Church court in the modern period of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Church courts

So, abstract thoughts.

Abstracted from the letter (church canons, worldly laws, decrees, provisions, judgments, comments, precedents, “with and without entry”), from the realities surrounding us of this best of worlds, but still fallen and vain, perishable. So, if we ignore everything connected with conditioning church life the inclination of its members to sin - so “convenient” that often the holiness of the Church, emanating from its Head and constituting Its essence, through the sins, vices and infirmities of men almost no longer shines through - it must be admitted that the phrase “church court” does not may not hurt the ears.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it has historically developed that in the post-Soviet space the attitude towards the court is cautious and wary. This word is so overgrown with negative connotations that the essence of it simply cannot be understood. Do what you want, but the word “court” is inextricably associated with the verbs “condemn”, “condemn”, “imprison”, “deal with”. They don’t “come” to court, but “get”, and not to it, but "under". How under ice rink, under tank, under collapse... Unfortunately, this kind of association is not unfounded.

IN best case scenario judgment is perceived as an evil intended to punish another evil. People go to court to get rid of some worst evil, to punish their offender, but not for advice, not for reasoning, not for help in resolving perplexing issues. The plaintiff's appeal to the court is perceived by the defendant as an attack, and the plaintiff himself understands it this way. Meanwhile, this is fundamentally wrong. The court is not a punitive authority. Or rather, it shouldn’t be, if we talk about the essence of the phenomenon. After all, why is the Judgment, to which we will all appear after the Resurrection, called “Terrible”?

For whom is he scary? - For sinners. That’s why he’s scary to us, because our conscience glares at us. But who is he truly afraid of? - To those who have “made friends” with sin. And we don't know if this applies to us. Our conscience is restless. But on that day everything will become clear. For some, the Judgment will indeed be scary when they discover themselves (I’m sure many with surprise) left hand from the Shepherd, and someone who finds himself among the “beloved of the Father” (and even more unexpectedly for those on the left, and for themselves) is never afraid.

Unfortunately, earthly courts are indeed sometimes terrible not for criminals, but for their victims, because they sit... people. And like all people, judges are also different. They can be honest, incorruptible, smart, insightful, or, on the contrary, they can be stupid, vicious, corrupt, or, as they say nowadays, corrupt. Woe to the one whose fate depends on unrighteous judges which They are neither afraid of God nor ashamed of people(Luke 18:2).

But if the court is not a punitive authority, then what is it?

He is the authority incriminating. Again, not in the sense of denunciation, as is commonly understood, due to the widespread substitution in everyday usage. Reproof is not an insult, an accusation, or a shame. It happens that all this is combined with reproof, but it does not constitute the essence of reproof. Revelation is highlighting, revealing, clarifying, becoming accessible to knowledge and understanding.

But judgment is something that takes place after exposure, when the invisible has become visible, discernible in full, and not in some separate fragments, that is, carried out on the basis of what has been examined, studied, investigated. Court in Greek - κρίσις <крисис> . This word is also translated as decision, sentence, condemnation, decisive outcome, dispute, competition, as well as interpretation. Court - denunciation of reality, interpretation of its essence. Moreover, what is important, God’s court is not focused on weighing the pros and cons, not on the supremacy of written law, and not even on the triumph of justice, especially not on legally formalized punishment, but on the search legal grounds or at least a reason to acquit the defendant.

“Then come and let us reason together,” says the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be white as snow; although they are red as crimson, they will be white as wool” (Is. 1:18). But why such mercy, what is the reason? Under what condition, when is it “then”? “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean...” says the Lord. And so that those reproached by Him would not think that we were talking about water procedures, he immediately explains: “... remove your evil deeds from before My eyes; stop doing evil; learn to do good, seek righteousness, save the oppressed, defend the orphan, stand up for the widow” (Isa. 1: 16-17).

Here it is... Not retribution or formal settlement under specific articles of the law, not delusional “satisfaction”, but the defendant’s bringing the fruits of repentance ( μετάνοια <метания> - change of mind; from μετανοέω <метаноэо>, what does it mean to “change your way of thinking”, change your vision, understanding of the meaning of life and its values) - the basis for a judicial decision in a case. And the fruits of repentance are not just these or those good deeds, but internal change, transformation of personality, the formation in the soul of such qualities that, on the one hand, are generated by this change of mind, on the other, contribute to it, because repentance is a process that only begins with the awareness of sin, repentance for it and its confession, but continues throughout life. The fruits of repentance are spiritual and mental virtues, evidenced by corresponding deeds.

Perhaps, to the reader of these lines at first glance, it may seem that we have confused the concepts of God's judgment and earthly judgment. No, simply, speaking about the essence of a true, fair, albeit earthly, court, you inevitably correlate it with God’s court. Since ancient times, truth has been considered an inhabitant of heaven, and morality - a gift from God, because if not by supernatural Revelation, then at least intuitively at all times, people have understood that any sublime values ​​of the transitory world can only be protected from substitution and abuse when they are erected to their spiritual, unchanging, eternal sources, to their Primary Source - God. How feasible this is in earthly realities and how it is carried out is a separate question. Again, what kind of realities are we talking about? It is one thing to have a trial in a pagan or secular state (which, in essence, is the same thing), and another thing to do so in a state that claims to be called Christian. One thing is a state court in a Christian country, another thing (in it or outside it) is a church court.

And here we are faced with one important problem: what is the conceptual basis of church court? Does it exist, or are there simply specific conditions in which the church-canonical corps was formed, and there is our reality, to which it is applied depending on practical need? This subordination church life to Roman law or nothing more than it application in the church fence? Should church legal proceedings make no more than an allowance (and should it at all) for the objective state of affairs in the church environment, the general level of morality, ecclesiastical legal literacy, for borrowed from the world, widespread and entrenched stereotypes of consciousness, including in the field corporate ethics, as well as the ethno-cultural, historical (including church-historical) and political specifics of the region, or tolerantly (in the medical, worst sense) adapt to all this?

Of course, the church court has a special conceptual basis. This is the New Testament Christian worldview. It was no accident that I said “New Testament” and not just “Christian”, because lately Very strange features are beginning to be attributed to Christianity. So, as a clarification: not someone’s “Christianity” (“grey-legged”, “Bosyatsko-Tsorionovsky”, etc.), but that very apostolic, Orthodox one - embodied in the New Testament books and in the patristic heritage, which, thank God , is now accessible and useful (if, of course, you don’t take phrases out of context) for reading and guidance in life.

Nevertheless, no matter how annoying it may be for anyone, we should already get used to the fact that the church-judicial system has become a reality in the Russian Orthodox Church (and it is advisable to also thank God and everyone through whose efforts it was developed and functions). The phrase “church court” seems like an oxymoron ( what kind of judgment, what kind of laws can we talk about when we are all under grace, because when they start talking about the law, it means that love has become scarce... well, and other crazy verbs), others perceive it as some kind of rudiment either of deep antiquity, or of ancient legal consciousness, woven into the structure of church life.

In fact, Why gather and confer there? - Do we need to teach the cleric a lesson and formalize this canonically? So here it is - the Book of Rules: open it at random and poke it with your finger. Although it is better not to even open it, but to immediately print a decree banning it for “molestation” according to the 55th Apostolic Canon... However, no. More than three years ago, a judicial precedent was created, during which it was clarified that not every “causing annoyance,” that is, not every action or word that upsets a bishop, should be considered “annoyance,” but only obvious insult, blasphemy, slander , swearing. Here, again, is an argument against: the church court only complicates the maintenance of discipline among the clergy. Just think! If every banned or exiled priest, who disagrees with his sad lot vomited from the lips of his Eminence, begins to look for truth in the church-judicial system, referring to the canons and appealing to oikonomia - then what will begin?(however, it already started several years ago)?..

It turns out that you can no longer point your finger at random, and you can no longer use 55 AP, as before, as a universal club, without thinking.

Whether it’s good or bad - here’s how to look at it, what priorities to set. From the point of view of the same aforementioned conceptual framework, apparently good. From the point of view of ease of management... I don’t know, it probably depends on how you look at the goals and objectives of managing the clergy and laity. If the goal is to build everyone who is lower in rank in order to milk them and shear their hair, then, of course, the development of church-legal consciousness is all unnecessary, because it “complicates the process” and “creates the preconditions for disorder.”

If the goal of church governance is the interaction of all members of the Church (each according to their calling and position) in the free and conscious organization of Christian life for salvation, then it is more convenient to carry it out this way: based on the commandments of Christ and guided by the holy canons in such a way that they do not replace love in Christ, but protected it from abuse. So, it turns out that with a respectful attitude towards people, if we see them as brothers in Christ, bearers of the image of God, the church-judicial system is not only not perceived as a legalistic deck for the church manager, but also helps him in pastoral and archpastoral service.

The problem of church legal consciousness in each individual case is how a Christian comprehends the Church and, accordingly, church life in all its multifacetedness. Canonical thinking is preceded by ecclesiological thinking, which determines law enforcement practice. If the Church is conceived as a “state bond” or a militarized ritual and leisure enterprise, then understanding the essence and significance of church rules, and, accordingly, their application will ensure the exploitation of Orthodoxy as a surrogate for national ideology and as an instrument of national-ritual self-identification, or banal self-affirmation and despotism in the worst sense of the word.

If the Church is understood as a divine-human organism, then the body of canon law is seen fundamentally differently, and the attitude towards the church-judicial system is fundamentally different.

The court, as mentioned above, is the authority in which understand: carefully, in the context of church religious and moral teachings and taking into account various conditions (including the general level of morality and piety), the circumstances of the case are examined, all sides are heard, arguments are weighed, and not only the applicable canon is selected - the most important thing is that ways for healing are sought painful situation as a whole and its participants.

This is the most important, fundamental moment of church legal proceedings, without which it loses its meaning as a church, because the Church is the Ark of Salvation, and salvation is not just deliverance from some kind of disaster, it is healing, healing (the word σωτηρία <сотирия>, which is traditionally translated into Russian as “salvation”, comes from σώζω <созо> (save, save), the latter is the same root as the adjective σῶς <сос> - whole, healthy, unharmed, undamaged).

The word "punishment" is translated from Slavic language into Russian as “learning”. If punishment does not teach, does not admonish, moreover, if it does not specifically pursue an educational goal, admonishing and healing, saving, or if it claims to be so, but is not adequate to the declared goal, then this is not a punishment, but punishment, revenge, reprisal(probably indicative), but not punishment.

The task of a church court is not only to investigate a case, identify church wrongdoing and prove it, and then pass a verdict. And this is there, but not the main thing. Main - comprehensively study the case and not only prove the crime, but also understand what, and most importantly, why it led to it, in order, if possible, to eliminate the soil that gave rise to it and think through healing and preventive measures for the improvement of both church life in general and specific individuals, and only in as a last resort resort to “surgical” measures, applying the canons to the fullest extent.

It was all a theory, now - practice.

The reason for writing this article was the discussion surrounding the activity of the beloved kamikaze missionary in Christ, Protodeacon of All Rus', Fr. Andrei Kuraev, directed at what he called the “blue lobby.” I, unlike him, do not undertake to say whether it exists or not, because I do not have evidence. Probably Fr. Andrei has such, so he quite calmly names specific names, without fear that one of the persons he named will sue him in the Church Court for violating Rule 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, according to which the slanderer bears the punishment to which the slandered person would have fallen if the intrigue was a success.

In the controversy that unfolded in the vastness of the Russian segment World Wide Web, the question was repeatedly asked about why he turned to the rather large audience of his LiveJournal with this information, and not to the Church Court. In particular, Igor Gaslov Fr. Andrey was directly offered assistance in preparing documented, substantiated appeals to. There was no response to this proposal. Perhaps the reason is that Fr. Andrei, as he himself has repeatedly explained, does not see the Regulations on the Church Court of the Russian Orthodox Church (hereinafter referred to as Position) formal grounds for such statements on their part. At the same time, Fr. Andrei refers to Article 34 of the Regulations, which states that only his clergy can sue a bishop.

I am willing to agree with Fr. Andrey that the text of the Regulations is not ideal. So it does not claim to be the 28th book of the New Testament. But in order for this document to be constructively finalized, it must first be thoroughly tested in practice. And law enforcement practice reveals a rich variety of canonical conflicts in church life, while simultaneously giving an interpretation of what is not quite intelligible for mere mortals formulated in this normative document. The only thing I am with Fr. What Andrei cannot agree with is that the text of the Regulations does not allow him to initiate cases against specific personalities that he informed us about on the Internet.

In addition to the 34th article, there is also the 33rd, the second part of which states that the case is transferred to the General Church Court of First Instance by order of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' or the Holy Synod on the basis of a statement of an ecclesiastical offense, as well as on the basis reports of a committed offense received from other sources.“Pay attention to the second basis,” comments Igor Gaslov. - That is, to transfer the case to the All-Church Court, you don’t even need an application. A message about a church offense committed, for example published in the media, is sufficient. Naturally, these should not be anonymous stories, not hints, not messages like “everyone already knows this,” “it’s written all over his face.”

So there is a mechanism for solving problems. Another thing is that one can understand those who are afraid to go to the All-Church Court. While the time drags on from the filing of the application to the transfer of the case to proceedings (what if it doesn’t even come to that?), and then until the meeting itself (and the All-Church Court meets infrequently), this clergyman at his place of canonical registration will be forced ten times to regret his rash behavior and withdraw the complaint. There are enough levers for this. And how does the plaintiff know What will be the attitude of the Patriarchate towards him when he appears there, and what good can he expect if his complaint against his ruling bishop or an appeal against the decision of the Diocesan Court approved by him, or against a ban personally imposed by him will also be considered by the bishops? Where is the guarantee that corporate solidarity will not prevail?.. I assure you that he will not have such thoughts spinning in his head. So what should he do then?

In 2010, I had to appeal to the Church Court with an appeal against the bishop’s decree banning me from the priesthood. The situation is interesting precisely because if you read the Regulations superficially, it may seem that an appeal to the General Church Court can only be made against the decision of the Diocesan Court, but not against the decree of the bishop, but this is exactly the situation I had: the Synod of the EOC MP did not issue any resolution regarding my question (the fathers decided among themselves that not everything is so simple and it is necessary to talk to me before deciding anything), and then the bishop banned me with his authority.

I immediately went to Moscow and filed an appeal in the name of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus', who, after some time, sent it to the All-Church Court.

Six months passed from the moment the banning order was handed to me until the court hearing. What is prohibition in the priesthood and how to survive it is a special topic and now it is not appropriate for us to be distracted by it, but I will say one thing: if not for the support good people, I could very well go crazy or experience the sweetness of diabetic complications. During these six months, I was repeatedly advised to withdraw the appeal, to admit anything and everything, just to get the ban lifted, because if the case did go to court, it could even end with my being deprived of my rank.

It should be noted that it was not some ill-wishers who persuaded me, but, on the contrary, people who were very kind to me, and also well-informed, so I took the warning about the prospect of losing my rank seriously and with hard-to-suppress horror. Moreover, the closer to the trial, the more insistent these voices sounded. Even Igor Gaslov, who, thanks to him, helped in drawing up the appeal, tried his best to convince me to retreat, considering the matter hopeless.

A few days before the court hearing, I was supposed to attend an appointment with the head of the Control and Analytical Service of the Moscow Patriarchate Administration (hereinafter referred to as CAS UDMP), abbot (now archimandrite) Savva (Tutunov). I didn't expect anything particularly good for myself. Firstly, I generally don’t like any kind of officialdom, I don’t understand it, and therefore I feel, to put it mildly, uncomfortable in the “corridors of power” and at all kinds of events with the participation of VIPs. Secondly, I was aware that I was going for an interrogation, which in itself cannot please me. So, this double tension was relieved in one moment, as soon as Fr. appeared. Savva.

In some incomprehensible way, he manages to combine brotherly love with bureaucratic efficiency. Formally, it was an interrogation, but it was carried out with such benevolent, non-demonstrative correctness and focused attention, with such a genuinely sincere desire to delve into, understand and establish the truth; at the same time, he conducted the conversation not only in a calm mood, evenly, thoroughly, without unnecessary emotions, but precisely in the peaceful spirit of Christ... This was unexpected.

I left his office with the hope that the judges would show the same understanding, although I was well aware that it would not be easy for them to do this. The point is not only in corporate solidarity, which may not be alien to judges in the rank of bishop, but also in the fact that their decisions, as I understand it, should not be too alarming for fellow archpastors. Meanwhile, any court decision made by them in favor of a priest who is in conflict with his ruler is (at a minimum) wake-up call for those bishops who are accustomed to feeling like absolute masters of the souls and bodies of the clergy under their control. Therefore, from judges, in addition to objectivity (not to mention wise and merciful justice), a fair amount of, let’s say, diplomacy and considerable courage are required.

My hopes were mostly justified. The accusation of violating the 55th Apostolic Rule was found to be justified, but in relation to the 39th I was partially acquitted (with all the decisions of the General Church Court, including in the case mentioned /http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/ 1331729.html /, can be found on the website of the Moscow Patriarchate). Taking into account my statement of repentance made at the very beginning of the meeting (in which I expressed regret for the grief caused to my bishop and the necessity of a number of my actions), as well as the six-month period of being under a ban (in state legal proceedings this is called “set off the period being in custody"), the judges decided to lift the ban on me from serving. Less than two weeks later, this decision was approved by the Patriarch and came into force.

Results.

Without going into details of further events, we will begin to summarize the results in the form of several comments and conclusions.

Appeal against the bishop's decree on the ban? How is it possible?..

That a clergyman can file a complaint against his ruling bishop with the General Church Court of First Instance (as, for example, was the case in 2010), this clearly follows from the text of the Regulations; that he can appeal against the decision of the Diocesan Court - this is also very clearly stated. But can he appeal the decree of his ruling bishop?

“The question is, of course, interesting,” since there is an opinion that no, supposedly the Regulations do not provide for such an option. That’s why I described my case because it falls into this category. I'm did not sue his bishop, but just protested his decree. As mentioned above, if you read the Regulations superficially and out of context Sacred Tradition, outside of Orthodox ecclesiology, it may well seem that my appeal was accepted in violation of the conciliarly approved document.

Well, let's find out. To begin with, I suggest you pay attention to a fragment of an interview with Fr. Savva to the columnist of the Izvestia newspaper Boris Klin, published on the website of the Moscow Patriarchate /http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1249515. html /: “Very often priests complain about their complete lack of rights in relations with the bishop, who can simply prohibit them from serving,” says the journalist. “Every priest who believes that he has been treated unfairly,” answers Fr. Savva, - has the right to send an appeal to the Primate. Patriarch Kirill gave a clear directive: any complaint addressed to him must be studied and a detailed response must be sent to it.”

Pay attention to the context: we are talking about appeals against bishop’s personal decrees.

So that no one doubts that this is administrative arbitrariness, trampling on the conciliarly adopted Regulations, let us read the contents of Article 3:

1. The fullness of judicial power in the Russian Orthodox Church belongs to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, referred to in the further text of these Regulations as the “Council of Bishops”. Judicial power in the Russian Orthodox Church is also exercised by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, referred to in the following text of these Regulations as “ Holy Synod“, and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

The judicial power exercised by the All-Church Court stems from the canonical authority of the Holy Synod and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', which is delegated to the All-Church Court.

2. The fullness of judicial power in dioceses belongs to the diocesan bishops.

Diocesan bishops independently make decisions on cases of church offenses if these cases do not require investigation.

If the case requires investigation, the diocesan bishop refers it to the diocesan court.

Moreover, delegation to delegation is different. It is one thing when the Patriarch or the Synod delegates judicial power to the General Church Court, consisting of bishops, and quite another when a bishop delegates his judicial power to the Diocesan Court, consisting of priests who do not have full judicial power even within their parishes. If the General Church Court is like a small council of bishops, then the diocesan court is something like an advisory council under the ruling bishop.

The most important thing, in the context of the question posed, is that the bishop transfers a case to the diocesan court only when, in his opinion, it “requires investigation.” What if, for example, he underestimates the complexity of the matter? Or who knows what other good or bad reasons prompt him to solve the matter on his own? Even if the case was not considered collectively, the bishop’s decision is the same decision of a church court of a diocesan scale, simply made in a simplified manner. And law enforcement practice shows that the General Church Court of Second Instance is not limited to considering only collectively made judicial decisions, but recognizes the bishop’s decision as an essential feature of a judicial decision at the diocesan level, whether in the form of approving a decision of the diocesan court, or in the form of its own decree.

I think everything is very clear.

Trial.

The next thing to keep in mind: the proceedings in the General Church Court are closed not only from the curious public, but also from the parties, each of whom testifies separately. This is done in the interests of the vulnerable party, but contains some inconvenience: each side is not aware of what the other party is saying about it, and cannot refute the lie unless one of the judges considers it necessary to directly ask the corresponding question. By the way, there is no need to shy away if the question is asked in a rhetorical form and in an accusatory tone.

From the fact that the judge is a bishop, it does not follow that he suffers from a power complex, and a reasoned, correct parry of the accusation made by him will be perceived as a personal insult. All the bishops sitting in the General Church Court are friendly, experienced and wise archpastors, capable of listening carefully and analyzing information. There is no need to confuse severity with cruelty, become numb and speechless, but if for some reason the judge misunderstood something, gather yourself, pray, calm down and clarify. The main thing is, don’t be afraid to ask again if you didn’t understand everything or didn’t hear something.

What then?

Then everything can be very diverse. It’s good if not only you are peace-minded, but your bishop is too. What if not? This is precisely what stops many affected clergy from appealing: they understand perfectly well that if the bishop remains on the cathedra (and he will remain on it 100%, if it is just a complaint about the decree on the ban, and not about reinforced concrete proven accusations of any serious crime), he will be able to make you regret not only the appeal, but also the very fact of your birth would begin to be viewed as a malicious misunderstanding due to a fatal coincidence of circumstances. In this case, everything will be done in such a way that you will no longer be able to make any formal claims. You will walk as if through a minefield, fearing to give rise to a new ban, and rejoice at the opportunity to serve at least outside your diocese. It’s good if you have the opportunity to get a job in another diocese, and the bishop lets you go. If you are bound by some obligations that do not allow you to leave... The “Black Scenario” could be painted for a long time.

So is it worth it?..

But this is not so much a question of common sense as of conscience. In any case, reconciliation before judicial procedure. And for this we need to do everything... morally acceptable. If none of this works out, options are available: appeal or not. If a repressed cleric prefers to wait for the situation to change for the better, or hopes to bend the bishop to his mercy, trying not to irritate him with seemingly hopeless attempts to seek the truth in Moscow - this is his personal choice if it comes to an appeal against a court decision, and he will I'm right, no matter what I decide.

If we are talking about the advisability of applying to the General Church Court first instance for the reasons raised, then the question is no longer whether you will be able to live to see the trial and survive after it, but who are you if you can do something against the abomination, but, out of cowardice, passively participate in it, keeping silent about the facts, covering up for molesters and rapists, condoning the rooting of vice, the career elevation of its carriers, as well as their reproduction through personnel budding?

Is it worth it?! What what costs? Is it worth suffering for the Church of Christ and for our neighbors, for “these little ones,” whose souls are crippled by temptation? Well, it's a matter of conscience.

Represents human society, in which, as in any social organism, controversial cases may arise; members of the Church - sinful people - can commit crimes against the commandments of God, violate church regulations; therefore, in the earthly Church there is a place for the exercise of judicial power over its children. The judicial activity of the Church is multifaceted. Sins revealed in confession are subject to secret judgment by the confessor; crimes by clerics related to violations of their official duties entail public reprimands. Finally, depending on the nature of the relationship between the Church and the state, the competence of the church court in different periods history included litigation between Christians, and even criminal cases, the trial of which, in general, does not correspond to the nature of church authority.

The Lord, preaching love for others, self-denial and peace, could not approve of disputes between the disciples. But realizing the human weakness of His followers, He showed them the means to end the litigation: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: ​​if he listens to you, then you have gained your brother; But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he doesn’t listen to them, tell the Church, and if he doesn’t listen to the Church, then let him be like a pagan and a publican from you” ().

The Apostle Paul reproached the Corinthian Christians: “How dare anyone among you, when dealing with another, go to court with the wicked and not with the saints?.. Don’t you know that we will judge angels, much less the affairs of this life? And you, when you have everyday disputes, appoint as your judges those who mean nothing in the Church. To your shame I say: is there really not a single reasonable person among you who could judge between his brothers? But brother and brother go to court, and before the infidels. And it is already very humiliating for you that you have litigation among yourself. Why would you rather not remain offended? Why would you rather not endure hardship?” ().

Following the instructions of the apostle, Christians of the first centuries avoided pagan courts and, in this regard, submitted their disputes to the court of bishops. They did this because if Christians tried each other in pagan courts, they would lower the moral height of their faith in the eyes of the pagans. In addition, Roman legal proceedings involved the performance of an idolatrous ceremony - burning incense to the goddess of justice Themis. In particular, it was unacceptable for clergy to bring their disputes to the civil pagan court. For the laity, the episcopal court had the character of an amicable trial, or arbitration court. However, if the dissatisfied party began to seek its rights in a civil court, it would thereby be subject to criticism in the eyes of the Christian community of desecration of the sacred and blasphemy.

Church court in Byzantium

In the era of persecution, the sentences of bishops, invalid in state law and having no executive force in civil society, relied solely on their spiritual authority. After the publication of the Edict of Milan, the custom of Christians to sue their bishops received state sanction, and judicial decisions of bishops began to be based on the executive power of the state. Constantine the Great granted Christians the right to bring any litigation to the court of bishops, whose verdict was considered final. Moreover, for such a transfer, the desire of one side was sufficient. The peremptory episcopal court, endowed with official state status, as the empire became Christianized, successfully began to compete with the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. This led to the fact that the bishops found themselves overloaded with a mass of affairs that were very far from the spiritual area. The bishops were burdened by this. And later emperors to narrow judicial rights Churches, determined the competence of the episcopal court in resolving civil litigation cases by mutual consent of the parties. But in addition to cases in which the episcopal court had the nature of an amicable trial, by mutual agreement of the parties, some cases, by their very nature, were subject to the bishop's church court in Byzantium.

Civil litigation between clergy, i.e., was subject exclusively to the ecclesiastical court. when the plaintiff and defendant were clergy. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said on this occasion in the 9th canon: “If a clergyman has a court case with another cleric, let him not leave his bishop, and let him not run over to secular courts. But first, let him take his case before his bishop, or, by the consent of the same bishop, let those chosen by both parties form a court. And whoever acts contrary to this will be subject to punishment according to the rules. If a cleric has a legal case with his own bishop or with another bishop, let him be tried in the regional council.” All definitions of the Council of Chalcedon were approved by Emperor Marcian and thereby received the status of state laws.

In the Byzantine Empire, the jurisdiction of clergy over their bishops in civil matters was recognized as an unconditional canonical norm. But by their nature, such cases could also be dealt with by state courts. The situation is different with ecclesiastical matters, which, although they are litigious in nature, cannot by their very nature be subject to the jurisdiction of non-ecclesiastical judicial institutions. For example, disputes between bishops about the belonging of a parish to a particular diocese, litigation among clergy about the use of church income. Byzantine emperors repeatedly confirmed that jurisdiction in these cases belongs exclusively to the Church, and such confirmations on their part were not in the nature of a concession, but were only recognition of the inalienable right of the Church.

Litigations between clergy and laity were subject to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical and secular judicial authorities. Before Emperor Justinian, a layman could bring a claim against a cleric in both secular and civil courts. But Justinian granted the clergy the privilege of answering in civil suits only before their bishop. If one of the parties expressed dissatisfaction with the bishop's judicial decision, it could transfer the case to a civil court. If the civil court agreed with the bishop's decision, it was no longer subject to revision and was carried out. In case of a different decision of the civil court, appeals and review of the case in court before the metropolitan were allowed. Patriarch or at the Council. In 629, Emperor Heraclius issued new law, according to which “the plaintiff follows the jurisdiction of the defendant,” that is, a layman files a claim against a clergyman in a spiritual court, and a cleric against a layman in a civil court. “In the later monuments of Byzantine legislation,” according to Professor N.S. Suvorov, – there is no visible stability on this issue. “Epanagogue” generally spoke out in favor of the non-jurisdiction of the clergy to secular courts, and Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 15th rule of the Council of Carthage, reports that even bishops in his time were brought to civil court.” As for marriage cases, questions about the validity of marriages and the dissolution of marriages in the late Byzantine era were subject to the spiritual court, and the determination of the civil, property consequences of a marriage or its dissolution was primarily within the competence of the secular court.

Church court in Ancient Rus'

In Rus', in the era of its Baptism, the current civil law had not yet gone beyond the framework of ordinary folk law; it was incomparable with the delicately developed Roman law, which underlay the legal life of Byzantium, therefore the church hierarchy that came to us from Byzantium after the Baptism of Rus', received under its jurisdiction many cases that in Byzantium itself were under the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. The competence of the ecclesiastical court in Ancient Rus' was unusually extensive. According to the statutes of the princes of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav, all relations of civil life, which also concerned morality, were referred to the area of ​​ecclesiastical, episcopal court. These could have been purely civil cases, according to Byzantine legal views. Already in Byzantium, marriage matters were predominantly conducted by the ecclesiastical court; in Rus', the Church received under its exclusive jurisdiction all matters related to marital unions. Cases concerning the relationship between parents and children were also subject to the holy court. The Church, with its authority, defended both parental rights and the inviolability of the personal rights of children. The Charter of Prince Yaroslav says: “If the girl does not marry, and the father and mother give it by force, and what the father and mother do to the bishop in wine, so does the boy.”

Inheritance matters were also within the jurisdiction of the Church. In the first centuries of the Christian history of Rus', such things happened often, since there were a lot of “non-wedding”, illegal, from a church point of view, marriages. The rights of children from such marriages to their father's inheritance were subject to the discretion of the ecclesiastical courts. Russian practice, in contrast to Byzantine practice, tended to recognize the rights of children from such marriages to a part of the inheritance. All disputes that arose regarding the spiritual will were also subject to the jurisdiction of church courts. Legal norms of the statutes of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav retained full power until Peter's reform. Stoglav provides the full text of the Church Charter of St. Vladimir as the current law.

In the 17th century, ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil matters expanded compared to earlier times. The “Extract on Cases Under the Patriarchal Order,” made for the Great Moscow Council of 1667, lists such civil cases as:

disputes over the validity of spiritual wills;

litigation regarding the division of inheritance left without a will;

on penalties for marriage agreements;

disputes between wife and husband about dowry;

disputes about the birth of children from a legal marriage;

cases of adoptions and the right of inheritance of adopted children;

cases of executors who married the widows of the deceased;

cases of petitions from masters against fugitive slaves who took monastic vows or married free men.

In these cases, all persons - both clergy and laity - in Rus' were subject to the jurisdiction of the church, episcopal court.

But all civil affairs of the clergy were also subject to the jurisdiction of the church authorities. Only bishops could consider litigation in which both parties belonged to the clergy. If one of the parties was a layman, then a “mixed” (mixed) court was appointed. There were cases when clergy themselves sought trial from civil, that is, princely, and later royal judges. Countering such attempts, Novgorod Archbishop Simeon in 1416 forbade monks to appeal to secular judges, and judges to accept such cases for consideration - both under pain of excommunication. Metropolitan Photius repeated this prohibition in his charter. But both the white clergy and the monasteries did not always prefer to sue the bishops. Often they sought the right to appeal to the princely court, and the government issued them so-called non-conviction letters, according to which the clergy were exempted from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops in civil matters. Most often, such letters were given to the clergy of princely and royal estates, but not exclusively to them - they were also issued to monasteries. The Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551 abolished the letters of non-conviction as contrary to the canons. Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich in 1625 gave his father, Patriarch Philaret, a charter, according to which the clergy, not only in litigation among themselves, but also in the claims of the laity, was to be sued in the Patriarchal Class.

Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, all civil affairs of the clergy were transferred to the department of the Monastic Prikaz established in 1649, against the existence of which Patriarch Nikon energetically but in vain protested. The Great Moscow Council, which condemned Patriarch Nikon, nevertheless confirmed Stoglav’s decree on the exclusive jurisdiction of the clergy to the bishops, and soon after the Council, by decree of Tsar Theodore Alekseevich, the Monastic Order was abolished.

The uniqueness of church legal proceedings in Rus' in the pre-Petrine era also lay in the fact that the jurisdiction of the saintly courts also included some criminal cases. According to the statutes of the princes of St. Vladimir and Yaroslav were subject to the ecclesiastical court for crimes against faith and the Church: the performance of pagan rites by Christians, magic, sacrilege, desecration of temples and shrines; and according to the “Helmsman’s Book” also – blasphemy, heresy, schism, apostasy from the faith. The episcopal court heard cases related to crimes against public morality (fornication, rape, unnatural sins), as well as marriages in prohibited degrees of kinship, unauthorized divorce, cruel treatment of a husband with his wife or parents with their children, disrespect by children of parental authority. Some cases of murder were also subject to the holy court; for example, murder within the family, expulsion of a fetus, or when the victims of murder were persons powerless - outcasts or slaves, as well as personal insults: insulting a woman’s chastity with dirty language or slander, accusing an innocent person of heresy or sorcery. As for the clergy, in the pre-Petrine era they were responsible for all criminal charges, except for “murder, robbery and red-handed theft,” before the bishop’s judges. As Professor A.S. writes Pavlov, “in ancient Russian law there is a noticeable predominance of the principle according to which the jurisdiction of the Church was determined not so much by the essence of the cases themselves as by the class character of the persons: clergy, as primarily ecclesiastical, were judged by the church hierarchy.” In the Code of Laws of Ivan III and Ivan IV it is directly said: “but the priest, and the deacon, and the monk, and the monk, and the old widow, who feed from the Church of God, then the saint judges.”

Church court in the synodal era

With the introduction of the synodal system of governance, the jurisdiction of church courts is decisively narrowed. As for the church court in civil cases, then, according to the “Spiritual Regulations” and the resolutions of Peter the Great on reports Holy Synod, only cases of divorce and the recognition of marriages as invalid were left in the department of the church court. This situation remained in its main features until the end of the synodal system. The competence of church courts in civil matters of the clergy was also reduced. Almost all of this class of cases went to the secular court. According to the Charter of the Spiritual Consistories, only cases related to litigation between clergy over the use of church income and complaints against clergy, whether from clergy or laity, for non-payment of undisputed debts and for violation of other obligations were subject to trial by the diocesan authorities. With the establishment of the Synod, almost all those criminal cases that were previously within the jurisdiction of the saintly courts were transferred to civil courts.

The reduction in the criminal competence of church courts continued subsequently. Some of the crimes were subject to dual jurisdiction; crimes against faith (heresy, schism), crimes against marriage. But the participation of church authorities in the proceedings of such cases was limited to the initiation of proceedings for these crimes and to the determination of church punishment for them. And the secular authorities conducted an investigation, and the civil court imposed punishment according to criminal laws.

In the synodal era, those crimes for which the criminal codes did not impose criminal punishment, but provided only church repentance: for example, evasion of confession due to negligence, adherence by newly converted foreigners to previous heterodox customs, attempted suicide, refusal to help a dying person, parents forcing their children into marriage or tonsure. Although these acts were listed in the criminal code, the state was still aware that we were not talking about criminal offenses in the proper sense of the word, but about crimes against religious and moral law.

As for the criminal offenses of the clergy, in the synodal era they all became the subject of trial by secular courts. Guilty clergy were sent to the Synod or to diocesan bishops only to have them defrocked. An exception was left only for crimes of clerics against their official duties and deanery, and for cases of complaints about personal insults inflicted by clergy and clergy on the laity. Such cases remained under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. The reason for an ecclesiastical court to try clergy for offenses is that such crimes insult the most sacred order. 27 The Apostolic Canon reads: “We command the bishop, or the presbyter, or the deacon, who beats the faithful who sin, or who offends the unfaithful, and through this frighten the one who wants to throw him out of the sacred rank. For the Lord did not teach us this at all; on the contrary. Having struck ourselves, we did not strike, we reproach, we did not reproach each other, “suffering, did not threaten”.

Church court in the modern period of history. Russian Orthodox Church

In our time, after the publication of the Decree on the separation of Church and State, the clergy, naturally, is subject to common jurisdiction with all citizens in criminal and civil cases by secular courts. It is not now within the competence of the ecclesiastical court to consider any civil cases of the laity, much less they are not burdened with criminal cases. Only crimes by clergy against their official duties, by their very nature, remain within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judiciary, although, of course, such crimes are not in themselves considered crimes from the point of view of civil law. But criminal offenses by clergy, within the jurisdiction of secular courts, can, of course, be a reason for bringing the perpetrators to justice before the church authorities.

The competence of the church authorities also includes the consideration of the spiritual side of those civil cases that, although in civil law terms are resolved in secular courts, nevertheless for a conscientious member of the Church cannot be resolved without the sanction of the church authorities, for example, divorce cases. Although, naturally, decisions in such cases by church authorities do not have civil consequences.

And finally, the entire area of ​​ecclesiastical penitential discipline, associated with secret confession and secretly appointed penance, by its very nature has always been exclusively and primarily the subject of the competence of spiritual authority: bishops and presbyters authorized by them for spiritual leadership.

Church-judicial authorities

Unlike secular courts, which modern states everywhere separated from administrative and legislative power, this principle is alien to canon law. The entirety of judicial power in a diocese, according to the canons, is concentrated in the person of its supreme shepherd and ruler - the diocesan bishop. According to the 32nd Apostolic Canon: “If a presbyter or a deacon is excommunicated from a bishop, it is not fitting for him to be accepted into communion as someone else, but rather to the one who excommunicated him, unless the bishop who excommunicated him happens to die.” But the bishop, having full judicial power over the clergy and laity entrusted by God to his care, conducts the investigation not alone, but relying on the help and advice of his presbyters.

During the Synodal era in Russia, all court cases were dealt with by Consistories, but the decisions of the Consistory were subject to approval by the bishop, who could not agree with the judgment of the Consistory and make an independent decision on any case.

The Canons allow appeals to the decisions of the episcopal court to the regional Council, i.e. Council of the Metropolitan District (14 rights. Sardis. Sob.; 9 rights. Chalcis, Sob.). The Council of the Metropolitan District is not only an appellate instance, it is also the first instance for the court on complaints of clergy and laity against their bishop or on a complaint from one bishop against another. The beginning of 74 of the Apostolic Canon reads: “A bishop who is accused of something by people of reputable faith must necessarily himself be called by bishops; and if he appears and confesses, or is convicted, then penance will be determined...” And in Canon 5 of the First Council of Nicea, after referring to the 32nd Apostolic Canon, which says that those excommunicated by one bishop should not be accepted by others, it is further said: “However, let it be investigated whether it is not due to cowardice, or strife, or some similar Due to the bishop's displeasure, they were subject to excommunication. And so, so that decent research can take place on this matter, it is considered good for every region to have councils twice a year.”

Appeals against decisions of the Metropolitan Council can be submitted to the council of the entire local Church; complaints against the metropolitan can also be submitted to the court of the Local Council. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion of canon 9, said: “If a bishop or cleric has displeasure against the metropolitan of a region, let him turn either to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople, and let him be tried before him.”

Disagreements between bishops and all legal cases transferred to the Council by the Holy Synod are subject to the court of the Council of Bishops in the second instance. The Council of Bishops is also competent in the first instance to consider dogmatic and canonical deviations in the activities of the Patriarch.

The second judicial instance for accusations against the Patriarch is the Local Council, which in the second and final instance also judges all cases transferred to it by the Council of Bishops for final decision.

Members of the Holy, Cathedral and Apostolic Church to one degree or another, they are susceptible to sin, they can commit crimes against the commandments and violate church regulations. The Church must pronounce its sovereign judgment in relation to these actions. The system of church courts being established in Russia today serves this purpose.

Father Vladislav, a legal system is currently being developed in our Church. Have ecclesiastical courts always existed in the Orthodox Church?

It must be said that church courts began to emerge as independent bodies of church authority in the Orthodox Churches only in the 20th century. In 1890, the Great Church Court was formed in the Serbian Church, which considered the cases of clergy and laity, but not bishops; a little later the court appeared in the Greek Church. Church power has always been viewed as indivisible, that is, the ruling bishop in his diocese has supreme judicial, legislative, and administrative power. At the local level, such power is exercised by the bishops' council. But the idea, justified by many circumstances, arose about the advisability of separating church-judicial institutions as independent institutions. At the same time, naturally, the canonical principle of preserving the fullness of judicial power for the bishop remains unchanged.

- When was the decision to create church courts made in the Russian Orthodox Church?

The Council of Bishops in 2000 adopted a new Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, which provides for the existence of church courts at the level of both dioceses and the entire Church as a whole. At the same time, the formation of a church-wide court was postponed until regulations on the activities of such courts were adopted. In 2004, the Holy Synod adopted only a temporary provision on the church court for legal proceedings at the diocesan level, and the formation of a pan-church court was again postponed. So, the actual system that has developed is in some contradiction with the Charter of 2000, which provides for the existence of a church-wide court. Probably, the upcoming Council of Bishops should solve this problem: either create a church-wide court, or make a different decision, fixing it in the Charter.

The temporary provision gives bishops the choice of either establishing a special ecclesiastical court body in their diocese or, in accordance with the earlier 1988 Charter, retaining judicial powers with the diocesan council.

Diocesan court

- What is within the competence of the diocesan court?

In such a court, cases involving accusations against clergy and laity of the diocese are heard. The ruling bishop decides whether to consider the case individually or refer it to a church court for consideration. As a rule, he considers it himself when it is extremely clear. For example, a cleric entered into a second marriage: no research is required here; documentary evidence of the fact is sufficient to deprive such a cleric of his rank. If, however, it is still necessary to clarify the fact that an ecclesiastical crime has been committed, then the case is considered in court by the diocesan court or diocesan council.

The diocesan church court does not pronounce a verdict in the case. He establishes the fact of committing an ecclesiastical crime and the person who committed this crime, and also gives a canonical certificate of the case. Based on the resolution adopted by the diocesan court or diocesan council, the decision is made by the ruling bishop. Sometimes the final decision in a case is made by His Holiness Patriarch- in cases where we are talking about the excommunication of a layman from the Church, a lifelong ban on a cleric from serving, or his removal from office.

- If the case is transferred to the diocesan court, does the ruling bishop still participate in court hearings?

The ruling bishop may himself head the diocesan court, or appoint a vicar bishop or presbyter as the chairman of such a court. The bishop also appoints his deputy and court secretary from among the presbyters. The other two members of the court, also from among the elders, are chosen by the diocesan assembly. Of course, it is desirable that the members of the court, including the chairman, have a legal education, a higher theological education, and are canonists, but this is not a direct, indispensable condition. Thus, the ruling bishop participates in the court session if he assumes the position of chairman. He, of course, can participate in the meeting if he considers such participation appropriate.

Father Vladislav, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917-1918 there are provisions that the laity can also participate in the composition of the church court. Why is this not provided now?

I would like to make the following clarification here: the Council did not directly issue a resolution on the ecclesiastical court. The materials developed by the relevant department were not accepted at the plenary meeting of the Council, and then the church courts as independent individual organs was not educated. The possibility of the existence of separate ecclesiastical judicial institutions was supported by the majority, but not all members of the Council. These were only the ideas of the Council, but not the final council decision.

At the last Councils it was considered that the hierarchical order of the Church was not entirely compatible with the possibility of consideration of accusations of clergy by the laity. According to the current Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, bishops can only be judged by a college of bishops. Should we posit a different principle for elders? Therefore, both clergy and laity appear before a board of elders, possibly chaired by a bishop.

1. At the moment, the provision on the general church court has not been developed or adopted. In accordance with the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1988, the functions of this judicial body are performed by the Holy Synod.
2. The ruling bishop decides on the formation of an ecclesiastical court in his diocese. If such a court is not formed, then court cases are considered by the diocesan council in accordance with the earlier Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1988 and temporary regulations.
3. In matters of appeal in cases of presbyters, deacons and laity, the case may be referred to the Council of Bishops, but only if the church-wide court (now the Holy Synod) considers this necessary.

Cases under consideration

- What issues are now predominantly considered in diocesan courts?

These are mainly the affairs of clergy, because the practice of completely excommunicating the laity from the Church or even excommunicating the sacrament for long terms relatively rare. Clerics are defrocked, or, more often, they are banned from serving for a certain period of time or for life. For what? Both for acts committed intentionally and for unintentional ones - for example, for unintentional murder. Nowadays, this most often happens on the roads. According to the canons, this entails a ten-year excommunication from communion for a lay person or expulsion from the rank of cleric.

Another thing is that the practice of church courts is much more lenient and economic than the canons provide for both clergy and, especially, laity. In many cases, instead of defrocking, the practice is limited to lifelong or only temporary ban from ministry.

- Are divorce cases within the competence of diocesan courts?

This issue has been widely discussed, but the temporary provision does not include divorce cases. Still, under the present sphere of competence, church courts are convened in emergency circumstances. If divorce cases were handled through them, they would work continuously and be overloaded. Divorce cases are considered personally by the ruling bishop on the basis of submitted petitions.

-Who can go to church court? Does it depend on his religion?

This issue has been definitely resolved: in cases related to religion, witnesses, and therefore prosecutors, who initiate the case can only be persons Orthodox confession, not involved in church crimes themselves, not previously accused of schisms and not participating in schisms, that is, Orthodox Christians of impeccable confession. If we are talking about crimes of a moral nature, then any person can be a witness, regardless of religion. Let's say, we are talking about a criminal offense that is charged to a cleric, or about a traffic accident in which the cleric is guilty - any person can be a witness here without restrictions.

Civil and ecclesiastical court

What is the relationship between civil and ecclesiastical courts? For example, in Denmark, a priest who declares his unbelief cannot be defrocked due to appeals to civil state laws. Is this possible in Russia?

Impossible. The fact is that in Denmark the Church is not separated from the state, and therefore state competence extends to intra-church relations. In our country, the Church is separated from the state. Church punishment in Russia does not deprive the punished of any civil rights, and he has no basis to appeal to a secular court. Although incidents of this kind have happened. The laity filed complaints in civil courts in connection with their excommunication from the sacrament, and even decisions were made in this regard, but, of course, this was a gross mistake that had no canonical and legal grounds. Another thing is that the commission of criminal offenses in many cases is also the commission of church crimes, and church courts, on the basis of indictments issued by civil courts, but not automatically, but still through the consideration of cases, can decide on defrocking. But in this case, the verdict of the civil court is simply the starting point for the consideration of the case. It does not bind the ecclesiastical court.

- Why, unlike the civil court, are the sessions of the church court closed?

For church courts, publicity is inappropriate, because the subject of investigation in such courts is often actions that have a particularly strong moral aspect. It must be said that some cases of a criminal nature, but related family relationships, with personal morality, as an exception, civil courts are also considered behind closed doors. If the trial is open, who will come to it? Both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and those hostile to the Church. We will not, when allowing us into the premises where court hearings are taking place, demand: “Show evidence of your Orthodoxy.” There are other considerations that make open public hearings of cases inadvisable.

- What is the reason for the absence of lawyers in church courts?

It follows from the very nature of the Church that a member of the Church does not need any massive protection of his interests. The church rather encourages him to repentance than to defend his rights. Still, lawyers often defend defendants who have actually committed a crime, but have a chance of bringing the case to a situation where the accusation remains unproven. In the Church, such an outcome is extremely undesirable. It is on trusting, frank relationships that are appropriate between Christians that the activities of the church court should be based.

Interviewed by Sergei Kazarinov

Apostles
Ecumenical councils
Great Schism
Crusades
Reformation
Folk Christianity

Church court- a system of bodies under the jurisdiction of a particular Church, exercising the functions of the judiciary on the basis of church legislation (church law).

In Russia

In the Middle Ages

In the conditions of judicial reform under Alexander II, the question of reform of the church court also arose. A committee created by Chief Prosecutor D. A. Tolstoy, chaired by Archbishop Makariy (Bulgakov), prepared a corresponding project, which was based on the principles of openness, competition and independence of the judiciary from the administrative power, that is, including from the diocesan bishop, but the supervision of secular authorities was maintained representatives of the chief prosecutor's office. This exclusion of the bishop from the judicial system became the subject of criticism from the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A.F. Lavrov; the project was rejected by the overwhelming majority of diocesan bishops.

New attempts at reform began in the context of the pre-conciliar preparations in 1905. The preliminary draft of the reform, developed by the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906, and in agreement with the reviews of the majority of the lords who entered the Synod in 1905-1906, envisaged the creation of four instances of the church court: the dean's court, the diocesan court, the judicial department of the Synod, the general meeting of the Synod and its judicial department . It was intended to remove judicial cases from the competence of the consistory, which thus remained only an administrative body.

In the Russian Orthodox Church on the restoration of the patriarchate

According to the chairman of the General Church Court, Metropolitan Isidore, in most cases the General Church Court plays the role of second instance in relation to the diocesan courts and is called upon either to correct some injustices committed at the level of the diocesan courts, or, conversely, to confirm the decision of the diocesan court, which is being called into question people convicted by this court.

Write a review about the article "Church Court"

Notes

Literature

1. E. V. Belyakova. Church court and problems of church life. Discussions in the Orthodox Russian Church beginning of the 20th century. Local Council 1917-1918 and the pre-conciliar period. M. - Round table on religious education of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004.

See also

Links

• Interview of Metropolitan Isidore of Ekaterinodar and Kuban to a correspondent of Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Excerpt characterizing the Church Court

The Meravingli were a bright, intelligent and gifted dynasty of northern Rus, who voluntarily left their great homeland and mixed their blood with the highest dynasties of the then Europe, so that from this a new powerful Family of magicians and warriors would be born, who could wisely rule the countries and peoples that inhabited that time time for semi-wild Europe.
They were wonderful magicians and warriors, they could heal the suffering and teach the worthy. Without exception, all Meravingli wore very long hair, whom they did not agree to cut under any circumstances, since they drew Living Power through them. But unfortunately, this was also known to the Thinking Dark Ones. That is why the most terrible punishment was the forced tonsure of the last Meravingl royal family.
After the betrayal of the royal Jewish treasurer, who with lies and cunning set brother against brother, son against father in this family, and then easily played on human pride and honor... So for the first time in the royal family of Meravingley, the former stronghold was shaken. And the unshakable faith in the unity of the Family gave the first deep crack... The centuries-old war of the Meravingleys with the opposing clan began to come to its sad end... The last real king of this wonderful dynasty - Dagobert II, was, again, treacherously killed - he died while hunting at the hands of a bribed killer who stabbed him in the back with a poisoned spear.

This is where the most gifted dynasty in Europe, which brought light and strength to the unenlightened European people, ended (or rather, was exterminated). As you can see, Isidora, cowards and traitors at all times did not dare to fight openly, knowing for sure that they never had, and would not have any, even the slightest chance to win honestly. But with lies and baseness they defeated even the strongest, using their honor and conscience in their favor... without worrying at all about their own “perishing in lies” soul. Thus, having destroyed the “interfering enlightened ones,” the Thinking Dark Ones then came up with a “story” that suited them. And the people for whom such a “story” was created immediately easily accepted it, without even trying to think... This, again, is our Earth, Isidora. And I am sincerely sad and hurt that I can’t make her “wake up”...
My heart suddenly ached bitterly and painfully... This means that at all times there were bright and strong people who courageously but hopelessly fought for the happiness and future of humanity! And they all, as a rule, died... What was the reason for such cruel injustice?.. What was the reason for such repeated deaths?
– Tell me, Sever, why do the purest and strongest always die?.. I know that I have already asked you this question... But I still cannot understand, do people really not see how beautiful and joyful she would be life, would they listen to at least one of those who fought so ardently for them?! Are you really right, and the Earth is so blind that it is too early to root for it?!.. Is it too early to fight?..
Shaking his head sadly, Sever smiled affectionately.
– You yourself know the answer to this question, Isidora... But you won’t give up, even if such a cruel truth scares you? You are a Warrior and you will remain one. Otherwise, you would have betrayed yourself, and the meaning of life would have been lost forever to you. We are what we ARE. And no matter how hard we try to change, our core (or our foundation) will still remain the same as our ESSENCE truly is. After all, if a person is still “blind”, he still has hope of regaining his sight one day, right? Or if his brain is still asleep, he may still wake up someday. But if a person is essentially “rotten”, then no matter how good he tries to be, his rotten soul still creeps out one day... and kills any attempt he makes to look better. But if a Man is truly honest and brave, neither the fear of pain nor the most evil threats will break him, since his soul, his ESSENCE, will forever remain as brave and as pure, no matter how mercilessly and cruelly he suffers. But his whole trouble and weakness is that since this Man is truly Pure, he cannot see betrayal and meanness even before it becomes obvious, and when it is not too late to do anything... He cannot do this provide for, since these low feelings are completely absent in him. Therefore, the brightest and bravest people on Earth will always die, Isidora. And this will continue until EVERY earthly person sees the light and understands that life is not given for nothing, that we must fight for beauty, and that the Earth will not become better until he fills it with his goodness and decorates it with his work, no matter how small or insignificant it may be.

But as I already told you, Isidora, you will have to wait for this for a very long time, because for now a person thinks only about his personal well-being, without even thinking about why he came to Earth, why he was born on it... For every LIFE , no matter how insignificant it may seem, comes to Earth for a specific purpose. For the most part - to make our common HOME better and happier, more powerful and wiser.
- You think, ordinary person ever be interested in the common good? After all, many people completely lack this concept. How to teach them, North?..
– This cannot be taught, Isidora. People should have a need for Light, a need for Good. They themselves must want change. For what is given by force, a person instinctively tries to quickly reject, without even trying to understand anything. But we digress, Isidora. Do you want me to continue the story of Radomir and Magdalena?
I nodded affirmatively, deeply regretting in my heart that I couldn’t have a conversation with him so simply and calmly, without worrying about the last minutes of my crippled life allotted to me by fate and without thinking with horror about the misfortune looming over Anna...
– The Bible writes a lot about John the Baptist. Was he truly with Radomir and the Knights of the Temple? His image is so amazingly good that it sometimes made one doubt whether John was a real figure? Can you answer, North?
North smiled warmly, apparently remembering something very pleasant and dear to him...
– John was wise and kind, like a big warm sun... He was a father to everyone who walked with him, their teacher and friend... He was valued, obeyed and loved. But he was never the young and amazingly handsome young man that artists usually painted him as. John at that time was already an elderly sorcerer, but still very strong and persistent. Gray-haired and tall, he looked more like a mighty epic warrior than an amazingly handsome and gentle young man. He wore very long hair, as did everyone else who was with Radomir.

It was Radan, he was truly extraordinarily handsome. He, like Radomir, lived in Meteora from an early age, next to his mother, Sorceress Maria. Remember, Isidora, how many paintings there are in which Mary is painted with two, almost the same age, babies. For some reason, all the famous artists painted them, perhaps without even understanding WHO their brush really depicted... And what is most interesting is that it is Radan that Maria looks at in all these paintings. Apparently even then, while still a baby, Radan was already as cheerful and attractive as he remained throughout his short life...

And yet... even if the artists painted John in these paintings, then how could that same John have aged so monstrously by the time of his execution, carried out at the request of the capricious Salome?.. After all, according to the Bible, this happened even before the crucifixion Christ, which means that John should have been no more than thirty-four years old at that time! How did he turn from a girlishly handsome, golden-haired young man into an old and completely unattractive Jew?!

- So the Magus John did not die, Sever? – I asked joyfully. – Or did he die in another way?..
“Unfortunately, the real John really had his head cut off, Isidora, but this did not happen due to the evil will of a capricious spoiled woman. The cause of his death was the betrayal of a Jewish “friend” whom he trusted and in whose house he lived for several years...
- But how come he didn’t feel it? How did you not see what kind of “friend” this was?! – I was indignant.
– It’s probably impossible to suspect every person, Isidora... I think it was already difficult enough for them to trust someone, because they all had to somehow adapt and live in that foreign, unfamiliar country, don’t forget that. Therefore, from the greater and lesser evils, they apparently tried to choose the lesser. But it’s impossible to predict everything, you know this very well, Isidora... The death of Magus John occurred after the crucifixion of Radomir. He was poisoned by a Jew, in whose house John was living at that time along with the family of the deceased Jesus. One evening, when the whole house was already asleep, the owner, talking with John, presented him with his favorite tea mixed with a strong herbal poison... On next morning no one even managed to understand what happened. According to the owner, John simply instantly fell asleep, and never woke up again... His body was found in the morning in his bloody bed with... a severed head... According to the same owner, the Jews were very afraid of John, because they considered him an unsurpassed magician. And to be sure that he would never rise again, they beheaded him. John’s head was later bought (!!!) from them and taken with them by the Knights of the Temple, managing to preserve it and bring it to the Valley of the Magi, in order to thus give John at least such a small, but worthy and deserved respect, not allowing the Jews to simply mock him, performing some of his magical rituals. From then on, John's head was always with them, wherever they were. And for this same head, two hundred years later, the Knights of the Temple were accused of criminal worship of the Devil... You remember the last “case of the Templars” (Knights of the Temple), don’t you, Isidora? It was there that they were accused of worshiping a “talking head”, which infuriated the entire church clergy.

- Forgive me, Sever, but why didn’t the Knights of the Temple bring John’s head here to Meteora? Because, as far as I understand, you all loved him very much! And how do you know all these details? You weren't with them, were you? Who told you all this?
- Told us all this sad story Witch Maria, mother of Radan and Radomir...
– Did Mary return to you after the execution of Jesus?!.. After all, as far as I know, she was with her son during the crucifixion. When did she return to you? Is it possible that she is still alive?.. – I asked with bated breath.
I so wanted to see at least one of those worthy, courageous people!.. I so wanted to be “charged” with their endurance and strength in my upcoming final struggle!..
- No, Isidora. Unfortunately, Mary died centuries ago. She did not want to live long, although she could. I think her pain was too deep... Having gone to join her sons in an unfamiliar, distant country (many years before their death), but unable to save any of them, Mary did not return to Meteora, leaving with Magdalene . Having left, as we then thought, forever... Tired of bitterness and loss, after the death of her beloved granddaughter and Magdalene, Mary decided to leave her cruel and unmerciful life... But before she “left” forever, she still came to Meteora to say goodbye. To tell us the true story of the death of those we all loved dearly...

And also, she returned in order to last time see the White Magus... Your husband and most faithful friend which I could never forget. In her heart she forgave him. But, to his great regret, she could not bring him the forgiveness of Magdalene.... So, as you see, Isidora, the great Christian fable about “forgiveness” is just a childish lie for naive believers, in order to allow them to do any Evil, knowing that no matter what they do, they will eventually be forgiven. But you can forgive only that which is truly worthy of forgiveness. A person must understand that he has to answer for any Evil committed... And not before some mysterious God, but before himself, forcing himself to suffer cruelly. Magdalena did not forgive Vladyka, although she deeply respected and sincerely loved him. Just as she failed to forgive all of us for the terrible death of Radomir. After all, SHE understood better than anyone else - we could have helped him, we could have saved him from a cruel death... But we didn’t want to. Considering the White Magus’ guilt to be too cruel, she left him to live with this guilt, not forgetting it for a minute... She did not want to grant him easy forgiveness. We never saw her again. Just like they never saw their babies. Through one of the knights of her Temple - our sorcerer - Magdalene conveyed the answer to the Vladyka to his request to return to us: “The sun does not rise twice on the same day... The joy of your world (Radomir) will never return to you, just as I will not return to you and I... I found my FAITH and my TRUTH, they are ALIVE, but yours is DEAD... Mourn your sons - they loved you. I will never forgive you for their death while I am alive. And may your guilt remain with you. Perhaps someday she will bring you Light and Forgiveness... But not from me.” The head of the Magus John was not brought to Meteora for the same reason - none of the Knights of the Temple wanted to return to us... We lost them, as we have lost many others more than once, who did not want to understand and accept our victims... Who did just like you - they left, condemning us.