The Synodal Period (1700–1917)

The Synodal period, spanning over two centuries, saw the Russian Church subordinated to the state through Peter the Great’s abolition of the Patriarchate and creation of the Holy Governing Synod (1721). This era brought Western scholastic influence into Russian theological education but also produced a profound spiritual renaissance in the nineteenth century, with figures such as Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow, the Optina elders, and St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Tradition: Russian Orthodox

Peter the Great’s Reforms

The Abolition of the Patriarchate

When Patriarch Adrian of Moscow died on October 16, 1700, Tsar Peter I (“the Great”) did not permit the election of a successor. Instead, he appointed Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan as locum tenens (temporary administrator) of the patriarchal see — a position that would last for over two decades while Peter consolidated his control over the Church.

Peter viewed the Patriarchate as a potential rival to his absolute authority. He had witnessed the political power wielded by Patriarch Nikon in the previous century and was determined to prevent any churchman from claiming authority comparable to the tsar’s. His model was not the Byzantine symphonia of Church and state but rather the Protestant state-church systems he had observed during his travels in Northern Europe, particularly the Swedish and German Lutheran churches governed by state-appointed consistories.

(Cracraft, The Church Reform of Peter the Great, chs. 2–4)

The Spiritual Regulation (Dukhovny Reglament, 1721)

In 1721, Peter issued the Spiritual Regulation (Dukhovny Reglament), drafted primarily by Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich (1681–1736) of Novgorod, a Ukrainian-born churchman educated at the Jesuit Collegium in Rome and deeply influenced by Protestant ecclesiology.

The Spiritual Regulation established the Most Holy Governing Synod (Svyateishy Pravitelstvuyushchy Sinod) as the supreme governing body of the Russian Church, replacing the Patriarchate. Key features:

Collegial governance: The Synod was a committee of bishops and other clergy, appointed by the tsar and serving at his pleasure. Prokopovich argued explicitly that collegial governance was preferable to one-man rule, which he associated with the papal model.
The ober-procurator (ober-prokuror): A layman appointed by the tsar to oversee the Synod’s proceedings. The ober-procurator was the “eye of the tsar” in the Synod, ensuring that its decisions aligned with state policy. Over time, the ober-procurator’s power grew until, in the nineteenth century, he effectively controlled the Church’s administration. Notable ober-procurators included Count Nikolai Protasov (1836–1855), who exercised near-dictatorial control, and Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1880–1905), a conservative ideologue.
State control: Clergy were required to report crimes and sedition learned in confession — a requirement added in the 1722 Supplement (Pribavlenie) to the Regulation that violated the seal of confession and was widely resisted. Monasteries were placed under strict state regulation. The number of monks was limited, and entry into monasticism was restricted.
Recognition by the Eastern Patriarchates: In 1723, Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople and the other Eastern Patriarchs recognized the Synod as the legitimate governing body of the Russian Church, though this recognition was not without discomfort. The Synod was treated as equivalent in authority to a patriarch.

(Freeze, The Russian Levites, ch. 1; Cracraft, The Church Reform of Peter the Great, chs. 5–8; Prokopovich, The Spiritual Regulation, translated by Alexander Muller)

Feofan Prokopovich

Feofan (Theophan) Prokopovich (1681–1736) deserves particular attention as the architect of the Synodal system. Educated in both the Kiev Academy and in Rome (where he temporarily became a Uniate to gain access to Jesuit education before returning to Orthodoxy), Prokopovich was deeply influenced by Protestant thought, particularly in his ecclesiology and his doctrine of justification. His theological works introduced Western categories into Russian theology in ways that would shape — and, in the view of later critics like Florovsky, distort — Russian theological thought for two centuries.

Prokopovich’s Spiritual Regulation explicitly argued against the patriarchal system, claiming that collective governance by a synod was more efficient, less susceptible to corruption, and less likely to produce a rival to the sovereign. He dismissed the objection that the Church’s canonical tradition required governance by bishops in council, not by a state-appointed committee (Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part I, ch. 4, “The St. Petersburg Revolution”).

Western Scholastic Influence in Theological Education

One of the most consequential effects of the Synodal period was the transformation of Russian theological education along Western lines.

The Kiev Academy Model

The Kiev Mohyla Academy (founded 1632 by Metropolitan Peter Mogila) had already introduced Latin as the language of instruction and adopted scholastic methodology. Under the Synodal system, this model spread to Moscow and other theological academies:

Language: Latin was the primary language of theological instruction until the mid-nineteenth century.
Textbooks: Western — both Catholic and Protestant — theological manuals were used. Dogmatic theology was taught in the scholastic format of loci theologici (theological topics), following the Western arrangement of subjects rather than the patristic and liturgical approach native to Eastern theology.
Categories: Western categories such as the strict juridical model of satisfaction atonement, the sharp division between nature and grace, and the emphasis on syllogistic argumentation were adopted, often without awareness that these were alien to the Eastern patristic tradition.

Florovsky later described this period as the “Western captivity” (zapadnoye plenenie) of Russian theology — a situation in which Orthodox theologians thought and argued in categories borrowed from their Roman Catholic and Protestant interlocutors rather than from the Church Fathers (Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part I, chs. 2 and 4).

Counter-currents

Not all Russian theology succumbed to scholastic influence. The monastic and liturgical tradition continued to transmit the patristic heritage, and several figures resisted the Westernizing trend:

St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (1724–1783): A bishop who retired to monastic life and wrote spiritual works (Journey to Heaven, On True Christianity) that, while showing some Western influence in form, were deeply rooted in patristic theology and personal spiritual experience. He influenced both the Slavophiles and Dostoevsky.
St. Paisius Velichkovsky (1722–1794): His translation of the Philokalia (see Russian Monasticism) represented a direct return to the patristic sources, bypassing the scholastic establishment entirely.

The Nineteenth-Century Spiritual Renaissance

The nineteenth century saw a remarkable revival of authentic Orthodox theological and spiritual life, even within the constraints of the Synodal system.

Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1782–1867)

Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow was the most influential Russian churchman of the nineteenth century. His achievements include:

The Russian Bible: Filaret championed the translation of the Bible from Church Slavonic into modern Russian, a project that faced opposition from conservatives. The Synodal Translation of the Bible, completed in 1876 (after Filaret’s death), was largely his initiative and remains the standard Russian Bible text.
Theological synthesis: Filaret’s Catechism (first published 1823, revised 1839) became the standard catechetical text of the Russian Church. While still showing some scholastic influence in form, it is notable for its Christocentric emphasis and its appeal to Scripture and the Fathers.
Church governance: As the most senior hierarch for decades, Filaret effectively set the theological and administrative direction of the Russian Church, often in tension with the ober-procurators.

Filaret was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1994.

(Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part I, ch. 5, “The Struggle for Theology”; Nichols, “Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow and the Awakening of Orthodoxy,” PhD diss., University of Washington, 1972)

The Slavophiles and Religious Philosophy

A distinctive feature of the nineteenth-century Russian renaissance was the emergence of lay religious thinkers who sought to articulate an authentically Orthodox worldview in dialogue with — and in opposition to — Western philosophy.

Alexei Khomiakov (1804–1860): A layman whose theological essays, particularly on the Church as a living organism characterized by sobornost (conciliarity, communality), profoundly influenced Orthodox ecclesiology. Khomiakov argued that the Western churches had lost the true understanding of the Church by reducing it to either papal authority (Roman Catholicism) or individual interpretation (Protestantism).
Ivan Kireevsky (1806–1856): A philosopher who contrasted the “wholeness” (tselnost) of Orthodox knowing — integrating reason, will, feeling, and faith — with the one-sided rationalism of Western thought. Together with his wife Natalya, he collaborated with Elder Macarius of Optina in publishing patristic texts.
Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900): A philosopher and mystic whose ideas about Sophia (Divine Wisdom) and the reunification of the churches were deeply controversial. His Sophiology was later developed — and radicalized — by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (see Bulgakov and Sophiology).

(Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part II, ch. 6, “Philosophical Awakening”; Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century)

The Spiritual Elders and Saints

The nineteenth century produced a flowering of monastic sanctity:

St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833): See Russian Monasticism.
The Optina Elders: See Russian Monasticism.
St. Theophan the Recluse (1815–1894) and St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867): See Ascetic Fathers.
St. John of Kronstadt (1829–1908/1909): A parish priest in Kronstadt known for his fervent celebration of the Liturgy, his charitable work, and his spiritual diary My Life in Christ. He became one of the most popular saints of pre-revolutionary Russia and was canonized by ROCOR in 1964 and by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1990.

The Movement Toward Church Reform

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was growing recognition — even within the Synodal establishment — that the Petrine system was deeply flawed. A series of initiatives laid the groundwork for the restoration of the Patriarchate:

The Pre-Conciliar Commission (Predsobornoe Prisutstvie, March–December 1906) and the Pre-Conciliar Conference (Predsobornoe Soveshchanie, 1912–1916): Established to prepare for an All-Russian Council, these bodies produced detailed proposals for church reform, including the restoration of the Patriarchate, parish reform, and greater involvement of the laity.
Ober-Procurator Pobedonostsev had long resisted the reform movement, and after his fall in 1905 Tsar Nicholas II declined in 1907 to permit the council’s convocation; it only became possible after the February Revolution of 1917 removed the tsarist regime.

(Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906; see also The All-Russian Council of 1917–1918)

Assessment of the Synodal Period

The Synodal period is generally viewed with ambivalence in Russian Orthodox historiography:

Negatively: The subordination of the Church to the state, the suppression of the Patriarchate, the introduction of Western theological categories, and the bureaucratization of church life are seen as distortions of the Orthodox canonical tradition.
Positively: The period also produced remarkable saints, a rich literary and philosophical tradition, the translation of the Bible into Russian, the Philokalia revival, and the foundations of the modern Orthodox theological renaissance.

Florovsky’s judgment was severe: the Synodal system represented, in his view, a fundamental departure from Orthodox ecclesiology, and the Western scholastic captivity produced a hybrid school theology internally at odds with the Church’s lived tradition — a pseudomorphosis to be overcome only by a return to the Fathers (Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part I, chs. 4–5).

References

Cracraft, James. The Church Reform of Peter the Great. London: Macmillan, 1971.
Cunningham, James W. A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981.
Florovsky, Georges. Ways of Russian Theology. Translated by Robert L. Nichols. 2 vols. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1979; Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987 (Collected Works, vols. 5–6).
Freeze, Gregory L. The Russian Levites: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Nichols, Robert L. “Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow and the Awakening of Orthodoxy.” PhD diss., University of Washington, 1972.
Prokopovich, Feofan. The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great. Translated by Alexander Muller. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972.
Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. New edition. London: Penguin, 1993.
Zernov, Nicolas. The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963.