• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

1721-1917 - Holy Synod

The ecclesiastical government was, and still is, vested in the Holy Synod, consisting of five or six bishops and of lay officials representing the sovereign. The Russian hierarchy contains three Sees, which are considered to be of the first class : Kieff, Old Novogorod and St. Petersburg (united in the Metropolitan residing at the latter), and Moscow, but none of these prelates have authority out of their own dioceses. But the Holy Synod is held to possess collectively authority equal to that of a Patriarch, and, as representing the Church, ranks after the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This peculiar constitution has produced in Russia an almost Mohammedan confusion of Church and State, or at least of religion and politics. The ancient Georgian Church, which had been a dependency of Antioch and Constantinople successively, was, in 1801, incorporated in the Russian Church. Its Metropolitan, who bears the title of Georgian Exarch, has a seat in the Holy Synod.

The Russian Patriarchate came to an end in the time of Peter the Great. Peter wished, among other things, to reform the ecclesiastical administration, and to introduce into his country many novelties which the majority of the clergy and of the people regarded as heretical; and he clearly perceived that a bigoted, energetic Patriarch might throw considerable obstacles in his way, and cause him infinite annoyance. Though such a Patriarch might be deposed without any flagrant violation of the canonical formalities, the operation would necessarily be attended with great trouble and loss of time. Peter was no friend of roundabout, tortuous methods, and preferred to remove the difficulty in his usual thorough, violent fashion.

Peter the Great modernized, expanded, and consolidated Muscovy into what then became known as the Russian Empire. In the process of redefining his power as tsar, Peter curtailed the minimal secular influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was functioning principally as a pillar of the tsarist regime. When Patriarch Adrian died, in 1700, Peter abolished the office at once, and allowed the see to remain vacant for twenty years. He then nominally went back to the old order of things, and appointed Stephen Yavorski "Metropolitan of Moscow", but made him merely a servant of the Holy Synod. To emphasize the new order of things more strongly, it is related that Peter himself sat on the patriarch's throne saying in grim jest: "I am the patriarch".

In 1721 Peter the Great went so far as to abolish the patriarchate and establish a governmental organ called the Holy Synod, staffed by secular officials, to administer and control the church. When the Patriarch Adrian died, the customary short interregnum was prolonged for twenty years, and when the people had thus become accustomed to having no Patriarch, it was announced that no more Patriarchs would be elected. Their place was supplied by an ecclesiastical council, or Synod, in which, as a contemporary explained, "the mainspring was Peter's power, and the pendulum his understanding." The great autocrat justly considered that such a council could be much more easily managed than a stubborn Patriarch, and the wisdom of the measure has been duly appreciated by succeeding sovereigns.

Not until 1748 was the Eparchy or Metropolitanate of Moscow canonically established by the Holy Synod under the new order of things. Though the idea of re-establishing the Patriarchate had more than once been raised, it has never been carried into execution. The Holy Synod remained the highest ecclesiastical authority. In relation to the Orthodox Church as a whole the Emperor of Russia is nothing more than a simple member, and can no more interfere with its dogmas or ceremonial than a King of Italy or an Emperor of the French could modify Roman Catholic theology; but in relation to the Russian National Church his position is peculiar. He was described in one of the fundamental laws as " the supreme defender and preserver of the dogmas of the dominant faith," and immediately afterwards it is said that "the autocratic power acts in the ecclesiastical administration by means of the most Holy Governing Synod, created by it." This describes very fairly the relations between the Emperor and the Church. He is merely the defender of the dogmas, and cannot in the least modify them; but he is at the same time the chief administrator, and uses the Synod as an instrument.

The Synod is not a council of deputies from various sections of the Church, but a permanent college, or ecclesiastical senate, the members of which are appointed and dismissed by the Emperor as he thinks fit. It has no independent legislative authority, for its legislative projects do not become law till they have received the Imperial sanction; and they are always published, not in the name of the Church, but in the name of the Supreme Power. Even in matters of simple administration it is not independent, for all its resolutions require the consent of the Procureur, a layman nominated by his Majesty. In theory this functionary protests only against those resolutions which are not in accordance with the civil law of the country; but as he alone has the right to address the Emperor directly on ecclesiastical concerns, and as all communications between the Emperor and the Synod pass through his hands, he possesses in reality considerable power. Besides this, he can always influence the individual members by holding out prospects of advancement and decorations, and if this device fails, he can make refractory members retire, and fill up their places with men of more pliant disposition. A Council constituted in this way cannot, of course, display much independence of thought or action, especially in a country like Russia, where no one ventures to oppose openly the Imperial will.

Aspirants to the priesthood were often chosen from among the peasants; and even when they were sons of clergymen it was not expected that they should know how to read and write, to say nothing of their having any knowledge of general theology. Down to the second half of the eighteenth century, candidates had to undergo, before their ordination, an examination at the bishop's court. But this they passed quite easily: the illiterate would give money to their examiners, and were then required to learn by heart some two or three passages from the Psalter; and they were then certain to be asked to read one of these passages at the examination.

The moderate success in the practical sphere was largely due to the character of the priesthood. Few distinguished men were to be found even in the higher grades of the hierarchy. All the lower clergy were simple peasants - husbands of uncomely peasant women and fathers of many urchins - in no way distinguished from their neighbors except by trade. One man is a cobbler, and knows how to make boots and shoes ; another is a priest, and knows how to read the Mass. The peasant regarded the two trades as on the same footing. He had no doubt that it is as necessary to be prayed for as to wear boots. But the ceremonies performed by the priest are for him simply practical operations with a view to his comfort in another world, and not intended to ennoble his life down here.

By and by the clergy became so numerous that there was no room for more. So they formed a levitic caste, whose social position was a flagrant contradiction to their spiritual vocation. The caste of the clergy prevented, rather than increased, the spread of a deeper religious instruction and feeling among the Russian people.

The peasants hated them for their greediness and rapacity - vices that were provoked by the material difficulties of a Russian clergyman's life. For they, receiving no fixed appointments from the government, were obliged to live on voluntary contributions. Generally these were very modest. Thus the village priests were obliged to wear peasant's clothes and to work in the fields; and accordingly they were quite unable to inspire their spiritual flock with respect or deference.

The squires looked down on them and did not spare them any humiliation. On a holiday a parson was obliged to call on his squire, bringing the cross, to sing some prayers in his drawingroom. Then he was invited to drink, and after both the host and the guest had become tipsy, the parson ran the risk of a beating or of a ducking in the manoriaf pond; of being bitten by the squire's dogs, or flogged until he swooned; sometimes he had to flee for his life. Indeed, as late as the middle of the nineteenth century, all the innumerable whims of a drunken squire could with entire impunity be inflicted upon his parson.

The church's moral authority declined in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The continuity of religious life in the official church was stopped. The ritualistic tendencies, far from being weakened thereby, increased proportionately as the indifference in matters of religion prevailed. The bishops and priests became state officials. All independence of spirit vanished, together with the inner religious life of the church. Religion became the instrument by which the instructed class governed the illiterate crowd; i.e., the irreligious few, the equally irreligious multitude. The many who were religious were obliged to search for a substitute, and to live their religious life (whatever that life might be) outside the "true fold" of the official church.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the monastic tradition produced a number of church elders who gained the respect of all classes in Russia as wise counselors on both secular and spiritual matters. Similarly, by 1900 a strong revival movement was calling for the restoration of church autonomy and organizational reform. However, few practical reforms had been implemented when the October Revolution of 1917 brought to power the Bolsheviks, who set about eliminating the worldly and spiritual powers of the church.

In 1917 the moderate Provisional Government had provided the church a few months of restoration to its pre-Petrine stature by re-establishing the patriarchate and independent governance of the church. In the decades that followed, the communist leadership frequently used the restored patriarch as a propaganda agent, allowing him to meet with foreign religious representatives in an effort to create the impression of freedom of religion in the Soviet Union.