Peter's "Domestic" Reform and the Criterion of Ecumenism

Peter and Theophanes, who conspired to carry out church reform, in essence a canonical revolution from above, were not blind children, and, of course, when they decided to confront the fait accompli with the supreme authority of the Eastern Church, i.e., a council of all autocephalous hierarchs, they knew that they would have to bless their bold undertaking. Peter had no motive to revise the seniority of church authorities outside the Russian borders. On occasion, he paid tribute to tradition, i.e., he considered the Patriarch of Constantinople as the predominant patriarch in all Orthodoxy. In 1715, communicating with the Ecumenical Patriarch, he wrote: "I have recourse to a spiritual physician, that is, to our Holy Mother of the Eastern Church and to Your Holiness, as the most important administrator in the universe." In all the patriarchal and locum tenens periods, during the ceremonial liturgical exclamations, the names of the Eastern patriarchs were invariably commemorated publicly. Naturally, on the very day of the opening of the Synod, February 14, 1721, as the minutes say, "there was a conversation between certain people: is it proper in the Russian Church to commemorate the name of the Eastern Greek Patriarchs at a national assembly? Some condemned (i.e., affirmed positively), while others denied." The wait-and-see practice of silence came into force almost temporarily. The result was an inevitable confusion among the people from this silence. The Synod had to react. Theophanes wrote an agitational treatise corresponding to the task against the former practice of frequently commemorating the names of the Eastern patriarchs during divine services. If not so often (but only at patriarchal and locum tenens services) the names of the Eastern patriarchs were publicly commemorated, then the secret commemoration at the proskomedia was common. Theophanes considers this to be incorrect, for as far as the exaltation of the names manifest and eternal is concerned, it has the meaning of "confessing to persons thus remembered our subjection." The sophist Theophanes knows that at the patriarchal liturgies of the Greeks, after the Worthy of the Greeks, the archdeacon commemorates all four patriarchs. Moreover, this was done in our country. It is not a symbol of submission, but a symbol of Orthodox brotherhood and the unity of Orthodoxy. In order to confuse the reader's thought, Theophanes slips in an inadequate political analogy. In the acts of any sovereign, only his name appears, and the names of the heads of other allied states are not mentioned. But the union and friendship of sovereigns is not at all the same as the union of the Church and the unity of faith. Whatever form of government in a particular local church, it is still obliged to symbolize its edinoverie with other sister churches, and not to hush it up. The goal of Theophan is to accustom the Orthodox people to forgetting the very name of their patriarch, and even others, of the same faith. Here is his cunning syllogistic: "The explicit, proper and eternal name of the exalted shows the power of the exalted over the exalted. The Russian Church, however, became excommunicated from the power of the Patriarch, and at first had its own patriarchs, but now, by order of the Tsar's Majesty, the Governing Synod possesses." And to the possible objection that the names of the heads of the Churches of the same faith should be exalted simply by virtue of Christian love, Theophan replies with the abstract thesis that the love of the Gospel should not destroy order and law, just as the existing order and law do not encroach on the power of love. But in the end, Theophan also reveals his main practical motives. It is necessary to accustom the people to the absence of any supreme appellate instance except for their monarch and the Synod created by him: "Let us judge what can happen to us ourselves. Many are proud and disobedient, and they dream of themselves something immeasurable. Those who hear the name of the Patriarch exalted will think that the Governing Synod is subordinate to the pariarch or the patriarch. And when someone from such for an important fault falls before the synodal court, he can be rejected and refer the case to the supreme (in his opinion) patriarchal court. And although it is impossible for him, nevertheless the difficulty of making a stop and giving others an image of fearlessness." Hence the conclusion "that it is not appropriate for us to exalt the name of the Patriarch." But in order to defend his intention, Theophan made a small concession, which in his eyes was the safest: Only when the Liturgy was served by the President of the Synod himself, and only after the commemoration of the title of the Synod, could the Patriarchal names be commemorated. "Since among the Patriarchs, serving the Patriarch himself, the archdeacon at the same time exalts the names of the other Patriarchs, then it is fitting for us, serving the President of the Synod itself, at the same time according to the Worthy, through the protodeacon, after the name of the Synod, as his right authority and as the supreme judge of our Monarch himself in his name, to exalt the names of the patriarchs. But this is not to be done anywhere and from no one else in the Russian churches, for the sake of the wines described." In the end, it was this project of Theophanes that was put into practice. For 200 years, the names of the patriarch and patriarchs disappeared from the divine services of the Russian Church. And only in rare cases, and in general unknown to anyone from the general public, when the First Present member of the Synod served the Liturgy in the house Synodal church, was the only time since Worthily such an exaltation of the title of Orthodox Patriarchs was allowed. During the discussion of this question, at the beginning of the summer of 1721, the President of the Synod Stephen was not present due to illness, but on June 9 he sent in writing his separate opinion: "Your Eminences the hierarchs and other holy fathers and brethren! Since all the ranks of the College should have a free voice according to the rule, then give me a free voice, which is as it is: it seems to me that in the litanies and offerings of the Church it is clearly possible to contain both. For example, thus: "For the Most Holy Orthodox Patriarchs and for the Most Holy Governing Synod let us pray to the Lord in peace," or: May the Lord God remember His Holiness the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Most Holy Governing Synod in His Kingdom. What is the sin in this? What is the loss of glory and honor to the Holy Synod of Russia? What kind of revenge and indecency? Moreover, it would be pleasing to God and very pleasing to the people."

This artless opinion of Stephen, of course, morally reflected the conciliar voice of the silent majority of the Russian Church. Theophanes sensed this with the instinct of a passionate political fighter and decided to immediately cauterize this threatening inflammation with lapis. At the meeting of the Synod on June 12, none other than he, in his typical police style, passed the following resolution: "Having considered them (i.e., Stephen's remarks)

And to him the Right Reverend Metropolitan to send from the Holy Synod. Ave. The Synod of His Imperial Majesty issued a decree that he should not communicate such questions and answers to anyone, as they were harmful and outrageous, and should not use them in the announcement. And if they have been communicated to anyone before this decree, he would immediately return them to himself, fearing that it will not be without difficulty, if he will show himself in this stubbornness, before His Imperial Majesty." With this characteristic act, Theophan opened a long, almost twenty-year period of his power, a period that merged with state terror in defense of the spirit and letter of Peter's reforms not only during Peter's lifetime, but also in subsequent reigns. In this case, the Synod acted against its president as a state-police institution. This discredited the very task of restoring normal canonical ties between the Russian Church and universal Orthodoxy as allegedly politically harmful. But this task, of course, was unavoidable and, after some unnatural delay and silence, it had to come to the fore and be somehow settled.

Recognition of the Synod by the Orthodox Patriarchs

In the middle of 1721, Theophanes, apparently in collusion with the emperor, prepared a draft letter in Latin to the Eastern patriarchs, which was supposed to explain the canonical reform that had taken place in Russia in order to obtain the consent of the Eastern churches. In the archives, this project has been preserved with a Russian translation by Theophan himself. Peter had the tact not to let this project go ahead. There is no request for recognition in it, but only curly literature around the main subject of information, about the reform carried out by the monarch, and not by the church authorities. Some canonical references, beginning with the Apostolic Council, are given only for the sake of eloquence. Peter is depicted as a divinely inspired beautifier of the church as an "anointed one" – "Christ" with a small letter. In the words of Theophanes, Peter "relied entirely on this, as if to invent the best image of church government. And he invented, truly by God's inspiration, such as is the middle ground between the rule of one man being useless and the convocation of frequent councils inconvenient." Consequently, neither the patriarch nor the council. "And I saw such a thing as the courts and councils of the Church, one eternal Assembly. And this assembly of 3 bishops, and with the rest of the brethren with them, archimandrites, abbots and protopresbyters, was formed. In the same way, by the laws and rules of the Senate, and of all the bishops and the most illustrious cynoviarchs, and, what is most important, by arming with his own hand, by signing the fortified ones, and by the title of the Most Holy Governing Synod, and by granting the authority of the Patriarch, he established and legitimized, and by his public decrees he ordered everywhere to be announced." Avoiding a direct request for the canonical recognition of such a new "middle" institution, Theophanes, as if admiring it and trying to infect the patriarchs with it, thus concludes his ornate exposition: "And he has his lawful ruler, Christ the Lord, our highest servant of God, a pious king of both times (V. and N. Testaments) and in this matter imitating himself, the image of the ancient Christian sovereigns, To our Holy Synod for the Supreme President and Judge... And this, among others, is a great blessing, since God proclaimed His Church in the heart of our autocrat... We beseech you with all earnestness, that you receive this gospel from us with all good will. And how pleasant it will be for you, we do not doubt... We also pray to you, brethren,... Help us to pray to God for us, that we may be delivered from those who oppose us, and that our service may be acceptable to the saints. Our Holy Synod confesses from the heart that it prefers to have nothing more than complete agreement with you in Orthodoxy."

This document, which vividly reflects the turmoil of Theophanes' impure canonical conscience, fortunately did not receive any movement. Upon mature reflection, it was replaced by another appeal to Jeremiah, Pat. This document was destined to be included in a series of constituent documents for the church reform of Peter the Great [13].

The tone of the emperor's letter is respectful, the information about the reform is clearer, although not entirely accurate. And the main purpose of the appeal to the Ecumenical is expressed quite humbly and directly: this is a petition for the recognition of a new institution and a request to communicate with him in the future on the affairs of the Church:

"As the most obedient son of our Mother of the Orthodox-Catholic Church, always maintaining reverence for Your All-Holiness, as the first Orthodox-Catholic Archpastor of the Orthodox Catholic Church, in the spirit of our father, judged it necessary to be notified... Between many, according to the duty of the authority given to us by God... By much sound reasoning and consultation, both with the spiritual and secular ranks of our state, it has been decided to establish a Spiritual Synod with the authority equal to the Patriarch, i.e. the Supreme Spiritual Conciliar Government for the administration of the all-Russian state of our Church, from a sufficient number of worthy spiritual persons, both bishops and cynoviarchs...

To the same Spiritual Holy Synod we have determined through the instructions that the Holy Church should be governed in all things according to the dogmas of the Holy Synod. Rights. Kafol. The Church of the Greek confession is irrevocable; and these dogmas would have as a rule the infallible rule of their rule; in which they and by oath in the Holy Catholic Church by kissing the holy cross and signing it with their own hands.

And we hope that Your All-Holiness, as the first bishop, is right. Kafol. Eastern. To the Church, please acknowledge this institution of ours and the work of the Spiritual Synod as a good thing, and inform the other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem about it. And since we most mercifully commanded this Holy Father. Spirit. To the Synod and Your All-Holiness to have relations and correspondence on all spiritual matters, and so we ask Your All-Holiness to deign with this Synod to maintain correspondence and relations concerning spiritual matters concerning the benefit of the Church, as the Patriarchs of All Russia had beforehand, and, if in any way he desires from His All-Holiness any good advice for the benefit and better order of the Church, in this they are of no use for general Christianity, for which we, with our special inclination towards Your All-Holiness, promise to show every condescension in your demands... And so, however, Your All-Holiness, in the spirit of our father, the Supreme Ecumenical Archpastor, we always abide in spirit as a son and ready."

This imperial letter is full of inaccuracies and diplomatic vagueness. "Long and thorough discussion" with lay and ecclesiastical officials does not correspond to the conditions of secrecy in which it took place. Instead of a report on the original name "Collegium and on the "Regulations", there is only a dull mention of the "instructions". The content of the oath of the members of the Synod is different: not loyalty to dogmas, but loyalty only to the monarch. The composition of the Synod is said deliberately vaguely: "the number is satisfied." From this report it was impossible to form a clear idea of the new institution. The patriarchs, of course, could sufficiently clarify the question through the intermediary of couriers and their agents in order to make their decision. To the epistle addressed primarily to Pat. The Patriarch stipulates that at the moment there are no other fellow patriarchs with him, but they will soon arrive and, he hopes, will join in his positive answer. However, the most motivated answer came almost two years later, with the date 23/IX. 1723. The text of the letter of the Patriarch's Patriarchate was duplicated by an almost identical letter of Athanasius, Patriarch of Antioch. An additional letter from Patriarch Jeremiah announced that the Alexandrian cathedra was currently vacant, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem was ill. Over time, the Patriarch of Constantinople will also receive the signature of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, if necessary, but "this is enough." The affirmative charter reads as follows: "Our measure, by the grace and power of the All-Holy, Life-giving, and Sacredly Ruling Spirit, affirms, consolidates, and declares that the Synod established by the most pious autocrat, the holy Tsar of all Muscovy, Little and White Russia, and all the northern, eastern, western, and many other countries, the Sovereign-Sovereign, Tsar Peter Alexeevich, the Emperor, beloved and beloved brother in the Holy Spirit [14], the Synod in the Russian Holy Great State is and is called our brother in Christ, the Holy and Sacred Synod of all pious and Orthodox Christians, sacred and profane, principal and subordinate, and of every dignitary. He has the right to perform and establish the same as the four Apostolic Holy Patriarchal Sees. We advise, encourage and enjoin him to preserve and keep unchanged the customs and rules of the Holy Ecumenical Holy Seven Councils and other contents of the Holy Church and will remain unshaken forever." It was probably very easy for the Patriarch to confirm this self-abasement of the Russian Church, bearing in mind how difficult it was in 1586 for Patriarch Jeremiah II of the Patriarch of the Patriarchate to recognize the patriarchal title for Moscow. Now, to the relief of the Greeks, Moscow with its own hands took off the honorary patriarchal mitre with cherubs. Peter and Theophan were also happy in their own way. The Synod immediately ordered that the Patriarchal gramota be sent to the dioceses to be read aloud to the silent people in the churches.

Thus, the church reform of Peter V., uncanonical in its conception, in its principles and in the way it was put into practice, was formally legalized by this affirmation of the Eastern patriarchs. Thus falls away the accusation of heterodox agitators, which sometimes confuses the weak conscience of the Orthodox laity, who are inexperienced in theological science, that the Russian Church has lived a lawless life for 200 years. And all the great hierarchs of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, who carried in their hearts sorrow over the canonical defectiveness of the Synodal system and the hope for its correction, carried out their service to the Church with a clear conscience, knowing that their canonical position was formally quite legitimate.

Reflection of the reform in the state legal consciousness