Tver diocese. The return of temples is an act of historical justice

Talk about " church restitution» in Russia is not news. Somewhere in the mid-1990s, the Moscow Patriarchate began to strongly insist on the return of churches and monasteries to it, which the state had transferred to the church only for gratuitous and perpetual use, for free rent.

In 2002, he thundered with his initiative " give land to the church» Senator Ivan Starikov. But the authorities somehow hushed up all these demands and initiatives, referring to their untimeliness and unrealism.

And suddenly there is an initiative, which could only dream of church hierarchs. At a meeting of the government commission on religious associations In early March, Dmitry Medvedev instructed the Ministry economic development and Trade (MEDT) to prepare within a month a draft law "On the transfer of religious property to religious organizations." According to the concept of the law, all movable and immovable property for religious purposes, which is now in federal ownership, will be transferred to religious organizations free of charge. Its exact volume has not yet been calculated by any expert. But everyone agrees that this will be the largest act of privatization in the history of Russia.

WHO WILL GET THE "CONTROL PACKAGE"?

The business Internet portal DP.Ru tried to evaluate the property of the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (ROC MP) only on the territory of Moscow. Here, about 600 objects ranging from 5 to 50 thousand square meters fall under the “church restitution”. square meters with land plots ranging from 0.3 to 10 hectares. Considering the cost of a hectare of Moscow land (from 6 to 50 million dollars) and a square meter (from 3 to 15 thousand dollars), we can approximately calculate the total cost church property in the capital. Real estate alone will cost $50 billion. On the whole, 443 monasteries, 12,665 parishes and, as Ivan Starikov calculated, about 2 million hectares of land, should depart across the country of the ROC MP. In general, the ROC MP will own property that is quite comparable in value to the assets of the monopolists Gazprom, RAO UES of Russia, RAO RZhD. To this we must add the fact that the ROC MP saved on value added taxes, on real estate and on customs duties, from which it was exempted by law at the end of last year. It is no coincidence that MEDT officials say that the church is getting "the broadest commercial opportunities."

But who is the specific owner of the property ROC MP who will decide the fate of the colossal funds? Maybe each individual church parish? We find the answer to this question in the charter of the ROC MP - its main normative document. It is very specific about property relations. According to paragraph 5 of chapter 15 of the charter all property belonging to the parishes and subdivisions of the ROC MP is not their separate property, but the general church. And the right to dispose of such property, according to paragraph 7 of the same chapter, belongs exclusively to Holy Synod. The charter stipulates several times that if a parish wishes to leave the jurisdiction of the ROC MP, then it will not be able to take with it not only the church building, but also the very last candle purchased with parish funds.

And who exactly in the Holy Synod decides on the disposal of church property? After all, this is by no means a conciliarly elected body, formed by the very parishes and structural divisions whose property it manages. The synod forms itself. It consists of two parts - permanent members who enter the synod ex officio and make up the majority in it, and temporary ones - several bishops who are called for six months from the provincial dioceses and do not decide anything. In turn, among the permanent members, one can single out a kind of "presidium" - hierarchs who constantly reside in Moscow and completely control the situation. This is the patriarch, whose power is very limited by the synod, and the metropolitans Kirill (Gundyaev), Clement (Kapalin) and Yuvenaly (Poyarkov). Here are the people who charter of the ROC MP administer all church property. However, despite the fact that Patriarch and Metropolitan Juvenaly is already in advanced years and inferior in their economic inclinations to younger and more successful brothers, it is customary to talk about some kind of dual power of Metropolitans Cyril and Clement - the main candidates, by the way, for the future patriarchate. Of course, like any big bosses, they also have to reckon with different " groups of influence". For them, the opinion of the Kremlin and partners from secular big business is also important. But it is they who make the real decisions in the field of managing church assets - the chairman of the largest synodal department and the manager of affairs Moscow Patriarchate.

Church Restitution Law PROCEDURE

How will the coming church restitution"? After the draft law, developed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, passes all the stages of "approval" (and this is scheduled for the summer), the Federal Property Management Agency will begin an all-Russian inventory of church property. All religious organizations are required to submit a package of documents to this department, which will indicate what they are applying for. Buildings, enterprises, and lands adjacent to temples and monasteries can also be included in applications, if they are “inextricably linked with objects of religious purpose by territorial, architectural and functional features.” Churches, therefore, can be transferred to everything, with the exception of monuments from the UNESCO World Heritage List.

In the event that several religious organizations claim the same property, as, for example, in Suzdal, where 19 churches transferred to the "alternative" Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), officials will conduct a "competition". Each organization, such as the ROC MP and the ROAC, will have to prove that, for historical "or other" reasons, it has more rights to the temple than a competitor. In general, it is clear in advance who will prove what to whom and how the authorities will solve the problem of “alternative Orthodoxy” in Russia.

By the way, the question of the historical "primogeniture" of the ROC-MP, that is, that the temples of the pre-revolutionary Russian Church should be transferred to it, is not so obvious. In modern Russia, there are several other Orthodox churches registered, in addition to the ROC MP, which may want to prove their historical succession with the pre-revolutionary Russian Church. In fact, the biggest one is Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR)- On May 17 of this year, it will be liquidated, submitting to the Moscow Patriarchate. However, ROCOR has split into several “branches”, and its historical rights now belong not only to that part (led by Metropolitan Laurus) that is self-liquidating. By the way, about what ROC MP — « is not a direct descendant of the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Church”, Olga Sokolova, head of the state property management policy department of the Department of Property and Land Relations of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, says in an interview with Kommersant.

"RESTITUTION" OR...

Is it right to use the term "restitution" in relation to the impending delivery of state property? In the ROC MP think not. But not at all because the pre-revolutionary church was not separated from the state. The chief lawyer of the Moscow Patriarchate, Ksenia Chernega, says that this is not restitution, because they don’t transfer enough - only religious objects. A doctor economic sciences Abbot Philip (Simonov), who heads the department of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, adds that with genuine restitution the property is returned in the form in which it was taken, and not in ruins.

Andrey Sebentsov, chairman of the government commission on issues of religious associations, explained to Ogonyok in his own way why the impending action cannot be considered restitution. Since it is impossible to find out who the legal owner of church property is, says Sebentsov, “ it was decided to simply transfer religious property to religious organizations for use for its intended purpose ". The official understands that there are neither clear criteria for determining the "purpose" of property, nor a system of control and responsibility for its use.

Religious scholar, author of the monograph " ROC: state of the art and actual problems » Nikolai Mitrokhin shared with the correspondent of "Ogonyok" another problem. The draft law, being developed by the MEDT, does not specify when the property transferred to the church was confiscated, and in what time frame the church must formulate its claims.

The upcoming all-Russian clericalization of property will give rise to a lot of problems for citizens. The press has recently described a dramatic the story of a simple Saratov resident Svetlana Maslennikova, whose house suddenly appeared in church fence of the Holy Spirit Cathedral. She and her disabled daughter huddled in a 13-meter room in the house, which the cathedral declared to be a former church gatehouse. At the request of the diocese, the city authorities transferred the main part of the house to the church, but the iron church fence covered the whole house. What the church authorities did in order to survive Maslennikov: they forbade building a toilet, turned off the heating, demanded payment of utility debts since 1990. When Maslennikova's daughter had an attack at night, her mother, in order to call an ambulance, began to knock on the cathedral and on its iron fence. They did not open it, and soon the girl died.

Or a bigger story. Ryazan diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church MP putting pressure on local federal authorities, demanding to transfer to her the entire historical and architectural museum-reserve " Ryazan Kremlin”, which became a museum in 1884. However, Ryazan museum workers turned out to be a tough nut to crack, especially since they were supported by thousands of city residents who created a public committee to protect the museum. However, with the adoption of the new law, the museum will have no chance, and many years of struggle will be in vain.

In general, it turns out that church restitution"is carried out in the interests of a narrow group of influential hierarchs. And otherwise when existing orders can't be. The authorities, of course, take risks by making such a broad gesture towards the ROC-MP and creating a competitive partner-opponent with their own hands. Everyone can draw many situations when the church can argue with the authorities on certain issues. In today's "vertical" Russia, this may turn out to be almost the only big business that is not rigidly built into the system of power.

EARTH AND FAITH

TRINITY-SERGIEV LAVRA, 7 thousand hectares

Land Lavra's possessions are scattered throughout Russia. In the mid-1980s, the monastery received 19 hectares near the monastery. There the monks grew vegetables and berries. Seven years later, a Lavra farmstead was organized in the Ryazan region. Together with the destroyed temple, the church received 800 hectares of land. The rest of the land of the Lavra is in the Lipetsk region. They mainly grow wheat. In addition, the inhabitants of the Lavra are employed in workshops - repair, tailors, gold embroidery, icon painting and workshops of white stonemasons.

MOSCOW SRETENSKY STAUROPEGIAL MEN'S MONASTERY, 5,000 ha

In the 1990s Abbot of the monastery Archimandrite Tikhon asked the officials of the regional Duma for a little bit of land in order to somehow provide food for the monks. It was supposed to breed bees and plant vegetables on a couple of hectares. Instead, he was offered to revive the dying farm of the Voskhod collective farm in the Mikhailovsky district of the Ryazan region.
Now the monks grow wheat, corn, oats, perennial fodder grasses. Minister Agriculture Alexander Gordeev cited the monastic economy as an example to all farmers.

HOLY TRINITY SERAFIM-DIVEEVSKIY MONASTERY, 500 ha

The monastery owns seven agricultural monasteries. Grow vegetables, fruits and grains.

VALAAM SAVOR-TRANSFORMATION STAVROPIGIAL MONASTERY, 200 ha

This is almost half of all agricultural land in the archipelago. The monastery has its own bakery, car fleet, ceramic, carpentry and locksmith workshops, stone-cutting production, a farm, a trout farm and even a fleet. The farm provides milk not only to the monks, but also to a kindergarten, a school, and a hospital.

Photo by OLEG BULDAKOV/ITAR-TASS

Yakov Krotov: This edition of the program is dedicated to the return or not to return of the buildings of churches in Russia to believers - in connection with the fate of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the museum that is located in it, with the decision to transfer the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In our studio there are not members of the Russian Orthodox Church, one of them is a museum worker ... Yuri Vadimovich, can you imagine you as an atheist?

A non-believer with religious feelings.

Yakov Krotov: What is infinitely better than an unfeeling believer! And our second participant is a Roman Catholic, head of the All-Russian movement "Catholic Heritage".

Yaroslav Alexandrovich, what is your attitude to the problem of the return of church buildings in general and St. Isaac's Cathedral in particular?

I am very pleased that this is widely discussed in society

I am very pleased that this is widely discussed in society. I am a consistent supporter of the return of property in general, not only church property - in some way it can be called restitution. Although many would correct me, because restitution is the return to the owner of property that was illegally confiscated from him, and in the case of St. Isaac's Cathedral, everything is probably much more complicated.

And temples, of course, should belong to believers, as well as objects in general. religious significance. And if the restitution began with religious property, then this is very good, especially since the Catholic Church also suffered from the seizure of property, we have many questions, and, probably, property issues in relation to churches are now the most acute concern for the entire Catholic community. Our archbishop, Metropolitan Pavel, also speaks about this. We are definitely in favor.

For many years I was the organizer and director of the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Center. Therefore, for me in this story, in the first place is the question that disputes over the status of St. Isaac's Cathedral are a factor of self-determination political regime in Russia. The main question: for the development and strengthening of the democratic system in Russia, is it better that St. Isaac's Cathedral remains a state historical and architectural museum (like the cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin or the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin with frescoes by Dionysius in the Ferapont Monastery), or is it better that St. Isaac's Cathedral becomes a cathedral that operates today in Russia a state church and a state-supported religion? The choice between these two alternatives determines the main arguments of the participants in the dispute and the decision of the authorities.

Does the state really support the Church, including the Orthodox, enough? After what happened in our country during 70 years of godless Soviet power, it seems to me that the state simply does not have the strength to make up for the destruction and damage that was inflicted on the Church. This wound is still bleeding, and no matter what the state does for the Church today, it will not be enough. Even if the case with St. Isaac's Cathedral is not very simple, this compensation is still a drop in the ocean.

Temples should belong to believers, as well as objects of religious significance in general

The main question today is: do believers have the opportunity to calmly come to church and feel at home there, so that the communities own this property? Such an iconic iconic building, of course, has its own characteristics. But, in principle, it would be very good if churches appeared where we live, so that we, for example, Catholics, would not have to go from all over Moscow and the Moscow region, and sometimes from other regions, to those three churches that is in Moscow. I remember how I used to take my pregnant wife out of the church because of stuffiness, she fainted, because it was simply impossible to be there on holidays! Many simply do not come because there is no place, and it is far away.

The situation is much better for the Orthodox in this regard, the process has begun. And we hope that someday it will reach us, and in accordance with the law adopted by the State Duma, we will also be returned the churches that Catholics pray for. The most pressing issue for us now is the return of the Church of Peter and Paul in Milyutinsky Lane, the oldest surviving Catholic church in Moscow.

The damage that was inflicted on the Orthodox Church after the revolution is simply visible. I have a wonderful friend on Facebook Zhenya Sosedov from VOOPEK, he always puts photos of destroyed churches all over Russia, and it looks terrible! This is the first.

Second. I sympathize very much with Catholics, as well as with Pentecostals, Old Believers, Baptists, Jews. They really do not have enough churches, and partly because, as you said, the issue of returning prayer rooms and churches that they owned is very slow. The same applies, of course, to Russian Muslims.

The damage that was inflicted on the Orthodox Church after the revolution is clearly visible

Third and most important. You said that the state does not support the ROC enough now. Divine services are held in Isaac. In 2016, there were 640 services there, every day, with the exception of Wednesday, two services have been held for a long time, and those who want to come. Usually about 30 people come to the service in Isaac, and about 2.5 million visit Isaac every year.

But it's not that. If, in accordance with the Constitution in force in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church were really a public organization, and not a state church, if Orthodoxy were not actively supported state power ideology and religion, then in Russia today it would not be introduced everywhere under the guise of studying the foundations of Orthodox culture, teaching in schools, in fact, the law of God, as it was before the revolution. If the ROC were not a state church, there would be no Orthodox priests in military units today, they would not consecrate submarines, tanks, missiles, command posts.

Why do you call it the State Church?

Precisely because of the functions I have listed, in which the Church acts today.

Is everything good in the US about this?

If the ROC were not a state church, then the Moscow Patriarchate would not have concluded an agreement with the Accounts Chamber on combating corruption, would not have concluded an agreement with the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Education. If the ROC were not a state Church, then the FSO would not have guarded the patriarch. I can continue the list. All this speaks of the de facto status of the state church, although by law the ROC is a public organization. But the gap between the formal legal status and what is in fact, is obvious to everyone. That is why I consider it the Russian State Church.

The church is often called a part of state institutions. So it was in the Russian Empire after Peter, but those times are long gone. And we were leaving these times just after 70 years of godless and bloody Soviet power. And now I adhere to the opposite point of view, I believe that, apart from the protection of the FSO by the patriarch, we probably have no other attributes.

Divine services are held in Isaac

But I listed. But Catholics don't have it, neither do Pentecostals, Baptists, Jews and Muslims...

We do not have this, because there are simply not enough resources, not enough priests. No one forbids us to go to school, to places where prisoners are kept. There are requests from Catholics to visit, and when there is such an opportunity, we always respond, priests visit people, and no one puts obstacles in our way.

The Russian Orthodox Church is not a state church in our country. Maybe she's just first among equals - historically. The maximum that we see is increased attention, which is absolutely correct in connection with the damage that has been inflicted on the ROC. The significance of the Russian Orthodox Church in the country is very great, therefore the attention of the state is also great. And it's okay that it is given a little more to her than to others.

Yakov Krotov: Among the arguments of opponents of the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Moscow Patriarchate is that the cathedral did not belong to the Church before the revolution. He was registered with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the reason was the decree of Alexander II - it is difficult to maintain the cathedral, because there are the most complex engineering structures. Initially, he was in the spiritual department, and then he was transferred to the department of internal affairs.

What you are saying, Yury Vladimirovich, turns out just against this argument. If now, as you say, there is a state Church in the form of the Moscow Patriarchate, then it is exactly what she needs to restore the pre-revolutionary situation on the same terms. It was state until October 25, 1917, it became state today, which means that St. Isaac's Cathedral should also contain the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the sense Maintenance, and the Church should conduct divine services there.

If the Russian Orthodox Church was not a state church, there would be no Orthodox priests in military units today

This was correct for 600 years, from the beginning of the existence of Muscovite Russia. From the moment the metropolitan first moved from Kyiv to Vladimir, and then to Moscow, and Moscow became the center of the Christian religion in Russia. And until February 1917, it was so. Indeed, the Church was state, and, for example, not going to communion of citizens of the Orthodox faith was considered an administrative offense, and blasphemy was simply a criminal offense and was punished by hard labor. Now this practice has returned, and religious blasphemy has become a criminal offense. I myself was tried twice for this - for the exhibition "Beware of Religion!" and for the exhibition "Forbidden Art".

Yakov Krotov: So, the cathedral must be returned to complete the picture!

It was like this for 600 years, but today we still live in the 21st century, and very close interaction and service of the state by the Church has already become, it seems to me, a profanation of religion. As far as religion is concerned, religious consciousness, as I understand it, is eternal, it has always been and always will be, just like non-religious consciousness. Simply because each of us faces the problems of death, illness, and for so many people the Church is the only consolation and the only existential help that a person needs. And these functions are in no way connected with the state status of the Church. And if we want our life to be based on mutual respect, acceptance, observance by the authorities and officials of human rights, the fulfillment by the citizens themselves of the duties of a citizen and a person, then this political and civil self-determination today stands, as it were, contrary to what the Church offers.

The transfer of Isaac into the hands of the Church greatly increases its state status, makes it more visible and visible.

After all, the authorities actually offer the Church to all of us as such a civil self-determination. If you are an Orthodox person, then you are a normal, good citizen of our country. It seems to me that, on the one hand, this is a profanation of religion, and on the other hand, service and the public, social, psychological significance of the Church is in no way connected with this status.

Why don't I want Isaac to be the state cathedral? Not for money. Isaac is an outstanding monument of national and world culture, and I believe that the state must maintain monuments of such significance.

But the state is the citizens. Do you want people who are not directly related to the ROC to finance this?

Yes, because it is a historical and cultural monument of national and world significance!

So no one bothers you, finance - come to the church and bring a contribution there.

Today, this funding comes at the expense of the state and through the sale of tickets, but the essence is not in money. And the essence of the matter is that there is no second such huge temple as St. Isaac's in the country, only the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow - in terms of volume, scale, and national significance. So, the transfer of Isaac into the hands of the Church greatly increases its state status, makes it more visible and visible, and besides this, this is an obstacle to the idea of ​​developing civil self-determination and human rights.

I feel like a bad statesman, because here it is you who represent a clear state position. You speak the language that all the men who defend the imperial medieval approach to governing our country speak. You talk all the time about the state, about its role and importance, about what “the state should”. But the state is we, the citizens, all together. The state has nothing of its own, it does not have its own money, they only spend what belongs to all citizens, the state is a kind of service function for us. And you say that the ROC is part of this state. No, of course!

Probably, a part of the ROC would say that it would be good if it became state-owned, and a part would say that “we don’t need this, we have already gone through this,” and, probably, such a discussion also exists within the Orthodox Church. And the return of Isaac, despite the fact that before the revolution he belonged not to the Church, but to the empire ...

The Cathedral did not belong to the Church before the revolution

Yakov Krotov: This is an important legal point. You need to understand what pre-revolutionary legislation is. First, in the dispute about Isaac double standard: when necessary, appeal to pre-revolutionary law, and when necessary, they appeal to the fact that the revolution put an end to pre-revolutionary law, confiscated it, nationalized it, and we will not return it, because now the law is different, and this is a monument of culture. It is necessary to decide which of the arguments is more important. But before the revolution, Isaac was, of course, a church building and church property, technically formalized through the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And since both the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the government Synod were part of the same institution of government, it was a mixed property, but, of course, the state, which was Orthodox, dominated.

It was not the joint property of the state and the Church. It was state property.

Yakov Krotov: So no one proposes to change this, but they immediately propose the situation: Isaac is on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs maintains him, and the spiritual department in the form of the Moscow Patriarchate uses him - the right of operational management.

Before the revolution, the church was in fact state, and Orthodoxy was the state religion. I am categorically against the fact that today, in the 21st century, there is a return to this “norm”. This was the norm for completely different historical eras.

In the church, as a cult building, services should be performed, and ideally this should be the property of the parish (of course, we are not talking about such a landmark building as Isaac).

I will return to a no less significant church in Moscow (and this is also a monument), our Cathedral of Peter and Paul, which was founded by Patrick Gordon, who served Emperor Peter the Great, was awarded high awards. He was allowed to build this church, and people collected money, built it. Then it was rebuilt again - again, at the expense of parishioners.

Before the revolution, the church was actually state, and Orthodoxy was the state religion

I'm for it to be returned to parishioners!

But it seems to me that Isaac should also be given to the parishioners!

No, it's not necessary here! The question here is the role that the Catholic community plays in the life of our country and our state. The government doesn't allow everything. The Pope cannot come here, because the Church and the State are against it. Lavrov says no.

Yakov Krotov: He does not say "no", but "not the time", but this is not a ban.

Why not "time"? Why can't the Dalai Lama come to Russia? Again "not the time"?

We Catholics also believe that society should be ready for the visit of the Holy Father to the Russian Federation. This is a very significant event! We see that there are different points of view even on the recent meeting between the patriarch and the holy father: part of the society was not ready for this, although on the whole it was perceived positively. Gradually, step by step, perhaps we will reach the point where the holy father will fly to the Russian Federation. We Catholics always pray for this!

I do not pray, but I will be very glad if he visits our country. When the previous pope died, I went to the representation of the Vatican in Moscow and signed the book of condolences, because he was an important and wonderful person for me. But you yourself perfectly understand the difference between the symbolic, social, state significance of your church and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. Isaac in St. Petersburg is the second Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Here in our country there have always been two capitals - St. Petersburg and Moscow. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior was erected in Moscow, and now everything in the world passes there.

And someone, probably, would say now - the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin ...

Today the Assumption Cathedral is a museum.

Yakov Krotov: It was something very subjective. You estimate the size like this, and for a Catholic, the church of Peter and Paul means more than Isaac. Where is the thermometer?

Isaac in St. Petersburg is the second Cathedral of Christ the Savior

I'm not talking about the church meaning! I'm talking about weight...

Yakov Krotov: But weight is psychological category. In one of your articles you say that "with the change in the status of St. Isaac's Cathedral and its transfer to the Russian Orthodox Church, all sightseers, including Orthodox, will feel uncomfortable in it, as if they were visiting."

Yes, and there it is further explained: everything is more or less cultured people understand how to behave in the church, regardless of whether a person is a believer or an unbeliever. But if we come to church to stare at the interior, and not to pray, and at the same time there is a service in the church, then, for example, I always feel embarrassed. It's just indecent! There are 2.5 million people a year!

Yakov Krotov: For example, I have a picture of Fra Angelico hanging in my apartment (there is such an apartment in Moscow) ...

And I have two of his reproductions hanging.

Yakov Krotov: And so I want to come to your apartment to see these two reproductions. You demand 200 rubles from me, and I go in and feel embarrassed, because this is your apartment!

And believers are allowed into Isaac free of charge.

Yakov Krotov: Yes, but during liturgical time, and the rest of the time - for money. Last September I paid 250 rubles.

But you did not come to the service, but to stare.

Yakov Krotov: But it's not free entry.

But you have free entry to the service.

The church must be open!

Yakov Krotov: So, maybe confiscate your apartment with its reproductions from you, so that I enter there feeling smart?

Let's give churches to believers!

And if I am a believer and I want to come and pray, communicate not when the service is? So for money? Let's give churches to believers!

250 rubles, because this is a state museum!

There is no need for state museums where people pray. It is not right!

And the cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin - is it correct that these are state museums?

I would also give them to believers.

And the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin with frescoes by Dionysius would also be given?

Of course!

And that's it, in four years they would not exist!

Yakov Krotov: And give St. Peter's Cathedral to the state of Italy or what?

Isaac is of great importance for the history of Russia

Why Italy? The Holy See is a subject of international law.

I have been to Catholic cathedrals three times, and there is a completely different feeling. In France, in Montmartre, there is a very large cathedral...

Yakov Krotov: Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Then I was in Florence and in Rome. I have been to a lot of churches. There is a completely different atmosphere. When you enter our church - a service, everyone has candles in their hands, and this heat, as it were, brings people closer to each other, people make up a whole. And there people sit separately, on benches.

Yakov Krotov: So, Isaac can be, but Elokhovsky Cathedral, for example, let it be near the Church?

Yelokhovsky Cathedral was not a museum.

Yakov Krotov: We will do it in order to keep it, and so that you can enter there without feeling embarrassed.

So you said that for us, Catholics, the Cathedral of Peter and Paul is more important, and Isaac is not so important. No, of course not, because we are citizens of Russia, and we certainly believe that Isaac is of tremendous importance for the history of our country. Still, St. Petersburg was the capital, and Isaac was probably even more significant in the Russian Empire than the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow.

Yakov Krotov: It's hard to say... You know who it is dedicated to - the Monk Isaac.

Yes, and this is the direct name of Peter the Great.

Yakov Krotov: Yes, it's in honor of the emperor's birth. Its construction began as, excuse me, a chapel commemorating the date of birth of the emperor, a personal gift of an Orthodox believer. The state treasury is the treasury of the emperor ...

If the cathedral belonged to the parish, there would be a full-fledged church life

And then they will say: what about the Yelokhovsky Cathedral? And the situation will turn out that we faced in the 90s - the priest will be given a destroyed church, the priest will restore it with the last of his strength, will fix everything ... And at that moment they remove him and leave him to restore another destroyed church, and this one is handed over to the priest, revive nothing. And it turns out that the Church destroys itself when it decorates its prayer buildings? That is, we do it, and when we do it well, the cultural community comes and says: now this is ours, we want to watch everything here without you!

Give an example of this.

Yakov Krotov: Saint Isaac's Cathedral!

But he did not belong to the Church!

This is again a substitution of concepts. You don't want to admit the obvious: this is a church!

Yakov Krotov: Did the Ferapontov Monastery belong to the Church?

Belonged. But if it belongs today, these frescoes will not be in four years!

Yakov Krotov: This is a completely different line of argument - safety and property.

And why pass it on if everyone who wants to can come and pray?

Yakov Krotov: There are few people there because the cathedral does not belong to the parish. If it belonged to the parish, there would be a full-fledged church life. It does not come down only to waving a censer.

Here is the Church of St. Louis on Malaya Lubyanka. It is officially the church of the French embassy, ​​if I'm not mistaken. Or has it already been returned to the parish?

The church is a place primarily for parishioners

It should belong to the parish, but so far not everything is clear with the property. In reality, it is managed and fully supported by the French parish.

Yakov Krotov: I remember her well in the 70s and 80s. You went there and found yourself at the beginning of the 19th century. Now there has been such a repair that the original interior of the era of Alexander I has been destroyed, and instead a European-style renovation. Well, I will demand to take away the church of St. Louis?

No.

The church is a place primarily for parishioners. Especially if we talk about Louis: almost all of us were baptized there, this is the only church that never closed, it did not work for only a few years during the war. Catholics could always visit her, she was alone in Moscow, she is special for all of us.

Yakov Krotov: There was also a chapel at the American embassy.

There was practically no access. The Church of Louis is very small, there is no place for everyone, and we fully support it. Here is our parish, which, in principle, Peter and Paul - the French sheltered us at home, and our services are celebrated in the French parish. We participate in the upkeep, but do not raise as much money as would be necessary to restore and maintain this church, and we do not make decisions.

As a long-time parishioner of this church, I do not think that something was corrupted there. Yes, the atmosphere has changed a little, it has become brighter in this church, new elements have appeared, but it has remained a church where we hear the word of God, where we gather as our community and can pray. This is a living church.

So they don’t return it to you, but they didn’t take it away from you!

This is our church.

Yakov Krotov: But this church is a monument of republican significance. To make such changes in it means violating the conditions under which a monument of federal significance is kept. And according to your logic, this church should be taken away, and believers should be expelled for the outrages committed?

Isaac is a symbol of state significance!

Not! My logic is based on something else. There is no need for the Russian Orthodox Church to strive to become state-owned. Isaac is a symbol of state significance!

This is your subjective opinion.

This is not a subjective opinion, but a political assessment. The Russian Orthodox Church today is not a serious political agent in the country...

This is a religious organization that has nothing to do with the state.

And I'm not talking legally, but actually.

But in reality this is also not the case.

According to the Constitution, we generally have a secular state, but it has long been gone!

It is secular and we actually have it!

Yakov Krotov: Yuri Vadimovich, then I will say as Plevako: Holy Russia endured a lot - the Tatar-Mongol yoke, Time of Troubles, but the old woman stole the teapot - and Russia will not stand it. In the 90s, 2000s, the St. Petersburg intelligentsia was unanimously silent when there was a trial of Yuri Samodurov, when Pussy Riot was tried. The St. Petersburg and Moscow intelligentsia calmly demolished the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and twisting the hands of businessmen when they collected money from them (from the same Gusinsky and others), endured the war in Chechnya, endured the introduction of the law of God in schools, and suddenly everyone rose on the transfer of the Isaac Cathedral! The Russian land will not endure this? Why did Isaac suddenly turn out to be an occasion for demonstrations, while more serious things, like the introduction of the Catechism in schools, did not cause resistance?

According to the Constitution, Russia is generally a secular state, but it has long been gone!

Called, although not so powerful and not so massive. But the fact is that events accumulated, accumulated, accumulated and accumulated.

Yakov Krotov: That is, this is the last drop weighing four thousand tons?

Yes. There is simply no other reason.

But one can only welcome the introduction of the institution of chaplains in our army! Let's take the example of the same developed democracy in the United States - there is an institution of chaplains in the army. Here is our commander Knightly Order Holy Sepulcher, our Grand Master, Cardinal O'Brien was a chaplain of the United States Armed Forces. And no one is protesting.

Because there is a developed democracy! But we don't develop it.

Yakov Krotov: So develop democracy!

The church prevents this from being done, because the state offers religious self-identification and self-determination instead of civil and political self-identification and self-determination: be Orthodox!

Yakov Krotov: So don't accept this offer.

I don’t accept it, but it’s on the TV screen, it’s on the street ...

The Church is not a building, but a living organism, and there are also discussions in the Church, there is a controversy. And in the Orthodox Church there are those who say: yes, we don’t need this cathedral, how are we going to maintain it ...

I haven't heard of those.

Yakov Krotov: There are, and many do object. Bishop Grigory Mikhnov-Voitenko said that it is better ...

What church is he a bishop of?

Yakov Krotov: He was in the Moscow Patriarchate, but now he is not in the Moscow Patriarchate.

That's why he says so.

Nevertheless, on many issues there is controversy within the Church. The Institute for Relations with the Society of the Russian Orthodox Church is changing, new people have come.

And what has changed with the departure of Chaplin?

Yes, a lot has changed: approaches, structure.

The approaches have not changed. Maybe they've become a little more polite...

The Church is not a building, but a living organism, and there are also discussions in the Church, there is a controversy

But the main thing is that it is a living organism. The Church cannot be presented as something state. They have a controversy going on inside them all the time.

But have you heard at least one objection to the transfer of Isaac to the Church from the side of the priests?

Yakov Krotov: Priests are forced. But this is a problem of the Moscow Patriarchate and is not a reason to take away the Elohovsky Cathedral or something else.

And who proposes to select?

Yakov Krotov: Of the Kremlin cathedrals, at least two belonged to the Church, they were patriarchal cathedrals.

Yes, but now they are museums.

Let's hold a referendum on who to give St. Isaac's Cathedral

Yakov Krotov: But it's like taking my wallet away from me and voting in a referendum on whether Father Yakov's wallet should be considered state property. By the way, Bishop Grigory Mikhnov-Voitenko, saying that it is better for a Christian to give in (and I agree with him in a Christian way), at the same time said: let's hold a referendum on who to give St. Isaac's Cathedral.

In Russia, it is now virtually impossible to hold a referendum if you look at the referendum law.

The representative of the Leningrad diocese, in response to this proposal, said: "Isaac belongs to us by law. If we hold a referendum on how to implement the law, we will destroy the law." But he said a controversial thing about the fact that Isaac belongs to the Leningrad diocese by law.

We are now talking about church property, and if you do not take Isaac in itself and its meaning, you agree that church property should be returned. I am ready to go further, I believe that in general, all property taken away at the time should be returned, no matter what the deadlines.

But the Church has never stood up for it!

All property that was illegally seized from the owners must be returned!

This is an extremely important issue for our society, and we must go to the end in it. We started with church property, and in the end, all property that was illegally seized from the owners must be returned!

We will not have this, because our political and economic regime is based on other grounds.

And I'm sure it will happen someday!

Yakov Krotov: And should it be at all or not?

I think it should. But in our country it impossible.

Yes, we will pray for it.

Yakov Krotov: Let's start with the Putilov factory ...

Why not?.. I believe that we should return everything. Historical justice must be restored. The ROC is at the forefront of the process of returning church property, she has achieved this, and we can say a lot of thanks to her for this!

She is not at the forefront. The state believes that the property should be returned to the ROC and no one else.

But it's good that we got off the ground!

Yakov Krotov: Per last years A number of Catholic churches were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate - in Koenigsberg, near Koenigsberg. The Catholic Church expressed bewilderment in connection with this?

Historical justice must be restored

Of course, this causes a feeling of protest in us. We have a large community in Kaliningrad, and it needs this church. We call this kinks in the field. It is very difficult to fight this in Russia. And this happens not only in Kaliningrad, but also in other places. And today our Catholic community considers the most important issue of the return of property, which we approach differently than the ROC: we want to take property only where our parishioners are.

Why the restitution of church property is increasingly reminiscent of raiding

["Arguments of the Week", Denis TERENTYEV]

The museum in the Ryazan Kremlin has existed since June 1884

The return of the Church of its temples and monasteries until recently met with complete approval in society. Today, thousands of Orthodox Christians are protesting against the seizure of yet another museum or conservatory by the Russian Orthodox Church. But the authorities value the loyalty of the church too much and are ready to turn a blind eye to many things: the destruction of art objects, the commercial use of shrines and the dubious rights of businessmen in cassocks. And they show uncharacteristic Christian faith insatiability.

The hosts are back

AT Nizhny Novgorod in recent years transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate(ROC MP) about 300 objects. And far from always, these are churches seized by the Bolsheviks, which housed warehouses, garages, hospitals and kindergartens. On the Big Pokrovka, the main street of Nizhny, there was the House of Officers, in which until 1917 there was a women's diocesan school, and inside the school there was a small church. They are going to revive it and conduct services there. Who would argue? But why is it necessary to transfer the entire huge building to the ROC and drive out into the street the circles and sections that hundreds of children attended? Will the Church create something more godly for them?

At the end of 2012, the question arose about the eviction of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory from the building on the street Piskunova. This center is a 10-minute walk from the Kremlin, near the children's park and the beginning of the ancient ramparts. The diocese asks the governor to transfer the building to it free of charge on the grounds that a hundred years ago there was residence of the bishop with a house church True, by 1946 there was little left of the “cult object”: the church was demolished, and the two-story house with columns was badly damaged. He was restored at public expense: built on the third floor, carried out all the engineering networks and erected a new building with four floors. By the way, teachers and students of the university actively plowed at the construction site.

The conservatory has been successfully working for more than 65 years: issued 7 thousand musicians, some of them internationally recognized. Exclusive German organs are installed in two concert halls. To dismantle, translate and reinstall them, it will take about 100 million rubles - there is no such money "for culture" in the regional budget. As there is no hall in all of Nizhny Novgorod comparable to the Bolshoi in terms of acoustic characteristics.

How the church plans to use the conservatory, it seems, she herself has not really decided: it is said about some “ social projects". According to the head of the press service of the Nizhny Novgorod Metropolis Vitaly Grudanova, "the main thing is that prayer is performed there, and the Lord will manage everything else and determine how we will dispose of this room."

The Church is gradually emerging from the image of a persecuted sufferer who atones for the sins of others. He is replaced by a ruddy business executive in a cassock with a powerful administrative resource, which he uses without embarrassment and without being baptized. On the territory of the museum-reserve "Ryazan Kremlin" the Assumption, Preobrazhensky and Nativity Cathedrals, the Church of the Epiphany and the hotel of the nobility were transferred to the ROC for a seminary. After 2007, the church wanted the whole Kremlin, and the director of the museum was fired for refusing to obey the will of the clergy Ludmila Maksimova. The diocese dreams of getting the luxurious palace of Prince Oleg, where on an area of ​​​​4 thousand square meters. m, the exhibition "From Russia to Russia" is exhibited, and the residence of the Archbishop of Ryazan and Kasimov Pavel (Ponomarev) may appear. It hardly looks like restitution: the museum in the Ryazan Kremlin has existed since June 1884. It was established by the Provincial Scientific Archival Commission, and more 10 thousand exhibits were transferred mainly by civilians.

Bishop Pavel to this declares that the Kremlin "was built by pious Orthodox ancestors." But in Russia before 1917, almost everything significant was built by the Orthodox. And today people of the same confession often do not approve of the actions of their own clergy. Collected in defense of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory 4 thousand signatures, for the preservation of the Ryazan Museum-Reserve - 40 thousand. This despite the fact that in Ryazan 530 thousand inhabitants. Actions against the transfer of property to the church took place in Moscow, Voronezh, Chelyabinsk, where they also swung at the conservatory, and Kaliningrad where the ROC suddenly gave former Lutheran churches of East Prussia, who never belonged to Orthodoxy. And also the old community houses, the ruins of Teutonic castles and just the land on which there were once church buildings.

But protests are protests, and Vaska listens and eats. It was worth the church to lay claim to Yaroslavl Kremlin how the Department of Culture began searching for buildings into which museum collections could be transferred. And where to go if, in a similar situation, the diocese seized the Kostroma Kremlin, despite the hunger strike of museum workers. This was followed by a sharp reduction in the museum collection, and the wooden Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord from the beginning of the 18th century burned out almost immediately after delivery. The ROC has long been hosting in Tobolsk Kremlin, on Solovetsky archipelago, "holy island" Valaam.

Why is the transfer so easy? The church has long dreamed of collecting grace from tourist routes. In addition, on 5 objects of the Ryazan Kremlin transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, the federal budget allocates more funds than for the rest 15 where the museum workers are still kept. Another grace may fall on the committees for culture - the construction of a new building for a museum and a move. In St. Petersburg, there are cases when moving from one building to another (already built) 2 km from each other can cost billion rubles. In addition, cadres decide everything: for example, Deputy Minister of Culture Andrey Busygin is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Ryazan diocese. And the director of the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve Vladimir Shutov and vicegerent of the Solovetsky Monastery Archimandrite Porfiry- it's the same person. And one day one of his hypostases handed over to another 109 heritage sites in free use.

In the village of Lukino near Moscow, the diocese, represented by the Exaltation of the Cross Convent, did not hesitate to demand the building of the Childhood rehabilitation center for seriously ill children. In March 2012, the Arbitration Court satisfied the claim of the Holy Fathers.

Talking about the return of the property of the Russian Orthodox Church, nationalized by the Bolsheviks, is not entirely correct, says historian Sergei Achildiev. - These parishes and monasteries lost their property in 1918, and the church as a whole - in 1703 as a result of the Peter's reform. In the form of the Holy Synod, she had a status close to ministerial. What if tomorrow the Ministry of Defense will demand the restitution of all its garrisons and training grounds? The most important thing in this situation is that many generations ago, museums were invented to preserve historical and cultural monuments. And when museums begin to be liquidated, this is a sign of the degradation of society. And what happens to faith if the church begins to behave to match its own persecutors - the Bolsheviks?

Interesting fact

Three priests of the Izhevsk and Udmurt diocese refused to commemorate Patriarch Kirill in services and addressed him with an open letter: the mighty of the world this, is immersed in luxury.

Complete lords

In 2000, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed a letter to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: they say that the process of returning church property "is not only not completed, but has not really begun." A year later, the government went to meet the Council, issuing Resolution No. 490 in which the term appears "religious property". That is, we are no longer talking specifically about churches, but about "buildings and structures with land plots related to them." It was after the adoption of Decree No. 490 that the appetites of the Russian Orthodox Church suddenly increased dramatically: they needed the entire Ryazan, Kostroma and Tobolsk Kremlins. But the resistance of society and the museum community in a number of cases turned out to be quite effective. In 2007 in Ministry of Economic Development"Revision of legislation" began under the control of the First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

At the same time, the authorities handed over to the Russian Orthodox Church a number of exhibits from the museums of the Moscow Kremlin, some of which had never belonged to the church. Patriarch Alexy II requested guidance Tretyakov Gallery hand over for the festive service "Trinity" Andrey Rublev But the icon was defended by ordinary employees of the museum, who revolted despite the passive position of the authorities of the Tretyakov Gallery. But Toropetskaya icon Mother of God departed from Russian Museum in St. Petersburg in cottage village"Prince's Lake" near Moscow. As predicted by many experts, she did not return to the museum: you can venerate it in one of the temples of Toropets.

The adoption in 2010 of the Law “On the Transfer to Religious Organizations of Religious Property in Federal and Municipal Property” accelerated two force majeure circumstances. Firstly, the new head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Kirill, turned out to be much more economical than the deceased Alexy, Secondly elections were approaching.

The new law significantly expanded the concept of "religious property". Now they are considered any real estate built for "professional religious education, monastic life, religious worship (pilgrimage), including buildings for the temporary residence of pilgrims." It does not matter what is located in the building of the former seminary today: an oncological hospital, a school, or just a residential building. And the decision to transfer this property to the church, in fact, makes itself!

The law cancels the list of documents and approvals required for the transfer of historical and cultural monuments, says the lawyer Andrey Vorobyov. - You do not need to coordinate with either the Ministry of Culture, or with regional KGIiOPs, or with VOOPIiK. Law does not name the federal body responsible for the transfer of objects, only the terms: six years if the property is assigned to cultural organizations or people live in it, and two years for other cases. In practice, it turns out to be a wild field: the church announces its desire to take the building, and if it is not vacated within the specified time, it goes to court. And whether they will burn out or not, only God knows. The law now allows a judge to grant a claim for anyone a building where pilgrims stayed or church choristers were engaged.

The problem is that the church does not have the necessary staff of specialists to preserve the monuments. And this has repeatedly led to problems. The media reported that in Dormition Cathedral of the Knyaginin Monastery in Vladimir the nuns arranged hostel right in the gallery of the 16th century monument. with paintings. And ancient frescoes are washed with the same means as dishes. In Vladimir Assumption Cathedral frescoes are under threat Andrey Rublev which were restored only 20 years ago. The restorers then “prescribed” a certain number of services for the temple, using only purified candles. But the church is sensitive to the "dictatorship" of secular power. The white-stone floor was arbitrarily replaced with a marble one, and moisture settles on Rublev's creations due to the difference in the density of materials. AT Aleksandrova Sloboda the Vasilyevsky Gates are kept, taken out by Ivan the Terrible after the capture of Novgorod. They are famous for the finest work: a gold tip was applied to copper. When fragments of the drawings peeled off, bronze was roughly walked over them.

Restorers from Kostroma reported that they were not allowed into the basement of the Epiphany Cathedral of the Anastasya Monastery to see the frescoes Guria Nikitina, and painting, according to rumors, strongly spoiled. In Vladimir Church in Mytishchi by decision of the abbot, baroque architraves were knocked down, a refectory was built on, and three-story living quarters were added. In the Smolensk church of Michael the Archangel, the priest, without coordinating the plan with art historians, installed a heating system in the temple of the 12th century, and simply whitewashed the fragments of pre-Mongolian painting.

One gets the impression that many priests perceive the temple as a kind of institution in which parishioners should feel comfortable. Although the concept of "comfort" does not fit well with the foundations of the Christian faith.

In Pskov, double-glazed windows are installed in a good half of the ancient churches: Vasily on Gorka, Joachim and Anna, Elijah the Prophet from Luga and others, - says the chairman of the Pskov branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK) Irina Golubeva. - The Holy Fathers do not consult with art historians, they have their own consultants. One priest referred to an "architect" who sang in his church choir. Another bluntly admitted that he replaced the historic floor because women had their heels stuck in it. The third was preparing for the visit of the bishop and covered the porous limestone walls with latex paint. And limestone must breathe, otherwise the paint will act as a compress and the walls will begin to rot.

According to the restorer Vladimir Sarabyanov, the abbess of the Snetogorsk convent offered him to take to the museum the frescoes of the XIII century, on which Fyodor Stratilat and Theophan the Greek studied. Otherwise they whitened!

Ignorance? Of course, among the priests there are different people - both enlightened and not very distant. According to the ROC's own estimates, in its bosom are 32 thousand priests and deacons. By the church semi-feudal structure: the power of the dioceses over their parishes is complete, and the Moscow Patriarchate influences the bishops much less. Accordingly, the manners in the regions depend on the abbot.

copy-flock

In June 2013, bloggers once again caught the Russian Orthodox Church using retouching of a photo from a speech by Patriarch Kirill posted on official website of the Patriarchy. This time, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Vladyka is being listened to by identical groups of people. "Miracle" was preceded two more scandals: the flock was completed during the visit of the patriarch to Kyiv in 2011, and at a meeting with the head Ministry of Justice in the polishing of the table are reflected expensive watch which are not on the hand of the lord.

Reproduction of believers in Photoshop makes you wonder: how many followers does the Russian Orthodox Church have today? According to the estimates of the church itself, in its bosom are about 120 million Russians. Ideologists Islam believe that Muslims in the country 13 to 49 million. Because Russia is home to 143 million people, including many atheists, Catholics, Buddhists, Jews, Baptists, Jehovists, then at least one of the confessions exaggerates its capabilities.

Servedtwo comrades

For example, in the same Pskov and Velikoluksky diocese, Vladyka Eusebius(Savvin) banned from serving and expelled from the clergy the greatest icon painter of our time, archimandrite Zinona(Theodora). Formal reason: participated in the service with the Catholics. But the whole country sees on TV how the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and other primates do the same. Evil tongues say that Eusebius does not tolerate talented people next to him, and Zinon was the first of the priests to receive the State Prize of Russia for his contribution to church art. In the album "Modern Orthodox Icon", released with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, more than half of the edition is devoted to the works of Zinon.

In 2008, with his works that adorned the iconostasis of Troitsky cathedral in Pskov Kremlin, there was a story in the spirit of iconoclasm. According to the official version, went overboard with heating: the boards of the icons dried up, swelling went on at the joints and peeling off the paint layer. Who and how restored them in the depths of the diocese is unknown, but the icons appeared before the parishioners greatly “renewed”. Allegedly, someone gave the local bogomazs the command to rewrite the faces of the saints, and even the himation of the Apostle Peter changed color. There were rumors that Zinon's works were being destroyed in three churches of the Pskov-Caves Monastery, which were closed to the public.

After the expulsion of Zinon, the diocese took up his friend, the priest Pavel Adelheim. Here the story is no less delicate: in Soviet years Adelheim was imprisoned on a denunciation, and Father Pavel has reason to believe that behind this is ... the current Bishop Eusebius, then a promising young priest from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. During the unrest in the zone, Adelgeim lost his leg, but returned to Pskov and literally restored it by stones Church of the Myrrhbearing Women, built a church at the regional mental hospital in Bogdanov. In 1993, the local diocese was headed by Eusebius, and Father Pavel consequently lost everything: the church in Bogdanov, the parish of Piskovichi, where he served for 20 years, an orphanage, and a candle workshop. Preaching love and compassion, the diocese selected and Regents School building, where 74-year-old Adelheim raised mentally ill children. He distributed some of them to shelters, and took a few to his house.

In reality, the power of the hierarch is not limited by anything, he can fire any priest, simply by saying: “Get out,” says the father Pavel Adelheim. - For a month, for a year or forever - as he pleases. Batiushka usually has no employment agreement, he hangs in the air. In theory, he should not be paid a salary, but they do, because the bishop said so. Its size is often laughable - 600 rubles for example. It is ridiculous even to discuss how this is consistent with tax legislation. Pension contributions are not paid for a priest, and he cannot leave for another diocese without a blessing. Secular authorities try not to interfere in church affairs. For example, I have a difficult relationship with a bishop who called me a “servant of Satan” in the media. Isn't that an insult? However, the court refused to satisfy my claim for the protection of honor and dignity.And when I had an accident, the regional traffic police admitted that the steering of my car was unscrewed by a human hand, but they did not initiate proceedings. In theory, the bishop can be influenced by the Bishops' Council, but after all, a raven will not peck out a crow's eye.

Adelheim illustrates the planting of military discipline in the church with the story of the parish council of the Church of the Myrrhbearing Women. In April 2011, the parish, the only one in the entire diocese, did not adopt a new charter transferring full power from the assembly of parishioners to the representative of the bishop. The Church Court considered all those who voted "against" to be offenders. Excluded first 11 man, then 9 , then more 14 . Remaining eight adopted the charter by vote.

Father Paul removed from the abbots even earlier. As soon as a young successor appeared, as from the adjacent territory, which was not even under the jurisdiction of the diocese, disappeared cobblestone pavingXIXcentury. Although it is much more expensive paving slabs. The employees of the VOOPIIK drew up an act on this occasion, which was not interested in any of the regulatory bodies. The defenders of the culture of Pskov were not answered why the bell tower of the Assumption from Paromenia is rented out as a vegetable store? Why was candle production organized in the house of the abbot of the Mirozh Monastery? And the basement of the Stefanovskaya church was adapted for an Orthodox cafe with a counter, tables and benches?

In parallel with the delivery of the museums of the church, conferring church awards on officials. For example, a knight of the order St. Sergius Radonezh became the ex-minister of culture of the "era of restitution" Mikhail Shvydkoy, as well as Sergei Mironov, Sergei Kirienko and Vladimir Putin. In this regard, in all seriousness, it is proposed to create a list of 50-60 all-Russian sights that the hand of clerics will never be able to touch. The experience of Ryazan, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Tobolsk suggests that clergymen can lay claim to the Moscow Kremlin as well. And on the eve of the upcoming elections, the secular authorities will again not find a reason to refuse.

Did you like the post? Support the publication!

*Receive a bright, color original newspaper in PDF format to your email address

The Old Believer Church is actively integrating into Russian modernity. Following the claims of the ROC (Russian Orthodox Church) for a number of social facilities, the ROCC (Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church) also claims its rights to property. "FederalPress" became aware of which buildings will be transferred to the Old Believers in the near future, and which objects have become the subject of a property conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. Officials The Russian Orthodox Church denies this conflict, and the Old Believers continue to fight for the property that once belonged to them. Details are in our material.

This year, the President of Russia has already met twice with the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church Metropolitan Cornelius. Visit Vladimir Putin to Rogozhskaya Sloboda in May became not only historical event for the Old Believers, but also an occasion to talk about strengthening their influence in society. The first meetings of the head in 350 years Russian state with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church were filled with symbolism, but behind them lies the old, like the world, the question of property. And according to Metropolitan Kornily, this issue needs to be resolved today. Against the backdrop of the scandalous topic around St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, information began to appear about claims to the ownership of a number of objects by the Russian Orthodox Church. And in some cases it is possible to talk about a property conflict between the Old Believers and the Russian Orthodox Church.

It's all about privatization

In the 1990s, a number of objects that previously belonged to religious organizations fell under privatization. According to the legislation, it was possible to privatize church buildings that were not protected as objects of cultural heritage or protected as monuments of local importance. And if many churches of the Russian Orthodox Church did not fall under privatization, then such a fate awaited the Old Believer parishes. Restaurants, wineries, sports clubs - what just did not exist on the territory of the former Old Believer churches. Moreover, some of them were privatized by businessmen and given to the Russian Orthodox Church. Now the topic of returning these objects to the Old Believers after Putin's meeting with Metropolitan Koriniliy is being discussed again.

One of the main subjects of the property dispute between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is located in Moscow - the Church of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God. The temple was erected by the Old Believers in 1911. After the revolution, the temple property was confiscated and warehouses and a dining room were located on its territory. In the 1990s, it housed a restaurant. Later, the Old Believers made an attempt to return the temple to themselves, they even tried to buy it from private owners - to no avail. In 2004, the temple was bought by businessman Konstantin Akhapkin, who began the restoration of this building and wanted to transfer it to the Russian Orthodox Church. Against the background of the scandal, the latter seemed to have abandoned the object. But he remained in the ownership of Akhapkin, affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church. The status of the temple is still controversial. According to a FederalPress source in the State Duma, representatives of the Old Believer community turned to parliamentarians with a request to return the temple to them.

http://fedpress.ru/article/1805316
Temple of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, photo by Oleg Shurov

FederalPress learned about another interesting object for which the Old Believers are fighting and where the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church may intersect - the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God Burning bush in the Moscow region. It was built back in 2011, but as it became known to FederalPress, the court denied recognition of property to the Old Believers several times, since it considers this church to be self-construction. Representatives of the RPSC, in turn, stated that they had received all the conclusions and approvals for the provision of a land plot for construction. However, the court ruled: "The plaintiff did not provide evidence that the construction was carried out on the basis of project documentation developed in the prescribed manner."

At the same time, we note that the construction of the temple of the Russian Orthodox Church with the same name - the Temple of the Icon of the Mother of God of the Burning Bush - was successfully completed in the Moscow district of Otradnoye. It is reported that it is being put into operation and will receive parishioners in the summer. According to the interlocutor of "FederalPress", in this case we can talk about lobbying the interests of some representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church in local authorities.

Old Believer Church of the Icon of the Mother of God of the Burning Bush

“There are already several temples with a similar name in Moscow and the Moscow region, the Old Believer object can attract parishioners,” the source explained.

Is there no conflict?

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin told FederalPress that relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are now friendly. He denies any conflict. At the same time, he noted that it was not possible to talk about some kind of unification with the Old Believers, even against the backdrop of President Putin's meeting with Metropolitan Kornily.

“I didn’t hear about the controversy. Our relationship is normal. Of course, after the president's recent meeting with the Old Believers, some even began to talk about a possible unification. I don’t see such prospects, because the Old Believers, for the most part, do not want to unite themselves, and those who wanted to have already united through common faith. That is, communities that practice the old rite, but are part of our church,” Chaplin said.

Moreover, Vsevolod Chaplin expressed the opinion that the buildings owned by the Old Believers should be returned to them.

“Of course, this is a good thing. Of course you need to return what belonged Old Believer communities and many churches and other church buildings have already been returned to them. Look at least at the Transfiguration Cemetery, where historical buildings were returned to the Old Believers; in Rogozhskaya Sloboda, several buildings were also returned. The problem is that the Old Believers may not have believed from the very beginning in the possibility of the return of these buildings and some of them were privatized. Unfortunately, the 2010 law “On the Transfer of Property of Religious Significance to Religious Organizations” does not apply to privatized buildings and there are, for example, ordinary Orthodox churches, which have been privatized and have not yet been transferred to the church,” Chaplin noted.

The law on education prevented the Old Believers

Another object that the Old Believers want to return to themselves is the Chubykinskaya almshouse in the northern capital. The building now houses a nursery. School of Music. It is not the first year that the ROCC has been seeking the transfer of the almshouse in its favor on a gratuitous basis. As FederalPress found out, the last attempt to do this was made in 2016. Then the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region recognized: “The evidence presented by the applicant does not confirm that the disputed building was built for worship, other religious rites and ceremonies, prayer and religious meetings, teaching religion, professional religious education, monastic life, religious veneration (pilgrimage). The court also referred to the fact that the transfer of part of the building to a religious organization would violate the law on education, since “the disputed building houses the St. educational institution additional education for children... In state and municipal educational organizations, the creation and activities of political parties, religious organizations (associations) are not allowed.” Thus, the court denied the claims of the ROCC.

Chubykinskaya almshouse

Museums against the transfer of temples

At a press conference held on June 8 at the NSN, Metropolitan Korniliy said that he had asked President Vladimir Putin to help in the return of church objects to the ROCA. However, as a source of FederalPress in the State Duma stated, the issue of transferring the Chubykinskaya almshouse will be postponed, but the state will begin to transfer other buildings that were once owned by the Old Believers to the ROCC. As the interlocutor explained, in St. Petersburg the public has not yet cooled off from the "hot" topic with the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church.

“Protests over St. Isaac's Cathedral continue. The transfer of another building in favor of a religious organization can leave the firewood in the fire, ”said the interlocutor.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin during the "Direct Line" on June 15 said that St. Isaac's Cathedral was originally built as a temple. He expressed confidence that if St. Isaac's Cathedral was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, it would be possible to combine museum activities and religious worship there.

The transfer of other objects in favor of the Old Believers will take place in the coming months. The interlocutor of "FederalPress" believes that the first such object may be the Trinity Church in Vladimir. Now on its territory there is a museum of crystal. This temple was built before the revolution, but was closed in 1928. Since 1974 it has been an exhibition hall of the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve. We requested comments from the museum management regarding the transfer of the Trinity Church to the Old Believers. At the time of publication, we have not received a comment.

Trinity Church in Vladimir

Another building that will be transferred to the ROCC could be a church in Gavrikov Lane in Moscow, where this moment sports sections are located. Metropolitan Cornelius himself stated that with all due respect to sports, the church should be returned to the Old Believers.

“We turned to the president, he instructed the mayor of Moscow, Sergei Semenovich Sobyanin, to find sports section suitable premises. We hope that with the help of the president we will get the church in the near future,” the metropolitan said.

A few days ago, the Russian Orthodox Church managed to obtain the transfer to its use of the objects of two large museum-reserves: the Solovetsky and the Ryazan Kremlin. The transfer of two large museums to the church with unclear prospects for their further existence stirred up the public, as monuments of federal and world significance are being transferred, and made them turn to the topic of how the church is fighting for property.

The Church entered the fight for property in August 2000, when the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to expedite the process of returning the Church's property. For the first time in the message, it was openly stated that the ROC claims not only the return of churches, but also the lands around them, as well as secular buildings. This appeal said: “In the years of hard times, the state illegally seized from the Church the property created by the labor of many generations of believers.”

It would seem that the question was put correctly, and in order to develop spirituality, it was worth going for it. However, the issue of the return of churches and buildings, however, immediately turned out to be linked to the issue of the commercial use of the received property. "Only the return of the diverse church property will replenish the budget of the Moscow Patriarchate," the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized. Judging by subsequent events, it was precisely the considerations of replenishing the budget at the expense of "returned" property that became dominant in the church's struggle for buildings and lands. In this struggle, of course, no pity for the opponents was foreseen. The hierarchs in the same appeal, in fact, declared war on all current users of former church buildings and churches: "The problems of current users cannot become an insurmountable obstacle to the return of church property."

The property share, to which the church has claimed its rights, is a very impressive list.

In Russia, 443 monasteries, 12,665 parishes and about 2 million hectares of land should go to the ROC. In a number of regions, the church automatically became a large landowner upon its return. The ROC expects to receive a large list of objects located in the very center of large cities. Only in Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church demanded the transfer of about 600 objects, ranging from 5 to 50 thousand square meters with land plots ranging from 0.3 to 10 hectares. The value of this property will be huge. If the ROC manages to achieve the transfer of all property, the rights to which it claims, then it will own property comparable in value to the assets of OAO Gazprom, RAO UES of Russia, RAO RZD.

The charter of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy clearly spells out property relations. According to clause 5, chapter 15 of the statute, all property belonging to parishes and divisions of the ROC MP is not their separate property, but general church property. The right to dispose of all property, according to paragraph 7 of the same chapter, belongs exclusively to the Holy Synod. In other words, after the completion of the "church restitution" in Russia, an organization will appear that owns colossal funds and property comparable to large corporations, but at the same time is taken out of regulation. economic activity. The ROC will receive strong economic leverage to strengthen its influence in the country.

Currently, one of the main users of church buildings are museums and reserves, most of which are located in church buildings from Soviet times, often even from the 1920s and 1930s. Museums have spent decades restoration work and supported buildings in good condition. It is not surprising that the ROC paid attention to these buildings in the first place. Unlike large companies, museums do not have large funds, opportunities to lobby their interests and generally defend themselves against attacks, which is why they became, first of all, objects on which conflicts broke out between the church and museums.

Conflict situations related to the joint use of buildings have been noted from the very beginning of the process of transferring churches, since 1991. However, after the appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, these conflicts not only became more frequent, but also began to lead to the transfer of entire complexes to the church, with the subsequent destruction of museums.

Based on press materials, Regrus.info compiled a brief overview of the main conflict situations in the field of transferring property to the Russian Orthodox Church:

2002 - School No. 36 in Moscow, located on the territory of the Zachatievsky Monastery, was disbanded, students were distributed between schools No. 50 and No. 1529. In the liquidated school, for the first time in the USSR, a monument was erected to the teachers and students of the school who died during the Great Patriotic War, and here the traditions of patriotic education were laid, widely spread throughout the country.

2002 - 2004 - the conflict between the museum "Ipatiev Monastery" and the Kostroma diocese.

In the autumn of 2002, a fire broke out on the territory of the monastery, completely destroying the wooden church - a unique monument of the 18th century. In time, this event coincided with the actual transfer under the control of the diocese of Novy Dvor, on the territory of which the burnt church was located.

In November 2004, the decision of the Federal Agency for State Property Management to transfer the premises of the Ipatiev Monastery in the Kostroma Region to the free use of the Church came into force. No premises were provided to the museum. The museum's collections were given to the monks for "temporary use". The museum staff held a hunger strike in protest, the director of the museum for refusing to withdraw from the Arbitration Court statement of claim, was fired. The protest was terminated due to the futility of the struggle for the return of the museum.

The Kostroma diocese has established a religious organization "Church Historical and Archaeological Museum of the Kostroma diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church", which is located on the territory of the current Ipatiev Monastery.

The museum-reserve was visited by more than 200 thousand tourists a year.

2004 - conflict between school No. 1216 in Moscow and the Sretensky Monastery. The monastery claims to be a school building.

2004 - On August 3, a crowd of Orthodox people seized the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Kadashi in Moscow, which houses the All-Russian Art Scientific and Restoration Center named after Academician I.E. Grabar (VKhNRTS). Employees of the center, blocked for several days, appealed to the Zamoskvoretsky prosecutor's office with a complaint about the embezzlement of the VKhNRTS funds. The seizure of the church was condemned by the vicar of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II, Archbishop of Istra Arseniy. On December 19, 2004, the temple was handed over to believers, the VKhNRTS was provided with a building former workshop on st. Radio. The restorers left the premises completely before the end of April 2005.

2005 - the conflict between the park-museum. Tolstoy and the Bryansk diocese. After the transfer of the Nativity of the Mother of God Church on the territory of the park-museum, Bishop Theophylact stated that “ Orthodox shrines should surround those images and sculptures that correspond Orthodox worldview” and demanded the demolition of wooden sculptures and the fountain-sculpture “Devil’s Mill” based on Pushkin’s tales.

2006 - the conflict between the Starocherkassk historical and cultural museum-reserve and the Rostov diocese. On July 8, 2006, the Resurrection Cathedral was captured by the Cossacks, excursionists and museum staff were expelled from the premises, the Cossacks announced the transfer of the cathedral under the jurisdiction of the Donskoy army and decided to apply for the immediate transfer of the cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church.

2006-2007 - the conflict between the museum-reserve "Ryazan Kremlin" and the Ryazan diocese. The museum was included in 1995 in the State Register of Especially Valuable Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of Russia. The museum's funds contain about 500 works of ancient Russian painting, including the icon of Our Lady Hodegetria of the 13th century, priceless examples of ancient Russian facial embroidery, 570 handwritten and old printed book monuments of the 15th - 19th centuries.

In September 2007, 24 buildings of the museum-reserve were transferred under the jurisdiction of the diocese by a decree of the Government of Russia. The church, in particular, opposes the restoration of the Solodezhnaya on the territory of the Kremlin, which existed here in the 17th-18th centuries, planned by the museum, out of fear that the museum will organize the production of beer. Instead of a secular museum-reserve, the diocese formed a diocesan museum - "Diocesan Ancient Storage" (Church Historical and Archaeological Museum of the Ryazan Diocese).

More than 22 thousand signatures from more than 50 regions of Russia, as well as Ukraine, Belarus, Canada and Sweden, have been collected for the preservation of the museum on the territory of the Ryazan Kremlin.

2007 - conflict between the State Museum of the East and the parish of the Church of Elijah the Prophet in Moscow. Most of the exhibits of the museum, more than 50 thousand units, are in the storeroom in the church of Elijah the Prophet. Also in the church premises there is a scientific library of the museum, restoration workshops, and a department for registering exhibits. The building was transferred to the parish of the church, without providing the Museum of the East with a building for storing collections.

2007 - conflict between the museum-reserve "Tobolsk Kremlin" and the Tobolsk-Tyumen diocese. In August 2007, the museum was closed and the dismantling and transportation of collections to the Governor's Palace, intended for the museum, began. The new building has no facilities for storing collections and unsuitable temperature and humidity conditions.

14 museum employees wrote a letter of protest, which was signed by 1.5 thousand residents of Tobolsk. In case there is not enough space for the Fundamental Library of the museum, it will be closed.

2007 - the conflict between the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve and the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk diocese.

The museum-reserve includes over 250 immovable monuments of history and culture, unique natural landscapes. The museum collections include more than 17,000 items of storage of the main fund, 48,000 items of storage of the scientific auxiliary fund. By the decision of the UNESCO General Session of December 14, 1992, the historical and cultural complex of the Solovetsky Islands, which is part of the Solovetsky State Museum-Reserve, was included in the List of World Heritage Sites. Decree of the President Russian Federation N1219 dated December 6, 1995, the Solovetsky State Museum-Reserve is included in the State Code of Especially Valuable Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation.

By 2005, 58 buildings were transferred to the monastery, including a complex of residential and utility buildings on the territory of the main ensemble, all churches, chapels and sketes. In September 2007, by a decree of the Russian government, 243 objects were transferred to the diocese, without providing the museum-reserve with other buildings. It is possible that the monastery will forbid tourists from entering the Solovetsky Islands, except for Orthodox pilgrims, as was done on Anzer Island, which has already been transferred to the church. In addition, the local population lives on the islands, whose residence remains in question.

Also conflict situations evolved around the Museum of the Arctic and Antarctic in St. Petersburg (Nikolskaya Church), the Museum of Old Russian Culture and Art. Rublev in Moscow (Andronikov Monastery of the Savior), the Moscow Kremlin Museum (cathedrals in the Kremlin), the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve (Trinity Church, Golden Gates), the Pushkin Museum im. Pushkin (St. Antipas Church), Literary Museum in Moscow (Vysokopetrovsky Monastery), the Museum of Urban Sculpture in St. Petersburg (Alexander Nevsky Lavra). This list can be expanded.

In this review, there is not only a desire to take away all the buildings that have ever been used by the church, but also another, subtle trend. With the transfer of large complexes, where museums were located, to the ownership of the ROC, secular museums are being destroyed and replaced by diocesan museums. This was done in the Ipatiev Monastery, a diocesan museum has already been created “instead of” the secular one in the Ryazan Kremlin. Apparently, the destruction of the museum on Solovki will be completed in a similar way. Valuable art objects can also be successfully used for commercial purposes, such as taking over a large tourism sector by the church.

In addition, as can be seen from the review, the church does not stop even at the destruction of schools in its pursuit of property ownership.

It has long been noticed that the ROC claims and strives to achieve the transfer of only those buildings that are used by someone and maintained in good condition. Aleksey Komech, Chairman of the Scientific and Methodological Council for the Protection of the Heritage of the Ministry of Culture, Director of the Institute of Art Studies, noted back in 2003 that there were about 10,000 abandoned churches in Russia, many of which were being destroyed and required urgent repair and restoration. However, the church does not take ownership of such objects. Even in Moscow, Alexei Komech counted about 10 abandoned churches. One of them is located in the very center, on Klimentovsky Lane, literally 50 meters from the Tretyakovskaya metro station. Many people pass by it, including active participants in the struggle for church property. However, the large church of the 18th century is closed, and its shabby walls show that it has not been looked after for a long time. These facts led to the conclusion that the church is interested not so much in temples as in museum values, lands and secular buildings.

If it is allowed that the church achieves the transfer of the listed buildings, which are now occupied by museums, under current conditions, that is, when the museum is thrown out, and the collections and libraries are seized by the church, then Russia will lose free access to a large layer of national culture and historical monuments. If we take the same Solovki, then, in addition to the monastery, there are unique monuments of archeology, including the famous "labyrinths", there is also the "Solovki Maritime Museum", the only museum of Pomeranian navigation and crafts in Russia. Its closure will mean a strong blow to the culture of the Pomors - a small people of the North. If the church seizes Solovki for its undivided use, then the majority of Russian citizens will not be able to visit these places and join the Pomeranian culture. In general, cultural losses will be huge and will affect the intellectual development of Russia.

With regard to such acts of destruction of museums, the position should be tough - if the ROC wants to get this or that building occupied by a museum or other cultural institution, then it must build or buy an equivalent building for it and make an exchange. The Church, with its treasury and rich donors, is quite able to afford this.