The Metropolitan and His Entourage

Through its bishop, each particular Church maintained unity with the other parts of the one universal Church and entered into communion with them. Following the example of the Apostolic Council, the bishops of several neighboring dioceses gathered for mutual advice and drew up general decisions on church affairs. Through such assemblies, special large parts of the Church, as it were, districts, were formed from several episcopal regions. The centers of these districts and the places of the Councils were the main cities in various parts of the empire, which not only politically, but also ecclesiastically, were of greater importance, as mothers for other cities in the spread of Christianity, or metropolises. The bishops of these cities-metropolises enjoyed great respect over the rest of the bishops of the less important cities of the same district, were the first among them, or archbishops, and presided over the Councils. From the fourth century in the Eastern Churches they were given the title of metropolitans. In some countries, bishops who had the significance of metropolitans were called primates. To the authority enjoyed by the metropolitans in terms of the importance of their cities, the Church added power in order to strengthen the union of individual Churches and strengthen the unity of church administration. Thus, the metropolitans were granted the right not only to convene regional councils and preside over them, but also to supervise the ecclesiastical affairs of their districts; diocesan bishops had to consider their metropolitan as their head and had no right to undertake anything important without him that exceeded their authority. (Apostolic 34; Ant. 9). He took care of filling the vacant episcopal seats (IV Ecumenical 25); confirmed the election of bishops (I Ecumenical 4; Laod. 12) and appointed them to office with the bishops of his district (IV Ecumenical 28); a bishop without the permission of the metropolitan was not to remain a bishop (I Ecumenical 6). With his permission and with his letter, the bishop could go on a journey outside the boundaries of the metropolis (Carth. 32). The metropolitan accepted appeals against the bishop's court from his clergy (Carth. 37 and 139) and accusations against him (Carth. 28). District bishops were obliged to commemorate the name of their metropolitan during the services, as a sign of their communion with him (Dvukr. 14). But the power of the metropolitan was limited by the local Council of his district (Apostolic 34; Ant 9). Before the establishment of the patriarchate, the metropolitan was appointed by the Council of Bishops of the district (Sard. 6) and could be judged by the same Council together with the neighboring metropolitans (III Ecumenical 1). Some bishops were sometimes given the title of metropolitan without authority. Enjoying the right of honor, they had to submit in the order of church administration to the metropolitan to whose district their dioceses belonged; for example, the bishop of Jerusalem, before his elevation to the patriarchal dignity, was dependent on the metropolitan of Caesarea (I Ecumenical 7).

The Patriarch and His Entourage

Already in the first three centuries, some of the metropolitans possessed great authority and influence in the Church, in accordance with the importance of their cities; such were the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch of Syria. These cities were politically the main ones in the empire. From the point of view of the spread of Christianity, their Churches were mother to numerous Churches in the East, South, and West; the districts of their metropolitans were more extensive than the others. Moreover, these cities were primarily apostolic sees, since the Apostles dwelt in them for a particularly long time and labored for the establishment of Christianity. After the founding of Constantinople, the new capital of the empire, or the new Rome, its bishop was given not only the authority of a metropolitan, but was also granted at the Second Ecumenical Council (Prov. 3) the privilege of honor and seniority over the bishop of Rome. For these first metropolitans, or, as they were sometimes called, exarchs (heads) of the great regions, church laws established the supreme authority over the metropolitans of several districts; from the fifth century (from the time of the Council of Chalcedon) they were given the honorary title of patriarchs (chiefs of the fathers). The Roman patriarchs were more often called by the name of the pope (father), assigned to them by popular custom. To them was added, with the same name and authority, the Metropolitan of Jerusalem, taking into account the honor that this holy city, the mother of all the Churches in the world, had in the eyes of Christians. Thus, in terms of its administration, the Church was divided into five parts or patriarchates, which partly corresponded to the dioceses of the Roman Empire. According to the decree of the Council of Trullo (par. 36), the order of the patriarchal sees, in terms of seniority, was as follows: the first place belonged to the Roman cathedra, the second, equal to the Roman cathedra of Constantinople, the third to Alexandria, the fourth to Antioch, and finally, the fifth to Jerusalem. Some of the metropolitans, in this division into patriarchates, retained an independent (autocephalous) position from the patriarchs; In subsequent times, parts of the Church that had previously been part of one or another patriarchate received autocephaly; e.g., the Russian, Serbian, Hellenic Churches, etc. According to the rules of the Church, the patriarchs are placed in the same position in relation to the metropolitans of their patriarchate as the latter were in relation to the bishops subordinate to them. They convened Councils from representatives of all the particular Churches of their district and their metropolitans; these Councils had, of course, a higher significance than the Councils of the metropolitan districts. The patriarchs are granted the right to appoint metropolitans of their district (IV Ecumenical 28), to receive appeals against them (IV Ecumenical 9; Sard. 3, 4, 5) and to judge them at their Council. In general, the patriarch had the right of supreme supervision in the ecclesiastical affairs of his patriarchate and represented the highest judicial instance. Metropolitans subordinate to the patriarch were obliged to commemorate his name during the rites (Dvukr. 15). The patriarch himself was confirmed in his office both by the emperor and by the other patriarchs, and, as the highest spiritual judge, could be judged only by the Council of his district with the participation of other patriarchs, but in his administration he was independent of them (see Carth. 37). By virtue of various historical circumstances, the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople acquired greater importance in the Church than others, and their patriarchates were incomparably more extensive. In the sixth century, the patriarch of Constantinople, as the capital of the universe, was given the name of ecumenical, that is, supreme to the other patriarchs, standing at their head. This title was at first vehemently opposed by the Roman patriarchs, especially by Gregory the Great; he, in contrast to the universal name, called himself a slave of God's servants (servus servorum Dei); But later the popes began to appropriate to themselves the title of ecumenical bishop. With the establishment of the patriarchate, church unity and ties between the local Churches were to be strengthened even more.

Cathedral administration

Although church administration was united by the establishment of the authority first of the metropolitans, and then of the patriarchs, this not only did not weaken the influence of the original supreme ecclesiastical-governmental authority, but, on the contrary, strengthened it and promoted it. Such supreme authority in the Church, both for its individual parts and for it as a whole, consisted in the union of the authoritative functions of all the bishops, in their joint and harmonious activity in the Church, in other words, in a single episcopacy, in which each of the bishops fully participates (in the words of St. Cyprian). This union of bishops in the administration of the Church from its first times was maintained through constant relations on ecclesiastical affairs between the bishops of private Churches. The fullest and most tangible expression of the union and joint activity of bishops in the administration of the Church were the local and ecumenical Councils.

Local Councils

Local Councils are the meetings of the primates of several particular Churches. Already from the first centuries of Christianity, local Councils began to gather to resolve disputes that arose in the Church, to condemn false teachings, to draw up general definitions concerning teaching, worship, church administration, to elect and elevate bishops, in general, in all those cases where it concerned not one particular Church, but several. Later, even before the fourth century, they became a permanent institution in the Church. The Apostolic Canon (37) prescribed: "Twice a year let there be a Council of Bishops, and let them reason with one another about the dogmas of piety, and let them resolve the ecclesiastical disputes that occur." It set the date for the convocation of the Councils on the 4th week after Pascha, and about the middle of October. This was also confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils (the 1st in 5 rights and the 4th in 19), and the First Council of Nicaea changed only the time of convocation of the Councils, which it appointed for the autumn, and for the time before the Forty Days, "so that after the cessation of all displeasure (i.e., through conciliar proceedings) a pure gift is offered to God (of course, communion)." Subsequent Ecumenical Councils allowed regional Councils to convene at least once a year in connection with various difficulties, but insisted that they be urgently convened between the feast of Pascha and the end of October (VI Ecumenical 8; 7 Ecumenical 6). The head who was responsible for convening Councils was subject to ecclesiastical punishment for neglecting it. The right and duty to convene local Councils in metropolitan districts was possessed only by the metropolitan himself, who could also appoint the place for their holding (Ant. 19:20; 4 ecumenical 19; 7 ecumenical 6), and in patriarchal districts - by the patriarch. The bishops themselves, without a metropolitan, were not allowed to convene Councils (Ant. 20). Members of the Council, both local and ecumenical, with the right of a decisive vote, could only be bishops, as representatives of particular Churches, possessing the fullness of apostolic authority. The canons of the Church required only their indispensable presence at the Councils, without mentioning anything about other persons; consequently, only they were recognized as having the right to decide church affairs at Councils (I Ecumenical 5; 4 Ecumenical 19; Trull. 8). The decrees of the Councils were issued only in their name (see, e.g., Carth. 8, 59, 61, 64, etc., Sardis 1, 5, 9, 11, etc.); only they (the bishops) or their representatives signed the council's decisions and thus gave them the force of laws. For this reason, the Councils themselves were called the Councils of the Holy Fathers, and their canons were called the canons of the Holy Fathers (sometimes, with an indication of the number of these Fathers present at the Council, namely, the number of bishops; see IV Ecumenical 1:28; Trul. 1:2 and many others). Other members of the clergy, as having no governmental authority in the Church, were admitted to Councils, if at all, with the right only of deliberative, and not of a casting vote; they could take part in debates with dissenters, assist bishops in conciliar conferences, etc. (And they received special permission for their deliberative participation from the bishops present, but they themselves did not have the right to do so. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, when many monks, like-minded heretics, arbitrarily appeared at the Council, all the bishops exclaimed: "Expel them from here! here is the Council of Bishops."); as the history of the Church shows, they could have the right of a decisive vote only if they represented the bishop who authorized them to do so, who could not appear at the Council in person. Lay people, for example, lawyers, were sometimes invited to the Council for the same conferences. The presence of the people at the Councils, at least in the first centuries of Christianity, was not forbidden. All the bishops of the district were obliged to attend the district metropolitan Councils in person, since these Councils had to represent the entire local church and each of its bishops had to take care of its well-being. Moreover, the Council gave each bishop much instructive for the administration of the Church: "It is not fitting for bishops who are summoned to the Council to be careless, but to go and admonish, or to be admonished for the good of the Church, etc.," says one of the canons (Laod. 40). Neglect by any of the bishops of his duty to appear at the Council made him guilty before the Council (Laod. 40, Carth. 88); such a bishop alienated himself from communion with representatives of the other Churches of the district (Carth. 87). Only to large councils, for example, patriarchal bishops or metropolitans in the districts could send two or three authorized bishops of their district of Carthus. 27). Local Councils were the supreme legislative and judicial authority for the local Church they represented. They were to guard the purity of Christian teaching (Apostolic 37; 7 Ecumenical 6); when false teachings appeared, they drew up definitions of faith, on the basis of the Word of God and tradition, and pronounced judgment on false teachers. (See Carth. 123-130. Gangr. 1,2,3,5,9,10, etc.). They established for their Church the rules of church order, or adopted and made binding for it the decrees of other particular Churches. In general, the Regional Council had to take care of the improvement of the Church of its district (II Ecumenical 2), to resolve all misunderstandings (Ant. 20) and ecclesiastical strife (Apostolic 37), to correct errors in it committed by anyone (Seventh Ecumenical 6). In particular, he had the right to judge and punish the bishops of his district (Apostolic 37; Ant. 4; 2 Ecumenical Rules). VI), to examine complaints against them, litigation with them by anyone (I Ecumenical 5; Ant. 20; IV Ecumenical. 9) and all disputes between them (IV Ecumenical 17; Trull. 25). Regarding the significance of local Councils, the general rule of the Church was that large Councils (e.g., patriarchal councils) had the precedence of authority over smaller ones (e.g., metropolitan); thus, in some cases, appeals to the latter were allowed against the former (Ant. 12; II Ecumenical. 16), and the former could correct the decrees of the latter (Carth. 43). The Council informed the other local Churches of its decisions by means of conciliar epistles. Note. The rules on the convocation of annual local Councils were subsequently not fulfilled in private Churches because of various inconveniences, or because of the lack of urgent need. This, however, did not change the form of its governance, which was essential for the Church, i.e. the conciliar one: in all those cases that required conciliar decisions and decisions by the authority of the Councils, these councils were convened.

Ecumenical Councils

Ecumenical Councils are meetings of representatives of all, if possible, private Churches from all over the world to resolve ecclesiastical issues. The name of the Council ecumenical does not mean, however, that the unconditional presence of all bishops without exception or their representatives is required at it; from the history of the Church we see that some local Councils were more numerous in terms of the number of their participants. The character of an ecumenical Council derives from the fact that: 1) it fully expresses the unity of the universal Church, represents her authority and acts on her behalf.

This recognition may not occur everywhere at the same time and not suddenly, but even after some time. In the event of non-recognition of the decisions of the Council by the local Churches, it loses the authority of the ecumenical, no matter how great it may be (example: the Council of Florence). 2) The actions of the Council, as an organ of the universal Church, extend to the entire universal Church and to all aspects of her life. In this way, the Ecumenical Councils: a) examined the false teachings that had newly appeared in the Church, pronounced the supreme final judgment over them, and, determining the true meaning of Holy Scripture, as well as separating the authentic Holy Tradition from the false, established immutable rules of faith (III Ecumenical 7; Work 1); moreover, the judgment of the Church, as the faithful guardian of faith and truth, was recognized as infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Spirit. - b) These Councils issued laws binding on the universal Church concerning its administration, divine services and sacred rites, discipline, etc., considered the actions and rules of local Councils and confirmed or abolished them. To the rules of some of them they gave universal significance (Trul. III), had the right to change, when necessary, even the decrees of the preceding Ecumenical Councils, as an equal authority with them. - c) the Ecumenical Council has the right of final supreme spiritual judgment over all members of the universal Church; For example, the Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius for the Monothelite heresy, and even excommunicated local Churches from communion with the universal Church. As a visible external way of expressing ecclesiastical authority in the state, an ecumenical council cannot take place without the assistance of the supreme state power, which alone can provide the means for its convocation and ensure security and order at its sessions. Therefore, in the first three centuries there could be no Ecumenical Councils, because of the hostile attitude of the state towards the Church: they began to gather only from the fourth century, when the state entered into a peaceful union with the Church. The history of the Church testifies that all the Ecumenical Councils were convened by Christian emperors. Thus, the First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine the Great, II Theodosius the Great, III Theodosius the Younger, IV Marcian, V Justinian the Great, VI Constantine Pogonatus and Justinian II, VII Irene and her son. The emperors, as defenders of the Church, were also appealed to by the supreme primates of the Churches with a request to convene an ecumenical Council, when the urgent need for this arose and was realized by them. Meanwhile, regardless of the desires and demands of the pastors of the Church, the sovereigns were given the right to convene ecumenical Councils by the very fact that church strife provoked turmoil in the state, and the peace of the state often depended on the peaceful resolution of ecclesiastical questions by the authority of the Ecumenical Council. The emperors not only convened ecumenical (and sometimes local) Councils, but also took an active part in their meetings personally or through their secular commissars. It consisted in the fact that the emperors, as heads of state and guardians of ecclesiastical peace and deanery, or, as Constantine the Great put it, as bishops of external church affairs, a) watched over the order and correctness of the Council's conferences, proposed to the Council questions requiring consideration and resolution, and generally guided the external side of the matter; - b) confirmed by their consent, and sometimes by their signature, the conciliar decrees, gave them the force of the laws of the empire and promulgated them. But the right of a decisive vote at the Councils in matters of faith and in internal church affairs was not recognized for them: it (as was said above) belonged exclusively to the bishops. "God has made you shepherds of the church; therefore, everything that relates to the faith of Christ, you must consider," said Constantine the Great to the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Likewise, at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Emperor Marcian announced to the Fathers of the Council that he wished to be present at it, following the example of the pious Constantine, not in order to be the judge of the faith, but so that the faith determined by the Council would be firm and safe, being protected by the protection of the royal power. The approval of the Council's decrees by the sovereigns was not an affirmation of their canonical authority, but was only a testimony to the people on the part of the supreme authority about the legitimacy of the Council, the recognition of the Council's canons as binding on the state, and their acceptance. Therefore, the emperors did not always sign the acts of the Ecumenical Councils; if they sometimes put their signatures, it was either after the signatures of the bishops (for example, on the acts of the First and Seventh Ecumenical Councils), or with the proviso: "non definiens, sed suscipiens et consentiens," as Justinian signed the Second Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Since the eighth century, since the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, there have been no ecumenical Councils recognized by the Orthodox Church. They have been replaced by mutual relations between the local Orthodox Churches on all those subjects on which ecumenical councils were previously convened. These relations are more accessible to the Churches than the convocation of ecumenical councils, while the latter, for various political reasons, has become more difficult than in those times when almost the entire universal Church was confined to the Greco-Roman Empire alone.

Governance in the Russian Church

Historical review of governance in the Russian Church. From the time of the introduction of Christianity in Russia, the Russian Church was a special district of the metropolitan, belonging to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At the head of its administration stood the Metropolitan of Kiev, subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Metropolitans were sent to Russia from Constantinople from the Patriarch, from among the Greeks; if it happened (especially since the thirteenth century) that candidates for the Russian metropolia were elected by a Council from among the Russian hierarchs and by the will of the Grand Duke, then those elected went to the patriarch for confirmation and consecration. In the period of the Russian Church's dependence on Greece, history presents two cases of the appointment of metropolitans independent of the patriarch. Under the Great Prince Yaroslav (1051), after the war with the Greeks, God "put it into the prince's heart" to appoint a metropolitan from among the Russians, and by the Council of Russian hierarchs, Hilarion was ordained, who, however, asked for the blessing of the patriarch. Later, on the occasion of ecclesiastical turmoil in Byzantium and dissatisfaction in Russia with Metropolitan Michael II, the Council of Russian Bishops made Clement Smolyatich metropolitan, under Izyaslav Mstislavich (1147). The latter incident was the cause of many wrangling and ecclesiastical turmoil in Russia. However, the dependence of the Russian metropolitan on the patriarch was almost limited to this, and even to the sending of a special tribute to the patriarch; as a result of the independence of Russia and its remoteness from Byzantium, the Russian Church was free from the interference of the patriarch in its internal affairs. From the time of the conquest of Russia by the Mongols, the metropolitans had to come to the khans for confirmation in their rank. After the devastation of Kiev by the Tatars, the cathedra of the metropolitans was transferred first to Vladimir, the city of the Grand Duke (in 1299 under Metropolitan Maximus), and then, under St. Peter, to Moscow (1325), although the metropolitans retained their former title of Kiev and All Russia. This resettlement of the metropolitans to Moscow, which greatly contributed to its elevation and the unification of fragmented Russia, aroused discontent in Poland and Lithuania, which had taken possession of the lands of southwestern Russia, and led to the division of one Russian metropolia into two. At the insistence of the Polish kings (Casimir) and the Lithuanian princes (Olgerd and especially Vytautas) in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the patriarchs temporarily installed special metropolitans in the southwestern Russian regions, so that two or even three metropolitans appeared in Russia at the same time, which caused great turmoil in the Russian Church. However, not wishing a final division in the administration of the Russian Church, the patriarchs nevertheless tried, after such a temporary concession of theirs, to unite it again under the authority of one metropolitan (of Moscow). Finally, in 1458, the Lithuanian princes managed to finally separate their Russian possessions from the Moscow Metropolia and establish in them a special Metropolitan of Kiev, who was also dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, until the time of the subordination of the Kievan Metropolia to the All-Russian Patriarch in 1689 (after the annexation of Little Russia to Russia). Meanwhile, at about the same time, the Moscow Metropolia became autocephalous, independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Because of the difficulties in relations with Constantinople, which was besieged by the Turks, and unfavorable rumors about the faithfulness of the patriarchs to Orthodoxy (after the Union of Florence), the Council of Russian Hierarchs in 1448 elected and ordained St. Jonah as metropolitan, without any relations with the patriarch. All subsequent Russian metropolitans were also ordained. In this way, the Russian Church, without breaking the union with the Greek, became completely independent; the Eastern patriarchs were also forced to agree to this position; The Russian metropolitan was ordained, in hierarchical order, the first after the Patriarch of Jerusalem. At the end of the sixteenth century, the Russian metropolia was elevated to the level of patriarchy, on the advice of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich with the clergy and boyars, and with the conciliar consent of the Eastern patriarchs. The first Russian Patriarch was Job (who had previously been Metropolitan of All Russia), who was appointed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople in Moscow in 1589. several new dioceses were also opened. Apart from the privilege of honor, the new patriarchal dignity did not add to the Russian primate a new power and special rights to govern the Russian Church, in comparison with the power and rights of the former dignity of a metropolitan. Likewise, the newly established metropolitans in the patriarchal district enjoyed only this honorary title, not differing in the degree of authority from other diocesan bishops. (There were 10 Russian patriarchs: Job, Hermogenes, Philaret, Josaph, I. Joseph, Nikon, Joseph II, Pitirim, Joachim, Adrian). After the death of Patriarch Adrian (1700), Emperor Peter the Great, who had already conceived the transformation of the church administration in accordance with the state one, did not convene a Council to elect a new patriarch, but entrusted the performance of the patriarchal office (locum tenens) to the Ryazan metropolitan Stephen Yavorsky; and in 1718, when collegiums were established in the empire instead of the previous orders, a decree was issued to establish a Spiritual Collegium. In 1720, the statute for the proposed establishment (spiritual regulations) was ready, and on February 14, 1721, the ceremonial opening of the Ecclesiastical Collegium followed, which was soon renamed the Holy Governing Synod. Peter the Great informed the Eastern patriarchs of this change in the administration of the Russian Church by his letter, who in their letters of reply (1723) legitimized and confirmed the Holy Synod. The Synod recognized him as their brother in Christ, having equal authority and rank in the church hierarchy with each of them. In this way, the Holy Synod acquired full canonical significance in the universal Church. The reasons that prompted Peter the Great to transform one-man administration into collegial were expressed in the spiritual regulations. "A conciliar government," it says, "is more perfect and better than a one-man government, and especially in a monarchical state, which is our Russian government," because: a) it is more reliable to know the truth and the truth to many persons than to one; b) the decision of the Council can be more impartial and more free from the influence of strong persons than the decision of one person ("the free spirit has in itself for justice and does not find in it a place for partiality, deceit, covetous judgment"); c) a conciliar decision acquires greater authority and morally binding force than the sentence of one person; d) under conciliar administration, things go on unceasingly ("in an unstoppable course"), while the studies of one person can be interrupted by his illness and death. Moreover, e) collegial spiritual administration does not provide an opportunity for any of the spiritual rulers to become, in the eyes of the people, a kind of second monarch equal to the Sovereign, and, consequently, does not give place to the autocracy of such an ecclesiastical ruler, which is dangerous for the state. "It is also great that from the conciliar government the fatherland should not fear revolts and confusion, the Jacobs come from one spiritual ruler of their own. For the common people do not know how spiritual power differs from autocratic power, but they are amazed at the honor and glory of the great supreme pastor and think that such a ruler is the second sovereign, equal to the Autocrat, or even greater than him, and that the spiritual rank is another and better state, and this is the way of thinking of itself. What then, when the spittle of power-hungry spiritual conversations are added and fire is put on dry blight? And when some kind of strife is heard between them, all the spiritual rather than the worldly ruler, even blindly and foolishly, agree and flatter themselves that they will fight according to God Himself." In confirmation of this, Byzantine history and Papal lust for power are pointed out. "May we not remember similar and former swings." The President of the Collegium does not in himself have any fame that surprises the people, nor does he have any special power, and in the event of a trial against him, "even if he sinned nobly," there is no need to convene a Council and turn to the side, because he is subject to the judgment of the same Collegium (Dukh. Reglam.). "And when the people still see that this conciliar government has been established by the monarch and the senate verdict, then they will remain in their meekness and will greatly postpone the hope of having help for their revolts from the spiritual rank." Finally, f) the conciliar government is a kind of school of spiritual government, from which worthy church rulers, i.e. diocesan bishops, can be elected.

Central management