Interaction of the Synod and Its Institutions with the Secret Chancellery in the First Half of the 1720s

This article studies the mechanism of interaction of the Synod, its institutions and bodies of the central church administration with the Secret Chancellery during the first half of the 1720s. The analysis is based on the documents of the Synod containing correspondence with the Secret Chancellery. This study is a continuation of the research on the relationship between the Secret Chancellery and the Russian Orthodox Church, whose resluts had been published earlier. A deeper immersion in the topic provided greater insights into the joint activities of the synodal institutions and Russia’s main penal body at the time, as well as revealed the details of the most important contacts and pertinent problems. Of particular importance is the activity of the Chancellery of the Most Holy Synod, through which official correspondence with the Secret Chancellery and control over the implementation of its decisions as well as defrocking of priests before the start of investigation were carried out. Further, the paper describes the categories of convicts who were sent to the Synod from the Secret Chancellery and looks into the differences in their position. Contrary to the prevailing opinion about the absence of relations between the Synod and the Secret Chancellery, the author concludes that in practice there was a certain mechanism of interaction, which concerned investigations regarding the accused from among the clergy and their commital, as well as granting official requests from both parties, sending ecclesiastical experts, and enforcing sentences of the Secret Chancellery. In addition, facts are considered that testify to extremely complex and contradictory relations between the Synod and the Secret Chancellery. The author concludes that the relationship between these institutions was not systemic, but developed in the context of the state’s general advance on the church and subordination of the latter and the clergy to state interests. The mechanism of interaction between the Synod and the Secret Chancellery was formed in line with this trend as well.

The problem of maintaining balance of liberal and conservative principles at the congresses of clergy and Laity of Southern Russia in 1917

The article examines the congresses of clergy and laity that took place after the February Revolution of 1917 in the South of Russia — on the Don, Stavropol and Kuban, which were the part of the movement propagated throughout the country. It marked the broad inclusion of clergy and laity in the reform of the synodal system of relations and the solution of accumulated intra-church problems. The author examines the nature of the expansion of the participation of parish clergy and laity in church administration, the participation of diocesan bishops in these processes, the question of how the participants of the congresses imagined combining these ideas with the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church. The study is based on the protocols of the congresses of the clergy and laity and the discussion of their decisions on the pages of the periodical press of that time. The author comes to the conclusion that the congresses of the South of Russia have shown a desire to unite all members of the church community, without violating the traditional right of diocesan bishops to church governance. The revolt against the episcopal authority has passed the Cossack territories. In the inclusion of lower clergy and laity in the church administration, their participants saw the implementation of the principles of conciliarity. The most important component of the reform was the inclusion of laypeople in the church administration bodies of different levels, which took place at the initiative of the clergy as a whole.

“Results of Synodal Era Will Be Positively Exposed”. Anton V. Kartashev’s Letters to George I. Novitskii. 1957

This publication continues to acquaint the readers with letters written by the historian and professor of the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, Anton V. Kartashev, to his friend George I. Novitskii, who lived in New York. At the beginning of the year, A. V. Kartashev was still thinking about the second edition of his book “The Restoration of Holy Russia”, supplemented by a polemic with its critics. However, the main event in the life of the historian this year was the preparation of “Essays on the History of the Russian Church”. Despite his illness, he managed to prepare a manuscript of the book. A. V. Kartashev paid special attention to assessments of the Synodal period, which, unlike the pre-revolutionary tradition, he characterized positively. A significant place in the letters was occupied by the description of intrigues in the diocesan administration of the West European exarchate of the Russian parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in connection with the anniversary of Metropolitan Vladimir (Tikhonitsky). A. V. Kartashev consistently upheld the principle of collegiality in church administration, and also sought to maintain the high authority of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute and its rector Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov). The text of letters is aline with current spelling standards with preservation of some features of author's spelling of separate words and punctuation.

Leipzig

Bach arrived at Leipzig in 1723 and remained there for the rest of his life. A university city, Leipzig was also a trade center. Although it was not a princely residence, members of its ruling council had close connections with the reigning duke-elector in Dresden. This chapter describes Bach’s place in the city’s St. Thomas School and his relationships with members of the city’s ruling class and intelligentsia, including the poets and university faculty and students with whom he collaborated. Also considered is the city’s musical life, including Bach’s direction of the Collegium Musicum and his first self-published compositions, as well as the first instances of conflict between Bach and members of the city council and church administration.

A Patriarchal “Blessing of Release” for the See of Kyiv Dated 1686

The discovery of copies of two texts of the synodal decisions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the metropolitan see of Kyiv dated 1686, in a manuscript from Athens (MIET/ ΙΠΑ, 22, fol. 202r–204r), presents historians with an opportunity to compare it with their Russian translations done in the 17th century and to identify their possible models. Such a model could be found in the “synodal chrysobull” of 1655 conceding specific rights of church administration to Athanasius Vellerianos, metropolitan of Philadelphia, beyond the borders of his proper diocese (Hellenic Institute in Venice, n. 15 A). In the same way, while experiencing difficulties in carrying out pastoral care in the eparchy of Kyiv, the patriarchate of Constantinople conceded the rights to consecrate the church hierarchy of this see to the patriarchs of Moscow, insisting, however, on the precedence of the ecumenical patriarch in the commemorations during the liturgy.

The Kingdom of God

This chapter explores Joseph Smith’s overarching narrative of priestly power by identifying a continuous chain of authority back to Adam in Mormon scripture. A crucial component of that chain was the idea of administrative keys that link priestly authority among the New Testament apostles with priestly authority in Joseph Smith’s church. The chapter focuses on how an emerging narrative about Peter, James, and John determined Mormon administration and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This apostolic narrative enabled Joseph Smith to empower the Mormon clergy with authority without compromising his unique position within the church as its president and prophet. On the one hand, Smith centralized power in himself, like a monarch over the kingdom of God. He alone held all of the keys of full church administration. On the other hand, he empowered regional parallel sites of authority of priests and high priests by distributing some keys freely to others, who also distributed them regionally. The chapter further explores the notion of the Mormon kingdom of God and how the apostolic mythos about Peter, James, and John enabled and maintained a long-lasting Mormon hierarchy. The chapter explores the mythos historically as an evolving narrative, to demonstrate how it came to represent the foundations of Mormon authority.

Optina Pustyn' as a Model for Monastic Reform at the Beginning of the 20th Century

The article's research subject is the sources from corporate meetings of the clergy in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century: conventions of monks, clergy and laity, as well as the Local Council of 1917–1918. The author considers how the monastic reform was planned and what role Optina Pustyn' played in this process. The author analyses the participation of this monastery's monks in corporate meetings, identifies in what context Optina Pustyn' was mentioned at these meetings, and clarifies how the monastery's traditions and experience were used in the church's monastic reform. Optina Pustyn' is considered as one of the main spiritual centers of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. In accordance with the “center-periphery” model, Optina and its traditions influenced the development of the Church at the regional and then at the central level. Based on the article's material, the author demonstrates that at the beginning of the 20th century, Optina Pustyn', administratively remaining in deep province, in the spiritual sense had reached the national level. This was manifested not only in mass pilgrimages, but also in the fact that Optina was openly recognized by the Holy Synod and the monastic community as an exemplary, well-maintained monastery. Optina monks were invited to various corporate meetings of the clergy - up to the Local Council of 1917-1918, and Optina traditions were sought in chartering the monastic reform. Thus, the author argues that when reforming monasteries, the church administration tried to rely on the informal category of spiritual experience.