Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Politburo And The Church, Kremlin ArchivesN. Petrovsky, S.G. Petrov
"Investigative report No. 1 of the 6th branch of the SB GPU on the case of Patriarch Tikhon." [May 9-10, 1922]
No. 25-5 *
Sov [shenno1 secret. -
The summary is printed twice a week. - Printed in 6 copies] and sent to Comrade. Comrade STALIN, TROTSKY, DZERZHINSKY, MENZHINSKY, UNSHLIKHT and alone in business. -
In testimony dated 5 / 5-22, TIKHON, when asked whether he condemned the fugitive foreign clergy who sat at the Karlovytsky Cathedral, replied that he condemned their activities, abolished the overseas ecclesiastical higher administration and intends to convene a meeting of 12 hierarchs on the subject making one or another condemnation to the participants of the Karlovytsky Cathedral 4 .
In the same testimony, to the question of whether he would give a directive to the priests abroad, so that the latter, according to the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, give out all church property to the representatives of the Soviets in favor of the starving, he replied “in property matters to the Patriarchs], orders were issued jointly with the Supreme Church Administration, which is affiliated with him, and I will make a proposal to the said Office for implementation. "
In the same testimony to the question of whether he condemns the agitation of the priests against the seizure of church values, he replied ["] I condemn in the sense of open agitation, and I consider it open agitation if the clergy, of their own free will and desire, spreads their thoughts directed against the seizure of church values anywhere, I do not condemn such agitation, which is expressed by a clergyman in response to questions asked by believers with a request to explain to them the church rule or doctrine in this regard
["].
In the testimony of 9 / 5-22, TIKHON did not recognize the enemy of the workers and peasants of Russia, the Metropolitan of Kiev ANTONY KHRAPOVITSKY, the former Manager of the Supreme Church Administration under Denikin, an ardent k [ontr] -r [evolutioner] and the Black Hundreds who inspired the good army in the fight against Soviet power. An enemy of the working people TIKHON said Anthony only since poslednyago appearances in print in 1922 who called the Black Hundred strength to fight against the Soviet power, and the accession of Russia to the throne of the Romanovs 5 . The same protocol TIKHON showed that postal relations with the fugitive to [Ontro] p [evolyutsionnym] clergy located abroad he made through the Estonian, Latvian, Polish, of Finland, and the Czech mission since 1920 6 .-
TIKHON does not recognize the counter-revolutionary activities of the Higher Church Administration under Denikin and others to [ontr] -r [evolutionary] white governments, saying that "I do not know this, since I have no facts to indicate this."
Archimandrite Tikhon cellmate neophyte (Osipov NA) has shown that Tikhonov has repeatedly invited close standing 1 * to his priests to his apartment, where conversations spoke of sending Eulogy (Berlin) to America to organize church affairs 7 . -
HEAD OF THE 6th DEPARTMENT OF THE SOGPU: E. Tuchkov. -
L. 9-10. Typewritten original, signature - autograph. On l. 9 in the upper left corner is a handwritten notation: "Arch [iv] P [olit] B [yuro]". Stamp of the Bureau of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with handwritten date "12 / V.1922" and the incoming number. Dated by dates in the text and in the covering letter (see note to No. 25-5).
Notes and Comments:
The cover letter is printed directly on the document in the upper left corner of sheet 9. This letter is dated May 10, 1922. It was sent signed by the head of the GPU's Secret Department, TP Samsonov, addressed to JV Stalin. (L. 9).
The file contains a cover letter on the letterhead of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), sent on May 12, 1922 “on behalf of Comrade STALIN "" for information "to V. I. Lenin signed by the assistant secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) A. M.
Nazaretyan with a request to return the documents to the" Secretariat of the Politburo comrade. Burakova ". The letter contains the incoming number of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which coincides with the number in the stamp on document No. 25-5 (l. 9, 10) and the label: "in [odeyat] 455 /
L. 16.V.22 ". (L. 8).
The file contains a note from the Assistant Secretary of the Politburo E. M. Sherlina dated May 16, 1922 with the text: "According to Comrade Lepeshinskaya (Secretary] Comrade Lenin's) the attached material has been read by Comrade Lenin." On the note there is a handwritten note: "Arch [iv] P [olit] b [yuro]". A handwritten note about the belonging of the note to the covering letter of May 12, 1922
(fol. 8). (L. 7).
1 * Further crossed out through.
4 See No. P-87.
5 Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and Galich (Khrapovitsky Alexei Pavlovich, 03/17/1863 - 08/10/1936) is an outstanding church figure of Russian Orthodoxy in the country and abroad. In 1917-1918. - An active participant in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, one of three candidates for the patriarchal throne. From 03/05/1918 - Metropolitan of Kiev and Galician.
The Supreme Provisional Church Administration was established at the South-Eastern Church Council, held in May 1919 in Stavropol. First, Archbishop Mitrofan (Simashkevich) of the Don became its chairman, and then Metropolitan Anthony
(Khrapovitsky), who returned from Galician captivity. On October
15, 1920, in Simferopol, the Supreme Church Administration in the South of Russia appointed Archbishop of Volyn Eulogius (Georgievsky) as the governor of Orthodox Russian churches in Western Europe. The first meeting of the Supreme Church Administration in the South of Russia outside Russia took place on November 19, 1920 in the port of Constantinople on board the steamer Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, chaired by Metropolitan Anthony. At this meeting, the Simferopol decision was confirmed on Archbishop Eulogia as the administrator of Russian Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, including Bulgaria and Romania, but the administration of the Russian parishes in Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey was left to the VTsU of the South of Russia. On April 8, 1921, by a decree of Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod, all Orthodox Russian churches in Western Europe were temporarily subordinated to Archbishop Eulogius.
In 1922, after the dissolution by a patriarchal decree of the Supreme Church Administration created at the Karlovatsk Cathedral, Metropolitan Anthony, who had been in exile in Serbia since 1920, became, with the consent of the Patriarchal Exarch, Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky), chairman of the Synod Abroad (Russian All-Foreign Church Council) of the Russian Orthodox Church. ... Metropolitan Anthony was the chairman of all foreign cathedrals, starting with Karlovatskiy; he bore the title of "Most Blessed."
6 For separate private letters of Patriarch Tikhon to the bishops of Finland Seraphim (Lukyanov) and West European Eulogius (Georgievsky) see: VRHD. 1975. No. 115. S. 88-90; Historical archive. 1996. No. 1. S. 92, 93.
7 Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky Vasily Semenovich, 04/10/1868 - 08/08/1946) - an outstanding church leader and theologian, exarch of Western Europe. Since May 27, 1914 - Archbishop of Volyn and Zhitomir; in 1917-1918 participant of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. On December 4, 1918, he was arrested by
Petliura and taken to Poland, in September 1919 he returned to Novorossiysk, worked at the VTsU in Novocherkassk and Yekaterinoslav, on January 19, 1920 he emigrated to Serbia. On April 8, 1921, Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod was appointed temporarily administrator of all Russian parishes in Western Europe, and on January 30, 1922, he was elevated by the patriarch to the rank of metropolitan (about the patriarch's "touching letter" to the new metropolitan see: Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon ... . 192). He founded the Orthodox St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris.
Cipher telegram from the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs about the Pope's reaction to the confiscation of church valuables and the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon. May 16, 1922
No. 25-6
Received for decryption
17 / Ѵ at 12 h. 10 min.
FROM SANTA MARGERITA LIGURE, NARKOMINDEL, Moscow.
Pizza [r] to the assistant Gasparri on behalf of the Pope asks to release Tikhon, by the way, he offers to buy religious objects taken from churches and leave them as (group 1 pass) from Bishop Tseplyak [6] * cpt and the money will immediately give us paragraph [7] .
It is tempting pt but the transfer of Orthodox church items to Catholics will cause a storm in Russia ptc Answer immediately.
16 / V-22. CHICHERIN
- L. 11. Typewritten copy of that time made for the office work of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). In the upper left corner, there is a handwritten note: "Arch [iv] P [olit] b [yuro]".
Notes and Comments:
The draft resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the trial of Patriarch Tikhon, proposed by the AntiReligious Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). [7
February 1923]
No. 25-7 9
Draft Politburo Resolution
About Tikhon's trial
1) Propose to the anti-religious commission to take measures to end the investigation as soon as possible so that the case can be put to hearing in the last days of March.
2) Limit the number of accused and witnesses to a minimum, so that the process lasts no more than 6 days.
3) To support the charge against Tikhon and his closest associates on four counts:
a) active struggle against the decree on the separation of church and state
b) countering the autopsy
c) opposition to the seizure of church property
d) systematic k [ontr] -p [evolutive] activities
Chairman of the anti [ti] -rel [religious] com [issii] Emelyan Yaroslavsky
- L. 13. Handwritten original on the letterhead of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), autograph. In the upper right corner there is a stamp of the Bureau of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with a handwritten date "10 / 11-23" and an incoming number.
- L. 14. Typewritten copy of that time, certified by the Deputy Secretary of the Politburo MN Burakova. In clause 3, subclauses are given in the letters of the Russian alphabet. After the signature formula, the date "<...> 11-23 years" is given. In the upper left corner there is a handwritten number of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with the date "7 / II 23". Above is a stamp about the document's belonging to the office work of the Politburo meeting, minutes No. 48, P. 8 of February 8, 1923 (No. 25-8). Under it is the stamp of the Bureau of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b).
Notes and Comments:
9 This draft resolution of the Politburo was drawn up by E. M. Yaroslavsky on the basis of the resolution of the ARC of January 30, 1923, protocol No. 11 (see comment 13 to d. 25).
Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on organizing the trial of Patriarch Tikhon. From the minutes of the meeting of the Politburo No. 48, paragraph 8 of February 8, 1923
MOST SECRET
8.— Proposals of the anti-religious commission: a) about Bobol 10 . b) about Tikhon and c) about Tseplyak 1 * 11 . (t. Yaroslavsky).
b) Accept the proposal of the anti-religious commission to bring the case of Bishop Tseplyak to the Supreme Court in Moscow before the trial of Patriarch Tikhon 12 . Personal responsibility for the political and legal line on Comrade Krylenko, and for the propaganda line on Comrade Yaroslavsky.
c) Accept the proposal of the anti-religious commission to organize the trial of Tikhon 13 in March . To assign personal responsibility for the conduct of this process to Comrades. Rykov, Krylenko and Kalinin.
SECRETARY OF THE CC
- L. 12. Typewritten copy of a later extract on the letterhead of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) - RCP (b) of the 1930s.
- APRF, f. 3, op. 1, d. 317, l. 11-rev. Draft minutes of the Politburo meeting. Handwritten original on the form of Politburo resolutions. At the bottom right is the mailing record: “Extract com. Yaroslavsky (all), Litvinov (a, b), Krylenko (c, 6), Kalinin, Rykov (6) ”. In the “Materials” column of the form, document No. 25-7 is indicated, but the document itself is not in the file. L. 2: “Present: members of the Politburo Comrades. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Stalin, Tomsky. Candidates: com. Molotov, Kalinin. Member of the Central Committee t. Chubar, IN Smirnov, Yaroslavsky. Members of the Central Control Commission t. Shkiryatov, Solts. Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars t. Tsyurupa.
Notes and Comments:
1 * Corrected hereinafter in document Chicken.
10 The draft minutes of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) recorded the following decision on point 8 a) "On Bobol": "To confirm the decisions of the Politburo dated 18/1 p. (Pr [report] 44, p. 8) (see: APRF, f. 3, op. 1, d. 313, l. 10. - Comp.) on the question of transferring the relics of Bobol to the Vatican and the need to put transmission in such a way that it was used in the interests of anti-religious propaganda ”(APRF, f. 3, op. 1, d. 317, fol. 11 - rev.).
Based on the materials of the four published thematic cases of the Politburo Foundation, the country's top party leadership paid special attention in 1922-1923. the relics of two saints of God -
Catholic Andrew Boboli and Orthodox Barnabas Vetluzhsky (see No. 23-38 - 23-40). The "anti-religious war" against the relics of saints especially revered by the faithful, officially declared by the decree of the People's Commissariat of Justice of February 14, 1919, resulted in a long campaign with numerous church trials throughout the country. It should be noted that the first autopsy of the relics with an anti-religious purpose took place on October 22, 1918 in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, and at the latest, noted by the researchers and fitting into the indicated campaign, at the end of 1929 - early 1930 (the autopsy relics of the holy princess Anna Kashinskaya). The turning point in this battle between the Soviet state and the religious feelings of believers should be recognized the publication of the circular of the People's Commissariat of Justice "On the elimination of relics" of August 25, 1920, in which the local authorities called for "the complete elimination of the relics [...], while avoiding any hesitation and half-heartedness in carrying out their events ”. The relics of the saints, “liquidated” by the Soviet regime, were ordered to be exhibited in local museums for exposing purposes. From the end of 1921, this campaign was superimposed on another - to confiscate church values. The many-pound silver crayfish, in which the relics of the revered saints rested, became the most attractive object for local commissions for the confiscation of church valuables. In the summer of 1922 it was decided to abolish the relics of the famous Polotsk Catholic saint Andrei Boboli. The opening of the tomb caused a sharp protest from the Catholics of Petrograd, Ukraine and Belarus. In the archives of the Council of People's Commissars (GARF, f. 130, op. 6, d. 330, l. 45-51, 53-57) a number of telegrams related to this event were deposited. Of the telegrams that came to the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee addressed to M.I. It was adopted on June 26, 1922; its text read: "On June 23 in Polotsk, an autopsy of the relics of Blessed Andrew Boboli was made, and it is supposed to send them to the museum, protesting on behalf of our own and the entire Catholic population of Russia against the committed blasphemy, I ask you to immediately take decisive [measures] to suspend further actions of local authorities and to satisfy the indignant conscience of Catholics." Three other telegrams from Rossony, Volyntsev and Rosits from the parishioners of Catholic churches, received in Moscow on July 9, 10 and 16, 1922, respectively, essentially repeated the contents of the telegram from Archbishop Y. G. Tseplyak. Protesting "against the destruction of religious rites", they characterized the opening of Boboli's relics as "an illegal and blasphemous" act "", asked the Moscow authorities to "protect" and "protect" from "similar crimes", "similar violence", and punish those responsible. 1922 g. signed by the responsible persons of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, a telegram was sent to Vitebsk about “complaints from citizens about the actions of local authorities in connection with the opening of the relics of blessed Andrei Bobol”. The NKVD offered to "urgently inform under what circumstances the autopsy was performed and what was the basis for the protest." Both the Vitebsk and Moscow authorities, most likely, recognized the existence of a counter-revolutionary conspiracy headed by Archbishop Ya. G. Tseplyak as the basis for the protests. As a result, as follows from the minutes of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) No. 48, item 8 b) dated February 8, 1923 (No. 25-8), the top party leadership recognized the case of Archbishop Y. G. Tseplyak “in the highest degree important matter "for" staging in the Supreme Court in Moscow. " (For more details, see note 12 to d. 25. ) The relics of blessed Andrei Boboli were urgently taken to Moscow, to the museum of the People's Commissariat of Health. And from there, due to the sharply negative reaction of the public of Catholic countries, which led to another international scandal (see note 21 to d. 24), by decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), they were transferred to the Vatican in May 1924.
11 The Anti-Religious Commission at its meeting on January 30, 1923 (Minutes No. 11) adopted the following resolutions (for the list of those present and the resolution on Patriarch Tikhon see note 13 to d 25):
“Listened: [...]
2. About the Tsiplyak case ”.
“Resolved: [...]
2. a) The final decision on the case shall be postponed until the next meeting of the Commission, inviting a representative] from the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and from Polburo
( Corrected by hand from the originally printed Politburo; printed in the draft by Polburo) - comrade. Holtman ( So in the document, it follows, as in the draft, Geltman) ".
“Listened: [...]
3. About the relics of Bobal. - "
“Resolved: [...]
3. a) In view of the absence of representatives of the anti-religious commission in the Polburo ( So in the document and in its draft.) When deciding on this issue of representatives of the anti-religious commission, ask the Politburo to reconsider the decision in the presence of a representative of the commission. -
b) To ask the Politburo, if the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs raises questions concerning tactics in the field of religious organization, to invite a representative of the commission to the meetings.
- RCKHIDNI, f. 89, op. 4, d. 115, l. 2; ibid, f. 17, op. 112, d.443a, l. 24 (draft).
From protocol X? 12 meetings of the same commission dated February 6, 1923:
“Attended by: com. YAROSLAVSKY, POPOV ( Written by hand, not in copy no. 443a.) SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, SKVORTSOV, KRASIKOV, SAMSONOV, TUCHKOV. Those invited in the Tsiplyak case comrades KRYLENKO, LESHINSKY and
GONETSKY ( So in the document, it follows Ganetsky.). On the issue of the Diocesan Administrations - Comrade RAVICH. "
“Listened:
1. About the TSIPLYAK case.
Resolved:
To admit: 1) In the case of Tsiplyak, there are quite enough materials to accuse him of systematic opposition to the measures of Soviet Power. -
2) Politically, setting up this process is extremely necessary along with Tikhon's process. In view of this, the commission considers it necessary to transfer the case to the Verhsud, having appointed for a hearing no later than March in Moscow before Tikhon's trial. -
3) Bring this to the attention of the Politburo and ask to approve the resolution. -
4) On the Catholic clergy: 1) Deliver, in 2 weeks, a report by Comrade Gonetskago on relations with the Vatican and on the possibility of a proposal on the composition of the clergy and their relationship with the Vatican. 2) Instruct Comrade Krasikov to develop a draft of such proposals regarding the composition of the clergy and relationships. - "
- RCKHIDNI, f. 89, op. 4, d. 115, l. 3; ibid, f. 17, op. 112, d.443a, l. 26.
See also # 25-38, comm. 19 to d. 24. The mention of the Tseplyak case in the minutes No. 14 of the ARC meeting of February 27, 1923 and in the minutes No. 15 of March 6, 1923 see comm. 13 to d. 25.
12 The trial of the head of the Catholics of all Soviet republics, Archbishop Ya.G. Tseplyak, and the Petrograd clergy subordinate to him took place at the end of March 1923. On March 21, 1923, in the Blue Hall of the House of Unions, the judicial board of the Supreme Court, chaired by A. Galkin, began hearing this case. The state prosecutor was the deputy people's commissar of justice and the senior assistant to the prosecutor N. V. Krylenko. The defendants were defended by a Petrograd lawyer
VM Bobrischev-Pushkin and member of the Moscow collegium of defenders NV Kommodov.
After the announcement of the charges brought by the investigation, the interrogation of the accused and the witnesses, the debate of the parties, the last words of the defendants, the judicial collegium on March 25, 1923, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, retired for a meeting. On March 26, at the first hour of the night, the verdict was announced. Of the charges brought by the investigation, the Supreme Court found the defendants guilty in the following.
First, despite the recognition by the "Roman Catholic clergy of Petrograd, led by Metropolitan Roop and Bishop Tseplyak" of the main articles of the decree on the separation of church from state from 23.01.1918 church property, the rights of a legal entity, etc.), the accused Catholic clergy, as the articles of the decree were fulfilled, "began to develop measures to combat the Soviet regime for the lost property and legal rights of the church." Considering the Soviet power to be short-lived, the "leaders of the Catholic clergy" first gave permission to communities to sign property contracts; then, when it became obvious that the Soviet regime was holding out, "Tseplyak, Butkevich and Roop and others began organizing mass opposition" and developed an action plan at preliminary meetings. In particular, Archbishop Ya. G. Tseplyak rejected the "twenty" organized by the government as organs of "undermining the discipline of believers and the uncontrolled management of church leaders", ordering not to establish such and, accordingly, not to sign agreements on church property with the authorities. The clergy subordinate to him, represented by the priests A.I. Maletskiy,
K. Yu. Butkevich, P. I. Yanukovich, A. M. Vasilevsky, S. F. Eismont, E. S. Yunevich, T. Yu. Myatulyanis, L. A. Khvetsko, J. Ya. Troygo, Ts. V. Khodnevich, D. A. Ivanov and L. I. Fedorov forced the believers to abandon the agreements, which led to the closure of a number of churches in Petrograd by the local authorities in December 1922. The delegation sent by believers to Moscow received permission from the People's Commissariat of Justice to open churches for the time of Catholic Christmas. Church councils were asked to sign not contracts, but "simplified receipts." Archbishop Tseplyak concealed the results of the negotiations with the People's Commissariat of Justice, announcing in Petrograd a ban on the opening of churches, thereby misleading the local Soviet authorities and believers. Such a deliberate action by the head of all Catholics led to "open protests against Soviet power."
Secondly, Archbishop Tseplyak, foreseeing the seizure of church valuables, issued an order to all Catholic clergy on 03.01.1922 on the inadmissibility of the seizure. In response to a request from the Yaroslavl priest of Rutkovsky, Archbishop Tseplyak personally forbade him to issue valuables and property inventories to local authorities.
Thirdly, this group of priests, under the leadership of Archbishop Tseplyak, organized political conferences, at which they discussed issues of "the essence of communism," "the program of the Communist Party," etc. The conferences were the place where preparations for the struggle against the Soviet authorities, plans were developed to involve parishioners of Petrograd churches in this struggle. The main initiator of the measures of the struggle of the Catholic clergy against the Soviet regime, approved at the conferences, was prelate K. Yu. Butkevich. He also prepared instructions for the implementation of these measures. Similar prescriptions led to incidents in a number of Petrograd churches: in the churches of the Assumption of Mary on the First Rot (L.A. Khvetsko, F.F.Rutkovsky, A.P. Pronsketis, J. Ya. Sharnas), St. Casimir on Ushakovskaya Street (C F. Eismont) and others. In addition, K. Yu.
Fourth, the accused Catholic clergy admitted at the trial that the Pope's orders were binding on him both in the field of doctrine and "in relation to seized and nationalized church property, despite the direct opposite of papal directives to Soviet directives." In addition, the Petrograd priests categorically refused to comply with article 121 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits teaching the doctrine to children, saying that they "do not recognize it and will not follow it."
Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court found the following persons guilty:
1) Ya. G. Tseplyak and K. Yu. Butkevich under Articles 62, 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code;
2) S. F. Eismont, E. S. Yunevich, L. A. Khvetsko, C. V. Khodnevich and L. I. Fedorov under the same articles of the Criminal Code;
3) A.I. Maletskiy, A.M. Vasilevsky, P.I. Yanukovych, T.Yu. Myatulyanis, Ya.Ya. Troygo, D. A. Ivanov, F. F. Rutkovsky, A. P. Pronsketis articles 68-69 (part I), 119 and 121 of the CC;
4) Ya. Ya. Sharnas under Article 78 of the Criminal Code.
In accordance with the penalties provided for by these articles, the Supreme Court sentenced: the first - “to subject to capital punishment - to shoot”, the second - “to imprisonment for a term of ten years with strict isolation and with the defeat of rights under Art. 40 of the Criminal Code for a period of five years ", third -" subject to imprisonment for a period of three years without strict isolation with the defeat of the rights under Art. 40 of the Criminal Code for a period of three years ", the fourth -" subject to imprisonment for a period of six months conditionally and without loss of rights. "
The verdict against Archbishop Ya. G. Tseplyak and prelate K. Yu. Butkevich, who submitted a petition for clemency to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was "suspended by execution until further notice." "Special order" - a resolution of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, signed by Chairman M. I. Kalinin and Secretary T. V. Sapronov, said that "the actions of citizen Tseplyak established by the court" are "a grave crime" and deserve the punishment that was determined by the court ... However, taking into account that the Catholic religion was oppressed during tsarist times and the execution of the sentence could be misunderstood by the "backward part of the Catholic citizens of the RSFSR", the capital punishment was replaced by "ten years of imprisonment with strict isolation." Regarding Butkevich, - See: Revolution and the Church. 1923. No. 1-3. S. 102-116.
On the further fate of Archbishop Ya. G. Tseplyak, see also other published documents: No. 25-40, P-175.
13 The day-to-day party-KGB leadership in the preparation of the trial against Patriarch Tikhon was carried out by the main specialized body for the development of policy regarding religion and religious organizations - the Anti-Religious Commission (Commission for the separation of church from state) under the Central Committee of the RCP (b). The documents on the supervision of the Politburo of this commission itself constitute the published case 12 of the APRF. In addition to the minutes No. 1,2 of the meetings of the Anti-Religious Commission, which are here, its decisions in connection with the preparation of the case of Patriarch Tikhon and subsequent measures are reflected in the following minutes of this commission (November 1922 - April 1924).
Minutes No. 4 dated November 14, 1922
“PRESENTED: com. FLEROVSKY, KRASIKOV, MENZHINSKY, SMIDOVICH, DERIBAS, TUCHKOV, SKVORTSOV, and as an expert comrade BRIKHNICHEV, comrade GALKIN did not appear at the meeting, and comrade BONCH-BRUEVICH arrived at 9 pm. " “They heard: [...] 3. About the TIKHONA case”. “Resolved: [...] Instruct the GPU to finish the TIKHON case within a month. To recognize it necessary to organize the process and finish it before the cathedral.
To entrust the leadership of the investigation to comrades MENZHINSKY, KRASIKOV and TUCHKOV. "
- RCKHIDNI, f. 17, op. 112, d.443a, l. 10. Minutes No. 5 dated November 21, 1922
“Attended by: com. POPOV, SMIDOVICH, KRASIKOV, MENZHINSKY, SKVORTSOV, DERIBAS and TUCHKOV. "They
listened: [...] 2. About Tikhon's case." “Resolved: [...]
2. To involve comrade LUNIN in the investigation of Tikhon's case.
"
- Ibid, l. thirteen.
Minutes No. 11 dated January 30, 1923
“Attended by: com. Smidovich, Popov, Yaroslavsky, Krasikov, Menzhinsky, Skvortsov, Samsonov and Tuchkov, invited on the Tikhon case - Comrade Vol. Agranov and Krylenko ". “Heard: 1. About Tikhon's case. Resolved:
1. a) The trial must be completed before March 25.
b) Note the following points in the investigation materials:
1) the fight against the decree on the separation of church from state,
2) the fight against the opening of the relics, 3) counteraction to the seizure of church values, 4) Systematic counter-revolutionary [ionic] activity.
c) Suggest the Verkhtrib to send the necessary forces for the investigation of this case at the disposal of the GPU.
d) Limit to a minimum the number of accused and witnesses. "
- Ibid, f. 89, op. 4, d. 115, l. 2.
Minutes No. 14 dated February 27, 1923
“Attended by: com. Yaroslavsky, Popov, Menzhinsky, Smidovich, Krasikov, Skvortsov and Tuchkov. Invited in the Tikhon case, Comrade Agranov ".
“Listened:
1. About the Tikhon case (report by Comrade Agranov).
Resolved:
1) Take note of the report. The question of the Tikhon case will once again be raised at the next meeting of the Commission, to which Comrade Krylenko will be invited.
2) Remind Comrade Krylenko on the Tsiplyak case, which should be completed with a hearing before the Tikhon trial is staged.
3) Instruct Comrade POPOVU through Ts.K. to issue appropriate instructions to the localities about taking appropriate campaigning measures in connection with the Tikhon trial.
4) Instruct him to take measures to send out the theses published in the "Sputnik Communism" ".
- Ibid, l. 6.
Minutes No. 15 dated March 6, 1923
“Attended by: com. Yaroslavsky, Krasikov, Popov, Menzhinsky, Skvortsov, Tuchkov. Those invited in the case of Tsylyak and Tikhon Comrades Krylenko and Agranov ".
“LISTENED: [...]
2. About the case of Tikhon and Tsiplyak. (Report by Comrade Krylenko) ".
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
1) To appoint Tikhon's case for hearing on March 25 and end on March 30.
2) Instruct Comrade POPOV through agitpropagad. The Central Committee of the RCP to use in the press the most valuable propaganda material on the case of Tikhon and Tsiplyak.
3) Instruct com. Galkin and Krylenko organize the protection of the process and its technical side.
4) To ask the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP to give precise instructions to the court on the punishment, taking into account the international situation. "
- Ibid, l. 8.
Minutes No. 17 dated March 27, 1923
“PRESENTED: com. YAROSLAVSKY, POPOV, KRASIKOV, SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, TUCHKOV and comrade BROYDO ".
“Listened: [...]
4. About Tikhon's case ”.
“Decided: (...]
1. To the next meeting of the commission invite
Comrade KRYLENKO for a report on the case.
2. To ask the Politburo that representatives from the anti-religious commission of Comrade Tikhon be included in the special commission on the Tikhon case. KRASIKOV, YAROSLAVSKY and POPOV ".
- Ibid, l. ten.
Minutes No. 18 dated April 3, 1923
“Attended by: com. YAROSLAVSKY, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, KRASIKOV, STARLING, TUCHKOV. Invited on the TIKHON case, comrade KRYLENKO, and on the Muslim question, comrade Krylenko. KORAKHAN and PETERS ".
“LISTENED:
1) About the TIKHON case.
IT WAS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1) Without prejudging the question of the number of accused now, instruct Comrade AGRANOV to interrogate Metropolitan Sergei of Vladimir and Metropolitan Mikhail of Kiev, as active members of the Synod and Council of 17 g. After that, Comrade KRYLENKO must decide whether they should be involved as accused in the case
...
2) Instruct Comrade POPOVU to conduct through the Central Committee. cost estimate for the TIKHONA process.
3) Instruct Comrade KRYLENKO will attend to the statement of the transcript from the first day of the trial.
4) Instruct com. YAROSLAVSKY and TUCHKOV were assigned to enter the ticket process.
5) To recognize it expedient to involve comrade KRASIKOV as a prosecutor in the case.
6) Consider it necessary to summon Vvedensky and Krasnitsky as witnesses for trial and interrogation. - Ibid, l. eleven.
Minutes No. 19 dated April 10, 1923
“Attended by: com. YAROSLAVSKY, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, STARLING AND TUCHKOV ".
“LISTENED:
1) About Tikhon's process.
IT WAS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1) Transfer Tikhon from the Donskoy Monastery to the Internal Prison of the GPU after the indictment was handed over to him, and before transferring to strengthen the security in the monastery.
2) Tikhon's trial to begin at the end of the party congress.
3) Distributed] by Verhsud the tickets for the entrance to the process of Tikhon an [n] must be checked, replaced with new ones of a different color.
- Ibid, l. thirteen.
Minutes No. 20 dated May 4, 1923
“Attended by: com. MENZHINSKY, POPOV, SKVORTSOV, YAROSLAVSKY, SAMSONOV, TUCHKOV.
“LISTENED:
1) Report comrade. Tuchkov on the progress of the cathedral.
IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
4) To admit the delegation of the Council for the removal of the dignity from Tikhon.
To carry out this should be entrusted to GPU ”.
- Ibid, l. fourteen.
Minutes No. 21 dated May 15, 1923
“Attended by: com. YAROSLAVSKY, POPOV, MENZHINSKY, KRASIKOV, SKVORTSOV, SMIDOVICH, TUCHKOV.
“Listened: [...]
2. On the appeal of Tikhon. "
“Resolved: [...]
II. In view of the fact that Tikhon has been defrocked and his signature under the appeal as patriarch would be politically harmful, reject the proposal to appeal. "
- Ibid, l. 15-16.
Minutes No. 22 dated May 22, 1923
"PRESENT: comrades. SMIDOVICH, YAROSLAVSKY, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, KRASIKOV, SKVORTSOV,
Tuchkov. INVITED on questions about the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church and the Muslim Congress of Comrades. DEMINSTEIN and PETERS ".
“Listened: [...] 8. Current affairs.
a) about the skiing of Tikhon. "
“Resolved: [...]
a) Offer to reject. "
- Ibid, l. 17-18.
Minutes No. 23 dated June 5, 1923
“Present: com. YAROSLAVSKY, SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, TUCHKOV and invited] on the Muslim question comrade. PETERS ".
“LISTENED: [...]
2) About Tikhon ".
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
1) Do not object to Tikhon's writing of a number of articles regarding his attitude to the Soviet power at the present time and about "the conditions in which he is being held in custody ["].
2) Instruct Comrade POPOV ".
- Ibid, l. 22.
Minutes No. 24 dated June 12, 1923.
"PRESENT: comrades. YAROSLAVSKY, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, TUCHKOV ".
“Listened:
1) About Tikhon.
Resolved:
1) Conduct the investigation of Tikhon's case without any time limit.
2) To inform Tikhon that the measure of restraint can be changed in relation to him if: a) he makes a special statement that he repents of the crimes committed against the Soviet power and the workingclass workers and peasants and expresses his present loyal attitude towards the Soviet power, b) that he recognized as just the fact that he was brought to trial for these crimes.
c) dissociates itself openly and in a sharp form from all k [ontr] -rev [olutionary] organizations, especially White Guard, monarchist organizations, both secular and spiritual.
d) Express a sharply negative attitude towards the Karlovytsky Cathedral and its participants.
e) Declare your negative attitude to the intrigues of both the Catholic clergy and the Bishop of Canterbury and Patriarch Meletius of Constantinople.
f) express agreement with some reforms in the church area (for example, a new style).
3) In case of consent to release him and transfer him to Valaam ( Inscribed by the hand of E. A. Tuchkov) courtyard without prohibiting him from church activities. "
- Ibid, l. 24.
Minutes No. 25 dated June 19, 1923
“PRESENTED: com. YAROSLAVSKY, POPOV, MENZHINSKY, LOGINOV, TUCHKOV AND THE INVITED: on the issue of the Muslim Congress - comrade. PETERS ".
“Listened:
1) Consideration of 2 statements of Tikhon.
Resolved:
1) The statement of Tikhon, addressed to the Upper [ovny] Court, shall be multiplied and urgently sent to all members of the P [olit6yu] ro for familiarization.
2) Introduce some amendments in the appeal to the believers.
3) Regardless of these 2 appeals, Tikhon should write the third appeal to the believers, in which, without touching the
"renovationists", state the following:
a) Acknowledgment of his crime against the Soviet government and the Working People of Russia.
b) Condemnation of the actions of Anthony Khrapovikhky and others.
c) That Melentius was a protege of England, etc.
d) They will sharply speak out against the Polish government, the Russians and foreign White Guards, who allegedly pushed him to commit a crime against the Soviet government and
e) on the introduction of a new spelling in the church world.
4) All this should be entrusted to Comrade TUCHKOV within five days and report back at the next ( next, the originally printed meeting) meeting of the commission.
5) The commission considers it possible to change the measure of restraint for Tikhon.
- Ibid, l. 26.
Minutes No. 26 dated June 26, 1923
“Present: com. POPOV, MENZHINSKY, SMIDOVICH, LOGINOV, LIKHACHEV, TUCHKOV and comrade Krylenko ".
“Listened:
About Tikhon and Tikhonovshchina.
Resolved:
1) a) Tikhon should be released from custody on June 27.
b) The appeal-appeal and refutation of Tikhon instruct to publish Comrades. Popov and Tuchkov.
c) The appeal and appeal must be previously published not in newspapers, but on special leaflets.
d) Instruct the GPU to carry out the gradual liquidation of cases related to the confiscation of valuables, by the appeals of Tikhon, freeing those Tikhonovites from punishment who publicly declare their repentance.
e) With regard to those churchmen who do not wish to repent of their crimes, but will continue their activities in the future, regardless of Tikhon's statements, continue the policy of repression.
f) Instruct the GPU within the next 3 months to review all the cases of the expelled clerics for amnesty for the least harmful of them.
- Ibid, l. 28.
Minutes No. 29 dated July 10, 1923
"PRESENT: comrades. POPOV, MENZHINSKY, LIKHACHEV, SMIDOVICH, TUCHKOV and comrades invited on Catholic issues. Chicherin, Krylenko and Iordansky ”.
“Listened: [...]
3. About TIKHONA's case.
“Resolved: [...]
3. a) Postpone the process indefinitely.
b) Those who are] in custody in the case of Tikhon, the remaining 3 arrested persons should be transferred from the internal prison of GPU. to Butyrka prison.
c) In case of their repentance for their crimes, change their preventive measure. "
- Ibid, l. 31.
Minutes No. 30 / a dated July 17, 1923
“PRESENTED: com. POPOV, MENZHINSKY, SMIDOVICH, YAKOVLEVA and TUCHKOV.
“Listened: [..]
2. About Tikhon and his Departments ”.
“Resolved: [...]
2.a) Instruct comrade Tuchkov to tactfully influence Tikhon ( hereinafter, what was originally printed is crossed out so that he does not travel around Moscow. 6) Also.) So that Tikhon gives an explanation through the newspaper and interviews with foreign correspondents that he is really himself wrote appeals and statements of his repentance.
c) To recognize it desirable that the rest of those in custody in the case of Tikhon, as well as he, repent.
d) Tikhon's diocesan administrations should not be allowed for the time being, with the exception of those areas where the renovationists are especially firmly settled.
e) Do not object to the prayer of the Tikhonovites for Soviet Power.
f) To recognize it necessary that Tikhon write a letter to the Bishop of Canterberley about his repentance for his appeals. "
- Ibid, l. 33-34.
Minutes No. 30 dated July 19, 1923
“Attended by: com. POPOV, LIKHACHEV, MENZHINSKY, SMIDOVICH, TUCHKOV and invited on the first question comrade. SALTS ".
“LISTENED:
1) On the early release of churchmen by the Commission of the AllRussian Central Executive Committee.
IT WAS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1) The functions of early release of churchmen should be transferred to the anti-religious commission, and the latter must, within 3 weeks, review all the Moscow cases of convicted and administratively exiled churchmen and give its opinion on the application of early release to some of them.
“LISTENED: [...]
2) About the cinematic picture "Tikhon after repentance" ".
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
2) Immediately confiscate the picture and investigate who exactly allowed this picture to be shown. "
“LISTENED: [...]
3) About the appeal of Tikhon. "
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
3) The appeal in such edition should not be allowed to be published. Allow for publication, provided that there is a change of edition ( Corrected by hand from the originally printed edition). "
- Ibid, l. 35.
Minutes No. 33 dated August 5, 1923
“PRESENTED: com. YAROSLAVSKY, MENZHINSKY, TUCHKOV
".
“LISTENED:
1. About Tikhon's trial.
IT WAS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The liberation of Tikhon brought complete confusion to the monarchist and White Guard ranks. 2) It made it possible to identify the most prominent Black Hundreds who are already beginning to move away from Tikhon due to his current attitude to the Soviet power. 3) Strengthened the antagonism of the Tikhonists with the Renovationists and thereby caused a complete church scandal. 4) The irreconcilability of the Renovationists with the Tikhonists, caused by the liberation of Tikhon, brought a form of decay to the church. 5) The beginning of the competition between the Tikhonists and the Renovationists in who of them is more guilty before the Soviets and who benefited it most. 6) The struggle between these two currents has just begun to develop. 7) The trial of Tikhon would now betray the halo of a martyr, which can be completely ripped off from him, by his further cooperation with the Soviet government. 8) It is necessary that [s] over Tikhon sell the threat of the Court to hang.
“LISTENED: [...]
5. About the wrong line taken by the St. Petersburg newspapers in connection with the release of Tikhon. "
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
5. To draw the attention of the Head of] Agitprop to the incorrectly taken line by the St. Petersburg press and party organizers about supporting Tikhon and against the renovationists.
- Ibid, l. 39-40.
Minutes No. 33 of August 14, 1923 (this number indicates two minutes of meetings - of 5 and 14 August 1923).
“PRESENTED: Comrade Cov. YAROSLAVSKY, SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, KRASIKOV, TUCHKOV and invited on the issue of insurance of churches, mosques, etc. Comrade. Efremov
( Handwritten by E. A. Tuchkov) ".
“LISTENED: [...]
4) On the acceptance of Comrade SMIDOVICH Tikhon ".
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
4) Take note of Comrade Smidovich's information. "
“LISTENED: [...]
8) About the wrong line taken by the St. Petersburg press and some party organizers against the "renovationists" for Tikhon. "
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
8) Instruct Comrade To MENZHINSKY, draw up a circular on this issue ( Handwritten ) for the Party organizations, and send it to the latter for leadership through the ( Handwritten) Central Committee along the Party line ( Handwritten) . "
- Ibid, l. 41-43.
Minutes No. 36 dated September 18, 1923
“Attended by: com. Yaroslavsky, Popov, Smidovich, Krasikov,
Menzhinsky, Tuchkov. "
“Listened: [...]
2) About Tikhon (report by comrade Tuchkov) ”.
“Resolved: [...]
1) Take note of the report. To recognize it expedient that Tikhon and Co. first of all actually carry out a new style in the church, smash the parish councils and introduce the second marriage of the clergy, for which they should be allowed to publish the magazine. "
- Ibid, l. 46-47.
Minutes No. 38 dated November 13, 1923
“Attended by: com. SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, KRASIKOV, SKVORTSOV, TUCHKOV, and invited on the issue of Muslim theological schools Comrades. BROY-DO, PETERS and YAKOVLEVA ".
“LISTENED: [...]
6. Information of the GPU about the churchmen (Tikhon and the
Renovationists). "
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
6. Take note. "
“LISTENED: [...]
7. About the prisoners in the Tikhon case ”.
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
7, "To keep them pending consideration of the issue of Tikhon's case and, depending on this, decide the issue of their further detention."
“LISTENED: [...]
9. On the actions of the Glavmuseum, expressed in the presentation of the museum premises to Tikhon, etc. ”.
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
9.— a) Bring the People's Commissariat of Education to the attention, pointing out to the latter the actions of the Glavmuseum, expressed in rendering assistance to Tikhon and the "Tikhonovshchina", which the Glavmusey had no right to do without the knowledge of the relevant authorities. "
- Ibid, f. 17, op. 112, d.565a, l. 37-39.
Minutes No. 39 dated November 20, 1923
“PRESENTED: Comrade. Comrade POPOV, KRASIKOV, SKVORTSOV, SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, TUCHKOV.
“LISTENED: [...]
2) On the activities of Tikhon. "
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
2) A) Instruct Comrade TUCHKOVA to lead the new style through Tikhon and cancel the old one.
B) Instruct him to urgently paste and distribute Tikhon's appeal on the introduction of a new style.
- Ibid, l. 43.
Minutes No. 41 dated December 5, 1923
“PRESENTED: Comrade Cov. SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, POPOV, KRASIKOV, STARLES and TUCHKOV.
“LISTENED: [...]
3. About the introduction to Tikhon KRASNITSKAGO.
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
3. Reject ".
- Ibid, l. 46-47.
Minutes No. 41a dated December 12, 1923
“PRESENTED: com. SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, KRASIKOV, POPOV, TUCHKOV.
“Listened:
1) On the sending of a bishop by Tikhon to Poland.
Resolved:
I.a) The bishop [v] should not be sent to Poland either from Tikhon or from the Synod.
6) Instruct comrade Tuchkov to conduct through the Synod and Tikhon the condemnation of the Polish government for the persecution of the Orthodox] Church.
“Listened: [...]
3) About Plato - Metropolitan of America. "
“Resolved: [...]
3. Instruct comrade Tuchkov to carry out Platon's dismissal through
Tikhon. "
“Listened: [...]
5) On the directive regarding the implementation of the new style in the field. "
“Resolved: [...]
5. Instruct the GPU to issue, along its line, a directive to the localities so that persons who do not accept the new style should not be subjected to reprisals if this resistance is not of an [ontr] -rev [olyutional] nature. "
- Ibid, l. 48.
Minutes No. 43 dated January 12, 1924
“PRESENTED: Comrade Cov. POPOV, SMIDOVICH, KRASIKOV, MENZHINSKY, TUCHKOV.
“LISTENED: [...]
5) Consideration of Tikhon's application to send Ilarion to Warsaw.
"
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
5) Refuse. "
“LISTENED: [...]
7) On the release from custody without the knowledge of the Commission by the Verhsud of 3 persons detained in the Tikhon case, namely: Metropolitans NIKANDRA and ARSENIYA and the layman GURIEV.
“IT WAS RESOLVED: [...]
7) In view of the fact that the release of the aforementioned persons is politically harmful - to instruct the GPU to arrest them immediately and at the next meeting of the Commission raise the question of the TIKHON case in general.
- Ibid, l. 50-51.
Minutes No. 44 dated February 13, 1924
“PRESENTED: com. KRASIKOV, POPOV, SMIDOVICH, MENZHINSKY, YAKOVLEVA, TUCHKOV and those invited on the question of fears [of] prayer houses - comrade EFREMOV.
“Listened: [...]
5. About Tikhon's case and further directives on the issue of the new style and its remembrance at the service.
“Resolved: [...]
5.a) Leave the directives on the new style and not make any concessions.
b) The order made by the NKYu, prohibiting the commemoration of Tikhon, is to remain in force.
c) Suggest Comrade Kurskiy not to give Tikhon fundamental] answers without preliminary discussion by the Commission.
d) Instruct comrade Tuchkov to request Tikhon's case from the court and continue the investigation on it.
- Ibid, l. 52-53.
Minutes No. 49 dated April 8, 1924
“PRESENTED: com. POPOV, MENZHINSKY, KRASIKOV, TUCHKOV ".
“Listened: [...]
7. About the introduction of KRASNITSKY to TIKHON in the
Administration. "
“Resolved: [...]
7) Taking into account that the introduction of KRASNITSKY to TIKHON in the Office is politically (hereinafter, the original printed very much is crossed out ), to instruct Comrade TUCHKOV, to do this, and if some verbal influences are not enough, tactfully apply other measures that could have an appropriate effect on Tikhon and his close] bishops. - ".
- Ibid, l. 59-rev.