WITH early childhood visited the Church of St. Flora and Lavra of Kashira and participated in singing and reading in the choir. At the end high school served in the army.
In 1975 he entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. In 1978 he graduated from the seminary and was accepted into.
On March 5, 1979, in the Cross Church in the name of the Holy Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow at the residence of Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomensky in the Novodevichy Monastery in Moscow, he was tonsured a monk with the name Joseph in honor of the holy righteous forefather Joseph the Beautiful.
On March 9, 1979, in the Assumption Church of the Novodevichy Convent, Metropolitan Yuvenaly ordained him a hierodeacon. On July 26, 1979, he was appointed a full-time deacon to the Assumption Church of the Novodevichy Convent.
On April 23, 1981, in the Assumption Church of the Novodevichy Convent, Metropolitan Yuvenaly was ordained hieromonk.
On September 30, 1982, he was appointed to the clergy of the Elias Church in Serpukhov, Moscow region. On July 13, 1983, he was appointed dean of churches in the Serpukhov district. He held this position until his departure to Yaroslavl in February 1999. On March 19, 1984, he was appointed rector of the Elias Church in Serpukhov.
On June 6-12, 1990 he took part in the work of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1990-1993 was a deputy of the Serpukhov City Council.
By decision of the Holy Synod of February 28, 1991, he was appointed rector of Vysotsky monastery Serpukhov with the right to perform divine services with a staff. On his initiative, veneration was resumed miraculous icon Mother of God "Inexhaustible Chalice".
In 1993, he was elected a member of the diocesan council of the Moscow diocese.
On September 25, 1995, during the First Hierarch’s visit to the Vysotsky Monastery, he awarded Archimandrite Joseph the Order of St. Sergius of Radonezh, II degree, and on March 28, 1996, he awarded the right to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with the Royal Doors open until the Cherubic Song.
By resolution of the Holy Synod of December 28, 1998, he was elected Bishop of Uglich, vicar. The consecration took place on January 31, 1999 in Moscow.
May 24, 2015 at the Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' to the rank of metropolitan.
(Ivan Semenovich Petrovykh; 12/15/1872, Ustyuzhna, Novgorod province - 11/20/1937, near Chimkent, Kazakhstan), Metropolitan. former Odessa, leader of the Josephites. From a family of philistines (the son of a poor pastry chef). After studying at the Ustyuzhensky DU, he entered the Novgorod DS in 1889, where he graduated in 1895 with the 1st category and was sent at public expense to the MDA. He completed his studies at the academy in 1899 as the first master's student on the list - a candidate of theology with the right to defend a master's degree. dissertation without additional testing. He remained at the MDA for a year as a professorial fellow. 9 Sep. 1900 approved as acting assistant professor of the Department of Biblical History. Aug 26 1901 tonsured a monk with the name Joseph in the Gethsemane monastery of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by the rector of the MDA Volokolamsk bishop. Arseny (Stadnitsky; later metropolitan). 30 Sep. the same year he was ordained a deacon, and on October 14, a priest. On July 19, 1903 he was approved for the degree of Master of Theology for Op. “History of the Jewish people according to the archeology of Josephus: (An experience of critical analysis and processing)”, received the title of associate professor. 9 Dec. the same year he was appointed extraordinary professor and inspector of the MDA. 18 Jan 1904 elevated to the rank of archimandrite.
During the 1st Russian During the revolution, I. had a conflict with the students and with the teachers of the MDA, because of which he experienced strong emotional distress. In Jan. 1906 I. asked for a month's leave from the academy, presenting a medical certificate that he needed “complete rest to recover from being very tired lately.” nervous system", and 2 Feb. the same year, Bishop of Kholm. Evlogiy (Georgievsky; later metropolitan) presented a report on the appointment of I., “according to the expressed desire,” as rector of Yablochinsky in the name of St. Onuphrius the Great husband. monastery I.'s appointment was explained by the need to organize Orthodox missionary work in the Kholm diocese to counteract the strengthening of Catholicism there. propaganda The appointment was approved by the Synod on June 30, 1906. In 1907, I. was transferred to the position of rector of the Yuriev Novgorod husband. mon-ry. He presented brochures and articles mainly on primary public education; collaborated with the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. The multi-volume book brought I. fame. “In the arms of the Fathers. Diary of a Monk" (under the pseudonym A. I., 11 issues were published in 1905-1914). I.’s book of spiritual reflections aroused great interest, excerpts from it were published in many volumes. magazines.
On March 15, 1909 he was consecrated Bishop of Uglich. The ordination in the Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra was led by St. Petersburg Metropolitan. Anthony (Vadkovsky). Being the vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese, I. stayed in Spaso-Iakovlevsky Dimitrievsky husband. mon-re in Rostov, improved the monastery. In 1911 he made a trip to Mount Athos to study ancient church chants.
I. arrived in Leningrad on September 11. 1926, on the eve of the feast of the transfer of the relics of St. blgv. book Alexander Nevsky. The all-night vigil in the Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, crowded with believers, was attended by 150 clergy and 8 bishops. I. was warmly received by the flock and clergy as a worthy successor to Metropolitan. sschmch. Benjamin. However, religious the rise associated with I.'s appointment and his great popularity in Leningrad aroused the concern of the OGPU. On the evening of September 13th I. left Leningrad for Novgorod, and from there he was summoned to Moscow, where he had a conversation with E. A. Tuchkov, who is in charge of church affairs at the OGPU. The authorities decided not to allow I. to return to the new department, and he was exiled to Rostov; he was forbidden to leave the city. After his arrest on Nov. the same year, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) I. in accordance with the testamentary order of Metropolitan. Peter (Polyansky) assumed the rights of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens and, anticipating an imminent arrest, signed up on December 8. 1926 order on the transfer of succession to the highest church power, naming 3 successors in case of impossibility of fulfilling his powers: Archbishops of Sverdlovsk Korniliy (Sobolev), Astrakhan Thaddeus (Uspensky) and Uglich Seraphim (Samoilovich). 16 Dec I. was summoned by the OGPU to Moscow and on December 29. delivered to the place of exile in the officially closed Modena in the name of St. St. Nicholas the Wonderworker Monastery (35 km from Ustyuzhna).
Returning on March 30, 1927 to fulfill the duties of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) on July 29 of the same year, together with the Temporary Priest convened by him. The Synod issued a “Declaration” of loyalty to Soviet power. All R. Aug. Vicar of the Leningrad Diocese, Bishop of Gdov. Dimitri (Lyubimov) and a group of Leningrad clergy turned to I. with a message, in which they expressed their disagreement with the course of the church policy of Metropolitan. Sergius. A similar appeal found a response from I. On September. With the consent of the authorities, he moved from the Modena Monastery to Rostov, where he still served in the Spaso-Jacob Dimitri Monastery. There was no response to I.’s request to Tuchkov to allow him to travel to Leningrad.
13 Sep. 1927, probably at the insistence of the OGPU, at a meeting of the Synod chaired by Metropolitan. Sergius, “for reasons of greater church benefit,” it was decided to transfer I. to the Odessa See (the official decree adopted later was dated September 17). I. was summoned to Moscow, where he was informed of a new appointment. Having learned, in his words, that “the displacement was caused by the intrigues of individuals,” I. declared its illegality, referring to the definition of the Local Council of 1917-1918. “On diocesan administration,” and demanded that his case be referred to the court of bishops. Returning to Rostov, I. made up September 28. letter addressed to Metropolitan. Sergius, in whom he again called the decision on his transfer “illegal and in no way acceptable,” citing the reason for it as “the evil intrigue of a group of people who did not want him to stay in Leningrad.” In the letter I. accused Metropolitan. Sergius in “deplorable slavish obedience, completely alien to the church principle” and again refused to obey the decree of the Deputy Locum Tenens as non-canonical, “adopted under the influence of extraneous factors and for this reason having a detrimental effect on the church organization.”
Later, I. reported his refusal to obey the decision to transfer to the Odessa See to the bishop who visited him in Rostov. Dimitri (Lyubimov), who brought this news to Leningrad. Oct 3 Peterhof bishop, temporarily managing the Leningrad diocese. Nikolai (Yarushevich; later metropolitan) reported to the Synod about discontent in the city in connection with I.’s movement from Leningrad. 12 Oct. The Synod approved the decision to transfer I. to the Odessa department. The vicars of the Leningrad diocese were ordered to stop raising the name of I. during divine services and submit to the bishop. Nikolai. Oct 22 the text of an extract from the decree of the Synod on the new appointment was received by I. in Rostov. Oct 25 I.'s transfer to Odessa was officially announced in the churches of the Leningrad diocese. Oct 30 I. sent a new message to the Synod refusing to leave the Leningrad see, declaring that he “does not want to obey the church authorities,” which, according to him, is in a “slave state.”
According to available archival information, during the negotiations, which were conducted on December 12-14. in Moscow with Metropolitan Sergius, a delegation of Leningrad clergy and laity, I. met with Bishop. Dimitri (Lyubimov) and got acquainted with the delegation’s demands to change church policy, which he approved. 26 Dec the same year, after unsuccessful negotiations with the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens of Leningrad supporters I., the suffragan bishops of Gdov Dimitry (Lyubimov) and Koporsky Sergius (Druzhinin) signed an act of departure from Metropolitan. Sergius and the cessation of canonical and prayerful communication with him. This decision received preliminary approval from I. In the 2nd half. Dec. he wrote to the bishop. Dimitri: “I approve of your step, I join you, but, of course, I am unable to help you more significantly.” After the Synod banned Bishops Demetrius and Sergius from serving in the priesthood, I. in a letter dated January 7. 1928 again approved the departure of his vicars from Metropolitan. Sergius and urged them to ignore the orders of the highest church authorities.
Feb 2 Archbishops of Vologda Sylvester (Bratanovsky) and Samara Anatoly (Grisyuk) arrived in Rostov with an admonition from the Synod, but I. did not admit his guilt in church disorder and soon, together with the vicar Bishop of Rostov. Evgeniy (Kobranov) signed Metropolitan Yaroslavl’s draft. Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and his vicars, the act of departure from Metropolitan. Sergius. Before the widespread circulation of the appeal of Metropolitan. Agafangela I. was summoned to Yaroslavl and interrogated at the local department of the OGPU together with Metropolitan. Agafangel Tuchkov, who arrived from Moscow, assured Met. Agafangela, that Mr. the authorities will not consider his speech against the course of Metropolitan. Sergius as a political figure and will not interfere in church affairs. At the same time, I. announced his agreement to head the separated from Metropolitan. Sergius is part of the Leningrad flock and all others who followed their example. In a message to the Leningrad flock dated February 8. I. entrusted the temporary management of the diocese to Bishop. Demetrius (Lyubimov) and called upon him to exalt his name as the ruling bishop after the name of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan. Petra. In the end Feb. I. was again detained, taken to Moscow, after which he was deported to the Modena Monastery.
March 29, 1928 Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the Provisional Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church came out with a refutation of I.’s arguments about the illegality of the metr. Sergius transferred a number of bishops to other departments. Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod explained these movements as beneficial for the Church, since the displaced bishops did not have the opportunity to manage their sees, but could be called to church work in other places. Regarding I.’s statements about the non-canonical nature of his appointment to the Odessa department of Metropolitan. Sergius and the Synod indicated that it did not differ from I.’s previous appointment to the Leningrad department, to which he did not object. 11 Apr by the resolution of the Deputy Locum Tenens and the Synod of I., together with other bishops who left the subordination of Metropolitan. Sergius, was dismissed, brought before the canonical court of the archbishops and banned from the priesthood. I. was blamed for the fact that he did not submit to the appointment to the Odessa See given by the highest church authorities, and his refusal to appoint contributed to the unrest and schism in the Leningrad diocese. Another point of accusation was I.’s open statements about his departure from Metropolitan. Sergius and calls for the unification of all bishops separating from the Deputy Locum Tenens.
All R. Apr. 1928 I. addressed Tuchkov with a written request to drop the charges against him and allow him to enter Leningrad, but his position did not change. The supervision of I. in the Modena monastery was not strict and did not greatly limit the life of the bishop and the brethren. I. lived in a cell with a bedroom, the windows overlooked the courtyard of the temple, received visitors and pilgrims, spiritual children, relatives, and numerous visitors. He was allowed to serve on great holidays in the church. from 3 churches of the monastery. Remaining in exile, I. could not lead the Josephite movement in the Russian Church that he headed. Nevertheless, couriers constantly visited him, bringing news of events, decrees for signature, and material assistance; through them he conveyed practical instructions, letters, explanations, and archpastoral advice. I. usually directed those who personally approached him to the temporary manager appointed by him, the bishop. Dimitri (Lyubimov; on January 7, 1929, I. was elevated to the rank of archbishop) with requests to resolve their issues. Ep. Dimitri, in turn, maintained constant contact with I., informed him about events. According to I., his deputy “was given complete freedom of control to the point that he allowed himself to act even contrary to my expectations and definitely expressed desires and advice. I did not make any claims in such cases, justifying such actions of Bishop Demetrius by the fact that on the spot he knew better or less expediency of this or that decision. In many cases, when he asked my advice, I answered him the same way, offering to discuss the matter on the spot with more experienced persons from the clergy if he did not rely on his own experience and reasoning.”
I. called on the bishop. Dmitry to be careful with involving new people in the movement in order to avoid provocations. I. also advocated the registration of Josephite parishes with state bodies. authorities, called for compliance with their orders regarding church matters (taxes, patents for the production of candles, etc.), if they do not affect the foundations of faith. In letters to bishop. Demetrius I. especially insisted that under no circumstances should the commemoration of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Met. Peter, even if in this case they threaten with reprisals. After the arrest of Bishop. Dimitria (Lubimova) November 29. 1929 I. appointed bishop temporary manager of the Josephite parishes. Sergius (Druzhinin), however, soon, having received complaints against Bishop. Sergius from a number of priests, limited his rights in governance. When the clergy turned to him, I. began to solve many issues on his own.
12 Sep. 1930 I. was arrested. He was first held in prison in Leningrad, where he was subjected to intensive interrogation, and in December. 1930 transferred to the Moscow internal prison of the OGPU. He was involved in the investigation of the “All-Union Counter-Revolutionary Monarchist Organization of Churchmen “True Orthodox Church”” together with the Josephite bishops Dimitri (Lyubimov), Alexy (Buy), martyr. Mikhail Novoselov, prot. Anatoly Zhurakovsky, prof. A.F. Losev and others. He was accused of heading the “church-administrative center” of the organization. During the investigation, Metropolitan did not hide his negative attitude towards church politics. Sergius, but categorically denied accusations of counter-revolutionism and anti-Soviet activities, stating: “After all, criticism of the words and deeds of Metropolitan Sergius is not at all criticism or an attack against the Government.”
At the same time, he tried to emphasize the difference between his attitude towards the Soviet government and the position on this issue of Metropolitan. Sergius. Playing on the most famous phrase from the 1927 Declaration (“We want to be Orthodox and at the same time conscious Soviet Union our civil Motherland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures”), I. said: “The joys of Soviet power cannot be our common joys. The Soviet government receives satisfaction from the closure of this or that church, we can only have sorrow and cannot rejoice.” During the investigation, I. also made sharper statements about anti-religions. policy of the authorities: “You need the destruction of Christ, I want His prosperity... In your opinion, we are obscurantists, in our opinion, you are the real sons of darkness and lies... You take pleasure in mocking religion and believers, dragging them to prisons and persecuting according to the links of its servants. It seems to us the greatest savagery, the disgrace of the disgraces of the 20th century, your violence against the freedom of conscience and religious beliefs of mankind.”
At the last interrogation, I. expressed his readiness to be a loyal citizen: “I have never tolerated and will not tolerate any counter-revolution in my midst, and I will not allow anything anti-Soviet and anti-revolutionary in my name or authority.” At the same time, he categorically rejected the possibility of k.-l. cooperation with the authorities in church affairs: “I do not intend to trade with my conscience, and any attempt to use my powers contrary to the decree on non-interference in purely ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs will be met with rebuff, not at all afraid of sinning against the Civil Authority, if only it is faithful to its own decrees and the spirit of their regulations on the freedom of faith and conscience of everyone.” I. declared his readiness to suffer for the sake of faith for his convictions: “I follow only Christ, according to the understanding of my own mind, and that’s enough for me. So, my last word: freedom is dear to me, but if it would only serve to harm me or someone else, I have nothing against bondage.”
3 Sep. 1931 I. was sentenced by the OGPU Board to 5 years in a concentration camp, the sentence was commuted to deportation to Kazakhstan for the same period. Since the fall of 1931, he lived in the city of Aulie-Ata (in 1936-1938 Mirzoyan, now Taraz); according to some sources, he briefly worked as an accountant at a copper mining plant. Lived in a small Kazakh region. adobe house on the outskirts of the city, where he occupied a room with overhead light, furnished very modestly: in it there was a roughly knocked together table, a trestle bed on which the Metropolitan slept, and a couple of chairs. A small altar was built in the house, and I. served the liturgy daily. The metropolitan's household was managed by mon. Maria (Koronatova), former a teacher in Ustyuzhna who followed him into exile. I. maintained relations with his supporters and received envoys from different regions of the country. According to some sources, he performed secret services in illegal communities of Josephites in neighboring settlements. He corresponded with Metropolitan, who was serving exile in Kazakhstan. sschmch. Kirill (Smirnov) and Bishop. Evgeny (Kobranov). After the expiration of the period of exile in 1935, he remained at his previous place of residence. On June 24 (according to other sources, September 23), 1937, he was arrested by the Mirzoyanovsky district department of the NKVD and placed in prison in the city of Chimkent. I was involved in a case with Metropolitan. Kirill and Bishop Evgeniy, was accused of leading a “counter-revolutionary rebel organization of churchmen.” 19 Nov A special troika of the UNKVD for the South Kazakhstan region. sentenced to death. Executed along with Metropolitan. Kirill and Bishop Evgeniy in the so-called Lisya Balka near Chimkent. Canonized by ROCOR in 1981.
Works: Samuel and Saul in their mutual relations: Trial lecture in the department. Bible stories, reading in collection MDA Council 4 Sep. 1900. Serg. P., 1900; [AND. I.] Mother of God - Gracious Mother of the Russian people. Serg. P., 1902; History of the Jewish people according to the archeology of Josephus: (Experience of critical analysis and processing). Serg. P., 1903; From the grains of the Gospel: Conversations of a monk. Serg. P., 1904; Leibniz's teaching on the origin and essence of evil. Kh., 1905; Little monks. Serg. P., 1906; John, son of Mattathias // PBE. T. 6. P. 791-794; John Hyrcanus // Ibid. pp. 794-800; John of Giskalsky // Ibid. pp. 899-909; Jesus, son of Joseph // Ibid. pp. 602-606; Iotap // Ibid. T. 7. P. 498-502; Judas Maccabee // Ibid. pp. 508-516; Judas of Galilee // Ibid. pp. 516-517; Jews // Ibid. pp. 546-554; In the arms of the Father: The Diary of a Monk. Serg. P., 1905-19143. 11 issue; Speech at the naming of Bishop of Uglich // PribTsVed. 1909. No. 13/14. P. 601; A new miracle of mercy of the Queen of Heaven in Rostov the Great. Serg. P., 1911, 1914; St. Demetrius is an exposer of slander and a defender of the innocent. R.-n/D., ; The legend about the newly glorified icon of the Mother of God “Tenderness”, located in the Annunciation Church in Rostov, Yaroslavl province. Kaz., 1914; In memory of Alexandra Feodorovna Malgina. Word before the funeral service by A. F. Malgina. Rostov, 1915.
Lit.: Joseph (Petrovykh), archimandrite. // PBE. T. 7. P. 481-484; Eleutherius (Epiphany), Metropolitan. Week in the Patriarchate. P., 1933. S. 124-126; aka. Conciliarity of the Church: God's and Caesar's. P., 1938. S. 196-207; Manuel. Russian hierarchs, 1893-1965. T. 4. P. 20-30; John (Snychev). Church splits. 1993. pp. 122-236; Polish. 1993r. Book 2. P. 1-11; Acts of St. Tikhon. 1994. pp. 319, 402, 403, 406, 408, 415, 416, 422, 436, 438, 489, 491, 516, 518-520, 523, 524, 538, 539, 541, 551, 552, 561- 564, 566, 570, 572-579, 584, 585, 588-590, 595, 596, 599-602, 604-607, 609, 612, 613, 618-620, 623, 636, 638, 643, 644, 658-660, 662, 665, 670-674, 696-699, 780, 784-787, 795, 805, 809, 815, 816, 818, 819, 826, 827, 831, 852, 855, 858, 861, 865, 867; Antonov V. Schmch. Metropolitan Joseph in Petrograd // Return. St. Petersburg, 1993. No. 4. P. 46-52; Khrustalev M. Yu., Gusev O. A. Mitr. Petrograd Joseph (Petrov) in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia // Ustyuzhna: Lit. almanac. Vol. 2. Vologda, 1993. pp. 147-152; Shkarovsky M.V. Iosiflyan movement and opposition in the USSR (1927-1943) // The Past. M.; St. Petersburg, 1994. Issue. 15. P. 446-463; aka. Josephism: Current in the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg, 1999; aka. The destinies of the Josephite shepherds: The Josephite movement of the Russian Orthodox Church in the destinies of its participants: Arch. doc. St. Petersburg, 2006; Vakhrina V.I. Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery in Rostov the Great. M., 1994. S. 46-47; Regelson L. The tragedy of the Russian Church, 1917-1945. M., 19962. S. 134-139, 587-590; Those who suffered for Christ. 1997. Book. 1. P. 520-523; Osipova I. I. “Through the fire of torment and the water of tears...”. M., 1998; Artemov N. Newly Holy Martyr Joseph of Petrograd // Vestn. German diocese of the ROCOR. 1999. No. 2. P. 7-11; Sakharov M. S. Life and activities of Metropolitan. Joseph (Petrovykh): Biogr. feature article. St. Petersburg, 2001; “I follow only Christ...”: Met. Joseph (Petrovykh), 1929-1930 / Publ., introduction, note: A. Mazyrin // BSb. 2002. Issue. 9. P. 376-424; Mazyrin A., priest
Sschmch. Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) as the head of the “right” church. opposition: The circle of his closest followers // Ibid. 2005. Vol. 13. P. 313, 330-335; Sschmch. Joseph, Metropolitan Petrogradsky: Biography and works / Compiled by: M. S. Sakharov, L. E. Sikorskaya. St. Petersburg, 2006.
Metropolitan Joseph of Alma-Ata and Kazakhstan (Chernov; 1893-1975) is an outstanding saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, through whose life one can study the history of the 20th century. An ascetic and ascetic, a confessor of the faith who went through the camps, a brilliant preacher and a perspicacious old man. The great power of love emanating from the ruler, even during his lifetime, attracted many people of all ages and professions to him.
Metropolitan Joseph (in the world - Ivan Mikhailovich Chernov) was born on June 2, 1893 in Belarus, in Mogilev.
From 1912 to 1917, subdeacon Ivan Chernov lived in the Tver Assumption Monastery. In February 1918, he was tonsured into a mantle with the name Joseph in honor of the holy forefather Joseph the Beautiful. A few days later, Father Joseph was ordained a hierodeacon, in 1920 a hieromonk, and in 1924 he was elevated to the rank of abbot.
Hegumen Joseph served in the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Taganrog. He had to fight against the renovationists, who captured all the city churches except St. Nicholas Cathedral. As a result, renovationist churches were empty, and St. Nicholas Cathedral could not accommodate all the worshipers. This was the reason for the arrest of Father Joseph by the GPU in 1925.
In 1932, in Rostov, Archimandrite Joseph was consecrated Bishop of Taganrog. On February 3, 1933, he was appointed temporary administrator of the Don and Novocherkassk diocese. Vladyka Joseph was then the only Orthodox bishop in the Rostov region, keeping his flock from the renovationist temptation.
In 1935, Bishop Joseph was sentenced to five years in the camps “for anti-Soviet agitation and connections with Archbishop Arseny (Smolenets),” who came to Taganrog after serving his exile. To serve his sentence, the bishop was sent to the Ukhto-Izhemsky camps of the Komi Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
Vladyka Joseph told how they celebrated Easter in the camp. By some miracle, the parishioners were able to give them bread, wine, and an Easter egg at the end. Instead of the throne, they placed one old bishop to serve the liturgy on his relics - after all, they were all confessors at that time. Of course, at that time he was alive, but when the service ended, the bishop turned out to be dead. The bishop even risked telling this story during a sermon from the pulpit, although in Soviet times it was unsafe.
Some of the criminals who were imprisoned with the bishop came out of prison as transformed, believing people. And later, already free, they found the bishop, corresponded with him, came to him as a great friend and thanked him for helping them rethink their lives and be spiritually reborn.
In December 1940, Vladyka was released from the camp and sent to his old place of residence, Taganrog. But Bishop Joseph did not receive the appointment to manage the Taganrog diocese, and could not have received it, since all the churches in the city were closed by that time. He left for Azov.
After Taganrog was occupied by German troops during the Great Patriotic War, in August 1942 the Bishop resumed open ministry as the Bishop of Taganrog.
The Bishop had difficulties with the German authorities due to his refusal to leave subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate and commemorate Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) of Berlin and Germany in the services instead of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky).
Moreover, Father Joseph actively helped the partisans. Fundraising to help the Soviet troops also took place in the regions cared for by Bishop Joseph.
The Gestapo arrested the ruler. The commandant of the city of Rostov interrogated him and invited the bishop to help them in the field of propaganda. Propaganda, in his opinion, was more valuable than gold and stronger than weapons. But the bishop refused. He was in the Gestapo prison in Uman from November 6, 1943 to January 12, 1944, and on Christmas Day he was sentenced to death. Vladyka was saved only by the retreat of the German troops.
After the liberation of Uman by units of the Red Army in June 1944, Bishop Joseph was again arrested. He was asked to explain why he survived, while in the documents delivered from Uman he was listed as being shot by the Gestapo.
In June 1954, the ruler was released from Karlag and transferred to exile in a settlement in the Kokchetav region, Alabatinsky state farm, Ak-Kuduk village, Chkalovsky district.
On April 6, 1956, Bishop Joseph was “...released from further exile on the basis of an order Prosecutor General USSR and the KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR." On June 1, 1956, he was appointed rector of the Archangel Michael Church in the city of Kokchetav, and a month later he was transferred to the city of Petropavlovsk and appointed honorary rector of the Cathedral of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
On November 2, 1956, by Decree of the Holy Synod, Bishop Joseph was appointed Bishop of Petropavlovsk, vicar of the Alma-Ata diocese.
On March 18, 1957, an independent Peter and Paul diocese was formed and Bishop Joseph was appointed its administrator with the title of Peter and Paul and Kustanai. On February 25, 1958, Bishop Joseph was elevated to the rank of archbishop.
On September 15, 1960, at a meeting of the Holy Synod, Archbishop Joseph was appointed to the Alma-Ata See. What happened during this period in Almaty? Unfortunately, peace was lost in the city both among the clergy and among the flock. After the death of Metropolitan Nikolai (Mogilevsky) in 1955, the Alma-Ata flock, nurtured in the post-war years by this bishop-confessor, could not immediately accept another bishop. By the time Bishop Joseph was appointed to Alma-Ata, a very difficult, rebellious, and unpleasant situation for the Church had developed in the city.
In order to pacify and preserve the diocese, Bishop Joseph began to celebrate the Divine Liturgy daily either in the churches of the city or in his home church. He understood that it was not the man himself who greeted him with such hostility, but the enemy of the human race - the devil - who was trying to do his job here. Peace in the diocese was restored.
And now, after the death of the Bishop, love and faith for him among the people has not been lost, his memory is sacredly preserved in the hearts of thousands of Christians. His grave is constantly visited by believers, and behind the grave, Bishop Joseph extends help to those who turn to him, which is repeatedly witnessed by his admirers.
Metropolitan Joseph said: “Life without Christ is a random dream.”
He also said: “To lose faith in God means to lose the title of man.”
Instructed: “To the reader Holy Gospel God sends a wonderful balance of thought and movement of the heart to joy and the enduring of temporary earthly hardships.”
November 24, 2009 Views: 6379Don’t forget this for a minute: “When the Son of God comes again, will he even find the faithful on earth?” And, perhaps, the last “rebels” against the traitors of the Church and accomplices of its ruin will not only not be Bishops or Archpriests, but the simplest mortals, just like at the Cross of Christ, His last suffering breath was taken by the few simple souls close to him …
From a letter to one priestat
Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh)
The future martyr was born on December 15, 1872 in the district town of Ustyuzhna, Novgorod province, into a family of petty bourgeois Petrovs. Ivan became the fourth child in a large family (in total he had 6 brothers and 3 sisters). The head of the family, Semyon Kirillovich, was a baker. In the courtyard of the family home on Kazansky Lane there was a small bakery where Semyon Kirillovich and his assistant baked bread, bagels and pies, which were eagerly bought up by the residents of Ustyuzhna. Semyon Kirillovich’s wife, Evdokia Ivanovna, took care of the housework and raising children, and then grandchildren. The house in which Ivan Semenovich was born, although rebuilt, is still preserved. The family always celebrated church holidays; on the days of the Angel they gathered at the birthday boy’s place at a common table. The family also had its own ancestral church - the Church of the Ascension of the Lord on Vspolye, destroyed in 1939.In 1880, Ivan entered a three-year public school, after which he was admitted to the Ustyuzhna Theological School. In 1889, he graduated with honors, which gave him the opportunity to enter the Novgorod Theological Seminary. In 1895, Ivan Petrov, as the best student, was sent to study at public expense at the Moscow Theological Academy. During his years of study, the young seminarian, and then a student at the Academy, rarely appeared in his homeland - he had to earn a living. Ivan's father died in 1891, and his mother had no opportunity to provide financial assistance to her son. During the holidays, Ivan worked at monasteries and churches, putting various documents in order. In the summer, he tried to make pilgrimages to the holy places of Russia, and was honored to visit the Holy Land.In 1899, Ivan Semenovich Petrovykh was awarded the degree of candidate of theology, and in 1900 he was elected acting associate professor of the Academy in the department of biblical history.On July 10, 1901, Ivan Semenovich submits a petition to the rector of the MDA, Archbishop Arseny Volokolamsky, for “the numbering of the monastics.” The tonsure took place on August 26 in the Gethsemane monastery at the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. Ivan was tonsured into a mantle with the name Joseph, in memory Old Testament patriarch Joseph the Beautiful. We find a detailed and wonderful description of this event in the diary of the monk Joseph himself, which he began to keep while still studying at the Academy. “And I began this life... I began in the humble consciousness that the tender caresses of the Heavenly Father, the sweetness of which is given to a monk to feel, should not only be generous gift His love for my repentance and conversion, but also such an “advance”, which must, to the best of my ability, be earned and redeemed by the rest of my life - the life of all kinds of trials, sorrows, temptations, misfortunes, temporary abandonment by God - everything that makes this life capable remain inseparably in the sweetest embrace of the Father!” “In the arms of the Fathers. Diary of a Monk” – under this title the diary of Fr. Joseph. This diary is a frank story about his first decade of monastic life.On September 30, 1901, in the Trinity Cathedral of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Monk Joseph was ordained a hierodeacon, and on October 14, in the Church of the Intercession of the MDA - to the rank of hieromonk. “I love to serve and will serve often, because these moments of service are always the best moments of life,” he notes in his diary. Daily communion and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy become an integral part of Fr. Joseph. For his zealous service in the academic Church of the Intercession, Hieromonk Joseph was awarded a nabedrennik.For several years, Hieromonk Joseph has been working on his master’s thesis “History of the Jewish people according to the “Archaeology” of Josephus,” the defense of which was held at the Moscow Academy of Sciences on June 6, 1903. Father Joseph was awarded a master’s degree in theology and confirmed as an assistant professor in the department of biblical history. In December 1903, Hieromonk Joseph was appointed extraordinary professor, and on January 18, 1904, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite.The possibility of further advancement up the hierarchical ladder, as well as a scientific career, does not concern Father Joseph. He is first and foremost a monk: “Lord! I no longer had time to look after my soul,” he writes in his diary on January 20, 1904. He is burdened by the inspector’s position.Many experiences and sorrows of Father Joseph were associated with the polemics on the monastic issue at the Academy. This controversy between the professors of the MDA and the economist of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite. Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) was carried out since 1902. The professors criticized the contemplative character of monasticism. The articles on both sides were quite harsh. In March 1904, Metropolitan Vladimir of Moscow imposed a ban on the next publication of Prof. N.F. Kaptereva, Fr. Joseph supported this decision at the Academy Council, for which he was publicly and rudely scolded by the offended professor. They did not feel sorry for Father Joseph, considering that he deservedly received for speaking out against the professorial corporation. Father Joseph finds consolation from slander and slander in worship and prayer.In 1906, the service of archimandrite ended. Joseph at the MDA. His departure from the Academy was caused by newly strained relations with the professors: he took a sharply negative position in relation to the democratization of the Academy Charter, which professors and students sought in the wake of the 1905 revolution.By decree of the Holy Synod of June 30, 1906, Archimandrite. Joseph was appointed rector of the Yablochinsky St. Onufrievsky Monastery - the only one in the Kholm diocese. The Orthodox Kholm region experienced constant pressure from the predominant Catholic population, and the monastery was in a pitiful state.On August 5, 1906, an armed attack by robbers on the monastery took place; Father Joseph frankly spoke on the pages of his diary about the fear he experienced: “How difficult it is to be afraid sudden death! My God, my God! Or I have little hope in You, little devotion to You!”Archimandrite Joseph zealously set about organizing the life of the monastery and its improvement. He composed the service of St. Onuphrius, arranged a shrine for his relics, and ordered icons of St. Seraphim and St. Sergius for the monastery. Soon Fr. Joseph began the reconstruction of the temple. December 16, 1907 after overhaul The consecration of the temple was completed, but without Archimandrite Joseph, who by that time had been appointed rector of the Yuryev Monastery in the Novgorod province.Yuriev Monastery was one of the richest monasteries in Russia, second only to the Kiev Pechersk and Holy Trinity Lavras in the number and splendor of churches. Unfortunately, materials about the stay of the archimandrite. Joseph was not preserved in abundance, but, judging by the entries in the diary, he again endured a lot of sorrows and slander.March 15, 1909 in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra vrhim. Isif was ordained Bishop of Uglich, vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese. That same year, Vladyka visited his homeland. The arrival was a great holiday for all relatives, especially since such a high ecclesiastical rank among the bishop's fellow countrymen. No one reached Joseph. The Right Reverend Joseph visited Ustyuzhna several more times and each of his visits ended with a liturgy and sermons in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin.On March 21, 1909, Bishop Joseph arrived in Rostov Veliky. His place of residence was the Spaso-Iakovlevsky Monastery, of which he was appointed rector. From the very first days he took up the improvement of the monastery. He carried out the restoration of the Cathedral Conception Church. From 1912 to 1917 The Bishop built and consecrated the cave Temple of the Resurrection of Christ, a chapel in honor of the Vatopedi Icon of the Mother of God and a church in honor of the icon of the Mother of God of the Joy of All Who Sorrow.In 1911, Bishop Joseph made a pilgrimage to Athos, and then visited the New Athos Monastery in Abkhazia. One of the main goals of the trip was to get acquainted with ancient church chants, which Vladyka loved very much.In 1913 In connection with the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich visited Rostov with his family and retinue. Bishop Joseph showed the sights of the monastery with a detailed story. On December 16, 1913, the Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna secretly visited the monastery. The Bishop blessed the princess with the Vatopedi icon of the Mother of God and presented as a gift the icon of St. Demetrius of Rostov with a piece of his coffin and relics.Ep. Joseph paid attention to reconciliation with the Old Believers. On May 31, 1917, together with Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa and Archpriest Simeon Shleev of the same faith, he attended the Council Old Believer Church Belokrinitsky hierarchy, held at Rogozhskoe cemetery in Moscow, signed the “Appeal” to the Council and had conversations with Old Believer bishops. A few months later, Vladyka began to participate in the work of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918.On October 3-4, 1918, Patriarch Tikhon visited Rostov the Great. In 1918, Bishop Joseph temporarily ruled the Riga diocese. And soon followed his first arrest in Rostov on July 7, 1919 by the Yaroslavl provincial Cheka “for attempting to disrupt the opening of relics in the Rostov district by convening believers by ringing bells.” Vladyka was transported to Moscow to the internal prison of the Cheka, where he was kept for about a month. In August 1919, he was released without sentencing. On January 22, 1920, Bishop Joseph of Uglich was elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Rostov. From the end of 1924 until August 1926, Archbishop Joseph ruled temporarily the Novgorod diocese.Two years later, the archbishop was arrested again and kept in Yaroslavl prison, sentenced to 4 years in prison. In January 1923, Vladyka was released early.After his release, Vladyka secluded himself in the Uglich Alekseevsky Monastery and from there secretly ruled the diocese, rejecting any dialogue with the renovationists. Their categorical rejection brought Eminence Joseph respect and popular love.Archbishop Joseph with sixty other bishops participated in the burial of St. Patriarch Tikhon and signed the act of transferring locum tenens powers to St. Metropolitan Peter. In his order dated December 6, 1925 - a few days before his arrest - the latter appointed Archbishop Joseph as the third candidate for Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens behind Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) of Kyiv.In August 1926, the Archbishop of Rostov, respected everywhere for his ascetic life and learning, was appointed Metropolitan of Petrograd. According to the decree, Vladyka Joseph was appointed “due to the urgent request of the believers” with his elevation to the rank of metropolitan with the placement of a white hood, a cross on the hood and a miter. Indeed, in the summer of 1926, delegations of Leningrad clergy visited Metropolitan Sergius in Moscow several times with appropriate requests - the rector of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasily Veryuzhsky, Archimandrites Lev and Gury (Egorov), Archpriests Alexander Paklyar, Ioann Smolin, Vasily Venustov, etc.On September 11, the Metropolitan arrived in Leningrad and stayed at the Vorontsov courtyard. It was the eve of a famous city holiday - the transfer of the relics of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky to the city, which until recently was accompanied by a grandiose procession of the cross from St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. At the all-night vigil, the Trinity Cathedral of the Lavra, which had recently passed to the “Tikhonites” from the renovationists, was overflowing with people. Fr. Mikhail Cheltsov wrote: “Delight and tenderness knew no bounds, joy was heard from everywhere and seen on faces, conversations flowed most animatedly and prayerfully grateful to God... Metropolitan Joseph inspired sympathy and trust from the very first glance at him... A completely ascetic the monk’s appearance attracted and pleased him; in his worship there was nothing pretentious: simple and prayerful... They spoke of him as a true monk, a kind man, an ardent man of prayer, responsive to the needs and sorrows of people; I wanted to be near him, to listen to him... And it seemed to us, the clergy, that it was precisely him that we needed, that it was he who could demonstrate that authority that obliges obedience, deviates from resistance, teaches order, disciplines one with a glance, - in a word, that with him real life will begin for us, that we will have a Lord Father.”This liturgy was the only one in Petrograd: on September 13, the Metropolitan left for Rostov to say goodbye to his former flock. He was never destined to return. According to the remark of Archpriest Mikhail Cheltsov, “the Soviet government... could not leave us, even with little prosperity.” Having been summoned to Moscow by the OGPU, in a conversation with the head of the church department, E. Tuchkov, Vladyka reacted negatively to the proposed plan for the legalization of the Patriarchal Church through a significant concession to the Soviet government of the spiritual freedom of the Church. As a result, he was prohibited from leaving Rostov.At the beginning of December 1926, Metropolitan Joseph assumed the duties of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. But on December 29, 1926, in Rostov, he again found himself in custody. The arrest was related to the secret election of the patriarch. It is interesting that the main initiators of the action, Metropolitan Sergius and Bishop Pavlin, were released from prison already in April 1927, while the bishops arrested in this case were exiled to different parts of the country. The arrested Metropolitan Joseph was taken to the Nikolo-Modensky Monastery in the Ustyuzhensky district, where at that time only 10 monks lived, with a ban on leaving it. But, possessing significant authority and decisive character, His Grace continued to govern the Leningrad diocese through his vicars - Bishop of Gdov Dimitri (Lyubimov) and Bishop of Narva Sergius (Druzhinin).In 1927, Metropolitan Joseph did not recognize the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky).In the fall of 1927, he refused to accept the appointment of September 17 to Odessa (instead of Leningrad, where the authorities did not allow him); while living in Rostov, he continued to be called Metropolitan of Leningrad. His position enjoyed significant support among the “old church” clergy and people in Leningrad, where on his behalf the diocese was administered by one of the vicars, Bishop Dimitri (Lyubimov). On February 6, as part of the bishops of the Yaroslavl diocese, 1928 he signed an act of departure from Metropolitan Sergius, becoming the head of a special movement in the Patriarchal Church, called in the literature after his name “Josephlanism” (it was the Josephites who were supporters of strict ecclesiology in relation to Sergianism). He did not recognize the ban of the Sergian Synod of March 27, 1928.In September 1929 he was arrested and deported to Kazakhstan in Aulie-Ata (Dzhambul). He was arrested in exile and involved in the case of the “All-Union Organization of the IOC” on September 9, 1930.Soon after the signing of the Yaroslavl Declaration, Metropolitan Joseph was arrested and sent to the Nikolo-Modensky Monastery for the second time. Here clergy and laity visited him, they brought letters, messages, and asked for advice. The Bishop conveyed response letters, decrees, and orders. Metropolitan Joseph's letters were rewritten and distributed.On September 12, 1930, Vladyka was arrested and brought to investigation in the case of the “All-Union counter-revolutionary monarchist organization of churchmen “True Orthodox Church””.On September 3 of the following year, a verdict was rendered in the case. Metropolitan Joseph was sent into exile in Kazakhstan for 5 years. First he was sent to Alma-Ata, then to Chimkent and, finally, to the village of Leninskoye, Karatas district. According to the recollections of his parishioner, cited by Rev. Mikhail Polsky “he lived in a stable with pigs in a wicker barn, slept on boards, separated from the pigs by several poles. He endured cold and heat, all kinds of bad weather and heavy air in these conditions.”For some time he was allowed to do so in more or less tolerable conditions. His secret tonsure, Archimandrite, who took care of him. Arseny (Boris Grigorievich Kordi) from Alma-Ata arranged a room for him in Chimkent and supported Vladyka financially. He got him a zither and a harmonium, which was a great joy for the Metropolitan: he set the psalms to music and sang. Vladyka was helped to run the household by his fellow countryman, a nun - a former teacher from Ustyuzhna - Maria Ivanovna Koranatova, with whom Metropolitan Joseph had been friends since childhood (apparently, she shared Vladyka’s fate).As M. Sakharov (son of Nina Alekseevna Kitaeva, adopted by the Vladyka’s childless sister) recalls: “In my memories he appears as a tall, extremely kind old man, with great thick beard, wearing glasses with thin frames. We visited him in Kazakhstan, where he lived in a small adobe house on the outskirts of the city. Vladyka devoted a lot of time to reading, standing at a small table, which my grandmother folded and put away immediately after finishing the reading. She called this table a lectern. Grandfather read loudly, often by heart, in a pleasant voice. As I understood later, these were divine services that Vladyka performed every day...”In October 1933, Vladyka sent a letter to the Political Red Cross with a request for early release for health reasons. However, he was soon arrested and in custody was sent to Aulie-Ate and placed in prison, where he was kept for 17 days among thieves and bandits. Then he was released and allowed to live in an apartment in Aulie-Ata.It is known that in 1936-37. Metropolitan Joseph performed secret services. His connection with many priests and bishops is confirmed by the extensive correspondence that he conducted through proxies.On June 24, 1937, Metropolitan Joseph was arrested. At the same time, Metropolitan Kirill, with whom Vladyka was in communication, was also arrested. Both were kept in Shymkent prison. Their unanimity is eloquently evidenced by the indictment: “... Joseph Petrovykh was the deputy of K.I. Smirnov. and, in the event of the arrest of the latter, Petrov was supposed to lead the counter-revolutionary activities of the organization. In addition, Petrov carried out work to concentrate the counter-revolutionary forces of the clergy around the counter-revolutionary organization, conducted a new recruitment of members and organized counter-revolutionary cells on the ground.”At a meeting of the UNKVD Troika for the South Kazakhstan region on November 19, 1937, Metropolitans Joseph and Kirill (and with them Bishop Evgeniy of Rostov) were sentenced to capital punishment. On November 7/20, they and more than 100 other people were shot and buried in the Fox Ravine near Chimkent. Forward
Biographies 03/06/2009 07:45
HOLY MARTYR JOSEPH (PETROVYKH)
Hieromartyr Joseph (Petrovykh) - Metropolitan of Petrograd, (in the world Ivan Semyonovich Petrovykh). Born on December 15, 1872 in the city of Ustyuzhna, Novgorod province, into a bourgeois family. Baby John was baptized, like all his brothers and sisters, in the parish Church of the Ascension of the Lord in Vspolye. He had deep faith and a desire to serve God from early childhood.
He graduated from the Ustyuzhensky Theological School and the Novgorod Theological Seminary, after which he was sent at public expense to the Moscow Theological Academy, which he graduated in 1899 first on the list with a master's degree. Left as a professorial fellow at the Academy.
On September 9, 1900, John was approved as acting associate professor of the academy in the department Biblical history. But the career of a scientist did not attract him, who strived for his old dream - monasticism. It originated at the time when Ivan Semenovich was a seminarian. As a student at the academy, he loved to visit holy monasteries and holy places. There he drew strength and received God’s gracious help. They made pilgrimages to the Solovetsky Monastery, to the holy city of Jerusalem, to the holy Mount Athos, and to the New Athos Monastery. During times winter holidays, avoiding secular entertainment and amusements, John went to his beloved Anthony Monastery in Novgorod. It was there that he spent the last weeks of the summer of 1901, preparing for monastic vows, withdrawing into himself and concentrating in prayer.
He was tonsured into monasticism on August 26, 1901 in the Gethsemane skete, not far from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, with the name Joseph. The rite of tonsure was performed by the Right Reverend Bishop. Volokolamsky Arseny (Stadnitsky), rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. The Divine Liturgy was served by the academy inspector, Archimandrite Evdokim (Meshchersky), together with the Novgorod diocesan missionary Hieromonk Barsanuphius (Lebedev) and the monastery brethren. The Lavra choir sang, having deliberately arrived at the monastery for John’s tonsure.
After he was tonsured, Bishop Arseny said a word to Joseph that was of guiding importance for all his subsequent activities: “Now that the name of God is blasphemed, silence will be shameful and considered cowardice or insensitive coldness towards the objects of faith. May there not be this criminal lukewarmness in you, which the Lord warned against. Work for the Lord with a burning spirit.” These words were perceived as a covenant and were kept in the soul of the Lord all his life, having great significance for his activities. On September 30 of the same year, Monk Joseph was ordained a hierodeacon, and on October 14 - a hieromonk.
In June 1903 he was awarded the degree of Master of Theology for his dissertation on the topic “History of the Jewish People according to the Archeology of Josephus (An Experience of Critical Analysis and Processing).” From December 9, 1903, extraordinary professor and inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy.
For church services, on January 18, 1904, Father Joseph was elevated to the rank of archimandrite. He served in the same rank in June 1906 to serve as abbot of the first-class Yablochinsky St. Onufrievsky Monastery in the Kholm diocese. A year later, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, Archimandrite Joseph was moved to the position of rector of the first-class Yuryev Monastery in Novgorod. The new resolution of the Synod of February 27, 1909 elevated him to a high level of episcopal service.
The consecration of Bishop of Uglich, vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese, took place on March 15, 1909 in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg. It was performed by the following bishops: Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony (Vadkovsky), Metropolitan of Moscow Vladimir (Epiphany), Metropolitan of Kiev Flavian, Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg Sergius (Stragorodsky) in the concelebration of numerous clergy. At that time, Vladika sought to somehow comprehend his movements and moods, to understand himself. It was then that he realized that he had chosen the right path in life. His Eminence Joseph loved to serve the liturgy and served it every day. In difficult moments of his life, Vladyka strove to remain in love for God and the Mother of God, in prayer he asked for Their help, and the Lord sent him consolation.
In 1905-1914. under the initials A.I. A book of spiritual reflections by the Right Reverend Joseph, “In the Arms of the Fathers,” was published. Diary of a Monk."
“By owning this book, know, good reader, that in some way you own my soul. Do not ridicule her, do not condemn her, do not reproach her: she is open to you here as soon as she is revealed to her confessor and the closest person: open in all her innermost movements, daily moods, feelings, flaws and weaknesses, in all good or evil, saints or dark sides and manifestations of life..."
On February 27, 1909, Vladyka became the rector of the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Demetrius Monastery in Rostov the Great and remained there until the closure of this monastery in 1923. In May 1913, he met Emperor Nicholas II there. But even after the closure of the monastery, Right Reverend Joseph, until August 1926, was the rector of the church community created by the brethren.
The beginning of the Bishop's service in Rostov coincided in October 1909 with the 200th anniversary of the death of St. Demetrius of Rostov, which became an all-Russian holiday. The bishop put a lot of effort into organizing and holding the celebrations. Since 1910, he was already the first vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese, which from 1907 to December 1913. headed in the rank of archbishop by the future St. Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon (Belavin). On September 14, 1913, His Eminence Joseph transferred from Rostov to his motherland- temple with. Modeno Ustyuzhensky district, which had a chapel of St. Demetrius of Rostov, part of the relics, coffin and clothes of this saint.
In August 1914, the ruling bishop and his first vicar left Kostroma almost simultaneously, and Bishop Joseph from August 25 to September 16, 1914 served as temporary administrator of the Kostroma diocese. Despite the short duration of this period, he characterizes Vladyka as an active archpastor who did a lot to help Russian soldiers and their families in the initial period of the Great War. So, on August 29, in the Kostroma Cathedral, Bishop Joseph served a memorial service “for the leaders and soldiers on the battlefield for the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland who laid down their lives,” then a religious procession was held to the central square of the city, where at the Alexander Chapel the Bishop, in co-service of the entire city The clergy performed a prayer service “for granting victory to the Russian army over the enemy, and to the people over drunkenness.” On September 3, the bishop’s resolution ordered “to announce to all deans, abbots and abbess of monasteries and parish priests to provide possible assistance to collections for the needs of the Red Cross during the entire war.” The Vladyka’s attention to the needs of war is also evidenced by the fact that he gathered rectors, clergy and elders in Kostroma to discuss “how the clergy and churches of the city can provide their assistance to sick and wounded soldiers during a real war.”
Before the revolutionary upheavals of 1917, Vladyka managed to write and mostly publish about 80 works, including 11 volumes of his diary and 10 articles in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. He also published major works, from spiritual and moral to religious and philosophical, for example, in 1902 in Sergiev Posad his work “The Mother of God - the Gracious Mother of the Russian People” was published, and in 1905 in Kharkov - the essay “Leibniz’s Doctrine of the Origin and the essence of evil."
We do not have reliable information about how Vladyka Joseph met the February revolution of 1917. His statements during interrogations in 1930 about loyalty to the Soviet regime and dissociation from the “old regime” in themselves hardly indicate any of his anti-monarchist, liberal views, especially if we take into account the conditions in which they were made. It is noteworthy that in the introduction to the investigative case, the security officers call Metropolitan Joseph a “terry monarchist,” and his diary “In the Arms of the Fathers” is compared with the works of St. John of Kronstadt, by their definition, “a church apologist for monarchism.” It is obvious that, as a sincere Orthodox archpastor, Vladyka Joseph understood the true meaning of the Orthodox kingdom and therefore deeply grieved, seeing how far the imperial power of St. Petersburg had departed from this ideal of Christian statehood. So, it is likely that Bishop Joseph’s lack of sympathy for the “old regime” was caused not by liberalism, but, on the contrary, by the most consistent monarchism, just like other prominent hierarchs of that time. In his diary there is the following characteristic entry dated July 30, 1909: “It is impossible to be a true servant of the earthly King without being a true servant of God. Only a true servant of God has all the motives and means to be a faithful servant of the Tsar and a useful member of the Church and the Fatherland.”.
Therefore, the Vladyka sees the root cause of revolutionary sentiments and anti-monarchist protests and riots in the Russian Empire in the retreat of these masses from the Church.
But Bishop Joseph does not discuss who is more to blame for such a deplorable state of Russian society, whether the imperial government, which for two centuries implanted a Western culture alien to Orthodoxy and placed the Russian Church in a slavish, non-canonical position, or the ministers of the Church, who resignedly submitted to this violence and condoning the destruction of church life. The entry in his diary on December 20, 1907 is very significant in this regard:
“Is our Church right and true, given some of its modern abnormalities pointed out by its enemies (Caesar-papism, etc.)? Right and true.
What do I care about some kind of Caesar-papism? I am the king over myself in my soul, and I am responsible for everything myself. My personal zeal and pious mood cannot be bound by anything. “The Kingdom of God is within us.” And here, first of all, we need to create our own salvation and be responsible for it. What do I have to do with the regulations - for example, to reveal the “secret” of confession? In my conscience, I would never give anything away and would not be in the least responsible for it before God. Meanwhile, the other betrays his “friend” every day without any regulations. All this is form and appearance, but content and inner strength and the effectiveness of the truth of Christ is not at all concerned.”
The most severe persecution of the Church began. The Local Council, with which the revival of the Russian Church was associated (Vladyka Joseph, as Bishop of Uglich, took part in its work) - also could no longer do anything with the atheistic euphoria of the Bolsheviks. The Council restored the patriarchate and made many useful decisions. But it opened only in August 1917, six months after the February events, when the frivolous joy of the first revolutionary days, which gripped many after the abdication of the Tsar, gave way to anxiety and despondency in the face of the ever-increasing chaos in the country. The long-awaited restoration of the patriarchate took place already during the October revolution, amid machine-gun fire and the roar of cannons hitting the Kremlin. And to carry out the installation of the patriarch (enthronement), the Council sought special permission from the new rulers who settled in the Kremlin. The enthronement itself took place in the cold Assumption Cathedral, on the western wall of which there was a huge hole, pierced by a large shell, and on the eastern wall, a terrible symbol stood the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ with the hands torn off by the shell. A sorrowful path lay ahead for both the patriarch and the entire Russian Church.
In December 1917 and January 1918, by decree of the patriarch, Bishop Joseph temporarily ruled the Riga diocese. And soon followed his first arrest in Rostov on July 7, 1919 by the Yaroslavl provincial Cheka “for attempting to disrupt the opening of relics in the Rostov district by convening believers by ringing bells.” Vladyka was transported to Moscow to the internal prison of the Cheka, where he was kept for about a month. In August 1919, he was released without sentencing. The courageous behavior of the Right Reverend did not pass the attention of the church leadership and on January 22, 1920, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop and appointed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon Archbishop of Rostov, vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese.
A new conflict with representatives of the Soviet government was not long in coming. On April 26, 1920, a special commission uncovered the relics of the Rostov Wonderworkers in the Assumption Cathedral, Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky and Avraamievsky monasteries. Archbishop Joseph organized and led a religious procession to protest against this barbaric action, illegal even in the light of Soviet decrees. For this, on June 8, 1920, Vladyka was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet agitation. For three weeks he was imprisoned in the Yaroslavl prison, and at this time thousands of signatures of believers were collected in Rostov for his release. As a result, Archbishop Joseph was released, but by a resolution of the Presidium of the Cheka of July 26, 1920, he was sentenced to 1 year of suspended imprisonment with a warning about ignorance of agitation.
In the spring of 1922, new difficult trials befell the Russian Orthodox Church - a campaign launched at the direction of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) to confiscate church valuables and a renovationist schism, also directly organized by state authorities, in particular the GPU. After the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon in May 1922, power in the Church was seized for a year by pro-Soviet-minded renovationists, who formed their own Supreme Church Administration.
On November 19, 1922, on charges of “resisting the seizure of church valuables,” Archbishop Joseph was sentenced by the Yaroslavl Revolutionary Tribunal to four years in prison. Probably, this matter could not have happened without the participation of renovationists. In one of the interrogation protocols of 1932, Bishop Joseph noted that he was accused of campaigning against the confiscation of valuables for the slander of the Renovationists, for whom he was one of the main enemies in the diocese. The Bishop did not immediately recognize the renovationist High Church Administration (VCU) created in May 1922.
And in the future, Vladyka never showed any hesitation regarding the renovationist schism and actually prevented its spread not only in Rostov, but also in the Yaroslavl diocese as a whole. In January 1923, Vladyka Joseph was released early by decision of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
His return greatly strengthened the Orthodox and at the same time caused serious concern among the Renovationists and local authorities. In April 1923, the head of the Yaroslavl provincial department of the GPU addressed the OGPU in Moscow with a petition to expel Archbishop Joseph from the Yaroslavl province. In a letter dated August 8, 1923, reporting on the “unfavorable” situation in the church environment in the Yaroslavl province, he repeated this petition:
“The Renewal group has now almost completely ceased its activities under the pressure of the Tikhonov group. The majority of the clergy and believers follow the path of Tikhonovism, weakening the renovationist group morally and materially. The head of the Tikhonov group is Bishop Joseph of Rostov. This person in the Yaroslavl province is currently very authoritative not only among the clergy and believers, but also among the Soviet workers of the lower apparatus, and especially the Rostov district.
With the release of Tikhon from custody and, in general, with the strengthening of the Tikhon group, Bishop Joseph is currently the leader and inspirer of the Tikhon group in the Yaroslavl province<ернии>. Having secured from the People's Commissariat of Justice an official document allowing Joseph to create his own, parallel to the VCU) Yaroslavl branch of the Diocesan Administration, Joseph leads the line by all means towards the complete elimination of the renovationist group, as a person who is very authoritative among the clergy and believers and has proven himself that modern authorities cannot always to curb him in his reactionary activities. Of course, his real activities, it must be admitted, are quite successful.
Under such circumstances, the activities of the renovation group in Yaroslavl province<ернии>, in fact, should freeze, which can be stated at the present time. To support the activities of the renovationist group, it is certainly necessary to remove from the Yaroslavl lips<ернии>Bishop Joseph, which will significantly weaken the Tikhonov group, and thereby give the opportunity for the Renovationist group to revive, mainly at the expense of the believers, for Bishop Joseph in the eyes of the believers is the most authoritative person from the clergy of the Yaroslavl province, and therefore a significant part of the believers follows him not only as for the Tikhonite, but also as for the Joseph they knew, whom the Soviet government, at the behest of God, spares from punishment (the expressions of believers).
Without this operation there is no way to at least minimally support the activities of the renovation group.”
[GA RF. F. 5263. On. 1. D. 55. L. 102-102 vol.]
Oddly enough, these persistent requests remained unanswered. And for more than three more years, Vladyka Joseph remained in Rostov. In 1925 and 1926 he even led religious processions with the Vatopedi Icon of the Mother of God in the volosts of the Rostov district, obtaining permission for them from local authorities.
Archbishop Joseph united the Orthodox of the Yaroslavl diocese, which at that time was deprived of its head, Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), who was expelled by the authorities to the Narym region at the end of 1922. On August 30, 1923, a meeting of dean of the Yaroslavl diocese was held in Yaroslavl under the chairmanship of Archbishop Joseph. The meeting was opened by a speech by Bishop Joseph on the current situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the emergence of the renovationist movement. The meeting unanimously spoke out against the renovationist council in Moscow, which illegally proclaimed itself the “Second All-Russian Local Council,” and refused to implement its decisions. Regarding the release of Patriarch Tikhon, joy and a promise of filial obedience to him were expressed.
Asking for the patriarchal blessing, the deans of the Yaroslavl diocese stated:
“For ourselves and for the clergy subordinate to us, we confirm that recognizing Soviet power and submitting to its civil (emphasis added by the Compiler) decrees, we completely dissociate ourselves from any counter-revolutionary White Guard, etc., and we will lead the people, as we did before, only to To Christ and for Christ"
But, despite the opposition of the GPU, the archbishop continued to fight for Orthodoxy. In May 1924, he was appointed a member of the Holy Synod under the Patriarch. True, having been transferred to the Odessa see in March 1924, Vladyka was unable to settle there due to the opposition of the renovationists and local authorities, and remained living in Rostov as manager of the Rostov vicariate until the fall of 1924, when he was appointed manager of the Novgorod diocese. Living most time in Rostov, Vladyka Joseph temporarily ruled one of the oldest Russian dioceses until September 1926. During this period, he had the opportunity to again visit his native Ustyuzhna and meet with relatives. The archbishop periodically served in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral and the Leningrad Cathedral Church of the Resurrection of Christ (Savior on Blood). Especially significant amount Believers were gathered for his bishop's services in the Assumption Cathedral in Rostov.
On April 7, 1925, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon died. In his will, he indicated three Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, of whom only one was to become the temporary High Hierarch. They were: Metropolitan of Kazan and Sviyazhsk Kirill (Smirnov), Metropolitan of Yaroslavl Agafangel (Preobrazhensky) and Metropolitan of Krutitsky Peter (Polyansky). So, since the first two metropolitans were in exile at that moment, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Krutitsky accepted the First Hierarchal powers.
Archbishop Joseph and sixty other bishops participated in the burial of St. Patriarch Tikhon and signed the act of transferring locum tenens powers to Metropolitan Peter. In his order dated December 6, 1925 - a few days before his arrest - the latter appointed Archbishop Joseph as the third candidate for Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens behind Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Nizhny Novgorod and Metropolitan Mikhail (Ermakov) of Kyiv.
“There is information that the bishops who gathered for the funeral His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon was convinced of the obligatory presence of a locum tenens in Moscow by none other than Metropolitan Sergius. In the “Tashkent document” dated November 17, 1927... among other things, it was said about Metropolitan Peter: “By the way, he was also elected to the locum tenens position not without the assistance of Metropolitan Sergius, who, under a plausible pretext, at one time rejected the first two candidates: m<итрополита>Kirill and m<итрополита>Agafangela""
[CA FSB RF. “The Case of Metropolitan Sergius: Documents on the Church Events of 1927-1928. Kitezh, 1929." Typescript. P. 222.]
Nevertheless, the locum tenens position of Metropolitan Peter was recognized by the majority of the episcopate, including the first two candidates, Metropolitans Kirill and Agafangel. As Metropolitan Kirill wrote in his testimony in 1930:
“Although it remains unclear to me now why absence in Moscow could be an obstacle to fulfilling the duties of the patriarchal locum tenens, but since the episcopate that was in Moscow at the burial of the patriarch, the locum tenens was entrusted to Metropolitan. Peter, then I lovingly recognized this as obligatory for myself and I still imagine myself in canonical and prayerful communion with him as the first bishop of the country.”
[Theological collection. M., PSTBI, 2003. Issue. 11. P. 370.]
On December 9, 1925, Metropolitan Peter was arrested. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) found himself at the head of the Russian Church.
It should be emphasized that the rights of Metropolitan Sergius as a “deputy” patriarchal locum tenens were by no means equal to the rights of the first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Local Council 1917-1918 in special definitions, he developed a clear procedure for replacing patriarchal power. In the event of the death of the Patriarch, the determination of a locum tenens, who was elected by the members of the Synod, came into force. The duties of the locum tenens included, first of all, the organization of a new Council, which was supposed to elect a new patriarch and resolve all issues regarding the structure of the Church.
In view of the increasing persecution, it became clear that a situation might arise when there would be no one to elect a locum tenens, and then the Council of 1917-1918. authorized Patriarch Tikhon to draw up a testamentary disposition in which he was to indicate three Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne in the event of his death. The locum tenens no longer had any authority to further appoint successors and transfer his rights.
Unfortunately, not all of the bishops wanted to understand this. In addition, since Metropolitan Peter did not define the scope of the deputy’s powers, Metropolitan Sergius, due to his usurper aspirations, revealed in him even during the renovation of the All-Russian Central Church, imagined that the deputy locum tenens had the full power of the First Hierarch. And if Metropolitan Peter himself clearly assumed that the deputy was engaged in current affairs and is only a conductor of the will of the locum tenens, then Metropolitan Sergius did not want to admit this and thought completely differently.
On August 26, 1926, Archbishop Joseph, by order of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), was transferred to the Leningrad see and elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of Leningrad with the placement of a white hood with a diamond cross and a cross on the miter. Objecting to the name Metropolitan of Leningrad, Vladyka Joseph preferred to be called Metropolitan of Petrograd.
Believing residents northern capital They greeted Vladyka with great joy, as a staunch fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy, but also because after the execution in August 1922 of the holy new martyr, Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazan), for several years they did not have their own ruling archpastor. For example, the famous Archpriest Mikhail Cheltsov, rector of the Izmailovsky Cathedral, expressed joyful hope in connection with the appointment:
“Finally, the hierarchical strife and races for primacy will stop, and little by little order will come in our affairs and relationships.”
On September 11 of the new style, the Metropolitan arrived in Leningrad and stayed at the Vorontsov courtyard. It was the eve of a famous city holiday - the transfer of the relics of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky to the city, which until recently was accompanied by a grand procession from St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. At the all-night vigil, the Trinity Cathedral of the Lavra, which had recently passed to the “Tikhonites” from the renovationists, was overflowing with people.
“Delight and tenderness knew no bounds, joy was heard from everywhere and seen on faces, conversations flowed in the most lively and prayerfully grateful to God”, - wrote Fr. M. Cheltsov.
According to another source: “The clergy gathered about one and a half hundred people - from the place of vestments to the throne on both sides. The entire episcopate: Metropolitan, Rev. Alexy, Gabriel (Voevodin), Nikolay (Yarushevich), Stefan (Bekh), Grigory (Lebedev), Sergiy (Druzhinin) and Dimitry (Lyubimov)".
First impressions of the new head of the diocese were very favorable: “The new Metropolitan is tall, gray-haired, wearing glasses, looking serious, somewhat unsociable, as if stern. There is something in common in appearance with the late Metropolitan Benjamin. He walks somewhat stooped. Doesn't talk to anyone at the altar. Even through the bishop. Gregory sent to tell the clergy who were “talking” in the altar to keep themselves “calm.” The bishop and the clergy - in their behavior - immediately felt that the “master” had arrived: everyone pulled up. His voice is high, rather gentle, pleasant, his diction is clear. In general, the impression is good and pleasant"
Equally favorable was the impression made by Metropolitan. Joseph on the island M. Cheltsova:
“Metropolitan Joseph inspired sympathy and trust from the very first glance at him... The monk, who had a completely ascetic appearance, attracted and liked him; in his worship there was nothing pretentious: simple and prayerful... They spoke of him as a true monk, a kind man, an ardent man of prayer, responsive to the needs and sorrows of people; I wanted to be near him, to listen to him... And it seemed to us, the clergy, that it was he who we needed, that it was he who could demonstrate that authority that obliges obedience, deviates from resistance, teaches order, disciplines with one glance - in a word, that with him real life will begin for us, that we will have a Lord Father.”.
The next day, Sunday, despite the rain, the square in front of the cathedral was crowded with people. Many approached the blessing with tears. At the request of Metropolitan Fr. Nikolai Chukov said a word on the sacramental verse, and the next morning he came to him with a report on the Higher Theological Courses he led and was pleased with the reception he received.
Testimonies from other eyewitnesses about the appointment of Vladyka Joseph as Metropolitan of Petrograd have also been preserved. Thus, Archimandrite Theodosius (Almazov) in the manuscript “My Memoirs (Notes of a Solovetsky Prisoner)” noted:
“Everyone in Petrograd triumphed. Famous ascetic, academy professor, prolific spiritual writer. First all-night vigil he performed on September 11 on the day of memory of St. Alexander Nevsky in the Lavra. Everyone rushed there. The religious upsurge was unprecedented: after all, the successor of the holy martyr Benjamin took his throne. There are a lot of people. Having served the liturgy with a wonderful sermon, Vladyka left for Rostov to say goodbye to his flock - and this was his fatal mistake. The Bolsheviks did not like his well-deserved popularity, which suddenly appeared. From the road, the GPU telegram demanded him to go to Moscow, from where he was placed in a monastery near Ustyuzhna.”
This is the usual version of the further course of events, which is given in various sources. However, during the investigation in 1930, Metropolitan Joseph testified during interrogation as follows: “After serving one service in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, I went to Novgorod to get things, from where I was supposed to go to Moscow to the GPU. In Moscow, the GPU denied me entry into Leningrad and suggested that I go to Rostov, Yaroslavl province.”
[CA FSB RF. "The Case of the CPI." T. 11. L. 304. ]
Obviously, the authorities were afraid of the enthusiasm that gripped the church people, and decided that Joseph would be difficult to keep under control.
On December 6, 1926, in connection with the arrest of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Vladyka Joseph headed the Russian Orthodox Church as deputy patriarchal locum tenens, according to the testamentary order of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky). Aware of the attitude of the authorities towards him, Metropolitan Joseph, a day after taking office, issued a testamentary order-message on the succession of the highest church authority in the event that he himself was unable to fulfill this obedience. In the event of his elimination and the elimination of his predecessors, he appointed as deputies the patriarchal locum tenens Archbishop of Sverdlovsk Korniliy (Sobolev), Archbishop of Astrakhan Thaddeus (Uspensky) and Archbishop of Uglich Seraphim (Samoilovich).
On May 18, 1927, released Metropolitan Sergius (Starogorodsky) gathered several bishops he liked for a meeting, and called it the “Temporary Patriarchal Holy Synod,” although the Synod has the right to be convened only by a legitimate Council of Bishops, and such a governing body, which became keep Metropolitan with you. Sergius could only perform an advisory function.
Thus, the usurpation of the power of Metropolitan. Sergius was finally achieved.
On May 20, permission was received from the NKVD for the activities of the Synod, which was finally approved in August. On May 25, a meeting of the “Synod” was held, and on the same day a circular was sent to the dioceses, in which bishops were recommended to organize diocesan councils and register them with local authorities.
“While arrests and exiles continued, when in response to the murder of Voikov abroad, not only Bishops, but also ordinary clergy were thrown into prisons throughout Russia - M<итрополит>Sergius received the right to live freely in Moscow, a right he did not enjoy even before his arrest. Finally, when the names of the Bishops called by him to the Synod became known, the capitulation of M<итрополита>Sergius in front of Sov<етской>There could be no more doubt about the authorities. The Synod included Arch<иепископ>Sylvester - former renovationist, Arch<иепископ>Alexy Khutynsky - a former renovationist, appointed to the Petrograd See from the "Living Church" after the execution of M<итрополита>Benjamin; Arch<иепископ>Philip is a former fugitive pope, i.e., he transferred from the Orthodox Church to the “beglopopovtsy” sect, Metropolitan<ополт>Seraphim Tverskoy is a man whose connections with the GPU were known throughout Russia, and whom no one believed.”
[GA RF. F. 6343. On. 1. D. 263. L. 8.]
The convening of the “Provisional Synod,” consisting entirely of former renovationists and traitors, caused a strong wave of indignation in the Church.
On July 29, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), together with the members of this “Synod” without any coordination with the rest of the archpastors, issued a “Message to the pastors and flock” (Declaration of 1927) on the recognition by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Bolshevik government as “God-given” and with a call to serve her “not out of fear, but out of conscience.” Those. to the merger of Soviet atheistic societies and the Church of Christ into a single whole, putting the Russian Orthodox Church on a par with various kinds of Communist societies, proclaiming their goal to be the construction of a kingdom of universal prosperity, in which there will be no place for more than one religion.
Simultaneously with the Declaration, full and comprehensive control of the OGPU over the appointment of the episcopate and priesthood was allowed.
Metropolitan Joseph, like other bishops of the Russian Church, perceived Sergius’s declaration as a “betrayal of the Truth,” but they did not interrupt communication with Sergius, hoping for the latter’s admonition and disavowal of the declaration by him. At that time, many still believed that his declaration, like its author, was a temporary phenomenon, and that after the release of one of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, justice would be restored in the Church.
Anticipating resistance in the Petrograd diocese, Metropolitan. On September 13, 1927, Sergius, having agreed on the issue with the OGPU, issued a decree on the transfer “for reasons of greater benefit to the church” Metropolitan. Joseph to the Odessa See.
This decree caused such a storm of indignation among the believers of Petrograd that even the Sergiev historian John (Snychev) noted in his book: “When it became known that their favorite and sufferer for the Orthodox faith did not agree with the decision of the Synod, and openly expressed his protest against it, the people’s embarrassment reached its extreme limits...”
Vladyka Joseph himself, according to testimony, “perceived the decree as the greatest injustice, as a consequence of intrigue,” and from the pulpits in Petrograd they openly said “that Metropolitan Joseph was translated incorrectly according to the report of Bishop Nikolai (Yarushevich), who, obviously, slandered him.”
In his letter, Met. Sergius dated September 15 (28), Vladyka Joseph reported his refusal to obey the decree as clearly uncanonical, adopted under the influence of forces hostile to the Church. In response, the Sergian “Synod” on October 12 (25) adopted a resolution confirming the previous decree and ordering suffragan bishops to stop offering the name of Vladika Joseph during services. October 17(30), Metropolitan. Joseph from Rostov responded to the resolution of the “Svnod” of October 12 (25) with a new message refusing to leave the Petrograd see, explaining that the disorder in the diocese was caused by a secretly announced order to move him, that his connection with the Petrograd flock is not artificial, but based on hot the love of his flock for him and, finally, that he does not want to show obedience to the “church authority”, since the “church authority” itself is in a slave state to the Soviet communists.
The temporary administrator of the Leningrad Metropolis, Bishop Nicholas of Peterhof, sent a report to Metropolitan Sergius about the unrest in the diocese. On October 1, 1927, Metropolitan Sergius appointed Bishop Innocent (Letyaev) from Krasnodar to Rostov, where Metropolitan Joseph lived. Residents of the city greeted the new bishop unfavorably, seeing in his appointment the desire of the Synod to quickly remove Metropolitan Joseph from Rostov.
Despite the fact that Bishop Joseph convinced Bishop Innocent to begin serving, regardless of the troubles, he was convinced that he would not be able to manage his flock while Metropolitan Joseph was in Rostov and, in his opinion, was interfering in diocesan administration, upsetting church life in the diocese. Bishop Innocent wrote a special report about this and sent it to Metropolitan Sergius on October 10, 1927.
His vicars came to the defense of Metropolitan Joseph: Bishops Dimitry of Gdovsky, Seraphim of Kolpinsky, Sergius of Narva, Gregory of Shlisselburg and a number of clergy who refused to commemorate Bishop Nicholas. Among them, the central place belonged to the famous and very respected rector of the cathedral church, Father Vasily Veryuzhsky.
The church atmosphere became more and more tense. Individual parishes both in the city itself and in the surrounding area, confused by various church orders of the Metropolitan. Sergius and the Synod, completely refused to extradite cash for the maintenance of the Diocesan Administration, they stopped inviting bishops to services. Peterhofsky Nicholas as a supporter of the Sergius policy, and many believers, as a sign of protest, stopped visiting those churches where the name of the Deputy was exalted during worship. The wave of discontent was growing. It affected not only ordinary believers, but also the lower clergy.
Many of those pastors who, during the years of struggle against renovationism, showed themselves to be staunch fighters for the purity of Orthodoxy, now spoke out against Metropolitan. Sergius. They did not agree with the policy pursued by the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens. In it they saw a direct distortion of the purity of Orthodoxy and the subordination of God to Caesar.
Wanting to prevent the division that was so inevitably approaching, a group of clergy and laity in Leningrad decided to warn Metropolitan about this. Sergius and, if possible, beg him to change the intended course of church policy, from which, then, all the evil came.
Prof.-Prot. Veryuzhsky wrote on behalf of the clergy and laity a special appeal to Metropolitan. Sergius, in which he indicated the main points that were the reason for the division. In an address by Prof. Veryuzhsky, it is clearly shown that the church unrest in Leningrad was not caused by Metropolitan. Joseph, and the policies implemented by Metropolitan. Sergius.
Prof.-Prot. Veryuzhsky in his address to Metropolitan. Sergius, in order to establish peace in the Leningrad diocese and to prevent a schism, begged him to immediately take the following measures:
1) Refuse the planned course of enslavement of the Church by the state;
2) Refuse to move and appoint bishops without the consent of the flock and the bishops being moved and appointed;
3) Place the temporary Patriarchal Synod in the place that was assigned to it during its very approval in the sense of an advisory body, so that orders come only from the name of the Deputy Locum Tenens;
4) Remove disputable persons from the Synod;
5) When organizing diocesan Administrations, the foundations of the Orthodox Church, the canons, and the resolutions of the Local Council of 1917-1918 must be fully protected. and the authority of the episcopate;
6) Return Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov) to the Leningrad See;
7) Cancel the honoring of the name of the deputy patriarchal locum tenens;
8) Cancel the order to exclude from worship services prayers for exiled bishops and the offering of prayers for civil power.
On October 21, 1927, Metropolitan Sergius issued a decree adding to the litany the petition “For our God-protected country, its authorities and its army, let us pray to the Lord.” Despite the fact that these same “authorities” and “armies” forcibly forced the entire Russian people to renounce Christ, shooting, drowning, burying Orthodox Christians alive in the ground and subjecting them to other tortures in entire monasteries.
At the same time, Met. Sergius forbade praying during services “for those in prison and in exile,” calling all such “justly convicted” “political criminals.”
Hieromartyr Pavel (Kratirov) - Bishop of Starobelsky, wrote about it like this:
“Mr. Sergius simply did not give a damn about the examples of the lives of God's saints and dared to introduce an abominable cry into the sanctuary (for it cannot be called a prayer) - long live the apostasy. After all, Sergius’s prayer can be freely paraphrased as follows: “let us pray to the Lord for the successful apostasy,” or “let us pray to the Lord for the eradication of the faith of Christ.”
Sergius also issued a decree according to which, together with the name of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan. Peter (Polyansky) his own name should have been exalted during the divine service.
Testifying to the gross interference of the Soviet authorities in matters of church life, such orders were a natural consequence and continuation of the course that was proclaimed in the July declaration of Metropolitan Sergius.
At the same time, the persecution of the Church sharply intensified. All right-thinking shepherds were sent to prison, while the “left wing” continued to remain free.
This convinced many that Sergius, with his declaration, was a direct conductor of the will of the Bolsheviks and that it was already hopeless to wait for his departure or the cancellation of his declaration.
At the beginning of December 1927, the Petrograd diocese decided, without waiting for a response to Archpriest Vasily Veryuzhsky’s letter, to send a representative delegation led by Bishop Dimitri (Lyubimov) to Moscow for a personal meeting with the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius. A reception with the deputy patriarchal locum tenens took place on December 12, 1927. Metropolitan Sergius was presented with all three letters brought: on behalf of the vicars of the Leningrad diocese, on behalf of a group of priests and laity, on behalf of believing scientists of the Academy of Sciences and professors of Leningrad institutes.
These letters raised almost the same questions as in the letter of appeal from Father Vasily Veryuzhsky. Metropolitan Sergius did not give a positive answer to a single question.
After an unsuccessful visit to Moscow to Metropolitan. Sergius of the Petrograd delegation, consisting of Bishop. Dimitri (Lyubimov), Archpriest. Victorina Dobronravova and laity I.M. Andreevsky and S.A. Alekseeva, suffragan bishops of Gdov Dimitry and Narva Sergius, signed an act of departure from Metropolitan. Sergius (December 26), “preserving apostolic succession through the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsky,” while Bishop. Demetrius officially announced Metropolitan. Sergius without grace. The Sergius “Synod” reacted to this with a resolution on January 12, 1928, banning Bishops Dimitry (Lyubimov) and Sergius (Druzhinin) from serving in the priesthood, which was read out in the St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Epiphany by the famous Sergian bishop. Nikolai (Yarushevich). This point in time can be considered the official date of the fall of the Moscow Patriarchate in the person of Metropolitan. Sergius and his accomplices in the Sergian schism.
Even before the official proclamation of the department, Metropolitan. Joseph blessed the preparations for the departure. In the second half of December he wrote to Bishop. Dimitri: “Dear Master! Having learned from M. Agafangel about the decision you made, I find (after reading all the materials) that there is no other way out. I approve of your step, I join you, but, of course, I am unable to help you more significantly...”.
January 7 Met. Joseph, in a letter to Petrograd, again approved the actions of his vicars: “...To condemn and neutralize the latest actions of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), contrary to the spirit and good of St. Church of Christ, we, under current circumstances, have no other means other than a decisive departure from him and ignoring his orders. Let these orders be accepted only by the all-bearing paper and the all-encompassing insensible air, and not by the living souls of the faithful children of the Church of Christ.”.
And in the February (1928) letter to the archimandrite. Metropolitan Lev (Egorov) Joseph describes the situation in the Church as a schism on the part of Sergius and points out that his actions are “worse and more harmful than any heresy”:
“...the situation is like this: we do not give the Church as a sacrifice and punishment to traitors and vile politicians and agents of godlessness and destruction. And with this protest we do not ourselves break away from Her, but we cut them off from ourselves and boldly say: not only did we not leave, we do not leave and will never leave the bowels of the true Orthodox Church, but we consider those who are not with us to be Her enemies, traitors and murderers both for us and against us. We are not the ones who go into schism without obeying Met. Sergius, and you, obedient to him, follow him into the abyss of Church condemnation...
Maybe, I don’t argue: there are still more of you than us. And let there not be a large mass “behind me”, as you say. But I will never consider myself a schismatic, but will join the holy confessors. It's not a matter of quantity, don't forget that for a minute. When the Son of God comes again, will he find any faithful on earth? And perhaps the last rebels against the traitors of the Church and the accomplices of Her ruin will not only be bishops or archpriests, but the simplest mortals, just as at the Cross of Christ His last suffering breath was taken by not many simple souls close to Him...
Do not judge me strictly and clearly understand the following:
1. I am by no means a schismatic and I am not calling for a schism, but for the cleansing of the Church from those who sow true schism and cause it.
2. Pointing out to another his errors and wrongs is not a split, but simply put - introducing an unbridled horse into the shafts.
3. Refusal to accept sound reproaches and instructions is truly a split and trampling on the truth.
4. In the structure of Church life, the participants are not only the top leaders, but the entire body of the Church, and a schismatic is one who arrogates to himself rights that exceed his powers, and in the name of the Church dares to say what the rest of his brothers do not share.
5. Metropolitan showed himself to be such a schismatic. Sergius, having far exceeded his authority and rejected and despised the voice of many other saints, among whom the pure Truth is preserved.<...>
Defenders of Sergius say that the canons allow bishops to be removed only for heresy condemned by the Council. It is objected to that the acts of Metropolitan. Sergius is sufficiently brought under this condition: if we bear in mind such an obvious violation by him of the freedom and dignity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And besides, the canons could not have foreseen much. Is it possible to ask about what is worse and more harmful than any heresy, when they plunge a knife into the very heart of the Church - Her freedom and dignity.
What is more harmful - a heretic or a murderer?
It should be noted that Met. Joseph, with his characteristic modesty, protested against identifying the emerging anti-Sergian movement solely with his name. According to the protocols of his interrogations (dated September 22, 30 and October 9, 1930), the Metropolitan said:
“My case, for which I am involved, as it seems to me, is based on the opinion of me as the leader of a special movement in our church, which arose four years ago in connection with the declaration of Metropolitan. Sergius, who, according to the conviction of believers, grossly violated the deepest foundations of the structure of church life and governance. This movement is completely unfairly dubbed “Josephites,” an injustice which the Metropolitan himself points out. Sergius in his correspondence with Metropolitan Kirill. Much more thoroughly it should be called generally “anti-Sergian.” The very movement of our group was revived on the fertile soil of the abuses of Metropolitan. Sergius and independently of any personalities simultaneously caused a correspondingly strong reaction in church circles everywhere without any of my participation or influence. Moreover: I myself was drawn into this current much later, and it did not follow and is following me, but rather I am trailing behind it, not sympathizing with its many deviations to the right and left. And even if I and my participation in this movement were completely destroyed, it would go on and on without stopping without the slightest hope of complete eradication... Our movement cannot be destroyed by any repression from the Soviet government. Our ideas and steadfastness in the purity of Orthodoxy have taken deep roots. The lie of Metropolitan Sergius in his interview that churches are closed according to the decrees of believers is understandable to everyone, even an illiterate peasant...”
By the beginning of 1928, categorical rejection of the church policy of Metropolitan Sergius was expressed not only in the Petrograd diocese. In his testimony at the investigation in 1930, Metropolitan Joseph noted:
“By this time, everywhere in the Union, the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius was discussed and sharply more or less criticized, and a movement protesting against it was created, developing more and more, reaching the point that entire dioceses in in full force, led by their governing bishops, were separated from him and began to be governed independently (Vyatka, Veliky Ustyug and others)"
["The Case of the CPI." T. 11. L. 332.]
Following the Petrograd vicars, the Serpukhov clergy announced a cessation of communion, even earlier Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) of Glazov and the clergy of the Vyatka diocese; in January 1928, Bishop Hierofey (Afonik) of Veliky Ustyug separated from Metropolitan Sergius, Bishop Alexy (Bui), the governor of the Voronezh diocese, and a number of priests in the Moscow diocese, among them Archpriest Valentin (Sventsitsky). In March 1928, the suffragan bishops of the Vyatka diocese, Nektary (Trezvinsky) and Hilarion (Velsky), separated, establishing contact with the Josephites in Leningrad, as well as the separating formerly bishop Victor (Ostrovidov).
The anti-Sergius movement grew in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, Tataria, Bashkiria, and Siberia. Many of those who disagreed turned to the Petrograd bishops. As Metropolitan Joseph noted in his testimony at the investigation: “Without a local spiritual leader, people from different cities and localities of the USSR came to Bishop Demetrius for guidance. Some visitors condemned the Leningraders for leaving Metropolitan Sergius so late, that they had already done this a long time ago, however, not having a leader, they came to Leningrad, asking them to accept and resolve puzzling questions.”
Officially, the Act of Separation from Metropolitan Sergius was read out in the Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ. On January 24, 1928, a secret report from the Leningrad GPU to Moscow reported:
“Church opposition in Leningrad is growing, and on its part it was allowed to seize the Tikhonovsky Cathedral into its own hands - the Church of the Resurrection on Blood.<...>The opposition celebrated this triumph with a solemn service with two opposition bishops and 9 priests. After this, the hesitant churches in Lesnoy, Polyustrovo and at Volodarskaya station completely joined the opposition.”
[Theological collection. Vol. 10. M.: PSTBI, 2002. P. 371]
On January 25, 1928, Metropolitan Sergius, at an extraordinary session of his Synod, adopted Resolution No. 17 on the dismissal of Bishop Demetrius from the department and his ban on the priesthood and bringing him before the canonical court. The same was accepted in relation to Bishop Sergius. Bishops Gregory of Shlisselburg and Seraphim of Kolpinsky, who did not commemorate the name of Metropolitan Sergius, were required to immediately introduce commemoration and publicly declare the condemnation of Bishops Demetrius and Sergius.
On February 6, 1928, Metropolitan Joseph, together with a group of bishops of the Yaroslavl diocese, officially signed a declaration of separation from Metropolitan Sergius.
On the same day, his resolution appeared agreeing to lead those who separated from the Metropolitan. Sergius in the Petrograd diocese:
“Metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl and other bishops of the Yaroslavl Church region also separated from Metropolitan. Sergius and declared themselves independent in the management of the flocks entrusted to them, to which I added my voice. Based on this good example, I find it timely to openly bless a similar correct separation of part of the Petrograd clergy with their flocks. I agree to the request to lead this movement with my spiritual guidance and prayerful communication and care; I am ready not to deny the same to others who want to follow the good decision of the zealots of Christ’s truth. I pray to the Lord that he will keep us all in unanimity and holy firmness of spirit in the new trial the Church is experiencing.”.
On February 10, 1928, Metropolitan Sergius and his “Synod” approved a resolution “on the discordant activities of Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov) of Odessa and Bishop of the former Nikolsk Ierotheos (Afonikos).” The decree imposes a ban on both of them from serving in the priesthood. On March 29, 1928, Metropolitan Sergius, in an extensive document, the so-called “Acts,” notifies the Church about the hierarchs who interrupted communication with him, calling them “our renegades,” “splitters.”
Justifying his rightness, Metropolitan Sergius tried to prove the canonicity of all his actions - the creation of the Provisional Synod, the dismissal of bishops, and so on, while trying to abundantly quote the Holy Scriptures and the holy martyrs and fathers of the Church, tearing out the quotes he needed from the context. Being at that time already completely spiritually blind and in delusion, Sergius argued that his July declaration in no way contradicted Church Tradition. Justifying the lie, he defended it again with lies.
He accuses the Yaroslavl and Leningrad bishops who separated from him, as well as the bishops of Glazov Viktor (Ostrovidov), Nikolsky Ierofey (Afonika) and Voronezh Alexy (Buya) that “they caused a schism, broke the grace-filled union with the Mother Church and are subject to ecclesiastical judgment and due punishment."
Here he calls himself and his “Synod” “Mother Church”. Banning from serving everyone who did not obey his decrees at that time, Sergius, at the same time, himself did not obey the decrees of his head - Metropolitan Peter and two other Patriarchal Locum Tenens who opposed his “revolution” in the Church.
He confirms the prohibitions imposed on these bishops (including Metropolitan Joseph).
At the same time, Metropolitan Sergius tried to flirt with Metropolitan Agafangel, fearing his church authority, and remembering that according to the will of Patras. Tikhon he was second, after Metropolitan. Kirill (Smirnov) as Patriarchal Locum Tenens, and therefore accusing Metropolitan Sergius of causing a schism, at any moment he could take control of the Church into his own hands.
“03/29/04/11/1928 Metropolitan. Sergius and his Synod make a resolution: to put the bishops on trial, ban them from the priesthood and dismiss Metropolitan. Joseph (Petrovykh), bishop. Hierothea (Athonika), bishop. Evgeniya (Kobranova), architect<иеп>Seraphim (Samoilovich), arch<иеп>Varlaam (Ryashentsev). About Metropolitan Agafangela decided that although he deserved all these punishments with his “discordant” actions, but, taking into account his “previous services to the Church” and “painful condition, he is given a month to repent, after which he is subject to prohibition from the priesthood.”.
In this resolution, in relation to Metropolitan Joseph, it was stated that he had openly broken off communication with the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, had clearly taken the path of “schism,” and had declared, after the admonitions of the bishops sent to him, that he was “decisively moving away and disassociating himself from Metropolitan. Sergius, ignores his orders”, that “he calls on all those separating from the deputy patriarchal locum tenens to unite around him, and gave the blessing to the Reverend. Victor (Ostrovidov) and Nikolsky Hierotheus (Afonik) for the ordination of Abbot Anthony to the rank of bishop, destining the latter for a diocese not entrusted to him.”
On May 10, 1928, the Yaroslavl archpastors, Metropolitan Agafangel, Archbishop Varlaam and Bishop Eugene, sent a letter to Metropolitan Sergius in which they reported that they did not reject his authority as a deputy, and that they did not break off prayer communication with him and recognized his authority as a deputy metropolitan . Peter (Polyansky). This pacified Metropolitan for some time. Sergius.
However, even recognizing the power of Metropolitan. Sergius, they did not recognize his latest decrees and resolutions. Paragraph 5 of their letter read:
“The orders of the deputy, which confuse our and the people’s religious conscience and, in our opinion, violate the canons, due to the prevailing circumstances on the spot, could not and cannot be carried out.”
This point could not suit Metropolitan Sergius in any way, because it actually nullified all his undertakings, and he understood this perfectly well. It is not without reason that in the resolution of his Synod of May 17/30, 1928, Sergius emphasized:
“Noting with regret that the written statement of the Reverend<енных>- Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Archbishop. Varlaam (Ryashentsev) and Bishop. Rostovsky Evgeniy (Kobranova) dated May 10, 1928 does not reveal with the desired certainty their awareness of the size and destructiveness of the church temptation they produced; The fifth point of the statement completely takes away the hope of eliminating the temptation created.”
However, Metropolitan Sergius, using this letter from the Yaroslavl shepherds, is in a hurry to announce their complete rejection of the previous statement and reconciliation with it.
Referring to their haste in writing a new statement and their oral statements, he pretends that they completely obeyed him. In fact, the Yaroslavl shepherds “reconciled” with him only on their own terms. They did not recognize his declaration and his numerous demands and decrees to commemorate the authorities, etc., which inevitably led them to a final break.
As Met. Joseph in his letter of 1929: “Shortly before his death, Agathangel expressed his intention to renew his protest against the actions of Sergius, by which he was again brought to the limits of patience;<митрополит Сергий>understood the May “concessions” in the sense of the complete elimination of the main declaration. Agafangel persistently confirmed that it remained in force, and he was bombarded with demands for the execution of controversial decrees that had not been carried out (on commemoration of the authorities, etc.). This (as well as Sergius’s false denunciations, discrediting our entire cause) made Agafangel want to start a fight again, which, however, he did not have time to do.”
[Archive of the FSB St. Petersburg. D. P-78806. T. 4. P. 121]
As a direct eyewitness of those events, Bishop Peter (Ladygin), Metropolitan, tells us. Sergiya ow. Agafangel did not recognize him even after he entered into direct conflict with him in 1926. But he was forced to make concessions due to threats from Tuchkov, who threatened to send him back to prison if he did not recognize Metropolitan. Sergia:
“I personally went to see him in Yaroslavl, and he himself explained his position to me and said that now the canonical administration really remains with Cyril and temporarily, until Cyril’s arrival, with Metropolitan. Peter. He did not recognize Sergius [Stragorodsky] and Grigory [Yatskovsky].
I asked him: what should we do next if neither Kirill nor Peter are there? Who should we remember then? He said: “Here is also the canonical Metropolitan. Joseph, former Uglichsky, who is currently in Leningrad. He was appointed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon as a candidate in the event of the death of the Patriarch, me, Kirill and Anthony."
Thus, the recognition of Met. Sergius on the part of Metropolitan. Agafangel was purely formal, without recognition of his decrees and declarations. In fact, like many other bishops, he was simply forced to put up with him at first in order to get some respite from the onslaught of the GPU. Everyone then well understood that the confrontation with Sergius was a confrontation with the GPU, and in order to enter into this confrontation, it was necessary first to enlist the support of a certain mass of clergy and laity, with whom the Bolsheviks at that time did not always dare to engage in direct confrontation.
On October 16, 1928, Vladyka Agafangel went to the Lord without having time to officially announce the outburst of prayerful communication with the St. Sergius “Synod”. But after his death, Archbishop of Perm Varlaam (Ryashentsev) managed to do this, at the end of the same year breaking off prayer communication with Metropolitan. Sergius. And later, the second Yaroslavl archpastor, Bishop Evgeniy (Kobranov), breaks off communication with him.
From the beginning of 1928, the Josephites began to perform secret episcopal consecrations. One of the first to be ordained in Serpukhov was Bishop Maxim (Zhizhilenko).
In the spring of 1928, an important meeting was held in Leningrad at the apartment of Archpriest Theodore Andreev, in which Bishop Dimitry (Lyubimov) of Gdov, Alexy (Bui) Bishop of Kozlov, Moscow Archpriest Nikolai Dulov and Professor Mikhail Novoselov took part. “The most important outcome of the meeting was the distribution of spheres of influence. Bishop Demetrius entrusted Bishop Alexy with the administration of the entire south of Russia and Ukraine, including the parishes he had previously cared for, citing their remoteness from Leningrad.
Bishop Kozlovsky fully recognized the leadership of Bishop Dimitri and settled everything controversial issues with him" The rector of the Vladimir Church, Sergiy Butuzov, a like-minded person of Bishop Alexy (Buy) in 1928, said during interrogation a year and a half later: “For me and Bishop Alexy, Leningrad was a shrine, and I believed everything that came from there.”
Bishop Dimitri, in addition to leading the Petrograd diocese, directly cared for parishes in the Kuban, Moscow, Tver, Vitebsk and other regions. On December 25, 1928, Metropolitan Joseph elevated Bishop Demetrius to the rank of archbishop.
The position of the Josephites was greatly strengthened by the news of the position of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter. In 1929, Archbishop Dimitri received from Bishop Damascene (Glukhovsky) reliable information about Metropolitan Peter’s condemnation of Metropolitan Sergius’s policies. The data was confirmed that the Sergiusites commit their lawlessness in secret from the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. Metropolitan Peter gave the following instructions:
"1. You bishops must remove Metropolitan. Sergius. 2. Remember Met. I don’t bless Sergius during divine services.”
["Russian Shepherd". No. 19. II-1994. pp. 79-80]
At the request of Bishop Demetrius, Archpriest Gregory Seletsky outlined this information in a letter to Metropolitan Joseph dated September 17, 1929.
Metropolitan Joseph was arrested in the Nikolo-Modensky Monastery on September 12, 1930 and brought to investigation in the case of the “All-Union counter-revolutionary monarchist organization of clergy “True Orthodox Church””.
The arrested Vladyka was first kept in one of the Leningrad prisons, then was transferred for further investigation to the internal prison of the OGPU in Moscow.
The charges brought, as is clear from the questionnaire filled out by Metropolitan Joseph on November 17, 1930, were “leadership of a counter-revolutionary organization and the creation of monarchical church groups.” “I rejected both accusations with indignation,” written by the hand of Metropolitan Joseph, and in the column “Notes of the prisoner” it is attributed to them: “A more detailed refutation of the accusations was given in a special statement addressed to the Leningrad Regional Prosecutor, filed on November 15 from<его>G<ода>through the head of the Leningrad DPZ.”
From September 22, Vladyka was interrogated in Leningrad, and from the second half of November - in Moscow. From the very first interrogations, Vladyka rejected any political overtones of the anti-Sergian movement. Vladyka Joseph did not consider criticism of Metropolitan Sergius as criticism of the authorities.
Defending his right to sympathize with anti-Sergianism and denying any of its political overtones and counter-revolutionary anti-state orientation, Metropolitan Joseph referred to Soviet laws:
“After all, we have such beautiful (but are they already false?) decrees on freedom of conscience, on the separation of church and state, on the freedom of all religions, on non-interference in purely church affairs, on the prohibition of supporting one religious organization to the detriment of another. And if laws are written in order to fulfill them, then isn’t the real counter-revolution there, where these revolutionary laws are not executed, and thereby they only get torn down, becoming like “filkin’s letters”?
["The Case of the CPI." T. 11. L. 306-307.]
In September 1931, Vladyka Joseph was sent to Alma-Ata, from there to Chimkent, and then, by order of the Chimkent OGPU, to the village of Leninskoye, Karatas district. Probably, his story dates back to this time, relayed according to the memoirs of his parishioner in an essay by Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky:
“He lived in a barn with pigs in a wicker barn, sleeping on boards, separated from the pigs by several poles. He endured cold and heat, all kinds of bad weather and heavy air in these conditions. One day a snake, holding onto a pole of his ceiling, descended over his head. These conditions were obviously the cause of his illness."
Then, the bishop was allowed to settle in a small Kazakh adobe house, where he occupied a room with overhead light, furnished very modestly: there was a roughly knocked together table, a trestle bed on which the metropolitan slept, and a couple of chairs.
The bishop got up at six in the morning, and every morning he served alone at the lectern, on which he placed a small carved fold. Having finished the service, he went to the market to do some shopping, had breakfast, rested a little and sat down to read. Books were sent to him or given to him by local exiles. Often parcels or money arrived from Russia, so the Metropolitan lived without need.
Vladyka was helped to run the household by his fellow countrywoman, a nun - a former teacher from Ustyuzhna - Maria Ivanovna Koranatova, with whom Vladyka had been friends since childhood. Maria Ivanovna used Metropolitan Joseph’s table, prepared his lunch, and did his laundry.
From what time Metropolitan Joseph performed secret divine services is unknown. The book by Protopresbyter M. Polsky gives the story of a participant in catacomb services in a secret underground church in Alma-Ata in 1936-1937:
“The church dug in the ground was in the apartment (house) of Archimandrite Arseny. In the hallway there was a hatch covered with a carpet. The lid was removed, and under it was the staircase to the church. In the basement in one corner there was a hole in the ground filled with stones. The stones were taken away and, completely bent over, it was necessary to crawl three steps, and there was an entrance to a tiny temple: many images, lamps were burning. Metropolitan Joseph is very tall, and yet twice in my presence he secretly came here and entered this church. A special mood was created, but I will not hide that the fear of being discovered during the service, especially at night, was difficult to overcome. When a large chained dog started barking in the yard, although muffled, it was still audible underground, everyone expected a shout or knock from the GPU. Throughout 1936 and until September 1937, everything went well.
My son sang here with a nun. On August 26, Metropolitan Joseph arrived and honored us with a visit on the occasion of the day of my Angel. What a wonderful, humble, unwavering prayer book he is! This was reflected in his appearance and eyes, as if in a mirror. Very tall, with a large white beard and an unusually kind face, he could not help but attract people to him, and I would like to never part with him. His monastic robe was chosen, as was his hair, otherwise he would have been immediately arrested on the street.”
[Polish M., Protopres. New Russian martyrs... Part II. P. 1-2.]
Since January 1937, Metropolitan Joseph established correspondence with Metropolitan Kirill, who was also exiled in 1935 to Kazakhstan in the village of Yany-Kurgan. During the interrogation on July 14, 1937, Metropolitan Joseph testifies that he did not personally know Metropolitan Kirill and saw him only once in his life in 1909, but in January 1937 he sent him a letter with Archimandrite Arseny, in which “I testified to the Bishop my deepest respect, saying that I bow to his courageous stand in his struggle for church interests. This was, on my part, a touchstone to clarify Metropolitan Kirill’s attitude towards me and the reputation I had established as the leader of a special church movement. Arseny brought an answer from Metropolitan Kirill that completely satisfied me.”.
Subsequent correspondence was carried out through priests Vetchinkin and Grigory Sinitsky. During a meeting with Metropolitan Kirill, Archimandrite Arseny gave him a photograph of Vladika Joseph and spoke about the desirability of a meeting and conversation between the two hierarchs. This meeting was especially necessary due to the fact that the issue of locum tenens had become acute again, since at the end of 1936, for the sake of Metropolitan. The death of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Krutitsky), was officially announced to Sergius, although at that time he was still alive and in good health.
After this message, Metropolitan Sergius declared himself a locum tenens. However, he had no canonical rights to do so at all. Moreover, with the death of the locum tenens, his vicarious rights would also end, and he was obliged, in this case, to transfer church power to Metropolitan Kirill.
But neither Met. Peter, nor Met. At that time, Kirill was not recognized by either Sergius or his “Synod”. Sergius was in schism from the two patriarchal locum tenens and he had no choice but to declare himself patriarchal locum tenens. Just like in 1927, he declared the “Patriarchal Synod” a gathering of traitor bishops he liked. Sergius himself in May 1926, in a letter to Metropolitan Agafangel, wrote this:
“If for some reason Metropolitan Peter leaves the position of locum tenens, our eyes will naturally turn to the candidates specified in the will, i.e. to Metropolitan. Kirill, and then to Your Eminence.”
[Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... P. 461.]
Therefore, clearly understanding who should rule the Church, he consciously continued to pave the way for his “Patriarchate” by hook or by crook, prohibiting and punishing everyone who displeased him, being himself the main trampler of the canons and all the foundations of the Orthodox Church.
The GPU, apparently, had already promised to make him the future Soviet “Patriarch” and no one could stop Sergius in his lust for power. Direct evidence that Metropolitan Sergius did not want to see anyone else but himself as patriarch came to us from the materials of the investigative case of Bishop Evgeniy (Kobranov). During interrogation on December 22, 1926, he recalled how “wanting to improve relations with Metropolitan Sergius, he proposed a toast during lunch “to a future patriarch like Tikhon.” Then Sergius replied: “If you are talking about me, then I agree. If for someone else, then no.”
[Theological collection. M., 2003. Issue. 11. P. 372.]
Even before the “death” Met. Peter, in 1934 Sergius appropriated to himself the title “Blessed,” which is characteristic only of the Head of the Church. And in 1935, when the Patriarchal Locum Tenens had to return from exile (her term had ended), Sergius wrote a letter to the NKVD, where he argued that if the affairs of Metropolitan were transferred. Peter, then “that building (of cooperation between the Church and the Soviet regime), which was created with such difficulty,” will collapse.” And thus he petitioned for the addition of a prison term to the High Hierarch of the Church.
Therefore, there is no doubt that Met. Serius knew then that the Patriarchal Locum Tenens was still alive and well. He then closely followed every candidate for the Primate position, and even more so, Metropolitan. Peter, who was then the most dangerous threat to his despotism.
In any case, a memorial service was celebrated for the still living Patriarchal Locum Tenens Sergius (Starogorodsky).
And yet, Met. Peter at that time was of one mind with Metropolitan. Joseph and in 1937, according to unconfirmed documentary data for us, sent through his assistant a message to the entire Russian Church about non-recognition of Soviet power. But the message was intercepted, and Metropolitan. Peter was shot for him.
As for Metropolitan Kirill, in his later letters he also expresses recognition of Metropolitan. Joseph and the Josephites in general. Namely, because they were one of the first to warn the Church about the danger associated with Met. Sergius and his declaration, and were among the first to declare the Sergian sacraments graceless.
On June 24, 1937, Metropolitan Joseph and Metropolitan Kirill were arrested on the same charges and were placed in the same cell.
The indictment dated November 19, 1937 stated: “Iosif Petrovykh was K.I. Smirnov’s deputy. and, in the event of the arrest of the latter, Petrov was supposed to lead the counter-revolutionary activities of the organization. In addition, Petrov carried out work to concentrate the counter-revolutionary forces of the clergy around the counter-revolutionary organization, conducted a new recruitment of members and organized counter-revolutionary cells on the ground.”
At a meeting of the Troika of the NKVD Directorate for the South Kazakhstan Region on November 19, 1937, Metropolitans Joseph and Kirill, as well as Bishop Eugene, were sentenced to capital punishment.
Three bishops were shot simultaneously on November 7/20, 1937. They were buried in the Fox Ravine near Chimkent.
In 1981, Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) was glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) as a Hieromartyr. Commemoration on the week of the New Martyrs.
