The Supreme Church Administration and the Relationship of the Church to the State. St. The Synod after Peter the Great.

The time of Catherine I (1725-1727). The time of Peter II (1727-1730). Reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740). Organization of the Apparatus of the Supreme Church Authority

in the reign of Anna Ioannovna. "Bironovshchina" in the church. Episcopal Trials. The case of Voronezh Archbishop Lev (Yurlov). The case of Georgy and Ignatius. The case of Archbishop. Theophylact (Lopatinsky). Accession of Ivan IV Antonovich (1740-1741). Reign of Elizabeth Petrovna (25.XI. 1741-1760). The beginning of the secularization procedure. Emperor Peter III Fedorovich (1761-1762). Accession of Catherine II (1792-1796). Secularization of church lands. The Personality of Catherine II. The case of Arseny Matsievich. The Court of the Synod. Arseny in exile. Pavel (Kanyuchkevich), Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Siberia. After secularization. Hierarchs of Catherine's time.

Parish clergy.

From the time of Peter the Great's reforms. Heredity of the places of service of the clergy. Staff frames and analyses. Parish clergy under Catherine II.

Theological school.

The reign of Paul I (1796-1801).

Patriarchal period (1586-1700)

Introduction

We have already noted the conventionality of allocating the time of the Russian patriarchs in a special period. But, on the other hand, we also recognized the objective basis that dictated to the old historians of the Russian Church to see in the patriarchal time a new chapter in history, since after the Time of Troubles the entire Russian statehood and culture were renewed and moved forward towards the inevitable reforms of all Russian life in the direction of its synthesis with the West.

The dream of a Russian patriarchate inevitably arose in the middle of the fifteenth century, at the moment when the Russian Church realized the transition to it from fallen Constantinople of the universal mission of Orthodoxy.

It was in such a self-sufficient, essentially autocephalous-patriarchal self-consciousness that the Moscow Church then began its history, breaking with the Greeks. There are many indications that the break was complete. Let us recall here the decisive words of vel. Kn. Vasily III Ivanovich in a letter to Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod regarding the claims of the CP of Patriarch Dionysius in 1469 to forcibly surrender the Russian Church under the authority of the former Uniate, Metropolitan of Western Russia Gregory: "I do not order that ambassador of the Patriarch, nor Grigoreev, to let him into my land: I do not demand him, neither his blessing nor his non-blessing, we have him from ourselves, the Patriarch himself, the Patriarch and the Renounced, and his ambassador, and that accursed Gregory: you, our pilgrim, should have known" (Russian Historical Bibl., Vol. VI No 100, p. 59). These words were a response to the statements of Patriarch Dionysius about the illegitimacy of the Moscow metropolitans, because they "are appointed by themselves arbitrarily and disorderly," i.e., without the blessing of the Communist Party. But the arrogance of the CP could not be supported by the entire Greek East, for the situation changed profoundly with the fall of the CP as the state support of Orthodoxy. Financially, the place of Constantinople was taken by the tsarist and rich Moscow. The impoverished Orthodox East resolutely reached out to it. And Moscow used this traction to eliminate the canonical roughness that had arisen between it and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Not only the monks of St.

Thus, as early as 1464, during the reign of Met. Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem was going to come to Moscow, according to the expression of Met. Theodosius, "though by the power of the grace of the Holy Spirit bestow upon us his blessing from his own hand." At the same time, Metropolitan Theodosius, nodding critically at Constantinople, adds that the Zion Church of the Patriarch of the Holy Land is "the head of all churches and the mother of all Orthodoxy." The well-known canonist Prof. A. S. Pavlov proved that it was Joachim of Jerusalem who wrote the Act. East. The charter of some Russian patriarch is great. to the prince with a blessing and the following formula: "Your lordship is forgiven in all ecclesiastical prohibitions." In this roundabout way, de facto and de jure, the Communist ban on the Russian Church was gradually eliminated and brought to naught. Humbled by oppression and impoverishment, the East had to recognize and confess the Orthodoxy of the Muscovite kingdom and its hierarchy. In 1517, the abbot of the Sinai monastery, Daniel, honored the Moscow prince with the full title of the Greek basileus: "autocratic, God-crowned, greatest, holy tsar of all Russia." Even the Communist patriarchs themselves inconsistently forget about their excommunication. In 1516-17, Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople wrote to Metropolitan Varlaam of Moscow at the address: "To the All-Holy Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, and to us, the most pious sovereign and ruler." The Moscow tsars were not passive, but directly sought to obtain final and formal recognition from the ecumenical patriarchs of both the autocephaly of their church, and the legitimacy of the royal coronation performed on them in the person of Ivan IV. The canonical and conscientious Muscovites had doubts that this wedding was performed by a metropolitan, and not by a patriarch, as was the case in Byzantium. And so, when in 1556 Joasaph Met. Eugrippsky, then Tsar Ivan IV wanted, taking advantage of this opportunity, to receive from the Patriarch's CP itself, in addition to his compliments to the "holy kingdom", also a formal confirmation of the former coronation.