Libmonster ID: BY-3015

The author considers All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918th as a special phenomenon of the conciliar practice of the Orthodox Church. He analyses the composition and arrangement of the Council in its historical context, paying particular attention to the role of the laity and bishops. A strong representation of laity allowed to avoid the conflict between married and monastic clergy. In addition, this system of representation was the visible realization of the idea of sobornost', which the Council of 1917-1918th considered to be essential to restore. Thus, it built a balance between the principle of sobornost' and the Church as hierarchy based upon the principle of apostolicity. The latter was implemented by the special role played by the bishops' meeting, which acted as dogmatic and canonical "filter", testing the decisions, adopted at the Council. The article then explores the previsions for the future All-Russian local councils which were supposed to undergo important changes in composition and functions.

Keywords: the history of Russia in the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church, all-Russian local Council of 1917-1918, the conciliar practice, the local and bishops' councils, the electoral Council, the laity in Christian Church.

Introduction

The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918 was a historic event. Its significance, as we believe, went beyond the boundaries of one local church and was relevant for the whole of Orthodoxy. The cathedral

page 51
It is remembered as the end of the 200-year synodal period in the history of the Russian Church and the restoration of the Patriarchate. But it should also be recalled that for the first time in the history of universal Orthodoxy, it discussed issues of the life of the Church in a modern, modernized or modernizing society, which became the subject of a long discussion in the Christian world throughout the XX century. These included questions about the church's relations with the secular state, the strengthening of the role of lay people in the church, the place of women in the church and their involvement in church service. The Council, as can be seen from many of its discussions and decisions, reacted, for example, to the challenges of secularization, to the challenges of urbanization and the associated destruction of traditional public institutions that have been the mainstay of the church for centuries (in particular, the peasant community), to the challenges of the beginning changes in demographic behavior of the population (by reviewing, for example, the list of legal reasons for the dissolution of a church marriage). It would take a long time to list the actual problems of our time, to which the council directly or indirectly responded. It is important to note that in many of them the Council has demonstrated the highest level of theological discussion in its plenary sessions or in its specialized departments. In his documents, we can find the full range of theological, canonical, and ecclesiastical-historical arguments for a particular solution to the problem under discussion. Therefore, the decisions made by the council, or the judgments of its subdivisions, were often the result of a theological synthesis conducted not by an individual theologian or hierarch, not by a group of academic professors, but by a gathering of several hundred participants, including hierarchs, academic professors, clergy, and peasants. Already proceeding from the above, the documents of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 should have been the subject of close study by theologians and clergy throughout the Christian world.

Meanwhile, the council itself and its decisions have not yet become the subject of special systematic study. Of course, some attention was paid to the cathedral in review works devoted to the history of the Russian Church in the XX century, for example, D. V. Pospelovsky and Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin. However, due to their specific nature, the relevant sections of these books briefly and not without inaccuracies only informed the reader about the cathedral and its os-

page 52
new solutions 1. The monographs specially dedicated to the cathedral by foreign authors - G. Schultz and priest Iakinf Destivel-were more fully described about the cathedral.2 These works described the structure of the cathedral and gave an overview of its solutions. We must pay tribute to the long-term efforts of Professor G. Schultz, who through his publications did a lot to popularize the heritage of the Cathedral of 1917-1918 abroad. At the same time, these works were still descriptive in nature and, in addition, relied primarily on published sources, as a result of which a significant array of unpublished documents of the cathedral prepared by its departments escaped the attention of researchers (we will discuss the structure of the cathedral and its departments below). This shortcoming was partly overcome in the monographs published in the series "Church Reforms. Discussions in the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the XX century. The Local Council of 1917-1918 and the pre-council period " edited by Archpriest Nikolai Balashov 3. Their authors considered specific problems of church life - state-church relations, the transformation of Orthodox worship and the liturgical language, the church court, diocesan administration, and mission issues - in a historical context. Their task was to trace how this or that problem was perceived by the church community, what ways were proposed to solve it during the pre-conciliar period, and how it was finally resolved at the Local Council. These books contain the most valuable material for understanding the historical and intellectual context in which the council worked, and what discussions these or other decisions of the council relate to. The authors of the series systematically began to refer to the unpublished part of the cathedral's heritage, primarily to the materials of its history-

1. Pospelovsky D. V. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century, Moscow, 1995, pp. 38-60; Tsypin Vladislav, Archpriest. History of the Russian Church. 1917-1997. Moscow, 1997. pp. 9-47.

2. Schulz, G. (1995). Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917/1918 - ein unbekanntes Reformpotential. Goettingen; Destivel Iakinf, priest. The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918 and the principle of conciliarity, Moscow, 2008.

3. Nikolay Balashov, Archpriest. On the way to the liturgical revival. B. M., 2001; Firsov S. L. Russian Church on the eve of Changes: (late 1890s-1918). B. M., 2002; Belyakova E. V. Church court and problems of church life. B. M., 2004; Savva (Tutunov), Abbot. Diocesan Reforms, B. M., 2011; Kravetsky A. G. Church Mission in the Era of Change (between preaching and dialogue), B. M., 2012.

page 53
academic departments. At the same time, this series did not pretend to present a complete picture of the cathedral's activities in 1917-1918. Today, researchers and the general reader have the opportunity to rediscover the All-Russian Church Council, since for the first time the project for the scientific publication of all the documents of the council was launched.4
In this article, we will consider the Council of 1917-1918 as a special phenomenon in the conciliar practice of the Orthodox Church. Our task will be to show how the cathedral was built, how the peculiarities of its structure were explained, and how it thought of cathedrals in the Russian Church after its completion. The main methodological approach that will allow us to cope with this task will be that we will consider and interpret the work of the council in the context of those historical processes in a broad sense, especially social ones, that were relevant for the Russian Empire at the beginning of the XX century and which also affected the Orthodox Church. Our material will be both published decisions and definitions of the council, as well as unpublished reports of its departments, transmitted by the council for lack of time at the discretion of the Supreme Church Administration.

Progress and status of the cathedral

The Cathedral opened on the day of the Dormition of the Mother of God on August 15/28, 1917 and worked until September 7/20, 1918. During this time, three sessions were held: August 15/28-December 9/22, 1917, January 20 / February 2-April 7/20, and July 6/19-September 7/20, 1918. During the first session, a discussion was held on the restoration of the patriarchate, as a result of which a conciliar decision was adopted on the restoration of the patriarchate when the highest authority in the Russian Church was transferred to the local council; patriarch elections were held and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow was elected; prospects for state-church relations were discussed, and the conciliar opinion on this issue was

4. Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, vol. 1, Books 1-2. Pre-assembly work of 1917. Acts that determined the order of convocation and holding of the Council. Moscow, 2012; Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 2. Protocols of the Council of the Council. Moscow, 2013; Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 3. Protocols of the Holy Council. Moscow, 2014; Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church Churches of 1917-1918. Vol. 4. Documents of the Meeting of Bishops and the Judicial Commission of the Cathedral. Moscow, 2015.

page 54
"On the Legal status of the Russian Orthodox Church" of December 2, 1917.5 Among the most significant decisions of the council adopted at the second session, we should mention the definition of diocesan administration; the parish charter - the most extensive document adopted by the council; the definition of the reasons for divorce; on the mission and on ecclesiastical secondary educational institutions. At the same time, during this session, the council almost constantly had to react to the anti-church actions of the Bolsheviks who came to power.6 The third session adopted, in particular, definitions on the procedure for electing a patriarch; on the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne; on church governance in Ukraine; and on attracting women to church service. During the third session of the council, the People's Commissariat of Justice issued instructions on the procedure for implementing the Decree on the separation of Church from State and School from Church issued in January, which marked a new stage in the development of the anti-church policy of the Soviet government. In this regard, the Council adopted decisions designed to neutralize the destructive consequences of the adopted instruction 7 for church life. In the conditions of the beginning of the civil war, the council did not complete its work, passing a number of documents prepared but not accepted by the general assembly to the discretion of the Supreme Church Administration.

How did the cathedral think of itself? First of all, he was aware of his own exclusivity. It closed one epoch and started a new one, it was supposed to restore the original church norms of church administration and church life, but it was not necessary to restore them mechanically: its participants were well aware that it was impossible and unnecessary to restore the forms of church life of the XVII century. It was a question of recreating these norms in new conditions. In fact, the council was supposed to re-create the Russian Church on a canonical basis. Therefore, the council itself, its participants then and later

5. About him, see: Destivel Iakinf, priest. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church ... P. 208-212; Beglov A. L. From the Cathedral Definition-to the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars. K voprosu o genezise gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnosheniy sovetskogo perioda [On the genesis of state-Church relations of the Soviet period]. 2007. N 1(48). pp. 146-170.

6. G. Schultz. Introduction / / The Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918. Review of acts. Second Session, Moscow, 2001, pp. 7-22.

7. Schultz G. Review of the acts of the third session of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church / / The Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Review of acts. The Third Session, Moscow, 2000, pp. 12-13.

page 55
they called it the church Constituent Assembly 8. Recall that it was the civil Constituent Assembly that was the only fully legitimate authority that could determine the future form of the country's state structure. It was in favor of the Constituent Assembly that Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich abdicated, to whom the imperial power passed under the act of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II. The Provisional Government had only to bring the country to a Constituent Assembly. Similarly, the church constituent Assembly - the All-Russian Council was to determine the future form of the church structure.

The composition of the cathedral. The role of the laity

The exceptional position of the cathedral also determined its exceptional structure. The Council covered all strata and groups of the Russian population. Its members, either ex officio or by choice of their corporations, were representatives of state authorities, the army, the scientific world, and the monastic community. Most of the council members were members of diocesan delegations, each of which consisted of six people: the ruling bishop (or his deputy) He was an ex officio member of the council, two clerics (one in the presbyterian rank, the other in any rank from bishop to psalmist) and three laymen were elected at the diocesan electoral assembly. 9 (Its members, in turn, were elected at parish and then deanery electoral meetings.) As a result, 564 delegates arrived at the council: 80 bishops, 22 representatives of the black clergy (monastics), 163 representatives of the white clergy (both priests, deacons and psalmists, who were then considered members of the clergy) and 299 lay people. As you can see, all the participants in the council can be divided into approximately three unequal parts: bishops and black clergy made up about

8. See, for example: Krivosheeva N. A., Marbornov A. I. Preparation of the All-Russian Church Council in April-mid-August 1917 and documents on pre-council works / / Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Book 1. P. 26.

9. Regulations on the convocation of the Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church in Moscow on August 15, 1917 / / Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Book 2. P. 1183.

page 56
20% of its members, white clergy and clerics - about 30%, laity-just over 50%10.

The presence of such a large number of laity among the full members of the Council puts the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 in a special position against the background of the councils of other Orthodox churches and the councils of the Russian Church itself in the pre-synodal period. They were attended by bishops, as well as sometimes representatives of the clergy. Mixed councils in other churches had only an electoral function and, as a rule, were introduced at the insistence or under pressure of state authorities, who thus sought to control the hierarchy.11 In the Russian Church itself, the question of allowing laity with the right to vote to attend the council was debated long before it became possible to assemble the council, in particular, as part of the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906.12 It is clear that the laity were at the council on the wave of social emancipation that swept the country after February 1917. But on the other hand, the recognition of the right of clergy and laity to participate in the council together with bishops realized the idea of unity of all church groups, all church "estates", and the council turned out to be a visible embodiment of such unity.

Now we can say that a significant representation of the laity played an important role in the consolidation of the council. The fact is that the most significant problem for intra-church unity on the eve of the revolution was not the ideological differences of various church groups regarding the prospects of state-church relations or church transformations, but the division of estates. The social policy of the Russian emperors led to the fact that by the beginning of the XIX century, the white (i.e. married) parish clergy had already formed a closed class, within which the occupation, social status, parish places were inherited, and a special mentality was formed thanks to a strictly class-based education system. In the second half of the 19th century, the white clergy became aware of their own special social status.

10. Vladislav Tsypin, Archpriest. History of the Russian Church. 1917-1997. Moscow, 1997. pp. 16-17; Firsov S. Russian Church on the eve of changes (late 1890s-1918). B. M., 2002. pp. 536-537; Destivel Iakinf, priest. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church ... pp. 104-107. 11.

11. See: Ibid., pp. 102-103, note 53.

12. See, for example: S. Firsov. The Russian Church on the Eve of Change, pp. 225-226; Destivel Iakinf, priest. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church ... pp. 70-80.

page 57
interests within the church. Even then, the lines of tension between different church groups were clearly marked, due to their different social status. First of all, the line of separation ran between the clergy and parishioners. The mutual distrust of the clergy and representatives of educated society was often rooted in the centuries-old estrangement between the nobility and the"second estate". On the other hand, all groups of the laity, including the peasant population, were characterized by dissatisfaction with the fact that the lion's share of parish revenues went to the maintenance of religious educational institutions - class in their structure, that is, in fact - for the class needs of the clergy. Another line of division lay between the white and black, monastic clergy, especially between the clergy and the episcopate. Parish priests believed that the monks were in a privileged position, that they had "seized power" in the church to the detriment of their parish brethren. At the same time, the ecclesiastical class itself was not united. Its younger members, who did not have the sacred rank of psalmists, felt their social and material inferiority in comparison with the priests. At the same time, the rural clergy felt humiliated by the urban clergy, the provincial clergy felt humiliated by the metropolitan clergy, and so on. 13

All these lines of division made themselves felt during the revolutionary breakdown of the old order in the spring of 1917. During this period

13. Freeze, G.L. (1983) The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton; Mironov B. N. Sotsial'naya istoriya Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII - nachalo XIX v.). Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi semey, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva [Social History of Russia during the Empire period (XVIII-early XIX century). Vol. 1-2. SPb., 1999. Vol. 1. pp. 98-110, 133-136; Leontieva T. G. Faith and progress: Orthodox rural clergy of Russia in the second half of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. Moscow, 2002; Beglov A. L. The status of Orthodox parish clergy in Russia at the beginning of the XX century: regional features.- educational magazine "History", Moscow, 2013. Issue 5(21) [http://mes.igh.ru/s207987840000561-6-1 Orthodox Parish of the Russian Empire as an object of fiscal policy of secular and church authorities in the late 19th - early 20th centuries]; Beglov A. L. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series II " History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church". 2014. N 2(57). Pp. 56-81; Beglov A. L. Clerical work of the Orthodox parish of the Russian Empire in the late XIX-early XX centuries: social aspect / / Electronic scientific and educational journal "History". 2015. Issue 6 (39) [http://history.jes.su/s207987840001170-6-1 Manchester, L. Popovichi in the world: clergy, intelligentsia and the formation of modern self-consciousness in Russia, Moscow, 2015.

page 58
a real "church revolution" has unfolded 14. It was expressed in the mass refusal of parishioners to transfer even a part of parish funds for diocesan needs, in the confiscation of land from parish clergy, in the expulsion of objectionable priests, in anti-episcopal actions of clerics in dioceses, in real uprisings of psalmists and deacons against priests... There is no doubt that all these phenomena were a manifestation of long-standing social contradictions within the church, which were not resolved in the pre-revolutionary years. The All-Russian Council was supposed to return the situation to the church channel, turn the "church revolution" into a "canonical restoration" 15. He coped with this mission, and not the least role in this was played by the composition of the cathedral, the presence of a significant number of lay people in its composition. The laity, who took rather conservative positions [16], turned out to be a kind of "third force" - between the episcopate and monastics, on the one hand, and the white clergy, on the other. This did not allow the council to split on the basis of class into "black" and "white", and contributed to the submission to the council of such reform projects that did not proceed from class interests, but from church-wide interests.

Decision-making mechanism. The role of bishops

While the broad representation of various church groups ensured the manifestation of the conciliar principle at the council, the decision-making mechanism also took into account the hierarchical (apostolic) principle of the church's existence. Work on the cathedral documents proceeded as follows. Within the framework of the council, thematic departments were created that dealt with the development of specific church problems and documents. In particular, the departments of the supreme and diocesan church Administration, the ecclesiastical Court, parish welfare, the legal status of the church in the state, church discipline, internal and external mission, worship, preaching and the church were created,

14. Rogozny P. G. The Church Revolution of 1917 (the highest clergy of the Russian Church in the struggle for power in dioceses after the February Revolution). St. Petersburg, 2008.

15. Expression of the historian E. V. Belyakova.

16. Firsov S. Russian Church on the eve of change, pp. 536-537.

17. Such reform projects were already a reality during the first Russian Revolution. See, for example: Firsov S. Russian Church on the eve of Change. pp. 318-342.

page 59
monasteries and monasticism, ecclesiastical educational institutions, church property and economy, etc. In total, 23 departments were created. 18 The composition of departments was formed on the principle of free entry. Therefore, some of them had several hundred members, while others only had a few people. For example, 230 people signed up to work in the department on the improvement of the parish, and only 12 people signed up to work in the department on the organization of the Orthodox Church in Transcaucasia in connection with the autocephaly of their church declared by Georgians.

Documents prepared in the departments were submitted for consideration to the plenary sessions of the council, which were already attended by all its members. Here, sometimes a new heated discussion unfolded, and the projects of departments could be significantly reworked. But not every document approved by the council's plenary session was considered final. "Rulemaking or fundamental" decisions were submitted to the Bishops ' Conference, which brought together all bishops who were members of the council. It could approve the document, and then it acquired the status of a conciliar definition, but it could also reject it, returning it again for consideration by the department. The resolution repeatedly rejected by the Meeting could not claim the status of a conciliar decision.20 This was the case, for example, with the council's resolution "On the grounds for the organization of the Ecclesiastical Court", which was rejected by the episcopal conference at the end of the third session of the council.21
The Council of Bishops cannot be compared with a certain" upper chamber " of the council, since its members were also full participants in its plenary sessions. 22 It was

18. Runkevich S. G. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church in Moscow 1917-1918 // Delo velikogo stroitelstva tserkovnogo: Vospominaniya chlenov Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918 goda. Moscow, 2009. pp. 36-45.

19. GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 268. L. 19-25; Golubtsov George, archpriest. A trip to the All-Russian Church Cathedral. Diary: (January 29-April 18, 1918) / / The Russian Church during the Revolution (1917-1918). Collection / M. I. Odintsovo Publ., Moscow, 1995, p. 156. At the same time, a smaller number of cathedrals participated in the work of the departments at the same time. So, in the parish department, from 17 to 150 of its members attended meetings.

20. Charter of the Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church / / Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Book 2. pp. 1188, 1193.

21. See for details: Belyakova E. V. Church court and problems of church life, pp. 188-192.

22. Cf.: Destivel Iakinf, priest. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church ... pp. 102-103.

page 60
a kind of dogmatic and canonical filter designed to check every fundamental resolution of the council for " compliance with the Word of God, dogmas, canons and tradition of the Church." But it was precisely through this conference that the hierarchical principle of church existence was realized in the structure of the extraordinary council. This was how the balance between conciliarity and hierarchy was maintained in the structure of the All-Russian Council itself in 1917-1918. It should be noted that the council also tried to maintain this balance in its decisions regarding the configuration of all levels of church life, the highest, diocesan and parish.

How did the Council of 1917-1918 see the future cathedrals of the Russian Church?

We said earlier that the Council was fully aware of its special status as an extraordinary forum of the Russian Church, its constituent assembly. Therefore, it was obvious that its subsequent councils should differ from the extraordinary council. Let's see how the council thought about future church councils in Russia. First of all, it should be borne in mind that the council planned to create a system of councils that would differ in their tasks and composition of participants. There were supposed to be four such councils at the level of the local Russian Church: two periodic and two occasional ones, held on a specific occasion. These councils were to be based on the cathedral institutions of lower levels: district councils (we will discuss them below), diocesan and parish assemblies. Lower-level conciliar institutions were supposed to elect delegates to higher-level councils or assemblies, and give them appropriate powers and instructions.

Regular cathedrals

Let us focus first of all on regular local councils. According to the plan of the Council of 1917-1918, the future cathedrals of the Russian Church were to meet every three years, while in the third and sixth years small cathedrals of a relatively narrow composition were to meet, and in the ninth year large cathedrals of an expanded composition were to meet. The main difference in the composition of the small and large cathedrals was that the delegations were represented by-

page 61
In the first case, local representatives were formed by ecclesiastical districts, in the second-by dioceses. 23 The fact is that the Council of 1917-1918 planned to establish ecclesiastical districts in the Russian Church, within which district church councils were to be periodically convened.24 This meant, on the one hand, the decentralization of church administration, and, on the other, the arrangement of canonical interaction between dioceses, the number of which the council decided to significantly increase in order to bring the bishop closer to his flock. At the same time, the main purpose of creating districts was seen as "missionary-pastoral", but not "administrative-judicial". That is, the metropolitan, as the "first archpastor of the district", was not given administrative and judicial powers in relation to his fellow bishops of the dioceses included in the district (this is why the council called the districts "ecclesiastical", and not "metropolitan"). The main expression of "ecclesiastical and district life" consisted in the annual councils of the district, which were to be attended by all the bishops of the district (including vicars), and in emergency cases - representatives of the dioceses included in the district from among the clergy and laity, who were delegates to the All-Russian council that preceded the district council.

In total, the council intended to form 20 ecclesiastical districts in the Russian Church: 11 in the European part of Russia, the Baltic States, the former Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Finland, 3 in Ukraine, 4 in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, one in Transcaucasia and Central Asia, and one in the Americas.. At the same time, it was meant that in the future, as the number of dioceses increases, the number of districts may also increase.26 From these ecclesiastical

23. Report of the Department on Higher Church Administration On future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 174. L. 18-24.

24. Definition of church districts. September 7(20), 1918 // Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 4. P. 14.

25. The boundaries of church districts did not always correspond to the boundaries of regions in the modern sense. Thus, the Riga diocese was supposed to be included in the Novgorod church district, Warsaw and Grodno - in Lithuania, Minsk, Mogilev and Polotsk - in Smolensk, Vyatka and Tobolsk-in Perm, Kursk-in Kharkiv.

26. Report of the Department on Higher Church Administration on church districts / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 174. L. 31-34; Report of the Department on Higher and District Church Administration on the formation of new dioceses and vicariates / / GARF. F.3431.

page 62
districts at their councils and the main delegation to the small All-Russian council of the three-year cycle was to be elected. It consisted of two clerics, one monk who was tonsured in the mantle (regardless of rank), and three laymen, and one of the clerics had to be a priest, and the other - in any rank from bishop to psalmist. Also, all independent bishops and semi-independent vicars were members of the minor council by position.

In addition, five representatives from co-religionists (chosen at their congresses), representatives of church missions, and representatives of academic corporations of theological academies, universities, and other scientific institutions (chosen by these corporations) were invited to the council, in the number and procedure to be established by the supreme church authority.27 Let's pay attention to this detail: Orthodox representatives of secular universities and secular scientific institutions were supposed to be invited to the council as full members. The Church did not feel at all separated from the educated society, considered it useful and necessary to involve its representatives in the work of the highest body of church power, and thus considered it possible to inform society about its work through them.

Once every nine years, according to the draft of the Council of 1917-1918, the council of the expanded Local Russian Church was to meet. As already mentioned, a delegation of two clerics and three lay people was elected to such a council from each diocese. Also, all independent bishops and semi-independent vicars came to the cathedral. Semi-independent vicariates were required to send special delegations consisting of one cleric and one layman to the council. On behalf of the monastic community, vicars of all four lavras and abbots of seven famous monasteries (Valaam, Solovetsky, New Athos, Siberian Innokentievsky, Optina, Sarov and Glinsky deserts), as well as 20 mantle monks (regardless of their holy orders) from different monasteries were to arrive at the grand cathedral.-

Op. 1. d. 174. l. 42-43; Definition of vicar bishops. April 2(15), 1918 // Collection of Definitions and resolutions, Issue 3, p. 42; Definition of the establishment of new dioceses and vicariates. July 26 (August 8), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions, Issue 4, pp. 21-22.

27. Report... on the future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition.

page 63
28. Five representatives of ecclesiastical academies, representatives of secular higher educational and scientific institutions, and representatives of missions abroad and within Russia were also invited (the presence of representatives of the North American diocese was specifically stipulated).29. Representatives from autocephalous Orthodox Churches were to be invited to all local All-Russian councils "in the greatest possible number". The Council of 1917-1918, at its last meeting, instructed the Patriarch to convene in 1921,30 In addition to the regular councils of the 3-year and 9-year periods, it was also possible to convene extraordinary councils, the need for which would be caused by the requirement of "exceptional circumstances of church life" .31 Their desired composition was not specifically specified, that is, in fact, it was left to the discretion of the Highest Church Administration.

Electoral and judicial Cathedrals

Among the occasional councils convened on a specific occasion was, first of all, the electoral council, which was supposed to elect the Moscow Patriarch. This council consisted of members of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council, 32 as well as all diocesan bishops. Each diocese of the Russian Church sent its own delegation. It consisted of one presbyter and two laymen, and the same delegations, in addition to their diocesan ones, were to be sent by the cities of Petrograd and Kiev. In addition, Protopresbyter Uspenin was invited to the election council.-

28. The first such congress was held in 1909, the second in 1917. The Local Council planned to make the practice of convening All-Russian monastic congresses a regular one. August 31 (September 13), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions, Issue 4, pp. 41-42.

29. Report... on the future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition.

30. Decree on the convocation of the next council and on the powers of members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. September 7 (20), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions, Issue 4, p. 10.

31. Report... on the future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition.

32. According to the decision of the Council, the Russian Church established two bodies of Supreme ecclesiastical administration, presided over by the Patriarch: the Holy Synod, consisting of bishops, and the Supreme Church Council of Mixed composition. The majority of the members of both bodies were to be elected at regular local councils.

page 64
the Moscow Kremlin Cathedral, the abbots of the Stavropol monasteries, the protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy (all under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch), the vicars of the Lavras, the Valaam Monastery, the Sarov and Optina Deserts, a representative of the Orthodox Missionary Society, two representatives from each theological Academy, one representative from each University, the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Arts from among their Orthodox members. A separate delegation was to be formed by the Moscow Diocese, whose ruling bishop is the Patriarch. In fact, it sent ten diocesan delegations to the electoral council: three from Moscow, one from the Moscow Uyezd, and six from each pair of other uyezds of the Moscow Diocese. Moreover, it was the expanded representation of this diocese that was the necessary condition under which the council could be considered selective. The "Definition on the procedure for electing a Patriarch" specifically stipulated a situation in which the patriarch could be elected at any regular council (3-year or 9-year cycle), but with the mandatory involvement of the described representation from the Moscow Diocese. 33
We have seen that all the local councils listed above were councils of mixed composition and were supposed to consist of bishops, clergy and laity. Meanwhile, the Council of 1917-1918 provided for the possibility of convening an All-Russian church council in a different, narrow composition, consisting only of bishops. But before proceeding to the characterization of such a cathedral, it is appropriate to make a digression.

In modern official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church, we will find the name of two types of councils: "local" and "bishop's". The expression "local cathedral" is used in the sense of "mixed composition cathedral". The composition of the" council of bishops " is clear from its name, it is a council of ruling bishops. (Vicar bishops are now members of the "council of bishops", but according to previous versions of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, not all of them were full members.) For the first time, the pair "local" and "bishops' council " in the described meanings appears in the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church.

33. Definition of the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. December 8, 1917 // Collection of Definitions and resolutions, Issue 1, p. 5; Definition of the order of election of His Holiness the Patriarch. July 31 (August 13), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions, Issue 4, pp. 3-6.

page 65
In fact, it records the understanding of this opposition that developed in the post-war period. At that time, mixed" local "councils were usually convened to elect a patriarch (with the exception of the 1988 council), while" bishops ' "councils were convened on the eve of" local " councils or to make changes to official documents of the Russian Church (the 1961 council).

However, it is easy to see that the official word usage is inaccurate. In the charter of the Russian Church of the editions 1988-2013, as it were, there is a comparison of phenomena "on different grounds". In the first case, the concept indicates the status of the council, that it represents the Russian local Church. In the second case, the name indicates the composition of the council, that it consists of bishops, but it seems to imply that it has a special status, different from the "local council". Meanwhile, the status of the cathedral is not related to its composition. As long as the council expresses the opinion of the local church, it is a local council, regardless of its composition - episcopal, mixed or otherwise. This is exactly how the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 thought about the projected system of cathedrals: all the projected cathedrals were local, but they differed in their composition and functions. It would be more correct to say that in the modern practice of the Russian Church there are two types of local councils-mixed councils and councils of bishops. Their functions changed after 1988. There was a redistribution of powers between the "local" and "bishops' council " at the expense of the former. In the current version of the charter of the Russian Church, the "local" council retains electoral functions in relation to the patriarch and the power to "grant autocephaly, autonomy or self-government to parts of the Russian Orthodox Church", while the "council of bishops" is endowed with "supreme authority"...> in doctrinal, canonical, liturgical, pastoral, administrative and other matters concerning both the internal and external life of the Church; in maintaining fraternal relations with other Orthodox Churches, determining the nature of relations with non-Orthodox confessions and non-Christian religious communities, as well as with States and secular society."34
34. Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133124. html, accessed from 28.01.2016].

page 66
And what functions did the Council of Bishops of 1917-1918 plan to give it? According to the council's definition, the All-Russian Council of Bishops had the sole function of considering ecclesiastical and judicial cases against His Holiness the Patriarch. Only such a council could betray (on the recommendation of the united presence of the Synod and the Supreme Church Council) Take the Patriarch to court and bring him to trial. Moreover, in both cases, at least 2/3 of the available votes of the members of such a council were required.35 In principle, councils of bishops could meet for other purposes, but their powers were not defined by the council. Moreover, it was specifically stipulated that the convocation of the council of bishops, for whatever purpose it was convened, cannot cancel the next All-Russian council with the participation of clergy and laity. 36
Conclusion

Thus, the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918, as an extraordinary forum of the Russian Church, as its "constituent assembly", was distinguished by a special system of representation of different church groups. An important element of this system was a significant representation of the laity, which made it possible to remove the class contradictions between the white and black clergy and to design church transformations based on general church, rather than class interests. In addition, such a system of representation was a visible realization of the idea of conciliarity, which the Council of 1917-1918 considered necessary to restore. At the same time, a balance was observed in its structure between the principle of conciliarity and the hierarchy (apostolicity) of the church. The latter was implemented in the special role of the episcopal conference, which acted as a dogmatic and canonical "filter" of the decisions taken at the council.

The Council planned to preserve the expanded system of representation for most future cathedrals of the Russian Church. Future All-Russian local councils were to differ in their composition and functions. Every third and sixth year for solving current affairs and electing bodies

35. Definition of the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. December 8, 1917 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions, Issue 1, pp. 4-6.

36. Report... on the future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition.

page 67
Councils of mixed but limited composition were to be convened for the highest ecclesiastical administration, with delegations forming church districts. Every nine years, for the same purpose, there are councils of mixed and expanded composition with delegations from each diocese. Electoral councils, which were to be convened on the occasion of the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, also had a mixed composition; their main difference from regular councils was the special expanded representation of the Moscow Diocese, which was governed directly by the patriarch. It was also supposed to be possible to convene a local council consisting of only bishops, which was assigned a judicial function in relation to the patriarch.

We have described the system of local councils of the Russian Church, as it was designed by the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the councils that were supposed to represent the entire local Russian Church were based on the council bodies of lower levels: parish and diocesan assemblies and district councils. They also participated in the formation of Higher Church administration bodies. Thus, the cathedral institutions formed a system that encompassed all levels of the church's organism. At each of these levels, the council sought to maintain a balance between the principles of conciliarity and hierarchy. The mechanism of building such a balance, as well as the forms of interaction between cathedrals of different levels, should be the subject of special analysis.

Bibliography / References

Archive materials

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF).

F. 3431-Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918.

Literature

Nikolay Balashov, Archpriest. On the Way to the Liturgical Revival, B. M., 2001.

Beglov A. L. From the Cathedral Definition-to the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars. K voprosu o genezise gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnosheniy sovetskogo perioda [On the genesis of state-Church relations of the Soviet period]. 2007. N 1(48). pp. 146-170.

Beglov A. L. Deloproizvodstvo pravoslavnogo prikhoda Rossiiskoi imperii v kontsey XIX - nachale XX v.: sotsial'nyi aspekt [Office management of the Orthodox parish of the Russian Empire in the late 19th-early 20th centuries: a social aspect]. Issue 6 (39) [http://history.jes.su/s207987840001170-6-1, accessed on 06.08.2015].

page 68
Beglov A. L. Pravoslavnyi prikhod Rossiiskoi imperii kak obekt fiskal'noi politiki svetskikh i tserkovnykh vlast ' v kontsey XIX - nachale XX v. [Orthodox Parish of the Russian Empire as an object of fiscal policy of secular and Church authorities in the late 19th-early 20th Centuries]. Series II " History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church". 2014. N 2(57). pp. 56-81.

Beglov A. L. Istasnost ' pravoslavnogo prikhodskogo dukhovenstva v Rossii v nachale XX veka: regional'nye osobennosti [Status of the Orthodox parish clergy in Russia at the beginning of the XX century: regional features]. [http://mes.igh.ru/s207987840000561-6-1, accessed on 14.11.2013].

Belyakova E. V. Church court and problems of church life. B. M., 2004.

George Golubtsov, Archpriest. A trip to the All-Russian Church Cathedral. Diary: (January 29-April 18, 1918) / / Russian Church during the Revolution. (1917-1918). Collection / M. I. Odintsovo Publ., Moscow, 1995, pp. 121-269.

Destivel Iakinf, a priest. The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918 and the principle of conciliarity, Moscow, 2008.

Report of the Department on higher and District Church administration on the formation of new dioceses and vicariates / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 174. L. 42-43.

Report of the Department on Higher Church Administration on the future Cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and their composition / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 174. L. 18-24.

Report of the Department on Higher Church Governance in church districts / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 174. L. 31-34.

Documents of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Books 1-2. Pre-assembly work of 1917. Acts that determined the order of convocation and holding of the Council, Moscow, 2012.

Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, vol. 2. Minutes of the Council of the Council, Moscow, 2013.

Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, vol. 3. Protocols of the Holy Council, Moscow, 2014.

Documents of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 4. Documents of the Meeting of Bishops and the Judicial Commission of the Council. Moscow, 2015.

Kravetsky A. G. Church Mission in the Era of Change (between preaching and dialogue). B. M., 2012.

Krivosheeva N. A., Marbornov A. I. Podgotovka Vserossiiskogo Tserkovnogo sobor v aprel ' - mid-August 1917 goda i dokumenty o predsobornykh trudakh [Preparation of the All-Russian Church Council in April-mid-August 1917 and documents on Pre-Conciliar works]. Dokumenty Svyatogo Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 goda. Vol. 1. Kn.1. Predsobornaya rabota 1917 goda. Acts that determined the order of convocation and holding of the Council, Moscow, 2012, pp. 5-32.

Leontieva T. G. Faith and Progress: Orthodox rural clergy of Russia in the second half of the XIX-early XX centuries Moscow, 2002.

Manchester L. Popovichi in the world: clergy, intelligentsia and the formation of modern self-consciousness in Russia. Moscow, 2015.

Mironov B. N. A social history of the Russian Empire (XVIII - beginning of XIX century). The Genesis of the individual, the democratic family, civil society and legal state. Tt. 1-2. SPb., 1999.

Definition of vicar bishops. April 2(15), 1918 // Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918, Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918, Issue 4. pp. 21-22.

page 69
Definition of monasteries and monastics. August 31 (September 13), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 4. pp. 31-43.

Definition of the rights and duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. December 8, 1917 // Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 1. pp. 4-6.

Decree on the convocation of the next council and on the powers of members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council. September 7(20), 1918 // Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 4. P. 10.

Definition of church districts. September 7(20), 1918 // Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 4. P. 14.

Decision of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the procedure for electing His Holiness the Patriarch. July 31 (August 13), 1918 / / Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Issues 1-4. Moscow, 1918. Issue 4. pp. 3-6.

Regulations on the convocation of the Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church in Moscow on August 15, 1917 / / Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Book 2. pp. 1178-1187.

Pospelovsky D. V. Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkva v XX veke [Russian Orthodox Church in the XX Century]. Moscow, 1995.

Rogozny P. G. The Church Revolution of 1917 (The highest clergy of the Russian Church in the struggle for power in dioceses after the February Revolution). St. Petersburg, 2008.

Runkevich S. G. Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church in Moscow 1917-1918 // Delo velikogo stroitelstva tserkovnogo: Vospominaniya chlenov Sacred Cathedral of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917-1918 goda. Moscow, 2009. pp. 36-45.

Savva (Tutunov), abbot. Diocesan Reforms, B. M., 2011.

List of members of the V Department "On the improvement of the parish" / / GARF. F. 3431. Op. 1. D. 268. L. 19-25.

Charter of the Local Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Church / / Documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1. Book 2. pp. 1187-1204.

Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133124.html, accessed from 28.01.2016].

Firsov S. L. Russian Church on the eve of Changes (late 1890s-1918). B. M., 2002.

Vladislav Tsypin, Archpriest. History of the Russian Church. 1917-1997. Moscow, 1997.

G. Schultz. Introduction / / The Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918. Review of acts. Second Session, Moscow, 2001, pp. 7-22.

Schultz G. Review of the acts of the Third session of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church / / The Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Review of acts. The Third Session, Moscow, 2000, pp. 10-26.

Archival Materials

State archive of the Russian Federation (GARF).

F. 3431 - The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918th.

page 70
Literature

Balashov, N., Archpriest. (2001) Na puti k liturgicheskomu vozrozhdeniiu [Towards a liturgical revival].

Beglov, A. (2007) "Ot sobornogo Opredeleniia - k Dekretu SNK. K voprosu o genezise gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnoshenii sovetskogo perioda" ["From the Council's decision to the Lenin's decree "On the separation of Church from State". To the question of the Genesis of Church-state relations in the Soviet period"], in Al'fa i Omega 1(48): 146-170.

Beglov, A. (2013) "Soslovnost' pravoslavnogo prikhodskogo dukhovenstva v Rossii v nachale X X veka: regional'nye osobennosti", ["Was the Orthodox parish priesthood an estate in the early 20th-century Russia: Regional features"] Elektronnyi nauchnoobrazovatel'nyi zhurnal "Istoriia" 5(21) [http://mes.igh.ru/s207987840000561-6-1, accessed on 14.11.2013].

Beglov, A. (2014) "Pravoslavnyi prikhod Rossiiskoi imperii kak ob'ekt fiskal'noi politiki svetskikh i tserkovnykh vlastei v kontse XIX - nachale XX vv." ["The Orthodox parish in the Russian Empire as an object of fiscal policy of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the late X IX - early X X centuries"], Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II "Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" 2(57): 56-81.

Beglov, A. (2015) "Deloproizvodstvo pravoslavnogo prikhoda Rossiiskoi imperii v kontse XIX - nachale XX v.: sotsial'nyi aspekt" ["The Records of the Orthodox Parish of the Russian Empire in the Late 19th - Early 20th Century: the Social Aspects"], Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel'nyi zhurnal "Istoriia" 6(39) [http://history.jes.su/s207987840001170-6-1, accessed on 06.08.2015].

Beliakova, E. (2004) Tserkovnyi sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni [The ecclesiastical court and problems of the Church life].

Destivel', I., Priest. (2008) Pomestnyi sobor Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 gg. i printsip sobornosti [The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917- 1918th and the Sobornost' principle]. Мoscow.

Firsov, S. (2002) Russkaia Tserkov' nakanune peremen: (konets 1890-kh - 1918 gg.) [The Russian Church on the eve of the change: (late 1890s - 1918)]. S. l.

Freeze, G. (1983) The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton.

Golubtsov, G., Priest. (1995) "Poezdka na Vserossiiskii tserkovnyi sobor. Dnevnik: (29 ianvaria - 18 aprelia 1918 g)" ["A Diary of a trip to the all-Russian Church Council. (29 January - 18 April 1918)"], in Rossiiskaia Tserkov' v gody revoliutsii. (1917-1918). Sbornik, pp. 121-269. Moscow.

Kolcherin, A., Priest, ed. (2014) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov. T. 3. Protokoly Sviashchennogo Sobora [The documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918th. Vol. 3. The Protocols Of The Holy Council]. Мoscow.

Kravetskii, A. (2012) Tserkovnaia missiia v epokhu peremen (mezhdu propoved'iu i dialogom) [The Church mission in times of changes (between the sermon and the dialogue)].

Krivosheeva, N., Mramornov, A. (2012) "Podgotovka Vserossiiskogo Tserkovnogo sobora v aprele - seredine avgusta 1917 goda i dokumenty o predsobornykh trudakh" ["The Preparation of the All-Russian Church Council in April - mid-August 1917, and documents of the Pre-Council works"], in Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov. T. 1. Kn. 1. Predsobornaia rabota 1917 goda. Akty, opredeliavshie poriadok sozyva i provedeniia Sobora, pp. 5-32. Мoscow.

page 71
Leont'eva, T. (2002) Vera i progress: pravoslavnoe sel'skoe dukhovenstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX - nachale XX vv. [Faith and progress: Orthodox clergy in rural Russia in the second half of XIX - early XX centuries]. Мoscow.

Manchester, L. (2015) Popovichi v miru: dukhovenstvo, intelligentsiia i stanovlenie sovremennogo samosoznaniia v Rossii [Priests sons in the world: the clergy, the intelligentsia and the formation of modern identity in Russia]. Мoscow.

Mironov, B. (1999) Sotsial'naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII - nachalo XX v.). Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi sem'i, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva. Tt. 1-2 [Social history of Russian Empire period (XVIII - beginning of XX century). The Genesis of personality, democratic family, civil society and legal state. TT. 1-2.]. St. Petersburg.

Mramornov, A., ed. (2012) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov. T. 1. Kn. 1-2. Predsobornaia rabota 1917 goda. Akty, opredeliavshie poriadok sozyva i provedeniia Sobora [The documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918th. Vol. 1. Kn. 1-2. Pre-Council work 1917. Acts relating to the procedure for convening and holding of the Council]. Мoscow.

Mramornov, A., ed. (2013) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov. T. 2. Protokoly Sobornogo Soveta [The documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918th. Vol. 2. The Protocols Of The the Council Committee]. Мoscow.

Mramornov, A., ed. (2015) Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov. T. 4. Dokumenty Soveshchaniia episkopov i Sudnoi komissii Sobora [The documents of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918th. Vol. 4. Papers for the Meeting of bishops and the Judgment CommissionoftheCouncil].Мoscow.

Pospelovskii, D. (1995) Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov' v XX veke [The Russian Orthodox Church in the XXth century]. Мoscow.

Rogoznyi, P. (2008) Tserkovnaia revoliutsiia 1917 goda: (Vysshee dukhovenstvo Rossiiskoi Tserkvi v bor'be za vlast' v eparkhiiakh posle Fevral'skoi revoliutsii) [Church revolution of 1917: (Higher clergy of the Russian Church in the struggle for power in dioceses after the February revolution)]. St. Petersburg.

Runkevich, S. (2009) "Sviashchennyi Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi v Moskve 1917-1918 gg." ["Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in Moscow of 19171918"], in Delo velikogo stroitel'stva tserkovnogo: Vospominaniia chlenov Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 godov, pp. 36-45. Мoscow.

Savva (Tutunov), igumen. (2011) Eparkhial'nye reformy [Diocesan reform].

Schulz, G. (1995) Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917/1918 - ein unbekanntes Reformpotential [The local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917/1918 - an unknown reform potential]. Goettingen.

Shul'ts, G. (2000) "Obzor deianii tret'ei sessii Pomestnogo sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" ["Review of the acts of the third session of the local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church"], in Sviashchennyi sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917- 1918 gg. Obzor deianii. Tret'ia sessiia, pp. 10-26. Мoscow.

Shul'ts, G. (2001) "Vvedenie" ["Introduction"], in Sviashchennyi sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 gg. Obzor deianii. Vtoraia sessiia, pp. 7-22. Мoscow.

Sobranie opredelenii i postanovlenii Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917-1918 gg. Vyp. 1-4 [Collection of rulings and decrees of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. Vol. 1-4]. Мoscow, 1918.

page 72
Tsypin, V., Archpriest. (1997) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi. 1917-1997 [History Of The Russian Church. 1917-1997]. Мoscow.

Ustav Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [The Statute of The Russian Orthodox Church]. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133124.html, accessed on 28.01.2016].

page 73


© biblioteka.by

Permanent link to this publication:

https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/The-All-Russian-Church-Council-of-1917-1918-as-a-phenomenon-of-the-conciliar-practice-of-the-Church

Similar publications: LBelarus LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Aleksandr StepanovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://biblioteka.by/Stepanov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Alexey Beglov, The All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918 as a phenomenon of the conciliar practice of the Church // Minsk: Belarusian Electronic Library (BIBLIOTEKA.BY). Updated: 13.01.2025. URL: https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/The-All-Russian-Church-Council-of-1917-1918-as-a-phenomenon-of-the-conciliar-practice-of-the-Church (date of access: 10.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - Alexey Beglov:

Alexey Beglov → other publications, search: Libmonster BelarusLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Aleksandr Stepanov
Минск, Belarus
57 views rating
13.01.2025 (27 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Тысяча ответов на 37 вопросов
Yesterday · From Беларусь Анлайн
ПАРАД ЛАУРЕАТОВ
2 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
Библиографические листки
3 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
Человек больше войны
6 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
55 ЛЕТ ПОБЕДЫ. БРЕСТСКАЯ КРЕПОСТЬ ДЕРЖИТ ОБОРОНУ
Catalog: История 
6 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
CREATORS OF THE KUSKOVSKY ENSEMBLE
8 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ВСЕ-ТАКИ ОНА ВЕРТИТСЯ. ВЗОЙТИ НА КОСТЕР ИЛИ ОТРЕЧЬСЯ У КОСТРА?
Catalog: Разное 
10 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
FEUDAL REBELLION OF 1480
Catalog: История 
10 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ON THE METHOD OF COMPILING CHRONICLES AND STATISTICS OF THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA DURING THE PERIOD OF CAPITALISM (1861-February 1917)
11 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
THE FATE OF THE FIRST PRINTER'S PUBLICATIONS
11 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

BIBLIOTEKA.BY - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

The All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918 as a phenomenon of the conciliar practice of the Church
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: BY LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Biblioteka.by - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive ® All rights reserved.
2006-2025, BIBLIOTEKA.BY is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Belarus


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android