1. The Holy Synod, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (Locum Tenens), is the governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period between Councils of Bishops.
2. The Holy Synod is responsible to the Council of Bishops and, through the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', submits to it a report on its activities during the inter-Council period.
3. The Holy Synod consists of a chairman - the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (Locum Tenens), nine permanent and five temporary members - diocesan bishops.
4. The permanent members are: by department - metropolitans of Kiev and all Ukraine; St. Petersburg and Ladoga; Krutitsky and Kolomensky; Minsky and Slutsky, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus; Chisinau and all Moldova; Astana and Kazakhstan, head of the Metropolitan District in the Republic of Kazakhstan; Tashkent and Uzbekistan, head of the Central Asian Metropolitan District; by position - chairman of the Department for External Church Relations and manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate.
5. Temporary members are called to attend one session, according to the seniority of the episcopal consecration, one from each group into which the dioceses are divided. A bishop cannot be summoned to the Holy Synod until the expiration of his two-year term of administration of a given diocese.
6. The Synodal year is divided into two sessions: summer (March-August) and winter (September-February).
7. Diocesan bishops, heads of synodal institutions and rectors of theological academies may be present in the Holy Synod with the right of an advisory vote when considering cases concerning the dioceses, institutions, academies they govern or their exercise of church-wide obedience.
8. The participation of permanent and temporary members of the Holy Synod in its meetings is their canonical duty. Members of the Synod who are absent without good reason are subject to fraternal admonition.
9. In exceptional cases, the quorum of the Holy Synod consists of 2/3 of its members.
10. Meetings of the Holy Synod are convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (Locum Tenens). In the event of the death of the Patriarch, no later than on the third day, the Patriarchal Vicar - Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna - convenes a meeting of the Holy Synod to elect a Locum Tenens.
11. As a rule, meetings of the Holy Synod are closed. Members of the Holy Synod are seated according to the protocol adopted in the Russian Orthodox Church.
12. The Holy Synod works on the basis of an agenda presented by the chairman and approved by the Holy Synod at the beginning of the first meeting. Issues requiring preliminary study are sent by the chairman to the members of the Holy Synod in advance. Members of the Holy Synod may make proposals on the agenda and raise issues with prior notification of the chairman.
13. The Chairman presides over the meetings in accordance with the adopted rules.
14. In the event that the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', for any reason, is temporarily unable to perform chairmanship duties in the Holy Synod, the duties of the chairman are performed by the oldest permanent member of the Holy Synod by episcopal consecration. The Temporary Chairman of the Holy Synod is not a canonical Locum Tenens.
15. The secretary of the Holy Synod is the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate. The secretary is responsible for preparing the materials necessary for the Holy Synod and compiling the journals of the meetings.
16. Matters in the Holy Synod are decided by the general consent of all members participating in the meeting or by a majority vote. In case of equality of votes, the vote of the chairman is decisive.
17. No one present in the Holy Synod may abstain from voting.
18. Each of the members of the Holy Synod, in case of disagreement with the decision made, may submit a separate opinion, which must be stated at the same meeting outlining its reasons and submitted in writing no later than three days from the date of the meeting. Individual opinions are attached to the case without stopping its decision.
19. The chairman does not have the right, by his own authority, to remove from discussion the matters proposed on the agenda, to prevent their decision or to suspend the implementation of such decisions.
20. In those cases when the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' admits that the decision made will not bring benefit and benefit to the Church, he protests. The protest must be made at the same meeting and then stated in in writing within seven days. After this period, the case is again considered by the Holy Synod. If the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' does not find it possible to agree with the new decision of the case, then it is suspended and referred to the Council of Bishops for consideration. If it is impossible to postpone the matter and a decision must be made immediately, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' acts at his own discretion. The decision made in this way is submitted for consideration to an extraordinary Council of Bishops, on which the final resolution of the issue depends.
21. When the Holy Synod is considering a case of a complaint against members of the Holy Synod, the interested person may be present at the meeting and give explanations, but when the case is decided, the accused member of the Holy Synod is obliged to leave the meeting room. When considering a complaint against the chairman, he transfers the chairmanship to the oldest hierarch according to episcopal consecration from among the permanent members of the Holy Synod.
22. All journals and resolutions of the Holy Synod are signed first by the chairman, then by all members present at the meeting, at least some of them did not agree with the decision made and submitted a separate opinion on it.
23. The determinations of the Holy Synod come into force after they are signed and are not subject to revision, except in cases where new data is presented that changes the essence of the matter.
24. The Chairman of the Holy Synod exercises supreme supervision over the exact execution of the adopted resolutions.
25. The duties of the Holy Synod include:
a) care for the intact preservation and interpretation of the Orthodox faith, norms of Christian morality and piety;
b) serving the internal unity of the Russian Orthodox Church;
c) maintaining unity with other Orthodox Churches;
d) organizing the internal and external activities of the Church and resolving issues of general church significance arising in connection with this;
e) interpretation of canonical decrees and resolution of difficulties associated with their application;
f) regulation of liturgical issues;
g) issuing disciplinary decisions concerning clergy, monastics and church workers;
h) assessment of the most important events in the field of interchurch, interfaith and interreligious relations;
i) maintaining interfaith and interreligious ties, both on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate and beyond its borders;
j) coordination of the actions of the entire Russian Orthodox Church in its efforts to achieve peace and justice;
k) expression of pastoral concern for social problems;
l) addressing special messages to all children of the Russian Orthodox Church;
m) maintaining proper relations between the Church and the state in accordance with this Charter and current legislation;
o) approval of the statutes of Self-Governing Churches, Exarchates and Metropolitan Districts;
n) adoption of civil statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church and its canonical divisions, as well as introducing changes and additions to them;
p) consideration of the journals of the Synods of the Exarchates and Metropolitan Districts;
c) resolving issues related to the establishment or abolition of canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church accountable to the Holy Synod with subsequent approval at the Council of Bishops;
r) establishing the procedure for ownership, use and disposal of buildings and property of the Russian Orthodox Church;
s) approval of decisions of the highest church court in cases provided for by the Regulations on the Church Court;
f) canonization of locally revered saints and submission of the issue of their church-wide glorification to the Council of Bishops.
26. Holy Synod:
a) elects, appoints, in exceptional cases moves bishops and dismisses them;
b) calls bishops to attend the Holy Synod;
c) if necessary, on the proposal of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', considers the reports of bishops on the state of the dioceses and makes decisions on them;
d) through its members, inspects the activities of bishops whenever it deems it necessary;
e) determines the content of bishops.
27. The Holy Synod appoints:
a) heads of synodal institutions and, on their recommendation, their deputies;
b) rectors of theological academies and seminaries, abbots (abbesses) and governors of monasteries;
c) bishops, clergy and laity to undergo responsible obedience in distant countries;
d) on the proposal of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', members of the Supreme Church Council from among the heads of synodal or other church-wide institutions, divisions of the Moscow Patriarchate;
e) on the proposal of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', members of the Inter-Council Presence.
f) The Holy Synod confirms diocesan bishops in the position of sacred archimandrites of especially significant monasteries, according to their proposal.
28. The Holy Synod may create commissions or other working bodies to care for:
a) on solving important theological problems related to the internal and external activities of the Church;
b) on the storage of the text of the Holy Scriptures, on its translations and publication;
c) on storing the text of liturgical books, on its correction, editing and publication;
d) about the canonization of saints;
e) on the publication of collections of holy canons, textbooks and teaching aids for religious educational institutions, theological literature, official periodicals and other necessary literature;
f) on improving the theological, spiritual and moral training of the clergy and on the activities of religious educational institutions;
g) about mission, catechesis and religious education;
h) about the state of spiritual enlightenment;
i) about the affairs of monasteries and monastics;
j) about works of mercy and charity;
k) about the proper state of church architecture, icon painting, singing and applied arts;
l) about church monuments and antiquities under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church;
m) on the production of church utensils, candles, vestments and everything necessary to maintain liturgical tradition, splendor and decorum in churches;
o) on pensions for the clergy and church workers;
n) about solving economic problems.
29. Carrying out the leadership of synodal institutions, the Holy Synod:
a) approves regulations (statutes) on their activities;
b) approves the annual work plans of synodal institutions and accepts their reports;
c) makes decisions on the most important aspects of the current work of synodal institutions;
d) if necessary, carries out an audit of such institutions.
30. The Holy Synod approves the church-wide spending plan and, if necessary, considers the estimates of synodal institutions, religious educational institutions, as well as relevant financial reports.
31. In caring for dioceses, monasteries and religious educational institutions, the Holy Synod:
a) forms and abolishes Exarchates, Metropolitan districts, metropolises and dioceses, determines (changes) their boundaries and names with subsequent approval by the Council of Bishops;
b) adopts standard regulations on diocesan institutions;
c) approves the statutes of monasteries and carries out general supervision of monastic life;
d) establishes stauropegia;
e) on the recommendation of the Educational Committee, approves standard charters and standard curricula of theological educational institutions, as well as standard programs of theological seminaries;
f) ensures that the actions of all church authorities in dioceses, deaneries and parishes comply with legal regulations;
g) if necessary, conducts audits.
32. The Holy Synod issues conclusions on controversial issues arising in connection with the interpretation of this Charter.
The Holy Synod deals with all organizational issues of the Russian Orthodox Church, including interaction with foreign and so-called heterodox religious associations of any type.In addition, he is responsible for the interaction of parishes within the country, the implementation and observance of Christian canons and orders, and the adoption of the most important organizational and financial issues.
The Holy Synod is engaged in the popularization of the Orthodox faith not only among residents within its own country, but also abroad, carrying out such work only within the limits of state legislation. Suppressing attacks by representatives of other religions and inciting ethnic hatred on the basis of religion also lies on his shoulders.
History of the creation of the Holy Synod
The need to create a governing body of church power was initiated by Peter I back in 1700, after the death of Patriarch Adrian. According to the Russian Tsar, the continued existence of Orthodoxy without proper governance was impossible, since the solution to pressing issues was not organized and church affairs were inevitably moving toward decline.The first “representative” of church authority was the so-called Monastic Order, which was renamed the Spiritual Order in 1718 and received its own charter - the Spiritual Regulations. And just three years later, the governing body of Russian Christianity was recognized by Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople and received its current name - the Holy Synod.
Everyone who was present in this high-ranking assembly or became a member of it was required to take an oath, which in its significance was equivalent to a military one, and its violation was severely punished. A little later, the Holy Synod received more extensive and significant provisions and was in charge not only of church affairs, but also of the palace, some powers of the treasury and the state chancellery, and the royal one was also under its jurisdiction.
Holy Synod of our time
In the modern Orthodox Christian Church, the Holy Synod performs the same functions as in Russia, with the exception of carrying out matters of national importance. The diplomatic, financial and economic affairs of the Russian Patriarchate remain in his charge; he is involved in making decisions on ranking leadership positions, distributing positions and strengthening international relations, but only within the framework of religion.In the Orthodox East, by the 15th century, the formation of the institution of a permanent council of bishops, called in Constantinople Σύνοδος ενδημούσα (“permanent council”) or “small synods” in other Churches, was completed under the primates of local Churches.
By their decrees, under the chairmanship of the Patriarchs, decisions were made on the most important issues. In Russia, the establishment of the Synod is associated with the reign of Peter I. Among the transformations of Peter I, the most important in its consequences was the reform of church government.
Reform of Peter I
Initially, Peter did not intend to change the established church order for centuries. However, the further the first Russian emperor advanced in carrying out state reform, the less desire he had to share power with another person, even a spiritual one. Peter I was rather indifferent to the Orthodox faith itself.
Patriarch Adrian died in 1700. Peter immediately took advantage of this circumstance. He does not see any worthy candidates for the Patriarchate among the representatives of the church hierarchy.
The Patriarchal throne remained vacant, and Locum Tenens Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky was appointed to govern the diocese of the Patriarch. The locum tenens was entrusted with the management of only matters of faith: “about schism, about the oppositions of the church, about heresies”
On January 24, 1701, the Monastic Order was restored, under whose jurisdiction the Patriarchal Courtyard, bishop's houses, monastic lands and farms were transferred. Boyar Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin was placed at the head of the order.
In all important cases, the Locum Tenens had to consult with other bishops, whom he was asked to summon alternately to Moscow. The results of all meetings were to be submitted to the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne for approval by the sovereign. This meeting of successive bishops from the dioceses was called, as before, the Consecrated Council. This Consecrated Council in spiritual matters, and boyar Musin-Pushkin with his Monastic Order in others, significantly limited the power of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne in governing the church.
Since 1711, the Governing Senate began to operate instead of the old Boyar Duma. From now on, all government, both spiritual and temporal, had to obey the Decrees of the Senate as Royal Decrees. The locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne could no longer install a bishop without the Senate. The Senate begins to independently build churches and itself orders bishops to install priests. The Senate appoints abbots and abbesses to monasteries.
In 1718, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, temporarily staying in St. Petersburg, received a Decree from His Majesty - “he should live in St. Petersburg permanently and the bishops should come one by one to St. Petersburg, contrary to how they came to Moscow.” This management was clearly temporary. However, about twenty years passed before Peter brought his ideas to life. To implement them, he needed a like-minded person in the church environment. The process of the birth of church reform took place in complete secrecy from the Church and its hierarchy.
Feofan Prokopovich
The key figure in the organization of the Theological College was the Little Russian theologian, rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Feofan Prokopovich, whom Peter met back in 1706, when he gave a speech welcoming the sovereign at the foundation of the Pechersk fortress in Kyiv. In 1711, Theophanes was with Peter on the Prut campaign. On June 1, 1718, he was named bishop of Pskov, and the next day he was consecrated to the rank of bishop in the presence of the sovereign. Soon Prokopovich was entrusted with drawing up a project for the creation of the Theological College.
By 1721, Feofan Prokopovich completed the drafting of the Spiritual Regulations - a document that determined the existence of the Theological College. Feofan openly expressed the reasons for replacing the Patriarchate with a spiritual college in the “Spiritual Regulations”: “So that the common people would not be tempted to see in the patriarch some kind of second person in the state, almost equal to the first, or even superior to him...”
This document was presented by Peter for discussion in the Senate and only then brought to the attention of the Church Council of six bishops who found themselves in St. Petersburg. Under pressure from the secular authorities, they signed the document and assured that everything was “pretty well done.” Over the course of the year, signatures were collected from those bishops who did not participate in the Acts of the Council, as well as from the abbots of the most important monasteries. Often, government officials used force to obtain the required consent.
Holy Governing Synod
After the establishment of the Theological College, the question arose: how to make a prayerful proclamation of the new church government? The Latin word “collegium” in combination with “Holy” sounded dissonant, so different options were proposed: “assembly”, “cathedral”. Finally they settled on an acceptable Greek word for "synod" - the Most Holy Governing Synod. Synod or cathedral (from Greek Σύνοδος - “meeting”, “cathedral”; lat. consilium - council, consultation). In order to maintain the canonicity of the new spiritual government, Peter turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah for a blessing. The Patriarch's response was as follows: “Our moderation... affirms and consolidates that the Synod established by the most pious autocrat Peter Alekseevich is and is called our brother in Christ...”
Similar letters were received from other Eastern Patriarchs. Thus, the Synod was recognized as a permanent Council, equal in power to the Patriarchs, and therefore bearing the title of His Holiness.
On January 25, 1721, Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological College, which soon received the new name of the Holy Governing Synod. On February 14, 1721, the grand opening of the new church administration took place.
Composition and structure of the Holy Governing Synod
The patriarchal orders were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Synod: spiritual, state and palace, renamed synodal, monastic order, order of church affairs, office of schismatic affairs and printing office. A Tiunskaya office (Tiunskaya Izba) was established in St. Petersburg; in Moscow - the spiritual dicastery, the office of the synodal board, the synodal office, the order of inquisitorial affairs, the office of schismatic affairs.
The composition of the Holy Synod was determined according to the regulations of 12 “government persons”, of which three must certainly bear the rank of bishop. As in the civil colleges, the Synod consisted of one president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and five assessors.
In 1726, these foreign names, which did not fit in well with the clergy of the persons sitting in the Synod, were replaced by the words: first-present member, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod. The President, who is subsequently the first person present, has, according to regulations, a vote equal to the other members of the board. Metropolitan Stefan was appointed President of the Synod.
A man devoted to Peter, Theodosius, bishop of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, was appointed vice-president. In terms of the structure of the office and office work, the Synod resembled the Senate and collegiums, with all the ranks and customs established in these institutions. Peter also took care of the organization of supervision over the activities of the Synod. On May 11, 1722, a special chief prosecutor was ordered to be present at the Synod.
Colonel Ivan Vasilyevich Boltin was appointed the first chief prosecutor of the Synod. The main responsibility of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The Senate gave the chief prosecutor special instructions, which were almost a complete copy of the instructions to the prosecutor general of the Senate.
The Chief Prosecutor was subject to trial only by the sovereign. At first, the power of the Chief Prosecutor was exclusively observational, but little by little the Chief Prosecutor becomes the arbiter of the fate of the Synod and its leader in practice.
Until 1901, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod, upon taking office, were required to take an oath, which, in particular, read: I confess with the oath of the extreme Judge of the Spiritual Collegium of the existence of the All-Russian Monarch of our most merciful Sovereign
As a result of Peter's reform, the Church completely lost its independence from secular power. All resolutions of the Synod until 1917 were issued with the following stamp: "By order of His Imperial Majesty." In state papers, church authorities began to be called, along with other departments such as military, financial, and judicial, the “Department of the Orthodox Confession.”
Alexander A. Sokolovsky
The spiritual regulations were issued by Peter I with a special Manifesto and determined the legal status of the Russian Orthodox Church. The regulations were the fruit of the joint creativity of the tsar himself and the Pskov bishop Feofan Prokopovich. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky described the Regulations as a “reasoning”, rather an explanatory note to the law rather than the law itself, since it contained more denunciations of the old order than “direct positive decrees.” However, as a result of the adoption of this document, which began the reform of the Church, the latter lost its independence from secular power.
When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, Peter I did not appoint a successor, but entrusted the management of church affairs to Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. Facts indicate that the idea of establishing a Synod did not appear to the tsar right away. In the conditions of the outbreak of the Northern War, Peter I was inclined to the opinion of the “profit-maker” Andrei Kurbatov that, from the point of view of state interests, it was irrational to concentrate such significant land and human resources in the hands of the Church.
The Tsar’s first step was the approval of the young Ryazan Bishop Stefan Yavorsky as a “temporary” locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, under whom church administration was actually concentrated in the Monastic Prikaz, restored in 1701. This completely secular institution, consisting of officials headed by the former Astrakhan governor Musin-Pushkin, took over not only the administrative and economic affairs of the disbanded patriarchal court, but also the management of church estates through secular persons appointed by it. This made it possible to use the income of the Church to satisfy national needs and, above all, for military needs. It was forbidden to give estates to monasteries for the commemoration of souls. In return for the duties collected by bishops and monasteries from the clergy subordinate to them, it was intended to assign strict salaries and staffing levels to bishops, monasteries and parish clergy. Which made the Church even more dependent on the state. The monastic order not only put ordinary monks on starvation rations, but also, through the establishment of monastic states, stopped the growth of their numbers. Which, again, was beneficial for the Treasury.
Because of this, the establishment of a new order of church government in 1721 was quite painless. Moreover, the Synod, although it arose according to the general plan of collegial reform, was established later than other higher state institutions - the Senate and collegiums. Various arguments were used to justify such a reform - from the advantages of the impartiality of the board to the danger of the patriarchate for the absolutist government. By the way, the benefits for the authorities from the abolition of the patriarchate were not even hidden in the text of the “Regulations”: “The common people... think that such a ruler is a second Sovereign, equal to or greater than the Autocrat, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better State.” .
The new law was prepared without any participation from the church. The Pskov bishop Feofan Prokopovich, who drafted the Regulations, was only carrying out the tsar’s task. Peter gave Prokopovich the task of writing a project for the Spiritual Collegium (“Spiritual Regulations”) back in October 1718, and in In 1719, a commission was created to develop new principles of church government. By February 1720 the text was ready, but Peter I I made my own edits there. According to the decree of the Senate, which previously examined the project, the text of the Regulations was proposed to the consecrated Council of six bishops - Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, Smolensk Metropolitan Sylvester Kholmsky, Nizhny Novgorod Archbishop Pitirim Potemkin, bishops of Tver (Varlaam Kossovsky), Karelian (Aaron Eropkin), Pskov (Feofan Prokopovich) and three archimandrites. Under pressure from the king, they were forced to sign a document, which was then was sent by messenger to bishops, archimandrites and abbots of the most important monasteries. In total, the signatures of 19 bishops, 48 archimandrites, 15 abbots and 5 hieromonks were collected (often not without pressure). Moreover, which is typical for the emerging new relations between the authorities and the church, there were no objections or amendments to the project.
On January 25, 1721, Peter I issued a manifesto on the establishment of the “Spiritual Collegium, that is, the Spiritual Council Government,” and on February 14, after a prayer service in the Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the opening of the Spiritual Collegium took place. According to legend, at the first meeting of the board, in response to a timid proposal to revive the patriarchate, the tsar stuck a dagger into the table with the words: “Here is the iron patriarch for you!” A compromise was reached through a new name for the newly created body - the Holy Governing Synod. That is, with The essence of the reform was the abolition of the patriarchate and the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod in its place. The Synod included: a president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors. The Tsar's representative in the Synod was the Chief Prosecutor. That is, with the departure of the Synod was typical for secular colleges. He even had fiscal documents with him.
The position of the Synod in the general system of government bodies from the very beginning turned out to be very unstable, as evidenced by constant conflicts not only with the Senate, but also with the collegiums. Of course, the Synod had the right to draw up bills on issues of church government and, even in the absence of the tsar, could issue laws and publish them, but only with the consent of the Senate. Thus, in 1722, setting off on the Caspian (Persian) campaign, Peter I officially subordinated the Synod to the Senate. On the other hand, the Synod had the highest judicial power not only over the clergy, but also over secular persons in marriage, blasphemous and other matters. And the administrative activities of the Synod were very extensive: spiritual education and publication of liturgical books, construction of churches and establishment of parishes, monitoring the correct maintenance of metrics, etc. But all this is under the strict control of the secular authorities and the tsar personally.
The Synod had no permanent members. Temporary members were invited for certain periods by the emperor from among the bishops, archimandrites and archpriests. The chairman and vice-chairman were also appointed by the sovereign. In addition, the imperial government did not undertake the obligation to appoint to the highest church positions the persons proposed by the Synod. The management of church property was entrusted to the monastic order established under the Synod, and in 1724 a Chamber Office was established to manage collections from monastic estates and make expenses, which included secular persons. Subsequently, the policy of removing the Synod from the management of church property only expanded, reaching its logical conclusion in the form of the secularization of church lands under Catherine II.
The church reform of Peter I was also clearly utilitarian in nature. The Spiritual Regulations obliged diocesan bishops to create schools for the children of the clergy, institutionalized spiritual censorship, abolished places of “miraculous phenomena” not recognized by the Synod, and prohibited men from becoming monks under 30 years of age. Monks were required to confess and receive communion at least four times a year. They were forbidden to visit nunneries and private houses. In turn, nuns were prohibited from taking final vows until the age of 50. In addition, compulsory labor was introduced in monasteries.
The former locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky became the president of the Synod. In May 1722, by decree of the emperor, the position of chief prosecutor of the Synod was established, who was assigned the role of “the eye of the sovereign,” that is, he was entrusted with control and supervision over the activities of the highest church body. But already this year, after the death of Yavorsky, the post of President of the Synod was abolished. Which actually put the Chief Prosecutor at the head of the Synod. Having achieved recognition of the Synod from all the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Peter I established a position that the Synod could exercise the highest legislative, judicial and administrative power in the Church only with the consent of the emperor. It is known that the resolutions of the Synod throughout the synodal period were issued with the stamp: “By order of His Imperial Majesty.” Until 1901, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod, when taking office, were required to take an oath, which defined the emperor as a “spiritual judge.” But the process of nationalization of the church began long before the reign of Peter Alekseevich (from the middle of the 16th century). Peter I only completed this process, giving it legal registration.
The anonical defectiveness of the established system of governance of the Church was manifested in the fact that from the reign of Peter I until the beginning of the First World War, the proportion of the Orthodox population did not grow, and even decreased slightly - from 66% to 63%. The rise of spiritual education in Russia and the flourishing of domestic church science were associated with the rejection of utilitarianism in relation to the Church in the 19th century. But at the same time, completely in the Petrine tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church finally turned into part of the state apparatus of the empire. In official documents, even the term “church” was replaced by the concept of “department of Orthodox confession.”
Royal Majesty's decree
announced for the sake of public news to everyone.
We are Peter the First Tsar and Autocrat of All Russia,
and so on, and so on, and so on
Among many who, in accordance with the duty of the God-given power to us, are charged with the correction of our people, and the other States subject to us, looking at the spiritual order, and seeing in it a lot of disorganization, and the great poverty in His deeds, we had a fear on our conscience that we would not appear. be ungrateful to the Most High, even if we have received from him much success in the correction of both the military and civil ranks, we will neglect the correction and rank of the spiritual, and when he, the unhypocritical judge, asks us for an answer about such an assignment handed to us from him, let us not be unresponsive . For this reason, in the image of the former, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the pious Kings took care of the correction of the spiritual rank, and not seeing the best way to do this, especially the conciliar government, since in one person it happens not without passion, and also not hereditary power, for this reason, is more neglected; We establish the Spiritual Collegium, that is, the spiritual council government, which, according to the following Regulations, has all spiritual affairs, to govern the All-Russian Church, and we command all our faithful subjects, of every rank, spiritual and secular, to have this for an important and strong government, and it has extreme to ask for spiritual affairs, decisions, and decisions, and to be satisfied with its determined judgment, and to listen to its decrees, in everything, under the great for resistance, and disobedience, punishment against other Colleagues, this Collegium must exist, and henceforth supplement its Regulations with new rules, These rules will be required in various cases, but the Spiritual College must do this not without our permission; We determine to be named members of this spiritual College. One President, two Vice-Presidents, four Advisors, four Assessors.
Genuine by His Royal Majesty's own hand, January 25th.
Regulations or charter of the Theological College
Manifesto
Among many, in accordance with the duty of the God-given power to Us, who are concerned about the correction of Our people, and other States subject to Us, looking at the Spiritual order, and seeing in it a lot of disorder and great poverty in its affairs, not vain on Our conscience, We had fear, yes We will not appear ungrateful to the Most High, even though we have received success from Him in the correction of both the Military and Civil ranks, and we will neglect the correction of the Spiritual rank. And when He, the unfeigned Judge, asks us for an answer about the order handed down to Us from Him, let us not remain unanswered. For this reason, in the image of the former, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the Pious Kings, taking care of the correction of the Spiritual rank, and not seeing the best way to do this, especially the Council Government. Sometimes in one person there is not without passion; Moreover, it is not hereditary power, for the sake of which they do not bother anymore. We establish the Spiritual Board, that is, the Spiritual Council Government, which, according to the following Regulations here, has the authority to manage all Spiritual affairs in the All-Russian Church. And we command all Our faithful subjects, of every rank, Spiritual and temporal, to have this for an important and strong Government, and it has extreme affairs of Spiritual government, to ask for decisions and decisions, and to be content with its definite judgment, and to listen to its decrees in everything, under the great for resistance and disobedience with punishment, against other Colleges.
There must be this Collegium, and from now on it will supplement its Regulations with new rules; various cases will require these rules. However, the Spiritual College must do this on the basis of Our permission.
We determine in this Spiritual College to be named Members: one President, two Vice-Presidents, four Advisors, four Assessors.
And yet it was mentioned in these Regulations in the first part, in the seventh and eighth paragraphs, that the President is subject to the judgment of his brethren, this is the same Collegium, even if he has sinned in any significant way; For this reason, we determine that he will have one and equal voice with the others.
All Members of this Collegium, when entering into their business, have to take an oath or promise before the Holy Gospel, according to the attached form of the oath.
Oath to Members of the Spiritual College
I, the below-named, promise and swear by Almighty God, before His Holy Gospel, that I must, and according to my duty I will, and I will strive in every possible way in the councils and courts and all the affairs of this Spiritual Governing Assembly to always seek the most real truths and the most real righteousness, and act in accordance with the statutes written in the Spiritual Regulations, and if the cue continues to be determined by the consent of this Spiritual Government, and with the permission of the Tsar's Majesty. Now I will act according to my conscience, not being affected by partiality, not by enmity, envy, stubbornness, or simply being captivated by passions of any kind, but with the fear of God, always keeping in mind His unwashed judgment, with the sincerity of God’s neighbor’s love, believing in all thoughts and to my words and actions, as the ultimate guilt, the glory of God, and the salvation of human souls and the creation of the entire Church, not sought by me, but by the Lord Jesus. I swear by the living God that always, remembering His terrible word: Cursed is everyone who does the work of God with negligence, in every work of this Governing Assembly, as in the work of God, I will walk lazily, with all diligence, to the utmost of my strength, neglecting all pleasures and my rest. And I will not feign ignorance; but if there is any confusion in my mind, I will try in every possible way to seek understanding and knowledge from the sacred scriptures, and the rules of the cathedrals, and the consent of the ancient great teachers. I swear again by Almighty God that I want and must eat to my natural and true Tsar and Sovereign Peter the Great, the All-Russian Autocrat and so on, and according to him to His Royal Majesty the High Lawful Heirs, who, by the will and Autocratic power of His Royal Majesty, have been determined, and henceforth determined, and will be honored to receive the Throne. And to Her Majesty, Empress Catherine Alekseevna, be a faithful, kind and obedient slave and subject. And all to the lofty His Royal Majesty autocracy, the power and authority of the rights and prerogatives (or advantages), legitimized and henceforth legitimized, according to the utmost understanding, the power and ability to warn, and to defend, and in that case not to spare one’s life if necessary. And at the same time, at least try to promote everything that can relate to His Tsar’s Majesty’s faithful service and benefit in any case. As soon as I learn about the damage to His Majesty’s interest, harm and loss, I will not only announce it in a timely manner, but I will also take every measure to avert it and prevent it from happening. When, for the service and benefit of His Majesty, or the church, what secret matter, or whatever it may be, which I am ordered to keep secret, and then keep it in complete secrecy, and not announce it to anyone who should not know about it, and will not be ordered to announce. I confess with an oath the extreme Judge of the Spiritual College, to be the Most All-Russian Monarch, Our All-Merciful Sovereign. I also swear by the All-Seeing God that all this, which I now promise, I do not interpret differently in my mind, as I proclaim with my lips, but in that power and mind, the words written here are revealed to those who read and hear. I affirm with my oath, God be the Seer of my Heart, the Witness of my promises, as if they are not false. If there is something false and not according to my conscience, be the same Just Avenger for me. At the conclusion of my vows I kiss the words and cross of my Savior. Amen.
Regulations or Charter of the Spiritual College,
according to which she knows her duties, and all spiritual ranks, as well as worldly persons, since they are subject to spiritual management, and at the same time has to act in the administration of her affairs
This Regulation is divided into three parts, according to the number of three spiritual needs, knowledge of the worthy and management of those requiring, which are:
1) Description and important faults of such a government.
2) Affairs subject to management.
3) The stewards themselves are office, action and power.
And the basis of government, that is, the law of God, proposed in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the canons, or rules of the Council of the Holy Fathers and civil statutes, consistent with the word of God, require their own books, but do not fit here.
Part I- What is the spiritual Collegium, and what are the important faults of such a government?
A government collegium is nothing more than a government assembly, when the affairs of a certain person are not owned by a single person, but by many who are willing to do so, and are established by the Supreme Authority and are subject to administration.
Otherwise the Collegium is a one-time thing, and another is an everlasting one. One-time is when for one thing that has happened, or for many, but in a single time, the decision of their requirement, persons who are willing to do so gather. These are the church Synods and civil ones, through customary investigations, tribunals, and councils.
The Collegium always exists when certain specific cases, often or always occurring in the fatherland, are determined for the management of a certain number of satisfied men.
Such was the ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the Old Testament Church in Jerusalem, and the civil court of the Areopagites in Athens, and other governing assemblies in the same city, called the Dicastery.
It is similar in many other States, both ancient and modern.
The Most Powerful Tsar of All Russia, Peter the Great, wisely established His powers for the benefit of the Fatherland in the summer of 1718, according to the differences in the affairs and needs of the State.
And as the Christian Sovereign, the guardian of orthodoxy and every kind of deanery in the Church of the Saints, having looked at the spiritual needs, and desiring every better management of them, he deigned to establish the spiritual Collegium, which would diligently and constantly observe, for the benefit of the church, and everything according to order there are, and let there not be disorder, if it is the desire of the Apostle, or rather the good pleasure of God Himself.
Let no one imagine that this administration is not desirable, and it would be better for a single person to rule over the spiritual affairs of the entire society, just as private countries or dioceses are governed by each individual bishop. Important points are offered here, which show that this eternal conciliar government, and like the everlasting Synod or Sanhedrin, is most perfect and better than an individual government, especially in the Monarchical State, which is Our Russian.
1. Firstly, it is better known that truth is sought by a assembled class than by a single person. The ancient saying is Greek: other thoughts are wiser than the first; then if there are many thoughts, reasoning about a single matter, they will be wiser than one. It happens that in a certain difficulty a simple person will see something that a bookish and witty person cannot see; then how is it not necessary to have a Council Government, in which the proposed need is analyzed by many minds, and what one does not comprehend, another will comprehend, and what this one does not see, he will see? And such a questionable thing is better known and will be explained more quickly, and what kind of definition it requires will not seem difficult.
2. And just as the news is in knowledge, so there is great power in determining the matter; here, a conciliar verdict inclines more towards confidence and obedience than an individual decree. The power of monarchs is autocratic, which God Himself commands to obey for the sake of conscience; They have more than their advisers not only for the sake of the best truth, but so that disobedient people do not slander what this is, or it is by force and according to their whims, rather than the monarch commands with justice and truth: how much more so in the Church government, where there is a non-monarchal government , and the ruler is commanded not to rule over the clergy. Where even if there is only one rule, opponents can, by slandering one person, take away the power of the rule, which is not possible, where the determination comes from the conciliar class.
3. This is especially strong when the Collegium of Government under the Sovereign Monarch exists and is established by the Monarch. It is clear here that the Collegium is not a certain faction, an alliance formed in secret for its own interests, but for the common good by the command of the Autocrat, and His and the other consideration of the assembled person.
4. Another important thing is that in individual rule there is often a continuation and stop of work due to the necessary needs of the ruler and due to illness and disease. And when he is no longer alive, then things are stopped even more. It is different in the rule of the Council: not belonging to a single, even the most important person, others act, and things go on in an unstoppable flow.
5. But what is most useful is that in such a Collegium there is no place for partiality, deceit, or covetous judgment. How can things happen in the intercession of the guilty party, or in the condemnation of the innocent party, where even if one of them is biased or furious towards the person being judged, both the other and the third and others are free from that anger and bias? How can bribery overcome, where not because of power, but for the right and important reasons, the matter is done, and one (unless the blessed one shows his guilt) will be disgraced, so that he will not be recognized in his bribery? This is especially true when the Collegium takes place in such persons, for whom it is by no means impossible to secretly gather together and sit together, even if there are persons of different ranks and titles: Bishops, Archimandrites, Abbots and from the authorities of the White Priesthood. In truth, one cannot see here how such people dare to reveal to each other some insidious intention, other than agreeing to wrong.
6. And this is similar to the fact that the Collegium has the freest spirit in itself towards justice: it is not as if the sole ruler is afraid of the wrath of the powerful; It’s not as convenient to look for reasons for many, and even different types of persons, as for a single person.
7. This is also great, that from the conciliar government the fatherland will not be afraid of rebellions and confusion, which come from its own spiritual ruler. For the common people do not know the difference between spiritual power and autocratic power; but amazed by the great honor and glory of the Most High Shepherd, he thinks that such a ruler is the second Sovereign of the Autocrat, equivalent, or even greater than him, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better State, and the people themselves are accustomed to think so. What if the tares of power-hungry spiritual conversations are also added, and fire is added to dry boastfulness? Such simple hearts are corrupted by this opinion that they do not look at their Autocrat as if they were the Supreme Shepherd in any matter. And when some kind of discord is heard between them, everything is to the spiritual ruler rather than to the worldly ruler, even if they blindly and madly agree, and for him they dare to fight and rebel, and the damned flatter themselves that they are fighting according to God Himself, and do not defile their hands, but sanctify, even if they rush to bloodshed. For the sake of the same opinion among the people, great people are not simple, but insidious people; They are hostile to their Sovereign, when they see a quarrel between the Sovereign and the Shepherd, they kidnap them for a good opportunity in their malice, and under the guise of Church jealousy, they will not hesitate to lay hands on Christ the Lord; and besides lawlessness, as if for the cause of God, the common people strive. Well, when even the Shepherd Himself has such an arrogant opinion of himself and does not want to sleep? It’s hard to say, how much disaster comes from here.
And God would not have given it fiction, so that it would only be powerful to think about this, but more than once in many States this seemed to be the most prophetic thing. Just delve into the History of Constantinople, below the times of Justinian, and much will appear. Yes, and the Pope did not overcome in any other way, not to mention the Roman State, half suppressed, and for himself great part kidnapped, but also shook other States almost to the point of extreme ruin more than once. Let us not remember our former swings like these!
There is no place for such evil in the Council Spiritual Government. For there is no great glory here and on the President himself, and the people are surprised by glory, there is no unnecessary lordship and shame, there is no high opinion of him, caresses cannot exalt him with boundless praise. As long as any good thing is done by such a Government, it is impossible for a single President to sign up for it. The very name of the President is not proud, it means nothing else, only the Chairman; For he cannot think less of himself, or anyone else, to think highly of him. And when the people still see that this Council Government has been established by the Royal Decree and the Senate verdict; then, even more so, he will remain in his meekness, and will greatly put aside the hope of having help for his rebellions from the spiritual order.
8. This will also please the Church and the State from such a Conciliar Government, that in it there will not only be one person from the neighbors, but the President or Chairman himself will be subject to the judgment of his brethren, that is, the same way the Collegium, even if he has sinned in some way, will not How does it work where there is only one autocratic shepherd in control: for he does not want to be sued by the Bishops who are his assistants. Even if he were forced to do this, then among simple people, ignorant of justice, and blindly reasoning, such a court would be suspicious and subject to reproach. Why does it happen that due to the evil of such a sovereign there is a need to convene an Ecumenical Council, which happens with the great difficulty of the entire fatherland, and with no small dependence, even in modern times (when the Eastern Patriarchs live under the yoke of Tours, and the Turks of Our State are greater than first feared) it does not seem possible to be.
9. Finally, in such a Council Government there will be a kind of school of spiritual government. For from the communication of many and various reasonings, and advice and correct arguments, such as frequent affairs require, everyone can conveniently learn spiritual politics from their neighbors, and become accustomed to everyday art, as it were. better house God was able to rule; and therefore the most desirable persons from among colleagues, or neighbors, will appear to ascend to the level of the Hierarchy worthy of ascending. And so in Russia, with the help of God, rudeness will soon disappear from the spiritual rank and hope for all the best.
Part II.- Affairs subject to management
Discussing the affairs that are managed in the spiritual Collegium, there are two types of them: the first type of affairs of the entire church, both spiritual and secular rank, and all great and small ranks of officials, as well as ordinary persons necessary, where it is appropriate to observe , if everything is done correctly according to the Christian law. And if anything is found that is contrary to him, and if there is any lack of instruction that is appropriate for every Christian, about which a little more will be said below.
The second type of work is necessary according to one’s own rank.
These five-numbered ranks are:
1. Bishops, 2. Elders, deacons and other church clergy, 3. Monks, 4. School houses, and in them teachers and students, as well as church preachers, 5. Worldly persons, since the essence of spiritual instructions is involved, which happens about the right and irregular marriages and other matters affecting secular people.
About all of this, what is important is offered here.
General affairs. Here two people should look, according to the proposal described above. First, if everything is done correctly and according to the Christian law, and if anything is being done and where it is contrary to the law.
The second instruction, if the Christian is satisfied, is used.
For the first consideration, the following points are essential:
1. Find newly composed and composed Akathists and other services and Prayers, which, especially in our times in Little Russia, were composed; there are not a small number of them; are they compositions in accordance with sacred scripture? and do they not have something in themselves that is contrary to the word of God, or at least something obscene and vain?
2. Also, determine that these numerous prayers, even if they were direct, are not due to everyone, and by the will of everyone alone, and not in a church council, they should be used powerfully, so that over time they would not become part of the law, and conscience would the human one was not burdened.
3. Look at the Stories of the Saints to see if some of them are falsely fictitious, telling what did not happen, or contrary to Christian Orthodox teaching or idle and worthy of laughter. And such stories should be exposed and prohibited, with the announcement of the lies found in them. For the essence of such things is clearly false and contrary to sound teaching. For example, in the life of Euphrosynus of Pskov, the dispute about the dual alleluia of singing is clearly false, and from a certain idler, fictitious, in which, in addition to the very vain dogma of the double alleluia, Savelli's, Nestor's and other heresies are found. And although that author erred in ignorance, it is not proper for the spiritual government to tolerate such fictions, and instead of healthy spiritual food, present poison to people. It is especially important when ordinary people cannot reason between the gums and the teeth, but they see something written in a book and hold on to it tightly and stubbornly.
4. In fact, it is appropriate to diligently search for these inventions that lead a person into bad practices or deeds, and offer a flattering image of salvation. For example, do not do it on Friday and celebrate, and they say that Friday is angry with those who do not celebrate, and comes with a great threat against them. Likewise, fast for certain twelve Fridays, and then for many physical and spiritual gains; In fact, it is also more important than other times to honor the services of Mass of the Annunciation, Matins of the Resurrection and Vespers of Pentecost. This, for example, is remembered, because it harms the few and the simple. Although one should have concern for the few and for one brother, lest he be tempted by that one, for his sake Christ died; Otherwise, they are the same teachings, which even the most honest people are likely to consider for their simplicity, and therefore the most harmful essence. And this is the legend of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery that a person buried there, even if he died without repentance, will be saved. And how far this and similar stories lead away from the path of salvation, everyone, although a little accustomed to the Orthodox teaching, but a person of good conscience, confesses it not without sighing.
5. There may be some obscene or harmful ceremonies. It is heard that in Little Russia, in the Starodubsky regiment on a special holiday, they bring a simple-haired woman under the name of Friday, and they lead her in a church ceremony (is it true what they say) and at church the people honor her with gifts and with the hope of some benefit. Also in another place the priests and the people pray before the oak tree; and the priest distributes the branches of this oak tree to the people for blessing. Find out if this is how it works, and if the Bishops know about this place. If this and others like it are found, they lead people into open and shameful idolatry.
6. About the relics of saints, where any doubtful ones will appear, to look for: much has been confused about this. For example, some alien ones are offered: the body of the Holy Protomartyr Stephen lies in Venice on the outskirts, in the Benedictine monastery, in the church of St. George, and in Rome in the country church of St. Lawrence; there are so many nails of the cross of the Lord, and so much milk of the Most Holy Theotokos throughout Italy, and countless others of the like. Let us see if We too have such idleness?
7. Regarding the icons of the Saints, look at what is written in the promise of the appointed Bishops.
8. Another thing to observe, so that as it happened, it would not happen in the future: they say that some Bishops, in order to help poor churches, or to build new ones, ordered to look for the appearance of an icon in the desert, or at a source, and the icon itself testified to being found miraculous.
9. A bad and harmful and very ungodly custom has come into being: church services and prayer services are sung in two voices and in many voices, so that Matins or Vespers are dismantled into parts, suddenly many people sing them, and two or three prayer services are suddenly performed from many singers and chanters. This happened out of laziness of the clergy, and became a custom, and of course such prayers should be translated.
10. Greatly shameful and this was found, (as they say) prayers to people far away, through their messengers to give in the cap. For memory this is written, so that sometimes you can taste whether this is still happening.
But here there is no need to count all the wrongs: in a word, say that either can be called in the name of superstition, and it is superfluous, indecent for salvation, invented for one’s own interest from hypocrites, and deceiving the common people, and like snow marks, prohibiting the right path of truth. All this is added to this inspection, as a general evil: it can be found in all ranks. And here some are offered only as examples, so that it would be powerful to observe and so on.
And the first type is general affairs.
The second type of general affairs is, as it was predicted, to examine whether we have a Christian teaching sufficient for correction?
For although it is known that the Holy Scripture itself contains perfect laws and covenants for our salvation, necessary, according to the voice of the Apostle, 2 Timothy 3: all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for punishment, even in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, prepared for every good work; On the other hand, few know how to honor a book, and from bookstores, few can collect everything from Scripture that is most necessary for salvation; For this reason, they require the guidance of the most perfect men. For this reason, the pastoral order was ordained by God, so that he could teach the flock entrusted to himself from the Holy Scriptures.
And yet, contrary to the Russian Church of many peoples, there are few presbyters who could preach the dogmas and laws of the Holy Scriptures by heart; then there is an absolute need to have some kind of short, clear and understandable books for ordinary people, which will contain everything that is sufficient for the instruction of the people; and read these books in parts on weekly and holiday days in church before the people.
And although there are quite a number of such books, such as Homology or the Orthodox Confession, there are also some great teachers of the Saints, interpretive conversations and moralizing words; Otherwise, this is a teaching that is inconvenient for everyone, especially for the common people. For the book of the Orthodox Confession is a considerable one, and for this reason it is difficult to accommodate in the memory of ordinary people and is written in a difficult language, and for this reason it is not intelligible to ordinary people. Likewise, the books of the great teachers, Chrysostom, Theophylact and others were written in the Hellenic language, and in that language the essence is clear, but their Slavonic translation has become obscure and difficult to understand from people and those trained, and is by no means incomprehensible to simple ignoramuses. And besides this, the teachers’ interpretive conversations have many high theological mysteries; Likewise, many people say that it was appropriate to say then according to the inclination of different peoples, and according to the circumstances of those times, which now an impolite person does not know how to use to his advantage. But it is often appropriate to instill in the common people that which is common to all, and which is due to everyone, according to their rank. It is also impossible to have these books in all rural churches, except in city and even rich ones. For this reason, it is appropriate to heal human weakness in a different way. And such reasoning comes, if only we knew all the most important dogmas of our faith, and which is the view of our salvation arranged by God; and if they knew the commandments of God to turn away from evil and do good, then the instruction would be sufficient for them. And if someone, even with such knowledge, remained corrupted; then he himself would be irresponsible before God, and not the pastoral rank, which serves his salvation well.
And for this reason, you need to write three small books. The first is about the most important saving dogmas of our faith; The same is true about the commandments of God contained in the Decalogue.
The second is about your own positions of every rank.
The third one, in which clear sermons will be collected from various Holy teachers, both about the most important dogmas, and especially about sins and virtues and, in fact, about the positions of each rank. The first and second books will have their own arguments from the Holy Scripture itself, but they will be understandable to everyone and brief. The third from the Holy Fathers is the same as the one who teaches in the first and second.
Reading these books in this order will go a long way. On Sunday or a holiday, at Matins, read a small part from the first book, and in another row, a part from the second book, and on the same day, after mass, read the word from the third book about the same thing that was read at Matins. And so the same teaching, heard at Matins and confirmed at Mass, can be better cemented in the memory of those who hear it.
And then divide all these parts so that all three books can be read in a quarter of a year. For in this way the people will hear all their necessary instructions four times a year, and what they have heard will be able to remember well.
But also be aware that children can learn the first and second books from the beginning of their ABC teaching.
And although these books will number three; Otherwise, all three can be contained in one small book, so that they can be bought with a small amount of money, and not only in churches, but also in the houses of any hunter without difficulty.
Bishops' Affairs. There was a word about general affairs, something has already been proposed about our own, what Bishops, Presbyters, monks and others should
About the Bishops, this subsequent essence of knowledge is worthy.
1) Bishops must have all Ecumenical and local councils, and what is commanded in them, both for their own rank and for the entire clergy, must know much, which cannot be done without diligent and frequent reading.
2) We must first of all know the degrees of homogeneity and kinship, and which ones can accommodate marriage and which ones cannot, either according to the commandment of God in the books of Leviticus, chapter 18, or according to the church, in the canons of the Fathers and the Tsar. They themselves would have known this, and not descended on anyone else, even if they had a person skilled in this.
3) And since both the first and second above-mentioned positions cannot be well known without diligent reading; but whether everyone will be keen on reading is unknown: for this reason, a decree will be given to all Bishops from the Collegium of the Spiritual, so that everyone at his meal should read the canons appropriate to himself, and perhaps this could sometimes be omitted on the days of great holidays, or in the presence of worthy guests, or for some other correct guilt.
4) If a difficult case arises, and the Bishop is at a loss what to do; then first write about it, asking for advice, to another nearby Bishop, or to another skilled person; and then, if he were already dissatisfied, he would write to the Spiritual Collegium in the Reigning St. Petersburg clearly, and clearly, and in detail.
5) The essence of the canons is that prohibiting Bishops from lingering outside their Diocese for a long time (everyone can tell from the cathedral book). If a necessary need arises, holding him outside the Diocese, the turn, for example, of serving in the Reigning City, or another correct fault, also if a serious weakness comes, and it is very prohibitive to manage affairs (for such a weak person is, as well as not present) : in this case, the Bishop, in addition to his ordinary house stewards, must assign to the affairs of a certain intelligent and honest man, an Archimandrite or an Abbot, assigning to help him several other intelligent people from the monastic or priestly rank; and they would inform him of important matters in writing to the absent Bishop, and they would inform him in words in words, if he can listen due to his weakness. And if things happened that their administrators were perplexed to decide, they would write about it to the Spiritual Collegium, as was said above about the Bishops themselves.
6) A similar commandment and decree would be given to the Bishop and his assistants, the Archimandrite, the Abbot, the Builder, the parish Priest, when great weakness or important guilt comes to them, keeping them outside the monastery or their parish.
7) And if the Bishop, due to extreme old age, or due to some other incurable illness, comes to extreme exhaustion, without hope of better health, so that it will be impossible for him to manage his duties; and at that time the Bishop, in addition to the above-mentioned extraordinary ones, in place of his certain stewards, must register with the Spiritual Collegium. Even if the Bishop did not want to write about himself, then his stewards should write about him. And in the Spiritual Collegium there will be a discussion about what to do, whether to give an Administrator to this Diocese, or to install a new Bishop.
8) The Bishop must watch, which he promised to watch with an oath at his installation, to sit about the monks, so that they do not drag themselves around aimlessly, so that unnecessary uninhabited churches are not built, so that false miracles are not invented for the icons of the Saints; also about cliques, about the bodies of the dead unattested, and other things that are good to observe.
However, in order to more conveniently go into action, the Bishop must indicate in all cities, so that the ordering officers, or the deans specially appointed for this, like spiritual fiscals, will oversee everything and report it to the Bishop. If such something were to appear somewhere, under the guilt of an eruption, who would want to hide it?
9) Greatly, for the correction of the church, it is useful to eat this, so that every Bishop has in his house, or at his house, a school for the children of priests, or others, in the hope of certain priesthood. And in that school there would be a smart and honest teacher, who would teach children not only pure, clear and accurate honor in books (which, although necessary, is still a dissatisfied thing), but would teach honor and understanding. And if you read the first two books mentioned above powerfully and by heart: one about the dogmas of faith; and another about the positions of all ranks, when such books will be published. And if a student were extremely stupid, or even though he was witty, he was depraved, and stubborn and invincible laziness, such a person would, out of temptation, be dismissed from school, depriving them of all hope of the priestly rank.
10) The same students assigned to the Bishop’s school (when, with God’s help, their number will be sufficient) should be promoted to the priesthood; or if someone elects the monastic rank from them, then to Archimandrites, or Abbots, unless some important guilt appears that does not allow him to do so.
And if the Bishop ordains a person unlearned in that school to the priesthood, or to the monastic degree, bypassing the scientist, and without the correct guilt: then he is subject to punishment, which will be determined in the Ecclesiastical Collegium.
11) But so that there is no grumbling from the parents of the students for the great cost of their teacher, and for the purchase of books, as well as for the food of their sons, far from the home of their students: it is appropriate that the students be fed and taught when they are ready Bishop's books.
And so that this could happen, the reasoning about this is as follows: from the most noble monasteries in the Diocese, take 20 shares of all bread, and from the church lands, where they are, take 30 shares of all bread. And so many people would have enough bread for food and other needs (clothing is not included), if there were so many disciples with the necessary servants.
And the Bishop himself would be content with the teacher or teachers with food and money from the Bishop’s treasury, as the Spiritual Collegium is determined by the judgment of the place.
12) Extortions like these from monasteries and church lands will not bring even a little poverty to the churches and monasteries, as long as they have good and faithful house-building. And throughout the years the Bishop was given knowledge of the quantity of all the grain that had been collected; and the Bishop would oversee where this bread goes, which exceeds all proper needs with its content.
And for the sake of this, let the Spiritual Collegium contain books of income and expenses of all the most noble monasteries in Russia. The word here about expenses is ordinary and always, and not extraordinary, occasional ones, for example, for the necessary building, etc.
However, even for such extraordinary expenses, it is appropriate to make prudent guesses at the Collegium, against the needs of every monastery and against the parishes.
13) And so that the Bishops do not complain that it will be unprofitable for them to equip a teacher or teachers, they are instructed not to keep unnecessary servants, and not to build necessary buildings (unless the buildings are profitable, for example, mills, etc.); So they did not multiply their sacred attire and all their clothing, beyond what they required for their honor.
But for better management of all, there should be books from the Episcopal parishes in the Spiritual Collegium. Everything else about teachers and teaching will be in its place below.
14) Every Bishop would know the measure of his honor, and would not think highly of it and the matter would be great, but there is no honor, even a noble one, defined in scripture. The Apostle, destroying the opinion of the Corinthians, who were arrogant about their shepherds, says that the pastoral work has all its haste and fruit from God himself, who acts in the hearts of men. Az, speech, planted, Apollos gave water, God will grow. And therefore it suggests that for this return a person has no praise left. Neither plant nor feed, but God gives the increase. And he calls shepherds there, servants of God, and builders of His mysteries, if only they remain faithful in that work. For precisely the outward work of the pastor is to preach, to insist, to forbid in time and untimely, and to build the rites of the Mysteries of the Saints. The internal work of turning hearts to repentance and renewal of life is the work of one God, through His grace through the word and the secret action of shepherds, and also through an instrument acting invisibly.
For the same reason, it is proposed to tame this great cruel glory of the Bishops, so that their hands, which are still healthy, are not forced, and the brethren at hand would not bow to the ground. And these fans, willingly and impudently, crawl on the ground, and slyly, in order to obtain a degree for themselves unworthy, in order to cover up their fury and theft. The truth is that the pastoral work, if only it is done, although external, is no small thing, like the embassy of God. And God commands that the elders who practice goodness will be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and teaching. 1. Timothy 5. In both cases, this honor is moderate, but it will not be superfluous and even royal; and it is not for the shepherds themselves to seek for moderate things and to torture them from their assistants, but to be content with what is freely given.
16) It follows from this and that that the Bishop should not be impudent and quick, but long-suffering and judicious in the use of his binding power, that is, in excommunication and anathema. For the Lord gave this power for creation, and not for destruction, says the Apostle 1 Corinthian 10. And the intention of that same teacher of the nations was to betray the Corinthian, clearly a sinner, to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit would be saved. 1 Corinth. 5. For this power to be used correctly, two things need to be looked at:
First, what kind of guilt is worthy of punishment.
Another thing is how a Bishop should act in punishment.
Guilt can be determined by this consideration: if anyone clearly blasphemes the name of God, or the Holy Scriptures, or the Church, or is clearly a sinner, not ashamed of his deeds, but even more arrogant, or without correct guilt he does not accept repentance and the holy Eucharist for more than a year, or does anything else, with obvious abuse and ridicule of God’s law; such, after repeated punishment, having remained stubborn and proud, is worthy of being judged by a great deal of execution. For it is not just for sin that one is subject to anathema, but for the obvious and proud contempt of the judgment of God and the authority of the Church with the great temptation of weak brethren, and that such a stench of atheism emits from oneself.
The following or action of this matter will be correct. First, the Bishop will send his confessor to him to reprimand him for his guilt alone with meekness and admonition, so that he ceases his deeds. And yet, as if by obvious sin and pride, he seduced the Church; then the spiritual one will beg him, so that on the approaching holiday day he would bring repentance to the spiritual father, and would accept penance, and would partake of the Holy Eucharist in front of the people, so that his change would become obvious, and the temptation would be ruined, and would not return to his vomit. And if, having heard this, the guilty one submits and does what is commanded, the Bishop has acquired his brother, and there is nothing more to do.
And if this embassy is in vain, then the Bishop, having lost some time, will call him to himself honestly with a request, and then repeat the instruction to him in secret, present only to the only spiritual one who went to him. And if he listens, he has a brother.
And if the one who is called does not go to the Bishop, then the Bishop of the same spiritual person with other certain honest persons, spiritual and worldly, especially with his friends, will send him to admonish him in the same way as before. And here, if he bowed down and did it according to instructions, the work was done.
And if he remains adamant and proud, he will also powerfully renovate the same embassy.
If everything goes in vain, then the Bishop will order the protodeacon on a holiday in the church to notify the people with these or similar words: the person known to you (name), with such obvious sin, is seducing the church and is a despiser of the wrath of God, and the pastoral instruction, repeated to him more than once , dismissed with an oath; For this reason, your shepherd (name) prays to your father’s love, that you all pray to the gracious God for him, that he may soften his hard-heartedness, and may his heart be pure in him and incline him to repentance. And whoever has the closest communication with him, exhort him, and beg him, both individually and with others together with all zeal, to bring repentance, and report to him that if he is uncorrected and despised, he will remain until such a time (the time will be determined according to reasoning); then he will be subject to eruption from the church.
And if for this reason the criminal remains adamant and stubborn, then the Bishop will not proceed to anathema; but first he will write to the Spiritual Collegium about everything that happened; and having received permission from the Collegium in a letter, he will clearly anathematize the sinner, having drawn up such or a similar formula or sample, and commanded the protodeacon in the Church in front of the people to read: a man (name) previously known to you has seduced the Church by such and such an obvious crime of God’s law, and he despised the repeated pastoral exhortation leading him to repentance; watch out for his rejection from the church, unless he repents, having destroyed what was announced in the hearing of the people, he remains to this day in his hardness of heart, not giving hope for his correction: for this reason our Shepherd, according to the commandment of Christ, given to himself by the same Lord’s authority, casts him out from society He cuts off a Christian, and like an indecent member, from the body of the Church of Christ, informing all the faithful that he has no part in the gifts of God acquired for us by the blood of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, until he truly repents from the heart. And for this reason it is forbidden and not blessed for him to have a church entrance, since it is even more holy and terrible secret He cannot participate in the Eucharist and other Holy Mysteries and church services either in the church or in his home or in any other place. And if he had entered the church secretly or openly, but by force; then he is subject to greater condemnation, and even more, if he dares to partake of the Holy Mysteries insidiously or by force. Let the priests forbid him in every possible way from entering the church; and if they cannot prevent him for the sake of his strength, then except for the liturgy, let him cease from all church services, until he leaves. Likewise, let the priests not go to him with prayer, blessings and the Holy Sacraments, under deprivation of their rank.
If it were known to everyone that he (name) himself is solely subject to this anathema, but neither his wife, nor his children, nor his other household, would they even want to be jealous of his fury, and would they proudly and clearly dare for this oath imposed on him? rebuke the church of God.
This, or another example which the Collegium considers in its deliberation, will stare at the example of anathema, after reading it will be stuck on the doors of the church, the single Throne, or in all the Diocese of that church, the Collegium will judge.
Then, if the ejected person comes to his senses and wants to repent; then he must himself, or, if he himself is not able, then through honest other persons, bring his repentance with all humility publicly in the church to the Bishop, and ask for permission with confession of his sin and proud contempt. And then the Bishop will ask him questions: if truly and for the sake of forgiveness of sins, fearing the wrath of God and asking for God's mercy, he repents; and if he believes that the pastoral power to decide and knit is not vain, but strong and real and terrible; and if it is promised that from now on he will be an obedient son of the church and will not have the power of pastoral disdain: and according to his answers, spoken in the hearing of all the people, the Bishop will command him to firmly trust in God's mercy, for the death of the Savior the sinner who repents, and to read the permission over him. Also, having taught him about the correction of his life (which teaching can be written later), the designated holiday day will indicate to him, after confession before his spiritual father, to come to the communion of the Holy Eucharist.
And if the exiled one, without repenting, begins to curse the church anathema, or even to do dirty tricks on the Bishop or another clergyman; and then the Bishop will send a petition about this to the Spiritual Collegium, and the Collegium, having found the truth, will insistently ask for judgment from the appropriate worldly authority, or from the Tsar's Majesty himself.
Only the Bishop will firmly indicate this to the Collegium, so that they do not do both anathemas and permission for the sake of their own profit or any other self-interest, and that they seek in such an important matter not their own, but the Lord Jesus.
Such an act is correct, in agreement with the word of God and not subject to suspicion.
But this word was anathema, a curse, a punishment similar to death. By anathema, a person is cut off from the mental body of Christ, that is, from the church, and therefore a non-Christian remains alienated from the inheritance of all the blessings acquired for us by the Savior’s death. This is because it comes from the words of God: Be like a pagan and a publican, and it is fitting to betray such a person to Satan, and other similar things.
There is also a lesser punishment in the Holy Church, called excommunication or prohibition. This is when the Church does not clearly anathematize a sinner and does not expel him from the flock of Christ; but he only humbles him by excommunicating him from communication with the faithful in common prayers, does not order him to enter the churches of God, and for some time forbids him to partake of the Holy Mysteries. To put it briefly, through anathema a person is like someone who has been killed, but through excommunication or prohibition he is like someone who has been arrested for arrest.
The images of both of these great and lesser plagues are on church councils, where heretics are anathema. And criminals of the cathedral rules are punishable by excommunication.
The guilt of a lesser penalty, that is, worthy of excommunication, is a certain great and obvious sin, but not the greatest obvious sin, about which we have already spoken above. For example, when someone clearly commits misbehavior, withdraws from church singing due to duty, having clearly offended or dishonored an honest person, he does not ask for forgiveness; The Bishop himself, or through a confessor, has taught such people, so that they will bring clear repentance, even if they do not want to do it, although, without showing great pride and contempt, he can humble them with excommunication without these great warnings through the protodeacon, but only on a small hartin by writing the guilt of the criminal and excommunication his.
And in such a matter, the Bishop should not go to the Spiritual Collegium for permission, but he himself is free and strong to do this, if only he does this not out of passion, but also with diligent search. If someone who is innocent is excommunicated, and he seeks his trial in the Collegium, the Bishop will be punished, according to the reasoning of the Spiritual Collegium.
17) There was a word above under the number eight, so that the Bishops would look to see whether the presbyteries and monks and others were keeping these commandments throughout his Diocese, and so that he would have spiritual fiscals for this. Either way, this is not enough; for these fiscals, being friends with their benefactors, or the bribes of the earth, hide a lot: for this reason it is fitting for a Bishop to embrace and visit his Diocese once every year, or every two years. And there is this, besides many others, the great image of Paul the Apostle, as appears in Acts ch. 14, art. 21, 22. and Acts ch. 15, art. 36. Romans ch. 1, art. 11, 12. 1 Corinthians ch. 4, art. 12, 1 Thessalonica ch. 3 tbsp. 2. 1 Solunyan chap. 3, art. 10.
How better could this visit be, the following regulations are necessary:
1. Summer time seems to be a better time to visit than winter time. This is because the Bishop himself and the churches visited are not as much in the summer as in the winter to spend on food and other needs. There is no need for hay, and little firewood is required. Bread, fish, horse feed are cheaper. And maybe the Bishop, not far from the city, in a field in a tent, will stay for a while, so as not to work for the priesthood, or the citizens in an apartment, especially where the city is wretched.
2. Upon his arrival, the Bishop, on the next day or on the third, having gathered the city and village presbyters, will perform the sacred liturgy; according to the Liturgy, with all the Priests, he will sing a prayer service for the health and victory of the Most Sovereign Monarch, for the correction and well-being of the churches, for the conversion of schismatics, for the goodness of the air. , about the abundance of the fruits of the earth, and so on. And our own canon will be compiled, containing all kinds of needs.
3. Then, after all the singing has been completed, he will speak a teaching word to the priesthood and the people about true repentance, and every office, especially the priestly rank. And there he will add an admonition to suggest to him who has certain spiritual needs and doubtful cases of conscience, as well as what is seen in the church clergy not corrected and so on. And since not every Bishop can compose a pure word, for this reason it is appropriate to compose such a word in the Spiritual Collegium, and then the Bishops would read it in the churches they visit.
4. The Bishop may secretly ask the lesser churchmen, and if anyone else appears, how the presbyters and deacons live. And although it is not proper to believe everyone’s report soon, in both cases the best reason for consideration and correction will appear.
5. Until the Bishop manages the reported affairs, he does not invite guests to himself, and the one who is invited does not go to others, lest he be deceived by the treaty, or become suspicious of himself that he is judging by partiality for his own pleasure.
6. If a matter arises for a long time due to the absence of witnesses, or due to some other obstacle: then, having written it down, put it aside for management in your house. And then so that he would not stay in one place for long, and he would have time to visit the entire Diocese.
7. If the Bishop wants to invite guests to himself, then he would send the entire treaty from his own treasury, and would not impose taxes on the priesthood or on monasteries. And he cannot excuse himself by his misery: for it is not out of duty, but out of his free will, whether he will invite guests or not.
8. Other deeds and actions, both of the priesthood and of parish people, can be hidden before the Bishop, although they are obvious to the people; and secretly and skillfully inquire about such people. And this cannot be hidden, whether the Priest reads on holidays the instructional books about which we spoke above. And if anyone does not read because of laziness, he will be punished in front of the other priests according to reason.
9. The Bishop will ask the priesthood and other people whether superstitions are being made anywhere? Are there any cliques? Doesn’t anyone show false miracles at icons, treasure chests, springs, etc., in order to bring about evil? And such idleness should be prohibited with the threat of an oath against stubborn ones.
10. It is better to ask the clergy and laity in towns and villages about the government and behavior of nearby (if not where the essence) monasteries are, rather than loudly muttering about the same thing in the monasteries themselves.
11. And so that the Bishop does not remember what he should observe in the churches and monasteries he visits; For this reason, I would have with me the written off monastic and priestly positions, which follow here below:
12. The Bishop must firmly command his servants, so that in the cities and monasteries they visit they should remain orderly and sober, and not create temptation; Most of all, they would not ask the monks and priests for food and drink, and extra horse feed. How much more would they not dare to rob under the guilt of cruel punishment. For the bishop's servants are usually the tastiest animals; and where they see the power of their ruler, there with great pride and recklessness, like Tatar, they rush to kidnap.
13. But the news is that every Bishop, whatever his degree, whether a simple Bishop, or an Archbishop, or a Metropolitan, is that he is subordinate to the Spiritual Collegium, as the supreme power, and must listen to its decrees, and must be content with its determination. And for the sake of this, if we offend our brother another Bishop, we will offend him, it is appropriate for him not to take revenge himself, not with slander, not with stories, even if they were true, of his sins, not less with the instigation of certain powerful persons, spiritual or worldly, and especially not dares to anathematize his enemy Bishop; but he offers his grievances as a report to the Spiritual Collegium, and there he asks for two judgments for himself.
14. It follows that every Archimandrite, Abbot, Builder, parish priest, Likewise, the deacon and other clerks are free and free to ask the Spiritual Collegium for judgment against their Bishop, if anyone is notably wronged by him in any way. So, if someone is not satisfied with the court of his Bishop, he is free to cause a provocation, sit down, transfer the case to the court of the Spiritual Collegium; and the Bishop must allow such petitioners and plaintiffs this freedom, and not restrain them, nor threaten them, nor, after their departure to the Ecclesiastical Collegium, print or plunder their houses.
But so that this does not cause many to blame for the fearlessness and contempt of their shepherds, the Spiritual Collegium imposes considerable punishment on those who would dare to demand their shepherds with a false report, or would in vain commit a provocation from the Episcopal court to the court of the Spiritual Collegium.
15. Finally, every Bishop will have to send reports to the Collegium twice a year (or as the Collegium indicates) about the state and behavior of his Diocese, whether everything is good, or whether there is some non-correction that he cannot rearrange. And even if everything were good, then the Bishop must inform the Collegium that, thank God, everything is good. But if he had announced that everything was good, and from there it would have seemed that something superstitious or clearly ungodly was going on in his Diocese; The bishop, knowing this, would have concealed it and not reported it to the Collegium; then the Collegium will call him to trial, and, having been satisfied with the conviction, he will be subject to punishment, which will be determined.
School houses and in them teachers and students, as well as church preachers
It is known to the whole world what poverty and weakness there was in the Russian army when it did not have the correct teaching for itself, and how its strength incomparably increased, and its arrogance became great and terrible when our Most Powerful Monarch, His Royal Majesty Peter I, taught it with considerable regulations. The same is true of Architecture, and Medicine, and Political Government, and all other matters.
And especially the same can be understood about the government of the church: when there is no light of teaching, there cannot be good behavior for the church, there cannot be disorder and many laughable superstitions, as well as discord and insane heresies.
It is bad that many say that the teaching is guilty of heresies: for besides the ancients it is from proud stupidity, and not from the teaching of the raving heretics, the Valentines, Manichaeans, Caphars, Euchites, Donatists and others, whose stupidity is described by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret and others; Is it not because of rudeness and ignorance that our Russian schismatics became cruelly enraged? And although there are heresiarchs from learned people, there was Arius, Nestorius and others; but the heresy in them was born not from teaching, but from the meager understanding of the sacred scriptures, and grew and strengthened from anger and pride, which did not allow them to change their bad opinion, even after knowing the truth against their conscience. And although from their teaching they had the power to compose sophisms, to eat insidious arguments from their wisdom: otherwise, whoever attributed this evil simply to teaching, would be forced to say that when a doctor gives someone poison to drink, that doctor’s teaching is guilty; and when a learned soldier cunningly and powerfully defeats him, his military training is to blame. And if we look through history, like through telescopes, at the past centuries, we will see all the worst in the dark times than in the bright times of teaching. The Bishops did not become so arrogant until the four hundredth year, as afterward they caught fire, especially the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome; for then there was teaching, but afterwards it became scarce. And if the teaching of the Church or the State were harmful, then the best individuals themselves would not study Christianity, and would forbid others to study: otherwise we see that all our ancient teachers studied not only the Holy Scriptures, but also external Philosophy. And besides many others, the most glorious pillars of the church also fight about external teaching, namely: Basil the Great in his words to learning infants, Chrysostom in books on monasticism, Gregory the Theologian in his words on Julian the Apostate. But there would be a lot to say, if only there was a special word about this one thing.
For good and solid teaching is of all benefit, both to the fatherland and to the church, like the root and seed and foundation. But this is something that must be carefully observed so that there is good and thorough teaching.
For there is a teaching that is not even worthy of its name; and in both cases, people, although smart, but ignorant, are judged to be for direct teaching.
Many people usually ask: in which schools was Onsitsa? And when they hear that he was in Rhetoric, in Philosophy and in Theology; People are highly regarded for their single names, which is often a mistake. For not everyone learns good things from good teachers, either because of their dullness of mind or because of their laziness, especially when the teacher is little skilled in his work, or less skilled.
It is fitting that from the year five hundred to the year fourteen hundred, nine hundred years later, in all of Europe, almost all teachings were in great poverty and lack of art, so that the most best authors, who wrote in those days, we see great wit, but we do not see great light. In the year four hundred and a thousand, the most curious and therefore skillful teachers began to appear, and little by little many Academies became much larger, and from those ancient Augustan years they gained great power: many of both schools remained in the same mud, so that among them Rhetoric, and Philosophy and other teachings the names are exactly the essence, but that’s not the point. The reasons for this are different, which are not mentioned here for the sake of brevity.
The stupidest people who have tasted such, such, visionary and dreamy teachings come from the unlearned. For beings are very dark, they imagine themselves to be perfect, and thinking that everything can be known, they have learned, they do not want, but they think lower than the honor of the book, and learn more. When, contrary to direct teaching, an enlightened person never has satiety in his knowledge, but never stops learning, even if he survived the Methuselah age.
It is unfortunate that these unfounded sages are not only not useful, but are also harmful to the community, the fatherland and the church; They humble themselves to the utmost before the authorities, but cunningly, so as to steal their mercy and climb to the level of honesty. People of equal rank are not hated; and if anyone is praised for his teaching, they try in every possible way to vilify and blaspheme him before the people and the authorities. They are prone to riots when they perceive high hopes. When they theologize, they must not be heretical; Because of their ignorance, they will let it slip for their own convenience, but they do not want to change their stated opinions, so as not to show themselves that they do not know everything. And the wise men affirmed this saying among themselves: it is the property of a man to be wise to cancel his opinion.
This proposal was judged for the good that if the Tsar's Majesty wanted to found an Academy, the Spiritual Collegium would discuss which teachers to identify first, and what kind of teaching to show them, so that the State's dependence would not go in vain, and instead of the expected benefit, there would not be a vanity worthy of laughter .
And how to cope with this dangerously and skillfully, the following regulations are:
1. It’s not like many teachers at first, but the first year it’s enough to have one or two who would teach Grammar, that is, the language correctly to know Latin, or Greek, or both languages.
2. The next year, and the third, and others, going on to greater teachings, and not delaying the first for new students, a larger number of teachers will be added.
3. Tempt in every possible way what kind of person he is in his work who wants to be a school teacher: for example, wanting to know whether he is skilled in the Latin language, order him to translate the Russian addition into Latin, and also the Latin word of a certain author famous in that language, translate into Russian; and order the skilled to examine and testify his translations, and it will immediately appear whether it is perfect, or average, or even worse, or very nothing. The essence of other teachings is inherent temptation, which can be especially powerful to write off.
4. And although he may seem unskilled in the required teaching, it is still powerful to know that he is witty, it is significant that he did not achieve it due to laziness, or because of his bad teacher, and command him to study for six months or a year from authors who are skilled in this matter, as long as the teacher wants to be. Only to do this for the poverty of people, and it would be better not to rely on such people.
5. Order certain and good teachers to first tell their students briefly, but clearly, what the power of real teaching is, Grammar, for example, Rhetoric, Logic, etc.; and what do we want to achieve through this or that teaching, so that the disciples can see the shore to which they are swimming, and have a better hunt and know their daily profit, as well as their shortcomings.
6. To select the most distinguished authors in any teaching, who testify in the glorious Academies: namely, in Paris, by the command of King Louis the fourth, the Latin Grammar was so briefly and completely concluded; What a powerful hope for a witty student to fully learn the Onago language in one year, when in our country few people postulate in five or six years. What can you know from the fact that a student of Philosophy or Theology cannot translate even the average Latin style. Having chosen, as they say, the best authors in Grammar, Rhetoric and other teachings, submit them to the Academy and order that they be the leaders, and not others, taught in schools.
7. In Theology, actually order to teach the main dogmas of our faith and the law of God. If only a theological teacher would read the Holy Scriptures, and would learn to rule how to know the direct, true power and interpretation of the Scriptures, and would strengthen all dogmas with the testimony of the Scriptures. And to help this matter, the Holy Fathers would diligently read the books, and such Fathers, who diligently wrote about dogmas, due to the need for strife in the church that happened, with a feat against the opposite heresies. For the ancient teachers were actually about dogmas, one writing about this, the other about another. For example: about the Trinity mystery, Gregory of Nazianzus in his five Theological Words, and Augustine in books about the Trinity and about the Divinity of the Son of God, besides these, Athanasius the Great in five books on Arian about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, Basil the Great in five books on Eunomia; about the hypostasis of Christ Cyril of Alexandria on Nestoria; about the duality of natures in Christ, one message from Leon, Pope of Rome to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, is enough; about original sin and about the grace of God Augustine in many books on the Pelagians and others. In addition, the actions and conversations of the Ecumenical and Local Synods are extremely useful. And from such teachers Holy Scripture Theological teaching will be futile. And although the Theological teacher can seek help from the newest teachers of other faiths; but should not learn from them and rely on their tales, but only accept their guidance, what arguments they use from Scripture and from ancient teachers. Especially in the dogmas in which the Gentiles agree with us; but it is not easy to believe their arguments, but see if there is such a word in Scripture, or in the books of the Fathers, and whether it has any force, in which they accept. Many times these gentlemen lie, and they come up with things that never happened. Many times the true word is corrupted. Be here one, for example, the word of the Lord to Peter: I pray for you, that your faith may not fail, said about Peter personally, about the person of Petrov himself, and the Latins draw it to their Pope, suggesting that the Pope cannot sin in faith, at least I wanted to. A theological teacher must teach not according to other people’s tales, but according to his own knowledge and, sometimes choosing his own time, show it to his students in books, so that they themselves are known, and do not doubt whether their teacher is telling the truth or lying.
8. On this occasion, because of the passing advice, I remember that in schools the library should be happy. For without a library, the Academy is like without a soul. And you can buy a satisfied library for two thousand rubles.
The library is not forbidden to be used by the teacher at all days and hours, as long as the books are not sorted out from cells, but they are kept in the library office itself. And for students and other hunters to open the library on designated days and hours.
And those who know the language would go to the library at special hours and days due to duty, and at others for hunting and at scheduled times. Every teacher would ask which author he honors, and what he read, and what he wrote; and if he didn’t understand something, then the teacher would explain it to him. This is very useful and quickly transforms a person into someone else, even before there were rude customs.
9. Turning to school teachings, this seems to be very successful, that two or three people can suddenly study in one hour and do one thing. For example, when teaching Grammar, a teacher can also teach Geography and History: first, according to Grammar rules, you need to do exercises, learn translations from my language, into the language I am studying, and from that language into mine language. It is powerful to order students to translate Geography, or External History, or Church History, or both of those teachings at a time.
Otherwise, since History is an honor without the knowledge of Geography, it is as if walking blindfolded through the streets; For this reason, sound advice is to divide the year, determined by grammar, into two parts; and the first six months to teach Grammar with Geography, a special day in the week is determined in which the teacher will show compasses, planisphericity and the universal situation of the world on the map. And it would be even better to do this on a globe, and teach students in such a way that they can point with their finger when someone asks them: where is Asia? where is Africa, where is Europe? and to which sides does America lie beneath us? The same is true about States: where is Egypt? where is Hina? where is Portugal? and so on. And another thing is to give an exercise for six months to translate a universal and brief History, if only there was an author of the pure Latin language, who is Justin the Historian, and it will be powerful to look after others.
And this is very useful; for students will have a great desire for learning when the joyless teaching of the language is dissolved by the joyful world, and the knowledge of past affairs in the world, and soon rudeness will disappear from them, and even on the shores of the school, many valuable goods will be found.
10. The order of teaching seems to be as good as this: 1. Grammar together with Geography and History. 2. Arithmetic and Geometry. 3. Logic or Dialectics, and one dual doctrine. 4. Rhetoric, combined or separately with poetic teaching. 5. Physics, adding a brief Metaphysics. 6. Puffendorf's brief politics, if it is needed, will be judged to be, and maybe it will be added to Dialectics. 7. Theology. The first six will take a year, and Theology will take two years. For although every teaching, except Dialectical and Grammatic, is extensive; However, in schools it is necessary to interpret it in abbreviated form, and only the most important parts. After long reading and practice, whoever receives such good guidance will be perfected. The Greek and Hebrew languages (if there are teachers) between other teachings will take their due time.
11. The Rector and Prefect should be considered diligent people, and whose teachings and works are already known. And the Spiritual Collegium will direct them to be careful in their work, with such a threat that if the teachings proceed inappropriately and unsuccessfully; then they themselves will be subject to judgment in the Spiritual Collegium. And for this reason, we must look to see whether teachers always go to school and whether they teach as they should. And the Rector and the Prefect must visit two schools a week, and another two in another week, and so on and so forth. And when they arrive at school, the teacher will teach in front of them, and they will hear, even after half an hour; Also test the students with questions to see if they know what they should already know.
12. If someone from the teachers seems to be contrary to the Academic Rules, and is adamant to the Rector’s instructions: the Rector will announce such a person to the Spiritual Collegium, and if he follows, he will be dismissed or punished according to his judgment.
13. It is also powerful to appoint fiscal officers who would supervise whether everything at the Academy is in order.
14. This is a discussion about the students: all Archpriests and rich and other Priests should send their children to the Academy. It is powerful to point out the same thing to the city’s best officials, and about the nobles, as the Tsar’s Majesty’s own will will be.
15. The coming students would be at the Academy until the end of all teachings, and the Rector should not be allowed to leave the school without the knowledge of the Spiritual Collegium. And if the Rector or the Prefect, or anyone else who released the student, pay back the bribe given, and impose a severe punishment on such a criminal.
16. Everyone everywhere knows that where there is a person learned in the Academy, and certified by the Academy, he cannot be advanced to the level of spiritual or civil honor by an unlearned person with a great fine on the authorities who would have done otherwise.
17. The newly arrived student will taste memory and wit; and if he seems very stupid, do not accept him into the Academy: for he will lose years and learn nothing; Otherwise, he will have the opinion of himself that he is wise and that such people are the worst idlers. And so that no one pretends to be stupid when he wants to go home, just as others pretend to be physically infirm from being a soldier; the temptation of the mind to put it down for a whole year. And an intelligent teacher can come up with methods of temptation that he cannot know and contrive.
18. If a child of invincible malice appears, ferocious, quick to fight, a slanderer, unconquered, and after a year it will be impossible to overcome him with either admonishment or cruel punishment, even if he was witty: expel him from the Academy, so as not to give the madman a sword.
19. The location of the Academy is not in the city, but on the side in a pleasant place, where there is no noise from the people, below the frequent occurrences that usually interfere with studies and are seen to steal the thoughts of young people and do not allow them to study diligently.
20. There is no need to boast about the Academy, but to look lower at the fact that it has many students: this is very vain; but to look at how many witty and good students there are, with great hope, and how to keep them constant until the end.
21. And this is by no means indecent, and even more so, it is vain for students, no matter what they come, to be accepted with the Sovereign’s daily money. For many come not for teaching, but still others, incapable by nature, only for a salary, drawn by poverty. Others, who are capable, live at the Academy as long as they want, and when and where they want, they go. So what of this good thing? Only a vain loss.
Students would be accepted with consideration of wit, and they would sign on themselves that they would remain in the Academy until the end of their studies, under a great fine, if they did not fulfill their vow unless absolutely necessary. And so it will be possible, after completing school work, to present them to the Tsar’s Majesty and, by His Majesty’s decree, to assign them to various matters.
22. But what is most important, and almost the only thing necessary and useful, is to be at the Academy or, at the beginning and without the Academy, a Seminarium for the teaching and education of children, which are invented quite a few in foreign countries. And here a certain image appears:
1. To build a house in the image of a monastery, whose space and housing and all kinds of supplies for food, clothing and other needs would be in proportion to the number of children (which will be determined by the will of the Tsar's Majesty) fifty, or seventy or more, as well as the necessary stewards and ministers.
2. In that house children and older youths live in groups of eight or nine people in one hut. Both with this arrangement: large ones in one hut, medium ones in another, small ones in a third hut.
3. A place for everyone should be assigned to the wall instead of his own office, where there is a folding bed for him, so that on the day of the lair he will not know; There is also a cabinet for books and other things, and a chair for sitting.
4. In every hut (how many of them there will be), there should be a Prefect, or overseer, a person, although uneducated, but of honest living, as long as he is not fierce and not melancholic, from 30 to 50 years of age. And this is his job: to see that there are no quarrels, fights, foul language, or any other disorder among the Seminarians (as those brought up in that house are called) and that at the appointed hours everyone does what he should. And every Seminarian would not leave his hut without his blessing, and then only with an announcement of the reason, where and for what he was leaving.
5. There should be at least three people in the same house learned man a monk or a layman, of which one will be the Rector, the steward of the whole house, and two examiners, who will be the investigators of the teachings, whether one studies, lazily or diligently.
6. In every hut, the Prefect has the power to punish his subordinates for a crime, but small ones with a rod, and medium and large ones with a threatening word, and then report those who do not correct themselves to the Rector.
7. Examiners will do the same for laziness in teaching with small, medium and large students and report to the Rector.
8. The rector, the supreme power of all, can punish with any punishment according to his judgment. And whoever is adamant about correction will not be released by the Rector from the Seminarium without the knowledge of the Spiritual Collegium.
9. The Seminarian determines the times for every activity and rest, when to go to bed, when to get up, pray, study, go to meals, take a walk, and so on. And all these hours would be marked by a bell, and all the Seminarians, like soldiers to the beat of drums, or to the voice of bells, would set about the task that was appointed for the appointed hour.
10. Do not let anyone leave the Seminarium to go to the cities, or wherever they are, to visit their own people, until the Seminarist has become accustomed to being in the Seminarium and has felt the significant benefits of such upbringing, namely: until the age of three, upon everyone’s arrival at the Seminarium, emit nowhere; and in the third year, no more than twice a year, allow you to go out to visit your parents or relatives, and then not far away, so that no more than seven days pass from the invasion to the return to the Seminary house itself.
11. And when a Seminarian is sent out as a guest, then it is better to assign him an honest person, like an Inspector or observer, who would be with him everywhere, and always and on all occasions, and upon his return would give a report to the Rector about what happened. And if that dowry Inspector, while reproaching him, had hidden something bad: such a rogue would be much harder to beat. And it will be possible to know this by this fact that the returning Seminarian cannot help but show in himself some of his former morals and desire for betrayal.
12. And when some relatives come to the Seminarium to visit their relative there, and those guests, with the knowledge of the Rector, are brought into a meal, or another common hut, or into the garden, and there they talk with their relatives, and treat them with food and drink in moderation it is possible, to the present Rector himself or to one examiner, according to the judgment of the persons.
13. Such a life for young people seems to be oppressive and similar to captivity. But whoever gets into the habit of living like this, even after just one year, will find it very sweet.
In addition to curing boredom, the following regulations are useful:
14. Do not accept until the Seminarium only small children from 10 to 15 years of age, and above that, unless at the request of honest persons testifying that the child lived in his parents’ house in fear and good supervision.
15. Every day, assign 2 hours for the Seminarists to walk, namely: at lunch and in the evening, and then they would involuntarily study with anyone, and have books in their hands. And the walk would be with honest and physical games, in the summer in the garden, and in winter in his own hut. For eating this is good for health and drives away boredom. And it’s even better to choose those who, with fun, give some useful instruction. Such, for example, is water navigation on regular ships, Geometric dimensions, the structure of regular fortresses, etc.
16. You can once or twice a month, especially in the summer, travel to the islands, to fields and fun places, to the country courtyards of the Sovereigns, and at least once a year to St. Petersburg.
17. At the meal the reading will be about military stories and about church stories. And at the beginning of every month, after two or three days, let us tell you about men who have shone in the teaching, about great church teachers, as well as about ancient and modern Philosophers, Astronomers, Rhetors, Historians, and so on. For hearing such stories is sweet, and encourages wise people to imitate them.
18. You can also do some actions, debates, comedies, or rhetorical exercises twice a year or more. And this would be very useful for instruction and for resolution, to eat honest courage, which is required by the preaching of the word of God, and the ambassadorial work, but such actions also make a cheerful mix.
19. Certain honors may also be given to students who are kind and thorough.
20. It is good to be at the table of these Seminarians on great holidays with the voice of musical instruments; and this is not difficult: for the first thing is only to hire a master, and from him the willing Seminarians who have learned will have to teach others to take their place. And these seven mentioned rules serve to amuse the students.
21. It is appropriate to be in the Seminary church, pharmacy and Doctor, and the school is in the nearby Academy, where Seminary students will go to study. And if the Seminarium has both schools and teachers, then the Academy and the Seminarium will be together. And for other students who do not want to live in the Seminarium, several housing units can be built outside the Seminarium and rented out to students.
22. The regulations of teachers, teaching and students, described above in the Academy, should be kept here.
23. The seminarians alone will be poor people, and you, by the mercy of the Tsar’s Majesty, will receive food and clothing and other necessities. And other rich people are children, who will have to pay for food and clothing, and the price will be the same, forever determined.
24. How the Seminarian will come to a perfect mind and achieve great teachings; then he must take an oath in the Seminary Church with the rest of his brethren that he wants to be faithful to the Royal Majesty and His Heir, and is ready for service, before which he is pleased and will be called by the Sovereign's decree.
25. The Rector will not release the Seminarists who have completed their studies from the Seminarium until he first brings them to the Spiritual Collegium, and the Collegium will present them to the Royal Majesty. And then he will give them absheet with evidence of their skill.
26. And those Seminarians, after completing their teaching, will seem most suitable for spiritual matters, and they would be closer to every degree of sovereignty among the Bishops than others, even if equally skilled, but not trained in the Seminary, unless there is some notable vice on the Seminarist appeared, and that would not have been a defect from slander. And severe punishment will be imposed on envious people and slanderers.
Up to here about the Seminary.
And in the future it will be possible to come up with more information, or to seek information from the best foreign Seminars; and from such upbringing and teaching one can truly hope for great benefit to the fatherland.
23. Regarding the preachers of the word of God, the following useful regulations are:
1. Let no one dare to preach in this Academy who is not learned, and who has not been certified by the Spiritual Collegium. But if someone studied with the Gentiles, he would first show himself in the Spiritual Collegium, and test him there: how skilled he is in the Holy Scriptures, and would speak a word about what the Collegium commands him to do: and if he seems skilled, then give him a testimony, that if he wants to be in the priestly rank, preach to him powerfully.
2. Preachers would preach firmly, with the argument of the Holy Scriptures, about repentance, about the correction of life, about reverence for authorities, especially the highest royal authority, about positions of every rank. We would exterminate superstition; We would root the fear of God in people's hearts. In a word, they said: they would test from the Holy Scriptures that there is the will of God, holy, acceptable and perfect, and then they would say.
3. To talk about sins in society, and not to name anyone, would it be published on behalf of the entire church.
But even when an unkind rumor spreads about a certain person, about this or that particular sin, and then the preacher must remain silent about such a sin in word. For if he remembers the sin of that one, even if he does not remember the face; Otherwise, the people will think that there is thunder on that face. And thus his sadness will increase, and he will begin to think not about his own correction, but even more about taking revenge on such a preacher. What good is that? If someone’s great sin, with contempt for the law of God, will be revealed spontaneously from a proud sinner; then it is up to the Bishop, and not to any Presbyter, to fine him, in the same way as was said above in the cases of Bishops about anathema.
4. It is the custom of some preachers, if someone angers him in some way, to take revenge on him during his preaching, although not precisely by tormenting his glory, but in such a way that the listener can know who he is talking about: and such preachers are the most idlers, and they would be subjected to severe punishment.
5. It is unbecoming for a great preacher, especially a young one, to speak about the sins of those in power, or to expose his listeners in an accusatory manner. So for example: you have no fear of God, you have no love for your neighbor; If you are unmerciful, you will offend each other. But it must be more in the first person, in plural so to speak: we have no fear of God, we have no love for our neighbor; We are unmerciful, we will offend each other. For this image of the word meek is, even though the preacher himself is among the sinners, hindering himself, just as the truth itself is: for we all sin much. And so Paul the Apostle, denouncing teachers who, placing themselves highly, wanted to call their disciples by their name, without remembering them specifically, seemed to accept the blame on himself, in the first letter from Corinth in chapter one, and also on his friends Peter, Apollos. Each person says from you, “I am Pavlov, I am Apollosov, I am Cephas, I am Christov.” Food stripped Christ? Did Paul fall apart for you, or was he baptized in the name of Paul? and so on. And that he brought this guilt upon himself and others, he himself testifies. For having talked about this for a long time, the same one confesses in chapter four: “These my brethren have transformed Apollos on ourselves for our sake, so that from us you may learn no more than the wisdom of what is written and so on.”
6. Every preacher must have the books of Saint Chrysostom and be diligent about this honor: for in this way he must learn to write the purest and clearest word, although he will not be equal to Chrysostom; and there wouldn’t be any frivolous executioners, of which there are especially Polish ones.
7. If a preacher sees benefit from his word among the people, let him not boast about it. If he doesn’t see, let him not be angry, and let him not reproach people for this. Their business is to say: but the conversion of human hearts is the work of God. Az planted, Apollos gave water, God will grow.
8. Preachers who raise their eyebrows, show proud movements, and say something in their words from which you can know that they are surprised at themselves, act madly. But a prudent teacher, with all his might, strives both in word and in his whole body by action to show himself that he thinks less of his wit or eloquence. And for this reason, it is often appropriate to mix brief reservations with a kind of humble self-deprecation. For example: I pray for your love, don’t look who’s talking; What can I testify about myself to you, that I am a sinner? Believe the word of God: for it is from the Holy Scriptures, and not from my imagination, that I strive to offer, and the like.
9. There is no need for a preacher to stagger around as if he were rowing an oar in a ship. There is no need to dance with your arms, lean on your sides, jump up, laugh, and you don’t need to cry; but even if the spirit is indignant, it is necessary, as powerfully as possible, to calm down the tears; All this is superfluous and unseemly, and it outrages the hearers.
10. According to the word, even if it happens to be a guest, or in any conversations with people, it is not appropriate for a preacher to remember his word, and not to praise his word exactly, which is a great lack of study, but also not to self-inflictly degrade: for it will seem that he encourages others in praising his word in this way. And even if someone began to praise his word, the preacher must show in himself that he is ashamed to hear it, and in every possible way divert him from praise and start a different conversation.
Worldly persons, since they participate in the essence of spiritual instructions. Although not much should be said in this part, it is appropriate to suggest a small preface to a better understanding: why are the laity called laity, and in what way do they differ from the spiritual rank?
This name world in the triple mind is used:
1. The world is called the whole sunflower, inhabited by man, but it is not in this mind that men, the church service of the poor, are called laity; for the priestly rank lives in the same world as others.
2. The world is simply accepted as people, as they are a corporeal, but intelligent creature. And it is not according to this world that we call the laity, who are outside the clergy of church services. Even the Priest and any cleric will not want to renounce being called a layman in such a mind. And in this mind there is the name world, where something good is attached to it, for example: so God loved the world, etc.
3. The world often signifies human malice and vanity, or people themselves; Because they are evil and vanity, as John the Apostle says in his first epistle, in chapter two: love not the world, neither those who are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him: for everything in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of desire, and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is of this world. And the laity are not of this world; for John writes not to the priesthood, but generally to Christians. And as he himself speaks there to fathers, youths, children, this is to everyone of all ages. And it cannot be said that with this word he slanders them into becoming monks or churchmen.
In the same way, as this name, spiritual, which is contrary to the world, is used in the third sense, it is not shown by the monks and clergymen of Paul the Apostle in the first letter to the Corinthians, in the second chapter at the end, where he discusses the mental and spiritual man. For there he calls the spiritual one who, without the grace of the Holy Spirit, is naturally inclined towards all evil, but is very powerless towards godly good, which are all unrenewed essences. He calls the spiritual one who is enlightened and renewed, and is led by the Holy Spirit. Even if the Priest, even if the layman is angry, he is spiritual; and despite whether a priest or a layman, led by the Holy Spirit, he is spiritual. And therefore Saint Peter gives the name of the priesthood not to a single church servant, but to all Christians in common. 1. Peter. Chapter 2. You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy tongue, people of renewal, so that you may proclaim virtues from the darkness who called you into His wonderful light. The Apocalypse, chapter 5, is similar: God created us, Kings and Priests.
This was appropriate to propose because due to ignorance of this, many soul-destroying stupidities are acted and affected. Do not know this, a worldly person sometimes thinks that he cannot be saved for the very reason that he is not spiritual, but is worldly. Without knowing this, another monk tells another to leave his wife, child, parents, and hate them; In other words, the imam’s commandment: do not love the world, and those who are in the world.
But why are the laity vilified? Answer. Because it was fitting to be a certain spiritual servant and steward of the teachings, they are Bishops and Presbyters: for this reason, but for some kind of superiority, they received the title of spiritual rank. And for the sake of service, bloodless victims are given the title of preeminence and priesthood. And therefore the others, who are listeners and disciples of them, are simply called laymen.
Speech: from which of the three above-mentioned minds of the world are the laity so called?
This naming is appropriate for the second mind; All both priests and non-priests are laymen, that is, humans. But laymen are simply called not priests; since they are not stewards and ministers of certain spiritual teachings, but hearers. And something needs to be said about the laity, since they belong to spiritual leadership.
1. Everyone knows this: first of all, let it be that every Christian should listen to Orthodox teaching from his pastors. Just as shepherds do not shepherd if they do not feed their sheep with the word of God: so the sheep are not sheep, but they are called such in vain if they do not want to be shepherds by the shepherds. For this reason, if someone despised and scolded, or what is worse, would try to prevent the reading or preaching of the word of God, without extreme need, for one certain proud malice: he is subject to church punishment, or to the Episcopal court, about which the word was above, where about anathema, or, if it is strong, the Spiritual Collegium itself will follow and decree.
2. Every Christian must partake of the Holy Eucharist often, and at least once a year. This is also our most graceful thanksgiving to God for the great salvation accomplished for us by the Savior’s death. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until it comes. And parting words to the living eternal. Unless you eat the body of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. And there is a character or sign by which we show ourselves to be the members of the one mental body of Christ, to be the accomplices of the one Holy Church, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinth. Chapter 10. We bless the cup of blessing; is there not fellowship in the blood of Christ? Bread, we break it, isn’t there fellowship of the body of Christ? For as there is one bread, there is one body of many; We all partake of the same bread. For this reason, if a Christian seems to be moving far away from Holy Communion, he thereby reveals to himself that he is not in the body of Christ, he is not an accomplice of the church, but a schismatic. And there is no better sign than to recognize a schismatic. This should be diligently observed by the Bishop and ordered that the parish priests inform them throughout the years about their parishioners, which of them have not received communion in a year, some in two, and some never. And to compel such people to confess an oath, even if they are sons of the church, and whether all the schismatic regiments that are found anywhere in Russia are cursing. This compulsion to swear, and there is no other way, can only be a threat, that if they do not want to swear, and curse precisely all schismatic agreement; then an announcement about them will be published that they are schismatics. It is no small benefit to know about this: for many schismatics, hiding under the clothing of Orthodoxy, instead of being afraid, are still instigating persecution against the church. And not only do they scold the sacred order and, as much as they can, do dirty tricks on it, but they oppress the worldly, those who disagree with their madness, in every possible way, as people worthy of faith can testify to.
3. And when in such a different way a schismatic is declared; then the Bishop must inform in writing about this schismatic to the one under whose judgment he is, who has to send him to the Spiritual College.
4. It is useful for the Collegium to know how many schismatics there are in all the Dioceses; This is helpful for many cases that require reasoning.
5. It is a great sin that cannot tolerate spiritual silence, that certain worldly masters, knowing schismatics in their areas, cover up for the bribe given to them.
It’s a different matter with obvious schismatics; for there is no need to avoid misfortune from those; but the schismatics, under the guise of living Orthodoxy, cover up this stinking matter with atheism. And for this the Bishops must be jealous and report this to the Spiritual Collegium; and the Collegium, on a spiritual search, can anathematize such gentlemen, if they do not want to correct themselves. The spiritual search should be carried out in this way: the Bishop will submit a report to the Spiritual College against a worldly master not simply because he has schismatics; but that that master strongly does not allow the Priest to come, or even those sent by the Bishop to seek out and expose the schismatics residing in his patrimony, and the names of reliable witnesses to this will be reported. And the Collegium, having listened to the witnesses, will write an admonishment to this master, asking him to allow him to freely search for schismatics in his estate. And if the master listens, then don’t bother him anymore; If he disobeys, he will testify about himself that he is an intercessor for the schismatics. And then the Collegium will begin to punish him spiritually in the same manner as is written above about anathema. And this matter is not about open schismatics, but about secret schismatics, as stated above, if they are simple people: but if teachers, and perhaps schismatic shepherds, are, this matter is about those, both secret and open. Spirituals who have subjects behind them are also judged in the same way.
6. Throughout Russia, no one from the schismatics should be elevated to power, not only spiritual, but also civil, even to the last beginning and administration, so as not to arm us with fierce enemies, both to the State and the Sovereign, who constantly think evil.
And if anyone is suspected of being a schismatic, even if he shows an appearance of Orthodoxy, the first thing to do is to take an oath, along with an oath against himself, and that he is not and does not think to be a schismatic; and announce to him a cruel punishment, if the opposite were to appear on him afterwards, and sign him with his own hand. This is the guilt: when someone, by his noble deed, creates suspicion for himself, for example [*]: if he never partakes of the Holy Mysteries without any blessed guilt; If he covers schismatic teachers in his house with the knowledge that they are such, and if he sends alms to schismatic monasteries and so on; and in such cases, whoever is convicted by obvious arguments, then he is subject to suspicion of schismaticism.
And if something contrary to this appears somewhere, then the Bishop should quickly write about it to the Theological College.
7. From now on, no one from the world (except the name of the Tsar's Majesty) will be in the houses of churches and priests of the cross: for this is superfluous, and comes from sheer arrogance, and is reproachful to the spiritual rank. Gentlemen would go to parish churches and would not be ashamed to be brothers, even if they were their own peasants, in the company of Christians. In Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor freedom, says the Apostle.
8. When parishioners or landowners who live in their estates elect a person in their church to be a priest, then you must testify in your report that he is a person of good and unsuspicious life. And if the landowners themselves do not live in those estates, this certificate about such people must be submitted to the people and their peasants, and in petitions to write exactly what abuse or land will be given to him. And the chosen one would also put his hand to the fact that he wants to be satisfied with that other land or land, and not leave the church to which he is dedicated until death. And if this chosen one appears before the Bishop in some kind of suspicion or schism, and is unworthy of his rank, this is left for the Bishop’s consideration.
9. The gentlemen would not accept priests who drag themselves as their confessors. For the Priest was expelled for a crime, or willfully left the church entrusted to himself, and is no longer a Priest, and accepts great sin, acting priestly. And the master who accepts it is a participant in that sin, and purely: for he is both an assistant to that sin and an adversary to the church government.
Strong lay people would not force priests to enter their homes to baptize babies, but would carry them to church, unless the baby were very ill, or some other great need came.
10. They say that sometimes civil rulers and other authorities, as well as powerful landowners, in the event of some matter that requires spiritual guidance, do not want to obey the Bishop in which someone lives in the Diocese, making the excuse that the Bishop is not their shepherd. Let everyone know that every person of any rank is subject in spiritual matters to the judgment of the Bishop in whom the Diocese resides, as long as it resides in that one.
11. But especially for worldly persons, many difficulties occur in dubious marriages, and for this reason, if such doubt happens to anyone, he would not dare to conceal it before the Priest. And the Priest, even if he himself doubts, would not dare to perform the wedding quickly, but would refer the matter to the consideration of the Bishop. But the Bishop would also refer him to the Spiritual Collegium if he himself is at a loss to decide.
And for the solution of such difficulties, it is necessary for the Spiritual Colleagues, having chosen their own time, to talk about them enough, and for every difficulty to write a strong solution from the Holy Scriptures, and from the reasoning of the glorious ancient teachers, as well as from the Royal Rules.
12. And even if there was a doubtful marriage that seemed to take place; Otherwise, it is not appropriate to get married in another parish, in which neither the groom nor the bride lives; Moreover, it is not appropriate to get married in another Bishopric. Likewise, do not call priests from someone else’s parish or diocese for a wedding; for this, in addition to reproaching their shepherds, also shows that those who marry in such a way under suspicion are of the wrong combination.
Part III.- The very stewards of office, action and power
It’s time to talk about the very stewards who make up the Spiritual Collegium.
1. The number of persons in government is sufficient, 12. There should be persons of different ranks: Bishop, Archimandrite, Abbot, Archpriest, of which number, three Bishops, and other ranks, as many worthy ones can be found.
2. See to it that the Archimandrites and Archpriests are not in the rank of this meeting, which are the assistants of a certain Bishop who is found in this same meeting: for such an Archimandrite or Archpriest will constantly observe which side of the judged his Bishop is inclined to, and to that that Archimandrite and Archpriest will bow down, and so two or three persons will already be one person. The rest should be considered, what the Spiritual Collegium should do, and how to act and act in the matters brought, and what power it has to accomplish things. And these three are signified by the three things mentioned above in the title of this part, which are office, action and power. There is something to talk about about every individual.
Job title. 1. The first and only duty of this Spiritual Government is to know the essence of the positions of all Christians in general and Bishops themselves, Presbyters and other church ministers, monks, teachers and students; The same applies to worldly persons, since they are the instructions of a spiritual participant. And for this reason, certain positions of all these ranks are written down here. And the Spiritual Collegium must observe, while everyone remains in his rank; and instruct and punish those who sin. In addition, certain government positions are actually attached here.
2. To inform or publish to all Christians in general, of any rank, that anyone, having seen something useful for the better government of the church, can report to the Ecclesiastical Collegium in a letter, just as anyone is free to report to the Senate about the proper profits of the State. And the Collegium of the Spiritual will judge whether the advice is useful or unhelpful; and the useful will be accepted, but the unprofitable will be despised.
3. If anyone composes a Theological letter about something, it should not be published, but rather presented to the Collegium first. And the Collegium must examine whether there is any sin in this letter that is contrary to Orthodox teaching.
4. If an incorruptible body appears, or a vision or miracle works is heard, the Collegium must test that truth, calling for interrogation these narrators, and others who can testify to this.
5. If someone reproaches someone as a schismatic, or is the inventor of a new teaching, judge that in the Spiritual Collegium.
6. Some perplexed cases of conscience occur, for example, what to do when someone, having stolen someone else’s property, wants it, but cannot return it, or because of shame or fear, or that the person from whom he stole it is no longer there? And what should one do who happens to be in captivity among the filthy, and for the sake of his freedom accepts their godless faith, and then turns to the Christian confession? Bring this and other perplexities to the Spiritual Collegium, and from there we should diligently reason and decide.
7. The first thing to do here is to examine those promoted to the Bishopric, whether they are superstitions, hypocrites, holy merchants, where and how they lived; interrogate with evidence why he has wealth, if anyone shows up.
8. To refer the courts of the Bishops to the Spiritual Collegium, if anyone is not satisfied with them. The cases that are subject to this court are precisely these: confused marriages, faulty divorces, insults to the clergy or monastery from one’s Bishop, insults made to a Bishop from another Bishop. And briefly: all the cases that were due for the Patriarchal Court.
9. The Collegium must examine who owns the church lands and how, and where the grain and profits, if they are monetary, are spent on. And if someone steals church belongings by thieves: the Spiritual Collegium should step on it, and the stolen person must be corrected on it.
10. When a Bishop, or a lesser church minister, suffers an insult from a certain powerful lord, although it is not against him in the Spiritual Collegium, but in the Justice Collegium or later in the Senate, it is necessary to ask for justice: however, the offended person will reveal his need to the Spiritual Collegium. And then the President and the entire Collegium, giving help to their offended brother, will send honest men from themselves to quickly ask for justice, where appropriate.
11. The covenants or confessors of noble persons, if they seem to be in any doubtful form, are to be announced to the Spiritual Collegium and to the Justic Collegium, and both of these Collegiums will judge and make a determination.
12. The Spiritual Collegium should compose instructions on giving alms; for in this we sin no little. Many idle people, in perfect health, indulge in begging for their laziness and walk around the world without a cold; and others are moved into almshouses by promises from the elders, which is ungodly and harmful to the entire fatherland. God commands us from the sweat of our brow to eat bread from righteous providences and various labors, Genesis chapter 3; and do good not only for our own food, but also so that we have something to give to those who demand it, and food for the poor. Epistles to Ephesians chapter 5. And God forbids, but an idle man is below vest. 2. Epistle to Thessalonians chapter 3. And therefore in health, but lazy proshaks are disgusting to God. And if anyone supplies them, he is both a helper and a participant in their sin; and whatever he spends on such vain alms is all in vain for him, and not for spiritual benefit. But such bad alms also cause great harm to the fatherland, like rekhom; This is why bread is scarce and expensive in the first place. Consider, every prudent person, how many thousands of lazy scoundrels there are in Russia; there are thousands who do not make bread, and therefore there is no grain coming from them. But in both cases, impudence and crafty humility consume other people’s labors, and therefore a great deal of bread is wasted in vain. We should grab them everywhere and assign them to common affairs. Yes, from the same proshaks a great insult is done to the truly wretched: for as much as is given to them, only to the downright wretched is it taken away. And these idlers, even though they are healthy, soon resort to alms when weak beggars remain, while others lie almost half-dead on the streets, and with their illness and hunger they melt away. The bottom line is that even if we are deprived of daily food, we are ashamed to ask. If anyone has a true womb of mercy, having judged this, he cannot help but desire from his heart that there be a good correction for such outrage.
Moreover, in their laziness, these impudent people compose some crazy and soul-harming songs, and they sing them with feigned lamentation in front of the people, and they make the simple ignoramuses even more maddened, accepting the reward for themselves.
And who will briefly enumerate the harm caused by such idlers? On the roads, wherever they see, they crash; incendiaries are contracted to spy on rebels and traitors; they slander the high authorities, and the Supreme Power itself is treated with evil, and the common people are inclined to despise the authorities. They themselves don’t care about Christian positions; they don’t think it’s their business to enter a church, as long as they cry out incessantly in front of the church. And what else exceeds the measure is the lack of conscience and inhumanity of these, blinding their eyes with their babies, crooking their hands, and corrupting other members, so that they would be straight beggars and worthy of mercy: truly there is no more lawless rank of people. Because of this great position, the Spiritual Collegium must diligently think about this and advise on the best way to eradicate this evil, and determine the good order of almsgiving, and having determined, ask the Tsar’s Majesty to deign to approve it by decree of His Monarch.
13. And this is no small position, as if to turn the priesthood away from simony and shameless impudence. To this end, it is useful to consult with the Senators to determine how many households for one parish, from which each would give such and such a tax to the priesthood and other clergymen of their church, so that they would have complete satisfaction according to their measure, and would no longer ask for payment for baptism , burial, wedding, etc.
However, this definition does not forbid a willing person from giving to the Priest as much as anyone through his generosity desires.
Actually, every Collegium, both the President and others, at the beginning of accepting their rank, must take an oath that they are and will be faithful to the Royal Majesty; that not according to one’s passions, not for bribery, but for God and the benefit of people, with the fear of God and a good conscience, one will judge matters and advise, and will judge, accept or reject, other brothers’ opinions and advice. And he will pronounce such an oath on himself under the personal fine of anathema and corporal punishment, even if, after being contrary to his oath, he was caught and caught.
All this written here, first of all, the All-Russian Monarch Himself, His Royal Sacred Majesty, listened before him, and deigned to reason and correct on the 11th day of February 1720. And then, by decree of His Majesty, the Most Reverend Bishops, Archimandrites, and also the Government Senators listened and, reasoning, corrected this February 23 days. Also in confirmation and fulfillment of the immutable, according to the attribution of the hands of the present Spiritual and Senatorial persons, and His Royal Majesty Himself with his With my own hand deigned to sign.
Anisimov E.V. State transformations and autocracy of Peter the Great in the first quarter of the 18th century. M.: Dmitry Bulavin, 1997. 331 p.
Higher and central government institutions of Russia. 1801-1917. T. 1. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1998. pp. 134-147
Levchenko I.V. Russian Orthodox Church and State. Irkutsk: Irkut Publishing House. state econ. acad., 1997. 159 p.
Nikolin A. Church and State: (History of Legal Relations). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997. 430 p.
Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. Minsk: Belarus, 1990. 541 p.
What was the name of the document establishing the Holy Synod?
What three parts did the Spiritual Regulation consist of?
Who became the first President of the Synod?
What was the initial function of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod?
How was the state’s utilitarian attitude towards the Church manifested?
Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . ... 3
Chapter 1. Historical background … … … … … … … … … … … …. .. .. .. 4
Chapter 2. Establishment of the Holy Synod … … … … … … … … ….. … . 9
Chapter 3 The Holy Synod under Peter II and Anna Ioannovna and Theophan’s struggle with his enemies…… …. ….. …. ….. … … … … …. …. ….. ….. .. … .. 10
Chapter 4 The death of Theophanes and its significance.. … . . . .. .. .. … .. … …… … .. 17
Chapter 5 Holy Synod under Empress Elizabeth………………………….. 19
Chapter 6 The Holy Synod under Empress Catherine II…. ….. …. …. 21
Chapter 7 The Holy Synod under Alexander I…. … … …. . …. … … … . 27
Chapter 8 The Holy Synod from the reign of Nicholas I. … … . . …. … … …. …. …36
CONCLUSION …. …………………………….. ………………………. …40
List of used literature.. … .. …………… …………………..43
Introduction:
The St. Petersburg period (1700-1917, 217 years) begins with the death of Patriarch Adrian (1700) and the approval by Emperor Peter of the Holy Synod (1721) in St. Petersburg. The period ends with the February revolution (1917). With the advent of the transformer of Russia, Emperor Peter the Great (Great), friction began with the Church and at the first opportunity he abolished the patriarchate. Instead of the patriarch, the Holy Synod was established. Some believe that this had a negative impact on the Church and society and that the development of the Church was inhibited.
The purpose of the work is to tell about the history of the Holy Synod, its general overview. Study the main trends and talk about the activities of the Holy Synod.
CHAPTER 1. Historical background.
The Russian Orthodox Church differs from all other local Orthodox and denominational Christian churches, with the exception of the Roman Catholic, in the multimillion-dollar composition of its members, the vastness of the space it occupies, the diversity of nationalities to which its members belong, the multitude of institutions included in its structure, and its multilateral independent activities and relationships to various local churches. The Russian Church was founded in 988. Having received the initial hierarchical structure from the Church of Constantinople, over the course of more than 9 centuries of its existence, it gradually increased in its composition, developed in its structure, acquired independence and independence from the Constantinople hierarchy, and in the 15th century it became autocephalous. From 988 to 1589 it had a metropolitan structure, from 1589 to 1720 it had a patriarchal structure, and since 1721 it has had a synodal structure. At the head of the structure of the Russian church in St. Petersburg is His Holiness.
Governing Synod. It consists of a presence and the institutions attached to it. The presence of the Holy Synod, composed of hierarchs of the highest degree, belongs to all types of power of the independent, autocephalous Orthodox Church throughout the entire borders of the Russian Empire and the regions included in its composition, on all subjects, aspects, affairs and relations of the Orthodox church structure, administration and court. Through the Holy Synod, the autocratic supreme power acts in the administration of the Orthodox Russian Church, which established it through canonical relations with the patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Within the limits determined by the rules of the Universal Church, the state laws of the country, the goals and purpose of the Orthodox faith, the Holy Synod has legislative, administrative, administrative, supervisory and judicial powers and communicates with the administrations of local Orthodox churches. Acting under the supervision of a representative of the supreme state power - the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, he communicates with the governing Senate directly, and with the supreme power and the highest state and central institutions - through the mediation of the Chief Prosecutor. To exercise different types of authority on various subjects and aspects of church life (regarding teaching, worship, court, management and management of positions and institutions, educational institutions, property, etc.) under the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg there are:
Synodal office, spiritual and educational committee, religious school councils, economic management, control and management of Synodal printing houses, chief prosecutor and his office, two branches in Moscow and Tiflis, called the Moscow and Georgian-Imereti Synodal offices. Being under the supreme authority of the Holy Synod and its institutions, as the main or central spiritual government, the Russian Orthodox Church is divided into dioceses, which have the significance of ecclesiastical administrative and judicial areas. Dioceses in Russia were established and are being re-established by agreement of church and state authorities. The limits of dioceses, as a general rule, coincide with the limits of provinces and regions. The number of dioceses increased gradually. Now it extends to 66; of these, 64 are within Russia, one (Aleutian) in America and one, under the name of the Japanese Orthodox Church, in Japan. Outside the diocese, as parts of the church, they are mutually independent from each other and independent in administrative and judicial functions, and are directly under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod. Each diocese is under the direct authority of the diocesan bishop and has a structure determined by the rules of the church and the laws of the state. The diocesan bishop is appointed, with the complicity of the Holy Synod, by the authority of the Sovereign. Russian diocesan bishops bear the title of metropolitans (there are 4 of them), archbishops (an indefinite number) and bishops, but within their dioceses they have, regardless of the title, equal power. The diocesan bishop is the main teacher of faith and morals in the diocese, the main clergyman and ruler in all types of power, administrator, judge, overseer and leader in preaching the word of God, worship, management of all objects, institutions and officials. He has the right to enter the Holy Synod with ideas about the need for changes in current laws and rules on church subjects, publish and approve, in accordance with the general rules and laws, and in their development, guidelines and instructions for diocesan institutions and officials, approve the statutes of parish trustees, brotherhoods and societies for spiritual and educational purposes in within the diocese. The general structure of the Russian diocese includes: a bishop-vicar (in a few dioceses - 2 or even 3), as an assistant to the diocesan bishop, Cathedral- for the priestly service of the bishop, the spiritual consistory (60 of them) - for administration and court, the diocesan school council - for the management of parochial schools and literacy schools, guardianship of the poor of the clergy - for the charity of supernumerary clergy, their widows and orphans, and for guardianship over orphans-children of the clergy, theological academy (in 4 dioceses, with 900 students), theological seminary (58, with 19,000 students), theological schools (183, with 32,000 students), diocesan women's schools (49, with 13,300 students ) and women's schools of the ecclesiastical department (13, with 2,100 students), the bishop's house (66 of them) and temporary congresses of the diocesan clergy. Each district should contain from 15 to 35 parish churches. In the deanery district there are the positions of dean, deputy of the clergy and confessor of the clergy, in most dioceses, by orders of the diocesan bishop - deanery councils, and in some - congresses of the clergy. Outside the diocesan structure of the Russian Church there are churches and clergy departments of the court and military, as well as monasteries-lavras (4) and stauropegial monasteries (6). The churches and clergy of the court department are under the authority of the confessor of Their Majesties, the military - under the authority of the protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, the laurels and stauropegic monasteries - under the direct authority of the Holy Synod.
Churches of the military department are portable and permanent; Hieromonks are temporarily appointed to military courts. The number of the Orthodox population within the Russian Empire extends to 80 million of both sexes. It is distributed among churches - parishes, cathedrals, public and state institutions (educational and charitable institutions, regiments, prisons, etc.) and monasteries. There are currently about 37,000 parishes in all dioceses; cathedral churches, with and without parishioners - 720; churches at public and government institutions - about 2000.
There are 440 monasteries, full-time and part-time, male, with 8,000 monks and 7,500 novices, female - 250, with 7,000 nuns and about 17,000 novices. The laity and white clergy belong to the churches; Monastics belong to monasteries and, partly, to bishops' houses and religious educational institutions. Parishioners of parish and cathedral churches form societies to participate in the management of the property and economy of the churches and for charitable and spiritual-educational activities.
Thus, among a fairly significant part of the Russian people there is a religious ferment that does not correspond to the principles of Orthodoxy, to the pacification of which the missionary activity of the Orthodox Church is aimed and co-religion churches and parishes have been established, with the permission of rituals and services according to old printed books. The Russian Orthodox Church faces not only “schism,” but also various and numerous faiths, Christian and non-Christian, protected or permitted under state legislation. In addition to the Orthodox, schismatics and sectarians, in Russia there live Christians of various faiths (Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, Evangelical Augsburg, Reformed of various types, Armenian Gregorian, Armenian Catholic) and non-Christians, Jewish faiths (Talmudists and Karaites), Mohammedan (Sunnis and Shiites), Buddhist (Lamaites and shamanists),
The Holy Synod has by special means, the annual total of which reaches 7,000,000 rubles. These funds are a percentage fee on the income of all churches of the Empire, interest on printing and spiritual-educational capital, also received from churches, and an allowance from the treasury for religious and educational institutions. These incomes are spent on religious educational institutions and printing houses.
CHAPTER 2. Establishment of the Holy Synod
From Greek Σύνοδος - “meeting”, “cathedral”) - according to the current charter of the Russian Orthodox Church (Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church), the highest “governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period between Councils of Bishops.” During the synodal period, the Holy Governing Synod was the highest state body of church-administrative power in the Russian Empire.
In Russia before Emperor Peter the Great there were two heads: the tsar and the patriarch. They cooperated and helped each other and the Church had complete freedom. The Russian Church has always been in close connection with the people and the state, has never been separated from them and has always served their true good. Such cooperation between Church and state is called the Greek word “symphony” (in Russian “harmony”).
Emperor Peter the Great carried out reforms for the benefit of Russia, but not everyone agreed with him. He encountered resistance and hostility from all sides, including the clergy. Therefore, after the death of Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a new patriarch was not elected. Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky was appointed Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne (1700-1721); that is, he temporarily replaced the patriarch. Before 1700, there were ten (10) patriarchs in the Russian Church. In 1721, Peter the Great established the Holy Synod, which replaced the patriarch. The Synod was first called the Spiritual College.
This change in the management of the Russian Church was approved and approved by the Eastern patriarchs. They recognized the Holy Synod as their brother, having equal power and degree with them in the church hierarchy; that is, they recognized that the Holy Synod has the same power as the patriarch. Thus, the Holy Synod replaced the patriarch.
The Holy Synod consisted of: (1) the President, (2) Two Vice-Presidents, (3) Four Councilors and (4) Four Assessors. The first president of the Synod was Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. Later, the secular names were replaced by more appropriate titles: (1) primate member, (2) members of the Synod, and (3) present in the Synod.
By order of Emperor Peter the Great, Metropolitan Feofan Prokopovich issued the Spiritual Regulations. In it, the ancient church rules that remained in force were applied to the modern situation of the Russian Church. The Spiritual College was subordinated to the tsar through a special official - the chief prosecutor (a secular person). Thus, the Russian Church lost its independence and independence.
Having replaced the patriarch, the Holy Synod also took over the affairs of patriarchal administration. His main tasks were:
Observing the purity of doctrine and decorum in worship,
Election and installation of worthy archpastors and shepherds,
Supervision of religious educational institutions,
Censorship of spiritual books,
Divorce cases and more.
Chapter 3 The Holy Synod under Peter II and Anna Ioannovna and Theophan’s struggle with his enemies.
The position of the Holy Synod became even worse under the young Peter II, when all the affairs of the state were managed exclusively by temporary workers - first Menshikov, then Dolgoruky. The reactionary nature of this reign contributed to an even greater rise in the importance of the Great Russian party of hierarchs. Georgy Dashkov guided Lev Yurlov to the bishopric in the Voronezh diocese and managed to introduce into the Synod another new member from the Great Russians, the old disgraced Metropolitan Ignatius Smola, who was now summoned from his Nilovsky imprisonment to the Kolomna See. They all began to act together against Feofan. Theophylact, the only scientific member besides him, did not bother them, but made Theophan a big nuisance by publishing in 1728, with the permission of the Supreme Council, Yavorsky’s work, “The Stone of Faith,” which exposed the very heresies of which Theophan’s enemies accused him. In the circles of ancient nobles and clergy they even started talking about restoring the patriarchate. The position of Theophanes, who was now the only representative of Peter's ideas in the Synod, became extremely dangerous and forced him to strain all his strength and resourcefulness in the heated struggle. His opponents had the same weapon in this fight, with which he was met in Moscow back in 1718 under Stefan Yavorsky - this was an accusation of heresy. In the role of accuser, which was very inconvenient for such bad theologians as Georgy, was one of the Kiev scientists, Archimandrite Yuryevsky Markell Rodyshevsky, who knew Feofan from the academy and at one time served as a judge of the bishop's house for him in the Pskov diocese. Back in 1726, he submitted a denunciation against Theophan to the Holy Synod in 47 points, as if he, Theophan, did not recognize church traditions and the teachings of the holy fathers, did not honor holy icons and relics, denied justification by works, laughed at church rituals, akathists, and the legends of the Menaion. and Prologov, rejects some of the rules of the Helmsman, blasphemes church singing, but praises Lutheran organs, wants to eradicate monasticism, etc. This is how the denunciation interpreted various passages from the works and oral speeches of Theophanes, in which his really sometimes too heated polemics or against Catholicism, or against domestic Russian superstitions and rituals. This matter then ended with the imprisonment of Markell in the Peter and Paul Fortress and the suggestion to Theophan on behalf of the empress that in the future he should not cause any objections to the Orthodox Church, but should live like all the “Great Russian” bishops live. Under Peter II, Marcellus attacked, as heretical, various works of Theophan - the primer, the interpretation of the beatitudes, on pouring out baptism, and others, asking the Synod to immediately condemn both them and their author. This time his denunciation no longer had any force; It was easy for Theophan to prove that all these works were written by him according to the thoughts of Peter the Great and published with the permission of the Holy Synod, and to accuse the informer himself of daring to blame the Synod itself for heresies and “torment the glory of that monarch.” Having failed in the Synod, Markell turned to the secret chancellery and reported to it that Theophan had written “The Truth of the Monarch’s Will” - an essay aimed at depriving Tsarevich Alexei of the inheritance of the throne, therefore, it was also contrary to the reigning sovereign, Alexei’s son; but the secret chancellery knew this well even without denunciation, as well as the fact that this work was also written at the behest of Peter the Great. The informer was subjected to a new imprisonment - to the Simonov Monastery. Theophanes thus remained safe and sound; but his position was still very precarious - Dashkov was getting stronger, and Feofan could face the same fate that Feodosius, another Cherkashenite unloved by the Great Russians, had recently experienced. He was saved from grave worries by the unexpected death of Peter II (in January 1730), followed by the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna and the fall of the rulers. Having met Anna Ioannovna’s confessor, Archimandrite Varlaam, Rodyshevsky wanted to continue his attacks on Feofan with her; in his Simonov imprisonment, he began to draw up new accusations against him, wrote several notebooks in which, in addition to the indicated works, he sharply criticized the decree of 1724 written by Theophan on monasticism and the Spiritual Regulations themselves. But under Empress Anna, different times came, when not accusations of heresies, but political denunciations came into force, and Theophan knew how to wield this weapon better than his opponents. He found his strongest support in the German-Courland party that dominated the court, with whose interests his own interests were connected with many threads. The same party of old people who had recently threatened him was now a threat to the new Courland government. The latter vividly felt its non-nationality and weakness in Russia, knew well that the right to the throne, according to the will of Catherine I, belonged not to Anna Ioannovna, but to the daughters of Peter the Great with their offspring, and listened suspiciously to all statements in the popular and Orthodox spirit and to rumors about Tsarevna Elizabeth, about the son of the late Princess Anna Peter of Holstein and even about Tsarina Evdokia Lopukhina. Polemics against German heresies and accusing someone of them under such circumstances easily became a sign of the political unreliability of the accusers and polemicists themselves and entailed inevitable interrogations in the secret chancellery. The fall of the leaders was soon followed by the fall of the Great Russian party they supported in the Synod. The first of the bishops to be caught in a political matter was Lev Yurlov, against whom it was reported from Voronezh that, upon receiving here the first Senate decree on the accession of Empress Anna to the throne, he did not serve a solemn prayer service, but began to wait for a special decree from the Holy Synod. , in anticipation of this somewhat belated decree, he ordered that the reigning family be commemorated in order of seniority, starting with Queen Evdokia. In the Synod, under the influence of George and Ignatius, they treated this denunciation lightly and postponed its consideration until new clarifications from Voronezh. But after this, all the members, except Theophan, were suddenly dismissed from the Synod and others were appointed in their places - Leonid of Krutitsky, Joachim of Suzdal and Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod - all such bishops who were completely subordinate to Theophan; At the same time, in addition to the bishops, archimandrites and archpriests were again introduced into the Synod, as under Peter. An investigation began into Lev’s case, to which his well-wishers, George and Ignatius, were also drawn; all three were recognized as opponents of the reigning empress, accused, in addition, of various abuses in their dioceses and, after being defrocked, were sent to different monasteries. In the same 1730, Varlaam Vonatovich of Kiev was defrocked and imprisoned in the Cyril Monastery because, like Leo, he also did not serve a prayer service on time for the Empress’s accession to the throne; but most of all he was guilty of poorly restraining his clergy from talking about Theophan’s heresy and allowing a new edition of the “Stone of Faith” to be published in Kyiv. The following year, the bishop of the same Great Russian party, Sylvester of Kazan, was defrocked and imprisoned in the Vyborg fortress, against whom it was reported that under Catherine he had forbidden the commemoration of the Holy Synod during divine services, tore up and ordered petitions submitted to him in the Most High name to be rewritten in his name, spoke nasty things about Empress Anna, made unnecessary exactions on the diocese, and so on.
At the beginning of 1737, Feofan set to work on Rodyshevsky and reported about his notebooks to the cabinet of ministers: without dwelling on the theological side of Markell’s accusations, he drew the cabinet’s attention mainly to the fact that Markell’s blasphemy against books published by decrees of the sovereign and the Holy Synod, even against the Spiritual Regulations, which contain the current legal provisions, there is direct opposition to the authorities; then he exposed the author’s attacks on Lutherans and Calvinists and on those who have friendship with him, and raised the significant question of who Rodyshevsky and the brethren mean here. After this, the matter went, of course, through the secret office. The search for this case has entangled and killed many people of all ranks, who either read Marcellus’s notebooks, or simply heard about their existence. From then on, political searches did not stop throughout the reign of Empress Anna. In the monasteries and from various literati they found all sorts of notebooks, notes, extracts in which something “nasty” was supposed to be found, and all their readers and owners were drawn to the search. Feofan managed to convince the suspicious German government that there was a dangerous “villainous faction” in Russia that absolutely must be discovered and exterminated. Those arrested were interrogated not about any specific subject, but in general about everything who said, planned, or heard “the opposite”; while looking for one thing, they suddenly wandered into another; unraveling one faction, they became entangled in another new one. Due to the torture, those interrogated in the secret office terribly racked their brains, remembering who had said or heard what over the past few years, confused themselves, and confused others. The enormous investigation became more and more complicated with new episodes and drew more and more new people into its twists and turns. From Moscow it spread to Tver, where Hieromonk Joseph Reshilov was arrested, suspected of drawing up one anonymous letter with a libel against Theophan and censures against the German government, Archimandrite Joasaph Mayevsky from the learned Kievites and various persons of the Tver bishop's house, close to Theophylact Lopatinsky, who himself was suspected of “opposition” - then it spread to Ustyug, Vologda, to many monasteries, the Sarov hermitage, and affected many secular persons, starting from some almshouse literati and reaching very high-ranking people, even to the person of Tsarevna Elizabeth, whom many wanted to see him on the throne. None of the clergy could be sure that one of their acquaintances would not remember his name during torture and that he himself would not be captured in the secret office. In 1735, Theophylact was also arrested, who was responsible for the important crime of publishing the “Stone of Faith”, and who, in addition, due to his sincere frankness and gullibility towards others, more than once allowed himself unnecessary speeches about the patriarchate, and about Theophan, and about the Germans, and that Empress Anna sat on the throne, overtaking the crown princess.
Chapter 4 The death of Feofan and its significance
Feofan did not wait for the end of all these searches; he died in September 1736. Recently, he reached such a height of power that no other bishop after the patriarchs had reached. He was a friend of Biron and Osterman and the richest dignitary in Russia. All bishops, of necessity, bowed before him. His scientific reputation stood high not only in Russia, but also in the West; all Russian church literature was concentrated around him and depended on his approval; Both Russian and foreign scientists and writers sought his acquaintance; he was a strong patron of young talents, including Kantemir and Lomonosov. On his deathbed, preparing to appear before the judgment of God, this greatest mind of his age, an object of surprise for some and hatred for others, sadly exclaimed, turning to himself: “Head, head! Having drunk on reason, where will you bow?” His memory is darkened by his connection with the secret office, with the horrors of Bironovism; but when assessing his personality, one should not forget that his time was a time of constant upheavals in fate strong people, the time of “accident,” as contemporaries put it, when a person who had risen to heights often had to die somewhere in Berezovo, Pelyi, Okhotsk, or he himself destroyed others, when it was not law or morality that was at work in life, but the blind instinct of self-preservation; We must not forget that even in such a situation, he managed to remain a “wonderful high priest,” as Cantemir called him, he alone invariably and firmly defended the banner of reform and managed to inextricably link his personal interests with the interests of church reforms and enlightenment, which his opponents were unable to do . After his death, the search he started continued as usual. Bishops Dositheus of Kursk (1736), Hilarion of Chernigov (1738), and Varlaam of Pskov (1739) lost their chairs. The unfortunate Theophylact, who was still kept under synodal arrest, in 1738 ended up in the secret chancellery, was tortured, deprived of his dignity and imprisoned in the Vyborg castle. Many clergy were imprisoned in monasteries and fortresses and exiled to Siberia.
Chapter 5 Holy Synod under Empress Elizabeth.
The terrible time of Bironovism ended with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne, which was greeted with general delight both among the clergy and the people. The preached word from church pulpits glorified the new empress as the savior of Russia from the foreign yoke, the restorer of Orthodoxy and nationality. Everyone knew her Russian character, purely Russian piety, love for the clergy, spiritual books and sermons, for worship and the splendor of church rituals. She remained the same on the throne - she went on pilgrimages, went to the Trinity Lavra once on foot, observed all fasts, and made donations to monasteries and churches. Her confessor, Archpriest Theodore Dubyansky, was an important force at court. The nobleman closest to her, Alexei Grigorievich Razumovsky, was from ordinary Little Russians and was of the Orthodox Church direction. The return from imprisonment and exile of all the sufferers of Biron's time began. Of the people known to us, Lev Yurlov, M. Rodyshevsky and Ignatius Smola (who, however, died just a month after Elizabeth’s accession) lived to achieve this happiness; the others have already died. Theophylact also died in 1741 during the reign of the ruler Anna Leopoldovna, having been restored to his rank just 4 months before his death. In 1742, Elizabeth issued a very important general decree, by which the initial trial of clergy was granted to the Holy Synod and on political reservations. The Holy Synod itself, together with the Senate, hitherto subordinated first to the Supreme Council, then to the Cabinet of Ministers, was restored with the abolition of the latter in its former dignity of the highest administrative position with the title of “government”. Encouraged by the piety of Elizabeth, members of the Synod Ambrose Yushkevich of Novgorod (successor of Theophanes) and Arseny Matseevich of Rostov, one of the most energetic bishops of that time, both Little Russians, submitted a report in which they wrote that if the empress did not want to directly restore the patriarchate, then let her at least gave the Synod a president and the Synod itself, as a church-governing one, would have constituted only bishops without archimandrites and archpriests, would have abolished under it the position of chief prosecutor with the board of economy, for it bears the title of His Holiness and is a spiritual government in which secular persons and there is nothing to do. But Elizabeth, who declared all the laws of Peter her own, did not agree to such a reform, agreed only to the return of his estates to the clergy and to the subordination of the board of economy to the Synod. The Synod even appointed a particularly strict chief prosecutor, Prince Ya. Shakhovsky, a strong zealot for state interest and all legality. From the “Notes” left after him about his life, it is clear that such a person was especially needed at that time in the Synod, where in previous reigns the order was upset and things were seriously neglected. He talks in these notes about how often he had to deal with members of the Synod on issues of excessive spending of patrimonial sums, about illegal increases in the salaries of members, about the punishment of clergy for misconduct, which, for fear of temptation, the Holy Synod tried not to discover, how difficult it was for him to defend his ideas due to the constant intercession of strong persons on behalf of the members of the Synod - Dubyansky and Razumovsky, but how sometimes the power of these persons, their imperious interference in synodal affairs had to be a burden to the members themselves, and how in these cases he had to help them out of a difficult situation position with his bold representation and direct explanation of matters before the Empress.
Chapter 6 The Holy Synod under Empress Catherine II.
After the short reign of Elizabeth's successor Peter III, imbued with German and Protestant concepts and threatening the Orthodox Church with the new dominance of the German spirit, came the reign of Catherine II, the empress-philosopher of the 18th century, and Russia began its own philosophical age. Like other philosopher-princes of the then Europe and their ministers, she tried to create her government system on the foundations of the then fashionable French philosophy, which looked at religion as only a certain kind of “national mentality” and a useful tool for governing peoples, whatever its nature. internal content. All these sovereigns and politicians unanimously rebelled against the Catholic theory of two powers, trying to make the church an institution only of the state, and against all manifestations of clericalism, willingly participated in the development of the idea of religious tolerance, considering the state essentially indifferent to any religion, in the destruction of the papal throne, inquisitorial tribunals, even clerical schools, in the weakening of monastic orders, the reduction in the number of monasteries, and especially in the secularization of church property beneficial to the treasury. We have never had the papacy, nor the humiliation of state power before the spiritual, nor the Inquisition, nor monastic orders, nor even systematic clericalism; but, in the absence of their own Russian point of view on the matter, the Western point of view was accepted into the leadership by our politicians. We, too, started talking against religious fanaticism, and against the theory of two powers, and about weakening some dangerous power of the clergy, and about taking away church property from them. One of the first and most important deeds of the empress, for which all the wise men of Europe praised her, was precisely the matter of secularizing church estates.
In the system of higher church administration there were no major times under her, except for the closure during the Synod of the College of Economy, which was in charge of church estates; but an important change was made in the personnel of this administration, which until now had been filled with Little Russians who were little in keeping with the type of the new government. Just as in his time Peter I, for the sake of reform, tried to replace the most important church places with new people from learned Little Russians, Catherine II, in view of the new reforms, hastened to bring to the fore in the church administration new people from learned Great Russian monks, ready with all zeal to serve the authorities, which now mercifully raised them from their previous humiliation before the Little Russians. However, it was time for the administrative monopoly of the Little Russians to cease to exist. It had already served its purpose in Great Russia, having trained a sufficient number of young local forces, and there was no need to support it any longer; it only led to unnecessary murmuring of the Great Russian clergy. In 1754, Empress Elizabeth herself, who especially loved the Little Russians, found it necessary to issue a decree so that not only Little Russians, but also Great Russians could be represented as bishops and archimandrites. The leading post in the Holy Synod during the accession of Catherine was occupied by the Great Russian Dimitri Sechenov, Archbishop of Novgorod; after him, under Elizabeth, the archimandrite of the Trinity Lavra, the famous orator Gideon Krinovsky, rose to the top, and received the Pskov see under Catherine. With their support, the students of the Moscow Academy later rose to prominence: Gabriel Petrov, ordained Bishop of Tver in 1763, and made Archbishop of St. Petersburg in 1770, is an ascetic bishop, wise, modest and diligent in business; Platon Levshin, at the beginning of Catherine's reign former rector Academy, a lively, impressionable man who aroused general sympathy, a great orator and the first celebrity of his century; Catherine made him a court preacher and teacher of the law to the heir Pavel Petrovich; from 1768 he was a member of the Synod, and in 1770 - Bishop of Tver after Gabriel. In 1763, after the death of Gideon, also a prominent Great Russian, Innokenty Nechaev, was appointed Bishop of Pskov. These persons participated in the execution of all initial government actions on ecclesiastical matters. Demetrius and Gideon successfully carried out the matter of secularizing church estates; Gabriel, Innocent and Plato, on behalf of the government, in 1766 were engaged in drawing up an extensive project on the transformation of theological schools, which, however, was not carried out, and considered the Order of the commission written by Catherine on the preparation of a new Code; Demetrius, and after his death († 1767) Gabriel, were representatives of the Holy Synod in the commission itself. Meanwhile, the Little Russians fell more and more in the eyes of the empress, and gradually left their posts. The most energetic of them, Arseny of Rostov, died for protesting against the secularization of church estates; His case most of all damaged the reputation of the Little Russian party of hierarchs. Another prominent bishop of southern origin, Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky, first Krutitsky, then from 1767 Moscow, who managed to please the empress, armed the entire Moscow diocese against himself with his severity, reaching the point of cruelty, and was killed by the mob during the famous riot in Moscow on the occasion of the plague 1771. Plato was appointed to his place in 1775. Some Little Russian bishops were dismissed due to complaints from the diocesan clergy about the severity of their administration, including in 1768 the Tobolsk Metropolitan Pavel Konyuskevich, a zealot for missionary work, a corrector of the morals of the Siberian clergy and a man of holy life (died in the Kyiv Lavra in 1770). The extent to which Catherine was suspicious of these bishops is shown by the fate of Veniamin Putsek-Grigorovich of Kazan. Catherine found him archbishop of St. Petersburg and immediately transferred him to Kazan, where he became especially famous for his missionary work. During the Pugachev revolt, he was the first of the bishops to rebel against Pugachev, who took the name of Peter III, sending out letters of admonition throughout his diocese, in which he denounced the impostor as a personal participant in the burial of the true Peter III. Despite such a service to the government, he was subjected to an insulting arrest based on an unsubstantiated slander from some Pugachev nobleman that he himself was an accomplice of Pugachev and sent money to the rebels. Afterwards, Catherine was convinced of his innocence and hastened to console him with a merciful rescript and the rank of metropolitan, but this did not cure him of the paralysis that broke him during his arrest. Since 1783, Ambrose IIodobedov, a Great Russian from the Moscow Academy, was appointed his successor. Only two bishops from the Little Russian party received some attention from the Empress - Georgy Konissky of Belarus and Samuel of Mislavsky of Kiev (since 1783), the converter of the Kyiv diocese on the model of the Great Russians.
People with the most fashionable concepts about religion and the church were elected as chief prosecutors. Such was Melissino in the 1760s, famous for his curious project of ordering a deputy of the Holy Synod to the commission on the Code; here the most liberal proposals were set out about the reduction of fasts, the weakening of the veneration of icons and relics, the reduction of divine services, the abolition of allowances for monks, the consecration of bishops without monasticism, the “most decent” clothing for the clergy, the abolition of the commemoration of the dead, the facilitation of divorces, the permission of marriages over three etc.; The Holy Synod rejected this project and drew up its own. After Milissino, the chief prosecutor was Chebyshev (1768-1774), who openly flaunted atheism and interfered with the publication of works directed against modern unbelief. Out of suspicion of the “fanaticism” of the clergy, in 1782 all cases of religious blasphemies, violations of decorum in worship, witchcraft and superstitions in general were removed from the ecclesiastical department to the department of the secular court. The opinions of the members of the Synod were rarely respected, except for the opinions of the two members closest to the empress - Gabriel and the confessor of the empress, Archpriest Ioann Pamfilov. The latter was a kind of temporary worker and, among other things, an intercessor for the white clergy against the monastics and bishops; in 1786, the empress granted him a miter - an award hitherto unheard of among the white clergy and arousing displeasure among monasticism and bishops, who saw in it a humiliation of the miter. The members of the Synod did not hide their dissatisfaction with their position, especially the lively and frank Plato. Having become accustomed to the authority and reverence that the archpastoral rank enjoyed in religious Moscow, every year he became more and more burdened by his trips to St. Petersburg for meetings in the Synod, and from 1782 he stopped going there altogether, even asking for retirement . The Empress did not fire him, but apparently lost interest in him and treated him with awards. Only in 1787 did she grant him the title of metropolitan, while Gabriel and Samuel of Kiev received this rank back in 1783. Gabriel retained her favor until the end of his reign; always even, calm, always standing on a legitimate point of view, a “reasonable husband,” as Catherine called him, knew how to show his zeal for the church in such a way that he never caused irritation, and on occasion, say a weighty word that was not wasted. The Empress constantly called him to her councils and ordered him to communicate with him on the affairs of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Senate.
Gabriel’s position had already been shaken under Emperor Paul I. The tough and impatiently hot-tempered sovereign did not like the fact that the metropolitan was not sympathetic to the newly introduced awarding of state orders to clergy and resolutely refused the award of knighthood of the (Catholic) Order of Malta, which the sovereign was extremely fond of. By the end of 1800, the Metropolitan was retired and soon died; Ambrose of Kazan took his place. At first, everyone predicted that Metropolitan Plato, as the emperor’s teacher, would have a high position in the new reign, but he also did not please the sovereign, because he was also against the orders and begged to be allowed to allow him - an Orthodox bishop - to die as a bishop, and not as a cavalier; the sovereign forcibly put on him the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. From 1797, when he was prohibited from leaving Moscow, he did not take any part in the highest church government and remained in the shadows until his death in November 1812.
Chapter 7 The Holy Synod under Alexander I.
The reign of Emperor Alexander I began with a new transformative movement in the state, which also affected church life. Among the sovereign's closest collaborators in the first years of his reign was a man who knew well the state and needs of the church; it was the famous Mich. Mich. Speransky, who himself came from the clergy, was a student and teacher of the St. Petersburg seminary. It was almost on his initiative that in the circle of the sovereign’s closest collaborators (Kochubey, Strogonov, Novosiltsev, Chartoryzhsky), when drafting new reforms, they started talking about raising the education and material resources of the clergy - at least among secular people, Speransky was the main figure in the development of this issue. Since 1803, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, a friend of the sovereign’s youth and his most trusted person, was appointed chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1803; He had a low religious education, initially he even had a negative attitude towards religion, in the spirit of the 18th century, then after his conversion he became the patron of various mystical sects; but at first, when it came not to questions of faith, but only to the indicated practical question, was quite useful for synodal figures. These figures were soon found. In addition to Met. Ambrose, several new very prominent hierarchs appeared in the Holy Synod, such as: Methodius Smirnov of Tver, known for the good organization of religious educational institutions in all the dioceses (Voronezh, Kolomna, Tula, Tver), which he ruled, the famous Vitiya Anastasy Bratanovsky of Belarus, then Astrakhansky († 1806), and from 1807 Theophylact Rusanov of Kaluga, then Ryazansky, a classmate and friend of Speransky, a lively man, secularly educated, a brilliant preacher, who soon became more influential in the Synod than the Metropolitan himself. The right hand of Met. Ambrose was his vicar, Bishop of Starorussky Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, a graduate of the Moscow Academy and University, who previously served as a teacher and prefect at his native Voronezh seminary, then as an archpriest in the city of Pavlovsk; Summoned to St. Petersburg after widowhood (in 1810), he took monastic vows here, was prefect of the seminary, and finally in 1804 was consecrated Bishop of Starorussky. He was entrusted with the preliminary development of the issue of improving theological schools, which he completed by 1805, having developed mainly the educational and administrative parts of the structure of theological education. In developing the economic part, Anastasia Bratanovsky is credited with a happy idea, which turned out to be very fruitful in practice, namely about assigning maintenance for theological schools from the candle income of churches. After preliminary work, at the end of 1807, to draw up a complete project on the transformation of theological schools and on improving the life of the entire clergy, a special committee was formed from spiritual (Metropolitan Ambrose, Theophylact, Protopresbyter S. Krasnopevkov and Chief Priest I. Derzhavin) and secular ( Prince Golitsyn and Speransky) persons. The fruit of his work, completed in July 1808, was: a) a new organization of all ecclesiastical education in Russia with the establishment of a completely new system of educational administration for it, and b) the search for a new enormous capital for the ecclesiastical department.
At the head of the entire spiritual and educational administration in the same year, a commission of theological schools, replacing the committee, was put in place from the highest ecclesiastical and partly secular dignitaries (the same ones who sat on the committee), which formed the first central institution under the Holy Synod for this important branch of church administration , since until now all spiritual education was under the authority of the diocesan bishops and even their consistories and, with the exception of the synodal office of schools and printing houses that briefly existed under Peter I (1721-1726), did not have a common higher center under the Synod. The district bodies of the commission established theological academies, for which they established scientific conferences composed of local scientists - professors of each academy and outsiders from the local clergy; These conferences are provided with censorship of spiritual books in their districts, production of academic degrees and management of theological schools through a special external and district board of each academy. The immediate care of schools was still provided to local bishops, but personally, without the participation of consistories. New capital for the maintenance of theological schools and church parishes was created by the committee, one might say, out of nothing and without any particular burden to the state and the people. It was based on: a) the economic sums of all churches (up to 5,600,000 rubles allocated), which were assigned to be placed in the bank for growth, b) the annual candle income of churches (up to 3,000,000 rubles), also assigned to be placed in the bank , and c) an annual allowance from the treasury of 1,353,000 rubles. for only 6 years. During these 6 years, all the above amounts, with increments of 5% and excluding expenses for the transformation of academic educational districts, according to the committee’s calculations, should have amounted to a capital of 24,949,000 rubles. assign. with an income of 1,247,450 rubles, which, together with the annual candle income, was supposed to give the Holy Synod an annual sum of 4,247,450. With careful savings, savings and new benefits from the treasury, the committee hoped to bring this amount over time to 8½ million, which is actually was required to fully provide both theological schools and all church clergy (from 300 to 1000 rubles for each). But all these grandiose calculations were upset in a very short time, partly due to the concealment of economic and candle sums by the arrivals, partly as a result of the disasters that soon befell Russia in 1812, during the invasion of Napoleon.
The Russian Orthodox Church shared these disasters along with Russia. Among the extraordinary upsurge of religious and patriotic feelings during the invasion of a formidable enemy, it was as if that time in our history had returned again when faith and the church stood guard over Orthodox Rus' and rescued it from all the troubles that befell it. Bishops and monasteries, as in the old days, donated their many years of savings to save it. From its new capital, the Holy Synod donated 1½ million. Then, when the enemy hordes of twelve tongues had already been swept away from the face of the Russian land, a wide strip of terrible devastation remained along the entire route of their invasion; Moscow itself was devastated with its centuries-old shrines. Both in it and everywhere where the enemy visited, many churches and monasteries had to be restored and the ruined clergy had to be helped. To meet these needs, the Holy Synod had to allocate another 3½ million from its funds. There were many other donations from the newly formed capital. All this, together with shortfalls in its composition, led to the fact that in 1815, when it was supposed to increase to 24 million, it barely reached 15 - that is, the amount from which interest could support only one theological schools. There was also nothing to count on for benefits from the treasury; Taking into account its difficult situation after the difficult war, the commission of theological schools in 1816 decided to refuse to receive even the government sum that had already been promised to it. After this, the new capital acquired the meaning of exclusively educational capital; it was necessary to abandon the issuance of salaries for clergymen from it, and this part of the 1808 project remained unfulfilled.
The events of the Patriotic War had another very important influence on the state of the church and the highest church government. The terrible disasters were for Russia a crucible of cleansing from its recent Gallomaniac hobbies. In her thanksgiving prayer for salvation from enemies, she expressed a bitter consciousness: “About their own zealous instructions, having these violent and bestial enemies.” And the period of reaction against the liberal movement of the 18th century began. Unfortunately for our educated society, having lived for an entire century in someone else’s mind, it has completely lagged behind its Russian life, which is why it began to express its reaction in alien, foreign forms: lagging behind the alien, French freethinking, it turned for religion not to its Russian Orthodoxy, and to the alien, Protestant mysticism of various Methodists, Quakers, Herrnhuters, etc. Western sectarians and teachers. The time had come for biblical societies that sought to replace the leadership of the church with the direct self-education of Christians from the Bible and with the help of a whole mass of mystical books distributed throughout Russia. The prince himself stood at the head of this movement. Golitsyn, who surrounded himself with a whole staff of biblical scholars and all kinds of mystics. Having set themselves the task of spreading the kingdom of God on earth, all these figures of the new Christianity began to act with all the usual fanaticism of our social hobbies and caused the church almost more sorrow than even the leaders of the 18th century. Since 1813, the entire staff of the Holy Synod was replaced, except for Metropolitan. Ambrose; - the former members turned out to not meet the requirements of the new time. And it took a lot of work for the metropolitan himself to stay in place without violating his archpastoral duties. His most dear assistant and support at this time, after Evgeniy (appointed to the Vologda see in 1808), was Filaret Drozdov, a new bright luminary of the church.
He was the son of a poor Kolomna deacon (later a priest), born in 1782, studied at the Kolomna and Lavra seminaries and, after completing the course, remained a teacher at the latter; here he was noticed as an excellent preacher by Metropolitan. Plato also persuaded him to accept monasticism in 1808. To the great chagrin of the elderly saint, the young Vitia the very next year was taken away from him as a mentor at the transformed St. Petersburg Academy. In St. Petersburg, Metropolitan. Ambrose took Philaret under his special protection and was not mistaken, finding in him an even more dear support for himself than the former vicar Eugene. This is not how the young monk was greeted by another strong member of the Synod, Ambrose’s rival, Theophylact, who then took into his hands both the commission of theological schools and the entire academy; he did not allow Filaret to teach for a whole year, then, when Filaret became famous in the capital for his preaching talent, in 1811 for one sermon (on the day of the Holy Trinity about the gifts of the Holy Spirit) he almost accused him of pantheism. The matter reached the sovereign himself and ended with the highest award to the preacher and his elevation to the rank of archimandrite. In 1812, Filaret was appointed rector of the academy and was given the opportunity to oust the dominance of Theophylact from it, which was difficult and unpleasant for the metropolitan. Soon after this, Theophylact began to rapidly lose its importance. In 1813 he was dismissed to the diocese (in Ryazan), and in 1817 he was honorably removed to Georgia by exarch, where he remained until his death. The most prominent member of the commission after him was Filaret, who was elevated to the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1814. At the opening of a new religious movement, the young archimandrite joyfully welcomed it, finding in it much good for faith and fascinating for his sublime theological mind, and became an active member of the biblical society. That is why he was constantly on good terms with both Ambrose and the prince. Golitsyn, and for a long time served as a useful link between them, on the one hand, serving as support to the powerful prince of his archpastor, and on the other, with the power of his theological mind, moderating, if possible, Golitsyn’s mystical hobbies. In 1817 he was ordained to the rank of Bishop of Revel - metropolitan vicar. But this was already the last year before which some kind of agreement between the zealots of mysticism and the church hierarchy was still maintained.
The manifesto of October 24, 1817 created an extensive dual ministry of spiritual affairs and public education with Prince. Golitsyn at the head, filled with biblical scholars and mystics. In the first of his two departments - the spiritual - the expression of modern views on the church was taken to the last extreme: the Holy Synod was placed in his department in exactly the same position and significance as the Evangelical Consistory, the Catholic College, the spiritual administrations of Armenians, Jews and others Gentiles. To top it all off, Golitsyn transferred his chief prosecutor position to another person, Prince. Meshchersky, placing him under his direct subordination, so that the Chief Prosecutor began to represent in the Synod the person not of the sovereign, but only of the minister. Ambrose's patience finally ran out, and he spoke out against the minister. After this, he was found to be inappropriate for his post and in March 1818 he was dismissed from St. Petersburg to Novgorod, leaving him with the Novgorod diocese alone. He died 2 months later. In his place was appointed Chernigov Archbishop Mikhail Desnitsky, a kind and meek saint, known for his preaching from the time he served as a priest (until 1796) at the Moscow Church of John the Warrior. When appointing him, the minister's party probably counted a lot on his somewhat mystical direction, but the temptation and oppression of mysticism intensified so much that in 1821 they brought this meek metropolitan into a collision with the minister. He addressed the sovereign with a convincing message, begging him to save the church of God “from the blind minister.” This letter amazed the emperor, especially since the metropolitan died just 2 weeks after it was sent. From that time on, a noticeable turn of events began against Golitsyn, supported, among other things, by another strong favorite of Alexander, Golitsyn’s rival, Count Arakcheev. Seraphim (Glagolevsky) of Moscow, known among hierarchs for his strictly conservative direction, was appointed Metropolitan. From the very beginning he spoke out against the Bible Society and began to fight with it.
Yurievsky Archimandrite Photius Spassky, one of the dropout students of the St. Petersburg Academy, a man with strong will , who disdained all human fears, managed to gain many admirers in high society with his strict asceticism, strange, semi-holy foolish behavior, and unashamed accusatory eloquence. Arakcheev himself revered him. The richest countess, benefactor of the monasteries, especially Yuriev, A. A. Orlova-Chesmenskaya was his reverent spiritual daughter and behaved towards him like the most servile novice. His struggle against mysticism began even earlier, when he was a teacher of law in the cadet corps in St. Petersburg; in 1820 he was removed from St. Petersburg to become the abbot of the Derevyanitsky Monastery, where Count Arakcheev met him, who facilitated his transfer to the Yuriev Monastery. Since 1822, summoned to St. Petersburg, he successfully preached against the mystics in various St. Petersburg drawing rooms; he visited the sovereign himself, who became interested in his personality, and with his sermon about the dangers threatening the church, he made a strong impression on him. Another active member of the anti-Golitsyn party, who was tipped to take Golitsyn’s place, was the President of the Russian Academy, Admiral Shishkov, the author of “Discourse on the Old and New Syllable”, an ardent critic of the translation of the Bible into the “common” dialect, as he put it. In the spring of 1824, when everything was prepared for decisive action against the minister, Photius made an open and brutal attack on him in the house of Countess Orlova: having met him here in front of the lectern on which lay the cross, the Gospel and the monstrance, the zealous archimandrite demanded of him immediate renunciation of false prophets and repentance for the harm done to the church. Golitsyn ran away from the house enraged, and Photius shouted after him: “Anathema.” After this, Photius submitted two reports to the sovereign, one after another, in which he described in sharp terms all the harm threatening not only Russia from mysticism, but also all the kingdoms of the earth, laws and religions, and insisted on the immediate overthrow of the minister. These reports were supported at a special audience by the Metropolitan. The Tsar relented, and Golitsyn was dismissed from both the chairmanship of the Bible Society and the ministry. The Bible Society itself closed after the death of Alexander under Nicholas I. Shishkov was made minister, but took over the management of the affairs of only heterodox faiths; the Orthodox part of the ministry was again transferred to the chief prosecutor of the Synod on the same basis. The personnel of the Synod changed again; Golitsyn's members were dismissed from the diocese, and new ones were called to replace them, including Evgeniy, then Metropolitan of Kiev (since 1822). ). The persecution against everything Golitsyn greatly hurt Filaret. Shishkov and Arakcheev demanded a ban on his catechisms (full and short) on the grounds that in them not only the texts of Holy Scripture, but even the “I Believe Prayer and the Lord’s Prayer and Commandments” were translated into “common dialect.” Alarmed by this attack, the Moscow saint, in a letter to Metropolitan. Seraphim forcefully pointed out that his catechisms were solemnly recognized by the Synod itself, and that such an attack on their dignity by uncalled people with confused concepts of church affairs, which the creed calls prayer, concerns the Synod itself and can shake the hierarchy. But the sale and publication of catechisms were nevertheless stopped; a new edition of them (already with Slavic texts) followed in 1827.
Chapter 8 The Holy Synod from the reign of Nicholas I.
Emperor Nicholas I treated the Moscow saint with great respect, and on the day of his coronation (August 26, 1826) elevated him to the rank of metropolitan. After this, until 1842, Filaret constantly personally participated in the affairs of the Holy Synod. The other permanent members of the Synod, besides Seraphim, were the Kyiv metropolitans Eugene and after him († 1837) Filaret Amphitheaters. The last one started his service as a teacher in his native Sevsk seminary (born in 1779), then he was rector of the Oryol, Orenburg and Tobolsk seminaries, inspector of the transformed St. Petersburg Academy, where in 1814, together with rector Philaret, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology, then rector of the Moscow Academy , in 1819 he was ordained bishop in Kaluga, then successively served as bishop in the dioceses of Ryazan, Kazan, Yaroslavl and Kyiv; he was an ascetic saint, not so much a scientist as unshakable in Orthodoxy, and strictly conservative in all church affairs. All synodal affairs were conducted primarily by these members. Leading member of Metropolitan. Seraphim, due to his old age, did not work much. All members, according to the staff of 1819, were seven, along with those present on call from the dioceses. The structure of the Holy Synod remained without significant changes until the second half of the 1830s, when Count N. A. Protasov (1836-1855), who was very memorable for synodal reforms, became Chief Prosecutor. Upon taking office, he was dissatisfied with the clerical part of the structure of the Synod, which until that time had been really poorly and poorly structured. It all consisted of only two small departments with two chief secretaries. In addition to them, something like a special department under the Synod was also constituted by a commission of theological schools, which consisted mostly of synodal members. On the initiative of the count, the composition of the clerical departments was expanded and reorganized according to the model of the ministerial offices; Of these, entire departments were organized like ministerial departments, each with a special director and several chief secretaries and secretaries: this is how two offices appeared - the synodal and chief prosecutor, the economic department and the spiritual educational department that replaced (in 1839) the commission of theological schools . The last replacement of the universally respected academic board with a clerical institution constituted the most unfortunate part of the Protasov reform, being an inappropriate manifestation of the count’s modern passion for clerical bureaucracy. In its general composition, Protasov’s reform brought a lot of benefit to the synodal administration, giving it greater harmony and completeness, and was preserved in its main features for many years; but its impression on the spiritual department at one time was completely spoiled by the arrogance and lust for power of its culprit, who tried to use it as a means to his own dominance over the members of the Synod. This predominance was felt especially hard when a powerful dignitary interfered in purely spiritual matters, into the solution of which, as a man of a semi-Jesuit upbringing, he was capable, although perhaps unconsciously, of introducing a spirit alien to the Orthodox Church. For example, in the late 1830s, like Shishkov before, he raised the matter of correcting Philaret’s catechism, in which he saw an allegedly Protestant connotation in the concept of church tradition, in the absence of the doctrine of 9 church commandments and in the presentation of an article on the natural knowledge of God from the contemplation of the visible world; He preferred the book of P. Mogila to the catechism in everything, introduced the study of it in all seminaries and stubbornly insisted that for some reason it should be declared a “symbolic” book of the Orthodox Church. In 1839, the catechism, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, was supplemented and corrected, but not according to the thoughts of the count, but in that purely Orthodox form in which it exists until now: for example, instead of the doctrine of church commandments, the doctrine of the beatitudes of the Gospel was inserted into it . In the 1840s, the count raised a new case about the Russian translation of our Slavic Bible, and he pursued the Catholic idea that the people should not be given free access to reading the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, in addition, entered the Synod with a proposal to announce a Slavic translation of St. The Scriptures are the only reliable and canonical for the Russian Church, the same as the Latin Church recognizes its Vulgate. The wise caution and firmness of the Metropolitan of Moscow saved the Russian Church from such harmful definitions. But in 1842, both Filarets, who most interfered with Count Protasov, were removed from the Holy Synod to their own dioceses.
Upon his removal to the diocese, Filaret of Kiev no longer took part in the affairs of the highest church administration; he died in 1857, 10 years before his death he secretly accepted the schema with the name Theodosius. But Met. Philaret of Moscow, even at a distance from St. Petersburg, without leaving his diocese, continued to remain, one might say, the main focus of all Russian church life. Tempted by difficult trials, he became a wise and reliable leader of almost all the Russian hierarchs of his time. Each of them, at every opportunity, considered it their most useful duty to visit him in Moscow in order to take advantage of his experienced instructions and advice in difficult matters, and if it was impossible to communicate with him personally, to ask him for guidance in writing. His judgment in church affairs was decisive; Count Protasov himself involuntarily listened to his opinions. Since the 1850s, its leadership and administrative significance manifested itself on an amazingly wide scale, which was not limited to the boundaries of one church department, but captured almost the entire Russian life. When looking at the multi-volume edition of his letters, opinions and reviews on the most diverse matters, it becomes even incomprehensible when this strong and versatile mind had time to think it all over. To him, as the last resort, the Holy Synod, various government departments, and the supreme power itself turned to him with questions to resolve any perplexities. During the alarming time of various reforms of the 1860s, the careful and prudent conservatism of the Moscow saint saved Russian life from many unnecessary hobbies of the reform movement and provided services that are still difficult to evaluate. The famous saint died on November 19, 1867.
Of the latest changes in the structure of the Holy Synod, the following are remarkable: the establishment under it in 1867 of a control department, the establishment in the same year, instead of the spiritual and educational administration, of a new focus for the spiritual and educational department - an educational committee, similar to the former commission of theological schools, in 1872 d. publication for the synodal establishment of new states and, finally, in 1885, the establishment of a school council to manage parochial schools.
CONCLUSION
In Russia before Emperor Peter the Great there were two heads: the tsar and the patriarch. They cooperated and helped each other and the Church had complete freedom. The structure of the Russian Church is always headed by His Holiness. The Governing Synod possessed all types of independent power. He had legislative, administrative, administrative, supervisory and judicial powers. To exercise their power under the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg, there were: the Synodal Office, the spiritual and educational committee, the ecclesiastical school councils, economic management, control and management of the Synodal printing houses. The number of the Orthodox population within the Russian Empire extended to 80 million.
The Russian Church has always been in close connection with the people and the state, has never been separated from them and has always served their true good. Emperor Peter the Great carried out reforms for the benefit of Russia, but not everyone agreed with him.
In 1721, Peter the Great established the Holy Synod, which replaced the patriarch. The Synod was first called the Spiritual College. The Russian Church was deprived of independence and autonomy. Since the approval of the Holy Synod, school affairs began to develop.
The main normative documents of the Church were enshrined in the Spiritual Regulations of 1721. During the church reforms of Emperor Peter I, the nature of the governance and structure of the Russian Church was laid down. The following socio-economic processes were observed in the Russian Church: the alienation by the state of land and other property from monasteries, the further isolation of the clergy into a closed class, the elimination of the practice of electing parish clergy. As a result, the Russian Church ceased to play the role of the most important subject in the socio-economic life of the country. The clergy lost their financial independence
In the 1860s, the government took some steps that somewhat destroyed the isolation of the clergy: in 1863, graduates of theological seminaries were allowed to enter universities (repealed in 1879); The charter of gymnasiums from 1864 allowed the sons of clergy to enter gymnasiums; in 1867 the practice of inheriting clergy positions was abolished;
In the sphere of external relations, there was an involvement of inter-church contacts into the mainstream of the government's foreign policy.
At the end of this period, a number of radical nationalist and monarchist, so-called “Black Hundred” organizations arose. Representatives of the black and white clergy participated in the monarchist movement, holding leadership positions in some organizations until 1913, when the Holy Synod issued a decree prohibiting the clergy from engaging in party political activities.
Through the establishment of the Synod, the Church becomes one of the government departments. But the Russian Church, essentially, in good conscience, did not accept Peter’s reform. Bishop Andrei wrote, speaking about the general state of churchliness in Russian society at the end of the synodal era: “Church society almost does not exist in our country. In other words, there is no Church as a society, but only a crowd of Christians, and even those who are only listed as Christians, but in fact have no idea about the Church.
Upon the death of the leading member of the Synod, Anthony in 1912
The political situation around the Synod worsened significantly, which was associated with G. Rasputin’s intervention in the affairs of church administration.
A heavy atmosphere of mistrust reigned in the Synod. The members of the Synod were afraid of each other, and not without reason: every word openly spoken within the walls of the Synod by Rasputin’s opponents was immediately transmitted to Tsarskoe Selo
At the end of 1916, Rasputin’s henchmen were already in fact in control
From February 1 (14), 1918, according to the resolution of the Council of January 31, the powers of the Holy Synod were transferred to the patriarch and collegial bodies.
List of used literature:
1. Professor P.V. Znamensky History of the Russian Church M., 2002
2. “Russian Orthodox Church” // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2000 (volume zero).
3. Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev. M., 2005
4. Nikolai Mitrokhin. Russian Orthodox Church: current state and current problems. // Publishing house: New Literary Review, M., 2006.
5. Statehood of Russia. M., 2001, book. 4, p. 108.
6. History of the Russian Church. M.: Society of Church History Lovers, 2002P
7. G. I. Shavelsky Russian Church before the Revolution. M.: Artos-Media, 2005
8. Prot. V. G. Pevtsov. Lectures on church law. St. Petersburg, 1914.
Loading...
