Battle for the temple. St. Isaac's Cathedral is transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. Is it necessary to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church? Will St. Isaac's Cathedral be handed over to the Russian Orthodox Church?
Mokretsov noted that the cathedral, as it was, will remain the property of the city, but the authorities will transfer it to the Russian Orthodox Church for free use. The official confirmed that previously the museum’s income covered all the costs of its maintenance and restoration (which is a little less than a billion rubles a year), but now the city will have to subsidize it. “The last restoration of the Smolny Cathedral (already transferred to the church - Ed.) was completely financed from the budget,” said Mokretsov, obviously wanting to emphasize that the city has no problems with finances. But six months ago, Isaac was left as a museum precisely for economic reasons. When asked what had changed, Mokretsov answered evasively: “The situation, the circumstances,” mentioning the transfer of the Smolny and Sampson Cathedrals.
The question of why destroy an economically successful museum system has never received a clear answer. “There was a museum, and with it a temple, and now there will be a temple, and with it a museum,” the Moscow guests laconically reported. Vladimir Legoyda, chairman of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media, assured that the Russian Orthodox Church will abolish the entrance fee to the cathedral. And this is 90% of income. Only excursions will be paid (it will still be possible to climb the St. Isaac’s Colonnade, beloved by townspeople and tourists). Legoyda was also surprised by the comment of the Ministry of Culture, which allegedly opposed the transfer of the cathedral to the church. “We are successfully in contact with the Ministry of Culture, they are aware,” he said. By the way, it is the inventory of the temple’s museum values that constitutes the main bureaucratic problem. The museum will be forced to remove some of them from the cathedral, such as the world's largest Foucault pendulum. Nikolai Burov has already proposed hanging it in the new Gazprom tower under construction. In total, there are thousands of museum values in Isaac.
The main task, according to Bishop Tikhon of Yegoryevsk, is for services and liturgies to take place in the central part of the cathedral, so that the temple becomes a temple in the full sense of the word. At the same time, it is proposed that tourists should not be allowed into the cathedral during services. When should they be allowed in if there will be services every day? Such attention to church rituals contradicts the figures: according to the museum, in 2016, for 4 million tourists who visited the complex, only 40 thousand came to the temple. This is 0.1%. At the same time, the director of the museum, Nikolai Burov, for the sake of the church, contributed to the holding of 600 services in the temple in 2016.
To the question of whether the GMP will remain as an institution at all, “ Saint Isaac's Cathedral“(without Isaac himself in the composition) and what will happen to the Savior on Spilled Blood, which the diocese was ready to lay claim to in the spring, the vice-governor answered again evasively: “The museum will remain. There are no requests or thoughts about the possible transfer of the Savior on Spilled Blood.”
"MK" decided to find out from representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the public of St. Petersburg, what do they think about the transfer of the museum to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Vsevolod CHAPLIN, archpriest, member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, publicist:
Personally, I believe that the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church is the right decision; it is strange that this was not done earlier. On this moment the parish existing there is deprived of the opportunity to carry out its work fully. After all, divine services are not enough for the full functioning of the church community. There should be a Sunday school, a social service, educational activities, and work with youth. After the transfer of the temple, premises will appear for this purpose.
Boris VISHNEVSKY, political scientist, deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg:
In my opinion, the diocese said that it was going to violate federal law, according to which the church bears all the costs of maintaining and restoring buildings transferred to it by the state. Moreover, it is completely unclear whether there was an application from the Russian Orthodox Church for the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral, which is required by law. Conversations that the patriarch and the governor talked about this have no legal force. My supporters and I have already prepared a lawsuit, which we will file if the cathedral is officially transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. At the moment, the church is not engaged in protecting the rights of believers - if they did this, they would restore dilapidated churches, and not ask to transfer prosperous and self-sufficient objects into their care. The goal is to make a profit from the activities of the cathedral, and transfer all costs for it to the state.
Photo: Vladimir Astapkovich / RIA Novosti
Father Leonid, tell me, before Governor Poltavchenko’s decision was made, as far as I understand, divine services were already held in St. Isaac’s Cathedral, church services were held there, I myself was in 2006 at the service regarding the reburial of the ashes of Empress Maria Feodorovna. What changes under the current new status of the cathedral? And why, exactly, does the church need this new status?
Kalinin: You know, firstly, the status has not yet been determined. As we see, even in the statements of the city authorities it is said that the transition period will be long, because it is necessary to really take into account those points that have excited the public. Many believe that for some reason the museum will cease to exist, or that there will be some obstacles to its activities from the church. I believe that this is completely unfounded, because, as a museum, St. Isaac's Cathedral is truly a unique object of display not only for believers, but also for completely non-believers, foreigners, various guests, people belonging to different faiths. Therefore, there is no such speech, and no one is demanding it. But a temple that was built as a temple, and in order to be a temple, in principle it must be one. Just the year of the centenary of the revolution marks changes in consciousness.
So, Konstantin, have you ever had to steal anything from anyone? Now, if you stole something from someone and then put it on your shelf, and the former owner then comes to you, ten years later, and suddenly sees his thing. And you say - but I won’t give it to you, it’s mine. And the former owner says, like mine, you stole this from me ten years ago. And you say - I don’t remember about it anymore.
You know, when St. Isaac's Cathedral was stolen from the church in 1917, 1918 and later, for ten, in my opinion, or fifteen years it was simply robbed. More than three tons of silver, vestments, and some precious icons were taken from it. Thank God that this has become a museum, we are very grateful to the museum workers for this. Moreover, the Russian Church now has no problems with museum workers.
We just had a story here on Dozhd that someone wants to take something from the Andronikov Monastery there. And I, for example, have an excellent relationship with the director of the museum, as the chairman of the expert council, in our expert community of church and state there are no mediastinums, we get along great.
Okay, so you’re talking about the year 17, about the theft of church property by the Bolsheviks, yes, it was stolen. On the other hand, they will object to you that, given the special status, the state status of the church in imperial Russia, it is not entirely clear whether this was church property, or whether in general it was something state property.
Kalinin: Of course, because the church was part of the state.
I oppose the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church not because of the costs of maintaining this monument national culture, most likely, will fall on the state budget. I believe that since St. Isaac’s is an architectural and cultural monument of national (federal) significance, the costs of maintaining the monument in order and repairing it should be borne by the state, regardless of who uses the monument. Of course, these state expenses cannot and should not include the costs of providing religious functions in St. Isaac’s and any other churches, because According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the church is separated from the state.
I oppose the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church because this is not an ordinary church, which the parishioners and the parish really need, this is a temple-Museum, which receives millions of visitors every year in order to see what it looks like inside, and not to visit church service. If the temple belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church, the combination of these two functions in our conditions is hardly possible without damage to the millions of visitors who come to St. Isaac’s as a temple-Museum. Now visitors are not required to observe a special dress code; this is a tourist site, after all, and when they serve in St. Isaac’s as in an ordinary church, the Russian Orthodox Church will most likely make its own demands on the clothing of both women and men. Now visitors can be in the Temple-Museum almost always, when it becomes a Temple-Museum owned by the Russian Orthodox Church, the duration of daily services in it will probably increase greatly and they will certainly interfere with visitors’ ability to feel free and be in St. Isaac’s.
And finally, the main thing for me is that, although it sounds strange to many, I am AGAINST the PROFANATION OF THE ROC RELIGION AND THE RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE OF PEOPLE TO THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN LIFE AND DEATH. The editor of the newspaper “St. Petersburg Vedomosti”, who advocates the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church, responded to me on Facebook that he will not lie “cross” and does not object to any of the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church, which I listed below and which I consider a profanation of religion *.
So, to summarize, firstly, I am against the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church, because this will cause very great damage to the normal - LIKE TODAY - work of the temple-MUSEUM.
Secondly, I am against the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church because this transfer does not serve the purposes of religion and is not carried out for the sake of believers who have nowhere to pray besides Isaac. The Russian Orthodox Church is seeking the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to it for the sake of exploiting the museum value of the temple for its purely secular tasks and purposes - increasing its national significance and “weight”, increasing its symbolic “weight” in the eyes of millions of visitors who come to St. Isaac’s Cathedral not to pray, but to look at the Museum-Temple , increasing their income from donations to the temple by millions of visitors to the Museum-Temple (an important goal of the Russian Orthodox Church). The named consequences of the transfer of Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church are PROFANATION OF RELIGION.
* P.S. I consider it a profanation of religion and am, in particular, against: teaching in schools to fifth-graders and high school students the law of God as before the revolution (under the guise of “the foundations of Orthodox culture”), against the presence of priests in military units (the army is not a toy), against the conclusion of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Accounts Chamber of the agreement on joint counteraction to corruption in Russia, against the agreement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ministry of Defense on cooperation, against the construction of chapels on the territories of courts, military units, train stations, airports, against the consecration of military rockets and space rockets by priests, too, against the presence of the patriarch at state events, against the patriarch’s critical speeches condemning secular art - the latest example is his speech with the opinion that some of Sidur’s works are unacceptable for display in museums, etc. and so on. If necessary, I can continue this list.
Therefore, the main questions for the readers of this note, to which I would like to hear answers in the comments to it, are the following:
Do you personally not want to “lie across” any of the above?
Are you personally against or for the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church?
Why St. Isaac's Cathedral should be transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church and why this cannot be done - the head of the pilgrimage department of the St. Petersburg diocese, Vladimir Dervenev, and the deputy of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly, Boris Vishnevsky, discussed in the Fontanka studio.
Believers complain that they are not allowed to hold full-fledged services in St. Isaac's Cathedral, but they do not mind if the museum remains at the temple and earns money to maintain the building. The main argument of opponents of the transfer is that the museum’s income will inevitably fall, and the maintenance of the temple will have to be paid for by the city budget (that is, all taxpayers).
Fontanka wrote that Smolny has long been unofficially saying that the governor has already ordered the preparation of a positive response for the St. Petersburg metropolitanate, which was reported to the director of the St. Isaac's Cathedral museum, Nikolai Burov. The museum worker himself, however, actively refused to comment on the rumors before the New Year. But most of the interlocutors spoke about the transfer as a done deal, no longer even remembering Georgy Poltavchenko’s refusal to do so.
In the summer of 2015, the St. Petersburg diocese turned to the city government with a request to transfer St. Isaac's Cathedral to it, but was refused. The city authorities decided to continue the practice of joint use of the temple by the museum and the church, which has existed for more than 20 years. In the summer of 2016, it became known that Metropolitan Barsanuphius of St. Petersburg and Ladoga sent a letter to the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation with a request to transfer the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood, which is part of the St. Isaac's Cathedral museum complex.
Vishnevsky:- Historical fact: St. Isaac's Cathedral was never transferred to the church; it was built at the expense of the treasury Russian Empire, was under the authority of the Ministry of the Imperial Household. And it has always been state owned. There is no reason to be concerned about the current situation. Services are held in the cathedral. The management of the St. Isaac's Cathedral Museum does not create any obstacles for them.
Dervenev:- My opponent winced. The cathedral certainly belonged to the church. It was on the balance sheet of the state - a department was specially created for sovereign churches. Because some churches could not be maintained at the expense of parishes for natural reasons, that is, they were not parish. This administration included St. Isaac's Cathedral and the house churches of the imperial and grand ducal residences. They were supported by the state. Isaac was included in the number of such temples as a symbol of the empire. Moreover, all priests were government employees and received a salary.
Vishnevsky:- I would ask you to be more careful about distorting. The church was part of the state during the Russian Empire. And today the current Russian Orthodox Church does not even have the legal right of succession to demand the return of the cathedral. All talk about restitution is based on the fact that the church suffered repression from the Bolsheviks. But you probably know better than me where the current leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate comes from. From Metropolitan Sergius of Starogorodsky, who, by the way, at one time supported that same godless government and denounced its enemies. If you raise the question of the return of churches, then you may have competitors who took a slightly different position in relation to the Bolshevik government. And you didn't answer my simple question. Services are underway. Museum director Nikolai Burov does not interfere with them. What's stopping you? Let's take the path of agreement. I submitted to the office of the Legislative Assembly a bill to amend Federal Law No. 327 on the transfer of property to the church. If we are talking about museums that are state property, then they do not need to be handed over to anyone, but a burden must be placed on them: an agreement must be concluded so that religious services can be held in them. And that's enough.
Dervenev:- You have said so much, and all of this has little to do with St. Isaac’s Cathedral. When a lady in the uniform of a servant of the St. Isaac's Cathedral Museum passes through the altar during a service, this is unacceptable for a believer. There is too little church in the cathedral today. Too little prayer. St. Isaac's Cathedral is closed on Wednesday, even if it falls on that day religious holiday. The services that exist are conducted in a truncated form. And all of them were agreed upon with the museum management. And if there are any museum events taking place at the museum, then evening services are cancelled. The museum should be attached to the temple, and not, as it is now, a temple attached to the museum. There is a federal law according to which churches must be handed over to believers. And this law must be fulfilled.
Vishnevsky:- I know this law quite well. And that's not what it says there. It says that a religious organization has the right to make such a request. And then the authority decides whether to grant this request or not. Draws up a transfer plan, and considers this issue for six years. The law does not automatically return everything you ask for. In September 2015, the transfer of the Church of St. Isaac's Cathedral was already refused, including for economic reasons. And they, in my opinion, are decisive here. Instead of restoring destroyed churches, of which there are thousands across the country, the church wants to get a thriving museum. And in this case she cares not about the soul, but about the interests of the corporation.
Information: St. Isaac's Cathedral is one of the most popular museums in St. Petersburg. In 2016 alone, it was visited by 3.9 million tourists. The museum's earnings amounted to more than 800 million rubles. These funds fully paid for the restoration of the cathedral.
Dervenev:- Who told you that the diocese is against having a museum in this cathedral? If there is a museum there, if it welcomes tourists, no one will mind. Services that would be held there regularly, and not furtively in the left aisle, but as appropriate - in the main cathedral of the empire, would help attract tourists. Restoration, warmth and light - all this should be, as it was a hundred years ago, not only from the state treasury, but also from the income of the cathedral. I am sure that from attracting tourists there will be funds for both the maintenance of the cathedral and restoration.
Vishnevsky:- I understood perfectly well that as soon as the speech comes to the economic component, you will begin to “swim.” Let's imagine that the cathedral was transferred to the diocese. Then you apparently assume that the city will maintain the federal architectural monument. The burden of maintenance will be borne by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I am ready to pay money for the maintenance of the museum and the preservation of the monument. But I do not agree to pay for the maintenance of the temple. Let's conduct an experiment: we will offer believers to pay a certain fee for the maintenance of the temple. And we’ll see how many there really are. If the service is being held, as you say, in a corner, let's change the agreement with the museum management so that the services are held to the required extent.
Dervenev:- The greatest cathedrals combine both a temple and a museum. People who come to the temple to pray do not have to pay money for it. And those who come with guides should. And tour guides must be certified, and not by some secular organization. I attended excursions in St. Isaac's Cathedral. There is no mention that this is a temple of God. It only talks about the building.
Who is preventing you from now entering the Kazan Cathedral, looking at this splendor, and bowing to the grave of Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov? Any competent excursion, not one that fights God, as in St. Isaac's Cathedral, has a great missionary effect.
Vishnevsky:- If the transfer of the cathedral takes place, income will drop sharply. A huge number of people will come to the temple, enjoying the right of free access, and look at it. They won't even need excursions. Some time will pass, and Governor Georgy Sergeevich Poltavchenko will come to our Legislative Assembly and say: you won’t allow St. Isaac’s Cathedral to be destroyed - allocate money for its restoration. And it’s sad that I, an unbeliever, have to remind you of the “Epistle to the Corinthians”: “You are the temple of God, and God is not in the temple, but in the heart of man.”
Dervenev:- God bless you for your moral teaching. The city will not lose St. Isaac's Cathedral, but will gain it. The museum will exist as it always has. It is a myth that the church is a rich organization. I saw priests in “wheelbarrows” only when Bishop Mitrofan of Gatchina and Luga, having picked up his cassock, wheeled the wheelbarrow at subbotniks. And many other temples that have not yet been transferred. For example, the Cathedral of John the Baptist on Lesnoy, which now has a fitness center with a swimming pool. An unbeliever cannot understand what prayer is in a place of worship, such as St. Isaac's Cathedral. Why not make an application to the Ministry of Culture so that it bears part of the costs, because this is a monument of federal rather than municipal significance?
Vishnevsky:- By a special decision of the government of the Russian Federation, it was transferred to the ownership of the government of St. Petersburg. And all decisions about his fate are made by the government of St. Petersburg. These are legal norms.
Dervenev:- Yes, there are norms, but besides the norms, there are agreements.
Vishnevsky:- When it comes to such things, the issue is resolved not by agreement, but by law.
Dervenev:- Believers should have all churches.
While an emotional discussion was going on on the air of Fontanka between a Legislative Assembly deputy and the head of the diocese’s pilgrimage department, the studio phone was literally ringing off the hook with calls from believers who wanted to support the idea of transferring St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the church. As Alexander, a resident of St. Petersburg, explained, believers are sure that St. Isaac’s attracts tourists primarily as a temple, and not as a museum. The information that the [Fontanka.Office] channel is discussing the topic of broadcasting the cathedral quickly spread among believers. “A knowledgeable person called me and said that there would be such a program,” Alexander admitted. The rest of the callers said that they had received some kind of SMS.
Recorded by Venera Galeeva,
"FONTANKA.RU", January 10, 2017
Please support "Portal-Credo.Ru"!
Information that Isaac might leave the Russian Orthodox Church appeared in the last days of 2016 and excited the city. Although back in the fall of 2015, the head of the city firmly refused to transfer Isaac to Metropolitan Barsanuphius, citing the fact that he was bringing profit to the city.
And on January 10, the governor’s words sounded like a bolt from the blue: “The issue of transferring St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the use of the Russian Orthodox Church has been resolved, but the building will fully retain its museum functions.” They say that Poltavchenko agreed on the transfer of the cathedral during the visit of Patriarch Kirill to St. Petersburg at the end of December.
Residents of the city, in turn, fear that if St. Isaac's Cathedral is transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, a number of educational, cultural and educational programs will be closed.
Accounts go to the city, profits go to the church
P Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Culture Maxim Reznik intends to initiate a city referendum if the decision on the transfer is indeed made.
“Today there is no reason to transfer St. Isaac’s Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Church,” says Reznik. - Firstly, it never belonged to the church, and the law on the return of church buildings, which some refer to, does not work here. Secondly, from the point of view of holding services in the cathedral, the interests of the church are not infringed in any way. Why, then, should a universal property, one of the symbols of St. Petersburg, suddenly come under the wing of one, albeit respected, organization? Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church offers us an interesting format, in which the city will pay millions for the maintenance of the cathedral, and all the income received from its operation will go into the “pocket” of the church.
Today the cathedral maintains itself. Photo: AiF/ Ksenia Matveeva
What funds will be used for the restoration is a big question. Look at the Kazan Cathedral, which belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church. What was it turned into after restoration? I would not want such a fate for Isaac! Also, do not forget that in the event of a transfer, 400 employees of the museum complex will simply end up on the street. I expect Governor Poltavchenko to answer the question: has his position changed? In 2015, literally with the help of a special espionage operation, I managed to find out about the church’s claims to St. Isaac’s Cathedral. Such issues should not be resolved quietly.”
Serious situation
Smolny is waiting for a more specific position Director of St. Isaac's Cathedral Nikolai Burov.
“This story is 150 years old, from time to time it comes up and causes a wide public outcry,” he commented on the situation. - However, some kind of revolution will be the last, and I have reason to believe that now the situation is quite serious. But I, as the head of the institution, a hired manager, must have a written order. Here it is necessary to take into account that St. Isaac's Cathedral today is one of the most successful cultural institutions not only in St. Petersburg, but also in the country. In 2016, we reached 3 million 900 thousand visitors and earned more than 800 million rubles. All of them will go towards the maintenance and restoration of the museum-monument. For the last few decades we have been supporting ourselves, which is rare for cultural institutions.”
Meanwhile, a petition asking to prevent the transfer of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood to the Russian Orthodox Church has already been signed on the Internet by about 100 thousand citizens. Its creators believe that otherwise the educational and educational component of the institutions will be completely eliminated, since the Russian Orthodox Church is unlikely to conduct excursions or organize various exhibitions and concerts of classical music.
At the same time, he advocated the transfer of the cathedral State Duma Deputy Vitaly Milonov. He called his opponents “demons” and “liberal roosters.”
“We want the inscription on St. Isaac’s Cathedral to come true. Temple of Prayer. Go to the Vatican and write a protest, demand state property for St. Peter’s Cathedral,” the parliamentarian said.
Let us remember that last year Smolny Cathedral officially ceased to be a museum object and became the property of the church.