The Need Arises

Before the 1917 Revolution, the system of spiritual education in Russia comprised four theological academies, 57 seminaries, and 185 religious schools. However, by the 1920s, almost nothing remained of this system.

The revival of theological education in the USSR can be traced back to a historic meeting on September 4, 1943, between Joseph Stalin and Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexy (Simansky), and Nicholas (Yarushevich). During the discussion, the hierarchs raised pressing issues facing the Church, particularly the acute shortage of clergy. To address this, Metropolitan Sergius proposed the establishment of two types of theological institutions: a theological institute and theological-pastoral courses. The Soviet government approved this proposal.

Metropolitan Gregory (Chukov) of Saratov was tasked with leading this initiative. By October 1, 1943, he presented a comprehensive report on the organization of theological schools, which received the approval of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod.

Later that month, Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), who briefly led the Russian Church, submitted the proposed regulations for theological institutes and pastoral courses to the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs for approval. The curriculum included not only religious subjects but also practical pastoral guidance, studies on the USSR Constitution, and legal documents regulating the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church.

On October 29, 1943, during a meeting between the Patriarch and the Council’s chairman, Georgy Karpov, it was decided that enrollment at these new institutions would be limited to 25-40 students. The Council assumed control over church education, stripping the Church of independent personnel policies and other key administrative functions. However, some concessions were made: theological school students were granted work ration cards and military draft deferments, while faculty received food rationing benefits equal to those of secular university educators.

Priestly Training Resumes!

In 1945, upon the request of the new Patriarch, Alexy (Simansky), the government authorized the opening of theological-pastoral courses in Leningrad, Kyiv, Lviv, Lutsk, Minsk, Odesa, and Stavropol. Soon after, Council Chairman Karpov reported the progress of some of these institutions to the government. Authorities ordered local administrations to provide facilities and support for these courses, with funding drawn from diocesan budgets.

It is unsurprising that four out of the seven new theological schools were planned for Ukraine. This was not only due to the acute shortage of clergy in the region but also because the government saw an urgent need to strengthen Ukrainian Orthodox clergy against the influence of both Catholicism and schismatic autocephalist movements.

Education Under Strict SupervisionBy early 1946, Council Representative Pavel Khodchenko reported difficulties in filling enrollment quotas: only two students had enrolled in Odesa, while Lutsk had 33 out of a planned 40. The low numbers reflected lingering fear of repression from the 1930s. In Odesa, officials even had to resort to recruiting underqualified church workers—such as psalmists and deacons—to fill gaps, yet still fell short. Meanwhile, in Lutsk, despite over 100 applications from young men—mostly from well-off peasant families—many were rejected due to low literacy levels.

Khodchenko noted that theological education in Ukraine was not being fully utilized and admitted that government officials overseeing religious education lacked expertise. They relied on fragmented reports, rumors, and even self-reported accounts from clergy rather than direct inspections.

Observations and Objections

An investigation into the Odesa courses revealed poor student attendance due to parish duties. Teachers, unfamiliar with the curriculum approved by the Patriarchate, devised their own lesson plans. Council officials criticized these adaptations, particularly lectures that incorporated Russian literature and history into theological subjects. One instructor, Zubkov, was censured for teaching "History of Russian Religious Thought," which was not part of pre-revolutionary seminaries’ curricula. The rector of the Odesa school, Chemena, was also scrutinized for his past experience as a gymnasium director before his religious career began in 1920.

Lutsk’s theological courses faced similar challenges. In Volhynia, 40 students had initially enrolled in 1945, but seven dropped out due to lack of interest. A local Council official questioned why a "Hygiene" course, not included in the Patriarchate-approved curriculum, was being taught. However, the local bishop assured him that this addition had received patriarchal blessing.

Additionally, officials criticized faculty salaries as being too high and students’ financial contributions to postwar reconstruction efforts as too low.

Educate, But Not Too Much

Reflecting on the results of clergy training programs, the republican Council representative expressed skepticism about further expanding theological education in Soviet Ukraine. Even though courses in Kyiv and Lviv had yet to launch, he opposed opening additional schools, rejecting requests from bishops in Voroshilovgrad (Luhansk) and Chernivtsi. Instead, he proposed "consolidating" parishes to reduce the demand for new clergy, suggesting that surplus priests be reassigned to underserved areas.

According to him, Church leaders were primarily interested in expanding education as a means of creating "an illusion of growth" and securing financial benefits for bishops and their close circles. His report to the government emphasized that existing institutions were under-enrolled, attributing this to Church leadership rather than broader societal literacy issues that had prevented many applicants from meeting admission standards.

Curbing Religious Enthusiasm

Examining yet another document from the Council’s internal correspondence, we see that despite its ideological conflict with the Church, the Soviet government took significant steps toward cooperation during the war and immediate postwar years. One of the most crucial of these was the restoration of theological education. However, the quality of religious training under government oversight—managed by officials unfamiliar with religious doctrine—was inevitably questionable.

Surveillance extended beyond theological schools to parishes and monasteries. A striking example comes from the Epiphany Monastery in Kremenets, Ternopil Oblast, where local church leaders were accused of illegally training psalmists in small private groups for a fee. The authorities intervened, shutting down these lessons and ordering that any formal courses must first receive approval from the Council for Religious Affairs in Moscow.

It is unclear why the government viewed such informal training as a threat, given that psalmists merely lead congregational singing of scripture. However, officials reported an "increase in religious activity," which they sought to curb. In this climate, pursuing a calling in the Church required remarkable courage, as it meant submitting to intense government scrutiny.

Despite these obstacles, the revival of theological education in the USSR continued, training new clergy for the Russian Orthodox Church under challenging and restrictive conditions.