Home Coated tongue What is a metropolitanate in the church? Metropolis - a new form of interaction between dioceses

Coated tongue

What is a metropolitanate in the church? Metropolis - a new form of interaction between dioceses

Subsequently, in particular in the Russian Church (from the time of the establishment of the patriarchate until the beginning of the 21st century), a metropolis was also called a diocese headed by a metropolitan, but not having subordinate bishops. A similar situation persists in the Greek Orthodox Church, where de facto all ruling bishops (except the primate) have the title of metropolitan and head “metropolises”.

During the Roman Empire

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

In 1596-1620, the Kyiv Metropolis was in a union. After the renewal, it existed as part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - until it joined the Moscow Patriarchate in 1687.

The question of creating metropolises in the Russian Church was raised at Moscow church councils of the 17th century, but then only four metropolitanates were created: Moscow, Kazan, Astrakhan, 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 metropolis was actually just 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, the issue again began to be discussed by diocesan bishops, clergy, church scientists and the public. 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...”.

At the turn of the 1920-1930s, the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and the temporary Synod under him, in pursuance of the resolution of the Local Council, formed church regions (districts) and adopted the Regulations on the powers of the regional bishop. 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, 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 the abbot:

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 into a metropolitanate.

The Commission of the Inter-Council Presence on Church Administration and Mechanisms for the Implementation of Conciliarity in the Church developed proposals for coordinating the activities of dioceses located in the same region.

On October 6, 2011, the “Regulations on the Metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church” were approved, and as a result, a three-tier structure for 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.

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

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.

In the Russian Orthodox Church

Orthodox metropolitanates 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 grand duchies 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.

The question of creating metropolises in the Russian Church was raised at Russian church councils of the 17th century, 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. 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...”.

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 into a metropolitanate.

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

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 must coincide with the borders of one of the 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Moreover, along with dioceses formed within several regions that are part of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, there are also dioceses that include the entire territory of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and are not part of the metropolitanate.

Write a review about the article "Metropolis"

Notes

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!" 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 yielded until the 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 twisted legs in boots, was hardly walking up the hill.) Prince Bagration did not give a new order and still walked silently in front of the ranks. Suddenly, one shot cracked between the French, another, a third... and smoke spread through all the disorganized enemy ranks and gunfire crackled. Several of our men fell, including the round-faced officer, who was walking so cheerfully and diligently. But at the same instant the first shot rang out, Bagration looked back and shouted: “Hurray!”
“Hurray aa aa!” a drawn-out scream echoed along our line and, overtaking Prince Bagration and each other, our people ran down the mountain in a discordant, but cheerful and animated crowd 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 put out the fire, carried by the wind, and gave time to retreat. The retreat of the center through the ravine was hasty and noisy; however, the troops, retreating, did not mix up their commands. 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 orders to immediately retreat.
Zherkov smartly, without removing his hand from his cap, touched his horse and galloped off. But as soon as he drove away from Bagration, 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, which 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’m a Russian general, and if you don’t know this...
“It’s 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, who had just managed to mount the 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 fuckers,” Denisov’s voice sounded, “ysyo, magician!”
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. At first this tree was 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 ours were, where the French were, he didn’t know. There was no one around.

The section is very easy to use. Just enter the desired word in the field provided, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.

Meaning of the word metropolis

metropolis in the crossword dictionary

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

metropolis

metropolis, w. (Greek metropolis) (church). Diocese is an ecclesiastical district subordinate to the metropolitan. Kyiv Metropolitanate. ? The main (cathedral) city of this district.

New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.

metropolis

decomposition A church located in the main city of the metropolitan district, in which the metropolitan constantly serves.

Wikipedia

Metropolis

Metropolis, which is under the canonical authority of the metropolitan. In the ancient Church it was called. 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.

Examples of the use of the word metropolis in literature.

And, speaking about the host of our prayer books, I would like to remember today that it was on this day that it was forty years since the death of Bishop Metropolitan Gregory - the great archpastor, confessor, the one who contributed to the revival of this sacred metropolis during the difficult years of the life of the Church.

The idea, which naturally appeared for the first time when Andrei Bogolyubsky decided to give Northern Rus' a separate, independent existence and even dominion over Southern Russia, - this idea came true when both halves of Rus' were divided into two equally powerful and hostile dynasties: as a result of this division, the metropolis, and the intermediate phenomena, again due to political phenomena, were the formation of a separate Galician metropolis and the transfer of the Kyiv metropolitan table to the north.

That he, this rude Litvin, cannot understand that he himself is tearing apart the body of the Orthodox Church and involuntarily pushing towards separation from metropolis and Novgorod the Great, and Vladimir Rus'?

The departure of the ruler to the north prompted the Galich princes to ask the Constantinople patriarch to arrange a special metropolis in southwestern Rus'.

And he saw correctly, for a new turmoil was happening in Constantinople, and Vladika Moses was sent a golden seal and baptized vestments and a letter from the new Patriarch Philotheus, citing which he erected a new one against metropolis Moscow.

Following the sending of baptized vestments to the new Archbishop Moses, a patriarchal letter, signed by Kokkin, went to Novgorod, demanding strict submission from the Novgorodians to the Vladimir metropolis.

The chronicles say that Zosima left metropolis not of his own free will, but was removed for his passion for wine and for negligence about the church.

In Kyiv, the ambassadors were supposed to take Cyprian with them in order to collectively depose both from the throne of the ill-fated Russian metropolis.

In fact, such a hot fire of various disputes, disputes and boyar troubles flared up around the position of the thousand, that the Grand Duke decided not to do anything without the advice of his metropolitan, and Alexy, after Velyaminov’s funeral, went around metropolis and he didn’t promise to be in Pereyaslavl soon.

Cyprian welcomed everyone, reaffirmed others in their rights, considering all Pimenov’s ordinations to be untrue, after which he actively began to restore order in metropolis, almost immediately upon arrival, summoning the isographer Theophanes the Greek from Nizhny, whom he commissioned to paint, among other things, the Assumption Cathedral in Kolomna.

And the godson Alexy came to the liking of Theognostus and is already ruling affairs metropolis, and the canonization of the late Metropolitan Peter was procured in Constantinople from Caesar and the patriarch.

Separate Lithuanian metropolis will inevitably be swallowed up by the Latins if it does not find support in the co-religious princely power!

Kafa, worried and unnecessarily fiddling with the sleeves of the expensive weekend Russian flyer, began to talk about Dacian’s embassy with Perdiccas, about Cyprian’s activities in Lithuania and the latter’s plans to unite the newly disintegrated Russian metropolis under his own control, about the failure of the embassy, about the fact that the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry does not want Cyprian and, apparently, longs to place his printer Mikhail-Mityai on the metropolitan throne, when Vladyka Alexy dies and makes room for a new contender, and at the same time, it will untie the hands of the Genoese merchants, who are now, solely on the recommendation of the Russian Metropolitan, not allowed to go north to the cheap abundance of fur.

In Rostov, the local bishop, Matthew Grechin, died, Pimen was on the run, and metropolis stood without its head.

Yes, Patriarch Nile and the Synclite still believe that metropolis should be united, but...

26.10.2011

The creation of metropolises on the territory of Russia was one of the most important decisions of the Holy Synod, adopted at the last meeting, held on October 5-6, 2011. The activities of the metropolises are regulated by a new document - the Regulations on the metropolises of the Russian Orthodox Church. The main provisions of this document are commented on in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (No. 11, 2011) by the Deputy Administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate and Secretary of the Commission of the Inter-Council Presence on Church Administration and Mechanisms for the Implementation of Conciliarity, Hegumen Savva (Tutunov).

Father Savva, in the new Regulations the metropolis is named one of the forms of organizing interaction between dioceses. What other forms of such interaction exist? What is involved in creating a new form?

Today in the Russian Orthodox Church the forms of territorial unification of dioceses can be different. If we go from large to small, then these are, first of all, self-governing Churches, exarchates, metropolitan districts and metropolises. In all cases, except for metropolises, their own synod and synodal institutions are formed.

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 into a metropolitan area.

The very concept of “metropolis” appears not for the first time in the history of the Church and has some prototype in the form of those metropolises that existed in the ancient Church. Of course, etymologically, a “metropolis” is more likely the center of a region, the main city, rather than a territory, but I believe that the terminology should not cause much concern in this case.

The existence of “intermediate” formations between the highest church authorities, to use modern terminology, and dioceses is well known from history. A four-level structure is known: dioceses, several dioceses are organized into metropolitanates, several metropolitanates are organized into an exarchate, several exarchates are organized into a patriarchate. Although it cannot be said that the four-stage structure existed for a very long time. But the three-stage system, which we now see in Russia, existed historically, was very effective and exists to this day. Although, of course, significant differences in this management system are inevitable both in different historical periods and in different geographical territories.

The document lists various areas of activity that should be coordinated by dioceses within the metropolitan areas. What is the purpose of such a detailed listing?

The regulations on metropolises are an ecclesiastical legal document, and the directions of interaction in it must be spelled out in detail. These are the laws of the genre, if you like.

We have already touched upon the interaction of new dioceses with government authorities at the regional level. How can interaction between the dioceses themselves be structured? For example, is it possible to say that not every such diocese should create a department of religious education? Such a department can be created in the metropolis and coordinate the activities of several dioceses. Or in each case should the diocesan structure be rigid and repeat the main synodal departments?

Of course, there should be a proper diocesan structure. This is, first of all, the diocesan council, the diocesan assembly, the diocesan secretary - everything that is provided for by the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. And also the chief accountant, because each diocese is a legal entity. As for diocesan departments, the situations may be different. And today there is no uniformity. For example, in the Chukotka diocese, where there are literally a couple of dozen parishes, and in Ekaterinodar, where there are several hundred of them, the diocesan structure, obviously, cannot be the same. This is fine. In one case, there are large diocesan departments with several dozen employees, in the other, parish priests, in addition to serving in the parish, are responsible for one direction or another.

I believe that in the new dioceses united into metropolises, the situation will be different depending on the number of parishes, the nature of the area, and the availability of infrastructure. But one way or another, there must be people under the bishop, albeit not numerous, but responsible for those main areas of church activity that the Council of Bishops determined this year: social service, work with youth, religious education and catechesis, mission. At least there should be separate staffing levels for these four areas. If it is not possible to create a full-fledged diocesan department, then it is quite enough to appoint one responsible person. I repeat: such experience exists in small dioceses, and it has fully justified itself. No one will make demands on the newly formed dioceses that they cannot fulfill.

In addition, the diocesan department of the main city of the metropolis is called upon to assist the dioceses. At the same time, there should not be any dictate on the part of the diocesan department of the metropolis. From the point of view of the canons and church law, the newly formed metropolitan dioceses do not differ from the diocese headed by the metropolitan as the ruling bishop. Therefore, this should be the case in practice.

The regulation is introduced by a new church body - the Bishops' Council. What is his status and what are his tasks?

Let's make an important clarification: it is necessary to avoid terminological and ecclesiastical legal confusion between metropolitan districts and metropolitan areas.

The metropolitan districts that operate in Kazakhstan and Central Asia have their own common bodies - synods, which have authority, and synodal institutions, which are executive authorities.

The bishops' councils of metropolitan areas do not have power; they are advisory bodies of bishops in each metropolitan area. They are necessary to resolve the issues we discussed above.

Another example of the general concern of the Bishops' Council is theological schools and seminaries. For example, if there is a school in Saransk, then there is no need to open another school in Krasnoslobodsk or Ardatov. At the same time, since all the dioceses of the Mordovian Metropolis enjoy the benefits of this school, they are called upon to jointly support the seminary. This issue should be resolved in fraternal consultation between bishops within the framework of the Bishops' Council.

What is the role of the head of the metropolis? Judging by the Regulations, he has supervisory functions: to take care, teach fraternal advice, provide care. But at the same time, there is one unexpected function - to conduct pre-trial proceedings. How to understand this?

Being a senior comrade, a mentor is one of the important functions of the head of the metropolis. Now, when new dioceses are just being formed, it is especially important that in all metropolitan areas its heads are highly experienced bishops who will be able to help the young ones who head the new dioceses.

In addition, the Metropolitan is the coordinator. We know very well that if there is no person personally responsible for coordinating the activities of the dioceses, then nothing will work. The Metropolitan bears this responsibility.

Returning to what was said earlier: it is easier and clearer for the regional leadership and government authorities to conduct a dialogue with someone personally. This does not mean at all that other bishops of the metropolis should be excluded from dialogue with the same governor. This will be contrary to church legal norms. But with mediation or coordination on the part of one person, the metropolitan, this dialogue will be more fruitful.

Perhaps time will show that centralization will also be useful in resolving some issues. However, caution is required here. Each metropolitan diocese is subordinated directly to the highest bodies of church authority. And the metropolitan cannot interfere in relations between the highest authorities and dioceses. Any diocesan bishop, including the diocesan bishop of a new diocese that is part of the metropolis, can directly contact the Patriarch and the chairmen of synodal institutions. In this they differ from vicars, who appeal to the highest authorities through their ruling bishops.

It often happens that complaints against diocesan clergy, and sometimes against bishops, are addressed to the Patriarch. The regulations on metropolises provide that such appeals can also be accepted by the metropolitan. It is one thing to try to understand the situation from afar, it is another thing if the local metropolitan takes part in the reconciliation of the parties on the spot.

Doesn't this usurp the functions of the church court? The Regulations on Metropolises indicate that the courts remain the same: the diocesan court and the General Church Court. The Metropolitan can resolve misunderstandings without formal legal proceedings. This does not mean that church legal proceedings are being abolished, but that in cases where it is not necessary, the metropolitan has the right to resolve the issue independently.

In other words, this is a pre-trial procedure for considering those cases that do not concern canonical issues and where the parties can agree.

Yes. From my experience working in the Administrative Office of the Moscow Patriarchate, I can say that a significant number of complaints from priests and bishops are resolved in a pre-trial manner through dialogue and interviews. Cases are transferred to the church court when the possibilities for reconciliation have been exhausted. And the metropolitan, in the case when he cannot achieve a result without formal legal proceedings, should send documents to the General Church Court or to the diocesan court that has jurisdiction over the accused person, that is, at the place of residence or ministry.

The regulations on metropolises were prepared by one of the commissions of the Inter-Council Presence. Today there is a practice of submitting draft documents for church-wide discussion. The adopted Regulations were transferred to the Synod without such a procedure. What is this connected with?

As you know, the Inter-Council Presence consists not only of employees of church institutions, but also a wide range of clergy and experts who can examine the assigned topic in a comprehensive manner. Probably, it could have been done differently - to give instructions to write such a Regulation to the employees of the Administrative Office, the legal service or the historical and legal commission. But the Synod entrusted this to the Inter-Council Presence, a broad collegial body. Thus, in addition to their own work on creating documents that undergo the discussion, publication, and so on you mentioned, individual commissions of the Inter-Council Presence are also involved in this kind of development.

What was the basis for this document? What church practice did you focus on?

We studied the materials of the Local Council of 1917-1918, but then the Council did not adopt any specific documents, although there were certain developments in the materials of the corresponding department of the Council.

The documents of the Synod under the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), also turned out to be useful. These materials were published in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” in 1931-1935 and are available to us in a reissue prepared by the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate several years ago. Perhaps we cannot say that we directly transferred some formulations into the document, but, without a doubt, it was working material for us.

The adopted Regulations establish the order of interaction between dioceses today. Do you think it is possible to further develop cooperation between dioceses within the metropolis and, accordingly, a new edition of this document in the future?

The provision has entered into force and will remain in effect. If fundamental questions arise regarding the content, changes can be made at the Council of Bishops. The Synod indicated that with the adoption of the Regulations, it is necessary to make amendments to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and, if any additions are required to the legal status of metropolises, they can be proposed for consideration by the Council of Bishops that will adopt these amendments to the Charter.