The authority of Orthodoxy before the revolution

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire are peasants. Today they are trying to say that the Russian Empire is a kind of “ideal” of spirituality. However, the peasants themselves, who were treated like cattle, are clear evidence of this very "spirituality".

Interestingly, despite the ignorance of the masses, the attitude towards the church has always been very skeptical, and in the case of popular riots, for example Razin or Pugachev, as well as simply peasant riots, which often happened, the church also got it. Pop, apparently, has always been associated with the state, since the peasant was literally forced to worship.

Moreover, it began with the very "baptism", when people were literally driven by force, and those who refused, were declared "enemies" of Prince Vladimir. Then a unique situation arose when the church became a state within a state. The Horde period only reinforced this position, since the churchmen had labels, and therefore called people to loyalty. The label from the khan clearly stated that:

Whoever blasphemes the faith of the Russians or swear at it will not apologize in any way, but will die an evil death

It is clear that the priests had no prejudices in matters of power, and the most typical example is the transition from tsarism to a provisional government. This article fully reveals the essence of relations with the authorities and the "devotion" of the ROC.

But in this case, I would still like to talk about the attitude towards priests. It is clear that this attitude could not be reflected with all the "colors", since there were laws that punished for such activities. Obviously, these same laws were playing against the church, because they were precisely "made to believe", and therefore, with such an approach, it was difficult to count on sincere attachment to the church. By the way, they didn't count on her. Each peasant was monitored to make sure he visited religious buildings and stood at the service for as long as necessary.

The real situation is not easy to describe. You can only collect some images and memories. For example, Afanasyev's folk tales are of particular interest, since there are references to priests there. By the way, folk (peasant) fairy tales and ditties almost always talk about the priest as a greedy person, as a drunkard, a crook and a crook. Pop is never a hero in the true sense of the word.

Interesting thoughts on this matter were expressed by well-known publicists like Belinsky, Pisarev, Herzen and Chernyshevsky. Probably Belinsky's letter to Gogol is the most famous of its kind. An excerpt from the letter:

“Take a closer look and you will see that this is by nature a deeply atheistic people. There is still a lot of superstition in it, but there is not even a trace of religiosity. Superstition passes with the success of civilization, but part of religiosity gets along with it. A living example is France, where even now there are many sincere, fanatical Catholics between enlightened and educated people, and where many, having abandoned Christianity, still stubbornly stand for some kind of God. The Russian people are not like that: mystical exaltation is not at all in their nature. He has too much against this common sense, clarity and positivity in his mind: this is perhaps what constitutes the enormity of his historical destinies in the future. Religiousness did not take root in him even to the clergy, for several individual, exceptional personalities, distinguished by their quiet, cold, ascetic contemplation, prove nothing. The majority of our clergy have always been distinguished only by thick bellies, theological pedantry and wild ignorance. It is a sin to accuse him of religious intolerance and fanaticism. Rather, he can be commended for exemplary indifference in the matter of faith. Religiousness manifested itself in our country only in schismatic sects, so opposite, in their spirit, to the mass of the people and so insignificant in number before it."

The most interesting thing is that many of the thoughts from the letter can be fully attributed to the present, since the essence of priests in Russia has never changed much. Their main principle is dependence on the state, and their main function is control. True, today it is a primitive instrument of control. But, apparently, there is no particular choice.

Belinsky is, of course, an atheist, but the Orthodox also had interesting thoughts. Even Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich Romanov recalled:

“We stopped in Moscow to bow to the miraculous icon of the Iberian Mother of God and the relics of the Kremlin saints. The Iberian Chapel, which was an old small building, was overcrowded with people. The heavy smell of countless candles and the loud voice of the deacon reading the prayer disturbed in me the mood of prayer, which a miraculous icon usually brings to visitors. It seemed to me impossible that the Lord God could choose such an environment for the revelation of holy miracles to his children. There was nothing truly Christian in the entire service. She rather resembled gloomy paganism. Fearing that I would be punished, I pretended to pray, but I was sure that my God, the God of fields of gold, dense forests and murmuring waterfalls, would never visit the Iberian Chapel

Then we went to the Kremlin and venerated the relics of the saints who had rested in silver caskets and wrapped in gold and silver cloth. I do not want to blaspheme and even less offend the feelings of Orthodox believers. I am simply describing this episode to show what a terrible impression this medieval rite left in the soul of a boy who was looking for beauty and love in the religion. Since the day of my first visit to the Mother See and over the next forty years, I have kissed the relics of the Kremlin saints at least several hundred times. And each time I not only did not experience religious ecstasy, but experienced the deepest moral suffering. Now that I have turned sixty-five years old, I am deeply convinced that you cannot honor God like that."

At the time of the empire, by the way, it was forbidden not to believe at all, i.e. in any census there was simply no concept of "unbeliever." There were no secular marriages, and the transition from one faith to another is a criminal offense. However, it is a crime only if the transition from Orthodoxy to another faith. For example, the conversion of a Muslim or a Jew to Orthodoxy was not prohibited.

And if on the contrary, the cases were different. For example, when in 1738 naval officer Alexander Voznitsyn converted from Orthodoxy to Judaism, he was publicly burned by the order of Tsarina Anna Ioannovna.

In a later period, laws on religion were relevant. Not so harsh, but still repressive. But since 1905, the situation has changed. On the one hand, there is a “decree on strengthening the principles of religious tolerance,” and on the other, continued support for Orthodoxy at the state level. That is, despite the "religious tolerance", Orthodoxy remained the state religion, and some of the laws on religion were still in force.

One of the most competent persons, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, perfectly testifies to the state of the Orthodox cult:

“Our clergy teach little and rarely; they serve in the church and fulfill the requirements. For people who are illiterate, the Bible does not exist; there remains a church service and several prayers, which, being passed down from parents to children, serve as the only connecting link between an individual and the Church. And it also turns out in other, remote areas that the people absolutely do not understand anything in the words of the church service, or even in Our Father, which is often repeated with omissions or with additions that take away all meaning from the words of prayer."

After 1905, the "blasphemy" laws remained in force, and even these:

Raising minors according to the rules of the wrong faith, to which they should belong according to the conditions of birth

Therefore, the "freedom of religion" is already very dubious was realized. By the way, the law of God was left in schools and other educational institutions. But this is the propaganda of religion. And the “teachers” there were priests.

It is interesting, but every student in the gymnasium at that time was obliged to count the "confession and sacraments" in the form of a certificate. Artist Yevgeny Spassky recalled:

“Attending all church services in one's own church was compulsory; at the entrance to the church, an overseer sat and noted the arrival of a disciple in a magazine. Missing one service without a good reason, that is, without a certificate from a doctor, which means that in a quarter there will be four in behavior; missing two - call the parents, and three - dismissal from the gymnasium. And these services were endless: Saturday, Sunday and every holiday, everyone is resting, but we stand and stand for a long time, since our priest was burdensome and served slowly and for a long time."

At the III Congress of the All-Russian Union of Teachers in 1906, the law of God was condemned. It has been suggested that this tutorial:

“It does not prepare students for life, but corrodes a critical attitude towards reality, destroys the personality, sows hopelessness and despair in one's own strength, cripples the moral nature of children, arouses aversion to learning. And extinguishes the national consciousness"

It is interesting that today no one takes into account this experience, and in fact is trying to "repeat" the stupidity and ignorance of tsarism.

Moreover, the famous teacher Vasily Desnitsky wrote that the pop teacher:

“In most cases, he was a small and insignificant figure, which did not inspire any respect for himself and his subject, often even subjected to malicious ridicule. And the attitude to the Law of God as a compulsory subject of school teaching on the part of students was often negative."

Interestingly, despite the fact that the government's support was still quite colossal (especially the salary from the state), religion could no longer be sustained. And so the priests constantly complained that they were not really loved.

There is a typical example in an Orthodox magazine for 1915:

“At meetings we are scolded, when they meet us, they spit, in a cheerful company they tell funny and indecent jokes about us, and recently they began to depict us in an indecent form in pictures and postcards … About our parishioners, our spiritual children, I no longer I say. Those look at us very, very often as fierce enemies who only think about how to “rip off” more of them, causing them material damage”(Pastor and flock, 1915, no. 1, p. 24)

This is very similar to the whole history of priests. After all, in fact, there is no benefit, and even more authority. It is obvious that people realize their rights only in times of crisis, and it is then that one can see the real state of affairs.

Even the religious philosopher Sergei Bulgakov stated this:

“No matter how little reason there were to believe in dreams of a God-bearing people, one could still expect that the Church, over its millennia of existence, would be able to associate herself with the people's soul and become necessary and dear for him. But it turned out that the Church was eliminated without a struggle, as if she was not dear and did not need the people, and this happened in the village even easier than in the city. The Russian people suddenly turned out to be non-Christian"

Literally immediately after the February events of 1917, French Ambassador Maurice Paleologue wrote in surprise:

“The great national act was accomplished without the participation of the Church. Not a single priest, not a single icon, not a single prayer, not a single cross! Only one song: the working "Marseillaise"

It was he who wrote about the mass funeral of the "martyrs of freedom", when about 900 thousand people gathered on the field of Mars.

Moreover, he also wrote that it was just a few days before:

“Just a few days ago, these thousands of peasants, soldiers, workers, whom I now see passing in front of me, could not pass by the slightest icon in the street without stopping, taking off their caps and covering their breasts with the broad banner of the cross. What is the contrast today?"

Interestingly, after the abolition of the "obligation of Orthodoxy", the mood changed even in the tsarist army. The famous white general Denikin, who did not betray the Orthodox cult, wrote in the book "Essays on Russian Troubles":

“From the very first days of the revolution, the voice of the pastors fell silent, and all their participation in the life of the troops ceased. One episode involuntarily comes to my mind, which was very characteristic of the then mood of the military environment. One of the regiments of the 4th rifle division skillfully, lovingly, with great diligence built a camp church near the positions. The first weeks of the revolution … The demagogue-lieutenant decided that his company was poorly placed, and that the temple was a prejudice. I put a company in it without permission, and dug a ditch in the altar for … I am not surprised that a villainous officer was found in the regiment, that the authorities were terrorized and kept silent. But why did 2–3 thousand Russian Orthodox people, brought up in mystical forms of cult, indifferently react to such desecration and desecration of the shrine?"

And these people had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks.

The situation in the army was testified by the priest of the 113th brigade of the state militia immediately after the abolition of the "compulsory" visit to the church (immediately after the February events, that is, before the October Revolution):

“In March, it became impossible for the priest to enter the companies with conversations, all that was left was to pray in the church. Instead of 200-400 people, there were 3-10 people from Bogomolets

It turns out that in general there was no religiosity. And the concept of the churchmen that everything was perfect, and then the vicious "enemies of the Russian people" came and shot all the priests - is unfounded. The church as an instrument has demonstrated its failure. That for almost 1000 years, she did not manage to sincerely win over even a certain part of the population to her side (when people fought for their interests during the civil war, the church was never the main participant, at best a supplement to the white army).

Therefore, claims to "exclusivity", to "historical significance", and even to a "special role" - are untenable. If you look exactly at history, then the church is like serfdom, the same “tradition” and “spiritual bond”, worthy of its place in history and a corresponding assessment.