Proposals to the Synod on the issue of changes in church governance

Office of the Orthodox Confession Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Division II. Table 3. June 28, 1905. No. 100. St. Petersburg. Not subject to publication To the Holy Governing Synod According to the Highest resolution at the most submissive report of the Holy Synod on the convening of a Council of diocesan bishops to establish the Patriarchate and to ensure changes in church governance, the Synod’s proposal to convene the Council should be considered Highly approved. But His Majesty was pleased to allow Himself to convene a Council of the All-Russian Church for a canonical discussion of subjects of faith and church government, “when the time is favorable for this.” Although it is impossible at the present moment to determine the time when, at the Highest discretion, it will become possible to convene a local Council of the All-Russian Church, the expectation of an event of such extreme importance now requires, in advance, preparatory work for it, which, due to its importance and complexity, should take considerable time. The reorganization of the entire church administration, which was formed during the two-century period of the Synodal Administration, outlined in the most general terms by the definition of the Holy Synod of March 18–22 of this year, represents a great reform that embraces the spiritual life of the entire country, and raises many of the most serious and important issues that require preliminary extensive development, which can only be accomplished with the assistance of people deeply knowledgeable about the history of the Church in general and the current situation of our church administration, and, moreover, standing at the height of understanding of church and state interests in their interaction. The very convening of the Local Council requires a precise definition on the basis of canonical decrees and church practice, its composition, the establishment of a procedure for considering and resolving cases by the Council and the organization of a temporary governing and preparatory body of work under it. The participation at the Council of representatives of the clergy and laity, if such recognition was necessary, raises the extremely difficult and complex question of developing such a procedure for electing representatives that, when applied, would not cause displeasure, inconvenience and difficulties. Among the issues that, according to the definition of the Holy Synod of May 18–22 of this year, are subject to consideration and resolution by the All-Russian Council, the first place is given to the division of the Russian Church into districts under the control of metropolitans, granting them the right to convene regional Councils and transferring to their jurisdiction from the highest church administration matters of secondary importance. Regional autonomous church administrations in the first centuries of Christianity were caused by many different conditions: the diversity and vastness of the regions, the inconvenience of communication between them, the historical isolation of the Churches, based on the high authority of the first planters of Christianity, etc. Before the unification of all of Russia under the scepter of the Russian Emperors, there were separate areas of church administration in the territories of the Moscow State, the Western Territory and the Caucasus. Currently we do not have regional autonomous representatives of church administration. However, one cannot deny the existence of special tasks that are subject to church governance in different territories of the Empire and serve as a vital basis for the establishment of regional or district autonomies. This peculiarity of tasks cannot be rejected in the entire Western region, which represents a vast field for the protection of Orthodoxy in the fight against heterodoxy, in the eastern provinces and regions of Russia, where many foreigners still await the light of Christ and where the propaganda of Islam calls for tireless Christian work under one general systematic leadership of the regional representative of the Church, and, finally, in the Caucasus, where the memory of an independent Church is still preserved Georgian and where there is also a vast field for Christian preaching among the tribes alien to Christianity inhabiting it. But the restoration of individual church regions and in territories in which there are historical and vital grounds for this requires very serious consideration, and first of all it is necessary to carefully discuss whether these autonomies will not be in conflict with the beginning of state unity, contributing to the revival of ideas about the cultural and political isolation of our outskirts in the Western region and the Caucasus. The next question, outlined by the synodal resolution for the resolution of the Local Council, is about the revision of the legal provisions on the existing bodies of diocesan administration and court and the transformation of them in accordance with the canonical principles of the council. Currently, the body of diocesan administration is the spiritual consistory, which represents the administration - a judicial institution. About the separation of the church court from the consistory and its organization in accordance with church canons and with the beginnings of civil judicial reform, which ended with the publication of the Judicial Charter on November 20, 1864, extensive work was undertaken in the Holy Synod, about thirty years ago, with the participation of representatives of our hierarchy and the civil judicial department. The draft instructions developed on this subject, with numerous comments from diocesan bishops and other persons, were submitted to the Holy Synod for consideration, but did not receive further movement. It is appropriate now to recall these works solely so that, in view of the general question now raised about the transformation of episcopal administration and court, attention should be drawn to them as material that it is not superfluous to use, as far as possible, for the development of preparatory assumptions to be considered by the Council. As administrative institutions, consistories with a presence of members constantly distracted from diocesan affairs by the performance of their direct clergy duties, and an office of an insufficient number of poorly provided and mostly ill-prepared officials for service, while observing outdated forms of office work, are burdened with formal written proceedings. In parallel with the consistories, since the last quarter of the last century, a whole series of new diocesan administrative institutions have arisen in all dioceses, completely separate from the consistories, such as the Councils and Boards for diocesan-school, missionary, fraternal affairs, diocesan congresses, auxiliary and emerital cash offices, candle factories, etc. All these institutions are united in the person of the diocesan bishop. But given the diversity and isolation of these institutions, it is extremely difficult for one bishop, without an intermediary body that reflects the entire totality of affairs and interests of diocesan institutions, to direct them to correct and coordinated action. Thus, a question arises, requiring preliminary development, about the organization of such an effective diocesan body of episcopal power that would unite under its jurisdiction the entire area of ​​diocesan administration. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that given the current situation of the State Treasury, there can be no talk of any adaptation to the allocated funds for the maintenance of the diocesan administration. Following this, in the order of the synodal determination, is the question of the improvement of the parish in religious, moral, educational and charitable relations. This issue was examined in the former Highest approved presence for the affairs of the Orthodox clergy. But at that time it was recognized that it was possible to limit ourselves to establishing the hitherto existing regulations on parish trustees, which provided parishes with care for the maintenance of churches, the best provision of parishes and the establishment of educational and charitable institutions. The instruction to church wardens, approved on June 12, 1890, which gave the organization to a general meeting of parishioners to elect church wardens and representatives of the parish during the monthly check of church funds, as well as to judge certain church needs, represents a further step forward towards the participation of parishes in parish affairs. Currently, many enlightened zealots of the Church recognize that the improvement of the parish community on the basis of a general provision, with the right of a legal entity and autonomous management of all parish affairs, through a local body of parishioners, would contribute to the revitalization and renewal of not only church life in the parish, but also popular forces in Russia in general. In the opinion of the aforementioned zealots, parish communities should be given not only the management of the material needs of the church, charity and education, but also the very election of clergy candidates and the disposal of all church property. Since the organization of parish communities on these principles concerns the entire existing structure of church life in general, this issue requires comprehensive development both in relation to the organization of the parish community, its rights to manage the affairs of the parish and its position in the field of diocesan administration, and in relation to the possibility and procedure for implementing this reform in different localities of Russia, without shock and harm to existing church institutions maintained with church funds. Without a doubt, this is a matter of paramount importance for the welfare of both the Church and the state. Regarding the issues of improving theological educational schools, proposed for consideration at the Council, it is fair to recall that until the second half of the last century, religious educational institutions were distinguished by the stability of their educational and educational settings, although they raised complaints about the outdatedness and scholasticism of teaching methods and the severity of discipline, nevertheless they graduated from their course with highly developed thinking, extreme ability to work and good direction of the will. Among the students of theological educational institutions of that time, one can point out a significant number of remarkable, multi-useful figures in all fields of church, state and public service. The multi-subjects with extensive programs that were then introduced into religious educational institutions, requiring not so much reflection as mechanical assimilation, and the constant, especially recently, change of commanding officers, for whom educational service became like a stage on the way to further career advancement, adversely affected the state of religious educational institutions. A large amount of knowledge, hastily acquired from textbooks, one-sidedly develops the primary abilities of assimilation, but does not contribute to general mental development, and frequent changes in educational methods, depending on changes in superiors, cause a disorder of discipline, expressed in recent years by numerous unrest in religious educational institutions. This situation in the spiritual and educational part really requires carefully thought-out measures. In addition, it is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that a significant number of students in religious educational institutions and often of the best students, upon completion of the training course, enter service that has nothing to do with the spiritual department. This loss is especially difficult for the remote dioceses of Siberia, where each year a significant number of unfilled priestly vacancies remain. No coercive measures, as experience has shown, can protect the ecclesiastical department from these losses. Inevitably, therefore, the question arises about the establishment of such theological schools with a shortened general education course, which would serve exclusively to prepare candidates for priestly and ecclesiastical positions with the admission to these schools of children who have completed a parish school course, without distinction of class. Of all the subjects subject to conciliar consideration, the least difficult seems to be the revision of laws relating to the procedure for the acquisition of property by the Church. Obviously, in the present case, questions are being raised about the abolition of that restriction on the right of acquisition not only by churches, but also by monasteries and episcopal houses of real estate, which are expressed in civil and state legislation, and which oblige the acquisition of real estate by purchase, gift or donation to seek the Highest permission. Over the years, it is impossible to remember a case when this restriction was an obstacle to the completion of acts of strengthening of the acquired property. But this restriction, obliging the diocesan and central Synodal administration to enter into the consideration of this type of matter, protects churches and monasteries from acquisitions that are unnecessary, unprofitable, controversial, and the like. In view of this, it seems advisable, with the abolition of the existing restriction, if this were considered desirable, to establish a procedure for permitting the acquisition of property that would ensure the exercise of this right in the interests of the churches. It would not be superfluous to pay attention when revising the laws on the acquisition of property by churches to the following anomaly: law: T. X, Part I of the Laws. Civilian. publications. 1900, Article 698 does not recognize the clergy as a class of rights of a legal entity to acquire real estate. Therefore, in all those cases when the clergy absolutely needs to acquire real estate for its needs and at its own expense, this property has to be assigned not to the actual acquirer - the clergy, but to a fictitious one - the diocesan authorities or an educational institution that has the rights of a legal entity. There is an urgent need to discuss the issue of granting the clergy the aforementioned rights. Regarding diocesan congresses, which are also among the subjects subject to conciliar consideration, there is a real need to establish, on the basis of experience, certain boundaries for their activities and to indicate to them their proper place and significance among diocesan institutions. Having arisen on the basis of the seminary charter of 1867 1 specifically to meet the needs of seminaries, men's and diocesan women's schools, the congresses were soon forced to leave these narrow boundaries and, according to the instructions of the diocesan eminences and the demands of life itself, to take into account general diocesan material needs in their judgment. Thus, the congresses sought and are seeking funds to meet the needs of not only religious educational institutions, but also other diocesan needs - missionary, charitable and church-economic. Thanks to the congresses, in many dioceses, emerital, mutually auxiliary and savings and loan banks, candle factories, warehouses for various church items: wine, oil, incense, utensils, vestments, etc. appeared in many dioceses. But at the same time, one cannot help but point out that in many dioceses the congresses involved in the sphere of general diocesan needs have arrogated to themselves the right of authorized masters, allowing themselves not only to establish various mandatory fees and impose them on church income, but even to manage the exploitation of church quitrent articles. Some of the diocesan eminences, taking advantage of the arrival at the congress of clergy from various local dioceses, often the most provincial ones, enter into interviews with them on religious and moral issues, thus exerting a direct archpastoral influence on them and at the same time becoming familiar with such phenomena of parish life that are inaccessible to observation during episcopal tours of the dioceses. The importance of such a living and mutual exchange of bishops with pastors in general for church governance in dioceses is undeniable. In view of this, the question arises as to whether episcopal congresses should not be given the significance of an auxiliary body under the bishop not only on issues of material, but also religious and moral needs. Regarding the issue of the participation of clergy in public institutions, according to the current regulations, city and land, in accordance with the conclusion of the Holy Synod, representatives of the clergy can take part in city and zemstvo institutions only as deputies of the diocesan authorities. Members of the clergy cannot participate in the selection of vowels and be elected by them themselves, even if they have the qualifications required for this. The clergy is also not granted the right to participate in village gatherings. Only the position in the military administration in the Cossack troops gave the clergy the right to participate in village gatherings on matters relating to church interests. The Holy Synod usually rejected repeated requests to include members of the clergy in the institutions dealing exclusively with secular affairs. But we should not lose sight of the fact that in views on the question of the participation of the clergy in city, zemstvo and rural public institutions, there are two completely opposite trends, which have convinced supporters from among representatives of church administration and theological science. According to some, such participation, which introduces church pastors into the cycle of worldly affairs, is completely inconsistent with the direct responsibilities and eternal principles of pastoral service. According to others, participation in public institutions by the pastors of the Church, who should not be alien to the worldly needs of their flock, opens up a wide field for pursuing pure Christian principles in this area and for establishing their moral and educational influence. But this question, it would seem, can receive a correct resolution not on theoretical foundations alone, but also on the existing conditions of real life and relationships. The outlined outline of issues to be considered by the All-Russian Council apparently exhausts a number of subjects indicated in the definition of the Holy Synod of March 18–22 of this year for conciliar discussion. But according to the literal meaning of the Highest Resolution, at the most submissive report on the convening of the Council, objects of faith, about which no indications were given in the synodal definition, are also subject to canonical discussion. Meanwhile, in this vast area of ​​subjects related to the knowledge, confirmation and cleansing of various errors of the Orthodox Christian faith, permission from the highest church authority is expected on many issues that are best known to the representatives of the highest church administration themselves. If the Holy Synod had recognized it as desirable to propose for discussion at the Local Council at least some of the most urgent of these questions, then to clarify them, preliminary development with the assistance of representatives of theological science would also be necessary. It must be assumed that at the Council there will be attempts to raise issues other than those outlined by the Holy Synod. One of these questions can now be foreseen - this is the question of the position of the Orthodox Church in relation to Old Believers, sectarians and non-believers after the publication of the Highest Decree on April 17 of this year on religious tolerance. Therefore, it would be advisable to first establish whether and in what order such questions can be raised. I have the honor to propose this for the consideration of the Holy Synod. Chief Prosecutor K. Pobedonostsev Acting director V. Yatskevich In May 1867, new charters and staff of religious educational institutions were approved by the Highest, remaining in force until 1884, when new charters were adopted that abolished the elective principle. Pobedonostsev was not a principled opponent of church reform; he only advocated its careful and professional study, the selection of people and waiting for a more convenient moment, so that there would be less temptation for believers due to disputes among the hierarchs and the preaching of alien religions.