Historical role, the father Nikolay, in unity of our church

Kobrin → Outstanding persons

Priest Alexander Mazyrin,
master of divinity, k.i.n.,
associate professor of PSTGU (Moscow)

Participation of the Ukrainian bishops in affairs of the highest church management of Russian Orthodox Church at the Patriarchal Locum tenens metropolitan Pyotr (Polyansk) and its deputies the metropolitan Sergiya (Stragorodsk) and the archbishop Serafim (Samoylovich)

In the contemporary history of Russian Orthodox Church it is possible to allocate the period of special strengthening of influence of the Ukrainian bishops on the course of general church affairs is the time which came after death St. The patriarch Tikhon, at the Patriarchal Locum tenens metropolitan Pyotr and his deputies. At the separate moments "the Ukrainian factor" became even, to some extent, defining in succession of events. It is impossible to tell that in the existing church and historical literature this circumstance is estimated properly. To pay attention to it and the present report is called.

The big involvement into affairs of the church center of bishops of Ukraine in the mid-twenties not least was explained by the fact that many of them then were administratively sent by the local Ukrainian authorities to Moscow (those years such strange measure of punishment practiced very actively). To fall of 1925 in Moscow there was the Exarch of Ukraine metropolitan (titulyarno "Grodno") Mikhail (Ermakov), archbishops the Chernihiv Pakhomy (Cedars) and the Kherson Prokopy (Titov), bishops the Kamyanets-Podilsky Ambrose (Polyansky), Ananyevsky Parfeny (Bryansk) and Glukhovsky Damaskin (Tsedrik). The number of orthodox Ukrainian bishops in Moscow became comparable to their number in Ukraine. Danilov the monastery which since emergence of an obnovlenchestvo was famous for the hardness in Orthodoxy was the place of stay of most of the Ukrainian bishops in Moscow. In general in the capital efforts of OGPU concentrated then about sixty bishops of Patriarchal Church. Perhaps, the Ukrainian bishops in such impressive meeting would also not be noticeable if they were not allocated with the high authority in church circles. Recognized it – that is especially important – and the Patriarchal Locum tenens metropolitan Pyotr. Later, in 1926, the metropolitan Pyotr showed on interrogation: "As for bishops with whose opinion I reckoned especially, it: Nikolay Dobronravov, Pakhomy, Prokopy, Ambrose and others". It is visible that from four bishops to whom the Locum tenens especially trusted three were Ukrainian (the fourth – the archbishop Nikolay – occupied Vladimiro-Suzdalsky department).

Impact which was exerted on the Locum tenens by the Ukrainian bishops - "danilovets" went in the direction of resistance to pressure from the godless power in the person of OGPU. The power tried to impose to the metropolitan Pyotr crushing terms of legalization of the highest management of Patriarchal Church (unlike obnovlenchesky, it was not legalized), its submission to control to the Soviet bodies of state security, fight against political opponents of the Bolshevist mode in church ranks (foreign and internal) etc. "Danilovtsa" convinced the Locum tenens not to make the concessions to the power humiliating Church. In it they were supported also by other church figures, in particular the former ober-prosecutor of the Holy Synod V. K. Sabler (Desyatovsky). In this respect later (in March, 1926) V. K. Sabler showed: "I remember, for example, that through [arkh] of the bishop Prokopy I advised Pyotr to refrain from legalization of the church connected with such proofs of loyalty in relation to Sovvlasti as trial of foreign emigrant churchmen (for their counterrevolutionary activity)". The metropolitan Pyotr quite accepted councils of this sort and did not allow to turn himself into the tool of Bolsheviks on fight against "church counterrevolution". Certainly, such position of the Locum tenens and hierarches close to it extremely irritated the power. As a result, proupravlyav Russian Orthodox Church only eight months, the metropolitan Pyotr in December, 1925 was arrested. With it also all Ukrainian hierarches who were then in Moscow were arrested.

With arrest of the Patriarchal Locum tenens the Orthodox Russian Church was not beheaded as some days before the elimination the metropolitan Pyotr managed to appoint to himself deputies, first of which the metropolitan Nizhny Novgorod Sergy was specified. Its accession to management of Church happened in extremely heavy situation. The situation essentially differed from that in which taking office of the Patriarchal Locum tenens metropolitan Pyotr happened eight months earlier. Then the statement of the new Head of the Russian Church was accompanied by signing of the special act by nearly sixty bishops who fastened with that will of the late Patriarch. In turn, the prelate Tikhon received the sanction (more precisely, even an assignment) on such will from the Local Council of 1917-1918. The metropolitan Sergy deprived to all other of the right of departure from Nizhny Novgorod held only the testamentary order of the metropolitan Pyotr of which contents it was only necessary to inform wide layers of the episcopate and to gain from them recognition of the powers. It besides that precedents of fulfillment of duties of the Primate out of Moscow since 1917 were not yet, and in the capital in the former rooms of the Patriarch Tikhon in Donskoy Monastery with secret support of OGPU at the same time it was samochinno organized and the alternative body of the higher church authority – so-called "The Supreme Temporary Church Council" (STCC) headed by the archbishop Sverdlovsk Grigory (Yatskovsky) was quickly legalized. By name the archbishop Grigory new split received the name of Gregorian. At this critical moment decisive support to the metropolitan Sergy was given by Ukrainian hierarches.

In Moscow as it was told, the Ukrainian hierarches then were arrested everything, but in the territory of the most Soviet Ukraine by the end of 1925 still there were more than ten orthodox bishops mostly concentrated in its capital – Kharkiv. The situation was not less difficult there, than in the center. In the summer of 1925 on the nationalist soil the next split headed by the vicar of the Poltava diocese bishop Lubensky Feofil (Buldovsky) with whom orthodox bishops led resolute fight was issued. Preosvyashchenny Vasily (Zelentsov), the former member of the Local Council of 1917-1918 from laymen became the most active opponent of newly appeared Lubyansk split shortly before that hirotonisanny in the bishop Priluksky, the vicar of the Poltava diocese. Thanks to vigorous actions of the bishop Vasily and his assistants by December, 1925 the act of disfrocking of the bishop Theophilus and of his excommunication signed by twelve Ukrainian bishops and other Lubyansk raskolouchitel was born. Then orthodox Ukrainian bishops addressed to Moscow the Exarch of Ukraine for support.

The metropolitan Mikhail meanwhile after a number of summonses for interrogations in the matter of the metropolitan Pyotr on December 24 was released on recognizance from Moscow. Grigoriane tried to involve him in the illegal VVTsS, and nearly as the chairman. The bishop Boris (Rukin) – the second person in split after the archbishop Grigory wrote about it in 1927: "Bishops at first addressed the metropolitan Kiev Mikhail, but that rejected from itself(himself) initiation of the petition before the Civil Power for permission of meeting and about organization of the meeting of Bishops". It is necessary to notice that Kiev the metropolitan Mikhail then was not still approved. Looking at that titulatura which was used by the bishop Boris, it is visible that if the Ukrainian Exarch accepted then the offer to head VVTsS, this newly appeared body of the higher church authority would not slow down with approval it at department of Mother of the cities of Russians. The Most eminent Mikhail had a choice: or to head new split and to become quite legal, but not quite kanonichny metropolitan Kiev, or to join persecuted orthodox bishops of Ukraine in their fight against dissenters-lubentsami, too quite legal, but not so kanonichny. The metropolitan Mikhail chose the second. In the same December, 1925 it supported the act of twelve Ukrainian bishops of Buldovsky's excommunication and the company from Church.

At this moment the metropolitan Sergy made the important course. On January 5, 1926 he approved the resolution of thirteen bishops of Ukraine on "leaders of Lubyansk split", having rendered, on the one hand, initial support very necessary to them, with another, having shown own powers, then still very few people recognized. "Leaders", however, did not calm down and made the complaint in VVTsS which in the heat of fight against the metropolitan Sergy declared them on March 8, 1926 restored in a dignity, than forever cut from itself(himself) the vast majority of Orthodox Christians of Ukraine. The answer followed immediately. On March 12 the same year the orthodox bishops who were in Kiev and Kharkiv sent to Moscow to the Exarch of Ukraine metropolitan Mikhail the report on measures of initial influence concerning organizers of VVTsS: "Present we have honor most respectfully to inform your Eminence that we, the undersigneds, quite share opinion of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum tenens and your Shrine on the bishops who dared to commit breach of in December, 1925 the peace church and again lifted a distemper in January, 1926 – usurpers of the power of the Patriarchal Locum tenens and his initial successors. We find necessary against violators of a church law and order immediate acceptance of the most drastic measures". The metropolitan Mikhail immediately joined this condemnation of VVTsS. So, in some sense by itself, there was a delimitation: on the one hand – orthodox Ukrainian hierarches headed by the Exarch metropolitan Mikhail and the Deputy Patriarchal Locum tenens metropolitan Sergy supporting them, with another – the Lubyansk and Gregorian dissenters who are blocked with each other.

Support of the Ukrainian bishops (as well as him for them) was very essential to the metropolitan Sergiya. To it the help of the bishop Vasily (Zelentsov) allocated with the activity was especially valuable. As the former member of the Local Council bishop Vasily still before the metropolitan Sergy managed to enter polemic with grigoriana, sent quickly (on January 4, 1926) it the official report in which he in detail (though not absolutely precisely) described Cathedral assignment history to the Most Saint Tikhon to appoint to itself deputies that the Patriarch immediately also made. The metropolitan Sergy just at that moment needed to prove legality of a testamentary way of ensuring succession of the higher church authority, and the official report of the bishop Vasily very was useful to it and in dispute with the archbishop Grigory, and in the subsequent fight against those who rejected his zamestitelsky powers. The Deputy adopted also tactics of fight worked the bishop Vasily in 1925 on lubenets by means of petition of orthodox bishops. In different occasions hierarchal signatures gathered then all 1926.

Grigoriane were also forced to admit the fact of the support given to the metropolitan Sergy from the episcopate, though tried to diminish it. "The m is [itropolit] by Sergy, – the bishop Boris wrote, – recognized obviously illegal the action; so it to legalize it, about a month later or one and a half after that, collects signatures for a justification of the actions among bishops. From 40 bishops staying in Moscow, such signatures at different times gave 15 bishops, almost all former zhivotserkovnik and one former samosvit […]; were 9 more Ukrainian". Actually, the number of the bishops who supported (in writing) the metropolitan Sergiya was more, than the indignant bishop Boris specified. Among them there were also repentant obnovlenets (as well as in VVTsS), but not the majority at all, and about a samosvyat he just thought up. "However, it would be unfair to blame m [itropolit] of Sergy of one for his acts, – the archbishop Grigory "acquitted" in turn the Deputy. – As we see, it has accomplices who support him, and m. also direct as it though the person and not really old, but considerably grown decrepit. At first it the bishop Staritsky – Pyotr Zverev directed […], and then when this figure calmed down at department of the Voronezh archbishop, to it on change other, less large, but not less zealous employees like the bishop Prilutsky Vasily Zelentsov – the initiator of any prohibitions in Ukraine and in Moscow acted".

Carrying out a role coherent between the Ukrainian bishops and owing to this fact very informed Kiev resident G. A. Kostkevich subsequently in 1931 described in the indications on interrogation of an event of the end of the 1925th – the beginnings of 1926 as follows: "Since December, 1925 the arisen dispute because of the power between m [itropolity] by Sergy Stragorodsky and VVTsS was the first episode in which the organization, and in particular its Ukrainian groups, exerted decisive impact on the course of events. Estimating VVTsS as the group which headed for the agreement with sovvlastyyu the organization used the best efforts and all the influence to solve this dispute in favor of m [itropolit] of Sergy. For this purpose the All-Ukrainian center in Kharkiv made a number of appeals to m [itropolit] to Sergy, demanding from it resolute fight against VVTsS, imposing on its participants of church prohibitions and expressing it full support and trust. These appeals signed by members of the center, bishops in Kharkiv were then are brought by the special courier sv [yashchennik] Piskanovsky to Poltava, Kiev and Zhytomyr in what cities of Piskanovsky collected signatures of bishops under this address. Then he went to Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod to m [itropolit] to Sergy. On the way back it brought information on the course of events.

Its trips were strictly secret, he received funds for them from the Kharkiv center, and also bishops, etc. cities placed directly to it money according to the offer of the All-Ukrainian center. At the same time by mail from Kharkiv, from the center the hand-written literature directed against VVTsS turned out. […] This literature consisted of anonymous addresses, messages, open letters, and also of messages of m [itropolit] of Sergiya and his correspondence with leaders of VVTsS. Contents it and the purpose was reduced to discredit of VVTsS and to achievement, thus, of general support of m [itropolit] of Sergiya".

To spring of 1926 the Gregorian split in Russia and Lubyansk in Ukraine were localized. Dissenters behind whom there was a power could take much stronger positions, but thanks to mutual support of the Deputy Mestoblyustitel and orthodox Ukrainian bishops of it did not occur. However the arsenal of anti-church provocations of OGPU was not settled by the lubensko-Gregorian intrigue. There came the turn of the following collision which main character the metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl had to become.

Unlike the Gregorian VVTsS the metropolitan Agafangel, the oldest at that time on a dignity and a hirotoniya the hierarch of Russian Orthodox Church, had legitimate rights for the higher church authority: it was specified by the second candidate for Locum tenens still Patriarch Tikhon in January, 1925. However circumstances of its return from the reference (after negotiations with the chief of the 6th office of Confidential department of OGPU E. A. Tuchkov) and the hasty announcement of guarded with the Locum tenens in April, 1926 the episcopate. Soon and the metropolitan Sergy declared that he cannot refuse the obligations for management of Church as on it there was no izvoleniye of the metropolitan Pyotr though actually and discharged of affairs, but any church court of the mestoblyustitelsky title which is not deprived.

Priest N. N. Piskanovsky. Middle of the 1920th years

And again, as well as in the history from grigoriana, the metropolitan Sergiya was supported first of all by orthodox bishops of Ukraine, including the most active of them at that moment – the bishop Vasily (Zelentsov). On May 6, 1926 he addressed the metropolitan Agafangel with the open letter containing a protest against its actions. Fifteen hierarches, according to some information, joined the letter of the bishop Vasily. Most likely, the archpriest Mikhail Polsky wrote about the open letter of the bishop Vasily: "The group of bishops openly and fearlessly wrote m [itropolit] to Agafangel that she is afraid whether he fell "a victim of special processing from foes of Orthodox Church when the bishop is isolated from others, pass to it data of the lighting and push it on the actions harmful to Church though he also wished to bring them only benefit"". The letter from Ukraine to the Yaroslavl metropolitan was delivered on May 19 by the priest Nikolay Piskanovsky. Soon after that it made the document under the name "Interview with the Metropolitan Agafangel" in which described the meetings (them was a little) with the Yaroslavl applicant for locum-tenency. "Interview" began with the message of the Ukrainian envoy that he "brought the private letter ep Vasily Priluksky's [iskopa] with the decision of orthodox bishops of Ukraine": "Orthodox bishops of Ukraine recognize m [itropolit] of Pyotr as the Patriarchal Locum tenens, and your Eminence ask to leave the undertaking". Such statement made considerable impression on the metropolitan Agafangel, and though the Ukrainian messenger, apparently, did not differ in excessive tactfulness, the oldest hierarch tried to state in detail to it the vision a situation, the birth of the specified "Interview" with it became result of what.

During developed then polemics of two metropolitans – Sergiya and Agafangel – the envoy of the Ukrainian bishops priest Nikolay Piskanovsky acted as the courier between them. On June 17, 1926 it delivered to the metropolitan Agafangel the letter of the metropolitan Sergiya with the categorical requirement to refuse the claims on locum-tenency. "I zemno bowed, – the author of "Interview" described that meeting with the Yaroslavl metropolitan, – and asked m [itropolit] And [gafangel] that for the benefit of Church it sent to m [itropolit] From [erga] yu the refusal of Locum-tenency. He answered it: "You believe, in it there will be a benefit for Church if I refuse? Remember my word that it not to the benefit of Church …"" However, despite doubts, evening of the same day the metropolitan Agafangel handed to the messenger the answer. "Yes, I was bypassed, – he told, – I did not know position of Church and mood of masses … I refuse Locum-tenency and I write [itropolita] to Sergy about this m; I ask to give me the receipt". "According to its requirement, – the priest Nikolay Piskanovsky finished the description, – I gave the receipt and since the envelope was sealed, he unpacked it and allowed to make the copy for Ukraine. At parting he told that it is only florets, and berries ahead …"
G. A. Kostkevich in the indications rather in detail described also the events connected with the metropolitan Agafangel (it is necessary to remember a situation of emergence of these indications, she explains their politized sounding and use of such expressions as "organization", "the counterrevolutionary line"). In particular, Kostkevich showed: "In April of the same 1926 the phenomena, similar, in connection with performance of m [itropolit] of Agafangel and his new dispute because of the power from m [itropolit] by Sergy repeated. […] Suspecting m [itropolit] of Agafangel of aspiration to go on the agreement with Sovvlastyyu, the organization, obviously, saw in his face danger to carrying out to [ontr] r the [evolutionary] line in church life which it carried out and therefore all the time again again, as well as at VVTsS, the All-Ukrainian center took the lead to support m [itropolit] of Sergiya in his fight against m [itropolity] by Agafangel. Again with a number of the appeals signed by members of the Kharkiv center, Piskanovsky made a detour of the cities of Ukraine – Poltava, Kiev, Zhytomyr and having collected signatures of bishops brought to their m [itropolit] Sergiya to Nizhny Novgorod and to m [itropolit] to Agafangel to Yaroslavl. […] The sense of these papers was reduced to expression of support of m [itropolite] Sergiya and to council to it not to stop before anything, imposing preshcheniye on m [itropolit] of Agafangel, and in the offer of m [itropolita] to Agafangel to refuse claims on locum-tenency with expression to it mistrust. […]

As a result of these resolute performances of the organization she achieved that its influence on church events triumphed. VVTsS and m are [itropolit] by Agafangel quitted the stage, at the head tserk [aries] the administrator of [istrativny] management was approved by m Sergy whose all subsequent policy was direct expression of a basic course of the organization [itropolit]".

Counteraction of the metropolitan Sergy to applicants for the church power, more desirable for OGPU, certainly, did it and the bishops supporting him very vulnerable before repressions from the power. In the summer of 1926 the tireless bishop Vasily (Zelentsov) was arrested, the Exarch of Ukraine metropolitan Mikhail was sent from Moscow into the North Caucasus, in the fall of the same year of repression concerned also some other the Ukrainian bishops. In December of the 1926th, after unsuccessful attempt of carrying out secret elections of the Patriarch (the Ukrainian bishops took part in it) also the metropolitan Sergy was arrested. Extreme impoverishment of the bailed orthodox bishops turned out to be consequence of all these events. As a result at the end of 1926 for temporary fulfillment of duties of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum tenens there was no more prominent bishop, than the vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese archbishop Uglichsky Serafim (Samoylovich).

The archbishop Serafim was from the city of Myrgorod of the Poltava province and was a descendant of the hetman Ivan Samoylovich, the predecessor Mazepa. Since the Petrovsky Locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne of the metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky) the archbishop Serafim (Samoylovich) became the first Ukrainian who got up in the head of department of Russian Orthodox Church. The board it, however, proceeded not for long – exactly hundred days, and the archbishop Serafim had to fulfill the duties in the conditions which are extremely constrained because of counteraction by OGPU.

In G. A. Kostkevich's testimonies about this moment it was told so: "In December, 1926 I received news of arrest from [bishop Ekaterinoslavsky Makari] of Karmazin and Stragorodsky in Nizhny Novgorod and transfer to it put managements to Samoylovich (arkh to [iyepiskop]. Uglichsky). As in connection with all these arrests the all-Union center of the organization, obviously, ceased to exist, and All-Ukrainian, though extremely weakened, after all existed, it sent to Uglich to Samoylovich the courier Piskanovsky to find out mood and as far as possible to defend the former line of the organization in church policy and to establish relation with new Highest Church Management. When there went Piskanovsky to Uglich, I definitely do not remember, I know only that it brought data on future policy of Samoylovich, soothing for the organization, and also his message granting the broad rights of self-government on places".

In April, 1927, after three and a half months of stay in the conclusion, the metropolitan Sergy was released and returned to fulfillment of duties of the Deputy Mestoblyustitel. The church policy pursued by it since then had already significantly other focus, partial legalization of the highest church management headed by it represented by the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Sacred Synod" became result of what in May of the same year. In this Synod the Ukrainian episcopate was presented by the bishop Sumy Konstantin (Dyakov) who in November, 1927 occupied the Kharkiv department in the archbishop's dignity. Since December, 1927 under Synod acts also the signature of the Exarch of Ukraine metropolitan Mikhail approved, at last, at the Kiev department who returned from exile incidentally began to appear. The archbishop Samara Anatoly (Grisyuk) transferred in the spring of 1928 to the Odessa department was a permanent member of the Temporary Synod since summer of 1927. Participation of the Ukrainian bishops in work of the highest church management gained more formalized character, though in the late twenties – the 1930th years they several times proved very brightly, and not only those who sat at the Synod, but also those who were discharged of affairs (for example, bishops Damaskin (Tsedrik) and Ambrose (Polyansky)). The story about it, however, does not hold in a limited framework of the report any more.

Priest Alexander Mazyrin, 01.12.2009, "UPTs Bulletin", No. 99

Navigation







Our partners