The powers of the ecclesiastical court in ancient Russia were unusually extensive. According to the statutes on church courts of the Grand Dukes Vladimir and his son Yaroslav, all relationships in everyday life that concerned religion, family relations and morality were submitted to the church courts for consideration. The princes established that they would not interfere in cases referred to the church, thereby introducing a separation of church and secular judicial systems. In essence, until the time of Peter the Great, when a profound reformation of the entire state structure took place, the judicial power of the church remained within the limits determined by the Grand Duke Vladimir.

First of all, the church defended its exclusive right to prosecute crimes against faith, which included:
- performing pagan rites;
- stay in heresy and schism;
- the inclination of the Orthodox to the transition to another faith;
- desecration of temples and shrines;
- blasphemy, sacrilege and desecration of the Orthodox faith;
- non-attendance of worship services, non-observance of religious rites and fasts;
- classes in magic, sorcery, witchcraft, etc.

The Church has traditionally dealt with all matters related to marriages, marital relations, relationships between parents and children. Moreover, she defended not only the rights of parents, but also children. Already in the "Charter" of Yaroslav it was established: "If the girl does not marry, but the father and mother will be given by force, and what the father and mother will do to the bishop in wine, so is the child."

By the middle of the 17th century, when the Patriarchal category became the highest church court, it dealt with civil law cases of the following categories:
— disputes over the validity of spiritual testaments;
- litigation for the division of an inheritance left without a will;
- litigation for penalties for marriage agreements;
- disputes between wife and husband about dowry;
- disputes about the birth of children from a legal marriage;
- cases on adoptions and on the right of inheritance of adopted children;
- cases of executors who married the widows of the deceased;
- Cases on the petitions of gentlemen against runaway serfs who took the tonsure or married freemen.

Special attention was paid to issues related to illegal marriages, divorces and remarriages. So, the reasons allowing for an official divorce were considered: proven adultery, inability to marry at a capable age, the husband’s inability to support (feed) his wife and the waste of her dowry. Irregular marriages were terminated regardless of the will of the spouses, especially with unlawful degrees of kinship and bigamy. Marriage was allowed only three times, while obtaining permission for a second and third marriage was not easy. The sexual life of the spouses was also regulated, which was strictly forbidden during the fasts. At the same time, having money or power, all these problems could be easily solved, as Ivan the Terrible demonstrated.

Naturally, all non-religious (civil) cases related to the clergy were subject to consideration by church courts. It is curious that the clergy more often sought to be sued not by the episcopal court, but by the secular (princely) court. The metropolitans were forced to issue special "forbidding" charters, threatening clergy with excommunication for filing lawsuits in secular courts. The princes and the first kings often supported the clergy of their estates and individual monasteries, giving "non-judgmental" charters that removed their owners from the episcopal court. This practice was put to an end by Tsar Mikhail Romanov in 1625, when he gave Patriarch Filaret a letter of commendation, according to which the clergy, in litigation both among themselves and with the laity, were to be sued only in the Patriarchal category. Even the criminal offenses of the clergy, except for "murder, robbery and red-handed crimes," were considered by church courts.

Peter I significantly curtailed the jurisdiction of church courts, leaving them only cases of divorce and invalidation of marriages. The competence of church courts in civil cases of the clergy was also significantly reduced. Crimes against faith, morality and in the sphere of marital relations began to be subject to dual jurisdiction. The church used to prosecute these crimes and determine ecclesiastical penalties for them. And secular structures carried out investigations, according to the results of which civil courts imposed punishments in accordance with criminal laws. For those who broke the law, a certain “loophole” appeared. With the insignificance of the crime, it was possible to get off only with church repentance, avoiding criminal liability.

In 1918, after the issuance of a decree on the separation of church and state, church courts began to consider only crimes related to intra-church relations.

Currently, the activities of the courts in the Russian Orthodox Church are regulated by two main documents: the “Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church”, adopted by the Council of Bishops in 2000, in which the 7th chapter is devoted to the church court, and the “Temporary regulation on church legal proceedings for diocesan courts and diocesan councils performing the functions of diocesan courts”, which was adopted at a meeting of the Holy Synod in 2004.

Consideration of cases in diocesan courts is closed, only persons participating in the case are allowed to attend. Now the courts consider only 4 categories of cases.
In relation to clerics (priests) - cases on charges of committing acts that entail canonical prohibitions in the form of a temporary or life-long ban on priesthood, defrocking, excommunication from the Church.
In relation to monastics, as well as novices and novices - cases on charges of committing acts that entail temporary excommunication from church communion or excommunication from the Church.
In relation to the laity, belonging to the category of church officials, there are cases on charges of committing acts that entail a temporary excommunication from church communion or excommunication from the Church.
Other cases that, at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, require investigation in court.

The judicial system, although it has lost a significant part of its powers, has existed in the Russian Orthodox Church for more than a thousand years. Enviable constancy.

Church Court in Ancient Russia

In Russia, in the era of its Baptism, the current civil law did not yet go beyond the framework of ordinary folk law, it could not be compared with the filigree developed Roman law, which was the basis of the legal life of Byzantium, therefore the church hierarchy that came to us from Byzantium after the Baptism of Russia , received into its jurisdiction many such cases, which in Byzantium itself were under the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. The competence of the church court in ancient Russia was unusually extensive. According to the charters of the princes of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav, all relations of civil life that concerned religion and morality were assigned to the area of ​​the church, episcopal court. These could be cases, beyond the Byzantine legal views, purely civil. Already in Byzantium, marriage matters were subject to the jurisdiction of the church court; in Russia, the Church received in its exclusive jurisdiction all matters connected with matrimonial unions. Cases concerning the relationship between parents and children were also subject to the holy court. The Church, with its authority, defended both parental rights and the inviolability of the personal rights of children. Inheritance cases were also under the jurisdiction of the Church. In the first centuries of the Christian history of Russia, such things happened often, since there were a lot of "unmarried", illegal, from the church point of view, marriages. The rights of children from such marriages to the paternal inheritance were subject to the discretion of the ecclesiastical courts In the 17th century, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over civil matters was extended compared to an earlier era. In the "Extract on cases that were in the patriarchal rank", made for the Great Moscow Cathedral in 1667, such civil cases are listed as: 1) disputes about the validity of the clergy; 2) litigation for the division of an inheritance left without a will; 3) about penalties in marriage unions; 4) disputes between wife and husband about dowry, 5) disputes about the birth of children from a legal marriage; 6) cases on adoptions and on the right of inheritance of adopted children; 7) cases of executors who married the widows of the deceased; 8) cases by petitions of gentlemen against runaway serfs who took the tonsure or married free ones. In these cases, all persons - both clergy and laity - in Russia were subject to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical, episcopal court. But all civil affairs of the clergy were subject to the jurisdiction of the church authorities. Only bishops could consider litigations in which both sides belonged to the clergy. If one of the parties was a layman, then a mixed court was appointed. There were cases when clerics themselves sought court from civil, that is, princely, and later royal judges. Opposing such intentions, Archbishop Simeon of Novgorod in 1416 forbade monks to apply to secular judges, and judges to accept such cases for consideration - by both under pain of excommunication from the Church. Metropolitan Photius repeated this prohibition in his letter. But even the white clergy and monasteries did not always prefer to sue the bishops. Often they sought the right to apply to the princely court, and the government issued them the so-called non-conviction letters, according to which the clergy were exempted from the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops in civil matters. Most often, such letters were given to the clergy of the princely and royal estates, but they were not exclusively given to monasteries. The originality of church legal proceedings in Russia in the pre-Petrine era also consisted in the fact that certain criminal cases were also included in the jurisdiction of the hierarch's courts. According to the charters of the princes of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav, crimes against faith and the Church were subject to ecclesiastical court: the performance by Christians of pagan rites, magic, sacrilege, desecration of temples and shrines; and according to the Pilot's Book also - blasphemy, heresy, schism, apostasy from the faith. The episcopal court dealt with cases related to crimes against public morality (fornication, rape, unnatural sins), as well as marriages in prohibited degrees of kinship, unauthorized divorce, cruel treatment of a husband with a wife or parents with children, disrespect by children of parental authority. Some cases of murder were also subject to the holy court: for example, murder in the family circle, expulsion of the fetus, or when the victims of the murder were persons without rights - outcasts or slaves, as well as personal insults: insulting the chastity of a woman with dirty abuse or slander, accusing an innocent of hereticism or magic. As for the clergy, in the pre-Petrine era, on all criminal charges, except for "murder, robbery and theft on a hot one," they answered before the hierarch's judges.

Church court in the newest period of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

In our time, after the issuance of the Decree on the Separation of the Church from the State, the clergy, of course, are subject to common jurisdiction with all citizens in criminal and civil cases by secular courts. It is not within the competence of the spiritual court now to consider any civil cases of the laity, especially since they are not burdened with criminal cases. Only the crimes of clerics against their official duties, by their very nature, remain within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judiciary, although it is clear that such crimes in themselves are not considered crimes from the point of view of civil law. But the criminal offenses of clerics who are under the jurisdiction of secular courts can, of course, be a pretext for bringing the perpetrators to account before the church authorities.

The competence of church authorities also includes consideration of the spiritual side of those civil cases that, although in civil law terms, receive decisions in secular courts, however, for a conscientious member of the Church, they cannot be resolved without the sanction of church authorities, for example, divorce cases. Although, of course, decisions on such matters of church authority do not have civil legal consequences.

And finally, the entire field of church penitential discipline, connected with secret confession and secretly appointed penance, by its very nature has always been exclusively and primarily the subject of the competence of spiritual authority: bishops and presbyters authorized by them for the clergy.

Church courts

Unlike secular courts, which in modern states are everywhere separated from the administrative and legislative power, this principle is alien to canon law. All the fullness of judicial power in the diocese, according to the canons, is concentrated in the person of its supreme pastor and ruler - the diocesan bishop. But the bishop, having full judicial power over the clergy and laity entrusted by God to his guardianship, conducts an investigation not alone, but relying on the help and advice of his presbyters.

The canons allow appeals against the decisions of the episcopal court to the regional council, i.e., the council of the metropolitan district. The cathedral of the metropolitan district is not only an instance of appeal, it is also the first instance for the court on complaints of clergy and laity against their bishop or on the complaint of one bishop against another. The decisions of the Metropolitan Council can be appealed by the council of the entire local Church, and complaints against the metropolitan also go to the court of the Local Council.

Abstract of the speech of Archpriest Pavel Adelgeim, which took place on May 13, 2008 at St. Philaret's Institute as part of his course of lectures on problems of canonics and ecclesiology. The course is devoted to problematic issues of the application of the canons in modern church life

Reanimate the court or create anew?

The Russian Empire entrusted the ecclesiastical and judicial power to the spiritual consistory, which at the same time decided the administrative and financial affairs of the diocese. The activities of the consistories mixed judicial and administrative functions. The executive power turned out to be a judge in its own case. The generally recognized unsatisfactory nature of the consistory court was expressed by a specialist in ecclesiastical law, Professor of Moscow University N.K. Sokolov: "The court is turned into a submissive tool to cover up administrative arbitrariness and inform its actions, in case of need, formal legality.

The judicial reform of 1864 stirred up the church and public consciousness. Reform of the ecclesiastical court was required. She did not take place. The preparation of the Local Council at the beginning of the century again raised the problem of the church court. At numerous forums drafts, statutes and other materials on church legal proceedings were prepared. The revolution of 1917 drew a line under all reforms. The ecclesiastical court, based on the laws of the Russian Empire, died with them. Is it possible to revive him? The first attempt to revive the ecclesiastical court on the old principles was made by the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1988." The rights of ecclesiastical courts are vested in the Local Council, the Council of Bishops, the Holy Synod and Diocesan Councils. The Diocesan Council has the rights of an ecclesiastical court of first instance. The Diocesan Council exercises the right of ecclesiastical court in accordance with the procedure of ecclesiastical legal proceedings adopted in the ROC.

The 1988 charter granted judicial power to the legislature and the executive. Time has shown the failure of this act. "Ecclesiastical Litigation" was not written. Not a single trial has taken place in 12 years. Established without discussion and legal justification, the ecclesiastical court of 1988 remained an unconscious and unfulfilled claim. The charter did not answer the question: "who", "for what" and "as " going to judge the church court. The Consistorial Court of the Russian Empire cannot be revived after the separation of the Church from the Russian Federation.

The second attempt to revive the consistory court is now being completed by prof. Tsypin, still ignoring the changes that have taken place in the country:

1. The court of the Russian Empire proceeded from the symphony of the state and the church. In the Russian Federation, the church is separated from the state.

2. The Church Court of the Russian Empire fit into the state judicial system, which recognized canon law, and relied on secular legislation, abolished a hundred years ago.
The legislation of the Russian Federation excludes canon law and ecclesiastical court.

3. Mandatory registration of all parishioners in the Orthodox Russian Church established their formal relationship with a particular temple.

The ROC received a new internal structure. The parish is limited to a dozen legitimate parishioners. The rest of the parishioners have no formal relationship with the temple. Legally and practically, they fell out of parish life.

These obstacles are insurmountable for the resuscitation of the ecclesiastical court, like the onset of biological death for the resuscitation of a corpse. Questions about the task of the court remain unanswered. "Who", "why" and "how" going to judge the church court? Let's try to answer these questions.

The first question is "whom to judge"?

The history of law indicates the conditions without which justice is impossible. The first of these is a single legal space, impartial for all subjects of law. They have equal rights before the law and bear the same responsibility before the court, regardless of their official and other status. For example, the law of the Russian Federation establishes the legal equality of citizens: "All are equal before the law and the court" (Constitution, art. 19). That is, from the president, who stands at the highest rung of the social ladder, to an ordinary citizen.

The equality of the rights of all the people of God before the canons of the Church and the court is an indispensable condition for justice in the Church. Freely accepting the sacrament of baptism, every Christian enters the legal space of the Church, which, according to the thought of Her Fathers and canons, should be impartial. Church canons establish equal responsibility for church crimes, regardless of hierarchical and official position.

They lay responsibility for the violation of church rules on the guilty person, no matter what hierarchical position he occupies, first of all, on the bishop. Regardless of the status of a violator of church rules, every Christian should bear an equal measure of responsibility for his guilt.

"Do not judge by faces, but judge righteous judgment" - Christ commands John 7:24).

"As regards those who are members of the clergy, the rules are laid down indifferently. They command that a single punishment be determined for the fallen, the expulsion from service, whether they are in the degree of the priesthood, or whether they are serving a ministry that does not have the ordination of the priesthood" (Basil. 51).

Rules of St. Apostles, Ecumenical and Local Councils confirm the above rule of the holy fathers. The canons equalize the responsibility of bishops, presbyters and laity in crime and retribution.

"If it is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or anyone from the sacred list…”, (Ap. 8:51);

"If someone is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general from a sacred rank, ... if a layman does this." (Ap.63).

"If anyone is from the clergy or a layman..." (Ap.12);

"If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or any of those numbered among the clergy, or a layman ... (Shest. 80).

In such definite expressions, numerous canons address their demands to all the people of God. . The contradictions in the legal provisions of the 7th chapter of the Charter leave the impression of deliberate vagueness.

The charter of the ROC MP characterizes the jurisdiction with two features: territory and persons:

"Jurisdiction of the ROC extends to persons of the Orthodox confession living in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church ... as well as to the Orthodox who voluntarily enter it and live in other countries" (Chapter 1, Article 3).

In this characteristic, the Charter defines one unknown through another unknown, closing the "vicious circle". The defined concept "the jurisdiction of the ROC" is explained through the defining concept "the canonical territory of the ROC", left undefined. The jurisdiction of the ROC MP is delineated by the limits of its canonical territory. "The canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church" is a new concept that the Charter introduces and leaves without explanation. "Foundations of the social concept of the ROC" recognize the territorial sovereignty of the state (3, 5). The Church has neither sovereign territory nor extraterritoriality. The creed does not endow the Church with a territorial attribute.

Since not only Orthodox believers who belong to the jurisdiction of the ROC MP live within the territorial limits specified by the Charter, the territorial sign is insufficient to determine the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the ROC. It is required to identify the circle of specific persons living in the legal space of the church not by chance, what is the place of residence, but by their conscious recognition of the jurisdiction of the ROC MP. It is not clear why the Charter recognizes the right voluntarily enter the ROC only for "Orthodox living in other countries"? Are the Orthodox living in Russia deprived of this right? Is their jurisdiction forced to reside?

For citizens of the Russian Federation, a sign of unity is "citizenship of the Russian Federation." The charter does not contain a formal sign of unity uniting Orthodox Christians who have come under the jurisdiction of the ROC MP. In the Charter there is no collective term that can even designate the fullness and integrity of the people of God - the Church. Term "all members of the Russian Orthodox Church", used once in the text of the Charter, designated persons for whom " binding court orders"(Charter 7, 3 "b"). This term could have a collective meaning for all Christians united under the jurisdiction of the ROC MP. However, the article of the Charter (7, 8) limits it: " rulings of ecclesiastical courts are binding on all clerics and laity without exception". The collective meaning of the term " members of the Russian Orthodox Church does not have. It combines only two categories: " clerics and laity". Defining the structure of the church court (Chapter 1, Article 8), the Charter indicates three categories of persons who are in the legal space of the church, who are deprived of the right to “appeal to state authorities and to a civil court”. These are "officials and employees of the canonical divisions, as well as clergy and laity"(Charter, Chapter 1, Article 9). The charter is silent about the legal status of the hierarchy: it is located "inside" the legal space of the ROC or "above" its boundaries. Let's compare two articles: "compulsory performance all members of the ROC court decisions "(Charter. Ch. 7, art. 3) gives the impression that within the legal space " all members of the ROC However, the following article leaves only clerics and laity: "Decisions of church courts are obligatory for all clergy and laity without exception" (Ustav. Ch. 7, Art. 8).

Terms that have lost their identity

Reading the Charter, we learn the terms that for centuries have denoted specific subjects of church law. We believe that the terms "hierarchy", "clergy", "laity" retain an unchanged meaning in the Charter. We are deluded. Today, familiar terms have new content, take on a double meaning, or denote an empty concept. New subjects appeared in the legal space, not imprinted by canon law and patristic tradition. If the terms are used in an indefinite sense, there is a play on words and substitutions. Sophisms and anecdotes are built on this principle.

a. Hierarchy

The word "hierarch" is formed from the word "bishop" by rearranging the two roots that make up this word. Bishop is an ancient, biblical word. The Jewish high priests were called by this name. This office was given by God to Aaron. In it God placed the root of sanctification. "A priest according to the order of Aaron" was a sanctifying grace rooted in the Old Testament tradition. The source of holiness is always the Holy Spirit. God chose man as the firstfruits of the sanctification of the creature. Just as in Adam the creature becomes aware of itself and its creative conception for the first time, so in Aaron God chooses the root of sanctification. By the title of bishops, the evangelist denotes Anna and Caiaphas: not their personal virtues, but the continuity of tradition, the effectiveness of which cannot stop human unworthiness.

The word "hierarchy" arose later and acquired a broader meaning, containing not only the rank of bishops. With this word, the Church defined " heavenly hierarchy", accommodating three faces and nine angelic ranks. With this word, the Church defined the "church hierarchy." Its fullness, according to the Areopagite, accommodates three degrees of priesthood: bishop, priest and deacon. The word "hierarchy" expanded beyond church life and expressed secular concepts: hierarchy of values, bureaucratic, military and other hierarchies.

In the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, the concept of "church hierarchy" lost the original image of the stairs connecting the steps in ascending order. The unity of the three degrees of priesthood took on a new meaning. With the word "hierarchy" the Charter of the ROC designated one degree of priesthood - bishops (Charter: 1, 6; 2.13; 3, 1 and 14; 4, 7c and 17c; 5, 21 and so on). Jacob's ladder, reaching to heaven, had its support on the earth. The bishop did not immediately receive episcopal consecration. According to ancient tradition, he was certainly elevated first to the deacon, then to the presbyter. Each bishop ascended these steps, testifying to the continuity of hierarchical unity. The practice has remained the same. Its meaning has changed. The Charter excluded the laity, deacons and presbyters from the "church hierarchy". The highest step lost the support of its ascent and remained suspended on nothing. In the “hierarchy” translated into Russian, the ontological meaning of “beginning”, expressed by the first verse of the book of Genesis “Bereshit bara Elohim” and the first verse of the Gospel of John “εναρχη” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1), has completely faded.

The ontological depth of the biblical "beginning" was obscured by the pragmatic function " sacred authorities". Assimilation of this name only by one of the three degrees of the priesthood, which exercises legal power in the church, identified the concept of "hierarchy" with the concept of "oligarchy." Closed in an impenetrable caste, "oligarchy" is not connected with the people of God neither by common interests, nor by common life, nor spiritual fellowship.

"Above all these between you and us, a great abyss is established, as if those who want to pass from here to you will not be able, nor from there, they pass to us" (Luke 16:19). Where did the abyss come from? There is no feedback between the corporation of bishops and the people of God. The people do not elect a bishop and do not accept his appointment. For a bishop, a diocese is an unfamiliar place. He was not here, he does not know anyone, he did not promise the flock of love and care. When appointing a bishop, the Holy Synod is not interested in the opinion of the local church. She is obliged to gladly accept a stranger as her own father and unconditionally trust him. Relationships are good. If they don't work out, endure until death. The opinion of the flock is not asked. Her questions are not answered. Complaints are not heard. The government's disregard for the opinion of the local church digs a gulf between them. The catastrophic gap between the people of God and its hierarchical Olympus is becoming the main misfortune of the ROC MP. Before we were together, we were bound by common sorrows. Now the church oligarchs have gained a new circle of friends. General well-being connects them with presidents, generals and ministers. Feeling embarrassed to recognize us as their former comrades-in-arms, they graciously agree to accept divine honors, slavish worship and tribute from us.

Clericalism distorts the Gospel teaching about the spiritual kinship of Christians in the sacraments of Baptism and Communion from one Chalice. The doctrine of patience, meekness and humility applies only to clerics and laity. The doctrine of love and power is forgotten: "The princes of the peoples rule over them, and the nobles rule over them. But let it not be so between you. But who wants between yoube great, let him be your servant; and whoever wants to be first among you, let him be your slave. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28).

Like all people, bishops are different: good and bad. By virtue of position, the bishop determines the nature of personal relationships within the diocese. “The hierarchical principle in the Church is revealed in the hierarchy of ministries, the hierarchy of love. As the highest hierarchical ministry, the episcopal ministry should be likened to the sacrificial love of Christ. Here, as at the highest point, all ministries converge. Church, for the Church is Love. The ministry of government without love ceases to be a ministry. Without love, there is no grace. Pastoring by its very nature is the highest manifestation of love, as the highest ministry in the Church."

The charter endows the bishop " with all the fullness of hierarchical authority in matters of doctrine, priesthood and shepherding" (Charter Ch. 10, 11). This declaration is not confirmed by specific articles of the 10th chapter of the Charter. The articles do not at all reveal the gospel image "I am the Good Shepherd." They paint a tough image of an administrator with unlimited power. The charter did not express pastoral concern for a person, did not oblige the bishop to respect the individual, to courtesy in dealing with clerics. The image of the Shepherd fell out of the Charter. The administrator remained, devoid of human features.

Christ does not permit us to regard ecclesiastical authority as the possession of man. Christ understands power as the caring service of the higher to the lower. Even 30 years ago, the nature of the bishop's service was emphasized by the rite of "washing the feet." Like Christ washing the feet of the disciples, the bishop seated the priests in the middle of the temple, girded himself with a towel and washed the feet of the priests in turn, " showing us the kindest path of humility". It is difficult to imagine this rite in our day, when the bishop hovers over the flock, unworthy of his greatness.

b. Clergy

The concept of "clergy" and its appearance have completely changed in comparison with the era of the Council of 1917-18. At that time, the "clergy" consisted of clergy and clergy. In our time, the clergy have fallen out of the clergy. At the present time "clergy" is limited to two categories of priests: priests and deacons. The rest of the clergy: psalm-readers, choir directors, readers, singers, bell ringers, subdeacons, panomari and others are not members of the clergy. Against the demand of St. Basil the Great and the Ecumenical Council, they do not receive church tonsure, consecration and appointment from the bishop upon their appointment.

"Accepted into church service without my permission, he will be a layman" (Basil. 89). "Let no one be allowed to proclaim the divine words from the pulpit to the people, according to the order of those who are numbered among the clergy, unless someone is worthy of consecration with tonsure, and receives a blessing from his shepherd in accordance with the rules. If anyone is seen to be doing contrary to the prescribed: let him be excommunicated" ( Shest.33)

Modern Statutes of the ROC MP of the Soviet and post-Soviet period use the term "clergy" without specifying its content. "The diocesan bishop ordains and appoints clerics to their place of service" (Ustav.10, 12). In practice, the bishop appoints not "clerics", but only "clergymen" or "clergy". The concept of "clear" is limited to their limits. The bishop does not supply or appoint other "clerics". Therefore, they occasionally appear here and there as a transitional step. The next article of the Charter clarifies the scope of the concept of "clergy", identifying it with the concept of "clergy" (Charter, 10, 13). According to the literal meaning of the rule of Basil the Great, all modern clergy are laymen.

in. Laity

"Lay" in the ROC MP is called Orthodox Christians who are not ordained to the holy order and not tonsured as monks. Official statistics call "Orthodox" 70-80% of the population of the Russian Federation. In fact, it is impossible to determine their number, since there is no agreement on what we determine. Those who have received baptism are considered Orthodox incorpora, but the vast majority of them have no formal or practical connection with the parish.

The ancient church was represented by communities. Christians scattered among Jews and Gentiles could identify themselves in the assembly of the community. Those gathered participated in the Eucharist, shared a meal, prepared to receive the martyr's crown together. The community was not connected by formal relations, but everyone knew each other personally. Lifestyle and family issues were transparent.

The parish arose when baptism became universal. The parish united parishioners on a territorial basis. All parishioners entered the Parish Book and became formal participants in church life. Russian law obligated all parishioners of the temple to fulfill church rules in the course of civil relations. For example, in matters of marriage: "As all marriage matters are subject to the department and consideration of the spiritual authorities, violations of the above prohibitions are judged and their consequences are determined by the spiritual court according to the rules of the Church" ("Code of Civil Laws", v. 1; section 1; ch. 1; Section 1, art. 19) .

“Whoever wants to get married must notify the priest of his parish about his name, nickname and rank or condition, as well as about the name, nickname and condition of the bride. According to this notification, an announcement is made in the church on the next three Sundays, after the Liturgy, and then a search according to the rules prescribed by the Spiritual authorities. Upon announcement, everyone who has information about obstacles to marriage must immediately inform the priest about it "(Ibid., Section 2, pp. 22-24).

Today, Christians in Russia are once again scattered among "foreigners." The temple unites parishioners at the place of residence with "baptized non-Christians" and is not a place of community identification. Parishioners do not know each other by sight, are not informed about each other's family life, and are not united by a common cause. The temple does not register parishioners and does not enter into formal relations with them. They are free to choose a temple at random. The principle of unity has lost concrete expression in the Church.

The Church Court is a formal organization. The subjects of law must be bound by legal relations, from which the laity are excluded. Parish books do not exist in churches, reflecting the current life and condition of the parishioners. Unregistered lay people do not legally exist. Neither the bishop nor the priest has their personal data: surnames, addresses, year of birth, and so on. Their belonging to a particular temple and number is unknown. The fact of baptism is not certified. Their actual participation in liturgical life is not reflected. They are baptized in one church, receive communion in another, get married in a third and do not know each other. Many parishioners in the temple are accidental. They appear and disappear for years. Certificates of baptism or wedding are "filkin's letters", while there are no registration books substantiating these records. The laity remain outside the legal field of the church. Church law is superfluous for them, just as they themselves are inaccessible to canonical responsibility.

d. Church bureaucracy.

Along with the empty concept of "clergy" and the indefinite concept of "laity", the Charter introduces the concept of "officials and employees of canonical divisions; employees of diocesan institutions" (Charter, 1. 9; 10, 12). So in the legal space there is an ubiquitous bureaucracy. There was bureaucracy in the church before, but the Charter did not single it out as a separate category from the laity. From the Rule it is impossible to understand the participation of the bureaucracy in liturgical life. Without appointment, church officials receive an appointment that gives them the right to serve in office. If these officials are baptized and are in the position of the laity, why was it necessary to single them out in a special category? The Rule is silent about their ecclesiological status, which is distinct from that of the laity. The Charter does not say that the appointment of a bishop is sufficient for their functioning and does not oblige them to holy Baptism. The Charter does not impose on officials any moral requirements that are obligatory for clerics and laity. For example, for church officials and bishops are optional "Decisions of church courts that have entered into legal force, binding on all clergy and laity without exception" (Charter, Ch. 7, Article 8;)

The court does not limit the "right of the strong"

According to the Charter canonical bans, such as a life-long ban on priestly service, defrocking, excommunication, are imposed by the diocesan bishop...only on the proposal of the church court" (Ustav, Ch. 7, Art. 5). At first glance, it seems that the court will limit the arbitrariness of the diocesan authorities and oblige them to justify punitive sanctions. Alas:

1. The establishment of a court does not abolish arbitrary dismissals and transfers of clergy" according to ecclesiastical expediency, that is, not motivated (Charter 11, 25).

2. Punitive sanctions in the form "removal of clerics from their positions and temporary prohibition in the priesthood; temporary excommunication of the laity from church communion" (Charter 10, 19 a, b) remain unlimited in fact, since the term "temporarily" is not limited. Actually, life itself is temporary, and excommunication can continue until the death of the excommunicated. The sanctions of the administrative authorities, which take place in the prohibitions of Archimandrite Zinon and the priest Vladimir Andreev of the Pskov diocese, coincide with the sanctions " life ban and excommunication Diocesan bishops also apply other sanctions not permitted by the Charter.

3. There is no MP in the ROC normative document defining the system of labor relations. Separate elements of labor relations have to be sought out in the Charter and assembled into a general scheme. This painstaking work does not give a complete picture, since many elements of the employment relationship are not included in the Charter and may be implied. It can be assumed that in the diocese the employer is the diocesan bishop, who, by his Decree, moves, dismisses, " appoints rectors, parish priests and other clergy" (Ch. 10, Art. 18 j).

The bishop does not determine the remuneration and does not pay the appointed workers. The size of the content of the clergy is determined by the Parish meeting of the temple: " The duties of the Parish Assembly include approving the staffing table and determining the content of the members of the clergy and the Parish Council "(Charter of the ROC 2000. Ch. 11, Art. 43, l)

The charter does not specify who pays employees. This function can be assumed for the Parish Council, which "disposes of the funds of the parish" (Chapter 11, v. 46, f.)

An employment contract is not concluded between a bishop, as an employer, and a clergyman. Their employment relationship is not based on a contract, as is customary in a state of law. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation in Chapter 13 considers in detail the grounds for termination of an employment contract (dismissal from work) and " ensures the right of everyone to the protection by the state of his labor rights and freedoms, including in court" (Labor Code, Art. 2). The contract defines the rights and obligations of both parties and provides for the protection of their interests in court. The objective value of law is revealed in the protection of the legitimate interests of each of the litigants. If the law protects the interests of one of the parties to the detriment of the other, it turns into its opposite - lack of rights. Such relations are historically represented in serfdom, slaveholding and other types of disenfranchised way of life.

The relations of clerics with the bishop are built on the basis of an oath, the text of which is used for official use, is not handed out and is not published ( Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church Ch. 11, art. 24, g). This virtual document forms the basis of the cleric's dependence on the ruling bishop. The oath is a unilateral act containing no rights. The bishop takes an oath from the cleric, which does not bind the bishop to anything. Duties and responsibilities rest solely with the cleric. The charter does not specify to whom the oath is taken: the church or a specific person. Submission to church discipline, and, moreover, canonically often not justified, becomes a rule for the clergy personal life and social behavior. Labor lawlessness arises due to the unacceptable division of rights and duties: rights belong to one, and duties and responsibilities to another. Dependence is total: "In accordance with the 13th rule 1V Ecumenical Council, clergy may be admitted to another diocese only if they have a leave letter from the diocesan bishop" (Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2000, Ch. 11, Art. 30). A cleric is deprived of the right to move to another diocese without the consent of the bishop. "Here's to you, grandmother, and St. George's Day" - the only day in the year when a serf could get away from a cruel landowner, has been canceled. The Charter of the ROC MP 2000 provides the employer with unlimited arbitrariness in labor relations with employees. The right of a cleric to work is not defined or protected by the Charter. S.V. Chapnin illustrates the problem: “The rector in the episcopal rank dismisses the teacher from the theological academy, settling personal scores with him. The labor law has been violated, but church formalities have been observed. civil court, but the competence of the ecclesiastical court does not include the settlement of issues labor law ". Such a provision violates the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and canon law, "if they can be convicted, as if they were condemned out of enmity or predilection, or they were some kind of seduction."

The separation of bishops and church bureaucracy into a separate caste of masters, living according to different rules than "clerics and laity", does not correspond to the traditions of the Church. Clericalism disturbs the legal balance , dividing the people of God into masters and slaves. Instead of unity, expressing its dogmatic sign, clericalism introduces domination, which Christ forbade his disciples. (Matt. 20:25; Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25; 1 Pet. 5:2-3) Unity and dominance are incompatible. Christ denounced the clericalism of the religious politicians of Israel: “on the seat of Moses…” (Matthew 23:2–36). The medieval clericalism of the Western Church led her to the Reformation. The abyss, on one side of which is hierarchy and bureaucracy, and on the other side clerics and laity, drags both into the bottomless depth of alienation. " The unity of the judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church is ensured", first of all, the recognition of an impartial legal space for the entire people of God without exception: bishops, clergy and clergymen, laity, church officials and all those who are aware of themselves within the boundaries of the Church and its canonical field.

The second question is: "For what to judge?".

This question cannot be answered as long as there is no substantive and procedural law in the Church. The uncertainty of laws unties the hands of officials and becomes an obstacle to the administration of justice. S.V. Chapnin poses a dilemma:

1. "of all public institutions, only the Church has its own special legislation ... Compliance with these norms and rules is mandatory for a Christian.

2. "ecclesiastical law introduces requirements that modern man cannot take seriously… Nevertheless, no one has canceled this rule so far.” How is this to be understood: the rules are obligatory, they cannot be taken seriously, no one has canceled them?!

"The issue of codification of church legislation is one of the most important tasks of the current church authorities. The Church has never had its own codification of laws.

Since Byzantine times, two traditions have been combined in the practice of the Eastern Church. The Christian state consolidated church norms and provisions in the civil code of universally binding laws. The Code was supplemented by case law, expressed in the rules of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers. Canonical canons cannot be regarded as a system of ecclesiastical law. They are fragmentary: the canons represent individual legal, moral and procedural norms that reflect the formation of the church's legal consciousness over the centuries. Prohibitions and prescriptions of the canons allow broad and restrictive interpretation of the law.

Judges can make mutually exclusive decisions based on the same canons. The canons do not contain a disposition that formulates the exact signs of a crime. The canons arose as a reaction of the church consciousness to the precedents that took place in the first millennium. In modern practice, they have to be applied by analogy, the validity of which is always debatable. This problem is illustrated by the condemnation of Archimandrite Zinon and Priest V. Andreev.

In Decree No. 880 of 1996, condemning Archimandrite Zinon, his guilt is not formulated. The decree authorizes the prohibition with the eruption of the clergy, but does not define the corpus delicti found in his actions. It is impossible to substantiate guilt by a simple enumeration of legal norms - the prosecution is obliged to correlate the incriminated actions with these norms. There is no such accusation in the Decree. Unable to formulate the guilt of the convict, the bishop was unable to unambiguously qualify it and correlate it with a specific norm of canon law. In the Apostolic Canons, to which Archbishop Eusebius refers, such a norm cannot exist by definition. The Great Schism occurred in the eleventh century. It could not have been foreseen by the Apostolic Canons known since the 5th century. Archbishop Eusebius selected the canons by analogy and qualified the act of Archimandrite Zinon according to three different norms. One canon forbids communion "with the excommunicated" (Apostle 10). The other is "with the outcast from the clergy" (Apostle 11). The third is "with a heretic" (Apostle 45).

The three different estimates suggest different canonical positions for the rejected. However, the archbishop has in mind one specific person - Romano Scalfi, an serving Catholic priest, with whom Archimandrite Zinon took communion.

The bishop can neglect the canons, invent a canon, substantiate the verdict with a false fact. In Decree No. 952 of March 17, 1997 Archbishop Eusebius invents canonical rule. He "forbids in the priesthood" Priest Vladimir Andreev in connection with the public censure of the Reigning Bishop". There is no such canon. To substantiate the verdict, the bishop invents a law and condemns the innocent, contrary to Carth.16.

By Decree No. 880, Archbishop Eusebius deliberately excommunicated monk John (V.I. Ledin) from the church on a deliberately false charge. In deciding the fate of clerics and laity, the bishop is guided solely by his own sympathies and moods. There is no one to challenge such decisions, and who will listen or accept such a complaint? The irresponsible attitude of the legitimate authorities to the law deprives the law of its meaning.

In the report to the Local Council of 1917–18, prof. Violet writes: "In the current law, not only is there no systematic code on the punishments imposed by the spiritual court for the misconduct and crimes of clerics and laity, but there is not even a complete enumeration of these misconduct. Many of the misconduct are not listed exhaustively, but are called only by a common name - "misconduct against office deanery and beneficence." For other offenses, it is not exactly indicated appropriate punishment, so that the court, when deciding many cases, does not find the proper indication in the law and finds it difficult to apply the law to an individual case, i.e. carry out the most important task of its activity.

In 1918, the department "On the Church Court" submitted to the Council for consideration a new codification of the Church's punitive rules. Since then, entire sections of substantive law (about illegitimate children, inheritance rights and acts of civil status, deviations from the faith, departure to another confession, and others) have lost their meaning or have fallen out of church jurisdiction. Now substantive law will have to be created anew. There is no one to do it. S.V. Chapnin writes: The controversy at the beginning of the twentieth century revealed a number of complex problems of a legal and canonical nature, which have not been resolved.. AT last years The Church has done nothing to complete the formation of its legal field. So far, nothing has been done to create an ecclesiastical court. During the years of "church revival" decisions to recreate the court remained only on paper. The charter is too controversial a document to be recognized as the main legislative document. Teachers of church law from theological academies give courses of a superficial introductory nature. The conclusion sounds disappointing: in the ROC there are no reputable specialists in church law capable of developing a regulation on the church-judicial system.

The second difficulty is created by a de-churched consciousness. Those baptized in infancy because "everyone baptizes" live for decades excommunicated from the Church. Outside the Church, their consciousness is formed, their life experience, the hierarchy of values ​​matures. Outside the Church, they loved and married. When fate returns to the Church, you have to radically change your lifestyle and way of thinking: leave your beloved and return to your wife; register a marriage and get married; to confess and receive communion, to visit the church on holidays and Sundays ... all this parents and godparents heard at baptism. When answering ritual questions, they did not take seriously their formal promises. Years have passed. Who to ask now? Why judge those who came? Who will be held accountable for their ignorance? From the temple, they return to their former environment, to their usual way of life. Which pan of the scales will outweigh?

... Embarrassed, I will say: "I'm sorry"!
Forgive us, God, we came from there,
Where to go was a miracle.
Our gift is all in a handful.
(E. Pudovkina).

Who will raise a hand to throw a stone at them?

The third serious problem is the vagueness of the task of the prosecution. According to the legislation of the Russian Empire, offenses of five categories were subject to the jurisdiction of the church court:

1. Property disputes have lost relevance. The land and the churches built on it with all their property: icons and utensils do not belong to the parish, but are in its perpetual use. The community has no documents certifying its property. When leaving, the USSR granted religious organizations "a partial right of a legal entity." The new law of the Russian Federation eliminated this restriction on paper. In practice, the right of a legal entity remained "partial". The charter of the ROC MP does not at all recognize the property rights of parishes (Ch. 11:7–8). What is the use of arguing about property without owning property?

2. Deanery and well-doing. Uniform requirements must be clearly defined in a document that has a church-wide authority. No such document exists if " ecclesiastical law introduces requirements that modern man cannot take seriously." The canons require wearing clothes that correspond to dignity and sex, keeping fasting days and sobriety. It is necessary to correctly place the accents. You can defend the "handkerchiefs", beards and pigtails of the clergy. You can continue the fight against trousers and women's cosmetics.

You can not go to the bathhouse with a Jew and not be treated by a "Jewish doctor", but it is hardly worth doing it in court!

3 . Clerical malfeasance: careless storage of St. Gifts, peace and antimension, violation of the rank and conditions for the performance of the Sacraments, and others. The diocesan authorities should be concerned about the execution. The fish rots from the head. Over the past 15 years, I have never met a dean in my church. The bishop is not troubled by such problems and did not look into the tabernacle, the monstrance, and the baptismal box when attending Patronal feasts. The sermon is dead. Confession is used to oversee the trustworthiness of the clergy. At a diocesan meeting, I heard from the bishop that in some parishes, even on Holy Pascha, the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated. Who will pose the problem? What will the court do?

4. Divorces. Unregistered marriages are not subject to registration. You have to take "the word". Registered marriages are concluded at the registry office. Weddings make up a fraction of their percentage. Questions about church dissolution are addressed after a divorce. The former family broke up a long time ago, a new one arose and exists in fact and legally. The Church is faced with a fact: get married, or we will remain unmarried. The Church recognizes civil marriage as legal and does not deprive those who live without a crown from communion. So …?

5. Crimes of clerics and laity against faith and morality.

The legal struggle against heresies and moral vices has a long history and dubious success. The Catholic Inquisition, the persecution of heretics during the time of St. Joseph Volotsky, bonfires and self-immolation under Patriarch Nikon left sad pages in history. In the Russian Empire" some of the crimes were subject to dual jurisdiction: crimes against faith and marriage union. The participation of church authorities in the production of such cases was reduced to the initiation of a case and the determination of church punishment for a crime. The secular authorities conducted an investigation, and the civil court imposed punishment according to criminal laws.

Secret sins are carefully hidden. Even obvious guilt is difficult to prove. The prosecution is obliged to establish the fact, accurately formulate guilt and propose an adequate measure of punishment. This task cannot be accomplished without the help of a secular court.

We need an investigative apparatus, evidence, witnesses, assistance from the law enforcement system, as it was before the revolution. Selfishness, which widely manifests itself in corruption, extortion, simony, is condemned impersonally, "in principle." The lust of the flesh, realized in fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, is hushed up. Canonical crimes of this kind are not condemned and prosecuted. Not a single precedent received publicity. And he won't. First, there is no evidence base. Secondly, the honor of the uniform requires caution, even when the crime is obvious and the event has become public. Thirdly, in the church consciousness misconduct is not differentiated. The concept of sin brings together diverse categories: violation of church discipline, moral guilt against the commandments of God, non-observance of etiquette, criminal offenses - all have the same price: "sin".

Presumption of innocence

As a prerequisite, justice requires the recognition of the rights of the accused and, above all, the presumption of innocence. This principle, which has become part of international law, expresses the Christian faith in man. Christians accept the Incarnation of the Word as its justification. Another principle is possible, on which all inhuman regimes are built. Once, in the investigator's office, I read a sign: " If you are not judged, this is not your merit, but our defect.". In Dzerzhinsky's Cheka, the arrest served as proof of guilt. Outside the presumption of innocence, everyone against whom the bishop initiates a case will be guilty. Like millstones, the church court will grind all the grains that fall into his mill." Emphasis on rights misplaced"if a Christian has no rights.

Chapter 7 of the Charter does not contain any mention of the rights of the people of God. Professor Tsypin explains the silence about the rights of clerics by the abundance of love realized in church life: " Emphasis on rights ... is inappropriate in the Church, where everything is permeated with the spirit of love. A Christian needs rights not to protect his interests, but only to fulfill his duty.

Silence about rights may indicate a high degree of freedom. If the Charter had professed the principle "what is not prohibited is permitted", there would be no need to enumerate specific rights. It suffices to define the necessary prohibitions as the limits of individual freedom. Unfortunately, the Charter of the ROC MP does not profess this principle.

In diocesan practice, the opposite principle "what is not allowed is prohibited" is applied. In support of this principle, the bishop cites the Apostolic Canon: "Presbyters and deacons do nothing without the will of the bishop"(Ap. 39). The rule is categorical: "nothing"! Medieval commentators limit this rule. Zonara and Aristin explain that "The presbyter must not subject penance and excommunication without the will of the bishop". Balsamon believes that "without the will of the bishop it is impossible to dispose of church property". If you neglect such restrictions, you can bring "nothing" to the point of absurdity. The omission of the Charter on elementary rights against the background of a literal understanding of the 39th rule may limit the freedom of clergy beyond the limits of physiological functions.

The presumption of innocence expresses the trust that God put on Adam and Eve in Paradise, giving them the commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The presumption of innocence expresses the trust Christ retains in Judas until the kiss in Gethsemane. The presumption of innocence gives hope that the image of God in man will overcome temptation. It testifies that God takes man's freedom seriously and waits for his choice.

The secular law solves the problem of the presumption of guilt or innocence in favor of the presumption of innocence: " A person accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven ... and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force "(Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 49)

With the same obviousness, the presumption of innocence is affirmed by the rules of the Universal Church: " If one of the bishops is accused, ... let the accused not be alienated from communion, ... unless he appears in the court of the elect to judge him at the appointed time "(Carth. 28). "Befits research: if it will be found out, as if he ... let him abide in the clergy. But if he ... then let him be a stranger to the clergy" (Theoph.5).

"Jacob is to be investigated. If ... he was guilty of a crime, ... yes, he will erupt from his degree, however, according to a thorough study, and noton a single suspicion" (Theoph.6)

Respect for a person, his dignity and the inalienable rights of the individual is justified in the Gospel by the image of God and the Incarnation of the servant who took the form. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Christ identifies Himself with the "little brothers: "as you did it to one of these least of my brothers, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40). By protecting the personal right of every Christian, the ecclesiastical court will protect the Church. By depriving a person of rights, Professor Tsypin deprives Christ of rights in His Church. The Church is inseparable from Christ because she is His Body. Professor Tsypin is going to protect the Church from the individual with her " petty interests" and " imaginary rights"because it does not recognize the royal dignity of the people of God (Ap. 1, 6; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

Third question: "Who are the judges?"

According to the Charter of the ROC MP, " Judges of diocesan courts may be clergymen who have been empowered by the diocesan bishop to administer justice. The chairman of the diocesan court is appointed by the diocesan bishop. Early recall of the Chairman or a member of the diocesan court is carried out by order of the diocesan bishop.

The Charter does not limit the motives for early recall of judges. There is an unconditional dependence of judges on the diocesan bishop, " empowering judges". It is emphasized by two unique clauses of the Charter:

1. "Proceedings in all church courts are closed". No one will know what villainy is going on behind closed doors. No one will see the tears of the humiliated and offended.

2. "Decisions of the diocesan court are subject to execution after their approval by the diocesan bishop. If the diocesan bishop disagrees with the decision of the diocesan court, he acts at his own discretion. His decision takes effect immediately.".

One gets the impression that the Charter deliberately emphasizes the worthlessness and helplessness of the court, its judges and judicial decisions before the authoritarian government. The reference of the Charter to the controlling role of the Diocesan Assembly (7, 13) causes a smile.

This institution exists dejure and annually meets in practice, but leaves no trace of its existence, like a shadow or a mirage for the thirsty in the desert. It has no protocol, no rules, no agenda, no voting, no decisions taken. It can only be proven by eyewitness accounts. Only they can tell how, from 10:00 to 15:00, in the unanimous silence of the Diocesan Assembly, two hundred priests listen to Vladyka's speech about nothing. "The air does not want to overcome its slumber."

S. V. Chapnin points to "an even more difficult problem: where to find personnel for the creation of a lower church court? The situation in this area is simply catastrophic - there are no personnel. In the shortest possible time, the Church needs to train hundreds of specialists in church canon law, otherwise the reform of the church court will again be postponed indefinitely" . Avral solves urgent problems always at the expense of quality. Considering the low educational level of the diocesan clergy, this problem will have to be recognized as insoluble.

Mention should be made of the hopeless problem of funding. " Diocesan courts are financed from diocesan budgets". Perhaps there are generous bishops who spend money on diocesan institutions. A miserly bishop relies on the disinterested enthusiasm of the priests. The incentive is clear: if you want to serve in the city, take a free load: teaching at a religious school, working with youth, in prison, and so on. There are few enthusiasts who are attracted by the work. In other cases, the work is replaced by a tick in the report. It is difficult to say what is worse: a court based on the "disinterested" enthusiasm of judges or a court supported by the executive branch.

Decalogue of the Church Court.

"I am the Lord, I love justice" (Isaiah 61:8.)

An unjust judgment perverts its own nature. Justice expresses the nature of any court, ecclesiastical or civil. For the administration of justice, the court should be properly organized and based on legal principles. We find such principles in the holy canons. Why not find a place for them in Ch. 7 bylaws?

1. Complaints of presbyters and other clerics against their bishops are heard by neighboring bishops and, with the consent of their own bishop, they stop the displeasures that have arisen: Carth.11, 37, 139; Sard. fourteen.

2. To judge by law and conscience, and "not by enmity, predilection or man-pleasing": Carth.16. 3.

4. Withdraw suspected judges and provide time for the defense: Kirill 1.

5. An accuser for slander is subject to an equal punishment: Deut. 6

6. The accused is personally present at the trial: Ap. 74

7. Limitation of the circle of witnesses and accusers. Ap. 74–75; Quarter 21; Carth 8, 28, 70, 143, 144, 145, 147; Deut.6.

8. The independence of judges is guaranteed by the court of bishops. According to the canons, 12 bishops perform judgment on a bishop, 6 and their own on a presbyter, 3 and their own on a deacon. Karf. 29 and 12.

9. By agreement of the litigating parties, you can choose for yourself judges Carth.17,107,136. If the judges disagree, invite more bishops Ant.14.

10. Presumption of innocence: do not disfellowship before the trial. Feof. 6 and Karf. 28.

To justify the "judicial system in the Russian Orthodox Church" the Charter considers the "sacred canons" and the "Regulations on the Church Court." The last one has not been invented yet. But the canons have existed for a thousand years. Why did the Charter not include a single canonical rule in the structure of the court?

Why does the Charter not refer to a single canonical rule in justification of the judiciary? Why are the ecumenical canons excluded from the "judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church"? Maybe they are contrary to the principles of this system (for example, ch. 7, v. 8)?

Of course, the above decalogue does not exhaust the system of legal proceedings. It is impossible to demand that the ancient fathers solve all our problems. The Church must form the court, however, not contrary to canonical principles, but in the spirit of these principles.

Conclusion.

The vague concept of "church court" introduced by the Charter of the ROC MP contradicts federal legislation. The task of the "court" is not defined. The procedural and substantive law necessary for its activity does not exist, and there is no one to create it. The principles of ecclesiastical "justice" prescribed by the Charter are in conflict with the canonical norms of the Ecumenical Church, the current international and state law of the Russian Federation.

The question of equality before the law and the courts is resolved as in Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal." The rights of a Christian in church life are neither defined nor protected. The executive power arrogates to itself the legislative right and invents canonical norms. Diocesan judges are placed in absolute dependence on the executive branch. Judicial decisions will express not the law and the conscience of the judges, but the will of the ruling bishop. The court will condemn not sin, but clergymen who are objectionable to the bishop.

Instead of a church court, a parody appears, for the legalization of which it is proposed to change the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This proposal has no future. It is more reasonable to abolish the stillborn chapter 7 of the Rules and bury the consistory court of the synodal era. It cannot and should not be revived. The Church Court can only be created anew. He must take as a basis the canonical principles of the Universal Church and reveal their timeless meaning in modern realities, so that the Charter of the ROC " did not deduce the legal field of the church beyond the legal RF fields" and did not outlaw the ROC MP.

Church. Vestn. No. 289. 2004

Charter 1988. Charter on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. Izd.MP 1989 .: 1, 8; 7, 45; 7, 51; page 32.

Prot. N. Afanasiev "Church of the Holy Spirit". Riga 1994 p.301

http: //www.ng.ru/politics/2000-12-14/3_tserkov. htm1

http: //www.ng.ru/politics/2000-12-14/3_tserkov. htm1

GARF.F. R-3431.Op.1.d.266. ll.1-24

http: //www.ng.ru/politics/2000-12-14/3_tserkov. htm1

http: //www.ng.ru/politics/2000-12-14/3_tserkov. htm1

Prot. V. Tsypin "Church Law", M. 1996, p. 390.

Prof. Tsypin, "On cathedrals and catholicity". "Community", No. 12. 2003 Moscow.

Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations of ep. Nikodim Milos SPb., 1911, T 1.2.

The sphere of church administration as the second type of government power of the church includes such functions as the introduction and abolition of church posts, their replacement, current administration, and church supervision.

New ecclesiastical positions, including new episcopal sees or even first hierarchal thrones, are introduced or abolished by decrees of the local church authorities. Church offices may also merge, merge, join each other, and the like. Changes may also relate to the division of one position into two or several independent ones (for example, the division of one diocese into two), the transfer of part of the competence of one position to another, and the like.

As for the replacement of church offices, it is usually carried out by the competent church authority in accordance with the canons and other church laws. In this area, throughout the history of the church, the influence of secular state power is especially noticeable. The vast majority of this concerned senior positions. The church does not recognize such influence as unlawful if it does not contradict the will of the episcopate, the clergy and the church people, since it considers that the replacement of higher church positions is combined with the area of ​​​​external church law. The forms of this influence in the history of the church changed and were determined mainly by the status of the church in the state.

Current administration in the church is carried out by written or oral orders and messages.

A special type of administrative church authority is supervision which is exercised by the same organs that govern the church. The main monitoring tools are:

o receiving written reports by higher institutions from lower, personal reports on the state of church affairs;

o visitation, i.e., a review by the bearer of church authority of institutions and institutions subordinate to him;

o conducting audits.

Based on the results of inspections and control, written reports are compiled (they are submitted, for example, by charities to their diocesan bishop). Sometimes, at the request of the highest leadership, a personal report is submitted by a subordinate church person.

Visitation has long been the most effective means of verification. It has always been practiced in the church since the apostolic time. The apostles themselves visited the communities they founded, not only to teach the flock, but also for supervision. It is characteristic that in the Canonical code there are no rules that would attribute to the bishop to visit his flock. Obviously in ancient church it was the accepted norm. For the first time, the obligation to bypass the subordinate districts was assigned to bishops by the law of Emperor Alexius Komnenos, published in 1107. The "Spiritual Regulations" in Russia obliged each diocesan bishop once a year or, in extreme cases, once every two years to go around his diocese. And today, the duties of the bishop include visiting parishes, monasteries, and spiritual institutions of the diocese. The patriarch carries out visitations to all the dioceses of his church, and within the dioceses the duty of regular visits to parishes rests with the dean.

Audits are usually an emergency means of oversight. They are carried out sporadically, if necessary. Usually, the reason for the audit is the unfavorable state of affairs in the church institution, and it itself is carried out by persons appointed by the legitimate church authorities.

church court

The judiciary is part of the ecclesiastical government. The earthly church is a human community in which, as in any social organism, the interests of various subjects collide. Members of the church can commit crimes against the commandments, violate church regulations, and therefore the church cannot do without the judiciary, which would be a deterrent to all kinds of offenses. Judicial power is multifaceted: sins revealed at confession are subject to the secret judgment of the confessor; the crimes of clerics connected with the violation of their official duties entail public penalties. And if you look deep into history, you can see that the competence of the church court at different periods included civil disputes between Christians and even some criminal cases, the consideration of which does not correspond at all to the nature of church authority.

The jurisdiction of the church in relation to its clergy, and even more so in relation to the laity, did not at all follow from Scripture or theological dogmas, its emergence had historical roots and was connected, firstly, with the desire of state power to rely on the church in solving state affairs; secondly, with the struggle of the church for its own privileges in the state.

As early as the end of the 4th century. the law of the emperors Arcadius and Honorius for Christian bishops recognized the role of arbitrators in cases relating to the church, or those that affected the non-material or moral aspects of interpersonal relations. In the meantime, the church was supposed to be made a real participant in the state court and administration.

The affairs of the clergy among themselves immediately became the prerogative of the church organization. Subsequently, the church forbade clerics to file lawsuits and complaints in secular courts. And in 614, the Local Council of Paris approved the full judicial immunity of the clergy, forbidding any secular interference in the affairs of the priests. And even in the case of lawsuits between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, between secular and clergy, preference was given to the episcopal court. This was one of the most important class privileges of the clergy.

With the establishment of feudal relations, churches, monasteries, and bishops acquired the powers of a senior court in relation to their vassals, the subject population, and other dependent strata. Canon law courts relied on more complex judicial procedure than ordinary feudal courts. These differences and features appeared as early as the 12th century, when the traditions of Roman law, adapted to church requirements, became noticeable in canon law. The church treated the sudochinsky procedures of barbarian times and the feudal court with contempt. In 1215, the Lateran church council forbade clergy to take part in judicial trials - ordeals. Thus, put this method of searching for "God's truth", which has been customary for centuries, outside the church law. The church also persecuted and despised court fights.

In the courts of ecclesiastical law, unconditional priority was given to the written procedure and documentary evidence of "what is not in the documents does not exist at all." Both the filing of the complaint and the defendant's objections must necessarily have been in writing. The parties in the process of hearing the case asked each other questions in the form of notes. The decision of the court was also recorded in writing. The testimonies of witnesses under oath and under threat of punishment for perjury were necessarily recorded. The court procedure provided for the representation of the parties. This rule was more and more impressed by merchants, merchants and representatives of other monetary strata, who could not or did not want to personally attend the courts. References to legal sources were obligatory.

Unlike the secular courts, the courts of canon law predicted a very different purpose. The meaning of the proceedings was not to establish the correctness of one of the parties and condemn the other, but to the established truths, even if this went to the detriment of the one who violated the charges filed a complaint with the court. It belonged to the judges to interrogate the parties themselves, based on their own considerations of reason and conscience. Decisions were made on the basis of the inner conviction of the judge and canonical dogmas. The judge had to find out not only the vital, factual circumstances of the case, but also all sorts of motives, for example, "that the fisherman himself may not know, or, embarrassed, wants hide". And this, in turn, led to a rigid attitude of the canonical courts to evidence. Some rules were developed to distinguish between evidence that does not relate to the case; unclear and indefinite evidence; evidence that creates ambiguity and confuses the consideration of the case; those that which are contrary to nature, and therefore are not taken into account.

Too formalized and strict requirements for the nature of evidence were especially inherent in criminal prosecution. And the convictions of the church courts in the original sinfulness of man and any worldly life, the resistance of the accused to repentance pushed the canonical legal proceedings to exaggerate the significance of the accused's own confession of guilt. This has become an unconditional axiom of inquisitorial proceedings.

As already noted, the most important privilege of the church in the Middle Ages was the right to its own ecclesiastical court. All persons who belonged to the church - monks, priests, monastery peasants, etc., were subject to the court of the church in both civil and criminal cases, based on the fact that all crimes are connected with sin. The Church assumed jurisdiction in cases of heresy (apostasy), witchcraft, sacrilege, theft of church property, violence against priests, adultery, incest, bigamy, perjury, slander, forgery of documents, false swearing, usury with exaggeration interest rate, fraud. Since property contracts were mainly sealed by religious oaths, the church declared the sphere of obligations to be its competence.

In accordance with the decisions of the IV Lateran Council, the special duties of church authorities included the fight against manifestations of various heresies. Even simply those suspected of heresy or those who could not prove their innocence and refute the accusations were subject to persecution. With regard to such cases, church courts used a special, inquisitorial procedure for legal proceedings, based, first of all, on the presumption of guilt and sinfulness of a person. The persecution of heretics was entrusted to the monks knightly orders. For this purpose, the positions of special church judges - inquisitors - were introduced. They were granted immunity from insanity, were not subject to the usual ecclesiastical court, had the right to a personal appeal to the Pope of Rome and were placed outside the administrative control of the bishops. Independent of the secular authorities, the church inquisition in the XIII-XVII centuries. was a formidable force in the hands of the church.

The Inquisition could initiate cases even by hearsay. In such courts, the same person conducted the preliminary investigation of the case, carried out the trial and passed the sentence. Judgment was secret, accompanied by frightening and oppressive rituals. In the absence of a quick confession of guilt, torture was used, the limit of which was not regulated by anything. An atmosphere of general horror and hopelessness was created. The inquisitors believed that it was better to kill 60 innocents than to miss one guilty.

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV approved the creation of inquisitorial tribunals of 12 judges headed by a bishop. In criminal cases, one's own confession has become the main type of evidence, which testifies to the correctness of the conclusion of judges and the repentance of the sinful soul of the criminal. Particularly virtuously, one's own confession was used in matters of accusation of heresy, since anyone could be prosecuted for this at will, and qualification of the attacker's actions in accordance with the norms of church canons was not required. After receiving a confession of guilt, the accused was forced to reconcile with the church through the absolution of sins. The accused signed the protocol of interrogation, without fail indicating that his confession of guilt was voluntary and honest. In case of refusal to testify or their change in person, she was again recognized as excommunicated and subject to being burned alive at the stake (this was done not only to intimidate others, but also for "humane" reasons, since "the church did not shed blood").

A guilty plea helped avoid burning, but resulted in a life sentence. Justification was extremely rare. Many prominent people of their time burned at the stakes of the Inquisition, including Joan of Arc, Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno. This deformed legal proceedings in the canonical courts for a long time. The church judicial procedure also found its influence on secular courts, which, in contrast to the Inquisition, distributed the practice of delaying the consideration of the case, which lasted for months, or even years.

Following the precepts of the apostles, Christians of the first centuries avoided pagan courts and submitted their disputes to the judgment of bishops. This was done not only in order to achieve the greatest objectivity and justice, but also in order not to lose the moral purity of their religious convictions and the holiness of their faith before the pagans. In addition, Roman legal proceedings required the performance of a pagan rite - the fumigation of the statue of the goddess of justice Themis with incense. For clerics in general, appeal to a pagan court was unacceptable. The episcopal court for the laity had the character of a fair and dignified trial with respect for both parties. 1 if after that any of the parties, being dissatisfied with the decision of the bishop, applied for the protection of his right to a civil pagan court, such a Christian received moral condemnation from his community.

It must also be borne in mind that in the era of persecution of the church, the judicial decisions of bishops were considered invalid from the point of view of Roman secular law. In addition, the clergy did not have executive power, did not have their own punitive and executive apparatus, and relied solely on their spiritual authority.

After the issuance of the Edict of Milan, the custom of Christians to sue their bishops received state sanction in Byzantium, and the judicial decisions of the bishops were based on the executive power of the state. Constantine the Great granted Christians the right to submit any claims to the bishop's court, the verdict of which was considered final. Moreover, for such a transfer, the desire of one of the parties was enough. The peremptory episcopal court, endowed with official state status, with the Christianization of the empire began to successfully compete with the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. This resulted in the bishops being overwhelmed with court cases, many of which were far from the spiritual realm. In order to unload the spiritual courts, to narrow the judicial rights of the church, but at the same time not to hurt the authority and respect for them, the rulers determined the competence of the episcopal court on two factors: the court considered only civil disputes; both parties must consent to the Bishop's judgment.

Civil cases against clerics were subject exclusively to ecclesiastical court, as was mentioned in the 9th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. And since all the decisions of this council were sanctioned by the emperor Marcian, they received the status of state laws.

In the Byzantine Empire, the jurisdiction of clergy to their bishops in civil cases was recognized as an unconditional canonical norm, although, in terms of their content, such cases could also be dealt with by secular courts. Another issue is purely ecclesiastical cases, which, although they have the character of litigation, but by their nature could not be within the jurisdiction of non-church judicial institutions. For example, disputes between bishops about belonging of a parish to a certain diocese, lawsuits of clerics about the use of church income, and the like. The Byzantine emperors repeatedly emphasized that the jurisdiction over these matters belonged exclusively to the church, and this recognition did not look like some kind of concession, but came out with high the authority of the church in the state and the justice of its rights.

Litigation between clerics and laity was subject to the jurisdiction of both secular and spiritual judiciary. Prior to the emperor Justinian, the judicial rights of the clergy and the laity were equal. But Justinian granted the clergy the privilege of answering civil claims only to their bishop. If one of the parties was dissatisfied with the bishop's judgment, she could take the matter to a civil court. If in this case the secular court supported the decision of the church court, the case was no longer subject to review and was carried out. And if the civil court took another solution than the court of the bishop, it was allowed to file an appeal and review the case at the court of the metropolitan, patriarch, or even at a church council.

In Kievan Rus in the era of its baptism, the current civil law has not yet gone beyond customary popular law. Of course, it could not be compared with the delicately developed Roman law, which was the basis of the legal system of Byzantium. Therefore, the church hierarchy, which came to us from Byzantium after the transformation of Christianity into the state religion, received into its jurisdiction many such cases that in Byzantium itself were within the jurisdiction of secular magistrates.

The competence of the church court in the Old Russian state was extremely broad. According to the "Act" of princes Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise, all relations of civil life, which in one way or another concerned religion and morality, were referred to the court of the church, episcopal. The Church received in its exclusive competence matters related to married life, relationships between parents and children. With its authority, the church protected both parental rights and the inviolability of the personal rights of children.

Cases of inheritance were also given to the jurisdiction of the church. In the first decades of the Christian history of Ukraine-Rus, such things happened often, since many It was "nevinchalnyh", and therefore illegal from the point of view of Christianity, marriages. The rights of children from such marriages to the parental inheritance were subject to consideration by the ecclesiastical court. Our judicial practice, unlike Byzantine in such matters, tended to recognize the right of children to a part of the property. If a dispute arose regarding the existing spiritual will, then such cases were also considered by the church court. The legal norms of the princely "Charters" retained their full force in Russia until the time of Peter the Great.

The peculiarity of church legal proceedings in Russia also consisted in the fact that some criminal cases were also within the competence of church courts. If we turn to the already mentioned princely statutes, it is easy to see that crimes against faith and the church were subject to the bishop's court, namely: the practice by a Christian of pagan rites; sacrilege, witchcraft, desecration of the temple and shrines. And behind the Pilot's Book, such crimes were blasphemy, heresy, schism, and apostasy.

The episcopal court considered cases related to crimes against public morality (fornication, rape, unnatural sins, and the like); as well as marriages entered into in the forbidden degrees of the family; unauthorized divorce; husband's abuse of his wife or parents; children's disrespect for their parents and parental authority. Some cases of murder were also subject to the Church court: for example, murder in the family circle, deprivation of the fetus, or when the victims of the murder were deprived of rights - outcasts slaves. Also, the hierarch's court had to consider cases of personal insults - an insult to the chastity of a girl with dirty abuse or slander; accusing an innocent person of hereticism or witchcraft.

As for the clergy, in the pre-Petrine era, on all criminal charges, except for "murder, robbery and red-handed", it was responsible before the bishop's court. One cannot but agree with the words of Professor A.S. Pavlov, who pointed out that in ancient Russian law “the principle noticeably prevails, according to which the jurisdiction of the church was determined not so much by the essence of the affairs themselves, as by the class character of persons: spiritual persons, as predominantly church ones, were judged the church hierarchy."

The regulation was adopted at the plenary session of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on June 26, 2008. At the Bishops' Council in 2017, the text of the Regulations was (see the 2017 edition), and therefore this version of the document has become invalid.

SECTION I. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Chapter 1

Article 1. The structure and canonical foundations of the judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church.

1. The judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), hereinafter referred to as the “Russian Orthodox Church”, is established by the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on August 16, 2000, referred to in the following text of this Regulation as the “Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church”, as well as these Regulations and is based on the sacred canons of the Orthodox Church, hereinafter referred to as the “sacred canons”.

2. The judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church includes the following church courts:

• diocesan courts, including those of the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Self-Governing Churches, Exarchates that are part of the Russian Orthodox Church, with jurisdiction within the respective dioceses;
• the highest ecclesiastical-judicial instances of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as well as the Self-Governing Churches (if these Churches have higher ecclesiastical-judicial instances) - with jurisdiction within the respective Churches;
• the General Church Court - with jurisdiction within the Russian Orthodox Church;
• Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church - with jurisdiction within the Russian Orthodox Church.

3. The ecclesiastical courts of the Russian Orthodox Church exercise judicial power guided by the sacred canons, the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, this Regulation and other regulations of the Orthodox Church.

Peculiarities of the ecclesiastical judiciary and legal proceedings within the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as well as within the Self-Governing Churches, may be determined by internal regulations (rules) approved by the authorized bodies of ecclesiastical authority and administration of these Churches. In the absence of the above internal regulations (rules), as well as their inconsistency with the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and this Regulation, the church courts of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Self-Governing Churches must be guided by the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and this Regulation.

4. The ecclesiastical courts of the Russian Orthodox Church, hereinafter referred to in the text of this Regulation as “church courts”, have jurisdiction over cases in relation to persons under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. Ecclesiastical courts do not accept cases concerning deceased persons.

Article 2. Purpose of ecclesiastical courts.

Church courts are intended to restore the disturbed order and structure of church life and are called upon to promote the observance of the sacred canons and other institutions of the Orthodox Church.

Article 3. Delegated nature of church legal proceedings.

1. The fullness of judicial power in the Russian Orthodox Church belongs to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, hereinafter referred to as the "Council of Bishops" in this Regulation. Judicial power in the Russian Orthodox Church is also exercised by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, hereinafter referred to as the "Holy Synod" in this Regulation, and by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The judicial power exercised by the General Church Court stems from the canonical authority of the Holy Synod and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, which is delegated to the General Church Court.

2. The fullness of judicial power in the dioceses belongs to the diocesan bishops.

Diocesan bishops independently decide on cases of ecclesiastical offenses if these cases do not require investigation.

If the case requires investigation, the diocesan bishop refers it to the diocesan court.

The judicial power exercised in this case by the diocesan court derives from the canonical authority of the diocesan bishop, which the diocesan bishop delegates to the diocesan court.

Article 4. Unity of the judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The unity of the judicial system of the Russian Orthodox Church is ensured by:

• observance by church courts of the established rules of church legal proceedings;
• recognition of the obligatory execution by all members and canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church of the decisions of church courts that have entered into legal force.

Article 5. Language of ecclesiastical legal proceedings. The closed nature of the consideration of cases in the church court.

1. Church legal proceedings at the Council of Bishops and at the General Church Court are conducted in Russian.

2. Consideration of cases in the ecclesiastical court is closed.

Article 6 Conciliation procedure for settling disputes.

1. A canonical ban (punishment) should induce a member of the Russian Orthodox Church who has committed an ecclesiastical offense to repentance and correction.

A person accused of committing an ecclesiastical offense cannot be subjected to a canonical ban (punishment) without sufficient evidence establishing the guilt of this person (Canon 28 of the Council of Carthage).

2. When imposing a canonical ban (punishment), one should take into account the reasons for committing an ecclesiastical offense, the way of life of the guilty person, the motives for committing an ecclesiastical offense by him, acting in the spirit of ecclesiastical economics, which involves indulgence towards the guilty person in order to correct him, or, in appropriate cases, in the spirit of church acrivia, which allows the application of strict canonical prohibitions against the guilty person for the purpose of his repentance.

In the event that a cleric submits a clearly slanderous statement about the commission of an ecclesiastical offense by a diocesan bishop, the applicant is subject to the same canonical prohibition (punishment) that would have been applied to the accused person if the fact of committing an ecclesiastical offense had been proven (II Ecumenical Council 6 canon).

3. If during the trial the church court comes to the conclusion that there is no fact of a church offense and (or) the innocence of the accused person, it is the duty of the church court to conduct a conciliation procedure in order to resolve the differences that have arisen between the parties, which must be recorded in the minutes of the court session.

Chapter 2. Powers of Judges of the Church Court.

Article 7. Powers of the Chairman and Members of the Church Court.

1. The chairman of the ecclesiastical court sets the time for the sessions of the ecclesiastical court and conducts these sessions; exercises other powers necessary for ecclesiastical legal proceedings.

2. The deputy chairman of the church court, on behalf of the chairman of the church court, conducts meetings of the church court; carry out other assignments of the chairperson of the church court necessary for ecclesiastical legal proceedings.

3. The clerk of the ecclesiastical court shall receive, register and submit to the appropriate ecclesiastical court statements of ecclesiastical offense and other documents addressed to the ecclesiastical court; keeps minutes of meetings of the church court; sends summons to the church court; is responsible for maintaining and maintaining the archive of the church court; exercise other powers provided for by these Regulations.

4. Members of the ecclesiastical court participate in court hearings and other actions of the ecclesiastical court in the composition and in the manner prescribed by this Regulation.

Article 8

1. The powers of a judge of an ecclesiastical court shall be terminated early in accordance with the procedure established by these Regulations on the following grounds:

• a written request from a church court judge for dismissal from office;
• inability, for health reasons or other valid reasons, to exercise the powers of a judge of an ecclesiastical court;
• death of a judge of an ecclesiastical court, declaration of his death or recognition as missing in the manner prescribed by state legislation;
• the entry into force of the decision of the church court on the accusation of the judge of committing an church offense.

2. The powers of a judge of an ecclesiastical court shall be suspended if the ecclesiastical court accepts for consideration a case on accusation of this judge of committing an ecclesiastical offence.

Article 9

1. A judge of an ecclesiastical court cannot consider a case and is obliged to withdraw himself if he:

• is a relative (up to 7th degree) or relative (up to 4th degree) of the parties;
• is in direct service relations with at least one of the parties.

2. The composition of the ecclesiastical court considering the case cannot include persons who are related to each other (up to the 7th degree) or property (up to the 4th degree).

3. If there are grounds for self-withdrawal provided for in this article, the judge of an ecclesiastical court shall be obliged to declare self-withdrawal.

4. Motivated self-withdrawal must be declared before the start of the trial.

5. The issue of self-recusal of a judge of an ecclesiastical court shall be decided by the composition of the court considering the case, in the absence of the judge being challenged.

6. If the ecclesiastical court satisfies the self-withdrawal declared by the judge, the ecclesiastical court replaces this judge with another judge of the ecclesiastical court.

Chapter 3. Persons participating in the case. Summons to the Church Court.

Article 10

1. The persons participating in the case are the parties, witnesses and other persons who are involved in the case by the ecclesiastical court.

2. The parties in cases of ecclesiastical offenses are the applicant (if there is a statement of an ecclesiastical offense) and a person accused of committing an ecclesiastical offense (hereinafter referred to as the accused person).

The disputing parties act as parties in cases of disputes and disagreements within the jurisdiction of church courts.

Article 11

1. Summons to the church court may be served on the persons participating in the case against receipt, sent by mail by registered mail with notification of delivery, telegram, facsimile or otherwise, provided that the call is fixed.

2. Summons to the church court are sent in such a way that their addressee has sufficient time to appear in time in the church court.

3. A summons to the church court shall be sent to the place of residence or service (work) of the addressee in the canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church. The persons participating in the case are obliged to notify the ecclesiastical court of the change of their address. In the absence of such a message, the call is sent to the last place of residence or place of service (work) of the addressee in the canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church known to the church court and is considered delivered, even if the addressee no longer lives or does not serve (does not work).

Article 12

A subpoena to the church court is drawn up in writing and contains:

• the name and address of the ecclesiastical court;
• indication of the time and place of appearance in the church court;
• the name of the addressee summoned to the church court;
• indication as to whom the addressee is called;
• necessary information about the case on which the addressee is called.

Chapter 4. Types, collection and evaluation of evidence. The terms of the ecclesiastical proceedings.

Article 13. Evidence.

1. Evidence is information obtained in the manner prescribed by these Regulations, on the basis of which the ecclesiastical court establishes the presence or absence of circumstances relevant to the case.

2. This information may be obtained from the explanations of the parties and other persons; witness statements; documents and physical evidence; audio and video recordings; expert opinions. The receipt and dissemination by an ecclesiastical court of information constituting a secret of private life, including a family secret, is allowed only with the consent of the persons to whom this information relates.

3. The collection of evidence is carried out by the persons participating in the case and the church court. The Church Court collects evidence by:

• receiving from the persons participating in the case, and other persons with their consent, objects, documents, information;
• questioning persons with their consent;
• requesting characteristics, certificates and other documents from the canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, which are obliged to provide the requested documents or their duly certified copies based on the request of the church court.

4. The ecclesiastical court verifies the reliability of evidence by establishing their sources and methods of obtaining. The Church Court comprehensively examines and evaluates the evidence.

5. The ecclesiastical court has no right to give preference to one evidence over others and must evaluate all the evidence in the case in their entirety. It is not allowed to use as evidence the explanations of the parties and the testimony of a witness based on conjecture, assumption, hearing, as well as the testimony of a witness who cannot indicate the source of his knowledge.

6. Evidence obtained in violation of the requirements of this Regulation cannot be used by church courts.

Article 14

1. The circumstances established by an ecclesiastical court decision that has entered into legal force in a previously considered case are binding on all ecclesiastical courts. These circumstances are not proven again.

2. The circumstances established by the verdicts (decisions) of state courts that have entered into legal force, as well as protocols on administrative offenses, are not subject to verification and proof.

1. The Church Court, if it is necessary to obtain evidence that is at the disposal of the canonical divisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, or evidence that is in another diocese, sends a corresponding request.

2. The request briefly sets out the essence of the case under consideration and the circumstances to be clarified.

3. While the request is being fulfilled, the consideration of the case in the ecclesiastical court may be postponed.

Article 16

1. Explanations of the parties and other persons involved by the ecclesiastical court to participate in the case, about the circumstances of the case known to them, can be given both during the preparation of the case for consideration, and at the session of the ecclesiastical court in oral or written form. These explanations are subject to verification and evaluation by the ecclesiastical court along with other evidence.

2. An oral explanation is recorded in the minutes and signed by the party that gave the appropriate explanations. The written explanation shall be attached to the case file.

3. The applicant is warned about the canonical liability for a knowingly false denunciation of an alleged church offense.

Article 17. Documents.

1. Documents are written materials on paper or electronic media (including records of examination of physical evidence) containing information about relevant circumstances.

2. Documents are submitted in the original or in the form of a copy.

Copies of documents requiring notarization according to state legislation must be notarized.

Copies of documents issued by a canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church must be certified by an authorized person of this canonical division.

The originals of the documents are submitted when the case cannot be resolved without these originals or when copies of the document are presented, which differ in their content.

3. The originals of the documents available in the case shall be returned to the persons who submitted them after the entry into force of the decision of the ecclesiastical court. At the same time, copies of these documents, certified by the secretary of the church court, are attached to the case file.

Article 18

1. A witness is a person who knows any information about the circumstances relevant to the case.

2. A person petitioning to summon a witness must indicate what circumstances of the case can be confirmed by the witness, and inform the church court of his last name, first name, patronymic and place of residence (service or work in the canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church).

3. If witnesses are called by an ecclesiastical court, there must be at least two of them (Apostolic canon 75; II Ecumenical Council canon 2). The following shall not be called as witnesses:

• persons who are outside church communion (with the exception of cases on charges of committing church offenses against neighbors and Christian morality (Canon of Carthage 144; Apostolic Canon 75; II Ecumenical Council 6 rule);
• persons incompetent in accordance with state legislation;
• persons convicted by an ecclesiastical court for knowingly false denunciation or perjury (II Ecumenical Council 6 rule);
• clergy according to circumstances that became known to them from confession.

4. A person who agrees to act as a witness appears in the church court at the appointed time and gives evidence. Oral evidence is recorded in the minutes and signed by the witness who gave the relevant evidence. Written testimonies are attached to the case file. When testifying, the witness is warned of canonical liability for perjury and takes an oath.

5. If necessary, the ecclesiastical court may repeatedly obtain the testimony of witnesses, including in order to clarify contradictions in their testimony.

Article 19

1. Material evidence is things and other objects with the help of which the circumstances of the case are clarified.

2. When preparing a case for consideration in an ecclesiastical court, material evidence is examined at the place of its location. If necessary, physical evidence can be delivered to the church court for examination. The inspection data is recorded in the protocol.

3. Material evidence, after the entry into force of the decision of the ecclesiastical court, is returned to the persons from whom it was received, or transferred to persons entitled to these items.

4. If it is necessary to examine (deliver to the church court) material evidence located on the territory of the diocese, the chairman of the church court, in agreement with the diocesan bishop of the corresponding diocese, sends an employee of the apparatus of the church court to this diocese for inspection (delivery to the church court) of the necessary material evidence. An employee of the apparatus of the church court draws up a protocol for examining material evidence and, if necessary, takes photographs (video recording).

At the request of the chairman of the ecclesiastical court, the diocesan bishop may send for inspection (delivery to the ecclesiastical court) the necessary material evidence of the dean of the deanery on whose territory the material evidence is located. In this case, the Dean is instructed to draw up a protocol for examining material evidence and, if necessary, to take photographs (video recording).

Article 20 Audio and video recordings

A person submitting audio and (or) video recordings to the church court on electronic or other media is obliged to indicate the place and time of the audio and (or) video recordings, as well as information about the persons who made them.

Article 21

1. If issues arise during the consideration of a case that require special knowledge, the ecclesiastical court appoints an expert examination.
An expert may be a person who has special knowledge in matters that are considered by the ecclesiastical court. The examination may be entrusted to a specific expert or several experts.

2. The expert gives a reasoned written opinion on the questions put to him and sends it to the church court that ordered the expert examination. The expert opinion must contain detailed description the study, the conclusions drawn as a result of it and the answers to the questions posed by the church court. An expert may be invited to a meeting of an ecclesiastical court, involved in obtaining, examining and examining material and other evidence.

3. If it is established that the expert is interested in the outcome of the case, the ecclesiastical court has the right to entrust the conduct of the expert examination to another expert.

4. In cases of insufficient clarity or incompleteness of the expert's opinion, as well as in connection with the existence of contradictions in the opinions of several experts, the church court may order a repeated examination, entrusting it to be carried out by the same or another expert.

Article 22

1. The actions of the ecclesiastical court and the persons participating in the case are carried out within the time limits established by the ecclesiastical court, unless otherwise provided by these Regulations.

2. For persons who missed the deadline due to reasons recognized by the ecclesiastical court as valid, the missed deadline (at the discretion of the ecclesiastical court) may be restored. An application for the restoration of the missed deadline is submitted to the relevant church court.

Section II. diocesan court.

Article 23

1. Diocesan courts are established by decision of the diocesan bishop (Chapter VII of the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church).

2. As an exception (with the blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia), the functions of the diocesan court in the diocese may be assigned to the diocesan council.

In this case, the powers of the chairman of the diocesan court shall be exercised by the diocesan bishop or a member of the diocesan council authorized by him; the powers of the deputy chairman of the diocesan court and the secretary are assigned, at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, to the members of the diocesan council.

The diocesan council carries out ecclesiastical legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by this Regulation for diocesan courts. Decisions of the Diocesan Council may be appealed to the All-Ecclesiastical Court of Second Instance or reviewed by the All-Ecclesiastical Court by way of supervision in accordance with the rules provided for by this Regulation for decisions of diocesan courts.

Article 24

The Diocesan Court considers:

• in relation to clerics - cases on charges of committing ecclesiastical offenses, provided for by the list approved by the Holy Synod and entailing canonical prohibitions (punishments) in the form of dismissal from office, dismissal for the staff, temporary or life-long ban on priesthood, defrocking, excommunication from the Church ;
• in relation to laity belonging to the category of church officials, as well as monastics - cases on charges of committing church offenses provided for by the list approved by the Holy Synod and entailing canonical prohibitions (punishments) in the form of dismissal, temporary excommunication from church communion or excommunication from the Church;
• other cases that, at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, require investigation, including cases on the most significant disputes and disagreements between clergy, as provided for in Article 2 of these Regulations.

Article 25

1. The diocesan court shall consist of at least five judges of episcopal or priestly rank.

2. The chairman, deputy chairman and secretary of the diocesan court are appointed by the diocesan bishop. The remaining judges of the diocesan court are elected by the Diocesan Assembly on the proposal of the diocesan bishop.

3. The term of office of diocesan court judges is three years, with the possibility of reappointment or re-election for a new term (without limiting the number of reappointments (re-elections).

4. All judges of the diocesan court before taking office (at the first session of the court) take an oath in the presence of the diocesan bishop.

5. Early termination of the powers of judges of the diocesan court on the grounds provided for in Article 8 of this Regulation is carried out by the decision of the diocesan bishop. In case of vacancies, the right to appoint temporary acting judges of the diocesan court (until the appointment or election of judges in accordance with the established procedure) belongs to the diocesan bishop. On behalf of the diocesan bishop, the deputy chairman of the diocesan court may temporarily act as chairman of the diocesan court. Persons temporarily acting as chairman or judges of the diocesan court have the rights and bear the duties provided for by this Regulation, respectively, for the chairman or judges of the diocesan court.

6. Cases on accusations of clerics of committing ecclesiastical offenses that entail canonical prohibitions in the form of a life ban on priestly service, defrocking, excommunication from the Church are considered by the diocesan court in full force.

Other cases are considered by the diocesan court composed of at least three judges, including the chairman of the diocesan court or his deputy.

Article 26

1. Ensuring the activities of the diocesan court is entrusted to the staff of the diocesan court, whose employees are appointed by the diocesan bishop.

2. The diocesan court is financed from the diocesan budget.

3. Cases considered by the diocesan court shall be stored in the archives of the diocesan court for five years from the moment the proceedings on the case are completed. After this period, the cases are transferred for storage to the archives of the Diocese.

SECTION III. CHURCH-WIDE COURT.

Article 27

The general church court is created by the decision of the Council of Bishops.

Article 28

1. The general ecclesiastical court considers as an ecclesiastical court of first instance:

• in relation to bishops (with the exception of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia) - cases on charges of committing ecclesiastical offenses provided for by the list approved by the Holy Synod and entailing canonical prohibitions (punishments) in the form of release from the administration of the Diocese, dismissal, temporary or life ban in the priesthood, defrocking, excommunication from the Church;
• in relation to clerics appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod or by decree of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to the position of heads of Synodal and other general church institutions - cases on charges of committing ecclesiastical offenses provided for by the list approved by the Holy Synod and entailing canonical prohibitions (punishments) in the form of exemption from positions, temporary or life-long prohibition in the priesthood, defrocking, excommunication from the Church;
• in relation to other persons appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod or by decree of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to the position of heads of Synodal and other general church institutions - cases on charges of committing ecclesiastical offenses provided for by the list approved by the Holy Synod and entailing canonical bans (punishments) in the form of release from office, temporary excommunication from church communion or excommunication from the Church;
• other cases in relation to the above persons referred by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod to the General Church Court of First Instance, including cases on the most significant disputes and disagreements, disputes between bishops, provided for in Article 2 of this Regulation.

With regard to clerics and other persons appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod or by decree of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to the position of heads of Synodal and other general church institutions, the General Church Court considers only those cases that are related to the official activities of these persons in the relevant institutions. In other cases, these persons are within the jurisdiction of the respective diocesan courts.

2. As an ecclesiastical court of second instance, the general church court considers the following cases:

• reviewed by diocesan courts and sent by diocesan bishops to the General Church Court for final resolution;
• on appeals of the parties against decisions of diocesan courts;
• considered by the highest ecclesiastical courts of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia or Self-Governing Churches (if these Churches have higher ecclesiastical courts) and referred by the primates of the respective Churches to the General Church Court;
• on appeals of the parties against decisions of higher ecclesiastical judicial instances of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia or Self-Governing Churches (if these Churches have higher ecclesiastical judicial instances).

3. By order of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod, the General Church Court has the right to review, by way of supervision, decisions of diocesan courts that have entered into legal force.

Article 29

1. The General Church Court consists of a chairman and four members in the rank of bishops, who are elected by the Bishops' Council on the proposal of the Presidium of the Bishops' Council for a term of four years with the right to be re-elected for a new term (but not more than three terms in a row). The Deputy Chairman and Secretary of the General Church Court are appointed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia from among the members of the General Church Court.

2. Early termination of the powers of the chairman or members of the General Church Court on the grounds provided for in Article 8 of this Regulation is carried out by the decision of the Holy Synod headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, with subsequent approval by the Council of Bishops. In the event of vacancies that have arisen, the right to appoint temporary acting judges of the General Church Court (until the judges are elected in accordance with the established procedure) belongs to the Holy Synod headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and in cases that do not require delay - to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

On behalf of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the Deputy Chairman of the General Church Court may temporarily act as Chairman of the General Church Court.

Bishops temporarily acting as chairman or judges of the General Church Court have the rights and bear the duties provided for by this Regulation, respectively, for the chairman or judges of the General Church Court.

3. Cases accusing bishops of committing ecclesiastical offenses are considered by the General Church Court in its entirety.
The General Church Court considers other cases in the composition of at least three judges headed by the Chairman of the General Church Court or his deputy.

Article 30 Archive of the General Church Court.

1. Ensuring the activities of the General Church Court and the preparation of relevant cases for consideration is entrusted to the apparatus of the General Church Court. The number and composition of the employees of the apparatus of the General Church Court is determined by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia on the proposal of the Chairman of the General Church Court.

2. The General Church Court is financed from the funds of the general Church budget.

3. Sessions of the General Church Court are held in Moscow. With the blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the General Church Court may hold visiting sessions on the territory of the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church.

4. Cases considered by the General Church Court shall be kept in the archives of the General Church Court for five years from the date of completion of the proceedings. After this period, the cases are transferred for storage to the archives of the Moscow Patriarchate.

SECTION IV. THE COURT OF THE BOARD OF BISHPS.

Article 31

1. The Council of Bishops considers, as an ecclesiastical court of first and last instance, cases of dogmatic and canonical deviations in the activities of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

2. The Council of Bishops considers, as an ecclesiastical court of second instance, cases against bishops and leaders of Synodal and other general church institutions:

• considered by the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance and sent by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod to the Council of Bishops for a final decision;
• on appeals of bishops or heads of Synodal and other general church institutions against decisions of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance that have entered into force.

The Holy Synod or the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia has the right to send for consideration by the Council of Bishops other cases that are within the jurisdiction of lower church courts, if these cases require an authoritative judicial decision.

3. The Council of Bishops is the highest court for the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Self-Governing Churches and Exarchates of the Russian Orthodox Church.

4. The Council of Bishops has the right:

• review by way of supervision the decisions of the General Church Court that have entered into legal force;
• to consider, on the proposal of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod, the issue of easing or abolishing the canonical ban (punishment) in relation to a person convicted by a previous Bishops' Council (if there is a corresponding petition from this person).

Article 32

If it is necessary to consider specific cases of church offenses, the Council of Bishops forms the Judicial Commission of the Council of Bishops, consisting of a chairman and at least four members in the rank of bishops, who are elected by the Council of Bishops on the proposal of the Holy Synod for the period of the corresponding Council of Bishops. The Secretary of the Judicial Commission of the Council of Bishops is appointed by the Holy Synod from among the members of this commission.

The Judicial Commission of the Council of Bishops examines the materials of the case, draws up a certificate containing a canonical (using the norms of church law) analysis of the circumstances of the case, and submits to the Council of Bishops an appropriate report with the necessary documents attached.

SECTION V. ORDER OF CHURCH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

Chapter 5

1. Acceptance of the case for consideration.

Article 33 Deadlines for the case.

1. A case requiring investigation is referred by the diocesan bishop to the diocesan court if the following grounds exist:

1. report of church offense received from other sources.

On the transfer of the case to the diocesan court, the diocesan bishop issues an appropriate order, which he sends to the diocesan court along with a statement of an ecclesiastical offense (if any) and other information about an ecclesiastical offense.

The decision of the diocesan court on the case must be taken no later than one month from the day the diocesan bishop issues an order to transfer the case to the diocesan court. If a more thorough investigation of the case is necessary, the diocesan bishop may extend this period at the reasoned petition of the chairman of the diocesan court.

In the event that the case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the diocesan court of the given diocese, the diocesan bishop reports the information about the ecclesiastical offense to the diocesan bishop of the diocese in whose jurisdiction the accused person is.

2. The general church court of first instance accepts the case for consideration on the basis of the order of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod. The case is transferred to the General Church Court of First Instance if there are the following grounds:

• statement of ecclesiastical wrongdoing;
• a message about a committed church offense received from other sources.

The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod determine the terms for the consideration of the case in the General Church Court of First Instance. The extension of these terms is carried out by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod at the reasoned petition of the chairman of the General Church Court.

If a person under the jurisdiction of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance is accused of committing an especially grave ecclesiastical offense that entails a canonical ban in the form of defrocking or excommunication from the Church, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod shall have the right, until the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance adopts an appropriate decision temporarily release the accused person from office or temporarily ban the priesthood.

If the case received by the General Church Court is subject to the jurisdiction of the diocesan court, the secretary of the General Church Court shall report information about the church offense to the diocesan bishop of the diocese in whose jurisdiction the accused person is located.

Article 34

1. An application for an ecclesiastical offense subject to consideration by a diocesan court must be signed and filed by a member or canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed to the diocesan bishop of the diocese in whose jurisdiction the accused person is located.

An application for an ecclesiastical offense, subject to consideration by the diocesan court, is submitted (or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) to the diocesan administration.

2. An application for an ecclesiastical offense by a bishop, subject to consideration by the General Church Court, must be signed and filed in the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia:

• in relation to a diocesan bishop, by any bishop or by a clergyman (canonical subdivision) under the jurisdiction of the corresponding diocesan bishop;
• in relation to a vicar bishop, by any bishop or cleric (canonical subdivision) of the diocese in whose jurisdiction the respective vicar bishop is located;
• in relation to bishops who are at rest or outside the state - by the diocesan bishop of the diocese in whose territory the ecclesiastical offense was committed.

An application for an ecclesiastical offense by the head of a Synodal and other general church institution, appointed to the position by the decision of the Holy Synod or by decree of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, must be signed and submitted to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod by at least three responsible employees.

An application for an ecclesiastical offense, subject to consideration by the General Church Court, is submitted (or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) to the Moscow Patriarchate.

3. Applications received from the following persons are not accepted for consideration:

• those who are outside of church communion (with the exception of cases on charges of committing church offenses against neighbor and Christian morality (Canon of Carthage 144; Apostolic Canon 75; II Ecumenical Council 6 rule);
• incompetent under state law;
• convicted by a church court for knowingly false denunciation or perjury (II Ecumenical Council 6 canon);
• from persons openly leading a vicious lifestyle (Canon 129 of the Council of Carthage);
• clerics - according to the circumstances that became known to them from confession.

Article 35

1. An application for an ecclesiastical offense must be signed by the applicant. An anonymous statement about an ecclesiastical offense cannot serve as a reason for considering the case in an ecclesiastical court.

2. An application for an ecclesiastical offense must contain:

• information about the applicant indicating his place of residence or, if the applicant is a canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church, his location;
• information about the accused person known to the applicant;
• what is the ecclesiastical offense;
• the circumstances on which the applicant bases his allegations and the evidence supporting those circumstances;
• list of documents attached to the application.

Article 36

The ecclesiastical court leaves the application for an ecclesiastical offense without consideration and terminates the proceedings if the following circumstances are established at the stage of preparing the case for consideration or during the consideration of the case:

• the accused is a person who is not subject to ecclesiastical court;
• the application is signed and submitted by a person who, in accordance with Article 34 of this Regulation, does not have the authority to sign it and present it to the church court;
• the obvious absence of an ecclesiastical offense (or a dispute (disagreement) within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court);
• the obvious non-involvement of the accused person in a church offense;
• the commission of a church offense (the emergence of a dispute or disagreement) before the entry into force of this Regulation, subject to the rules provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 62 of this Regulation.

Article 37

If an application for an ecclesiastical offense is filed without complying with the requirements provided for in Article 35 of this Regulation, the clerk of the ecclesiastical court invites the applicant to bring the application in line with the established requirements.

2. Consideration of the case.

Article 38

1. The preparation of a case for consideration in an ecclesiastical court is carried out by the apparatus of the ecclesiastical court in cooperation with the secretary of the ecclesiastical court and includes:

• clarification of relevant circumstances;
• drawing up a certificate containing a canonical (using the norms of church law) analysis of the circumstances relevant to the case;
• determination of the composition of persons participating in the case;
• collection of necessary evidence, including (if necessary) questioning of the parties and other persons participating in the case, which is carried out by the apparatus (secretary) of the church court with the permission of the chairman of the church court;
• control over the timely direction of calls to the church court;
• other preparatory activities.

2. At the request of the chairman of the ecclesiastical court, the diocesan bishop may instruct the dean of the deanery in whose territory the ecclesiastical offense was committed to assist the ecclesiastical court in preparing the case for consideration.

Article 39

1. The consideration of the case takes place at a meeting of the ecclesiastical court with the obligatory preliminary notification of the parties about the time and place of the meeting. At the discretion of the ecclesiastical court, other persons participating in the case may be summoned to the session. If, in the course of preparing the case for consideration, the applicant was interrogated in the manner prescribed by paragraph 1 of Article 38 of this Regulation, the ecclesiastical court has the right to consider the case in the absence of the applicant.

2. During the meetings of the church court, the Holy Cross and the Gospel are placed on the lectern (table).

3. The session of the church court begins and ends with a prayer.

4. When considering a case, the Church Court examines the materials prepared by the staff of the Church Court, as well as the available evidence: hears explanations from the parties and other persons participating in the case; testimony of witnesses; gets acquainted with the documents, including protocols of examination of physical evidence, and expert opinions; examines material evidence delivered to the meeting; listening to audio recordings and watching video recordings.

At the discretion of the ecclesiastical court, the explanations of the accused person may be heard in the absence of the applicant and other persons participating in the case.

When the General Church Court of First Instance considers cases against bishops, the explanations of the accused person are heard in the absence of the applicant and other persons participating in the case, unless the accused person insists on giving explanations in the presence of these persons.

5. The hearing of the case takes place orally. The session of the ecclesiastical court in each case is held without interruption, except for the time appointed for rest. Simultaneous consideration of several cases at one court session is not allowed.

6. The consideration of the case takes place with the unchanged composition of the judges of the ecclesiastical court, except for the cases provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of this Regulation. In case of replacement of judges, the case is considered anew (if necessary, with the summons of the parties, witnesses and other persons participating in the case).

Article 40

1. Persons summoned to the church court, participating in the case, who are not able to appear in the church court, are obliged to notify the church court of the reasons for their non-appearance and present evidence that these reasons are valid.

2. If both parties, notified of the time and place of the session of the ecclesiastical court, did not appear at this session, the ecclesiastical court postpones the consideration of the case up to two times if the reasons for their absence are recognized as valid.

3. The ecclesiastical court has the right to consider the case in case of non-appearance of any of the parties notified of the time and place of the ecclesiastical court session, if they do not provide information on the reasons for the non-appearance or the ecclesiastical court recognizes the reasons for their non-appearance as disrespectful.

4. If the nature of the case referred to the ecclesiastical court may entail a ban on priestly service or defrocking, the ecclesiastical court, in the event of failure to appear at the meeting of the accused person, postpones the consideration of the case up to two times. If the accused person does not appear at the court session for the third time (despite the fact that the reasons for non-appearance turn out to be disrespectful), the ecclesiastical court considers the case in the absence of the accused person.

5. If other persons participating in the case fail to appear at the session of the church court, the church court discretion, regardless of the reasons for non-appearance, decides on the possibility of considering the case in their absence.

6. If the parties or other persons participating in the case left the session of the ecclesiastical court without valid reasons during the consideration of the case, the ecclesiastical court shall consider the case in their absence.

Article 41

1. Consideration of a case may be postponed at the discretion of the ecclesiastical court, including in the following cases:

• if necessary, obtain additional evidence;
• failure to appear at the meeting of the church court of the persons participating in the case;
• the need to involve other persons in the case;
• the impossibility of considering this case until the resolution of another case being considered by an ecclesiastical or state court or body;
• replacement of judges of an ecclesiastical court on the grounds provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of this Regulation;
• the whereabouts of the accused person is unknown.

2. The consideration of the case shall continue after the elimination of the circumstances in connection with which the ecclesiastical court adjourned the consideration of the case.

Article 42

1. Issues that arise during the consideration of a case by an ecclesiastical court are decided by the judges of an ecclesiastical court by a majority of votes. In case of equality of votes, the chairperson's vote is decisive.

2. A judge of an ecclesiastical court has no right to abstain from voting.

Article 43

During each session of the church court, as well as in other cases provided for by these Regulations, a protocol is drawn up, which must reflect all the necessary information about the consideration of the case or the commission of a separate action by the church court.

Article 44

1. The minutes of the session of the ecclesiastical court are kept by the secretary and must contain all the necessary information about the consideration of the case.

2. The minutes of the session of the ecclesiastical court must be signed by the presiding judge and the secretary of the ecclesiastical court no later than three working days after the end of the session.

3. The minutes of the session of the ecclesiastical court shall indicate:

• date and place of the meeting;
• the name and composition of the ecclesiastical court considering the case;
• case number;
• information about the appearance of persons participating in the case;
• explanations of the parties and other persons participating in the case, signed by them;
• testimony of witnesses signed by them;
• information about the disclosure of documents and expert opinions, data from the examination of material evidence, listening to audio recordings, viewing video recordings;
• information about the conduct of the conciliation procedure by the church court, provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 6 of this Regulation;
• date of the protocol.

3. The decision of the church court.

Article 45

1. When making a decision, the ecclesiastical court considers the following issues:

• establishing the fact of a church offense;
• establishment of the fact of committing an ecclesiastical offense by the accused person;
• canonical (using the norms of ecclesiastical law) assessment of an ecclesiastical offense;
• the guilt of the accused person in the commission of this church offense;
• the presence of circumstances mitigating or aggravating guilt.

If it is necessary to bring the accused person to canonical responsibility, the canonical ban (punishment) against the accused person, which is possible from the point of view of the ecclesiastical court, is determined.

2. The decision of the ecclesiastical court is taken by the judges who are members of the ecclesiastical court in this case, in the manner prescribed by Article 42 of this Regulation.

3. After the adoption and signing of the decision by the ecclesiastical court, the presiding judge at the session of the ecclesiastical court announces to the parties the decision, explains the procedure for its approval, as well as the procedure and conditions for appealing. In case of absence of any of the parties at the session of the ecclesiastical court, the secretary of the ecclesiastical court (within three working days from the date of the relevant session) informs the party absent from the session of the decision.

Article 46

1. The decision of the ecclesiastical court must contain: the date of the decision; the name and composition of the ecclesiastical court that made the decision; description of the merits of the case; a conclusion about the guilt (innocence) of the accused person and a canonical (using the norms of church law) assessment of the act; recommendation of a possible canonical ban (punishment) from the point of view of the ecclesiastical court if it is necessary to bring the accused person to canonical responsibility.

2. The decision of the ecclesiastical court must be signed by all the judges of the ecclesiastical court who took part in the session. A judge of an ecclesiastical court who does not agree with the decision made may state in writing his dissenting opinion, which is attached to the case file, but when the decision of the ecclesiastical court is announced to the parties, it is not announced.

Article 47

1. The decision taken by the diocesan court, together with the minutes of court sessions and other materials of the case, is submitted by the chairman of the diocesan court for consideration by the diocesan bishop no later than five working days from the date of the decision.

2. The diocesan bishop approves the decision of the diocesan court by his resolution, which must contain:

• an indication of the type and term of canonical ban, punishment (if the accused person is brought to canonical responsibility) or an indication of the release of the accused person from canonical responsibility;
• signature and seal of the diocesan bishop;
• date of the resolution.

Decisions of the diocesan court (with the exception of repeated decisions made in the manner prescribed by Article 48 of this Regulation) are approved by the diocesan bishop not earlier than fifteen working days from the date of their adoption.

3. The decisions of the diocesan court come into force from the moment they are approved by the diocesan bishop, and in the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of this article, from the moment the relevant canonical bans (punishments) are approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod.

4. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia approves the canonical prohibitions imposed by the diocesan bishop in the form of a life-long ban on priestly service, defrocking, or excommunication from the Church.

The Holy Synod, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, imposes punishment on the superiors (abbots) of diocesan monasteries in the form of dismissal from their positions.

Decisions of the diocesan court in such cases, with the relevant preliminary resolution of the diocesan bishop and case materials, are sent by the diocesan bishop (within five working days from the date the diocesan bishop issues a resolution) for approval by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod.

5. In the absence of a diocesan bishop, including in the case of the widowhood of the diocese, consideration of the issue of approving the decision of the diocesan court is postponed until the return (appointment to office) of the diocesan bishop or until the duties of temporary administration of the diocese are assigned to the diocesan bishop of another diocese.

6. Within three working days from the day the diocesan bishop issues a resolution on the case, the secretary of the diocesan court delivers to the parties against receipt (sends by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) a notice signed by the chairman of the diocesan court containing information about the resolution of the diocesan bishop.

Article 48 Conditions for appealing against decisions of the diocesan court.

1. If the diocesan bishop is not satisfied with the results of the consideration of the case in the diocesan court, the case is returned to the diocesan court for a new consideration.

In case of disagreement with the repeated decision of the diocesan court in this case, the diocesan bishop makes his own preliminary decision, which takes effect immediately. The corresponding case is sent by the diocesan bishop to the General Church Court of Second Instance for a final decision.

2. The case may be returned by the diocesan bishop to the diocesan court for a new trial also in the following cases:

• upon discovery of significant circumstances of the case, unknown to the diocesan court at the time of the consideration of the case and which are the basis for its review;
• submission to the diocesan bishop of a properly motivated written petition of the party for reconsideration of the case.

3. A party's request for a review of the case is filed (or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) to the diocesan administration addressed to the diocesan bishop within five working days from the date the diocesan court makes the relevant decision.

In the event that the deadline for filing an application established by this paragraph is missed, the diocesan bishop has the right to leave the application without consideration.

4. The review of the case is carried out by the diocesan court in the manner prescribed by sections 2-3 of this chapter. The request of the party to review the repeated decision of the diocesan court is not accepted for consideration.

5. Decisions of the diocesan court containing the resolution of the diocesan bishop may be appealed by the parties to the General Church Court of Second Instance only in the following cases:

• non-observance by the diocesan court of the order of ecclesiastical legal proceedings established by these Regulations;
• in case of duly motivated disagreement of the party with the second decision of the diocesan court, adopted at the request of the party for a review of the case.

Decisions of the diocesan court are appealed in the manner prescribed by Chapter 6 of this Regulation. Decisions of the diocesan court containing the resolution of the diocesan bishop on the dismissal of the accused person from office or on the transfer of the clergy to another place of service are not subject to appeal.

Article 49

1. The decision taken by the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance, together with the minutes of court sessions and other materials of the case, is submitted by the Chairman of the All-Ecclesiastical Court (within five working days from the date of the decision) for consideration by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The decisions of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance, which provide as a possible canonical ban (punishment) are sent to the Holy Synod for consideration (within five working days from the date of the decision):

• the release of the accused person from the position to which this person was appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod;
• other canonical prohibition (punishment), which has as its inevitable consequence the release from the position to which the person was appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod.

2. Decisions of the General Church Court of First Instance come into force from the moment they are approved by the resolution of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

3. Decisions of the General Church Court of First Instance submitted for consideration by the Holy Synod shall enter into force from the moment they are approved by the resolution of the Holy Synod. Before the consideration of the case by the Holy Synod, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (if necessary) has the right to make a temporary decision, which takes effect immediately and is valid until the moment the Holy Synod passes the corresponding resolution.

4. Within three working days from the date of the adoption by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod of a resolution on the case, the secretary of the General Church Court shall hand over to the parties against receipt (send by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) a notice signed by the chairman of the General Church Court containing information on the resolution of the Patriarch Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod.

Article 50 Conditions for appealing against decisions of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance.

1. If the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod are not satisfied with the results of the consideration of the case in the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance, the case is returned to this court for a new consideration.

In case of disagreement with the repeated decision of the General Church Court of First Instance in this case, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod shall make their own preliminary decision, which shall enter into force immediately. The relevant case is sent to the next Bishops' Council for a final decision.

2. The case may be returned by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod to the General Church Court of First Instance for a new trial also in the following cases:

• upon discovery of significant circumstances of the case, unknown to the General Church Court of First Instance at the time of the consideration of the case and which are the basis for its review;
• submission to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or to the Holy Synod of a properly motivated written petition of the party for a review of the case in connection with the non-observance by the General Church Court of First Instance of the procedure for church proceedings established by these Regulations.

3. The party's request for a review of the case is filed (or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) to the Moscow Patriarchate within five working days from the day the relevant decision was made by the General Church Court of First Instance.

In the event that the deadline for filing a petition established by this paragraph is missed, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod shall have the right to leave the petition without consideration.

4. The review of the case is carried out by the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance in the manner prescribed by Sections 2-3 of this Chapter. The petition of the party to review the repeated decision of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance is not accepted for consideration.

5. Bishops who are parties to the case may appeal at the next Bishops' Council (in the manner prescribed by Chapter 7 of these Regulations) decisions of the General Church Court of First Instance that have entered into force, made in respect of bishops and providing for:

• prohibition in the priesthood;
• release from the management of the Diocese (without transferring the diocesan bishop to the corresponding position in another diocese);
• other canonical prohibition (punishment), which has as its inevitable consequence the release from the administration of the Diocese (without transferring the diocesan bishop to the corresponding position in another diocese).

Other decisions of the General Church Court of First Instance made in relation to bishops (including decisions providing for the transfer of a diocesan bishop to an appropriate position in another diocese) are not subject to appeal.

6. Persons, including clerics, appointed by the decision of the Holy Synod or by decree of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia to the position of heads of Synodal and other general church institutions, may appeal at the next Bishops' Council (in the manner prescribed by Chapter 7 of this Regulation) the decisions of the General Church Court that have entered into legal force first instance, providing for the excommunication of these persons from the Church or the defrocking of clerics.

Other decisions of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance issued in respect of the said persons shall not be subject to appeal.

Chapter 6 Supervisory proceedings in the General Church Court.

Article 51 Terms of consideration of appeals against the decision of the diocesan courts.

1. The General Church Court of Second Instance accepts for consideration cases considered by diocesan courts and referred by diocesan bishops to the General Church Court for final resolution in the manner prescribed by Article 52 of this Regulation.

2. Appeals against decisions of diocesan courts containing a resolution of a diocesan bishop are accepted by the All-Ecclesiastical Court of Second Instance for consideration solely by order of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod.

The decision on the appeal must be made no later than one month from the date of issuance by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod of the relevant order to transfer the appeal to the General Church Court of Second Instance. The extension of this period is carried out by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod at the reasoned petition of the chairman of the General Church Court.

Article 52

1. The petition of the diocesan bishop for the final resolution of the case, considered by the diocesan court in the manner provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 48 of this Regulation, is sent to the General Church Court with the application of the case materials, as well as a second decision of the diocesan court, with which the diocesan bishop does not agree. In the petition, the diocesan bishop must indicate the reasons for his disagreement with the decision of the diocesan court, as well as his own preliminary decision on the case.

2. If the petition of the diocesan bishop is filed without complying with the requirements provided for in paragraph 1 of this article, the secretary of the General Church Court proposes to the diocesan bishop to bring the petition in line with the established requirements.

Article 53

1. An appeal against a decision of a diocesan court is filed in the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or to the Holy Synod by the accused person or by the applicant, at whose request the relevant diocesan court considered the case. The appeal must be signed by the person who filed the complaint. An anonymous appeal cannot serve as a reason for the consideration of the case in the General Church Court of Second Instance.

An appeal is filed (or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt) to the Moscow Patriarchate.

2. An appeal against the decision of the diocesan court must be filed within ten working days from the date of direct delivery to the parties (or from the day they receive by mail) a written notice of the resolution of the diocesan bishop.

If the deadline for filing an appeal is missed, the General Church Court of Second Instance has the right to leave the appeal without consideration.

3. The appeal must contain:

• information about the person who filed the complaint, indicating his place of residence or, if the appeal was filed by a canonical division of the Russian Orthodox Church, his location;
• information about the appealed decision of the diocesan court;
• arguments (proper substantiation) of the appeal;

If an appeal is filed without complying with the requirements provided for in this paragraph, the secretary of the General Church Court proposes to the person who filed the appeal to bring it into line with the established requirements.

4. The general church court of second instance leaves the appeal without consideration in the following cases:

• the appeal is signed and filed by a person who, in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, does not have the authority to sign and present it;
• non-compliance with the conditions for appealing against the decision of the diocesan court, provided for in paragraph 5 of Article 48 of this Regulation.

1. If the appeal is accepted for consideration, the chairman of the General Church Court sends to the name of the diocesan bishop:

• a copy of the appeal against the decision of the diocesan court;
• a request for submission to the General Church Court of the appealed decision of the diocesan court and other materials of the case.

2. The diocesan bishop (within ten working days from the date of receipt of the request) sends to the General Church Court:

• response to the appeal;
• appealed decision of the diocesan court and other materials of the case.

Article 55

At the discretion of the General Church Court of Second Instance, the case may be considered with the participation of the parties and other persons participating in the case (according to the rules provided for in Chapter 5 of this Regulation) or without the participation of the parties and other persons participating in the case (by examining the available case materials on the basis of the relevant Report of the Secretary of the General Church Court).

The case may be considered by the All-Ecclesiastical Court of Second Instance with the participation of the relevant diocesan bishop.

Article 56

1. The general church court of second instance has the right:

• leave the decision of the diocesan court unchanged;
• make a new decision on the case;
• cancel the decision of the diocesan court in whole or in part and terminate the judicial proceedings in the case.

2. The decision of the General Church Court of Second Instance is adopted and formalized by the judges who are members of the court in this case, in the manner prescribed by paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 45, as well as Article 46 of this Regulation.

3. If a court session is held with the participation of the parties and other persons participating in the case, the decision of the General Church Court of second instance is brought to the attention of the parties in the manner prescribed by paragraph 3 of Article 45 of this Regulation.

4. Decisions of the General Church Court of Second Instance come into force from the moment they are approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod.

The relevant resolution of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or the Holy Synod is brought to the attention of the parties in the manner prescribed by paragraph 4 of Article 49 of this Regulation.

5. Decisions of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of Second Instance are not subject to appeal.

Article 57

1. On behalf of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the General Church Court, by way of supervision, requests from the diocesan bishops the decisions of the diocesan courts that have entered into legal force and other materials on any cases considered by the diocesan courts. The relevant materials must be submitted by the diocesan bishops within the period established by the General Church Court.

2. Supervisory proceedings in the General Church Court shall be carried out in accordance with the rules provided for in Articles 55-56 of this Regulation.

Chapter 7

Article 58

1. An appeal against a decision of the General Church Court of First Instance that has entered into legal force is sent by the accused person for consideration by the nearest Bishops' Council in accordance with the rules provided for in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 50 of this Regulation.

2. The appeal is signed by the person who filed the complaint. An anonymous appeal is not subject to consideration at the Council of Bishops.

3. An appeal must be filed with the Holy Synod no later than thirty working days from the date of direct delivery to the parties (or from the day they receive by mail) a written notice containing information about the resolution of the Holy Synod or the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

If the deadline for filing an appeal is missed, it may be left without consideration.

4. The appeal must contain:

• information about the person who filed the complaint, indicating his place of residence;
• information about the appealed decision of the All-Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance;
• arguments of the appeal;
• the request of the complainant;
• list of attached documents.

5. An appeal is not subject to consideration if the conditions for appealing against the decision of the General Church Court of First Instance, provided for in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 50 of this Regulation, are not met.

Article 59

1. The Council of Bishops has the right:

• make their own decision on the case;
• leave the decision of the lower ecclesiastical court unchanged;
• cancel the decision of the lower ecclesiastical court in whole or in part and terminate the judicial proceedings.

2. The decision of the Council of Bishops enters into force from the moment it is adopted by the Council of Bishops and is not subject to appeal. A person convicted by a Council of Bishops has the right to send a petition addressed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or to the Holy Synod for consideration at the next Council of Bishops of the issue of easing or canceling the canonical ban (punishment) in relation to this person.

Article 60

The order of ecclesiastical legal proceedings at the Council of Bishops is determined by the regulations of the Council of Bishops. The preparation of relevant cases for consideration at the Council of Bishops is entrusted to the Holy Synod.

SECTION VI. FINAL PROVISIONS.

Article 61. Entry into force of this Regulation.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its approval by the Council of Bishops.

Article 62. Application of this Regulation.

1. Cases of ecclesiastical offenses that are a canonical obstacle to being in the clergy are considered by ecclesiastical courts in the manner prescribed by this Regulation in the event that these ecclesiastical offenses were committed both before and after the entry into force of this Regulation, provided that the relevant ecclesiastical offenses were deliberately hidden by the accused person and in this regard were not previously considered by the bodies of church authority and administration.

Cases on other ecclesiastical offenses are considered by ecclesiastical courts in the event of the commission of the relevant ecclesiastical offenses after the entry into force of this Regulation.

2. The Holy Synod approves the list of ecclesiastical offenses subject to consideration by ecclesiastical courts. If it is necessary to transfer to the diocesan court cases on ecclesiastical offenses not provided for in this list, diocesan bishops should apply to the General Church Court for clarification.

3. The Holy Synod approves the forms of documents used by ecclesiastical courts (including calls to the ecclesiastical court, minutes, court decisions).

3. On the proposal of the chairman of the General Church Court, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia approves and brings to the attention of the diocesan bishops the explanations (instructions) of the General Church Court on the application of this Regulation by diocesan courts.

The clarifications (instructions) of the General Church Court, approved in accordance with the established procedure, are binding on all diocesan courts.

4. Explanations (instructions) on the application of this Regulation by the General Church Court shall be approved by the Holy Synod.

5. The General Church Court responds to requests from diocesan courts related to the application of this Regulation, and also draws up reviews of judicial practice, which are sent to diocesan courts for use in legal proceedings.

_____________________

Church judge's oath

I, the one named below, assuming the office of an ecclesiastical judge, promise Almighty God before the Holy Cross and the Gospel that with the help of God I will strive to pass my forthcoming service as a judge of an ecclesiastical court in everything in accordance with the Word of God, with the canons of the Holy Apostles, Ecumenical and local councils and holy fathers, and with all church rules, regulations and institutions.

I also promise that when considering any case in the church court, I will strive to act according to my conscience, fairly, imitating the Righteous and Merciful Ecumenical Judge Our Lord Jesus Christ, so that the decisions made by the church court with my participation protect the flock of the Church of God from heresies, schisms, discords and outrages and helped those who transgressed the commandments of God to come to the knowledge of the Truth, to repentance, correction and final salvation.

Participating in the adoption of judicial decisions, I promise to have in my thoughts not my honor, interest and benefit, but the glory of God, the good of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church and the salvation of my neighbors, in which may the Lord help me with His grace, prayers for the sake of Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary and all saints.

In conclusion of this promise, I kiss the Holy Gospel and the Cross of my Savior. Amen.

Witness oath

1. The text of the oath of a witness belonging to the Orthodox Church:

   I, first name, patronymic and last name (the cleric also indicates his rank), giving testimony to the church court, before the Holy Cross and the Gospel, I promise to tell the truth and only the truth.

2. The text of the oath of a witness who does not belong to the Orthodox Church:

   I, first name, patronymic and last name, giving evidence to the church court, promise to tell the truth and only the truth.

Press Service of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008