View question. Metropolis What is the difference between a diocese and a metropolitanate?

Every Orthodox person meets with clergy who speak publicly or conduct services in church. At first glance, you can understand that each of them wears some special rank, because it’s not for nothing that they have differences in clothing: different colored robes, hats, some have jewelry made of precious stones, while others are more ascetic. But not everyone is given the ability to understand ranks. To find out the main ranks of clergy and monks, let's look at the ranks of the Orthodox Church in ascending order.

It should immediately be said that all ranks are divided into two categories:

Secular clergy. These include ministers who may have a family, wife and children.
Black clergy. These are those who accepted monasticism and renounced worldly life.

Secular clergy

The description of people who serve the Church and the Lord comes from the Old Testament. The scripture says that before the Nativity of Christ, the prophet Moses appointed people who were supposed to communicate with God. It is with these people that today's hierarchy of ranks is associated.

Altar server (novice)

This person is a lay assistant to the clergy. His responsibilities include:

If necessary, a novice can ring bells and read prayers, but he is strictly forbidden to touch the throne and walk between the altar and the Royal Doors. The altar server wears the most ordinary clothes, with a surplice thrown over the top.

This person is not elevated to the rank of clergy. He must read prayers and words from scripture, interpret them to ordinary people and explain to children the basic rules of Christian life. For special zeal, the clergyman can ordain the psalmist as a subdeacon. As for church clothes, he is allowed to wear a cassock and a skufia (velvet cap).

This person also does not have holy orders. But he can wear a surplice and an orarion. If the bishop blesses him, then the subdeacon can touch the throne and enter through the Royal Doors into the altar. Most often, the subdeacon helps the priest perform the service. He washes his hands during services and gives him the necessary items (tricirium, ripids).

Church ranks of the Orthodox Church

All of the church ministers listed above are not clergy. These are simple peaceful people who want to get closer to the church and the Lord God. They are accepted into their positions only with the blessing of the priest. Let's start looking at the ecclesiastical ranks of the Orthodox Church from the lowest.

The position of deacon has remained unchanged since ancient times. He, as before, must help in worship, but he is prohibited from independently performing church services and representing the Church in society. His main responsibility is reading the Gospel. Currently, the need for the services of a deacon is no longer required, so their number in churches is steadily decreasing.

This is the most important deacon at a cathedral or church. Previously, this rank was given to a protodeacon, who was distinguished by his special zeal for service. To determine that this is a protodeacon, you should look at his vestments. If he wears an orarion with the words “Holy! Holy! Holy,” that means he’s the one in front of you. But at present, this rank is given only after a deacon has served in the church for at least 15–20 years.

It is these people who have a beautiful singing voice, know many psalms and prayers, and sing at various church services.

This word came to us from the Greek language and translated means “priest.” In the Orthodox Church this is the lowest rank of priest. The bishop gives him the following powers:

perform divine services and other sacraments;
bring teaching to people;
conduct communion.

The priest is prohibited from consecrating antimensions and performing the sacrament of ordination of the priesthood. Instead of a hood, his head is covered with a kamilavka.

This rank is given as a reward for some merit. The archpriest is the most important among the priests and also the rector of the temple. During the performance of the sacraments, archpriests put on a chasuble and stole. Several archpriests can serve in one liturgical institution at once.

This rank is given only by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' as a reward for the kindest and most useful deeds that a person has done in favor of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is the highest rank in the white clergy. It will no longer be possible to earn a higher rank, since then there are ranks that are prohibited from starting a family.

Nevertheless, many, in order to get a promotion, leave worldly life, family, children and go into monastic life forever. In such families, the wife most often supports her husband and also goes to the monastery to take monastic vows.

Black clergy

It includes only those who have taken monastic vows. This hierarchy of ranks is more detailed than that of those who preferred family life to monastic life.

This is a monk who is a deacon. He helps clergy conduct sacraments and perform services. For example, he carries out the vessels necessary for rituals or makes prayer requests. The most senior hierodeacon is called "archdeacon."

This is a man who is a priest. He is allowed to perform various sacred sacraments. This rank can be received by priests from the white clergy who decided to become monks, and by those who have undergone consecration (giving a person the right to perform the sacraments).

This is the abbot or abbess of a Russian Orthodox monastery or temple. Previously, most often, this rank was given as a reward for services to the Russian Orthodox Church. But since 2011, the patriarch decided to grant this rank to any abbot of the monastery. During initiation, the abbot is given a staff with which he must walk around his domain.

This is one of the highest ranks in Orthodoxy. Upon receiving it, the clergyman is also awarded a miter. The archimandrite wears a black monastic robe, which distinguishes him from other monks by the fact that he has red tablets on him. If, in addition, the archimandrite is the rector of any temple or monastery, he has the right to carry a rod - a staff. He is supposed to be addressed as “Your Reverence.”

This rank belongs to the category of bishops. At their ordination, they received the highest grace of the Lord and therefore can perform any sacred rites, even ordain deacons. According to church laws, they have equal rights; the archbishop is considered the most senior. According to ancient tradition, only a bishop can bless the service with an antimis. This is a quadrangular scarf in which part of the relics of a saint is sewn.

This clergyman also controls and guards all monasteries and churches that are located on the territory of his diocese. The generally accepted address to a bishop is “Vladyka” or “Your Eminence.”

This is a high-ranking clergy or the highest title of bishop, the oldest on earth. He obeys only the patriarch. Differs from other dignitaries in the following details in clothing:

has a blue robe (bishops have red ones);
The hood is white with a cross trimmed with precious stones (the rest have a black hood).

This rank is given for very high merits and is a badge of distinction.

The highest rank in the Orthodox Church, the main priest of the country. The word itself combines two roots: “father” and “power”. He is elected at the Council of Bishops. This rank is for life; only in the rarest cases can it be deposed and excommunicated. When the place of the patriarch is empty, a locum tenens is appointed as a temporary executor, who does everything that the patriarch should do.

This position carries responsibility not only for itself, but also for the entire Orthodox people of the country.

The ranks in the Orthodox Church, in ascending order, have their own clear hierarchy. Despite the fact that we call many clergy “father,” every Orthodox Christian should know the main differences between dignitaries and positions.

Ukraine is preparing to receive Tomos and further creation United Ukrainian Autocephalous Local Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate "transferred" the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686. In addition, information has emerged that patriarch UOC KP Filaret. Wherein metropolitan ROC Hilarion threatens that if Ukraine does receive Tomos, That .

Such a brief introduction just six months ago could have seriously puzzled the average person with the presence a large number of incomprehensible words.

Now the topic of Tomos and the church is firmly strengthened its position in the top news of the country, however, it wouldn’t hurt to explain some terms once again.

Let's start with the main thing.

What is Tomos?

This is a decree of the primate of the local Orthodox church on an important issue of church structure.

In particular, by issuing the Tomos, some part "mother" church can gain autonomy in management or autocephaly.

What is the "mother" church?

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I Photos from open sources

The “Mother” Church, or mother church, is an autocephalous church ( mostly patriarchies), which can issue permits for the establishment of local churches previously within its jurisdiction.

For the title of “mother” church for Ukraine there is two contenders– Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates.

At present official position of the Ukrainian authorities, expressed by President Petro Poroshenko, is as follows:

"Prince Vladimir the Great accepted the Christian faith from the Church of Constantinople, and therefore exactly from her Ukraine is waiting for recognition of autocephaly for the local church".

What is autocephaly?

This is the status of the local church. It assumes administrative independence from other local churches.

The Autocephalous Church is headed by patriarch, archbishop or metropolitan.

In a little more detail: an autocephalous Orthodox Church is a local Orthodox Church with a canonical territory assigned to it. The Autocephalous Church is neither hierarchically nor administratively part of another Orthodox Church.

Not to be confused with autonomy. After election, the head of the autonomous church must be approved by the patriarch of one of the autocephalous churches.

Who are patriarchs, archbishops and metropolitans?

All three names are church ranks.

Patriarch- the title of the bishop-primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in a number of local churches.

In any autocephalous church, the patriarch is elected Local Council or Council of Bishops.

Archbishop- senior (commanding) bishop. In a number of local Orthodox churches of the Greek tradition (except for Jerusalem), the archbishop is the primate of this church.

Metropolitan- the first episcopal title in the Christian Church in antiquity. Initially, the title of metropolitan was borne by bishops of Christian churches, whose residences - departments - were located in the main cities (metropolises) - the administrative centers of the provinces of the Roman Empire.

What is a Local Council? What is the Council of Bishops? What's the difference between them?

Local cathedral- a council of bishops and other clergy, laity, a local church or a certain area of it to discuss and resolve issues and matters of doctrine, religious and moral life, structure, governance and discipline.

Bishops' Council- a local council in which they participate exclusively bishops.

Who are the bishops?

In the hierarchy of ranks modern church - clergy, having the third highest degree priesthood (episcopal).

Who are the exarchs?

Not long ago it became known that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of clergy representatives from Canada and the USA.

So here it is. In modern Orthodoxy, an exarch usually refers to the senior bishop of a separate church district (exarchate) located outside the country of the main jurisdiction of a given local church (patriarchy).

What is anathema?

Anathema – excommunication of a Christian from communication with people faithful to the Church and from the sacraments, applied as the highest ecclesiastical punishment for grave sins (primarily for betrayal of Orthodoxy and deviation into heresy or schism) and conciliarly proclaimed.

As you know, the decision “to excommunicate Filaret from the church” and anathematize him was made by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

What is a diocese?

Church administrative unit, is governed by a bishop. Dioceses are divided into deaneries consisting of several parishes. The boundaries of dioceses usually coincide with the administrative division of the country.

BISHOP

Bishop (Greek ἐπίσκοπος - overseeing, supervising; from ἐπί - on, with + σκοπέω - I look) in the modern Church is a person who has the third, highest degree of priesthood, otherwise bishop (from Greek αρχι - chief, senior + ἱερεύς - priest) .

Originally, in apostolic times, the term “bishop,” as used in the letters of the Apostle Paul, denoted the senior leader of a particular community of followers of Jesus Christ. Bishops oversaw the Christians of a particular city or province, as opposed to the apostles (primarily itinerant preachers). Subsequently, the term takes on a more specific meaning of the highest degree of priesthood - above deacon and presbyterate.
With the advent of various episcopal titles - initially honorary - (archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch), the term in Russian also became a designation for the youngest of them, although it did not lose a more general meaning, for which the term bishop is also used (Greek αρχιερεύς). In the Greek-speaking Churches the general term is usually ιεράρχης, that is, hierarch (“priestly leader”).
Jesus Christ himself is called in the Epistle to the Hebrews “High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek forever” - Greek. “ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχ " (Εβραίους 6:20)

Bishop in New Testament times

In the original Greek text of the New Testament we find 5 mentions of the word Greek. επίσκοπος:
Acts (Acts 20:28); Epistle to the Philippians (Phil.1:1); First Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 3:2); Epistle to Titus (Titus 1:7); First Epistle of Peter (1 Peter 2:25).
In the First Epistle, Jesus Christ himself is called “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Peter 2.25) - Greek. "τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν."

The office of bishop in various denominations of the Christian Church
Canonical foundations and the role of the bishop in the Church

According to the teachings of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one of the essential signs of the canonical legitimacy and validity of the priesthood in general and episcopacy in particular is their apostolic succession, that is, the acceptance of the priesthood from the one who himself received full power in the Church from the Apostles - through consistent and continuous a number of their successors.
Apostolic succession is carried out in the Church through bishops. Episcopal consecration (ordination) must be performed by several bishops, at least two bishops (1st Apostolic Canon), except in special cases.
As the high priest, the bishop can perform all sacred rites in his diocese: exclusively he has the right to ordain priests, deacons, and consecrate lower clergy, and consecrate antimensions. The name of the bishop is exalted during divine services in all churches of his diocese. Every priest has the right to perform divine services only with the blessing of his ruling bishop. In the Byzantine tradition of Orthodoxy, a visible sign of such a blessing is the antimension issued by the bishop, reclining on the throne of the temple.
All monasteries located on the territory of his diocese are also subordinate to the bishop, except for the stauropegial ones, which report directly to the patriarch - the primate of the local church.
By the middle of the 7th century, the custom of compulsory celibacy for bishops began to be perceived as the norm, which was enshrined in the 12th and 48th Rules of the Trullo Council (“Fifth and Sixth”). Moreover, the last rule provides: “The wife of someone promoted to episcopal dignity, having previously separated from her husband, by common consent, upon his ordination as a bishop, may she enter a monastery established far from the dwelling of this bishop, and may she enjoy maintenance from the bishop.” In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, a custom has been established, which has the force of law, to perform episcopal consecration only over persons who have been tonsured into the minor schema.

Bishop in Orthodoxy
Bishopric in Russia

In the 3rd century. There was a Scythian diocese of the Ecumenical Church with its center in Dobrudja, which was subject to the Scythian Christians, who also lived on the lands of modern Russia. According to church tradition, it was with this community of believers, created by the Apostle Andrew, that the spread of the Orthodox faith in Russia began.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II in a small episcopal vestment and a green robe

In 961, an unsuccessful visit to Kyiv by the envoy Otto Adalbert (the future first Archbishop of Magdeburg) took place. Usually bishops were approved for ministry by the decision of church hierarchs.
The first Metropolitan of Kyiv to arrive in Kyiv for a permanent stay was Michael, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'.
In 1147, Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich was elevated to the Kyiv metropolitanate without the sanction of the throne of Constantinople. This caused a split between the Kyiv metropolitanate and the dioceses of Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk and Suzdal.
In 1155 he expelled the “illegal” Kyiv. The Patriarchate of Constantinople appointed a new Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Constantine I, to the Kiev Metropolitan See.
For loyalty in supporting his policies and for supporting Bishop Niphon during the Kyiv schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople granted autonomy to the Novgorod See. Novgorodians began to elect bishops from among the local clergy at their meeting. Thus, in 1156, the Novgorodians for the first time independently elected Arkady as Archbishop, and in 1228 they removed Archbishop Arseny.
The election of Ryazan Bishop Jonah as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in 1448 marked the actual autocephalization of the Moscow Church (the northeastern part of the Russian Church). Western Russian bishops retained organizational independence from Moscow, remaining under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
In 1162, the Prince of Vladimir asked the Patriarch of Constantinople, Luke Chrysovergus, to establish a metropolis in Vladimir, but was refused.
With the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589, 4 episcopal sees: (Novgorod, Rostov, Kazan and Krutitsk) were transformed into metropolitan sees. But the formation of metropolitan districts (metropolises - following the example of other Eastern Churches) did not occur at that time: all Russian ruling bishops remained equal in their administrative and judicial rights. Metropolitans differed from bishops and archbishops only in the advantages of honor.
In fact, from con. XVIII century until the restoration of the patriarchate at the end. 1917, in the Russian Empire there were only 3 dioceses, the bishops of which usually held the rank of metropolitan: St. Petersburg, Kiev and Moscow (since 1818).
Since 1852, the title of Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna was assigned to the bishops of Vilnius (the first Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna was His Eminence Joseph (Semashko)).
Currently, the Vilnius metropolitans bear the title Metropolitan of Vilna and Lithuania.

Regarding the age limit for those appointed as bishops, the “Nomocanon” that was used in Rus' (Title I. Chapter 23) provides for a minimum age of 35 years for a protege - a candidate -, and in exceptional cases - 25 years. But church history knows deviations from this norm.

The bishop's blue vestment includes a sakkos, an omophorion and a club

The bishop's blue vestment includes a sakkos

The green vestment of the bishop includes a sakkos, an omophorion and a club

The red vestment of the bishop includes a sakkos, an omophorion and a club

The white vestment of the bishop includes a sakkos, an omophorion and a club

Bishops in full episcopal vestments

The sakkos is wearing a wide ribbon - an omophorion. On their heads are miters. On the chest there is a cross and a panagia (icon). During the service, the bishop symbolizes Christ. Thus, the omophorion ribbon (translated from the Greek omophorion - I carry on my shoulders) symbolizes the lost sheep that the Good Shepherd carries on his shoulder. The miter symbolizes the royal dignity of the bishop, in the likeness of the Kingdom of Christ.

The bishop puts on a robe over his vestments during non-liturgical times. He usually has a monk's hood on his head. The Metropolitan has a white hood. The patriarch has a patriarchal cowl instead of a hood.

Bishop's headdress - miter

An honored priest, he has a miter on his head

The miter is awarded to clergy for special merits or after 30 years of priestly service.

Bishop's coat of arms

Johan Otto von Gemmingen - Catholic bishop

Bishop of Regensburg Gerhard Ludwig Müller

In Catholicism, the bishop has the prerogative to perform not only the sacrament of the priesthood, but also anointing (confirmation).
A very special place in the episcopate belongs to the Bishop of Rome, whose special status, developing in the West over the centuries, was secured by the decisions of the First Vatican Council.
In accordance with the dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium (proclaimed by Paul VI on November 21, 1964), the institution of collegial participation of bishops in the governance of the Church was created. The Pope serves as the President of the College of Bishops. The Pope, according to the teachings of the Roman Church, “has over the Church, by virtue of his position as the Vicar of Christ and the shepherd of the entire Church, full, supreme and universal power, which he has the right to always freely exercise. The College of Bishops has no power except in union with the Roman Pontiff as its head." Bishops in Protestant denominations are recognized only as temporarily appointed administrative and teaching heads of communities, and not as heirs of special graces or powers that have existed since apostolic times. According to the views of the Reformation, ministry is not a sacerdotium, a sacrificial ministry, but a ministerium, a serving ministry that should serve the community with the Word of God and the Sacraments. Therefore, in the Augsburg Confession, Article 5, the ministry is called ministerium docendi evangelium et porrigendi sacramenta, the ministry of proclaiming the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, which was instituted by God so that men might receive justifying faith. The episcopate, being an important and useful body in Protestant churches and denominations, is not considered to belong to a special order. Bishops are also called presiding pastors, and their duties include presiding over Conferences, making appointments and ordaining deacons and elders, and generally overseeing the life of the Church.

Metropolitans

Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Vladimir after the end of the service. On his head is a white hood with a diamond cross, an omophorion on his shoulders, and a staff in his hands. The color of the vestment is black because it is Lent.

Vestments of the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Leningrad Nikodim (Rotov) (died 1978). Church and Archaeological Museum of St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

Currently, full-fledged metropolitan districts exist in one form or another within the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular these are:
- Latvian Orthodox Church,
- Orthodox Church of Moldova,
- Estonian Orthodox Church,
- Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR),
- Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
- Japanese Orthodox Church.

In 2011, the Holy Synod adopted the “Regulations on the Metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church” (these metropolises, which are just a union of dioceses on the territory of a subject of the Russian Federation and do not have autonomy, should be distinguished from metropolitan districts).

Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'- the title of the primate of the Russian Church during the period when it was part of the Throne of Constantinople, that is, from the time of the Baptism of Rus' and the founding of the metropolis in Kiev until 1686, when the Kiev metropolis, as a result of the annexation of Ukraine to Russia, was annexed to the Moscow Patriarchate.

26.10.2011

The creation of metropolises on the territory of Russia was one of the most important decisions of the Holy Synod, adopted at the last meeting, held on October 5-6, 2011. The activities of the metropolises are regulated by a new document - the Regulations on the metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church. The main provisions of this document are commented on in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (No. 11, 2011) by the Deputy Administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Secretary of the Inter-Council Presence Commission on Church Administration and Mechanisms for Implementing Conciliarity, Hegumen Savva (Tutunov).

Father Savva, in the new Regulations the metropolis is named as one of the forms of organizing the interaction of dioceses. What other forms of such interaction exist? What is involved in creating a new form?

Today in the Russian Orthodox Church the forms of territorial unification of dioceses can be different. If we go from large to small, then these are, first of all, self-governing Churches, exarchates, metropolitan districts and metropolises. In all cases, except for metropolises, their own synod and synodal institutions are formed.

The creation of metropolises as a new level of interaction between dioceses is due to the fact that since May of this year new dioceses have been created, the borders of which do not coincide with the borders of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. A new situation has arisen: several dioceses are emerging on the territory of one subject of the Federation. For obvious reasons, the question immediately arose about the interaction of these dioceses both among themselves and with the secular authorities. A simple example: how to build relationships with the regional education department on defense industry issues? It is obvious that the department on the Church side needs one coordinator. And there are many such situations.

In this regard, in July the Holy Synod instructed the commission of the Inter-Council Presence, headed by Metropolitan Barsanuphius of Saransk and Mordovia, head of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, to study this issue. As a result of intensive work, a draft document was developed that proposed uniting dioceses within one subject of the Federation into a metropolitan area.

The very concept of “metropolis” appears not for the first time in the history of the Church and has some prototype in the form of those metropolises that existed in the ancient Church. Of course, etymologically, a “metropolis” is more likely the center of a region, the main city, rather than a territory, but I believe that the terminology should not cause much concern in this case.

The existence of “intermediate” formations between the highest church authorities, to use modern terminology, and dioceses is well known from history. A four-level structure is known: dioceses, several dioceses are organized into metropolitanates, several metropolitanates are organized into an exarchate, several exarchates are organized into a patriarchate. Although it cannot be said that the four-stage structure existed for a very long time. But the three-stage system, which we now see in Russia, existed historically, was very effective and exists to this day. Although, of course, significant differences in this management system are inevitable both in different historical periods and in different geographical territories.

The document lists various areas of activity that should be coordinated by dioceses within the metropolitan areas. What is the purpose of such a detailed listing?

The regulations on metropolises are an ecclesiastical legal document, and the directions of interaction in it must be spelled out in detail. These are the laws of the genre, if you like.

We have already touched upon the interaction of new dioceses with government authorities at the regional level. How can interaction between the dioceses themselves be structured? For example, is it possible to say that not every such diocese should create a department of religious education? Such a department can be created in the metropolis and coordinate the activities of several dioceses. Or in each case should the diocesan structure be rigid and repeat the main synodal departments?

Of course, there should be a proper diocesan structure. This is, first of all, the diocesan council, the diocesan assembly, the diocesan secretary - everything that is provided for by the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. And also the chief accountant, because each diocese is a legal entity. As for diocesan departments, the situations may be different. And today there is no uniformity. For example, in the Chukotka diocese, where there are literally a couple of dozen parishes, and in Ekaterinodar, where there are several hundred of them, the diocesan structure, obviously, cannot be the same. This is fine. In one case, there are large diocesan departments with several dozen employees, in the other, parish priests, in addition to serving in the parish, are responsible for one direction or another.

I believe that in the new dioceses united into metropolises, the situation will be different depending on the number of parishes, the nature of the area, and the availability of infrastructure. But one way or another, there must be people under the bishop, albeit not numerous, but responsible for those main areas of church activity that the Council of Bishops determined this year: social service, work with youth, religious education and catechesis, mission. At least there should be separate staffing levels for these four areas. If it is not possible to create a full-fledged diocesan department, then it is quite enough to appoint one responsible person. I repeat: such experience exists in small dioceses, and it has fully justified itself. No one will make demands on the newly formed dioceses that they cannot fulfill.

In addition, the diocesan department of the main city of the metropolis is called upon to assist the dioceses. At the same time, there should not be any dictate on the part of the diocesan department of the metropolis. From the point of view of the canons and church law, the newly formed metropolitan dioceses do not differ from the diocese headed by the metropolitan as the ruling bishop. Therefore, this should be the case in practice.

The regulation is introduced by a new church body - the Bishops' Council. What is his status and what are his tasks?

Let's make an important clarification: it is necessary to avoid terminological and ecclesiastical legal confusion between metropolitan districts and metropolitan areas.

The metropolitan districts that operate in Kazakhstan and Central Asia have their own common bodies - synods, which have authority, and synodal institutions, which are executive authorities.

The bishops' councils of metropolises do not have power; they are advisory bodies of bishops in each metropolitan area. They are necessary to resolve the issues we discussed above.

Another example of the general concern of the Bishops' Council is theological schools and seminaries. For example, if there is a school in Saransk, then there is no need to open another school in Krasnoslobodsk or Ardatov. At the same time, since all the dioceses of the Mordovian Metropolis enjoy the benefits of this school, they are called upon to jointly support the seminary. This issue should be resolved in fraternal consultation between bishops within the framework of the Bishops' Council.

What is the role of the head of the metropolis? Judging by the Regulations, he has supervisory functions: to take care, teach fraternal advice, provide care. But at the same time, there is one unexpected function - to conduct pre-trial proceedings. What does it mean?

Being a senior comrade, a mentor is one of the important functions of the head of the metropolis. Now, when new dioceses are just being formed, it is especially important that in all metropolitan areas its heads are highly experienced bishops who will be able to help the young ones who head the new dioceses.

In addition, the Metropolitan is the coordinator. We know very well that if there is no person personally responsible for coordinating the activities of the dioceses, then nothing will work. The Metropolitan bears this responsibility.

Returning to what was said earlier: it is easier and clearer for the regional leadership and government authorities to conduct a dialogue with someone personally. This does not mean at all that other bishops of the metropolis should be excluded from dialogue with the same governor. This will be contrary to church legal norms. But with mediation or coordination on the part of one person, the metropolitan, this dialogue will be more fruitful.

Perhaps time will show that centralization will also be useful in resolving some issues. However, caution is required here. Each metropolitan diocese is subordinated directly to the highest bodies of church authority. And the metropolitan cannot interfere in relations between the highest authorities and dioceses. Any diocesan bishop, including the diocesan bishop of a new diocese that is part of the metropolis, can directly contact the Patriarch and the chairmen of synodal institutions. In this they differ from vicars, who appeal to the highest authorities through their ruling bishops.

It often happens that complaints against diocesan clergy, and sometimes against bishops, are addressed to the Patriarch. The regulations on metropolises provide that such appeals can also be accepted by the metropolitan. It is one thing to try to understand the situation from afar, it is another thing if the local metropolitan takes part in the reconciliation of the parties on the spot.

Doesn't this usurp the functions of the church court? The Regulations on Metropolises indicate that the courts remain the same: the diocesan court and the General Church Court. The Metropolitan can resolve misunderstandings without formal legal proceedings. This does not mean that church legal proceedings are being abolished, but that in cases where it is not necessary, the metropolitan has the right to resolve the issue independently.

In other words, this is a pre-trial procedure for considering those cases that do not concern canonical issues and where the parties can agree.

Yes. From my experience working in the Administrative Office of the Moscow Patriarchate, I can say that a significant number of complaints from priests and bishops are resolved in a pre-trial manner through dialogue and interviews. Cases are transferred to the church court when the possibilities for reconciliation have been exhausted. And the metropolitan, in the case when he cannot achieve a result without formal legal proceedings, should send documents to the General Church Court or to the diocesan court that has jurisdiction over the accused person, that is, at the place of residence or ministry.

The regulations on metropolises were prepared by one of the commissions of the Inter-Council Presence. Today there is a practice of submitting draft documents for church-wide discussion. The adopted Regulations were transferred to the Synod without such a procedure. What is this connected with?

As you know, the Inter-Council Presence consists not only of employees of church institutions, but also a wide range of clergy and experts who can examine the assigned topic from a variety of perspectives. Probably, it could have been done differently - to give instructions to write such a Regulation to the employees of the Administration, the legal service or the historical and legal commission. But the Synod entrusted this to the Inter-Council Presence, a broad collegial body. Thus, in addition to their own work on creating documents that undergo the discussion, publication, and so on you mentioned, individual commissions of the Inter-Council Presence are also involved in this kind of development.

What was the basis for this document? What church practice did you focus on?

We studied the materials of the Local Council of 1917-1918, but then the Council did not adopt any specific documents, although there were certain developments in the materials of the relevant department of the Council.

The documents of the Synod under the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), also turned out to be useful. These materials were published in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” in 1931-1935 and are available to us in a reissue prepared by the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate several years ago. Perhaps we cannot say that we directly transferred some formulations into the document, but, without a doubt, it was working material for us.

The adopted Regulations establish the order of interaction between dioceses today. Do you think it is possible to further develop cooperation between dioceses within the metropolis and, accordingly, a new edition of this document in the future?

The provision has entered into force and will remain in effect. If fundamental questions arise regarding the content, changes can be made at the Council of Bishops. The Synod indicated that with the adoption of the Regulations, it is necessary to make amendments to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and, if any additions are required to the legal status of metropolises, they can be proposed for consideration by the Council of Bishops that will adopt these amendments to the Charter.

The Council of Nicaea, streamlining a previously existing practice, decreed (4th and 5th canons) that the bishops of one province (or diocese) should meet twice a year at the metropolitan (the title of the bishop occupying the see of the capital of the province). The power of the metropolitan over other bishops of the diocese subordinate to him (his “suffragans”) is thus strengthened, especially in the matter of choosing and installing new bishops. Already at this level, the Church division adapts to the state division, and when new provinces are created, the organization of the Church usually takes them into account. In the VI century. sometimes discord breaks out.

The system has its exceptions. In Egypt, metropolitans have no real significance, since the bishop of Alexandria himself ordains bishops in the provinces. In newly reconquered (under Justinian) Italy, special rights of Rome in relation to the surrounding (“περὶ τὴν Ρώμην”) regions (provinciae suburbicariae) were formed in a similar way. On the other hand, in some provinces, in addition to full-fledged metropolises, there are also metropolises without bishoprics subordinate to them, the owners of which are sometimes called autocephalous archbishops.

These honorary metropolitans, along with the patriarchs and those who occupy the sees of real metropolitanates, bear the title of archbishop. Sometimes they tried to establish their authority over other sees and become full-fledged metropolitans. In two cases, the diocese was divided into two: in Pamphylia, where the city of Side, from 458, subjugated half of the cities of this province that were previously subordinate to Perge (the main city of Pamphylia, located on the Kastros River); and in Euphrates (Euphrates Syria), where the city of Sergiupol (Er-Rusafa), which became a metropolis, acquired a certain number of suffragan bishops. But in this case we mean newly created bishoprics.

The Council of Chalcedon obliged the bishops of each province to meet twice a year, but Justinian did not require more than one annual meeting. The regional council resolves general issues: disputes between bishops, examines their affairs according to the appeals filed. On the other hand, the metropolitan performs important civil functions: the provincial governor takes the oath of office in the presence of the metropolitan; in 569, Justin II, summarizing one of the provisions of the Pragmatic Sanction of 554, decreed that the metropolitan participate in the selection of candidates for the post of governor.

Formation of the patriarchal system

The organization of the Church is less clear when describing the level of church government higher than the metropolitan. With the emergence of patriarchates in the 4th and 5th centuries. There has been significant progress, but the clashes characteristic of the church history of that time occur for the most part as a result of rivalry between the largest sees.

The Council of Nicaea, which strengthened the power of the metropolitans, also turns its attention to higher authorities capable of resolving clashes between different dioceses or difficult situations in which the metropolitan finds himself. By the 6th rule, the Council approved a position that already really existed: the Bishop of Alexandria, following the example of the Bishop of Rome, has power (ἐξουσία) over Egypt and Libya; the advantages (πρεσβεία) of Antioch “and other areas” are confirmed. The Bishop of Jerusalem receives special honors, while remaining dependent on the Metropolitan of Caesarea. In the Eastern Empire there is a clearly organized ecclesiastical unit - the future diocese of Egypt, where the Archbishop of Alexandria has authority over the bishops.

The situation with Antioch and the diocese of the East is less clear. No other authority elevated above the metropolitanate is mentioned. In order to review the decision of a regional council (for example, a ban on a bishop), it is provided that the metropolitan can appeal to the bishops of neighboring regions or bring this problem up for discussion at a “larger council.”

The Second Ecumenical Council (first Constantinople, 381) by its 3rd rule establishes the position of the See of Constantinople and gives it second place of honor after Old Rome, since Constantinople is New Rome. The same council establishes as an immutable principle that it is not proper for bishops to interfere in the affairs of Churches that do not belong to them, and determines the various districts: the bishop of Alexandria governs Egypt; bishops of the East - only the East, the advantages of Antioch, as at the Council of Nicaea, are preserved; the bishops of Asia govern Asia, and the same applies to Pontus and Thrace. Thus, the five eastern dioceses are taken into account, while the dioceses of Illyricum, which have recently joined Constantinople in civil matters, continue to be indirectly dependent on Rome in ecclesiastical matters. And at this stage the organization of the Church is formed, although imperfectly, on the model of the administrative structure of the empire.

In fact, the implementation of these principles continues to evolve. In Constantinople, active bishops expand the privileges of their see. The Council of Ephesus does not make new decisions, but the derogation of the Antiochian see is felt there: the Cypriot bishops manage, at least preliminary, to achieve recognition of the independence of their Church from Antioch. Juvenal of Jerusalem, in turn, intends to become independent from Antioch by gathering the Churches of Palestine under his authority. The condemnation of Nestorius at the first Council of Ephesus and the manner in which the second Council of Ephesus was conducted seemed to mark the decline of Constantinople and the victory of Alexandria. However, this trend was changed at the IV Ecumenical Council.

Indeed, on Chalcedon the role of Alexandria, whose bishop Dioscorus was deposed, is diminished, and the significance of Constantinople is confirmed. Rules 9 and 17 establish the right of appeal to Constantinople for the bishops of three dioceses: Asia, Pontus and Thrace. Constantinople rises mainly due to the "28th Rule", which gives it rights equal to those of Old Rome and establishes its jurisdiction.

This rule of Chalcedon has a special institutional significance. Its first part is devoted to the privileges of Constantinople equal to those that Old Rome received as the capital of the empire, since Constantinople is the seat of the emperor and the senate. The second part defines the jurisdictional content of these benefits. The rule will not be accepted by Rome, which is not only concerned about the claims of Constantinople, but also, based on its “apostolic” privileges (connection with the Apostle Peter), cannot accept the political arguments used by the Chalcedonian fathers to determine the level of sees.

Finally, the Council determines the position of Jerusalem, deciding that three areas in Palestine, removed from the jurisdiction of Antioch, will be under the jurisdiction of Jerusalem. Thus, a system of five patriarchates began to emerge: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem - the “pentarchy” of the Justinian era, governing the imperial Church. The title of patriarch will come into use gradually, in the period after Chalcedon. However, the five patriarchates will never divide the entire imperial Church among themselves, since Cyprus and the Church of Conquered Africa do not depend on any of the heads of the said patriarchates.

Book imprint: Le Monde Byzantin I. L"Empire romain d"orient (330-641) / Sous la direction de Cécile Morrisson. Paris: Press Universitaires de France, 2004. P. 111-141 (Chap. 4. Bernard Flusin. Les structures de l"Église impériale). The Russian translation was made taking into account the modern Greek translation: O Βυζαντινός κόσμος Ι. κή Ρωμαική Αυτοκρατορία ( 330-641).

During the translation, a number of brief additions were made, necessary for the meaning, which are placed in parentheses. References to the literature listed at the end are given in square brackets.

In French text: has some status.

Translated by Abbot Dionysius (Shlenov) together with P.V. Kuzenkov