Reason to Doubt MP is Historic Church

A Lengthy in depth Study,

Strong Reasons to Doubt that the 'MP' is the continuation of the Historic Russian Church

Original Russian:

 http://internetsobor.org/moskovskaia-patriarkhiia/tcerkovnye-novosti/world-orthodoxy/moskovskaia-patriarkhiia/ustav-russkoi-pravoslavnoi-tcerkvi-dopustimo-li-otozhdestvlenie-rptc-i-prtc

A human translation, kindly done by Vladimir Djambov in Sofia, from this Russian language article, found on: Internet Sobor

THANK YOU BROTHER VLADIMIR!

Category: A serious scholarly contribution, but not hitting all the various other also applicable aspects,  to the central canonical and legalistic historical issues related to the  crucial debate, as to the credibility or authenticity of the so-called, 'Moscow Patriarchate', which pseudo-Russian Church organization, Joseph Stalin founded in 1943.  This historical issue is at the very center of why the current Moscow-MP 'church' organization, is not the canonical or legitimate continuation of the pre-revolutionary historical Russian Church, etc.

 *An amplified humanly done, English translation with some added explanatory notes, .....for those who read only English:

Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church:
Is It Permissible to Identify the 'ROC' [i.e. the 'Russian Orthodox Church' of the Stalin created in 1943, 'Moscow Patriarchate' organization,  the so-called.. 'MP' ], with

The  'ORC'? [The historic and canonical, genuine.. Orthodox Russian Church, whose last valid Patriarch was St. Confessor Tikhon (Belavin)] -? 

Author Fr. Valery Leonichev incl. on March 12, 2015 . Posted in the Moscow Patriarchate (Views: 45)

Currently, both ecclesiastical and secular experts in the fields of history, of state and ecclesiastical law. are bypassing the important question: whether or not the modern Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), the so-called, "ROC-MP",  is a legitimate heir to the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Russian Church (ORC) [1]? By default it is considered (in fact – postulated) that ROC and ORC are both historically and legally one [and the same] in  essence, that they are identical. However, this is by far not obvious, if only because of the fact that the major legal document of ROC – the "Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church" [2] gives a rather contradicting answer to this question.

Prior to 1917, Russia [3], likewise as Byzantium previously, constituted together with the universal Orthodox Church a single [united] church-and-political body, a single organism. One of the indices of this unity was the impossibility to draw a clear boundary line between the secular (in its now usual sense) and the church legislation. At that, Russian law knew no such entity as the Orthodox Russian Church [4]. Nevertheless, the structural establishments of the ORC (churches, monasteries, religious educational institutions, the Holy Governing Synod etc.) were certain legal entities [units] with their rights. And, mind you, the legal rights of all the structural establishments of the ORC were quite limited: for example, for every purchase-and-sale of real estate they needed to seek permission through the Holy Synod from the Emperor. The process of the Church's "alienation" from the state began only after the overthrow of the monarchy in March 1917, under the Provisional Government. [5]

The Bolsheviks, who had seized power, issued on January 21, 1918, a decree "On freedom of conscience, church and religious societies", better known under the title "On the separation of the Church from the state and of schools from the Church." It began with the words: "The Church is getting separated from the state" [6]. Having separated the ORC from the State, the Bolsheviks equated it to private companies [societies] and unions. In doing so they not only failed to provide it with any rights of a legal entity (which, again, it had not had), but also all of its structural establishments were deprived by that same decree of any rights of a legal entity [7]. After which, under the notorious Soviet persecutions of the clergy, the ORC, not having any state registration whatever, legally ceased to exist as a centralized organization. In fact, it was atomized into separate de jure "unknown" state units – dioceses, monasteries, Churches.

And although from July 16 (29), 1927, on – after the publication of the notorious "Declaration" by the Deputy of the Patriarchal locum tenens. Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas (Stragorodsky) [8] – part of the bishops followed suit after its author in cooperating with the United State Political Administration (OGPU) and in opportunism with the Soviet regime, stil this fact does not allow us to assert synonymously that Sergius helmed the ORC. After all there was no single ORC as such: neither de jure, nor – by and large – de facto.

Sergius Stragorodsky was placed by the Soviet power de jure and de facto only as the head of one of the "fragments" left over from the historical ORC. At that the said "fragment" was hardly the biggest one: it is necessary, indeed, to take into consideration the fact that all of the multitudinous "non-commemorators' of Metropolitan Sergius, did not relate to his jurisdiction. [9]

In early September 1943, on the basis of this "Sergianist fragment" of the ORC, Joseph V. Stalin created a large and powerful structure with a new name – the "Russian Orthodox Church" (ROC). In particular, altered was the title of the Patriarch of Moscow: instead of "... and of All Russia" it became, "... and of All Russ'." Since that time the episcopate of the ROC actually became part of the Soviet "aristocracy" [10]. And its representatives – all through to the late Soviet times – were in close cooperation with the authorities of the country, taking part, for example, in the propaganda of socialism (both within the USSR, and beyond its borders), as well as in the organization of persecutions of the other "fragments" of ORC.

Regarding the succession of the ROC from ORC, the ROC "founding documents" give rather conflicting answers.

On the one hand, the acting since 1991 Civil Statutes of the ROC, declares a historical succession of the ROC from the ORC (ch. I, item 2): "The Russian Orthodox Church has had its historical existence since the Baptism of Russ', which took place in 988 in Kiev under the Grand Prince Vladimir. Since 1448 it has been an autocephalous Church. In the periods 1589-1700; 1917-1925; and since 1943 it had and has a Patriarchal form of management. Until 1942 it was known as the Local Russian Orthodox Church. The current name has come into use since 1943."[11]

On the other hand, the ROC Statutes acting since 2000, never say a thing on any legal and historical succession of the ROC from ORC. The Statutes finds (Ch. I, item 4): "The Russian Orthodox Church, with respect for and compliance with the laws existing in each state, operates on the basis of: a) the Sacred Scripture and the Holy Tradition; b) the canons and rules of the Holy Apostles, of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and of the Holy Fathers; c) the decrees of its Local Councils and Councils of Bishops, the Sacred Synod (! – M.B.) and the Decrees of the Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russ'; and d) on this Statutes [book]". [12]

It is not hard a task to notice that in the quoted paragraph (as well as elsewhere in the Statutes), no mention is made of the church-and-state acts of the period of the Russian Empire: in the first place – of decrees and definitions of the Holy Ruling Synod of the ORC. The Sacred Synod of the ROC – mentioned in the Statutes – is a completely different (!) body of the Higher church government, than the Holy Synod. The former was established by Tsar Peter I on January 25, 1721, and existed until February 1 (14), 1918 [13], while the latter was created by a Local Council [14] on December 7, 1917 [15].

In other words, the Statutes of the ROC named only those sets of acts on the church "legislation" that had been created either as early as in the ancient Church, or already in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. All the set of legislative acts on the clergy, released since the XVIII century (if not even earlier: since the Baptism of Russ' [16]) up to 1917, are never mentioned in the main document of the ROC. At that, that legal setting has not been rescinded by the ecclesiastical authority, by and large (if we do not go into particulars) [17]. Thus, the church-and-state acts of the synodal period in the ROC were actually "not imposed " [18]. There is, thus,  a certain "failure" of the sources of rights of the ROC.

What has conditioned the appearance of this "failure"? Was it the legal illiteracy of those who wrote and passed the basic legal document of the ROC? Or was it the fact that the ROC is a completely different structure than the ORC? In our opinion, we should discard the first version: after all the acting Statutes of the ROC, as already mentioned, was adopted by the Council of Bishops in 2000 and by the Local Council in 2009 (by the so-called "Conciliar mind of the Church"), which one can hardly suspect as being "illiterate". What remains is to accept the second version: after all, under the Statutes of the ROC, there is no legal succession of the ROC,  from the ORC.

It should be taken into consideration that the decrees and definitions of the Holy Synod – in their quality of being the sources of the rights of the ROC – are not even named in the academic literature issued in the ROC [19]. At the same time, on the pages of those publications it is claimed that the state laws about the Orthodox Church of the pre-revolutionary period, "not been authorized by the supreme ecclesiastical authority" have lost their power (on the power of what, is not explained). There again it is stated [and found]: "Under the new state-and-legal conditions of the external situation of the Church in the state, as is defined by the modern state law. [...] The right of the state government of the Russian Empire to legislate on internal church affairs had from the very beginning  not had enough canonical grounds."[20] Still the same, the Holy Synod – a part of the highest state institutions of the Russian Empire – was authorising almost all state acts relating to the clergy. Moreover, decrees and definitions of the supreme body of ecclesiastical government were part of the Russian law system. And this is why this. keeping silent about [defaulting] about that array of church-and-legal norms of ORC on the pages of the ROC textbooks, ROC itself, serves as further evidence in favor of the absence with the ROC of any legal succession from the ORC.

The question arises: what was the legislation relating to  the groundwork of the ORC's operations? The "Statutes of Spiritual Consistories", 1841, stated (Section I, Art. 6): "The groundworks of the diocesan administration and the court are [in essence]: a) the Law of God, as proffered in the Sacred Scriptures; b) Canons or Rules of the Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and of the Holy Fathers; c) Spiritual Regulations [21] and the subsequent imperial decrees and definitions of the Holy Governing Synod (Emphasis added. – M.B.); and d) civil statutes.[22]" With an exactness almost to the letter, the same was repeated in the "Statutes of Spiritual Consistories" edition of 1883 [23]. Thus, the ORC, unlike the ROC, formulated among the sources of ecclsiastical rights the definitions of the Holy Governing Synod. That is, the set of norms of ecclesiastical rights contained in the ROC Statutes (which does not mention the definition of the Holy Governing Synod) witnesses that the ROC itself believes that it is "another church", different than the ORC. At the same time, however, the ROC Civil Statute formally postulates the opposite ...

As a whole, from a historical point of view, the modern ROC  the 'MP'] may be considered the successor to the pre-revolutionary ORC only with a certain degree of conditionality. From a legal point of view, there is no succession of the ROC from the ORC: as evidenced by the reviewed situation of the now acting ROC Statutes [24]. And this is why the use as if identical, of the names and abbreviations "ROC" and "ORC", strictly speaking, is incorrect.

Notes

[1] The legislation of the Russian Empire and in other official papers – both secular and ecclesiastical (up to 1942) used the name "The Orthodox Russian Church." Often, however, also used was the name "Russian Orthodox", "All-Russian Orthodox," "Orthodox Catholic Greco-Russian", "Orthodox Greco-Russian" and "Russian Orthodox" Church. At that, the corresponding abbreviations (such as "ORC" or "ROC") were not used. After September 1943, however, when a religious organization with the fixed name of "the Russian Orthodox Church" appeared on the scene (on which there will be further discussion below), established in the historiography was the abbreviation of "ROC". (Probably the abbreviated name arose by analogy with the widespread in that period abbreviations of "USSR" and "CPSU" [communist party]). The same abbreviation began to be used also in relation to the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Russian Church.

ROC has another official name – "The Moscow Patriarchate", which is fixed in the ROC Statutes of 1988 and of 2000. (Ch. I, item 2) (see: Statutes on the Government of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1989. p. 3; Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 2000. p. 3). Currently, unofficial sources often use instead of the abbreviation "ROC" – "ROC MP" (by analogy, for example, with "the UOC-MP" and "UOC-KP", denoting, respectively, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate) .

[2] The first time in the history, this adoption  of the ROC Statutes, was adopted by the Local Council on June 8, 1988 (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (hereinafter – JMP). 1988. issue 9. pp. 19-20; see: Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. M. , 1989). The next occasion, was when the incumbent Statutes were adopted by the Council of Bishops in 2000 and approved [endorsed] by the Local Council of 2009. In 2008 and in 2011 the Council of Bishops made some additions and amendments to it. The Council of Bishops of 2013, adopted a "revised and expanded edition of the Statutes. In it, instead of the previous 18 chapters, there were 23. (See: Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 2000; JMP. 2008. issue 8. pp. 19-20, 2009. issue 2. p. 20, 2011. №issue 3. pp. 73-77, 2013. issue 3. p. 10; http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428872.html, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/543677.html, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1403020.html, http://sobor.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1403020.html and http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/document/133114/ .)

[3] On the status of the various denominations in Russia in the period XVII-XXI centuries see: Galuzo V. N., Constitutional-and-legal status of Russia: the problem of denominations of the state // Bulletin of Moscow University of the Interior Ministry of Russian. 2010. issue 5. pp. 119-123.

[4] In Imperial Russia the functions of the state and of the church were intertwined: the state performed part of the traditional church affairs (e.g., public charity, education), the ORC also acted as the judicial, executive and in part legislative authority. On the interaction [mutual influence] of the state and ecclesiastical law in the period XVIII – early XX centuries, see Dorsk A. A., 'State and Ecclesial Law of the Russian Empire: Issues of Interaction and Mutual Influence'. SPb., 2004.

The current ROC Statutes state: (Ch. I, item 5): "The Russian Orthodox Church was registered as [in its capacity of] a legal entity in the Russian Federation as a centralized religious organization" (Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2000. p. 4; or: http: // www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133115.html ).

[5] For more detailed information about relevant developments and political positions of the clergy see: 'Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917'. (Materials and archive documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church) / Comp., author of the preface and comments – M. A. Babkin. M., 2008. p. 23-424; Babkin M. A., Priesthood and Kingdom (Russia, beginning of XX century – 1918). Research and materials. M., 2011. p. 197-556). On the pre-requisites and causes of the Revolution of 1917 see: Mironov B. N., Welfare of the population and revolutions in Imperial Russia: XVIII – beginning of XX century. M., 2012. p. 563-703.

[6] Proceedings of the Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Peasants', Workers' and Soldiers' MPs and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' MPs. 1918. issue 16 (280). January 21. p. 2; Additions to the Church Registers [Vedomost-s]. 1918. issue 2. pp. 98-99.

[7] On August 11 (24), 1918, the People's Commissariat of Justice adopted – and published on the 17 (30) of the same month – "Instructions" for the enactment in life of the decree "On the separation of the church from the state and the schools from the church." In it, among other things, regulated in detail were the relationship of the local authorities and the religious societies and organizations: the latter were deprived of any rights of legal entities. (See: Proceedings of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Peasants', workers', soldiers' and Cossacks' MPs and of the Moscow Soviet of Workers' and Red-Army MPs. 1918. issue 186 (450). August 30th. p. 5; Collection of Legalizations and Dispositions [writs] of the Workers' and Peasants' Government for 1918, M., 1942. issue 62. Art. 685. pp. 849-858.) The "Instruction" contained an incorrectness: it said that the Orthodox Church "is deprived of" the rights of a legal entity. However, the ORC, as a single centralized organization, has never had this right (what was already discussed). The same decree of 21 January 1918 mentioned the above stated fact, that the ORC (as well as any other ecclesiastical and religious societies) has no rights of legal entity.

[8] "The Message" (or the "Declaration", "On the relation of the Orthodox Russian Church to the existing civil authority") of July 16 (29), 1927, marked the beginning of the rapprochement and the close cooperation of significant part of the clergy of the historical ORC with the Soviet state. The "Declaration" was signed by Deputy of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Sergius (Stragorodsky) and by members of the Provisional with him Patriarchal Sacred Synod. (See its text: Известия ЦИК СССР и ВЦИК (Proceedings of the USSR Central Executive Committee and Supreme Central Executive Committee). 1927. issue 188 (3122). 19 August. p. 4). The "Declaration" was not recognized by a significant part of the clergy: mainly – hierarchs and pastors belonging to the "Catacomb" and the "Zarubezhny" [Abroad] churches. The part of the historical ORC that followed suit to cooperate with the Soviet authorities, they began calling it the "Soviet" or the "Red" church. (About this see, for example: I. M. Andreyev, On the State of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union, The Catacomb Church in the USSR. A report read on December 7, 1950, before the Council of Bishops. NY, Jordanville, 1951; Anthony [Sinkevich] Bishop of Los Angeles. On the situation of the Church in Soviet Russia and on the spiritual life of the Russian people. A report to the Council of Bishops in 1959 by the Bishop of Los Angeles, Anthony. NY, Jordanville, 1960; M. Polsky priest. The position of the Church in Soviet Russia. An essay by a priest who escaped from Russia. SPb., 1995).

[9] We leave aside the issue of the non-obviousness of the legal succession from ORC of the supreme ecclesiastical authority of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) (since September 8, 1943 – the first 'patriarch' of the ROC). On this subject see, e.g. M. Polsky, priest, Decree. cit.; Moss V., Orthodox Church at the Crossroads. (1917-1999) / Translated from English. – translation editor Senin. SPb., 2001. p. 117-172; Lavrov V. M., V. V. Lobanov, Lobanov I. V., A. V. Mazyrin, The hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate and the State in a Revolutionary Period. M., 2008. p. 302, 305-307.

[10] After the "turning point" in the Great Fatherland War, September 4, 1943, held in the Kremlin was the historical meeting of the General Secretary [ Joseph Stalin], with three bishops of the ROC: with the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Sergius (Stragorodsky), with the Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Alexy (Simansky) and with the Exarch of Ukraine, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Nicholas (Yarushevich) (Proceedings of the Soviets of the USSR MPs of the workers. 1943. issue 210 (8203). September 5. p. 1). The "God-placed Leader" (the repeated naming of J. V. Stalin by Patriarch Sergius. – M.B.) ordered that the ROC be provided a number of rooms, that the higher hierarchs be provided with food products, transport, fuel, he allowed the election of a patriarch, the opening of parishes and of religious schools. That day began the beginning to a new stage of interaction of the ROC with the Soviet state. Investigators characterize it as "the Russian Church in the center of 'big politics'" (M. V. Shkarovsky, The Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev. (Church-and-state relations in the USSR in 1939-1964.). Moscow, 2005 pp. 284-286; Bolotov S. V., The Russian Orthodox Church and the international politics of the USSR in the 1930s - 1950s. M., 2011. pp. 68-286).

At the end of World War II, on August 22, 1945, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, adopted a decree, which gave the church bodies (the Moscow Patriarchate, the Diocesan Departments, parish communities and monasteries) the legal rights to purchase vehicles, to produce church utensils, objects of religious cult and to sell these objects to communities of believers, to lease, build and purchase the property in buildings for church needs with the permissions by the officials mandated [уполномоченных] by the Council for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in the provinces, territories, and the republics (Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet era. 1917-1991. Materials and documents on the history of relations between state and Church / Comp. G. Shtrikker. M., 1995. Bk. 1. pp. 364-365).

[11] JMP. 1991. issue 10. p. 11.

[12] Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2000. p. 3-4; http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419782.html

[13] Synod (in Greek – σύνοδος, means Council), or permanently acting "small church council." The Sacred Synod, equated with its power to the power [mandates] of the Patriarch, was initially called the "Spiritual Collegiate, i.e. Spiritual Conciliar Government." On February 12, 1721, Tsar Peter I ordered that at liturgies, prayers be offered up "For the Holy Synod or the Holy Governing Synod" (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire since 1649 (hereinafter – the CCL-1). SPb., 1830. vol. VI: 1720-1722, Art. 3734. pp. 355-356; Complete Collection of decisions and orders in the Department of Orthodox confession (hereinafter – CCDaO). SPb., 1879. Vol, 1: 1721 pp. 33-34).

[14] The Local Council of ORC opened on August 15, 1917. In its composition who were elected and appointed to official positions, were 564 people: [namely] 80 bishops (i.e. just about every other of the total number of "full-time" hierarchs of the ROC at that time), 129 persons of presbyter's rank [dignity], 10 deacons from the white (married) clergy, 26 acolytes [psalm-chanters], 20 monastics (archimandrites, abbots [hegumens] and hieromonks) and 299 laymen. (See: Church statements [ведомости]. 1917. issue 29. pp. 207-211; Acts of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, 1917-1918. M., 1994. vol. 1. pp. 11-20, 60-133).

About the Local Council of 1917-1918. see, for example: Firsov S. L., The Russian Church on the eve of changes. (End of 1890-s – 1918.) Moscow, 2002. p. 535-565; Hyacinth (Destivel'), a priest, a monk. The Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918 and the principle of catholicity / Trans. from French, M., 2008; Babkin M. A., The Priesthood and the Kingdom ... Decree. Comp. p. 453-461, 471-496.

[15] On November 5, 1917, into the Russian patriarchate's office,  emptied by Tsar Peter I on January 25, 1721, the ORC Local Council elected Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow and Kolomna (Belavin). A month later, on December 7, that same Local Council passed the definitions "On the Sacred Synod and the Supreme Church Council", as well as elected by secret ballot the members of the Sacred Synod. The Sacred Synod was formed not as a result of a "transformation" of the Holy Governing Synod, not on the "basis" of it, but as a completely new church authority [establishment]. On the next day, on the 8th of [December] the Local Council adopted the definition "On the Rights and Obligations of the Holy Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia" and "On the scope of activities answerable  to the bodies of the higher church government." The mandates of the previous supreme body of the church government (the Holy Governing Synod) were distributed between the new establishments – the Patriarch, the Sacred Synod, and the Supreme Church Council. (Acts of the Sacred Council ... 1996. Vol. 5, Act 61. pp. 325-334, 345; Act 62. pp. 347-349, 352-355; Act 63. pp. 356-362; Collection of definitions and decrees of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918. M., 1994. Reprint of 1918 Vol. 1. pp. 4-16).

On January 31, 1918, the Local Council ruled that "the Sacred Synod and the Supreme Church Council shall assume their duties as of February 1st, 1918" (Acts of the Sacred Council ... 1996. Vol. 6. Act 74. p. 207). And on the first day of February (along with the country's transition to the Gregorian calendar style) issued was a definition of "The Holy Governing [Ruling] (sic! – M. B.) Synod" of ROC. It read: "... have ordered: In view of the passed ruling [decree] of the Holy held (hereinafter emphasis added. – M. B.) Council [of January 31, 1918], the Holy Synod defines: to assume its mandates [powers] [as being] completed [over] and all the affairs of the Holy Synod honors to be reckoned transferred [on] to the Holy Patriarch, the Sacred Synod, and the Supreme Church Council "(Church statements. 1918. issue 7-8. p. 37; Acts of the Sacred Council ... 1999. Vol. 7. Act 84. p. 25).

On the morning of February 3 (16), 1918, at a plenary meeting of the Local Council there were adopted "Outlines for the launching of the Sacred Synod and the Supreme Church Council in their ministry." That document states, among other things, this: "1. The Sacred Synod and the Supreme Church Council enter into execution of their ministry as of February 1, 1918, and assume from the Holy Synod all the affairs of church government. [...] 3. The Office [administration] of the Sacred Synod and other institutions with it, go in their full composition in  governing. to the new bodies (Emphasis added. – M. B.) of the Supreme Church Authority" (Acts of the Holy Council ... 1996. Vol. 6. Act 76. p. 246). The first united presence of the two new bodies of church government under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, was held at that same time: at 12 o'clock. On it the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon (Belavin) spoke a welcome address. In it, in particular, attention of the attendees was drawn to the coincidence of the dates: on February 14, 1721, the Holy Governing Synod commenced its work, and on the same day (February 14, although it was on the new calendar), 1918, it ceased its activities (CCDaO. 1879. Vol. 1: 1721, pp. 33-34; Additions to the Church statements. Pg., 1918. issue 5. pp. 198-199, issue 7-8. pp. 322-323; Acts of the Sacred Council ... 1999 . Vol. 7. Act 84. p. 26).

Thus, the definitions mentioned of the Local Council and the Holy Governing Synod, as well as the address mentioned of the Patriarch, reflected the fact that the new establishments of managing the ORC set up in November-December 1917, had their beginning from the Local Council, and not at all from the "Imperial" Holy Governing Synod. – a "heritage of tsarism" in the Russian Church.

[16] The author of this article does not set for himself the task of making a strict definition and justification of the chronological timeframes of the existence of the ORC and of the ROC.

[17] For example, one of the key fixed [unaltered] norms [provisions] of the Russian law, which until 1917 determined the order of the succeeding of the personal belongings of [departed] monastic Orthodox clergy, was that all monastics, without exception, (including the bishops) were deprived of the rights of acquiring, owning, and inheriting real estates. This norm, first voiced in the Code of the Council of 1649 (Ch. XVII, v. 42-44), during two and a half centuries – on various occasions – was repeatedly reiterated in the highest of acts, decisions of the Senate and the definitions of the supreme bodies of church management [administration]. (See: CCL-1. 1830. Vol. I. Art. 1. pp. 96-98, Vol. VII. Art. 4450. p. 230, Vol. XIV. Art. 10237. p. 148, Vol. XXIII. Art. 17488. pp. 916-917, Vol. XXXI. Art. 24246. p. 200, Vol. XXXII. Art. 25162. p. 373; Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. 2nd Coll. [Compilation] (hereinafter – CCL-2). SPb., 1832. Vol. VI. Dep. two. Art. 4844 (§ 9). p. 98; Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. 3rd Coll. [Compilation] (hereinafter – CCL-3). St. Petersburg ., 1886. Vol. III. Art. 1495. pp. 126-128.) Although these norms of canon law were not rescinded by any instances [establishments], in the ROC, they were simply...'forgotten'. (For details See: Babkin M. A., Regulation of property rights of the Orthodox monastic clergy in the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" (rel. 1876-1917) // Law and the State: Theory and Practice. 2012. issue 11 (95). pp. 96-105; same author. The issue of the personal property of the inhabitants of monastery in the documents of the Preconciliar Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (July 1917) // Domestic [Fatherland] archives. 2013. issue 4. pp. 60-66; same author. Peculiar Features of the Legal Regulation on the Status of a Bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church (since 1917) // Law and Life. 2014. issue 1 (187). p. 164-183; same author. The Right of bequeathal [of belongings or property],  by monastics: Decisions of 1917 // Questions of history. 2014. issue 2. pp. 3-16.)

[18] On the continuity from the ORC nothing, was mentioned, either, in the first ROC Statutes, adopted by the Local Council on June 8, 1988. It stated [found] (Chap. I, p. 4): "The Russian Orthodox Church operates on the basis of: a) the Sacred Scripture and the Holy Tradition; b) the Canons and Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers; c) the decrees of its Local Councils; and on d) this Statutes [book], while respecting and observing the state laws" (Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1989. p. 3).

[19] See, e.g.: Tsypin V.A., archpriest. Ecclesiastical law. A course of lectures. M., 1994. p. 116-119; same author. A course on canon law. Textbook. Klin, 2004. p. 149-159; same author. Canon law. M., 2009. p. 248-260.

[20] V. A. Tsypin, archpriest. A course on canon law. Decree. Comp. 2004. p. 159; same author. Canon law. 2009. p. 259. Almost literally this thesis sounded earlier as well; see same author. Church law. ... Decree. Comp. 1994. p. 118.

[21] The preamble of the "Spiritual Regulations" released on January 25, 1721, stated that the foundation of [reason for] the synodal church government is: "The Law of God, proffered in the Scriptures, as well as in canons, or rules of the councils [,] of the Holy Fathers and civil statutes that are consonant to the word of God, require their own book and do not interfere [herewith]" (CCL-1. 1830. Vol. VI: 1720-1722. Art. 3718. pp. 315-316; CCDaO. 1879. Vol. 1: 1721 v. 1 p. 2-3).

[22] Inasmuch as in the Russian Empire, the  state and the ORC were merged in one, the state laws – regulating various aspects of the activities of the clergy – did also become the norms of church law.

[23] See: CCL-2. 1842. Vol. XVI. Dep. one: 1841 Art. 14409. p. 222; CCL-3. 1886. Vol. III: 1883 Art. 1495. p. 111.

[24] As a result of this conclusion being made, the question arises, whether or not,... the possession by the ROC of property, formerly located with the pre-revolutionary ORC, is this legitimate? The search for an answer to this question requires a separate study.

Author: Michael Anatolyevich BABKIN, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor.

* Published here is the author's version of the text. With minor editorial revisions the article was released on the pages of the magazine, published by the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Source: Babkin M. A., Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church: Is It Permissible to Identify ROC and ORC? // Social studies and the present. M., 2015. issue 1. pp 108-114.

http://religiopolis.org/publications/8735-nekorrektnoe-tozhdestvo.html

http://rpczmoskva.org.ru/stati/mixail-babkin-ustav-russkoj-pravoslavnoj-cerkvi-dopustimo-li-otozhdestvlenie-rpc-i-prc.html