The article describes the Russian Orthodox Church conciliar activity problems in the 20th century in the context of church-state relations in USSR during Khrushchev's persecutions of 1958–1964. The ...authors restore events of organization and holding the Council of Bishops in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius on July 18, 1961 based on church press materials: publication of the Council acts in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” and Archbishop Pavel's personal documents from State Archive of the Russian Federation (Fund “Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers” — State Archive of the Russian Federation, Stock 6991. L. 7. Dos. 73). Following that the authors analyse the reasons of the Council of Bishops convening in 1961, the main of which was the parish reform approval. The reform was implemented in all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church according to the Holy Synod resolution “About Measures to Improve the Existing System of Parish Life” from April 18, 1961. The authors focus on the protest reaction of Archbishop Yermogen (Golubev) and Bishop Pavel (Golyshev) to the parish reform, contradicted to the canonical norms by its nature and methods of implementation. The Parish Reform restored the pre-war principle of church administration based on the existing state legislation — Resolution of the All-Union Central Executive Committee and the USSR Council of People's Commissars “About Religious Associations” of 1929. This reform demoted the status of priest as principle church community leader into mere employee of a religious organization. Financial and economic activities of religious organizations became responsibility of executive parish board. The study has shown that the Bishops' Council of 1961, in which Bishop Pavel (Golyshev) of Astrakhan and Enotayevo participated, was another violent action of Soviet government against the Russian Orthodox Church. The Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers succeeded in breaking the Moscow Patriarchate's resistance: the question about parish administration was resolved according to the interests of the atheist state. Council of Bishops was convened and held with canonical violations. Despite this the episcopate did not put up adequate resistance to the civil authorities. “Regulations on the Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church” were changed by unanimous decision of the Council with the most disadvantageous (unfavorable) conditions for the Church.
In this publication, the reader is offered a note compiled by a well-known participant in the White Movement in the South of Russia, Priest Vladimir Vostokov, in connection with the decision of the ...Supreme Church Administration Abroad on August 19, 1922 to execute Decree No. 348 of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the united presence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council on the abolition of this very Administration. The decree became a turning point in the history of the Russian Church Abroad in the direction of its separation from the Moscow Patriarchate and the violation of its internal unity. In addition to discussing the decree, Father Vladimir makes a lengthy digression into history, describing the events of the Russian Revolution and the Civil War, assessing the leaders and participants of the White Movement, inevitably touching on the Jewish question, as well as the reasons for the defeat of the White Movement.
The article relates the history of restoration of Smolensk Dormition Cathedral, which is an outstanding monument of Russian history and culture. The restoration process coincided with the period of ...Khrushchev’s persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church (1959–1964). The author focuses on the archpastoral activities of Bishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh Innokenty (Sokal), who governed Smolensk diocese in 1959–1964. He continued the restoration of Smolensk Dormition Cathedral which was initiated by his predecessor Bishop Mikhail (Chub). Repair and restoration work in the cathedral took place under the control of the economic department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Governmental Council for the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers and local authorities. However, the work was financed exclusively by the Smolensk diocese and Smolensk Dormition Cathedral. The author describes in details the results of large-scale repair and restoration work. These efforts made it possible to restore the historical appearance of the majestic church monument despite the opposition from the authorized official of the Governmental Council for the Russian Orthodox Church affairs and local authorities. The articles also analyzes the reasons behind the failed attempts of the authorities to close Smolensk Dormition Cathedral, which after the restoration was completed has become a destination for foreign tourists and the largest parish of the Smolensk Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The article relates to the history of Smolensk Dormition Cathedral, an outstanding monument of the 17th–18th centuries, which played a pivotal role in the ecclesiastical life of Smolensk diocese ...(Russian Orthodox Church) in the second half of the 20th century. The author focuses on the archpastor activities of Mikhail (Chub), the Bishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, who governed Smolensk diocese at the dawn of Khrushchev’s initial phase of the persecution of Russian Orthodox Church (1955–1959). Large-scale restoration of outstanding church monuments of Smolensk region was initiated by Bishop Mikhail. First of all it included Smolensk Dormition Cathedral, which required huge financial expenses and painstaking joint work of the church and state institutions. The author’s detailed description of the Cathedral repair and restoration process is based on documents both from church and state archives. Also the study analyses relations between Bishop Mikhail and Patriarch Alexis I, on one hand, and the official of the Council for the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs in Smolensk region, representatives of the USSR Ministry of Culture, and the economic department of the Moscow Patriarchate, on the other hand. The process of the Smolensk Cathedral restoration occurred on the backdrop of rapidly deteriorating church-state relations during the rule of N. S. Khrushchev. Nevertheless, Bishop Mikhail was able to carry out large-scale restoration plans despite the tension between church and state, and also despite opposition from the authorized official of the Governmental Council for the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs and local authorities. Unfortunately, the bishop’s activities carried negative consequences for his future ministry.
Father Dimitri Dudko’s fame as a popular 1970s Soviet Orthodox priest and his public ‘recantating’ and subsequent disgrace in 1980 shed light on several aspects of religion in the late Cold War. ...Diasporas like the ROCOR fostered practices and beliefs-especially conservative ones-forced to go underground in the homeland. Soviet atheism responded to revived religious practice worldwide, with Dudko’s persecution being a part of that response. The formal and informal relationships between ROCOR clerics and Dudko, and between Dudko and the KGB, suggest that Dudko’s apparent about-face may have had deeper roots and longer-lasting effects than previously suspected.
The article describes church-state relations and in-church life in the USSR during the period of N. S. Khrushchev’s government. The authors have studied the Orthodox Church parish administration ...during the Khrushchev’s persecution in 1958–1964 based on the documents of central and regional archives. Parish administration became one of the key issues in launching another anti-religious campaign of the USSR authorities which was geared towards destroying church life and the Russian Orthodox Church as a social institution. The work analyses a major aspect of the “Khrushchev” persecution — the “parish reform” of 1961. This reform changed the status of priest from the principal and church community leader (according to the “Regulation on the Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church”, adopted at the Local Council in 1945) to the position of an employee of a religious organization (in accordance with the current state legislation — Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Soviet Union’s Council of People’s Commissars “On Religious Associations” of 1929). The authors focus on the targeted actions of the state authorities (CPSU Central Committee, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Council for the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers) to force the Moscow Patriarchate to implement the “parish reform”. At the same time the authors show the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church episcopate to this anti-Church position such as delay of Moscow Patriarchate leaders — Patriarch Alexy I and Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) in implementation the government requirements as well as some hierarchs’ protests against the “parish reform”. The study proves that the episcopate and the clergy were under the government dictate. Priests lost their leading role in the parish and were suspended from the financial and economic activities of religious organizations with the entry into force of a new Holy Synod resolution «On Measures to Improve the Existing Structure of Parish Life» (April 18, 1961). The “Parish reform” was adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate with canonical violations. Such Synodical decision required further approval by the Council of Bishops.
Background. The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the need of resistance the stable negative phenomena of Russian everyday life such as drunkenness and alcoholism. The purpose of the ...study is to analyze the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in overcoming national drunkenness, as well as the forms and methods of the struggle for sobriety in a historical retrospective. Materials and methods. The article analyzes the views of representatives of the Orthodox clergy on the problem of national drunkenness and the need to fight for sobriety, as well as the practice of social interaction of the Russian Church by different stratum of society in organizing the fight for sobriety. The materials of the Penza Diocesan Journal (1866–1917) were used as a source for studying this problem. The research methodology is based on the principles of a systematic approach to the consideration of the history of everyday life in Russian society. The diachronic method was used to analyze the problem in historical retrospective, while the synchronic method made it possible to show the activities of the Russian Church against the background of ongoing historical events. Results. The attitude of the Orthodox clergy to the problem of public drunkenness in general is investigated, and the views of specific clergy on the causes of the spread of social vices in society and ways to overcome them are characterized. The practices of social interaction of the clergy with parishioners in the post-reform period – after the abolition of serfdom and in the conditions of the beginning revolutionary crisis (1866–1917) are described. In organizing the struggle for sobriety, the Orthodox clergy preferred the method of persuasion through preaching (teachings, religious and moral readings, etc.). However, the creation of numerous sobriety societies confirms the desire of the clergy beyond the framework of liturgical activities to draw public attention to this problem and unite all classes to eradicate social vices. Conclusions. The analysis of publications in the Penza Diocesan Journal convinces that the Russian Church has historically treated drunkenness as a vice of society, which it sought to fight, relying on the healthy moral forces of society itself. The Orthodox clergy, participating in the life of the people on a daily basis, were more acutely aware of the perniciousness of the spread of alcoholism among all strata of society, including children. The Church not only appealed to the flock with the condemnation of pernicious vice through the word of preaching, but also called for the cooperation of the state, zemstvos, public organizations, the people’s school, the intellectual. The Church movement for the creation of sobriety societies turned into one of the influential factors of public life at the turn of the 19th– 20th centuries.
This article describes church-state relations and church life in the USSR during the Khrushchev’s antireligious campaign of 1958–1964. Based on the documents from the State Archive of the Russian ...Federation the author studies relations between the religious leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church and regional representatives of the governmental Council for the Affairs of Russian Orthodox Church under the USSR Council of Ministers. The study analyzes church-state relations and church life in the Kalinin region at the initial phase of the Khrushchev’s persecution, when in 1958–1960 the Kalinin and Kashin diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church was governed by Bishop Theodosius (Pogorsky). The author focuses on both the bishop’s active work to strengthen church life in the region (such as preserving the existing and opening new churches, supporting weak village church communities) and V. I. Khevronov’s destructive policy to weaken the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Kalinin region. The target of Khevronov as a Regional Chair of Governmental Council for the Russian Orthodox Church Affairs under USSR Council of Ministers was to compromise and limit the activity of local clergy. The study reveals that Bishop Theodosius (Pogorsky) of Kalinin and Kashin and Representative of the Council of the ROC Affairs had been in a situation of impasse which escalated into an open conflict. V. I. Khevronov abused his rights and violated the state legislation. It was a typical example of that period regarding how canonical episcopal authority was discredited by regional representatives of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC in many regions of the Soviet Union during the “Khrushchev Thaw”.
Within some religious collectivities, the use of digital media for rituals, gaining religious knowledge and community gatherings may be seen as a challenge to religious identity, thus provoking ...different attitudes. Drawing on practice theory of Schatzki, we analyse different attitudes to digital practices expressed by members of the Russian Orthodox Church as shaped by their perception of the affordances of digital media and practice normativity. Developing previous studies, we demonstrate that the normative assessment of digital practices becomes significant mainly for developing critical arguments. Approval of digital practices does not depend solely on religious norms, but also on users’ experience of leveraging digital media affordances. We show that acceptance and critique are not mutually exclusive, as both types of argument are intertwined.
The article examines the reactions within the Russian Orthodox Church to the coronavirus pandemic, especially its first year of 2020. Based on materials from the official institutions, press, ...religious and secular Internet portals, and online forums, the article systematizes the nature of the responses of church leadership, priests, and laity to the unprecedented curtailment of liturgical practices and social interactions during the quarantine period. The extraordinary challenges of the period of the pandemic made evident some important trends in the rhetoric and practices of the Orthodox environment and reveal tensions that are rooted in the ambivalent relationship of religious culture with the key epistemes of late modern society.
