Supreme governing bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church

Supreme body of church government

The beginning of the century was marked for the Russian Church by the end of the “synodal period”, which was proclaimed to the world by the Local Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, which opened on August 15 (28), 1917 and continued intermittently until September 7 (20), 1918. It restored the institution of the Patriarchate and the ancient tradition of regularly convening Councils as the highest bodies of church power. His decisions concerning all aspects of the new conciliar structure of the Church were to become decisive for many years, but the revolutionary year of 1917 changed the course of civil and church history. By 1941, the Russian Orthodox Church had 3,021 operating churches, and about 3 thousand of them were located in the territories that became part of the USSR in 1939-1940. On the eve of the war there were just over 6,300 clergy. In 1938, there was not a single functioning monastery in the USSR. After the annexation of the Eastern Baltic states, Western Belarus and Bessarabia, there were 46 of them. Of the highest clergy, four people remained at large: two bishops and two metropolitans made up the entire episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church. The last of the previously functioning Pskov Sees was abolished in 1940. Since 1918, neither the Local nor the Bishops' Councils have been convened. Religious life in the country took on a focal character. In recent years, many works have been written about the reasons for changes in the state-church course during the war years, both internal and external. The restoration of church life took place rapidly and under strict government control. All this is true. But I would like to note something else: in new circumstances, the Russian Orthodox Church not only managed to revive organizationally, but also provide significant assistance to the state, supporting and strengthening its international authority, facilitating the implementation of its foreign policy in a difficult period for the USSR, when the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons . 26 years after the Local Council of 1917-1918. On September 8, 1943, a Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church was held in Moscow, which was attended by 19 bishops (16 of them were brought from camps and exile). The main act of the Council was the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and the formation of the Holy Synod under him. With complete unanimity of the episcopate, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who was in fact the Primate of the Church for 17 years, was elected Patriarch. Among the most important documents of the Council is a call “to intensify all efforts in this world struggle for the ideals of Christianity trampled by Hitler, for the freedom of Christian churches, for the freedom, happiness and culture of all mankind.” Traitors to the faith and fatherland were subjected to serious condemnation by the bishops: “Anyone guilty of treason against the general church cause and who has gone over to the side of fascism, as an opponent of the Cross of the Lord, shall be considered excommunicated, and a bishop or cleric shall be deprived of his rank. Amen". Immediately after the Council, work began on the preparation of the “Regulations on the governance of the Orthodox Russian Church,” the initiator of which was the Patriarch himself. The development of the “Regulations” continued after his untimely death on May 15, 1944. And on November 23 of the same year, the Council of Bishops decided to convene the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to elect the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' and adopt the finished “Regulations on Governance.” The Local Council was held from January 31 to February 2, 1945 in Moscow. Taking part in its work were Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad, Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Krutitsky, Metropolitan John (Sokolov) of Kiev and Galicia, Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) of North America and Aleutia, 41 archbishops and bishops and 126 representatives of parish clergy and laity . Present at the Council as honored guests were Patriarch Christopher of Alexandria, Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch, Georgian Catholicos - Patriarch Callistratus, representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch - Metropolitan Herman of Thyagir, Archbishop Athenagoras of Jerusalem - Sebastian; a delegation of the Serbian Church led by Metropolitan Joseph of Skoplyansky, a delegation of the Romanian Church led by Bishop Joseph of Arzhem. The first day of the meeting of the Council ended with the discussion and unanimous adoption of the “Regulations on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church.” The “Regulations” were read by Archbishop Gregory (Chukov) of Pskov, who noted that its starting point is the 31st canon of the Acts of the Apostles. The document opened with the following definition: “In the Russian Orthodox Church, the highest authority in the field of doctrine, church administration and church court - legislative, administrative, judicial - belongs to the Local Council, periodically convened among bishops, clergy and laity.” (In essence, it confirmed the definition of the Local Council of 1917-1918). The first section defined the rights and responsibilities of the Patriarch in the real conditions of the existence of the Church in the Soviet state. Paragraph 7 read: “The Patriarch, in order to resolve pressing important church issues, convenes with the permission of the Government (emphasis mine - O.V.) the Council of His Eminence Bishops and presides at the Council, and when it is necessary to listen to the voice of the clergy and laity and there is an external opportunity (emphasis mine. - O.V.) to convene the next Local Council, convenes it and presides over it.” The second section of the “Regulations” was devoted to the activities of the Holy Synod, the third - to the diocese, the fourth - to parishes. During the discussion of this section, controversy arose about the role of the parish rector. The participants of the Council were Fr. After long discussions, the “Regulations” included the following wording in paragraph 35: “At the head of each parish community of believers is the rector of the church, appointed by the diocesan bishop for the spiritual guidance of the believers and the management of the clergy and parish.” (And none of those present at the Council could have imagined how the position of the rector would change in different political eras of the Soviet future.) At the second meeting on February 2, 1945, the Local Council unanimously elected the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod, as Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' . (The bishops, starting with the youngest, alternately on their own behalf and on behalf of the clergy and laity of their diocese named the name of the only candidate for the post of Patriarch.) The Council also adopted an appeal to the government of the USSR, in which words of gratitude were expressed not only to “the government and its head, the deeply revered Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin,” but also to the fighting army: “The Local Council sends its blessing to our heroic heroes.” After Stalin's death, the new Soviet leadership, condemning the “previous conciliatory course” of state-church policy, took the path of open confrontation with the Church. “Khrushchev’s course” in relations with the Church, which was called “church reform” in party documents, included six main points: “1) a radical restructuring of church administration, the removal of the clergy from administrative, financial and economic affairs in religious associations, which would undermine the authority of clergy in the eyes of believers; 2) restoration of the right to govern religious associations by bodies selected from among the believers themselves; 3) closing off all channels of the Church’s charitable activities, which were previously widely used to attract new groups of believers; 4) elimination of income tax benefits for clergy, taxation of them as non-cooperative artisans, termination of state social services for civilian church personnel, removal of trade union services; 5) protecting children from the influence of religion; 6) transferring clergy to fixed salaries, limiting material incentives for the clergy, which would reduce their activity.” The ideologists of “church reform” clearly understood that “restructuring church governance” could turn out to be a complex and delicate matter. A solution was found quickly: “In order not to cause any complications in relations between the Church and the state, many events are carried out through church hands.” The removal of clergy from financial and economic activities in the parish was carried out on the “state recommendation” by the decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church with its further approval by the Council of Bishops in 1961, which began its work in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on July 18. The hierarchs had to discuss four issues. 1) On increasing the number of permanent members of the Holy Synod. 2) On changes in the “Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church” concerning section IV - “On parishes”. 3) On the entry of the Russian Orthodox Church into the World Council of Churches. 4) About the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the World All-Christian Congress for the Defense of Peace, which took place in Prague on July 13-18, 1961. Few of those present knew the issues presented for discussion. The cathedral was opened by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Rus': “One of our main concerns is the ordering of parish life in the parishes of our Church, which in many places in our dioceses is disordered and causes endless complaints.” Further, the Primate spoke about the Resolution of the Holy Synod of April 18, 1961, which delimited the responsibilities of the parish clergy and executive bodies, “and the rectors were charged with the responsibility of fully concentrating their concerns on the spiritual leadership of the parish and on the liturgical side: with their release from participation in economic financial activities of the community." The bishops were silent. There were no questions, no debates. Only the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop of Tula and Belevsky Pimen (Izvekov), in his report “On changes in the “Regulations on the management of the Russian Orthodox Church” relating to section IV “On parishes”, tried to convince the Russian bishops that even from the beginning of the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence ( 1905), some of its members “saw the involvement of laity in the management of church property as a violation of canonical logic, according to which the right to dispose of church property belongs entirely to the bishop and that this right follows from his hierarchical powers.” And he immediately refuted the above: “But, despite all the apparent convincingness of such arguments, they still did not have solid canonical ground. Reference to canons, for example Apostolic Canons 38 and 41; Ancyra Council 15th, Gangra Council 7th, 8th was refuted by the general recognition of the canonists - about the absence of any church rules defining the actual parish structure of life.” The most important decision for the subsequent life of the Church was the Council’s approval of the decision of the Holy Synod of March 30, 1961 on the entry of the Russian Orthodox Church into the World Council of Churches. In his report dedicated to this event, Archbishop Nikodim (Rotov) of Yaroslavl and Rostov, who served as chairman of the DECR, not only covered the entire history of the preparation and entry of the Russian Church into the WCC, but also assessed the ecumenical movement. And few of the bishops present at the Council could have thought then that forty years later, joining the WCC would be assessed by a certain group of people in the Church as imposed by the authorities, who sought to weaken the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. This group will allow itself a negative assessment of the activities of the hierarchs of those years, without delving into the essence of the events that took place, when Khrushchev’s persecution of the Church was increasingly gaining strength and only through the use of an international platform could the world learn about the real situation of religion and the Church in the USSR. On April 17, 1970, at the age of 93, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, one of the outstanding bishops of the 20th century, reposed. Metropolitan Pimen (Izvekov) of Krutitsky and Kolomna became the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. On June 25, 1970, the Holy Synod adopted a resolution convening the Local Council. On May 26, 1971, a Bishops' meeting was held in the Assumption Church of the Novodevichy Convent. (The authorities did everything possible to force the Church with its own hands to sign for the correctness of the decisions of the Council of Bishops in 1961.) Archbishop of Brussels Vasily (Krivoshein) made sharp criticism at the Conference. In behind-the-scenes conversations, as he later recalled, many bishops agreed with him. Confirmation of the decision of the 1961 Council took place, but it should be noted that Metropolitan Nikodim, in his speech, reminded those present of the words of Patriarch Alexy at the 1961 Council about an intelligent rector, a reverent performer of divine services and a man of impeccable life, who will always be able to maintain his authority in the parish. The candidacy of the future Patriarch was also discussed at the Meeting. Archbishop Vasily made a proposal to hold a secret ballot during the elections, and Metropolitan Anthony (Blum) of Sourozh supported him. In party documents, their speeches are described as “an attempt to impose “limitless democracy” in matters of electing a new Patriarch - they required the nomination of several candidates and a secret ballot.” The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church worked from May 30 to June 2, 1971 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. It was attended by 234 people - members of the Council: bishops of the Russian Church - 72, representatives of the Orthodox clergy - 84, lay believers - 78. Among the members of the Council there were 25 foreign citizens representing 124 parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad. In addition, guests arrived at the Council - representatives of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, heterodox Churches, and ecumenical organizations. On the first day of the Council, the locum tenens delivered a report on “The Life and Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church,” analyzing intra-church life for the period from 1945 to 1971. On the same day, a co-report by Metropolitan Nikodim, “The Ecumenical Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church,” was heard. In the section “Relations with the Roman Catholic Church,” Metropolitan Nikodim emphasized: “I consider it necessary to note the decision of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and the Holy Synod of December 10, 1969, dictated by the spiritual care of our Church for its brothers in Christ, according to which the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate received permission to teach the grace of the Holy Sacraments to Catholics and Old Believers in cases of extreme spiritual necessity for the latter and in the absence of their priests, since we have a common faith with them regarding the sacraments.” The discussion developed heatedly; 36 participants of the Local Council spoke on the main report and co-reports (the debate took place on June 1). On June 2, the Local Council issued the Act “On the abolition of oaths on old rituals and on those who adhere to them.” The beginning of this document read: “The most enlightened hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, taking possible actions to remove obstacles to healing the schism, understood that the mediastinum that arose in connection with the oath definitions of the Councils of 1654 and 1667 must be eliminated.” The main event of the final meeting of the Council, held on June 2, was the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The bishops voted on their own behalf, on behalf of the clergy and laity of their diocese, starting with the youngest in consecration and ending with the deputy chairman of the Council, Metropolitan Nicodemus of Leningrad and Novgorod. Metropolitan Pimen (Izvekov) of Krutitsky and Kolomna became Patriarch. The attempt of Archbishop Vasily and Metropolitan Anthony at the Council to return to the issue of removing the changes and the “Regulations on Management...” was futile. Everyone understood this except themselves, who spent all the years of service outside Russia. In the spring of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev met in the Kremlin with the hierarchs of the Russian Church. This correct political move became the first step towards the spiritual healing of society. The Local Council, dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', began its work on June 6, 1988 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. It was attended by 272 representatives from 67 domestic and 9 foreign dioceses, 22 monasteries, two Theological academies and three seminaries, from foreign institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church and from the Japanese Autonomous Church. At the first meeting, Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev made a report on “1000th Anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'”, making an attempt to trace the fate of the Church from Baptism to the present day. On the same day, the participants of the Council listened to the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, “The Canonization of Saints in the Russian Orthodox Church.” The following were proposed for glorification as saints: the blessed Prince of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy, the Rev. Andrei Rublev, the Rev. Maxim the Greek, St. Macarius of Moscow, St. Paisius of Velichkovsky, Blessed Xenia of Petersburg, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Ambrose of Optina, St. Theophan the Recluse. By decision of the Local Council, the rite of canonization was performed. (This event has become one of the most important in the modern life of the Church. The canonization of the newly -molegun saints of God will follow the long process of preparing for the canonization and the canonization of the new martyrs of the 20th century.) The main decision of the Council was the adoption of the new Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. The draft charter is represented by the archbishop of Smolensky and Vyazemsky Cyril. Having given an assessment of the “position” of 1945 and the changes made to it in 1961, he concluded that these documents adopted in the historical conditions difficult for the church and the country require a review. The proposed project, in the opinion of the speaker, was in continuity with the “definitions” of the Council of 1917-1918. This connection is seen in an attempt to express in modern categories the idea of ​​Orthodox ecclesiology - the idea of ​​collegiality. The adopted definition of the cathedral according to the charter read: “To accept and bless the charter about the management of the Russian Orthodox Church, designed to serve as a more complete disclosure of the cathedral nature of the Church. It is especially noted that in the conditions of the charter, when the shepherd is given an important role in the life of the parish community, he must strictly fulfill the commandment of the Apostle of the mouth of God herd, overturning behind him not forced, but willingly and thoroughly, not for vile self -interest, but out of zeal, and out of zeal, and from zeal. Without dominating the heritage of God, but setting an example of a herd (1 Pet. 5.2-3). ” The new charter introduced the frequency of the convocation of local and bishop's cathedrals. Returning to the basic principles of the “definitions” of the Council of 1917-1918. On the diocesan administration, the local cathedral in the charter restored the diocesan meetings. The most important change was the abolition of the decision of the Bishop Cathedral of 1961 on the removal of priests from financial and economic activities. In his definitions, the Cathedral of 1988 also proclaimed the "extreme importance of care about the moral purity of the clergy, monks and all the children of church." It was proposed to be considered necessary to “further deepen the ecumenical involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church to advance on the path to Christian unity through evidence of the faith of an unrequited church, through cooperation with all Christian churches and associations in the name of peace, justice and maintaining the integrity of the creation of God.” The Bishop Cathedral, held from October 9 to 11, 1989 in the Danilov monastery, became famous for the first patriarch of the Moscow Job and the first Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church after the restoration of the patriarchate - St. Tikhon, laid the foundation for the canonization of the new martyrs and confessors of the twentieth century. The cathedral recommended the diocesan bishops to resume the publication of "diocesan sheet". Participants in the cathedral expressed concern about the state of church life in the Western dioceses of Ukraine, where attempts to revive the Union began. The bishop's cathedral of 1990 (January 30-31) devoted its work to the main state of affairs in Western Ukraine. (February 1, 1990, members of the Holy Synod met in the Kremlin with the deputy chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Anatoly Lukyanov, trying to find from the state, then still a single one, support in solving these difficult issues, based on Soviet legislation. Lukyanov did not shout out, saying: ““ Everything that happens is associated with the situation in the country, with the weakening of power. I do not exclude that there are nationalists in state bodies in some places. ”) On May 3, 1990, His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Pimen died. His successor was Patriarch Alexy II (Reidiger), chosen by the Local Council of 1990 on June 7. In addition to his candidacy, there were two more - Metropolitan of Kiev and Galitsky Filaret (Denisenko) and Metropolitan of Rostov and Novocherkassky Vladimir (Sabodan). A secret vote of 166 votes out of 317 possible were filed for Metropolitan Alexy. (Despite the produced charter of 1988. The sequence of the convocation of local cathedrals, it became the last in the outgoing century.) The Bishop Cathedral of 1992 (March 31-April 31) was canonized by Metropolitan of Kiev and Galitsky (Bogoyavlensky), the first new martyr from the bishop, Metropolitan Petrogradsky And the Gdovsky Benjamin (Kazan) and others who were killed by Archimandrite Sergius (Shein), Yuri Novitsky, Ioann Kovsharov, as well as Grand Duchess Elizabeth and the monk Barbar: “To the Russian Sim Martyrs to compose special, and until the time of compilation of those, after this day, after this day the glorification Their memory is to send common martyrdom according to the rank. ” Olga Vasilyeva

The Council of Bishops in 1994 (November 29-December 4), in which 126 bishops took part, canonized Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov), Protopresbyter Alexander Khotovitsky, who died in 1937, and Archpriest Ioann Kochurov, killed after the October Revolution of 1917. In addition, the Council decided to conduct a theological study of the basis for the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in inter-Christian organizations, and also condemned the practice of proselytism on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church by other Christian denominations. The Council of Bishops in 1997 (February 18-23) canonized the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) of Moscow, Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) and Archbishop Thaddeus (Uspensky). The Council adopted a definition “On relations with the state and secular society,” which unambiguously speaks of a certain social role of the Church. The assembled bishops considered it necessary to “constantly remind the authorities and society of the difficult situation of people who do not receive pensions and salaries, people living below the poverty line, pensioners, disabled people, the unemployed, large families, orphans, students, refugees and internally displaced persons, scientists , creative intelligentsia, military personnel. To ensure interaction of the Church with the state, trade unions, charitable and public organizations in overcoming the social crisis in society.” The Definition also stipulates the relationship between the Church and political organizations. Members of the Council welcome dialogue and contacts of the Church with political organizations “if this is not in the nature of political support.” Such cooperation is permissible “for purposes beneficial to the Church and the people, with the exception of the interpretation of such cooperation as political support.” At the same time, the Council considered unacceptable “the involvement of the Right Reverends and clergy in any pre-election political campaign, their membership in political associations, the charters of which provide for participation in elections at any level.” The assembled bishops considered it possible for the laity to participate in the activities of political organizations and to create such organizations themselves if the latter do not include clergy and “conduct responsible consultations with the church authorities.” According to the Definition, such organizations participating in the political process cannot have the blessing of the church hierarchy and speak on behalf of the Church. If any church-public organization already has such a blessing, then it may be deprived of it if this organization begins to conduct political agitation and begins to present its opinion as the opinion of the Church, expressed only by church councils, the Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod . The same applies to church and church-public media. An important result of the Council was the adoption of a decision regarding the dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern (pre-Chalcedonian) Churches. The Council decided that the final document of this dialogue - the “Second Statement and Proposals to the Churches” - is not considered as a final document sufficient to restore full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, “since it contains ambiguities in certain Christological formulations.” In this regard, the members of the Council expressed the hope that “Christological formulations will continue to be refined in the course of studying issues of a liturgical, pastoral and canonical nature, as well as issues related to the restoration of ecclesiastical communion between the two families of Churches of the Eastern Orthodox tradition.” In other Determinations, the Council excommunicated from the Church the former Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret (Denisenko) and the former priest Gleb Yakunin, and also defrocked Archimandrites Valentin (Rusantsov), Adrian (Starina) and Abbot Joasaph (Shibaev), who were banned from the priesthood. Oleg Nedumov

Changes in the composition of the Synod.

Since its establishment, the composition of the Synod has repeatedly undergone fundamental changes. Already under Catherine I (1725-1727) it was divided into two apartments (1726): spiritual and economic. The first apartment, in charge of exclusively spiritual affairs, consisted of the Primate (after the death of Metropolitan Stephen in 1722, a new president of the Synod was no longer appointed) and 6 members. The Economic Apartment was in charge of the land holdings of monasteries and diocesan houses and consisted of officials. Under Catherine I, the Synod ceased to be called the “Governing” and became the “Spiritual Synod.” Subsequently, its original name was restored. As for the economic department of the Synod, under various names: “chamber-office,” “collegium of economy,” it was more than once transferred from the jurisdiction of the Synod to the jurisdiction of the Senate and back, until, finally, as a result of the secularization of the populated church lands, they were no longer managed. Church power was finally eliminated.

Under Empress Anna (1730-1740), the Synod consisted of 3 bishops, 2 archimandrites and 2 archpriests (rectors of the Kremlin Assumption and Annunciation Cathedrals). According to the states of 1764, the Synod was supposed to consist of 3 bishops, 2 archimandrites and 1 archpriest.

According to the states approved in 1818, seven persons were present in the Synod, one of whom was called “First.” Under Nicholas I (1825-1855), the places of archimandrites in the Synod were taken by the chief priest of the guard and grenadier corps (also the confessor of the tsar) and the chief priest of the army and navy. Subsequently, the Synod acquired an exclusively episcopal composition, which was more in line with church canons. It included both its permanent members - the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg (usually, but not always the first), Kiev and Moscow - and, often, the Exarch of Georgia. Other bishops who were summoned to the Synod (on his proposal) by decrees of the emperor for an indefinite period were called “those present at the Synod.” In the 20th century, protopresbyters began to be called to the Synod.

Chief Prosecutors of the Holy Synod.

In 1722, by decree of the emperor, the post of Synodal Chief Prosecutor was established. The Chief Prosecutor's Instructions were literally copied from the Instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Senate. According to Peter I, the Chief Prosecutor was to be appointed “a good man from among the officers...” He was charged with being “the eye of the sovereign and a lawyer in state affairs.”

Over time, especially in the 19th century (under Prince Golitsyn, Protasov, Pobedonostsev), the rights of the chief prosecutor were expanded so much that from an official supervising the conduct of synodal affairs, as provided for in the Instructions, he became a plenipotentiary minister, responsible to the emperor not only for compliance with the legal form in the activities of the Synod, but also in essence.

The duties of the Chief Prosecutor included; 1) monitoring the implementation of state laws on the Religious Department and monitoring the timely execution of affairs; 2) reviewing the protocols of the Holy Synod before they are carried out; 3) presentation of reports of the Synod to the emperor and announcement of the Highest Commands to the Synod; 4) presence at a meeting of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers for the Affairs of the Orthodox Church; 5) through the Chief Prosecutor all communications between the Synod and ministers and other highest secular leaders were carried out; 6) all cases considered in the Senate that related to church real estate were submitted to him for preliminary conclusions; 7) the chief prosecutor was the main boss for secular officials who served in the Spiritual Department.

As a state dignitary, equal in rights to ministers, the Chief Prosecutor had with him a deputy - a comrade of the Chief Prosecutor and an office similar to departments under ministries. This office was established in 1839. In addition to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, there was also the Office of the Holy Synod, but it was also subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor. It considered and prepared cases that were approved by the Synod.