1E - Orthodoxy and developments in the Church: attempts to increase the power of the Tsar
Learn how Peter made the Orthodox Church's government more dependent on the monarchy by 1725. Examine the Holy Synod, religious ideas and the use of clergy in state service, while distinguishing institutional control from changing people's beliefs.
Orthodoxy and the ruler's authority
Orthodoxy remained a source of legitimacy even while Peter changed Church government. The tsar was presented as a divinely sanctioned ruler and defender of the faith. Peter's reforms therefore did not simply place a secular state against an unrelated religious society; they attempted to determine how a religious institution would serve royal priorities.
The earlier Patriarchate could supply a respected personal centre of authority. Memories of Patriarch Nikon's conflict with Tsar Alexis showed the political difficulties of a forceful religious leader making claims that might rival the crown. After Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, Peter kept the office vacant and appointed Stefan Yavorsky as its temporary administrator. That vacancy continued through the period after 1707.
Church estates and income also represented resources that the state wanted to supervise. The Monastery Chancellery's management of Church property had already limited financial independence. War, administration and social discipline supplied continuing reasons to prevent ecclesiastical resources from operating beyond the ruler's direction.
The objective was broader than punishing a few critical clerics. Peter wanted a durable arrangement in which there could be no equivalent of a second sovereign at the head of the Church. He also wanted useful service, educated clergy and regulated institutions. Increasing the tsar's power thus involved both restricting a possible rival and harnessing an existing network of authority.
Prokopovich and the Spiritual Regulation
Ideas helped justify the new Church settlement. Feofan Prokopovich, educated in the intellectual world connected with Kyiv and western Europe, became an influential supporter of Peter's authority. He helped formulate the Spiritual Regulation, enacted in 1721, which explained and organised collegial Church government.
Collegial government
Administration through a group with defined procedures rather than a single officeholder exercising personal authority. A collegial body may still be subordinate to an autocrat.
The argument for a council combined administrative and political reasoning. Several knowledgeable members could correct one another and make decisions more reliably than an individual. More importantly for royal power, a single prominent patriarch might be mistaken for a rival sovereign, whereas a collective body appointed within the state would be less likely to attract that allegiance. The institutional design therefore carried an argument about the location of supreme authority.
Prokopovich's role also shows why 'the Church opposed Peter' is inadequate. An important religious intellectual actively supported restructuring and provided arguments expressed within a Christian framework. Peter could recruit such allies rather than rely only on threats against conservatives. Yavorsky was less comfortable with some intellectual and doctrinal tendencies associated with the reforming circle, illustrating differences within the hierarchy.
Borrowing from European practices did not mean converting Russia to Protestantism. Peter and Prokopovich adapted ideas about royal supervision and orderly administration to the Orthodox Church. Orthodox worship and doctrine continued, while the machinery of leadership changed. Distinguishing intellectual influence from a complete transfer of religion is essential to assessing the extent of Westernisation.
The Holy Synod and state supervision
The Holy Governing Synod, established in 1721, replaced the patriarch as the highest governing authority within the Russian Church. It was a collective body of ecclesiastical members operating under a settlement created by the ruler. Royal control of its composition and obligations tied it to the state without making every member a lay official.
In 1722 Peter created the office of Chief Procurator, a secular official charged with supervising the Synod's conduct and observance of state requirements. This provided a channel through which royal oversight entered the Church's highest administration. The office's later power developed over time; its creation should not be mistaken for proof of complete, effortless control from its first day.
The Synod dealt with Church administration, appointments, discipline and religious affairs. Its members' oath included loyalty to the sovereign. Responsibility flowed towards the monarchy, rather than towards an independently elected patriarch. The significance lay in the durability of the arrangement: it institutionalised the vacancy that had begun in 1700, rather than merely postponing a particular election.
A clear causal sequence is therefore: prevent a new patriarch from emerging; regulate Church resources; justify collective leadership; establish the Synod and secular supervision. Each stage reduced a different source of independence. The final settlement increased the ruler's capacity to direct the Church, but still depended on clerical personnel to administer it and on belief to make its authority meaningful.
Clergy, resources and social discipline
Peter expected religious institutions to perform useful functions within the service state. Regulation of monasteries, scrutiny of their resources and restrictions on entering monastic life aimed to prevent people and property being removed from productive or taxable activity. Religious houses were also directed towards welfare functions, including care for the sick and needy. Monastic life was increasingly judged partly by its utility to society and government.
Clerical education and competence mattered for similar reasons. An informed priest could teach correct religion and communicate requirements more effectively than one dependent on limited training and local custom. Improving instruction did not make a nationwide educated clergy appear immediately: money, staff and geography restricted implementation. The difference between a regulation's aim and its reach is important.
Parish clergy were drawn into recording and supervising social life, including attendance at confession. In 1722 the government required disclosure of certain dangerous, unrepented intentions revealed in confession, especially threats to the sovereign and state. This was an intrusion into religious confidence and an attempt to obtain information through priests. It was not a rule that every confessed sin had to be reported. Its enforcement and practical effect were uneven, so it demonstrates an intention to extend surveillance more securely than it proves universal compliance.
Religious policy also distinguished groups. Registered Old Believers faced discriminatory financial and social demands, including double taxation, rather than receiving equality with the established Church. Foreign Christians could receive concessions useful for attracting specialists, but practical tolerance for foreigners did not amount to general religious liberty. Peter balanced the state's needs with the privileged position of Orthodoxy and suspicion of dissent.
The extent and limits of Church control
By 1725 Peter had changed the relationship between Church leadership and the crown more profoundly than he had changed ordinary religious belief. The patriarchate had been replaced by a collective institution under royal supervision; resources and personnel were increasingly assessed through the state's priorities. These are strong grounds for judging the reforms a major increase in autocratic authority.
There were also important continuities. The monarchy still used Orthodox legitimacy, worship continued, and clergy remained essential intermediaries in a largely rural society. Deeply held convictions and Old Believer communities survived despite discriminatory treatment. Institutional subordination was therefore not the same as cultural consent or the disappearance of religion from public life.
Consider two possible claims about the settlement. The first stresses that the Church became an instrument of the state; the second stresses that Peter still depended on religious authority. The evidence can support both if their scope is precise. The Synod and Chief Procurator strongly support the first in relation to government. Continued worship and legitimisation support the second in relation to society and monarchy's justification. Neither warrants an absolute claim that every priest obeyed every order or that the reform was insignificant.
This way of weighing claims uses contextual knowledge to test an argument. Ask which aspect of Church life the claim explains, over which years, and what evidence limits it. A supported judgement can then recognise extensive administrative change alongside continuing religious authority, instead of reducing the issue to whether Peter was personally devout or hostile to individual churchmen.
Peter made Church government more dependent on the monarchy while continuing to use Orthodoxy as a source of legitimacy. Control over an institution and agreement among its believers are different measures of success.