The article focuses on the actions and legacy of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky). The author illustrates how historical context and divine providence shape the character of an exceptional individual and a devout church leader, highlighting several significant objectives in Patriarch Sergius's endeavors: the reinstatement of the patriarchate institution, safeguarding the Church against renovationist schisms, and revitalizing its societal and historical significance. A significant portion of the article is dedicated to Patriarch Sergius's contributions to theology, particularly within Orthodox soteriology. The article delineates how the efforts of two patriarchs, Tikhon (Bellavin) and Sergius (Stragorodsky), facilitated the reconciliation of the Church with the Soviet leadership, thereby mitigating the detrimental effects of the Renovationist councils (in 1923 and 1925). The author provides evidence supporting the inevitability and providential nature of Patriarch Sergius' decision to normalize relations between the Church and the Soviet state. The primary justifications for such normalization included resistance to internal church reformation and the mobilization of people, the country, and the Church in response to the civilizational challenge of Nazism during the war. Simultaneously, the article exposes certain emigrant parishes that, by supporting Hitler, forfeited any chance of becoming an alternative to the Russian Orthodox Church.

The article describes the important role of the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow and Kolomna (Stragorodsky), in the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has taken a distinctly patriotic position since the first days of the Great Patriotic War.

On Sunday morning, immediately after the liturgy, Metropolitan Sergius, having learned of the attack by Nazi Germany, wrote an “Message to the Pastors and Flock of the Orthodox Church of Christ”, in which he clearly stated his patriotic position, called for the defence of the Motherland, and recalled the heroic examples of Russian saints and Orthodox soldiers. This speech preceded the speech of the Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. M. Molotov on 22 June and the speech of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars I. V. Stalin on 3 July.

The article describes other actions of Metropolitan (and later Patriarch) Sergius that contributed to the victory over the enemy. During the war years, the Metropolitan read 23 patriotic messages, one of which was a message to the clergy and believers in the temporarily occupied territory, dated 13 December 1942. Thanks to the patriotic attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church, the attitude of the Soviet authorities towards it changed significantly. The article describes the history of the issue, the meeting of Stalin in the Kremlin on 5 September 1943 with Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow and Kolomna, Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad and Novgorod, and Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Kiev and Galicia, and the important results of this meeting - the legalisation of the Church and the restoration of the Patriarchate.

As a result, the opening of previously closed churches, the return of reformers to the bosom of the canonical Church, the restoration of dioceses, etc. began. In general, the change in the confessional policy of the Soviet state, the selfless service of Patriarch Sergius and Patriarch Alexy, bishops and clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church during the war years played an important role in rallying and mobilising the Soviet people to defend the country against the enemy.

The article discusses some circumstances related to the church polemics surrounding the book of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov “The Lamb of God”, published in Paris in 1933, and the participation of the deputy locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who issued two decrees in Moscow in 1935, exposing the theological errors of the professor of dogmatic theology at the Holy Trinity Orthodox Theological Institute. In the conditions when the Synod was forcibly disbanded, the decrees were not a unilateral opinion of Metropolitan Sergius, but were signed by “joining” hierarchs, giving them the character of conciliar acts. The role of the Photian Brotherhood in preparing these decrees is noted, in particular, its leader A. V. Stavrovsky, who prepared and sent to Metropolitan Eleftherius of Vilnius and Lithuania, who took care of the foreign parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, a “report” outlining the views of Fr. S. Bulgakov. The article explores the inconsistent reaction to the condemnation of Bulgakov by representatives of the Russian emigration, revealing the reasons why Metropolitan Sergius issued the decrees, among which is his trust in the young members of the Photian Brotherhood who remained faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate in emigration and proposed a significant program of Orthodox mission in Western Europe using the French language and Western rites, up to the establishment of the French diocesan Orthodox Church. The article uses materials from the memorial edition issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1947 in memory of Patriarch Sergius, as well as new sources recently introduced into circulation — letters and documents that reveal new aspects of the history of the “Sophia dispute”. Certain aspects of the criticism of the teaching of Sophia by V. N. Lossky are also considered, which are related to the decrees of Metropolitan Sergius.

This article attempts to assess the theological significance of two “Ukazes” issued by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1935 against the Sophiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov and signed by members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is noted that Metropolitan Sergius insightfully and accurately exposes the main nerve of Sophiology in terms of the methodological problem of mixing philosophical and theological approaches. His own theological approach is based on the distinction between the Dogmatic Idea (dogma), eternally unchanging and self-identical, and the theological attempts of human thought to grasp certain aspects of the dogma, far from exhausting the mysterious fullness of the dogma and certainly not claiming to expand (add) its semantic structure. The article also traces the changing and enriching position of Metropolitan Sergius regarding the dogma of redemption over more than 35 years after defending his famous master’s work “The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation”. Even before the main critical work of St. Seraphim (Sobolev) towards Metropolitan Sergius was published, these “Ukazes” already present an understanding of the doctrine of redemption that includes both subjective and objective aspects of redemption. As known, the absence of the latter aspect in the early writings of Metropolitan Sergius was criticized. The views presented in the polemic with Sophiology demonstrate the organic growth and deepening of Metropolitan Sergius’ thought, outlining certain accents that will later become the main directions of Orthodox soteriology in the 20th century.

In 1901–1903, while serving as a vicar of the Saint Petersburg diocese and as the Bishop of Yamburg, Sergius (Stragorodsky), with the blessing of the church authorities, chaired the Religious and Philosophical Assemblies in Saint Petersburg. These assemblies became a significant chapter in the history of both church-state relations and religious thought in Russia. The Church participated in these assemblies in hopes of finding common ground with the intelligentsia. However, the initiators of the assemblies aimed to exert influence on the Church that would lead to a radical transformation of the church-state and church-society relations. In fact, during the assemblies, there were demands for the Church to sever ties with the autocratic state authorities and instead rely on the new non-estate layer of the intelligentsia. The latter was proclaimed as the most progressive social force, the bearer of Western ideas. It was assumed that the Church’s reorientation to support the intelligentsia would lead to a shift in the church ideal from the “otherworldly” to the “earthly”, meaning the blessing of socialist changes in the society. However, the organizers of the assemblies, primarily D. S. Merezhkovsky and Z. N. Gippius, as well as representatives of their circle, sought much deeper transformations. They considered the existing Russian Church “historical”, meaning outdated and incomplete, and sought to establish their new “Third Covenant” church. They anticipated a new revelation from the Holy Spirit, ultimately leading to the idea of an apocalyptic revolution aimed at changing the entire world. A central concept in the “new religious consciousness” of the assembly initiators was the idea of the “holy flesh”, which envisaged, on the one hand, the active involvement of secular culture in the church and the justification of the culture renewed by the church and, on the other hand, a fundamentally different view of the family, emphasizing the sanctity not of the sacrament of marriage but of physical cohabitation itself This approach implied a blurring of the church’s teachings on marriage and a transformation of moral theology. The creation of a new church also entailed a radical renewal of dogma. The possibility of “dogmatic development”, i.e., the transformation of the very foundation of church dogmas, was raised for discussion during the Religious and Philosophical Assemblies. Overall, the ideas developed at the assemblies can be characterized as revolutionary. In the face of all these challenges, Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) not only steadfastly defended the church’s political, social, moral, and dogmatic teaching but also showed great tact and restraint towards the participants of the assemblies. However, he did not fully overcome the circle of religious-revolutionary ideas that had formed at the assemblies. In fact, many of the same ideas were prevalent in the church renewal movement, which Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) had to contend with two decades later. The experience gained in the confrontation with destructive ideas at the Religious and Philosophical Assemblies greatly aided Metropolitan Sergius in his struggle against the church renewal movement.

This article examines the ecclesiological views of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) based on the analysis of three program articles published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1930s and 1940s. The main topics of these publications are related to the attitude towards non-Orthodoxy, but their consideration also holds general ecclesiological significance: the boundaries of the church, the theological explanation of religious conversion, apostolic succession, the hierarchical system, and unity of the church. Patriarch Sergius formulated an understanding of religious conversion as an objective characteristic of the state of non-Orthodox communities and an evidence for the possibility of grace acting beyond the boundaries of the church. He associated the practice of religious conversion with the church oeconomy, grounded in the conciliar latitude of the church. He also delineated the boundaries of the church by participation in the single Eucharist, which simultaneously served as evidence of church membership. Moreover, he indicated the ecclesiastical unity and boundaries of the church by its hierarchical structure and the hereditary succession of the apostleship. Deviation from this succession led beyond the boundaries of the church. He understood the oeconomic action of the church in the soteriological key of striving for the salvation of many. This connection aligned the ecclesiology of the patriarch with the original soteriological message of his theology within the context of the relationship between dogma and history, jurisprudence and living church practice.

In the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced two internal revolutions. During the first of these, in 1917–1918, the Patriarchate was restored. However, the revolutionary processes gave rise to myths, some of which persist to this day. One of them concerns the Antichrist-like nature of the Soviet government. This myth was shaped by a complex of ideas about a spiritual collective Antichrist, born out of Russian religious radicalism from the 18th to the 20th centuries. The idea of a spiritual Antichrist presupposes that the surrounding reality, including the state and society, is already seized by a collective, spiritual Antichrist, understood as apostasy, a universal turning away from God. These same ideas were actively propagated in the anti-Soviet Orthodox underground, now not concerning Russian tsars, but Soviet leaders instead. The issue of using the anathema pronounced by Patriarch Tikhon against the Soviet government in 1918 is closely linked to such a worldview. In reality, the anathema was not only rescinded by him in 1923 after his release from imprisonment, but also acknowledged as erroneous. Patriarch Tikhon made it clear that the Church offered prayers for the Soviet government. Upon Lenin’s death, condolences were sent by him to the government of the USSR. A special place in the spiritual evaluation of authorities is occupied by the fact of persecutions and new martyrdom. Undoubtedly, the scale of such persecutions in the Soviet period surpasses anything that came before. Nevertheless, persecutions and martyrdom in Russia after 1917 are not something unprecedented. In 1917, many martyrs who suffered under tsarist rule were glorified by the Old Believers. The spiritual truth of this martyrdom formed the self-awareness of the Old Believers throughout the pre-revolutionary era, just as the self-awareness of the modern Russian Orthodox Church is based on the spiritual endeavor of the new martyrs and confessors of the 20th century. Patriarch Tikhon and later Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) called not only for normalizing relations with the Soviet government, observing its laws and regulations, but also for praying for it. Such a position corresponds to the traditional view of the government as an act of God’s Providence, dating back to St. John Chrysostom. Opponents of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), including bishops imprisoned on the Solovetskie Islands, also did not consider the Soviet government to have an Antichrist-like character and advocated for normalizing relations with it. Thus, in the activities of Patriarch Tikhon and the future Patriarch Sergius, the legacy of ideas of Russian religious radicalism was rejected.

The article examines the issue of comprehension of Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) as the successor of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky). In historical literature, this issue pertains to the dual role of the Patriarchs as leaders of pivotal dioceses within the Church during the 1930s. Moreover, it was during their tenure as leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church that the relationship between the Church and the government evolved, maintaining a consistent trajectory from the 1940s through the 1980s. Metropolitan Sergius and Metropolitan Alexy attended a historic meeting with Stalin on September 4, 1943, which marked the beginning of a new chapter in their relationship. This was acknowledged not only by members of the Russian Orthodox Church but also by the Soviet government. Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Georgy Karpov, noted that “Patriarch Alexy I continued the work begun by Patriarch Sergius to normalize relations between the Church and the government”. The restoration of theological schools to train a new generation of clergy in them, the reestablishment of communion with Local Churches, and the preservation of apostolic succession were the key tasks that began under Patriarch Sergius and were continued by his successor. In addition, it was during that time that a special relationship developed between the Moscow Patriarchate and the country’s government. It was no longer a Synodal relationship between the Church and the attorneygeneral. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (renamed as the Council for Religious Affairs in 1965) served as the intermediary authority through which the Church communicated its needs to the government, and through which decisions of the Soviet and party leadership were conveyed to the Church. The article employs a distinctive approach by generalizing information and statistics on liturgical and other activities, derived directly from archival documents, as compiled by the author. Patriarch Alexy I was succeeded by Patriarch Pimen (Izvekov), who continued this line of approach in relations with the government.