Comments on the draft Orthodox parish administration

(Regarding the brochure: A. Papkov: The need to renew the Orthodox church-social system; St. Petersburg, 1902 1 It is very rare to come across works in current literature on various “social issues” that would arouse such a deep and close interest to the heart of every serious person, as arouses a small brochure (only 44 pages), the title of which is put in brackets (containing a reprint from the Russian Bulletin, June 1902), although the subject considered by it, at first glance, is a mere insignificance. This item is an Orthodox Church parish. Isn't this a real nonentity? Apparently yes. Meanwhile, the venerable author managed to illuminate this insignificant subject in such a way that reading his brochure is enough for the soul, as they say. What's the matter? – The fact is that in most cases we consider complex phenomena of social life from a bird’s eye view, and our observation, of course, is presented to the upper parts and the most prominent points of the observed phenomena, while the parts lying below and serving as the actual supports and foundations of tall buildings are hidden from our observation. The results of such a superficial observation in the literal sense of the word is that all our concerns - if out of duty, or out of free good will, we show these concerns - are addressed precisely to the well-being of these upper points of the phenomenon and the lower and base ones are omitted from sight. In such an unenviable observation position; In relation to our church, the majority of amateur observers are: that is why such a base subject as a “parish” does not enjoy the attention of our society. But it is worth descending from the height of observation, touching the foundation, delving into the soil on which it is established, to be convinced that even the seemingly microscopic little things in the destinies of tall buildings are of enormous importance. With rare energy and scientific conscientiousness, on his own initiative, G. Papkov plunged into the study of the parish issue in its past and present and came to the conviction of the urgent need to revive the modern “parish” in all the meaning that it had in ancient pre-Petrine Russia. In those good old days, the life of the parish was in full swing. It was the center of the religious, moral and economic life of our people, uniquely created by its genius and its historical conditions. The totality of these centers, so to speak cells, constituted the foundations of our entire national structure, and the period of such a brilliant state of the Russian parish lasted for a long time. The church-governmental policy of the 18th and especially the beginning of the 19th century, which became more and more detached from our national foundations, through a series of efforts reached the point that the parish almost completely lost its former significance and now its life is a smoldering ember. It is necessary to revive this fading life, to stimulate the life and activity of the parish. Fortunately, in the sixties, at least in the minds of the best of our figures from the era of transformation, a turn towards a more reasonable, national policy began, and at the same time, concerns about the revival of the ancient Russian parish began to be expressed: parish trustees and brotherhoods began to emerge; Finally, there even appeared a whole organizational charter for Orthodox parishes in Finland. But what prevents us from turning this local charter into a universal one for all parishes in Orthodox Russia? And so the author draws up a scheme for such a general charter, asking everyone who cares about the interests of the Orthodox Church to express their comments and considerations regarding this scheme. What is especially attractive about the author’s presentation of the parish question is that 1) he puts the religious and moral life of the parish in the foreground; secondly, that he does not want to tear it away as a self-governing church unit from the influence and dependence of the diocesan and central authorities. It is not self-government, but self-activity and vital activity that he wants from the parish; It is not the meaning of a zemstvo self-governing political unit that he seeks, but first and almost exclusively the meaning of a church unit, a church legal entity. We will most readily express our comments, but first we consider it necessary to make the following reservation. To the extent that the life of rural parishes is accessible to our direct observation, it can significantly cool the desire for the revival of the parish. The long-term removal of our parishioners from participation in the affairs of parish government has accustomed them—no offense intended—to such inactivity, such apathy that, it seems, even the granting of any kind of autonomy rights will not awaken them from this apathy. Therefore, in the interests of the matter itself, it seems to us that we should not rush to introduce a new charter of parish administration everywhere at once: if haste, it may be in danger of remaining a dead letter, or in practice being reinterpreted and reworked in a direction that is not at all desirable. Therefore, the following gradualism seems rational: 1) initially, as an experiment, to make only private application in the capital’s parishes and especially cemetery ones. 2) to arrange our shepherds, i.e. parish priests to ensure that in their direct relations with parishioners they clarify their sacred duty to take the interests of the parish more closely to their hearts. And in order to achieve this, they themselves need to be reassured that with the introduction of a new structure of parishes, there is no danger of them becoming in that subordinate position to their parishioners, in which the pastors of the ancient Russian parish were. On the contrary, with this reform, a significant burden of their exclusive responsibility for the entire parish, which sometimes positively weighs on them, will fall away from them. Yes, at present the priest is responsible for everything: for the fact that the parish church is not well-maintained, is not kept clean, for the fact that the houses for the clergy are not arranged, for the fact that the parishioners are not zealous for the church, for the fact that they are not enlightened, for the fact that there is no church school or it is going badly, etc., etc. Then half of this burden, if not more, will fall on the shoulders of the parishioners themselves. Yes, it is precisely on our modern parish priests that the success of the revival of the parish largely depends: if they prepare their parishioners to assume new responsibilities, then the success of the revival of the parish is ensured; if they do not, it is difficult to hope for success. The fact is that we are all great hunters of “rights,” but we very often forget that the other side of every right is a duty, and we do not always fulfill any duty willingly: we perform duties only when absolutely necessary. And taking into account this, beyond doubt, circumstance and comparing the present with the past, let us ask: what forced, what prompted our ancient Russian parishioners to take upon themselves such a heavy burden as building a church of God (parish building) with their own strength, finding a priest and a sexton, committing to a formal agreement with them regarding payment, regularly serving the church tribute and duty to the bishop and to his numerous officials? We would hardly be mistaken if we answer briefly: need! The need for a church, even if it was wooden and poor, and for a priest and sexton, so that this church would not be left without singing, was glaring and urgent, and there was no one to take care of this except the peasants themselves. Nowadays the situation is completely different. There are a lot of people who are sad about the “peasant”, both official and voluntary workers. Our pastors and archpastors are energetically encouraged to “look closely” and “take every possible care” for the improvement of churches and the prosperity of church schools, the enlightenment and education of the people in the spirit of faith and patriotism; Next to them, on their own initiative, various sectarian missionaries and prophets, as well as zealots of culture and citizenship, who preach that one can do without a church and without a priest, and without church schools, are grieving for the peasant, offering instead only a civil school, a library, a theater, and so on. cultural and educational means. What need does a modern peasant need to take on the burden of church and parish improvement? But, thank God, our faith in the good moralizing significance of the Orthodox Church is still strong, and among our parish priests there are many who are sincerely devoted to their duty and wise enough to appreciate the great importance of the revival of the parish, but our just beginning cultural struggle is still being waged rather tactlessly. Therefore, although one should not indulge in too rosy dreams regarding a quick and successful solution to our parish question in the direction desired by Mr. Papkov; however, there is no reason to be indifferent to it. But let's move on to considering the project itself. G. Papkov rightly points out the incorrect interpretation by our legislation of the expression “church” only in the meaning of a church, that is, a place and institution for worship and prayer, and recognition only of the “church” understood in this sense as the right of a legal entity capable of acquiring church property (p. 20). But once the right of a legal entity is recognized for the parish of the N church, the incorrect and hitherto dominant interpretation of the term “church” will disappear by itself. We, however, insist on preserving this term “church” to designate the parish as a community and upon the introduction of a new parish structure, although, unfortunately, our people are already accustomed to using the term “church” instead of the term “church of such and such a church.” But “an old custom – in the words of St. Cyprian – is sometimes just an old error.” It's time to part with him. So let each parish, as a community or society of believers headed by its pastor (parish rector), be correctly called “the church of N. of such and such a village or city.” To designate the place of liturgical meetings, legal or business usage should be concerned with the obligatory use of the term “church” (or “chapel”). Among the measures to streamline the life of the parish, Mr. Papkov puts in first place the establishment of the “Main Parish Book”, in which each parishioner, without any coercion, could, if possible, enter his name with his own hand, as well as the names of his minor family members, with a note about his rank, place of residence, occupation, degree of education, time of moving to the parish, and finally - when strengthening the right of monetary self-taxation for parishes - the amount of tax paid by him at certain times. deadlines for the needs of the parish (p. 28). We are against this book and especially against the “right of self-taxation”. Against the “main book” because it is unnecessary: ​​for more than a hundred years at each parish church we have kept “confessional statements”, a book in which with all accuracy the title, name, marital status and number of family members are indicated, with the designation of years, and a note is also made about the existence or non-existence of the confession and St. communion due to absence or negligence. This book is completely sufficient for parish use even with the new structure of the parish, unless for the sake of convenience the parish council will have to be obliged to keep it in two copies. As for the “right of monetary self-taxation,” we are resolutely against it. This - to express it in crude, common language for clarity - is a “German or Zemstvo invention” and it is decisively contrary to the spirit of Orthodoxy and should have no place in Orthodox parish life. In the Catholic and Protestant churches, it is true that monetary self-taxation has long existed among the compulsory parish duties (Pfarrzwang): but our Orthodox canon law and our popular religious conscience resolutely oppose them. According to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, only a completely voluntary gift is pleasing to God and its value is measured not by its quantity or mass, but by its quality - the disposition of the one who brought it: an insignificant contribution is more valuable than tens of rubles. This is precisely the way in which the wealth of our church has been and is being collected. Moreover, our canon law even directly prohibits accepting voluntary offerings from people of dishonest professions, moneylenders, cruel and wicked people. “Flee offerings to the altar of God from people with a bad conscience,” the Apostolic Constitutions command, “you will say: “they give alms” and “if we do not accept from them, then how will we support the widows and how will the needy among the people eat?” – If the churches are really in such need – as you say; then it is better to perish than to accept anything from the enemies of God to the insult and ridicule of His friends... And if there is no more alms, then give it to the brothers and, having made a collection from them (voluntary, of course), distribute it fairly to the orphans and widows 2 . That the “infallible pope” invented the “denarius of St. Peter” is true, and this invention was grafted onto the life and conscience of the sinful slaves of the Vicar of Christ, but in the Orthodox Church not a single canonically correct local council, just as not a single Ecumenical Council, has expressed claims to such a denarius: all the more so, such a small cathedral as parish meeting. True, the history of both Byzantine church administration and Russian has preserved a lot, and even a lot of evidence for the existence of obligatory church taxes, which, to the shame of Byzantine and Russian antiquity, were directly called “canonical” (xavovixov) - or rather anti-canonical - but this same history very clearly teaches that the practice of such taxes did not serve to enrich the church, but precisely to ruin and humiliation (in our country emergence of the heresies of Strigolniks and Judaizers). G. Papkov may object: if you deny a parish the right to self-tax money, then everything is lost? We answer this: we boldly guarantee that not a penny will be lost in the future welfare of the parish - and to ensure our guarantee we refer to the actually existing wealth of our parishes, attested by Mr. Papkov himself, who on page 27 of his brochure speaks “about the headman who gets the opportunity to move tens and hundreds of thousands of people’s money in wealthier parishes.” These tens and hundreds of thousands are accumulated from voluntary offerings without any self-taxation. We could, further, cite many facts in favor of the fact that clergy who do not introduce taxes for corrections of demands do not lose in income at all compared to those who introduce taxes and bargain in advance of fulfilling demands (for example, weddings); in moral terms, they certainly win. Moreover: what measures of influence can a parish meeting have at its disposal to recover from faulty tax payers? Should it really, following the example of zemstvo assemblies, turn to the assistance of the police and extract church taxes and arrears? God forbid from this! This is a measure that repels people from the church, not attracts them to it. Based on these considerations, we would like to exclude §§ from the project. 4, 5 and art. 2nd § 15th. (Pages 39–41). According to § 8, in every Orthodox parish a parish meeting must be held twice a year, the first time on the week of Holy Easter, and the second time in the fall after October 10; and then this meeting can be convened at any time - at the request of the majority of parishioners, the rector of the parish, the parish council, or at the initiative of the highest diocesan authorities. Regarding this section, we would like to make only one objection: the deadlines set are very inconvenient. The time of Holy Easter is a time of real suffering for our clergy: walking around the parish does not even give time for the daily service. And this inconvenience cannot be eliminated in any way: you must, at all costs, go around the entire parish in one week; to do otherwise would mean to cause grave offense to unattended parishioners. Apostle Rule 37 sets the dates for episcopal councils as the 4th week of Pentecost and the 12th of October. This is more convenient. § 10 reads: “The right to participate in the discussions and decisions of the “church-parish meeting” belongs to every parishioner (male or female) of immaculate behavior, of full age (him?) and participating in the increase of parish property and income by collection or donation, or through any personal labor for the benefit of the parish.” We consider it necessary to insist on the following amendment to this §. Firstly, adulthood must be defined in a precise term, best of all, it seems to be the 25th anniversary. Secondly, any further restrictions indicated by § must be abolished. For how, and by what yardstick should we judge behavior? How to measure the degree of zeal for increasing parish property and income? From a church point of view (any other should not be allowed), even a small contribution can be more valuable than tens of rubles. As for behavior, we must take into account the remarkable fact that in the discussion of public issues, none other than people who have been at fault in one way or another in the general opinion are the first fighters for justice and often amaze with more accurate judgments and considerations than kind and simple-hearted people. And for them themselves, participating in communication with good people will have a beneficial corrective value; on the contrary, separation can only harden them even more. And in general, any grounds for separation from communication (except for minority) can always give rise to discord and bickering - which, of course, is least desirable. In § 14 we would like to completely cancel the following definition: “If a ballot is required, this is done by open voting. The decision of the parishioners is made by a majority vote; The chairman’s opinion gives the upper hand.” In our opinion, this stereotyped rule, this “pearl of the modern legal order,” like a frayed rag, should be expelled even from our zemstvo and Duma meetings, and we are no longer allowed into church meetings, for the following reasons: 1) In practice, this rule gives rise to partisanship and the game of majority and minority: this phenomenon is very well known and is easily observed wherever this rule applies. 2) This rule contains a blatant injustice: how can it be considered a general verdict or decision when in reality almost half of those deliberating disagree with it? This is a superiority of force (quantity), the pressure of a larger mass on a smaller one. According to justice, only a unanimous decision should be recognized as common. Our canon law provides an excellent rule in this regard. Rule 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Council reads: “If the common election of all will be blessed and in accordance with the rule of the church, but two or three, out of their own quarrel, will contradict it: let the opinion of the greater number of electors prevail.” According to the meaning of this rule, the rule of the majority over an unequal minority receives force not in itself, but because it contains a reasonable or lawful element; Thus, here, in essence, reason prevails over the unreasonable and absurd “I do not wish.” As a last resort, a written, motivated statement of a dissenting opinion should be required from such inquisitive individuals. In general, it is desirable for parish meetings to be dominated by reason and conscience, and not by massive pressure, as well as the sound pressure of the voting majority or minority. It is further desirable that parish meetings should maintain, both in appearance and in internal mood, a strictly ecclesiastical or Orthodox-canonical character; in short, they should be such that they could take place in the very church of God. Therefore, the local clergy or clergy should be at the head of such meetings: this advantage of honor belongs to him by indisputable right. In the event of a statement of dissatisfaction and complaints against any of the members of the clergy, the latter can, if he wishes, give an explanation to end the misunderstandings, or leave the meeting for a while until it comes to one or another decision on this point, for example, file a complaint with the dean or diocesan authorities, and then again let him take his rightful place. Lay members of the parish “assembly” and “council” must be imbued with the conviction that they are not controllers, not judges, not competitors of the “clergy”, like the “anti-clerical party” (God forbid from this evil intent), but as co-workers with him, each in his own rank, for the improvement and creation of his small (quantitatively) church, i.e., the assembly of the faithful, dedicated to the Lord, the Mother of God, To the heavenly powers or to the Saint of the church as their special heavenly patron. G. Papkov rather succinctly defined the scope of discussions of church-parish meetings, limiting it almost exclusively to issues of church economics, education and charity. Only at the end of the brochure did he express his desire to “introduce, where possible, a fraternal conciliatory court of the community.” (Page 44). Why such conciseness? The church-parish meeting should be the body of the entire spiritual, moral or church life of the parish. Let each of the parish members, as a brother to his brothers, remove from his soul all the questions of his ailing conscience - theological, moral, family, and economic “not for entering into the protocol” - God forbid, but in the hope of receiving relief from fraternal participation. This is exactly how our Old Believers and sectarians act in their struggle with the Orthodox Church: but they stole this right from the Orthodox Church, and she herself completely gave up this right and expresses a great inclination to exchange her native fraternal meetings for purely legal ones that are alien to her, with a majority and a minority, with journals and protocols. For the convenience of readers, we offer here the “Draft Resolutions on the Church-Parish Assembly and the Church-Parochial Council of Orthodox Parishes in Russia” compiled by Mr. Papkov § 1. Every Orthodox parish in Russia is obliged to take care of its parish affairs in the manner prescribed by this resolution. § 2. Matters are decided by the parish at a general parish meeting. § 3. Orthodox parishes can be urban or rural, or combined rural-urban. The members of the parish are persons of the Orthodox confession of both sexes who have their place of residence within the parish, as well as those living outside its boundaries, but assigned to it according to their wishes. The rector of an Orthodox parish keeps a general ledger or list of all members of the parish, which shows the name, surname, title, occupation or trade, as well as the time and place of birth of each parishioner, and when a member of the parish dies, the time and place of his death, as well as the time of relocation of members to the parish or from the parish, and the place from where someone settled or moved out. § 4. The general expenses of the parish are covered by the funds at its disposal for this purpose. If additional amounts are needed, these are acquired through collections from parishioners in accordance with the specific determination of the parish meeting for each time. In cases of emergency, the parish is also allowed to enter into loans or establish fees at once for several years; however, the decision to do so is made valid upon approval by the highest diocesan authorities. § 5. Parish fees are paid according to the estimate approved at the annual parish meeting, in accordance with the property wealth of each member of the parish. § 6. For each parish, records of expenses and income are equally compiled and approved by the parish church meeting annually. § 7. Reporting on the management and expenditure of parish funds is drawn up for the calendar year and, after verification by special persons appointed by the parish, is submitted for approval to the parish meeting. Chapter II. About the parish meeting § 8. In every Orthodox parish, a parish meeting must meet twice a year, the first time on St. Sunday. Easter, and a second time in the fall after October 1: and then this meeting can be convened at any time - at the request of the majority of parishioners, the rector of the parish, the parish council, or at the initiative of the highest diocesan authorities. § 9. The parish rector presides at the parish meeting, and when he is absent for any reason, the most honorable member of the parish, either from the clergy or from the laity. § 10. The right to participate in discussions and decisions of the parish meeting belongs to every parishioner (male or female) of immaculate behavior of an adult and participating in the increase of parish property and income through collection or donation, or through any personal labor for the benefit of the parish. § 11. An absent person enjoying the right to vote may, whenever he wishes, through an authorized person, participate in the proceedings. A parishioner who presents a written power of attorney issued in his name by the principal and certified by well-known and trustworthy persons is recognized as an authorized person. The power of attorney must be given for a certain meeting or for a certain period, but not more than a year. § 12. The decision to convene a parish meeting is communicated to the parish by reading it in the parish church (or where there is one - in the parish house) during general Sunday services, as early as possible, and posted on the church doors. The decree on convening must clearly indicate the time and place of the meeting, as well as the matters to be carried out. § 13. The chairman presents cases for discussion and leads the debate. A matter not specified in the convening ruling cannot be resolved. If a new issue is raised by a parishioner, then such an issue can only be discussed at another, duly convened meeting. § 14. At the end of the debate on the case, the chairman proposes to the meeting a question or questions regarding its decision, and each question must be posed in such a way that it can be answered “yes” or “no”. Then the chairman announces what decision, in his opinion, has been made, and if a requirement for voting is not made, then the approved opinion is proclaimed as the decision of the meeting. If a ballot is required, it is done by open voting. The decision of the parishioners is made by a majority vote; The chairman's opinion gives the upper hand. Elections should be held by sealed tickets if any member of the assembly so desires. § 15. The church and parish meeting is subject to: 1) propose a candidate for the post of church warden and appoint elected lay members of the parish council and elect two representatives from the parish to control the pouring of money from church mugs. 2) approve the estimate of the payment and distribution list of parishioners and, equally, the list of expenses and income for the next year and authorize additional fees from parishioners for the needs of the parish and its institutions; 3) determine the rules for managing and spending the amounts and property of the parish, as well as establish the procedure for maintaining records; 4) appoint special proxies to verify parish reports and make decisions regarding measures prompted by comments made against them; 5) in accordance with the current regulations, carry out matters relating to; a) construction and maintenance of the church, parish houses and other institutions (charitable and educational) of the parish and b) arrangement of the cemetery and management of it; 6) give opinions on issues related to the parish on the division or change of existing parishes or the establishment of new ones. § 16. A candidate for the position of church warden is appointed at a parish meeting through elections and in compliance with the rules established on this subject in the instructions for these church wardens. § 17. Decisions of the parish meeting on matters relating to loans or the imposition of fees for several years, or the sale or change in the order of use of property received by the parish as a gift or by will for purposes determined in the general benefit of the parish, are submitted for approval to the highest diocesan authority. § 18. Cases concerning the construction and maintenance of the church and clergy houses, as well as the arrangement of the cemetery and parish charitable and educational institutions, are carried out in accordance with the laws in force on these subjects. § 19. At the parish meeting, minutes are kept indicating the type of cases and the decisions taken on them, as well as statements or special opinions at the request of those who have the right to vote. The minutes are kept by the chairman or a person appointed for this purpose by the parish. § 20. The minutes of the parish meeting are verified by the meeting or by the attorneys appointed by it for each time, immediately after the end of the debate, and if this is not possible, then at another announced time and signed by the chairman and at least three of the members present at the meeting, or by the attorneys when they were appointed for verification. § 21. The verified minutes must be read to the parish at the church on the following Sunday, indicating the procedure that must be followed by anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the meeting. The parish rector also makes an inscription on the protocol about the time of its announcement. § 22. An extract from the minutes of each meeting must be delivered to the parish council or other persons whom the meeting has authorized to carry out its decisions by order of the chairman. § 23. The minutes of church-parish meetings, with the documents belonging to them, are stored in the church archives, where they should be available to the dean and other spiritual authorities visiting the parish. § 24. The chairman monitors order at the parish meeting. He may, after warning, remove anyone who, by violence or noise, disturbs general decency and order. If disorder occurs that the chairman is unable to stop, he can dissolve the meeting. § 25. Whoever is not satisfied with the decision of the parish meeting and expects to prove that this decision violates his own right, or was not carried out in a legal manner, or that it is contrary to general laws and regulations, or that the persons who made the decision in a different way exceeded their rights, that parishioner can bring a complaint against the decision, which, together with the protocol kept in the case and evidence of the time of its announcement, is submitted to the the name of the highest diocesan authority. § 27. The decision of the parish meeting, which, according to the rules established about this, is not subject to consideration by the highest diocesan authority, can be executed before entering into legal force, according to a special determination of the meeting when making this decision, if the matter is urgent and this does not impede the opportunity to cancel the said decision on appeal. Chapter III. About the parish council § 27. The parish council consists of parish priests, the church warden and trustworthy parishioners in a number determined at the discretion of the parish, however, so that the number of elected members is even and exceeds the number of permanent ones. § 28. A person who does not have the right to participate in a parish meeting, or has not reached 25 years of age, or is under guardianship and does not have the right to dispose of his property, or has ceded his property to satisfy creditors and is not able to prove that it is free from their claims, cannot be elected as a member of the parish council; § 29. Elected members of the parish council are appointed for a four-year term, with half leaving every two years, unless elected again. It is determined by lot which members should retire from the council after the first two years. § 30. The parish rector presides over the parish council; and if he does not have the opportunity to be present in the council, then at the choice of the council - one of its members. § 31. The parish council meets at the invitation of the chairman or when at least half the number of council members requests it; § 32. The parish council cannot begin to conduct business unless more than half of all members are present and among the present members the number of elected members does not exceed the number of permanent ones; § 33. When making decisions in the parish council, each member has only one vote. In case of equality of votes, the opinion shared by the chairman comes into force; § 34. The parish council may, when it deems it necessary, invite other parishioners to participate in a particular meeting to provide advice or information. Such parishioners, however, do not have the right to vote in decisions. § 35) The Church and Parish Council must: store and manage parish property, as well as keep records for the parish; draw up a budget list of parishioners, as well as a list of expenses and income for the parish; accept donations and benefits voluntarily placed at the disposal of the parish, as well as manage the distribution and collection of fees authorized at the parish meeting; elect and authorize, if necessary, an attorney to represent the parish in court and before other authorities; enter the parish meeting with ideas and projects caused by the special needs of the parish; give a preliminary conclusion on each case submitted to the parish meeting for consideration, the preparation of which was not entrusted to a special commission, and order the enforcement of decisions of the parish meetings. § 36. The church and parish council appoints a treasurer from among its members, who must receive, and, according to the instructions of the council, store and issue parish funds, as well as keep records. The treasurer uses, if required, remuneration from the parish in the case of numerous and complex activities. § 37. Reports are submitted by the parish council, appointed by the parish for verification to persons, by March 1 of each year. If these persons make any remark against the reporting, then the council is obliged to immediately give an explanation regarding this, which, together with the report of the persons who carried out the verification, is presented to the parish at the Easter meeting. § 38. Lists of expenses and income for the next year must be drawn up in advance so that the next parish meeting can be convened in the fall at a convenient time. § 39. At meetings of the parish council, minutes are kept by one of the council members and verified at the end of the meeting, or no later than at the next meeting. § 40. The chairman of the parish council must, in addition to the above-established duties, accept all papers and submissions received in the name of the council, as well as store the affairs of the council and keep a list thereof; the affairs of the parish council should be accessible to the dean and other spiritual authorities visiting the parish. § 41. The church and parish council itself establishes the schedule of classes in the council, if it considers it necessary, and distributes classes among members. § 42. Each member of the parish council is liable jointly with other members for sums of money within the jurisdiction of the council, but is not obliged to compensate for losses caused not by error or omission on his part. Responsibility for the reporting year ceases upon approval of the reporting and management of the parish meeting. Apostle Resolution IV, 8. G. Papkov looks very unfavorably at the Apostle. Resolutions (p. 6, note 3) on the basis that they are condemned by the 2nd rules. Trullo Cathedral. But the council condemned them only for their dogmatic element as heretical and acted absolutely correctly: they cannot be recommended as an Orthodox catechism. But as a church charter and primary canonical code, this is still a precious monument, and it is precisely in the development of our jus parochiale that Mr. Papkov earnestly desires: this monument is more authoritative and richer in content than the book of Ulgorn, which he praises. G. Papkov is unfamiliar with this monument, which is quite excusable due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining it.