The Renovation Schism in Taganrog and Shakhtinsk-Donetsk Deaneries of North Caucasus (Rostov region)

• Main Author: Tabunshchikova Liudmila
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: St. Tikhon's Orthodox University 2015-06-01
• Series: Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ II. Istoriâ, Istoriâ Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi
• Subjects: Russian Orthodox Church; the Renovation; the Renovation Schism; Taganrog and Shakhtinsk-Donetsk Deaneries of North Caucasus; bishop Mitrophan (Grinyov); bishop Arseny (Smolenets) Close
• Online Access: http://periodical.pstgu.ru/en/pdf/article/2920
• ISSN: 1991-6434; 2409-4811

Peculiarities of initiation and progress of the Renovation schism are considered in this article based on wide range of archival sources — four regional archives (the Archive of Administration of the Federal Agency of the RF for Rostov region; the State archive of Rostov region; Taganrog branch of the State archive of Rostov region; Archival Documentation Center). Central position in the article is devoted to perception of the renovation by diff erent social categories of the population: peasants of Taganrog deanery, Cossacks and workers of Shakhtinsk-Donetsk Deanery (former Aleksandrovsk-Grushevsky deanery of Don and Novocherkassk diocese). The author focuses on social, geographical and other peculiarities of the Renovation schism in Taganrog and Shakhtinsk-Donetsk Deaneries of North Caucasus (Rostov region). Characteristic features of Taganrog renovation involved establishing of separate diocese initiated by the clergy and strong anti-renovation opposition. Taganrog renovation was not radical and, in the whole, didn’t go beyond the Orthodox ritualism. In contrast to the other areas of Don region, church members played a significant role in the activity of Taganrog deanery. In some cases they took up the initiative and decided which movement they want to belong to. Final extinction of the renovation in Taganrog is dated by 1938. Diocese center in Shakhty was established late enough, key positions in diocesan administration were occupied by the priests who came from Caucasian dioceses. The Administration activity was kept under careful attention of the State Political Directorate. Renovation in Shakhty diocese, as well as in the whole region, was not radical. Presence of pro-opposition clergy isn’t recorded in the documentation.