[Rec. on]: Ostroumov M., prof. Introduction to Orthodox Church Law

The named book by Mr. Ostroumov is part of a work conceived on a huge scale under the title: “Essay on Orthodox Church Law.” In the present issue, the author presented a general introduction (1–132), a review of the monuments of church law for the first nine centuries of Christianity (132–394) and a review of the monuments of the legislation of the Church of Constantinople (394–672). Judging by these headings, it can be assumed that the second volume of the introduction will have as its subject a review of the monuments of law of the Russian and other Orthodox local churches (cf. p. 139). The author called the present work an introduction and characterized it as an “essay” of Orthodox Church law. The vastness of this “introduction,” for which one large volume (672 pages) turned out to be insufficient, is explained by the fact that the author introduced the history of law into the introduction, which could no less conveniently be highlighted as the first part of a course on the science of church law. – Having characterized his work with an essay, the author, in addition to a modest self-assessment of his work, apparently expressed his special attitude to the subject of his work: he does not want to present himself as either a scientific researcher or an independent taxonomist of an academic course, but only as a reviewer - an auditor of scientific literature, ascertaining the state of canonical science at the present time. Looking closely at the method of his presentation, everywhere you meet an attentive observer of scientific activity in the circle of his chosen specialty: in his book, the author with amazing care collected everything that was printed in Russian according to canon law and from all this presented an accurate, concise extract, so that we can say with confidence that there will not be a writer who will express a claim against our author for inattention. Extracting the best and essential from everywhere, the author also discovered the good quality that he is alien to sharp polemics: the mistakes of his predecessors or opinions with which he does not agree, he calmly notes, or simply passes over in silence. Only in a few cases does he change this tact in relation to the scientific works of our famous canonist, Prof. N. S. Suvorov - and this dissonance, of course, greatly spoils the overall good impression of the reader of his book. Attentive to the works of others, giving each his due (again, with the exception of the scientist just mentioned) by carefully citing names and works, the author hides his own opinion almost everywhere. But numerous references to primary sources and foreign literature, strict adherence to a certain direction undoubtedly indicate that the information presented by the author went through the process of his independent verification and research. This is the general impression drawn from reading the book in question by Mr. Ostroumov. Its vast size and, perhaps, its subject are properties of such a kind that they can hardly reward the venerable author with widely favorable attention from readers: in all likelihood, his book has already been read and will circulate only in a small circle of specialist readers. But this circumstance, which cools the author’s energy, should all the more forcefully evoke in the reviewer a desire to sympathetically - with a warm attitude towards the author, if possible, support his energy. The canon law of our church is still waiting for both sympathy and workers, and therefore, the work raised to develop it should be credited as a feat and, moreover, not only scientific, but also, so to speak, civil. Not only science awaits hard workers in this field, life itself urgently demands them. This position is so important, although not clearly understood by everyone, that we consider it necessary to present some explanations regarding it. The vital need for the scientific development of canon law clearly expresses itself in the following laconic and ponderous expression: “until now our church law has not been codified.” The laws that currently govern the Orthodox Russian Church are not only brought into a systematic code or code, but are not even combined into one complete collection or collection. Not only a private individual, but even a public office, not excluding ecclesiastical consistories, currently does not have on his desk a set of church laws in which he could find a solid and complete canonical-legal basis for resolving relevant church issues. A small book of 364 articles, called the “Charter of Spiritual Consistories” is the only official and practically valid code. But to the extent that it is incomplete, it is enough to point only to the following example: Article 277 states: “the period and manner of repentance is determined ... on the basis of church rules.” But which ones, and where to find them? This is completely unknown. Of course, a learned canon law expert will tell you where to find these rules. (For example, in the Helmsman’s Book, in the Book of Rules, in Nomokonon at the Great Trebnik and in some non-Russian publications, or in ancient handwritten canonical Russian collections; but this instruction of a learned specialist will remain, perhaps, fruitless for resolving the question sought, because at the present time not only the practice of spiritual consistories, but also the Holy Synod itself, is not approved in these collections. Moreover, it has not yet been officially established legislative significance of even three of the above-mentioned printed canonical collections, as a result of which such a simple question, for example, whether the text of the rules of the Helmsman’s Book has the meaning of officially recognized (textus receptus), or whether the text of the Book of Rules should be read as such, can lead to difficulty not only for a Russian lawyer, but also for a Russian canonist. In general, we still do not have a church code on punishments and, therefore, not a single private person can say in advance: what church punishment will follow for a known crime? It is entirely possible that for the same crime in one diocese one punishment will be determined, and in another - another; one consistory will be based, in this case, on some rules and laws, the other on others. There is still no official set of even just synod resolutions, for example, in the likeness of a set of state laws, so that the entire church administration and court in many respects do not represent in practice the desired stability and uniformity, and allow many manifestations of only the personal discretion of commanding persons and institutions (for example, in the order of assignment to different places and church positions, in rewards and punishments of clergy and monastics, in the transfer of commanding persons and hierarchs, in the order of legal proceedings, etc.). In a word, the absence of a complete and authorized set of church laws and regulations on church punishments makes itself felt very noticeably in life. But compiling both in one official way, without scientific assistance, is not at all possible. Science must take both the initiative and the execution of this important task. For, when compiling the current code of church laws, it is necessary to fulfill, first of all, the following particular task - to indicate the relationship of the currently directly effective instructions to the basic canonical rules, or to the so-called canonical sources of law: but this task can only be performed by a specialist in canon law: for here it is necessary to know the entire history of canon law from the beginning of the church to the present. This task is extremely important. The fact is that the decrees of the Holy Synod for the current century, for the most part, are issued without establishing or indicating a connection with the canonical foundations, but stand only in an internal and direct connection only with each other (the later is based on the earlier, or serves as its modification, addition), so that there is no direct connection between the current legislation and its canonical principles. Meanwhile, according to the basic principles of the Orthodox Church, every resolution of its council (or synod) must stand in organic connection with the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Church. In this case, it is impossible not to recall the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret about the draft collection of laws, developed at the beginning of this century (and still not implemented): “it is not difficult to see,” he wrote, “that the collection of civil laws cannot serve as a model and justification for the proposed collection of church laws...”. The collection of civil laws stands on its own and contains its foundations within itself; collection of definitions of St. The Synod of the last century does not have this character of independence. The basis and verification of these definitions must be sought outside their collection, in antiquity, in the apostolic and patristic rules. Synodal decrees are only the application of these rules to more or less private cases encountered in the administration of the Russian church. The collection of civil laws does not cause difficulty due to their diversity: for the rule here is that the latest law is stronger than the previous ones. Thus, the collection of laws tells the lawyer: know the old, follow the new; but this cannot be applied to church legislation, in which the ancient rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers have decisive importance and force. Therefore, a collection of church decrees of one last century cannot be satisfactory, since it would leave unresolved the question: is this in accordance with the rules of St. cathedrals and St. father. This difficulty will increase if in some decisions of different times, but in some subjects there is diversity. Gradual changes in civil legislation, as the effect of the law of the supreme autocratic power, are common in states; the sight of changes in church government can be tempting. From this it follows that if it is necessary to make church laws more known, understandable and convenient for use in the actions of church government and justice than was hitherto, then it is necessary to start the matter from the root, that is, with the publication of an accurate translation of the complete rules of St. the apostles, seven ecumenical and nine local councils and the rules of St. father, making up the helm of church government 1. As can be seen from here, preliminary work on the codification of church law should be of three types: some of them should be aimed at drawing up a set of existing legal provisions: the highest approved decrees and definitions of St. Synod; others - to the scientific development of monuments of canon law, and still others - to clarify the relationship in which the current church law stands to its principles and sources. And we must do justice to our time that in all these areas, some private individuals have already completed and published such work. Thus, a good example for compiling a set of current church laws was set by the professor of the St. Petersburg Academy and Obersecretary of the Holy Synod T.V. Barsov in his work: “Collection of current and governing church and church-civil decrees for the department of Orthodox confession.” T. 1. St. Petersburg. 1885. There are other, smaller works of this kind. Labor bar. Rosenkampf, Kalanchov, Bishop John of Smolensk, Professor A.S. Pavlov, Prof. priest M. Gorchakova - the history of the sources of canon law is so developed that, at present, it is possible to publish an excellent collection of canonical rules and nomocanons based on the best texts: Greek, Slavic and even Latin. There are already many works on bringing into the system the primary sources of church law: the main, canonical, and current decrees and definitions of the Holy Synod, what are the courses of church law: prof. N. S. Suvorova, prof. I. St. Berdnikov, N.K. Sokolov, as well as individual monographs by Bishop John of Smolensk, Archbishop Alexy of Lithuania, professors: Pavlov, Gorchakov, Suvorov, Barsov and some others. May the reader forgive us the length of our explanations... As is clear from them, Prof. M.A. Ostroumov entered the canonical-literary field, already largely cleared, in general, cultivated by the works of his predecessors. With this in mind, one cannot help but sympathize with the task he took upon himself - to collect together the works of his predecessors that were published separately and at different times, to sum up, so to speak, their results. Having begun with this, in the present book, the publication of his works, the venerable author filled the gap that had hitherto existed in the domestic canonical scientific literature: for hitherto there had not yet been a review and summation of the results of Russian canonical science with such completeness as was done in his book. One cannot but sincerely wish the new worker in the domestic canonical field to courageously continue the enormous work he has undertaken, which promises to be fruitful, both in the purely scientific field and in life itself. Moreover, in the interests of this very fruitfulness, we consider it not inappropriate to make the following two comments regarding his present book: 1) when publishing his scientific works, no matter which of the above three categories they belong to, the Russian canonist must have in mind not only the abstract scientific, but also the vital and practical task - the development of legislative material for the compilation of a code of church laws, as an integral working code. Let the consciousness of this task be not the last guiding basis for him in deciding the question: which of the diverse and massive canonical-legal material being studied should be focused on with more and which with less attention; Let the consciousness of this task also serve as a source of excitement and animation in difficult works on canon law, which is still far from being popular among us. 2) It is highly desirable that learned canonists in their works should, if possible, be free from the spirit of intolerance in relation to the opinions of others. Truth lies in the advice of many: it is achieved through comparison and calm study of diverse and diverse opinions, which are all the more valuable the more consistently and thoroughly they are defended. In this regard, a modern canonist should, apparently, take for himself the following words of a Christian jurist-canonist of deep antiquity as a guiding principle: “We must now,” said St. Cyprian of Carthage, addressing the council of bishops, “everyone should express how he thinks about this subject (whether the baptism of heretics is valid), without condemning anyone in this matter, without removing anyone from the right of communication if he thinks differently. For none of us bishops has appointed himself a bishop, and let no one with tyrannical insolence force his comrades to submit to himself, because every bishop has the power to freely do as he thinks.” If this is so in the field of theological dogma, then, even more so, in the field of canons freedom and respect for opinions should reign. Collection of opinions and reviews of Filaret II, No. 227, pp. 383–384. The edition proposed here has been made, but it is not complete and not satisfactory with regard to the Greek and Slavic texts. You might be interested in: