The main principles of the establishment of the Patriarchate desirable for the Russian Church

Contents What is a patriarch? Project for the organization of the Church structure on the basis of the patriarchal-cathedral form General provisions Local Council of the Russian Church Patriarchal Synod District-Metropolitan Administration District Council Metropolitan Synod Metropolitan Court Diocesan Administration Diocesan Assembly Diocesan Council Diocesan Court Procedure for legal proceedings in divorce cases District Bishop District Assembly Episcopal Council Parish Parish Assembly That the patriarchate should be restored in the Russian Church is, apparently, a universal desire. But what is a patriarch, what are his powers and how the Russian Church should be organized with his establishment - only vague ideas are expressed about this in our literature. In view of this, we take the trouble to present the most general structure, both of the position of the patriarch and of the entire structure of the Russian Church, on the one hand, consistent with the principles of canon law, and on the other, satisfying the urgently stated needs of the time. We divide our work into two parts. In the first, we will try to establish the canonical foundations of the patriarchal office, in particular, consider: what is a patriarch as a church office? Rights and powers of the patriarch; the manner in which these powers are exercised, election and removal from office. In the 2nd part we will try to present a plan for the structure of the entire Russian church. In the sources of canon law we get the following, rather lengthy answer to this question. This is how the essence and powers of the patriarchal office are formulated in the syntagma of Matthias Blastar, a very authoritative canonist of the 14th century not only in Byzantium, but also in all Slavic churches. How authoritative his book was in ancient Rus' can be concluded from the evidence. frequent references to it in the Helmsman's Book. Russian scribes were especially interested in it during the patriarchal period. Patriarch Nikon also knew her, and although at times he was critical of the opinions of M. Vlastar, he nevertheless brought the entire title about the patriarch into his apology, or “ruining” of the accusations of the patriarchs. Paisia ​​Lagarida; from here we borrow the first column 1, paralleling it with our translation from the Greek syntagma of M. Vlastar. In his syntagma, M. Vlastari borrowed this teaching about the patriarch from the Byzantine state code, known as “Epanagoge Legis Basilii et Leonis et Alexandri, or simply epanagogi 2. It should be noted that M. Vlastar included this title about the patriarch incompletely in his book, but excluded from it articles 5, 6 and 7, which contain very important powers of the patriarch. These are the articles: 5. What was canonized by the ancients (παρά τῶν παλαιῶν [?] ϰανονισθέντα) and the holy fathers, and what was stated by the holy councils should be interpreted only by the patriarch (πατριάρχην μόνον δεῖ έρμηνεύειν ). 6. What the ancient fathers at councils or in dioceses decreed and arranged in particular, or in general, should be judged and determined by the patriarch. 7. The most ancient canons retain their force even with later ones, just as previous acts (πράξεις = protocols) and orders extend to later ones and retain their force with similar, of course, persons and objects.” By removing these articles from the original law, M. Vlastar deprived the patriarch of very important exclusive powers. But on the contrary, he did the opposite with the last 11th article, shortening it to unusually strengthen the so-called. knitting power of the patriarch. For comparison, here are the texts of the original and Vlastarev’s abbreviation: The difference was enormous and did not require explanation. The epanagogue was published approximately around 883. Her title of patriarch in later Byzantine legal compilations was not without reason attributed to Patriarch Photius 3. What significance can this source of canon law have at the present time in the question of restoring the patriarchate in the Russian Church? Should we recognize it entirely as a law for our Russian Patriarch, or use it only as an auxiliary guide and material for our own creativity, or, finally, abandon it completely as an archaeological value? In our opinion, when addressing this issue, the following considerations must be kept in mind. 1. Looking at the contents of the 11 articles of the monument, it is not difficult to notice Dov. significant diversity of their fundamental and canonical dignity. Some of them are such that they have not lost their value even today, others have absolutely no practical significance for us as they specifically relate to the Patriarch of Constantinople and are adapted to the state system of Byzantium in the 9th century; Finally, there are those that need corrections, clarifications and additions. 2. The establishment of the patriarchate in our church is not aimed at returning the church system to the medieval system, but at updating and improving what exists in order to give vitality and moral strength to church life, which are now extremely constrained by outdated and worn-out, and extremely narrow forms, institutions and orders. It is desirable to change and update the outer clothing of the Russian Church, in accordance with its spiritual age and in accordance with the civil and cultural maturity of the children of the Orthodox Church. But at the same time, it is desirable that this external improvement of the Russian Church be built, if possible, on canonical principles, recognized by other Orthodox churches, in relation to which the Russian Church is a sister and, moreover, located in incomparably better conditions of external development, just as it is desirable that its new, albeit external, structure grows, so to speak, from itself, and not be an unconditional innovation, the result of the arbitrary discretion of countless projectors builders guided by one principle: “I want it to be like this.” With these considerations in mind, we consider it advisable to subject the contents of our monument to a detailed examination, make a critical assessment of its elements and recommend those that turned out to be valuable as material for future church builders and try to compensate for the shortcomings of this building material by indicating other elements. 1. The Patriarch is a living and animated image of Christ.... The canonical merit of this article is beyond doubt. Before the author, obviously, the ever-binding covenant of Christ was presented to the apostles and their successors, no matter what church rank they held: “I have given you an image, that as I have created for you, you also do” (John 13:15). Imitation of Christ in relation to his flock is the first duty of every bishop. Moreover, the patriarch must be completely imbued with it, as the first among the bishops and “bolstering them” with his administrative powers, as the “initial father” among the fathers 4. 2. The first observance of the patriarch, they are accepted from God, in piety.... These and further words reveal the special purpose of the patriarch as the highest church shepherd. From the ideological point of view, the canonical dignity of this article of the monument does not need clarification 5; but it is important in another respect - historical: the idea of ​​​​introducing the patriarchate, as a special institution, with the task of weakening the division of the church caused by heretics and spreading the light of faith among the infidels, according to Byzantine historians, belongs to the Second Ecumenical Council. According to the historian Socrates, “The fathers (of the council) again established the Nicene symbol, divided the dioceses and established patriarchates 6 so that the bishops would not extend their authority to foreign churches outside their regions: but previously, due to persecution, this was done indifferently. Nektarios received control of the capital and Thrace. The ponticus was received by Basil's successor in Caesarea in Cappadocia, Helladius, and then by the bishop of the Cappadocian city of Nissa, Basil's brother Gregory, and by the bishop of Melitene, Otreus. The Asian district was divided between Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus, Bishop of Antioch of Pisidia. The Egyptian churches were entrusted to Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria; and the administration of the churches of the eastern district was entrusted to the bishops thereof, Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus, while preserving the advantages of the Church of Antioch, granted to Meletius, who was then present at the council. The bishops who were at the councils also determined that, in case of need, the affairs of each region would be decided by a council of bishops of the same region 7 . Although these first patriarchs were an extraordinary institution and the patriarchate was granted to the said bishops personally - in respect for their dignity and authority, and was by no means confined to their departments: however, the appointment indicated by them was not different, but precisely the same one that was indicated to the later patriarchs and which is clearly indicated by the monument in question. The purpose of the patriarchate is to preserve, first of all, the purity of faith and to take care of bringing to the unity of faith the heretics and schismatics who are tearing apart this unity. Moreover, it is noteworthy that two of the departments listed here later became patriarchal forever, these are Alexandria and Constantinople. For what reasons did this happen and why the patriarchate was subsequently assigned to those and not other departments - it does not seem interesting to talk about this. 3. Special to the patriarch: to be a teacher.... The patriarch fulfills his high calling, however, not by any spiritual powers, which every bishop would not have, but precisely by the usual service to each bishop, the personal feat of teaching, meekness, impartiality, firmness and courage in the confession of faith and the fight for righteousness and truth. Only one duty in this regard is presented as, if not exceptional, then most consistent with the calling of the patriarch, this is to boldly, without shame, speak the truth before the emperor. Of course, this duty is not removed from the bishop and from every Christian, but due to his high position in the church, the patriarch more often than any other church person has to fulfill this duty. But already as an exclusively patriarchal - the monument further indicates the diplomatic, so to speak, duty of the patriarch - to maintain peace and harmony with the emperor: this is the guarantee of the well-being, both spiritual and material, of the subjects of the state. Such an exclusive duty of the patriarch found justification in the state system of Byzantium and in the canonical disciplinary relations of that time. According to the state system of Byzantium, the patriarch was a representative of the local church in the eyes of the emperor: the latter addressed his decrees on church affairs to him, he addressed various proposals on church affairs, so that the patriarch at all times was the direct body of relations with the emperor and was responsible for the welfare of the church. And according to canonical discipline, although each diocesan bishop was not only not deprived of the right to personally appear before the emperor on church matters, but in some cases was obliged to do so, however, each time he had to receive the permission of the metropolitan, primate and then the patriarch, especially of the capital city. Because of this, the emperor’s break with the patriarch had a negative impact on the well-being of the entire local church. In general, the first four articles of the monument in question are completely impeccable in their content: but they are of a moral, not a legal nature, i.e. they outline the ideal of the moral personality of the patriarch, the desire to achieve which should be the first task of the patriarch and permeate his entire private life and public relations, but the achievement of this ideal, of course, is determined by his personal strengths. In this capacity - moral prescriptions, they, in our opinion, are impeccable. The monument is silent about the fact that the patriarch must be celibate: but this naturally follows from article 4, although it should be noted that it was Patriarch Photius - the supposed author of the monument - who was not a monk. Further articles of the monument depict the political significance of the patriarch in the state and his powers over church governance. It is these articles that require strict canonical evaluation. Regarding them, it is necessary to make, first of all, a general remark that they turned out to be not so much an accurate canonist as a political figure of medieval Byzantium, who was animated by the task of creating a strong Orthodox Byzantine state. What was presented to his mind was not the Church of Christ, as a purely moral union of believers in Christ, containing members of all nations, classes, ranks, penetrating peoples and states and pursuing its exclusive goal - the revival of a moral personality according to the ideal of the Gospel; no, his mind was presented with a strong Orthodox Greek monarchy (πολιτεία). His ideal is peace and prosperity of his subjects spiritual and physical (ή κατά ψυχήν καί σώμα των ύπηκόων ειρήνη καί εύδαιμονία), and not moral kingdom of Christ. In this monarchy, in this huge political body, the main bodies are the emperor and the patriarch - the first has the same importance regarding the material well-being of his subjects (κατά σώμα) as the second - regarding the spiritual (κατα ψυχήν). And if, to the honor of our author, it must be said that this political ideal did not obscure his pure religious consciousness regarding the spiritual and moral character of the patriarchal service - all the powers of the patriarch are of a spiritual and moral nature: he has no secular power, the patriarch is not the Pope; then in the distribution of these powers among the members of the Byzantine hierarchy, this political ideal forced our author to sacrifice canonical truth. This sacrifice was necessary for him, because otherwise he would have been put in a hopeless situation. The fact is that, according to his political theory, there should be only one patriarch in the Orthodox kingdom, just as there should be only one emperor, and yet, according to the ancient canons, there were 5 of them in the Greco-Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem: how can this be? – The author gets out of the difficulty by endowing the Patriarch of Constantinople with very important powers in comparison with other patriarchs, so that the Patriarch of Constantinople in church affairs is the same plenipotentiary ruler as the emperor in state affairs. And in pursuit of this task, our monument sins very grossly against canonical truth, so grossly that it casts doubt on the correctness of the assumption that its author was the famous Patriarch Photius. Such gross untruths cannot be tolerated by the personality of Photius. This canonical untruth is allowed by the monument in articles 9 and 10. We will celebrate it now. 9. The throne of Constantine, adorned with the kingdom, was first named by conciliar judgments... By what “conciliar judgments” (συνοδιϰαῖς ψήφοις) the throne of Constantinople was recognized first is a positive mystery. “The 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon says that the throne of ancient Rome was given considerable advantages by the fathers, since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of new Rome, righteously judging that the city that had received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite ... and in church affairs would be exalted in the same way and would be second after it." Therefore, in order to explain this riddle, it remains to assume either that the author had in mind some decrees of the patriarchal synod that have not survived to us, or - what is most likely - he belonged to the circle of those canonists of Byzantium who interpreted the expression of the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council: let there be a second according to it (μετʹ έϰείνην) not in the sense of diminishing honor before Roman, and in the sense of the sequence of time they reasoned like this: initially the throne of ancient Rome was first, and then, when it separated from the Orthodox Church, the throne of Constantinople became the first in it. That a party of such canonists existed in the 12th century is clearly stated by Zonara and decisively condemns it: Some thought - we read in Zonara’s commentary to the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council - that the preposition “by” (μετά) does not mean a derogation of honor, but the relatively later appearance of this institution. For although Byzantium was an ancient city and had independent government, under Severus, the Roman emperor, it was besieged by the Romans and endured war for 3 years and was finally taken due to a lack of necessities for the prisoners in it. Its walls were destroyed, civil rights were taken away and it was subjugated to the Pirinthians. Pirinthos is Heraclius; why the bishop of Heraklion was also given the ordination of the patriarch, since he ordained the bishop of Byzantium. Subsequently, this great city was built by Constantine the Great, named after him and called the new Rome. That is why some said that the preposition “by” means time, and not a diminishment of honor before ancient Rome. To confirm their opinion, they use the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, which mentions this rule and adds: “we also decide the same about the benefits of the most holy church of Constantinople, new Rome; for the fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of ancient Rome, since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of the new Rome, righteously judging that the city that has received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclit and has equal advantages with the old royal Rome will be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs in the same way, and will be second after it.” So, they say, if they honor him with equal honors, then how can one think that the preposition “by” means subordination? But the 131st novella of Justinian, located in 5 books. Vasilik, Title 3 gives reason to understand these rules differently, as they were understood by this emperor. It says: “We decree, in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils, that the most holy pope of ancient Rome should be the first of all priests, and have the advantage of honor over all others.” So, from here it is clearly seen that the preposition “by” means derogation and reduction. Otherwise, it would be impossible to maintain the identity of honor in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that when the names of their leaders are raised, one should take first place and the other second place, both in the cathedras, when they come together, and in the signings, when they are needed. So, the explanation of the preposition “by”, according to which this preposition indicates only time, and not derogation, is violent and does not come from a right and good thought” 8. Such attentive attitude of Zonara to the obviously tendentious interpretation of the canons regarding the preposition “by” undoubtedly testifies to the vitality of such an interpretation in the age of Zonara. But it can also be taken for granted that it arose much earlier and could have been alive at the time of the composition of the Epanagogue - at the end of the 9th century, for example. at the moment of the gap and struggle between the Roman and Constantinople thrones. In the heat of controversy, such an intelligent person as Patriarch Photius, the alleged author of the monument in question, could have been tempted by it. When the polemical dispute disappeared, a lull, a truce, set in, and this interpretation lost all value. It is remarkable that in 1 of the laws of the so-called Sophia Council of Constantinople, which was presided over by Photius, the privilege of the primacy of the Roman throne is also very clearly recognized (and protected). “In the privileges belonging to the Holy See of the Roman Church - we read at the end of the rule - and its chairman, there will be absolutely no innovation, either now or in the future.” What are these advantages? Without a doubt, the advantages of championship. At least, the impartial Zonara asserts this: “seniority, i.e. the preference, he says in his commentary on this rule, and the advantages accorded to the Roman Church must remain inviolable. But that was then - he adds - when the Roman Church had not yet sinned in faith and had no quarrels with us; Now it’s impossible for us to reach an agreement with her.” So, the statement of the monument that by “conciliar judgments” the throne of Constantinople was “named first” must be considered canonically incorrect: it was named “second”; but in fact, after the split of the Roman Church, this throne rightfully took first place among the eastern patriarchal thrones. 10. The high seater of the city of Constantine has to fly to other throne dioceses, but in them there is no pre-consecration of churches, giving of the crucifixion, not only the strife and bewilderment that occurs in those thrones, edification and correction, and the end of the judgment. Here the Patriarch of Constantinople received the following unusually broad and important privileges: a) the right to give stauropegia in all patriarchates. b) the right to supervise and correct discord and confusion in all patriarchates; c) the right of final judgment in the cases of all patriarchates. That these powers made the Patriarch of Constantinople equal to the pope for all of Byzantium does not need to be explained. Our interest is whether they find any support for themselves in church canons. We will try to give as brief and categorical an answer as possible regarding each of these powers. The right to give stauropegia is in decisive contradiction with 31 Apostles. rule. To prove this position, we consider it sufficient to limit ourselves to citing the following arguments of Balsamon in his comments to the said rule. They are valuable especially because Balsamon is a zealous defender of the privileges of the Patriarch of Constantinople. “Relying,” he says in 1 commentary, “on this rule and on others similar in content, local metropolitans and bishops are indignant against those who seek the establishment of patriarchal stauropegies within their borders. Therefore, some of them repeatedly turned to kings and patriarchs with requests to cancel the grant of patriarchal stauropegies, pointing out that those who seek stauropegies and submit a request to the ecumenical patriarch do not even deign to speak to them. But such petitions were not satisfied. And when those asking for the abolition of stauropegia asked to bring them rules allowing the issuance of such stauropegia, their attack was directly repelled by the most holy great church (i.e. metropolitans and bishops) indicating a long-term church unwritten custom, which from unnoticed times to this day has the force of rules in the church. “Another interpretation. After writing an interpretation of this rule, I had a conversation with some of the bishops who were indignant at the patriarchal stauropegia and claimed that they were sent to their borders in violation of the rules, and came to the idea that this was being done fairly and in accordance with the rules, and that in vain the local bishops condemned the structure of the stauropegia: for by divine rules the region was given not to the metropolitan, not to the archbishop and not to the bishop, but to all the regions of the four The countries of the universe are divided between 5 patriarchs, which is why in these regions their names are exalted by all their bishops. And this is clear from the 6th and 7th rules of the 1st Council, also from the 2nd and 3rd rules of the 2nd Council, which determine that the Patriarch of Alexandria has as his domain all of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis; the Antiochian - Syria, Mesopotamia and Cilicia, and the other patriarchs - other districts. Therefore, by the force of these rules, having the right to ordain in the districts designated for them, having the right to judge the bishops who govern in these districts and subjecting them to punishment according to the rules, the patriarchs can rightfully give stauropegies to their cities and regions, and it is also not forbidden to take their clergy as many as they want. But with all this, none of the patriarchs is allowed to send their stauropegies to the region of another patriarch, or to appropriate his clergy, so that there is no confusion of rights in the churches.” b) Each invasion, administrative or judicial, of one patriarch in the region of another constitutes a violation of one of the fundamental provisions of the church structure, namely, that “the affairs of each region must be well established by the council of that region” 9. To prevent precisely such incursions, the Second Ecumenical Council introduced for church administration the division of metropolises into dioceses with a strict warning that the bishops of one diocese should not cross its line into another diocese without receiving an invitation from the local diocesan council either to perform ordinations or “for any other church order” 10 . This basic principle was then confirmed by the rules of the Third Omni. personal 8th and IV Universal. 28th It is on these very rules that the ecclesiastical autonomy of each local church is based, no matter how small in number it may be in comparison with another neighboring one, which is incomparably superior to it in this regard. The rules look at the invasion of the hierarch of such a church into another as “arrogance of worldly power” and an encroachment on the freedom that Christ, the Liberator of all men, granted to the church. This is exactly what the Third Ecumenical Council spoke about regarding the case it considered of the bishops of the Church of Cyprus, who complained against the Bishop of Antioch for his claims to perform ordinations in the Church of Cyprus. “Let not the rules of the fathers be transgressed,” the said council decided on this occasion, “let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in under the guise of sacred rites: and let us not little by little, unnoticed, lose the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, gave us with His blood.” For any council to grant such theft of ecclesiastical freedom to the throne of Constantinople is incredible. With the same decisiveness, the rules are expressed regarding the judicial autonomy of each local church in relation to another: these matters “should be properly established by the council of that region,” and no other hierarch should interfere in these matters without being called. The Council of Carthage formulated this fundamental position with remarkable expressiveness in its letter to the Roman Bishop Celestine, regarding the claims of him and his predecessors to interfere in the judicial affairs of the Carthaginian Church. Referring to the rules of the 1st Universe. The Council of Fathers of the Council of Carthage wrote: “It (the Council of Nicea) reasonably and righteously recognized that no matter what matters arise, they must be finished in their places. For the fathers judged that the grace of the Holy Spirit does not fail for any region, through which the truth is seen by the priests of Christ rationally and firmly maintained, and especially when everyone, if there is a real doubt about the fairness of the decision of the closest judges, is allowed to proceed to the councils of their region and even to the ecumenical council. Is there anyone who would believe that our God can only inspire one with the justice of justice, but refuse it to the countless priests who gathered at the council?” 12 So clear are the church rules or canons that protect the judicial autonomy of each region, even if it does not have a patriarch. On what basis does our monument assign to the Patriarch of Constantinople exclusive supreme judicial power within the boundaries of other patriarchates? There can be only one answer - on the same basis as the right of the stauropegians in other patriarchates learns to him: He elevated into law the actual state of affairs that had developed contrary to the canons under the influence of historical circumstances. This is where we will finish our review of the privileges of the Patriarch of Constantinople, acquired by the monument. Let us move on to consider the powers that our monument assigns to each patriarch and which traces. considered as general patriarchal powers. He formulates them in several articles: Article 10 gives a general formula for administrative and judicial powers; For some reason, Articles 5, 6, 7 and 11 indicate private powers of an administrative nature. 10. All metropolises and bishoprics, the monastery and the church, providence and care, and also judgment, condemnation and release from guilt belong to their patriarch. The twofold powers of the patriarch are indicated here very briefly and generally: administrative and judicial. Both are expressed in such a way that it seems as if in his patriarchy the patriarch is the only judge and administrator over all metropolises, bishoprics, monasteries and churches. But such a representation does not correspond either to historical reality or to completely clear canonical definitions, and if it arises when reading the monument, then this stems from the inaccuracy of its formulation of patriarchal powers; more precisely, they should be formulated as follows: the patriarch is the highest (and not the only) administrator and judge within the boundaries of his patriarchy. We will try to indicate the particular types of these and other powers on the basis of church rules and contemporary historical sources. A. Administrative powers of the patriarch. Rights by ordination. Since the patriarch is equal in hierarchical degree to the bishop, in his diocese he ordains clergy of all degrees up to and including presbyter. But as the highest administrative person in the local church, as the primate between all bishops and metropolitans, he has special rights regarding the ordination of these latter. What are these rights? The answer to this question is given by the 28th rights. Council of Chalcedon in the following words: “only the metropolitans of the regions (διοιϰήσεων) of Pontus, Asia and Thracia and also the bishops of foreigners of the above-mentioned regions shall be appointed from the Holy See of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople: that is, every metropolitan of the above-mentioned regions ( διοιϰήσεων) with the bishops of the region (έπαρχίας) should appoint diocesan bishops, as prescribed by divine rules, and the metropolitans of the above-mentioned regions (διοιϰήσεων) should be appointed to be, as stated, Constantinople Archbishop according to the authority of the consenter, according to the custom of election and upon presentation of it to him.” For a clear and correct understanding of this resolution, we consider it necessary to present the following comments. 1. In the presented text of the resolution, according to the translation of the book of rules, two completely different in meaning Greek terms are translated by the same term region: διοιϰήσις and έπάρχια, as a result of which the reader gets the impression as if in the entire Patriarchate of Constantinople at that time there were only three metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thracia and that they only the patriarch had the right to ordain. To prevent the possibility of such a misunderstanding of the rule, one must take into account the difference between the true terms of the rule διοίϰησις and έπάρχια. Διοίϰησις embraces several regions (έπάρχια) or provinces, each of which consists of several bishops (παροικία) and is headed by a metropolitan, so that in each district there are several metropolitans. According to Lequesne's calculation, the Pontic district (διοίϰησις) embraced 13 regions or metropolises, Asia - 12, and Thracian 11, for a total of 36 metropolises 13. At the time of drawing up the rule in question, the number of metropolitans in the Patriarchate of Constantinople was no less than this. 2. The rule in question precisely distinguishes the patriarchal right to ordination from the metropolitan right. Ordinary diocesan bishops, according to the force of this rule, are ordained by a council of bishops of the diocese (region) with its chairman - the metropolitan. The Patriarch should not take any part here. But what to do if the need arises to elect and ordain a metropolitan see? The rule says: “and the metropolitans themselves must be appointed to be the Polish Archbishop (patriarch - also) upon the institution of an election consistent with the custom and upon presentation of it to him.” What kind of ordinary election does the rule speak about, as an act preceding the consecration of the elected metropolitan? We find a clear and authoritative answer to this question in the XVI Act of the Council of Chalcedon, at which the rule in question was discussed. “The most illustrious dignitaries (who formulated the result of the debate) said: (the most holy Archbishop of the reigning K-pol, new Rome) has the independent power to consecrate metropolitans in the districts of Asia, Pontus and Thracia in such a way that votes are collected from the clergy of each metropolis, from the owners and most noble men, in addition from all, or most of the most venerable bishops region, the one whom the above-mentioned persons recognize as worthy to be a bishop of the church in the metropolis would be elected, and on behalf of all those who elected it would be presented to the most holy archbishop of the reigning Constantinople for his disposal: whether he would like the chosen one to come here and be consecrated, or with his permission to receive a bishopric in the region, in accordance with the election. And the most holy bishops of each city should be consecrated by all or most of the most venerable bishops of the region, because the metropolitan has the right, according to the exact canon of the fathers, and the most holy archbishop of reigning Constantinople does not in the least participate in their consecrations." 14 Over time, this completely canonical order has changed greatly to the detriment of the rights of metropolitans and local clergy and lay persons. Zonara depicts the procedure for ordinating a metropolitan, common in his time (12th century) as follows: “So that no one would think that these holy fathers (i.e., the Council of Chalcis) place in the full authority of the Bishop of Constantinople everything that relates to ordination, so that in the matter of ordination he would have the power to do whatever he pleases, they added that metropolitans are ordained by them according to the consent of election and upon presentation of it to him, thus saying almost the following: the bishop of K-pol should not make metropolitans whom he himself wants, but the election must be carried out by a synod subordinate to him, and on whom the electors agree, from those he must ordain, after the presentation of the very elections to him” 15. The meaning of the rule had changed so much by the 12th century! The change was accompanied by a violation of two elementary or fundamental principles of canon law: 1) that every election to a bishop (as well as a metropolitan) must take place in the city in which his see is located; 2) that the election of the candidate belongs to the local clergy and people under the leadership of the regional council of all, or most, bishops (Nik. sob. rights. 4). In the Patriarchate of Constantinople, by the 12th century, the custom of electing a metropolitan in the patriarchal council had taken root 16. So, the patriarch, as the primate of the local church, has the right to approve the candidate for metropolitan chosen by the regional council and the local church society and to ordain him (it is assumed that the candidate does not have the episcopal rank). The right to supervise and guide the implementation of church and state laws. This authority of the patriarch is formulated in Articles 5, 6 and 7, omitted, as indicated above, by the syntagma of M. Vlastar. We cannot decide what motives led him to such a reduction of the original, but this omission is very important. That along with the cathedral as a body of church legislative power, there must be an executive body that must exist and operate continuously is beyond doubt. Under the patriarchal system of church structure, such bodies are: in each diocese a bishop with a council auxiliary to him, in the region a metropolitan with a synod and, as the highest administrative authority, a patriarch with a “consecrated synod” - in ancient Russian terminology. These authorities must stand in relation to those controlling one another, and control over the patriarch must belong to the general good founder of the local Church - its council. Our monument assigns to the patriarch and to him alone the power of interpretation of church canons and conciliar “acts” (πράξεις και οιϰονομίαι), the content of which included private administrative orders and judicial decisions. The powers are very important and deserve full greetings for the Russian Patriarchate. The fact is that our church legislation presents special difficulties in application that are not known to general state legislation. The Orthodox Church bases all its activities on the canons and church tradition. This conservative direction is not evidence of her immobility, but a necessary property of her, and if you like, not only of her, but also of others, for example. Protestant churches: it stems from a completely correct view of the ancient times of Christianity as the best times; in particular, the Orthodox Church reveres the era of ecumenical councils as the ideal of structure and discipline. This explains the appearance in our monument of such an article as the 7th, which at first glance contains an anti-legal provision that the most ancient canons retain their force even with later ones; such a rule stands in clear contradiction to the general legal principle that a later law abolishes an ancient one. Contrary to this legal principle, the church consciousness asserts that ancient canons and customs are preserved as much as possible. The task is not at all easy. In addition, its implementation is greatly hampered by the diversity and insufficient development of sources containing this conservative element of our church legislation. How many officials, breviaries, nomocanons we have, how many differences there are in local church customs and traditions! What a profound difference sometimes appears between the basic canonical principles and the current legislation! Where is the way out of these difficulties? Currently, it is only a matter of discretion and prescription. Our church government only prescribes, but does not explain anything; today it prescribes one thing, tomorrow it is completely different. Everyone is groping around, at random, whoever sees what, and at the same time everyone is not sure, they are afraid that what was prescribed may not be what they should. The Eastern Patriarchate, in particular the Patriarchate of Constantinople, did not have such disorder in the Middle Ages; it prevented it by the fact that it was an authoritative interpreter of canons and church traditions and fulfilled this purpose with brilliant success, not only because it was authoritatively authorized to do so, but because it gathered the best theological, canonical, and legal forces. She did not so much prescribe as she explained and instructed all kinds of co-questioners on church affairs. That is why one could say about the Patriarchate that it is a spiritual clinic (and not a public place, although it was such) and no one who enters it, having a sick conscience, comes out unhealed, but receives appropriate healing for each ailment, whether he is infirm with respect to divine dogmas, or with some other ailment of his.” 17 In the Middle Ages, the Patriarchate of Constantinople served as such a medical clinic and practical school of theology and church jurisprudence both for the whole of Byzantium and for the Slavic churches, including the Russian Church 18 . In general, the power in question is very important and fruitful. The Russian Patriarchate, as the highest executive body of conciliar legislation, must certainly be gifted with it. It goes without saying that through the patriarchate the publication of state legislation on church affairs should be carried out in the church. In a word, the patriarchy should be a church senate. In Art. Our 11th monument, as edited by M. Vlastar, empowers the patriarch with the exclusive right to resolve issues of penitential discipline, to bind and absolve from sins and heresies. But, as was shown above, such exclusivity of authority is a distortion of the original. The latter refers to the ordinary spiritual right (potestas clavium), which belongs to each bishop, whether it be a patriarch, metropolitan or bishop of a diocese. Like every bishop in his diocese, the patriarch is obliged to personally perform the rite of confession of a sinner turning to him, and has the right to entrust it to special persons from among his elders - confessors. In this regard, we have developed a different church practice, according to which every parish priest is eo ipso and confessor, and even the obligatory confessor of his parishioners; as for bishops, they never seem to make confession. This article has another interest for us in that it clearly affirms the position that in his diocese the patriarch bears the duty of shepherding just like every diocesan bishop. B. Judicial powers of the patriarch. The right of supervision over the application of church and state laws is combined in the person of the patriarch and with his judicial powers. The Patriarch judges in the first instance litigation arising between metropolitans, between a metropolitan and his bishop, a clergyman and a layman. This power is partly expressed in the following words of the 9 rights. Council of Chalcedon: “if a bishop or cleric has displeasure against the metropolitan of a region, let him appeal either to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople, and let him be tried before him.” (Cf. rights. 17). In practice, as the history of ecumenical councils and state Byzantine legislation shows, the judicial competence of the patriarch was much wider. Thus, from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon one can see that already at that time the Archbishop of Constantinople in his synod was resolving litigation between metropolitans and the Ecumenical Council recognized this right for him 19 . In the legislation of Justinian (included in our Helmsman’s Book), the judicial competence of the patriarch is defined as follows: “If there are no venerable bishops of the same council (i.e. provinces or metropolises) have some kind of dispute with each other, or about church places or about other certain things, the first metropolitan of them with other bishops from his council shall judge such a thing, and if both superiors do not remain in judgment, then the blessed patriarch of that reign will listen between them and so command, as with church rule and law, not a single superior should speak against his court I can. If the clerk or anyone else accuses the bishop of guilt, the first metropolitan of the region will judge such a thing according to the sacred rules and according to our laws, and if anyone condemns the thing destined for the blessed bishop and patriarch, he will announce: and he who is like him will put an end to it. If the metropolitan has something to do with the bishop, or the clerk, or anyone else, the patriarch of that reign, let the matter be judged in a similar way; For all sorts of faults, either from their own metropolitan, or from the patriarch, or from any other judges, bishops are judged” 20. The judicial competence of the patriarch is defined here as follows: 1) he judges in the first instance cases arising between the metropolitan and any of his flock (clergy or layman), as well as between him and any of the bishops of his region; 2) he judges in the second instance cases arising between the bishops of the region, decided by the metropolitan with his council, when any of the parties is dissatisfied with this decision; The patriarch also considers the appealed verdict of the metropolitan, rendered in the case of the bishop with one of his flock. That, within the limits of this competence, the patriarchs actually used judicial power - the history of the Byzantine and Russian churches is full of examples 21. These are the governmental powers of the patriarch. Their general formula will be as follows: the patriarch is the highest spiritual dignitary in the local church, “father of fathers.” Ruling his diocese as an ordinary bishop, he at the same time has direct power over the metropolitans, the spiritual dignitaries closest to him - in ordination, execution of laws and court, the same as metropolitans over the bishops of their region, and mediocre over all members of the local church. From this it logically follows that the advantage of the honor of the patriarch is that his name is raised at the liturgy in all metropolises, bishops, parishes and monasteries of the local church 22. These powers exhaust the power of the patriarch in our monument. We see no obstacle to equipping the future Russian patriarch with them. But for our part, we consider it necessary to add the following additional articles to the desired structure of the patriarchal office. C. The way the patriarch uses his powers. The patriarch exercises all powers regarding general church governance only in the rank of chairman of the council of a local or permanent synod. For him, as for the primate and metropolitan, the instruction of the 34th Apostolic Canon, which so typically expresses the spirit of a truly ecclesiastical conciliar structure (compared, for example, with the medieval and modern papacy), must remain in full force: “Bishops of every nation should know the first in them and recognize him as the head (ὡς ϰεφαλήν) and nothing exceeding their authority do without his reasoning: do for each only that which concerns his diocese and the places belonging to it. But even the first one does not do anything without the judgment of everyone. For such will be one mind, and God will be glorified in the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The entire difference between the first of the bishops (πρώτος έν επίσκοπους - the patriarch in this case) lies in the exclusive right of chairmanship: alone, “without the consideration of everyone,” he does not do anything that exceeds the power of the diocesan bishop. Against such an understanding of the rule, apparently, a rather definite phrase can serve, commanding bishops to recognize the first “as the head” (ήγείσθαι αύτόν ὡς ϰεφαλήν). What kind of leadership is this? Is it that diocesan bishops, in the circle of affairs of their diocese, act above the primacy of the primate (patriarch)? Not at all; each of them acts here independently of anyone: here he himself is, as it were, the head (note this as if), but once any matter arises that is beyond his competence, for example. someone from his flock brings an accusation or demand against him, or a neighboring bishop turns to him with the same thing - here the primate (metropolitan, patriarch) must speak as the head - what is the head? - Council of Bishops. His entire quasi primacy consists in the fact that he must convene the council and, as chairman, report the matter to the council and do nothing on this matter without the consideration of everyone. Is he the head of the cathedral? Yes, supposedly the head, and the other supposedly members, all acting together and organically connected, and not in such a way that this head acts as a quantity or force separated from the body (as is now done in our dioceses, when all members of the diocesan administration work in isolation). Having established such a relationship between the primate and the bishops, the rule very strongly theologically argues for this establishment: “for in this way there will be unanimity,” it says, “and God will be glorified.” This means that in any other relationship there will be no unanimity between the bishops and God will not be glorified in them. The history of the law of the Eastern churches testifies that this basic principle of primacy has always been respected in the patriarchal structure of the church. Typically, the patriarch exercised his powers over general church governance at two types of councils: temporary councils that met on especially important occasions and at his permanent synod 23 . D. Election of the patriarch and defrocking. Since the patriarchate does not constitute a special hierarchical degree different from the episcopal one, but is only a variety of the latter (in comparison with the diocesan bishop, metropolitan, etc.), then the method of election to the patriarch is essentially identical with the method of election to the bishop. The local flock, i.e. the clergy and people of the diocese of the patriarch (for example, Moscow) elect a candidate and present him to the provincial council with the chairman metropolitan for canonical testing and ordination of the chosen one. This is the canonical norm. But the patriarch is the head of the local church, and not just the bishop of his diocese. Is it possible, therefore, to limit the composition of voters within the boundaries of the diocese? Is it possible to consider the question of his election as a diocesan issue? Isn't this a church-wide question? Unfortunately, this opinion is quite widespread and has a historical basis, both in the Eastern and Russian churches. In view of this, one should dwell on it, but in order to resolutely reject it, as alien to the spirit of Orthodox canon law. 1. The position that the patriarch is the head of the local church is completely false. It is impossible to point out not a single canon, not a single place of Holy Scripture that would entrust the primacy of the local church to the patriarch. The head of the Church is Christ: his visible representative, the “vice-god,” does not exist in reality; it was invented by medieval Catholicism. True, in imitation of the Roman ambitious, the eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople called themselves “heads of the church”, and then “heads of the Greek nation”, it is true that the metropolitans of the autocephalous Slavic churches were adorned with this name, but these were descriptive names that did not mean any real meaning, just like for example. the following: the head of all cities is Kyiv, the mother of all rivers is the Volga, or the Danube River. And if indeed there were examples of attempts on the part of individuals to exercise in practice the claims of supremacy in the management of the church, then such persons in the Orthodox Church were always condemned as guilty of the sin of Latinism and papalism - (for example, Patriarch Nikon). It is the canonical teaching of the Eastern Church that for each church knows only the “primate” - or the bishop of the first throne, whom he calls by various honorary titles, Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, Catholicos, etc., and even then not particularly willingly 24. 2. The patriarch is, first of all, the bishop of the local flock, and then the chairman of the council that governs the local church; therefore, the local flock should be primarily interested in choosing him. For her, he must be her own, and not someone else’s, imposed from outside by third-party voters. In governing his flock, the patriarch must be an example of a good shepherd to other bishops: only in this case will he acquire moral authority in their eyes. And if election by the local flock is considered a condition of good shepherding for every diocesan bishop, then it should be recognized as such for the patriarch. In itself, presiding over a council is not at all so important as to sacrifice the good of the nearest flock for its sake. To whom and what will be the benefit of the patriarch, elected, let’s say, by all the bishops of the church and unknown to his flock? He may be a good chairman, but a bad shepherd. There is no reasonable reason to prefer the art of presiding to the great work of shepherding. A good patriarch is one who, first of all, is a good shepherd of his flock. 3. The election of a patriarch by the entire local church would be justified only if one viewed him as the head of the church, but such a view has no justification for itself either in the word of God or in the canons of ecumenical councils. It was the product of the policy of the Byzantine emperors, who wanted to give an outward regal splendor to the bishop of the capital, and the envious desire of some of the bishops of Constantinople, who wanted to be equal to the archbishops of ancient Rome. The tendency of eastern papism has for itself the dark times of the Middle Ages for true Christianity and Orthodoxy, but has nothing for itself either in the Gospel and Apostolic teaching, or in the rules of St. fathers and ecumenical councils. Taking these considerations into account, the procedure for the election and consecration of a patriarch should be presented as follows: When the patriarch's chair becomes idle, the election of a candidate is made by the local flock - the clergy and laity. The elected candidate is presented to the Metropolitan Council of the district to which the diocese of the Patriarch adjoins. This council approves the election and performs consecration, guided by the Apostle. right 1st and All. personal 1st – 4th. Removal from office and complete defrocking of a patriarch is not determined by special canonical decrees, therefore, conclusions by analogy must also be valid here. With the medieval view of the patriarch as the head of the local church, this issue was resolved in principle in such a way that the only competent institution for the trial of the patriarch was recognized as an almost ecumenical council, consisting of a local council with the presence of all the patriarchs or their locums. But since we have rejected this view, another church institution must of necessity be indicated as having judicial competence over the patriarch. The Patriarch may be subject to judicial liability for two types of offenses and crimes: 1) as a diocesan bishop and as the chairman of the highest church-governmental institution - the Holy Synod. Should these disparate cases be judged by different judicial authorities, or should there be only one court for the patriarch? In the church canons we do not find an answer to this question: the rank of patriarch appears here as if it has no judgment over itself. But the Eastern Church does not recognize the patriarch as “infallible” and history is full of examples of patriarchs being overthrown in court for serious crimes. What kind of court judges the patriarch? In response to this, the following considerations are important, first of all: in the interests of the local flock and local diocesan life, two judicial institutions corresponding to the above-mentioned double crime of the patriarch are not superfluous. If the patriarch is ordained by a metropolitan council, then why could not this council serve as the first judicial instance over a patriarch who sins as a diocesan bishop - in short, in his diocesan affairs? This assumption can be supported by the following canon of the Council of Sardicia: “if a certain bishop appears, prone to anger (which should not have a place in such a man), and suddenly, being irritated with a presbyter or deacon, he desires to kick someone out of the church: it is appropriate to use protection, lest such an hour be condemned and deprived of fellowship. All the bishops said: the one who is ejected has the right to resort to the bishop of the metropolis of the same region. If the bishop of the metropolis is not in place, resort to the neighboring bishop and ask for the matter to be thoroughly investigated. For the hearing of those who ask must not be blocked. And this bishop, who righteously or unrighteously cast out such a person, must complacently endure it, so that the matter will be investigated, and his verdict will either be confirmed or receive correction. But, before all the circumstances are carefully and correctly examined, the person excommunicated from communication until the consideration of the case 25 should not arrogate communication to himself, etc. The rule talks about an ordinary diocesan bishop: but let’s imagine that the patriarch does this with his presbyter or deacon: what can we do? Where can an offended clergyman turn, seeking protection against his patriarch and diocesan bishop who are irritated with him? Can't he appeal to the metropolitan, in whose district (geographically) the patriarchal diocese is located? Based on principle, there is no obstacle to answering this question in the affirmative. The matter here is not of general church importance, but of diocesan importance, which the metropolitan has the competence to decide in his court, and meanwhile postpone the time of judicial investigation until convening, for example. a local council, which, of course, also has jurisdiction over the patriarch, is extremely difficult for the victim and unprofitable in terms of justice in general. But on the other hand, subordinating the patriarch to the court of the metropolitan is not hierarchically tactful. How can we be here? In our opinion, to resolve this issue, we would in vain begin to look for foundations and material, both in the ancient canonical church structure and in the modern structure of the Church of Constantinople. There is no direct or indirect answer to this question in the church canons. There is no appeal to the patriarch's court, and he himself appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of any permanent functioning church court. As for historical evidence, they only point to a local council with the participation of other patriarchs. This, of course, is the canonically direct path and the correct solution to the issue, but practically - as indicated - very inconvenient. As for the modern structure of the Church of Constantinople, the patriarch here is subject to the jurisdiction of his synod, the chairman of which is also the mixed council. It seems to us that such jurisdiction is unsatisfactory in all respects, both canonical and practical; In canonical terms, complete tactlessness is revealed here: the chairman-boss here is judged directly by his closest subordinates. In practical terms, a constant confusion of relations and a stoppage of affairs are possible here: for for the entire time of his state of jurisdiction, the patriarch must remain inactive in his presiding function, and the synod itself must thus alternate in its functions - either to be an administrative institution under the chairmanship of the patriarch, or to be his judge in his diocesan affairs. The only and quite convenient way out of these difficulties seems to us to be the consistent implementation of the principle of separation of the church-judicial organization from the church-administrative one; In parallel with the synod, under the chairmanship of the patriarch, a court consisting of at least 6 members of bishops must continuously operate: it must be in charge of the diocesan court cases of the patriarch in the 1st instance. As for the crimes and misdeeds of the patriarch of the second category - i.e. as the chairman of the Synod, then, in our opinion, they should be represented by the competence of the local council. Project for the organization of the Church structure on the basis of the patriarchal-cathedral form 1. The Church is a society. Its only task is the moral improvement of the individual according to the ideal of the Gospel. The individual achieves his Gospel perfection under the indispensable condition of social union. The existence and life of the latter are, in turn, possible under the operation of the laws of the organization and their implementation by special authorities. The latter together form the Church Administration. It has its right to exist insofar as it serves the goals of society. Therefore, it exists in one form or another for society, and not vice versa - society for it. It serves society, not the other way around. And once society realizes the inadequacy of the organization of this type of management, it modifies the latter, improves it, in accordance with its goals. Hence the legitimacy and necessity of reforms in the organization of society and the forms of its government. 2. The Russian Church, located in the territories and within the boundaries of the Russian State, is not part of the state and its organization - one of its departments; but it is part of a non-political and non-national union - a union of a single faith, which has its members in church societies of other states and peoples. Its goal as a union is unique, different from the political and national goal. Its moral unity extends beyond state and national territories. Thus, its organization and management are completely independent of political organizations and should have nothing in common with them. 3. The whole society of the Russian Church is made up of smaller and smaller societies, operating autonomously and independently of each other, but united internally by the unity of religious consciousness and confession and externally by the legal connection of their power representatives. Continuously operating external means connecting these societies are the bodies of church government - collective institutions and individual church-authorized persons. The public unions that make up the Russian Church are the following: a) all Orthodox Christians of Russia; b) all Orthodox Christians of the metropolitan district; c) all Christians of the diocesan district; d) - episcopal, e) parish and g) members of monastic societies. Externally connecting them are the collective governing bodies: 1) The Local Council of the entire Russian Church - its permanent, continuously operating executive body: the Patriarchal Synod; 2) The Metropolitan Council - its continuously operating body - the Metropolitan Synod; 3) The Diocesan Council - its continuously operating executive body - the Diocesan Council; 4) The district bishop and his district council; 5) The parish meeting is its continuous executive body - the parish council. Individual authorized persons acting as permanent chairmen of these collective bodies of Church administration are the following: Patriarch, Metropolitans, Archbishops, chorebishops (or district bishops), parish rectors; archimandrites and abbots in men's monasteries and abbess in women's monasteries. Local Council of the Russian Church Subjects of his jurisdiction. It is the highest legislative, administrative and judicial body on all subjects of church life. Church life is composed of the following spiritual and moral elements or elements: a) the spread and burning of the light of the Gospel truth. This main vital element of Church life reveals itself externally, extensively and intensively. Its extensive discovery consists in the proclamation of the Gospel teaching among citizens of the Russian state and other states that do not belong to any part of the Orthodox Church. This element brings to life special institutions - internal and external missions, etc. embassy churches. Intensive - consists of spiritual growth from faith to faith, in the expansion and deepening of the Gospel truth in human consciousness, in its impact on life, which ennobles the aspirations of the individual, his ideals, private, public and even political relations. This element evokes, as its external manifestation, an internal educational mission, operating through schools, pastoral and preaching activities, charitable institutions and special institutions of a public nature, such as monastic communities, educational and charitable brotherhoods and societies. b) Sanctification of the human person by the grace-filled influence of private and public prayer and moral education through church discipline. c) Material resources of the Church - in real estate and movable property, emergency funds, income and expenses. In all these aspects of church life, the Local Council has the power of constituent legislation, the power of supervision and control. The Council then exercises supreme and judicial power. The Council itself can be the highest court in necessary cases. He also has administrative and supervisory power over established and operating church-judicial institutions. Resolutions and decisions (judicial) of the Local Council are binding on all members of the Orthodox Russian Church. No one can change or cancel them, except for the subsequent Local Council. Composition of the Local Council. The members of the council include all bishops (personally and through representatives), a certain number of clergy, monastics and laity. Bishops have a decisive vote, others have only an advisory vote. We have sufficiently substantiated these provisions and disclosed them in our article “On the means of strengthening the power of our highest Church administration” 26. As for the convening of the first Local Council, the composition of the members outlined here, in our opinion, fully corresponds to the circumstances of the time and the conditions of our church life. But with the introduction of the structure of the Church we are designing, it can be changed for the following reasons. With the desirable increase in the number of episcopal sees and the introduction of district metropolitan administration, there will be no need to invite all Russian bishops to the Local Council: then it will be possible to invite only delegates from each district council, who will represent the entire district council. This method was used at ecumenical councils 27. The Chairman of the Local Council should be the patriarch of the entire Russian Church. In the case of consideration of the case of the patriarch himself or his illness, the eldest of the metropolitans presides. The procedure for considering and making determinations. The initiation of issues of a legislative or administrative nature belongs to the Synod, Metropolitans and Archbishops. Private individuals are not deprived of this right, but after discussing issues raised officially by church officials and institutions, and not otherwise than through the chairman of the council, who may be able to resolve the puzzling question without reporting it to the council. Discussion of affairs and issues reported to the council must be public and free: the opinions of all those present at the council must be willingly listened to. In the form of combining different opinions and precise formulation, commissions are allowed, which develop a draft decision. The latter is again submitted to the council for consideration. After a comprehensive discussion of it, each of the bishops, starting with the youngest, expresses his opinion about it. The chairman is the last to give his opinion. A unanimous opinion of the council fathers is desirable. At the extreme - the opinion of the majority. The decision recognized as final is signed by the bishops and receives the force of law of the local church. Judicial cases are conducted according to a special procedure established for all instances of the ecclesiastical court. The Patriarchal Synod is a continuously operating highest church institution of an administrative, executive and judicial nature. It has two branches: administrative-executive and judicial; these branches operate completely independently of one another and each have a completely special composition of members and procedure of production. A. Administrative and executive department of the Patriarchal Synod. Subjects of reference. Publication, storage and codification of conciliar definitions. Supervision of metropolitans in their application of conciliar definitions, interpretation of the latter: control over their governmental activities. Compilation and modification of church services and prayers; approval of those compiled by private individuals; correction and publication of liturgical books and canonical codes 28 . Senior management and oversight of missions, internal and external; supreme management of all church schools. Audit of the metropolitan administration as required by circumstances. Management of the central public treasury. Petition in government offices for the acquisition of real estate by church institutions and their consolidation. Control under the financial management of the metropolitans. The consecration of metropolitans and matters arising from this. Supervision of metropolitans in the timely and legal replacement of archiepiscopal sees in their districts. The exclusive right of consecration of St. Peace for the entire Russian Church. The composition of the members of the Holy Synod and the distribution of subjects of competence between them: The composition of the members of the administrative department of the Holy Synod is determined by the electoral procedure at the Local Council from persons of all degrees of hierarchy, monasticism and laity. Among them there should be 3 archbishops 29, the same number of bishops; an indefinite number of presbyters, archimandrites and laity, mostly with academic theological degrees and necessarily 2 of those with higher legal education in the position of legal advisers and sworn attorneys. The Chief Prosecutor and his comrade are abolished in the sense of representatives of the church in the highest state institutions. But they act in the judicial department of the Synod, as bodies of accusatory power. For the non-stop and rapid flow of affairs, the composition of the members of the Holy Synod should be divided into groups or departments with a special range of affairs for each. Depending on the nature of the affairs, each of the departments should distribute the spiritual and secular members in a majority or minority. Eg. a department in charge of finances or schools may have a predominant number of lay members over spiritual ones, and, conversely, departments in charge of affairs of a purely religious nature have a predominant majority of ecclesiastical members. Each of the departments must have the form of a collegium with a fellow chairman at the head, with equal votes of all collegiums. The chairman of all should be the patriarch. Without his signature, no resolution of an individual board can have any effect. The meetings of each department must be closed; however, access to persons interested in the matter must always be open. Their immediate, i.e. oral testimony and explanations should even be preferable to written documents and documents (excluding monetary matters): for church administration deals in most cases with living free moral individuals, and not with legal entities, as is the case in government institutions. In matters of particular importance, the patriarch can convene joint meetings of all or several departments. Resolutions are drawn up by a majority vote and published in the official body on behalf of the Holy Synod, signed by the Patriarch and the members who participated in the preparation of the resolution. The Holy Synod has its own seal with a cross in the middle, and along the edges with an inscription in Slavic script: “Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.” B. Judicial Department of the Holy Synod. It is composed of 3 archbishops, 3 bishops, presbyters, 1 archimandrite and lay persons by election of the local council. The Chairman is the eldest of the archbishops. Moreover, in each case, the parties are given the right to elect an equal number of judges from their side. The accusatory power is concentrated in the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and his companion. But it goes without saying that every private person has the right to act as an accuser. When the Chief Prosecutor (or his comrade) is the prosecutor, he elects judges in the same way as the accused. Defenders are also acceptable. Subjects of jurisdiction of the Judicial Division. The Judicial Division is the highest authority in relation to the metropolitan court and considers, in appeal and cassation, cases decided at the metropolitan court on appeal from the judges and the metropolitan prosecutor. Then, as the 1st instance, the Court. The department considers cases arising in the patriarchal diocese when the accused is the patriarch himself as a diocesan bishop. The procedure for proceedings is public, accusatory, adversarial, in relation to the Charter. corners. The legal proceedings of Alexander II, with the exception of jurors, who are replaced here by judges voluntarily elected by the litigants. An appeal is filed against the verdict of the Judicial Division to the Local Council. The statement of displeasure is accepted within two weeks; after this period, if no such statement is made, the sentence is carried out. The Chief Prosecutor and his companion are appointed by the Local Council, both clergy and secular persons. If there is a case regarding the trial of the patriarch, then the preliminary investigation is carried out in the manner usual for courts of first instance. The Patriarch, as the Diocesan Archbishop, acts on a common basis with other bishops. His diocese should operate the same institutions that we design below for the Diocesan Administration. District-Metropolitan Administration The Russian Orthodox Church is divided into the following districts with a metropolitan representative for each: St. Petersburg, Kiev, Yaroslavl, Kazan, Lithuanian, Georgian (Exarch), Siberian and Turkestan 30. The highest body of the District administration is the periodically convened District Council under the chairmanship of the Metropolitan - and its continuously operating executive body - the Metropolitan Synod. Subjects of reference. The district metropolitan council is constituted at the place of residence of the metropolitan on church affairs and issues relating to the entire district, as well as in the city of the diocese where the election and consecration of the bishop of the diocese or district should take place. The subjects of conciliar deliberations can be: a) measures to spread and establish Orthodoxy, caused by any special phenomena of the church mission, the spread and maintenance of schools; observation of worship and rituals; approval of books of Holy Scripture and liturgical books translated into foreign languages, opening of new seminaries and academies. b) Opening of new bishoprics 31 and streamlining existing ones, for example. delimitation of borders, consideration of states, etc. c) Measures to improve the church treasury and economy. d) Audit of dioceses, both direct through the council delegation, and mediocre through the consideration of reports on the state of the dioceses. The composition of the cathedral. The council includes all the archbishops of the region, some of the bishops 32, presbyters, abbots of monasteries and lay people, for example. one from each district, generally in such a number that would be equal to the number of clergy and monastics present at the council. The order of meetings and the method of making decisions are the same as at the Local Council. Those resolutions of the council that are adopted unanimously are immediately carried out. But those to which the minority will object are suspended in execution until they are considered at the Local Council. The ordination of bishops is carried out on the exact basis of the 4 rights. I Universe Cathedral and 28th - IV Ecumenical. personal The Metropolitan Synod is a continuously operating administrative and executive body of the Metropolitan Council. It consists of the Chairman of the Metropolitan, 2 Archbishops, 2 bishops, presbyters, archimandrites and lay persons with theological education and 2 persons with legal education. Subjects of his jurisdiction. Publication and enforcement of the definitions of the Metropolitan Council and orders of the Patriarchal Synod. Spreading the consecrated world in the area. Review and storage of reports on the status of dioceses. Missions – internal and external. Church schools. District treasury and church economy. Petition to strengthen the real estate of the metropolis and dioceses. Cases on the alienation of church property. The Metropolitan Synod has its own seal with the image of a cross and a circle - the name of the institution. The Metropolitan Court is a continuous operating institution in the district, deciding cases in the 1st and 2nd instance. In the first instance, cases are between archbishops with a metropolitan, an archbishop and a bishop, or cases between one of these persons and a clergyman, abbot or layman. In the 2nd instance, it again considers and decides cases on appeals against the decision of the diocesan court. Composition of the Metropolitan Court. The Metropolitan Court consists of the President of the Archbishop, two bishops, presbyters, an archimandrite and lay persons - according to the election of the Metropolitan Council 33. The obligatory power consists of: the prosecutor and his comrade. The court has an investigator for metropolitan affairs at its disposal. The procedure for legal proceedings is the same as in the patriarchal court. The highest court of appeal is the Patriarchal Court. The period for filing an appeal is two weeks. As the Diocesan Archbishop, the Metropolitan acts on the general principles of Diocesan administration. The diocese is part of the metropolitan district, containing three types of church-social unions: a) a diocese with a central point - a provincial or regional city, b) a district with a district city and a parish - urban and rural. The sole representatives of the Diocese are: the Archbishop of the entire diocese, the Bishop of the district and the presbyter of the parish. Parallel to the parishes there are monasteries for men and women, and such church brotherhoods with individual representatives: abbots, abbesses and chairmen. These unions are governed by periodically convened meetings and continuously operating collegial institutions. Periodically convened meetings: 1) Diocesan Assembly - with its continuously operating executive body - the Diocesan Council; 2) District Assembly - with the District Council and 3) Parish Assembly - with the Parish Council. NΒ. Monasteries and Brotherhoods are governed by special statutes. Its composition: Chairman - Archbishop, members: district bishops 34, representatives of parishes, monasticism, brotherhoods and church schools. To avoid crowding, representatives from parishes are representatives from groups of parishes in each county, elected at preliminary county meetings. Written proceedings at the meeting are conducted by persons elected by the meeting, under the direction of the Secretary of the Diocesan Council. Subjects of reference. Consideration of reports on the state of the entire Diocese, compiled on the basis of reports from district bishops. Activities to improve church life in all respects. Schools and charity. Improvement of church facilities. Here, all sorts of extraordinary phenomena in church life are discussed and the measures they cause are developed. In addition to the periodically convened diocesan meetings, extraordinary ones should be convened to select candidates for the archbishop's see. They are formed under the chairmanship of one of the district bishops and elect a candidate, who is then tested in dignity by the council of bishops and ordained in the cathedral. Diocesan Archbishop. Powers of the Diocesan Archbishop. They are of two kinds: 1) The Diocesan Archbishop has the right of supervision over the district Bishops and administrative influence on them in matters of church administration; 2) He has all the powers and bears the duties of a bishop in relation to the flock of the provincial (regional) city and the adjacent district. He carries out both of these both individually and with the help of the Diocesan Council. He alone exercises the rights of direct supervision over the activities of district bishops, visiting them and their flock in his free time and fatherly instructs and guides them in the proper performance of their ministry. Together with the Diocesan Council, he examines the reports of district bishops on the state of their flocks, approves their assumptions about the formation of new parishes, monasteries, communities and brotherhoods, about the construction of new churches and about the distribution of parishioners to them. In general, he monitors the correct order when changing the composition of the district church flocks under his supervision. With the Diocesan Council, the Archbishop fulfills petitions from district bishops to state institutions to assign real estate to church institutions. As the bishop of a district (regional) city and its district, the Archbishop performs ordinations to church degrees and positions (presbyters, deacons and others), confirms those elected as abbots and abbess, authorizes tonsure into the monastic rank, as well as in the positions of church warden, chairmen of brotherhoods, societies, etc. In matters of both categories, the Diocesan Council serves as an auxiliary institution for him. Its composition: Chairman – Diocesan Archbishop. Its members are presbyters, abbots and laity: - by election of the Diocesan Assembly. For writing - a certain number of employees from deacons, clerks and lay persons, not excluding women. For the convenience and speed of the flow of affairs, the latter are located in the branches of the Council, in relation to how they are distributed in the Consistory among the tables. But the structure of these branches of the Council should be completely different compared to the structure of the Consistory. Thus, the division between the Presence and the Office must be abolished. Each department should have its own composition of members and its own clerks, working separately and independently, and only in some cases joining into a general meeting. Approximately these sections should be as follows: I) Department of protege affairs. The subject of his activity should be: a) testing candidates (presumably elected by the parish or monastery) in their worth; b) delivery of documentary information about the parish to which the candidate was elected and about his person. Particular attention should be paid to this subject, since at present nowhere does such disorder and discretion reign as in matters of this kind. In accordance with the task of this department, its composition should be as follows: 1) Chairman - the Diocesan Archbishop, always personally present; 2) The presbyter of the cathedral church and at least 7 city ones, including their confessor, special for proteges; 3) Approximately two clerks who draw up certificates and store documents related to these cases. The test itself should not be in the nature of a student test in catechism, reading and singing, but in the moral disposition of the individual applying for the priesthood. Its form is a simple friendly conversation between the sitting fathers and a Christian sitting with them who wants to be a shepherd. The goal of the conversation (not just one time) should be to reveal, if possible, the entire soul of the candidate with its advantages, disadvantages and characteristic properties, so that experienced fathers can immediately point out and give their advice to the candidate which aspects of his soul he should develop primarily in the work before him. We must try to stage the trial in such a way that there is as little formality as possible and as much sincerity as possible on both sides. It must be conducted in strict confidence. No one else should be present here, not even the clerk. The testing of those promoted to deacon and psalmist should be of the same nature. These positions also require the greatest attention. Now they are utterly humiliated and distorted. They must be raised to canonical dignity: deacons are co-workers of the apostles, and readers are heralds of divine and prophetic law and teaching. In general, this department should have the type of an ancient church presbytery, senate, church crown, to which a new member is attached. In this composition of persons, ordination is performed: as a presbyter - in full, as a deacon and reader - and in a smaller group. The newly ordained person should freely turn to these same persons for advice - during practical training in church service. b) This same department should be in charge of issues of religious conscience, and it is here that the admonition of fallen clergy should take place, those who have fallen into blasphemy, those wavering in the faith, spouses who have shown a tendency to break their union, parents and children who have violated the 5th commandment. Here penances and corrective measures should be prescribed to clergy, monastics and lay persons. All this should happen in strict confidence, simply, without forms, in a friendly manner. If these friendly admonitions bring a good result, the matter ends as if it never happened. If such a result does not follow, the incorrigible is declared that he can demand a formal church court, or must be brought to this court. II. Department of church organizations, parishes, monasteries, cathedrals, communities, brotherhoods. Since the nature of the cases subject to this department is predominantly business and legal, the composition of the persons working in it should be completely different: the Archbishop may not be present here at all; reports must be submitted to him. It is best to recruit its members from representatives of these organizations, at least only from lay and monastic persons. The task of this Department is: 1) to monitor the current state of the designated organizations and assist them in circumstances that change their state for the better or worse. It must manage the collection and storage of inventories of the property of the said organizations, clergy registers, confessional, metric and other books. 2) It should serve as the Diocesan Statistical Bureau for the designated institutions. 3) It must deliver certificates based on the books and documents kept by it, both to individuals and to the Council as a whole, and to other institutions. 4) It draws up an annual report on the designated diocesan institutions. The nature of the activities of this department is primarily clerical. However, as an administrative board, on the one hand, it is responsible to the Diocesan Archbishop for the performance of its duties, on the other hand, it is invested with the power to demand from the designated institutions the correct delivery of proper books and documents. As an administrative institution, it constitutes general meetings and considers every document emanating from it in the general meeting and issues it under its guarantee, and in order for it to have the force of an administrative document, it is approved by the signature of the Archbishop and the seal of the Council. At such times, the Department must be authorized to take measures of influence on institutions in the event of their failure to deliver obligatory books and documents: these measures must be precisely defined and their application is determined each time by the full meeting of the Department and approved by the Archbishop. This Department receives greater administrative significance when a case arises about changing the given state of any of the designated institutions, for example. on the major renovation of a building, the construction of a new church, the acquisition of real estate, the formation of a new parish, or the abolition of a previously existing one. To consider such matters, a general meeting of the Branch is convened under the personal chairmanship of the Archbishop, and in case of special importance, with the invitation of members of the 1st Branch. The case must be considered in the personal presence of representatives of the institution asking for the case. In addition to the necessary written documents, oral explanations of the latter should also be taken into account, and in necessary cases, authorized persons should be sent to inspect the institution. After examining the case, the ruling is drawn up by a majority vote when drawing up the protocol. If the Archbishop does not agree with the decision of the majority, or those asking are not satisfied with the decision, then the matter is suspended in execution and transferred to the next meeting of the Diocesan Assembly. II. Diocesan Treasury. It consists of a treasurer, an accountant and a clerk. Control over it belongs to the general meeting of the Council, which, in toto or through proxies, monthly audits the cash register, and at the end of the year forms an audit committee to check the report, receipts and expenditure books and cash amounts. The Diocesan Council has its own seal with the image of a cross and the inscription of the institution. Subjects of reference: a) church crimes: 1) Against faith: apostasy from the church; indignation against her; insult to the shrine of the church, to persons of holy rank; perjury, blasphemy, sacrilege. 2) Crimes in office of church persons, both clergy and lay, who are in church service. 3) Cases regarding marriages and divorce. Composition of persons of the Diocesan Court: Chairman - Bishop of the provincial district, members: 3 archpriests and archimandrites and 3 lay persons. They are elected by the Diocesan Assembly. In addition to them, an equal number of judges from clergy and secular persons are elected each time by the defendant and the prosecutor. The representative of the prosecution is a prosecutor, elected and appointed by the metropolitan court. The court and the prosecutor must have special offices. The administrative part, monitoring the speed and correctness of legal proceedings is entrusted to the chairman of the court. The defendant, like the plaintiffs, may have lawyers and attorneys. The Diocesan Court has at its disposal one investigator per county. The investigator is elected by the Diocesan Assembly and approved by the Metropolitan Court. Procedures for legal proceedings. Legal proceedings – oral, adversarial, public. The movement of the court case is carried out in the following order: The trial begins either on the complaint and request of a private person, or on the proposal of the administration (parish meeting and council, district bishop, Diocesan Archbishop and Diocesan Council). The administration's representation is made to the President of the court or the Prosecutor; a private complaint or petition can be presented to each of the above-mentioned administrative institutions and sent to the judicial authority, but, of course, it can also be brought directly to it. Upon receipt of a complaint or presentation, the judicial authority orders the Spiritual Investigator to conduct a preliminary investigation. Both the preliminary investigation and the further course of the case take place in relation to the Court. Est. 1864 In this case, the place of the Judicial Chamber is replaced by the Metropolitan Court. Once the latter has approved the indictment, a court hearing is scheduled. The judicial investigation must take place in relation to the order depicted in the Court. Charters of 1864 At the end of the debate, the court raises questions and, after the parties have exchanged opinions on them, retires to a special room to resolve the issue of guilt. If recognized as such, he asks for the prosecutor’s conclusions about the punishment and also goes into a special room to award it. The announcement of the verdict, the procedure for appealing and its execution are carried out in accordance with the procedure appropriate to the Court. Est. 1864 The procedure for legal proceedings in divorce cases A person seeking a divorce (especially a poor, lower-class person), if he wishes, can first make a complaint to the parish priest. The presentation is oral, but the priest is obliged to set out its contents in a book created specifically for this purpose. If, further, he finds it convenient, he can make an attempt at reconciliation. If it turns out to be unsuccessful, he may invite both spouses to submit the case to an arbitration court, composed, in addition to him, of an equal number of judges elected by both parties. If this court reconciles the spouses, the case ends; if not, then, at their request, it sends the case to the Diocesan Court. If any of the parties disagrees with this arbitration, the case is sent directly to the Diocesan Court. The petition for divorce must be in writing; submitted to the chairman. The latter sets a time for both parties to appear in court, announcing to the defendant the essence of the accusation or claim in the summons. The procedure for judicial investigation is oral, adversarial, and public. At the end of the debate, the court addresses the defendants with an admonition for reconciliation and sets a three-day period for reflection. After this period, the meeting resumes. If reconciliation does not take place, the court decides the verdict. An appeal to the metropolitan court is permitted. Each county must have its own bishop. The district bishop must have the authority to ordain presbyters and other clergy, as well as to appoint abbot and abbess, and the authority to supervise all parishes, monasteries and other church institutions in the district. Therefore, he is elected and ordained entirely according to the rank of episcopal ordination and in the exercise of the said powers is completely independent of the Archbishop, although his name must be exalted in the ministry. A district assembly under the chairmanship of the district bishop, or, after his death, under the chairmanship of the oldest Archimandrite or Archpriest in the district, is convened from representatives of parishes and other societies of the district in two cases: a) before the time of the annual Diocesan Assembly to elect deputies from the district to it and b) when the department of the district bishop becomes vacant. At meetings of the 1st type, the question is decided: from which parishes should deputies be appointed to the upcoming Diocesan Assembly? The issue can be resolved depending on any special needs of the parishes known only: for it is possible that at other times there will be no need to send representation from all the parishes of the district. This issue may also be resolved depending on what issues and affairs the Diocesan authorities outline for the existing Diocesan Assembly. As for states of the 2nd kind, their very subject requires as complete a collection as possible - from all parishes. The assembly elects one or two candidates for the episcopacy and proposes them to the Metropolitan and his bishops who arrive at the end of the elections, among whom should be the Diocesan, as well as some from the district ones - to judge the dignity of the chosen one and his ordination. It is also possible that an episcopal council arriving for ordination will propose its candidate to the District Assembly. This case may occur when the county assembly does not come to an agreement regarding its own candidate, for example. due to the scarcity of worthy people, the Metropolitan Council will find a worthy candidate. The issue must be resolved by a joint agreement between the Council and the District Assembly. To exercise his powers, the district Bishop has a permanent Council, consisting of clergy and lay members. In the likeness of the Diocesan Council, it is also divided into three departments, but with a smaller composition of persons, depending on the number of parishes and the general size of the Orthodox population of the district. The main purpose of the District Bishop and his Council is to regulate the ordination of clergy and supervise the life of parishes. Thanks to the introduction of district bishops, each of them has to perform ordinations relatively infrequently, and this makes it possible to perform them slowly and get to know his proteges quite closely. This familiarization will then continue with personal visits by the district bishop of the parishes. A bishop can survey his district every year - and again, do this not as hastily and superficially as one diocesan bishop for all districts is currently forced to do. This circumstance then makes the existence of deans completely unnecessary - an institution in many respects undesirable. The district bishop will completely replace him. On the one hand, he will have incomparably greater moral authority in the eyes of every priest, like a bishop; on the other hand, he can behave in relation to his clergy, as his former proteges, more sincerely and friendly, without being at all afraid of lowering his prestige and not bothering with any artificial measures to raise it in the eyes of his subordinates, which is what the dean, both elected and administratively appointed, is forced to resort to. In addition, the autonomous position of the parish will make too petty supervision unnecessary: ​​the self-interest of each member of the clergy will always encourage him to be worthy of election in the eyes of the parishioners. A parish is the smallest collective unit, or part of a county, having the rights of a legal entity, spiritually consisting under the leadership and management of the parish clergy, and in church-social and economic terms, self-governing by the parish assembly and parish council. A parish clergy may have one, two or three presbyters, a deacon, one, two or three readers. Small parishes may not have a reader, but only a presbyter and a deacon, and the latter must, if necessary, correct the position of the reader if he fails, for example. as a teacher of a church school, organize reading and singing in the church from the school’s students. The parish meeting must meet once a year, but may, as circumstances require, meet several times. Its composition: The chairman is a priest (and if there are several of them in the parish, then the one who will be elected). Members are all parishioners who have reached the age of 21, have permanent residence in the parish area and have lived for at least 3 years. Women can also be members - no younger than the specified years, not burdened with maternal responsibilities and not married, for example. having elderly parents or orphaned brothers and sisters in their care. – Writing is carried out either by one of the members of the clergy for a special fee, or by one of the laity by election. Subjects of competence: 1) a) election of candidates for clergy; b) election of the elder and members of the Parish Council. 2) Control over the activities of the Parish Council and the elder. It is carried out: a) by hearing and verifying the annual report and income and expense books, as well as auditing amounts; b) audit of church property and amounts entrusted to the elder. 3) Measures and operations of an industrial nature, tending to increase the property and income of the parish. Once the rights of a legal entity in the civil sense are recognized for a parish, this subject will - one hopes - be developed and produce good results. 4) Finding measures and methods of parish charity and - as a good aspiration - a moral and educational impact on the lives of parishioners. The corrective body of the parish assembly is the Parish Council, consisting of the clergy, as permanent members, and parishioners elected at the Parish Assembly 35. RKP. Libraries M. D. Academician No. 218, l. 110 rev. (The life of Patriarch Nikon, and his answers to Paisius Ligarid). Zachariae a Lingenthal: Collectio Libr. jur. gr – romani ineditorum. Lipsiae 1852. T. III. a. 87–88. Pavlov: Church course. rights, p. 89. The helmsman's book interprets the name of the patriarch in this way: “Who asks you, saying, what is the patriarchal name? And answer him: Patri (πατρι) is interpreted by the father, and the arch (αρχη) is the beginning, as if being the patriarch is the beginning of everything, the least and the greatest.” Ch. 67. The Legend of the Mantle of the Patriarchs. The exception is the widespread interpretation of the word: “heretic”. This interpretation belongs to state legislation, it was first established by Justinian (see new 109), and then retained in later legislation. Meanwhile, canon law carefully distinguishes between the concepts of heretic, schismatic, and so on. See St. Vas. Vel. right 1. Καί πατριάρχας ϰατέστησαν - and they appointed patriarchs. Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, V, S. p. 398. St. Petersburg. 1850. See also the interpretation of 28 rights. Chalcis. personal Aristin interprets it differently; he shares precisely this violent and not kind interpretation: “the same advantages and the same honor - gov. he is right in the commentary to 3rd. II Omni. personal with the bishop of Rome the bishop of Constantinople must also have rights, as in 28 rights. The Council of Chalcedon understood this rule, because this city is the new Rome and received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite. For the preposition “by” here does not denote honor, but time, just as if someone said: for much time the bishop of Constantinople received equal honor with the bishop of Rome.” 2nd Universe. Sob. right 2. Book of Rules. Epistle of the African Council to Celestine the Pope. Le Quien, Oriens christianus, T. I. This account is far from accurate: there were incomparably more metropolitans in the Asian district. Let us remember that in the flourishing era of the K-Polish Patriarchate, the Russian Metropolis occupied 61st place. Acts Everyone Sob. vol. IV, pp. 381–382. Zonara in the interpretation of 28 Chalcis Ave. personal All Russian metropolitans of the Kyiv or pre-Moscow period were appointed in this manner. In the Moscow period, this order changes in the sense of approaching the canonical: little by little, the patriarch only ordains and confirms the chosen one of the Russian council Zhishmann: Die Synoden und Episcoral-Amteg. S. 215. Examples of the application by the K-Polish Patriarch of the right to interpretation of c. canons can be found in abundance in the interpretations of Balsamon, in Acta et diplomata Th. Miklosich and in the Russian Historical Library vol. VI. See the case of Photius of Tire and Eustathius of Beriz. Helmsman book Ch. 42, gr. 57, 58: From the scroll of new commandments... King Justinian. See Acts of the Vsel. Sob. vol. 4. Russian history. library, vol. VI. See 15 rights. Place double cathedral. The difference between these councils is clarified in my book: On Church Power and in the article: On the Means of Strengthening the Power of the Supreme Church. management. “The bishop of the 1st see is not called the Exarch of the Priests, or the high priest, or anything similar, but only the bishop of the first see.” Kirf. personal right 48. Theological Bulletin 1903 and separately. The canonization of saints and relics should be left to the Local Council. There should be no metropolitans in the Holy Synod, since with the autonomy of the district metropolitan administration, their constant presence at the place of service seems extremely necessary. We indicate the approximate name of the districts: the question of their number and boundaries should be decided by considerations of practical convenience. This important subject is finally considered and approved by the Local Council. But the metropolitan council must take the initiative and preliminary draft of the foundations on which the new bishopric will be created. So that the Diocese does not remain without the necessary supervision, and there is no stop in the performance of ordinations and current diocesan affairs. Moreover, those judging have the right to elect each an equal number of their own judges in addition to ordinary judges. With the exception of the bishop of the provincial district, who has a special appointment - the chairman of the Diocesan Court. We have not introduced church schools into the system of church structure. Their organization, the attitude of the higher to the lower and the attitude of the general church administration - district and diocesan - towards them, in our opinion, require special and special discussion. You might be interested in: