History of the Holy Synod in the Russian Empire. Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church

14.10.2019

The establishment of the Holy Synod was a significant transformation of the Church and meant a decisive break with the previous system of church government.

Prerequisites for the establishment of the Synod

There are several versions of the root cause of the elimination of the church patriarchate in Russia. The first was put forward by the historian S.M. Solovyov. He believed that at the turn of the 17th - 18th centuries, in a difficult period for the country and a crisis for the church, the tsar did everything possible to pull the state out of the "swamp". and frequent riots, which the patriarch was unable to cope with, prompted Peter I to take control into his own hands and establish the Holy Synod, a spiritual college.

Scientist A.P. Bogdanov put forward the opposite version, having studied in detail the activities of Patriarch Adrian. He points out that during the confusion and struggle for power between Sophia and the young Peter, the treasury of the country was noticeably empty, while the Church was in a stable state and constantly had an income.

Peter I, after his accession to the throne, actively sought funds for reforms and saw them in the Church. However, the patriarch was not going to put up with interference in autonomous government and wrote many messages to the tsar, not wanting to enter into an open confrontation with the authorities. In 1700, Patriarch Adrian died, and Archimandrite Feofan Prokopovich was invited to take his place, in which he gained support.

Establishment of the Holy Synod

In February 1720, Feofan Prokopovich drew up the "Spiritual Regulations", which described:

a system of new church government;
terms of reference;
positions.

Thus, the "Regulations" proclaimed the creation of a spiritual college instead of the sole rule of the patriarch. The document was submitted for consideration to the Senate, and after that it was studied by the members of the Holy Council. They signed consent under pressure from the secular authorities. Also during next year 87 signatures were collected, which was enough for the adoption of the document.

In the winter of 1721, Peter I issued a manifesto on the establishment of the Synod. Metropolitan Stefan became president, but after his death this position was abolished. The chief prosecutor of the Synod was appointed, who was to be the "eyes and ears" of the emperor. After 2 years, the Holy Synod gained recognition from Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople. With the consent of the sovereign, the Synod exercised legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Church.

Significance of the Holy Synod

An entirely new era in the life of the Church was opened by the establishment of the Synod.

The church lost its independence from the authorities for almost 200 years
The board could quickly and freely solve all cases, having greater authority than the patriarch
The collegium was not dangerous to the sovereign, unlike the patriarch
The growth of the Orthodox Church has increased over 2 centuries by almost 15 times due to the activities of missionaries and the actions of church reform
The rise of spiritual education led to the establishment of 46 seminaries and 4 theological academies. The rise of church science has begun
Extensive administrative activities were carried out in all directions. New churches, parishes were opened, liturgical books were published, etc.

Do not remove the flag for renaming until the end of the discussion.
The production date is March 18, 2015.
Rename to the proposed name, remove this template

The query "Theological College" is redirected here. This topic needs a separate article. This article is about the body of church and state administration of the Russian Church in 1721-1917. For the current governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, see Holy Synod Russian Orthodox Church.

(Holy Governing Sonod (Russian doref.)) - supreme body church-state administration of the Russian Church in the synodal period (1721-1917).

1 Legal status
2 Functions
3 History
- 3.1 Last years (1912-1918)
4 Composition
5 Chief Procurator of the Synod
6 Preeminent members
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Links

Legal status

According to the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, the Synod was defined as “a conciliar government, which has all kinds of supreme power in the Russian Orthodox Church and is in relations with Orthodox churches abroad, through which the supreme autocratic power, which established it, operates in church administration.”

As such, he was recognized by the eastern patriarchs and other autocephalous churches. The members of the Most Holy Governing Synod were appointed by the emperor. The Emperor's representative in the Synod was Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod.

Upon the abolition by Peter I (1701) of the patriarchal administration of the church, from 1721 until August 1917 (nominally existed until February 1 (14), 1918) established by him was the highest state body of church-administrative authority in the Russian Empire, replacing the patriarch in parts of general church functions and external relations, as well as councils of all bishops of the local church, that is, the Local Council: 236.

The building of the Senate and Synod in St. Petersburg

The Governing Synod acted on behalf of the Emperor, whose orders on church matters were final and binding on the Synod:237.

Functions

The Governing Synod was the highest administrative and judicial body of the Russian Church. He had the right (with the consent of the supreme authority) to open new cathedras, elect and appoint bishops, establish church holidays and ceremonies, canonize saints, and censor works of theological, church-historical and canonical content. He owned the right of the court of first instance in relation to bishops accused of committing anti-canonical acts, and the Synod also had the right to make final decisions on divorce cases, cases of defrocking clerics, and anathematizing the laity; questions of the spiritual enlightenment of the people were also within the jurisdiction of the Synod:238.

Story

On October 16, 1700, Patriarch Adrian died. Tsar Peter I appointed the educated Little Russian Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan (Yavorsky) exarch, that is, guardian of the patriarchal throne. Peter withdrew personnel and administrative matters from his competence. In 1701, the Monastic order, abolished in 1667, was restored, and the management of all church estates was transferred to its jurisdiction.

In 1718, Peter I expressed the opinion that "for better governance in the future, it seems to be convenient for the spiritual college"; Peter instructed Bishop Feofan Prokopovich of Pskov to draw up a charter for the future collegium, which was called the Spiritual Regulations.

During 1720, the signing of the Regulations took place by the bishops and archimandrites of the sedate monasteries; the last, reluctantly, was signed by the exarch, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky).

On January 25, 1721, a Manifesto was issued on the establishment of the Theological College. Stefan Yavorsky became the President of the Synod. In the same year, Peter I turned to Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople with a petition for the recognition of the Holy Synod by the Eastern Patriarchs. In September 1723, the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch recognized the Holy Synod as their “brother in Christ” with equal patriarchal dignity by a special charter.

On February 14, 1721, the Theological College, which received the name of the Holy Governing Synod, was officially opened.

Under Catherine I, the Synod ceased to be called "Governmental" for some time, and received the name "Spiritual":239.

Until 1901, the members of the Synod and those present in the Synod, upon taking office, had to take an oath, which, in particular, read:

I confess, with an oath, to the extreme Judge of the Spiritual Council of the Life of the All-Russian Monarch of our most merciful Sovereign.

Until September 1, 1742, the Synod was also the diocesan authority for the former Patriarchal Region, renamed Synodal.

The patriarchal orders were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Synod: spiritual, state and palace orders, renamed into synodal orders, a monastery order, an order of church affairs, an office of schismatic affairs and a printing office. Petersburg, the Tiun office (Tiunskaya Izba) was established; in Moscow - the spiritual dicastery, the office of the synodal government, the synodal office, the order of inquisitorial affairs, the office of schismatic affairs.

All institutions of the Synod were closed during the first two decades of its existence, except for the synodal office, the Moscow synodal office and the printing office, which lasted until 1917.

Last years (1912-1918)

After the death of the leading member of the Synod Anthony (Vadkovsky) in 1912 and the appointment of Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) to the St. Petersburg cathedra, the political situation around the Synod became much more aggravated, which was due to the intrusion of G. Rasputin into the affairs of church administration. In November 1915, Metropolitan Vladimir was transferred to Kiev by the Highest Rescript, although he retained the title of the first member. The transfer of Vladimir and the appointment of Metropolitan Pitirim (Oknov) in his place was painfully perceived in the church hierarchy and in society, which viewed Metropolitan Pitirim as a “Rasputinist”. As a result, as Prince Nikolai Zhevakhov wrote, “the principle of the inviolability of hierarchs was violated, and this was enough for the Synod to find itself almost in the vanguard of that opposition to the throne, which used the aforementioned act for common revolutionary purposes, as a result of which both hierarchs, metropolitans Pitirim and Macarius were declared "Rasputinists".

Former member of the Synod in the pre-revolutionary years, Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky, while in exile, assessed the oldest members of the Synod of that time and the general situation in it as follows:<…>in a certain respect characterized the state of our hierarchy in the pre-revolutionary period.<…>The synod was dominated by a heavy atmosphere of distrust. 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 Tsarskoye Selo.

At the end of 1915, the discussion in the Synod of the “Varnavin case” (see John of Tobolsk #Tobolsk scandal) acquired a scandalous character, as a result of which A. D. Samarin was forced to resign from the post of chief prosecutor. About the situation in church administration by the end of the reign of Nicholas II, Protopresbyter Shavelsky wrote: “At the end of 1916, Rasputin’s henchmen already actually held control in their hands. Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod Raev, his comrade Zhevakhov, head of the office of the Holy Synod Guryev and his assistant Mudrolyubov were Rasputinites. Metropolitans Pitirim and Macarius professed the same faith. Whole line diocesan and vicar bishops were Rasputin's clients."

On March 1, 1916, according to the report of the Chief Procurator of the Volzhin Synod, the emperor “was pleased to omnipotently command that in the future the reports of the Chief Procurator to His Imperial Majesty on matters relating to the internal structure of church life and the essence of church administration should be made in the presence of the primordial member of the Holy Synod, for the purpose of their comprehensive canonical coverage. The conservative newspaper Moskovskiya Vedomosti, calling the Supreme Command of March 1 “a great act of trust,” wrote: “It is reported from Petrograd that in church circles and in the Synod the great act of royal trust is experienced as a bright holiday, that A. N. Volzhin and Metropolitan Vladimir receive greetings and expressions of gratitude from everywhere.

In April 1917, a member of the State Council, a member of the Council of the Russian Assembly, Professor-Archpriest Timofey Butkevich wrote in the editorial of the official publication of the Holy Synod "Tserkovny Vestnik" about the state of the top management of the Russian Church in last years reign of Nicholas II:<…>The influence of Rasputin on the tsar in the life of the Orthodox Church was especially hard.<…>And the church was managed, in fact, by Rasputin. He appointed chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod from among those who licked his hands. He elevated his like-minded people to metropolitan (m. m. Pitirim and Macarius) and archiepiscopal sees.<…>»

After the fall of the monarchy, on April 14, 1917, the Provisional Government issued a decree dismissing all members of the Synod, with the exception of Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), and calling new members to the summer session. The meaning of the dissolution was to remove from the Synod persons who were then perceived by society as Rasputin's proteges: Moscow Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) and Petrograd Pitirim (Oknov). The decree was read to the Synod by Chief Procurator V. N. Lvov on April 15 (O.S.); Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) agreed to enter the new composition of the Synod, "although he promised his brother-bishops that he would not go to the new composition of the Synod formed by Lvov."

By the decision of the Holy Synod of April 29, 1917, No. 2579, a number of questions were withdrawn from the records of the Synod “for final permission to the diocesan administrations”: on the removal of the priesthood and monasticism upon petition, on the establishment of new parishes at local funds, on the dissolution of marriages due to the inability of one of the spouses, on the recognition of marriages as illegal and invalid, on the dissolution of marriages for adultery - with the consent of both parties, and a number of others that were previously within the competence of the Synod. on the same day, the Synod decided to form a pre-conciliar council to prepare issues to be considered at the "Church Constituent Assembly"; the main task was the preparation of the all-Russian local council.

On July 25, 1917, V. N. Lvov was replaced as chief prosecutor by A. V. Kartashev, the last who held the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod.

On August 5, 1917, the Ministry of Religions was established, headed by Kartashev; the chief prosecutor's office was abolished.

On February 1 (14), 1918, in accordance with the decision of the Council of January 31, the powers of the Holy Synod were transferred to the patriarch and collegiate bodies - the Holy Synod and the Supreme church council. Determinations on behalf of the Holy Synod were published until January 18 (O.S.), 1918.

It was liquidated de jure as a state body by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 20 (O.S.) 1918 "On Freedom of Conscience, Church and Religious Societies" (On the separation of church from state and school from church).

Compound

Initially, according to the Spiritual Regulations, the Synod consisted of 11 members: the president, 2 vice-presidents, 4 advisers and 4 assessors; it included bishops, abbots of monasteries and white clergy.

Since 1726, the president of the Synod was called the first member, and the rest - members of the Holy Synod and simply present.

In later times, the nomenclature of the Synod changed many times. At the beginning of the 20th century, a member of the Synod was a title awarded for life, even if the person was never called to sit in the Synod. At the same time, the metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Kiev, Moscow, and the exarch of Georgia were, as a rule, permanent members of the Synod, and the metropolitan of St. Petersburg of them was almost always the leading member of the Synod:239.

Chief Prosecutor of the Synod

Main article: Chief Prosecutor

Chief Procurator of the Holy Governing Synod - a secular official appointed Russian emperor(in 1917 they were appointed by the Provisional Government) and was its representative in the Holy Synod. The powers and role differed in different periods, but in general, in the XVIII-XIX centuries there was a tendency to strengthen the role of the chief prosecutor.

First Members

Stefan (Yavorsky), President of the Synod (February 14, 1721 - November 27, 1722), Metropolitan of Ryazan
- Theodosius (Yanovsky), First Vice-President of the Synod (November 27, 1722 - April 27, 1725), Archbishop of Novgorod
- Feofan (Prokopovich), First Vice-President of the Synod (1725 - July 15, 1726), Archbishop of Novgorod
Feofan (Prokopovich) (July 15, 1726 - September 8, 1736), Archbishop of Novgorod
- By 1738, only one bishop sat in the Synod, besides him there were archimandrites and archpriests
Ambrose (Yushkevich) (May 29, 1740 - May 17, 1745), Archbishop of Novgorod
Stefan (Kalinovsky) (August 18, 1745 - September 16, 1753), Archbishop of Novgorod
Platon (Malinovsky) (1753 - June 14, 1754), Archbishop of Moscow
Sylvester (Kulyabka) (1754-1757), Archbishop of St. Petersburg
Dimitry (Sechenov) (October 22, 1757 - December 14, 1767), Archbishop of Novgorod (from 1762 - Metropolitan)
Gabriel (Kremenetsky) (1767-1770), Archbishop of St. Petersburg
Gabriel (Petrov) (1775 - October 16, 1799), Archbishop of Novgorod (from 1783 - Metropolitan)
Ambrose (Podobedov) (October 16, 1799 - March 26, 1818), Archbishop of St. Petersburg (since 1801 - Archbishop of Novgorod)
Mikhail (Desnitsky) (1818 - March 24, 1821), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg (since June 1818 - Metropolitan of Novgorod)
Seraphim (Glagolevsky) (March 26, 1821 - January 17, 1843), Metropolitan of Novgorod
Anthony (Rafalsky) (January 17, 1843 - November 4, 1848), Metropolitan of Novgorod
Nikanor (Klementievsky) (November 20, 1848 - September 17, 1856), Metropolitan of Novgorod
Grigory (Postnikov) (October 1, 1856 - June 17, 1860), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg
Isidore (Nikolsky) (July 1, 1860 - September 7, 1892), Metropolitan of Novgorod
Pallady (Raev-Pisarev) (October 18, 1892 - December 5, 1898), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg
Ioanniky (Rudnev) (December 25, 1898 - June 7, 1900), Metropolitan of Kiev
Anthony (Vadkovsky) (June 9, 1900 - November 2, 1912), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg
Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) (November 23, 1912 - March 6, 1917), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg (from 1915 - Metropolitan of Kiev)
Platon (Rozhdestvensky) (April 14, 1917 - November 21, 1917), Archbishop of Kartal and Kakheti, Exarch of Georgia (since August 1917 - Metropolitan of Tiflis and Baku, Exarch of the Caucasus)

Notes

St. Zach. Main vol. 1, part 1, art. 43
1 2 3 4 5 Tsypin V.A. Canon law. - Ed. 2nd. - M.: MIPT, 1996. - 442 p.
Memoirs of Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, Vol. 2, Chapter 51 The attitude of Russian tsars to the church. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
GI Shavelsky Russian Church before the Revolution. Moscow: Artos-Media, 2005 (written in the mid-1930s), pp. 78, 87.
XIX. Church affairs. The Tobolsk scandal.. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012. Chapter from the book "Memoirs of the last protopresbyter of the Russian army and navy" by Georgy Shavelsky.
Shavelsky G.I. Russian Church before the Revolution. Moscow: Artos-Media, 2005, p. 486 (original spelling).
Cit. by: "Government Bulletin". March 5 (18), 1916, No. 52, p. 2.
Great act of trust. // Moscow News. March 6 (19), 1916, No. 54, p. 1.
The Orthodox Church and the coup d'état. // "Church Bulletin, published by the Missionary Council under the Holy Synod." 1917, April - May 14, No. 9-17, stb. 181-182.
"Church Gazette published under the Holy Governing Son". April 22, 1917, No. 16-17, p. 83 (general annual pagination).
Gubonin M.E. Contemporaries about Patriarch Tikhon. M., 2007, Vol. II, p. 220 (Note).
"Bulletin of the Provisional Government". 3 (May 16), 1917, No. 46 (92), p. 1.
"Church Gazette". 1918, No. 3-4 (January 31), p. 22.
Moscow Church Gazette. 1918, No. 3, p. 1.
Statehood of Russia. M., 2001, book. 4, p. 108.
On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church (Decree of the Council of People's Commissars). Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
Culture of the Leningrad Region

Holy Governing Synod Information About

§ 6. 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 the result of changes in relations between the holder of the highest state power and the Holy Synod, but above all they took place at the initiative of the chief prosecutors, who were gaining more and more influence.

After the establishment of the Supreme Privy Council by a decree of February 8, 1726, the Holy Synod was subordinated to it as the highest state body. On July 15 of the same year, the Supreme Privy Council transmitted to the Holy Synod the decree of Catherine I, according to which changes were made to its main instance - the plenary Presence. The Empress ordered the establishment of two apartments in the Holy Synod, for it is "burdened" and spiritual affairs are in a neglected state. “We, imitating the works of his highly glorious memory of the sovereign emperor, to the fulfillment of his good intentions, now ordered to divide the synodal government into two apartments: the first has six persons of bishops ... To be content with those members with a certain salary, and do not touch them with anything to the dioceses, so that from that there was no madness in their proper administration; and in order to appoint vicars in the diocese, who must give an answer and report on everything, namely, about spiritual affairs - in the first, and about zemstvo and economy - in the second apartment. In another apartment, there should be court and reprisals, as well as overseeing collections and savings, and so on, following the example of the former Patriarch of the category and other orders that were then in the Patriarchal department, and six secular people were ordered to determine those cases ”(follows a list of names). As a result of this change in the organization of the Holy Synod, the bishops - members of the Synod lost part of their powers. Further, the decree established the subordination of the Holy Synod to the Supreme Privy Council: “And about which spiritual matters it will not be possible for them to make decisions, we order them to inform us in the Supreme Privy Council, presenting their opinions, and to another apartment to report on those matters that are subject to spiritual reasoning in Synod, but about secular matters to the High Senate ... And the archpriests who were present in the Synod should still be at their cathedrals. In addition, on July 14, the Holy Synod was deprived of the titles of "Governing" and "Holy" and became known as the Spiritual Synod. On September 26 of the same year, a decree followed, which ordered the second apartment to be called the “College of Economy of the Synodal Board”. The members of the first apartment were: Feofan Prokopovich, Archbishop of Novgorod, Georgy Dashkov, Archbishop of Rostov, Feofilakt Lopatinsky, Archbishop of Ryazan, Joseph, Archbishop of Voronezh, Athanasius Kondoidi, Archbishop of Vologda, and Ignatius Smola, former Bishop of Suzdal, who since 1721 lived in retirement . 5 persons became members of the second apartment, among them - the former chief prosecutor A. Baskakov, in whose place on July 14, 1726 Captain Raevsky was appointed. Members of the first apartment were equal in rights and duties. After the death of Stefan Yavorsky, there was no president in the Synod, but now the position of vice-president was also abolished. The chamber-office of the Synod, which had existed since 1724, was closed, and its powers were transferred to the College of Economy. As a result of the reform of 1726, little remained of the synodal structure of the time of Peter the Great.

At the accession to the throne of Empress Anna Ioannovna, the Holy Synod had only four members: Joseph died at the end of 1726, while Athanasius was released in 1727 to his diocese. On May 10, 1730, the Synod received a decree from the Empress, in which it was ordered to replenish its composition with six clerics. The Holy Synod put forward 8 candidates, after which on July 21 all its members resigned and a new Presence was established, consisting of three bishops, three archimandrites and two archpriests. The main person in this meeting was Feofan Prokopovich.

In subsequent years, the number of members of the Holy Synod constantly fluctuated: in 1738 there were four of them, in 1740 - three. Under Empress Elizabeth, the Synod consisted of 5 bishops and 3 archimandrites. Since 1740, the Archbishop of Novgorod Ambrose Yushkevich (1740-1745) took the place of Feofan. The efforts of Ambrose and Metropolitan of Rostov Arseniy Matseevich to restore the position of President of the Synod were unsuccessful. Under Catherine II, the Holy Synod received support for three bishops, two archimandrites and one archpriest. One bishop, two archimandrites and one archpriest were to sit in the Moscow Synodal Office. But both under Catherine II and under Paul I, these norms were rarely observed, so that the number of members of the Synod ranged from three to eight (in 1796).

The staffing was also violated during the reign of Alexander I. The new states of July 9, 1819 were designed for seven people: the first present (Metropolitan of St. Petersburg), two bishops - members of the Holy Synod, one bishop in the rank of assessor, two more assessors-archimandrites and one archpriest. Even before this reorganization, Chief Prosecutor Prince A.N. Golitsyn, by personal decree of June 12, 1805, called diocesan bishops to work in the central department of the Holy Synod for a period of 1-2 years. Since then, the personal composition of the Synod has been constantly changing, and only the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg remained a permanent member. After 1819, the metropolitans of Moscow and Kiev became ex officio [by virtue of their position (lat.)] permanent members of the Holy Synod. The assessors were three diocesan bishops, who changed from time to time. Contrary to the approved states, the archimandrites did not appear in the composition of the Synod. Under Nicholas I, Chief Prosecutor Count N. A. Protasov ensured that the composition of the Holy Synod changed more often, and therefore in the second half of the century it became a tradition that assessors were appointed for 2, in rare cases - for 3 years.

The Holy Synod met for meetings in summer and winter sessions. In the intervals between them, the bishops went to their dioceses. Under Chief Prosecutor K. P. Pobedonostsev, retired bishops could be assessors of the Holy Synod. They were appointed with the aim of neutralizing the opposition of other bishops to the dictatorship of the chief prosecutor. In 1842, two members of the Holy Synod, who could not come to terms with the commanding style of Count Protasov, retired to their dioceses, without losing, however, their membership in the Synod. They were Moscow Metropolitan Filaret Drozdov and Kiev Metropolitan Filaret Amfiteatrov. From the time of Protasov to the very end of the synodal period, almost always those bishops were appointed to the Holy Synod who suited the chief prosecutor. Only three metropolitans (of Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev) were ex officio synodal members. Emperor Nicholas I in 1835 appointed the heir to the throne, Alexander, a member of the Holy Synod. The appointment of a layman aroused objections from the bishops, primarily from Metropolitan Filaret Drozdov, so the Grand Duke refrained from any participation in the meetings.

Beginning with Prince A.N. Golitsyn, and especially under Count N.A. Protasov, the chief prosecutor acquired a decisive vote in the Synod. The resolutions of the Synod were issued in the form of decrees and began with the words: “By decree of His Imperial Majesty, His Holiness the Governing Synod commanded ...” Under Protasov, the office of the chief prosecutor began to push the office of the synodal into the background. It was in the Office of the Chief Prosecutor that draft decisions were drawn up and documents were prepared for the meetings of the Holy Synod. Reports at the meetings were made by one of the officials of the chief prosecutor's office and compiled in accordance with the desire of the chief prosecutor. Thus, all the decisions of the Holy Synod were based on cases not in their original form and with full documentation, but in the form edited by the chief prosecutor. Let us cite the statement of priest M. Moroshkin, who studied the entire Synodal archive about the era of Nicholas I: “Describing the actions of the Holy Synod for such a long reign, it would be very curious to indicate in detail the degree of participation and influence of each of the members of this main spiritual administration in the affairs that were assigned to him; but we would search in vain for material to this end in the minutes, which always represent only one final, general conclusion, with the silence of the discussions and general judgments that preceded it. In addition, during this reign, disagreement in the Synod, if necessary, was allowed in words, it almost never appeared in its written acts. The main reason for this was the emperor himself, who did not really like individual opinions on the part of the members of the Synod and, if such were met, announced his displeasure for them through the chief prosecutor, at times quite sharply. All of the above makes the following entry in the diary of Archbishop Savva Tikhomirov quite understandable: “The late Bishop Philaret told me that when he was present (until 1842) in the Synod, every Sunday, after Vespers, all the members of the Synod gathered at Metropolitan Seraphim for evening tea, and at this time they were engaged in a preliminary discussion of more important questions on church affairs, before they were finally decided in an official meeting of the Synod. In order not to arouse the wrath of the emperor, a unanimous resolution was prepared at these preliminary meetings, which was then presented to the chief prosecutor at an official meeting. In the "Chronicle" of Archbishop Savva Tikhomirov for 1883-1884. There are many carefully worded criticisms of Pobedonostsev's system, which the author studied well when he was an assessor in the Holy Synod in those years. A lot of interesting things can be learned about how the meetings of the Synod under Pobedonostsevo took place in 1886-1887 from the letters of the Archbishop of Irkutsk Veniamin Blagonravov (1837-1892), as well as from the diaries and "Biographical Materials" of the Kherson Archbishop Nikanor Brovkovich, who was a member of the Synod in 1887–1890 The latter spoke about the meetings of the Holy Synod very freely and critically: “The sitting routine is now observed in an unusual way. The usual one should be like this: in the middle of the hall hangs a portrait of the reigning emperor, opposite him, at the head of the table, the imperial chair; on the sides of the synod table are four chairs; the ranks should sit like this: to the right of the imperial chair, in the first chair, the primacy of the metropolitan, to the left of the oldest, followed by the next, etc. In front of the table is the chief secretary's music stand. But since the leading elder is now hard on the ear and hears better with his right ear than with his left, he sits closer to the reporting chief secretaries. At the music stand there is always a reporting chief secretary. Other chief secretaries, waiting in line for a report, always huddle against the wall, always standing. The director of the synodal office, when he wants to, sits down on one of the armchairs standing against the wall. The chief prosecutor and his comrades sit down, when they want, at their chief prosecutor's table, in the first chair at the head of the table. The officials at the chief prosecutor's desk never sat down in my presence. In general, the chief prosecutor, his comrade, director V. K. Sabler, and vice director S. V. Kersky often change places; they approach the chief secretary's music stand when they want to explain something, more often to the very ear of the metropolitan, and they try to shout out every single word. This art, like many pleasant arts, is especially distinguished by V. K. Sabler; he does not shout, but somehow gently inspires words and concepts, always beginning with an affectionate: "Vladyka ..." The discussion goes like this. When the chief secretary reports the matter, the senior elder almost always immediately pronounces the decision. The solution of many ordinary walking cases ends with that. Sometimes remarks are inserted, most often by the chief secretaries, sometimes by the vice-director, director, comrade of the chief prosecutor; of those present, most often by His Grace Exarch Paul, sometimes by His Grace Herman, as already long-standing, familiar members; I, especially in the presence of the Metropolitan, keep quiet more. And this silence is not reprehensible, but even commendable, since the reasoning has never yet touched on my dogmatic or canonical views; and whether they give that deacon a medal or a blessing with a diploma, what business is it for me. Yes, it also happens that the general opinion of all members of the Synod remains in vain. Archbishop Nikanor wrote to his vicar: "All power is in Konstantin Petrovich (Pobedonostsev. - I.S.) and V.K. Sabler." Quite aptly, the angry remark of the Kiev Metropolitan Platon Gorodetsky (1882-1891), who often protested at meetings of the Holy Synod, which he expressed to Archbishop Nikanor: “We have two Synods, after all: the Holy one, and the Governing one”; implied obedient bishops, on the one hand, and the chief prosecutor, on the other. Back in the 18th century Metropolitan Platon Levshin called his trips to the Synod "exercise." Now, a hundred years later, things were even worse. Archbishop Savva Tikhomirov writes in the "Chronicle" that at the meetings of the Synod, the bishops listened to the reports prepared by the chief prosecutor and then signed the minutes of the meetings - this was the whole work. The same Archbishop Savva reports that they acted in this way with the very important Charter of the Theological Academies of 1884. They simply did not pay attention to the proposed additions and amendments. The Chief Procurator ordered that the members of the Synod be presented with a text edited at their discretion, and they signed the document without even looking at it. The same system was followed by Pobedonostsev's successor V.K.

The competence of the chief prosecutor was limited to administrative management and did not extend to the sphere of religion and church law. With the exception of individual cases of canonically inadmissible interference in church proceedings, this restriction was strictly observed.

b) Regarding the legislative power of the Holy Synod, the manifesto of Peter I of January 21, 1721 says the following: “However, this should be done by the Spiritual College, not without Our permission.” This establishment was confirmed in the Code of Laws of 1832 and 1857. (Volume 1: Fundamental Laws, Art. 49). Thus, all legislative acts of the Holy Synod came from the government - either directly as decrees of the emperor, or as decrees of the Holy Synod, issued "by decree of His Imperial Majesty." In the form of decrees, charters or laws, they fell into the collection of laws of the empire. This is how the Charters of theological consistories of 1841 and 1883, the Charters of theological educational institutions of 1809-1814, 1867-1869, 1884, 1910-1911, the law on the rights of the white clergy and the clergy of the military fleet, the law on the maintenance of the clergy, etc. Thus, the Holy Synod did not have legislative autonomy. His decrees were approved by the emperor, after which they turned into nominal commands, adopted with the participation of the Holy Synod. Often, the very development of future resolutions in the Holy Synod was initiated by the state authorities or by the ecclesiastical and political trend that dominated the court and government circles, the conductor of which in the Synod was the chief prosecutor. In many cases, church legislation was the result not of church needs and interests, but of personal ideas about the national interests of the sovereign himself or his representative in the Holy Synod, that is, the chief prosecutor. Thus, the liberal tendencies of the era of Alexander I influenced the Charters of theological educational institutions in 1808–1814. The personal views of Nicholas I and his chief prosecutor, Count N. A. Protasov, left a deep mark on the church legislation of their time. Charters of theological educational institutions 1867–1869 arose under the influence of reformist sentiments in society and the trends of state policy of the 60s. In line with changes to this policy, Alexandra III was the reactionary course of K. P. Pobedonostsev, who systematically took away from the Church the rights granted to it in the previous reign. Numerous laws relating to church affairs (for example, the position of the Old Believers, monks, or the clergy in general) were issued as part of state domestic policy, and the legislator did not consider it necessary to at least first consult with the Holy Synod.

On April 23, 1906, new Basic Laws were adopted, which in Article 11 (Volume 1) contained the following provision: necessary for the enforcement of laws. Articles 64 and 65 were a literal repetition of Articles 42 and 43 of the Code of Laws in the editions of 1832 and 1857, which until then delineated the emperor's powers in ecclesiastical legislation. Thus, one gets the impression that the Fundamental Laws of 1906 only confirmed the previous legislative order. However, in reality, the creation of the State Duma completely changed the structure of legislative power in the state. Article 86 reads: “No new law cannot follow without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma and enter into force without the approval of the Emperor. According to Article 87, the government, if it has to issue a law between the sessions of the State Council and the State Duma, is obliged to submit it to the above-mentioned state bodies within two months. Article 107 reads: “The State Council and the State Duma ... are allowed to initiate proposals for the abolition and amendment of existing laws and the issuance of new laws, with the exception of the Fundamental State Laws, the initiative for the revision of which belongs solely to the Sovereign Emperor.”

So, since 1906, the State Council and the State Duma also participated in the legislation on the Church. As a result, the Church found itself in a subordinate position in relation to institutions in which, by the way, there were representatives not only of non-Orthodox confessions, but also of non-Christian religions. Practice has shown that in the State Duma, especially when discussing budgetary issues, there was often open hostility towards the Holy Synod and the Church in general. Professor of church law P. V. Verkhovskoy defines the new legal situation described above as follows: “Art. 64 and 65 of the Basic Law ed. 1906 literally repeat Art. 42 and 43 of the Basic Law ed. 1832 and following. In the new edition, they also have a new meaning, although their text is the same. This depends on the fact that, according to the new Fundamental Laws, the State Duma and the State Council participate in legislation, and acts of legislation are precisely distinguished from acts of administration, which, whatever it may be, must henceforth be subordinate to the law (Articles 10 and 11). Therefore, the words of Art. 65 “In ecclesiastical administration, the autocratic power acts through the Most Holy Governing Synod, established by it” means: in the subordinate administration, or administration (from which, for special reasons, we cannot separate the ecclesiastical court), the autocratic power acts through the Most Holy Synod. As for the establishment of new laws for the Russian Church, they can only follow with the approval of the State Council and the State Duma (Article 86). Thus, in legislative matters, the Holy Synod is now not only still not independent, not only dependent on the sovereign, but also dependent on legislative institutions. If there have already been attempts to get around them, for example, in the implementation of a new Charter of theological academies, then such attempts should be recognized as contrary to the current Fundamental Laws, that is, the main and fundamental source of law for all of Russia and for everything in Russia. It is very important that the legislative and even legislative power on the basis of Art. 86 cannot have any “Pre-Council Presence”, “Pre-Council Conference”, and even the “Local All-Russian Council” itself. “Purely ecclesiastical authority, not derivative in its origin and independent in its implementation, the Russian Fundamental Laws do not know ... It is necessary to ask the sovereign to take the initiative to change the Fundamental Laws in the sense that from the general provision of Art. 86, an exception was made regarding the special procedure for issuing church laws, regardless of the State Council and the State Duma. The author obviously means the restoration of the situation that existed before 1906, or the establishment of a special legislative body of the Church, for example, the Local Council, while clarifying the competence of the highest state power in relation to this body. Since the emperor did not show such an initiative, the State Duma began to develop bills hostile to the Church, for example, on the Old Believers and sects, although they never took place as state laws.

The manifesto of Peter I of January 21, 1721 and the "Spiritual Regulations" served as the legal basis for the administrative powers of the Holy Synod. Subsequently, laws appeared that clarified these powers in separate paragraphs, for example, in relation to diocesan administration - the Charters of spiritual consistories of 1841 and 1883. Certain administrative acts required the approval of the emperor, these primarily included the appointment and dismissal of diocesan bishops and vicars. Usually the Holy Synod named three candidates, and the appointment then took place "by decree of His Imperial Majesty", after which the bishop, according to the "Spiritual Regulations", was sworn in by the Holy Synod. The imperial decree also carried out the establishment of new dioceses, the transfer of bishops, their retirement and promotion. Reproaches to bishops usually came from the Holy Synod, but Nicholas I often considered it necessary to reprimand him personally. Audits of dioceses, academies and seminaries were appointed and carried out by the Holy Synod. The audits of the dioceses were entrusted to the bishops, and the audits of educational institutions were carried out by special auditors of the Spiritual and Educational Board of the Holy Synod. Later they were carried out on the basis of the Rules of 1865 and 1911. The named commissioners were obliged to submit annual reports, which, however, were not considered too much in the Holy Synod. The consequence of reports, audits, presentations of governors, etc., was, in addition to censures, the frequent transfers of bishops to other dioceses, which, as long as there was a division of dioceses into degrees, was considered an administrative punishment. During the entire synodal period, such movements constantly violated the canonical rule forbidding bishops to change their chairs.

The appointment and dismissal of monasteries and superiors, as well as the appointment and dismissal of members and secretaries of spiritual consistories and heads of educational institutions, the deprivation of priests and monks, the elevation to archimandrites, abbots and archpriests, the awarding of a skufia, a kamilavka, a pectoral cross, a cuisse and a miter was the prerogative Holy Synod. It was possible to found and build new monasteries only with the permission of the Synod; the right to erect new churches and chapels or renovate old ones was removed in 1726 from the competence of the diocesan authorities and transferred to the discretion of the Holy Synod. Only in 1858 this order was somewhat relaxed.

The right of supervision of the Holy Synod over theological educational institutions in 1808–1839, that is, during the existence of the Commission of Theological Schools, was severely limited. This was the reason for the dissolution of the commission and the establishment by Count Protasov of the Spiritual and Educational Board. In later practice, the chief prosecutor's office began to play a decisive role, which made, for example, the appointment of rectors of academies and seminaries, while the Holy Synod was given the right only to promulgate decisions. The replacement in 1867 of the Spiritual and Educational Board by the Educational Committee did not change anything in this respect.

The Synod was in charge of the following areas: faith and morality, the fight against schism, heretical teachings and sectarianism, supervision of liturgical practice, streamlining worship and compiling new services, veneration of relics, canonization, publication of liturgical books and censorship of theological literature.

The Holy Synod administered movable and immovable church property. Monasteries, as well as foreign missions and churches, were subordinate to him. Until the restoration of the Moscow diocese and until the establishment of the diocese of St. Petersburg, the Holy Synod ruled in the first half of the 18th century. the Synodal Region (through the Moscow Synodal Office) and the St. Petersburg Synodal Diocese. Among the diocesan institutions subordinate to the Holy Synod, in the XVIII century. there were spiritual administrations, and in the 19th century. - spiritual consistories. Under Count Protasov, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor was significantly expanded and its composition was increased. From that time until the end of the synodal period, the office held the reins of government in its hands, determining down to the details all the actions of the Holy Synod.

The Holy Synod was, according to the "Spiritual Regulations", the highest spiritual court, where appeals from the dioceses could be sent. Here, cases related to the conclusion and dissolution of marriage, anathematization and excommunication from the Church or return to it were decided. The Synod dealt with the following cases: 1) suspicion of the illegality of marriage; 2) divorce with the determination of the guilty party; 3) blasphemy, heresy, schism, witchcraft; 4) verification of the degree of relationship before marriage; 5) forced marriages of minors at the insistence of parents; 6) forced marriages of serfs at the request of the landowners; 7) forced tonsure as a monk; 8) non-fulfillment of Christian duties; 9) violation of church order and decency; 10) falling away from the Orthodox faith and returning to Orthodoxy. After the death of Peter I, restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Synod followed. Now the Holy Synod could impose penalties only for blasphemy and adultery. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, there were numerous cases of state interference in the activities of the spiritual court, which was forced under pressure from the state to exile clergy to monasteries and deprive them of their rank. During the reign of Elizaveta Petrovna, the secular court held trials against the whips in Moscow and passed appropriate sentences. Catherine II deprived the Holy Synod of the right to prosecute blasphemy and witchcraft. Alexander I transferred cases on charges of violating order and decorum during worship to secular courts, even in cases where they concerned clergy; however, Nicholas I returned them to the sphere of church jurisdiction (1841). According to the Code of Laws of 1832, church courts were obliged to be guided by that part of the Code, which dealt with the legal status of the clergy and the crimes of the laity against faith and morality (volumes 9, 13–15). The need to bring the practice of spiritual courts in line with these norms was explained, among other things, by the publication of the Rules of Spiritual Consistories in 1841.

The judicial reform of Alexander II in 1864, enthusiastically received by society, put on the agenda a public discussion and renewal of the long-outdated spiritual legal proceedings. Meanwhile, it was only in 1870 that an advisory committee on reform was formed at the Holy Synod under the leadership of Archbishop Macarius Bulgakov. The society closely followed his activities, which were animatedly discussed in the press. According to the instructions of the Synod, along with taking into account the state judicial reform of 1864, a certain independence from its principles was required from the committee in order to preserve the canonical norms. The report of the committee followed only in 1873. From the moment of its foundation, the committee had sharp contradictions between the liberal majority, headed by the presiding and conservative minority, rallied around the professor of church law of the Moscow Academy A.F. Lavrov-Platonov, later Archbishop of Lithuania Alexy. The latter considered it unacceptable from the point of view of church law to transfer the basic principle of the judicial reform of 1864, namely, a clear separation of the judicial and executive powers, into the sphere of the spiritual court. According to ecclesiastical law, from ancient times the bishop combined judicial and executive power in the diocese, and the formation of an independent spiritual court seemed to really threaten to undermine the canonical foundations of the power of the bishops. On the other hand, the arbitrariness and partiality of the bishops and the Synod in court cases led to such flagrant abuses that the agitated public insistently demanded the creation of an autonomous judiciary in full accordance with the civil judicial reform. The Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, in an effort to limit the arbitrariness of the bishops, instructed Archbishop Macarius to head the committee, who was already on the Commission for the Reform of Theological and Educational Institutions in 1867–1869. proved to be a supporter of liberal ideas. During its activity, the committee discussed at least four bills. In the final version, it was proposed to separate the judiciary from the executive: clergy judges were not entitled to hold administrative positions. The lower instance was to be composed of diocesan courts, several in each diocese; the judges in them were priests who were confirmed in this position by the bishop. Their competence included the following punishments: 1) a remark, 2) a reprimand without entering into the service record, 3) a fine, 4) exile to a monastery for up to three months, 5) a reprimand with entering into the service record. The next instance was to be the spiritual-district court, the same for several dioceses, whose judges would be elected in the dioceses and approved by the bishops. This court was conceived as an appellate instance. In addition, he had to pass sentences in more serious cases when the charge came from the bishop. His sentence could be appealed to the Holy Synod. The highest instance was the Judicial Branch of the Holy Synod, in which the judges were bishops and priests appointed to this position by the emperor in a ratio of 3:1. The competence of the Judicial Branch included: all cases on accusations of bishops and the protopresbyter of the navy, cases against members of synodal offices, judicial offenses of members of the spiritual district courts and cases of appeal. Members of the Holy Synod were subject to a single instance court - a joint session of the Presence of the Synod and its Judicial Branch. The committee's proposal for a separation of powers could be reconciled with the canonical rights of the bishops, to the extent that the members of the courts of first and second instances were subject to confirmation by the bishops, who thus, in a certain sense, delegated their rights to the judges. In such a case, the appointment of the judges of the Judicial Branch of the Holy Synod by the emperor should likewise be regarded as an act of the summus episcopus [supreme bishop (lat.)], as a result of which, however, the role of the sovereign in the Church appeared in a dubious form.

Before the work on the project was completed, Professor A.F. Lavrov published a study entitled “The Proposed Reform of the Church Court” (St. Petersburg, 1873, volume 1) and a number of articles in the “Additions to the Creations of the Holy Fathers”. He subjected the committee's draft to severe criticism, which placed the canonical arguments in the hands of the opponents of the reform. In 1873 the draft was submitted for discussion to the diocesan bishops and consistories. Their position turned out to be negative, the reviews of the Volyn Archbishop Agafangel Solovyov and the Don Archbishop Platon Gorodetsky were especially harsh, Metropolitan Veniamin of Moscow was ready to make some minor concessions to the project. Only Bishop Pavel Dobrokhotov of Pskov spoke out in favor of the project, for which Archbishop Agafangel called him “Judas the traitor.” As a result of such a unanimous rejection by the episcopate, the judicial reform did not take place and its draft was buried in the synodal archives. Only the Pre-Council Presence resumed in 1906 the discussion of judicial reform in the Church.

v) Reform of Peter I and state legislation of the XVIII-XX centuries. changed the legal basis for the administrative and judicial activities of the Russian Church.

This foundation had two components: 1) sources of law common to the entire Orthodox Church; 2) Russian sources of law arising from state and church legislation. The latter developed as a result of the growth of the Russian Church and changes in the confessional composition of the population of the empire, as well as due to the need for a clearer formulation of legal norms compared to Muscovite Russia.

In addition to the Pilot's Book, this only source of canon law, the Muscovite state had several state laws, partly explaining, partly supplementing church law, but not contradicting its norms. Since the time of Peter I, state legislation has become more and more secularized. At the same time, it also applies to the clergy as an estate (spiritual rank) and as part of the population, as well as to church government bodies, whose activities had to be brought into line with legal norms binding on all citizens. Therefore, it is impossible to consider the dependence of ecclesiastical sources of law on state legislation only as a consequence of the post-Petrine state ecclesiasticism, one cannot fail to see that this dependence stemmed from the general internal development of the Russian people in this period.

The legal sources common to the entire Orthodox Church included: 1) the books of the Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus, the son of Sirach, the 2nd and 3rd books of Ezra, and three the books of Maccabees. The Holy Synod very often referred to Holy Bible in his decrees, orders and court decisions (primarily in divorce cases), as well as in his messages to believers. Further: 2) the sacred tradition contained in the ancient Christian confessions of faith, the apostolic canons, the decrees of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, the acts of the martyrs and the works of the Church Fathers, as well as 3) the state and church laws of the Byzantine emperors to the extent that they were included in the Greek and the Slavic texts of the Nomocanon and the Pilot's Book. In the 40s. 18th century The Holy Synod undertook the correction of the highly corrupted text of the Pilots' Book, but, in view of the fact that this work was not completed, the publications of Pilots in 1785 and 1804 were abandoned. still contained the old text. In 1836, the work was continued by a special synodal commission, which in 1839 published the “Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and Holy Fathers” (2nd edition - 1862) with a corrected text. This book does not contain the Byzantine laws found in the Pilot's Book and the Nomocanon. Since these latter had to be resorted to in the practice of church administration, therefore, after 1839, many decisions of the Holy Synod and consistories were based on the Pilot Book. Finally, we must also mention 4) the Church Charter, the Service Book and the Trebnik, which contain, among other things, disciplinary prescriptions for monks and clergy. The Great Ribbon also contains the rules of confession, which were often used in consistories when making decisions.

The special sources of law of the Russian Church were divided into two categories: 1) laws issued by the Church, as well as by the state for the Church; 2) national laws for the entire population of the empire, to which the clergy belonged, as well as general administrative laws that also applied to church administration.

a)"Spiritual regulation" of 1721. In its first part, the justification for the creation of the Holy Synod is given; the second lists the persons and cases that are subject to its competence, and determines the procedure for office work; the third part deals with the composition of the Synod, its rights and obligations. The "Addendum" of 1722 contains rules for clergy and monks. By the end of the century, the “Spiritual Regulations” was already a rarity and became practically inaccessible to the clergy, but the Holy Synod obviously found such a situation very advantageous, since in 1803 it rejected the proposal of the chief prosecutor for a new edition. Reprinting required a decree of the emperor, in accordance with which the “Spiritual Regulations” was repeatedly reprinted in the 19th century.

b) The Statute of the Spiritual Consistory of 1841 This Statute was reissued in 1883 with some changes and served as the legal basis for diocesan administration. The reason for the development of the Charter was the publication of the Code of Laws of 1832, in which the current decrees and synodal orders were scattered without any system, which made their general review very difficult. The additions and clarifications of the Holy Synod, included in the last two editions - 1900 and 1911, dealt mainly with divorce cases. The four parts of the Charter contain: 1) general provisions on consistories and their tasks; 2) the powers and procedure for the activities of the diocesan administration; 3) rulings on diocesan courts and their proceedings; 4) composition of consistories and their office work.

g) Charters, instructions and regulations for certain areas of church administration: 1) charters of theological educational institutions of 1808-1814, 1867-1869, 1884, 1910-1911; 2) instruction to church elders dated 1808; 3) instructions to the abbots of male and female monasteries dated 1828; 4) instructions to the abbots of stavropegial monasteries of 1903; 5) provisions on parish guardianships at Orthodox churches of 1864; 6) regulation on church communities of 1885; 7) instructions to the rectors of parish churches of 1901; finally, the provisions on individual departments of the Synod and the office of the chief prosecutor, etc.

Prior to the approval of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories, the "Book on the Offices of Church Presbyters" published in 1776, which served as a guide and textbook for seminaries, was of great importance. The name of its author, the Bishop of Smolensk Parthenius Sopkovsky, was not indicated. Being study guide, the book contained at the same time and practical guidance on various issues of law.

In 1868, the Archival Commission was founded under the Holy Synod, which laid the foundation for the publication of the “Complete Collection of Decrees and Orders for the Department of the Orthodox Confession of the Russian Empire” and “Descriptions of Documents and Cases Stored in the Archives of the Holy Governing Synod”. At first, the publication went in strictly chronological order, and then - in separate collections according to the periods of reign of sovereigns. Despite the fact that the commission worked slowly, nevertheless, over time, it was published big number chronologically ordered valuable materials on the history of the Russian Church in the 18th–19th centuries. (see: Introduction, section B).

The following state laws served as sources of ecclesiastical law: 1) imperial decrees addressed to the Holy Synod or concerning general government, which included the Church; 2) The code of laws of the Russian Empire in the editions of 1832, 1857, 1876 and 1906. with the decrees and decisions of the State Council and the clarifications of the Senate, which served as comments. The latter were published in the Complete Collection of Decrees and Orders (see: Introduction, section B). In almost every volume of the Code of Laws there are regulations concerning the clergy or church administration. Volume 1 contains the main laws; in volume 3 - resolutions on pensions and awards for the spiritual department; volume 4 contains regulations on church property and city taxes; volume 8 - about forestry; 9 - about the estates, i.e., thereby also about the spiritual estate, which included the white clergy and monastics; volume 10 - on marriage law; volume 12 - on construction; volume 13 - about public charity, diocesan guardianships, cemeteries, the poor, etc.; volume 15 establishes punishments for crimes against the faith and the Church, volume 14 regulates the legal proceedings in these cases and contains definitions on the civil law of church institutions. In the informal guides, relevant materials have been grouped into separate topics and issues. Since the middle of the century, such manuals have become widespread both among the clergy, who in many respects only thanks to them got access to the texts of laws, and among ecclesiastical authorities, for example, in consistories.

Along with the codified law, during the synodal period, customary law remained extremely important, in which folk customs and traditions, often very ancient, were concentrated. So, for example, in a huge state, local features were observed in the practice of worship. Local differences in traditional fees often played a decisive role in the provision of clergy. The habit of keeping the positions of deceased clergy for their relatives has taken root so firmly that in a certain sense it has acquired the features of customary law. The custom of appointing only monastics as bishops, or the requirement for a future priest to marry before his ordination (i.e., the denial of celibacy for the white clergy) are of such ancient origin that until now only very few, whether clergy or laity, know that here we are talking about custom, and not at all about the norm of canon law, although in the 60s. 19th century these issues have been the subject of lively public debate. The respectful attitude of believers to ancient customs was shared by the hierarchy and even encouraged by the Holy Synod. The lack of research on this vast topic creates a noticeable gap in the history of the Russian Church.

G) At the beginning of the XVIII century. The Holy Synod had at its disposal many governing bodies, which over the course of a century underwent a series of reductions, only to be enlarged again in the 19th century along with the growth of the Church and the emergence of new tasks for her. First of all, we should mention the synodal office, which arose in 1721 together with the Synod itself and was organized along the lines of the office of the Senate. Initially, it consisted of a chief secretary, two secretaries, several clerical officials and service personnel from soldiers. The position of an agent who served as an intermediary between the Synod and state institutions also existed for a very short time. Starting with the office of the chief prosecutor of Count N. A. Protasov, the synodal office became executive body chief prosecutor. The head of the office was always the personal confidant of the chief prosecutor, who prepared the decisions of the Synod. Even diocesan bishops had to reckon with the head of the office and found it necessary to inquire about his opinions on this or that account.

In 1721–1726 under the Synod was the Office of Schools and Printing Houses, in 1722-1726. - Judicial Office. In addition, in 1722-1727. The Synod had an Office of Inquisitorial Affairs, from which one arch-inquisitor worked in St. Petersburg and Moscow, as well as provincial inquisitors and inquisitors subordinate to them. This institution was the oversight body for the activities of diocesan departments. To collect the poll tax from the Old Believers and to monitor them in 1722, the Office of Schismatic Affairs was established. After tax issues were transferred to the Senate in 1726, a Special schismatic office was organized to combat the schism in the Synod. The management of the office was carried out by one or another synodal adviser, that is, a member of the Holy Synod, to whom an assessor was attached. From the time of the patriarchate, Moscow had an Office of Iconographers to supervise icon painting; in 1700-1707 and 1710-1722 it. was subordinated to the Armory, in 1707-1710. - to the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, and since 1722 - to the Holy Synod.

Immediately after its foundation, the Holy Synod took over the administration of the Moscow Patriarchal Region (under the name of the Synodal Region) and the St. Petersburg Synodal Diocese, which included the newly acquired lands around the capital. The Holy Synod ruled both dioceses until 1742. In Moscow, the Synod received patriarchal orders from the locum tenens and in subsequent years made numerous rearrangements and renamings in the administration of the diocese.

In 1724, the Monastic order, restored in 1701, was transformed into the Chamber Office of the Synod, which was entrusted with the management of church lands. In 1726, the Chamber Office was abolished, and its functions were transferred to the College of Economy, which existed until 1738, after which the management of church lands was transferred to the Senate. In the period 1744–1757. the proceeds were at the disposal of the Holy Synod. With the issuance of decrees of November 21, 1762 and February 26, 1764, the secularization of church estates became a fait accompli.

In 1814, the Georgian-Imereti Synodal Office was established in Tiflis to manage the local exarchate, the organization of which copied the Moscow office. Her duties included: managing church property, nominating candidates for vacant chairs, marriage affairs, and spiritual courts. Under Nicholas I, the staff of this office was expanded.

From the book Volume 2. Ascetic experiences. Part II author Brianchaninov Saint Ignatius

Submission to the Holy Synod of May 4, 1859, No. 38 (On the improvement of the Seminary)

From the book New Bible Commentary Part 1 (Old Testament) author Carson Donald

Relation to the Holy Synod of June 22, 1859, No. 59 (On Archpriest Krastilevsky) Entrusted to the administration of my Caucasian diocese, Archpriest Konstantin Krastilevsky, dismissed as a result of my presentation from the title of a member of the Caucasian Ecclesiastical Consistory, by Decree

From the book History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917 author Smolich Igor Kornilyevich

Report to the Holy Synod dated July 6, 1859, No. 64 (On Archpriest Krastilevsky) 1. From my resolution No. 1629 it is clear that Krastilevsky was granted with the transfer 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 Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great (311 - 590 A.D.) author Schaff Philip

Report to the Holy Synod dated 7 Sept. 1859, No. 88 (About Archpriest Krastilevsky) Since Archpriest Konstantin Krastilevsky refused the places I gave him outside the city of Stavropol, but he certainly wanted to have a place in Stavropol and received one of those indicated by him, and having received it,

From the book In Search of Christian Freedom by Franz Raymond

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 in relation to the Head of the Stavropol Governorate

From the book of the Saint of our time: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian people author Kitsenko Hope

From a report to the Holy Synod dated July 24, 1861, No. 1186 With all my efforts, my health, which was upset by long-term illnesses, could be restored with mineral waters, I could receive only some relief during the three and a half years I spent here, but together

From the book How to Raise a Wonderful Child by John Townsend

7:11–28 Credentials of Ezra A copy of Artaxers' letter (on Ezra's credentials), which was probably in response to a specific request from Ezra himself (cf. 7:6), is written in Aramaic (see 4:8). Ezra has four tasks. First, he must lead the people,

From the book The Word of the Primate (2009-2011). Collection of works. Series 1. Volume 1 by the author

§ 4. The Holy Synod: its organization and activities under Peter I

From the book History of Liturgical Singing author Martynov Vladimir Ivanovich

§ 8. The Holy Synod and the Government's Church Policy (1725–1817) a) After the sudden death of Peter I (January 28, 1725), a period of internal turmoil began that lasted several decades. “Russia has experienced several palace coups; were sometimes in power

From the author's book

§ 9. The Holy Synod and the Church Policy of the Government (1817-1917)

From the author's book

§sixteen. The Bishops' Authority and Intercession 4. We turn to the question of the sphere of episcopal authority, which also took shape in the time of Constantine.

Organizational issues The Diocesan Assembly of Moscow in 2009, in its "Resolution on the state and development of church life in the capital city" noted a number of important measures necessary to intensify work in the field of education and enlightenment. In particular, it was

Literally means "meeting" in Greek. It was introduced in 1701 by Tsar Peter, and it existed in its unchanged form until the revolutionary year of 1917. Initially, the creation of the Synod was supposed to include 11 members in its composition, namely, 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 officials of the clergy. The President of the Synod was called the first member, and the rest of the persons were considered simply present. Before each member of this organization received his title for life.

The dominant Holy Synod had all the power in the Russian Orthodox Church, and also dealt with issues arising in Orthodox churches abroad. The rest of the patriarchates existing at that time were subordinate to him. Also known are interesting information: members of the Governing Synod were appointed by the emperor himself, who had his own representative, holding the position of chief prosecutor. As historians estimate, the establishment of the Synod in the Russian Empire was an important political step, since this organization was the highest state 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 events develop at that time? After the death of Patriarch Adrian, Tsar Peter did not give his royal permission to convene, as was customary earlier, the Holy Council and elect, according to the rules of the new head of the Orthodox Church. Peter himself decided to manage personnel as well as administrative matters of the church. He gives the Bishop of Pskov an important assignment - to draw up a new charter, which was called the Spiritual Regulations. It was on this document that the entire Orthodox Church of the country relied in the future in its work. The tsar pursues a frank policy of complete subordination of the church to his interests, as evidenced by history.

The autocrat of all Russia decided to restore from 1701 the Monastic order and the management of church lands to transfer to a secular man and boyar I. A. Musin-Pushkin. It was he who began to manage the property affairs of numerous 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 state, and the collective management of church affairs will benefit everyone, while the Holy Synod should completely submit to his authority. It was impossible to make this decision on his own, therefore, for the recognition of his transformations, he turns to Constantinople and asks to recognize the Holy Synod as the Eastern Patriarch. In 1723, this was approved by a special letter, which very clearly corresponded to the goals set by the sovereign.

The creation of the Synod rebuilt the existing church system in a new way, but not according to the biblical, but according to the state bureaucratic hierarchy. The Church, with the help of Peter, became a reliable instrument of propaganda and even investigation. By personal decree of the king, since 1722, priests were obliged to tell the secret of confession, which they received from parishioners, especially if it related to state atrocities. The establishment of the Synod contributed to the renaming of the old names of orders and the emergence of new ones: a printing office, an order for church affairs, an order for inquisitorial affairs, and an office for schismatic affairs.

In the 20th century, in 1943, during the Second World War, a permanent Holy Synod was elected. He was in Chisty Lane, in house number 5. It was allocated on the personal order of I. Stalin. Since 2011, after a major reconstruction, the Synodal Residence of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia has been located in St. Danilov Monastery.

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 past system of church government.

Researchers and historians identify several main versions of the root cause of the fact that the church patriarchate was abolished in Russia. The author of the first is the historian S. Solovyov, who claims that at the turn of the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries, in a period of crisis for the clergy and a difficult period for the state, the monarch did everything possible to restore the former power to the state again. Frequent riots and a split in the church prompt Peter the Great to make an important decision to establish 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 the young Peter and Sophia, as well as the era of confusion, devastated the state treasury. At the same time, the church received a stable income.

It is for this reason that Peter the Great, having ascended the throne, began to actively seek funds to carry 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 king, not wanting to put up with his violation of the autonomy of the church.

In the middle of the winter of 1720, Feofan Prokopovich drew up the so-called "Spiritual Regulations" describing:

positions;

terms of reference;

a renewed system of church government.

Thus, the formation of a spiritual board 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 the members of the Holy Council. At the same time, they put their consent signatures under pressure from the secular authorities. In addition, during 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 Great issued his manifesto on the establishment of the Synod, with Metropolitan Stefan appointed as its 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 the recognition of Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople. By permission of the tsar, the Synod henceforth exercised the judicial, executive, and legislative powers of the Church.