In addition, he is responsible for the interaction of parishes within the country, the implementation and observance of Christian canons and orders, 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 Patriarchate of Russia 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.§ 4. The Holy Synod: its organization and activities under Peter I
A) The Spiritual College, renamed the Holy Synod shortly after its inception, began its activities immediately after its grand opening.
According to the royal manifesto of January 25, 1721, the Holy Synod consisted of eleven members, while the “Spiritual Regulations” provided for twelve. Peter I insisted on strict adherence to the principle of collegiality. “The very name president,” says the “Spiritual Regulations,” “is not a proud name, it means nothing else, only the chairman.” Thus, the president was supposed to be primus inter pares—first among equals. The first and, as it later turned out, the only holder of this title was, by order of Peter, the former locum tenens of the patriarchal throne of Ryazan, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, with whom the tsar often disagreed in recent years. Perhaps Peter considered it inappropriate to ignore Yavorsky in the types of continuity in church government, hoping at the same time that Stephen’s influence would be neutralized due to the collegiality of the body itself. Yavorsky's rival in the Synod was Feofan Prokopovich. Despite the protest of its president, the Synod decided to cancel the commemoration of Orthodox patriarchs during the service. On May 22, 1721, Feofan’s brochure appeared under the title “On Raising the Patriarchal Name,” and already in early June the President presented a memorandum to the Senate: “Apology, or verbal defense, on lifting up the church saints of the Orthodox Patriarchs in prayers.” The conflict ended with the Senate rejecting Stefan’s memorandum, giving him a written reprimand, “so that he would not communicate such questions and answers as extremely harmful and outrageous to anyone and would not use them in an announcement.” What was even more offensive for the Metropolitan was that, by order of the Tsar, he was interrogated in the Senate in the case of the monk Varlaam Levin. Varlaam was arrested by the secret state police, the so-called Preobrazhensky Prikaz, on charges of rebellious speeches against the sovereign that threatened state order, and during interrogation he revealed that he had been in contact with Stefan Yavorsky. The Metropolitan denied before the Senate any connection with the monk, who was forced to admit that he had lied. For “political” and “blasphemous” speeches, Varlaam was convicted and, after cutting his hair, burned in Moscow on August 22, 1722. Soon after, on November 22, the Metropolitan also died. He was buried in Ryazan cathedral December 27, 1722
The king did not appoint a successor for him. By decree of the tsar, Feofan Prokopovich became the second, and Novgorod Archbishop Theodosius Yanovsky - the first vice-president of the Holy Synod. Peter recognized and was able to appreciate Theodosius Yanovsky even before his meeting with Theophan. Theodosius was born in 1674 or 1675 into a noble family in the Smolensk region. At the end of the century, he took monastic vows at the Moscow Simonov Monastery and, after some hitches at the very beginning of his monastic career, earned the favor and patronage of Archimandrite Job of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. When Job was installed as metropolitan in Novgorod in 1699, he took his ward with him, here in 1701 he promoted Theodosius to abbot, and in 1704 appointed him archimandrite of the Khutyn monastery. Yanovsky did not prove himself as a writer, nor was he noticeable as a preacher, but he showed remarkable abilities as an administrator. Peter I, who looked for talents and supported them wherever he found them, appreciated Yanovsky and ordered him to be appointed spiritual judge of St. Petersburg, Yamburg, Narva, Koporye and Shlisselburg. Invested with the rights of a diocesan bishop, Yanovsky showed great activity in the construction of churches and supervision of the clergy. He also took an active part in the creation of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, and in 1712 he became its archimandrite, receiving special privileges. Arrogance and arrogance appeared in him - even in relation to his patron, Metropolitan Job. Yanovsky, not without success, became involved in church and political intrigues. On January 31, 1716, he became the successor of Metropolitan Job, who died in 1716.
Four councilors also belonged to the members of the Holy Synod, their number increased to five in 1722 after the introduction of Archimandrite Theophylact Lopatinsky, rector of the Moscow Academy and supporter of Stefan Yavorsky, into the Synod. In 1723, Lopatinsky, retaining his place in the Synod, became Bishop of Tver. Along with advisers, the Synod also included assessors appointed from among white clergy. The privileges of bishops who were members of the Synod included the right to wear a miter with a cross, and archimandrites had the right to wear a pectoral cross.[
]The royal decree of January 28, 1721 provided for a salary of 3,000 rubles for the president of the Synod, and 2,500 rubles for vice-presidents. and for assessors - 600 rubles each. In addition, bishops were allowed to receive additional income from their dioceses, and archimandrites from their monasteries. The payment of salaries occurred irregularly, since its sources were not precisely determined, and in 1723 the tsar suspended the payment of salaries until the tax arrears from the lands administered by the Synod were paid off. Only in 1724 did Peter, by decree, order that salaries be deducted from income from these lands. The salary sizes, by the way, are truly royal.
At first the Synod was concerned with protocol issues. Bishops - members of the Synod could have a whole retinue from their dioceses. Archimandrites, according to the regulations, were allowed to keep with them only a cell attendant consisting of monks, a cook, a servant, a coachman with three horses, and in the summer - a four-oared skiff with five sailors and live in own home. During divine services, the clergy - members of the Synod used the vestments of the former patriarchs. The Patriarchal throne, located in the Assumption Cathedral, was removed from there. According to the schedule established by the Synod, there was a Presence on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays with the participation of all members of the Synod, including advisers and assessors. However, there was not always a quorum. This routine was maintained until the end of the synodal period. The Synod had an office and big number administrative bodies.
b) The Moscow Patriarch exercised control of the Church in the full sense of the word, that is, he had legislative, executive and judicial powers. By the Manifesto of January 25, 1721 and the “Spiritual Regulations,” all three powers were transferred to the Holy Synod. The first task of the Synod was to bring this status to the attention of the diocesan bishops. When the latter began to submit only certificates to him instead of reports, the Synod wrote to the bishops: “The Spiritual College has honor, glory, patriarchal power, or almost greater, than the Council.”
The legislative power of the Synod is described in the manifesto as follows: “This board must exist and henceforth supplement its “Regulations” with new rules; various cases will require these rules. However, the Spiritual College must do this not without Our permission.” These restrictions are supplemented by a decree of November 19, 1721: “And if such an (urgent - Ed.) matter happens during Our excommunication, and it will be impossible to wait until Our arrival, then the Synod will agree with the Senate and sign and then publish.” This establishment contained the germ of the dependence of the Holy Synod on the Senate, to which things gradually came in practice. In the tsar’s instructions to the chief prosecutor, the latter is given only the right of supervision: “He must carefully see that the Synod in his rank acts righteously and unhypocritically,” and otherwise “report immediately” to the tsar (paragraph 2).
The first significant document of the synodal legislation was the “Addition” to the “Spiritual Regulations” of April 1722, published by the Synod without the sanction of the emperor. For this, the Synod received a reprimand from the tsar, the circulation was confiscated, and the “Addition” was edited by Peter and then published along with the “Spiritual Regulations” on July 14, 1722.
Of the decrees of the Holy Synod, equated to law, we can mention only the most important. Already in 1721, the Synod prohibited the tonsure of nuns without its permission, issued an order for the baptism of children from mixed marriages only according to the Orthodox rite and rules for the renewal of icons. As a result of the joint conference of the Senate and the Synod, the Holy Synod issued a decree on July 16, 1722, consisting of the following points: 1) parish priests they were obliged to keep lists of parishioners and to note by name those who came to communion, as well as those who avoided confession; 2) the latter were subject to punishment; 3) priests had to control the presence of parishioners in the church according to holidays; 4) Old Believers were prohibited from performing holy sacraments and spreading their teachings; 5) orders regarding the baptism of children of Old Believers and their wedding according to the Orthodox rite.
The supreme power of the Synod also relied on the manifesto of January 25, which says: “The spiritual council government has the authority to manage all spiritual affairs in the All-Russian Church.” The details were discussed in the second part of the “Spiritual Regulations”. The Holy Synod was given the right to exercise control directly or through diocesan bishops. He had complete silence to open new departments, nominate candidates to replace them and submit his proposals for approval by the sovereign. The bishops were subordinate to the Holy Synod: “But the message is that every bishop, no matter what degree he is, whether a simple bishop, or an archbishop, or a metropolitan, is that he is subordinate to the Spiritual Collegium as the supreme authority, to listen to its decrees, to be subject to trial and must be satisfied with its determination "(Bishops' Affairs, paragraph 13). The Holy Synod appointed abbots and abbess of monasteries, deprived them of the priesthood and monasticism, appointed archimandrites, archpriests or abbots and made awards; he gave sanction for the construction of churches and their repair, as well as for the founding of monasteries; he appointed hieromonks to the army and navy; he oversees the administration of dioceses, collected reports from bishops and made decisions in doubtful cases.
The Holy Synod had the right and was obliged to preserve the purity of faith and morality, to eradicate superstition, to fight heresies and schism, to verify the relics and lives of saints, to take care of the correctness of icon painting, to compose liturgical texts, to establish new services, as well as to correct and publish liturgical books. In fulfillment of the last injunction, the Holy Synod published in the first years of its activity a number of liturgical books, instructions against schism and several catechetical publications. Finally, the “Regulations” entrusted the Holy Synod with spiritual censorship, which thereby became a permanent institution.
The judicial power of the Holy Synod was also based on the same manifesto; its details are covered in the 2nd and 3rd parts of the “Regulations”. Along with the Presence of the Holy Synod, the judicial bodies were the Office of Court Cases, the Moscow Synodal Office and the Tribunal. The Office of Court Affairs and the Presence were at the same time the highest court of appeal. Members of the Synod were subject to trial only by the Presence. The jurisdiction of the Synod also extended to the laity if they were brought to trial in spiritual matters. Heretics and schismatics were punished first of all. The most severe punishments, according to the “Regulations,” were excommunication and anathematization. Church penances were imposed for less serious offenses. The “Spiritual Regulations” also recognized the right of excommunication for diocesan bishops, recommending them, however, to act “patiently and judiciously in the use of their tactile power” (Part 3, paragraph 16). Both individuals and entire parishes could be subject to excommunication from the Church, whose churches in this case were sealed, and the performance of holy sacraments and even services was stopped. The Regulations provide examples of crimes punishable by excommunication: persistent failure to attend religious services and slander. Anathematization remained the prerogative of the Synod; it was subject to: 1) those who blaspheme the name of God, Holy Bible or the Church with malice and mockery; 2) openly and arrogantly disregarding the commandments of the Lord and church authorities; 3) those who avoid confession for a long time. As a church punishment for the latter, a monetary fine could also be levied, in case of non-payment of which corporal punishment or even hard labor could follow, as can be seen from the decrees of the Synod. The scope of the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod in comparison with the judicial power of the patriarch was limited by the fact that such crimes against morality as debauchery, rape, incest, marriage against the will of the parents, now fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court. All marriage law and divorce cases remained under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court until, by Peter's decree of April 12, 1722, cases concerning illegitimate children and children from illegal marriages were transferred to secular courts. Cases of inheritance were relegated to the sphere of civil proceedings even before the founding of the Holy Synod. But according to the “Regulations”, litigation regarding the wills of “noble persons” was considered by the Justice College together with the Holy Synod.
Some issues of civil law also fell under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod. In 1701, the restored Monastic Order was transferred to the rights of the court in civil cases in relation to all persons belonging to the apparatus of church administration and church institutions. But in the same year it was decided that the consideration of complaints against the clergy was subject to the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Order of the Locum Tenens, and only claims against secular persons who served in church institutions, as well as the affairs of church and monastic peasants remained within the competence of the Monastic Order. Claims by named persons and clergy against employees of civil institutions were under the jurisdiction of these institutions. After the founding of the Holy Synod, the latter transferred civil claims against the clergy in the territories under the jurisdiction of the Synod to the Spiritual Prikaz, and in the territories of dioceses to the diocesan bishops, while cases against laity in the service of the Church and against monastic peasants continued to be considered by the Monastic Prikaz. Crimes of the clergy were subject to trial by the Synod, with the exception of serious state crimes, as well as robberies and murders.
V) Peter I ordered that the Senate and the Synod should have “equal dignity.” Despite this, the Senate continued its practice of interfering in spiritual affairs, already applied to the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. In the very first report to the king, the Synod asked for instructions on how to communicate with the Senate and collegiums, pointing out that the patriarch had not received any decrees from anywhere. “The ecclesiastical board has the honor, glory and power of the patriarch, or almost more, than the Council.” Peter decided that for communication with the Senate, notifications signed by all members of the Synod should be used, and for communication with the collegiums, the form usually used by the Senate, signed by one of the secretaries. Considering itself equal to the Senate, the Holy Synod protested against “orders” from the Senate and claimed to grant its secretaries the same service ranks as Senate secretaries. Already the “Spiritual Regulations” recommended that the Holy Synod coordinate its decisions with the Senate on certain issues. The Decree to the Senate of September 6, 1721 prescribed joint meetings of both authorities on a parity basis. In 1721–1724 Indeed, there were such meetings at which not only issues that were on the border of the competence of both departments were discussed (for example, care for illegitimate children and disabled people, school funding, the salary of the chief prosecutor), but also issues of a purely ecclesiastical nature - cost estimates for the maintenance of the parish clergy, schism, icon painting, etc. Sometimes the Holy Synod resorted to such meetings with relief, since they relieved it of part of the responsibility when it came, for example, to dubious innovations such as the requirement for priests to report confessions of a crime made at confession. In general, the Holy Synod tried to protect its rights from the encroachments of the Senate.
G) On May 11, 1722, Peter issued a decree, ordering “the Synod to select from among the officers a good man who would have the courage and could know the management of the Synod’s affairs, and be his chief prosecutor, and give him instructions, applying to the instructions of the prosecutor general (Senate . - I.S.)" . The instructions drawn up by the Senate repeat word for word the instructions to the Prosecutor General. It says: “The Chief Prosecutor is obliged to sit in the Synod and watch closely, so that the Synod maintains its position and in all matters that are subject to Synod consideration and decision, truly, zealously and decently, without wasting time, according to regulations and decrees, Unless there is any legitimate reason for him to go, he is responsible for recording everything in his journal; I must also be very careful that in the Synod things are not done only on the table, but that the decrees are carried out by the action itself... I must also be very careful that the Synod, in its rank, acts righteously and unhypocritically. And if he sees anything contrary to this, then at the same time he is obliged to offer to the Synod clearly with a full explanation of what they or some of them are not doing as they should, so that they can be corrected. And if they don’t listen, then he must protest at that hour, and stop this matter, and immediately report to Us (the Tsar - I.S.), if it is very necessary; and about the rest - during Our time in the Synod, or monthly, or weekly, as the decree will be.” In the instructions, the Chief Prosecutor is called the “eye” of the sovereign and the “solicitor of state affairs.” Management of the office of the Holy Synod with all its employees is transferred to him. This authority, which had such broad consequences for the history of synodal administration, included the chief prosecutor directly in the clerical work of the Synod. The observer became a participant in the work, and also occupied a key position in the secretariat. Thus, Peter created the main prerequisite for the future rise of the chief prosecutors and the final subordination of the synodal administration to their will in the 19th century.
Nothing is known about the activities of the first chief prosecutor, Colonel I.V. Boltin (1721–1725), except for his requests for a salary, which the Synod tried in vain to redirect to the Senate, as well as the Synod’s estimates for financing the office, about the work of which under Boltin there is no information information
d) In 1702, a decree of Peter I was issued, in which Christians of non-Orthodox faiths were allowed to build churches and freely perform their religious ceremonies. At that time in Russian public service many foreigners entered and took leadership positions both in the capital and in the provinces. Lutheran and Catholic communities arose among the Orthodox population. In the system of the Petrine administration, there was no other spiritual department other than the Holy Synod, for this reason the care of these communities had to be automatically taken over by the newly formed Holy Synod as its new task. There was no special decree on this matter from the tsar, and the “Spiritual Regulations” spoke only about the management of the Orthodox Church. The Synod found, however, legal basis in the royal manifesto of January 25, 1721: “And we command all our faithful subjects, of every rank, spiritual and temporal, to have this (Synod. - I.S.) for an important and strong government, and it has extreme spiritual affairs, asking for decisions and decisions.” Peter did not attach of great importance differences of faith and looked at the Church from the point of view of its benefits for moral education people in the interests of the state, and therefore believed that these words, according to which all his subjects should consider the Holy Synod as the highest spiritual authority, should be understood in their literal sense. Representatives of non-Orthodox confessions obviously held the same opinion, judging by the fact that they addressed their petitions to the Holy Synod. However, the Synod was limited to administrative and judicial actions, without resorting to legislative measures, anticipating in this regard the legislative activity of the state itself later, which was much less concerned with other confessions than with the Orthodox Church.
The Holy Synod did not create any special body for these purposes, making decisions at plenary meetings or in the Office of Judicial Affairs, if at all it did not transfer matters to the discretion of the civil authorities. These cases concerned Lutherans, Catholics, Armenian Gregorians, and, among non-Christians, Jews. First, the Synod made an attempt to collect data on the number of heterodox churches and the number of clergy. Lutheran communities were given the right of self-government and choice of clergy, and from among them - church authorities, which the Holy Synod only approved. These spiritual authorities (preposites) were ordered to take care of the pastors of the Lutheran faith in cities and towns and improve everything necessary, according to the orders of the Holy Synod and the Office of Judicial Affairs. The preposites had to swear an oath to confirm their allegiance to the king and loyalty to the empire, supervise the swearing-in of pastors and submit the relevant documents signed by them to the Holy Synod. The Synod reserved the right to confirm pastors in their positions and dismiss them. The Synod removed the Capuchins who held services in St. Petersburg without its permission, and appointed Franciscan priests to the Catholic parishes of St. Petersburg, Kronstadt, Riga and Revel. However, thanks to the petition of the French envoy, the Capuchins were soon able to return. The Holy Synod authorized the opening of new churches, ordered the closure of those opened without its permission, and allowed the founding of schools for non-Orthodox confessions. One Lutheran pastor, who through negligence married an already married woman, was brought to trial by the Synod by the corresponding diocesan bishop. He forbade the Jews of the Smolensk province from trading on Sundays and holidays and from living where there was Russian population; he ordered their books to be burned and the Jewish school, which was built near the Orthodox Church, to be destroyed.
Same as in other areas government controlled, Peter I, in church affairs, was content, first of all, with the establishment of a new supreme body - the Holy Synod, in the hope that circumstances would gradually develop in the spirit of his instructions, in this case - the “Spiritual Regulations”. During the reign of Peter, the Holy Synod remained at the initial stage of its development. Under Peter's successors, changes took place due to the interests of state power.
From the book Volume 2. Ascetic experiences. Part II author Brianchaninov Saint IgnatiusSubmission to the Holy Synod of May 4, 1859, No. 38 (On the improvement of the Seminary) 1. It is necessary for the Seminary to be located in remote parts of the city, so that the students of the Seminary have as little contact as possible with the students of secular schools, so that they are removed from
From the book History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917 author Smolich Igor KornilievichRelation to the Holy Synod of June 22, 1859, No. 59 (About Archpriest Krastilevsky) Archpriest Konstantin Krastilevsky, entrusted to my management of the Caucasian diocese, was dismissed as a result of my representation from the title of member of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, by Decree
From the book Christ and the Church in the New Testament author Sorokin AlexanderReport to the Holy Synod of July 6, 1859, No. 64 (About Archpriest Krastilevsky) 1. From my resolution No. 1629 it is clear that Krastilevsky was given the opportunity to move from Mozdok, where he did not want to be, to Georgievsk to use the income of the St. George Cathedral and remain
From the book Passing Rus': Stories of the Metropolitan author Alexandrova T LReport to the Holy Synod dated September 7. 1859, No. 88 (About Archpriest Krastilevsky) Since Archpriest Konstantin Krastilevsky refused the places I gave him outside the city of Stavropol, but certainly wanted to have a place in Stavropol and received one of those indicated by him, and having received it,
From the book The Great Deception [A Scientific View of the Authorship of Sacred Texts] by Erman Barth D.Report to the Holy Synod of March 27, 1861, No. 788 (On the announcement of the Highest Manifesto) To the Holy Governing Synod of Ignatius, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea Report on March 19, I received a decree regarding the Head of the Stavropol Province
From the book Saint of Our Time: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People author Kitsenko NadezhdaFrom the report to the Holy Synod of July 24, 1861, No. 1186 With all my efforts, my health, upset by long-term illnesses, was restored mineral waters, I could only get some relief during the three and a half years I spent here, but at the same time
From the book Fundamentals of the History of Religions [Textbook for grades 8-9 secondary schools] author Goitimirov Shamil Ibnumashudovich§ 6. The Holy Synod: powers and organizational changes in the 18th–20th centuries. a) After the death of Peter I, the governing bodies of the Holy Synod were partly liquidated over time, and partly transformed. These changes, caused by administrative necessity, were at the same time
From book Explanatory Bible. Old Testament and New Testament author Lopukhin Alexander Pavlovich§ 8. The Holy Synod and the church policy of the government (1725–1817) a) After the sudden death of Peter I (January 28, 1725), a period of internal turmoil began, which lasted several decades. “Russia has experienced several palace coups; were sometimes in power
From the book History of Liturgical Singing author Martynov Vladimir Ivanovich§ 9. The Holy Synod and the church policy of the government (1817–1917) a) The dual ministry, in which only one of the departments was involved in the affairs of the Orthodox Church, existed until May 14, 1824. All this time, the activities of the department were fully determined by religious
Stories of Peter We have several books from early Christianity that tell the story of Peter. Their plots were almost entirely invented by Christian authors unknown to us. In our system of definitions, these texts are not forgeries, since they are not
From the author's book From the author's book§ 35. Orthodoxy under Peter I The Council Code was continued under Peter I (1672–1725). Russia became an empire. If earlier the state and the Church went together, now the Church found itself in a more subordinate position. In 1721, having become emperor, Peter I abolished the position
From the author's bookХLVI Apostolic activity and martyrdom of St. Petra. Conciliar Epistles of St. Petra. The activities of other apostles Simultaneously with the apostle. Paul suffered martyrdom and the apostle. Peter, who thus ended his apostolic activity also in the capital
Establishment of the Synod in Russia (briefly)
The establishment of a synod in Russia (a short story)
The establishment of the Holy Synod in Russia was a significant transformation of the church, marking a virtual break with the previous system of church government.
Researchers and historians have identified several main versions of the root cause of the abolition of the church patriarchate in Russia. The author of the first is the historian S. Solovyov, who claims that at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during a period of crisis for the clergy and a difficult period for the state, the monarch did everything possible to restore the state to its former power. Frequent riots and schisms in the church prompted Peter the Great to make an important decision on the establishment of the Holy Synod, a spiritual college.
At the same time, the scientist A. Bogdanov puts forward another opposite version, putting forward evidence in its favor from the activities of Patriarch Adrian. The author points out that the time of rivalry for power between young Peter and Sophia, as well as the era of turmoil, devastated the state treasury. At the same time, the church received a stable income.
It was for this reason that Peter the Great, having ascended the throne, began to actively seek funds for carrying out his own reforms in the Church. At the same time, although the patriarch refused to enter into open confrontation with the state, he sent messages to the tsar, not wanting to put up with his violation of the autonomy of the church.
In the middle of winter 1720, Feofan Prokopovich compiled the so-called “Spiritual Regulations” describing:
· positions;
· terms of reference;
· an updated system of church government.
Thus, the formation of a spiritual college was proclaimed instead of the existing one-man rule of the patriarch. The drafted document was submitted to the Senate for consideration, after which it was studied by members of the Holy Council. At the same time, they signed their consent under pressure from secular authorities. In addition, over the course of the year, about ninety signatures were collected, which would have been enough for the document to be adopted.
Already in the winter of 1721, Tsar Peter the First issued his manifesto on the establishment of the Synod, of which Metropolitan Stephen was appointed president. A chief prosecutor was also appointed, who was obliged to be the “ears and eyes” of the emperor in the Synod.
Two years later, the Holy Synod was able to gain recognition from Patriarch Jeremiah the Third of Constantinople. According to the permission of the Tsar, the Synod henceforth exercised the judicial, executive, and legislative powers of the Church.
all members of the Collegium have equal votes and all, not excluding its president, are subject to trial by the collegium, while the Patriarch might not want to be tried by the bishops subordinate to him, and this very court in the eyes of the common people would seem suspicious and weak; so that to try the Patriarch it would be necessary to convene an Ecumenical Council, which, in view of Russia’s relations with the Turks, is very difficult; and finally
the conciliar government must become a school of spiritual government.
To give greater authority and canonicity to the new church government, Peter I turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah III with a request that, in consultation with other Patriarchs, “he deigned to recognize the establishment of the Spiritual Synod as a good thing.” In 1723, Jeremiah sent his affirmative letter, in which he announced the recognition of the Holy Synod as his “brother in Christ,” having the power to “create and perform four Apostolic Holy Patriarchal Sees.” Similar letters were received from other Eastern Patriarchs.
Thus, the Holy Government Synod was recognized as a permanent Council, equal in power to the Patriarchs, and therefore bearing the title of Most Holy. Unlike the Synod under the Eastern Patriarchs, our Synod did not supplement the Patriarchal power, but replaced it, being, as it were, a collegial Patriarch. Likewise, it replaced the Local Council as supreme body church authority. The abolition of the high priesthood, its replacement by a “headless” Synod, as well as the disappearance of Local Councils from the life of the Russian Church for more than 200 years, was a gross violation of the 34th Apostolic Canon, according to which “it is fitting for bishops of every nation to know the first in them, and to recognize him as head, and do not do anything that exceeds their authority without his judgment... But let the first one not do anything without the judgment of everyone.”
The first member of the Synod, no different in his rights from its other members, only symbolically represented the first bishop, the first hierarch, without whose permission nothing should happen in the Church that would exceed the power of individual bishops. The Synod, which consisted of only a few bishops and elders, was not a full-fledged replacement for the Local Council.
Another sad consequence of the reform was the subordination of the church government to the secular supreme power. An oath was drawn up for the members of the Synod: “I confess with an oath the extreme judge of this Spiritual College to be the very All-Russian monarch, our most merciful sovereign.” This oath, which offended the bishop’s conscience and was contrary to the canonical principles of the Church, lasted until 1901, almost 200 years. The “Spiritual Regulations” unequivocally proclaimed that “the governmental collegium under the sovereign monarch exists and is appointed by the monarch.” The monarch, with the help of a seductive play on words, instead of the traditional name of him “anointed”, is called in the “Regulations” “Christ of the Lord.”
The Holy Governing Synod, like the Senate, acted on behalf of the sovereign and received from him for execution the Highest decrees and commands on all church affairs. All resolutions of the Holy Synod until 1917 were issued with the stamp “By order of His Imperial Majesty.” In state papers, the Church Authority has since become known as the “Department of the Orthodox Confession,” along with other departments: military, financial, judicial, and internal affairs.
The Synodal reform in church literature has received a comprehensive and fair critical assessment, but in judging about it one should not fall into one-sided criticism. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow was able to resist him in his thoughtful, balanced assessment: “The spiritual college, which Peter took over from the Protestant, God’s Providence and Church Spirit converted to the Holy Synod."
This reform confused the church conscience of the hierarchy, clergy, and people. Nevertheless, it was accepted by both the law-abiding clergy and the believing people, which means, despite its canonical defects, nothing was seen in it that would distort the structure of church life so much that Russia would fall out of the catholic unity of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Accepted by the hierarchy and the people, recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs, the new synodal authority became the legitimate church government. And despite the fact that the will of the emperor was often really imposed on the obedient Synod, this will, firstly, never encroached on the purity of Orthodox dogma, which the Church in the person of its Synod would not tolerate, and secondly, the church authority for the synodal acts was all - did add the signature of the members of the Synod - the hierarchs; the stamp “By His decree Imperial Majesty", like the signatures of the Byzantine emperors under the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, only gave the synodal decrees the status state laws.
The Synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority of the Russian Church. With the consent of the Highest Authority, he had the right to open new departments, elect hierarchs and place them in dowager departments. He exercised supreme supervision over the implementation of church laws by all members of the Church and over the spiritual enlightenment of the people. The Synod had the right to establish new holidays and rituals and to canonize holy saints. The Synod published the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, and also subjected the supreme censorship to works of theological, church-historical and canonical content. He had the right to petition the Highest Authority about the needs of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the highest ecclesiastical judicial authority, the Synod was the court of first instance for accusing bishops of anti-canonical acts; it also served as a court of appeal in cases decided in diocesan courts. The Synod had the right to make final decisions on most divorce cases, as well as on cases of defrocking clergy and anathematization of laity. Finally, the Synod served as the body of canonical communication of the Russian Church with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. In the house church of the First Member of the Synod, the names of the Eastern Patriarchs were raised during the service.
In addition to the fact that the Synod was the central governing body of the Russian Church, it was also the diocesan authority for the former Patriarchal region, renamed Synodal. The Synod ruled it through the same orders that existed under the Patriarchs, renamed, however, into the dicastery (in Moscow) and the Tiun office (in St. Petersburg). But after the opening of the Moscow and St. Petersburg dioceses in 1742, the Synodal region ceased to exist. Only the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral and stauropegic monasteries remained under the direct jurisdiction of the Synod from the former Synodal region.
Changes in the composition of the Synod
Since its establishment, the composition of the Synod has repeatedly undergone fundamental changes. Already under Catherine I (1725–1727) it was divided into two apartments (1726): spiritual and economic. The first apartment, in whose jurisdiction exclusively spiritual affairs were left, consisted of the First Presence (after the death of Metropolitan Stephen in 1722. new president Synod was no longer appointed) and 6 members. Economic apartment was in charge land holdings monasteries and diocesan houses and consisted of officials. Under Catherine I, the Synod ceased to be called the “Governing” and became the “Spiritual Synod”. Subsequently, its original name was restored. As for the economic department of the Synod, under various names: “chamber-office”, “collegium of economy” - it was more than once transferred from the jurisdiction of the Synod to the jurisdiction of the Senate and back, until, finally, as a result of the secularization of the populated church lands, they were no longer managed. Church power was finally eliminated.
Under Empress Anna (1730–1740), the Synod consisted of 3 bishops, 2 archimandrites and 2 archpriests (rectors of the Kremlin Assumption and Annunciation Cathedrals). According to the states of 1764, the Synod was supposed to consist of 3 bishops, 2 archimandrites and 1 archpriest.
According to the states approved in 1818, seven persons were present in the Synod, one of whom was called “First”. Under Nicholas I (1825–1855), the places of archimandrites in the Synod were taken by the chief priest of the guard and grenadier corps (also the confessor of the tsar) and the chief priest of the army and navy. Subsequently, the Synod acquired an exclusively episcopal composition, which was more in line with church canons. It included both its permanent members - the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg (usually, but not always the first), Kiev and Moscow - and, often, the Exarch of Georgia. Other bishops who were summoned to the Synod (on his proposal) by decrees of the emperor for an indefinite period were called “those present at the Synod.” In the 20th century, protopresbyters began to be called to the Synod.
Chief Prosecutors of the Holy Synod
In 1722, by decree of the emperor, the post of Synodal Chief Prosecutor was established. The Chief Prosecutor's Instructions were literally copied from the Instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Senate. The Chief Prosecutor, according to Peter I, was to be appointed “from among the officers a kind person..." He was charged with the duty of being “the eye of the sovereign and a lawyer in state affairs.”
Over time, especially in the 19th century (under Prince Golitsyn, Protasov, Pobedonostsev), the rights of the chief prosecutor were expanded so much that from an official supervising the conduct of synodal affairs, as provided for in the Instructions, he became a plenipotentiary minister, responsible to the emperor not only for compliance with the legal form in the activities of the Synod, but also in essence.
The duties of the Chief Prosecutor included:
monitoring the implementation of state laws on the Religious Department and monitoring the timely execution of affairs;
reviewing the minutes of the Holy Synod before they are carried out;
presentation of reports of the Synod to the emperor and announcement of the Highest Commands to the Synod;
presence at a meeting of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers for the Affairs of the Orthodox Church;
All communications between the Synod and ministers and other high secular officials were carried out through the Chief Prosecutor;
all cases considered in the Senate that related to church real estate were submitted to him for preliminary conclusions;
The chief prosecutor was the main boss for secular officials who served in the Spiritual Department.
As a state dignitary, equal in rights to ministers, the Chief Prosecutor had with him a deputy - a comrade of the Chief Prosecutor and an office similar to departments under ministries. This office was established in 1839. In addition to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, there was also the Office of the Holy Synod, but it was also subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor. It considered and prepared cases that were approved by the Synod.
Synodal institutions
In 1839, headed by the synodal chief prosecutor, an economic administration was established, which was in charge of all property and cash Synod. In 1867, a Training Committee was opened under the Holy Synod. Its Chairman and 9 members were appointed by the Synod: the chairman was certainly from the clergy, and the members were from the clergy and secular. Moreover, secular members were approved by the Synod on the proposal of the chief prosecutor. In addition to the permanent members, the Chairman invited other persons (with the knowledge of the Synod or the Chief Prosecutor) from scientists and teachers living in St. Petersburg to participate in the activities of the Committee. The Educational Committee carried out general administrative management and scientific and methodological management of seminaries and theological schools.
There were also two synodal offices under the direct jurisdiction of the Synod: Moscow and Georgian-Imereti. The first of them, chaired by the Moscow Metropolitan, and in his absence, the first vicar of the diocese, consisted of retired bishops in Moscow monasteries, the archimandrite of one of the Moscow stauropegial monasteries and the protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral. These candidacies were approved upon the recommendation of the Holy Synod by the Highest Orders. The Synodal office in Moscow was in charge of the Assumption Cathedral, the Moscow stauropegial monasteries, the synodal house, the 12 Apostles, the synodal sacristy and the library. In addition, she was in charge of preparing the holy world.
The Georgian-Imereti Synodal Office, chaired by the Exarch of Georgia, consisted of 4 members: 3 archimandrites and 1 archpriest. It had much broader powers than the Moscow one, being a kind of synodal department for the management of Georgian dioceses. The synodal office, headed by the exarch, elected candidates for vacant Georgian departments and presented them to the Synod for approval. The bishops of Georgia, governing their dioceses, were dependent in their activities on the exarch and the synodal office.
Top management transformation projects. Russian Orthodox Church
The canonical defectiveness of the synodal system burdened the conscience of bishops, clergy and laity. In the second half of the 19th century, the need to transform the church system began to be discussed publicly. In the 80s In the diocesan cities of Russia - St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Kazan - meetings of diocesan bishops of individual regions are held, at which issues of church life, especially acute in these areas, are discussed. In literature, such episcopal meetings are called “councils.”
The church people have hope for the convening of an All-Russian Local Council. In the minds of people who were especially painfully worried about the non-canonical nature of the synodal government, the idea of restoring the Patriarchate is ripening.
When during the revolution of 1905–1917. Manifestos were published that granted broad rights to non-Orthodox, heterodox and Old Believers; the clergy and church community became alarmed that the Orthodox Church, which had been under the strict tutelage of state power for 200 years, might find itself in a worse position than non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox religious associations.
This was then discussed from pulpits and on the pages of the church press. The convening of the Local Council was recognized by almost everyone in the Church as a necessary, urgent matter.
And disagreements immediately emerged regarding the composition of the upcoming Council. “Group 32” was formed in St. Petersburg, proclaiming the task of updating the very foundations of church life. This group demanded broad representation of clergy and laity at the Council and that they (clergy and laity) receive equal rights with bishops in resolving all issues of church life. This trend openly revealed the class-party interests of the renovationists, the desire to secure more rights and privileges for the white clergy at the expense of episcopacy and monasticism; Representatives of the “group of 32” generally considered it inappropriate and uncanonical to call non-bishop monastics to the Council. “Not considering it correct that the First Council, due to the difficulties encountered in order to organize it perfectly, could consist of only bishops, we believe that it, first of all, should have the character of pan-church representation,” noted in May 1905. in the note of the “group 32” to Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg - the two-hundred-year absence of councils and the current situation of the highest hierarchy, which, as in the old days, is not elected by the churches themselves, that is, by the clergy and people of the dowager churches themselves, necessarily requires the participation of the lower hierarchy and the laity at the councils.” .
The Renewalists are frightening their opponents with a church schism that will occur if their demands for equal participation of clergy and laity in the Council are not accepted. “The bishops will develop and approve at the council a draft dispensation; but their decision will not gain strength just because it is the unanimous desire of all the bishops. will say, or at least can say, that she does not approve of this arrangement of affairs, does not want it, and recognizes it as inconsistent with either her actual needs or the Tradition she preserves. Whether this Church, involuntarily removed from the bishops, will be right or wrong, a schism will occur,” wrote N.P., a member of the Union of Church Renewal. Aksakov. For the first hierarch of the Russian Church, the authors of the “Note” provided for the title of archbishop of the capital city or even Patriarch, but did not want to give him any administrative rights in relation to other bishops, providing only primacy of honor.
Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) held completely opposite beliefs about the nature of the upcoming transformations of the highest church authorities. “Bishops,” he wrote then, “not only have the Patriarch over them, but also express their readiness to submit to the metropolitans. After all, only one will receive the power of the Patriarch, and the rest will become his novices: seven (meaning the metropolitans who are at the head of the metropolitan districts) are immediate, and the other 92 - novices of the metropolitan. This is as commendable on the part of the bishops as it is useful for the Church, for with the weakening of general church discipline, firm power is needed over all of us.” Bishop Anthony advocated an exclusively episcopal composition for the expected Council. The report of the Holy Synod, presented to the sovereign in 1905, was drawn up in the same spirit.
Archbishop Sergius of Finland (the future Patriarch) made a profound analysis of the question of the composition of the Local Council in the press. He wrote: “Is it possible, standing on a strictly canonical point of view, to assert that clergy and laity have the right, on an equal basis with bishops, to participate with a decisive vote in regional councils... The answer can only be negative. That the clergy and laity were necessarily present at the councils and that some of them took the most remarkable part in the deliberations of the Council is true... But to say that this was the church law, obligatory for everyone, that this was required by the rules of the Holy Apostle and the Holy Ecumenical and Local cathedrals... impossible. The “Book of Rules” does not contain any legalization for the participation of clergy and laity in regional councils and, on the contrary, wherever it talks about Councils, it speaks only about bishops and never about presbyters, clergy and laity (IV Ecumenical 19. Trull. 8 , VII Om. 6, Carth. 14, 27, 87,141,142, Laod. 40, etc.). However, for the sake of church unity and peace, Archbishop Sergius considered it permissible to call clergy and laity to participate in the Council: “But,” he noted, “this participation must be arranged in such a way that it does not destroy ... the basic principle of the canonical system.” For this purpose, Archbishop Sergius proposed introducing the following condition into the regulations of the Council: “Every resolution of the general council, whether it is reached by voting or without it, receives the force of law, but can be protested, indicating the reasons, and submitted to the Council of bishops alone for consideration. If the resolution is of a dogmatic-canonical nature, one vote is enough to protest, no matter who it belongs to. In all other cases, it is necessary that the protest be declared or supported by at least one quarter of all those present.”
Despite the most vivid hopes for the speedy convening of the Council, despite the fact that the specially established Pre-Conciliar Presence had prepared material for the upcoming Local Council, the Tsar considered the convening of the Council untimely. In 1912, the materials of the Presence were revised by the Pre-Conciliar Conference, but again the matter did not come to the convening of the Council. Only the abdication of the emperor opened the way to the Local Council. In 1917, the Pre-Conciliar Council, chaired by Archbishop Sergius, prepared the “Regulations on the All-Russian Local Council.”
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church translated from Greek language Literally means “meeting”. It was introduced in 1701 by ruler Peter, and it existed in its own permanent form until the revolutionary year of 1917. At first, the creation of the Synod meant introducing 11 members into its composition, and specifically, it was supposed to include a president, 2 vice-presidents, 4 advisers and, in addition, 4 assessors. This also included abbots of monasteries, bishops and senior clergy. The President of the Synod was called the first member, and other persons were simply listed as present. Before the October Revolution, each member of this organization received his title for life.
The Main Holy Synod had all the power in the Russian Orthodox Church and also dealt with issues arising in foreign Orthodox churches. Other patriarchates existing at that time were subordinate to him. The following noteworthy information is also known: members Governing Synod were appointed by the tsar himself, who had his own representative holding the position of Chief Prosecutor. According to historians, the establishment of the Synod in the Russian Empire was a fundamental political step, since this organization was the highest municipal body in the administrative power of the church.
A memorable date in the history of church life occurred on January 25, 1721, because it was then that the Holy Synod was formed. How did the action evolve at that time? After the death of Patriarch Adrian, ruler Peter did not give his own royal permission to convene, as was previously customary, the Holy Council and elect a new head of the Orthodox Church according to the rules. Peter himself decided to manage personnel and administrative issues of the church. He gives the Pskov Bishop Feofan Prokopovich a fundamental instruction - to draw up a new document, which received the title Spiritual Regulations. It was on this document that the entire Orthodox Church of the country relied in its future work. The tsar is pursuing a frank policy of complete subordination of the church to his interests, as evidenced by history.
The autocrat of all Rus' decided to return from 1701 the monastic order and the management of church lands to the secular man and nobleman I. A. Musin-Pushkin. Specifically, he began to manage the property affairs of countless churches, as well as monasteries, all fees and profits from which were sent to the royal treasury. Peter expresses the idea that the previously existing patriarchate was harmful to the country, and the collective management of church things will go well for the benefit of all, with all this, the Holy Synod must submit one hundred percent to his authority. It was impossible to make this decision without the help of others, therefore, for recognition of his own transformations, Peter I turned to Constantinople and asked to recognize the Holy Synod as the Eastern Patriarch. In 1723, this was approved by a special charter, which very well corresponded to the goals set by the sovereign.
The creation of the Synod restructured the new way the existing church system, but not according to the biblical, but according to the state bureaucratic hierarchy. With the help of Peter, the Church became a reliable tool of propaganda and even investigation. By personal decree of the tsar, from 1722 priests were obliged to say the secret of confession that they received from parishioners, especially if it related to municipal atrocities. The establishment of the Synod contributed to the renaming of the old names of orders and the emergence of new ones: the printing office, the order of church affairs, the order of inquisitorial affairs and the office of schismatic affairs.
In the 20th century, in 1943, during the Second World War, an unchanged Holy Synod. It was located in Chisty Lane, in house number 5. This building was allocated by personal order of I. Stalin. Since 2011, after a major reconstruction, the Synodal residence of the Patriarch of the Capital and All Rus' has been located in the St. Daniel Monastery.
Loading...
