Synod board. Decree establishing the synod

Translated from Greek, it literally means “meeting”. It was introduced in 1701 by Tsar Peter, and it existed in its unchanged form until the revolutionary year of 1917. Initially, the creation of the Synod intended to include 11 members, namely, it was supposed to include a president, 2 vice-presidents, 4 advisers and, in addition, 4 assessors. This also included abbots of monasteries, bishops and senior clergy. The President of the Synod was called the first member, and the remaining persons were considered simply present. Until then, each member of this organization received his title for life.

The presiding Holy Synod had all the power in the Russian Orthodox Church, and also dealt with issues arising in foreign Orthodox churches. The rest of the patriarchates existing at that time were subordinate to him. The following interesting information is also known: members of the Governing Synod were appointed by the emperor himself, who had his own representative holding the position of Chief Prosecutor. According to historians, the establishment of the Synod in the Russian Empire was an important political step, since this organization was the highest state body in the administrative power of the church.

A memorable date in the history of church life occurred on January 25, 1721, because it was then that the Holy Synod was formed. How did events develop at that time? After the death of Patriarch Adrian, Tsar Peter did not give his royal permission to convene, as was previously customary, the Holy Council and elect a new head of the Orthodox Church according to the rules. Peter himself decided to manage personnel and administrative matters of the church. He gives the Pskov bishop an important assignment - to draw up a new charter, which is called the Spiritual Regulations. It was on this document that the entire Orthodox Church of the country relied in its work in the future. The tsar is pursuing a frank policy of complete subordination of the church to his interests, as evidenced by history.

The autocrat of all Rus' decided to restore the monastery order and the management of church lands in 1701 to the secular man and boyar I. A. Musin-Pushkin. It was he who began to manage the property affairs of numerous churches, as well as monasteries, all fees and profits from which were sent to the royal treasury. Peter expresses the idea that the previously existing patriarchate was harmful to the state, and the collective management of church affairs will benefit everyone, while the Holy Synod must completely submit to its authority. It was impossible to make this decision independently, therefore, for recognition of his transformations, he turned to Constantinople and asked to recognize the Holy Synod as the Eastern Patriarch. In 1723, this was approved by a special charter, which very clearly corresponded to the goals set by the sovereign.

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

In the 20th century, a permanent Holy Synod was elected in 1943 during World War II. It was located in Chisty Lane, house number 5. It was allocated by personal order of I. Stalin. Since 2011, after a major reconstruction, the Synodal residence of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' has been located in the St. Daniel Monastery.

In September 1721, Peter I addressed the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah III with a message in which he asked him to “deign to recognize the establishment of the Spiritual Synod as a good thing.” The answer was received two years later. The Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the Holy Synod as his “brother in Christ,” having the power to “create and fulfill the four Apostolic Most Holy Patriarchal Thrones” (Royal and Patriarchal Charters on the Establishment of the Holy Synod. P. 3 et seq.). Similar letters were received from other Patriarchs. The newly established Synod received the rights of supreme legislative, judicial and administrative power in the Church, but it could exercise this power only with the consent of the sovereign. All resolutions of the Synod until 1917 were issued with the stamp: “By order of His Imperial Majesty.”

The establishment of the Holy Synod opened a new era in the history of the Russian Church. As a result of the reform, the Church lost its former independence from secular authorities. A gross violation of the 34th Apostolic Canon was the abolition of the Holy Order and its replacement by a “headless” Synod. The causes of many ailments that darkened church life for two centuries are rooted in Peter's reform. There is no doubt that the management system established under Peter is canonically flawed. But, humbly accepted by the hierarchy and flock, recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs, the new church authority became the legitimate church government. At the same time, the synodal period was an era of unprecedented external growth of the Russian Orthodox Church. Under Peter I, the population of Russia was about 15 million people, of which 10 million were Orthodox. At the end of the Synodal era, according to the 1915 census, the population of the empire reached 180 million, and the Russian Orthodox Church already numbered 115 million children. Such a rapid growth of the Church was, of course, the fruit of the selfless asceticism of Russian missionaries, but it was also a direct consequence of the expansion of the borders of Russia, the growth of its power, and it was for the sake of strengthening and elevating the power of the Fatherland that Peter conceived state reforms. During the synodal period, there was a rise in spiritual education in Russia; By the end of the 18th century, there were four theological academies and 46 seminaries in Russia, and in the 19th century there was a real flowering of Russian church science. Finally, during the synodal era in Rus', a great host of ascetics of piety appeared, not only those who had already been worthy of church glorification, but also those who had not yet been glorified. As one of the greatest saints of God, the Church honors St. Seraphim of Sarov. His exploits, his holiness are the most reliable evidence that even in the Synodal era the Russian Church was not depleted of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Such great saints as Saints Tikhon of Zadonsk, Philaret and Innocent of Moscow, Theophan the Recluse, Saints Paisius (Velichkovsky) and Ambrose of Optina, Saint Righteous John of Kronstadt, and Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg are also especially revered.

This article is about the body of church-state administration of the Russian Church in 1721-1917. For the modern governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, see Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Holy Governing Synod(Russian doref. Holy Governing Synod) - the highest body of church-state administration of the Russian Church during the synodal period (1721-1917).

The Holy Synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority of the Russian Church. He had the right, with the approval of the supreme power of the Russian Empire, to open new sees, elect and install bishops, establish church holidays and rituals, canonize saints, and censor works of theological, church-historical and canonical content. It had the right of the court of first instance in relation to bishops accused of committing anti-canonical acts, and the Synod also had the right to make final decisions on divorce cases, cases of removal from clergy, and anathematization of the laity; issues of spiritual enlightenment of the people were also under the jurisdiction of the Synod:238.

Legal status

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

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

Story

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

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

I confess with the oath of the last Spiritual Judge of the Collegium the existence of the All-Russian Monarch of our most merciful Sovereign.

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

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

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

In 1888, the journal “Church Gazette”, the official printed publication of the Holy Synod, began to be published.

Last years (1912-1918)

After the death of the leading member of the Synod, Anthony (Vadkovsky), in 1912 and the appointment of Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) to the St. Petersburg See, the political situation around the Synod worsened significantly, which was associated with G. Rasputin’s intervention in the affairs of church administration. In November 1915, by the Highest Rescript, Metropolitan Vladimir was transferred to Kyiv, although he retained the title of leading member. The transfer of Vladimir and the appointment of Metropolitan Pitirim (Oknov) in his place was painfully received in the church hierarchy and in society, which viewed Metropolitan Pitirim as a “Rasputinist.” As a result, as Prince Nikolai Zhevakhov wrote, “the principle of the inviolability of hierarchs was violated, and this was enough for the Synod to find itself almost in the vanguard of the opposition to the throne, which used the said act for common revolutionary goals, as a result of which both hierarchs, Metropolitans Pitirim and Macarius were declared “Rasputinists.”

Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky, who was a member of the Synod in the pre-revolutionary years, while in exile, assessed the oldest members of the Synod of that time and the general situation in it: “The metropolitan area is unparalleledly poor in its composition<…>in a certain respect, characterized the state of our hierarchy in pre-revolutionary times.<…>A heavy atmosphere of mistrust reigned in the Synod. The members of the Synod were afraid of each other, and not without reason: every word openly spoken within the walls of the Synod by Rasputin’s opponents was immediately transmitted to Tsarskoye Selo.”

At the end of 1915, the discussion in the Synod of the “Varnavinsky case” acquired a scandalous character ( see Tobolsk scandal), as a result of which A.D. Samarin was forced to resign from the post of chief prosecutor. About the situation in church administration by the end of the reign of Nicholas II, Protopresbyter Shavelsky wrote: “At the end of 1916, Rasputin’s proteges actually already had control in their hands. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Raev, his comrade Zhevakhov, manager of the office of the Holy Synod Guryev and his assistant Mudrolyubov were Rasputinists. Metropolitans Pitirim and Macarius professed the same faith. A number of diocesan and suffragan bishops were Rasputin’s clients.”

On March 1, 1916, according to the report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Volzhin, the Emperor “was most mercifully pleased to command that in the future, reports of the Chief Prosecutor to His Imperial Majesty on matters relating to the internal structure of church life and the essence of church government should be carried out in the presence of the leading member of the Holy Synod, for the purpose of comprehensive canonical coverage of them." The conservative newspaper Moskovskaya Vedomosti, calling the Highest Command of March 1 “a great act of trust,” wrote: “They report from Petrograd that in church circles and in the Synod the great act of royal trust is experienced as a bright holiday, that A. N. Volzhin and Metropolitan Vladimir they receive greetings and expressions of gratitude from everywhere.”

On the night of March 2-3, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne. But on the afternoon of March 2, the Synod decided to enter into contact with the Executive Committee of the State Duma. The members of the Synod actually recognized the revolutionary power even before the abdication of the tsar. Despite the general absence of a legal abdication of the throne of the House of Romanov, the Synod, by its resolutions of March 6, ordered the correction of all liturgical rites in which the “reigning” house was commemorated. Instead of prayers for the de jure reigning house, petitions for the “Blessed Provisional Government” should have been offered.

On March 9, the Synod addressed a message “To the faithful children of the Orthodox Russian Church regarding the events currently being experienced.” It began like this: “The will of God has been accomplished. Russia has entered the path of a new state life.

By resolution of the Holy Synod dated April 29 (May 12), No. 2579, a number of issues were removed from the Synod’s record keeping “for final resolution to diocesan administrations”: on the removal of holy orders and monasticism upon petitions, on the establishment of new parishes using local funds, on the dissolution of marriages by inability of one of the spouses, on recognizing marriages as illegal and invalid, on dissolution of marriages due to adultery - with the consent of both parties, and a number of others that were previously within the competence of the Synod. On the same day, the Synod decided to form a pre-conciliar council to prepare issues to be considered at the “Church Constituent Assembly”; The main task was the preparation of an All-Russian local council.

On March 24/April 6, 1918, by decree of Patriarch Tikhon, the Holy Synod and the All-Russian Central Council No. 57, the Petrograd Synodal Office was closed.

Compound

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

Since 1726, the President of the Synod began to be called first member, and others - members Holy Synod and simply those present.

In later times, the nomenklatura composition of the Synod changed many times. At the beginning of the 20th century member of the Synod was a granted title, held for life even if the person was never called to sit in the Synod. At the same time, the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Kiev, Moscow, and the Exarch of Georgia were, as a rule, permanent members of the Synod, and the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg was almost always the leading member of the Synod:239.

Chief Prosecutor of the Synod

The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Governing Synod is a secular official appointed by the Russian Emperor (in 1917 they were appointed by the Provisional Government) and was his representative in the Holy Synod. The powers and role varied in different periods, but in general in the 18th-19th centuries there was a tendency to strengthen the role of the chief prosecutor.

Senior members

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

Notes

Tsypin V. A. Canon law. - Ed. 2nd. - M.: Publishing House, 1996. - 442 p. - ISBN 5-89155-005-9.
St. Zak. Main T. 1. Part 1. Art. 43.
Decree of Emperor Peter I On the establishment of the Monastic Order... (undefined) . January 24 (February 4)
Decree of the Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Alekseevich On the destruction of the Monastic Order (undefined) . December 19 (29)
Decree of Emperor Peter I Regulations or Charter of the Spiritual College (undefined) . January 25 (February 5)
Decree of Emperor Peter I On the naming of the Monastic Order of the Synodal Government as the Chamber-Office (undefined) . January 14 (25)
Memoirs of the comrade chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N. D. Zhevakhov. T. 2. Ch. 51. The attitude of Russian tsars to the church (undefined) . Retrieved January 30, 2014.

After the failure with Metropolitan Stephen, Peter I better understood the mood of Kyiv learned monasticism. Looking for the implementers of the planned reform, he now chose from this environment people of a special spirit - opponents of the Latin, "papage" trend, from whom he could expect sympathy for his species. In Novgorod, Peter drew attention to Archimandrite Theodosius (Yanovsky), a native of Little Russia, of the Khutyn Monastery, who fled there from Moscow during the “persecution of Cherkasy” under Patriarch Adrian. Metropolitan Job, who gathered learned men around him, sheltered the fugitive, brought him closer to him and made him one of his main assistants. Theodosius was the son of a nobleman and was distinguished by his arrogance and arrogance. He charmed Peter with his aristocratic manners and the art of small talk. In 1712, Peter appointed him archimandrite of the newly created Alexander Nevsky Monastery and ruler of church affairs of the St. Petersburg region, and in 1721, five years after the death of Metropolitan Job, he was installed in the rank of archbishop at the Novgorod see. The new bishop, however, did not emerge as a serious church leader. He was not a particularly learned man, masking the gaps in his education with the brilliance of secular eloquence. Among the clergy and the people, temptations arose from his rather magnate rather than episcopal lifestyle, from his greed. It became clear to Peter that he could not place a special bet on this vain ambitious man.

Another Kiev resident  Feofan (Prokopovich) conquered Peter's heart. The son of a Kyiv merchant, in baptism he was named Eleazar. Having successfully graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Eleazar studied in Lviv, Krakow and at the Roman College of St. Afanasia. In Rome he became the Basilian monk Elisha. Returning to his homeland, he renounced Uniatism and was tonsured in the Kiev Brotherhood Monastery with the name Samuel. He was appointed professor at the Academy, and soon, as a reward for his success in teaching, he was named after his late uncle Feofan, the rector of the Mogila Academy. From Rome, Prokopovich brought back disgust for the Jesuits, for school scholasticism and for the entire atmosphere of Catholicism. In his theological lectures, he used not Catholic, as was customary in Kyiv before him, but Protestant presentations of dogma.

On the day of the Battle of Poltava, Feofan congratulated the king on his victory. The word he spoke during worship on the battlefield shocked Peter. The speaker used the victory day of June 27, which commemorates the Monk Samson, to compare Peter with the biblical Samson, who tore the lion (the coat of arms of Sweden consists of three lion figures). Since then, Peter could not forget Feofan. Going on the Prut campaign, he took him with him and placed him at the head of the military clergy. And at the end of the campaign, Feofan was appointed rector of the Kyiv Academy. In 1716, he was called “on duty” to St. Petersburg, and there he delivered sermons, which he devoted not so much to theological and church topics, but to the glorification of military victories, state achievements and Peter’s transformative plans. Feofan became one of the candidates for the bishop's see. But among the zealots of Orthodoxy, his theological views caused serious concerns. The rector of the Moscow Academy, Archimandrite Theophylact Lopatinsky, and the prefect, Archimandrite Gideon Vishnevsky, who knew him well from Kiev, ventured back in 1712 to openly accuse Theophan of Protestantism, which they discovered in his Kiev lectures. After Archimandrite Theophan was summoned to St. Petersburg, his accusers did not hesitate to send a new denunciation against him, sending it to Peter through the locum tenens, who added to the report of the Moscow professors his opinion that Theophan should not be installed as a bishop. But Theophan managed to justify himself so cleverly in the accusations brought against him that Metropolitan Stefan had to ask him for an apology.

In 1718, Theophan was consecrated Bishop of Pskov, but his residence would be St. Petersburg. Unlike his less successful rival in the struggle for closeness to the king, Theodosius, Bishop Theophan was an educated scientist, theologian, writer, and a man of a clear and strong mind. He managed to become an adviser and indispensable assistant to Peter I not only in church but also in state affairs. He served Peter as an inexhaustible source of the most diverse knowledge, his living “academy and brain.” It was Theophanes who became the main executor of the church reform conceived by Peter, and it owes its Protestant flavor to him more than anyone else. Much in the actions and views of this hierarch confirmed the correctness of the accusations of unorthodoxy brought against him. From the church pulpit, Theophan raised the accusation of secret enmity against the monarch against his opponents, the zealots of Orthodoxy: “The essence of the matter is that... we are either darkened by a secret demon of flattery or darkened by melancholy, who have such a freak in their thoughts that everything is sinful and bad for them. , they will see something wonderful, cheerful, great and glorious... And these, especially the glory of dishonor, do not tremble and all worldly power is not exactly for the work of God, but is considered an abomination.”

In the essay “The Truth of the Will of the Monarchs,” written on behalf of Peter, Bishop Theophan, repeating Hobbes, formulates the absolutist theory of state law: “The power of the monarch has a basis ... that the people have abdicated the will of the ruler” and transferred this will to the monarch. “This includes all sorts of civil and church rites, changes in customs, the use of dress, houses, buildings, ranks and ceremonies at feasts, weddings, burials, and so on and so forth.”

In “The Search for the Pontifexes,” playing with the etymology of words, Theophan poses the question: “Can Christian sovereigns be named bishops and bishops?” and answers without embarrassment that they can; Moreover, sovereigns are “bishops of bishops” for their subjects.

1) description and guilt of the synodal administration;

2) matters subject to it;

3) the managers themselves, position and power.

It was aptly said about the “Regulations” that “this is a reasoning, not a code.” This is more of an explanatory note to the law than the law itself. He was completely saturated with bile, filled with the passion of political struggle against antiquity. It contains more evil denunciations and satire than direct positive statements. The “Regulations” proclaimed the establishment of the Spiritual College instead of the sole authority of the patriarch. Various reasons were given for such a reform: the board can decide cases more quickly and impartially, it supposedly has more authority than the patriarch. But the main reason for the abolition of the patriarchate is not hidden in the “Regulations” - the college is not dangerous for the power of the monarch: “The common people do not know how spiritual power differs from autocratic power, but amazed by the honor and glory of the great highest shepherd, they think that such a ruler is the second sovereign, the autocrat is equal or greater than him and that the spiritual rank is a different and better state.” And so, in order to humiliate spiritual power in the eyes of the people, the Regulations proclaim: “the governing college under the sovereign monarch exists and is established by the monarch.” The monarch, with the help of a seductive play on words, instead of the usual name of “anointed one,” is called in the “Regulations” “Christ the Lord.”

The document was submitted for discussion to the Senate and only then was brought to the attention of the consecrated Council of the six bishops and three archimandrites who found themselves in St. Petersburg. Under pressure from the secular authorities, the ecclesiastical dignitaries signed that everything was “pretty well done.” In order to give the “Regulations” greater authority, it was decided to send Archimandrite Anthony and Lieutenant Colonel Davydov to all corners of Russia to collect signatures from bishops and “state monasteries of archimandrites and abbots.” In the event of a refusal to sign, the decree of the Senate bluntly, with outright rudeness, prescribed: “And if anyone is not a signatory, take the hand of the person who is not signing for the reason of it, so that he can show that.” In seven months, messengers traveled all over Russia and collected complete signatures for the “Regulations”.

On January 25, 1721, the emperor issued a manifesto on the establishment of " The Spiritual Collegium, that is, the Spiritual Council Government" And the next day, the Senate transferred for the highest approval the staff of the newly created board: a president from metropolitans, two vice-presidents from archbishops, four advisers from archimandrites, four assessors from archpriests and one from the “Greek black priests.” The staff of the collegium was also proposed, headed by the President-Metropolitan Stephen and the Vice-Presidents-Archbishops Theodosius of Novgorod and Theophan of Pskov. The king imposed a resolution: “Summoning these to the Senate, declare them.” The text of the oath was drawn up for the members of the board: “I confess with an oath the ultimate judge of this Spiritual Board to be the very All-Russian Monarch, our most merciful sovereign.” This anti-canonical oath, which offended the bishop’s conscience, lasted for almost 200 years, until 1901.

On February 14, after a prayer service in the Trinity Cathedral, the opening of the new college took place. And immediately the puzzling question arose of how to make a prayerful proclamation of the new church government. The Latin word "collegium" in combination with "most holy" sounded incongruous. Various options were proposed: “assembly”, “cathedral”, and finally settled on the Greek word “synod”, acceptable to the Orthodox ear  Holy Governing Synod. The name “collegium” proposed by Archbishop Feofan also disappeared for administrative reasons. The collegiums were subordinate to the Senate. For the highest church authority in an Orthodox state, the status of a collegium was clearly indecent. And the Holy Governing Synod, by its very name, was placed on a par with the Governing Senate.

A year and a half later, by decree of the emperor, the position was established Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, to which “a good man from among the officers” was appointed. The Chief Prosecutor was supposed to be in the Synod “the eye of the sovereign and the attorney for state affairs.” He was entrusted with control and supervision over the activities of the Synod, but by no means leading it. On the very day of the opening of the Synod, the question arose about raising the names of the Eastern Patriarchs during divine services. It was not resolved immediately. Archbishop Feofan spoke out against such elevation. He needed the very title of patriarch to disappear from the people's memory, and his arguments boiled down to seductive sophistry: he referred to the fact that in the acts of any sovereign the names of the monarchs allied to him do not appear, as if a political union was similar to the unity of the Body of Christ. The opinion of the compiler of the “Regulations” triumphed: the names of the patriarchs disappeared from services in Russian churches. An exception was allowed only in cases where the first present member of the Synod celebrated the Liturgy in the home Synodal Church.

The President of the Synod, Metropolitan Stefan, who was not present at the meetings discussing this issue, submitted his opinion in writing: “It seems to me that the litanies and offerings of the church can clearly accommodate both. For example, like this: about the Holy Orthodox Patriarchs and the Holy Governing Synod. What sin is this? What is the loss of glory and honor to the Holy Russian Synod? What madness and obscenity? Otherwise, God would be pleased and it would be very pleasing to the people.”

At the insistence of His Eminence Theophan, this opinion was rejected by the Synod precisely because “the people would be very pleased with it.” Moreover, the Synod adopted the resolution drawn up by Theophanes. “Those questions-answers (that is, the remarks of Metropolitan Stephen) seem to be unimportant and weak, and even more so, not useful, but very nasty and tormenting the church world and harmful state silence... to be kept in the Synod under dangerous storage, so as not only to the public, but also did not occur in the testimony.”

The president of the Synod, pushed aside and almost eliminated from administration, had practically no influence on the course of synodal affairs, where the emperor’s favorite Feofan was in charge. In 1722, Metropolitan Stefan died. After his death, the position of president was abolished.

In September 1721, Peter I addressed the Patriarch of Constantinople with a message in which he asked him to “deign to recognize the establishment of the Spiritual Synod as a good thing.” A response from Constantinople was received two years later. The Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the Holy Synod as his “brother in Christ,” having the power “to create and fulfill four Apostolic most holy patriarchal thrones.” Similar letters were received from other patriarchs. The newly established Synod received the rights of supreme legislative, judicial and administrative power in the Church, but it could exercise this power only with the consent of the sovereign. All resolutions of the Synod until 1917 were issued under the stamp “By order of His Imperial Majesty.” Since the seat of the Synod was St. Petersburg, a Synodal office was established in Moscow. As the legal successor of the patriarchs, the Synod was the diocesan authority for the former patriarchal region; The bodies of this power were: in Moscow the Dicastery, transformed in 1723 from the Patriarchal Spiritual Prikaz, and in St. Petersburg the Tiun Office under the command of the Spiritual Tiun.

At the opening of the Holy Synod in Russia there was 18 dioceses and two vicariance. After the abolition of the patriarchate, bishops were no longer granted the title of metropolitan for a long time. The powers of the diocesan authorities extended to all church institutions, with the exception of stauropegial monasteries and the court clergy, placed under the direct command of the royal confessor. In wartime, the army clergy came under the control of the field chief priest (according to the military regulations of 1716), and the naval clergy came under the control of the chief hieromonk (according to the naval regulations of 1720). In 1722, an “Addition to the Regulations” was published, which contained rules relating to the white clergy and monasticism. This “addition introduced staff for clergy: for 100-150 households there was a clergy of one priest and two or three clergymen, for 200-250 double staff, for 250-300 triple staff.

There is no doubt that the system of government established under Peter was canonically defective, but humbly accepted by the hierarchy and the people, recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs, the new church authority became the legitimate church government.

The Synodal period was an era of unprecedented external growth of the Russian Orthodox Church. Under Peter I, the population of Russia was about 20 million people, of which 15 million were Orthodox. At the end of the Synodal era, according to the 1915 census, the population of the empire reached 180 million, and the Russian Orthodox Church already numbered 115 million children. Such a rapid growth of the Church was, of course, the fruit of the selfless asceticism of Russian missionaries, burning with the apostolic spirit. But it was also a direct consequence of the expansion of Russia’s borders, a consequence of the growth of its power, and yet it was for the sake of strengthening and elevating the power of the Fatherland that Peter’s state reforms were conceived.

During the Synodal period there was a rise in education in Russia; already in the 18th century, theological schools became stronger and their network covered the entire country; and in the nineteenth century there was a real flowering of Russian theology.

Finally, in this era in Rus' there appeared a great host of ascetics of piety, not only those who had already been worthy of church glorification, but also those who had not yet been glorified. The Church honors St. Seraphim of Sarov as one of the greatest saints of God. His exploits, his spiritual holiness are the most solid and reliable evidence that even in the Synodal era the Russian Church did not become depleted of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Conflicting opinions were expressed about Peter's church reform. The deepest assessment of it belongs to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow: in his words, “The Spiritual College, which Peter took over from a Protestant... God’s providence and the church spirit turned into the Holy Synod.”

On December 24, 2010, at the working Patriarchal residence in Chisty Lane, under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', the next meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church will take place.

The Holy Synod (translated from Greek as “meeting”, “council”) is one of the highest bodies of church government. According to Chapter V of the current Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, “The Holy Synod, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (locum tenens), is the governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church in the period between Councils of Bishops.”

After Peter I abolished the patriarchal administration of the church, from 1721 to August 1917, the Holy Governing Synod established by him was the main state body of church administrative power in the Russian Empire, which replaced the patriarch in the field of general church functions and external relations. In 1918, the Holy Synod as a state body was liquidated de jure by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On freedom of conscience, church and religious societies.”

After the patriarchate was restored at the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, in February 1918 the Holy Synod began its work as a collegial governing body. However, by decree of Patriarch Tikhon of July 18, 1924, the Synod and the Supreme Church Council were dissolved. In 1927, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Sergius (Stragorodsky), established the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod, which worked as an auxiliary body with an advisory voice until 1935. The activities of the Holy Synod were resumed at the Local Council in 1945.

The “Regulations on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church” adopted at the Local Council determined the order of work and composition of the Holy Synod. The synodal year is divided into two sessions: summer from March to August and winter from September to February. The Chairman of the Synod is the Patriarch, the permanent members are the Metropolitans of Kiev, Minsk and Krutitsky. The Council of Bishops in 1961 expanded the composition of the Synod, including among the permanent members the Administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, and the Council of Bishops in 2000 added the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga and the Metropolitan of Chisinau and All Moldova. Five temporary members of the Synod from among the diocesan bishops are called to the six-month session in turn, according to the seniority of their episcopal consecration - one from each of the five groups into which the dioceses are divided.

Currently, the permanent members of the Holy Synod are:

Chairman: His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill (Gundyaev);

Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Vladimir (Sabodan);

Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Vladimir (Kotlyarov);

Metropolitan of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus Filaret (Vakhromeev);

Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna Yuvenaly (Poyarkov);

Metropolitan of Chisinau and All Moldavia Vladimir (Kantaryan);

Metropolitan of Saransk and Mordovia, manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate Barsanuphius (Sudakov);

Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Hilarion (Alfeev);

As temporary members in the winter session 2010/2011. take part in:

Metropolitan of Simferopol and Crimea Lazar (Shvets);

Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York (Corporal);

Archbishop of Simbirsk and Melekess Proclus (Khazov);

Bishop of Baku and Caspian Alexander (Ishchein);

Bishop of Yuzhno-Sakhalin and Kuril Daniil (Dorovskikh);

The participation of permanent and temporary members in meetings of the Holy Synod is their canonical duty. Meetings are convened by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (or the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne) and, as a rule, are closed.

The duties of the Holy Synod include:

1. Care for the intact preservation and interpretation of the Orthodox faith, the norms of Christian morality and piety;

2. Serving the internal unity of the Russian Orthodox Church;

3. Maintaining unity with other Orthodox Churches;

4. Organization of the internal and external activities of the Church and resolution of issues of general church significance arising in connection with this;

5. Assessment of the most important events in the field of interchurch, interfaith and interreligious relations;

6. Coordination of the actions of the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church in its efforts to achieve peace and justice;

7. Maintaining proper relations between the Church and the state in accordance with this Charter and current legislation;

8. Establishment of the procedure for ownership, use and disposal of buildings and property of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Holy Synod elects, appoints, in exceptional cases moves bishops and dismisses them; appoints heads of Synodal institutions and, upon their recommendation, their deputies, as well as rectors of Theological academies and seminaries, abbots (abbesses) and governors of monasteries, bishops, clergy and laity to undergo responsible obedience abroad.

Currently, the following synodal institutions are accountable to the Holy Synod: the department for external church relations (existed since 1946, until 2000 - the department for external church relations); publishing council; educational committee; Department of Catechesis and Religious Education; Department of Church Charity and Social Service; missionary department; department for interaction with the Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies; Youth Affairs Department; Department for Church-Society Relations; synodal information department; Department of Prison Ministry; Committee for Interaction with the Cossacks; financial and economic management; management of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate; Synodal Library named after His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II. Also under the Holy Synod there are the following commissions: biblical and theological commission; commission for the canonization of saints; Liturgical Commission; commission for monastic affairs.

The Holy Synod creates and abolishes dioceses, changes their boundaries and names, followed by approval by the Council of Bishops; approves the statutes of monasteries and carries out general supervision of monastic life. Matters in the Holy Synod are decided by the general consent of all members participating in the meeting or by a majority vote. In case of equality of votes, the Chairman's vote is decisive. In accordance with the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod is responsible to the Council of Bishops and, through the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', submits to it a report on its activities during the inter-Council period.

The work of the Holy Synod is carried out on the basis of an agenda presented by the Chairman and approved by the members of the Synod at the beginning of the first meeting. If the Patriarch, for any reason, is temporarily unable to carry out presiding duties in the Synod, he is replaced by the oldest permanent member of the Synod by episcopal consecration. The secretary of the Synod is the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, who is responsible for preparing the materials necessary for the Synod and compiling journals of meetings.