox Church a time of partial restoration of what was destroyed and destroyed during the Stalinist terror. The period from September 1943 until the beginning of Khrushchev's persecutions in the late 1950s was for the Russian Orthodox Church a time of partial restoration of what was destroyed and destroyed during the Stalinist terror. The state retained its atheistic character, and the Church remained largely outside public life. However, open persecutions were temporarily stopped. Many Orthodox parishes resumed their activities in the territories occupied by the Germans, but after the Red Army expelled the Germans from there, these parishes were no longer closed. The state retained its atheistic character, and the Church remained largely outside public life. However, open persecutions were temporarily stopped. Many Orthodox parishes resumed their activities in the territories occupied by the Germans, but after the Red Army expelled the Germans from there, these parishes were no longer closed. On September 12, 1943, the publication of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate was resumed. On September 12, 1943, the publication of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate was resumed. Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War
Alexy I On May 4, 1944, His Holiness Patriarch Sergius died, and Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. In 1945 ALEXY I (Simansky Sergei Vladimirovich) () was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. He headed the peace movement of the Russian Orthodox Church
After the end of the war ... In the post-war years, the numerical growth of the Russian Orthodox Church continued: as of January 1, 1949, the episcopate numbered 73 bishops, the number of functioning churches reached 75 monasteries, 2 theological academies and 8 seminaries functioned. In the postwar years, the numerical growth of the Russian Orthodox Church continued: as of January 1, 1949, the episcopate numbered 73 bishops, the number of functioning churches reached 75 monasteries, 2 theological academies and 8 seminaries functioned. After Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, many prisoners of conscience, including clergymen, were released. After Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, many prisoners of conscience, including clergymen, were released. Some bishops and priests returned from the camps and exiles. The number of registered Orthodox communities (parishes) as of January 1, 1957 was B. Some bishops and priests returned from the camps and exiles. The number of registered Orthodox communities (parishes) as of January 1, 1957 was, however, despite the "warming" in relations between the Church and the state, the Church was constantly under state control, and any attempts to expand its activities outside the walls of churches met with resistance, up to administrative sanctions. However, despite the "warming" in relations between the Church and the state, the Church was constantly under state control, and any attempts to expand its activities outside the walls of churches met with resistance, up to administrative sanctions.
Increased persecution under N.S. Khrushchev Since the late 1950s, there has been a new wave of pressure on the church. The rationale now was not political accusations, but the struggle against "religious vestiges" in the minds of people. Since the late 1950s, there has been a new wave of pressure on the church. The rationale now was not political accusations, but the struggle against "religious vestiges" in the minds of people. On October 16, 1958, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted new resolutions directed against the Church: "On monasteries in the USSR" and "On taxation of income of enterprises of diocesan administrations, as well as income of monasteries." They provided for the reduction of land allotments and the number of monasteries. On November 28, the CPSU Central Committee adopted a resolution “On Measures to End the Pilgrimage to the So-called“ Holy Places. ”To stop the pilgrimage of believers to the 700 holy places taken into account by the authorities, they took a variety of measures - they filled up the springs and destroyed the chapels above them, they were fenced off, near which police guards were posted to prevent the believers from admitting.In cases where the pilgrimage could not be stopped, its organizers were arrested.
Khrushchev's persecution was characterized not so much by open repressions against the clergy, as by powerful ideological pressure from the authorities seeking to destroy the Church from within and discredit in the eyes of the people. discredit in the eyes of the people To this end, the KGB began to offer priests to renounce God and enter the path of propaganda of "scientific atheism." The most famous among them was the professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy Alexander Osipov, who in 1959 publicly renounced the Church and God and engaged in atheistic propaganda. To this end, the KGB began offering priests to renounce God and enter the path of propaganda of "scientific atheism." A number of clerics publicly removed their dignity and engaged in state-funded atheist propaganda. The most famous among them was the professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy Alexander Osipov, who in 1959 publicly renounced the Church and God and engaged in atheistic propaganda. Khrushchev
Hundreds of temples were closed, many were immediately destroyed. More than 40 monasteries were closed, 5 out of 8 seminaries were liquidated, the publication of some church magazines was discontinued. Hundreds of temples were closed, many were immediately destroyed. More than 40 monasteries were closed, 5 out of 8 seminaries were liquidated, the publication of some church magazines was discontinued. The Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution "On strengthening control over the implementation of legislation on cults." 1962 - The Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution "On strengthening control over the implementation of legislation on cults." As a result, in 1961, 1,390 Orthodox parishes were deregistered, and in 1962 - Since January 1960, the number of churches has decreased by more than 30 %, and monasteries by almost 2.5 times. Since January 1960, the number of churches has decreased by more than 30%, and monasteries by almost 2.5 times. persecution Increased persecution under N.S. Khrushchev
Seeing what turn the new wave of persecution was taking, Patriarch Alexy I made an attempt to meet with the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, NS Khrushchev, to discuss the problems that had arisen in relations between the Church and the state, but this attempt ended in failure. Seeing what turn the new wave of persecution was taking, Patriarch Alexy I made an attempt to meet with the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, NS Khrushchev, to discuss the problems that had arisen in relations between the Church and the state, but this attempt ended in failure. In 1959, the authorities deregistered 364 Orthodox communities, in 1960 - In 1959, the authorities deregistered 364 Orthodox communities, in 1960 - the ringing of bells was banned. The ringing of bells was prohibited, two resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU appeared, called upon to introduce tough measures to curb the spread of religious ideas among children and youth, two resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU appeared, called upon to introduce tough measures to curb the spread of religious ideas among children and youth. The population was strictly forbidden to contact the Church under the threat of losing their jobs and places of study. The population was strictly forbidden to contact the Church under the threat of losing their jobs and places of study. Increased persecution under N.S. Khrushchev
The Russian Orthodox Church during the period of "stagnation" (years) After the resignation of Khrushchev and the coming to power in 1967, L.I. Brezhnev, the position of the Church has changed little. The size of the Russian Orthodox Church over the next 20 years changed only slightly: in 1988 the Church had 6,893 parishes, 22 monasteries, 2 theological academies and 3 seminaries (this is 630 less parishes and 6 more monasteries than in 1966). After the resignation of Khrushchev and the coming to power in 1967, L.I. Brezhnev, the position of the Church has changed little. The size of the Russian Orthodox Church over the next 20 years changed only slightly: in 1988 the Church had 6,893 parishes, 22 monasteries, 2 theological academies and 3 seminaries (this is 630 less parishes and 6 more monasteries than in 1966). The pressure on the Church was somewhat eased, but until the end of the 1980s, the Church remained a social outcast: it was impossible to openly profess Christianity and at the same time occupy any significant position in society. The number of churches, priests, students of theological schools and inhabitants of monasteries was strictly regulated, and missionary, educational and charitable activities were prohibited. The pressure on the Church was somewhat eased, but until the end of the 1980s, the Church remained a social outcast: it was impossible to openly profess Christianity and at the same time occupy any significant position in society. The number of churches, priests, students of theological schools and inhabitants of monasteries was strictly regulated, and missionary, educational and charitable activities were prohibited. All the activities of the Church were still under the strictest control of the secular authorities, which carried it out through the commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs, as well as through the ramified KGB apparatus. Some clergymen, especially those of the highest rank, were involved in cooperation with the KGB. All the activities of the Church were still under the strictest control of the secular authorities, which carried it out through the commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs, as well as through the ramified KGB apparatus. Some clergymen, especially those of the highest rank, were involved in cooperation with the KGB.
Pimen In 1970, Patriarch Alexy I died and at the 1971 Local Council Metropolitan Pimen (Sergey Izvekov) was elected as the new Patriarch () Patriarch Pimen pursued a loyal and conformist policy in the sphere of public life of the country. In 1971, under Pimen, at the Local Council in 1971, the Russian Orthodox Church officially recognized the Old Believers and removed all curses from them. In 1971, under Pimen, at the Local Council in 1971, the Russian Orthodox Church officially recognized the Old Believers and removed all curses from them.
Restructuring. Ending the persecution The period of the refusal by the leadership of the USSR from the policy of state atheism, when new parishes began to open en masse, the monastic life of some of the previously closed monasteries was resumed. On April 29, 1988, the Patriarch and permanent members of the Synod met with Mikhail Gorbachev "in connection with the 1000th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in Russia", which served as a signal for party and Soviet bodies to allow coverage of the celebration of the Jubilee as a national event. In the conversation, Mikhail Gorbachev noted that in the conditions of perestroika, a more active participation of religious leaders in the life of society became possible. And therefore it is no coincidence that in 1989 Patriarch Pimen was elected a People's Deputy of the USSR. In 1988, the Russian Orthodox Church celebrated the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus in 1988 on a grandiose scale. The main jubilee celebrations took place on July 5-12, 1988 in Zagorsk and Moscow. The celebration of the Anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' gave a powerful impetus to the revival and growth of the spiritual influence of the ROC. In 1988, the Russian Orthodox Church celebrated the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus in 1988 on a grandiose scale. The main jubilee celebrations took place on July 5-12, 1988 in Zagorsk and Moscow. The celebration of the Anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' gave a powerful impetus to the revival and growth of the spiritual influence of the ROC.
Alexy II In 1990, Patriarch Pimen died on June 7, 1990 at a local council in Moscow, Alexy II (in the world Ridiger Alexei Mikhailovich) was elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia ()
The collapse of the USSR The collapse of the USSR caused centrifugal tendencies in the church as well. On the territory of the former Soviet republics, independent from the Russian Orthodox Church began to be created (often with the support of the authorities) church structures... The collapse of the USSR caused centrifugal tendencies in the church as well. On the territory of the former Soviet republics, church structures independent of the Russian Orthodox Church began to be created (often with the support of the authorities). In conflict conditions, a certain number of parishes in Ukraine actually separated from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) was formed on their basis. In conflict conditions, a certain number of parishes in Ukraine actually separated from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) was formed on their basis. In Moldova, part of the parishes came under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate. In Moldova, part of the parishes came under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate. In Estonia, some parishes also left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, accepting the patronage of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In Estonia, some parishes also left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, accepting the patronage of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Legalization of the Church The full status of a legal entity was acquired by the Russian Orthodox Church on May 30, 1991, when the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR registered the Civil Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, approved by the Holy Synod on January 31 of the same year, which became possible with a change in the legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations in the USSR The full status of a legal entity was acquired by the Russian Orthodox Church on May 30, 1991, when the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR registered the Civil Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, approved by the Holy Synod on January 31 of the same year, which became possible with a change in the legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations in the USSR. , the legal status of the ROC was regulated by the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on religious associations of April 8, 1929, issued on the basis of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 20, 1918 On the separation of church from state and school from church. Prior to that, the legal status of the ROC was regulated by the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on religious associations of April 8, 1929, issued on the basis of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 20, 1918 On the separation of church from state and school from church.
The Russian Orthodox Church under Alexy II: The Patriarchate of Alexy II was characterized by a significant quantitative growth of parishes, monasteries, theological educational institutions, dioceses and clergy in all countries of the “canonical territory” of the Russian Orthodox Church. Patriarchate of Alexy II was characterized by a significant quantitative growth of parishes, monasteries, theological educational institutions, dioceses and persons clergy in all countries of the "canonical territory" of the ROC The role of the ROC and its leadership in the public policy of Russia and some other CIS countries is increasing. The role of the ROC and its leadership in the public policy of Russia and some other CIS countries is increasing. The Patriarchate of Constantinople (since 1995), associated with the claims of the Moscow Patriarchate for informal leadership in ecumenical (world) Orthodoxy. oh, with the claims of the Moscow Patriarchate to informal leadership in universal (world) Orthodoxy. In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas II and his family. In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas II and his family.
On May 17, 2007, the Act on Canonical Communion between the ROCOR and the ROC was signed, according to which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became "an integral self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church" The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became "an integral, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church." On October 2, 2007, speaking at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Alexy II expressed a negative attitude towards people of non-traditional sexual orientation, and also expressed the idea that civilization is threatened by the discrepancy between Christian morality and human rights, the defense of which is used to justify moral decline. On October 2, 2007, speaking at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Alexy II expressed a negative attitude towards people of non-traditional sexual orientation, and also expressed the idea that civilization is threatened by the discrepancy between Christian morality and human rights, the defense of which is used to justify moral decline. Russian Orthodox Church under Alexy II:
