On the means of strengthening the power of our highest church government

“United by the bonds of the same faith, the same morality, we constitute, so to speak, one body. The elders preside, achieving such honor not by purchase, but by testing their dignity: the work of God is not sold at the price of gold.” The named treatise by L.A. Tikhomirov, who appeared first in a series of articles Nos. 343–345 of the Moscow Gazette, and then as a separate brochure, proposes the following, thoroughly motivated project for the reorganization of our highest church administration in the form of strengthening its authority: “1) It is necessary to renew from time to time the convening of local councils, valid, special from the Holy Synod, to which the power of Local Councils is not even attributed by law and which it cannot replace, as was desired only by Feofan Prokopovich, but not by the Church and not by the Supreme Power of the State. 2) In the Holy Synod itself, for the proper strength and systematicity of its actions, it is necessary to separate the functions that were erroneously merged together due to the fault of the untenable and everywhere discarded idea of ​​collegiality, namely: a) The leading member of the Synod, i.e. The metropolitan of the residence of the Sovereign Emperor receives under his sole jurisdiction all the rights that belong to the Synod for administrative functions, i.e., patriarchal rights, the rights of the chief bishop of the Russian Church. b) The rest of the Holy Synod retains all its advisory functions, and for the proper execution of their functions, its composition is strengthened by the addition of experienced and learned archimandrite fathers and archpriests to the bishops who are called to the presence. c) In this case, the Chief Prosecutor's Office naturally returns to its normal functions - state supervision over the legal course of affairs of church administration. e) Finally, all relations of the Holy Synod with the Supreme Authority are carried out by the high priest metropolitan or patriarch, if the high priest would receive such a title, so as not to detract from the external prestige of Russia in relation to the eastern patriarchates and especially in relation to Rome. But, of course, it’s not about the name. In this way, in total, all the organs necessary for the living existence of church government would be brought into actual condition, organs that are not destroyed in our country today, but are, as it were, buried in the incorrect mixing of all of them into one institution, through such confusion deprived of the opportunity to satisfactorily perform at least one of the functions assigned to it.” Recognizing in general the fairly well-founded expediency and timeliness of the measures expressed here by the venerable L. A. Tikhomirov, we, for our part, consider it unnecessary to reveal some of them more fully, modify others, standing steadily only on the basis of the principles of Orthodox Church law. First of all, let us make a few comments about the general reason given by the author for the weakness of our church government. The author points it out - in the insufficient awareness of the Holy Synod regarding church life, and in the insufficient means of influencing it, therefore, he only wants to strengthen its power, by exalting the sole authority of the first present and belittling the importance of the Chief Prosecutor's Office. True, he also recommends another measure - the restoration of time-based local councils “whose voices we have not heard for 200 years,” but he himself does not seem to attach particularly important importance to this measure. As for “insufficient awareness” and “insufficient means of influence” as the reasons for the weakness of our church government: we completely agree with this. But how to correct these shortcomings? Why do these two shortcomings occur? - Because, Mr. Tikhomirov answers, the power of the Holy Synod is weakly established, it is necessary to strengthen it by elevating its first-present member to the dignity of a patriarch. In our opinion, this is not enough and is not the means of truly strengthening church power. Formally, the power of the Holy Synod and the power of the diocesan authorities are very strong in our country, but they are not sufficiently strong in their moral influence on life. Now, if any means had been found to strengthen this moral influence of our church authority, then there would probably not even be a need for any formal, external transformations. An attempt to indicate such means is the task of our present work. In order to find these means, we must understand the main ailment, the main reason for the insufficiency of our church government. Did Mr. L. Tikhomirov indicate it? No; she hid from him. In our opinion, the main reason is the exclusively clerical, closed management of our entire church administration. Our hierarchy rules the Orthodox people through offices, through papers, without coming into direct living contact with them: as a result, all the measures of the hierarchy - legislative, administrative, judicial - do not not only have moral authority in the eyes of the people, do not act on their heart or conscience, but also do not achieve the necessary general knowledge and popularity. This should be said both about the diocesan administration, and especially about the central one. Every day the Russian people hear a prayer for the Holy Governing Synod: but what is this Holy Synod? Where is he? Who does it consist of? – For our people, it remains largely unknown. Mostly St. The Synod appears vaguely, like an authority existing somewhere, whom no one has seen, with whom no one has directly had any dealings. And those few who had the opportunity to conduct any business in the Holy Synod did not see him, but dealt directly with various officials of the Holy Synod - secular people, as in secular government places. This secular element stands as a strong barrier between the church rulers and the governed, just as the consistory stands as a wall between the diocesan ruler and his flock. It can be said without exaggeration that our archpastors, both individually and collectively - gathered in the Holy Synod - see before them not living people whom they influence with their resolutions, but only papers written by them, or “deeds” - in the clerical sense of the word. This paper mediastinum brings double harm in the affairs of church administration: the hierarchy often receives a completely misleading view of reality, it is not only insufficiently, but sometimes downright incorrectly informed about the actual state of affairs, about the actual qualities of the persons involved in the case, and issues orders that do not directly correspond to the goal and dissatisfy the interested parties. The result is mutual discontent between the rulers and the governed. The second reason for the weakness of our church government is the complete disunity of those moral and intellectual forces that are at the disposal of the church. Thank God, we have a lot of these forces; but they all act separately, often in sad antagonism among themselves. Gather them together and our church will emerge as a great moral force. What are these forces? Here they are: 1) the power of social and moral authority, or our hierarchs; 2) the power of subjective burning faith - ascetics, enthusiasts in the faith, who do not have official church authority, but can be found in almost every class, in every profession; 3) the power of theological knowledge 4) the power of the intelligentsia - writers and artists seeking religious truth, striving to embody it in their creativity, although sometimes they are not knowledgeable enough in it, hesitant, unstable. It is impossible to deny the presence of these forces in our church. They exist, they act, and their bearers sometimes display heroism, full of enthusiasm and selflessness; but their activity is private, solitary, they all hide, act separately and leave their life arena, known only to God, and perhaps not to a large circle of people who directly know them. Here are two phenomena in the modern structure of our church life, which are revealed to us both through the study of the current system of church government and through direct observation of the actual manifestations of church life. These phenomena are the main, root causes of the insufficiency of our church government. But if so, then what means can be indicated, if not to completely eliminate their harmful effect, then at least to significantly weaken it? We do not have to use any effort to invent these means: they are given and have been tried for a long time by both science and the practice of the church, and the most important and powerful of them was even directly suggested to us by the most venerable L.A. Tikhomirov. This means is the “resumption from time to time of convening local councils” of the Russian Church. But what is a local council? Raising this question and examining it in detail is far from unnecessary in view of the fact, firstly, that we are accustomed to limit ourselves to a school, catechetical answer to this question, and secondly, in view of the fact that we have not heard or seen a local council for 200 years, and therefore cannot form a historically correct idea of ​​it. The school, catechetical answer to this question says: “a local council is a meeting of the shepherds of the local church.” G.L. Tikhomirov obviously takes the same point of view when he says: “the council, as church power, should consist of all the bishops of a given church” (p. 38 note). If, however, we wish, for the sake of clarity of the idea of ​​the council, as a truly existing phenomenon that once existed and is now an active institution in some Orthodox churches, to call on church history for help, then we will be fully convinced that not only the local, but also each of the ecumenical councils, was in fact much more numerous and more diverse in the composition of its members than is apparently confirmed by our school catechetical definition. We will be convinced that the local council, as well as the ecumenical council, was not a college of hierarchs-bishops in isolation somewhere behind closed doors considering and deciding church issues, but a meeting of all the best forces of the church, i.e. in addition to bishops - clergy, laity, later - monks and representatives of government authorities. And our conviction will grow stronger as we gradually delve into history from the latest to the most ancient eras. In order to make it more natural and convenient, we will make our historical brief in reverse order. So let's start from the very beginning of the story. About the Apostolic Council, which served as a model for subsequent councils down to the details, the book of Acts preserved the following data: “When Netzi came in from Judea, he taught the brethren, that unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved. The former strife and strife was not a little for Paul and Barnabas to them, causing Paul and Barnabas and some others from them to cry out to the Apostle and the elder in Jerusalem about this question. ... When the Apostle and the Elder came to Jerusalem and were received from the church, they said, “God do great things to them, and as if he opened with his tongue the door of faith.” But those who believed in the Pharisees rose up from the heresy of the Pharisees, saying that it was fitting to circumcise them.... The apostles and elders gathered together to talk about this word. Having demanded much, Peter rose up and spoke to them... The whole multitude kept silent, and listened to Barnabas and Paul, who told that God had done signs and wonders among the nations. After their silence, Jacob answered, saying... Then it was the will of the Apostle and the elder with the whole church, having chosen a man from them to send to Antioch... Having written this with their hands: Apostles and elders and brethren who are in Antioch... It pleased the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burdens than these needy”, etc. (Acts 15). Weighing every word of this ancient historical monument about the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, one can hardly doubt that in addition to the Apostles, it included many elders (presbyters), or the entire church. Yes, a council is not a college of bishops, but an all-church assembly. This was the case in the first century of the Christian Church. There were undoubtedly cathedrals in the 2nd century, but almost no detailed historical descriptions of them have survived to this day 1 . However, the following brief note about some of these councils has been preserved, as if in passing, casually included by the historian Eusebius in his book: “(In Mysia) under Gratus, the proconsul of Asia, someone named Montanus, they say, from among the new believers, from an excessive desire for primacy, was influenced by the enemy and suddenly came into a state of being possessed and frenzied, began to speak and tell strange things, that is, prophesying contrary to the custom of ancient times, which has been faithfully preserved in the church. Of those who at that time happened to hear his false sayings, some indignantly reproached him and forbade him to speak as a man possessed by a demon... others, on the contrary, as if proud and not a little vain of the Holy Spirit and the gift of prophecy, forgot about the Lord's discernment (of spirits) and themselves called out that malicious, flattering and deceptive spirit. Those seduced and deceived by him no longer forced him to remain silent... However. there were few Phrygians who allowed themselves to be deceived, because this proud spirit taught to slander the entire Catholic Church... When, that is, on this occasion, believers began to gather often and in many places in Asia and, having examined the new teaching, declared it impious and rejected it as heretical: then those devoted to it were excommunicated from the Church and deprived of communion with it” 2. That here by “assemblies of believers” we mean in the proper sense church councils against the Montanists, namely those that were under the Bishop of Hierapolis Apollinaris, there is no doubt about this: for the one who wrote the legend in question was either this Apollinaris himself, or one of his contemporaries and associates at the councils against Montanus 3. It is noteworthy that in the oldest church nomocanon - the Apostolic Constitutions - the very word “council” (σύνοδος) (used to designate not a church-constituent meeting, but a prayerful, liturgical meeting 4. An echo of this use of the word “council” is noticeable in our church liturgical books, prologues, menaions and in the calendar, where it is not uncommon to find the expression: “on this day there is a council of St. NN.” What does this use of the term council mean? Yes, without a doubt, that in the minds of Christians of that time the council, as a constituent act, did not differ in composition from the council, as a liturgical meeting, and was, like the latter, an all-church meeting. Tertullian in his “apology” 5 refers to both prayer meetings and church courts and administrative ones. assemblies and legislative ones. “United by the bonds of the same faith, the same morality, we constitute, so to speak, one body. We gather to pray to God, we form a sacred union favorable to Him, we pray for the Emperors, for their ministers, for all powers, for peace, for the well-being of the whole world, for the removal of the final revolution of the universe. We gather to read the Holy Scriptures, from which, depending on the circumstances, we will draw the information and instructions we need. This holy word nourishes our faith and hope, supports our hope, strengthens decency among us more and more, rooting its rules in us.” “Here exhortations and corrections take place, sentences are pronounced in the name of God. Being confident that we are always in His presence, we carry out a kind of divine judgment, and woe to him, even at the last terrible judgment, who deserves to be excommunicated from common prayers, from our meetings and from all sacred communication with us. The elders preside (praesident), achieving such honor not by purchase, but by testing their dignity: the work of God is not sold at the price of gold” 6 . But the pan-church character of local councils, as constituent assemblies, is especially clear in the literary monuments of the 3rd century. Precious evidence in this regard is given to us by the letters of St. Cyprian, Archbishop of Carthage, and letters to himself from representatives of different churches. On two questions of church life that were very much on the minds, it was necessary for his bishopric to give a conciliar decision. The first question is how to deal with those who renounced Christ during persecution and then again turn to the church about being accepted into it? Is it possible, and under what conditions, to accept them into communion with the church? – Question two: how to accept into the church persons who have been baptized by heretics and who ask to join it: should they be baptized again, or should they only demand a solemn renunciation of heretical errors. Both of these issues were resolved by the council. What composition of members did these councils have? Regarding the first of these councils there is the following categorical statement by St. Cyprian: “It is necessary, having formed a general council with bishops, presbyters, deacons, confessors and laymen who are firm in the faith, to judge the cause of the fallen.” It would be a mistake to think that only St. Cyprian’s personal opinion regarding the composition of the cathedral is expressed here: no! The representatives of the Roman Church, with whom St. Cyprian communicated on this subject, also reasoned precisely then. About the second of these councils (more precisely, about the three councils that considered the second question), the surviving remains of the acts do not contain information about what persons it consisted of: only the main persons are listed - bishops. But this lack is by no means evidence that there were no other persons at the council: it was simply unthinkable in those days. If the large crowd forced the fathers of the council - the bishops - to limit the number of fellow members, then in any case this restriction did not apply to the clergy, but to the laity. The clergy has always been a necessary element in the composition of the cathedral: this provision was, so to speak, an axiom, a fundamental provision regarding the composition of the cathedral, even as an ecclesiastical judicial institution. The historian Eusebius cites a decree from the Emperor Constantine the Great to the Syracuse Bishop Christ, by which the latter is invited to come to the council in Arelat (or Arles) on the controversial case of the two Carthaginian bishops Caecilian and Major; in this decree the following lines are noteworthy: “Having commanded to gather in the city of Arelate to the city of Arelat, by the calends of Augustus, very many bishops from different and countless places, I considered it necessary to write to you too, demanding a public supply from the famous Latronian, governor of Sicilian, and then taking with me, at your own choice, two clergy of the second degree (i.e., two presbyters) and three servants who could serve you on the road, you arrived on a certain day at the above-mentioned place, where, with your strength and the unanimous consent of the other members of the council, the matter, which until now had been dragging on slowly, should be heard and where, finally, everyone should come ... to fraternal unanimity” 8. At the local council of Elvira in 309, which issued many very important definitions regarding church discipline, there were 19 bishops, 26 presbyters, deacons and a great multitude of people. Here are the opening lines of the acts of this council: “Concilium Eliberitanum Iduum Majarum (309) sanctorum episcoporum XIX. Cum considissent sancti et religiosi episcopi in ecclesia Eliberitana, hoc est: Felix episcopus Accitanus Osius episcopus Cordubensis... ...residentibus etiam viginti et sex presbyteris, adstantibus diaconibus et omni plebe, episcopi dixerunt 9 . discipline, there were 19 bishops, 26 presbyters, deacons and a great multitude of people. Here are the opening lines of the acts of this council: ...residentibus etiam viginti et sex presbyteris, adstantibus diaconibus et omni plebe, episcopi dixerunt1). The Roman local council of 435, chaired by Pope Hilary, consisted of 98 bishops and all presbyters and deacons (residentibus etian universis presbyteris, adstantibus quoque diaconibus) 10. The Roman local council under Pope Gelasius in 495 consisted of 55 bishops, 58 presbyters, two dignitaries with the ranks of illustris and spectabilis, and an indefinite number of deacons. (Residente in Synodo venerabili viropapa Gelasio una cum Bonifacio, Maximino ...et Petro episcopis,residentibus etiam Castino, Laurentio, Canusio... (58) presbyteris, una cum Amandiano viro illustri et Diogeniano viro spectabili, adstantibus quoque diaconibus Gelasius episcopus dixit") 11 . Roman local council 531 Dec. 7, under Pope Boniface it consisted of 4 bishops, 39 presbyters and 4 deacons. (Praesidente venerabili viro papa Bonifacio una cum Sabino, Abnndantio, Caroso, Felice episcopis, residentibus etiamSanctulo, Mercurio... (39) presbyteris; adstantibus quoque Tribuno...(4) diaconibus, Tribunus archidiaconus dixit") 12. The very numerous local Council of Constantinople in 536 under the natriarch Min (against Aneim and Severus) included among its other members the entire clergy of the capital (παρόντος δέτού εύλαβους κλήρου βασιλεύου σηςπο’λεως) 13 . The very numerous Council of Ravenna in 967 under Pope John, consisting of the bishops of Italy, Germany and Gaul, took place in the presence of countless numbers of clergy and people. (Habita est Synodus Ravennae in suburbio in ecclesia beati Confessoris episcopi Severi residentibus domno Joanni universali Pontifice, et pluribus Italiae, Germaniae ac Galliae praesulibus... adstante etiam innumerabili elero et populo) 14 . We believe that the extracts we have made from various volumes of Mansi are sufficient to establish the general position that the local council in the flourishing time of the Ecumenical Church - the time of its Ecumenical Councils - was an all-church meeting, no matter what topics were the subject of its discussions and definitions. It was a bright holiday of the local church, in which not a single full-fledged (i.e., not excommunicated) member of the church was deprived of participation: but, let us add, each in his own rank. Let us allow ourselves to make a few comments about the composition of the Ecumenical Councils. Canonical codes usually define the composition of each of the Ecumenical Councils in numbers, for example. The First Ecumenical Council is the “Cathedral of 818 St. Father", II – Cathedral of 150 St. father"; IVth – Cathedral of 630 St. father,” etc. On the contrary, historical sources, as well as the very actions of these councils, undoubtedly indicate that in reality at each of these councils, in addition to its “fathers,” there were so many other persons who took an active part in the council’s meetings and deliberations that each of the numbers in the code should be increased at least three times 15 in order to obtain a historically correct idea of ​​the numerical composition of each of the ecumenical councils. This should especially be said about the first Ecumenical Council. In addition to the 818 “fathers,” there were a lot of people present here who came to the council both to discuss and compete about the faith and in general to clarify their dogmatic opinions, and in church litigation among themselves. (Praeter 818 hos patres plures eo confluxerunt disputationis ergo, quique in fide et opinionibus, vel inter se dissidebant) 16 . Not to mention the clergy and the faithful (that is, full members - the laity), there were even pagan philosophers who entered into philosophical and theological debates with the fathers of the council. The Russian translation of the Acts of the First Ecumenical Council contains a rather extensive conversation between one of the philosophers and the fathers of the council, the result of which was his appeal to the Orthodox Church 17. According to strictly verified data from Prof. A.I. Lebedev presents in a vivid picture the consistent course of theological competitions between representatives of different theological schools of that time, who were present at the First Ecumenical Council as referents. And there is no reason to deny the historical accuracy of this image 18. At the IV Ecumenical Council, in addition to the 680 “fathers” of the council - bishops, there were the following persons: 1) “The most sacred and pious Sovereign Marcian, constant Augustus (in the presence of the most pious and Christ-loving Empress Augusta Pulcheria, out of pious zeal and zeal for faith), together with the most noble and most glorious dignitaries, namely: with the most glorious military leader, former consul and patrician Anatoly, and with the most glorious imperial prefect praetorian Palladius, and with the most noble prefect of the city of Constantinople, New Rome, Tatian and with other most noble dignitaries (?), and with the most famous court official Vincomal, and with the most noble men and masters Martial and Platskt, and with the most noble husband, the chief of the imperial guard, Sporacius, and with the most noble husband, the chief of the imperial estates Genephlius, and with the most noble husband, the chief of the guard of the imperial stables Aetius, And with the most noble husband, the chief of the most glorious tribunes and notaries Leontius, besides them and with the most noble Senate, namely: with the most glorious former prefect and former consul, patrician Florence, and with the most glorious former consul, patrician Senator, and with the most glorious former master and the former consul, patrician Nome, and with the most famous former prefect and former consul, patrician Protogen, and with the husband, the most noble former prefect, patrician Eugor, and with the husband, the most noble former chief chamberlain Roman, and with the husband, the most noble former prefect Zoilus, and with the husband, the most noble former prefect of the city, Theodore, and with the husband the most noble former prefect Apollonius, and with her husband the most noble former prefect of the city Anisius, and with her husband the most noble former prefect of Illyricum Theodore, and with her husband the most noble former chief chamberlain Artaxers, and with her husband the most noble former prefect Constantine, and with her husband the most noble former prefect Parmasius, and with her husband the most noble the former prefect of Illyricum Eulogius, and with the most noble men, former quaestors: Apollodorus, Theodore and Menna, and with the most noble husband and chief of the estates Severus, and with the most noble husband and chief of alms Basil, and with the most noble husband and chief of the estates Julian, and with the most noble husband, former prefect Tryphon, and with his husband, the most noble former quaestor Polychronius, and with his husband, the most noble former military commander, Constantine, and with his husband, the most noble former military commander, Severian, and with his husband, the most noble former military commander, Heraklian, and above them, with noble military leaders, tribunes, and notaries 19. Reading these lines of the Acts of the Council, we do not consider it an exaggeration to say that it was attended by representatives of the highest state aristocracy - all government departments, in a small form - the entire Byzantine State... 2) How many clergy and monks gathered from different countries to attend the council, this can be judged from the decree of Empress Pulcheria to the military leader of Bithynia, which authorized “with full power and in every possible way to expel from the city (Nicaea, where the IV Ecumenical Council was originally intended) and from these very regions, as clergy living there without our invitation or without my permission bishops, and monks and laymen, whom no reason calls to the council” 20. At the VII Ecumenical Council, in addition to the “fathers” and representatives of government, among the sitting members we meet many “most reverent archimandrites, abbots and monks,” [συμπαρόντων... καὶ εὐλαβεστάτων ἀρχιμανδρίτων, ἡγουμένων τε καὶ μοναχών] 21 . The information given so far from the history of local and ecumenical councils is thought to be sufficient to prove the position we expressed earlier, that a local council of a truly canonical type is a concentration of the best forces of the church of a given place and time, represented by the hierarchy, clergy, monks, and laity, that ecumenical councils were not only such a concentration, but also a combination of all state elements. We can say about them that they were moments when the entire Byzantine state was contained in the church 22. In subsequent history, local councils of this canonical type, like all-church meetings, are less and less common. Instead of them, a new form of councils comes to life - namely, patriarchal councils, which can be characterized as a hierarchically clerical collegium, which included: the patriarch himself, his bishops who happened to live in the city, or those summoned by him at his discretion, and the clergy of his department, which primarily constituted the office of the cathedral, or synod. Nevertheless, however, even such an isolated hierarchical clerical college did not close its doors to all members of the church and to all classes of the state, since they needed direct relations with it on any issues of church life. Such direct relations of the patriarchal synod with the flock are attested even in the 14th century, by the instructions of Patriarch Matthias the 1st, where we read that “the patriarchy is a spiritual physician and let no one who enters it with a sick conscience come out unhealed, but let each ailment receive appropriate healing, whether he is infirm regarding divine dogmas, or due to any other ailment of his.” 23. And not only Byzantine, but also Russian history knows quite a few facts of people turning here for a solution to a wide variety of “perplexed” questions, not only by members of the hierarchy, but also by monks and ordinary laymen 24 . Turning to the modern structure of local Orthodox churches that exist outside our fatherland, we everywhere encounter the local council as the highest body of church government, but in different forms. 1) The Council, as a continuously operating church institution, consisting only of persons of the episcopal level. Such councils exist in the great Church of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Greece 25 . 2) The Council as an institution periodically composed of persons of only the episcopal level. Such councils exist in the following local churches: a) In the Karlowitz Metropolis: Spiritual affairs, namely those relating to faith, worship and church discipline, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Synod of Bishops, which includes: the Karlowitz Metropolitan, as chairman, and six diocesan bishops. There is also an imperial prosecutor attached to the synod, who participates in all its meetings, except those at which religious and strictly spiritual matters are considered and when the synod elects bishops. The Synod is convened by the Karlowitz Metropolitan in writing, upon receipt of the emperor's consent, and must meet regularly once a year 26. b) In the Sivinsky Metropolitanate (in Hungary and Erdel). The metropolitan is obliged to convene a synod once a year, and diocesan bishops must certainly appear at meetings of the synod. The synod is in charge of: a) testing, according to church law, persons elected by the diocesan assembly as bishops; b) analysis of all issues relating to faith, sacraments and rituals; c) monitoring the piety and morality of the clergy and people; d) care that theological and pedagogical institutions correspond to their purpose; e) indicating the qualities that candidates for the priesthood and magisterium must have; and f) preserving the freedom of the church and defending it against anyone’s attempt to violate the peace and sanctity of the church” 27. c) In the Bulgarian Church, the council, presided over by the exarch, consists of four diocesan bishops, elected by all diocesan bishops. Their service as members of the cathedral lasts four years, after which time they are replaced by four new members. The Council meets regularly once a year, starting on the second Sunday after Easter, and extraordinary meetings are held as needed. Subject to the conduct of the cathedral; a) election of a diocesan bishop from two candidates proposed by the diocesan assembly; b) all matters relating to faith, Christian morality and church rituals; c) church discipline; d) education of the clergy; e) spiritual censorship and f) final judgment in spiritual and marriage matters and in disputes between clergy 28. d) In the Church of the Kingdom of Serbia, the highest ecclesiastical authority is the Council of Bishops. According to the law 81 Dec. In 1882, the council of bishops consisted of: the metropolitan as chairman, all diocesan bishops, two archimandrites and one protopresbyter from each diocese. According to the law on church authorities, April 27. 1890, currently in force, this council is composed of: the Metropolitan, as chairman, and all diocesan bishops. The Council is convened regularly once a year in spring or autumn, and, if necessary, at other times. The scope of actions of the council includes all matters relating to faith, Christian morality, church rites, Christian teaching, church discipline and diocesan organization, parishes and monasteries, followed by the election and decree of diocesan bishops, as well as the decree of archimandrites, protosingels, abbots and protopresbyters” 29. “The highest authority in the Church of the Romanian Kingdom is the Holy Synod, consisting of two metropolitans (Bucarest and Iasi) and all diocesan bishops and those not governing dioceses. The Synod must have at least 12 members. Its chairman is the Ugrovalash Metropolitan Primate, and in his absence the Metropolitan of Moldova, and in the absence of the latter, the oldest bishop in service. The minister of church affairs is also present at the meetings of the synod, but only with an advisory voice: if this minister is not of the Orthodox faith, then he is replaced by another minister, an Orthodox one. The Synod is in charge of purely church affairs: about the faith, disciplinary and judicial, and also elects bishops who do not administer dioceses (χωρεπίσκοπоι). The synod meets twice a year, in autumn and spring. His decisions on spiritual-judicial issues have full force in themselves, and the rest are subject to the approval of the king 30. E) In the Bukovino-Dalmatian Metropolis, the highest body in matters of church administration and spiritual justice is the “Metropolitan Synod,” which is composed of the Metropolitan as chairman, and diocesan bishops. If the metropolitan or any of the diocesan bishops is absent, they can be replaced in the synod, with certain written authority, by the highest church officials from the dioceses, and in the first case, the highest presiding position in the synod is occupied by the bishop who is the oldest in service. Both the metropolitan and diocesan bishops each have the right to invite one church official to synodal meetings, but only with an advisory voice. The Synod meets once a year, but if there is no urgent business, it may not meet annually. According to the geographical position of this metropolis, the meetings of this synod always take place in the Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity in Vienna, although by agreement of the metropolitan with the diocesan bishops they can meet in another place. The synod is in charge of matters relating to faith, Christian morality, church rites and discipline, religious educational institutions and the spiritual court. The resolutions of the synod are submitted for the approval of the sovereign, except for those that relate to faith, Christian morality and spiritual court and which are binding in themselves 31 . In the Archdiocese of Cyprus, the church is governed by a synod, chaired by the archbishop, of three diocesan bishops. The Synod meets annually after Easter, and its administration is determined by general canonical regulations” 32. The composition of all these councils is limited to persons of the episcopal level. But in some of these churches, along with the synods of bishops, there are councils of mixed composition - from members of the hierarchy, clergy and laity with the same voting rights. These councils are both continuously operating institutions and periodically constituted institutions. So in the Church of Constantinople, along with the Synod, the so-called. Mixed Council (Μικτὸν Συμβούλιον), consisting of 12 members: 4 bishops and 8 honorary lay members, chaired by the oldest member - the bishop, and during the presence of the patriarch on the council, under his chairmanship. The service of the Council members lasts two years and each year half of them are removed and replaced by new ones. The secular members of the council, who are all Constantinople, do not receive any remuneration for their service. Council meetings usually take place twice a week. For a meeting to take place, at least two thirds of the members must be present. Each official document must bear the seal of the Council, consisting of three parts, one of which is kept by the bishop members, two by the lay members, and the key is kept by the chairman. This Council manages all affairs, excluding purely spiritual matters 33. In the Bulgarian Church, along with the “Holy Synod,” there is an institution similar to the one in Constantinople - the so-called Ekhzarchian Council. It is composed of the Exarch, as chairman, and six reputable laymen, who are elected by the clergy and people of all dioceses of the exarchate and approved by the government at the proposal of the Exarch. The service of Council members lasts four years, after which new members are elected. The scope of activities of the Exarchical Council is as follows: a) schools, b) construction of churches and orphanages, c) management of church property, d) control of the annual accounts of all churches and monasteries, and e) consideration of the civil side in marriage disputes 34. The Karlovac and Sibińska churches represent highly interesting features regarding mixed cathedrals. In the K Arlovac Church, the management of church-governmental affairs concerning schools and church-school facilities belongs to the “People's Church Council”, which consists of all diocesan bishops and 75 representatives, chaired by the Metropolitan of Karlovac, and 75 representatives, one third of whom are clergy, and two thirds are laity. The cathedral elects its chairman from representatives - laymen. The Imperial Prosecutor does not participate in the consideration or decision of conciliar cases. The Council meets regularly every three years, and it is convened, after receiving permission from the Sovereign, by the Karlovac Metropolitan, or, if the metropolitan chair is free, by the metropolitan church council. The management of current affairs subject to the national church council is entrusted to the Council Council (or Committee), consisting of 9 members: the metropolitan as chairman, one bishop, two clergy members and five lay members. The council selects these members from among itself, as well as their deputies. When the Metropolitan is absent for some reason, the Council is presided over by the bishop or his deputy, and the Council itself elects the chairman from among the secular members. The powers of the Council Council continue throughout the meetings of the Council, and in any case until it is replaced by a new council elected by the Council. For the Council's resolutions to be valid, it is necessary, in addition to the chairman, to have at least 4 members present. The Council Council meets regularly four times a year in the metropolis, and emergency meetings are convened by the chairman or his deputy as necessary. The journal of the meetings of the Council Council is submitted in a copy to the Chairman of the Hungarian Ministry. The Chairman and members of the Council are responsible for their actions to the Council. 35 In the Sibin Metropolis, the “People's Church Council” consists of the metropolitan and diocesan bishops, then 90 people's representatives: 30 spiritual and 60 secular. The Chairman of the Council is the Metropolitan, and in his absence, the oldest bishop. People's representatives are elected for 3 years. The council is convened by the metropolitan, or, if the metropolitan see is vacant, by the metropolitan consistory, after a preliminary statement to the sovereign. The Council meets every three years. The council is responsible for: a) care for the protection of freedom of religion and autonomy of the Orthodox Romanian Church; b) management of all matters relating to the church, schools and church-school funds and c) election of the metropolitan and chairman of the metropolitan consistory. This latter consists of the metropolitan, as chairman, diocesan bishops and the required number of honorary members, spiritual and secular, whom the council selects from among its members. The consistory is divided into three sections: strictly church, school and episcopal. In all branches the chairman is the metropolitan. The church department consists of six members exclusively of the clergy, each of the other two departments also consists of 6 members, but in such a way that a third of them are clergy, and two thirds are laity. In all three departments there is one secretary, followed by one clerk and one marriage attorney. The church department, the appellate authority, decides all complex cases; the school department has supreme control and supervision over all religious educational institutions, and the epitropic department manages the funds belonging to the metropolis. In the metropolitan consistory there are also general meetings with the participation of members of all three branches; they elect a secretary and a clerk, and also take measures necessary for convening a people's church council and electing deputies to the council. 36 Here we will finish our inquiries in order to resolve the questions: what is a local cathedral in its historical past and in the present concrete reality? What kind of local council is desirable in Russia in order to raise the authority of our church authorities? From the information we have presented, it is clear that in the most flourishing eras of church life, the most effective and influential were local councils with a diverse composition of members, the least effective were councils in the form of closed, clerical colleges, or exclusively “bishops’ councils.” Currently in local churches, outside the domestic ones; they are assigned a very close circle of “purely spiritual matters.” But here the question arises; How can we reconcile the information we have given and the conclusion we have now drawn from them with our catechetical concept of the council, as precisely a meeting of only the hierarchs of the local church? Is this concept really wrong? Isn’t that how we’ve been taught before? Quite the contrary: this “concept is not only completely correct, but will also help us understand the information we have given, which presents some discord regarding the composition of Local Councils. It explains the fact, observed everywhere in the acts of ancient canonical councils, that the number of bishops is almost always indicated by an exact figure and that the definitions of councils are signed only by the bishops present at the council. The other members of the council are spoken of generally; the number of presbyters and deacons is sometimes precisely indicated, but as for the laity, their exact number is nowhere to be found; sometimes it is said that even “the whole people” was present - that; of course, should not be taken literally. What does this fact indicate? Without a doubt, in our opinion, there is a difference in the meaning of the voices of the various members who make up the council: the bishops presiding at the council have not only advisory, but also decisive and determining voices (votadecisiva), while all other persons: the sitting presbyters, the present deacons and the whole people - monks and laity - have only advisory voices (vota consultativa). That is why it is said in the acts of the councils and in all church acts about dogmatic definitions of faith, about the rules of church discipline, and judgments, that they were decreed by a council of 818 holy fathers, or a council of 630 saints. father, although in reality even the Byzantine emperors with their ministers and their Senate were present at these councils and very actively participated in the development of these definitions. Bearing in mind this canonical principle of the structure of the Local Council, we must now express complete condemnation of those “mixed councils” and “national church councils” that are currently operating in some Orthodox churches along with “bishops’ councils.” The equality of voices between the hierarchy and the laity in these national church councils is a gross violation of the canonical principle we point out. Such an anti-canonical device can be explained by various historical phenomena, for example. abuses of the hierarchy, hostility between clerics and laity, servility to the democratic or parliamentary form of government, but it cannot be approved in the Church of Christ and the Apostolic, which wants to remain faithful to the designated canonical principle. And this canonical principle has for itself not only a historical basis and an age-old primordial tradition or patristic and church tradition, but also a dogmatic basis. The Church was created, built and protected by the Apostles and their continuous successors - the bishops; they are responsible for it. Therefore, “there is no church without a bishop and without bishops” and: “he who is not with the bishop is not in the church.” This is such an elementary catechetical position, which can only be denied together with the denial of the entire essence of the Christian Church. But from a canonical point of view, one cannot approve of “bishops’ councils” as closed collegiums, even if the subject of their meetings were “purely spiritual matters.” The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem considered a purely spiritual matter - should pagan Christians be circumcised according to the Law of Moses or not? The 1st Ecumenical Council (like the others) also considered a purely spiritual matter - the dogma of the Holy Trinity - and yet both considered these matters with the elders and the entire Church. The “Council of Bishops,” as a college acting in isolation from other members of the Church, appeared at a much later time: its appearance can be explained by purely historical reasons, for example. the lack of interest among the people in purely spiritual or church affairs in general, their ignorance, unbridledness, lack of discipline, or imitation on the part of the hierarchy of the forms of government favored by the state at a given time: but canonically, such a form of the council cannot be recognized as ideal. The spirit of closed colleges, “secrets” or “consistories” was completely alien to the church of the Apostolic Age, as well as the following centuries; it penetrated into church government by imitating the forms of government of their halves of the Greco-Roman Empire, although it could have been caused by fairly solid motives. The service of the church hierarchy must be public, public in all its functions. And at the present time it would seem strange and sad if a bishop only with his clergy, or a council of bishops with their clergy, began to celebrate the liturgy, closing the doors of the church to worldly people. But it might have seemed just as strange and sad a phenomenon to the laity of the best times of the church if councils of hierarchs, behind closed doors, began to decide questions of faith that interested them, to prescribe rules of life for them, to pronounce judgments on their beliefs, on their actions, without listening to them directly 37 . The Church is a religious and moral society of believers in Christ, and its strength and strength necessarily depend on living, direct communication between members; disunity certainly weakens it: an organism, or a body, would live very poorly if the individual members that make it up were separated by barriers to the general nourishment of vital juices. Is it not because in our Church, precisely with the cessation of the functioning of local councils and the disintegration of community-parish life, that we notice the frequent falling away of the extreme members of church society - the laity into the schism, the shtunda, into the intelligentsia that does not believe in the church, all of whom, not finding direct communication in matters of faith and affairs of the church, form their own living alliances with agitation hostile to the church - is it not precisely because the ruling Are our members too separated in their leadership activities from the governed? So in theory. But is the convening of a Local Council of the Russian Church feasible in reality? In resolving this issue, we can be directly frightened, so to speak, by the very plurality of the composition of the members of our church society: we have to count the laity in millions, clergy and monks in tens and hundreds of thousands. Is it conceivable to convene more or less sufficient representation of them at one local council? Taking into account, however, the type of canonical local council that we have identified, we find this difficulty not insurmountable. After all, sufficient representation of such an immense multitude of persons would be difficult if the voices of clergy and laity at the council had equal importance with the voices of the hierarchy. But this is inappropriate in a canonically well-appointed cathedral; from the co-members of the council, who have only an advisory voice, what is required is not a quantitatively sufficient representation proportional to the units represented, but a moral qualification: they are witnesses and advisers; what is needed is not a plurality of votes, but people who are trustworthy and can be useful advisors. Therefore, in respect of extreme necessity, it is enough to limit ourselves to a minimum of deliberative votes, which will serve - taking into account the eternal canonical principle: that in the presence of two or three witnesses, every verb will become three-quarters of the total number of members of the council. So, if 50 bishops gather at a council, then there may be 50 presbyters and deacons, and 400 laymen and monks 38 . It is difficult to solve the question of how to select persons from the last category of 100 - from the laity. In Orthodox local churches, both members of the electoral assemblies and members of the “mixed council” and the national church council are elected according to estates and parishes. In our country, such a principle is difficult to apply due to our large numbers. We need to try to attract to the council those moral and intellectual forces that, as we said before, may be at the disposal of the hierarchy, but due to their position, act in a creative way, alone, in disarray. Theologians, scientists, writers, publicists, artists, people of everyday and legal practice, as well as persons of high spiritual experience from the white clergy and monastic elders should receive an honorable place at the council, as desirable advisers. Their opinion, freely expressed, must be carefully listened to and discussed, no matter how unusual it may seem, strange from the accepted orthodox point of view, no matter how jarring its unusual “but church” formulation may be. The Council Fathers need to completely abandon the idea of ​​condemning those present as “well-intentioned” and “ill-intentioned,” people “church” and “liberals.” A completely opposite attitude is desirable: everyone who respectfully asks to speak should be listened to. He came to the council as a son of the church, wishing her good, or needing her guidance. Only under this condition is one of the goals of the council achievable - sufficient awareness of the needs of modern spiritual life: for who, if not the persons we have mentioned, are most knowledgeable in this area? They are leaders and exponents of life and its demands. Of these, one way or another, it is necessary to make up the minimum number of lay members: 100. But the cathedral has as its task not only to obtain direct information about the demands of life, but also to satisfy it, to answer these requests. In solving this problem, the presence of representatives of orthodox theological science at the council can provide an irreplaceable service to the fathers of the council. With this power of theological knowledge of our hierarchy, it will not be afraid to listen to any “liberal report”, any “intelligent statement”. Now this force serves the hierarchy little, has almost no influence on church life, doomed to operate within the narrow framework of a school closed from life, within the framework of - one might say - monastic renunciation of the world. A direct, lively exchange of opinions between representatives of the spiritual and secular schools would have a beneficial effect on both, the middle of them spiritually, and through this, perhaps, in a reconciling way would influence the antagonism between the larger areas of the spirit - religion and culture. In response to our insistent indications of the need and importance of the participation of representatives of Theological knowledge at the council, they may remark to us: but can’t our hierarchs be representatives of this knowledge, do they really need help in this regard? We answer this: nothing prevents the hierarchs sitting at the council from acting as representatives of Theological knowledge, from entering into explanations, from entering into debates... But their position at the council should be different. They are primarily observers and judges of council meetings and deliberations; they must try in every possible way to utilize the forces speaking at the council in order to then express their authoritative, decisive opinion. Their calling at the council is not to express the opinion of theological science on this issue, but to express authoritatively the voice of the entire local church, on a comprehensive discussion of this issue, and the opinion of specialist theologians will constitute only part of the elements from which a conciliar definition or “voice of the church” should be formed. But a local council is only a body for resolving theoretical questions of faith and Christian life; it is a sovereign official body of church legislation, therefore there must be representation from the State on it: this was so in the era of the Ecumenical Councils in the Greco-Roman Empire, and so it should be with us. The formation of this representation is determined each time by the Highest discretion. The members of the cathedral indicated by us with an advisory voice appear at the cathedral by prior invitation from the competent church authority - the Holy Synod, representatives of the State - by appointment of the Government. All of them are members of the cathedral and sit together with the presiding “fathers of the cathedral” - the bishops, or their supervisors. Meetings of the cathedral take place publicly: access to spectators and listeners of cathedral acts must have one condition of limitation: only full members of the Church are allowed, that is, those who are not under excommunication from church communion. Objects of activity of the Local Council. About the subjects of the activities of the Local Council, Mr. L. Tikhomirov expressed himself generally and briefly: “the work of the council,” he says, “is only deliberative and legislative, and not executive”... (p. 4). In our opinion, one very important and especially close and dear function of the Russian Orthodox Church of its ancient local councils is omitted here - revision. This function is very expressive in their “actions”. So eg. In the face of the Vladimir Local Council of 1274, its chairman, Metropolitan Kirill II, said without hesitation: “By seeing and hearing (I learned) there was a lot of disorder in the churches, holding both hands, but otherwise, there was a lot of disagreement and rudeness, or shepherd’s disorder, or the custom of unreason, or lack of discipline. bishop"... The revisional power of this council constantly appears in its definitions, usually beginning with the words: “For we have come in our hearing, as we have not from our brethren."... "Before we heard about divine baptism, there were troubles that did not mix the divine myrrh with oil."... "And behold, we heard: in the borders of Novgorod... And behold, we heard: on Saturday evening, husbands and wives gather together to play and dance shamelessly,” etc. 39 In their pious zeal for the correction of the Russian Church at the initiative of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, the fathers of the Hundred Glava Cathedral did not hesitate to highlight the following church disorders and issue decrees corresponding to them: “About antimensions: the sale is being made great, and the rules of St. Fathers forbid the sale of the holy things, and this is worthy of a law being laid down at the council according to the divine commandment.”... “The scribes write the Divine books from incorrect translations, but having written them they do not edit, inventory after inventory comes with incomplete writing, and the points are not straight, and according to those books in the churches of God they honor and sing..... With you, the boyars and diacs, and tiuns and foremen and week workers are judged and the administration is not straightened out, and they are dragged and sold with sneakers from one, and the tithes in the village sell priests without mercy, and the deeds are made up of sneakers, and the churches from the tithes and from the great sales stand many empty without singing and there are no priests.... And in the monasteries, the monks and priests cut their hair for the sake of bodily peace, so that they can always indulge in revelry and travel around the villages for coolness... About the church and monastery treasury they give hedgehogs in interest, whether it pleases God and what Scripture is about this verb? Divine Scripture and secularism forbid the Churches of God to give money for gain and bread for gain. Is it written somewhere? In the holy rules he writes about this: the church wealth of the poor, the wealth of others, is for use, as he writes” 40. Great Moscow Cathedral 1667 with his revisionary power of the resolution of the Hundred Glava Council, he did not hesitate to express the following judgments about them: “And the council that was under the pious great sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilyevich, Autocrat of all Russia, from Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, and what was written about the sign of the honorable cross, that is, about the addition of two fingers, and about the special alleluia, and about other things that were written unreasonably, in simplicity and ignorance in the book of Stoglav, and the oath that we without reasoning and unrighteously made to Orthodoxy of the Patriarchy ... we resolve and destroy that unrighteous oath of that council, and that council is not a cathedral, and the oath is not an oath, but nothing We are imputed, as if it never happened: before that, Metropolitan Macarius and those like him, wisely with their ignorance, foolishly, as if they wanted it on their own, not agreeing with the Greek and ancient Slovenian charatean books; We haven’t had such general canonical revisions for a long time, precisely since we stopped having Local Councils. It is true that the Holy Synod very often carries out both official and “secret” audits of our diocesan administrations: it is true that the audit function, even according to the spiritual regulations, is considered to be perhaps the most important “position” or responsibility of the members of the “Governmental Collegium”: “here two people should look according to the above-written proposal,” he says, defining the range of affairs of the Holy Synod, “if everything is correct, and according to the Christian law, and what is being done and where is contrary to the law thereof” 42. But these audits are carried out in strict secrecy and very often serve to humiliate our hierarchs, because they are undertaken only on the basis of information that has reached the Holy Synod about any abuses or disorder in general. The general revision carried out by the Local Council is not canonically like this. Its task is to renew church life in all its aspects, i.e. the elimination of everything obsolete, dilapidated in its structure and institutions, which cannot be blamed on individuals, but which in itself hinders normal church life. Without the long-term application of this power, church life and the church structure may come to a stagnation; many worn-out elements may accumulate here and there, not suitable for modern needs and, by their continued sluggish existence, inhibiting the living moral influence of the Church, as a force of “illumination” and “sanctification” of modern, and not already departed, humanity. Therefore, canonically, the conciliar revision was and should be considered as a desirable phenomenon, as a holiday of the Church 43. What questions and requests of church life will have to be raised and resolved by the next Local Council of the Russian Church, if only by the grace of God it takes place, what aspects of church life and church structure will it have to turn its attention to, apply its revision and legislative power - indicating this is not part of our task; this is a matter for the powers that be, church and state, and in general for those who know the real needs of church life better than we do. For our part, we will try to pose and outline a solution to the question of how, by what method a canonically organized local council should act at the present time. A necessary condition for the fruitfulness of a conciliar public consideration of the issues at hand must, of course, be a clearly recognized and firmly established unity of grounds or principles for judgment. These principles must be firm, that is, morally authoritative not only for the “fathers of the council” and all its members present, but also for those members of the church who will subsequently read, discuss and be obliged to apply to life the council’s definitions built on these foundations. Where are these universal church principles? It goes without saying that such a broadly posed question can be resolved in many different ways, perhaps indefinitely in many different ways, namely, if everyone is given “freedom to have their own judgment.” But our task is not to understand these diverse opinions, but to establish strictly scientific grounds on which representatives of the most diverse directions can converge, under the only condition on their part - respect for the principles of the science of church law. Thus, there can be no doubt that the “fathers of the council” of the Russian Orthodox Church must stand invariably on the foundations of the canonical law of the Universal Church, specifically on the foundations of that canonical code, which lies at the basis of the church structure and church discipline of all Orthodox local churches existing at the present time. Only under this condition will they prove their solidarity with the representatives of these churches and the chain of their continuous succession with their predecessors, the “fathers of the ancient councils” of both the Russian and the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. So, the first act of a Russian local council should be a solemn confession on the part of the “fathers of the council” that they will not establish anything contrary and alien to the spirit and principles of the canonical code of the Eastern Orthodox Church. While this position is indisputable in idea or principle, in its application it can nevertheless lead to very great difficulties. The trouble is that we, in the Russian Church, do not have one officially recognized text of this canonical code, but there are the following editions of it, differing both in the composition of the articles and in the text: 1. The Helmsman’s Book, edited by Patriarch Nikon and approved by the council that was under him in 1653 and during the 18th and 19th centuries. published several times. 2. Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and St. Fathers, first published by the Holy Synod in 1839 and then reprinted several times. 3. The Helmsman’s Book, edited and published by Patriarch Joseph in 1649 and in 1885 republished without change by the Moscow Edinoverie printing house at the Holy Trinity-Vvedenskaya Church.” That the text of this canonical code should be taken into account at the council of the Russian Church - this cannot be doubted, as soon as co-religionists are considered full members of the Russian Orthodox Church. 4. Penance nomocanon. In our church it is available in two official church publications - the complete one, printed at the end of the Great Breviary, and the abridged one, at the end of the Small Breviary. The first three of these codes differ greatly both in the composition of the canonical articles and in the text of the same rules. As for the 4th Code, the composition of its articles is so random and the latter are so varied in quality that an official revision of it is urgently necessary, even for ordinary use. This sad state of our church-official canonical code, which should serve as the cornerstone for the actions of the local council, should, of course, significantly cool the ardent zeal for the speedy convening of the local council. It naturally leads to another question: shouldn’t we first take up the possible improvement of our canonical codification before talking about convening a local council? For how can one come to an agreement on the universally ecclesiastical principles of church structure and discipline, when the very positive sources containing these principles lead not to unity, but to division? What harmony can follow between the members of the cathedral when some of them read the church rules according to the Helmsman of Joseph’s edition, others - from the Helmsman of Nikon and Synodal, others - according to the Book of Rules of 1889? We, however, are completely far from such a pessimistic mood.... The fact is that at present the history of our canonical code, as well as the history of the nomocanon (general and penitential), has already been so scientifically processed that establishing the exact meaning of all its articles (by means of demolition of Slavic and Greek texts) will not pose any difficulty. And we think that the present representatives of the science of canon law of our theological Academies and Universities will be fully willing to provide the Russian Hierarchy with their services in this regard if any are required.... So, in the canonical code of the Universal Church, the Russian local council has a solid basis for its activities within the limits of the power belonging to it as the highest governmental body of the Local Church. This code will serve as a criterion for assessing the existing church structure, as well as for developing new forms, changes, and improvements adapted to the needs and demands of church life. We assume that regarding this categorical statement will be made against us; the following objections: 1) Will it be safe to read the canonical code in view of the easily visible differences, perhaps even a fundamental contradiction, between it and the currently existing church structure? Will our church be criticized for this contradiction? Will this not stimulate the desire for endless reforms? 2) The Canonical Code was compiled many centuries ago, no doubt under the influence of historical conditions that do not exist in modern life: why bind them to present reality and strive to remake it, so to speak, according to forms that have already become obsolete? Why such conservatism, such retrograde? Let us try to answer these objections; 1) The difference in church structure or organizational principles is not as deeply important as the difference in dogmatic principles. As for the reformation aspiration, it is essentially less dangerous than a state of inertia, rest: only a numb corpse rests in immobility, and a living body is in constant movement and change. It's all about normal direction and control of movement and renewal. On the other hand, the structure of our Church and its institutions in their essence do not differ so much from the canonical ones as to inspire fears for their dignity before the strictest canonical revision. Some aspects of our church structure are positively good and attractive. This is for example the entire cult and ritual part in our church structure. The design of our temples is excellent, especially nowadays with the generally recognized desire to combine a strictly Byzantine style and the latest requirements of architecture, painting, acoustics, even electric lighting, although the latter meets with objections from some ultra-zealots of antiquity. Divine services are performed formally, reverently, often with popular singing, especially where parochial schools are well established. Our clerical discipline is hitherto strictly canonical. The imperfections and shortcomings mainly relate to the organization of management - excess of formalism, outdatedness of the judicial system and legal proceedings, lethargy of church and social life, especially parish life, and poor orderliness of the church economy. In general, one gets the impression of crampedness, constriction by established forms of not very long ago and certainly not having any canonical value, despite the internal abundance of content and vital religious force. The living need of our Church is not for any radical reform, not for any reorganization, but for continuous and partial restoration in the light of the strictly canonical principles of Ecumenical legislation. 2) The second objection, apparently, enjoys great weight in our society: why such respect for the canons of the Universal Church? After all, they are so old that it is excusable to consult with them only for an inveterate lover of antiquity, and not at all for a practical person, an intelligent politician, who in modern forms of cultural social order can find examples far better than the Byzantine ones. Wouldn’t it really be naive in terms of improvements, for example. of modern civil law to consult with such an archaic code as the “Russian Truth” of the times of Yaroslav or Izyaslav? But our canonical code is more archaic than even Russian Pravda... Let's answer this. In the fields of law and morality, as well as in the field of aesthetic creativity, there are elements that do not succumb to the ravages of time, which are always alive and new. Such elements are called principles or fundamental principles of law, morality, and beauty. The history of human creativity in these areas is their application, and the richer the experience of application, the more means and opportunities are obtained for subsequent generations to be more consistent with these principles in their creativity. Here is the meaning of the historical and comparative study of monuments of law, morality, art - and their value. But the conditions for creativity are not always equally favorable: some eras are happier in this regard, others are extremely unfavorable. Hence the very different value of monuments from different eras. Our canonical code represents scraps or fragments of church law that was formed during the first eight centuries of Christianity - an era in many respects so favorable for the development of church law that it was not repeated subsequently. These favorable conditions should include the following: 1) general interest in church life and questions of faith; 2) enthusiasm for the faith, which resulted in a host of confessors; 3) broad freedom in posing and resolving a wide variety of issues of dogma, morality and church structure; 4) the diversity of degrees of culture at which the confessors of Christianity stood in different national and political unions that were part of the Universal Church. This is why our canonical code, despite its deep archaism, deserves attention in resolving modern issues of church structure and discipline, attention no less than what deserves, for example. ancient Roman law in the field of modern legal science, civil, criminal and procedural law, or what monuments of ancient art deserve. The conciliar consideration of each issue must be exhaustive of all the data for studying it. In order to successfully achieve this task, the cathedral can set up special commissions to preliminary develop the issue, collect the necessary information, certificates, and develop a draft decision. The draft submitted by the commission is then subject to public review and discussion. Discussions and debates should be allowed here. After this moment, a conciliar resolution or determination must follow, expressed exclusively by the “fathers of the council,” each separately. The determination unanimously expressed by them is then raised at the discretion of the Sovereign Emperor, either for approval or for expressing consent 44 ; After this, it is solemnly read at the council and published as a church-state law. This is the general scheme of the revision and legislative activity of the local council of the Russian Church. According to basic canonical principles, he also has the highest judicial power in all matters of the Russian Church. We will not consider it, since it is more convenient to do this in a special treatise on the organization of the entire church-judicial part, in connection with all judicial instances 45. According to the canonical norm, the Local Council, as the body of the highest governmental ecclesiastical authority, must be convened either twice a year or once. But due to attention to various difficulties, and most importantly - to its unusualness for us, Russian Orthodox Christians, it would be highly desirable that it be compiled at least once every three years. What a blessed phenomenon this rare and bright holiday of renewal would be for our Church! We think that this is the only addition to the existing organization of our church government - a natural, canonical addition, completely legal from the point of view of the fundamental principles of our state law, would be more beneficial and fruitful than the most ingenious projects for the reorganization or reformation of our Church. There is no need to break up existing and existing church-governmental institutions. Let everything remain unceasingly active: the vital spirit of renewal will irresistibly penetrate these institutions and carry out their renewal gradually, without sensory shocks, just as the body is gradually renewed after serious illnesses under the guidance of a reasonable doctor and reasonable hygiene. The local canonical council will be such a doctor: it will awaken life in the ailing organs of the church body, acting sleepily or sluggishly... We cannot, however, fail to express our sympathy for another measure projected by Mr. L. Tikhomirov to strengthen the authority of our church authority - the elevation to the rank of patriarch of the First-Present Member of the Holy Synod. And to this extent, we do not see any reform, but only the restoration of a right that has already been acquired, but only for a long time, had no implementation - was not in effect. We would like to supplement the thought of Mr. L. Tikhomirov with the following considerations. It would be desirable that the restoration of this right be accomplished in the same canonical way as its establishment was once accomplished, that is, it would be desirable that it be an act of honorary grant from the Great of Constantinople and other Orthodox autocephalous churches by their mutual and unanimous verdict. There are no canonical, traditional or historical obstacles to the fulfillment of such a desire, or any that would be hidden in the existing modern conditions of life. According to the original canonical norm, the "bishop of the first see" of each local church should be distinguished from other bishops both by the advantages of honor and the powers of governmental authority. There are absolutely no canonical grounds for depriving these advantages and rights from the High Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, for the Apostolic Rule, which has hitherto been observed everywhere, clearly and resoundingly states: “It is fitting for the bishops of every nation to know who is first in them and recognize him as the head and not to do anything that exceeds their authority without his judgment: to do to each only that which concerns his diocese and to the place belonging to it. But let the first one not do anything without the judgment of everyone” 46 . According to our understanding of the canonical church structure, this rule expresses the main element of the district government of the local church, without which it is inconceivable. But this principle is expressed here in its most primitive formula and reflects the structure of the Church of that era when there were no metropolitans, no archbishops, no popes, no patriarchs - the pre-Nicene era, or the era of the first three centuries. In subsequent times, the centralization of church administration, while maintaining this principle, gradually became more complicated. The Nicene or First Ecumenical Council established an intermediate authority between the Primate and the diocesan bishops - the metropolitans, dividing the entire district of the Primate into regions or metropolises, each metropolis received its own primate, so to speak, for the bishops included in its composition - the metropolitan. But with this innovation, the original power, the primate, not only was not diminished, but even strengthened: he now became the head of not only the diocesan bishops, but also the metropolitans of his district. It is in this sense that the entire rule of this council should be understood: “Let the ancient customs accepted in Egypt, and in Libya, in Pentanol, be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these, just as the bishop of Rome usually does. Likewise in Antioch and in other regions, let the advantages of the churches continue.” From these words it is clear that the legislator left intact the ancient synodal-primate structure wherever it had already been formed and had its past; the primate remained with his former importance throughout his entire district; Consequently, the synodal-metropolitan structure was introduced as a new organization centralizing church administration only as a supplement to the previously existing structure, and not at all as a replacement form, and this meant mainly those countries where the lack of a connecting center between individual bishops was more strongly felt, as in the East (i.e. in Asia Minor and the entire Balkan Peninsula), and not those in which this centralizing principle was quite vital, thanks to the authority of the primates that had been strengthened over the centuries, as in the West - in Rome, Carthage, etc. However, in the intention of the fathers of the Universe. The council was to make the synodal-metropolitan structure a universal institution for all churches, precisely in view of better ordering the matter of the election and ordination of bishops and the church judiciary. This is evident from the fact that having mentioned that the power of the primates should remain as before, by virtue of custom, the council immediately added as a general law: “in general (καθόλου) let this be known: if anyone without the permission of the metropolitan is installed as a bishop: about such a great council determined that he should not be a bishop” 47 . In subsequent times, the primate (πρῶτος ἐν ἐπισκόποις = primusepiscoporum) began to be distinguished by special technical titles: Archbishop, Pope, Exarch, Catholicos, and along with these honorary titles to be distinguished by external signs of “honor” - began to receive the right to put on the “polystaurium” (“cross-felonion”), sakkos, miter, wearing a cross, panagia and other distinctions. In the Russian Church, from the beginning of its existence until the synodal period, the power and primacy of the honor of the primate were preserved and protected invariably and firmly. The collegial form in which Peter the Great was pleased to clothe the Holy Synod almost completely abolished the principle of primacy, and this is its most important one; the most significant flaw from a canonical and traditional or historical point of view. It was precisely the intention of the great transformer to completely abolish this principle, as is clearly and expressed in the motives, or better yet, in the intense praise of the collegial form of government over the individual one. At present, these intense praises only arouse regret for their author, especially if we take into account that such was an Orthodox bishop (i.e. Feofan Prokopovich). Wanting to justify it - to prove its superiority over the individual form of government, he refers to the Athenian Areopagus, and to the Jewish Sanhedrin, and to the college introduced by Peter into public administration. Only this Orthodox bishop forgot to refer to the canons of the Holy Apostles, ecumenical and local councils and St. fathers, who, however, made it a duty for Russian bishops to read every day “at meals” 48. It is clear that argumentation with such a defect did not and could not have sufficient success and attention to itself; Russian Orthodox church and national consciousness could not forgive the insult inflicted on the dignity of primacy: why did the great state reformer deprive her primate of the patriarchal honor canonically assigned to him? The only circumstance that mitigated his guilt was the political motive that the common people considered the patriarch to be equal to the “autocrat.” Whether this motive had a real basis at that time, or was a painful idea of ​​Peter I personally, we will leave the judgment to specialist historians, but that in general the canonical principle of primacy in its very essence had nothing similar to the Roman Catholic papacy (in terms of political malignancy), everyone who is more or less familiar with the ecumenical canonical code and with the history of the Greek, Russian and Slavic Orthodox churches knows this very well. One has only to read with due attention the above Apostolic Canon, which formulates the principle of primacy, to be convinced that there is nothing here reminiscent of the medieval absolutism of the papacy: in the spirit and letters of the canons of the universal church, the primate, no matter how high an honor he may be distinguished from the other bishops administratively subordinate to him, has no advantage over them in hierarchical degree: he is the same “humble bishop” as all of them; he himself is ordained and judged by a council of bishops, like every bishop; without consulting with them, he does not do anything outside his diocese, like each of them; at their council it is a different matter: he is the chairman, or “elder of the council” - convenes the “fathers” and “members” of the council, appoints the place of meetings, leads meetings, collects votes or opinions; envies the administrative and executive parts during the cathedral session, ends them and closes the meetings and dissolves the cathedral. – In the interval between local “time-based” councils, he is the highest executive power, acting as a delegate of the Local Council for the application of laws, administrative and judicial parts. In this capacity, he can act alone with the advisory board of his honorary clergy, elected laity and his office, and with the participation of the “consecrated council” or the “Holy (or “Holy”) Synod,” consisting of three, six, twelve bishops besides him as chairman. In this form, a synod with a chairman - a primate, canonically have a dual meaning: a) the executive body of the Local Council (as well as the primate alone) and b) a canonical council “smaller”, however, than the full local council of all the hierarchs of the local church, or a “greater council” 49. In this last form, the Holy Synod (“sanctified council” or “Holy Synod”) can elect and consecrate bishops, judge them and all other members of the church, excommunicate, depose, canonize St. relics, icons, establish holidays, fasts, open new bishoprics, monasteries, etc. 50 Turning to the modern structure of the Holy Synod, we see that it contains all the elements necessary for it to exercise the power of a canonical council, albeit a “lesser” one than a full or “greater” council of the local church; as well as for the implementation of the executive power of the local “time-based” council (we assumed and desired). The Holy Synod is composed of its hierarchs (three metropolitans and four (approximately) bishops) and exercises the power that canonically belongs to it, in performing those actions that the local “lesser council” has the power to perform - “by the grace of God” 51. It should not be forgotten at all (although it is often forgotten) that he acts not only on the Imperial authority, although from the beginning “ordained by the sovereign Monarch,” but also on the authority of the Council of Eastern Patriarchs 52; He still communicates with them on the most important church issues. Moreover, he, in his usual composition, can exercise the executive power of a full or “great” local council of all hierarchs of the Russian Church and the Sovereign Will of the Russian Orthodox Monarch regarding church affairs. But it would be highly desirable, for clear reasons, to strengthen his primate status by restoring the patriarchal dignity that rightfully belongs to him: “Patriarch of All Russia, Archbishop of St. Petersburg and Ladoga” - this is his title, corresponding to the modern greatness of the Russian Orthodox Church. We are deeply convinced that nothing alien to piety and church truth can be found in him... That the inevitable concomitants of such a structure and order of church governance are excessive formalism and paperwork, an indifferent and sometimes sharply hostile attitude of the governed towards administrators and church pastors, discord and disunity in views on true church interests and weak implementation of good initiatives coming from above, it is unnecessary to prove this. But in its very essence, our entire diocesan system is a system of government institutions and officials operating in isolation in their area and interconnected by external official subordination. At the same time, they all act in isolation from the rest of the flock or “members of the Church”; one gets the impression that the entire diocesan system is deliberately pursuing disunity among the members of the Church, instead of serving communication and unity into a single spiritually strong organism. The diocesan bishop is a special authority even in relation to the Consistory: he and she communicate with her through papers, for the sorting, and often reading of which, he has his own office with a secretary, an official of the VIII class. The consistory presents every more or less important issue of church life to the bishop in the form of a journal or protocol with a mass of related documents, forming a special “case” - in the clerical sense. In a single examination of these paper masses and approval or disapproval of the writing work on them, which was carried out on the corresponding table of the consistory office, is the main activity of the bishop, as an administrator, judge and overseer in the diocese: with living individuals, whose souls are entrusted to him as an archpastor, and with their authentic actions, he, like the consistory itself, has direct relations, with face to face, they don’t, they deal only with papers characterizing individuals and their actions. What are these characteristics?! There are cases that are completely filled with fantastic writings of extremely obscene content, which have nothing in common with the content of real life and the characters of the persons they concern: such are cases of marital divorce. But fantastic works in the form of business papers are also found in other areas of diocesan administration, for example. fantastic complaints from parishioners about the priest’s inability to perform parish services, on the basis of which he should be removed from his place and replaced by another person, striking both the slandered priest and his true parishioners like an unexpected thunderclap. According to the official schematic system, the entire diocesan flock, or the Church, is distributed - with a division into “souls” (and not into persons) of the male and female “sex” into “parishes” and “monasteries”. Monastic souls or persons live in organized societies in monasteries. Souls or worldly persons are “painted” or registered with parishes or - clerically more precisely - with “churches” and constitute quasi - parish societies, or “parishes”. However, both dejure and defacto they are not societies and are not even called such; these are “establishments”, “institutions”, “estates”, or simply “places” of the diocesan department. The rector - the abbess of the monastery, as well as the clergy of the parish - are not members of the monastic or parish society, but officials of the diocesan authorities, his proteges and agents, performing their functions at the place of service in the union and at the direction of the diocesan authorities, sometimes according to its “secret” and even “very secret” instructions. Even in monasteries, due to the continuous and long-term cohabitation of members and authorities, the spirit of fraternal communication is noticeable and living, especially with a good abbot: here it is formed; community, solidarity of interests - e.g. economic well-being and external prosperity of the monastery. But in parishes such solidarity between the clergy and parishioners for the most part does not exist, and it is difficult for it to exist. The community of parishioners has a paralyzed interest not only in general church or diocesan affairs, but even in the affairs of their own parish, because they are not called to manage them: the administration produces “clergy” according to the exact instructions of the authorities, addressed only to it. The clergy, for his part, also behaves like official personnel outside the parish society, standing like a random stranger, not for a single moment guaranteed from the possibility of moving to another place at the discretion of the diocesan authorities. The “benevolence” of the latter and the “benevolence” of the parishioners as their breadwinners is a practical task and concern that consumes and eats up the ideal aspirations and impulses to which high pastoral service necessarily entails, clearly recognized and sometimes deeply and closely perceived and experienced by the priest’s heart. The moral situation is very difficult... The mediating authority between diocesan institutions and the consistory - the dean - again appears as something acting in isolation, maneuvering between his brothers - the persons of the clergy - and the closest authorities. This is the mechanism of our diocesan governance - not very cunning and complex, but quite stable. It is natural to ask: why such isolation and disunity, why such a preference for the living human voice over official paper? What questions, lives, what cases are considered and resolved in such secrecy, in such solitude, in such silence? Really, one might think that our Church, in persecution, is surrounded by enemies from without and warms traitors in its very depths, that its very deeds are dark, the deeds of a criminal community. Meanwhile, the affairs of the state are dominant. The Church, which calls humanity to a fearless confession of faith in Christ, is about spreading the Gospel throughout the world and planting in the hearts of men love for God and neighbors, respect for law and duty, and the establishment of moral, personal, social and state discipline. All the grandfathers of the world, requiring neither secrecy nor separation, not at all afraid of open discussion and joint friendly work. What measures should be taken to revive the mechanism of the Diocesan Administration? What reforms are needed for this? And we will answer this question in the same way as we answered the question about improving the highest church administration: no reforms of the existing order are needed, no disruption; all that is needed is replenishment, or - better said - recognition to life of the half-asleep, apathetically living forces of the Church. How to do this? And this question does not force us to become sophisticated in inventing any original, new measures. This question has already been posed in our literature and has found very serious researchers and critics: we mean the works of Mr. Papkov, who with his research has generated a whole literature on the “revival of the parish.” Fully sympathizing with the idea of ​​​​reviving the parish and remaining with the comments that we made on the pages of the Theological Bulletin 53, at the present time we allow ourselves to make some more additions to them. The revival of the parish, in our opinion, would not achieve the beneficial significance for the entire local Church that it undoubtedly can have if the matter is limited to the restoration of only the special autonomous existence of parishes as small church units. These units: must be connected with each other by spiritual communication, spiritual interests: individual autonomous societies of parishioners must merge into a vast diocesan society with a central point - the diocesan bishop. In parallel with the “parish meeting,” a “Diocesan Assembly” should be periodically compiled, using the “Local Council” of the entire Russian Church as a model for its organization. The revival of the parish as an ecclesial society is important in that it will awaken spiritual interest in church affairs in the lay members of the church, both men and women, both rich and poor, and through this will lead the parish clergy out of the isolated position in which he currently finds himself. The immediate area that will undoubtedly benefit from the revival of the communal structure of parishes is the church-economic area, which is now in the most disorganized state and gives rise to many elements of discord and enmity between the clergy and parishioners. Parishioners are currently in complete uncertainty as to how much income actually comes into the church and how much the church spends and where. Both the Diocesan authorities and the Holy Synod remain insufficiently aware of this, although to inform them a very large mass of paper is written every year in the form of so-called “receipt and expenditure books.” These latter are nothing more than written arithmetic exercises, which are conducted for a very reasonable fee by one of the members of the clergy in the quiet of his cell, completely unable to cope with the current state of income and expenditure. It also happens that one scribe works for several parish churches, and with such naive faith in the sanctity of his work that the thought of responsibility for the false documents he composes does not even occur to him; regarding church property, a responsibility “usually terrible not only for the economist of any public institution, but even for a private industrial trading house. The entire clergy then approves these arithmetic exercises with their signature, and then, half-yearly, the dean. The only person in the parish who is well aware of the reality of income and expenses - the church warden - is so accustomed to considering himself the unconditional owner of the church chest that he does not even admit the thought of the need for any control over himself. And he’s not alone; This is how all the parishioners look: control over the headman - checking and accounting for cash amounts is an attack on the honor of the headman, a grave insult for his selfless service. With a clear conscience, he signs the income and expenses he has compiled, because this is done everywhere in churches (and nowhere else), slightly protesting only if the dean, by order of his superiors or at his own discretion, adds a few rubles against the previous year. We draw attention to this disorganization of the church-parish economy, which was a direct consequence of the actually established church-parish structure, not because we put the financial interests of our church in the foreground, and even less because we wanted to come up with some ingenious project for better financial management; no, we are very far from that. We pay attention to this area solely in view of the deep moral evil that this unsettled area gives rise to. This evil is a deliberate lie recorded in documents, unseemly accusations and bickering between parishioners and clergy, elders and deans and the entire diocesan administration. And why does this lie with these terrible moral consequences persist? This question is quite complex, but it seems to us that we can correctly indicate those individual elements that we created and by which this lie is based and protected. Firstly, the historically established caste-class position of our parish clergy among other classes of the state. Secondly, excessive trust in written documents and distrust of human conscience and living human testimony, as a characteristic feature of our paperwork, civil and church. Thirdly, the narrowness of our church-national views on the essence of the Christian faith as a ritual. The parish clergy currently constitutes not only a service class, but also a social class, which includes not only church employees, but also their families. This is how it happened and actually exists and lives. For a long time this was the case legally. Only in the last half of the 19th century, by the regulation on the clergy of 1879, families of clergy were separated from the clergy class or rank in the social sense. But the power of life, habit and tradition are still difficult to succumb to this new and completely rational legal structure. If peculiarities are harmful to purely ecclesiastical interests in this actually existing way of life and traditions, it is the spirit of casteism, by the force of which the usual norm operates that a priest’s son must himself be a priest, and every other type of service or profession for him is an abnormality, just as entering into the spiritual service, the service of a peasant, a nobleman or a merchant is the same abnormality. How strong this spirit is still is not worth spreading. In connection with this fact, another more harmful one is associated, namely: in the clergy itself there is a strong conviction that not only the service of the church, but also the “church” itself: as if the area exclusively belongs to him, it exists under his care, it is called to exclusive responsibility for it - and this is both in the spiritual and material sense. This belief is shared by our lay church members. The only difference is that the clergy thinks of the church as the object of both their class rights and their duties, and lay members of the church assimilate to the clergy only the duty of caring for the church and exclusive responsibility for its welfare, and as for the rights to it, there is no unanimity, especially in recent times. If the church (in the material sense - the church) is bad - it is poorly repaired, carelessly, uncleanly maintained, not beautiful - the priest is to blame. If lay parishioners behave poorly morally, rarely attend church, are religiously ignorant, immoral in behavior, the priest is to blame. If they notice that the “priest” or other members of the clergy are guilty of these sins, or that children, families of clergy lead the same sinful lifestyle as the laity, then these phenomena are pointed out with a finger as disgraces, disgusting phenomena. The court in these cases is merciless and harsh, but the judges themselves - the same sinners, and even the worst ones - do not even think: “But they are no better; after all, they shouldn’t do this either.” Quite the contrary, the norm invariably dominates in the conscience of judges; “After all, I am not a priest, I did not prepare myself for spiritual knowledge; “Everything is possible and permissible for me.” The increase in general Christian moral obligations for the clergy and the decrease for themselves is amazing. The matter is different regarding church rights. Here the claims and demands of the laity sometimes go to extremes. They manifest themselves especially characteristically in elders - rich people or kulaks. The elder is the “owner” of church property, the “benefactor” of the clergy and parishioners, serving them free of charge, and at the same time uncontrollable and not responsible to anyone. He only gives orders and commands, and the clergy answers. The measures taken so far to at least somewhat regulate these claims have led to nothing. Arguments between the clergy and this kind of typical elders are very common and - what is remarkable - the parishioners in most such cases take the side of the elder out of a dull but very tenacious caste instinct: “the elder is ours, but the priests are strangers to us.” Given the lack of literacy common to such laity, formal written reporting, at least in the form of laced receipt and expense books, and awards from superiors for diligence are hitherto the only means of curbing limitless claims. Sometimes the attitude of intelligent parishioners towards the clergy is no better, although, of course, the form of expression, claims and pretensions here is of a different kind. Naturally, the opposite kind of phenomenon is also possible: the “priest” who has taken power thanks to fortunately developed economic circumstances and having the “backing” of his superiors does not want to know anything in his parish except his grossly autocratic, and sometimes extremely self-interested and voluptuous “I.” The caste position of the clergy is especially noticeable in questions about the maintenance of religious educational institutions. We think of these institutions not as church-wide institutions for preparing candidates for clerical service, but as class institutions designated specifically for the children of the clergy. This view gives rise to the following very publicly stated conclusions: a seminarian, upon completion of the course, must certainly go either to become a monk or a priest: otherwise he is betraying his calling, and he is no good for anything else. b) Since the spiritual title - in its essence - obliges to exemplary hard work, humility, high ascetic morality, then spiritual and educational schools should be distinguished by these qualities - poverty not only of the environment, but even of scientific educational requirements - this is what should serve as the distinctive character of these schools. Why does a seminarian need a lot of knowledge and learning, a prominent and decent, and even more so a comfortable environment? After all, his calling is to live among poverty and grief... “This consideration, supported even more by another, that the main source of the maintenance of theological schools is church income - mugs and candles - leads some zealots of piety directly to pathetic exclamations, like this: “nowadays, with this holy money, pianos are built in theological schools, the ancient piety that our fathers and grandfathers taught us has completely perished!”... With such socially castic hostility between the units that make up the parish, the diocese and our entire church, is it possible to do without a solid, purely bureaucratic system of diocesan and district church administration? No it's not possible. It must remain as long as this enmity exists, but it does not at all follow from this that measures should not be taken to weaken this enmity by policies of a different kind. The revival of the parish is one of the means to weaken this enmity, but more on that later. That improving the way church and parish reporting is necessary does not require proof. How to make this improvement - again we will not go into detail. It is advisable on our part to highlight one omission, which is not paid attention to in many places. This is the lack of a proper inventory of church utensils, icons and sacristy. Thanks to this omission in churches, especially rural ones, many historically and archaeologically very valuable things disappear, or old ones are replaced with new ones - completely irrational and tasteless (in terms of style/aesthetics). In connection with this feeling there is something else. When changing priests and elders, we usually do not follow the rule - the successor must accept the inventory of church items. Only cash and securities are accepted according to the inventory; As for other sometimes precious property, no attention is paid to it. But one improvement in written reporting in the management of church affairs is far from sufficient to radically correct it. A radical measure for this would be to involve the parish community in participation in it - that is, all age and full-fledged parishioners. It is advisable to arrange matters in such a way that the property interests of the parish church are held close to the heart not of the clergy and the elder only, but of the entire parish, so that responsibility for the integrity of church property, for the legal use of it, is again placed on the entire parish, and not on the priest and the elder, as is the case hitherto. This goal will be achieved by the revival of the parish as a small church-social unit. But, as we noted above, the special autonomous existence of parishes not united by a spiritual connection under the leadership of the Diocesan Bishop and his administration is unthinkable and can lead church life not to improvement, but directly to deterioration. The special autonomous existence of parishes can easily lead parishioners to the idea of ​​self-sufficiency of each individual parish, which will immediately express itself in the form of a grossly selfish attitude towards general diocesan and general church interests. The parish - therefore, in a crudely egoistic view - exists only for itself: it is the property of the parishioners, and for no one and for nothing else. Once such a view becomes stronger and grows in consciousness, a feeling of jealousy of one parish towards another will easily arise, competition and enmity will arise. Such relations can be observed in embryo at the present time, and with the granting of autonomous governance to parishes, they will undoubtedly strengthen and intensify. The harmful consequences of such relations, which are generally intolerable from a Christian point of view, will be revealed in the very structure of each parish society - in the bickering between the clergy and the laity. The immediate cause of such bickering will be the deeply rooted view in our worldly society of the church as an institution only for prayer and ritual. This narrowness of our views is our characteristic national feature. We practically reduce all our duties and obligations towards the church to this narrow view. Our entire concept of “churchliness” is covered by external ritualism. Who is our “church man”? – One who often goes to church, carefully performs the rituals in the church and at home and that’s it. How does the church thrive? In many churches, luxuriously decorated, in the duration and earnestness of the Divine service, in the gilded domes of churches, large bells, good bass deacons and singing choirs, and a luxurious sacristy, expensive frames on icons and thick wax candles. Who is a good clergyman? One who has good posture, or “walk,” a good voice, manners, reads and sings loudly and clearly, and conducts the order of the service and church ritual according to the regulations. Our demands will go no further than this; this is the height of our desires, and since everything is going well in this regard, we fold our hands with a calm conscience and say: “Thank God, everything is done; there is nothing more to wish for.” Imagine now that our parishes have been restored as self-governing church societies, and that the majority of the members of these societies are nourished by the idea of ​​​​the self-sufficiency of their existence, with all concerns about the parish focusing on the external and internal splendor of the church and church services. What will come of this? Only a competition between parishes regarding splendor. And how far this competition can go can be judged by the existing personality. In our diocese, in a small area, there are parish churches nearby, one of mine amazes with its splendor, the other with its squalor; one is repaired every year, repainted in different colors, and on top of that it owns endless - “secret” amounts; the other barely drags out his miserable existence, barely able to pay the 25% and other taxes for general church and diocesan needs. Taking these circumstances into account, we insist on the idea that the revival of parishes will only lead to good consequences if they consider themselves not as self-sufficient units, but as small organs in the whole organism of the Diocese and live and breathe both their own and the general diocesan life. Currently, such an internal spiritual connection between the parish and the diocese exists and is recognized only by the parish clergy; The church norm is that this connection should be vividly recognized and supported by each parish intoto - the entire parish community. What needs to be done to ensure that this norm is recognized and implemented? The answer is simple: along with the diocesan government organization, there must be a body of public-diocesan management - the annual “Diocesan Assembly”. It must serve as a living organ through which the orders of the highest, ecclesiastical authority will be published, reaching the extreme points of the church organism - parish societies and the units that make them up, and through which the voices of these units will ascend back to the central ecclesiastical authority. To carry out this appointment, the composition of the “Diocesan Assembly” must include the same church and public elements as the composition of the local council, i.e. representatives of smaller church societies - monasteries and parishes, with the diocesan hierarchy at their head. The simplest way to determine the number of members of the Diocesan Assembly would be to appoint two persons from each parish - clergy and secular (one is enough from a monastery), but given the vastness and number of our dioceses, such a method would lead to extreme complexity in the composition of the members of the Diocesan Assembly. Our dioceses sometimes have more than 1000 parishes. In order to avoid such enormity, composition and inconvenience, and essentially unnecessary, it is possible to adopt another method, namely, to take as a model the widely practiced congresses of the clergy, the members of which are elected by deanery or by dozens - about two per deanery. Assuming the average number of parishes in a diocese to be 900, and a deanery to be 15, we get a fairly moderate number of representatives from parishes of 120 members. It will be enough, at least at first. The subjects of meetings of the Diocesan Assembly should be both the most important matters of a general and local nature, namely: 1. Here the definitions of the Local Council and at least the most important legislative decrees concerning the Church, newly issued, must be solemnly read. 2. It would be very useful to read, albeit in extracts, a report on the general state of the diocese, with as detailed information as possible about special outstanding phenomena of a positive or negative nature, if any. 3. But with special attention should be considered those questions of a purely practical nature for which congresses of the clergy are currently being convened, namely questions a) about the means of maintaining theological educational institutions and parochial schools, and b) questions about the correct distribution of church taxes and various fees for the maintenance of these institutions and various missionary and charitable institutions. As was said above, we treat theological educational institutions not as general diocesan institutions, but as class institutions, therefore, questions about their maintenance are considered only by the clergy at congresses, and they set taxes on parish churches. And so - in our Orthodox society there are complaints - that church money goes to the education of priests' children. What unfair and stupid complaints! It seems they are not heard anywhere, in any country, except our Orthodox Russia. On the contrary, everywhere concern for the better organization of religious educational institutions, as having the task of preparing worthy ministers of the church, is considered the very first and sacred concern of the entire church. Theological educational institutions should be better than all others, and not worse, as is observed in our country. The fact that in our country they are filled mainly, almost exclusively, by the children of clergy does not indicate anything else, namely that the latter are most capable, compared with children of other classes, of mastering the subjects of theological knowledge; only extreme necessity forces them to go to these worse schools, preferring the best ones. Without this need, our religious educational institutions would either be completely abandoned, or they would very significantly narrow their programs and lower the level of scientific and theological requirements. It’s time to realize that concern for the better organization of religious educational institutions is not the exclusive concern of the clergy, but a church-wide concern, the subject of discussion not at congresses of the clergy, but at an all-diocesan meeting. One of the important questions of the Diocesan Assembly, standing in connection with the general question of religious educational institutions and parochial schools, seems to us to be the question of the most correct and fair distribution of taxes or interest payments among parish churches and monasteries, going specifically to religious educational institutions. The currently adopted system of equal interest taxation for poor churches or parishes is very burdensome and unfair. According to this system, the church receives 1000 rubles. income bears the same 25% burden of taxation with the church receiving 100 rubles. income: first, allocating 250 rubles from your income. keeps 750 rubles. the second from her only hundred is forced to allocate 25 rubles. and keep 75 rubles. How can she support herself? It would not be unfair to free such poor churches completely from any taxation. If this seems too unusual for the modern church consciousness, then let at least the percentage be reduced for the poorest churches and increased for the rich in approximately the following sequence: The overall result of the interest fee; from such an arrangement it will not decrease, but perhaps increase, and meanwhile the burden of payment for the poor churches will be greatly eased. It goes without saying that the Holy Synod and the Diocesan authorities can indicate other issues and subjects for discussion at Diocesan meetings. It would not be superfluous to establish as a general rule that the Diocesan Assembly would be formed without fail when a newly ordained or appointed bishop enters the flock, in this assembly he would immediately see his entire flock in a small form: the cathedral would then be the meeting place of the entire Diocesan Church. Here we will conclude our thoughts on replenishing the existing system of our diocesan and parish administration. We do not suppose it possible that there would be any objections to the legality and fruitfulness of such a replenishment. But we have serious reasons to fear another, stronger enemy for the improvements we are designing... This enemy is the apathy of our society towards the interests of the church, the habit of blaming everything. concern for the church to the authorities and pastors of the church: lack of understanding of the harm that is caused by the existing disunity in church life of personal, family and public morality and what conveniences such apathy and disunity we provide to forces hostile to the Church - sectarianism and unbelief to fruit and multiply: both in the neighborhood of the church and in it itself. We sometimes learn with horror how quickly they multiply, how persistent they are in competitions with our “fighters” - missionaries, and we can’t think of anything better than to work on strengthening the means of purely external struggle against them. Having left the entire matter of defending the Church and converting the lost and wavering to the path of truth to these separately acting fighters, we ourselves not only do not take any part in the work of this defense and in the work of this conversion, but we do not even know where our true and true weapon for this is, where to find this weapon, against whom and how to act, we will not try to carefully find out and test who is the enemy, who is our friend. And yet how close these weapons are to us, how simple are the means to reliably recognize our friends and enemies. Where are they and what are they? We answer in two words: this weapon is self-correction, these means are our unity instead of the disunity that hitherto reigns among us. The enemies of the church act with these weapons and these means and cause devastation outside and among it that horrifies us. They act internally in unity with each other, although externally it can be difficult to discern this unity. Between themselves they are sincere and trusting, there are no secrets between them, their leaders act without confidential or secret instructions - for their own. We, members of the Church, stand alone, or in small groups, not internally connected to each other; We are closed and secretive among ourselves, leaving the doors wide open to our “sheep yard” for anyone to enter it. And how often it happens that it is our enemies who are perfectly aware of the true state of our affairs, and we ourselves contemplate only carefully executed “forms” and say with consolation: “With us, thank God, everything is fine; our praise”!... The disjointed and exclusive action of the hierarchy and church authorities, on the one hand, and, on the other, the passive dormancy of the laity - such a currently existing dejure church system is decisively inconsistent with the modern state of affairs. It was useful once upon a time, precisely when the vast mass of the laity was passive not only in the church, but also in all other relations and spheres of life, although it is noteworthy that then in the church relation they also showed some initiative and energy. Now our social system, our relations have changed radically, and accordingly the church system must change. All of Rus' was covered with schools and civil church schools, and in place of the huge illiterate mass of the peasantry, philistinism and merchants, a generation of literate individuals appeared, reading everything they could get their hands on, thinking, discussing, acting completely actively and independently, not only from the will of their parents, lords and bosses, but often contrary, in clear contradiction, to the age-old foundations of faith, morality, law, the seemingly indestructible power of folk customs and traditions. Intellectually, this generation is incomparably stronger than their fathers, although - in all likelihood - much more immoral: after all, it is not in vain to complain that morals have become unstable everywhere - as a result, the old people and the, often very precious, moral foundations they protect - are not able to withstand the struggle with the new generation and its moral unbridledness. Of course, things will continue to go in the same direction. The passivity of the masses will evaporate more and more, faster and faster, giving way to individual activity and discord in the masses of emerging generations. What then? Is it necessary to be passively horrified by such a change in things, to sigh about the irrevocably disappeared good old time and helplessly give up? - Yes, this will not happen! The Orthodox Church has no reason for such a pessimistic mood. We are convinced, on the contrary, that the best awaits her from this changed order of things. All you need is a minor, significant modification in your outer clothing; you need to put aside the old ones, which have become tight and shabby, and put on something stronger and more comfortable. This conviction finds support for itself - regardless of its essence - even in some favorable phenomena that have already emerged in our church life, namely: 1) The significant success of our parochial schools in their competition with civil or zemstvo schools is an amazing success if we take into account the difference in external conditions under which competitors had and still have to operate. For zemstvo schools, these conditions are incomparably more favorable: they are better endowed, are sometimes better set up methodologically, and enjoy the sympathy of the intelligentsia. And yet, church schools not only compete successfully, but are also more attractive to both parents and students. What is their success based on? What is their strength? Yes, it is that they not only provide education and literacy, but also educate, instill moral duties, which are actually fulfilled, but zemstvos do not fulfill this task, and they cannot fulfill it if they are made in the strict sense zemstvo or civil. How does this educational part go in church schools? The following is a fairly simple method. Here the main place is given to the study of the law of God, that is, the study of the language in which the law of God and the Holy Scriptures is stated. books of Christian Orthodox Divine services, mandatory attendance of students together with the teacher at the parish church has been introduced here, with the active participation of schoolchildren in Divine services - reading, singing and even serving the priest at the altar. Children thus become more active members of religious parish life than fathers and mothers. Here, in this way, some commandments of the Law of God are not only theoretically assimilated, but also practically implemented. Throw out this element from the public school, free it from “priestly tutelage,” thereby making it purely civil or purely zemstvo, and what will happen? The result will be an educational school without any education: for without a church, how can our civil teacher educate his schoolchildren? - Literature and theater? But theaters have not yet been established in villages and cities in sufficient numbers, and there are hardly many defenders of their moralizing influence on children, and the moral principles of the luminaries of current literature - L. Tolstoy, M. Gorky, the New Way, etc. are still not fully understood and defined in the heads of the authors themselves, and especially their readers, so the burden of moral civic education is beyond the shoulders and heads of any zemstvo teacher. Thus, by the force of things, it turned out that the zemstvo school only educates to the extent that it draws closer to the church school; without this same rapprochement, by the force of things, it is doomed to extinction. It remains to be wished that, financially, church schools would not only be equal to, but also surpass the zemstvo ones in external amenities and provision: this is the most important task of the revived parish. 2) The second favorable phenomenon in modern life is church interviews of a positive and polemical nature. They are persistently prescribed and encouraged by the church authorities and are very willingly attended by the people - and it should be noted that they are not quite willingly conducted by our priests. What is the subject of interviews? – The subject of the first type of interviews are mostly topics of a dogmatic, moral and biblical-historical nature; subjects of the second kind (mainly in conversations with Old Believers and various sectarians) topics of a liturgical and even church organization nature. These latter are conducted with greater interest and animation than the first. How does this explain, and also why our priests are not particularly willing to conduct interviews, and specifically of the first kind? · The answer, in our opinion, is as follows: interviews of the first kind are lifeless and sluggish because their purpose and task are not clearly understood. Apparently, their entire task is limited to teaching faith and morals. Moreover, this training is not conducted methodically (and a method is hardly possible here), but by chance - the conversation is offered about whatever randomly comes to mind, and is conducted too abstractly, without vital reasons and without application to the pressing practical needs of life. What is required from the priest to enliven this interview? We think that a simple change in topics would serve to enliven and interest church conversations. Why not turn these educational abstract church interviews, very useful for children, but rather boring for adults, into parish business interviews? There would be an inexhaustible multitude of them here. Let us outline some: 1) the history of the parish church and parish. When presenting the first, it is very useful to point out outstanding details in the circumstances of the construction of the church (if any), on the architectural features, on any individual things - icons, utensils, ancient books or manuscripts, monuments, etc. In the history of the parish, it would be very useful and interesting to provide information about the persons of the clergy and laity, one way or another, even if negatively, who left a memory in the parish. A tactful priest can find and offer an edifying lesson in the negative phenomena of church life. Even more rewarding topics can be provided by the contemporary real life of parishioners, that is, publicized events in their everyday life or any vitally practical issues that are discussed publicly, which constitute, so to speak, the topic of the day. Why shouldn’t the priest try to illuminate them during the interview from the point of view of Orthodox Church morality and express his view in the clearest, categorical and specific form possible? True, this is very difficult to do, but it is difficult if you take up the matter in vain, thoughtlessly and without any help. We think that the Orthodox Russian Church has excellent aids for this matter in the form of St. Demetrius of Rostov and prologues, as well as our liturgical books, especially the Menaion. All the priest has to do is carefully read through this not very extensive library. After all, this is nothing more than an Orthodox illustrated catechism, and our illustrated moral theology. And sometimes what a lively, authoritative, artistic and witty illustration can be found here! Yes, apparently, it is worth paying attention to this source of catechetical and moral edification, so common in antiquity, and for the modern pastor... Why not, finally, take as a topic for a church interview just any business parish issue - the repair of a church, a school, the cause of charity for the poor, the organization of a church singing choir, measures to protect against sectarianism, immorality, etc. 3). But the most favorable social mood characterizing our time is the everywhere noticeable desire to associate individuals in societies and unions to achieve some common goal. Our time is the time of societies. There are countless different “societies of lovers” for education, mutual aid, patronage, sobriety, singing, reading, music, etc. They constantly and everywhere arise, grow, strengthen, prosper; others, having arisen, soon disappear, burst like soap and rain bubbles, but only to make room for others. A decent person sometimes simply has to bear the unbearable burden of participating in these different societies, either by “membership fees” or by attending “meetings,” “commissions,” and “subcommittees.” Without any doubt, such a mood is a welcome sign of the times. It irrefutably testifies to the presence in our time of a significant mass of moral individuals who are not satisfied by gross egoistic desires alone, but who are animated by altruistic aspirations and are so strong in character and tactful that they not only personally sacrifice their work and wealth for the common good, but are able to inspire and support other individuals who are less powerful in these respects. But a strange thing is that our Orthodox Church, in its entire essence, represents an inexhaustible and always flowing source of associating spiritual and moral power, producing from itself a great many brotherhoods and societies up to and including “banner bearers” - least of all in its organization, in its structure, it gives room to the social element. Even in our legislation itself (of course, state, and not church), the Orthodox Church is conceived as “the Orthodox faith of the Eastern rite” - i.e. as a set of dogmatic, moral and liturgical definitions and rules, then as a “department of Orthodox confession” i.e. as a system of government institutions, with each circle of persons subordinate, but nowhere is it called a society of persons bound by the unity of faith and the unity of the duties of its confession. And yet, according to the canonical norm, its entire structure, outside of its action, all the details of its institutions are entirely imbued with a social character. It is not for nothing that all Orthodox and Catholic canonists unanimously affirm that all church law, that is, each in particular “right” and each in particular “duty” is public, not private - jus publicum, but not private. It’s time for us to clearly realize and express through our actions that we are children of the one Church and brothers, not only in those short moments when we stand in church and pray, when we really form a uniformly inclined society, but also upon leaving the church, when we scatter to our homes or to meetings in various societies we have created, completely forgetting about our higher membership and brotherhood, the binding forces of which are the unity of faith, the unity of spiritual birth, the unity of the sacramental nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ: the parish, the diocese, the entire Russian Church - these are the societies into which, first of all, all Orthodox Russian Christians should be distributed as indispensable and active members. And so we think that if our hierarchs, our pastors, our laymen and monastics who are zealous for the church, cared and acted with greater zeal and energy to correct this fundamental deficiency in our church consciousness than they have done hitherto, then the “renewal” and “completeness” of the church body that we indicate would appear by themselves; Then church life itself would combine the hierarchical and social elements of church structure and administration into forms and institutions that are far more perfect than those projected by ours, i.e. mine and L.L. Tikhomirov's articles. From cathedrals of the 2nd century. The following are reliably known: Hierapolis under the presidency of Apollinaris of Hierapolis - of 26 bishops, Anchiales in Thrace under the presidency of Sotas Bishop of Anchiales of 12 bishops (about 150). Councils on the celebration of Easter: Roman, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Pontic, Osroene. Ephesian, Gallic. See Hefele: Conciliengeschichte, I, 81–83. Eusebia: Ecclesiastical History V. ch. XVI, pp. 290–291. “And every Saturday except one, and every week, when you meet together (ἐπιτελοῦντες συνόδους), rejoice.” Book V, 26. Written at the end of the 2nd century. The Works of Tertullian, trans. E. Karneeva. I, p. 80. St. Petersburg. 1849. See in creative work. St. Cyprian Letter LII–53, p. 153. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, pp. 680–681. Mansi: Conciliorum Collectio. T. II. col. 5. Mansi, T. VIII. Col. 177–179. Mansi, T. VIII. Col. 740. Mansi. T. VIII. Col. 877–879. Mansi, T. XVIII. Col. 501. We increase the minimum composition threefold compared to what is shown in the codes, assuming that under each bishop there were at least two persons of the presbyteral degree at the council. Acts Everyone Sob. T. I, 101–157. Kazan. 1859. Prof. A. P. Lebedev: Ecumenical Councils of the IV and V centuries. Moscow. 1879. Acts Universal.Sob. T. IV, 124–126. Acts Everyone Sob. T. III. 113–114. After what has been said in abundance in foreign and your literature about Byzantine Caesaropapism, the words of the nation emphasized in the text may seem like just an empty phrase. But whoever carefully considers how deeply Christianity penetrated legislation, politics, public and private relations at that time, your words will not seem like phrases. We do not deny manifestations, even very sharp manifestations, of Caesar-papism in the policies of some Byzantine emperors. They exaggerated and misunderstood their importance in the church: but that each of them wanted to be with the church, and not above the church, is also undeniable. Each of them drew his highest dignitaries and all his diverse subjects into the church, often through various reprisals and force of arms, but still pulled the church as into a single spiritual organism, animated by the unity of faith and the unity of morality. J. Zhishman: Die Synoden und Episcopal – amter in der Morg. Kirche. S. 215. Much information on this subject is provided by Balsamon’s interpretation of the nomocanon and syntagma of Patriarch Photius. Reverend Nikodim Milash: Orthodox Church Law. St. Petersburg 1897, p. 345. Nicodemus Bishop. Dalmatinsky, c. in. page 349. There may, however, be subjects and special cases that should not be openly discussed. The same ancient church, which held open meetings of its councils, gives a lesson that is not useless, it seems, even today - the lesson of keeping certain subjects secret, for example. "officials" to perform the sacraments. “They are not proper,” says the 86th Apostle. The rule is to honor before everyone the secrets that exist within them.” Nowadays, the subjects contained in them are sometimes discussed even in secular newspapers and, moreover, after the death of priests, which - in our opinion - is completely tactless. The tact of the “fathers of the council” should suggest what may be permissible before a public discussion, and what of what is proposed by a random questioner can be clarified to him in private. The mandatory number of deacons at a council can be limited by the ancient canonical norm: 7; their significance at the cathedral is official: office work and executive functions under the leadership and with the assistance of officials of the Office of the Holy Synod. Russian Histor. Bible IV, 83–102. Stoglav, M. 1890. Pp. 49–59. Materials for the history of the schism. II, 220–221. M. 1876. Spiritual Regulations "Common affairs." In the “acts” of the Council of Carthage in 397, the news was preserved that the bishops of the Mauritanian diocese or province complained to the Council that, contrary to the definition of the Council of Hippo, Mauritania had not been “visited” (that is, had not been audited) by the council for two years. In his response, the chairman of the council, the Archbishop of Carthage, cited as justification the fact that Mauritania lies on the edge of Africa next to barbarian lands. “But,” he consoled, “God willing, we will do even more than what we promised.” (See Rule 63 of Carth, Council on the Book of Rules). See Art. 49 Basics State Zach. This is partly what we have already done in the brochure: On what is church jurisdiction in marriage matters based? 1902 Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. This intention was realized soon after the Council of Nicea: for we meet metropolitans in the West, from the end of the 4th and 5th centuries. Only one autocephalous Carthaginian Church maintained its original synodal-primate structure. See our book: 0 Church Authority. Page 227 et seq. About Dukhovn. Regulations “About bishops”, paragraph 3. The difference and the very terminology of the “greater” and “lesser” councils are established in 6 rules of the Second Ecumenical Council. This time we cannot refrain from expressing our opinion on the question of whether the Holy Synod had the right to pronounce the sentence of excommunication over Count L. Tolstoy - a question that has posed quite a bit of difficulty to various representatives of the “press” and even to some “religious and philosophical societies.” The question is truly difficult if you decide it “from your own mind”: here as many different opinions can be expressed as there are minds, who have undertaken to solve it. But from the point of view of positive church law, this “difficult” question can only cause a smile, similar to that which causes a child’s naive question about any questions of divine and human law (in the lessons of the law of God, children ask similar questions). warning: doesn’t every Archpastor have the right to do it? – An elementary question worthy only of a schoolchild. The Holy Synod fulfilled its duty, its duty: the question of competence is completely inappropriate here. See the form of the appointed bishop's letter in our book On Church Authority, page 415. See our book On Church Authority, pp. 334–335. Theologian. Bulletin 1902 October. You might be interested in: