What is an Orthodox parish and what should it be?

Contents I. What is an Orthodox parish? II. Legal position of the parish in the system of diocesan institutions according to current law III. An Orthodox parish is a collection of a certain number of Orthodox Christians attached to the parish church IV. An Orthodox parish is a church community that is properly organized and affiliated with the church. Chapter V Chapter VI. Means for improving the organization of an Orthodox parish, indicated by the above theoretical clarification of the essence of an Orthodox parish. Chapter VII Chapter VIII. Canonical dependence of parishes on the diocesan bishop (Experience of canonical-legal coverage of the parish issue in the discussions of the Pre-Conciliar Presence and periodicals) Already by the time of the opening of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, such a significant number of studies, articles, articles and projects for organizing an Orthodox parish - private and governmental 1 - had accumulated in our periodical press that it would seem to be a very easy matter to solve the parish issue. Reality, however, showed something different. The IV Department of the Presence managed to develop, and apparently without much difficulty, a normal charter representing a fairly complete organization of the parish, taking into account everything that was expressed in the literature on the parish issue. But no matter how difficult it was to draw up the charter, it turned out to be so difficult to achieve its recognition and approval by the general meeting of the Presence. The charter met with a wide variety of objections, and such a difference in fundamental views on the essence of the Orthodox parish was revealed that it turned out to be impossible to come to any unanimity. Only by a slight majority of votes did the general meeting of the Presence manage to establish the following two fundamental provisions, and even then not entirely in harmony with one another: 1) “An Orthodox parish is an ecclesiastical institution under the authority of a bishop to satisfy the religious and moral needs of a certain congregation of Orthodox Christians, under the pastoral leadership of a priest and at a church designated for this purpose by church authorities. 2) The Orthodox Russian Church is the owner of all church, clergy and parish property. In parishes, the management of local church property is entrusted to the parish as a legal entity consisting of the clergy and parishioners of the local church, who are canonically dependent on the local bishop” 2. This experience shows that before starting to draw up a charter for the complete organization of a parish, it is necessary to clarify the basic fundamental views on the essence of an Orthodox parish and firmly establish them with the authority of the legislative branch. Then it will no longer be difficult to draw up one from the existing projects of the parish code that meets these fundamental views. At the same time, this experience shows that despite the apparently rich literature devoted to the parish issue, there is still something unsaid in it, there is a gap that needs to be filled, namely in the types of clarification of the basic fundamental views on the essence of the Orthodox parish. The proposed work takes on this task. I. What is an Orthodox parish? The following conclusions were given to this question in the Pre-Conciliar Presence, in the form of logical definitions: 1) “A church parish in the Orthodox Church is a church community that has a special church for liturgical meetings and is under the spiritual direction of the parish priest. The parish forms an indivisible part of the bishopric and is subordinate to the bishop, as its highest shepherd. The closest pastoral leadership belongs to them, on behalf of the bishop, to the local priest” (Prof. I.S. Berdnikov). 2) “An Orthodox parish is an ecclesiastical institution under the authority of a bishop to satisfy the religious and moral needs of a certain number of believers under the pastoral leadership of a priest and at a church designated for this purpose by the church authorities” (Prof. A.I. Almazov). 3) “Each church community, which unites parishioners of the Orthodox Church in a certain territory to satisfy religious and moral needs and has its own church for liturgical meetings with an independent clergy attached to it, constitutes a separate parish. As an inseparable part of the bishopric, the parish is subordinate to the diocesan bishop. The immediate leadership of the parish belongs to the local parish priest” (Prof. M. A. Ostroumov). 4) “A parish, consisting of clergy and laity, is a special church community, depending on the diocesan bishop, with the rights of a legal entity” (A. L. Papkov). 5) “An Orthodox parish is an ecclesiastical institution founded and existing to directly, in alliance with the church, satisfy the religious and moral needs of the local population and having such a structure, the components of which are a place of public worship, or a church (church), parishioners, a properly appointed clergy and regulations for the expression of church and social life and activities of parishioners” (Prot. Prof. M. I. Gorchakov) 3. 6) “An Orthodox parish is an integral part of a diocese, subordinate to the local bishop, with a certain number of Orthodox Christians united in it (?), who, in order to satisfy the religious and moral needs of their Orthodox faith, have a church designated by church authority and are under the immediate pastoral leadership of the rector, with the assistance of other clergy and other members of the clergy. The parish church has the rights of a legal entity to successfully achieve its religious, moral and religious educational objectives” (Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky). Then the definition of the late historian Professor P.V. Znamensky was also heard: “An Orthodox parish is a territorial church community, united near its church and having its own priests and clergy to satisfy its religious needs” 4. This first fundamental question was resolved in such contradictory ways in the Pre-Conciliar Presence! And when, after hearing these definitions, the speeches of the defenders of each of them followed, the discord between the members of the Presence increased to such an extent that many completely refused the opportunity to draw up any one unifying formula and, when voting for these definitions, by a barely insignificant majority, they managed to carry out the above, standing under No. 2. It is not without interest to note the following words of Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson, expressed regarding this sad circumstance: “The revivalists of the parish, who worked on their task for several months, did not give us anything that would indicate the good productivity of their work, the vitality of everything with which they want to revive and renew the parish. It must be said with regret that in their work they did not come to anything definite. In previous reasoning, the Presence could not even give an exact definition of what a coming is, and after lengthy reasoning they even came to the conclusion that no definition was needed. I consider this the bankruptcy of those who have been fiddling with the issue of reviving the parish for so long. Not being able to give an exact logical definition of a thing, they showed that they did not understand its very essence. And without knowing the essence of a thing, how to talk about its transformation” 5. In general, the judgment is, of course, correct. There is only one small inaccuracy in it, namely: the logical inconsistency was discovered not by the renovators of the parish, but by those who either directly opposed them, or wanted to take the middle path, so to speak: while remaining with the old, introduce something new. The energetic renovator in this case was only Mr. A. A. Papkov, and his definition of the parish is distinguished by the greatest logical correctness and certainty. But that’s not the point, the point is, of course, that his definition has far from met with universal recognition or traces. and something insufficient remains in it, due to which it does not turn out to be irresistible, as a completely satisfactory logical definition should be. What is the reason for the insufficiency of this and other definitions and what path should we take to draw up a correct, accurate definition? Delving into the construction of the definitions under consideration, it is not difficult to see that their compilers did not give themselves a clear idea of ​​the positive foundations on which they wanted to build their definition of the concept of “parish.” In their definitions, elements of current law and canon law, the actual state of the parish, and their personal ideal ideas about it found equal place. In the concept of a parish, its church-social essence and its civil-legal nature - as a subject of property law - are not strictly distinguished. Such freedom of combining completely dissimilar elements into one logical unity could not result in anything other than an endless series of definitions. Using it, everyone can make their own definition, with which they can remain: unity is impossible, which is what actually happened. An attempt at such definitions only led to rather harsh polemical speeches 6 . How can we find a way out of such a difficult situation, from such “bankruptcy”, which can, of course, follow in further vicissitudes of the parish issue, a very serious issue? We think that the way out will easily open up if we separately and as thoroughly as possible first examine those elements on the free combination of which the orators of the Pre-Conciliar Presence operated. These elements are: a) Current law; b) the actual position of parishes, c) canonical sources. In this consideration, the church-social nature of the parish and the civil-legal nature must be strictly distinguished. II. Legal position of the parish in the system of diocesan institutions according to current law According to the current law, our dioceses, as church-administrative districts (“local limits”), contain the following corporate institutions with the rights of legal entities: 1) Bishop’s house, monasteries, churches (cathedral, parish, non-parish, house), offices of the spiritual department 7. In the code of laws, these institutions, as property units, are called either “establishments” 8 or “classes of the clergy” 9. There is no parish between these institutions or estates. There are several articles about him only in the Charter of Spiritual Consistories (Chapter V, Art. 92 – 103). The parish here is conceived not as something independent and organized, but simply as a numerically defined collection of male and female souls, or as villages and hamlets (sometimes one village), assigned to a well-known church (sometimes to a cathedral or monastery). The church is an institution, or diocesan institution, to which the parish or parishioners are attached, as a part of it, and a part that is far from essential: for the church, as an institution, can exist and operate without this part (for example, a cathedral, a non-parish church). A different meaning in the concept of the church as an institution has its clergy, or clergy, as well as the church elder. They are such important elements of the institution that without them it cannot function 10. They cannot be thought of as parishioners, as members of church society, even if they are the oldest and have the advantage of their rights. No: “the clergy is inextricably linked not with the parish society, but with the church” 11. Clergy serving at the church are officials administratively appointed to a position and dismissed from it by the Diocesan Authorities. They are entrusted with the church - the place of their service and all responsibility for it. They are also joined by the church warden, who, although elected by the parishioners, however, this election is limited by the consent of the clergy, and here he is on a separate side from the parishioners, but is confirmed in office by the Diocesan Administration, who also resigns from it, acts according to the instructions prescribed to him, and even if he is called “the parishioners’ attorney,” however, he is responsible in his office not before them, but before the Diocesan By the authorities. Thus, the church and the clergy and elder who serve with it constitute the church, as an institution or class of clergy: the parishioners are a secular element, belonging to this institution and attached to it. What is the connection that, on the one hand, attaches parishioners to the Church as an institution, and, on the other hand, unites them themselves into a collective whole, although not legally organized? Such a connection is caused by everyday, legal and moral reasons. The first include: the place of residence of the parishioner, permanent or temporary. In the capitals, for example, belonging to one or another parish church is directly determined by the place of residence of the parishioner, and with the movement of the parishioner from one street to another, the transfer to the parishioners of another church takes place eo ipso. In rural parishes this connection is more stable. Here, the hereditary affiliation of the inhabitants to their church and the relative graves located in its graveyard are of great importance, although even here the Diocesan Administration can, if the need arises due to local circumstances, list a certain part of the inhabitants, or one village from one parish church to another, if there are several churches in the parish with a special clergy at each 12. The legal reasons for attaching parishioners to the church are, firstly, the entry of persons baptized in a well-known church in the metric books of this church and, secondly, the duty of parishioners to perform marriages in the church to which the bride or groom belongs, as well as the fulfillment of the duty of confession, communion and some home (private) and general parish corrections. However, without constituting an essential element for the church as an institution, parishioners, where they exist, still have some significance in it, as a collective whole, as a parish. In this capacity they act, according to the Charter of Spiritual Consistories, in the following cases: 1) When building a new church or restoring a dilapidated one. Regardless of whether the initiative for the matter comes from the parishioners, or from the Diocesan Authorities themselves, or from some third party (a benefactor, or some kind of Authorities), in either case, “the Diocesan authorities enter into relations with the parishioners” (Article 54). When the initiative to build a church comes from parishioners, the Diocesan Authority acts in this way: 1) collects, through proxies, together with a police official 13 information about: a) is the place where the church is supposed to be built decent and convenient? b) From which churches will parishioners come to her: do they all want this and for what reasons, ... and is their testimony fair? c) Will the number of these parishioners be sufficient to form a new parish? What number of parishioners then remains in that church, or in those churches, from which or from which some will be numbered to the new? Will the maintenance of the clergy of the new church be ensured and by what exactly? - Then he enters into communication with the civil authorities on the question of whether there are any obstacles to the construction of a church by the petitioners in the chosen place? (Art. 46). The diocesan authorities can provide assistance to parishioners in the construction of churches, upon proper certification of the need for it, namely: 1) enter into relations with the local administration of State property about the cashless release of timber from state-owned dachas... 2) issue to one of the parishioners, chosen and authorized by them, a book for collecting benefits from Christ-loving donors (Article 55). 2) As a collective unit, parishioners act in the Church when electing a church warden and (according to later law) two representatives of the parish or counters. “The elder is elected with the consent of the clergy, with the dean, and is approved by the diocesan bishop” (Article 95). In addition to these cases of manifestation by parishioners of their church and social significance, we can point out some more duties performed by them together. So eg. they undertake to build premises for the clergy and provide sufficient support for their maintenance, and undertake to jointly correct certain duties that fall directly on the Church, as owners of land property. If for example A planned road runs along the church land, which is used by the clergy of the parish church, then its repair lies with the parishioners. The extent to which the ecclesiastical and social significance of our parishioners is weak can be seen from the fact that they have neither a special premises in which their general meetings could take place, nor legal powers that could give legal force to their sentences. Therefore, they are forced to hold their meetings on parish affairs either at meetings in the volost government, or in their private homes. But in both cases, the verdict adopted at such meetings does not have legal force, and it depends only on the favorable discretion of the Diocesan Authorities to give it any significance. For in the first case, this is the verdict of a village meeting, which does not have the right to discuss church affairs; in the 2nd, it is action en masse, collective action, which can directly be rejected by the Diocesan Authorities as something criminal 14. Even such a parish-social document as a request to build a new church obliges the diocesan authorities to carry out an entire investigation, namely: to collect information through trusted clergy, in common with a police official: is the place decent and convenient...whether all the parishioners want it, for what reasons and whether their testimony is fair, etc. It's definitely a case of some kind of malicious intent! The only act for which parishioners have legal authority in the parish church is the election of a church warden. This is the legal status of the parish, or parishioners, under current law. If we now ask the questions which of the above definitions of parish will most correspond to the current law, then only the definition belonging to Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. Here, according to the Consistory Charter, the following are indicated: a) the territorial meaning of the concept of a parish - that it is part of a diocese, then b) the church-social meaning - that a parish is a certain number of Orthodox Christians attached to one or another church and not having any organization. Other definitions of parish do not correspond to the current law in the main thing, i.e. in indicating the generic characteristic in the concept of “parish”. In this regard, they are divided into two categories: some definitions (the majority) indicate a church community as such: “a parish is a church community”; others are a “church institution.” But the sign of a community, and especially a church one, is not at all applicable to our parish: for it does not represent a cohesive organization, but there is only a “known” unorganized number of Orthodox Christians, part of another organization called the “church,” which may exist without this additional element. Moreover, the second definition, in which the main feature indicates the concept of “institution,” does not correspond to the current law. An institution is a church, not a parish. Therefore, assuming that this definition will be adopted by our legislative regulations, the corresponding articles of the code of laws will be enriched with a new institution: along with churches and monasteries, a new name will be named: church parish. How should we look at these definitions? Obviously, they are formulas, either reflecting the actual state of our parishes, which has deviated from an outdated legal definition, or - an ideal view of the parish of their compilers, that is, they express not what a parish is de jure, but what it really is, or what it should be. The fact that the definition of Prof. Glubokovsky did not find sympathy among the members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, he was not even put on the ballot, and he himself did not insist on this, clearly indicates that the position of our parish, determined by the current law, was recognized as unsatisfactory by all members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, that is, it does not correspond either to the actual state of the parish, or to the ideal views of it. So, the current parish legislation must be changed somehow. This is the general conviction of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. But how has it been changed? In response to this, quite a strong variety, and a fundamental one at that, resulted. The fundamental difference is that one side recognized the parish as a “church institution,” while the other recognized it as a “church community.” How deep is this difference? Doesn’t it allow for the possibility of reconciliation, and if so, why wasn’t it followed at the Pre-Conciliar Presence? At first glance, this difference is far from significant and consists more in the form of a combination of ideological elements than in the difference in them themselves, or in the difference in the content of the definitions under consideration. In fact, is the concept of “church institution” contrary to the concept of “church community”? And is it really impossible, for example? this is their combination: is the parish a “church-public institution”? Of course so: after all, the concept of an institution does not eliminate the character of the public, and vice versa, the concept of a community does not eliminate the character of an institution, since the latter is conceived of as an organized society. Peering then into the following parts of the definitions under consideration, we again find all the homogeneous elements, namely: the church, or church, the rector and clergy, the laity and the bishop. The content of the definitions is positively the same, the difference is only in the form of its expression. This would seem to be the case, taking into account only the very definitions of parish. But it is worth getting acquainted with the explanations of these definitions that were given at the meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, and then expressed in the periodical press - in order to come to the conviction that the issue here is far from being a matter of form, but of deep fundamental discord that distinguishes these definitions from one another. As we saw above, the Charter of the Spiritual Consistories represents the parish not as an independent whole among other church institutions, but as an element included in an institution called the church. A parish without a church is an unthinkable phenomenon according to the Charter of the Spiritual Consistories (on the contrary, a church without a parish is conceivable without any doubt). According to the Charter of Spiritual Con. The parish or parishioners are a certain set of persons - an exclusively secular rank: neither the priest, nor the psalm-reader, nor even the churchwarden are part of the parish, although the latter is called “the parish trustee.” On the contrary, in the concept of churches, they are thought of as components: a church consecrated by the bishop and built with his permission, and a certain church elder attached to it. Therefore, according to the Constitution. In the Spiritual Consistories, the church is conceived as an ecclesiastical institution designated to satisfy the religious needs of worldly people, a self-sufficient institution, almost unchanged depending on whether these worldly people form a society attached to this institution, or whether they accidentally converge on the church, belonging to parishioners of different churches. Comparing now the form of definition of a parish, which states that a parish is an institution, it is easy to see that in its essence it is nothing more than a consistory definition, only with the term “church” replaced by the term “parish.” According to the Consistory Charter, the church is an institution, and according to the definition of prof. Almazov's parish is an institution, whereby the actual parish or parishioners are conceived as a simple body of laity or as “a numerically defined collection of Orthodox Christians.” This is not at all what the formula says: a parish consisting of clergy and laity is a special church community, depending on the bishop. Here the parishioners do not stand in isolation from the clergy, but in one entity with it: the members of the clergy are also members of the parish. At the same time, it goes without saying that the consecrated church (or church) is a meeting place for this community, and not an institution of the diocesan Authority. As can be seen from here, the difference between these two definitions is fundamental. In the first, parishioners are thought of as something adjunct to the church and clergy; in the second, parishioners are thought of as the church itself, consisting of clergy and laity, and dependent on the bishop (or “small church” - as the author of this definition expresses it elsewhere). According to other definitions, although they assert that the parish is a community, in this latter, however, only lay persons are considered members of the community, and the clergyman (or priest) as something standing apart from the parishioners: this is the ruling and serving class in the parish, and the parishioners are the governed class. This means that, in essence, there is no fundamental difference here from the definition that says that a parish is an institution: the only difference is that parishioners are considered not just “a numerically determined collection of Orthodox Christians, but an organized community consisting of a parish church.” As can be seen from here, it is easy to foresee what will happen to the law currently in force if the legislator is guided by any of the definitions we have considered. If he is guided by G. Papkov’s definition, then it will be necessary to change Articles 82–103 (on the clergy and parishes) and Art. 130–139 (about the economy of the church). If he is guided by definitions other than Almazov’s, then only Articles 92–103 will have to be changed; if we are guided by the determination of Mr. Almazov, then we can do without any changes to the Consistory Charter. Without daring to prejudge the question of which of the fundamentally different concepts of an Orthodox parish that we have presented will gain the upper hand, we will try in the future to present our pro and contra considerations about each of these concepts, but for now we will only state the presence of three fundamentally different solutions to the question: what is an Orthodox parish? a) An Orthodox parish is a meeting of a certain number of Orthodox Christians attached to the parish church. b) An Orthodox parish is a church community, properly organized and affiliated with the parish church. c) An Orthodox parish, consisting of clergy and laity, is a special church community with the rights of a legal entity. III. An Orthodox parish is a meeting of a certain number of Orthodox Christians attached to the parish church It seems that it is unnecessary to talk much about such a structure of the parish. It has long outlived its usefulness and if it is still preserved in the Charter of the D. Consistories, it is preserved as a relic, as archival material, the unsuitability of which is recognized by the Holy Synod itself. Its main drawback is the absence of any organization. It is strange to say that our parishioners do not have the physical opportunity to “talk” about their church needs, for example, about their unkind shepherd, anywhere except the volost government. But they are being driven out of here too! “But our church is alive, the parish exists, although, of course, with the imperfections inherent in everything that is included in the area of ​​human life. I don’t understand why our parish is dead and how it will be revived. I see that they don’t want to revive it, but... regenerate, change its essence according to democratic tendencies, but new principles” 15. That's all that can be said in defense of the de jure parish structure: “The Church is alive, the parish exists.” And what will happen if we, having destroyed the existing one, create in its place “on a new basis” something that will immediately crumble, just as a new huge house, built of worthless brick with thin walls and heavy iron beams, crumbles! Isn’t it better, therefore, to universally support the old building, which has stood for centuries, built of good brick, with thick walls bound with strong lime: we will support it in every possible way, but not destroy it, in order to clear the place for a new one of very dubious strength!! We repeat that the only argument that was expressed by the authoritative defender of the existing parish system was expressed sincerely, with complete conviction and could not impress the general meeting of the Presence. His main strength is fear for the future, uncertainty in the creative abilities of reformers. And despite all this, delving deeper into its meaning, one cannot help but notice a complete misunderstanding in it. It is an indisputable truth that the church is alive and the parish exists, but thanks to what? Whether due to the fact that in reality the Consistory Charter on the parish is strictly implemented, or due to the fact that it is not fulfilled. In fact, parish life is well organized where the Consistorial Rule is less fulfilled, where friendly and sincere communication is established between the priest and parishioners on all issues of church life, dogmatic, moral, and church-economic, where parishioners take the most ardent and active part in the affairs of church and parish administration. “The onslaught of the laity on the church” is precisely noticed where, relying on the Consistory Charter, the unkind priest answers the parishioners who dared to be curious about the state of their church or its treasury: “I am the master in the church: you do not dare enter the church without my permission, and if you dare, I will seal the church and you will die like animals without farewell and burial!” But with strict observance of the Consistory Rule, the opposite phenomenon is also possible - a literal “onslaught of the laity” is quite possible, although not on the church, but at least on the “good, sincerely devoted shepherd,” but who did not please not only some of the laity, but even one, for example. the church elder, who was well acquainted with the consistory structure of the parish. The significant drawback of this system is that it sharply emphasizes the disunity between the clergy and the parishioners and, while granting the right, even if only in the form of a “complaint to the diocesan authorities,” against the members of the clergy to each individual parishioner, does not attach any importance to the testimony of their entire community, in its own way legally considering it an illegal crowd. Then, it is completely wrong to assert that the existing parish system is something very old, like a building that has been strengthened for centuries. It was formed in 1841 by the creative activity of mainly consistory officials, who borrowed building material not so much from the rules of the Holy Councils and Fathers, and from living church reality, but from the code of laws containing provisions on the establishment of provincial government offices. For that time it was an impeccable work, one might say masterful from a bureaucratic point of view. Eg. it contains the following article: “Due to the dissatisfaction of some parishioners, the priest should not change the boundaries of the parish, which would lead to the disorder of the parishes and confusion of church acts” (Article 93). What a wonderful love for the correctness of church acts! Truly: pereat mundus, fiat justitia! There is also a means in use to revive parish life without subjecting the existing parish system to any disruption. This is a call to internal self-correction for parishioners and clergy, especially church pastors. “According to church teaching - say Prof. I. S. Berdnikov - the renewal and revitalization of the parish can be seen in the following changes for the better: if parishioners, under the influence of the pastoral activity of the priest, carefully attend services on Sundays and holidays, take part in liturgical singing and reading 16, will willingly participate in extra-liturgical religious conversations, if they take from the church library and read books of religious and moral content, if they carefully perform their duties confession and St. communion, if they abstain from drunkenness, foul language and other gross vices, if they take care of family peace and order and raise children in the fear of God, if they work diligently to improve their home life, if they are diligent about the improvement of the church of God and about providing for their shepherds, etc. This is a true improvement in the condition of the parish (Compare: the words of Arch. Dmitry of Kherson in Church Ved. 1907 No. 2; Opinion of Arch. Volynsky Anthony in Reviews of Diocesan Bishops vol. I, pp. 131 - 132; Note by Archpriest A. Lebedev in Church Ved. 1906 No. 2, p. 1641). When parishioners are distinguished by the indicated qualities, they will easily find the means to carry out other tasks of parish life, and the parish can naturally expand the range of its activities in the form of caring for charity, public education, etc. A similar view of the matter is carried out in the Decree of the Holy Synod on November 18, 1905. About their rights, which Mr. Papkov puts it in the foreground, a Christian-minded parishioner will completely forget, or will remember only on occasion when the need arises in order to serve the cause of the church 17. This is what is needed above all to renew the parish! There is no doubt that all the desires expressed here and even all the words that are written here are very good: for if all the parishioners are good and also all the priests, then without any doubt everything will be good. But here’s the problem: now not all of them are good: what needs to be done to make them all good? This is what we are talking about: the author, obviously, was carried away by the contemplation of ideal ideas of the future, forgetting about the bad reality and the means of correcting it... There seems to be nothing more to point out in defense or against the existing parish system. Let's move on to considering attempts to improve it. The idea of ​​organizing the parish as a community attached to the parish church received the greatest sympathy in the Pre-Conciliar Presence. IV. An Orthodox parish is a church community that is properly organized and affiliated with the church. This idea is far from new. The beginning of its appearance dates back to the sixties of the last century. It is noteworthy that the initiative to implement this idea belonged to the rather distant outskirts of our fatherland, where churches and clergy turned out to be less comfortable than in the central dioceses. So in 1859, the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, Count Muravyov-Amursky, in consultation with the Archbishop of Kamchatka Innokenty, drafted rules, approved by the Highest on December 23. 1859 According to this project, parish councils are established in urban and rural churches, whose main task is to take care of meeting the needs of parish churches and the clergy located at them. These parish councils are composed of the clergy of the church in which they belong and who are indispensable members of these and the following lay persons: in cities - from representatives from all classes and ranks, not excluding artisans, one from each, from a church warden and a special honorary trustee, if anyone wishes to be named such with a contribution to the church revenues of a certain amount for this purpose, and in rural parishes - from local village leaders, church wardens and representatives from the surrounding villages assigned to the parishes. All these persons are elected by the parishioners in an established manner and for a certain period. The presidency in the parishes of city churches belongs to the one who will be elected by the council members for this purpose, and in the villages - to the parish priest. These councils meet in city parishes as needed three or four times a year, and in villages twice a year: in the fall after the completion of field work and in the spring before the start of this work. Priests present to the council about church needs and their own, but do not participate in discussions about satisfying the latter. Satisfying all the above-mentioned needs of churches and parishes, such as: heating, arrangement of premises, capital improvements thereof, delivery of servants, distribution of cash benefits, amount thereof, etc. depend on the discretion of parish councils and are carried out in those ways that they consider most convenient for this purpose. In addition, they are entrusted with the care of the poor of the parish, the burial of the poor dead, the arrangement of the fate of homeless orphans, the spread of literacy and religious education among parishioners, the establishment of cemeteries, the conciliation proceedings of all those who turn to the court of the parish council, and the consideration of cases of violation of the rule on the gratuitous performance of spiritual needs by clergy, about which - if necessary - is brought to the attention of the diocesan authorities. The management and disposal of church income and expenses, not excluding candle and mug income, is one of the most important responsibilities of parish councils, which are obliged in this case to provide proper reporting 18 . This was the first experience of organizing an Orthodox “parish.” As can be seen from the presented “rules” about parish councils, its task was economic, charitable and educational in the church spirit. And in accordance with this appointment, the parish was given very broad powers. The Holy Synod, by its definition, decided to seek the Highest permission to apply these rules to other areas of the Russian Empire, as far as possible under local conditions. The second experience of organizing an Orthodox parish was introduced the following year, 1860, in the districts of the arable soldiers of the southern settlements. This organization was depicted in the form of "Rules regarding Church Councils in the Districts of Southern Settlements." The organization is very similar to the above: the same task, the same broad powers. The initiative of this organization also came from the worldly sphere, from the Appanage Department. Finally, in 1864, on the initiative of the Chief Leader of the northwestern region, Count Muravyov, “church councils” were introduced, as a temporary measure, in the provinces of Vilna, Grodno, Kovno, Minsk, Vitebsk and Mogilev, and their charter was also developed, called Rules for church councils in the provinces of Vilna, etc. The organization of church councils here is essentially similar to the two above. The three projects mentioned above came, as stated above, from the secular environment, from the civil administration of our outskirts, without prior communication with the Holy Synod and - with the exception of the first - even without communication with the Diocesan authorities. Therefore, only the first of these projects was approved by the Holy Synod and through it received the Highest approval. As for the last two, they were put into effect for some time immediately after they were drafted and have already been useful in practice. The Holy Synod learned about them privately and, having requested the opinion of the local Eminences (Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv, Kherson, Kharkov and Moscow), forwarded the said rules to the Highest Presence for the Affairs of the Orthodox Clergy. The latter, in accordance with the opinions of the named hierarchs and mainly with the Ordnance. Spirit. The Consistory reviewed the three aforementioned series of “Rules on Church Councils” and created from all of them its own draft “Rules for the opening of parish councils in churches,” reducing and changing the above rules beyond recognition. But even in this form they met an objection from the Kyiv Metropolitan Arseny. It was only in 1864 that these rules, called the Regulations on Parish Trustees in Churches, were Supremely approved and recommended for their introduction in dioceses where this would be possible due to local conditions. Moreover, those councils that existed before the publication of the Regulations were to be transformed into trustees. Since then, the issue of parish councils “was kept silent until the Decree of the Holy Synod was issued on November 18, 1905 19 . This is, in general terms, the history of an attempt to implement the idea of ​​​​organizing a parish as a society existing under the church. That parish trustees are a society, or at least “public institutions,” this is clear from the Regulations on them, which in Art. 8 says: “Parish Trustees, constituting public institutions, enjoy the patronage of the spiritual and civil authorities.” That they are not church societies, but only “parish” ones that exist under churches, is also clearly evident from their very title: “Parochial Guardianships under Churches” 20 . So the idea of ​​a parish as a community within the church arose in the sixties of the last century and, having found its embodiment in the Regulations on Parish Trustees, was grafted into life for 50 years and it cannot be said that it did not graft onto it. On the contrary, it found quite energetic defenders even in the Pre-Conciliar Presence. It is very interesting to trace the process of its formation. As indicated above, the impetus for the emergence of this idea was the rules on church councils, but only an impetus. It was not the intention of the authors of the rules of these councils to separate parishes or parishioners from the church. On the contrary, they set out to attract lay people, hitherto inactive for the Orthodox Church, to direct church activities and directly called parish councils “church councils.” And they viewed this church activity of parishioners directly as their church duty, and only as an incentive to more zealously fulfill this church duty they invented some rewards, consisting of the provision of an honorary civil position or some benefits for serving generally obligatory civil duties. Here are the typical features of the organization of church councils: Composition of the church council. As can be seen from these rules, the activities of church councils were limited to the economic or property side of church and parish life. And in this economic area, church councils were given very broad powers. And it is noteworthy that it was not these powers of the parishioners that caused the failure that befell these church councils: the hierarchy of that time did not find, with insignificant exceptions, that it was not possible for lay people - parishioners - to interfere in this church sphere. This reason was something else, namely: the introduction into the sphere of church and parish life of a very significant influence of the volost and provincial administration, combined with a real diminution of hierarchical power. It was this lack of organization of church councils that provoked quite an energetic protest from the hierarchy. Thus, regarding the Amur project for the organization of parish councils, Metropolitan Philaret made the following comments: “According to Art. 14 of the draft, the chairmanship of the councils of parishes of city churches belongs to the one who will be chosen by the council members for this purpose.” Regarding this rule, M. Filaret notes: “this is dictated not by spiritual, but by worldly wisdom. The Word of God says: obey your leaders; and we, the parishioners, want to sit in first place on the church council, and put the parish leader in second or third, etc.” The remark is absolutely correct in principle. But it is noteworthy that M. Filaret had no doubt at all about recognizing and calling the projected parish council a church council. This is quite significant. The famous hierarch in this case stood above the secular-legal point of view of the Consistory Charter. It is not surprising, therefore, that this remark was taken into account by the drafters of further projects, who already everywhere assign the priest a presiding position; and who also assimilated the hierarch’s further thought that the projected parish council is a church council. To Art. 29 M. Filaret noted: “Article 29 entrusts the parish council with the conduct of candle and purse collection and reporting; and therefore the council will need an office and perhaps an accounting department; It is necessary to leave church-economic writing in the hands of the clergy and churchwarden, as everywhere else. Let the council verify this monthly and at the end of the year.” The remark is very rational, especially for the time: which of the parishioners could conduct writing as regularly as the clergy, who at that time were often the only educated persons in the parish, could do it? But the famous hierarch did not doubt at all the parishioners’ permission to control and verify the records with the cash of church sums. The following remark is also noteworthy: “Art. The 30th entrusts the parish council with the consideration of cases of violation of the rule on the gratuitous fulfillment of church requirements by clergy. So, today the priest at confession will judge the conscience of the parishioner, and tomorrow the parishioner will judge the priest based on the fulfillment of parish requirements. It is possible to subordinate the scribes to this article, and the parish council, without entering into a judgment, must announce to the dean or present it to the diocesan bishop about non-pleasures for the priest.” The value of the remark requires no explanation; undoubtedly, it was taken into account by the drafters of later projects. In addition to these individual comments, M. Filaret expressed a general opinion of a practical nature - namely, regarding the gradual application of the rules to life. “Sometimes,” he wrote, “it is difficult to assemble a fairly complete meeting of parishioners to elect a church warden, whose need is clear and obvious to everyone. None of the parishioners usually comes to count money every month, except in emergencies and special calls. Therefore, one can fear that in many parishes the parishioners will either not gather at all to form a church council, not understanding or not finding a need for it, or they will form a meeting so insignificant that the election will be accidental and the formed council will not receive authority, and at the same time the desired success.” In view of this M. Filaret proposed to make the following experiment: “correct the Amur rules based on the indicated comments, distribute them to dioceses and inform parishes; introduce parish councils for the first time only in some churches, where parishioners are aware of the need and benefits of them, and then, as experience shows the reliability of this institution, gradually extend it to other churches" 22. As can be seen from all these comments, they did not significantly affect the structure of parish councils and their adoption, therefore, could not in the least slow down their application to business. The same cannot be said about the comments the hierarchs made to the rules on the church councils of the southern villagers. Here one can already hear in the tone of the comments of the hierarchs, even of M. Philaret, a note of fear not for the authority and proper popularity of church councils - due to the news of the matter and the unfamiliarity of the parishioners - but fears for the undermining of the meaning of the “church hierarchy” and the intrusion of secular authorities into the sphere that by law belongs to the church hierarchy and church department. And it must be admitted that such a note found some justification in the structure of church councils, which was projected by the rules about them. Regarding the composition of c. council M. Filaret wrote: “In large parishes there are 10 lay council members and one priest; traces The church element here is insignificant. It should be decided: the local priest is the first and indispensable member of the church council. If a church has more than one priest, the eldest takes precedence in the council, but the others are also indispensable members of it. He is joined by: the church warden and members from the parishioners, elected by their general meeting for three years. Their number can range from 8 to 5, depending on the crowd, or other circumstances” 23. Otherwise, he strengthened the church element within the c. Council Archbishop of Kherson: he wrote: “it would be more fitting for a priest, as the spiritual head of the church clergy, to chair the church council, at least in rural parishes, and where there is more than one priest, all of them, under the chairmanship of the elder, should be members of the church council. Other members of the clergy are completely excluded (that is, in the rules) from participating in the affairs of the church council, while according to the present procedure, not only deacons, but also clerics participate in managing the receipt and expenditure of church funds and sign receipt and expenditure books. There is no reason why the new rules take away from them this right, which belongs to them by the very title of ministers of the church and members of the clergy: for this title imposes on them the obligation to take care of the interests of the church.” The Kharkov Archbishop greatly weakened the worldly element in the church council, who recognized it as necessary: ​​“a) that the composition of the council, in addition to the priest and the elder, as indispensable members, should consist of no more than three elders; b) for the elders to act as trustees of the church and assistants to the elder, who, as the trustee of the parishioners, the most worthy person chosen from among them for the storage and use of church money and for the storage of all church property (as stated in the 1st rule of the instructions approved by the Highest), must be the custodian of all church property; c) so that the actions of church councils for the benefit of the church and the parish take place under the leadership of a priest, who, together with a more competent elder, is allowed to conduct written records on the affairs of parish councils.” The following comments were made regarding the procedure for electing and confirming elders: “According to the 4th point, the election of elders is not carried out in the church, or near the church, as it should be, but in volost and rural massacres, in which the head of the volost and the head have complete influence on the elections, but the priest cannot take part in the election.” “According to the 5th point, the list of elected elders, as well as the church warden, is forwarded by the priest to the volost justice, and according to the 6th point, all perplexities during the elections are left to be resolved by the district commander. This cancels the Supremely approved decree, according to which the election of a church warden is approved by the diocesan bishop.” “According to the 9th point, in the event of a disagreement in the council, the priest, through the dean, submits it to the district commander for permission. So the dean is the middle authority between the priest and the district authorities. In addition to the fact that this authority is superfluous, delaying the matter in vain, it represents a confusion of administrations and places not only the priest, but also the dean, not only at a lower level in front of the district commander, but depending on him: for the one who gives permission is higher than the one asking for permission.” “On the 18th point about the amendment of churches, after which consecration is necessary, the district commander communicates with the diocesan authorities: it is not clear what the district commander is talking about here, whereas on the subject itself it is more typical for a priest to relate to the Bishop” 24. A very important objection was made by the named Eminences against the powers of church councils in the subjects of their jurisdiction. “The rules on church councils abolish 1) church decrees, according to which the disposal of church property, no matter what it consists of, should be under the authority of the church, and not the civil; and in the rules on church councils, everything is left to the orders of the village gangway, the volost council and the district commander, although in the last (21) rule it is given to the priest to draw up a report required for the ecclesiastical department and present it to the dean; but it is not explained why it is necessary and what the significance of this presentation of the report is, when the spiritual authorities are completely removed from the management of church income; 2) the Highest approved instruction of church elders in the paragraph that determines the management of the economic part of the church is canceled; 3) the purpose of church funds is changed by using them to establish rural schools for the poor, elderly and orphans of the village, and the candle sum is not excluded, which, according to the Highest Decrees, has a special purpose.” “The head of the council, along with other property, is entrusted with all church utensils, the sacristy, etc. which he must draw up an inventory and then check against the inventory. Thus, the elders will have to pick up, inspect and describe sacred vessels, Gospels, crosses, etc. Church rules prohibit such actions by worldly people” 25. It is not difficult to see that these remarks indicated a strong bias towards the Charter of Spiritual Consistories and other sources of current law on churches and parishes. Church councils, due to this bias, should not have served as an improvement of the existing law, but, on the contrary, they themselves should have changed significantly in its spirit and letter. Such a modification of the considered rules actually received in the Highest approved Presence for the Affairs of the Orthodox Clergy, established in 1862. This modification resulted in the form of the “Regulations on parish trustees in churches.” Let's move on to its characteristics now. The legal essence of the Trustees is expressed in Article 8 of the Regulations, which states that Parish Trustees are “public institutions”. This definition needs some clarification. According to Art. 10, the foundation of the Trusteeship occurs in the following order: initially, before the formation of the Trusteeship, the priest - rector of the church, with the participation of 10 most honorable parishioners, draws up a list of parishioners, from whom the general meeting of parishioners should be formed. What guides these 11 persons in choosing from the entire composition of the parishioners, members of the general meeting that is to be, and how large this number is - the Regulations say nothing. Article 9 clarifies this issue somewhat, saying that the general meeting is composed of: 1) from all householders of the parish, 2) from parishioners, although they do not own houses in the parish, but have the right by law to participate in meetings of local urban and rural societies, and also 3) from other parishioners whom the Parish Trustee considers it useful to invite to participate in these meetings. The general meeting constituted in this manner organizes the Guardianship. The latter consists of a chairman and members, divided into 2 categories - permanent and elected by the general meeting. The permanent members are: local clergy 26, church warden and volost elder. And if the parish consists of villages belonging to different volosts, then all the elders of these volosts. Other members are elected by the general meeting from persons, as expressed in Article 1, distinguished by piety and devotion to the Orthodox faith. Their number and duration of service are determined according to the local circumstances of each parish by the general meeting, which is brought to the attention of the diocesan bishop (Article 2). The Trustees organized in this way have the following tasks: 1) to take care of the maintenance and satisfaction of the needs of the parish church and to find funds for making the necessary corrections in church buildings and for erecting new ones to replace those that have fallen into disrepair. 2) That the parish clergy use all the means of support provided to them, and in case of a lack of these means, to find ways to increase them; 3) about the arrangement of houses for the church clergy; 4) on raising funds for the establishment of a school, hospital, shelter and other charitable institutions in the parish; 5) in general about providing the poor people of the parish with possible benefits, as well as about burying the poor dead, and about maintaining cemeteries in order (Article 5). The sources of funds for the Trust are donations from parishioners and outside donors. The first are collected through subscriptions, or mugs, which can also be carried around in church. Donations are collected separately: a) for the benefit of the church, b) for the benefit of the clergy, c) for the school and charitable institutions. The General Meeting has the right to propose permanent or one-time taxation, which, upon its acceptance and the drawing up of a verdict, becomes mandatory for those who have expressed their consent (Article 6). After a year, the Guardianship is obliged to submit a report on its activities to the general meeting of parishioners (Article 8). To check the reporting, parishioners can appoint from 3 to 15 authorized people from among themselves, depending on the size of the parish (Article 13). This is the organization of the Parish Guardianships, given by the Supremely approved Regulations on them on August 2, 1864. It is easy to see that the Parish Guardianship constitutes an institution in the parish that operates completely separately from the main institution - the parish church with its clergy and elder. This is a public, secular institution, but not a church institution, although its task is to take care of the church and the clergy. There is no doubt that the motive for the formation of the Trustees was the desire of the government to bring the pastor and flock closer together through their common service to the church - the improvement of the church, Christian charity and education. Without the Trustees, the implementation of this task lay only with the clergy and the elder: parishioners were not called by law to participate in its implementation; with the introduction of the Trustees, their active participation was legalized and legitimized. This, of course, is a step forward in the improvement of the Orthodox parish. But strange thing! This expansion of the rights of parishioners did not receive sufficient attention either from them or from the clergy. Guardianships have not opened in all churches, and even where they have opened, they act sluggishly. Where is the reason for such a strange phenomenon? The reason is that the establishment of the Trustees did not expand one iota of the legal barrier that stands between the “church” and the “parish”, firmly established by the Charter of Spiritual Consistories. Perhaps the opposite happened: the establishment of the Trustees emphasized this obstacle even more sharply. The situation turned out to be such that in the Trusteeship some parishioners, but by no means all, received the right to vote and some knowledge of the affairs of their church. The parish became an organized society, but the church remained a church, an active institution outside of this society: the clergyman, the elder, the dean, the diocesan authorities still act here, and the parishioners are only passive contemplatives of this activity. If you then look closely at the task of the Guardianship, then it is all exhausted, strictly speaking, by collecting donations, distributing them to the church, parishes and charity, and transferring them to the same clergy and elder at their disposal, leaving only the last article at their disposal. But is it worth establishing an entire public organization to carry out such a simple task? Isn't it enough to elect one trustee for this? Of course it is. It is noteworthy that the 15th article of the Regulations on Trustees states precisely this, namely: “in parishes in which the establishment of Trustees of several elected members would be inapplicable to the case, the duties of the Trustee can be assigned, with the approval of the diocesan bishop, to one person, with the provision of corresponding rights and the title of parish trustee.” The publication of the Regulations on parish trustees in churches put an end to those good initiatives for the improvement of parishes, which arose under the influence of church life itself and which were expressed in the development of rules on church councils: at the same time, the consistory system of parishes triumphed, which is based on a sharp distinction between the “church”, the clergy (class of clergy) and the parishioners - secular society. These are some kind of separately existing, self-sufficient spheres. They must continue to live each with their own special life, diverging from each other more and more in different directions; At the same time, as such discord increased, class enmity between the clergy and the laity intensified, turning into open struggle in the ill-fated year 1905. This discord was greatly facilitated by the following phenomena that marked the church and public life of the 2nd half of the last century: a) the government’s intensified efforts to improve the life of the clergy and religious educational institutions at the expense of church funds; b) the emergence of zemstvo institutions, the task of which was to spread education and improve the life of peasants. In itself, caring about improving the material life of the clergy is, of course, a good thing. But what were the means used to implement it? The surest remedy seemed to be a reduction in the full-time clergy and the number of parishes. This measure was introduced in 1869 and bore fruit. Many churches were closed. The financial situation of the full-time clergy rose, but there were many supernumeraries condemned to extinction, and the number of orphaned, homeless children of the clergy increased. Meanwhile, the closure of churches was inevitably reflected by a decline in zeal for the church among the people. Simultaneously with this measure, a reform of theological educational institutions was introduced, consisting of improving the material situation of the institutions and students, as well as raising the salaries of teachers, and this - again, mainly at the expense of church funds. Both the clergy and religious educational institutions have indeed risen somewhat, but at the same time the need has also arisen for an increased influx of funds to maintain the increased level of financial standing of both. At the same time, there was a need to increase the profitability of churches. And so diocesan candle factories arose, monopolizing the production of wax candles - in favor of the churches, or better yet, again in favor of the clergy. It would seem that the life of the clergy, improved in this way, would result in better trained, enlightened pastors and other clergy and would have a beneficial effect on the education of the people in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. But in reality something different happened. The clergy indeed became somewhat more educated, but their pastoral importance among the people almost completely fell. The class discord between him and the parishioners became so acute that spiritual unity between the pastors and the flock became completely impossible: the interests of both turned out to be completely different. There is nothing to agree on, nothing to talk about. What about religious and church subjects? The trouble is that communication in this area has become impossible. The shepherd became a purely abstract and learned theologian, and the flock became as ignorant in theology as in times long past, if not worse. Religion has ceased to be a living rule, a living principle of life for both. It has become only the subject of theoretical discussions, and a matter of official necessity for some and a matter of custom for others. The shepherd turned into an obligatory minister of demands and an official speaker-preacher and interlocutor, flocked by a mechanical executor of the religious prescriptions of custom. The Church became an exclusively liturgical institution and ceased to be a school of practical Christian life. Spiritual communication between the shepherd and the flock remained only momentary during services in church and at home. Here, at these moments, unity came: but beyond the threshold of the church or after the cessation of worship, this unity ceases. And this should not be surprising: after all, quite a lot of care was attached to the theological education of the clergy: but who cared about the theological education of the people? It should not be surprising that our people, detached from participation in church affairs, in the affairs of their own church, have awakened interest in sectarians and the political teachings of the Narodnik revolutionaries. The year 1905 particularly clearly marked this interest and this alienation of the people from the church. And so, from the side of the Holy Synod, a call was made by the archpastors and pastors of the Orthodox Church to take immediate measures to restore their unity with their flocks. “In the difficult days of the great tribulation that befell the Russian state, when paternal traditions waver and law and truth are boldly trampled upon, there is a most urgent and pressing need for the closest unity of the pastor with the flock and for the constant mutual communication of shepherds... In the Church of God, the first communication of Christians, outside the family union, is around the church and around the church pastor. And this basic church unity of people - the church parish - was of great importance at all times in the past life of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state. And now pious people in brotherhoods and parish trustees find the implementation of such communication, uniting for mutual assistance in matters of charity, faith and piety and demonstrating a strong spiritual bulwark against external movements, alien to faith and true freedom of Christ. But such guardianships and brotherhoods do not exist everywhere. The organization of the parish-community itself on a firm law cannot be accomplished immediately, requiring legislative work and many changes. Meanwhile, further delay in the current difficult time of this important matter is completely undesirable. Therefore, the Holy Synod determines: to propose now to adopt for the leadership such rules and instructions that can be immediately implemented without a special new civil law 27 ... The Holy Synod recognized such urgent measures as nothing more than “church-parish councils” compiled by general parish meetings, i.e., those measures that 50 years ago were invented on the outskirts of Russia and were prompted by life itself. But the radical measure in the eyes of the Holy Synod was not they, but the formation of a parish-community, inevitably combined with the transformation of the existing structure of the parish by legislative means. This good desire is met by the idea of ​​a parish, formulated in the definition: a parish consisting of clergy and laity is a special church community, depending on the bishop, with the rights of a legal entity (A. A. Papkov). Let us now move on to the disclosure of this idea. A parish, consisting of clergy and laity, is a special church community, depending on the bishop, with the rights of a legal entity. It would seem that this idea, as meeting the urgent needs of the time, and as desirable for the Holy Synod itself, should have received unanimous recognition in the pre-conciliar presence. In fact, it happened that it encountered energetic opposition and had very, very few members as its defenders. How and why did this strange, unexpected phenomenon happen? A satisfactory answer to this question is provided by the journals and minutes of the pre-conciliar presence, to which we refer the reader interested in this question. It is important for us to put into perspective what has been said against the implementation of this idea. The most important motive against it was the not unreasonable fear that with the transfer of the rights of a legal entity from the church, as an “institution,” to the parish as a “community,” there would be, if not a derogation of church property, then its complete destruction, along with which those class institutions of the clergy, which fed on income from this property, would have to suffer greatly. In very moderate terms, this fear was expressed at the very first meeting of the IV department of the pre-conciliar presence, namely: “The Right Reverend Chairman and some members of the department made an objection that even now we have to take into account the facts of parishioners’ refusals to spend on general church needs, and that the merger of the amounts of the church itself (which are all the current church amounts at the disposal of parish churches (!) with the amounts coming from the parish through self-taxation, donations and bequests for parish needs (educational and charitable), such refusals will receive the firmest support in the eyes of parishioners, which will undoubtedly cause a lot of not only misunderstandings and quarrels between the parish and the church authorities, but also directly disastrous disorders of church life, and therefore will lead not to its improvement, but to great disintegration” 28. This fear of the actual economic devastation of church property, intensifying more and more in further polemical explanations, then turned into fear (sincere or hypocritical - it is, of course, difficult to judge) of the devastation of the church structure and even political. Zealous defenders of the existing parish system put forward the following separate theses against the idea of a parish-community with the rights of a legal entity: 1. This idea is a departure from the Protestant structure of parishes and goes decisively against the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church. 2. It seriously undermines the episcopal authority and the hierarchical importance of the parish pastor. 3. It is completely contrary to the canons and even the Holy Scripture itself, which assign power over church property exclusively to the bishop and his proxies from the clergy. 4. It introduces democratization into the church system, which will gradually penetrate into the state system. Of course, all this is an exaggeration, inspired by fear for purely class interests, and, moreover, combined with a contemptuous attitude towards the laity and parishioners, who, as it were, are such at the present time that as soon as they are allowed into the church chest, theft of church property and other horrors will immediately begin. And it was probably this polemic against the idea of ​​a parish-community that went beyond the limits of prudence that saved this latter: when at the end of the debate three formulas were put to a vote, resolving the most burning question: who in the parish property should be recognized as a legal entity? – the following was adopted by majority vote: “The Orthodox Russian Church is the owner of all church, clergy and parish property. In parishes, the management of local church property is entrusted to the parish as a legal entity consisting of the clergy and parishioners of the local church, who are canonically dependent on the local bishop" 29 . This formula, however, did not receive full recognition: it only had a majority - 81 votes. Competing next to it were two other formulas that supported the status quo of the consistory system and began like this: 1. “The parish church, as a legal entity, is the owner of church property, movable and immovable” 30. 2. “The parish church is a legal entity in relation to church property” 31. The first was adopted by 20 votes, the second by 15. The question naturally arises: what remains in the first of these formulas that prevented its universal, unanimous recognition, and what is there in the 2nd and 3rd that attracted a minority of votes? Does the negative in the first and the positive in the second and third amount to something so important in essence that it will have its effect in the future, or is it something accidental, just a misunderstanding, which will disappear with a deeper re-examination of the issue? 32. Already in the Council Presence itself, it became clear that a major drawback of the first formula is the silence about the fact that the parish church, or parish church, is the owner of church property. The formula, as it were, deprives him of property rights and transfers them to a new subject - the Orthodox Russian Church, while at the same time assigning to the parish the right of a legal entity to manage local church-parish property: just as Mr. Papkov, in his definition of a parish, transfers the right of ownership from the parish church to the parish community. It is this innovation, moreover, not sufficiently canonically and historically substantiated, that constitutes the shortcoming of the first formula, to which the 2nd and 3rd are alien; the latter, and precisely at their beginning, are formally more correct: and this is their indisputable advantage. Essentially, they are such that they will have to give in to the first as soon as the shortcoming indicated in it is eliminated. An explanation of these provisions will form the subject of further speech, which at the same time should lead us to clarify the canonical structure of the Orthodox parish. The transfer of ecclesiastical property rights from the church to the parish community deprives church property of a sacred character and gives it the character of private property belonging to a corporation, even a religious one. This is precisely the property of the Protestant Church 33. Hence, it is not at all surprising that among the accusations of the defenders of the existing parish structure against the new one, designed by the IV Department of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, in the first place is nothing else, namely, deviation into Protestantism. Prof. later tried to support this accusation. I. S. Berdnikov in his articles, published in the Church Gazette and later published as a separate brochure 34. The accusation, although essentially unfounded, has some significance in form. And therefore, since it is easy to correct this formal deficiency - and this needs to be done, it is to recognize that the parish church must forever remain the subject of the right to its property and is its legal entity, as it has always been. The fact is that from such an amendment the formula of the Pre-Conciliar Presence in question will not only lose nothing in its essence, but, on the contrary, will only acquire an impeccable formal appearance and invulnerability to objections. Having adopted this amendment, its defenders can easily accuse their opponents of an equally grave sin - deviation from Catholicism. For by decisively eliminating the active participation of lay parishioners in the affairs of parish administration and subordinating church property to the absolute power of the diocesan authorities, they are, in fact, deviating towards Catholicism 35 . But our task is not to support this polemic, which is already quite boring, but to point out that middle path between the warring parties, which should be recognized by both as truly orthodox, so that by taking this path we can amicably lead the cause of everyone’s desired better improvement of the Orthodox parish. In seeking this middle path, we must pay attention first of all to the two-sided meaning of the term “Church” that is given to it both in canonical sources and in our liturgical books. Here this term denotes both a church, deliberately built and consecrated for liturgical meetings of believers, and these meetings themselves. In the sounds of Orthodox chants, both meanings are so inextricably linked with this term that its name evokes in the listener the idea of ​​both. For example: sounds of the sacred song: “You have planted a Church in Zion as a pillar of guidance for the chosen Israel of old, by the washing of Christ’s baptism, calling: let us sing a song to our God” 36. The calling church is, of course, not the renewed Church of the Resurrection, but the successors of the early Christian Jerusalem community gathered in it by Christ. “The celebratory day of renewal, faithful ones, the day has reached us, commanding the election of Christ to all be renewed and with a bright face to sing a song to the Lady from the depths of the heart truly, as the Savior and renewer of us” 37. Here the renewal of the church is directly considered as a renewal of those gathered in it. “As the heavenly firmament shows the splendor of the heavens and the beauty of the earth below, O Lord, you showed the beauty of the holy village of your glory. Establish this forever and ever and accept in it our prayers continually offered to You by the Mother of God, the life of all and the resurrection” 38. “The renewal of the all-holy church of Your resurrection, we glorify You, O Lord, who sanctified it and perfected it with Your self-perfect grace: and who is adorned in it with the mystical and sacred sacrifices sanctified by the faithful: and accepting from the hands of Your servant bloodless and most pure sacrifices, giving the right to those who bring sins cleansing and great mercy” 39. It would be easy to cite quite a few other church hymns that compel even those who would not like to admit that the term Church in the Orthodox consciousness evokes not only the idea of ​​the church, but inextricably with it - and of those who gather in it - that is, both clergy and laity. And the laity are the church, at least at the moment when they pray in the church and offer their gifts and sacrifices to God. – When we say, for example, “I will go to church” or “I was in church,” this does not mean at all that I am going, or that I was in an empty church, but precisely in the meeting of the faithful. Bearing in mind this primordial Orthodox convergence of two meanings in the term church, don’t we have the right to say that the Orthodox community, consisting of clergy and laity, which is canonically dependent on the bishop and gathers in the church consecrated by him, is a church? Of course it is. But if so, and if this sacred church or parish Church is recognized indisputably - a legal entity c. property: is there sufficient reason to deny the same right to an entire parish meeting in this church? Taking into account the above two-sided meaning of the term Church, it must be said that there is no sufficient basis for such a refusal. On the contrary, those who, recognizing this right for the church, deny it to the parish, completely arbitrarily limit the meaning of the term Church, a very sacred term for a Christian. Now let us listen to the voice of the sources of Orthodox canon law. Here there are two types of parishes, or parish (παϱοιχία) extensive, headed by a bishop with its center - the cathedral church, and small - headed by a presbyter, or college of presbyters (πϱεσβυτέϱιου) with a church located in a small town, suburb, or village. As for the first parish, the name of its church is very common. Eg. Rule 16 of the Apostolic Council reads: “If any bishop who does not have a diocese (ἐίς ά) invades the Church that does not have a bishop (ά ἐί) and seizes her throne, without the permission of a perfect council, let him be rejected, even if he were elected by the whole people whom he has captured for himself.” Here the word Church denotes the parish and all the people who make it up. We find the same thing in canon 17: if a bishop, having accepted ordination as a bishop and having been appointed to rule over people, does not accept service and does not agree to go to the church entrusted to him (ἐί): such a one will be excommunicated from church communion. Canon 18 uses the term παροιχία at the beginning to designate the episcopal parish, and at the end - ἐί. “If anyone who has been appointed bishop does not go to that limit (ἰ παϱοιχία) in which he was placed not through his own fault, but because the people did not accept him; let such a one participate both in honor and in episcopal service, but not interfere in the least in the affairs of the church (ἐίς) where he resides.” The 15th rule of the Council of Ancyra is very remarkable in this regard: From what belongs to the church (ῷ ϱῷ) if the presbyters sold something so that they no longer have a bishop, let the church claim it (ϱόν). Here the owner of the church property is the cathedral of the episcopal church or parish 40. Balsamon interprets this rule as follows: “The fathers of the present council, having learned that during the widowhood of the bishopric, the real estate of the episcopacy, also called the Lord’s (ϱόν), was sold by the priests as dedicated to the Lord, and recognizing that what had happened should not be tolerated, determined that the church (ϱόν), i.e., the people of the Lord, should demand it back.” So freely canonical thinking and canonical language mutually replace the terms Parish and Church! However, such freedom is noticeable not only in business canonical usage, but even in the liturgical language of the ancient liturgy. Thus, in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, the deacon recites the following prayers in succession: “For the holy catholic and apostolic church, let us pray from end to end of the earth... And let us pray for the present holy parish here, that the Lord of all may grant us to relentlessly pursue His heavenly hope and unceasingly repay Him the debt of prayer.” “And let us pray for our bishop Jacob and his parishes. And let us pray for our Bishop Clement and his parishes. Let us pray for our Bishop Evodia and his parishes, for may the Generous God grant their holy churches health, honor, and longevity, and grant them an honest old age in piety and truth.”41 This is the case with respect to an episcopal or large parish. But isn’t a small parish presided over by an elder or elders also called a church? There is no direct answer to this question in the rules of the ancient Orthodox canon, but an indirect answer, and specifically an affirmative one, is not difficult to find. So in canon 12 of the Council of Sardicia we read: “If (bishops) want to come into their possessions and hold a collection of fruits, then this must be allowed, so that they remain in their possessions for three Sundays, i.e., three weeks, but so that they are present and serve in the nearest church in which the presbyter is serving” (ἐν ῇ ἀύῃ ἐί, ἐν ᾔ πϱεσβύτερ ά = in the nearby church, in which he gathers, converges and serves” 42. Of course, the word ἐί here refers to the church in which the presbyter convenes his meetings. But is it not possible to allow a small paraphrase here, just like this: and to the church that the presbyter convenes? That is, is it possible to call his parish or parish a church? Taking into account the previously discussed rules regarding the episcopal parish, it seems quite possible to allow this. But the most important support for this understanding of canonical language and canonical thinking is provided by the following rule (6th) of the Gangra Council: “Whoever, besides the church, forms special meetings and, despising the church, wants to do church work, without having a presbyter with him by the will of the bishop, let him be under oath.” But Helmsman, ed. Prof. V. N. Beneshevich, the Greek and Slavic texts of the rule are as follows: ? τῆς ἐχχλησίας, τὰ τῆς ἐχχλησιάς ἐϑέλοι πϱάττειν μὴ συνόντος τοῦ πϱεσβυτεϱίου χατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισχόπου ἀνάϑενα ἐστω. If anyone, more than the church, an individual gathers and, having done more than the church, wants to create, I do not exist as a priest but with the message of a bishop, let him be damned. Zonara, in his interpretation of this rule, says: “The followers of Eustathius, neglecting the church, that is, the meeting of the faithful (for it is in the proper sense the church, ἐχχλησία: because the church, according to the word of St. Isidore Pelusiot, is called the place of church meeting - ἐχχλησιαστήϱιον - like incense and censer - ϑυμίαμα and ϑυμιαστήϱιον, sacrifice and altar - ϑυσία and ϑυσιαστήϱιον), they wanted to form a church separately, that is, to hold meetings, or better yet, lawless meetings; they wanted to do together what was happening in the church, that is, to perform sacred acts, without having a presbyter with them by the will of the bishop” 43 . In this rule, both according to the literal text and according to the interpretation of Zonara, it is undoubtedly the parish convened by the presbyter that is called the church, or according to the version of the Helmsman, Prof. Beneshevich, college of presbyters 44. So, in relation to the presbytery or small parish, according to the reason of the church canons, the term “church” (ἐχχλησία) is fully applicable. Hence, from the point of view of church rules, we have every reason to draw up such a definition of a parish. “A parish is a church - consisting of its clergy and laity - assembled by a presbyter, or presbyters, who are canonically dependent on the bishop.” This is the church-social essence of the Orthodox parish, which definitely distinguishes it from both the Catholic parish and the Protestant parish, both social formations, although they grew up on church soil, but were not the development of the idea of ​​the Church of Christ and the Apostolic, but independent human creativity. By virtue of this definition, lay parishioners can no longer be represented as some kind of “secular element”, consisting only of the church, or near the church, as a passive element or circle of people who are actively influenced by the diocesan authorities and the local clergy - the latter’s organ, and to consider the parish “church” as the “class of the clergy” - as it appears according to our Code of Laws. This is a clear deviation towards Roman Catholicism, which, given the circumstances of our time, is not at all desirable or advisable, and is contrary to the spirit of true Orthodoxy. No, Orthodox parishioners are living members of the church, like the clergy and the bishop, and they strive to live with them the one common church life, and not some special one. Based on this, we must recognize as completely unsuccessful all attempts to form from the parish a community separate from the “church” (in the consistory sense) with its own governing body (council) and its own special fund. The formation of such a community cannot be justified canonically, but must seek grounds for its organization in general laws on societies and unions. Of course, it cannot be said that such a thing existing within the church and, under its influence, the whole that emerged from it was contrary to Christianity and the church; no, it is not disgusting: but it will appear as competing with the “parish church” and will not revive and strengthen the latter, but rather weaken it. In a word, we do not need to remove the laity from the church, but rather integrate them into the church. Let us now move on to consider the Orthodox parish as an economic unit. Who is the legal entity in the parish and the owner of its property? What is the purpose of church property? Who owns and operates it? Of these questions, the first and second are quite easily resolved; the last one is more difficult. Likewise, the positive sources of ancient canon law, both ancient Russian and currently in force (the Charter of the Spiritual Code and the Code of Laws) remarkably unanimously state that the owner of church property in the parish is the church. If disagreements and differences of opinion may arise here, it is only in the understanding of the term church: whether this term is understood in the sense of a church - a building for church meetings, the house of God, or in the sense of a collective whole - a society of believers (the most ancient and original meaning). According to the purely Christian view - as was clarified above - the church, of course, is a meeting of believers, but this consciousness is not at all opposed to calling metonymically a church and a building deliberately arranged for this meeting - a church. This use of the term church in the field of property and civil law is even more indifferent. For here, even if the legislator quite definitely named the church, the building, as the owner of church property, and called it a subject of law, in reality the right of ownership and management of the property of this owner would remain in the hands of any living persons. It is this question that constitutes the main interest: the question of a legal entity is significant only insofar as it can in one way or another help resolve this main issue. Therefore, we will allow you to answer it in the most general terms. Thus, there can be no doubt that in the original era of Christianity, in the first three centuries, individual Christian communities were the owners of church property. Undoubtedly because in this era there were almost no churches: liturgical meetings took place in catacombs, tombs or cemeteries, or simply in private houses. But then, when these communities began to have not only richly constructed temples, but also rich masses of movable property and immovable property, the state legislator named these temples the owners of church property, giving them all the rights and privileges of pagan temples (such as the right of inviolability for private ownership, inalienability, the right of refuge, etc. 45). This right of ownership of Christian churches is very clearly expressed in the following most typical law, Imp. Justiniana: “If someone has written down (in a will) the Lord Christ as heir, without adding the name of the house of prayer (εὐχτηϱίου), then it seems here of course the local church (ἡ ἐχχλησία τοῦ τόπου), to which the deceased belonged... If someone leaves any of the holy Angels and martyrs without mention of houses (οἴχωυ), then if there is such a house in this city or in its district (ἐν τῇ ἐνοϱίᾳ) (τοιοῦτος οῑ (or ὶ)χος), if not, then he receives a house located in metropolis, if there is no such house there, then the local churches receive it (οἰ χατὰ του τοπου ἐχχλησίαι) for they have an advantage over other houses, unless it is proven that the deceased thought one thing and wrote another; then the truth takes precedence, not the record. If he indicated a well-known place (τὸπου ῥητου), but with such a name there are many places in the city or in its environs, then, it seems, it is left to the one to which of them he had more affection, or visited more often; if no one is found, then the neediest of such houses receives (ἐχ τῶυ τυιοῦτωυ οἴχωυ ἐυδεής)” 46 . This view of a church, or a house of worship as a legal entity, or a subject of church property was completely adopted by the Byzantine church consciousness It was also adopted by the ancient Russian Christian princes, as their “charters” and “testaments” given for the churches they built show. Here, as an example, are excerpts from the monuments of ancient Russian church law: “Behold, Prince Volodymer, named Vasily in holy baptism, created a cathedral church of the Holy Mother of God tithes, and gave her tithes from all his reign. Likewise, throughout the entire Russian land, from the reign of the entire prince of the court, he gave the tenth century, and from the trade the tenth week, and from the houses for every summer from every flock and from every life to the wonderful Savior and the wonderful Mother of God" 47 . “See, son, prince, how great the princes were, your great-grandfathers and grandfathers, and your father, Grand Duke Alexander: they decorated the Church of God with choir churches and books, and enriched great houses, tithes throughout the city and church courts. And now, my son, prince, I am your father, the bishop of Vladimir, I remind you, my son, about the Church of God. And you know, my son, that church has been robbed and its houses are empty” 48. “Behold, Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', gave this letter to the bishopric of Novgorod, to St. Sophia, and to his son, Archbishop Ivan of the Great Novagorod: yes, as many monasteries have abbots, let him have in submission and obedience, and the entire priestly rank. The same goes for churchyards, villages, land, and waters with all the duties that, under the first rulers, went to that bishopric, to Saint Sophia and to Vladyka Ivan” 49 . “It was written not only in the khan’s labels: no one will offend the cathedral church of Metropolitan Peter and his people in Rus'... not only in letters from the end of the 14th century. it was written: I gave to the house of the Most Pure Mother of God (Moscow Dormition Cathedral) and the Great Wonderworker Peter and Alexy and my master Metropolitan Cyprian (i.e., the present metropolitan, the successor of the wonderworkers Peter and Alexy), but the same terminology is observed in the 15th and 16th centuries. Donor of the 15th century. writes: he gave food to the Holy Mother of God of the Cathedral in Moscow and the great Wonderworker Peter and his master Photius, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia in the house" 50 . The concept of the church as the owner of church property was maintained so strictly that if, for example. There were several churches in the monastery, so it was not the monastery itself that was considered the owner, but its churches. “Which lovers of God - we read in the hundred chapter - gave their ancestral villages and purchases to the monasteries of the holy churches as a keepsake for their souls... and in their memory the cathedral sang requiems and served mass and fed the brothers according to the monastic rite" 51 . “Those ancestral villages and purchases that were given to the holy churches and for their souls should not be sold or given away, but carefully guarded, observing the commandments of the holy fathers. There, more is said about immovable things given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, rivers and villages, fields, vineyards, hayfields, forests, sides, waters and other things given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, no one can take them away from the Church of God” 52. This is the case with cathedral and monastery churches. But nothing else can be said about parish churches. And here the church is the owner. Donations of all kinds were received in the name of the church and they went to the “church treasury”, to the “treasury of the Savior not made by hands”, to the “Bread of the Savior”, to the “church place of Ivan the Baptist”, “to the church place of the great Wonderworker St. Nicholas” 53. “Behold, Prince Andrei Vasilyevich (1452–1481) granted priest Kozma or whoever else would be a priest to St. Vasily in Vologda, that my father, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, gave the reap to St. Vasily, pavolok Dulepov, and Prince Andrei Vasilyevich did not order anyone to intercede in that pavolok, and his seal attached" 54. In general, the position that the parish Church is the subject of church property is centuries old and it is hardly possible to find a sufficient basis for depriving it of this right at the present time. The question of the purpose of church property also does not present, at least theoretically, any difficulty in resolving it. According to the canonical norm, church property should be distributed according to the following items: a) maintenance of the church and provision of it with liturgical supplies: sacristy, utensils, lighting, etc. b) assistance to those in need from the clergy and laity. c) receiving strangers and d) ransoming captives. So according to ancient canon law. Its peculiarity from the later one was that, apparently, the article on the maintenance of the clergy was not clearly indicated in it. The reason for this is that wealthy people very often entered the clergy, especially bishops, and therefore did not need church benefits. But it goes without saying that in case of poverty, they were the first in the ranks of those receiving assistance from the church. But then, when predominantly the poor began to enter the clergy, and the original simple form of charity took the form of well-appointed institutions provided with permanent funds, the maintenance of the clergy became an invariable item in the spiritual budget. And the primordial right of the Old Testament priesthood, expressed by the formula: “those who serve the altar share with the altar,” has received great application. But this circumstance in no way weakened the basic law that assistance to those in need of various kinds is one of the essential purposes of church property. This law was sacredly observed in the ancient Russian Church, starting from the time of St. Prince Vladimir until the end of the 18th century. The canonical formula “church wealth is the wealth of the poor” was considered an axiom back in the age of Peter the Great and was applied by him in one of his decrees on the sale of church candles 55 . This canonical norm currently has no practical implementation. Church income received from the sale of candles, mug collections, and various real estate, if any, have a special purpose for the maintenance of the church and religious educational institutions. Such a narrowing of the purpose of church property, contrary to a certain canonical norm, has long been causing discontent. The parish church has ceased to function as a benefactor of the poor; it is now de facto and de jure only a purely religious institution, called only to satisfy the religious and moral needs of parishioners 56, through the performance of earnest worship, preaching from the church pulpit and church interviews and the spiritual influence of the pastor in confession. “A whole aspect of church and economic life has atrophied in our country, church charity has disappeared” 57 . And such a limitation on the purpose of church property is currently considered some kind of church norm, not subject to doubt, not allowing objections. Once the property is donated to the benefit of the church and the clergy (for example, 700 acres of land), the income from it goes only to the needs of the church (i.e., the church) - to a certain extent, and the clergy. The remainder is saved to meet the future needs of the church. No deductions can be made for parish charity works: this is the property of the parish church 58 . Yes, let the church be rich in thousands of incomes and real estate: it glitters with gold and precious stones, is being renovated perfectly and for all that there is nowhere to put the money: what? Let the remainder be converted into interest capital; it may be useful in the future. But it is impossible to allocate even a small grain of it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the orphan and widow: these are works of charity, not works of the church. A terrible cold emanates from such churchliness! And one involuntarily recalls the spirit of the old, ancient churchliness in the following words of ancient church monuments: “Remember the poor, bishop, extending a helping hand to them and caring for them, like God’s steward, distributing offerings to everyone in due time: widows, orphans, the helpless and those in distress. What if others are not widows, not widowers, but still need help due to poverty, or illness, or to feed their children? - You must look after everyone and take care of everyone. For those who give alms do not indiscriminately give to widows, but bring them into the general circle, calling them voluntary, so that you, who know the needy, give them from the alms, with diligence, like a good steward: for God knows who gave, even if you gave to the needy and in the absence of the giver, this one has a reward for charity, and you for conscientious stewardship - satisfaction" 59 ... “You, bishops, take care of what is necessary for the food of orphans, without at all abandoning them, but take care of orphans like parents: marry adults, provide employment for the master, show compassion to the weak, provide shelter for strangers, hungry for food, thirsty for drink, clothing for the naked, visitation for the sick, help for prisoners. Moreover, take even more care of the orphans, so that they do not lack anything: as soon as she reaches marriageable age, give the girl in marriage to her brother (i.e., a Christian), and provide the boy with the means so that he can study the skill and soak up the abundance of it, and when he successfully studies the skill, he can buy himself workshop tools, so as not to burden his unfeigned love for brothers, but to be content with yourself” 60. And here is the voice of ancient Russian churchliness: This (i.e., church property) was given to the clergy for needs, and for old age, and infirmity, and for those who have fallen into illness, and for the children of many, feeding, feeding the poor, helping the offended, diligence for the strange, assistance in adversity, in fire and flood, redemption for captives, food in famine, food for orphans and the poor, widows benefits, coverings for the dying, and coffins, and burial, raising churches and monasteries, refuge and consolation for the living, and memory for the dead” 61. This is the voice of ancient Orthodox Greek and Russian antiquity regarding the purpose of church property. And if at present the purpose of church property is narrowed to the extreme, and if this deviation from the ancient norm causes general discontent, then a return to this norm cannot encounter any difficulties. A more difficult question is who has the right of ownership and disposal of the property of the parish church. The difficulty is this: if the parish church is the undisputed owner of its property, then who can own, use and dispose of it, if not those people who build this church, form their meetings in it, and bring their donations to it? According to ordinary legal logic and the logic of common sense, this is undoubtedly so. But - modern Russian canonists object to us - according to canonical logic it turns out completely differently. “In the ancient church,” says Prof. Berdnikov - management of church property belonged exclusively to the bishop. For if the bishop is entrusted with the priceless souls of the faithful, then how much more natural is it for him to dispose of church property. The bishop managed church property as God watches, with moral responsibility before God (Right. Ap. 38, 41; Post. Ap. II 34; Cyril. Alek. 2; Ankir. sob. 15; Gangr. 7 - 8). Only he should not, according to the rules, mix his own property with church property, in order to avoid misunderstandings in the event of his death or leaving the see. In view of this, the society of presbyters that existed under the bishop had to know what belonged to the bishop personally and what constituted church property (Ap. 40, Antioch. 24.25). The bishop had assistants in managing property from the clergy subordinate to him - deacons and presbyters, but they conducted this business according to the will of the bishop (Apostle 39, 41). In the IV and V centuries. some Byzantine emperors tried to subordinate the management of church property to the control of secular authorities. But under Justinian the matter ended with the confirmation of the episcopal right to manage church property. Only at the Council of Chalcedon, again at the proposal of representatives of the secular authorities, it was confirmed that in the future all bishops would necessarily manage property through stewards chosen from the clergy. The purpose of establishing this position was stated: so that the economy would not be without witnesses, so that its property would not be wasted and so that no criticism would fall on the priesthood. But the steward had to manage the property according to the will of his bishop and with accountability to him (IV Ecumenical Council 21). Thus, even after the establishment of the position of steward, the power of managing church property remained inviolable with the bishop.” Regarding the management of the property of parish churches, there are no deliberate regulations in the church rules - this must be judged by analogy with the management in a parish (that is, in an episcopal parish). Since the management of church property in the episcopacy is assigned according to the rules to the bishop due to his hierarchical authority to manage the bishopric in spiritual matters, it is natural that since then parishes have appeared under the control of presbyters; these presbyters were supposed to manage the church property of their parishes under the external supervision of the bishop and with reporting to him.” “The system of management of church property outlined now does not at all fit the order of uncontrolled management of church property that prevailed for a long time in ancient Rus'. Meanwhile, the current order of housekeeping in parishes is a fairly accurate copy of the order observed in the ancient church” 62. This is the strong obstacle that stands against the projected endowment of the parish and parishioners with the right to dispose of church property. This contradicts the canons, according to which it appears that this right to dispose of church property belongs entirely to the bishop - without any human control over him: since this right follows from his hierarchical powers. If he can have assistants, then perhaps only elders and deacons. If, therefore, the parish is given the projected right, then this will directly undermine the episcopal power that canonically belongs to it. This canonical argument, both to the author himself and to many readers and listeners, seems so irresistible that to overthrow it, apparently, there is nothing left to do but to reject the authenticity and authority for the present time of those canonical sources on which he relies - which is partly already being done 63 . This argument seems so invincible... But is it really so? In fact, if you look closely at its construction, it will turn out to be much weaker, and it is the author himself who weakens it very much, firstly with the following remark: “regarding the management of the property of parish churches, there are no deliberate regulations in the church rules.” So, the rules he quotes are not relevant? Of course it is: they mean an episcopal parish - a bishopric, or in current terminology - a “bishop’s house”. This is the holy truth, and we, for our part, are ready to join the author with the wish that the “House of Bishops” at the present time be guided exactly by these rules. Secondly, the author of the argument claims that “the current order of housekeeping in parishes is a fairly exact copy of the order observed in the ancient church.” How is this so? After all, according to the author himself, deliberate regulations regarding the management of the property of parish churches are not found in the rules: where did the author find the original, from which we have an almost exact copy before our eyes? And here comes a curiosity: the Charter of Spiritual Consistories, created in 1841, is a document of great importance - an exact copy of the lost original, restoring the life and structure of the ancient Christian church... A scientific discovery of great importance. Obviously, the author of the argument under consideration read in the sources of church law he quoted not what they actually contained, but what he wanted to find in them, hence the result in his argumentation is circulus in demonstrando, from which there is no way out. Carefully reading the quoted prof. Berdnikov's rules and comparing them one with another, one can only come to the following conclusions: a) Regarding the management of the property of presbyteral parishes, the rules do not contain any fundamental instructions, except for one thing, that the presbyter or presbyters at the head of the parishes must be in canonical unity with the bishop and be subordinate to him. (Gangr. 6). b) Regarding the management of the property of an episcopal parish, the following provisions are established: 1) The care of the integrity of the property and the highest administrative power over it belongs to the bishop: he is the main person responsible for this before the annual council (Antioch. Sob. rights. 41), and not before God only, or before his conscience. But he does not exercise this power exclusively, but shares it and responsibility with the elders and deacons. 2) These latter are both assistants to the bishop and guardians or treasurers of church property. As assistants to the bishop, presbyters and deacons act in matters of spending, specifically in matters of charity. The bishop does not personally and directly distribute aid to those in need from the clergy and laity, but certainly through the presbyters and deacons. (Apostle 41). As guardians or treasurers of church property, presbyters and deacons must know exactly the property personally belonging to the bishop and the property of the church. This meaning of presbyterium eliminates any idea that the management of church property belongs exclusively to the bishop. Here is the text of the rule indicating this meaning of presbyterium: “Let that which belongs clearly to the church and be open to the presbyters and deacons around him (the bishop), so that they know and do not remain ignorant of what actually belongs to the church, and nothing is hidden from them” (Antiochus, own rights. 25). Our printed helmsman's book conveys this rule in the following abbreviation: “It is appropriate for all clerics of the cathedral church to take charge of all church property.” 3) In the management of church property, the bishop and his presbyterium were under the control of the council, to which they were obliged to report and be responsible for abuses. “If there is a denunciation against the bishop and the presbyters under him, that they are turning what belongs to the church, either from fields or from other church property, to their own benefit, oppressing the poor and causing reproach and dishonor to the church’s economy and those who rule it in this way: then let such receive decent correction according to the reasoning of the holy council.” And how heavy this responsibility of bishops was for the management of church property is evident from the following words of the 2nd rule of Cyril Arch. Alexandria: “The most pious bishops throughout the whole earth are greatly distressed and extremely displeased by the demand for an account of their expenses, both from church income and from offerings from certain people...” These are the few guidelines regarding the management of church property that our canon law provides. As can be clearly seen, they are very brief and, moreover, relate to the management of the property of the cathedral church itself and therefore are not directly related to the improvement of the economic side of the parishes. But here’s the question: why is it that these rules don’t say a single word about the laity, even though they undoubtedly were part of the cathedral church? Doesn't this mean that, according to the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, the laity are fundamentally incapable of managing church property, that this is the exclusive privilege of the hierarchy and clergy? Unfortunately, we must admit that this idea was clearly expressed already in the Pre-Conciliar Presence, was expressed later, and is now apparently finding ardent admirers in the ruling spheres. The Pre-Conciliar Presence expressed the idea that the participation of the laity in matters of church government is contrary not only to the “canons”, but also to the Holy Scriptures 64 . Yes, Prof. A.I. Almazov in his speech, citing a passage from Acts 6:1–3, said: “This passage entirely relates to the management of property assigned to satisfy the needs of the external life of the church. Who should be in charge of it according to this primary source of our church knowledge? Since the apostles are understood to be in charge, then it is obvious that in the Church in general the right of this management should belong not to ordinary lay believers, but to persons of hierarchical rank. True, in this place we see that the apostles themselves removed themselves from the same administration and it was transferred by an elected assembly of believers to seven persons, but these latter, when elected by the assembly of believers as appointed apostles for this service, should no longer be interpreted simply by representatives of the Christian community, but by representatives of the hierarchy.” In the Pre-Conciliar Presence, however, this idea was not successful: probably because the argument put forward for it could be directed against it with great success, 65 and even more likely because its practical application would have produced such a radical reform in our entire church structure, which is hardly desirable for anyone. The fact is that with its implementation it would be necessary to reform the entire economic administration under the Holy Synod, the entire office of the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor, all consistories - replacing the officials working in them with ryassophores of the monastic and spiritual rank. And then o.o. would appear. prosecutors, o.o. secretaries, o.o. clerks, o.o. accountants, s.r.o. registrars, o.o. architects, s.r.o. lawyers, etc. 66. The origin of such a supposedly canonical idea is explained, firstly, by insufficient insight into the meaning of the rules from which they think to derive it: these rules are not talking about the entire church economy, but exclusively about charity: and in this sense, the rules in question are so reasonable that their application in our time would serve as an adornment for our hierarchy and clergy. For, indeed, which member of the church is more aware of the parishioners who are truly in need of help, if not the clergy, and who is most appropriate to distribute charity from church sums, if not the pastor and the deacon (and deaconess)? As for other business transactions, such as buying and selling, going about business, guaranteeing, etc., then they are directly prohibited by the same canons for clergy, as incompatible with their title. Secondly, our canonists who defend this theory completely overlook the undoubted historical fact that in the original Christian church all hierarchical and clerical service was public, and not at all administratively bureaucratic. Both the bishop and the entire church clergy were not sent to the diocese and parish from somewhere outside, but were chosen by the community itself from among its fellow members, beloved by all of them, pious and trustworthy in all respects. Of course, then he was consecrated by the council (bishop) and bishop (cleric), but this consecration itself is not a single episcopal action - as some are currently trying to claim - but also an all-church one, just like the election by society that preceded it. Is it surprising that such a hierarchy and such a clergy for a long time, enjoying public trust, acted precisely in spending church money on the poor, perhaps completely uncontrollably, especially since the church’s funds were quite meager. But then, with the increase in church wealth, with the weakening of the elective public order of appointment to office and the strengthening of the administrative and the decline of morality in the hierarchy and clergy that began in parallel with this, the means limiting the personal activities of bishops and clergy, even in the field of charity, began to increase. First, the sole will of the bishop is limited by the presbyters around him, without whose consent he could no longer do good (Antioch. collection 25), then the special position of an economist is introduced, and finally - control of the state. officials. In subsequent times, the process of separating the cathedral house (ἐπιόχοπεῖου) from urban to rural parishes ended with the bishop receiving an annual canonical tribute from the latter and not entering into their economic life at all. His influence and impact on them was limited to purely canonical rights, the same as he had over the monasteries. These rights, according to Valsamon, are the following: “judgment of spiritual errors, observation of monastic authorities, exaltation of his name, installation of abbot” 67. Parishes in ancient Russia also had such relations with the diocesan bishop, as we will now indicate. As for the modern order of relations, according to which the Diocesan Authority enjoys the rights of a legal entity in the disposal of the property of the parish church, this order is a purely Russian invention of the 19th century, and to claim that it is an almost exact copy of the canonical order of the ancient church means to deny oneself the understanding and understanding of the latter. As we saw above, according to the canons, in ancient Rus' the legal entity of church property was the church, no matter whether it was a cathedral, monastic or parish church. Pious people made their donations into it, separating them from their property and dedicating them to God Himself, the Mother of God and the saints. From the moment of alienation from private property to church property, it became God’s property – “Savior’s treasury.” But who managed this property in the parishes? The following words of the Stoglavy Council serve as a precious legislative monument of ancient Rus', resolving this issue: “... Yes, the metropolitan, and the archbishop, and the bishop, sent each one in his chapel, throughout all the cities and villages, to search those churches that were deserted and stood without singing: and to give them benefits in all those holy churches. And the tarhan charters 68 for the appointed years, for 15 years, until those holy churches are completed, and the peasants are filled with church rank and Orthodox Christians, nothing from those tormenting in those appointed years. And pay the check-in and all the small metropolitan duties, and the metropolitan tribute and ten-year duties to the nocekh, and thus build churches. And the best people who came to those churches would take that income, and with that income they would build holy churches that had been desolate with holy icons and books. And the priests of those churches would live about the parish, and about the church land: so that God would give throughout the city and village there would be holy churches everywhere with singing, and without singing there would be no holy churches anywhere: the saint, according to the sacred rule, spoke firmly about this, great is their power.” In these few words, the whole scheme of the original Russian structure of holy churches by parishes with the help of diocesan authorities is expressed in convex, visual formulas. The entire material furnishings of the parish church, starting with the church building, its utensils and decoration with icons and books, and ending with the maintenance of the parish clergy, were built by the parishioners and their organ - “the best people” completely independently of the diocesan authorities. The latter, in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances, did not interfere in the slightest with this church construction. She took only a certain tribute from parish churches as well as from the clergy - “check-in”, “small metropolitan (episcopal) duties”, “tribute”, and “ten-dollar duties”. But in extraordinary circumstances, when the church became deserted and remained without singing, the diocesan authorities came to the aid of the parishioners of such a deserted church. She gave her a tarhan charter, exempting her from tribute for 15 years, then she ceded her income, which was made up of duties that went to the lord’s treasury from the clergy of parish churches that were not deserted, and entrusted this income to be collected by the best people from the parishioners of the deserted church for its renewal. How, according to this scheme, this church building was built by Russian parishioners - historical research about the ancient Russian parish by A. A. Papkov and the recent scientific and artistic work about the northern Russian parish by Prof. M. M. Bogoslovsky. “The volost world,” we read from the latter, who did not have their own church, or a group of villages that wished to be separated into a special parish, sent a petition about this to the diocesan bishop. Sometimes this agreement between the villages took the form of a written agreement - an “amicable agreement”. It listed by name the parties to the agreement, whose council initiated the construction of the Church of God.” Having received the bishop's permission, the world began to prepare the materials necessary for construction: logs, planks, nails, moss for caulking, etc., spreading the stock among its members. For the actual construction of the church, the world hired special specialists, “church craftsmen”, an artel of carpenters, and to decorate the church with icon painting, it hired “icon masters” 69. “Wooden churches are for the most part very simple, built “cage-wise” from horizontally stacked logs in the form of a rectangular building. But sometimes these are very complex and intricate buildings, and when you look at another Pomeranian church of the 17th century with its side chapels, with its numerous domes and cupolas, with eight-pointed crosses, wedge-shaped and barrel-shaped roofs, with porches, staircases, passages clinging to the main building, with its light artistic carvings - you are amazed at the courage and originality of the design of the one who created it unknown architect, for whom wood, apparently, was a familiar, obedient material, obediently fulfilling the whimsical impulses of his creativity... In these wooden northern churches... one can see the best monuments of ancient Russian architectural art, amazing in the complete absence of any official template, in their grace, harmony and variety of combinations, in the abundance of subtle natural taste - and we must remember that after all, all of these are works a simple Russian village ax" 70 . Church construction further consisted of ensuring the maintenance of the church and clergy: “In ancient acts, many “spiritual” and “refuse” peasants are preserved, according to which they transfer “for the sake of their souls” their land plots for the possession and use of churches, monasteries and clergy, and there are also acts of purchase and sale, by virtue of which the secular society, represented by the elders, acquired estates for the church with church money, sometimes indicating in the act that the village was given “to wax, incense and for every church building.” Barns, shops, distilleries, wineries, etc. were purchased for the church. Regardless of this, parish communities established monetary and natural taxes either “from the yard” or “from the horse,” and with these funds they supplied their parish churches with wax, incense, church wine, utensils, vestments, icons, books, and their clergy with money, bread, hay and other supplies” 71 . The parishioners themselves were concerned with electing candidates for the position of their clergy and sent those elected to the bishop for installation: or they looked for already ordained priests and deacons and entered into a rental agreement with them, either for an indefinite time or for a known period. In addition to the clergy, the parish elected a “church elder” from among its members, and sometimes several elders. This was a very important position in the organization of the parish. The candidate for this position required not only economic experience, but also fairly high moral qualities. Metropolitan Photius, in his message to Pskov, demanded (1427, September 23) that “people who do not keep the oath or enter into a second and third marriage should not be allowed to serve as elders in the churches of God and to manage church affairs” 72 . The church “eldership” included a whole range of responsibilities, and the secular assembly often chose to help its elders special church clerks, who were entrusted with the management of individual items of church land management, as well as “secular messengers”, “walkers”, who were entrusted with the responsibility of defending the interests of the parish before government officials. Thus, the “world” obliged the church elder to: manage church affairs, arrange church ladles, look after the church treasury and make profitable acquisitions of land, help the poor from the church treasury with bread and money, collect the money given out as a loan after a year, without “rolling over” to the next elders, his successors, participate in the selection of the clergy, etc. and do all this from the “worldly” council" and give an account to the world before the "Savior Image" in all truth 74. In a word, the parishioners - the worldly element as part of the "parish church" - bore all the care and burden for the material well-being of the church and the clergy - the spiritual element and for finding material means to achieve the educational, moral and charitable goals inspired by the title of Orthodox Christian. The ministry of the church parish was the ministry of Christ, expressed in the Gospel image - the ministry of Martha. What did the local clergy and diocesan authorities bring to parish ministry? The answer to this question in the above-mentioned legislative monument is given in the following formulas: 1) “In all the holy churches, in the metropolises, and in the archbishoprics, and in the episcopates, parishioners elect priests and deacons and deacons who are skilled and literate and have immaculate lives” 75 . “And they would elect a saint according to the sacred rule to be priests for 30 years, and to be deacons for 25 years, and they would be able to read and write, they would be able to preside over the Church of God 76 and they could govern their spiritual Orthodox Christian children according to the sacred rule. Yes, their saints torture them with great prohibition 77. The purpose of the parish clergy is to protect the church in purity, to keep it from falling and disorder: by church here we do not mean a church, the construction of which is the responsibility of the parishioners, but rather the parish community - all believers, from children to elders of both sexes. The parish clergy is called upon to transform it, so to speak, into a church. By what means was the clergy to achieve this great task? The hundred chapters are devoted to many articles regarding the sincere and reverent performance of divine services, measures of pastoral influence on parishioners, spiritual children, and, what is especially remarkable, on the training and education of school-age children 78 . In addition, this same high task is quite persistently indicated and revealed in the ancient “hierarchal teaching to the newly ordained priest,” with which the bishop admonished him, sending him, upon ordination, to the church entrusted to him - the parish 79, as well as in the teaching with which the bishop addressed the whole council of parish priests of the diocese, regularly assembled on Sunday. Here is one of these teachings, completely Russian in origin, no later than the 13th century. We present it in full, translated into modern Russian: “Listen, reverend council of priests, my word to you. You, truly, are called earthly angels and heavenly people: yes, together with the angels you stand at the throne of the Lord, with the Seraphim you bear the Lord; you bring down the Holy Spirit from heaven and transform bread into Flesh and wine into the Blood of God, invisible to people, however. many saints saw this and see it to this day - you enlighten people with divine baptism, you bind on earth - and God does not allow in heaven; you loose on earth and God does not bind in heaven. Through you, God performs the sacrament of salvation for the human race, He made you guardians and shepherds of His sheep, for whom our God shed His Honest Blood; He handed over to you His talent, about which He has to test you at His second coming - how much you have increased the gift given to you - how you have shepherded the intelligent flock of Christ, how you have kept your holy things undefiled, have you not in any way tempted the believers? For the Lord said: it would be better to tie a millstone with which a donkey grinds around his neck and plunge into the sea, than to seduce one from men; for one human soul is not worth the whole world; How then will he who seduces many souls not be plunged into unquenchable fire? For if a simple person sins, he gives an answer to God for his soul; and the priest, having sinned, will seduce many and will be condemned by God for their souls. Therefore, beware of all sin and do not be slaves of the flesh: put away drunkenness and gluttony, leave litigation and quarrels, enmity, blasphemy against each other, vile covetousness and slander, pride and long-winded speech, abomination and rage, false oaths, stinginess, unmercifulness, envy and hatred, flattery and deceit. Keeping yourself from these satanic deeds, keep the people under your control from them - as if to present them blameless at the judgment of the Lord, so that each of you can say: here I am and the children whom God has given me. Multiply the talent given to you by the Lord - sanctification. Here I, your sinful bishop, have told you everything: I have not hidden anything from you: God will wear you out if you begin to do God’s work with laziness. Do not read counterfeit books, avoid heretics, avoid sorcerers, stop the lips of those who speak against the Divine Scriptures. And if any of you are perplexed about anything, ask me: I will not be lazy to answer you. And if anyone opposes your orthodoxy, tell me: I will expose him and excommunicate him. Manage to hold your spiritual children not weakly - so that they do not become lazy - nor cruelly, so that they do not fall into despair: neither forgiving for the sake of a gift, nor severely attacking for the sake of a bribe. Distinguish between whom to exclude from the Body and Blood of the Lord, who from the Liturgy of the Catechumens, and for how long. If you yourself are perplexed, ask someone more experienced, without being ashamed: for the one who asks for guidance on the divine path will be guided by another, but the one who does not ask walks in blindness, and the blind one who approaches him is a repentant. Perform this terrible service with trepidation: never enter the altar with enmity toward anyone; never dare to offer the most pure sacrifice, having remained in vain verbosity before mass, but inspire your prayer into your thoughts, lift up your mind to the Lord, do not look back, having all your mind in grief: for you serve with the angels and do not think about earthly things at this hour; You accept the Heavenly King with your heart and are completely sanctified by Him. I tell you, children of Christ! If any of you is harmed by an enemy through fornication, or if any of you drowns his soul in many sins, in drunkenness and in oaths, let him stop serving: for priestly unworthiness brings wrath upon people. But many ignorant people order fallen priests to serve only by giving penance, and thus prepare torment for themselves, and send others to the bottom of hell. There is a difference in the falls: the bishop needs to be reported on the most important ones, so that he can judge according to the apostolic and paternal rules: for one cannot loose what they bound, nor bind what they did not command to be bound, but following the holy councils - knit and loose. Take heed also to your children who are born of you, so that before the wife they become defiled by fornication (the boy), and the maiden before the husband. Priest Eli, himself was sinless before God, but was sent to be tortured for the sins of his children. Maintain your servants properly: do not starve them, give them decent clothing. I wrote all this, loving you. If you keep this, God will hear your prayer and the burden of slavery on our land will be lightened. Pray for me, a sinner, that the Lord will give me pastoral strength and forgiveness of sins through your prayers. I told you a little: see for yourself - what is not pleasing to God, be careful. Let us glorify together the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever.”80 As can be seen from here, the reverent performance of sacred services, especially the liturgy, the education of spiritual children in church discipline with the reasonable use of astringent and dispensing power, and a personal example of a good family life - this is the vocation of the parish pastor and the means of his church building. Not a word about the management of church property! Obviously, this is the business and task of parish construction. Taking into account these data of ancient Russian parish law, can it be said that the Orthodox parish was a church spiritually assembled by the presbyter and materially organized by the parishioners? Yes, the presbyter was the spiritual father of the clergy and laity of the parish church, and they were his spiritual children. It was a church community, firmly united by the unity of religious consciousness, church discipline and, to a large extent, by the community of property. Who was the legal entity here? Such was the parish church, as a consecrated village of the glory of God and as a meeting place for the parish, or church, which chose the Lord Himself, the Savior, the Mother of God, Angels or Saints as its heavenly patron. According to the religious consciousness of the Orthodox Russian people, these heavenly patrons of the parish were the unconditional owners of the parish property. According to legal consciousness, such a person was the parish church. But he worked to acquire, organize, protect and spend this property, bearing all the burdens that result from this, the parish in toto consisting of clergy and laity and, for the most part, “the best people” - the beloved and trusted elders of the parish. This is the canonical and national Russian design of the Orthodox Russian parish. It is fully consistent with the thesis of the Pre-Conciliar Presence that “the management of local church and parish property is entrusted to the parish as a legal entity consisting of the clergy and parishioners of the local church, who are canonically dependent on the local bishop.” Chapter VI. Means for improving the organization of an Orthodox parish, indicated by the above theoretical clarification of the essence of an Orthodox parish. It is noteworthy that since the sixties of the last century, both literature and government agencies have indicated rather simple and fairly uniform means of improving the parish organization, namely: attracting parishioners to improve the material well-being of parishes by increasing income and improving the parish economy and the participation of parishioners in the election of candidates for clergy positions. The simplicity of these means, the uniformity and persistence in pointing to them in themselves deserve, in our opinion, deep attention. Their simplicity is important because it does not contain any fundamental or radical church reform: these means do not affect any church or canonical statutes, or hierarchical relationships. All harassment concerns only the external situation and order, as conditions necessary for the most successful and more fruitful implementation of the high spiritual task of the Holy Orthodox Church for the life and life of the Russian people. Uniformity and insistence in indicating these, and not any other means of improving the parish church system are important because they indicate a real shortcoming in this system, and not something fictitious or fantastic. And that these shortcomings are really sore spots in our parish system, it is worth paying attention only to the question: who is now taking care of the church and parish management? Reading the relevant articles of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories and the instructions to the dean and churchwarden, you come to the conclusion that the main owner of our parish churches is the local spiritual consistory. Without permission, her church cannot spend 50 rubles, and in all expenses the parish church must give a detailed report down to one kopeck to the same consistory according to the income books issued by it. Is this really a normal business? How is it possible, sitting in the presence of 900 or more churches located far away? Is it surprising that the result is that the consistory directs all its efforts in this area only to receive from each church the various established taxes - and nothing more. And how the church operates in obtaining funds to pay these taxes, to repair and maintain the church is not its business: the priest and the elder must be sophisticated here. And they really become sophisticated, sometimes making humiliating requests in front of rich parishioners, going to them with countless signature sheets, sometimes gradually increasing the fee for candles, whisks, magpies and other required corrections and rituals. Such management has led to the fact that parish churches, even those that are rich in appearance, live on alms and alms. Is it really possible that in the parish, besides the priest and the elder, there are no persons who, with intelligent advice and personal activity for the benefit of their church, could not help such a disastrous and humiliating situation? This is absolutely incredible; incredible simply because other Christian denominations and even non-Christian religious institutions are not as poor as the Orthodox Church, but enjoy a more prosperous and honorable position, although they do not have such masters as our consistories. Therefore, the introduction of “church councils” into our parish system, even like those in the Amur region in 1859, or in the western region in 1865 81, with the assignment of responsibilities for maintaining the parish economy and responsibility for it, would be an undoubted step forward in improving our parish economy. But improving the technology of church and parish management should not, of course, be limited to the activities of church and parish councils. It should be aimed mainly at finding better means of providing for the church than alms and alms. Councils should strive to enrich the church with income items - better exploitation of lands and lands owned by the church and their acquisition. Granting the parish the rights of a legal entity - that is, independent management of church property is precisely what is desirable in order to increase church income and should serve as a stimulus for parish initiative in this particular direction. This is the first practical measure to improve the Orthodox parish system. It is prompted both by the present unsatisfactory way of conducting church business, and by the blatant injustice that all church property is entrusted with the full weight of responsibility only to the priest and the elder, and the former is often a person completely alien to the parish in his mood, in his sympathies, way of life and his aspirations - often only a short-term guest, waiting for the first favorable opportunity to move to the best, in his opinion, parish. Meanwhile, parishioners, permanent residents of the area, accustomed from the cradle to call and consider the parish church “their church,” are completely excluded not only from any right of church construction, but even from information - what is the state of their church in terms of property, where are its income spent? According to the law, the parish church is the owner of all its property: but the management of its property is in the hands of a remote government office - the spiritual consistory, or special authorities. That the latter has the right to control, supervise and direct the parish church in the legal use of its property is beyond doubt and dispute: but the right of ownership and possession must remain with the church, as a local Orthodox society. Transferring the burden of church management from the priest and elder to the church council - as a properly organized institution and responsibility for the integrity and storage of church property will greatly alleviate the difficulty of pastoral service. The pastor will be relieved of the very difficult burden of responsibility and worries about keeping a balance in the income and expenditure books, in monitoring the cleanliness, integrity and improvement of the church, cemetery and other parts of the parish property, which responsibilities and worries nowadays are sometimes unbearably difficult (especially in the case of unpleasant relations with an obstinate or lazy elder). At the same time, attracting parishioners (men and women) to the active participation in the work of church building will undoubtedly open up such new sources of economic improvement of parishes that one cannot even dream of now. Currently, complaints are being heard everywhere about the scarcity of sacrifices for the church, about the cooling towards it. Why is this? The question will become much clearer if we sit down to pay attention to a parallel and simultaneously observed phenomenon - the growth of various kinds of sectarianism and heterodoxy. Why is there no cooling here, but on the contrary, a spiritual uplift is noticed? The reasons are, of course, various. But there can be no doubt that the most important of them is the communal nature of sectarianism, which is most natural for every religious union, not excluding, of course, the Orthodox Church. The stronger the spirit of mutual communication, the higher each individual person and his sincere active participation in the interests of the sect are valued, the stronger the latter. A lively, direct exchange of thoughts and feelings at as frequent general meetings as possible has an exciting effect on each individual and maintains in him the energy to serve the common cause, sometimes forgetting personal interests. In this structure of the sect is its attractive character, its temptation, no matter how insufficient it is in the content of its teachings, its rituals. But is this particular character of the public alien to the Orthodox Church? Of course not and no! On the contrary, how many times has it been pointed out that its distinctive property and difference from Roman Catholicism is that it is a conciliar church, that is, public in all parts of its structure, from the parish to the highest central government institution of the cathedral, that “in it the guardian of worship is the entire body of the church, that is, the entire people who always want to keep their faith unchanged and in agreement with the faith of the fathers 82. But all this is in theory, in pious speculation! Meanwhile, in reality, supported by the present legal system of our church, there is some persistent desire to suppress the spirit of the public, to disunite church members, to sharply emphasize those in power and those under power, in a word, to transform the social body of the church into a dry skeleton, or a system of government institutions. Is it surprising that this direction of church policy results in an increase in sectarianism and a cooling towards the church, or even removal from it?! The transformation of parishes into public organizations is therefore an urgent need and the most effective means of raising the authority of our church. As for the imaginary economic ruin that will supposedly follow as soon as parish councils become stewards of church property, this fear is completely unfounded. Cases of refusal of parishioners to pay interest taxes for general church needs, which caused this fear, are explained not by the reluctance of parishioners to satisfy the real needs of the clergy and the church, but precisely by their ignorance - do these taxes really go to these needs? And this ignorance is very understandable: its direct source is closed to parishioners and they are forced to be content with information from roundabout, sometimes very murky sources. The correct management of church and parish management, organized in the same way as is done in all public institutions, and as for some reason is not done only in parishes, would serve as the surest means of refuting various fantastic information often reported with the direct goal of sowing enmity between the clergy and the laity. In general, proving the position that a properly organized economy is a means of economic improvement, and not deterioration, seems strange in itself. And since it has been generally recognized and for a long time that persistent reference has been made to the unsatisfactory nature of the parish economy, this improvement must be made. On the other hand, if for a long time it has been pointed out urgently as the cause of this insufficiency - the exclusive monopoly of the clergy with the decisive elimination of the laity - this indication must be responsively responded to, precisely in the form of protecting the dignity of the clergy and, even more so, in the form of pacifying the ever-increasing discord and enmity between pastors and flocks, which should not exist. It is not the fear of economic ruin, but another more serious concern about the use and vitality of church councils that should attract our attention - the fear that the famous Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, expressed in his time. “Sometimes,” he says, “it is difficult to assemble a fairly complete meeting of parishioners to select a church warden, whose need is clear and obvious to everyone... Therefore, one can fear that in many parishes the parishioners will either not gather at all to form a church council, not understanding or not finding the need for it, or will form a meeting so insignificant that the election will be random and the assembled council will not receive authority, and at the same time the desired success.” The concern was valid for the time when it was expressed, and has not lost its significance at the present time. The long-term exclusion of parishioners from active participation in parish affairs actually taught them in many places to look at these matters as alien to them, not concerning them, and many, especially intelligent people, were completely alienated and completely from the parish church, even lulled in them any feeling of their “churching,” i.e., actual membership in the church, and at the same time lulled the consciousness of their church “responsibilities” and their church rights. This is a fact that must be taken into account. But how to look at it and how to take it into account? Should we look at it as a normal phenomenon and in this case remain calmly contemplating it, or should we mourn about it and in this grief find a continuous motive for a persistent struggle with it as a sad phenomenon of our churchliness? It seems that from a religious point of view there cannot be two answers to this question: every good shepherd can only grieve over this sad fact, and once he is imbued with this sorrow and expresses it directly to the eyes of his parishioners, he will find the desired response in their hearts. I recall the following fact from rural parish practice of very recent times. In a poor rural (suburban) parish, a stone church, once built by a landowner, had become very dilapidated and required urgent repairs, for which the church as usual had no money. The priest was kind and beloved by the parishioners. And then one day on a big holiday, taking advantage of a fairly significant number of pilgrims, instead of the usual teaching at the end of the liturgy, he made the following speech from the pulpit: “You see, brothers, that our once magnificent church is now very dilapidated and urgently requires correction. There is no money in the church. But what? God will undoubtedly help us if we, on our part, make all possible sacrifices and cares. Let's start collecting donations for this cause starting from this holiday, bring whatever you can. Do not hesitate only to make the smallest sacrifices, and whoever cannot bring anything himself, let him persuade his wealthy friend to donate. On my own behalf, I donate 10 rubles.” With these words, he invited the elder to go around the church with a plate, putting his ten rubles on it. These simple words had an amazing effect. Many, with tears in their eyes, immediately in the church gave away everything that was in their skinny pockets; They began to collect it later. And the church was indeed repaired. “I was amazed,” the priest later said, “by one poor old woman parishioner. Not more than a week after what was said, she comes to my house and brings me 60 kopecks. for the decoration of the church. Why are you giving it to me - you are a beggar yourself, take care of it for yourself - I said. But she didn’t want to hear this: take it, father, I’m a parishioner, and I don’t want to lag behind others. I tried and God helped me, sent good people.”... So it was not difficult to awaken the dormant sense of the parishioner’s duty to be sympathetic to the affairs of the parish, and the feeling of fraternal solidarity and communication in one church interest. The everywhere observed fact of parishioners’ disunity between themselves and the pastor, their coldness and indifference to concerns about parish affairs is an abnormal phenomenon of a specifically Russian Orthodox parish, and its elimination from life is far from the last, but one of the essential concerns of every parish priest. And it will not be difficult to accomplish this task. To do this, you only need to understand and bear in your heart the necessity and holiness of this task, and then a simple in form and convincing, touching speech will not be slow to emerge, especially if it is accompanied by a feasible example. In a word, it is the sacred duty of the modern pastor of a Russian parish to gather his divided parishioners into a whole, into a community, into a like-minded and reasonable spiritual flock. Yes, the transformation of parishioners into a harmoniously organized and united community and its transformation into the church, the spiritual body of Christ is the work and task not only of administrative and legislative institutions, but also of church and state institutions, because in our country the majority of the latter are members of the Orthodox Church and even members of the clergy and hierarchy; – but also the personal duty of every parish pastor. The service of the parish clergy is of a social-ecclesiastical nature and appointment to it must be made through the preliminary election of candidates by the parish. To fulfill their great task, the parish clergy must realize, first of all, that their service to Christ is fulfilled only on the condition that it is carried out with one mind and one accord with the service of the spiritual children - the parishioners. The hidden enmity between the pastor and the parish is a fact that makes impossible the main function of pastoral service - the celebration of the liturgy. “Enter no one into the holy altar, those who have enmity with him,” says the ancient holy teaching to parish priests. In what position is a parish pastor put, assigned to a parish in which no one knows him and he knows no one, and even more so, assigned against the wishes of the parish, perhaps having in mind a person he likes. That is why the original canonical law of the church structure requires that each degree of priesthood be conferred through consecration - a solemn act of church-wide election and consecration, with the active participation of the people, the priesthood and the bishop. “For those who are to be ordained, let this be the rule. Let the entire council of clergy agree and elect, and then let the bishop test the chosen one, and with the consent of the priesthood, let him perform the ordination among the church in the presence of the people and with the proclamation of the bishop, if the people can testify about him 83. Let no ordination take place in secret. For when the church is in the world, then it is fitting for ordinations to take place in the church in the presence of saints 84 . In places where there are like-minded heretics who were in communion with heretics, let ordination be performed only after testing by true Orthodox clergy, also in the presence of a bishop and when he is proclaimed to the people present, only in such a way that no deviation from the right path follows.”85 As can be seen from here, both in the election and in the sacramental rite of consecration (ordination in the narrow sense) the bishop, the priesthood and the faithful or saints must take an active part, but each of these ranks in its own measure: the priesthood and the people elect a candidate and give testimony about him to the bishop, the latter tests him in dignity and then, with the whole church, performs the final moment of consecration - the sacramental consecration. The rule in question depicts the order of consecration as it had developed at the time of its composition, as a canonical type, or charter (τυπος). But maybe it will be canceled later? No, it has never been canceled anywhere. Another thing is how this canonical charter was and is being implemented at different times and at the present time? Here we will find a very large variety in the legal monuments of later times, and even more so in the monuments of church practice. Diversity is mainly found in determining the participation of the faithful, or the laity, in the election The diversity is mainly found in the definition of the participation of the faithful, or the laity, precisely in the election of a candidate for the priesthood - as the moment preceding the sacramental initiation: sometimes this participation was only limited to more or less constraining conditions. For example, according to Justinian’s legislation, not the entire people of the local flock were elected, but only the “first citizens of the city,” i.e., a civil qualification was introduced to determine church legal capacity and, moreover, not one person was elected, but three, the final choice of one of which belonged to the council of bishops gathered for consecration. Subsequently, the people were completely excluded from participating in the election; the latter began to be performed in strict secrecy - by bishops alone. In the 12th century, such an order was already so common in the practice of the Church of Constantinople that there were attempts to justify it even canonically. But of course these attempts were extremely unsuccessful. Here is one of them, not without interest for our time. Canon 5 of the Council of Laodicea states: “Election to ecclesiastical degrees should not take place in the presence of listeners. The original text reads like this: πεϱί τοῦ μὴ δεῖν τὰς χειϱοτονίας εν παϱουσίφ ἀχϱοωμένων γίνεσϑαι. About the fact that consecrations should not take place in the presence of listeners. The medieval Byzantine scholastics and, following them, our Pilot's Book explain this rule as follows. Zonara: “The rule here calls elections consecrations. How, during the elections of bishops, accusations are made against some, which, perhaps, prohibit them from the priesthood; then it seemed to the fathers that it was not proper for anyone to be present to listen to what was being said, and for those who listen it is an encouragement to evil, and for those who are not confirmed in the faith it can lead to blasphemy against God. For just as through the virtuous God is glorified when they see the good deeds of those glorifying Him, so through the contrary the Divine is blasphemed by unfaithful and unconfirmed people. And why is election called ordination? This is stated in the 1st canon of the Holy Apostles.” Aristin: “Consecrations do not happen in front of those listening. The prayers of those being consecrated are not proclaimed so loudly that the people hear them.” Balsamon: “The rule here calls elections consecrations and says that since during elections something unworthy is often said about those elected; then there should not be elections while everyone is listening. So for this reason, even now, bishops are elected by meeting separately and alone. However, in the 1st Apostolic Canon, ordination is taken to mean ordination.” Slavyanskaya Helmsman: “There is no such thing as setting people’s ears. Interpretation: the prayers spoken by the bishop over those appointed bishops and presbyters and deacons are not spoken loudly, as if they were to be heard by all people, but only within those present with the bishop the hierarch.” These are the interpretations that, of course, are still considered authoritative and explain the true meaning of the canon. But the question is: do they at least somewhat clarify the meaning of the rule? No and no: they, on the contrary, only obscure the rule with some kind of fog, which, if read in the Greek text, is so definite that it almost requires no explanation. The interpretations under consideration obscure, first of all, the question of what the rule is talking about - election or dedication. Some interpreters say that we are talking about election here, others - about dedication. Who to believe? More likely is the interpretation of Zonara and Balsamon that elections should be carried out by bishops alone without the presence of outsiders: but why are these outsiders called hearers in the rule? As for the interpretation of Aristin, and especially the Helmsman, they apparently assert something that the rule does not say at all. They do not deny the presence of those listening, but only force the ordainer to read prayers so that those listening do not hear them. Meanwhile, the rule clearly states that consecration should not take place at all in the presence of listeners. In a word, interpretations completely obscure the meaning of the rule. But, apparently, the interpreters did not intend to clarify the meaning of the rule, but something else, namely, to make an attempt to reconcile the established custom with the ancient canonical charter of ordination. According to what was established in the 12th century. By custom, the election of a bishop was actually carried out by bishops in complete secrecy: only the result of the election (naming a bishop) was announced to the people; during ordination, indeed, not all prayers of ordination were read aloud, but only one - Divine grace healing all the weak, etc. Having before their eyes these usual pictures of election and ordination, interpreters of the ancient rule try to find in it at least some justification for this custom. Hence the fog and contradictions in their interpretation of the rule. In order to understand the true meaning of the rule, you need to completely abandon these interpretations and read the rule in the original text, accurately translating every word of it. The result will be the following: “that ordinations should not take place in the presence of persons in the rank of those who listen to the scriptures.” The true term ἀχϱοωμένοι means precisely this rank or class of persons of the general composition of the church. This can be seen from the following rules: 1 Omni. personal right 11: “Those who truly repent will spend those three years among those listening to the reading of the scriptures (ἐν ἀχϱοωμένοις).” Right 14: “Concerning the catechumens and those who have fallen away, the holy and great council desires that they should only be among those who hear the scriptures for three years (αὐτοὺς ἀχϱοωμένους μόνον).” Ankirsky personal. right 4: “it was decided that such should be among those who hear the Scriptures for a year.” Neokesariysky sob. pr. 5: “The catechumen... having been convicted of sin, if he were numbered among those who bow the knee, may he be brought down to the rank of those who hear the scriptures (ἀχϱοάσϑω). If he remains among those who hear the scriptures (᾽Εαν δὲ ἀχϱοώμενος) he sins, let him be expelled from the church.” Sometimes this rank is called the noun “ἀχϱοάσις”. So in the rules of St. Gregory the Wonderworker we read: Rule 12: “Hearing takes place inside the gate in the vestibule (῾Η ἀχϱοάσις ἔνδυϑι τῆς πύλης ἐν τῷ νάϱϑηχι).” Rule 9: “Let them not be considered below the rank of those who hear the scriptures (μηδὲ τῆς ἀχϱοάσεως ἀξιῶσαι).” Rule 8: “such should be blocked from entering even in the rank of listeners (χαὶ τῆς ἀχϱοάσεως ἀπεῖϱξαι δεῖ).” The 6th rule of the Ancyra Council: “may they be accepted into the ranks of those who hear the scriptures until the great day of Easter δεχϑῆναι). Rule 9: “let them take a place among those who hear the scriptures for three years τόπον)". 1 All personal 12th Law: “let such fall in church for ten years, asking for forgiveness, after a three-year period of listening to the scriptures in the vestibule τῆς τϱιετοῦς ἀχϱοάσεως χϱόνον)" 86 . As can be seen from these examples, the words ἀχϱοωμένοι, ἀχϱοάσις in the canonical language have a special meaning - they denote the class of penitents, that is, those undergoing penance. To designate the general concept of those who hear, the canons use another term: ἀχούοντες, as can be seen from the Apostolic Canon 9, where we read “all the faithful who enter the church and hear the scriptures (χαὶ τῶν γϱαφῶν ἀχούοντας) ... excommunicate,” and – Antioch 2nd, where we read: “all those who enter the church and listen to the sacred scriptures (χαὶ τῶν ίεϱῶν γϱαφῶν ἀχούοντες).” Bearing in mind this different meaning of the words ἀχϱοωμένοι and ἀχούοντες, it is not difficult to see which of the laity is excluded from participation in the election to the sacred degrees and the 5th rule of the Council of Laodicea, namely, those under penance, and “not any listeners at all” - as Zonara interprets. Understood this way, the 5th canon of the Council of Laodicea is in complete agreement with the canonical charter of ordination and represents a confirmation of it: for according to this charter, only the “faithful” or “saints” are present at the ordination - and not those under penance. As for the question - what is meant here by consecration - election or dedication? – then this question is completely idle; for, no matter what is meant here, one who is under penance, or “in the rank of hearers,” equally has no right to be present either at the election or at the consecration. It is not that he is a faithful or a full member of the church: he has the inalienable right to actively participate in both acts. And so, comparing this canonical regulation for the performance of ordination with the administrative procedure currently in force in our country for the sole appointment of clergy to parish places, should we not come to the sad conclusion that this procedure is not canonical, is not correct. Although this conclusion is made, and our consecrations are indeed called non-canonical, such a conclusion is not entirely correct. In fact, is it possible to say that when appointing parish clergy to places, our diocesan bishops act individually, not being constrained by either the voice of the clergy or the voice of the laity? Don’t we see complaints everywhere from our bishops that they are extremely constrained in appointing worthy clergy to places, either by recommendations and requests from the “powerful of the world”, who are not safe to respect, or by the pleas of orphans asking for the appointment of their favorite candidate as their only support, etc.? Therefore, in fact, the Russian bishop is sometimes more limited in his episcopal rights, precisely by the powerful laity, than is required by the canons. That is why it turns out that proper regulation and streamlining of the active participation of the laity in the matter of electing clergy will in no way diminish the authority of episcopal authority, as fanatical opponents of the elective principle claim, but on the contrary, in many cases it will enhance this authority and, in any case, will have a beneficial effect on the improvement of parishes and the entire church. Once the parishioners have been legitimized their canonically right to represent their favorite candidate and the bishop will not encounter canonical obstacles to respecting this submission, he will find in this right strong support against the “attack on his bishop’s conscience” by the powers that be, who do not care about the needs of the parish, but are only interested in showing their favor to their favorite protégé, or in demonstrating their power over the bishop. The same should be said about the rite of dedication performed in our church. It fully maintains the canonical type outlined above. Initiations are not performed in secret, but they are always very solemn and attract masses of people. The one being ordained is brought “from the midst of the church” to the altar with the deacons shouting to the people: “command” and to the ordaining bishop: “command”, the one being ordained is led around the altar with the singing of “holy martyr” and so on. both the entire presbytery surrounding the altar and the “singers” or “choir” (i.e. λαοσ᾽а = people). Then the ordainer loudly pronounces “divine grace” - calling on the whole church to pray for the one being ordained “may the grace of the Most Holy Spirit come to him,” in response to which the most touching: “Κυϱιε ἐλέησον” is heard; after this, the ordainer, giving the ordained the signs of his sacred degree, loudly proclaims ἄξιος (worthy), to which in response ἄξιος is heard from the presbytery and the entire church. Thus, in the rite of consecration performed today, the character of the ancient canonical type is maintained; consecration in our country is an all-church act, that is, performed by the bishop with the prayerful participation of the presbytery and the people and with their approval and testimony 87. And you can be sure that every foreigner, of any Christian faith, having listened carefully to this rite of consecration, will come away with a firm conviction that the Orthodox Russian Church solemnly confesses, and through its sacred rites proves, that elevation to all sacred degrees in it is carried out by the bishop (and bishops) with the consent and with the active participation of the presbytery and the people 88. And now, bearing in mind this evidence of the obvious, it is natural to pose the question: on what basis do our fanatical opponents of the elective principle claim that the appointment of priests and their ordination is a matter solely for the bishop? To explain this strange phenomenon, there is nothing else left but to point to Art. 70 of the Charter of Spirits. Consistory, which reads: “Ordination to the priesthood is a matter that belongs to the direct consideration and decision of the diocesan bishop, who ascertains the dignity of the person seeking ordination, and upon ordination provides him with a letter signed by him; however, cases of appointment to priestly and clerical places and of dedication are included in the consistory, both for drawing up certificates and collecting information about the place and the person seeking to occupy it, and for other things, on the essence and circumstances of these proceedings.” Yes, this article really stands in sharp contradiction with the rite of consecration and reality. And you can be sure that any foreigner who is not familiar with the actual rite of ordination, having read it, would say: in Orthodox Russia, election and ordination to sacred degrees are carried out by the bishop in the spiritual consistory with her active participation. In view of such obvious inconsistency of Art. 70 of the Charter of Spirits. Consistory with the canonical rite of consecration, it should be abolished, legitimizing the right to elect candidates for priestly positions and the right to present them to the diocesan bishop by parishes, as was observed in Ancient Russia. Chapter VIII. Canonical dependence of parishes on the diocesan bishop An Orthodox parish, by its religious nature or essence, constituting a church assembled by a presbyter (or presbyters), and in economic terms, a community with the rights of the owner of real and movable property, must be in both respects canonically dependent on the diocesan bishop. This position is clearly confessed by every Orthodox parish at each of its religious meetings or sacred rites, in which the prayer “for our Lord, the Right Reverend Bishop NN” is invariably proclaimed. It also has for itself the age-old canonical axiom, which says that “without a bishop there is no church,” by virtue of which, since a parish wants to be a church, it must be in close unity with the bishop and always recognize his authority over itself: “without a bishop there is no parish.” What is this canonical dependence? The dependence of the parish on the diocesan bishop in the following respects has never, apparently, raised any doubts: 1) When founding a parish and when building a parish church. According to the laws of Imp. According to Justinian, the foundation of each church should take place in the presence of a bishop, who performs it with the rite of the erection of the cross. “Whoever wishes to build a house of prayer or a church - we read here - must talk about it with the bishop of the city and provide sufficient funds for lighting lamps, and for sacred services, and for maintaining the place in a comfortable state and for the maintenance of those living here. Then the bishop, having announced this to everyone, must solemnly march there (in the procession) and erect the cross with prayer, and then the work (of construction) begins” 89. In ancient Rus', the construction of a new church was not connected with the personal erection of the cross by the bishop, but upon receipt of the “blessed letter” from him by the parish for the construction of the church, and upon its completion, a clergyman (archpriest or archimandrite) was appointed, to whom the antimension for consecration was given. In our time, the founding of a new church and the role of the bishop in this matter is described in detail in Or. Spirit. Con. Art. 45 – 61. 2) In identifying and ordaining clergy for the church. The significance of the bishop in this regard has always been identical; only the greater or lesser participation of parishes and cathedral clergy in this matter has changed. 3) Connected with the right to appoint and ordain clergy is, of course, the right of the bishop to move them from parish to parish, to prohibit them from serving in the priesthood for a time, to completely deprive them of their rank, and also to reward them for jealousy and distinction in their service. Regarding the application of this right, there are currently quite a few complaints and dissatisfaction heard that deserve attention and measures to be taken to satisfy them. Moving from parish to parish, by the very nature of pastoral service, should, of course, be only a rare case caused by some exceptional circumstances. Meanwhile, in our country it has almost become a general rule, like a system of administrative rewards for length of service or special distinctions in service: depending on merit, a clergyman is gradually transferred from a worse parish to a better one, that is, a more profitable one. Parishes or flocks are thus transformed into stages or steps along which the career of a pastor moves. Of course, there is no need to explain that such an attitude towards the flock is completely abnormal and alien to the pastoral character. In this regard, you involuntarily recall the following formidable rule: “Hosea Bishop of the city of Corduba rivers: it is appropriate to eradicate from the very foundations not so much an evil practice as the most harmful disorder in church affairs. Let no bishop from a small city be allowed to come to another city. For in this case the reason for which it is being undertaken is clear: because it was never possible to find a single bishop who would be transferred from a great city to a smaller city. From here it is clear that such people are kindled with a fiery passion for much acquisition and work harder for pride, so that they apparently receive greater power. So, will it please everyone that such corruption be punished more severely? I think that such people should not have communication below on an equal basis with the laity. All the bishops said: it pleases everyone” 90? It would be necessary to invent other ways of rewarding good shepherds, but not at all to dissolve their spiritual union with their flocks. But relocation is certainly necessary where, due to any circumstances, a relationship of mutual antipathy and enmity has been established between the pastor and the parish: for the good of the flock, it is necessary to remove such a pastor, for he will scatter, and not gather, the church entrusted to him. In any case, when moving pastors, one must be very attentive to the state of the parishes of the moved pastors: not the parish is for the clergy, but the clergy is for the parish. Regarding the right of the bishop to judge and punish the parish clergy, no doubts apparently arise: for what other institution or person in the diocese, other than the bishop, can lay claim to such a right? Of course, the organization and method of legal proceedings in the diocesan court are very outdated and dilapidated, but this is such an important and complex issue that requires a special monograph. Let us move on to the more closely related issue of our topic: the canonical dependence of parishes on the bishop for the management of church and parish property. That the power of supervision, direction and resolution of issues arising from the use, acquisition and alienation of church and parish property belongs to the diocesan bishop - no one seems to have ever rebelled against this provision. If this power did not belong to the bishop, or he would not use it, then this power should have been immediately confirmed to him. The need for such a higher authority, above the arrival of a standing authority, follows from the essence of the matter. The economic and financial sphere, more than any other sphere of human relations, is capable of generating conflicts and disputes: who should resolve these conflicts that arise between members of the parish council, if not the bishop? On the other hand, no matter what guarantees one may provide for the property rights of a parish as a church community, one must not forget that complete autonomy in the disposal of church property cannot be given to a parish, since it is necessary to recognize that this property is “church property,” therefore having a special and precisely defined purpose. But who, besides the diocesan bishop, can have the right to supervise and direct the use of this property in accordance with this particular purpose? There can be no two answers to all these questions. Another thing is the passive position of parishes, which is legitimized by the current law in their relations to the Spiritual Consistory. There is no canonical basis for such a passive attitude and it is difficult to find any rational basis. Delivering receipts and expenditure books, confessional statements to the Consistory, asking permission for such things as painting the roof of a church or repairing stoves has lost all practical significance and constitutes either a relic of antiquity 91 or a delay that is directly harmful in economic terms (like asking permission for church expenses). If parish councils are properly organized, they will have a proper bureau for compiling the necessary official documents and an archive for their storage. The consistories are overcrowded with business; for their own good, they should be freed from guardianship over the management of parish churches. It is noteworthy that back in 1845, the parishes of the same faith were freed from this tutelage of spiritual consistories. The Highest Decree then prescribed “to all diocesan authorities that, regarding the method of governing co-religionist churches, they should certainly and with all precision observe the fulfillment of the rules of Metropolitan Plato, Most Highly approved in 1800, so that, therefore, neither in the Divine services of co-religionists, nor in the church-economic order, nor in general in the customs of the church permitted by them, any constraint and no innovations were made, so that in the affairs of the Edinoverie churches no participation of spiritual consistories and other spiritual authorities was allowed, except for one Eminence, and that the Eminence would certainly authorize all such matters, with the exception of persons requiring legal investigation, to carry out his orders and for the immediate supervision of the Edinoverie clergy and flock, appoint a dean from among the same clergy." In the last century, such a privilege for parishes of the same faith and such trust in them could not be offensive to Orthodox parishes, because this decree was secret. But now this privilege has ceased to be secret, and therefore harmless. These, in general terms, are measures to improve the existing structure of parish life, justified by theoretical considerations expressed in our previous articles. We refrain from indicating more detailed information, considering this matter to be a completely wasted effort in view of the long-published “Draft of the Normal Charter of Orthodox Parishes in Russia”, developed by the Pre-Conciliar Presence. This project represents one of the best moments of the activity of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, and if it is not destined to pass into the current law, then, in our deep conviction, it will not die for the science of Russian church law and in the scientific literature of the Orthodox jus parochiale will take its due dignity. For a church lawyer or canonist, it will serve for a long time as a criterion when deciding whether legislation on a parish issue is moving forward or backward, as well as the actual developing church and parish life. This advantage of the project as a whole does not exclude, however, the rationality of the following comments. 1) Art. The 21st draft states: “The church is a place of gathering of believers for worship, sacraments, as well as extra-liturgical interviews, as needed, and for the selection of church elders and other persons for church and public positions,” etc. Of course, this is absolutely true, but in addition to the selection of persons for church positions, which is best done in the church in order to maintain the reverent, prayerful mood of voters (after all, this is not about civil elections), the parish must organize both general and Soviet meetings. The question is: where to produce them? Not in the church. And now it seems extremely necessary to introduce the following additional article. “Each parish should take care of setting up a special room - a “parish house” - for general parish and Soviet meetings. This parish house should also house the archive of parish documents” 92. At present, in the absence of such houses, parishioners, as mentioned above, have nowhere to gather in order to talk about their parish affairs; As for the church archive, it is housed in chests and cabinets in various secluded corners of the church, not excluding St. Altar - which, of course, does not at all correspond to the holiness of the latter. This “parish house” could house church libraries, reading rooms, and religious and moral readings, as planned by Art. 26 and 43. Let us think that the parish house we are designing is not the work of our personal imagination: there are already examples of such houses in the capitals and in some rural parishes, especially where there are parish trustees. Further, article 28 deserves serious discussion. It reads like this: “In each parish, movable and immovable property and monetary amounts are divided into three categories: 1) church, clergy and parish. Of the sums, church sums are those that go to the church, namely: a) candles, as profit from the sale of wax candles; b) cups and wallets donated to the church when collected in a church cup or wallet; c) monetary capital in % of securities donated to the church or formed from the remainder of church sums for previous years. Clergy funds are capital, % of which are intended for the benefit of the clergy, as well as cash amounts received for the maintenance of the clergy for the correction of demands and the performance of divine services: this is the so-called clergy income. Parish funds are those sums that parishioners collect among themselves through a special mug carried around in the church, or through voluntary self-taxation, or through subscription lists, by gift or by spiritual wills, or in another way, for various church and parish needs, such as. maintenance of the church and clergy, for schools, charitable and other parish institutions. Here are church and postal capitals, with the exception of postal income, as well as all cash church and parish sums are in charge of the parish, which, through the parish council, together with the clergy, accepts, stores and spends these amounts according to their purpose in compliance with the laws and rules existing on this subject. At the same time, it should be ensured that church funds are intended both to satisfy the needs of the church and to meet the needs of the entire Orthodox Church and, in particular, the diocese to which the parish belongs. Therefore, from church funds, in accordance with the orders of the highest church authorities, as well as according to the definitions of diocesan and deanery meetings, parish churches must annually submit, in accordance with their means, contributions for the maintenance of religious educational institutions, internal and external missions and other church-wide needs. To satisfy the needs of the local church (§ 20), permission from the diocesan authorities is not required if 150 rubles are spent. in rural parishes and 300 rubles. in urban areas from church amounts. Church funds remaining after satisfying the above-mentioned needs, except for those with a special purpose, can also be spent on local parish needs; however, the expenditure of these amounts does not require the permission of the diocesan authorities, if no more than 1/3 of the balance from the previous year is spent. Postal amounts (income and %% from postal capital) are received, according to their purpose, exclusively for the maintenance of the clergy. The parish funds remain at the full disposal of the parish and are spent on parish needs - for the maintenance of the church, the clergy and for educational, charitable and other parish institutions.” This article maintains the division of church-parish property into three types, which has entered into practice and law, the basis of which division is the right of ownership and disposal of each of these types: church property is that which is disposed of by the Diocesan authorities and their trusted persons in the parish - the clergyman and the elder; clergy - which is managed and owned, exclusively by the parish clergy and parish, which is owned and managed by the parish with the participation of the clergy. The draft of the Pre-Conciliar Presence leaves this division in force, but allows for a slight deviation from it, namely: according to the article in question of the draft, “all church and clergy capitals, with the exception of clergy income, as well as all cash church and parish sums, are in the management of the parish, which, through the parish council, together with the clergy, accepts, stores and spends these amounts, according to their purpose, in compliance with the laws and rules existing on this subject.” - This is already an innovation and, let us add, very gratifying: for according to the practice and law that existed until now, church and clergy sums and capital were - as stated above - under the exclusive control of the Diocesan authorities, the clergy and the elder; parishioners were not allowed even simple curiosity in this area. This is the first innovation. But there is also a second thing: according to existing practice and law, church sums were assigned: a) for the maintenance of religious educational institutions, b) internal and external missions, c) for other general church needs and d) for the repair of the church and its utensils; the remainder was to be turned into interest-bearing securities to meet the needs of the church (or church) in the future. The article in question deviates from this order and firstly expands the purpose of church funds, allowing the remainder of these sums to be spent on local parish needs and even 1/3 of the balance without the permission of the Diocesan authorities; doubly strengthening the authority of the parish council to spend up to 150 rubles on church repairs without the permission of the Diocesan authorities. (for rural parishes, instead of the previous 50) and 300 rubles. for city expenses. Such an expansion of the purpose of church property is an indisputable step forward, especially if it is aimed at charitable works; in the same way, expanding the authority of the parish council to spend on church repairs without the prior permission of the Diocesan authorities will bring undoubted benefits in church savings. But having allowed these timid steps forward, the project generally remains faithful to the established division of church and parish property into the indicated three types and at the same time allows for some incompleteness and inconsistency in the distribution of the mass of church and parish property according to the named categories, namely: when calculating the types of church amounts and income, Article 28 does not mention at all about cash receipts coming from immovable estates (such as lands, houses, shops, or grounds). Meanwhile, this source of income is sometimes very significant, sometimes far exceeding the entire mass of income received from the sale of candles, mug fees and interest on capital. The question naturally arises: what purpose do these church sums have – only for the church and general church needs, or for parish needs (charitable, educational, etc.)? This important issue Art. 28th doesn't allow it. Meanwhile, the next two articles (29th and 30th) significantly facilitate the ways for parishes to acquire real estate, which, of course, generates income. Judging by the fact that Article 29 gives the parish the right to acquire real estate not even in the name of the church, but also in its own name, and Art. The 30th is given to the parish even to sell real estate acquired with parish funds without the permission of the Diocesan authorities, one might think that according to the intention of the drafters of these articles, all monetary income from real estate church and parish property goes exclusively to the benefit of local church and parish needs and, in any case, is free from contributions for general church needs. But such an interpretation is only conjectural and therefore far from indisputable. And then - such a use of these amounts, even if it were recognized and correct, is essentially unfair, precisely combined with an insult to other parishes that do not have real estate at all, or have such, but very little income. So, let’s imagine two sparsely populated parishes; their income from candle sales and purse collection is equal: but one of them has rich real estate, the other has none at all. According to the draft charter, they must make equal contributions to general church needs: is this fair? Of course not: for one who has rich real estate will not feel any damage to his income by paying his contribution, while a parish without real estate, having paid the contribution, will be left with almost nothing. Along with injustice, the article in question also allows for inconsistency in the distribution of church and parish funds. Thus strictly delineating the purpose of “church” and “clerical” amounts and income, Art. Article 28 no longer restricts the assignment of “parish” amounts, when it states: “Parish amounts remain at the full disposal of the parish and are spent on parish needs - for the maintenance of the church, the clergy and for educational and other parish institutions.” It would be more consistent - to leave the parish funds for a strictly limited purpose - meeting the educational, charitable and other needs of the parish and freeing them completely from the costs of meeting the needs of the church and clergy. But, of course, such a sequence in many cases could actually turn out to be a great injustice. In our opinion, these shortcomings can be easily avoided by doing the following: 1) The entire mass of church property, movable and immovable, all capital and amounts from whatever source they come from, constitute the property of the NN parish church. 2) From this mass, property should be separated that has a special purpose - the maintenance of the clergy. It consists of: 1) Real estate: a) estate and field land (in rural parishes) in the amount of 33 to 99 acres; b) premises or apartments occupied by them (if possible of a certain size). 2) Movable: a) % from capital donated and acquired either exclusively for the maintenance of the clergy, or a certain part of % from church capital (for example, 1/2, 1/3, etc.). b) A certain part of the income from the net profit received from real estate church property (houses, land, lands). c) The so-called “brotherly circle” or income received from corrections. This property, as a general rule, should remain clergy property, distributed among the members of the clergy according to special rules, precisely defined. The parish should not interfere with this property, although its protection and responsibility for its integrity should rest with the entire parish. This property is free of contributions. 3) With the exception of this part (clergy property), the entire rest of the church-parish property, from whatever sources it comes from - from the sale of church candles, from voluntary self-taxation, or rental and other items, constitutes church property, namely the NN of the parish church, is entered into the general church inventory and the parish and expenditure book and is in the management of the parish (general meeting and council) under the precisely defined supervision and control of the Diocesan superiors. The purpose of this property is determined by the following articles: 1) Satisfaction of general diocesan duties in the amount determined by law and according to the allocation to parishes made annually by diocesan congresses. Such satisfaction shall consist of a percentage of the net income received by the church from all its sources. 2) Maintenance and repair of the church and its utensils; insurance of church buildings and property, as well as their repair. 3) Assistance to extremely needy members of the parish and clergy in the form of setting up and maintaining a church almshouse, or issuing benefits, temporary and permanent. An Orthodox parish should set as its sacred task: that there should be no beggars in its composition. 4) In those parishes where the fulfillment of these items of expenditure leaves a surplus of income, a certain percentage must necessarily be deducted to form an inviolable church capital - and then. 5) Satisfying the church educational task, setting up and maintaining a church school. We put this expense item in last place in view of the fact that our state has put the introduction of universal education on solid ground. This circumstance naturally removes the obligation to take care of the school from those parishes that find themselves in the school network. One can therefore hope that over time the obligation to pay expenses for the maintenance and construction of schools will disappear from all parishes. This, of course, is not what should be said about helping the poor, nesting in both the temporal and spiritual families of our Orthodox parishes. No matter how much the state progresses in improving its economy and its finances, it will never have to do without the help of the church in the matter of poverty relief. No government or public institution can look so closely at the real needs of its fellow members as a well-organized parish society can. Each parish priest, already by virtue of his position (for he is also the confessor of his parish) can know, like no one else, not only those who are truly in need, but also at what exact moment it is necessary to help this or that needy person in order to help him in time and thereby save him from imminent death or despair. That is why every parish church should always have at least a small fund ready in order to lend a helping hand, at the direction of the priest, to those falling into the abyss of despair. Art. The 29th says: “Each parish, as a legal entity, in the name of its church, and in its own name, can acquire real estate in the ways established by law, etc.” This article establishes two legal entities in one parish: the church and the parish - which should subsequently lead to the introduction of two administrations: church for church property, and parish for parish property. Why such a complication and how to organize two such administrations? It is necessary to focus on one thing: either the church is recognized as a legal entity with the right of ownership and management of its property assigned to the parish as a community (according to the formula of the general meeting of the Pre-Conciliar Presence), or - the parish, and the parish church will descend into the list of property constituting the property of the parish - the Protestant structure of the parish. As we have clarified before, both canonically and historically it would be more correct to recognize the church as a legal entity in its mutual meaning of the “house of God” or church, and the “society of believers” gathered in it as clergy and laity, who are canonically dependent on the bishop. This structure of an Orthodox parish has an undeniable advantage over the Catholic and Protestant structures, and we should value it worldwide. Meanwhile, the separation of the “parish” from the “parish church” into a special property and corporate unit will only sharply emphasize the discord between the lay members of the parish from the parish clergy and diocesan authorities and thus paralyze the entire task of parish reform, aimed precisely at strengthening the unity and communication of pastors and flocks on the basis of church interests, both spiritual and material. In the reform of the parish, it is important to carry out the idea of ​​the parish - the church, as a spiritual and moral union united not by the contractual principle of free units united by the similarity of their personal interests, which similarity can easily be lost, but by a stronger and inextricable connection - namely their spiritual kinship from the same baptismal font, from the same cup and one bread, of which they all partake in their one church - their common mother, the unity, finally, of their common tomb on native cemetery. And in the present system of parishes, this spiritual kinship is still active, still manifests itself, but only instantly - in liturgical communication: by gathering in one church, listening and contemplating the same prayers, chants and sacred rites, our current parishioners at these liturgical moments feel and are aware of their spiritual kinship. But once they leave the threshold of the church, the family connection ends. Why is this happening? This happens, on the one hand, from insufficient penetration by the consciousness of those praying into the circle of those religious ideas that are carried out in the Divine Service. Our people, despite the increase in literate percentage, still poorly understand the language of Divine services - this is a hackneyed truth. But this is not a matter of literacy alone. To strengthen the religious mood, precisely to prolong it outside the church, as well as for a clearer understanding of the liturgical language itself, home reading of liturgical books is also required. At present, it is hardly possible to identify a peasant or even philistine house in which liturgical books would be located, for example. octoiches, menaion, service book, etc. Meanwhile, in the old days and even not very old, such houses were not uncommon. And this was at a time when the price of these books was very high. At present, parish libraries could serve to meet this need - if only it were to arise. Shepherds should replenish these libraries with such books and develop a desire to read these books. But religious sentiment alone is not enough. It needs to move into life itself, into parish relations. The general parish meetings and councils established by the project lead to the achievement of this goal with their purpose of considering and managing not only church and economic affairs, but also purely everyday phenomena, the various needs of family and economic life and influencing them exclusively with religious or church influence (see §§ 40 - 46). The chairman of these general parish meetings and councils - the parish pastor - must take care, first of all, to ensure that these meetings always retain their religious character, so that the meeting, party element does not penetrate here and that the aspirations and machinations of self-interest, lust for power, and oppression of some by others are not introduced. Only the spirit of Christ should prevail here: every matter should be considered in the light of love for God and neighbor, and any other point of view should be eliminated. If this character is maintained, parish meetings will become important not only as a means of uniting the Russian people into the unity of religious self-consciousness, but also as a means of disciplining their social life, the disintegration of which is now, unfortunately, increasing more and more. A. Papkov: Old Russian parish. – Sergiev Posad, 1897. Church and social issues in the era of the Tsar Liberator. 1902 The need to renew the Orthodox church-social system, 1902 Prof. N. S. Suvorov: Monasteries and churches as legal entities. House of Bishops and diocese as legal entities. A G. Boldovsky: Revival of the church parish (review of press opinions). – St. Petersburg, 1905. Journals and protocols Pred. Presence. T. III, p. 386. And according to the statement of the author of this definition, it was addressed in the pastoral meetings of the St. Petersburg clergy from 1898 and in 1904 under the chairmanship of Rev. Kirill, adopted and published in the News of the St. Petersburg Diocese No. 19 for 1904. This definition was adopted in pastoral assemblies, the composition of which sometimes reached 150 or more persons. Zhur. and Prot. Prev. Present T. III, p. 299. Journal and Prot. Prev. Present Vol. III, pp. 297 – 299. Journals and Protocols. T. III, p. 335. Journals and Proceedings Vol. III, pp. 300–380. Charter of Spiritual Consistories §§ 104–141. These are institutions common to all dioceses and dependent on the consistories as the central place of government in the diocese. Other institutions that are outside this dependence, or that arose after the publication of the Constitution. Theological Consistories, such as theological educational institutions, parochial schools, women's communities, candle factories, emerital treasuries of the clergy, are not mentioned in it. T. X (1900) Art. 413: “The property belonging to various institutions is: property of churches, monasteries and bishops’ houses: lands, lands and mills assigned to churches, monasteries and bishops’ houses and property belonging to charitable institutions, educational and scientific institutions.” T. IX (1876) art. 383 – 397: About the estates of the Orthodox clergy, about the rights and advantages of monasteries and bishops' houses. Art. 398 – 411 about the advantages of churches. Therefore, church wardens for non-parish city churches are elected in city dumas, and for this purpose, before the onset of city elections, the dean sends to the duma a list of persons from among whom the clergy would like to have a church warden. Est. Spirit. Con. Art. 95. Journals and Protocols of the Presence Council, Vol. III, p. 311. Speech by prof. A. I. Almazova. Which one? – not defined in the Charter. “How many bishops,” Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson said in the Pre-Conciliar Presence, receive sentences of this kind: “We such and such, having been called by our village headman to a village gathering, talked among ourselves about our affairs and, among other things, about our priest, whom for this and that we ask to take from us, and for us to give such and such a person known to us, and we also talked about church affairs.” money, whether it is spent correctly, and whether it is intact.” Not long ago, at one village gathering, they casually discussed the issue of 150,000 rubles collected for the construction of a church, which, according to the statement of the zemstvo chief to the village gathering, was wasted by the priest and the headman, but in fact was lying on a book in the treasury. Such sentences appear in the volost, are entered in books, in lists of sentences, are submitted to the discretion of zemstvo commanders, and then, on the basis of these illegal documents, illegal petitions are submitted to the bishop by the authorized representatives. And only the circular of the Minister of Internal Affairs dated March 21, 1887 No. 7, decisively declaring that rural societies do not have the slightest right to interfere in parish affairs, that secular sentences in such matters, even if approved by the highest rural authorities, are insignificant, made it possible to repel the unauthorized worldly attack on the church (Journal and Protok. III, p. 439). Journals and Proceedings, Vol. III, p. 335 Words High. Demetrius Archbishop of Kherson. But here’s the problem: will the priest allow it? After all, he is the owner of the church! N. S. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew the Orthodox Russian parish? Page 6 – 7. St. Petersburg, 1907. A. Papkov: Church and social issues, p. 55. Prof. I. S. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew the Orthodox Russian parish. pp. 56 – 57. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew an Orthodox parish, p. 76; We leave aside the history of the organization of Orthodox parishes in Finland on the grounds that this subject has been sufficiently exhausted both in the journals of the Pre-Conciliar Presence and in our literature (See the above-mentioned works by Messrs. Berdnikov and Papkov). How important this distinction is from the point of view of current church law can be seen from the following explanation given in the Pre-Conciliar Presence by His Grace Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson: “The trustees began to unequivocally encroach on the intrusion into the property affairs of the church. Although such an attempt by trustees to manage church funds was decisively condemned by the Holy Synod (decree of October 12, 1868), such an exaggeration of the rights of trustees was so ingrained in the minds of many that the very name of trustees was imperceptibly changed: parish trustees at churches were turned into parish trustees, and the chairman of the trustees from a parish trustee was turned into a trustee of the church. It is clear what rights the chairmen of trustees could arrogate to themselves using this fiction: a trustee of the church. Unfortunately, it is not only in common parlance that parish trustees have turned into parish trustees. This name has come into official use and I have difficulty fighting it in my local official spheres. Even in the official documents of the Holy Synod, church-parish guardianship is used. This is the case even in the definition of the Holy Synod of November 18, 1905 on the issue of organizing a parish. It is undoubtedly necessary to revise the extremely insufficient provision on guardianship, about which a question has been raised in the Holy Synod for a long time (15 years). It is necessary to place parish trustees, as legal units that are not identical with parish churches, in a subject relationship to the diocesan authority, to establish their rights as representations of the parish - a legal unit, to indicate the boundaries of their relations with the parish church, also a legal unit, so that confusion in the life of the church does not result from confusion of rights. Then church and parish life will be excited and flourish. The parish, represented by the trusteeship, will direct its activities to the implementation of charitable and educational tasks, which are indicated to it and the current regulations on trustees; but he will do this not at the expense of the church box, not at the expense of those pennies that come into the church circle from pious donors, but with funds collected by the guardianship itself. Guardianship will have the meaning of an auxiliary institution of the church, etc. Journals and Proceedings III, 336–338. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew the parish, pp. 60 – 68. What is noteworthy here is that M. Filaret avoids the word chairman and instead uses the term: “first member”, “first” (but does not preside) This is very good. an important correction to the style of “church councils.” In the canonical structure of the church, each priest is equal to the other, and when they act together in types of order, only the primacy of one among the others is allowed, but not chairmanship. The chairman of the college of presbyters can only be their bishop. The same is true between bishops, there may be a “first” bishop between them, but not their chairman. It is not clear why M. Filaret kept silent about the deacon and other clergy: after all, they are an element of the church, and by joining them the latter would balance the worldly element. Remarks by M. Filaret. Eminence Kharkovsky made the same comments as them on these points. Berdnikov, cit. cit., p. 64. That is, priest and deacon; psalm-readers (clergymen) traces. do not have the right to be members of the Trusteeship. Decree of the Holy Synod November 18, 1905 C. Ved. 1905 No. 48. Journals and Proceedings, vol. II, p. 3. Formula IV of the Division, proposed by Bishop Stephen. Journals and Proceedings, vol. III, p. 386. Formula of Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson. Formula Prof. I.S. Berdnikova. J. and Ave. vol. III, p. 383. The question of these formulas was resolved by Ven. hastily, according to the recognition of the Pre-Conciliar Presence itself (see vol. III. p. 379. Speech by N. D. Kuznetsov). “According to the Protestant church system, the legal personality in the parish is formed by the parish corporation, the representative of which is the collegium of members of the parish community, that is, deputies elected by the whole community from clergy and lay persons.” Vering: Lehrbuch der katholischen, orienthalisehen und protestantischen Kirchenrehts. § 176, S. 669, Freiburg. Aufl. 2. 1881. I. S. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew the Orthodox Russian parish? SPb. 1907. “According to the Roman Catholic system, parishioners have only a passive meaning, since they form a circle of persons subject to the pastoral management of the parish priest. A Catholic parish society cannot be regarded as a corporation, the members of which, directly or through their representatives, have a decisive vote in their affairs. The bearers of the legal personality of Catholic parishes, therefore, are not parish children, but parish property, or better - the pious purpose of this property (pium corpus) and the management of it, including the school fund and the fund for the poor, belongs to the parish priest, as the body of the bishop under the supervision of the latter” Vering l. With. § 152, S. 599. From the service to commemorate the renovation of the Church of St. Christ our God of the Resurrection. Menaion, month September 1868. Troparion of the 1st canto. In the same place, sedal for 2 kathismas. See rights. 13th Neokesar. cathedral: rural elders in the city church (ῷῷ) cannot officiate. Apostle Regulations VIII, ch. 10, p. 263. Translation of the ancient Helmsman, published by Prof. V. N Beneshevich. In the previous (5) rule, the expression ὄιχος τοῦ θεοῦ (house of God) was used to designate the place of meeting: “if anyone teaches without restraint to despise the house of God and the meetings that are held in it, let him be under a curse.” The rule of Theophilus, Arch., mentions a parish governed by a college of elders. Alexandria. (See law. 12; cf. Carthage. own rights. 64). See Nomocanon of Photius, tit. II. Sod. Just. Lib. 1, tit. II, 25. Nomocanon of Photius. Transl. Narbekova, vol. II, ch. 1, pp. 147 – 150. According to Stoglav ed. Subbotina, ch. 63. Message Vladimir. bishop to local prince R.I.B. vol. VI, column. 117. Letter from Metropolitan Cyprian to Archbishop John of Novgorod. R.I.B. vol. VI, art. 229. Suvorov: Bishop's house and diocese as legal entities, p. 47. Papkov: Old Russian parish, p. 14. V. Strazhev: Record keeping of the local order for the Vologda district. 1907. Pp. 446. Decree 28 Feb. 1721 Peter the Great commanded: “to institute from the Holy Rule. The Spiritual Synod made a nationwide announcement that at each church there should be one steward for the sale of candles, since there are many at churches who sell tyas (that is, candles placed in front of icons) with the receipt not of the church, but of a profit for themselves, which should be shared with no one else but the church property. And since the church estates of the poor are estates, for this reason, from the money received from the church by a certain person, he will build almshouses everywhere near the churches, to stay for the sake of the mendicant sick, whom he will feed there, according to the proportion of each church’s income, and therefore establish church elders. See the formula for determining the parish adopted by the majority of the Pre-Conciliar Presence. Zhur. and Prot. III, p. 347. Journals and Prot. Pres. Presence, vol. III, p. 344 (words by the High Venerable Demetrius of Kherson). Resolutions of Apost. III, ch. 4. Message from the Bishop of Vladimir to the local prince. Russian History. Library, vol. VI, p. 117. Prof. I. Berdnikov: What is needed to renew the Orthodox Russian parish, pp. 33 – 35, St. Petersburg. 1907. So Mr. A. A. Papkov in his study “The need to update the Orthodox church. social order", St. Petersburg. 1902 p. 9, says: “We make no reference to the Apostle. Resolutions, namely on rule II, 34, 35 in view of 2 rights. VI Universe The Council decisively postponed these decrees and we are positively perplexed when we meet in “scientific” studies on canon law (by Mr. Sokolov and A. Mikhail) a comparison of “rules” and “decrees.” Journal and Protocols, vol. III, p. 327. See also vol. II, pp. 7 – 8 Note by Archpriest A. Lebedev. G. A. A. Papkov relied precisely on this passage of Holy Scripture, defending the idea of ​​the parish as a community. J. and Ave. vol. III, p. 305; Such a clerical bureaucracy actually existed for quite some time in medieval Byzantium. See Zhishman: Die Synoden und Episcopol ämter.Wien, 1867. For those distant times, such a bureaucracy may have been tolerable due to the underdevelopment of financial and generally political-economic relations. But for the present time she would be naive and perhaps comical. Balsamon in the interpretation of the 1st rule of the Double Council. Tarkhan letters, otherwise not judged or preferential, are a special type of grant of letters given in ancient and Muscovite Rus' to privileged landowners, spiritual and secular. The word tarkhanny is of Tatar origin and appeared in the Tatar era, initially applied to the khan's preferential labels issued to the church and church people. Pomegranate: Encyclopedic Dictionary. Prof. M. M. Bogoslovsky: Church parish in the Russian north in the 17th century. Theological Bulletin. 1910. May, p. 165. Papkov: Old Russian parish, pp. 8 – 9. the text is illegible - note from the electronic editor Stoglav, ch. 41, p. 179. According to ed. Subbotina. Sedrezhati. Options: contain, contain, hold; i.e.: protect, keep from frustration and fall. Stoglav, ch. 25, p. 123. Ibid., ch. 26, pp. 124–126. See an example of such teaching in R.I.B. vol. VI. h. Page 101 – 110. Russian I.B. vol. VI, 7, pp. 111 – 115. See Berdnikov: What is needed to renew an Orthodox parish, pp. 56 – 71. Message of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 to Pope Pius IX. Pavlov: Course ts. rights, p. 231. In the original, the idea of ​​the witness of the people is more strongly expressed: ει χαὶ ὁ λαὀς δύναται αὐτῳ μαρτυρειν i.e. can the people testify of him as worthy of ordination. In other words, without the testimony of the people, ordination cannot be performed. “He called the faithful saints, borrowing this from the Divine Paul, for he also calls the faithful that way in his epistles.” (Balsamon). "T. e. deception and theft of ordination" (Balsamon) "a certain presiding power" - translates the ancient Helmsman, ed. Prof. Beneshevich. See also the rules of St. Vas. Vel. 4, 22, 57, 58, 59, etc. For an excellent explanation of this nature of consecration, see op. N.P. Aksakova: The tradition of the church and the tradition of the school. Sergiev Posad, 1910, pp. 129 et seq. But the question is another matter: what kind of people are present at our consecrations? Is this a local parish flock (if a presbyter is consecrated), or representatives of parishes (if a bishop is consecrated)? “The trouble is that these people are random pilgrims who are completely unfamiliar with the person being consecrated and have nothing to do with him. The same people for whom the person being ordained is intended are almost never present at our ordination: is such a fulfillment of the canonical charter of ordination advisable? Namokanon Photius, III, ch. 14. Eg. confessional lists, introduced to record those who did not attend confession and communion, from which a fine was once collected.