“Denying the contemporary roman extraordinary process of the time”: a review of the article by archpriest A. Balakay on the ecclesiastical court of the ancient church

The relevant topic of the formation and current state of the ecclesiastical court causes the appearance of scholarly articles with various approaches. In his recent work, Fr. A. Balakay systematized the views of Prof. P. A. Prokoshev on the first three centuries of the formation of the ecclesiastical court, but did not subject them to proper criticism. Within the framework of this article, it was determined that the comparison of the ecclesiastical court in relation to the period under consideration (the 1st-3rd centuries) should be conducted in relation to the extraordinary process. Unlike those characteristic features of the Roman process mentioned in the article of Fr. A. Balakay, in fact, the formation of the extraordinary process was accompanied by a limitation of public participation (up to its complete elimination), a restriction of openness, a written character, the existence of limited elements of competition, the emergence of the possibility of filing an appeal, attempts to limit judicial arbitrariness through the introduction of special institutions (for example, the defensor civitatis ), further strengthening the principle of legality to the detriment of the principle of justice. The “Internal principles” discussed by P. A. Prokoshev are revealed through the functional purpose of the trial. If different types of the Roman process had such functions as restoring a disturbed balance, restoring damage, and punishment, then the ecclesiastical court was largely focused on correcting the offender through his sincere repentance. However, the conclusion that the ecclesiastical process at the time under consideration had a humane character and precisely in this fact can be contrasted with the Roman judicial procedure is not justified. The ecclesiastical court, growing out of Roman society and denying the Roman extraordinary process of his day, contained within itself the same contradictions that resulted in it. The further history of the ecclesiastical court shows how these contradictory tendencies interacted in new concrete historical conditions.