The Holy Synod decided to form five dioceses in the Moscow region and unite them into the Moscow Metropolis

Not to be confused with the metropolis.

Metropolis

(Greek μητρόπολη) - region (territory) under the canonical authority of the metropolitan. In the ancient Church it was called ἤ ἐπαρχία. Historically, different formations were called a metropolis: thus, initially a metropolis was called an episcopal see that had several bishoprics under its subordination, which now corresponds to a metropolitan district. The degree of independence of such bishops within the metropolitanate has historically varied. Subsequently, however, in particular in the Russian Church, metropolitans called diocese headed by a metropolitan, but not having subordinate bishops.

During the Roman Empire

In Apostolic times (mostly the 1st century), the Christian church consisted of an unlimited number of local churches, which in the early years regarded the first church in Jerusalem as their main center and point of reference. But by the 4th century, a system had developed in which the bishop of the capital of each civil province (metropolitan) usually had certain rights over the bishops of other cities in the province. The First Council of Nicaea in 325, whose sixth canon introduced the title of "metropolitan" for the first time, sanctioned the existing grouping of sees by province of the Roman Empire. In this system, the bishop of the capital of each Roman province (metropolitan) had certain rights in relation to the bishops of other cities in the province.

Number of areas

Now the number of dioceses of the church is quite large - both in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but it was even greater in the first centuries of the existence of Christianity, when it became the official religion: then each church was headed by a bishop and was, accordingly, a separate diocese. But over time, the number of such units increased more and more, and the number of clergy was reduced, uniting several parishes on a territorial basis. And if we talk about the “barbarian” territories where the church sent its missionaries, then a single bishop for a gigantic territory was enough for them (this, for example, happened in relation to Scythia Minor, where Byzantium sent missions).

In the Russian Orthodox Church

Orthodox metropolises in Rus' have existed under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople since the establishment of the Kyiv Metropolis at the end of the 10th century after the baptism of Rus'.

Occasional attempts by local grand dukes to have separate metropolises in their great principalities occurred in the 11th-12th centuries, and in the 14th century led to the temporary separation of the Lithuanian and Galician metropolises.

In 1596-1620, the Kiev Metropolis was again in the Union of Brest. After its renewal, it existed within the structure of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople until it joined the Moscow Patriarchate in 1687.

Since 1461, the Moscow Metropolis was established, which existed until 1589 - the time it received autocephaly from the Orthodox Church of Constantinople and the formation of the Moscow Patriarchate.

After receiving autocephaly in the Russian Orthodox Church, this structure was lost - the Moscow Patriarchate formed in 1589 did not include the metropolis as an association of several independent dioceses[1], although the archbishops of Novgorod, Kazan and Rostov became metropolitans[2].

The question of creating metropolises in the Russian Church was raised at Russian church councils of the 17th century,[1] but then it was not fully resolved: only four metropolitanates were created: Moscow, Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian. At the same time, the dioceses were not included in the formed metropolises - their bishops, as a result, were directly subordinate to the Moscow Patriarch, and the metropolitanates were in fact simply a diocese with a metropolitan at its head. During the synodal period, the number of such dioceses was reduced to three: Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kyiv. At the beginning of the 20th century, this issue again began to be discussed by diocesan bishops, clergy, church scientists and the public[3]. As a result of deep discussions, a project was developed and submitted to the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918.

On September 7, 1918, the Council issued a ruling in which it was said: “The Holy Council, guided by the sacred canons, determines: to establish church districts in the Russian Church, and to entrust the establishment of the number of districts and the distribution of dioceses among them to the Supreme Church Council...” [1].

At the turn of the 1920s-1930s, the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his temporary Synod, in pursuance of the resolution of the Local Council, formed church regions (districts) and adopted the Regulations on the powers of the regional bishop[4]. However, due to the massive closure of churches, monasteries and dioceses as a result of the Bolshevik repressions that fell on the Russian Church, this structure was again lost[1], and it was not allowed to revive in the second half of the 1940s, after the “concordat” of Stalin and the Moscow Patriarchate .

In May 2011, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' began reforming the diocesan structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time, the dioceses were disaggregated by creating new ones. According to abbot Savva (Tutunov):

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

In this regard, in July the Holy Synod instructed the commission of the Inter-Council Presence, headed by Metropolitan Barsanuphius of Saransk and Mordovia, head of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, to study this issue. As a result of intensive work, a draft document was developed that proposed uniting dioceses within one subject of the Federation in the metropolis[5].

On October 6, 2011, the “Regulations on the Metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church”[6] was approved, and as a result, a three-tier structure of the organization of diocesan administration was gradually introduced in the Moscow Patriarchate: Patriarchate - Metropolis

- diocese. At the same time, the concepts of “metropolis” and “metropolitan district” were separated, since they began to designate different forms of unification of dioceses; Previously, these terms were often used as synonyms.

Speaking on February 2, 2013 at the Council of Bishops, Patriarch Kirill noted[7]:

In October 2011, the Holy Synod made an important adjustment to the process of disaggregation of dioceses. Dioceses located within one subject of the Russian Federation began to unite into metropolitanates.<…>

Canonically, a Metropolitan is a senior brother—a senior bishop in the metropolis. He is called upon to help junior bishops govern their dioceses with good advice and take care of the flock of his entire metropolis. In addition, it is often much more difficult for regional government authorities to interact with each diocese individually. Therefore, metropolitans are also tasked with coordinating the dialogue between the leadership of subordinate dioceses and the authorities of the constituent entities of the federation.

As a result of the reform, several dozen metropolises were formed on the territory of Russia, the borders of which should coincide with the borders of one of the 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, along with dioceses formed within several regions that are part of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation[1], there are also dioceses that include the entire territory of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and are not part of the metropolitanate.

The difference between a metropolitan area and a metropolitan district lies in the organization of governing bodies. The highest ecclesiastical authority in the metropolitan district belongs to the Synod, chaired by the head of the metropolitan district. The synod of the district consists of the diocesan and suffragan bishops of the district. In metropolitan areas there are not synods, but bishops' councils, at which coordination issues of the activities of the dioceses included in the metropolitan areas are resolved.

What are the differences from the metropolitanate and the exarchate?

Sometimes situations arise when for some reason it is convenient to unite nearby dioceses. Such a combination of several (at least 2, often more) administrative units form a metropolitanate. Now the Russian Church knows 69 such associations.

If the united dioceses are located outside the country, they are called an exarchate. At the same time, the exarch, called the Patriarchal, enjoys significant independence in resolving issues of church life. This practice has been known since ancient times; some of these associations later formed Local Churches, others remained in their status.

Now the exarch has the rank of metropolitan, but historically there are cases when the Patriarch was represented by bishops, priests, even laymen. Currently, the Russian Church has three exarchates:

1. Belorussian;
2. Western European;
3. in Southeast Asia.

Notes

1. ↑ 12345
   [www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1639858.html “JOURNALS of the meeting of the Holy Synod of October 5-6, 2011”]. // Patriarchia.Ru - 10/6/2011 see MAGAZINE No. 131
2. [www.portal-slovo.ru/theology/39475.php History of the Russian Church. Period IV. Moscow Patriarchate (1589-1700). Church Administration]
3. "Church and Society". February 20, 1916, No. 5, p. 10.
4. “Regulations on Regional Eminences.” March 12, 1934 No. 14 // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1934. No. 20-21. pp. 4-5.
5. [www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1655617.html Hegumen Savva (Tutunov): Metropolis is a new form of interaction between dioceses / Interview / Patriarchia.ru]
6. [www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1639871.html “Regulations on the Metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church”]. // Patriarchia.Ru - 10/6/2011
7. [jmp.ru/archiv/jmp_03_2013_small.pdf Report of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2013]

Links

• [www.krotov.info/library/k/kartash/kart102.html#_Toc530282020 Anton Kartashev. History of the Russian Church
  , Volume One,
  Church Administration in the Kiev Period
  ]

Excerpt characterizing the Metropolia

- Well done, guys! - said Prince Bagration. “For the sake of... wow wow wow wow!...” was heard through the ranks. The gloomy soldier walking on the left, shouting, looked back at Bagration with such an expression as if he was saying: “we know it ourselves”; the other, without looking back and as if afraid to have fun, with his mouth open, shouted and walked by. They were ordered to stop and take off their backpacks. Bagration rode around the ranks passing by and dismounted from his horse. He gave the Cossack the reins, took off and gave his cloak, straightened his legs and adjusted the cap on his head. The head of the French column, with officers in front, appeared from under the mountain. "With God blessing!" Bagration said in a firm, audible voice, turned for a moment to the front and, slightly waving his arms, with the awkward step of a cavalryman, as if working, he walked forward along the uneven field. Prince Andrei felt that some irresistible force was pulling him forward, and he experienced great happiness. [Here occurred the attack about which Thiers says: “Les russes se conduisirent vaillamment, et chose rare a la guerre, on vit deux masses d'infanterie Mariecher resolument l'une contre l'autre sans qu'aucune des deux ceda avant d 'etre abordee"; and Napoleon on the island of St. Helena said: “Quelques bataillons russes montrerent de l'intrepidite.” [The Russians behaved valiantly, and a rare thing in war, two masses of infantry marched decisively against each other, and neither of the two gave way until the very clash." Napoleon's words: [Several Russian battalions showed fearlessness.] The French were already getting close; Already Prince Andrei, walking next to Bagration, clearly distinguished the baldrics, red epaulettes, even the faces of the French (He clearly saw one old French officer, who, with his legs turned out in boots, was hardly walking up the hill.) Prince Bagration did not give a new order and that’s it he walked silently in front of the ranks. Suddenly, one shot cracked between the French, another, a third... and smoke spread throughout all the disorganized enemy ranks and gunfire crackled. Several of our men fell, including the chubby officer, who was walking so cheerfully and diligently. But at the same time The very moment the first shot rang out, Bagration looked back and shouted: “Hurray!” “Hurray aa aa!” a drawn-out cry echoed along our line and, overtaking Prince Bagration and each other, in a disorganized, but cheerful and animated crowd, our people ran down the mountain after the upset French. The attack of the 6th Jaeger ensured the retreat of the right flank. In the center, the action of the forgotten battery of Tushin, who managed to light Shengraben, stopped the movement of the French. The French extinguished the fire, carried by the wind, and gave time to retreat. The retreat of the center through the ravine was carried out hastily and noisily; however, the troops, retreating, did not get confused in command. But the left flank, which was simultaneously attacked and bypassed by the superior forces of the French under the command of Lannes and which consisted of the Azov and Podolsk infantry and Pavlograd hussar regiments, was upset. Bagration sent Zherkov to the general of the left flank with the order to immediately retreat. Zherkov smartly, without taking his hand from his cap, touched his horse and galloped off. But as soon as he rode away from Bagration, how his strength failed him. An insurmountable fear came over him, and he could not go where it was dangerous. Having approached the troops of the left flank, he did not go forward, where there was shooting, but began to look for the general and commanders where they could not be, and therefore did not convey the order. The command of the left flank belonged by seniority to the regimental commander of the very regiment that was represented at Braunau by Kutuzov and in which Dolokhov served as a soldier. The command of the extreme left flank was assigned to the commander of the Pavlograd regiment, where Rostov served, as a result of which a misunderstanding occurred. Both commanders were very irritated against each other, and while things had been going on on the right flank for a long time and the French had already begun their offensive, both commanders were busy in negotiations that were intended to insult each other. The regiments, both cavalry and infantry, were very little prepared for the upcoming task. The people of the regiments, from soldier to general, did not expect battle and calmly went about peaceful affairs: feeding horses in the cavalry, collecting firewood in the infantry. “He is, however, older than me in rank,” said the German, a hussar colonel, blushing and turning to the adjutant who had arrived, “then leave him to do as he wants.” I cannot sacrifice my hussars. Trumpeter! Play retreat! But things were getting to a point in a hurry. The cannonade and shooting, merging, thundered on the right and in the center, and the French hoods of the Lannes riflemen had already passed the mill dam and lined up on this side in two rifle shots. The infantry colonel walked up to the horse with a trembling gait and, climbing onto it and becoming very straight and tall, rode to the Pavlograd commander. The regimental commanders gathered with polite bows and with hidden malice in their hearts. “Again, Colonel,” said the general, “I cannot, however, leave half the people in the forest.” “I ask you, I ask you,” he repeated, “to take a position and prepare to attack. “And I ask you not to interfere, it’s not your business,” the colonel answered, getting excited. “If you were a cavalryman...” “I’m not a cavalryman, colonel, but I am a Russian general, and if you don’t know this...” “Very well known, Your Excellency,” the colonel suddenly cried out, touching the horse, and turning red and purple. “Would you like to put me in chains, and you will see that this position is worthless?” I don't want to destroy my regiment for your pleasure. - You are forgetting yourself, Colonel. I do not respect my pleasure and will not allow anyone to say this. The general, accepting the colonel's invitation to the tournament of courage, straightened his chest and frowned, rode with him towards the chain, as if all their disagreement was to be resolved there, in the chain, under the bullets. They arrived in a chain, several bullets flew over them, and they stopped silently. There was nothing to see in the chain, since even from the place where they had previously stood, it was clear that it was impossible for the cavalry to operate in the bushes and ravines, and that the French were going around the left wing. The general and the colonel looked sternly and significantly, like two roosters preparing for battle, at each other, waiting in vain for signs of cowardice. Both passed the exam. Since there was nothing to say, and neither one nor the other wanted to give the other a reason to say that he was the first to escape from the bullets, they would have stood there for a long time, mutually testing their courage, if at that time in the forest, almost behind them, there had not been the crackle of guns and a dull merging cry were heard. The French attacked soldiers who were in the forest with firewood. The hussars could no longer retreat along with the infantry. They were cut off from the retreat to the left by a French chain. Now, no matter how inconvenient the terrain was, it was necessary to attack in order to pave a path for ourselves. The squadron where Rostov served, having just managed to mount his horses, was stopped facing the enemy. Again, as on the Ensky Bridge, there was no one between the squadron and the enemy, and between them, dividing them, lay the same terrible line of uncertainty and fear, as if the line separating the living from the dead. All people felt this line, and the question of whether or not they would cross the line and how they would cross the line worried them. A colonel drove up to the front, angrily answered the officers’ questions and, like a man desperately insisting on his own, gave some kind of order. No one said anything definite, but rumors of an attack spread throughout the squadron. The formation command was heard, then the sabers screeched as they were taken out of their scabbards. But still no one moved. The troops on the left flank, both infantry and hussars, felt that the authorities themselves did not know what to do, and the indecisiveness of the leaders was communicated to the troops. “Hurry, hurry,” thought Rostov, feeling that the time had finally come to experience the pleasure of attack, about which he had heard so much from his fellow hussars. “With God, you bastards,” Denisov’s voice sounded, “g’ysyo, mag’sh!” In the front row the rumps of horses swayed. The rook pulled the reins and set off himself. On the right, Rostov saw the first ranks of his hussars, and even further ahead he could see a dark stripe, which he could not see, but considered the enemy. Shots were heard, but in the distance. - Increase the trot! - a command was heard, and Rostov felt his Grachik giving in with his hindquarters, breaking into a gallop. He guessed his movements in advance, and he became more and more fun. He noticed a lone tree ahead. This tree was at first in front, in the middle of that line that seemed so terrible. But we crossed this line, and not only was there nothing terrible, but it became more and more fun and lively. “Oh, how I will cut him,” thought Rostov, clutching the hilt of the saber in his hand. - Oh oh oh ah ah!! - voices boomed. “Well, now whoever it is,” thought Rostov, pressing Grachik’s spurs in, and, overtaking the others, released him into the entire quarry. The enemy was already visible ahead. Suddenly, like a wide broom, something hit the squadron. Rostov raised his saber, preparing to cut, but at that time the soldier Nikitenko, galloping ahead, separated from him, and Rostov felt, as in a dream, that he continued to rush forward with unnatural speed and at the same time remained in place. From behind, the familiar hussar Bandarchuk galloped up at him and looked angrily. Bandarchuk's horse gave way, and he galloped past. "What is this? Am I not moving? “I fell, I was killed...” Rostov asked and answered in an instant. He was already alone in the middle of the field. Instead of moving horses and hussars' backs, he saw motionless earth and stubble around him. Warm blood was underneath him. “No, I’m wounded and the horse is killed.” The rook stood up on his front legs, but fell, crushing the rider's leg. Blood was flowing from the horse's head. The horse was struggling and could not get up. Rostov wanted to get up and fell too: the cart caught on the saddle. Where our people were, where the French were, he didn’t know. There was no one around.

Hierarchy of bishops: metropolitans and patriarchs

Part 1. Organization of the Imperial Church. Bishop, his Church, city

Local Churches are the Churches of one province or a collection of several provinces, and it is at this level that the most significant changes will be carried out.

Dioceses and metropolitanates

The Council of Nicaea, streamlining a previously existing practice, decreed (4th and 5th canons) that the bishops of one province (or diocese) should meet twice a year at the metropolitan (the title of the bishop occupying the see of the capital of the province).
The power of the metropolitan over other bishops of the diocese subordinate to him (his “suffragans”) is thus strengthened, especially in the matter of choosing and installing new bishops. Already at this level, the Church division adapts to the state division, and when new provinces are created, the organization of the Church usually takes them into account. In the VI century. sometimes discord breaks out. The system has its exceptions. In Egypt, metropolitans have no real significance, since the bishop of Alexandria himself ordains bishops in the provinces. In newly reconquered (under Justinian) Italy, special rights of Rome in relation to the surrounding (“περὶ τὴν Ρώμην”) regions (provinciae suburbicariae) were formed in a similar way. On the other hand, in some provinces, in addition to full-fledged metropolises, there are also metropolises without bishoprics subordinate to them, the owners of which are sometimes called autocephalous archbishops.

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

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

Formation of the patriarchal system

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, on Chalcedon the role of Alexandria, whose bishop Dioscorus was deposed, is diminished, and the significance of Constantinople is confirmed [H[Herman. 1951-1954] Rules 9 and 17 establish the right of appeal to Constantinople for the bishops of three dioceses: Asia, Pontus and Thrace. Constantinople rises mainly due to the "28th Rule", which gives it rights equal to those of Old Rome and establishes its jurisdiction.

This is the rule of Chalcedon [M[Martin. 1951-1954]has a special institutional significance[1[1] Its first part is devoted to the privileges of Constantinople, equal to those that Old Rome received as the capital of the empire, since Constantinople is the seat of the emperor and the Senate. The second part defines the jurisdictional content of these benefits. The rule will not be accepted by Rome, which is not only concerned about the claims of Constantinople, but also, based on its “apostolic” privileges (connection with the Apostle Peter), cannot accept the political arguments used by the Chalcedonian fathers to determine the level of sees.

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

Book imprint: Le Monde Byzantin I. L'Empire romain d'orient (330-641) / Sous la direction de Cécile Morrisson. Paris: Press Universitaires de France, 2004. P. 111-141 (Chap. 4. Bernard Flusin. Les structures de l'Église impériale). The Russian translation was carried out taking into account the modern Greek translation: O Βυζαντινός κόσμος Ι. Ἡ Ανατολική Ρωμαική Αυτοκρατορία (330-641). Αθήναι, εκδόσεις ΠΟΛΙΣ, 2007. Σ. 193-224 (Κεφ. 4).

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

[1[1]about French text: has some status.

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