The Development of the ROCOR’s Attitude to the All-Russian Council of 1917–1919 with Regard to the Issue of Conciliarity

Talk at the conference “Links Between Times: Conclusions and Perspectives. On the Centennial of the Russian Church Abroad”, Belgrade, November 25, 2021. The translation of this paper, which will be presented at the conference in November 2021 in Belgrade, has been posted here to enable conference participants to submit questions to the speaker beforehand. The translation has been financed by the American-Russian Aid Association Otrada Inc. and the Fund for Assistance to the Russian Church Abroad. In memory of Reader Dmitrii P. Anashkin, research fellow,  Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University of the Humanities, Moscow (†2018)

Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, New York[1]The author expresses his thanks to the Prince Sergei Belosselsky-Belozersky Charitable Fund (American-Russian Aid Association/Otrada) and an anonymous patron for their material aid in preparing this … Continue reading

The All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918

Emperor Pavel Petrovich’s “Act of Succession to the Throne” (1797) names the Russian Emperor as the head of the Church of Russia.[2]Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii [Complete Corpus of Imperial Russian Law]. Vol. 1, 1649–1825. “Akt o nasledii Prestola. April 5, 1797” [“Act of Succession to the Throne”] (No. … Continue reading In this capacity, on December 27, 1905, Emperor Nicholas II allowed preparations for an All-Russian Church Council to go ahead. This decision was a reaction to the social and political crisis that Russian society was undergoing at this time.[3]The decision to make preparations for an all-Russian council is one of a series of reforms, along with the so-called Manifesto on Religious Tolerance of April 17, 1905, and a manifesto dated October … Continue reading

In 1906, in order to continue preparing for church reforms that were to be up for discussion at the Local Council, a Pre-conciliar Assembly was formed. It consisted of 49 members, including some bishops, although the majority were ‘white’ (married) clergy and lay theologians.[4]S.L. Firsov,  Russkaia Tserkovʹ nakanune peremen: konets 1890-kh – 1918 gg. [The Russian Church on the Eve of Change, from the Late 1890s–1918]. Moscow, 2002, p. 217. (in Russian) It is not … Continue reading However, that same year, the work of this body was terminated and would be restored only six years later with a new name: the Pre-conciliar Conference: in 1912, when the Russian state was developing along increasingly autocratic lines,[5]In reaction to the protests that had flared up throughout the Empire during that year. the Emperor no longer considered it beneficial to further the development of representative elements in such a fundamentally important state institution as the Church.[6]M. V. Shkarovskii, “The Russian Orthodox Church in the Twentieth Century”, in: Christine Chaillot, ed. The Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century. Bern 2011, p. 357.

Work towards convening an All-Russian Local Council could only be resumed after Emperor Nicholas II’s abdication on March 2, 1917. On April 29, 1917, the Synod announced the convening of an All-Russian Local Council. As the Provisional Government saw it, the Council was to determine a new structure for church organization modeled on the Constituent Assembly. Delegates were elected at three levels: parishes, districts, and dioceses. As a result, the 65 dioceses of the Russian Church were represented by 564 delegates, 299 of whom were laymen.[7]Although women took part in elections at the parish level, there were no female delegates at the council.

On October 28, 1917, the Council formed a new ecclesiastical administration for the Russian Church. In place of the Emperor acting through the Most Holy Governing Synod, the All-Russian Local Council of bishops, clergy and laity became the supreme legislative body of the Russian Church.[8]“In the Orthodox Church of Russia, supreme authority – legislative, administrative, judicial, and supervisory alike – rests with the Local Council, which is periodically convened at set … Continue reading Apart from the triennial Local Councils, two governing bodies were likewise created: the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council.[9]The italicized terms are from an article by Protopresbyter George Grabbe: “O nashem tserkovnom zakonodatelʹstve” [“On the Legislation of Our Church”]. New York, 1964, p. 14. (in Russian) The first comprised only bishops, whereas the second, in addition to three bishops, comprised one monk, five clergymen, and six laymen. The bishops were delegated by the Synod and the other members were elected by the Council. The Patriarchate was restored. Accordingly, the Patriarch was, ex officio, the President of these three executive bodies.

Sessions on February 14, 20, and 22, 1918 decided on the status of dioceses. The specification of the role of the ruling bishop expressed both the monarchial and conciliar principles in the life of the Orthodox Church: “A diocesan bishop, by virtue of his succession in authority from the Holy Apostles, is the Primate of the local church, administering his diocese conciliarly in concert with the clergy and laity.”[10]“Opredeleniia sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg.” Azbuka very. URL: … Continue reading (emphasis added —A.P.)

The structure of dioceses, with occasional exceptions, reflected the conciliar structure of the entire Russian Church in miniature. A regularly convened Diocesan Assembly (analogous to the All-Russian Council) elected a Diocesan Council, composed of clergy and laity (analogous to the Synod and the Supreme Church Council). The structure of dioceses, according to the Council resolutions, was to include deaneries with assemblies of their own. On the last day that it met, September 20, 1918, the Council resolved to merge adjacent dioceses into metropolitan districts.

Taking inspiration from the successful elections of bishops in spring and summer of 1917, the Council resolved to carry on with this practice. Bishops, clergy, and laymen were to put forward candidates to fill vacant episcopal sees. In the elections, which saw involvement by representatives of all groups in the Church, a candidate who received two-thirds of the vote would be confirmed for consecration by the supreme church authority.[11]Although Canon XLVII of the Council in Trullo (A.D. 691) only requires that episcopal candidates be celibate and does not demand that they renounce the world, according to the tradition of the … Continue reading

On April 20, 1918, the Council adopted a set of Parish By-Laws. This document itself likewise reflected the structure of church and diocesan administration. The annual parish assembly, chaired by the rector, was to be the highest governing body of the parish, and was to elect an executive body, the parish council. The Parish By-Laws, like the other documents adopted by the Council, were intended to restore Orthodox ecclesiology, which presupposes that the people of God is composed of ordained and non-ordained Christians (I Pet. 2:9) who perform liturgical services together, as expressed in the document: “Administration of parish affairs is carried out, under the direction of the diocesan bishop, by the rector of the parish, together with other members of the parish and the churchwarden and with involvement on the part of parishioners.”[12]Azbuka very. URL: <https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/pravila/opredelenija-sobora-pravoslavnoj-rossijskoj-tserkvi-1917-1918-gg/#0_18> (accessed October 28, 2021) (in Russian) (emphasis added —A.P.) The Council effectively reevaluated the status of parishioners by redefining it in terms of spiritual rather than administrative ties.[13]Beglov?

Ukraine, Siberia, South of Russia

The first direct successor to the All-Russian Council was the All-Ukrainian Council that was opened in Kiev on January 7, after the Ukrainian bishops returned from Moscow. Metropolitan Antony of Kharkov and Akhtyrka was elected as president of it. The Council was organized as six commissions[14]The sections were on: 1) Church administration; 2) Diocesan administration and parish life; 3) Problems of the Ukrainization of the church; 4) Theological and religious education, and missionary and … Continue reading in the manner of the All-Russian Council and went on until January 19. The second session of the Council was attended by 251 delegates. Vladimir V. Bureha explains in his talk[15]“Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitskii on the See of Kiev (1918–1920)”. ROCOR Studies. URL: … Continue reading that Metropolitan Antony, a convinced monarchist, had a reverent attitude toward Ukrainian Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi.[16]This very reverence for monarchs likewise explains why Metropolitan Antony gave his blessing to the Russian fascist leader Anastasii Vonsiatskii. C.f.: “Blagoslovenie Vserossiiskoi Fashistskoi … Continue reading (His conviction about the benefits of autocracy played a role at the First All-Diaspora Council, as well.)

At the All-Ukrainian Council, two approaches to church life collided: one which advocated preserving the traditional “Little Russian” character of church life in the Ukraine and another that favored the active Ukrainianization of church life. The Council failed to reach a compromise on the representation of the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Rada, an independent organization of laity and clergy that initially was behind the All-Ukrainian Local Council. On July 7, 1918, a vote was held on whether to keep all 102 of its delegates, or only 3, as full members. 142 delegates voted for full representation and 172 in favor of three representatives, with 13 abstaining. As a result, in protest, all the representatives of the Ukrainian Church Rada withdrew from the Council, which freed them to act outside the realm of canonicity and led to the creation of the so-called Conciliar [sobornopravnaia] Church in 1921. On July 9, the Council voted that Patriarch of Moscow should have the right to approve the Metropolitan of Kiev and that the decisions of the All-Russian Local Council should be binding for the Ukrainian Autonomous Church. The Council established a supreme church administration consisting of the All-Ukrainian Council and the executive bodies of the same during periods between Councils: the Council of Bishops and the Supreme Church Council, which included elected representatives of the clergy and laity.

Conciliar church life could thus be implemented to a much greater extent in territories not controlled by the Bolsheviks than it could in the territory of the Soviet Republic. From November 14 to December 3, 1918, a Siberian Church Conference took place in Siberia, among whom were members of the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918. In his contribution,[17]“The Conduct of Regional Conciliar Conferences as a Precursor to the Creation of ROCOR”. ROCOR Studies. URL: … Continue reading Archpriest Dimitrii Olikhov touched on this Council, and it is from his work that I have taken my information about the Siberian council.[18]Vremennoe vysshee tserkovnoe upravlenie Sibiri (1918–1920 gg.): opyt tserkovnogo stroitelʹstva v epokhu grazhdanskogo likholetʹia [The Temporary Supreme Church Governance in Siberia … Continue reading The Council met on its own initiative, believing that extraordinary circumstances justified the lack of a blessing for this meeting from Patriarch Tikhon. As at the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918, the members of the Siberian Council were divided up into committees. The Council prescribed adopting the Parish By-Laws from All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 as guidelines for church communities of Siberia.

The Supreme Provisional Church Administration for Siberia consisted of three bishops – including the head of the administration, Archbishop Sylvester of Omsk (Olʹshevskii) –, two presbyters, and two laymen, all members of the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918. In the spirit of the subsequent Decree No. 362 of October 20, 1920,[19]“Postanovlenie, priniatoe na soedinennom prisutstvii Sviateishim patriarkhom, Sviashchennym Sinodom i Vysshim tserkovnym sovetom” [“A Resolution Adopted at a Joint Meeting by His Holiness the … Continue reading the church administration was supposed to give a report to Patriarch Tikhon after it was done with its work.

In February 1919, Lieutenant General Anton I. Denikin, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of South Russia, supported the initiative of Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelʹskii, his leading military chaplain, to organize form a Supreme Church Administration.

A South-Eastern Russian Church Council met from May 3 to 17, 1919, in Stavropol. Iulia A. Biriukova, a leading scholar on the history of this council, has pointed out the importance of the Council in Stavropol as a continuation of the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918.[20]Deacon Andrei Psarev, Interview with Iulia A. Biriukova, November 5, 2016, “Istorik dolzhen ponimatʹ drugogo cheloveka – slyshatʹ, soperezhivatʹ” [“A Historian Must Understand, Hear, … Continue reading There were five sections at the Council, by analogy with the Council of two years earlier.[21]1) Editorial; 2) Supreme Church Administration; 3) Organization of parish life; 4) Church discipline; 5) Drafting statements; 6) Church schools.

Regional councils such as these could not take place in the Bolshevik-controlled dioceses. The Council in Stavropol implemented the idea of metropolitan districts, tabled at the very end of the All-Russian Council on September 20, 1918.

The First All-Diaspora Council

It is in the context of the conciliar movements in Siberia and the South of Russia that we must consider the first council in the diaspora. At sessions on April 19 and 21, 1921, the newly created church administration in Constantinople resolved to organize a council “to unify, regulate, and revitalize the activities of the church”.[22]A decree to Bishop Benjamin was signed by Archbishop Anastasii (Gribanovskii). Zagranichnoe russkoe tserkovnoe sobranie: materialy podgotovitelʹnoi komissii [The Russian Ecclesiastical Assembly … Continue reading Bishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov) was in charge of organizing this council. As early as the beginning of the Crimean period in the Russian Civil War, on March 31, 1920, General Wrangel appointed Bishop Benjamin (Fedchenkov) as head of the chaplaincy to the armed forces in the South of Russia.[23]His predecessor Protopresbyter Georgii Shavel’skii had been appointed to this position for life by the All-Russian Local Council. As head of the military chaplaincy in Wrangel’s army, Bishop … Continue reading Referring to Iulia Biriukova’s talk,[24]“The Influence of Political Forces on the Activity of the Southwestern Church Council and the First Russian All-Diaspora Church Council (1919–1921)”. While Priest Vladimir Vostokov was silenced … Continue reading we can use this shift to explain why the All-Diaspora Council, in contrast with the Stavropol Council, failed to avoid politicization. Another factor that explains the All-Diaspora Council’s attitude was the fact that it was chaired by Metropolitan Antony of Kiev and Galicia, who thought that monarchist views were not inherently political, but rather an inalienable part of the Orthodox worldview.[25]Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii), “Tserkovnostʹ kak politika” [“Ecclesiasticism as Politics”], in: Deianiia Russkogo Vsezagranichnogo Tserkovnogo Sobora Srem. Karlovtsi, pp. 120–121. … Continue reading It is worthy of note that the 1918 Parish By-Laws were first published as an appendix to the materials of the “Constantinopolitan” preparatory commission.[26]pp. no.?

The result of the work of Bishop Benjamin’s preparatory commission was a council in Sremski Karlovci from November 21 to December 2, 1921. It was attended by 103 representatives of the Russian diaspora: 13 bishops, 67 laymen and 23 clergy. From the moment he arrived in Serbia in early 1921, Metropolitan Antony had been living in the Serbian patriarchal palace in the former Austro-Hungarian city. The members of the council were divided across multiple sections.[27]1) Supreme and regional church administration; 2) Parishes; 3) Economic; 4) Judicial; 5) Educational; 6) Missionary; 7) Church-military; 8) Spiritual renewal. The army and Supreme Monarchist Council, of which Metropolitan Antony was honorary chairman, were actively represented. General Piotr Nikolaevich Wrangel took part in the Council. Political parties were not represented at the All-Russian Local Council or at the Southern Russian or Siberian Councils. The Ukrainian Church Rada, for all its politicization, was formally considered an ecclesiastical organization. The principle of representation, according to which representatives of both church communities and political entities such as the Supreme Monarchist Council took part in the Council, became a ticking time-bomb for the All-Diaspora Council, both in the short term and in the entire church life of the diaspora for decades to come.

The Regulations for the Convocation of the Assembly of the Russian Churches Abroad, dated July 25, 1921, state that, “[i]n all of its actions, the Supreme Church Administration Abroad shall be guided by the provisions laid down in the All-Russian Church Council’s resolution on the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council, adopted on December 7, 1917”.[28]Dmitry P. Anashkin, “Prikhodskoi ustav 1918 g. i ego evoliutsiia v Russkoi Zarubezhnoi Tserkvi” [“The Parish By-Laws of 1918 and their Evolution in the Russian Church Abroad”]. Draft in … Continue reading

Taking the 1917–1918 Council as its model, on November 26, 1921, the Council in Sremski Karlovci formed a Supreme Church Administration Abroad, consisting of Metropolitan Antony and the Holy Synod and Supreme Church Council headed by him, which included clergy and laity.[29]Paragraph 6 of the resolution of the Section on Supreme Church Administration says that, “[i]n all its actions, the Supreme Church Administration abroad shall be guided by the provisions set forth … Continue reading The Resolutions about parishes adopted at the Moscow Council of 1917–1918 were printed as appendices to the council acts and thus came into effect in the diaspora.

The resolution of the Section on Parishes of November 28, 1921, states that the Section believes that “Orthodox parish communities must be organized and developed in all places on the basis of the Parish By-Laws approved by the All-Russian Council in Moscow.”[30]Deianiia Russkogo Vsezagranichnogo Tserkovnogo Sobora, p. 71 (in Russian).

The Regulation on Diocesan Administration, adopted at a session on November 30, 1921, states that a bishop is to govern “with the assistance of an Episcopal Council”, while Paragraph 47 of the Regulation on Diocesan Administration from February 1918 states that the diocese is to be governed with the assistance from a Diocesan Council. At the same time, it is stressed that the Diocesan Council is to be guided in its work by the resolutions of the Council of 1917–1918.

Thus, the First All-Diaspora Council of 1921, on the one hand, bore a strong imprint from the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918, even though, on the other hand, it exhibited strong internal factional differences on the question of strengthening the unified authority of the episcopate and the monarchy.

Reorganizing the Supreme Church Administration Abroad

The appeals of the first All-Diaspora Council to restore the monarchy of the House of Romanov in Russia and to provide armed support for the Russian anti-communists[31]Deianiia Russkogo Vsezagranichnogo Tserkovnogo Sobora, pp. 82–83; 151–154 (in Russian). were used by the Soviet secret police (Gosudarstvennoe politicheskoe upravlenie/GPU) to force Patriarch Tikhon to take action against the Russian Church emigration.[32]For details, c.f.: Dcn. Andrei Psarev. “Istoricheskii kontekst priniatiia ukaza patriarkha Tikhona ob uprazdnenii Vysshego Tserkovnogo Upravleniia Zagranitsei ot 5 maia 1922 goda”. ROCOR Studies. … Continue reading In Decree 348/349, which contained a resolution adopted at a joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council of May 5, 1922, chaired by His Holiness the Patriarch, Metropolitan Anthony’s view that monarchist views were not political in nature was not affirmed. This decree abolished the Supreme Russian Church Authority Abroad, because it had made political statements and entrusted Metropolitan Evlogii with overseeing the Russian churches in the diaspora on the basis of his previous appointment by Patriarch Tikhon.[33]Actually, in 1920, Metropolitan Evlogii had been appointed by the Supreme Church Authority in the South of Russia to lead the Russian churches in Western Europe only. (Psarev, “Istoricheskii … Continue reading

The matter of adhering to Decree 348/349 was considered at the session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in Sremski Karlovci from August 31–September 13, 1922.

After arriving at the Council on September 2, 1922, Archbishop Anastasii (Gribanovskii) of Kishinev and Khotyn pointed out that Decree 348/349 left the matter open for further investigation by ordering “that Metropolitan Evlogii temporarily remain in charge of Russian parishes abroad and be instructed to submit his considerations [emphasis added —A.P.] on the procedure for managing aforesaid churches…”.[34]Psarev, “Istoricheskii kontekst…” As a result, on September 2, 1922, the Council decreed:

1. In fulfillment of Ukase No. 348 of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the Holy Synod beneath him, dated April 22/ May 5 of this year, the existing Supreme Russian Church Administration Abroad is to be abolished;
2. For the organization of a new supreme church administration, a Russian All-Diaspora Church Council is to be convened on November 21, 1922;
3. With a view to preserving the succession of power with the supreme ecclesiastical authority, an interim Synod of Bishops Abroad is to be formed with mandatory involvement on the part of Metropolitan Evlogii, and all the rights and powers of the Supreme Russian Church Administration Abroad shall be delegated to said Synod;
4. The composition of the Synod of Bishops Abroad is set at five members;
5. Said Synod is to take the necessary measures to convene an Russian All-Diaspora Church Council.[35]Minutes (No. 1) of the Council of Russian Orthodox Hierarchs Abroad in Sremski Karlovci, discussing the Decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. A. A. Kostriukov. Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkovʹ v … Continue reading

The fact that on December 1, 1921, the All-Diaspora Council elected clerical and lay members of the Supreme Church Council, and the fact that the Council of Bishops felt empowered to reverse the decision of the All-Diaspora Council, were signs of a strengthening hierarchical trend in the Russian Church Abroad, which replaced the conciliar approach. The Synod of Bishops thus took over a range of affairs which, according to the 1917–1918 Council, came under the purview of the Supreme Church Council.[36]Grabbe, O nashem tserkovnom zakondatelʹstve, p. 13. (in Russian)

It is clear that the bishops had to respond urgently to Patriarch Tikhon’s Decree No. 348/349. Their will to preserve conciliarity can be seen in their scheduling a second All-Diaspora Council for November 1922. However, at the Council of Bishops in May 1923, the convening of this All-Diaspora Council was postponed indefinitely[37]The All-Diaspora Council itself became an entity of the Synod of Bishops, which could organize sessions of an All-Diaspora Council whenever it deemed necessary. In addition to what A. A. Kostriukov … Continue reading and the Council of Bishops was made the supreme body of church administration. The provisional Synod of Bishops became permanent. The protest of Major General Nikolai Stepanovich Batiushin, a member of the Supreme Church Council, was left unanswered.[38]Kostriukov, Russkaia Zarubezhnaia Tserkovʹ v pervoi polovine 1920-kh godov, pp. 146, 180–181. (in Russian) Hierarchical church governance thus came to prevail in the ROCOR.

Normal Parish By-Laws

The very fact that a document bearing this name was adopted at the Council of Bishops in 1951, with subsequent amendments being made at the Councils of Bishops in 1955 and 1971, shows that the Parish By-Laws of the All-Russian Local Council were no longer being used to its fullest extent.

While the 1918 Parish By-Laws contain 177 clauses, the Russian Orthodox Church’s Normal Parish By-Laws (herein: NPB) have 56. Sections “On Parish Institutions,” “On the Enlightenment of the (Orthodox) Population,” “On Cemetery Churches and Cemeteries,” and “On Parish Unions” are altogether absent, as they are little applicable to life in a non-Orthodox environment. Section 5 of the NPB (“On Church and Parish Property”) reproduces paragraphs from the 1918 Parish By-Laws almost without change. In many other places, they are preserved in spirit. Most importantly, the structure of the parish as stated in the 1918 Parish By-Laws has been preserved: an annual parish assembly that elects the members of the parish council. Regarding the question of conciliarity, the inclusion of Subsection “D” on sisterhoods in Section 5 of the NPB (“On Statutory Bodies and Officers”[39]The “Statues for Sisterhoods in North America” adopted by Synod of Bishops on April 28, 1956 state that “[…]” the object of sisterhood is, on the whole, to render active and to its church … Continue reading), following the discussion of the active role of women in parish life that took place in the section of the All-Russian Local Council on Church Discipline, seems fortunate.[40]E. V. Beliakova, Tserkovnyi sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni [Church Courts and Problems of Church Life], Moscow, 2004, pp. 431–445. (in Russian)

While Paragraph 64 of the 1918 By-Laws says that Parish Council resolutions must be reported to the Dean (Blagochinnyi), Paragraph 24 of the NPB requires that all minutes of Annual Parish Meetings be submitted to the bishop for approval. According to Paragraph 112 of the 1918 Parish By-Laws, immovable property can be acquired by a decision of the Parish Council, whereas paragraph 47 of the NPB requires the blessing of the diocesan bishop. Unfortunately, Paragraph 85 of the 1918 Parish By-Laws, which was promising with respect to the development of conciliarity, has been omitted:

Every member of the parish has the right to present to the Parish Council, personally or in writing, his or her suggestions for improvements and useful innovations in the parish. The Council shall, upon discussion of such applications, issue a corresponding order and, in cases exceeding its competency, submit it to the attention of the Parish Assembly.[41]Azbuka very. URL: <https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/pravila/opredelenija-sobora-pravoslavnoj-rossijskoj-tserkvi-1917-1918-gg/#0_18> (accessed October 28, 2021).

Anashkin writes that that the NPB themselves were soon, so to speak, disavowed in favor of strengthening unilateral authority in parishes:

In 1956, “Guidelines for Priests”[42]Rukovodstvennye pravila dlia sviashchennolsuzhitelei were published. While useful and helpful in the practical, everyday ministry of pastors, they are nonetheless in slight conflict with the Normal Parish By-Laws, since, for example, Paragraph 56 states that: “All church records and parish accounts may be kept by the rector himself, or else he must entrust the deacon and parishioners with keeping them”.[43]Tserkovnaia Zhiznʹ 5–6/1958, pp. 177–189. (in Russian) The Normal Parish By-Laws entrust the treasurer with keeping the parish accounts (Clause 34); the secretary is responsible for keeping minutes at Parish Assemblies, and the secretary also keeps minutes of meetings of the Parish Council.[44]“Dolzhnostnye litsa prikhoda. «D.» Sekretarʹ.” [“Parish Officers. ‘D’. Secretary”], in: Sobranie Polozhenii, Ustavov i Zakonov Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Zagranitsei, p. 346. (in … Continue reading

In the same article, Anashkin notes that “the strengthening of episcopal authority also manifested itself in the fact the 1959 “Instructions to Church Wardens” gave the bishop the right to dismiss church wardens. This is a positive development, as the 1918 Parish By-Laws do not address the issue of dismissal at all.

Nevertheless, like the diocesan councils, parishes in the Russian Orthodox Church retained the three-tiered representative structure adopted at the 1918 Council.

Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Andrei Kostriukov’s talk outlined the historical context in which the Councils of Bishops in 1956 and 1964 adopted this provision. Prof. Kostriukov outlined the problems associated with the relationship between Synod members and diocesan bishops, and between hierarchs and lay societies, so I will not address them here.

 

On Diocesan Administration, February 14, 20, 22, 1918.	Statutes of the ROCOR (with 2011 amendments)[45]English translation from: “Statutes of the ROCOR”. ROCOR Europe. URL: <https://orthodox-europe.org/english/rocor/statutes/> (accessed November 1, 2021)
§ 15. A diocesan bishop, by virtue of his succession in authority from the Holy Apostles, is the Primate of the local church, administering his diocese conciliarly in concert with the clergy and laity.	§ 45. The Diocesan Bishop, as the head of a local church (the diocese), enjoys, by Divine ordinance, the complete fullness of episcopal power, that is, to teach, to perform divine services, administration and the judiciary within the boundaries of his diocese.
§ 47. The Diocesan Council is a permanent, continuously acting administrative-executive body of elected members, with whose assistance the diocesan bishop administers the diocese.	§ 43.  Every diocese must have a Diocesan Council to assist the Diocesan Bishop in the administration of the diocese and it should be under his direct control and be subject to him.
§ 48. The Diocesan Council possess the right of initiative to raise general questions concerning church and diocesan life after these have been considered by the Diocesan Assembly and approved by the Diocesan Hierarch.	§ 46. The Diocesan Bishop possesses the right of initiative and direct leadership in all aspects of diocesan life.
§ 61. In the event that the ruling bishop disagrees with a decision of the Diocesan Council adopted at a meeting that was presided over by him personally, the matter will be referred to a higher church authority. If the bishop disagrees with a decision adopted by the Diocesan Council without his participation in the discussing the bishop, while indicating the reasons for his disagreement, shall submit the case to the Council for renewed consideration. If even then no agreement is reached, the case is referred to a higher church authority. Immediate disposition of the case is left to the authority of the bishop.	§ 79. In case of disagreement of the Ruling Bishop with the decision of the Diocesan Council, he may either resubmit it for consideration to the Council or make a decision at his own discretion.
§ 62. The Secretary of the Diocesan Council shall be elected from among the clergy and laity. In accordance with the moral qualities required by §§ 53 and 54, the candidate must have obtained higher education. The appointment of the Secretary is confirmed by the Supreme Church Authority after being nominated by the Diocesan Bishop.	§ 70. The Secretary of the Diocesan Council shall be appointed by the Diocesan Bishop with notification of his appointment to the Synod of Bishops. At meetings of the Diocesan Council, the Secretary shall record the minutes and shall certify as to certain matters, but he does not have the right of a deciding vote if he is not a member of the Council.

 

Statutes for Monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

The ROCOR upheld the norms of the All-Russian Local Council with respect to electing fathers and mothers superior:

 

Resolution on Monasteries and Monastics of the All-Russian Local Council, September 13, 1918

Statutes for Monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (1959)[46]English translation from: “Statutes for Monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia”. Western American Diocese. URL: <https://wadiocese.org/statutes_for_monasteries> … Continue reading

9. The election of the abbot of a monastery is carried out in the presence of the Dean of Monasteries or a monastic appointed by the diocesan bishop, by secret ballot, with the participation of all the monastery brotherhood, except those who have been tried in court and are under investigation for heinous acts. Each person participating in the election writes the name of one candidate on his ballot; the two who receive the greatest number of electoral votes are noted in the election record, which the Dean of Monasteries then submits to the Diocesan Hierarch for review. Note. The above rule about the election of the abbot of a monastery by the brethren does not apply to monasteries whose abbots are, according to their respective statutes, ruling or vicar bishops, as well as to monasteries of a particular nature.

10. The fathers and mothers superior of monasteries and other monastic communities, in accordance with ancient monastic tradition, are elected by a general assembly of the brothers or sisters and upon the recommendation by the Diocesan Bishop confirmed in their office by the Synod of Bishops. In case of dissent among the brothers or sisters, and in other necessary cases, including in all missionary monasteries, the Diocesan Bishop himself appoints the superior, for the sake of the good of the Church, which is then confirmed by the Synod of Bishops.

Other Russian Jurisdictions Abroad

The topic of views on the All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918 in the Russian Orthodox Church must be the subject of a special piece of research.[47]Until recently, Sourozh Diocese had Statutes very close to the norms of the All-Russian Local Council. On how the legacy of the All-Russian Council has been preserved, c.f.: Dcn. A. Psarev. … Continue reading In general, the ROC has shown the same tendency as the ROCOR toward a strengthening of hierarchical leadership, although a Local Council, rather than an Ecumenical Council, retains the right to elect and retire the Patriarch, among other things.[48]cf. official site of the Moscow Patriarchate: <http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133117.html> (accessed October 29, 2021). The Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church were amended at the Council of Bishops in 2017. Here, I have compared the ROCOR’s approach with two other so-called ‘Russian’ jurisdictions: the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and the Archdiocese of Western European Parishes of Russian Tradition.

 

Orthodox Church in America

All-American Council Supreme legislative and administrative body of the OCA (bishops, clergy, and laity). Meets no less than once per year. Elects the metropolitan. The Synod has the right to veto the Council’s decisions.
Holy Synod (=Council of Bishops) All diocesan hierarchs Permanent Synod (meets between sessions of the Holy Synod)	Metropolitan Council Members of the OCA’s central administration, as well as those elected by the All-American Council and Diocesan Assemblies. Executive body of the All-American Council. Meets at least twice yearly.
Diocesan Assembly Executive body: Diocesan Council. Recommends candidates to the Synod to fill vacant sees.	Parish Assembly Executive body: Parish Council consisting of rector, clergy, and laity (male and female). Finances are managed by the parish.

 

Archdiocese of Western European Parishes of Russian Tradition

Conference (=Synod) of Bishops

Diocesan Assembly Consists of bishops and parish representatives (clergy and laity). Meets once every three years. Elects the Archdiocesan Council of clergy and laity for a three-year term. The Diocesan Assembly elects the metropolitan.

Parish Assembly (all parish members) Executive body: Parish Council consisting of rector, clergy, and laity (male and female). Finances are managed by the parish. Elects Churchwarden for a three-year term.

 

In both cases, the Synod has the right to veto the decisions of members of the clergy and laity alike. On the whole, we can see that the OCA and the Western European Archdiocese have preserved the administrative structure envisioned by the All-Russian Local Council throughout, at both the diocesan and parish levels.

 

Conclusion

With the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II on March 2, 1917, the ‘Constantinian’ period in the history of the Church came to an end. For the first time in its history, the Russian Church was deprived of state supervision. Church-state relations naturally returned to their pre-Constantinian state, in which we continue to exist to this day. Under these conditions, the pivot back toward conciliarity was, so to speak, a matter of instinct. The principle of conciliarity is expressed very succinctly in Canon XXXIV of the Holy Apostles, a 4^th-century pseudepigraphical work of Syrian[49]Part of Apostolic Constitutions. The Apostolic Canons are influenced by the canons of the Council of Antioch, Laodicea, and Nicea (325). H. Ohme, “Greek Canon Law to 691/2,” The History of … Continue reading origin:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish [παροικία can be translated as ‘diocese’ —Dcn. A. P.], and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.[50]Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, H. Percival tr., 2nd ser., Vol 14 (Oxford, 1900, rpr. Ann Arbor, MI, 1979), p. 596.

I believe that following this, so to speak, golden rule is a guarantor of harmonious existence not only within the Council of Bishops, but within the entire Church, and within each diocese, parish, or family. The Council of 1917–1918, which established a representative function within the Russian Church while still giving hierarchs veto powers, was thus a response to the challenges of the times – even if, due to the latter factor (episcopal veto), we cannot speak of the 1917 Council as a triumph of democracy in the Church. However, it would be just as unfair to deny that the Council was not influenced by the shift toward democracy in Russia after the February Revolution of 1917. The regional (local) church councils that were held in the Ukraine, Siberia, and the South of Russia already took the representative factor as a given. This factor was also expanded at the First All-Diaspora Council to include representatives of a Russian political organization, the Supreme Monarchist Council. In this way, politics, which the previous three councils had made an effort to avoid, found its way into the Russian Church Abroad. Since this particular brand of politics favored restoring the monarchy, it was reflected in the monarchical authority of bishops. The Russian Church Abroad thus developed an ambivalent attitude toward the All-Russian Local Council. On the one hand, the Council was necessary as an authoritative reference point for the “undivided Russian Church,” as the Council that restored the Patriarchate (for which Metropolitan Anthony had fought) and gave instructions to collect information about those who had suffered for the faith.[51]The All-Russian Local Council is also mentioned as being authoritative in the resolution of the Council of Bishops dated August 27, 1927, on the ROCOR’s moving over to autonomous status. “2) In … Continue reading On the other hand, we can see the representative principle gradually being neutralized, such that it is completely absent in at the highest level of church administration and is preserved only to some extent at the diocesan level. In the ROCOR, as in other Russian “jurisdictions,” the principle of representation is almost fully preserved at the parish level, as determined by the All-Russian Local Council, though this is still a cause of regret for some of our clergy. In addition, even the Normal Parish By-Laws do not address many aspects of church life.[52]Archpriest Iaroslav Belikov. “O slozhnykh mestakh normalʹnogo prikhodskogo ustava” [“On Problematic Sections Within the Normal Parish By-Laws”]. Interview on April 28, 2015. ROCOR Studies. … Continue reading

ROCOR hierarchs have made deep statements about conciliarity. For example, Metropolitan Vitalii (Ustinov) said in an interview:

It is often the case that a layman will say something that makes a bishop think. What is it that we, as bishops, do? We listen in on the Church, the way She lives, the air She breathes, and we then give this back, but concretely, clearly, precisely. Yet where is it that we get all of this from? From the whole Church […] We mystically get a sense from the people of what they live by, even if they do not themselves know what this is and cannot put a finger on it. The Council of Bishops clearly shows them the way, sets out markers, and the people are grateful for this.[53]“Protsess vozrozhdeniia Rossii nachalsia” [“The Process of Russia’s Rebirth has Begun”], in: Pravoslavnaia Rusʹ [Orthodox Russia] 17,1992, p. 5. (in Russian)

However, in reality, there is no mechanism whereby this eavesdropping takes place, and the problem of the interaction between archpastors and their flock fits with what Metropolitan Laurus of everlasting memory said in one of his last addresses, at a conference at Saint Tikhon’s University in Moscow in 2008, about when laypeople do not develop and, consequently, the pastors of the Church cannot rely on them for expert assistance:

[…] a vicious cycle is formed—the people of God are despised, is not called upon to active cooperation, and no one tends to their spiritual education. The result is that the people are excluded from participating in the life of the Church and become simply passive observers of the mysteries, and the pastors abandon their true calling.[54]Welcome Address by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the ROCOR, at the Conference “Ways of the Russian Diaspora Church”, January 21, 2008. ROCOR Studies. URL: … Continue reading

Our Russian Church Abroad is deservedly loved in the Orthodox world for Her liturgical zeal, the pastoral zeal of Her clergy, the modest lifestyle and openness of Her archpastors, and the “homeyness” of Her congregations. However, as a result of the removal, as described here, of the principal of representation from church life it has become almost entirely synonymous with liturgical life. It is sufficient to analyze news items on diocesan Internet sites to see that most of the reports are descriptions of liturgical events. I attribute this lack of initiative to a lack of conciliar representation. I assume that, if the Church continues along these lines, this will not be conducive to growth in the number of parishioners in the Russian Church Abroad.

In addition to the Divine Liturgy, there is also the so-called liturgy of our lives, our participation in the life of the society in which we exist. This includes, first and foremost, examining ways to support the clergy (e.g., if the Council of Bishops were to make addresses to their flock). Our Holy Trinity Orthodox Theological Seminary tries to ensure that our students are up to the level of spiritual and intellectual development expected by the people of God in the 21^st century. However, in the absence of dialogue with the hierarchy, our efforts are in isolation.

As a well-known Russian folk saying goes, “The Church is in ribs, not beams”. We have a lot of outstanding, dedicated people in the ROCOR. Their collective wisdom may help our archpastors in the matter of preserving and multiplying the portion of the Church that has been entrusted to them. Fears and concerns about a “lay rebellion” are counter-productive, since a rebellion can only arise when there is mistrust between the hierarchy and the People of God. The example of common “liturgical”[55]When participants began to turn to polemics in an agitated tone at the Fourth All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco in May 2006, Archbishop Ambrose of Geneva and Western Europe pointed out that … Continue reading work at the Council of 1917–1918 shows that lay involvement can in fact be quite constructive. The Fund for the Assistance to the ROCOR, founded in 1959 as a lay initiative, is one of a handful of “extra-liturgical” institutions in our church that remain in high demand to this day.[56]Dcn. A. Psarev, “Sixty Years of Service to the People of God: The ROCOR Fund for Assistance, 1959-2019” ROCOR Studies. … Continue reading

In the Orthodox Church, there is no division between those who teach and those who are taught (sacri et profani). All of us, from the ordinary Christian to the Metropolitan, are called to serve, as Vladyka Laurus said in the address quoted earlier:

Just as every ordination takes place in a particular church, each baptism takes place in a particular community. All of us in the church are called to serve; the Lord Himself is an example of his, as he said: “but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister” (Mt. 20:26). This is an example of service to God and His people: the greater your responsibility, the greater your ministry to your brethren.

Strengthening conciliarity could begin with our Synod of Bishops commissioning a statistical study on the sociological composition of ROCOR parishes. We could then consider creating something like the Inter-conciliar Commission within the ROCOR: a community of experts whom our bishops could entrust with preparing documents on various issues. The committees existing within the ROCOR Synod of Bishops could be transformed into such a body. Such are my aspirations for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the long-term perspective, in accordance with the title of this conference. Thank you for your attention!