Filevsky, Ivan Ivanovich

Born July 30, 1865. His family dates back to the time of the first colonization of Slobozhanshchina by immigrants from across the Dnieper.

From childhood, under the influence of his mother, he showed interest in the Church and spiritual life. Received primary education in the Zemstvo public school; he graduated from the Kharkov Theological College, the Kharkov Theological Seminary (with a silver medal) and in 1890 from the Kiev Theological Academy ^[1] , where he was noted among the best students.

Since 1890 he was engaged in educational and pedagogical activities - he taught general civil history and arithmetic at the Kiev Women's College of the Spiritual Department of the Empress Maria (1890-1891), the law teacher of the 3rd Kharkov Gymnasium and the female gymnasium D. D. Obolenskaya (1891-1896) ., at the same time ranked among the clergy of the Assumption Cathedral), since 1893 - the law teacher of the Kharkov Commercial School of the Emperor Alexander III and the head priest of the Church of the Holy Face of the Lord under him. In 1893 he was elected a member of the board of the Kharkov Theological College, since 1902 - he joined the council of the diocesan school.

Member of the Religious and Philosophical Meetings in St. Petersburg 1901-1902, a friend of Vasily Rozanov .

Since 1902 - member of the Kharkov Historical and Philological Society , member of the commission for the preparation and conduct of the XII Archaeological Congress in Kharkov.

He initiated the creation of a religious and educational society in Kharkov, wrote a draft of its charter; made one of the organizers of spiritual and moral readings, and he himself, with success, led them at the freight station and in the railway workshops.

October 28, 1902 I. I. Filevsky at the Kiev Theological Academy defended his master's thesis "Teachings of the Orthodox Church on Holy Tradition: an apologetic study"; opponents were professors P.I. Linitsky, A.I. Bulgakov and F.S. Ornatsky. The dissertation was published in a separate edition. The work was awarded an honorary review by the Study Committee under the Holy Synod and was approved by Metropolitan Anthony .

In preparation for the start of academic activity, in 1903 he took a trip to the countries of Europe, the purpose of which was Rome. There he examined and studied the monuments of Christian art of antiquity, including the Roman catacombs .

Since 1904 - Privatdocent of the Department of Church History of the History and Philology Faculty of the Imperial Kharkov University .

In 1906 he was an editor and publisher of the Church Newspaper . Around the "Church Newspaper" and John Filevsky formed a circle of "progressively minded" clergy.

During the First Russian Revolution, he was noted as a participant in a number of resonant incidents. In October 1905, at the Congress of Dean Dioceses, he defended the interests of Kharkov seminarians who declared a strike, resolutely opposed the repressive measures proposed by the rector. Encouraged by the defense, the seminarians soon splashed acid in the face of the seminary inspector.

At the beginning of 1906, together with a group of Kharkov priests, he delivered a collective letter entitled “The voice of a priest on the death penalty and murder as a means of political struggle”, published in the cadet newspaper Volna on January 1, 1906. The reason for speaking out in support of the popular idea of ​​abolishing the death penalty was the protection of a teenager who mortally wounded the bailiff of the 4th police station in Kharkov V.E. Koltunovsky. Since the death penalty was not threatened by the criminal because of his infancy, the letter of the priests was part of a provocative campaign aimed at denigrating the state system.

In 1906, presenting the emerging church renovationism , he ran, but was not elected, in the elections to the State Council of the Russian Empire from the clergy of the Kharkov diocese , where he competed with the deputy from the right - Professor Archpriest Timofey Butkevich .

From 1907, he taught a university theology course; from November 19, 1908, he was already a professor elected by the University Council.

In 1909, in the information of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it was mentioned among the disloyal professors, which differed in the extremely left direction.

In 1917 he took an active part in church and political life, being the leader of the ideological leader of the emerging renovationist and autocephalous movement in the Kharkov diocese .

In February 1920, as a doctor of theology and archpriest, he acted as rapporteur and honorary chairman of the Diocesan Congress of the clergy and laity. The congress decided to ask the Soviet government to expel from Ukraine "dismissed" hierarchs who are opposed to Renovationism - Archbishop of Kharkov Nathanael and Bishop of Starobelsky Pavel - as well as the dismissal of a number of city priests who did not accept renewal.

After the emergence of the renovationist schism, it is known as the bright leader of the renovationism. As a member of the Living Church group, he organized the G20 for the transfer to the renovationists of the St. John the Useknovno Church in Kharkov.

As protopresbyter of Ukraine, Professor Ivan Filevsky was elected to the number of honorary members of the presidium of the "Second Local All-Russian Council" (the first Renovationist), which was held on May 2–8, 1923 in Moscow. Ivan Filevsky made a report on autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church.

He died in 1925.

The work of Ivan Filevsky is an example of the ideological evolution of a part of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church at the turn of the 19th — 20th centuries, which brought it closer to the left-liberal intelligentsia and prepared for the renovation split of the 1920s ^[2]

1890s - 1910s

Dozens of articles, notes, words and sermons that touched on pressing social issues — drunkenness and prostitution, marriage and morality — were published in the Kharkov newspapers “ Southern Land ”, “ Kharkiv Vedomosti ”, and “ Peace Work ” in the 1890s – 1910s. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, the theme was patriotism and love for the Fatherland.

At the turn of the century, from the position of the Orthodox Church on the pages of Faith and Church , Wanderer , and Missionary Review , he entered into a polemic with artists of the Russian Silver Age ( Rozanov , Menshikov, Merezhkovsky , Minsk, etc.). He analyzed new “trends” in Russian culture and art of the XIX - early. XX century

In 1892, in the article “Concerning the Literary Explanations about the Count by L. N. Tolstoy ” from Orthodox apologetic positions, he polemicized with widely resonated attempts to equate Christ with the philosophers of antiquity and consider Christianity only as one of the ethical and philosophical constructions of antiquity. He revealed a misunderstanding of Christianity, and Orthodoxy in particular, as the basis of the bohemian " God-seeking " of the beginning of the XX century.

In 1902, impressed by his participation in Religious and Philosophical Meetings in St. Petersburg, he published three “religious and philosophical letters”: “On Spirit and Flesh” - to an article by Dmitry Merezhkovsky in the magazine “ World of Art ” for 1902 “L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky ": Christian Religion and Culture" - to an article by Nikolai Minsky “Philosophical Conversations” in the same journal; and, finally, “On the attitude to life and death in paganism and Christianity”, where he gave a generalized analysis of the fundamental differences between Christian and the ancient pagan worlds, and pointed to the artificiality and danger of constructing synthetic neopagan worldview systems based on the perverse "reinterpretation" of Christianity.

In 1904, in the article “Concerning the painting by I. E. Repin “ Follow Me, Satan ”at the XXXII Wanderers Exhibition ”, he gave an art history and ideological analysis of this work. Repin's painting appears here as one of the variations and continuations of the anti-Christian understanding of the image of the Savior in the art of modernity . The model here was a painting by the German artist Max Klinger “Christ on Olympus” (1897). Having revealed the ambitious, but rather superficial symbolism of the composition created by Repin, the author notes that Repin gives an exaggerated view of the ideals of Christian spiritual asceticism. Involuntarily opening up his "dualistic, sectarian, Manichaean" view of the nature of women as a symbol and source of evil, Repin indirectly tries to contrast the superiority of the "ascetic simplicity" of the quasi-native appearance of Count Leo Tolstoy over the gospel bodily poverty.

In the field of church history, and the church history of his native land, he took part in the compilation of essays “Kharkov Archpastors” for the centenary of the diocese.

In 1896 he published a major theological work, The Teachings of St. Vincent of Lirinsky : an exposition and comparative historical assessment of this doctrine by the Commonitorium ”, the main provisions of which were published by the journal“ Wanderer ”in 1896-1897.

The award-winning master's thesis by Ivan Filevsky “The Teachings of the Orthodox Church on the Holy Tradition: An Apologetic Study”, based on a remark made in 1908 by the researcher of the Holy Tradition P. P. Ponomarev, was the only Russian work at that time specifically dedicated to this subject. The theme of the work was the development of epistemological norms of religious faith and, on their basis, methodological foundations for the development of a holistic system of theological knowledge of faith.

Polemically, the work was aimed at apologetically defending the teachings of the Church against sects opposing Orthodoxy from the standpoint of Protestantism. “The question of tradition in anti-church sectarianism is a heavy stumbling block and a stone of temptation. One way or another, all heresies rejected the dogmatic priority of church-religious tradition, ”Fr. Ivan Filevsky in a speech before defending a dissertation. In the late XIX - early XX centuries, the Kharkov province, like Ukraine as a whole, was a place of active expansion of "popular" Protestant sects.

Unconditional scientific success, widespread recognition of works became the stimulus of the academic career of Ivan Filevsky.

In 1908, Ivan Filevsky published two short works on the problems of relations between the intelligentsia and the Christian dogma: "The cult of science and the Christian religion: (Regarding the book by Prof. I. I. Mechnikov, " Studies on the Nature of Man ")" and "The Word on the Union between faith and science ”; the latter was pronounced at the university church on January 17, 1908. Pointing to the key role of the Church in the formation of European culture and science, Ivan Filevsky expressed his conviction that science and cultural progress do not contradict the dogmas of Orthodox Christianity. On the contrary, culture and science itself have given and will inevitably give in the future many provisions directly reinforcing the truth of faith.

1905-1916

The years of the First Russian Revolution marked a turning point in the activities of I. I. Filevsky, indicating the growing convergence of his views with the left-liberal ideology of the cadet sense.

In a series of publications in the “ Church Newspaper ” in 1906, he advocated an “ideological and religious” reconciliation of the Church and “society” in order to achieve a spiritual renewal of the latter, and its reorganization on the basis of “collegiality”.

Indirectly stating the existence of a split in public consciousness, Ivan Filevsky blamed it on the state and the Church. The picture of modernity was seen by I. Filevsky in gloomy tones. The church was seriously affected by its enslavement by the state, from Caesarapapism and bureaucratic guardianship over it. The church is divorced from the people and does not express its religious ideals and spiritual needs. The church does not meet the needs of our time. Instead of “collegiality” and “spiritual emancipation”, “monastic flavor” prevails in Orthodoxy. As a result, issues of personal salvation were developed in Orthodoxy, but the issues of “cultural and social creativity” were not taken into account at all.

Ivan Filevsky saw a “ class struggle ” between the upper black clergy and the lower clergy white. It was the “rule of the monks” that supposedly led to the division into hierarchs and laity, the absence of autonomous parishes, the fanaticism of the mission and missionaries. The path to the ideological and religious reconciliation of the church and the “progressive public” lay through the implementation of reforms on the basis of “ collegiality ” in all areas of the life of the Church.

Strongly criticizing the supporters of the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia, Ivan Filevsky opposed the cathedral principle to a “centralized”, bureaucratic principle, the embodiment of which is allegedly the patriarchate . From the sociological point of view, Ivan Filevsky approached the problem of restoring the patriarchate, seeing in it nothing more than a historically formed and characteristic socio-political institution, similar to a monarchy, characteristic of a certain era. This approach was in harmony with the positivist sociologism of liberal-minded historians at Kharkov University; and in fact was the unfolding of the cadet ideology of the liberation of society as applied to the Church.

This led to the idea of ​​conformity of the structure of the Church with the system of society and the state. Coming civil liberty should harmoniously merge with church collegiality. Church governance must be transformed "from top to bottom."

The clergy must be “liberated”, and the structure of the Church transformed on the democratic principles of conciliar self-government. From these positions, Ivan Filevsky criticized the report on the restoration of patriarchate by the report of Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) at a meeting of the Special Pre-Council Presence on June 1, 1906.

The contemporary historical time for him was seen by Ivan Filevsky as a turning point, an era when the transformation of mankind is taking place. His task as a shepherd, Fr. Ivan Filevsky considered the blessing of cultural progress and the harmonization of his ideas with Christian ideas. Work context about. I. Filevsky says that this coordination was one-sided and tied the Christian dogma to the political doctrines of the Cadet sense.

1917-1920s

I. Filevsky continued to uphold the ideas developed during the years of the first revolution in 1917. In his article “What was earlier: the Council or the Constituent Assembly?” He again, and in an even more consistent form, conducts the course of the “Church Newspaper”. It demands "democratization of the Church", upholds the principle of clergy choice, "catholicity", speaks critically about the institutions of the consistory and deaneries, speaks out for "emancipation of the clergy", sharply condemns the situation in which "the monks still run the church." And for the revived institution of patriarchy, it uses the definition of "counter-revolution in the Church."

Ivan Filevsky strongly opposed the holding of the Local Council before the convening of the Constituent Assembly , since the decisions of the Council might not correspond to the principles of state building worked out by this political forum.

The articles of the summer of 1917 represent Ivan Filevsky as a fully formed leader of the Renovationism in the Kharkov diocese. Also, a clear autocephalous motive appears in his views. He points to the unacceptability of the discrepancy between the boundaries of the metropolises to the state and ethnic borders of the subjects of the future Russian Federation: "Our Ukraine does not recognize this division: it, ensuring its national rights and state system, will require church autocephaly and complete autonomy."

Announced by Ivan Filevsky, the report “The Orthodox essence and ideological value of the Living Church, the autocephaly of Orthodoxy” (1920) became the expression of the fundamental ideas of the renovation movement in Ukraine. As before, Ivan Filevsky based his allegations on the denunciation of the heresy of Caesarapapism - “an unnatural union and subordination of the church to the state”, which led to crisis processes in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 18th – early 20th centuries .

Old Believers and sectarianism, the debate of Westerners and Slavophiles were interpreted by them as developing on the basis of "the never-ending protest against the Orthodox treasury ... the intense search for a living church in Russian Orthodoxy." The organization of the Living Church was considered as a peculiar result of these searches - “earthly Orthodoxy of our time”.

Special attention was paid to the issue of the “white episcopate” opposing the “usurpation of supreme power in the church by bishop monks”. Monasticism, remaining as a personal feat, was subject to "reform" into "Orthodox labor brotherhoods." The report contained a strong demand for autocephaly of the Ukrainian and other Orthodox national churches.

In his publications published in the Soviet press of the 1920s, Ivan Filevsky fully learns the language adopted in them, exposes the "monarchist White Guard" in the Church, etc. The last known publication of Ivan Filevsky dates from 1927.

• The doctrine of the Orthodox Church about the Holy Tradition. Apologetic research. Kharkov, 1902.
• Christian religion and culture: (2nd religious and philosophical writing) // Missionary Review. 1902
• Our agricultural culture and the Church // Faith and the Church: Spiritual, philosophical and apologetic journal. 1901 T. 2.
• Regarding the literary commentary on the graph by L. N. Tolstoy: Response to N. Strakhov's "Letter to the Unknown". Kharkov, 1892. 29 p.
• The essence of Christian morality, in contrast to the moral philosophy of Count L. N. Tolstoy: (Concerning the article by Prof. N. Groth "The Moral Ideals of Our Time," Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, January 1893, pp. 129-154) - X. , 1893. - 39 p.
• The idle talk of a secular theologian: (Regarding the article by Mr. Rozanov in No. 8987, “New Time”: “The theme of our time”) // Wanderer: Theological Journal. 1901 T. 2. (The name of the editors; the original name is “The page of faith replaced by a dialectically and textually”)
• On the spirit and flesh: (Religious-philosophical writing) // Missionary Review. 1902 T. 1.
• Christian religion and culture: (2nd religious and philosophical writing // Missionary Review. 1902 vol. 2.
• On the attitude to life and death in paganism and Christianity: (3rd religious and philosophical writing) // Missionary Review. 1902 T. 2.
• Regarding the painting by I. Ye. Repin “Follow Me, Satan” at the XXXII Wanderers Exhibition. SPb., 1904.
• On the significance of the question of Tradition in our time: Speech before the defense on October 28, 1902 at the Kiev Theological Academy of the master's thesis on the theme: “The Teachings of the Orthodox Church about St. Tradition. Apologetic research // Faith and the Church. 1902. V.2.
• On Church Laws in Ancient Kievan Rus: On the Question of the Sources and Basics of Old Russian Church Law and Management. Kharkov, 1905. 60 p.
• Celsus and Origen: From lectures on Apologetic Theology given to students in 1907-1908 and 1908-1909. Kharkov, 1910.85 p.
• The cult of science and the Christian religion: (Regarding the book by Prof. I. I. Mechnikov “Studies on the Nature of Man”) // Faith and the Church. 1904
• A turn in our intelligentsia. (Analysis of the contents of "Milestones") // Church newspaper. - 1906. - No. 26, 29, 31, 32.
• On the union between faith and science. Kharkov, 1908. 12 p.
• Apology of the patriarchate // Church newspaper. No. 24 - 25.1906.
• What comes before: the Council or the Constituent Assembly? // South region. No. 14122. 1917. July 11.

• Mikhailichenko D. Yu. Professor Protopresbyter John Filevsky (1865 - not earlier than 1927): theologian, liberal, renovationist // Scientific statements of Belgorod State University. Ser. Story. Political science. Economy. Computer science (inaccessible link) . - 2012. No. 7 (126). Issue 22. - S. 149-159.
• S. A. Steblev. “Lecturer at Kharkov University, theologian and historian I.I. Filevsky (1865-1925)” // ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF VITCHIZNYANA AND ALL-SECURITY ISTORІЇ. Збірник наукових праць