St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series II: History. Russian Church History

The paper presents results of research into the genealogy of the two Russian hieromartyrs: Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich Vladimir (his secular name was Vasilii Nikiforovich Bogoiavlenskii, 1848–1918) and Archbishop of Chernigov and Nezhin Vasilii (Vasilii Dmitriievich Bogoiavlenskii, 1867–1918). Special attention is paid to the problem of their kinship and to the refutation of the false accusation of nepotism made by their persecutors in 1917. The paper also introduces previously unpublished documents from Tambov State Archive. Being relatives of Archbishop Vasilii, the authors have used the oral information preserved in their family as well as their home archive. As a result, Archbishop Vasilii’s genealogy has been traced down to the end of the 18th century. The paper also refutes the version that Vasilii Nikiforovich Bogoiavlenskii and Vasilii Dmitriievich Bogoiavlenskii were cousins or uncle and nephew. Nevertheless, Metropolitan Vladimir and Archbishop Vasily might have been distant relatives, namely third cousins. Their progenitor might have been a certain Timofei, who lived in Morshansk district at the end of the 18th century.

Hieromartyr Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich Vladimir (Bogoiavlenskii), Hieromartyr Archbishop of Chernigov and Nezhin Vasily (Bogoiavlenskii), new holy martyrs of Russia, Russian genealogy, genealogy of Tambov priests, Tambov diocese of Russian Orthodox

Galkin A., Damaskin (Orlovsky), igum., “Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky Vasily Nikiforovich)”, in: Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow, 2004, VIII, 629-634.
Damaskin (Orlovsky), igum., Kalganov K., “Vasily (Bogoyavlensky Vasily Dmitriyevich)”, in: Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow, 2004, VII, 37-38.
Logunova E., Tarasenko A. “Svyashchennomuchenik Vasily (Bogoyavlensky): voskhozhdeniye na Golgofu: biografi chesky ocherk”, in: E. Logunova, A. Tarasenko, sost. i avt. vstup. st., Svyashchennomuchenik Vasily (Bogoyavlensky), Arkhiyepiskop Chernigovsky i Nezhinsky: Materialy k zhizneopisaniyu, Moscow, 2014, 6-60.
Logunova E., Nekotoriye versii obstoyatelstv ubiystva sshchmch.Vasiliya (Bogoyavlenskogo), Arkhiyepiskopa Chernigovskogo i Nezhinskogo, available at: http://chdu.cerkov.ru/2015/02/06/ko-dnyu-pamyati-novomuchenikov-i-ispovednikov/ ( 24.01.2016).
Lyovin O., Tambovsky period v zhiznisshchmch. Vladimira Bogoyavlenskogo, available at: http://www.proza.ru/2013/06/08/714 (24.01.2016).
“Mitropolit Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky)”, in: Istotiya Tambovskoy mitropolii: dokumenty, issledovaniya, litsa: Sobor Tambovskikh svyatykh, available at: http://www.tambovdoc.ru/litsa/sobor-tambovskih-svyatyh/mitropolit-vladimir-bogoyavlenskiy.php (24.01.2016).

Liutova Svetlana

The paper examines main characteristics, structure and functions of church vestries in North Tobol region during the period of 1810–1860. It is concluded that the church vestry as a governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Synodal period acted as an information mediator between the diocese and parish. As a rule, the church vestry exercised the authority over a particular district or part of it. Responsibilities of vestries were mainly limited to gathering and interpreting various pieces of information, overseeing the accounting and documentation of the parish clergy, fining the clergy and laymen for minor misconduct, and distributing the consistory’s decrees. The paper also demonstrates that vestries were collegial units, where decrees of the diocese, as well as reports and presentations of its members were discussed. It should be noted that boundaries of the district under the vestry’s jurisdiction were vague and not clearly marked. The common drawback of the vestries, as part of church administration, was the ambiguity in definition and description of roles and responsibilities. It was discovered that the remoteness of church administration from the majority of its parishes was specific to North Tobol region. It is concluded that church vestries were set up as administrative and organisational centres, and played a significant role in the administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, in the course of time the vestries started to lose their original role, becoming a redundant mediator in diocese and parish relations, which, in turn, led to the full abandonment of church vestries.

church vestries, diocese, North Tobol region, clergy, parish, political division, archpriest, clergy of the parish

Adamenko A., Prikhody Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi na iuge Zapadnoi Sibiri v XVII – nachale XX veka, Kemerovo, 2004.
Alekseeva S., Sviateishii Sinod v sisteme vysshikh i tsentral’nykh gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii poreformennoi Rossii 1856– 1904 gg., St. Petersburg, 2003.
Golovin P. “KondinskiiTroitskii monastyr”, in: Tobol’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, 1892, 3-4, Otd. neofi ts., 68-81.
Dobroklonskii A., Rukovodstvo po istorii Russkoi tserkvi: Materialy po istorii russkoi tserkvi, Moscow, 1999.
Dulov A., Sannikov A., Pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v Vostochnoi Sibiri v XVII — nachala XX vekov, Irkutsk, 2006, . II, 25-31.
Evdokimova A., “Dukhovnaia konsistoriia, pravlenie i blagochinnye sviashchenniki v structure upravleniia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi na territorii Chuvashskogo kraia v XIX veke” in: Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta, 2015, 2, 31-38.
Zol’nikova N., Sibirskaia prikhodskaia obshchina v XVIII veke, Novosibirsk, 1990.
Sergeev V., “Otkrytie Permskoi i Orenburgskoi eparkhii v 1799 godu”, in: Tobol’skie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, 1883, 22, Otd. neofi ts., 460-468.
Sulotskii A., Sochineniia v trekh tomakh, V. A. Chupina, red., T. 2: O sibirskom dukhovenstve, Tiumen’, 2000.
Pul’kin M., Pravoslavnyi prikhod i vlast’ v sere-dine XVIII — nachale XX v. (po materialam Olonetskoi eparkhii), Petrozavodsk, 2009.
Tsypin V., prot., “Dukhovnye pravleniia”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2007, 16, 423-424.

Tsys’ Olga

The paper deals with the interaction between Athos and Podon’e in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in connection with the restoration of Shatrishchegorsky cave monasteryin Voronezh guberniya. The analysis of the religious situation in both regions is based on the study of some new sources from the Russian State Historical Archive. These sources show the development of monastic traditions in the region and allow us to give a concrete example. In the late 19th century the monks from Athos Diodor (Kotliarov) and Tikhon (Prisiazhnyi) tried to restore Shatrishchegorskii monastery in Podon’e, which was closed under the Secularising Reform of 1764. Their choice was conditioned by the fact that in the late 19th century undeservedly forgotten holy places of the land of Don were well-known in Athos. The attempt of Diodor and Tikhon failed despite local people’s support. Voronezh regional authorities traditionally did not support communities that were forming within the popular Orthodoxy and aimed to create cave monasteries. Local authorities considered such attempts as potentially leading to the spread of superstitions and schism.

Athos, Podon’e, monasticism, caves, Shatrishchegorskii monastery, Voronezh guberniya, Diodor (Kotliarov), Tikhon (Prisiazhnyi), Russian Orthodox Church, cultural landscape, civil society

Afonskii Russkii Paterik, ili zhitiia russkikh sviatykh, podvizavshikhsia na Afone, I afonskikh podvizhnikov, prosiiavshikh v Rossii, Moscow, 2015.
Diatlov V. A., Kievo-Pecherskaia Lavra. Spravochnik-putevoditel’, Kiev, 2008.
Emchenko E., “Zhenskie monastyri v Rossii”, in: Monashestvo i monastyri v Rossii. XI–XX veka: Istoricheskie ocherki (Monasticism and monasteries in Russia. XI–XX centuries: historical sketches), Moscow, 2002, 245-284.
Zyrianov P. N., “Russkie monastyri i monashestvo v XIX i nachale XX veka”, in: Monashestvo i monastyri v Rossii. XI–XX veka: Istoricheskieocherki (Monasticism and mo nasteries in Russia. XI–XX centuries: historical sketches), Moscow, 2002, 302-331.
Istoriia Russkogo Sviato-Panteleimonova monastyria na Afone s 1735 do 1912 goda, Sviataia Gora Afon, 2015.
Meshalkin V. V., Vliianie Sviatoi Gory Afon na monasheskie traditsii Vostochnoi Evropy, Moscow, 2009.
Monakhologii Russkogo Sviato-Panteleimonova monastyria na Afone, Saint Mount Athos, 2015.
Rusikova M., “Starets Moisei — legenda ili prorok Bodeevskoi zemli”, in: Petrovskaia sloboda: Kraevedcheskii al’manakh, 2013, 6, 108-118.
Sviataia gora Afon, Moscow, 2009.
Stepkin V., Caves in Divnogorye and Belogorye: monastic and folk tradition in the river Don caves construction. Proceedings of International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2015, Italy, Rome, 2015, 351-354.
Stepkin V., Peshchernye pamiatniki Srednedonskogo regiona. Kul’tovye peshchery Srednego Dona, Moscow, 41-137.
Stepkin V., “Peshchernyi monastyr’ u sela Shmarnoe Belgorodskoi oblasti”, in: Mogilians’ki chitaniia, 2012, Kiev, 2013, 217-220.
Stepkin V. , “Peshcherostroitel’stvo kak vid khristianskogo podvizhnichestva v lesostepnom Pridon’e”, in: Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 2008, 3 (11), 141-150.
Stepkin V., Podzemnozhitel’stvo na Rusi po dannym agiografii. Sakral’noe prostranstvo peshchery, Sevastopol, 2013, 37-38.
Stepynin V. A., Khronika revoliutsionnykh sobytii v derevne Voronezhskoi gubernii (1861–1917),Voronezh, 1977.
Talalai M., Russkii Afon. Putevoditel’ v istoricheskikh ocherkakh, Moscow, 2003.
Troitskii P., Russkie kellioty na Afone po materialam Arkhiva Vneshnei Politiki, Saarbruecken, 2012.
Fedorov V. A. [review of:] P. N. Zyrianov, “Russkie monastyri i monashestvo v XIX i nachale XX veka”, in: Voprosy istorii, 2001, 9, 170-171.
Tsatsanidis Panaetis, Afon i russkii Sviato-Panteleimonov monastyr’, Saloniki, 2007.

Stepkin Vitalii

Based on recently discovered archival documents, the paper introduces new facts on the biography of Monk-Martyr Palladius (Khronenko, 1867–1937). These facts are related to his previously unknown service in Orenburg region. The paper shows that it is in the Southern Urals that the saint prepared for monasticism and made his fi rst steps in monastic life. He became a novice in 1905, and was tonsured in 1907. He was ordained in 1907 and 1909. He actively took part in the initial formation of the three local monasteries: St. Macarius of the Assumption, St. Nicholas, and St. George. The paper disproves the report of Martyr’s Vita about his rectorship at Orsha Ascension monastery of Tver’ diocese. On the whole, these new details significantly specify and complement the biography of Monk-Martyr Palladius (Khronenko), giving it a coherent, consistent and non-contradictory character. The discovered facts can promote the veneration of the saint in Orenburg region, where his connections with this area are still unknown.

Orthodoxy, Church, monasticism, Orenburg diocese, repressions, Synaxis of the New Martyrs of Cherkasy, Monk-Martyr Palladius (Khronenko)

Voznesenskiy Orshin monastyr’: stranitcy istorii, Tver, 2012.
Diven Bog vo Svyatykh Svoikh. Mucheniki, ispovedniki i podvizhniki blagochestiya v Orenburgskoy eparkhii, Orenburg, 2011, 4.
Mikhailov A., Kuzmin A., “Neurochnaya obitel”, in: Kurgan i kurgantsy, 2012, 33, 7.
Stremskiy N. E., ed., Mucheniki, ispovedniki i khramy Orenburgskoy eparkhii XX veka, Saraktash, 1999, 2.
Bannikova E., ed., Mucheniki i ispovedniki Orenburgskoy eparkhii, Saraktash, 2014, 5.
Stremskiy N. E., ed., Mucheniki i ispovedniki Orenburgskoy eparkhii XX veka, Orenburg, 2000, 3.
“Novomucheniki Cherkas’ki: zhittya, podvighi, strazhdannya”, in: Vidannya Cherkas’koy eparkhii Ukrains’koy Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi, Cherkasy, 2009.
Svedenya po eparkhii. Orenburgskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti. Chast’ neofit., 1909, 9, 84.
Stremskiy N., Mucheniki i ispovedniki Orenburgskoy eparkhii XX veka, Saraktash, 1998, 1.

Denisov Denis

This paper aims to clarify the reliability of the canonical foundation of St. Patriarch Tikhon’s position for the protection of Church relics taken from churches in 1922 under the slogan of famine relief. Conclusions as to the legitimacy of the Patriarch’s point of view are based on the reconstruction of the historical context of the confi scation of Church values, as well as on a more detailed consideration of the implicit aspects of the controversy between the opponents on this issue. Patriarch’s appeal to the 73rd Apostolic Rule and the 10th rule of the “Prime-Second” Local Council of Constantinople resulted from the three significant reasons: first, the inability to publicly appeal to decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917–1918; second, the distrust of the Church community of the government’s slogans; third, the beginning of confiscation of Church values by the state authorities that was uncoordinated with Head of the Church. St. Tikhon managed to adequately protect the ecclesiastical point of view both in the Revolutionary Tribunal and during the interrogations after his arrest. Fulfilling the requirements of the Antireligious Commission of the Central Committee of RKP(b), necessary for his release from prison in 1923, Patriarch did not change his views on the confiscation of sacred objects, and it was he who had the last word in this controversy.

Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Tikhon, confiscation of church property, Eucharistic vessels, famine of 1921–1922, church controversy, State Political Department, persecution of the Church

Babich A. V., Kuban’ — Ukraina: voprosy istoriko-kul’turnogo vzaimodejstvija, VI, Krasnodar; Kiev, 320-332.
Damaskin (Orlovski), igum., Mucheniki, ispovedniki i podvizhniki blagochestij a Rossijskoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi XX stoletij a: zhizneopisanija i materialy k nim, Tver, 2000, 4.
Dejanija Svjashhennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoj Rossijskoj Cerkvi 1917–1918 gg. Moscow, 1996, 6.
Gazov E., “Izyatie tserkovnih tsennostey v uezdah Moskovskoy gubernii po svodkam informatsionnogo otdela GPU”, in: Cerkovno-istoricheskij vestnik, 2009/2010, 16– 17, 6-15.
Giduljanov P. V., “Cerkov’ i gosudarstvo po Zakonodatel’stvu R. S. F. S. R.”, in.: Krasikov P. A., ed., Sbornik Uzakonenij i Rasporjazhenij s razjasnenij ami V otdela NKJu, Moscow, 1923.
Golubcov S., protodiak., “Perviy moskovskiy protsess 1922 goda po delu “tserkovnikov”, 1999, in: Bogoslovskij sbornik, 1999, 2, 75-104.
Golubcov S., protodiak., Moskovskoe duhovenstvo v preddverii I nachale gonenij 1917–1922 gg., Moscow, 1999.
Hailova O. I., in: Vestnik PSTGU. Seria II: Istorija. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2015, 6 (67), 123-143.
Ingulov S., Itogi bor’by s golodom v 1921–22 gg. Sbornik statej i otchetov, Moscow, 1922, 152-156.
Ivanov S., Suprun V., Pravoslavie na volgogradskoj zemle: eparhi i episkopy.Ch. 2, Volgograd, 2002.
Ivanov S., in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serij a II: Istorija. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2014, 3 (58), 24-60.
Ivanov S., diak., in: Vestnik PSTGU II: Istorija. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2015, 5 (66), 36-60.
Ivanov S., diak., in: Vestnik PSTGU II: Istorija. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 2015, 6 (67), 38-63.
Ivanova E., in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii, 2017, 11, 60-96.
Ivanova M., in: Pskov, 2006, 24, 153-161.
Izjatie cerkovnyh cennostej v Moskvevo 1922 g. Sbornik dokumentov iz Fonda Revvoensoveta Respubliki, Moscow, 2006.
Kosik O., in: Bogoslovskij sbornik, 2002, IX, 293-296.
Kovaleva I., Krivosheeva N., in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serij a II: Istorij a. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 4 (37), 88-125.
Krapivin M. Ju., Nepridumannaja cerkovnaja istorij a: vlast’ i Cerkov’ v Sovetskoj Rossii (oktjabr’ 1917 – konec 1930-h godov), Volgograd, 1997.
Kripton K., Vestnik Russkogo Hristianskogo Dvizhenija, 1979, 128, 218–243.
Krivova N., Vlast’ i Cerkov’ v 1922–1925: Politbjuroi GPU v bor’bezacerkovnyecennosti i politicheskoe podchinenie duhovenstva, Moscow, 1997.
Kryvelev I., Russkaja Pravoslavnaja cerkov’ v pervoj chetverti XX veka, Moscow, 1982.
Kuroedov V., Religij aicerkov’ v Sovetskomgosudarstve, Moscow, 1984.
Lazarev N., Uchenye zapiski Rossij skogo Pravoslavnogo Universiteta ap. Ioanna Bogoslova, 2000, 6, 93-111.
Levitin-Krasnov A., Shavrov V., Ocherki po istorii russkoj cerkovnoj smuty, Moskva-Küsnacht, 1996.
Nezhnyj A., Dopros Patriarha, Moscow, 1997.
Odincov M. I., in: Istoricheskij arhiv, 2000, 1, 35-84.
Odincov M. I., Russkie patriarhi XX veka. Sud’by Otechestva i Cerkvi na stranicah arhivnyh dokumentov. Chast’ I: «Delo» Patriarha Tihona; Krestnyj put’ Patriarha Sergija, Moscow, 1999.
Petrov S., Dokumenty deloproizvodstva Politbjuro CK RKP(b) kak istochnik po istorii Russkoj cerkvi (1921–1925 gg.), Moscow, 2004.
Podashevsky P., in: Izvestij a VCIK, 1922, 32, 1.
Safonov D. V., in: Bogoslovskij vestnik, 2008– 2009, 8-9, 275-355.
Safonov D. V., in: Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2009, 23 (161), 58-66.
Safonov D., svjash., Svjatitel’ Tihon, Patriarh Moskovskij i vseja Rossii, i ego vremja, Moscow, 2013.
Sedova G., Prosvetov R., Sluzhenie mitropolita Veniamina (Fedchenkova) v Latvii v 1948–1951 gg., 2014. Vestnik PSTGU. Serija II: Istorij a. Istorij a Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 3 (58), 82-105.
Sobranie opredelenij i postanovlenij Svjashhennogo Sobora Rossij skoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, 1917–1918 gg., Moscow, 1994, 4.
Veniamin (Fedchenkov), mitr., Na rubezhe dvuh epoh, Moscow, 2004.
Vinogradov V., protopresv. O nekotoryh vazhnejshih momentah poslednego perioda zhizni i dejatel’nosti sv. Patriarha Tihona (1923–1925 gg.): Po lichnym vospominanij am, München, 1959.
Voronovich N., in: Golos Rossii, Berlin, 1922, 2.
Vvedenskij A., prot., Cerkov’ Patriarha Tihona, Moscow, 1923.
Zhuravsky A. V., Voimja pravdy i dostoinstva Cerkvi: zhizneopisanie i trudy svjashhennomuchenika Kirilla Kazanskogo, Moscow, 2004.

Ivanov Sergei, диакон

The paper deals with the origin, spread and characteristic features of religious and socio-cultural life of the oppositional (“catacomb”) religious movement of podgornovtsi during the period of the 1930–1960s. This study is based on recently declassifi ed documents of Soviet state security organs. The paper considers the personality of the founder of the movement Stefan Podgornyi and the transformation of the movement from the anti-canonical Orthodoxy to a quasireligious variety of the anti-Communist opposition. This transformation was caused by the persecution of the Orthodox Church in the 1920s, the forced collectivisation, destruction of the traditional way of village life, as well as the official position of Moscow Patriarchate as to the recognition of the Soviet state. The paper discusses forms and methods of the police investigation and repressions against podgornovtsi. Based on documents from archives of Ukrainian state security organs (it should be noted that the movement was particularly popular in the Ukraine), the paper shows features of the religious “doctrine” of the movement, its rites, worldview, social and political beliefs and everyday life of the adherents of the movement, as well as their relationships with German military organs and postwar repressions against the movement. It is concluded that the spread of this movement in the USSR was a logical result of persecution of the canonical Orthodoxy and the restriction of religious freedom. Communities of podgornovtsi embodied such characteristic features of “religious underground” as deliberate withdrawal from any social and political events of the state, maximal distancing from social life and the corresponding upbringing of children, apocalyptic sentiment, denial to perform social duties, including military service and voting in elections.

Orthodox Church, antireligious policy, religious opposition, “catacomb” Church, state atheism, state security organs, repressions

Vedenieiev D., Bustryuchin G., Dvobiy bez compromisiv. Protuborstvo spezpidrozdiliv OUN ta radyanskich sil spezoperaziy. 1945–1980-ti roku, Kiyv, 2007.
Galuyzevuy dergavnyu archive SBU. Putuyvnik, Charkiv, 2009.
Sergiushyuk V., OUN-UPA v roku viynu novi dokumentu i materijalu, Kiyv, 1996.
Shumilo S., “Issledovanij katacombnuych i pechatnuych kniyg: k postanoyvke problemuy”, in: Cherniygovskiuy Afinu, 2014, 2, 209-226.

Shkarovskii Mikhail

The paper introduces into scientific circulation the informing charter (alternatively known as a communicative or intronisation charter) of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, addressed to Patriarch Herman of Constantinople and other Heads of Local Orthodox Churches in the spring 1918. The paper also clarifies the reasons for the six-month delay in dispatching the charter. It is concluded that these problems arose because of the need to accompany the charter with a special conciliar document that would put forward grounds for the restoration of the Patriarchate in Russia. This document received the title Ulozhennaia gramota, and its preparation came to be extremely drawn-out. The paper examines the response of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the news of the election of Patriarch Tikhon. Fanar tried to postpone the recognition for an indefi nite period, but could not do it because of the position of other local Churches.

Patriarch Tikhon, Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917– 1918, restoration of Patriarchate in Russia, Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, Church of Constantinople

Calaidzis C., To metochion toy Oikoymenikoy Patriarcheioy en Moscha “O agios Sergios” kai oii goymenoi aytoy [The metochion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Moscow “st. Sergy” and the its superiors (1881–1936)], Geneve, 1991.
Shkarovskij M. V., Konstantinopol’skij Patriarhat i Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov’ v pervoj polovine 20 veka, Moscow, 2014.

Mazyrin Aleksandr, priest