The Moscow Council (1917–1918): The Creation of the Conciliar Institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church 978-0268026172

Table of contents :
Foreword to the French Edition,
by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) xi
Preface to the French Edition, by Hervé Legrand, O.P. xiii
Introduction 1
  The Council’s Origins 5
  Towards the Council, 1905–1917 21
  The Council Itself: Procedures, Composition, 53
and Unfolding
  The Decrees of the Council 71
Chapter 1. The Conciliar Organization of the Church 73
Chapter 2. Pastoral Activity and Discipline in the Church 124
Chapter 3. The Church, the State, and the Revolution 137
  The Application and Reception of the Decrees of 153
the Council
Appendix I. The Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred 191
Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917– 1918
Appendix II. The Statute of the Local Council of the 333
Orthodox Church of All Russia
Addendum of Selected Recent Scholarship 352
Notes 354
Bibliography 423
Index 433

Citation preview

THE MOSCOW COUNCIL (1917–1918) The Creation of the Conciliar Institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church

BY

HYACINTHE DESTIVELLE, O.P. F OR EWOR D B Y M ET ROP OL I TA N H I L A RION (ALFEYEV ) T R A N SL AT E D B Y J E R RY RYA N E DI T E D B Y M IC HA E L PL E KON A N D V ITALY PERMIAKOV

The Moscow Council (1917–1918)

THE MOSCOW COUNCIL (1917–1918) The Creation of the Conciliar Institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church



HYACINTHE DESTIVELLE, O.P.     ()           

University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana

Copyright © 2015 by the University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Destivelle, Hyacinthe, 1970– [Concile de Moscou, 1917-1918. English] The Moscow Council (1917–1918) : the creation of the conciliar institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church / by Hyacinthe Destivelle, O.P. ; foreword by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) ; translated by Jerry Ryan ; edited by Michael Plekon and Vitaly Permiakov. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-268-02617-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 0-268-02617-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-268-07782-2 (e-book) 1. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’. Council (1917–1918 : Moscow, Russia) 2. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’—Doctrines—History—20th century. 3. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’—Doctrines—History—20th century— Sources. I. Plekon, Michael, 1948– joint editor. II. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’. Council (1917–1918 : Moscow, Russia) III. Title. BX465.D4713 2015 262'.51947—dc23 2014047959 ∞ The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

CONTENTS

Foreword to the French Edition, by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) Preface to the French Edition, by Hervé Legrand, O.P.

xi xiii

Introduction

1

  The Council’s Origins

5

  Towards the Council, 1905–1917

21

  The Council Itself: Procedures, Composition, and Unfolding

53

  The Decrees of the Council

71

Chapter 1. The Conciliar Organization of the Church Chapter 2. Pastoral Activity and Discipline in the Church Chapter 3. The Church, the State, and the Revolution

  The Application and Reception of the Decrees of the Council

73 124 137

153

Appendix I. The Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917–1918

191

Appendix II. The Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia

333

Addendum of Selected Recent Scholarship

352

Notes

354

Bibliography

423

Index

433

D E TA I L E D TA B L E O F C O N T E N TS FOR THE APPENDICES

A   I The Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917 –1918. Volumes 1– 4

191

Volume 1 192 I. On the Basic Principles of the Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church of Russia 192 II.

On the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

192

III.

On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church

195

IV.

On the Scope of Authority of the Institutions of the Supreme Administration of the Church

199

On the Diocesan Administration

204

V.

Volume 2 I. On Edinoverie

220 220

II.

Concerning the Legal Status of the Orthodox Church of Russia

223

III.

On Church Preaching

225

IV.

On the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith in Schools

228

V.

On Church Schools

229

VI.

Regarding the Government Proposal Concerning Parochial Schools

231

VII. Regarding the Decree on Divorce and on Civil Marriage

234

VIII. On the Superior of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity and St. Alexander Nevsky and on Its Work in Education

236

IX.

Regarding the Division of Local Resources for the Support of Parish Clergy

236 vii

viii

X.

XI.

D E TA I L E D TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

On the Formation of the General Church Fund, and on the Salaries for the Professors and Staff of Ecclesiastical Schools until September 1/14, 1918 On a Special Collection to Cover the Expenses of the Council

238 240

Volume 3 I. Introduction to the Parish Statutes

241 241

II.

On the Orthodox Parish

249

III.

On the Auxiliary (Vicar) Bishops

275

IV.

On the District Assemblies

276

V.

On the Internal and External Mission

277

VI.

On the Basic Principles of the Reform, and on the Introduction of New Structures in the Orthodox Theological Academies

283

VII. On Theological Seminaries and Schools, and on Pastoral Schools

283

VIII. On Diocesan and Synodal Schools for Women

284

IX. X. XI.

On the Measures Caused by the Ongoing Persecution against the Orthodox Church

284

On the Measures for the Ending of the Discord in the Life of the Church

287

Concerning the Causes for the Dissolution of a Marital Union Sanctified by the Church

290

XII. Concerning the Financial Support to the Members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church

293

XIII. On the Collection from the Issuance of Church Documents

294

Volume 4 I. On the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch

295 295

II.

On the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne

298

III.

On the Full Powers of the Members of the 1917–1918 Council

299

IV.

On the Convocation of the Next Council and on the Powers of the Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church

299

D E TA I L E D TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

V.

ix

On the Statute and Personnel of the Supreme Church Administration

300

On the Administration of Theological Schools and Parochial Schools, and on the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith to the Students of Secular Schools

301

VII.

On Ecclesiastical Provinces

301

VIII.

Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine 302

VI.

The Additional Decree Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine 303 The Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine

303

The Resolution of the Ukrainian Church Council on the Binding Character of the Resolutions of the All-Russian Church Council and of the Most Holy Patriarch for the Dioceses of Ukraine 306 IX.

On the Changes in the Articles 80 and 83 of the Conciliar Definition on the Diocesan Administration

306

X.

On the Establishment of New Dioceses and Auxiliary Sees

307

XI.

On the Establishment of the Diocese of Warsaw in the Borders of the Former Kingdom of Poland 308

XII.

On the Procedure for the Local Glorification of Saints

309

XIII.

On the Restoration of the Feast of All Saints of Russia

311

XIV.

On the Protection of the Church Possessions from Blasphemous Usurpation and Profanation

311

XV.

On Monasteries and Monastics

313

XVI.

On the Admission of Unmarried Persons to Holy Orders

325

XVII. On the Restoration into the Holy Orders of the Persons Deposed by the Decision of the Ecclesiastical Court

325

XVIII. On the Remarriage of Clerics

326

XIX.

On the Active Participation of Women in Various Areas of Church Ministry

327

x

D E TA I L E D TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

XX.

On the Amendment to the Conciliar Definition on the Reasons for the Dissolution of Marriage Sanctified by the Church 327

XXI.

On the Property and Economic Management of the Church

328

XXII. On the Financial and Economic Institutions of the Church

329

XXIII. On the Fees Collected from Petitions and Documents to the General Church Fund

330

XXIV. On the Collection “the Church’s Coin”

330

A   II The Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia 333 I.

Basic Principles

333

II.

The Opening of the Council, the Closing and Adjournment of the Council

334

III.

The Members of the Council

335

IV.

The Officers of the Council

337

V.

The Council’s Executive Committee

338

VI.

The Conference of Bishops

339

VII.

The Commissions of the Council

340

VIII.

The Process for Submitting Matters to Be Examined by the Council

343

IX.

The Protocol of the Meetings of the Council

344

X.

The Protocol for the Consideration of Matters at the Council

345

XI.

The Debates

346

XII.

The Voting Process

348

XIII.

The Records of the Council

350

F O R E W O R D T O T H E F R E N C H EDITION

The local Council of Moscow of 1917–1918 is without doubt the greatest event in the recent history of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was the first council convoked since 1667 and the result of an astonishing renewal— scarcely known until then—of Russian Orthodox theology at the beginning of the twentieth century. This council addressed, with exceptional courage, the myriad questions that the evolution of society was presenting to Christians: Church government, mission, preaching, liturgy, monasticism, parochial life. Many of the problems then raised still seem particularly relevant today: the role of the laity in the Church, the place of women, the position of the Church in society, the unity of Christians. Some of the decisions taken at that time allowed the Russian Church to survive the Soviet period and formed the basis for its present renewal. These include the reestablishment of the patriarchate and church councils and parish renewal. But over and above the council’s results is its deliberately “conciliar” method, in the spirit of sobornost’, so dear to Russian tradition—anxious always to place adequate emphasis on the charism of each part of the Church: bishops, priests, the laity. This is most extraordinary in many respects. Without attempting to idealize one period with respect to another, in this case the “Moscow” period vis-à-vis that of the “synodal,” the council posed in a new light each one of the questions noted above with constant reference to the fathers and to earlier councils, while seeking to adapt to the society of its time. Unfortunately, historical circumstances prevented the assembly from finishing its work. It is the task of the Russian Church to continue the reflections begun by the Council of Moscow, with due regard to the context of that period as well as the present situation. Thus it is with gratitude that we extend our blessing to this monograph on the Council of Moscow of 1917–1918 and recommend it to readers. Ten years ago, access to the archives of the council was made available, and its acts and decisions were published. Since then several studies have been made—both in Russia and abroad—on this important page in the history xi

xii

F O R E WO R D T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

of the Russian Church. However, no author has, until now, undertaken a synthetic presentation, both historical and theological, of the amplitude of what was at stake at the Council of Moscow. Now it has been done with the publication of this book, which proposes an ecclesiological reflection not only on the council’s decisions but also on its composition and its functioning, as well as on its reception, especially by the theologians of the emigration, known as the “Paris School.” The book thus fills a gap and is a landmark in the study of this council. In it, Father Hyacinthe Destivelle demonstrates both an unparalleled knowledge of the Russian Church and a most discerning understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. His work is truly a study in ecumenical theology. Without ever slipping onto the beaten tracks of a critical or comparative approach, it addresses with keen insight the very questions that the Russian Church itself is asking today. A first edition of this work was published in Italian in 2003 by Qiquajon editions of the monastery of Bose and it will soon be available in Russian.1 We give thanks to God that it is now available at the Editions du Cerf, which for decades now has contributed to publication of works of the Russian tradition in the French-speaking world. This has included publication in the prestigious Cogitatio Fidei collection, which included L’Église du Saint Esprit by Nicholas Afanasiev in 1975. This French version has the added interest of offering in an appendix a full translation of the council’s decrees, making this volume a most valuable tool for further study. Apart from its scholarly merits, this book bears witness to the emergence of a new generation of theologians, and is a sign of hope for the future of relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. + Hilarion Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and Chair of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E DITION

If the purpose of writing a preface to a book, above all, is to attract the attention of the public to its importance, presenting the work of Hyacinthe Destivelle, The Moscow Council (1917–1918), is the easiest of tasks. It is a singular effort, indispensable for anyone who wants to understand the contemporary Russian Orthodox Church. More broadly, this study should interest all those engaged in theological reflection in the field of ecumenism. Ecumenical studies must necessarily include the concepts of the synodal and conciliar aspects of the Church, both of which were analyzed in depth and received some original solutions during this council. We rejoice, too, that the study in question is accompanied by a translation — for the first time in a western language — of The Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia. A study such as this, then, is altogether worthy to take its place in the Cogitatio Fidei series, which has in part continued the collection of ecclesiological studies Unam Sanctam founded by Yves Congar.

A T  U  R O C  Y  T   I E Without a shadow of doubt, the present study can be classed alongside the annotated edition of the Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great, by Father C. Tondini in 1874.1 We have here in Destivelle’s book a magisterial study that will facilitate understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church as it evolved in time in an even more fundamental way than what can be found in the work of Tondini. The latter published a document of the tsar that was, to be sure, normative, while we have here in Destivelle the acts of a council that is, as has been so often and justifiably said, the historical equivalent of Vatican II. xiii

xiv

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

The page of a fierce and seemingly endless persecution of the Church in Russia has at last been turned, and the Russian Orthodox Church has already entered upon a period of reconstruction and renewal, which should allow it quickly to take pride of place in world Orthodoxy. All the same, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev echoed an opinion prevalent in his Church, when he wrote: The questions posed by the Council of 1917–1918 continue to await their answers. They are as pertinent today as then. It seems to me that we cannot really make progress in many areas of church life without examining the heritage of this Council, and evaluating both its decisions in the context of our contemporary situation and our contemporary situation in the light of its decisions.2 Thus it is of the utmost importance that researchers gain access to such valuable documents up to now never translated in the West. Apart from those engaged in research, all readers would benefit from a real introduction to this council, carefully situated in its historical, social, and theological context. What is more, they will be able to study the actual texts of its decisions. In 1917, the Russian Church was freed from the straitjacket of Peter the Great’s Spiritual Regulation and from control by the lay chief procurator of the government within the Holy Synod. Autonomous for the first time in its history vis-à-vis the state, it set about reconstructing its institutional life and redefining its authentic mission. We shall see how the council reestablished the patriarchate suppressed by Peter the Great. But we shall also learn—and this is less widely known—how this same council took on the reform of dioceses and parishes and their network of schools; how it aimed at upholding the monastic life, especially in the case of educated monks, from whose ranks the bishops were normally selected;3 and how it discussed relationships with the Old Believers and with other Christian churches in an approach already pre-ecumenical. Regarding more fundamental issues in Christian life, the directives of the council concerning preaching and mission are of special interest. At that time, just as today, Russia contained important minority religions, for example Islam and Buddhism as well as indigenous groupings among whom a very

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

xv

active mission was developing.4 The reforms adopted by the council in the area of theological studies were equally important as were the efforts made to renew Church discipline and restore life to the liturgy. This latter question remains just as relevant today as in the past, for liturgy celebrated in Slavonic remains incomprehensible to the majority of the faithful. This listing—and it is not exhaustive—of the themes treated at the Moscow Council should convince readers of how apposite is the comparison between this council and Vatican II: both dealt with the most pressing of contemporary issues! Destivelle examines each of these complex questions, freely citing historians such as Leroy-Beaulieu5 and Freeze,6 both of whom paid special attention to interactions between the Orthodox Church and Russian society. He is equally alert to the theological reception of this council during the Soviet period and by the Russian theologians of the emigration, in particular those associated themselves with the Saint Sergius Theological Institute in Paris—among others, Florovsky, Bulgakov, Afanasiev, Schmemann, and Meyendorff. Naturally, the author does not speculate as to what the future will be, but his work will remain, for a long time, indispensable for all who are interested in the future of the Russian Orthodox Church, a future that will most certainly refer to this council and be guided by its orientations.

A T   S   E T I I  P  E The Moscow Council of 1917–1918 was indeed a local council, but it is of truly universal import. First of all, it allows us to observe, in its most technical details, how an Orthodox Church sets about reforming itself. By this very fact, it gives the lie to those who caricature Orthodoxy, believing it a dead tradition. On the contrary, this council shows that tradition in the Orthodox Church is a living reality. Freed from its constraints, it can once again link up with the reforming precedents established by this council. In his celebrated work Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église,7 Yves Congar demonstrated, at that time, to what extent this reform was truly evangelical and how, without it, hope for the unity of Christians would lose its momentum.

xvi

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

In 1917–1918 the Russian Orthodox Church actually began reforming its institutions, and by so doing, offered a remarkable example to the rest of the Christian world. Churches are not divided simply by what they teach. They can also be separated by the place that elements not emanating from pure divine law occupy in their definitions. The Orthodox Church undertook this reform inspired by an intuition far ahead of its time, one with a most important ecumenical value. The council anticipated the extraordinary ecumenical convergence that is beginning to emerge today in the efforts for Church unity. This convergence was enunciated for the first time at Lausanne in 1927, on the occasion of the first World Conference on Faith and Order. This is what was said: In the constitution of the primitive Church, is to be found the episcopal charge, the council of elders, and the community of the faithful. Each one of these systems of Church organization (episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational) was, for many centuries, accepted in the past, and is practiced today by many Christian communities. Each of these is regarded by its tenants as essential to the good order of the Church. Consequently, we hold that, under certain conditions, yet to be elucidated, they ought to take, simultaneously, their respective places in the organization of a reunited Church.8 This recommendation was put forward again, as we know, by the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) document of Faith and Order at Lima in 1982.9 The text was adopted by the representatives of all the member Churches, that is to say by those of the Orthodox Churches and those of the Catholic Church, which as full member of this Commission of the Ecumenical Council of the Churches, represents a third of its delegates.10 There can be no doubt that it was the Orthodox Church that pioneered these perspectives in its Council of 1917–1918—even before they were put forward at Lausanne.11 In reestablishing the patriarchate, which was suppressed by Peter the Great, the council reestablished the authority of “one” in the Church. Simultaneously, by introducing the elective and representative principle at all Church levels including the parishes, and by prescribing the election of bishops in their dioceses, it also reestablished the authority of “all.” The composition and functioning of the local coun-

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

xvii

cil, which wields supreme authority in the Russian Church, illustrates very well the remarkable way in which the principles that the BEM were to enunciate had already been anticipated and put in place by the 1917–1918 Council. All diocesan bishops were ex officio members, and they were accompanied by two other elected clerics, one of whom was a priest, and by three members of the laity, also elected. All members of the council had a deliberative vote, but the bishops had a special role in function of their ministry because “the general laws or the decisions touching on fundamental principles” had to be approved specifically by three quarters of the bishop members of the council. If, after amendment by the council, the proposition was rejected by the bishops a second time, it could not be adopted. We can see the sheer originality of this procedure, which is in no way comparable to the two-house parliamentary system, in which each house has its own members and separate sessions. Neither can we describe the bishops’ action as a right of veto, for this right is in principle exercised by an external body on a deliberating assembly. If it is always possible to question the appropriateness of the institutions set in motion by the Council of 1917–1918, it is impossible not to appreciate the courageous effort at reform, even though it was never concretely realized. Neither would it be right to see in it a democratization of the Church, according to a political reading such as that of Kartashev, who— strongly influenced by the context of his times—appears to overstate matters.12 More seriously still, it would be myopic not to recognize the council’s raising of a fundamental question posed to all those Churches that seem to pay little heed to the fundamental rights of the baptized based in the sacraments. To ignore this would be tantamount to renouncing the elaboration of a canon law with an ecumenical orientation. In the Catholic Church, a project along this line, Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis, acclaimed in the wake of Vatican II, came to nothing, and the revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 almost entirely neglected this perspective, in spite of several serious publications on the matter.13 The problem appeared to be an inability to surmount the conceptual dichotomy, community/society, which the Council of 1917 resolved in impressive fashion. This present study was conducted conjointly at the Institut supérieur d’études oecuméniques at the Catholic Institute of Paris under my direction, and at the Saint-Serge Institute of Orthodox Theology, under the direction of the professor of modern history of the Russian Orthodox

xviii

P R E FA C E T O T H E F R E N C H E D I T I O N

Church, Prince Dimitri Shakhovskoy, Professor at the University of HauteBretagne; the second reader was Professor Nicholas Lossky (University of Paris-Nanterre). The jury by unanimous vote judged that the work undertaken by Hyacinthe Destivelle will remain for many years an indispensable tool for an understanding of the Russian Church and its future, and, more widely still, for reflection on the theology of communion. Even though much has still to be said about this latter, it is henceforth looked upon as the ecumenical model par excellence of ecclesiology. Hervé Legrand, O.P. Director of the Higher Institute of Ecumenical Studies Institut catholique de Paris

I N T R O DU C T I O N

In Russian, the single word sobor 1 is used to designate both the council and a church building. As an adjective, the word qualifies, in the creed, the third element of the Church: soborniy. This manifests the close link that, in Russian thought, unites the Church and the council—to the point that sometimes the two tend to become confused. As for the Church, it is by nature conciliar, and the council manifests the very essence of ecclesiality. No Russian council shows this more clearly than the local Council2 of the Russian Orthodox Church3 held in Moscow from August 15 (28), 1917, to September 7 (20), 1918.4 The most obvious result of this council is the restoration of the patriarchate. Undoubtedly, this remarkable decision was the most important for the immediate history of the Russian Church, but in reality the exceptional character of the council rests in its very existence. After two centuries of silence, the Russian Church, for the first time since the Great Moscow Council of 1666–1667, had once more made its voice heard. The particular quality of this council is due also to its preparation, which lasted twelve years, during which time all the bishops were invited to prepare reports. Three commissions held sessions. Countless articles and manifestos were published by a press that displayed an astonishing vitality. This council was likewise unique in its composition: an assembly of 564 members, which included 299 elected laity representing every aspect of Church life, and all enjoying a deliberative vote. It was unique too because of the quality of its members, some of whom—Evgeniy N. Trubetskoy or Sergius N. Bulgakov, for example—gave witness to the remarkable renewal of Russian theology at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was singular also because it raised numerous questions that concerned the entire Church, questions that today appear amazingly relevant: the place of the laity, missionary work, preaching, the role of women in the Church. Finally, 1

2

INTRODUCTION

this council was exceptional because of the disruptive context in which it was held: a world war and a communist revolution that began a persecution of Christians to a degree unsurpassed until then. A great number of the council members—bishops, priests, monks, laity—were to die as martyrs during and especially after its deliberations, thus transforming this council into a true council of witnesses to the faith, into the largest assembly of future saints in the history of the Russian Church.5 The object of this study is to present the Council of 1917–1918 from the point of view of its decrees. A presentation from the historical perspective or from that of its acts—or again from the viewpoint of one of its members—would likewise have been a possibility. The choice made can be justified for several reasons. First of all, the republication in 1994 of the only official version of these decrees allowed us, in spite of its imperfections, to have access to fairly well defined documents, whereas the acts of the council are, at present, accessible only with some difficulty.6 At the same time, it gave us the opportunity to provide a complete translation of these documents. This translation appears as appendices to this volume. On the other hand, this council has such an aura about it and has been praised to such an extent that it has been proclaimed “Russia’s Vatican II,” at times confusing topics for debate with the council’s decisions themselves. For this reason, it seemed important to show what had in fact been defined: its decrees—the fruit of compromises after lengthy discussions—were often formulated in a truly balanced fashion. Finally, the decrees alone allow us to make objective comparisons with subsequent decrees issued by the Orthodox Church in Russia and in Europe, and thus to envisage, beyond its undeniable historical importance, the truly theological reception of this council. Given that our main aim is to present the council, the study of its decrees and their reception is preceded by three parts whose object is to explain the council’s origins, to trace its remarkable preparation, and to explain its composition and its functioning, especially as concerns the process of decision making according to its statute (which we shall also offer in translation in the appendix). The council would be an enigma without a brief presentation of its historical context (part 1). This will enable the reader to understand its causes and its origins, for the situation of the Russian Church at the beginning of the twentieth century is a paradox. On the one hand, it was “in paralysis”—to employ Dostoevsky’s vocabulary—by the iron-clad ad-

INTRODUCTION

3

ministrative strictures imposed during the synodal period. At the same time, however, it was experiencing a renewal in every domain—the promotion of the idea of conciliarity, sobornost’, being one of its more positive fruits. The Council of Moscow, before being an antidote to this paralysis, is most certainly the result of this renewal. The council was preceded by twelve long years of preparation (part 2). In fact, it was in 1905 that the Council of 1917–1918 began in reality, in the context of “Bloody Sunday” and the edict proclaiming religious tolerance, due to the simultaneous initiative of members of the Church and of the first constitutional government. We shall see from texts of the memoranda of the first three principal authors of the conciliar process that their motivations were, in reality, very different. In 1906, on the basis of a comprehensive enquiry sent to the bishops, a “preconciliar commission” launched its first proposals, synthesized in 1912 by a “preconciliar consultative committee.” But it was necessary to wait for the revolutionary upheaval of 1917 before the Church, put in a most unusual situation by the abdication of the tsar, could seriously put her mind to the business of the council. Aided by the Provisional Government and in conjunction with the Holy Synod, a Preconciliar Committee prepared the convocation of the council. This was scheduled for August 15 (28), 1917. It would not be possible to understand the council without these twelve years of preparation, which permitted the commissions to submit projects which were often the fruit of many years of work. Ultimately, even if it had been impossible to convoke the council, the preparatory work in itself would have been an event of exceptional interest. Following this historical introduction, a synchronic look at the composition and functioning of the council will be necessary, in order to understand the context of its decrees (part 3). In fact, the prime interest of the council is, without doubt, its statute. The Preconciliar Committee, after many debates, had opened up the council to nonepiscopal clerics and to the laity, elected on a representative basis by a three-degree system, and, as in the case of the bishops, having a deliberative vote. In order to safeguard episcopal authority the original procedure, nevertheless, reserved for the bishops—gathered as a distinct unit within the council—the right to veto decisions taken at a plenary assembly. The real composition of the council, reflecting the Russian Church on the eve of the revolution, was shot through with all the varying currents of thought about the Church at that time. However, the common external threat contributed to the cementing

4

INTRODUCTION

of these different forces that sought above all to maintain the Church’s survival right through the three sessions held between August 15 (28), 1917, and September 7 (20), 1918. The placing of events in perspective allows us to enter into the main part of this work: an attempt at a synthetic presentation of the council’s decrees (part 4). These latter are for the most part the fruit of compromise, after intense debates in commissions and plenary assemblies, prepared during twelve years of reflection in diverse preconciliar commissions and in the press. Naturally, only a systematic study of the debates, their context, and the various reports would afford an understanding of the implications and the import of each of these decrees. Our study—opting for a synthesis rather than for a thesis—will limit itself to a commentary on the actual texts of these decisions, referring to the context only when obscure points need clarification. This general presentation of the decrees will allow us to understand better, beyond their apparent disorder, the profound unity and the underlying theme. In fact, adopted in haste and according to an agenda constantly interrupted by circumstances, the official version of the decrees is not exactly a well-structured whole. Nevertheless, three important areas can be discerned: the conciliar organization of the Church, with—at every level—an introduction of the principle of conciliarity; the renewal of pastoral activity and the reform of Church discipline; and, finally, relations of the Church with the state and with the revolution. Lastly, it would be a paradox not to study the reception of a council that in actual fact claimed to lay great emphasis on conciliarity, understood not simply as according absolute power to the institution—even to that of a council—but as a true way of life for the Church as a whole. Thus it will be necessary to attempt an evaluation of the reception of the council’s decrees, not only in Church practice, but also from the theological viewpoint (part 5). This evaluation is by no means easy, first of all because these decisions were never widely circulated nor always honestly recorded, and on the other hand, because political conditions made their application well nigh impossible. Nevertheless, we shall try to see to what extent these decrees were able to be applied, not only in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, but also in western Europe; and to present the judgments of some wellknown theologians on the work of the Moscow Council of 1917–1918.

PART 1 T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

The history of the 1917–1918 Moscow Council began in 1905. In fact, it was in 1905 that various initiatives resulted in the formation of a preconciliar commission. We are obliged, then, to go back to 1905 in order to understand its origins and its causes. These are to be found first of all in the situation of the Russian Church at the time, a situation that was paradoxical, on one hand marked by structural paralysis and on the other by a surprising renewal that was at once theological and spiritual, pastoral and missionary. The council could not have been organized, however, without the strong tradition of conciliar practice in Russia before the synodal period, a tradition renewed by the conciliar ideal of sobornost’ developed by the Slavophiles.

T P S   R C   In 1905, the Russian Church found itself in a paradoxical situation, apparently suffering a structural paralysis since the reforms of Peter the Great. At the same time, however, at its very core there was an exceptional renewal taking place.1 The Paralysis of the Russian Church since the Reforms of Peter the Great

“The Russian Church is in paralysis since the time of Peter the Great.” Thus Fedor Dostoevsky described the crisis in the Russian Church at the end of the nineteenth century. Of the three great periods of the Russian

5

6

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

Church, the Moscow period (from the fall of Kiev in 1240 to the institution of St. Petersburg as capital in 1725) might in fact appear as a golden age, prepared for by the Kiev period (from the Baptism of Rus in 988 to 1240) and broken by the synodal period (characterized by the institution of the Holy Synod from 1721–1917).2 In reality, this classical division and evaluation of the different periods of Russian history, summed up in Dostoevsky’s slogan, should be seriously nuanced. The reforms of Peter the Great were the culmination of an evolution that had been taking place during the patriarchal period.3 From the sixteenth century onwards, the foundation of the Moscow patriarchate in 1589—symbol of the Church’s independence vis-à-vis Byzantium— concealed only minimally the growing subjection of the Church to Tsar Ivan IV, a subjection highlighted by the defeat of Patriarch Nikon at the time of the Old Believers’ schism (Raskol ). During this time, the Russian Church was also under the spell of the West in a movement that culminated in Kiev, in the seventeenth century, under the influence of Metropolitan Peter Mogila (1632– 47). His famous Profession of Faith composed in 1640, originally in Latin, and directly inspired by the Catechismus Romanus—which in turn was edited after the Council of Trent to counteract Protestantism—symbolizes what Georges Florovsky called the “pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox thinking.4 The Kiev Academy, founded in 1635, adopted the Jesuit model, and took its inspiration from Western scholasticism5 before serving as model for the Slavo-Greek Latin Academy, opened in Moscow in 1687 by the Likhud brothers.6 There is no doubt, however, that the period of Peter the Great was, in a sense, the peak point of an evolution that began in the sixteenth century and led to the crisis of 1905. It would be useless, especially in Russia, to try to separate state factors from purely religious factors during the course of this evolution. Nonetheless, it certainly seems that this crisis was due as much to the actions of Peter the Great as to internal elements within the Church. External Factors of Paralysis: The Synodal System Peter the Great was not the sole artisan of an evolution set in motion since the sixteenth century, but he fixed that evolution into a narrow juridical straitjacket. On January 25, 1721, Peter published the Spiritual

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

7

Regulation,7 prepared after a long collaboration with Theophan (Prokopovich).8 This publication was tactfully arranged and imposed a statute that modified, in no small way, the organization9 of the Russian Church and its relations with the state. Its most fundamental change was the abolition of the patriarchal institution, which was replaced by a “permanent ecclesiastical College.”10 This institution, presented by Peter as “a permanent conciliar government,”11 and embellished by him with the virtues and antiquity of sobornost’,12 was, on February 14, 1721, rebaptized the “Most Holy Synod.” In reality, the new name barely concealed the perfect symmetry of this new institution with the nine other administrative colleges, each endowed with a general statute,13 which, since 1718, had been replacing the chanceries (prikazy). This regime was politically inspired by the collegial administrative systems of Western Europe14—in particular by that of Sweden,15 Russia’s great enemy — and on the ecclesiastical level by the Lutheran model of relations between Church and state.16 The Most Holy Synod was Peter’s idea of a kind of senate representing the different grades of the clergy.17 Even when the bishops were at first in a minority, its decisions were submitted to majority approval.18 In any case, their overall activity was strictly controlled by a highly placed chief procurator (ober-prokuror) who, while being a member of the Council of Ministers, watched over—with right of veto— the conformity of the decisions of the synod with the Spiritual Regulation and the interests of the state. By the nineteenth century this “eye of the emperor” had the authority of a minister appointed as a function of state policy.19 The state’s chanceries, as well as that of the Most Holy Synod, ruled over an all-powerful bureaucracy.20 The Spiritual Regulation was not content with reforming the supreme government of the Church. By all kinds of control measures and rules, it tried to lessen the power and prestige of the bishops.21 They were nominated by the emperor from among three candidates proposed by the Holy Synod and were rigidly subordinated to the latter. They had to appeal constantly to the synod for every move.22 They were required to furnish an annual report on the state of their diocese after their obligatory pastoral visitation,23 and receive permission to take their holidays.24 What is more, the statute attempted to humiliate episcopal prestige by obliging the bishops, for example, to listen at table to the reading of the canons

8

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

relevant to their office.25 In addition, the bishops were assisted by a diocesan consistory, which, in the diocese, filled a role comparable to that of the Holy Synod in the empire. Its members were appointed by the synod after presentation by the bishop.26 These consistories, which functioned as judges of the first order in what pertained to their competence (clerical discipline, marriage and divorce), were subject to bureaucracy and fiscal corruption27 and kept a close eye on the administrative functions of the bishops. Alongside each consistory, there was a lay secretary appointed by the synod upon presentation by the chief procurator whose subordinate he became. By a subtle system of mutual surveillance, the secretary of the consistory submitted his reports to the chief procurator, while the bishops and the consistory furnished theirs to the synod.28 The reform of Peter the Great had a bearing on every aspect of Church life. It was particularly hostile towards monasticism, the smallest details of which were prescribed in the Supplement to the Spiritual Regulation. It made every effort to reduce not only the number and patrimony of the monks, but also their intellectual and spiritual influence.29 Thus, entrance into the monastic life was only possible after having satisfied all obligations to the state, the commune, and individuals, and after having renounced all privileges of class, all property, and the right to inherit. A man had to be thirty years old before he could take vows, a woman, forty. In 1701, there were 965 monasteries of men; in 1764, there were only 319; by 1914, they had increased to 550.30 On the other hand, the Petrine administration had introduced centralization and bureaucracy into the monastic state. The Holy Synod had to authorize the foundation of a new monastery, the admission of vocations, and the nomination of superiors. Finally, the Supplement forbade monks, under pain of corporal punishment, to write books or even to have ink and paper in their cells without the superior’s permission.31 The preservation of the bureaucratic system, instituted at every level of Church life, was facilitated by the “ecclesiastical board of census” instituted by Peter the Great to combat the Raskol, and was exercised only in Church matters, but as a preventive measure.32 Since the synodal board of censors with its provincial committees was composed chiefly of monks, the point of view of secular clergy or of lay thinkers who were partisans of reform had difficulty in making itself heard and so had to employ roundabout tactics such as publishing abroad.33

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

9

Thus it was that, even though the synodal system instituted by Peter the Great was in the line of a noticeable evolution that began in the seventeenth century, it established a state of submission and bureaucracy that, throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, would take a firm hold on all levels of Church life. Internal Factors of Paralysis: A Clerical Caste System The crisis in the Russian Church at the beginning of the twentieth century was not entirely caused by Peter’s structural reforms. Within the Church itself, the distinction and the separation of the clergy into two distinct categories — an essential factor in the paralysis — was not due uniquely to the reforms of Peter.34 On the one hand, the black monastic clergy, from whose ranks bishops were exclusively recruited, tended to form a particular caste that quite often had little to do with monasticism. For the young students from the academies who were preparing for the episcopal career, the monastic habit was, in reality, only a preliminary formality. On the other hand, there were the white clerics who likewise constituted a caste. Russian society was largely responsible for this state of affairs. Since serfdom rendered it almost impossible for the nobility as well as for the peasants to leave their lands, only sons of priests succeeded their fathers. In spite of the abolition of the feudal system in 1861 by Alexander II, however, this Levite tradition was still in operation in 1905 and lasted until the eve of the revolution. Priests inherited from priests or through marriage—a practice in fact prohibited by the 1867 law. Moreover, there were many strictly defined subcastes among the clergy. Out of 500,000 clerics in 1889, there were only 35,000 priests for as many parishes and 7000 deacons (sviashchennosluzhiteli, senior ministers); all the others were “Church servants” (tserkovnosluzhiteli: cantors, sacristans, beadles, bell-ringers).35 To counterbalance the influence of those of the black clergy who were hostile to his reforms, Peter the Great had reserved places in the synod for the white clergy — in particular for the two chaplains-in-chief of the Army clergy and Navy clergy.36 But this presence in the synod of priests who were not bishops and who were maintained there for political ends and in variable proportions37 by successive chief procurators was hardly the way to promote relationships between the clergy and the episcopate.

10

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

The paltry public contributions to the parishes, on the other hand, placed the clergy in a situation of poverty and dependence with regard to their flock.38 The sale of candles, and especially the stipends, often collected with humiliating prerequisites, for the administration of the sacraments or celebration of liturgies, barely permitted the priest to provide a minimum for his family’s needs and those of the other ministers of the parish. His place in society isolated him both from the peasants, for his caste had its privileges—he was exempted from corporal punishments and from military service—and from the bourgeois and the nobles, with whom he could not associate due to his origins and education.39 Accorded little respect by the former as by the latter, the priest appeared as a functionary among others. This purely functional role of the clergy was supported by their weak and mediocre preaching.40 Peter the Great’s Spiritual Regulation, concluding that the clergy were incapable of preaching, required that they receive an authorization from the Ecclesiastical College (future Holy Synod) in order to do so and recommended that there be a reading in the services to instruct the people. Consequently, because of the clergy’s lack of education and the obligation of receiving the censor’s approval, as well as the hierarchy’s fear of nonorthodox influences, preaching remained the quasiexclusive privilege of the bishops, who were exempt from censorship. Some indeed, for example, Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, excelled at it. Finally, the seminaries and the academies, strictly centralized and under surveillance by the synodal authority, likewise contributed to the isolation of the white clergy. The seminaries, envisaged not so much for candidates for the priesthood as for children of priests, were marked by a sterile scholasticism and antiquated teaching methods that engendered a sort of intellectual proletariat and a breeding-ground of nihilists.41 Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828– 89), the only important materialist to come out of Russia in the nineteenth century, was the son of a priest. At the end of the reign of Alexander II, university entrance was refused to those who held seminary diplomas—probably to dry up the chief source of nihilists at the university—thus leaving these seminarians in a state of isolation and resentment.42 A Church paralyzed from the time of Peter the Great? Our rapid sketch of the situation of the Russian Church at the end of the nineteenth

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

11

century allows us to modify this statement somewhat, both with regard to the date and to the cause of this “paralysis.” On the one hand, the reforms in Church administration enacted by Peter were very often the recognition of an evolution already at work since the sixteenth century. On the other hand, the Russian Church suffered from evils that did not originate in the institutional reforms put in place by Peter: this was the case of the division of the clergy into strict castes separated from one another and from society as a whole. But now we must consider the idea of “paralysis” in itself. If the Moscow period is to be “freed of its mythical content,” the Petrine period should be reevaluated in many of its aspects. The Rebirth of the Russian Church during the Synodal Period

In spite of its many problems, the Russian Church in the nineteenth century underwent a remarkable renewal, and this enables us to have a more nuanced perspective of the harm done by the reforms of Peter the Great. Moreover, the changes in Church administration introduced by Peter were so lasting that we must believe that, in some way, they corresponded to the needs of the Church. When Tsar Alexander I in 1802 got rid of all the colleges and replaced them with ministries, thereby concentrating in the hands of each minister the authority that until then had belonged only to a college, he nevertheless kept the synod.43 But especially from the end of the eighteenth century, the Russian Church experienced an authentic renewal, especially in the domains of spirituality, theology, and internal and external mission. The Renewal of Spirituality and of Religious Thought Spiritual life experienced an authentic rebirth during the synodal period. This spiritual renewal, as is always the case in Russia, derived its sustenance from monastic life—itself undergoing renewal44—and was manifested by a considerable number of saints.45 In the eighteenth century, Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk (1724– 83), who had been influenced by German piety, inaugurated a renewal of ascetical and spiritual life. In 1793, the city of Peter the Great saw the publication of the translation in Slavonic of the Philokalia of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain by Saint Paisius Velichkovsky (1722– 94).46 This translation allowed Russian spirituality to

12

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

link up once more with patristic tradition. Saint Xenia of St. Petersburg (ca. 1720–ca. 1803)47 embodied one of the most characteristic examples of Russian sainthood as a “fool for Christ.” The startsy or elders of the monastery of Optina Pustin’, for example, St. Ambrose (1812 – 91),48 or those of the Trinity-Saint-Sergius Monastery, such as Archimandrite Zachary (1850–1936), as well as Saint John of Kronstadt (1829–1908),49 were shining lights in all the corners of Russia where they exercised this spiritual paternity. Several bishops—theologians, missionaries, and spiritual masters — likewise contributed to this spiritual awakening, for example, Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807– 67),50 patrologist and bishop of the Caucasus, or Saint Theophan the Recluse (1815– 94),51 professor of theology, bishop of Tambov, and then hermit. In the century preceding the revolution, the Russian Church had opened more monasteries than at any other time in its history. This monastic renewal likewise manifested itself in female monasticism. At Diveyevo, Saint Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833) served as spiritual director at “the community of the mill” and oriented it away from the rigorist mentality that prevailed in those times.52 Meanwhile, new forms of religious life appeared in the capital cities such as the Sisters of Charity, founded at the time of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877– 78. On the economic front, the excessive expropriations of monasteries in the eighteenth century were, in large measure, compensated for by public allocations and by gifts. One of the most remarkable characteristics of Russian monastic life was the spiritual fatherhood that certain monks exercised in the case of some members of the intelligentia.53 Under the influence of the monks of Optina, the intellectual elite found inspiration in the teaching of the Church fathers. First, it was the “senior Slavophiles” who, thanks to Optina, rediscovered the “ecclesial” or “conciliar” dimension of society and of reason: Nikolai Gogol (1809– 52), the prophet of “Orthodox culture”; Alexis S. Khomiakov (1804– 60), who opposed “ecclesiastical reason” to Catholic rationalism; Ivan V. Kireevsky (1806– 56), who, under the spiritual paternity of Ambrose of Optina tried to recover the “integrity” of the faith and summoned Russia to strive for a “universal synthesis.” Later, the “indigenous philosophers” (pochvenniki), following in the path of Dostoevsky (1821– 81), discovered at Optina the “personalism” of the fathers. Konstantin N. Leontiev (1831– 91), who, in fact, died as a monk at Optina,

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

13

and Vasily V. Rozanov (1856–1919) praised the humanism of the fathers in contrast to Western individualism. Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900) synthesised these diverse intuitions in the most remarkable system of Russian philosophy. Parallel to this philosophy, which was rooted in literary circles, a philosophy proper to the theological academies of Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg was evolving throughout the eighteenth century. This development, which followed on the 1805, 1814, and 1850 reforms of these academies, produced outstanding theologians and philosophers.54 Archpriest Fedor A. Golubinsky (1797–1854) can be considered as the founder of this current within the Church that was seeking to elaborate a national philosophy, that would synthesize Eastern and Western thought. Following on this, and issuing from the Kiev school, Pamfil D. Yurkevich (1827– 74) elaborated a teaching of the heart, and Aleksandr M. Bukharev (Archimandrite Feodor; 1824– 71), in Moscow, continued Gogol’s speculation on the notion of “Orthodox culture.” At the end of the century, this academic philosophy culminated in an “orthodox scholasticism” illustrated principally by Viktor D. Kudriavtsev-Platonov (1828– 91), Archbishop Nikanor (1827– 90), and Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) (1864–1936), who developed a personalist anthropology inspired by the fathers. Finally, on the eve of the revolution, several eminent Marxist intellectuals turned to idealism and subsequently converted to the Orthodox faith, thus prolonging the developments of this religious philosophy: Petr B. Struve (1870–1944), Nikolai A. Berdyaev (1874–1948), and Sergius N. Bulgakov (1871–1944), who took part in the Council of Moscow. The External Mission and Social Expansion Renewal in the Russian Church manifested itself also by an extraordinary missionary spirit enacted by numerous saints. The synodal period was indeed the most extraordinary missionary period in the history of the Russian Church.55 Near the end of the eighteenth century, monks from the monastery of Valaam, among whom was Saint Herman of Alaska (1792–1837),56 a simple monk who spent nearly forty years on Kodiak Island, established themselves in Alaska and founded a church that used the indigenous languages. In 1830, Saint Macarius (Glukharev) (1792–1847)57

14

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

established the Altai mission in western Siberia and translated the Scriptures and liturgy into local dialects. By 1903, twenty-five thousand natives were Christians. In eastern Siberia, Saint Innocent (John) (Veniaminov) (1797–1879)58 at first as priest, then as bishop of Kamchatka and of North America—the first intercontinental diocese—and then as Archbishop of Novoarkhangelsk, evangelized the Yakuts of Siberia, the Eskimos, and the native Alaskans, the Aleuts and the Tlingit. Summoned in 1868 to succeed Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, he formed an “Orthodox missionary society” which in thirty years of activity claimed the conversion of 124,000. The Kazan Academy, thanks to the impetus given it by N. I. Ilminsky, a lay professor, became a veritable center of missionary studies. To keep pace with the progress of Islam, an Orthodox library was established for the use of Tatars, Yakuts, Buriats, Evenks, Samoyeds, and Kyrgyz people. Outside of Russia, the remarkable effort at inculturation of Saint Nicholas of Japan (1836–1912),59 the first Orthodox metropolitan of this country, resulted in the foundation of an authentic local Japanese church. Another element in the expansion of the Church was the establishment of parish schools.60 These were developed by the state with many objectives in view: to bring the clergy closer to the people; to increase revenues; to assure popular education without the risk of revolutionary ideas seeping through; to facilitate the Russification of those on the periphery of the empire. Count Dmitry A. Tolstoy, who coupled the functions of chief procurator with those of the Ministry of Public Education, and especially Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev,61 who made the parish schools a powerful instrument for dispensing a conservative education, contributed to the creation of tens of thousands (18,000 in 1883) of parish schools under clerical control—and that at a time when, on the contrary, France was withdrawing schools from Church control.62 The Holy Synod ran these schools, establishing the syllabi and choosing what books went into the libraries. The success was so great that Tsar Alexander III placed the clergy in charge of the village schools (reading and writing, gramotnost’), and certain zemstvos63 did likewise for their own schools. In 1917, the 37,000 parish schools constituted a fifth of the empire’s primary schools. These schools were financed in part by the treasury and in part by the clergy, who were not slow to realize the apostolic value of schools such as these. Thus the Church entered into the revolutionary period as a powerful organization with more members than all the other national Orthodox churches.

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

15

According to the official figures, the Russian Empire, in 1914, had 100 million baptized Orthodox; 67 dioceses governed by 67 bishops aided by 82 auxiliary bishops, 50,105 priests, and 15,210 deacons serving 48,000 parishes; 21,330 monks and 73,299 nuns distributed among 1,025 monasteries and 473 convents. The Church administered 35,000 elementary schools and 58 seminaries with 20,500 students.64 At the end of our inventory on the state of the Russian Church at the beginning of the twentieth century, we have proof that the state of affairs for the synodal period is not quite so negative as Dostoevsky’s quotation would have us believe. Did the “paralysis” originate with Peter? In reality we can see that the Petrine era is largely the prolongation of the Moscow period, which was considered an ideal. Is Peter the sole cause of the “paralysis”? In fact, external political factors must be associated with reasons intrinsic to the Church. Besides, were the reforms so very harmful? We must admit that the fact they lasted so long demonstrates that in the last analysis they were fairly well adapted to Church reality at the time. Finally, is the “paralysis” judgment a just one? All we can say is that the many vibrant elements and signs of renewal are mitigating factors; the numerous recently canonized saints of that period bear witness to this. If the Russian Church engaged in reform at the beginning of the twentieth century, this was as much, if not more, a sign of its vitality as a sign of its problems.

C  C   R C This picture of the Russian Church in 1905 is not a sufficient explanation of its engagement in the conciliar process. This is equally due to the development of the idea of the council. This idea took hold in Russia because of an ancient custom, by the failure of attempts at reform during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and, more especially, by the success of the idea of sobornost’ developed by the Slavophiles. The Council, a Traditional Reality in the Russian Church

Reform, as both the problems as well as the vitality of the Church make clear, was not a novel idea in the Church in 1905. We can even say that reform through the local council65 was a traditional reality of the Church

16

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

before Peter the Great.66 The councils of the Moscow period are the best known. As early as 1274, shortly after the Mongol invasion, Metropolitan Cyril of Kiev assembled a council at Vladimir, in order to regulate the baptismal rite and condemn simony and drunkenness among the clergy.67 But the great period of the councils began at the end of the fifteenth century, when the Church organized itself in conjunction with the Muscovite State and really became a national church. In 1490 and 1503, under Ivan III, two councils took place in Moscow and condemned the heresy of the Judaizing iconoclasts and the monasticism of the “Non-Possessors.”68 Under Ivan IV, the saintly Macarius of Moscow (1492–1563)69 convoked several councils in order to organize the Russian Church in symmetry with the development of the Muscovite State. In 1547 and 1549, anxious to give national saints to the young Russian Empire, he organized two councils to canonize, or rather to extend to the whole of Russia, the veneration of twenty-two and then of another seventeen new saints. The Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav) of 1551, convoked by Macarius, was the most famous and the most important of all the councils of ancient Russia. It reformed the Church in numerous domains and clarified its relationship to the state and to society. The councils of 1553– 54 condemned various heretics suspected of being influenced by the “Non-Possessors” or by Protestantism. Patriarch Nikon, elected in 1652, convoked several councils in 1654 and 1656 to ratify the reforms that he wanted to introduce, thus causing the Raskol or schism.70 The Great Council of Moscow, 1666– 67, assembled in the presence of the patriarchs of Alexandria and of Antioch, concluded by deposing Nikon while simultaneously approving the reforms. It was the last Russian Council of the Moscow period and the last before 1917. Church Reform Projects during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

No council was convoked during Peter the Great’s period and for a good reason. The Holy Synod was established as a permanent council. Nevertheless, several projects of partial reform were proposed in the eighteenth century to fill the gaps left by the synodal system. The first reform project emanated from its very author, Metropolitan Theophan (Prokopovich), who proposed to the Tsarina Anna Ivanovna (1730– 40) a new organization of the synod. It included an increase in the number of bishops and

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

17

the nomination of permanent members who would be more independent of the chief procurator. It came to nothing.71 Under the Tsarina Elizabeth Petrovna (1741– 61), two members of the synod, Archbishop Ambrose (Yushkevich) and Metropolitan Arseny (Matsievich), addressed a memorandum requesting the abolition of the synodal system and the office of chief procurator and a return to the patriarchal system.72 That too met with no success. In the first half of the nineteenth century, at the end of the reign of Alexander I, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow73 was the first to propose a global project of reform.74 The emperor wanted to regroup the Russian provinces (gubernii) into nine administrative districts (generalgubernatorstva), each headed by a governor general who would supervise the provincial governors. He asked Philaret to harmonize the ecclesiastical division to synchronize it with the administrative reorganization. Philaret proposed regrouping the dioceses into nine metropolitan districts (okrugi), and subordinating the diocesan bishops to a metropolitan. The administration of local affairs would thus come under the aegis of metropolitan councils as in the primitive Church. This project of reform aimed at being a first step towards an increased independence—at least at the local level— of Church administration and would have freed it from the authority of the consistories. On the other hand, this organization might have led to the creation of an assembly of metropolitans, counterbalancing the authority of the synod as a supreme court of justice, for example, and hence becoming the embryo of an episcopal council. Philaret’s proposal was rejected, and under the reign of the conservative Nicholas I he was unable to find any official support. All the same, the bishops, kept in isolation by the synodal system, were permitted to hold regional assemblies. But these provincial councils could not be held, deliberate, or publish without authorization from the synod.75 In the second half of the nineteenth century, the necessity for Church reform became more evident as the authority of the state chief procurator became more and more onerous. During the first years of the reign of Alexander II, Archbishop Agathangel of Volhynia prepared for the tsar a memorandum, O plenenii Tserkvi (“On Church Captivity”), in which he denounced the “slavery” in which the bishops were held by the chief procurator,76 and then a second memorandum, Vysshaia administratsiia

18

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

Russkoi Tserkvi (“On the Supreme Administration of the Russian Church”), in which he proposed the transformation of the Holy Synod into a permanent council.77 Both reports were sidelined. At the same time, on the parish level, the request from the zemstvo of Moscow for the right to elect or present priests78—primarily to encourage the support of the clergy— was rejected by the chief procurator under the pretext that such elections, which could be justified when the bishop was unable to ascertain who were most qualified, were no longer warranted since the seminaries could put forward suitable candidates. Sobornost’ and Conciliarity

More than the different projects and memorandums, it was the notion of sobornost’,79 developed by the Slavophile movement, that played a determining role in the progression, in the nineteenth century, of the idea of council. In the Russian Orthodox Church, in the Nicene Creed the Greek word καθολικh´ς is translated by the Slavonic соборный.80 In reality, this term, from the same root as the verb собирать (to gather together), can be understood differently according to whether it is understood in its general sense of assembly or restricted to its more restrained institutional sense of council. For the Slavophiles who invented the neologism, sobornost’ was a notion that was both philosophical and theological. For Sergei N. Trubetskoy (1862–1905), author of a work on the collective essence (sobornaya) of human nature, sobornost’, before ever having an ecclesial connotation, was written in the very heart of the human consciousness.81 For Alexis Khomiakov, it underlined, from an ecclesial point of view, the essentially collective dimension of the Church and the fact that all Christians— laity, clerics, and bishops—enjoyed the same rights.82 This acceptance of sobornost’ emphasized the fact that there is no difference between the teaching Church and the learning Church. In this context, the Church is conciliar not synodal. This concept was backed by the authority of the Encyclical Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs (1848), “For us, the guardian of piety is the very body of the Church, that is, the people, who ever wish to conserve their faith intact.”83

T H E C O U N C I L’ S O R I G I N S

19

Another interpretation of sobornost’, more strictly canonical, rested on one of the meanings of the noun собор (the council). It consisted mainly in saying that the councils—understood as composed exclusively of bishops—have supreme power in the Church. Here also, conciliarity underlines unity of the body, while at the same time implying diversity of functions and, especially, maintaining the principle of episcopal authority. Vladimir Solovyov, heir of Khomiakov, argued against what amounted to a synodal interpretation of sobornost’. “If, in the Slavic text of the Symbol of the Faith, the Church is termed соборная, this is simply a question, as all know, of an archaic translation of the Greek word καθολικh´ν, and, consequently, the word соборная means the Church assembled from all parts, i.e., the Church as a whole, and not one in subjection to an episcopal council; to render the word ‘conciliar’ the word used in Greek would not be καθολικh´ν but συνοδικh´ν. To employ the Slav word for the Symbol in favour of the ‘conciliar principle’ in the Church, would be inexact and particularly inconvenient in the eyes of the Greek Orthodox.”84 In spite of its equivocal character, or perhaps because of it, the notion of sobornost’ developed by the Slavophiles contributed to advancing the idea of a council. From the legal viewpoint, it resulted in two differing positions as to the role of the laity and the clergy at the council: the “democratic” position favorable to their participation with a deliberative vote, and the “episcopal” position hostile to this participation. The Moscow Council of 1917–18 was to bear witness to both of these viewpoints. Conscious that acceptance of the Slavophile position of sobornost’ might conclude in a purely democratic idea of the Church to the detriment of its charismatic principle, Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland proposed a legal via media between these two positions.85 The concept of reform through council, a familiar reality in the Russian Church up to the seventeenth century, was enriched in the twentieth century by fresh ideas. The reform was based on multiple projects elaborated by several bishops (Metropolitan Philaret in particular) and its vitality was renewed by the idea of sobornost’. But these attempts and theories were not capable, in themselves, of making the council a reality. It was only because of the revolutionary movement and with the cooperation of the state that this idea could truly make headway.

PART 2 T O WA R D S

THE

C O U N C I L , 1905– 1917

Between the first manifesto calling for its convocation and the council itself, eleven years were necessary. These preparatory years are indispensable for understanding the enormous work accomplished in barely one year by the council from 1917 to 1918. In 1905, as in 1917, the council process was initiated and then restarted under the pressure of “external” social and political circumstances. “The Council is in a certain sense, the offspring of the Revolution.”1 The relationship between the revolution and council was not, however, unilateral, and one could certainly think that each influenced the other. This of course is no accident: the historical relationship lays bare the institutional link that, at that time, united the Church, society, and the state in Russia. We can note three stages in this move towards the council: in 1905, a first impulse in a general movement of reform; then a preparatory phase by different preconciliar commissions between 1905 and 1917, and, finally, the initiation of the process itself after the shock of the 1917 revolutions.2

T  T P The year 1905, which saw Russia pass from an empire to a constitutional monarchy, was the real point of departure for the 1917–18 council. We can distinguish three of its sources: on the one hand, a triple initiative emanating from divers members of the Church, and, on the other hand, the driving force of the Holy Synod in freeing itself from the control of Chief Procurator Pobedonostsev, and, finally and decisively, the approval of the process by the emperor.

21

22

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

March 1905: A Triple Initiative

In March 1905, there was a threefold movement for Church reform: the private initiative of a group of thirty-two priests from Saint Petersburg; an administrative initiative by a statesman, Count Witte;3 and the initiative of the Holy Synod under its president, Metropolitan Antony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg.4 Of these three almost simultaneous initiatives, it is difficult to ascertain which had priority, but it is certain that each one of them reflected a state of mind that many shared.5 The Memorandum of the Thirty-Two Priests: The Church and the People The initiative of certain priests of St. Petersburg gave a decisive impulse to the reform movement. On “Bloody Sunday,” January 9, 1905, the press reported that it was a priest, Georgy Gapon,6 who had led the demonstration. On February 14, 1905, a group of thirty-two priests,7 witnesses to the events of January 9 who had to endure the reproaches of the press concerning the silence and inertia of the clergy in face of the social unrest, was received in audience by Metropolitan Antony of St. Petersburg. Encouraged by him, they prepared shortly afterwards a memorandum, accompanied by a petition, which was approved by the metropolitan. On March 17, 1905, this memorandum appeared in Tserkovniy Vestnik under the title: “On the necessity of change in Russian Church Government.”8 The letter of introduction accompanying the memorandum deplored the dependence of the Church, which isolated it and prevented it from playing an active role in social life. It began with an entreaty: The present position of the clergy in the capital, as well as that of the priests of all Russia, is intolerably painful. On all sides we hear prayers, supplications, and appeals, which express the sentiments of souls in torment; they await from us a clear and positive answer to their urgent questions concerning social life in current state of affairs. . . . For many, in this time of trouble and uncertainty, the question is: are we going to go forward guided by the Church, or are we going to let the latter meander along “as a bygone institution” indissolubly allied to the ancient order of things?9 To remedy the situation, the letter proposes the immediate convocation of a council:

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

23

As far as we are concerned, there is one thing of which we have no doubt, and that is, that, at this moment of trial, absolute Church unity is indispensable. Pointless are the encyclicals, the circular letters, the edicts from the chanceries. In order to obtain a completely satisfactory solution to the vital questions preoccupying us, we must hear the voice of the Russian Church, the voice of ecclesial conscience that will embrace, under its authority, pastors and flock alike. For two hundred years we have no longer heard that voice. For two hundred years, the Russian Church has not assembled in a local council, even though for a long time the necessity of such a council has been felt and is now urgent.10 The primary objective of the council, according to the priests, is to “restore canonical freedom in the Russian Church.” This freedom, based on Church canons, would then permit the council to establish conciliarity at all levels of the Church. It is this idea, above all, that the memorandum that follows this letter develops. According to the memorandum, conciliar government must be established, not only on a national level, but also on the level of the diocese, by the creation of metropolitan districts councils, by reducing the size of dioceses, by the election of bishops by clergy and laity, by the reform of diocesan administration according to the principle of conciliarity, and, at a local level, by the independence of parishes. But the Memorandum of the Thirty-Two called especially for the convocation of a council composed of bishops, priests, and laity: “To the question: how are we to realize this great and sacred goal of the reestablishment of canonical freedom for the Orthodox Church in Russia, the reply in our opinion can only be this: through the convocation of a local council of the Russian Church.”11 The Memorandum of the Thirty-Two, the first document to be published on Church reform, paved the way for many other articles that subsequently appeared in the press. The Memorandum of Metropolitan Antony: Church and State

Metropolitan Antony welcomed the Memorandum of the Thirty-Two with added sympathy in that he himself was at the origin of a simultaneous initiative—though of hierarchical origin—in favor of reform.

24

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

The context of his initiative is linked to the question of religious liberty. On December 12, 1904, an imperial edict announced a certain number of reforms. Immediately the Committee of Ministers sat in “special deliberation,” along with the heads of the principal administrations, to study the reforms. One of these, in the religious domain, was to be an edict of tolerance—promulgated with the decree of April 17, 1905. This decree was to abolish those restrictions weighing on non-Orthodox religious communities, in particular on the Old Believers. Not only would they no longer be persecuted but were henceforth to enjoy full freedom of association and freedom to hold meetings and to elect their superiors. Metropolitan Antony, president of the Holy Synod and anxious to extend the reform movement to the Church, pointed out that this edict, giving autonomy to the raskol’niki, would paradoxically place the Orthodox Church in a position of inferiority towards them in relations with the state—for since the Spiritual Regulation, the Russian Orthodox Church lived under a strict political and administrative guardianship through the intermediary of the chief procurator of the synod, who, at that time, was the powerful Pobedonostsev. Sergei Y. Witte, president of the Committee of Ministers and also favorable to Church reforms, discovered a way of short-circuiting the latter’s influence. He invited Metropolitan Antony to explain his request before a special commission of the Committee of Ministers, who were in the act of preparing the application of the edict on religious tolerance. A few days later, the tsar communicated to Witte permission for this commission to treat of the question of reform in the Orthodox Church, requesting from him a formal report of the proposals. Witte began by asking the metropolitan for a memorandum. Metropolitan Antony then submitted a memorandum13 to the Committee of Ministers, in which — in very general terms — he requested Church autonomy vis-à-vis the state, an autonomy that would, in fact, be advantageous to the state itself and that would allow the Church to carry out its internal reform independently. For him, the great danger was the power that the legislation on freedom of conscience would accord to religious groups not in communion with the Orthodox Church—especially the Church of the Old Believers, known by the name the “Austrian hierarchy.”14 “We must fear that this Church, which possesses all the external appearances of the Orthodox Church, will become the peoples’ Church, 12

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

25

and that the Orthodox Church will continue to be simply the state Church.”15 It is this legislative change that, for the metropolitan, justified a statutory change and served as a starting point for his requests: “Given that the Orthodox Church constitutes one of the principal foundations and is one of the historical conditions of the Russian state, is it not necessary, even from the state’s point of view, to revise the present conditions of its legal statute?”16 And the metropolitan proposed “the suppression, or at least the lessening, of this continuous vigilance and this extreme control that the civil power exercises over the life of the Church, leaving to it scarcely any function outside of the Divine Liturgy and the celebration of the liturgical services.”17 This new-found freedom would allow for an internal reform touching on areas as varied as parish renewal; decentralization of Church institutions; participation of laity delegated by the parishes at diocesan assemblies; the granting of legal person status to the parishes and the right to own property; inclusion of the clergy in the zemstvos institutions; the reconstitution of metropolia endowed with relative autonomy; the right of the hierarchy to participate in important state affairs (in order to escape control of the chief procurator); and the revision of programs and methods of Church teaching. Even though the memorandum does not make specific reference to a council, the metropolitan asked for the convocation of “a meeting of representatives of the Orthodox hierarchy, with participation of competent members of clergy and laity, to revise the present Church constitution.”18 Thus, along the same lines as those proposed by Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Antony wished to reclaim autonomy for the Church so that it might successfully carry out its internal reform, but he expanded the circle of persons called to prepare such reform to the clergy and laity. Witte’s Memorandum: The Interests of the State Are Involved After the metropolitan’s memorandum had been accepted, Witte contacted several open-minded professors from the theological academies, as well as other Church personalities, charging them with the preparation of proposals for the reform of ecclesiastical administration, and then wrote his own memorandum, “The Present Situation of the Orthodox Church,”19 which

26

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

in his own name he presented to the Commission of Religious Affairs of the Committee of Ministers. This document is the first government attempt to promote Church independence. Witte began by making his own the words of Dostoevsky: “The Russian Church has been paralyzed since Peter the Great.” The memorandum first of all railed against the synodal concept of Church administration, and we might even say that it was a sort of “ecclesiastical ‘Anti-Statute.’”20 In reality, for Witte, the enslavement of the Church was not only contrary to canon law, but furthermore was prejudicial to the state itself, deprived as it was of the spiritual and moral support of a living religion: For two hundred years, we have not heard the voice of the Church. Is it not time for us to listen to her and to hear from her lips what she thinks of a constitution that she received against her will and that is contrary to the traditions bequeathed to her by holy antiquity? . . . In the face of incontestable evidence of internal insecurity both in society and among the masses of the people, it would be dangerous to wait any longer. Religion is the principal foundation of the national spirit, and it is through religion that Russia has remained strong up to this day. It is only with the help of this strength that the people of Russia can surmount the difficult trials of the present moment. Nothing could be more harmful to the state, than for it to stifle the development and the demonstrations of this national strength, by trying—as it is doing at present—to make it enter into the inhospitable corridors of bureaucratic principles.21 But the memorandum also considered the internal problems of the Church, such as the breakdown of parish life and gaps in theological formation. Once again, the Russian secular power was the first to show interest in the internal reform of the Church, but this time it was in the name of the Church canons themselves. Witte accordingly called for a council comprising bishops, clergy, and laity “So that the Council might present itself effectively as the voice of the whole Russian Church, it cannot be restricted to an episcopal college, which is not a canonical institution. Neither the ecumenical councils nor the local councils were ever colleges of prelate-bishops, but assemblies of the most able people in the Church— whether laity or members of the clergy (Zaozersky).”22 Witte thus backed

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

27

up his affirmations by evoking the authority of a law professor at the Moscow Theological Academy.23 This council would be competent to deal with Church reform—some of whose aspects were touched on by Witte: independent parishes, election of clergy, diocesan assemblies on the council model, reform of Church schools. While some of his canonical or theological pronouncements were deemed open to discussion, the memorandum nevertheless reflected the opinion of a majority, and Witte distributed it to the members of the Committee of Ministers for discussion at the meeting of March 17. The beginning of the movement favorable to a council is thus threefold, emanating from the clergy for the first initiative, from church hierarchy for the second, and from the government for the third. It is difficult to ascertain—in the tangle of facts and in the actual state of knowledge— which ranked first. It seems likely, however, that the Memorandum of the Thirty-Two was the pretext for the publication of official proposals that had been studied over a period of time. Links between the Thirty-Two and the metropolitan were no secret,24 and perhaps they were simply encouraged by him. Each initiative in any case stemmed from different preoccupations: for the Thirty-Two, “Bloody Sunday” was proof of the rift between the Church and the people; for Metropolitan Antony, it was when the decree on religious tolerance was announced that the position of the Church within the state was put into question; for Count Witte, it was a question of state interest itself. These isolated initiatives, however, would not prove adequate. The Holy Synod itself had to take over. The Decisive Role of the Holy Synod

If the original initiative was not, strictly speaking, due to the Holy Synod, we must all the same acknowledge the importance of its role in the conciliar process. It was able to elude the authority figure of Pobedonostsev, acquire a certain autonomy, and address itself directly to the emperor. Pobedonostsev’s Opposition to the Project of Witte The chief procurator of the Holy Synod, Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, who for twenty-five years rigidly maintained the synodal system inaugurated by Peter the Great, could hardly remain indifferent to the maneuvers going on

28

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

around him. He wanted to regain the upper hand by removing the affair from the competence of the Committee of Ministers. In the name of the independence of Church administration, he requested of the emperor that the question of Church reform be transferred from the special Commission of the Committee of Ministers to the Holy Synod—where, of course, he would find himself free to squash the proposals.25 In fact, on March 13 the committee received a notice from the tsar in his own handwriting: “Take the question away from the committee, and have it brought to the scrutiny of the Holy Synod.”26 Thus the Church asked the civil power to restore its autonomy, and the chief procurator—in the very name of Church autonomy—ordered that the request be rejected. Pobedonostsev did not stop there. He then submitted a report to the Holy Synod, published by Rus on May 5, in which he cleverly defended the synodal system in the very name of conciliarity.27 Steering the debate immediately to the question of the patriarchate, he demonstrated that this institution served the political rather than the religious objective of “Moscow, the third Rome,” and actually threatened the principle of conciliarity.28 Moreover, the chief procurator continued, the size of the country rendered impossible the conciliar meetings prescribed by the canons. Therefore it was normal to establish a sort of restricted permanent council: the Holy Synod. Finally — and here we see the supreme astuteness of the chief procurator—the oft-condemned intrusion of functionaries, of these chinovniki in Church affairs, did it not simply correspond to the fact that the Church could not dispense with the help of the laity? “Church government . . . needs specialized competence and the coming together of specialists of different kinds: engineers, architects, etc. If the Church maintains that her autonomy consists in dispensing with such assistance, she will be obliged to employ a mass of ecclesiastical helpers for these services thus removing them from their spiritual ministry.”29 In short, for the chief procurator, paralysis in the Church— if paralysis there was— was due more to its own powerlessness than to state control. Witte, in a second note that appeared in Rus,30 had little difficulty in exposing the weakness of the chief procurator’s arguments. As long as the Holy Synod was not composed of true representatives of the local church, it could not lay claim to being anything more than a “bureaucratic college,” and certainly not a permanent council. If the Russian Church had

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

29

distanced itself from the canons, it would not be through bureaucratic expediency that she would return to them, but by reverting to the canons of the apostles and the ecumenical councils. The Holy Synod’s Report to the Emperor In spite of the removal of the competence of the Special Commission on March 13 thanks to the intervention of the chief procurator, the Holy Synod immediately took the initiative and went ahead. Metropolitan Antony, having been assured of the support of many government members and knowing that the emperor himself was interested in Church reform, decided to appeal to him directly. On March 15, 18, and 22, 1905, a session of the Holy Synod was convoked in order to discuss the changes in Church administration so that they might be in conformity with the emperor’s decrees. In the meantime, the Memorandum of the ThirtyTwo appeared in the press on March 17 with the metropolitan’s approval. The Holy Synod decided on the project of an address and a report to the emperor with a view to restoring conciliarity in the Church and convoking an episcopal council, presided over either by a metropolitan or a patriarch. This report was not published until November 5, and the address which preceded it only appeared on December 24.31 As in the case of Metropolitan’s Antony’s memorandum, the Holy Synod initially based itself on the inequality introduced by “the application of the principles of generous tolerance towards faith confessions that were strangers to Orthodoxy and which bore the name of old-ritualists or sects.” Given the fact of such liberty accorded to others, the Holy Synod deemed it “indispensable to revise its legal statute in view of the changes about to be effected in the case of the dissidents, and to transform church government along the lines indicated by the canons and the history of the said government, both in the Russian church and in the other local churches.”32 In so far as it concerned both the individual dioceses as well as the supreme government of the Church, this new statute was to be founded on conciliar principles as defined by the canons of the fathers and the ecumenical councils. These were copiously cited in the report. “It is the reestablishment of the principle of conciliarity—a dead letter at present—that

30

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

the Russian Church most needs at the present time. It is in this principle that it will discover its creative power and its noble moral dignity.”33 The report concluded by calling for the convocation of a council and for the election of a patriarch: In submitting these proposals to the sovereign good will of your Imperial Majesty, the Holy Synod most humbly requests that you deign to convoke, by your sovereign will, in the capital city of Moscow, at an opportune moment, the local council of all the diocesan bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church or their representatives for the constitution of the synodal government, the election of the patriarch of All Russia, and the solution to the above-mentioned questions and of others that, beforehand, will be elaborated by the Holy Synod.34 In spite of the appeal to the principle of conciliarity, there was no mention of the participation of the laity at the council, which remained purely episcopal—contrary to Witte’s project—but for the first time, the question of patriarchate was officially posed. This involvement of the Holy Synod, after the triple initiative of the Thirty-Two, of Metropolitan Antony, and of Witte, proved decisive. It was no longer an isolated move, but in fact the entire supreme Church government, which dared to extricate itself from the trusteeship of the chief procurator, officially requested the emperor to convoke a council. Imperial Approval

The imperial approbation signified the definitive triumph of the idea of convoking a council. But this was only realized through the shock of the 1905 October revolution. A Council Promised but Impossible to Realize On March 31, 1905, the chief procurator reported the imperial decision: the convocation of a council was impossible in the actual situation, but the tsar was willing to support such a cause, as soon as more favorable circumstances presented themselves:

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

31

I judge it impossible in the midst of the alarming situation in which we find ourselves, to realize positively such an important business as the convocation of a local council, a project which demands a great deal of calm and reflection. I propose therefore that, given the opportune moment and in conformity with the former examples of the Orthodox emperors, to set this important affair in motion, and to convoke a council of the entire Orthodox Church, in order to pronounce canonical judgement on the content of the faith and on Church government.35 This reply was certainly a disappointment for all those who had foreseen an imminent convocation of the council and who discerned in it the influence of Pobedonostsev. At the same time, it could not be denied that the reasons given by the emperor were not just a pretext. Russia, at war in the Far East, could hardly engage itself in such an adventure. On the other hand, the edict with regard to religious tolerance had not as yet been promulgated and would not appear until April 17. It was therefore much too soon to harp on the consequences of this edict. On the other hand, in spite of the disappointment occasioned by the refusal, the perspectives opened up by the promise of the tsar were exceptionally ample. Indeed, for the first time, the tsar himself officially admitted the necessity of modifying the synodal regime put in place by Peter the Great. But more importantly, the tsar spoke clearly of a council of the entire Russian Church and not of a purely episcopal council as the Holy Synod had reported. He did not limit himself to stating the election of a patriarch as its object, but spoke of a “canonical judgment,” implicitly acknowledging the incompetence of the civil power in the matter of Church jurisdiction. Better still, the tsar let it be known that “objects of faith” could be discussed. The Rallying of Pobedonostsev and the Questionnaire of the Bishops The significance of the imperial resolution did not go unnoticed by Pobedonostsev. In a second report dated June 28, the chief procurator ended up embracing the idea of a council. In the report entitled “On the Transformation of Church Government in Russia according to the Principle of Conciliarity,” which appeared in the November 5 Tserkovnye vedomosti,

32

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

the chief procurator presented his views on the composition of the future assembly: “The participation of clergy and laity, if deemed indispensable, poses questions of extraordinary difficulty and complexity for the elaboration of the rules to be followed in the election of these representatives.”36 Moreover, the chief procurator insinuated that the council would require “a temporary organ for the direction and preparation of the proceedings”— which would have meant an open door for a return to bureaucracy. On the other hand, the chief procurator felt himself constrained, in his report, to suggest to the Holy Synod that an extensive questionnaire on the proposed reforms be sent to the bishops. By a decree of the Holy Synod dated July 27, 1905, a questionnaire prepared by Pobedonostsev was forwarded to all the diocesan bishops, with the reply deadline set for December 1, 1905. The chief procurator’s report, together with the questionnaire, gave reason to fear that the conciliar process would sink into bureaucracy and ultimately into an expropriation of the Church reform so ardently desired. At a deeper level, there was the unresolved question of the place of the clergy and laity, who, at this point in the proceedings, were still excluded from participating. The Revolution of 1905 and the Emperor’s Reply Political events once more provided an impulse to the conciliar process. The aspiration towards Church reform could not in effect be separated from the general desire for a global reform of the social and political institution. The revolution of 1905, following on the peace of Portsmouth,37 pushed for a general institutional reform. On October 17, 1905, the imperial “October Manifesto,” by convoking the Duma, caused Russia to pass from a regime of absolute monarchy to one of a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary representation. Witte quit his mainly honorary role of chairman of the Committee of Ministers to become prime minister of a Council of Ministers. More important still, on October 22, the Tserkovnye vedomosti announced the unexpected retirement of Chief Procurator Pobedonostsev.38 The final obstacle to the convocation of a council appeared to have been surmounted. Time seemed ripe for the convocation of a council, and the replies of the bishops to the questionnaire that had been sent to them were begin-

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

33

ning to arrive, largely in favor of the conciliar principle. These latter (otzyvy) were published in the official organ of the synod, the Tserkovnye vedomosti, as of January 1, 1906,39 then at St. Petersburg in four separate volumes.40 On December 17, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II summoned Metropolitans Antony of St. Petersburg, Vladimir of Moscow, and Flavian of Kiev to Tsarskoe Selo, to advise them that the preparation for the council was at an advanced stage. At the same time, he suggested the creation of a special committee composed of bishops and clerical or lay experts. Finally, parallel to the manifesto of October 17, Nicholas II, on December 27, 1905, addressed to Metropolitan Antony of St. Petersburg a decree ordering the preparation of a council: Ecclesiastical authority, in the person of the Holy Synod, informed me, in the springtime of this year, of the necessity of convoking a local council of All Russia, for the putting in order of Church affairs. Sad events in the Far East made it impossible for me to realize this holy wish at that time. However, at present, I judge it opportune to introduce some changes into our Church’s constitution, based on the solid foundations of the ecumenical canons and for the greater strengthening of Orthodoxy. Consequently, I invite you, your eminence, along with the Metropolitans Vladimir of Moscow and Flavian of Kiev, to determine the time for the convocation of this council, earnestly desired by all the faithful members of the Church.41 The Holy Synod immediately decided to take in hand this preparation, without allowing the government—which, moreover, was preoccupied with other political problems—to become involved. By way of conclusion to this pivotal year of 1905, let us highlight, first of all, the extraordinary role of the press. As can be seen by the publication of the reports, the press played the role of an authentic court for all the Church debates and opened these debates to the participation of the public.42 On the other hand, it is to be noted that it was the external context which played a determining role in the initiatives: from “Bloody Sunday” of January 9, which led the Thirty-Two to publish their manifesto, to the October revolution, which obliged the emperor to put the process in motion irreversibly, it was, on each occasion, external pressure which

34

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

provided the impulse. It would seem that this external pressure was instrumental in laying bare the Church’s internal problems. Thanks to this, in a few months, isolated initiatives, instigated by diverse interests, had become an imperial decree. Thanks to the motivating role of the Holy Synod, as well as to the capitulation of Pobedonostsev, the tsar himself was won over to the idea of an All-Russian council. Thus the process seemed to vindicate once again Leroy-Beaulieu’s reflections: “If there is a country where the civil and religious dimensions of society cannot be separated, that country is Russia. Religious mores can only be transformed if political ones are.”43 From 1906 onwards, preparation for the council would begin; but there still lacked one essential element: pressure from the outside.

T E   C: ‒  The closing days of 1905 engaged the Russian Church in a process that seemed as irreversible as it was imminent. No one expected that twelve years would have to elapse before a long-awaited council would be convoked. In the course of these twelve years, two commissions prepared the council. The Preconciliar Commission: January–December 1906

With a view to preparing the council, the Holy Synod constituted a Preconciliar Commission (predsobornoe prisutstvie)44 in January 1906. On January 14, 1906, the tsar ratified this decision, and on March 6, 1906, the commission was able to begin its deliberations. These deliberations continued until December. Its mission was twofold: to collect the questionnaires sent to the bishops and, on the basis of these, to elaborate proposals for the future council. An Ample Consultative Council This commission was a large consultative college composed of thirty-nine members representing all branches of Church life. Under the presidency of Metropolitan Antony were only nine bishops, a minority. There were seven members of the secular clergy, five professors and five rectors,45 and

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

35

twenty-one lay persons, among whom were nineteen professors of universities and theological academies.46 The new chief procurator of the Holy Synod since October 22, 1905, Prince Alexei D. Obolensky (1856–1933), together with his deputy had the right to assist at the sessions. Metropolitan Antony tried to see that the different schools of thought were represented: Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky),47 the spokesperson for the partisans of the maintenance of hierarchical prerogatives, sat opposite the Slavophile N. P. Aksakov, who represented the “democratic” tendency. In its first session, the assembly split up into seven special commissions, each of which concentrated on a specific area: “I. The composition of the council, the procedure for handling the questions, the transformations to be introduced in the supreme government of the Church. II. The reform of Church organization, the creation of ecclesiastical groups, the reform of diocesan administration. III. The organization of the ecclesiastical court, the revision of laws referring to matrimonial affairs in general, and to mixed marriages in particular. IV. The organization of parishes and the parish schools, Church property, territorial Congresses, participation of the clergy in social work. V. The reorganization of ecclesiastical colleges. VI. Doctrinal questions, relations with the edinovertsy and the Old Believers. VII. The measures to be taken for the preservation of Orthodox faith and spirituality from the dangers that legalization of the principle of religious tolerance might occasion.”48 For the first time, Church reform was studied by a commission that was both competent and scholarly. For the first time also, differences began to appear, not as regards the appropriateness of a council but as to its composition: would nonepiscopal clerics and lay persons be admitted, and with what rights? The Dominant Question of the Participation of Clergy and Laity Poses the Question of How the Canons and the Nature of the Church Are to Be Interpreted The question of participation—and the mode of participation—of nonepiscopal members in the council dominated the commission’s debates.49 In his memorandum, Metropolitan Antony spoke of “a special convocation of representatives of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, with the participation of

36

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

competent persons chosen from among clergy and laity.”50 Witte for his part had declared that the council must not be “a college of hierarchs” but rather “an assembly of the Church’s best members, both clergy and laity.”51 In their first manifesto, the Thirty-Two echoed similar sentiments. If the report of the Holy Synod to the emperor spoke only of an episcopal council, Nicholas II in his decree spoke of “a local council of All Russia.”52 From the moment the tsar’s promise was announced, the press echoed the debate on the role of clerics and laity at the council. The arguments were both theoretical and practical.53 The Issues at Stake On the level of theory, the question arose as to how canons were to be interpreted—the imperial decree had expressed the wish that “the reforms” would be “made according to the firm principles of the ecumenical canons,” and, on a deeper level, according to the Church’s interpretation. Two parties opposed each other.            On May 26, 1905, the Thirty-Two addressed a second memorandum to Metropolitan Antony, published under the form of an article, in which once more they defended — though mainly from an historical point of view—the idea of a “pan-ecclesial” council, composed of clergy and laity with deliberative voice.54 In the line of this position, the minority of the commission, in an article entitled, “The Particular Opinion of a Minority Group on the Question of the Council’s Composition,”55 also showed itself vigorously in favor of according full voting rights to clergy and laity, in the name of the adaptation of canons to the evolution of Church practice. Arguments in favor of this position can be grouped into three types. A first type of argument, which is biblical, appealed beyond canons to the spirit of the primitive Church. While recognizing the absence of a canonical determination on the question of the participation of clergy and laity, partisans of the deliberative voice for these groups called for the retention of only those canons that stemmed from the spirit of the early Church. This spirit was to be gleaned, in the first place, from the Pauline concept of the Church as the body of Christ: the organic unity of the

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

37

body of Christ is broken when some members are reduced to a passive role, for the Church is not just the hierarchy but the body of the faithful united to their pastors. Secondly, this opinion based itself on the description, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the Council of Jerusalem. Its total unanimity lends force to its decisions.56 Later on, at the time of the ecumenical councils, the impossibility of assembling the entire ecclesial body explained why the council became an essentially episcopal institution. However, and this was the historical argument, Orthodoxy was able to maintain the unity of the primitive Church by preserving the contact between the aristocracy of the hierarchy and the democracy of the faithful. In this it differs from Catholicism, which reduces the Church to the bishops, and from Protestantism, which reduces it to the laity. The equilibrium has been maintained, on the one hand, by the election of the bishops, and, on the other hand, by the determining role of the faithful in the reception of decisions. In this regard, the reply of the Eastern patriarchs to Pope Pius IX was cited: “With us, it is neither through the patriarchs nor through the councils that any novelty whatsoever can be introduced for, as far as we are concerned, the guardian of religion is the body of the Church itself, that is to say, the people.”57 The third type of argument, which was inspired by the Slavophile concept of sobornost’, was of a more philosophical and theological order. The mystical philosopher Vasily Rozanov resumed it thus: “According to Khomiakov, and also in line with the fundamental teaching of Orthodox dogmas on the conciliar church, that is the ‘popular church,’ it is not the presbyterium alone, but the entire Orthodox communion that is the depository, the guardian and the ultimate arbitrator of the faith. Here perhaps lies a more essential difference between East and West, or, in any case, a more practical and more vital difference than the question of the filioque. It is precisely on this point that we are opposed to the papacy, which represents what might be called an ‘ecclesiastical hierarchism.’”58 It is this idea of “conciliarity” that caused the minority to reject the canonical distinction between deliberative and consultative voice, which, according to them, was rooted in a purely juridical idea of the Church.     The majority of the commission’s members were against the according of voting rights to clergy and laity. Some went so far as to refuse any

38

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

participation in the council of those who were not bishops, whether their role be consultative or passive. This was the case of a few isolated voices, such as Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Volhynia. In 1905, he had sent a reply to the second Memorandum of the Thirty-Two, which was addressed directly to the Holy Synod and published in December of that year.59 Archbishop Antony defended the idea of a purely episcopal council, basing his argument on multiple canonical references. But the greater number of the majority members were only hostile to granting a deliberative vote to the clergy and laity. Here too, we can group the arguments, defended especially by the academy professors, into three types. In the first place, on the theological plane, the majority criticized an egalitarian concept of the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ. For them, this doctrine simply implied the necessity for each member to be present in the body. But far from according a similar role to each one, it implied to the contrary that each member fulfilled a different function, according to the role and gifts bestowed on him. On the historical plane, the majority likewise contested the conclusions of the minority. The Slavophile Nikolai S. Suvorov (1848–1909), professor of canon law at Moscow University, pointed out that the clergy and laity present at former councils were there merely to represent their absent bishop or as experts consulted individually for specialized questions— but without a deliberative voice.60 He stressed the fact that, at the Council of Carthage in 257, only the bishops voted even though a large number of priests and deacons were present. Il’ya S. Berdnikov (1841–1914), professor of canon law at the Kazan Theological Academy, had, for his part, recourse to ecclesiastical practice.61 Relying on the historical works of Professor Aleksei P. Lebedev,62 he showed that the clergy and laity present at the councils were asked to approve by acclamation those decisions already taken by the bishops, who alone had the right to vote.63 This majority, therefore, with the exception of Archbishop Antony, agreed to grant a consultative vote to clergy and laity but they were divided as to the basis for this right. Some, for instance, Professor Mikhail A. Ostroumov64 of the University of Kharkov, submitted that the only valid argument was the Orthodox principle of economy.65 Others, like Metropolitan Antony, maintained that full participation at the council of clergy and laity stemmed from the very nature of the Church.66

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

39

The interpretation of the canons by the partisans of full participation of the laity was vehemently criticised by Professor I. S. Berdnikov.67 He pointed out that the canons were themselves the Church’s expression of the basic evangelical norms, and that it was vain to regard them as a temporary interpretation of the gospel and one that could be modified without rejecting the principle of tradition in favor of a completely subjective conception of the Church. In reality, the heart of the controversy was nothing less than the question of the nature of the Church. This is how Professor Nikolai S. Suvorov saw things. He accused the partisans of equality of the right to vote of dissociating the Church on earth from the Church in heaven.68 The doctrine of the body of Christ could not, in his opinion, be detached from the earthly contingencies proper to the regime of the Incarnation. Among such contingencies was the fact that the fathers of the first ecumenical and local councils had been influenced by Roman law, which clearly distinguished between the different rights of participants in an assembly. This reality could not be laid aside purely and simply as an out-of-date juridical factor; in the measure in which the Church is both heavenly and earthly, does it not belong to the very nature of the Church? Suvorov’s arguments put an end—provisionally—to the controversy in favor of the majority voice. As for the general principles, partisans of the simply consultative voice of the clergy and laity had the advantage. Opportunistic Reasons: The Risk of Schism On the level of circumstances, however, the minority position could not be left aside purely and simply. In fact, the question of how representative the Russian episcopate was remained intact: the old separation of “white” and “black” clergy,69 exacerbated by the synodal system, was henceforth assumed by the revolutionary movements—this was demonstrated by the influence of the priest Georgy Gapon on “Bloody Sunday.” A purely episcopal council, where the role of clergy and laity would have been merely consultative, simply risked creating another schism between the two parties in the Russian Church.70 The second Memorandum of the Thirty-Two had severely criticized the lack of representation in the Russian episcopate of the time. For the council’s decision to have an obligatory character in the whole Russian Church, it is necessary that members who assist and make

40

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

decisions at the council be the mouthpiece of Church conscience and the voice of the faithful, as was the case in the early Church. Now if our Russian bishops were to act separately, they could not fulfill this role at the present time. First of all, they are not elected by the diocesan communities. Besides, the majority not only do not know their flock, they do not even know their clergy. This is due to the frequent changes of bishops and the short periods of time they remain in their diocese. It is also due to the sizes of some dioceses and the large numbers of the faithful. They do not have close contact with their flock; it is not infrequent that three quarters of the laity and a good half of the clergy had never laid eyes on them. Such bishops could not speak on behalf of their flock, as they would be obliged to do at the council; their flock would not recognize them as interpreters of their wishes in the case where their aspirations do not agree with the council’s decisions.71 The most threatening argument of partisans of the admission of clergy and laity was none other than the risk of schism: “In order to avoid the grave danger of schism, which in these circumstances would appear to be very natural, it is indispensable to admit elected representatives of the clergy to the council and elected representatives of the people, members of the laity renowned for their zeal for Church interests.”72 The risk was even greater in that the white clergy appeared to be increasingly more in solidarity with a society convulsed by revolutionary movements, as an article in Bogoslovskiy vestnik testifies: In the face of this pronounced solidarity of the white clergy with society, one can be quite sure that the opposition of the clergy grouped as a whole to episcopal absolutism could only end with the defeat of the latter. But what would be the effects of this rupture in the ecclesiastical world? It is hard to predict. But it is nonetheless evident that it is bound to be very harmful to the Church. The sole means of preventing this imminent danger is to renounce monarchical and episcopal absolutism immediately, without waiting for this schism to develop, and to accord to the white clergy, at the same time as to the laity, real rights, whether it be in anticipation of the council general that it is in preparation, or in the definitive organization of the Church.73

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

41

In a Russia still deeply traumatized by the Raskol that followed on the reforms of Nikon, the argument was bound to carry weight. Consequently, if the idea of a purely consultative representation of clergy and laity at the council was, in theory, more commonly held, in practice, the risk of schism dictated a necessary conciliation. A Conciliatory Voice: Archbishop Sergius Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky),74 former rector of the St. Petersburg (Theological) Academy, proposed a solution that allowed for a reconciliation of both opinions by distinguishing reasons of principle from those of circumstance.75 He pointed out first of all, that Church tradition conferred legislative power in the Church only to the bishops: According to the canons, bishops assemble in council, not as representatives of their flock, but by virtue of their dignity. It could be added that they also represent their dioceses, but only in the sense that they are witnesses of local tradition, which was handed down to them by their predecessors, and which they were obliged to guard faithfully. Now this tradition might quite easily not coincide with the actual desires and opinions of their flock.76 According to Archbishop Sergius, the role of the clergy and the laity ought to be one of approbation. This is why he interprets the Encyclical Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs of 1848 rather differently from Khomiakov:77 If the oriental patriarchs, in their letter to Pius IX, called the Orthodox people “guardians of religion,” they did not mean by this that it is the task of the people to determine, by majority vote and by elected representatives, what the bishops should teach and what laws they should follow. The patriarchs simply say that the Orthodox people are so grounded in their faith, and so attached to their religion, that they would permit no one—not even the bishops—to alter it in the smallest detail . . . but it is one thing to protest against abuses, another thing to participate in government.78

42

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

These remarks, however, did not prevent Archbishop Sergius, given the circumstances, from acknowledging in very pragmatic fashion the advantage of a representation of clergy and laity at the forthcoming council, and even of active representation. In the present state of affairs, one can hardly hope that those who are not bishops will be satisfied with a simple consultative vote, especially given the truly extraordinary attributions of the future council. What will happen, it is asked, if the council simply reinforces the bureaucratic role in our Church? It would be still more difficult to remedy the evil later on. Not to allow ourselves to become preoccupied by fears such as these would be to show indifference to the destiny and to the role of the Church, or profess an idealistic confidence and submission with regard to the bishops. But the reality around us tells us that such confidence just does not exist.79 Concretely, Archbishop Sergius proposed the creation of a single assembly in which clerics and laity would be present alongside the bishops. Some of the former would be elected by a system of three levels: parish, deanery, and diocese. Each one of these three levels would elect four representatives to the higher level, one of whom would have to be a cleric. All would have a vote but—and here lies the originality of the proposal—the council would consist of two levels: a “lower” council composed of all the members of the council, bishops, clergy, and laity; and a “higher” council composed solely of bishops. Should the higher council not accept decisions arrived at by the lower council, the latter would be invited to a reexamination of the question. Archbishop Sergius then explained the method of procedure. A protest on the part of one quarter of the number of those present would suffice to return the vote to the bishops, who in the final analysis would be sole judges of whether the projects adopted conformed to the canons. The proposed solution allowed for the active participation of clergy and laity, while at the same time reserving a certain right of veto80 to the bishops. We shall see how this system was to inspire the outcome of the future council. The Moderate Decisions of the Preconciliar Commission From May 1906, the Preconciliar Commission met in general assembly to discuss the proposals of the various commissions—and eventually to

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

43

adopt them as proposals to be submitted to the future council.81 With regard to the composition of the council, the Preconciliar Commission finally decided to propose that the assembly consist of bishops, clerics, and laity.82 However, to preserve episcopal authority, clerics and laity were granted, contrary to the suggestions of Archbishop Sergius, a purely consultative voice.83 On the other hand, the commission decided that those clergy and laity participating in the council (one cleric and one lay person per diocese) would be chosen by the bishops from the clerics and laity elected by the deanery assemblies (one cleric and one lay person per deanery assembly).84 Thus the ancient custom of the participation of clergy and laity at councils—the apostolic Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Carthage were invoked in the discussions—was institutionalized but under the new form of a representative assembly. The commission adopted other proposals, prudent ones on the whole. One contentious point concerned the participation of the bishops. Was participation to be limited solely to bishops in charge of a diocese, or was it to be open to all bishops and include vicars and retired bishops? This posed the question of the status of the bishop in the Church. Did his authority derive from his function—as representative of the Church that he governs—or from his charism as successor of the apostles? Given that the council was to treat essentially of administrative and not of doctrinal affairs, the commission finally proposed the reservation of access to the council solely to bishops actually exercising authority in their dioceses.85 As to the composition of the Holy Synod, the commission adopted the proposal to exclude all but bishops—contrary to the practice in synodal times when representatives of the white clergy (notably the two protopresbyter chaplains of the army and the navy)86 were included. With regard to the relations between Church and state, reform of diocesan administration and of ecclesial tribunals as well as the institution of metropolitan districts, the commission took a modest stance. Formerly, these districts were regarded as a progressive step towards the local autonomy of ecclesiastical provinces, an autonomy which would itself have been a step towards independence of the entire Church. But with the perspective of a council, interest in these districts waned. The most novel proposal of the commission was the reestablishment of the patriarch not only as first bishop of the Russian Church but, above all, as president of the Holy Synod. The proposals submitted by the commission on this matter would serve as a framework for the future council.87

44

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

The commission sessions ended in mid-December 1906. The intense preparatory works of the commission were compiled in six volumes and published in St. Petersburg.88 On April 25, 1907, the emperor ratified the commission’s decisions, the most important being the convocation of a local council of the Russian Church. The conciliar process followed up to this point, since the manifesto of the Thirty-Two, appeared to be exemplary: consultation of the bishops, convocation of a fairly representative commission, the adoption of a programme containing proposals that were prudent. Eleven years before its effective convocation, all seemed ready for the council to begin work in earnest. The Preconciliar Consultative Committee, 1912–1916

When the shock of October 1905 had subsided, reforms in the empire were blocked. The first Duma was dissolved on June 7, 1906, the second on June 3, 1907. Metropolitan Antony had died, and for five years the question of the council made no progress. The council lived to the rhythm of Russian society. To dissipate the impression that all the hard work had been in vain, a Preconciliar Consultative Committee was instituted by imperial edict on February 28, 1912, to draw up a synthesis of the commission’s suggestions.89 This committee did not include a large representation of ecclesiastics and intellectuals, as had been the case for the commission. They completed the work and published it in five volumes from 1912 to 1916. In reality, the conciliar process appeared to have sunk into a certain bureaucracy, and the result of the work undertaken since 1906 consisted in a few tepid initiatives: the convocation of a missionary congress in Kiev in 1908, a monastic congress at Trinity-Saint Sergius lavra in 1909, and a project geared to combating alcoholism. The period of the commissions had lasted twelve years. Never had a council in Russia been so methodically prepared and for so long. However, the council had not yet been convoked. Several factors were responsible for this delay. The first, already alluded to, is the fact that the Russian Church, given its link to the state, was unable to move on at a faster pace than the state and society. On the other hand, World War I meant that Church matters were accorded second place. Finally, from 1912 onwards,

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

45

the influence of Rasputin made itself felt more and more on Church life: he appointed and demoted bishops and, most notably, contributed to the nomination of Metropolitan Pitirim at Petrograd and to that of the Chief Procurator N. P. Raev.90

I  C   In 1917, as in 1905, social and political events were at the origin of an impulse given to the convocation of the council. Here again, different initiatives criss-crossed: those of the state and those of the Church, in its hierarchy—the Holy Synod—and in its “base,” which was also stirred up by revolutionary vibration. In contrast to 1905, the order of these different initiatives was different. While in 1905 it was the Manifesto of the Thirty-Two which symbolically initiated the movement, in 1917 it was the government which took the initiative and played the role of catalyst. The Holy Synod, overwhelmed by democratic pressure at the heart of the Church, followed suit. The Role of the Provisional Government

The abdication of the tsar on March 3 (16), 1917, following the revolution of February 23– 27 (March 8 –12), and the nomination, on the same day, of a provisional government,91 placed the Church in an absolutely new situation: the juridical bond uniting it to the state was severed. It was because of the sacred anointing of the tsar that the Church recognized his right to preside over its destinies; but the Provisional Government, coming out of the Duma, had opted for laicism. Nevertheless, the government continued to exercise a certain interventionism. Interventionism of Chief Procurator L’vov The Provisional Government kept, de facto, a certain power in advancing the cause of the council. First of all, it maintained the role of the chief procurator who, for two centuries, had kept watch over the destiny of the Church. Vladimir N. L’vov,92 a member of the Duma, where he was president of the

46

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

Commission of Religious Affairs, was nominated chief procurator of the Holy Synod by the Provisional Government on February 28 (March 13).93 On taking office, he announced to the Holy Synod, in the name of the Provisional Government, that freedom for the Church with regard to the civil power was going to be accorded. But while awaiting a council that would set up an autonomous ecclesiastical authority, L’vov ordered the provisional acceptance, with his mediation, of the initiatives of the new government that should help the Church to gain her autonomy. This discourse gave the impression that the Church, represented by the Holy Synod, was not ready for autonomy. After ordering that the tsar’s throne be removed from the conference room, L’vov proposed to the Holy Synod that it publish a proclamation announcing the regime change to the people, calling for loyalty and for prayer for the new government during the offices recited according to the traditional formulae. This is what a group of priests accredited to the Duma did, and who, in their own name, called on the clergy of all Russia to recognize the new regime. But L’vov’s activity consisted, above all, in ousting the entourage of Rasputin in order to hasten the convocation of the council. Already the preceding Chief Procurator Raev and his two assistants, Princes N. D. Zhevakhov and Myshetsky, had taken flight. A dozen bishops were forced to retire, in particular Metropolitan Pitirim (Oknov) of Petrograd and Macarius (Nevsky) of Moscow. Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev became president of the synod. Relations between L’vov and the members of the Holy Synod, however, became increasingly more strained.94 The Holy Synod, composed of members chosen under the former regime and shocked by the brutality of the chief procurator’s methods and by his measures, which they regarded as an interference, called a halt to the preparation of reforms and of the council. It refused the reform of divorce procedure that the chief procurator pressured it to carry out, and resigned itself, reluctantly, to establish the autonomy of Church schools. The high point of these tensions came about when L’vov decided, on his own initiative, to transfer the synod’s official review, The Church Messenger (Tserkovniy Vestnik), to another, more liberal editorial committee, the Petrograd Theological Academy. L’vov asked three members of the Holy Synod to ratify this unilateral decision. (Only Tikhon, archbishop of Vilnius and future patriarch, refused.) The paralysis of the Holy Synod appeared more and more manifest to L’vov.

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

47

Changes in the Synod On April 14 (27), 1917, the chief procurator, although not invested by an anointed emperor, laid claim to an old prerogative of imperial procurators. He proceeded to dissolve the synod and convoke a new one.95 Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Vladimir and Archbishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Georgia were the only members of the synod who were not replaced. Newcomers to the synod were Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), archbishop of Yaroslavl, Andrew (Ukhtomsky), bishop of Ufa, and Michael (Bogdanov), bishop of Samara. It was, above all, a group of archpriests who gave impetus to this extraordinary synod—Alexander P. Smirnov, professor at the University of Petrograd, Alexander P. Rozhdestvensky, former member of the minority in the Preconciliar Commission and professor at the Petrograd Theological Academy, and Feodor D. Filonenko, of the group of parliamentary priests. The synod’s task was to organize the convocation of the council as quickly as possible. Relations with Chief Procurator L’vov still left something to be desired, for the members of the Holy Synod were not happy about being called to such an important office only by the government. But the new composition of the synod pacified, to a certain extent, relations between the two powers. The symbol of this appeasement, according to the interesting witness of AntonV. Kartashev,96 was the transfer of synod sessions to another room and a change in the seating arrangement of the bishops and the laity.97 The synod decided to donate four million rubles of the Church’s money—the first two million immediately—to the convocation and the operating costs of the council. The government, for its part, set aside one million rubles. Once more, social and political events played a decisive role in the council’s progress: after the “Bloody Sunday” of January 9, 1905, which inspired the Manifesto of the Thirty-Two, and the October revolution of 1905, which forced the emperor to ask for the preparation of a council, it was now the revolution of February 23– 27 (March 8–12), 1917, which, after eleven years of constant difficulties, reactivated the movement towards the council. Moreover, the decisive role of the Russian state in Church reform was confirmed, apparently vindicating what Leroy-Beaulieu had maintained: “In popular opinion, the chief cause of the prolonged stagnation of the Russian Church is its dependence on the civil power. The keen observer will

48

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

very often draw very different conclusions. One will discover that in modern Russia most progress and most reforms in the Church were due to the state’s initiative.”98 This time, however, the context was different: the emperor’s abdication allowed the Church herself to organize her own destiny. Just as the Provisional Government prepared the election of a Constituent Assembly (taking too much time to do so since it lacked legal status),99 now also the Holy Synod could finally convoke a council on its own. The Holy Synod Retakes the Initiative

Notice of the Convocation for April 29 By the special mandate of April 29 (May 12) 1917,100 published in the Tserkovnye Vedomosti, and read to all the faithful, the new synod announced the convocation of a council and the putting in place of preparatory reforms that would permit the introduction of the elective principle in the system of Church government. The message, addressed to all the bishops, clergy, and laity, began by attributing to the change of regime the possibility of convoking the council: For very long, the Russian Orthodox felt that it was necessary to convoke a local council of All Russia, in order to make a radical change in the mode of government of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in general terms, to organize our ecclesial life on the intangible principles given by the divine founder and head of the Church, in the holy scriptures, in the regulations of the holy apostles, in the holy ecumenical and local councils and the fathers of the Church. The regime change that has occurred in our midst, radically altering our social and political life, has given the Church the possibility and the right to organize itself freely—the most cherished dream of Russian Orthodox Church members. This has now become a reality, and the convocation of a local council, in the not too distant future, has become an urgent necessity.101 The message, addressed in turn to the bishops, the clergy, and the laity, continued by inviting all to unite and show mutual respect in con-

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

49

tributing to the conciliar task. This work should lead to the institution of a conciliar mode of government in the Church: “An ample participation of all the members of the Church in ecclesial affairs, with respect shown for special rights and obligations, ought to move each one to undertake a living engagement on behalf of the Church in order to build up the foundation of Church organization.”102 In addition, the message announced changes in Church schools and in the ecclesiastical court. The Preconciliar Committee On the same day there appeared a decree announcing the provisory composition of a Preconciliar Committee (Predsoborniy sovet). In a way, this committee corresponded, within the Church, to the role of the Provisional Government in the state. Its composition was specified by a decree of May 8 (21).103 It would be an extended consultative group, with sixty bishops, clergy, and lay members—most of them professors—and including Kartashev as deputy chief procurator of the synod. Lay persons were in the majority, forty laity to twelve bishops and ten priests. This committee was in favor of change and would prepare a council that corresponded to its aspirations. The composition of the committee can be explained, in large part, by the pressure exerted by the Provisional Government, which wanted the Church to participate in bringing about a constitutional democratic regime.104 The committee was convoked on June 11 (24) at St. Petersburg. It consisted of ten commissions dealing with, respectively: (1) election procedure and the functioning of the council, (2) reform of the central government of the Church, the constitution of districts, and the organization of Church government in Georgia and in Finland, (3) diocesan government, (4) the ecclesiastical tribunal, (5) the parish, (6) matters of faith and of the liturgy, Old Ritualists,105 and Old Believers, (7) Church finances, (8) the legal situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the state, (9) monks and monasticism, and (10) the teaching establishments of the Church.106 Aided by the work of the Preconciliar Commission of 1906 and of the Preconciliar Consultative Committee of 1912, the Preconciliar Committee of 1917—which was dissolved on August 1 (14)107—greatly accelerated the conciliar process by preparing all the projects for the council.

50

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

The Holy Synod approved these projects and published the list at its session of August 12 (25), 1917.108 Some projects had been approved and published, in particular: “The legal status of the Russian Orthodox church in Russia,” “On the supreme administration of the Church,” “On the administration of ecclesiastical districts,” “The Provisional Statute on the Orthodox parish,” “General Regulations on the Organization of the ecclesiastical court,” “The Regulations concerning the Edinoverie or Orthodox,” “The Basic Regulations concerning Church Property and Economy,” a series of projects on the monastic life, and, finally, “The Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia.” Projects dealing with the educational establishments of the Church, prepared by the tenth commission, were approved in principle without being published. Finally, a certain number of projects elaborated by the Preconciliar Committee were, through lack of time, unable to be examined in the plenary sessions or to be published. This was the case for such projects as “The Regulations on the Convocation of the Local Councils,” “The Project of Diocesan Administration,” “The Project of the Statute Concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline,” “[The Project] Concerning the Old Believer Hierarchy of Belaya Krinitsa and the Old Catholic Hierarchy,” “[The Project] On the Liturgy of the Church,” “The Project on Mission,” and “Basic Regulations Concerning the Economy.” In order to channel the enthusiasm that was stirred up in the Church, the committee prepared a series of provisional arrangements adopted by the Holy Synod: an arrangement for the parish and the government of dioceses, which organized the Church on the principles of autonomy, and especially, provisional regulations for the future council.109 Finally, general elections for bishops were organized, elections that generally confirmed bishops already in place. In exceptional cases, removal from office was recognized by the Holy Synod through the intermediary of Vladimir L’vov. In both capitals where the metropolitans had been dismissed, the elections organized in April gave unexpected results. In Petrograd, the young auxiliary bishop Benjamin (Kazansky)110 was elected, and in Moscow, Archbishop Tikhon,111 who in the face of the German offensive had to leave Vilnius. Along the lines of the Provisional Government preparing the Constituent Assembly, the synod had to lead the Church to its autonomy. The introduction of the elective and representative principle at every de-

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

51

gree of the hierarchy aimed at channelling a democratic movement present at the heart of the Church. A New Context Parallel to the works of the Holy Synod, the revolution continued in the Church as well as in the state. In fact, if Church reform came about in fashion parallel to that of the state, it did so under the pressure of similar factors.112 The revolution wormed itself into its heart, causing subordinates to rise up against superiors: parishioners against the clergy, the psalomshchiki 113 and the deacons against the priests, and the priests against the bishops. From the month of April, diocesan congresses of clergy and laity disavowed their bishops, and their delegates were granted access to the synod by L’vov. The group of the Thirty-Two priests resumed their activity, while the Association of the Progressive Clergy of St. Petersburg invited priests to reach out to the workers. Alexander I. Vvedensky114 formed the All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy, whose tendency was frankly socialist. At the end of May 1917, the left wing of the clergy, fearing that the bishops would put a brake on the proposed reforms, organized a huge demonstration, the All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity, which assembled twelve hundred delegates. This congress formulated its wishes on the matter of Church reforms, and this was, in fact, a great help in the work of the Preconciliar Committee. These proposals echoed the progressive aspirations of the clergy, especially with regard to liberty of conscience, but it also gave voice to certain more conservative desires. These conservative aspirations influenced the congress and led it to put aside the idea of a separation of Church and state, and affirmed the need to maintain the obligation of catechism in the primary schools and the necessity of maintaining parish schools.115 The state itself was changing. After the Bolshevik uprising of July 3 and 4 (16 and 17), L’vov had to resign his position as chief procurator on July 21 (August 3), 1917. He was replaced by Anton Kartashev, who, by decree of the Provisional Government on August 5 (18), 1917, saw his title changed from chief procurator to that of Minister of Cults.116 This change revealed a determination to break with the former type of relations between the Church and the state—or rather between the Churches and the

52

T O WA R D S T H E C O U N C I L , 1 9 0 5 – 1 9 1 7

state since the new minister was henceforth minister of all the religious denominations.117 The new minister inherited both the responsibilities of the chief procurator for Orthodox affairs as well as those of the minister of the interior for the affairs of other confessions.118 Even if the new Minister of Cults held on provisionally to the attributions of the chief procurator for as long as it took to steer the Church towards the council,119 and even if Kartashev maintained a certain initiative on the part of civil authorities in advancing the reforms, the government acknowledged the future autonomy of the Church. Moreover, a special decree of the Provisional Government dated August 11 (24)120 declared that the canonical work of the council would be officially recognized in law.

Part one of our work led us to a paradoxical conclusion. It was not the crisis in the Church but rather its renewal that allowed it to envisage a council in 1905. At the end of this second part, our conclusion is every bit as paradoxical. The Council of 1917–1918 did not come about in spite of the upheavals of 1917, but rather thanks to these upheavals. As in 1905, the conciliar process evolved under the pressure of external factors and parallel to state reforms. Not only did the reform movement take place simultaneously in Church and state, but the form it took was identical. Just as the state formed a provisional government while waiting for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, in the same way the Church, by the authority of the renewed Holy Synod and of the Preconciliar Committee, dictated provisional arrangements while waiting for the convocation of a council. The question poses itself as to whether the revolution was content to give impulse to the council, or whether it influenced it at a deeper level. One thing, however, is certain: that the Church was better prepared than was the state when the revolution broke out because everything relative to Church reform had been prepared for over a period of eleven years. This explains how so much work was able to be accomplished in the space of one year, in the midst of troubles and persecutions.

PART 3 THE COUNCIL ITSELF: P R O C E D U R E S, C O M P O S I T I O N,

AND

U NFOLDING

The chief interest of the Council of 1917–1918 is the conciliar fact itself. The council’s composition and functioning are, in themselves, original and revelatory of the way the Russian Church, in 1917, intended to resolve its difficulties and challenge the new situation. That is why, before even attempting to analyse the content of the council, it seems necessary to study its procedure and composition, not only in the texts, but also in its historical unfolding.

E  R   C The most important accomplishment of the Preconciliar Committee was the “Statute on the Convocation of the Council” and the “Statute of the Council” itself. If the election of the council members was organized on strictly democratic principles, the decision procedure—itself original — allowed for the reconciliation of the two of sobornost’— conciliar and synodal. A Democratic Electoral System

On July 5 (18), the Holy Synod approved and published the “Letter of Convocation” and the “Statute on the Convocation of the Council,”1 proposed by the Preconciliar Committee. The Letter of Convocation

The “Letter of Convocation” convoked a local council of the Pan-Russian Orthodox Church,2 composed of bishops, monks, parish clergy, and laity, 53

54

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

for August 15 (28), feast of the Dormition. This letter, in order to alert the faithful to the importance of the elections, placed emphasis on the historical character of the council, which would allow the Russian Church to organize itself “according to the principles of conciliarity,” and, in comparison with the preceding announcement, painted a still more alarming picture of the synodal period and of the general needs of the Church. For over two centuries, Russia has no longer been hearing the voice of the Orthodox people on the needs of Church life even though these needs presented themselves, one after another. Faith dimmed and grew cold; heresies and other divisions rose up and prospered; the bond of love between the pastors and their flock diminished, as did the bonds among the Orthodox Christians themselves who were formerly, through fraternal charity, united in little churches—the Orthodox parishes. However, in spite of all these evils, no council was convened, and many church needs were left without a solution.3 The Statute on the Convocation of the Council: A Three-Tiered Election The regulations concerning the convocation of the council distinguished three types of members: ex officio members (ruling bishops, whereas vicars or retired bishops were ineligible except by invitation or election),4 invited members, and elected members.5 Thanks to the elections, the statute allowed, as did the Preconciliar Commission of 1906, a fuller council that included clergy and laity: “The council is comprised of bishops, clergy, and laity.”6 But according to the procedure established by the Preconciliar Commission, the clergy and lay members of the council were to be chosen by the bishops from among twenty or thirty candidates presented by the deanery assemblies.7 In the decision of July 5 (18), 1917, episcopal approval was eliminated. Once elected, clergy and laity were directly recognized as representatives of the diocese.8 Moreover, the number of clerical and lay representatives tripled in contrast to the 1906 project, which had provided for just one cleric and one lay person per diocese:9 Each one of the sixty-five dioceses was henceforth to send its bishop and to elect five delegates, two clerics and three lay people.10 With regard to the two clerics, one was to be a priest, the

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

55

other a bishop (vicar or emeritus), priest, deacon, or psaltist (psalomshchik).11 This arrangement allowed for an equal number of clerics and laity for each diocese: three clerics (including one or two bishops) and three from among the laity. The election of council members was to happen in three stages. On July 23 (August 5), each parochial assembly was to elect lay members, who would represent it at the deanery assembly.12 At this deanery assembly, comprised of the clergy and laity of the deanery, elections for representatives to the elective diocesan assembly were to be held on July 30 (August 12).13 At this elective diocesan assembly, which included representatives of the diocesan church schools, the delegates to the council were to be elected on August 8 (21).14 Moreover, the vicariates, the monasteries, the army, the edinovertsy, the theological academies, the Academy of Sciences and the university, and the Duma and the Council of State all had the right to a certain number of representatives, as did the Eastern patriarchs and the autocephalous Orthodox Churches—all of these representatives had full right to membership in the council.15 The Statute of the Council: Structures and Original Procedures On August 11 (24), 1917, the Holy Synod placed its seal on the report prepared by the Preconciliar Committee and presented it to the council. This report proposed, along with the list of projects for reform,16 a series of rules for the council.17 Indeed, even though the Holy Synod was quite aware that only the council itself was competent to establish its rules, it seemed to it important that a guide be furnished: “Recognizing on the one hand that the right to lay down council statutes appertains to the council itself, but on the other hand, considering that the council, as far as the constitution of this statute regulations is concerned, has need of some guiding principles, the Holy Synod decrees: that the statute of the local council, constituted by the Preconciliar Committee, be recognized as the rule guiding the council until the council itself approve this statute.”18 Besides, the first article of the statute recognized the council’s complete authority for the organization of Church life: “The Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia has the fullness of ecclesiastical authority for the upbuilding of Russian ecclesial life on the basis of the Word of God, the dogmas, the

56

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

canons, and the tradition of the Church.”19 Nevertheless, this ruling became the center around which all conciliar legislation developed. The Structures of the Council: The Originality of the Two Assemblies The originality of the statute consisted in distinguishing two types of assembly in the council: the General Assembly, which comprised all the council members (including the bishops), and the Conference of Bishops, consisting of “all the bishops taking part in the council and enjoying the rights of council members.”20 This Conference of Bishops did not consist solely of the ruling bishops. Indeed, according to the statute on convocation, which, on this point, referred back to the Preconciliar Commission of 1906,21 only ruling bishops were ex officio members of the council. However, the statute moderated somewhat this principle, in providing that vicar bishops or emeriti could be invited by the council22 or elected by the provincial assemblies23—in both cases as full members of the council and consequently of the Conference of Bishops.24 This distinction of “two chambers” allowed for a procedure that would balance the vote of the laity and of clerics who were not bishops. The statute foresaw other instances besides the General Assembly and the Conference of Bishops—in particular the commissions (otdely),25 which were obliged to include bishops, clergy, and laity,26 and could only be formed following a proposal signed by at least thirty persons.27 These commissions had the task of preparing the proposals submitted to the council by the commission’s spokesperson.28 The statute gave these commissions a decisive role in the elaboration of propositions.29 Members of the council wishing to belong to this or that commission had, first of all, to inform the council’s Executive Committee, which would draw up the list;30 they would then have to be elected by the council with an absolute majority.31 The commissions were obliged to elect from among themselves a chairman—not necessarily a bishop, according to the statute32—and his deputies. Moreover, three special commissions had to be elected as soon as the council opened: the Commission on Statutes, charged with “the preparation of the Statutes for the future local Councils, as well as for the structure of the supreme administration of the Orthodox Church of All Russia on the basis of the canonical and historical traditions of the Church, as well as of the experience and instructions of the current Council”;33 the

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

57

Drafting Commission, charged with the final draft of the decrees and the publication of the acts;34 and finally, the commission on membership, whose role it was to verify the regularity of the members’ elections.35 In addition, the council had to elect from its members a president (bishop), six vice-presidents (two bishops, two clerics, and two lay persons), and a secretary with two assistants. These latter, as well as three other elected members—a bishop, a priest, and a lay person—comprised the council’s Executive Committee, which was charged, under the aegis of the council’s president, with the council’s internal organization, with the coordination of all its activity in general and in particular with the arrangement of the daily agenda.36 Procedure for the Adoption of Decisions: A Via Media between Episcopal Autonomy and Conciliarity The originality of the regulations was the procedure for the making of decisions, which derived its inspiration from the suggestions of Archbishop Sergius of Finland at the Preconciliar Commission of 1906, and which led to the distinction of the two entities at the council. Principles of Procedure In fact, contrary to the regulations of the Preconciliar Commission, ratified by the tsar in 1907,37 the regulations of August 11 (24) gave the clergy and laity a deliberative and not merely a consultative vote. How did this evolution come about? This association of clergy and laity in the work of the council, ultimately more extensive than the prevailing opinion of the Preconciliar Commission would have envisaged, was without doubt favored by the dramatic circumstances that became increasingly more threatening for the Church, badly in need of the support and help of all. Many of the clergy and laity, for their part, were anxious to help the Church to surmount the political crisis that had begun to assail it. Moreover, it was important to encourage the democratic current that was infiltrating the very heart of the Church. However, if the regulations did not reflect the episcopal viewpoint of the majority of the commission, which allowed clerics and laity a mere passive or consultative role, neither did it adopt a purely conciliar point of

58

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

view, placing the bishops in a position where it would no longer be possible for them to exercise their authority in the Church. In reality, the text arranged the functioning of the council on the foundation of a synthesis of the principles accepted respectively by the majority and by the minority of the Preconciliar Commission of 1906. This synthesis, while allowing for the right of lay persons and of clerics to vote, reserved to bishops, constituted in conference, the right to veto decisions taken at the General Assembly. A Procedure in Two Stages At a first stage, all the questions had to be submitted to sessions of the General Assembly where decisions were taken according to an absolute majority of votes—those of bishops and laity carrying the same weight.38 The submitted business could be proposed either by the Holy Synod or by the commissions or through a request from any member of the council, signed by at least thirty of its members.39 In the latter case, the request would have to be transmitted to the Executive Committee, which could transmit it to a commission.40 The commissions, in their turn, transmitted to the General Assembly the proposals that they had adopted, signed by their president and by at least half of their members.41 The General Assembly (or, “session” of the council)42 then discussed the proposals in two stages: a general discussion on the foundations of the proposal, and then a discussion on each article.43 The text was then handed over to the Drafting Commission before being submitted in its entirety to the vote of the General Assembly.44 Resolutions were passed each time by open vote,45 with a request that each negative voter rise.46 At the second stage, the decisions of the General Assembly were submitted to the episcopal conference.47 If, after a delay of three days after the vote, the episcopal conference rejected by at least three quarters of the voters present the entire or partial proposal, the latter was sent back to the General Assembly.48 If, after examination, the decision was again rejected by the episcopal conference, it did not have the force of a conciliar definition.49 Import and Meaning of This Procedure Thus, this arrangement—while guaranteeing the unanimity of decisions— allowed for the preservation of episcopal supremacy with regard to the deci-

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

59

sions of the General Assembly, by a right of veto accorded to the Conference of Bishops. Furthermore, as we shall see, commissions will almost systematically select bishops as chairmen, without however being obliged by the ruling to do so50—but these chairmen were obliged to sign the proposals submitted to the council.51 Nevertheless, this right of veto, which was the only prerogative of bishops envisaged by the council’s statute, was strictly qualified. On the one hand, the bishops could accept or refuse a decision adopted by the General Assembly, but not amend it.52 On the other hand, at the session of August 10–11 (23– 24), 1917, the Holy Synod modified the ruling of the Preconciliar Committee—which called for a simple majority—by exacting a majority of three-quarters of the votes.53 Thirdly, the Conference of Bishops could only reject decisions concerning “general laws or basic principles.”54 The bishops could not place obstacles to minor decisions dealing with administration, for example, nominations. Besides, the basis for any rejection could only be incompatibility with “the Word of God, the dogmas, canons, and tradition of the Church.”55 Finally, to avoid legal uncertainty, the right of veto could only be exercised during a session of the General Assembly and during the three days following an examination of the text.56 The council decisions thus constituted unique acts accomplished by the General Assembly and the Conference of Bishops. These limitations on the bishops’ right of veto could have paralyzed the council; but, in reality, the general desire of all its members for Church reform, together with the pressure of threatening exterior circumstances, maintained the council’s unanimity. This original procedure, inaugurated in 1917 by the thoughtful balance of the two entities,57 guaranteed a relative moderation in the decisions and a climate of peace between the different members and tendencies of the council. The counterbalance of the two assemblies, far from neutralizing them, allowed for much closer collaboration given the common threat of the revolution. One could not, however, without a betrayal of the originality and of the special nature of the statute, assimilate it purely and simply to a two-chamber parliamentary regime.58 In fact, in a two-chamber system, each house has its own members and convenes separately. In the case of disagreement, the inter-parliamentary commissions tend to effect a compromise, reviewed by each of them. Besides, as we have seen, the right of veto derives stricto sensu, from the prerogative to oppose

60

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

a decision decided on by one or several persons outside the assembly that made the decision. Nothing like that was found in the system inaugurated by the 1917 statute. In fact, the Conference of Bishops was not exactly a second house in the sense that its members were also part of the General Assembly, where they could influence decisions by their interventions and by their votes. Besides, article 1 of the Letter of Convocation of July 5 (18), 1917, stated clearly that the council was “composed of bishops, priests and laity.” Thus the council was indeed one unique Church assembly, but one where the bishops could at the same time guide and control legislative activities.

T C  U   C An examination of the texts concerning election and procedure would scarcely be sufficient to give an idea of how the Council of 1917–1918 carried out its work. Just as the council cannot be understood without a knowledge of the history that preceded it, neither can it be understood without a knowledge of the context in which it was celebrated and that determined also its composition and its unfolding. The Composition of the Council

The Council Members: A Majority of Laity, but in Solidarity with the Bishops At its convocation, the council formed an assembly of 564 persons,59 the majority of whom were elected.60 The distribution by category of these 564 members presents a revealing picture of the different components of the Russian Church in 1917. Members included: the 9 members of the Holy Synod (ex officio),61 the 73 ruling archbishops and bishops (ex officio), 330 members elected by the dioceses62 and 11 by the vicariates,63 the superiors of the 4 great monasteries (ex officio),64 the abbots of the 4 most important monasteries (ex officio),65 12 members elected by the monasteries, the 2 protopresbyters (ex officio),66 10 members elected by the chaplains to the army and the navy, 15 members elected by the military, 11 members

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

61

elected by the edinovertsy, the 62 members of the Preconciliar Committee (ex officio),67 12 members elected by the theological academies,68 13 members elected by the Academy of Sciences and the universities, 20 members elected by the Duma and the Council of State, and 2 representatives of autocephalous Orthodox Churches.69 Thus 156 were members ex officio, 434 by election. The principle according to which certain bishops, vicars, or emeriti could not only participate in the council by election or by invitation but take part in the Conference of bishops by virtue of their episcopal consecration had in fact very limited application: out of the 80 members of episcopal rank (patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop, bishop), only 7 qualified, not ex officio by reason of their pastoral charge but by virtue of elections or by a special decree of the council.70 The distribution of members by rank in the Church71 accorded a majority to the laity and to the white clergy. The list included 10 metropolitans, 17 archbishops, 52 bishops, 2 protopresbyters, 15 archimandrites, 2 hegumens, 3 hieromonks, 5 mitred archpriests, 67 archpriests, 55 priests, 2 archdeacons, 8 deacons, 26 psalomshchiki, and 299 laity. In total, the laity constituted a majority: 299 laity against 264 ecclesiastics. Among the latter, bishops were in the minority: 79 clerics (except the patriarch) were of episcopal rank, compared to 195 other clerics, 149 of whom were priests. On the other hand, representatives of the white clergy had a majority: 165 members of the secular clergy (129 secular priests, 10 deacons, 26 psalomshchiki) against 99 representatives of the black clergy (only 20 monks, to whom we must add the 79 bishops). The originality of the composition of the council was, then, the importance of lay representation. This was one of the fruits of nineteenthand twentieth-century theological reflection on the concept of sobornost’, but the democratic influence of the time was certainly a contributing factor (it was already manifest on the occasion of the episcopal elections in Moscow and in Petrograd, as well as in the works of the Assembly of Clergy and Laity of Moscow in 1917).72 But the laity did not form a compact group. Some played a decisive role as theologians or lawyers, S. N. Bulgakov, for example. One of them, Vasily A. Potulov, a member of the Duma and elected as its representative, was even chairman of the commission on parishes,73 while all the other commissions elected bishops at their head. Finally, about twenty peasants took part in the council.

62

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

On the level of ideas, this predominance of laity and secular clergy did not mean that the assembly was tending towards the left. On the contrary. Even if the clergy in the earlier days of the revolution allowed themselves to veer towards the left, the assemblies elected after the days of July 3 and 4 (16 and 17), 1917, preferred more moderate men. On the other hand, in the course of the council, the increasing menace of a common enemy progressively bonded together the different ranks of the clergy in a more conservative outlook than the earlier steps taken by the conciliar process could have led one to expect, and the whole body of clergy and laity did not dissociate themselves from the hierarchy. However, this unification of the tendencies within the council did not exclude diversity.74 The conservative tendency assembled a majority of members around the bishops75 and was dominated by the personality of Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov. The centrist current, which emphasized above all the principle of conciliarity, was led by the philosopher Prince Evgeny N. Trubetskoy and professor Sergius N. Bulgakov. A minority of the left was represented by Georgy I. Shavel’sky, protopresbyter of the army and navy chaplains,76 the archpriests Nikolai P. Dobronravov and Nikolai V. Tsvetkov. These, with the support of the professors of the ecclesiastical academies, tended to act as a counterbalance to episcopal power. The Determining Role of the Commissions The 1917 statute foresaw the election of the commissions.77 Twenty-two commissions, each one composed of a chairman, his deputies, and secretaries, were constituted for the following areas: (1) legislation, (2) supreme administration of the Church, (3) diocesan administration, (4) the ecclesiastical court, (5) parish, (6) Church canon law, (7) liturgy, preaching, and churches, (8) Church discipline, (9) internal and external mission, (10) Edinoverie and Old Believers, (11) monks and monasticism, (12) theological academies, (13) Church schools, (14) parish schools, (15) catechism, (16) Church property and finances, (17) the legal and economic situation of the clergy, (18) organization of the Orthodox Church in South Caucasus, in view of the proclamation by the Georgians of the autocephaly of their Church, (19) Bible, (20) publications, (21) membership, and (22) drafting commission. Three commissions were also formed with reference to the council’s Executive Committee, for (1) religious education, (2) eco-

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

63

nomic matters, and (3) legal matters. All of these commissions elected bishops as chairmen—except the one dealing with the parish. The preliminary work of these commissions was certainly decisive. A survey of 104 decisions showed that 73 projects (over 70 percent) were adopted without amendments.78 A Disturbed Sequence

The work of the council from its opening on August 15 (28), 1917, until September 7 (20) 1918, was constantly disturbed by the pressure of external events. Opening of the Council on August 15 (28) On August 15 (28), a solemn liturgy,79 celebrated in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin, announced the opening of the council. Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev, the senior of the metropolitans, presided in the presence of all the council members and of government representatives: Prime Minister A. F. Kerensky,80 Minister of the Interior N. D. Avksentiev, and Minister of Cults A.V. Kartashev. The latter was to describe twenty-five years later the solemnity of the event and the nervous joy of the participants. After the liturgy, Metropolitan Vladimir read the charter by which the synod declared the council open. Then, coming out from the narrow sanctuary, clergy and people walked in procession to the Kremlin Square. Already there was a forest of banners in the processions that had come there from all the churches in Moscow. Hierarchal liturgies had been celebrated simultaneously in thirty-three churches of the city, and from each of these churches, processions formed and made their way to the Kremlin, where on arrival they formed into one single procession that in turn made its way to the Chudov monastery. Then, from there, the procession passed by the Savior’s Gate before arriving at Red Square at the Lobnoe Mesto.81 There a special moleben service82 was chanted by the council members themselves, unaccompanied by the Synodal Choir, which had given a remarkable rendering of the liturgy. The entire Kremlin and the whole of Red Square were covered with tens of thousand of persons. There was no police presence,

64

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

however, resulting in an atmosphere that approximated revolutionary chaos. Moscow was full of people and awash with rumors. . . . Two disparate sentiments were to be found in the souls of its members: on the one hand, a religious joy at the thought of participating in the great mystery of a council, so long awaited and so ardently desired, together with the pleasure of religious and canonical liberty, and, on the other hand, a clear vision of the state in which the country found itself— the patriotic wish of the people was manifestly disregarded, the army was in disarray, and there was a general presentiment of defeat, of the deterioration of Russia and of the horrors of the revolution.83 On the following day, August 16 (29), after another solemn liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the first public session of the council took place. It was an extraordinary sight. Never in the past had Russia seen — as councils were forbidden — such a number of bishops assembled together. They were about eighty in number, all dressed in their violet mantias84 with their white and scarlet stripes, and their black klobuks.85 Among these headdresses, one could distinguish the four white klobuks86 of the Metropolitan of Kiev, of the Exarch of Caucasus Platon, and of the two young, recently elected metropolitans, Tikhon of Moscow and Benjamin of Petrograd. . . . After a short prayer, the bishops in mantias took their places in seats already prepared for them. These seats were on a three-tiered balcony situated a short distance behind the center of the church. Beside them and behind them were the priests in cassocks and the other members of the council, all mingling freely. Behind the clergy and laity, the people occupied the remainder of the sanctuary, but the size of the latter gave the illusion that few were present. Between the solea87 and the center of the church, a small tribune had been set up for the orators who faced the assembly and had their back turned to the altar.88 On August 17 (30), the regular work of the council began at the Diocesan House (6 Likhov Alley and Sadovaya Karetnaya Street), where sessions were normally held. Let us hear again the word of Kartashev,

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

65

whose descriptions of the place are precious for an understanding — beyond protocol—of the symbolism of the council: It was truly a place that was apt and appropriate, for the Diocesan House had been founded thanks to the care and apostolic zeal of the two previous metropolitans of Moscow, Vladimir and Macarius. At the center of the house was a church, decorated with an iconostasis in the old Russian style. Three-quarters of the back part of this church was arranged for conferences and meetings. The bishop and the Council’s presiding members sat on the large solea in front of the iconostasis. At one degree lower down on a level with the floor, were all the other members of the council, all of which represented, obviously, the reunion of the two “Ecclesiastical Chambers,” the upper and the lower, in this Council.89 Finally on August 18 (31), the council established its presidium.90 To the surprise of all, the new metropolitan of Moscow, Tikhon, was elected president with a majority of 407 out of 432 voters. Personalities such as Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov or Arsenius (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod were elected simply as vice-presidents. Two other assistants were elected from among the priests: the protopresbyter of the Cathedral of the Dormition, Nikolai A. Liubimov, and the protopresbyter of the army and the navy, Georgy I. Shavel’sky. Two others were elected from among the laity: Prince Evgeny N. Trubetskoy, professor at the University of Moscow, and Mikhail Vl. Rodzianko, former speaker of the Duma. Thus every perspective was represented at the presidium. The days that followed were devoted to the organization of the council. After the constitution and the election of the commissions, the council’s agenda91 was confirmed on September 9 (22) by their presidents: the commissions met in turn on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays: Wednesdays and Saturdays were reserved for the council’s plenary sessions. The Three Sessions: Their Context and Most Important Decisions The 170 meetings of the council took place between August 15 (28), 1917, and September 7 (20), 1918. They were divided into three sessions, which

66

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

followed the rhythm of the great liturgical feasts: a first session from August 15 (28) to December 9 (22), 1917, a second from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20), 1918, and a last session from June 19 (July 2) to September 7 (20), 1918.92 The First Session The first session, from August 15 (28) to December 9 (22) 1917, concentrated on the organization of the principal elements of Church governance: the supreme government of the Church; the reestablishment of the patriarchate on October 28 (November 10), which culminated in the election of Tikhon as patriarch; the definition of the rights and duties of the patriarch; and the organization and competences of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church. During this session, the principles of conciliarity were applied to all levels of Church life: on the highest levels as well as on the levels of the dioceses and of parishes. Relations between the Church and the state were reexamined. Preaching was encouraged at a moment when the proclamation of the gospel was becoming progressively more dangerous. Historical events obliged the council to also make resolutions regarding circumstantial situations because decrees being issued by the new government affected the interests of the Church and violated its canons. One such was the decree of June 20 (July 3) issued by the Provisional Government, which assumed power after the February revolution. This decree transferred the parish schools, which until then were under the Holy Synod, to the Ministry of Public Education. This symbolized the abrupt transformation of Church-state relations. A related question was that of religious education in public schools. Revolutionary professors wanted to suppress it altogether, while the government wanted to make it optional. Another problem affecting Church-state relations was that of freedom of conscience, proclaimed by a law enacted on July 14 (22), 1917. This freedom included the legal right to not belong to any religious confession and the recognition of civil marriage for people without religion. Alongside these questions specifically affecting ecclesial status, the council found itself under pressure to take sides in the political and military problems of the country.93

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

67

Later on, after the formation of the Soviet government on October 25– 27 (November 7– 9), the Bolshevik “Decree on Land” and the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” inaugurated the nationalization of the land owned by the monasteries and the granting of equal rights for all confessions in Russia. On December 4 (17) 1917, a decree “On Agricultural Committees” nationalized all agricultural enterprises, including those of churches and monasteries. On December 11 (24), 1917, it was the turn of all the teaching establishments of the Church, its seminaries and academies. On December 18 (31), 1917, a decree from the Council of People’s Commissars instituted civil marriage and suppressed religious marriage. The project of separation of Church and state became the pretext for violence and looting. All that obviously went against the interests of the Church, and the council reacted with declarations concerning the parish schools and teaching of Orthodox faith and also by announcing a collection to cover the expenses of the council. Finally the council was obliged to make political declarations on the civil war within Russia and the war outside its borders. In its meeting of November 11 (24), 1917, it addressed a message to the Russian people condemning fratricide and urging repentance.94 The Second Session The second session, from January 20 (February 2) to April 7 (20), 1918, took place in the context of an intensifying persecution. The real persecution started at the end of 1917 with the first closings of churches and assassinations of members of the clergy. On January 19 (February 1), the patriarch anathematized the Bolsheviks in a message that was read in the council on January 20 (February 2) as it reconvened after the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany.95 On January 21 (February 3), in Petrograd,96 an immense procession (between 200,000 and 500,000 marchers) protested against the confiscation of Church property. In response— and also as a reaction against the letter of the patriarch97— the decree on the separation of the Church and the state and the decree on Church schools stripped the Church of its juridical personality, that is, of its right to exist as a unified organization. Only individual parishes, as communities of believers, would have juridical personality.98 The reign of terror began on

68

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

January 25 (February 2), 1918, with the assassination of the former president of the council, Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev. Religious processions of protestation in Voronezh (January 26 [February 8]) and Tula (February 2 [15]) ended in bloodbaths. The first concern of this session (Meeting 69) was the organization of the dioceses: diocesan administration, auxiliary bishops, and regional assemblies. But the main task of this second session was the regulation of parish life. The council applied the same principle of conciliarity at two levels—that of the diocese and that of the parish. But as was the case for the supreme administration of the Church, this principle was expressed in an apparently contradictory fashion: on the one hand, the role of the bishop was emphasized and, on the other hand, the parishes became more independent—without, however, going so far as to call for the election of clerics such as the provisory parish regulations of the summer of 1917 had envisaged. The council also pronounced on the edinoverie and on internal and external missions. The increasing persecution obliged the council to issue certain decrees dictated by circumstances—concerning the protection of marriage and the procedure for electing a locum tenens of the patriarchal throne (Meeting 69)—and urgent measures concerning establishments of religious formation (seminaries, theological academies, pastoral schools, and schools for women). It was decided that the canonical validity of the council’s meetings would not depend on the number of participants (Meeting 67). The Third Session The third session took place under increasingly difficult conditions. It began on July 6 (19), 1918, with a memorial service for the tsar who had been assassinated on July 4 (17) and ended by the reading of a list of recent martyrs. According to this list, 121 members of the Russian Orthodox Church had been killed for their faith and 118 were in prison. Among these martyrs were Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev, three bishops who were slain in the autumn of 1918, and dozens of clerics and lay people. But in spite of the outside pressure, the council summoned up enough strength to discuss at length the regulation of monasteries and monks. It

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

69

completed the legislation concerning the application of the principle of conciliarity to Church governance (the election of the patriarch and the status of the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne). It treated the foundation of new dioceses, vicariates, and districts, relations with the dioceses of Ukraine and Poland, and the participation of women in Church activities. It reestablished the feast of All Saints of Russia and tried to protect the property and belongings of the Church. Finding itself unable to continue its work, the council finally decided to grant full powers to its members until the convocation of a new council scheduled for autumn 1921. The End of the Council: An Unfinished Work The council had to cease its work on September 7 (20), 1918, on the one hand, for financial reasons—the Church’s monetary reserves having been confiscated by the decree of January 23 (February 5)— but also because the Bolsheviks had requisitioned the buildings of the Moscow Seminary where a part of the members of the council had been living. Consequently, the council was unable to consider the totality of the reports submitted by the commissions. The protocol of the final meeting gave a list of the reports that were not able to be examined.99 This list included a mixture of essential questions (such as the ecclesial academies) and more secondary affairs: (1) the foundation of a museum of religious art and antiquities, (2) the statutes of a Biblical Council under the supreme administration of the Church, (3) the organization of the Orthodox Church in Finland, (4) the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Church in Georgia, (5) the Council on Church Publications, (6) the statute of the ecclesiastical court, (7) the foundations of the statute of ecclesiastical legal procedure, (8) the ecclesiastical penal code, (9) the statute on the divorce of ecclesiastical marriages, (10) the budget of the supreme administration of the Church, (11) the formation of an auditing commission to control the transferal of the belongings of the former institutions of the supreme government of the Church to the new institutions, (12) the statute of Orthodox academies, (13) additional report concerning the changes of certain articles in the statute of the Orthodox theological academies, (14) the advanced ecclesiastical school of theology, (15) the preservation of the Julian calendar for ecclesiastical use until the resolution of

70

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

the question of the calendar reform by the entire Orthodox Church, (16) the rite of the lity 100 sung in case of necessity, sorrow, or trouble, (17) religious instruction of the people outside of the schools, (18) the institution of representation of the patriarch of Moscow and all Russia to all of the Eastern Patriarchs and the heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches, (19) the legal status of the clergy in the Russian state, and (20) the institution of an educational requirement for Orthodox clergy. By the originality of its composition and procedure, the Council of 1917–1918 is, in itself, a unique event in the history of the Russian Church. This composition and procedure enabled it to bring about a profound reform in the Russian Church and to face up to the challenges of history.

CHAPTER 1

The Conciliar Organization of the Church

Until its dissolution on September 7 (20), 1918, the council, pressured by the revolutionary context, concentrated its efforts mostly on the canonical organization of the Church. In reality, the council functioned as a constituent assembly and, as such, possessed “full authority in the Church to organize ecclesial life in Russia on the basis of the Word of God and the dogmas, canons, and tradition of the Church.”11 This organization, from top to bottom, was founded on the principle of conciliarity. We will see how this principle applied to the supreme church administration, to the diocese, and to the parish. In this chapter on ecclesial organization, we will also treat the question of monastic reform and the status of certain particular ecclesial entities.

T S A   C The supreme administration of the Church12 was the first concern of the council. It was outlined in the first issue of the decrees.13 The supreme administration includes the local council, the patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church. The Local Council: The “Supreme Power” in the Church

The local council, presented as the base and the summit of ecclesial organization, was naturally the first topic treated. Yet, strangely, the conciliar 73

74

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

texts on the council are very scant. No project concerning the definitive status of the council was proposed to replace the provisional regulation. Its role is not clearly defined and only treated when other institutions of the supreme administration of the Church are presented. The texts mention, but only when treating of other questions, three types of councils—all convoked by the patriarch:14 the regular local council convoked every three years, which elects the members of the organs of the supreme administration of the Church;15 the plenary council convoked every nine years;16 and the extraordinary local council for the election of a patriarch.17 Finally, mention is made of a purely episcopal council that can be convoked to judge the patriarch.18 The Paradox of Its Place in the Texts Just one article of the council, the very first, treats of the local council as such. This article affirms its primacy: “In the Orthodox Church of Russia, the supreme power — legislative, administrative, judicial, and supervisory —belongs to the local council, convoked periodically at determined times, and which is composed of bishops, clerics, and laity.”19 This article, which introduces the “transitional formula” approved on November 4 (17), 1917, prior to the beginning of the deliberations of the council, was, in reality, intended as a counterweight to the reestablishment of the patriarchate.20 Since this “formula” cannot be understood outside of the context of the reestablishment of the patriarchate, we will comment on it in the next chapter. We will continue here crosschecking the other definitions of the council. Article 1 of the “transition formula” indicates that the local council has supreme powers in the legislative, administrative, and judiciary domains, as well as supreme supervisory power. The Preconciliar Commission of 1906 had proposed that the local council have not just a legislative power but also administrative, judicial, and supervisory powers.21 At the time, the union of all these powers seemed natural because only the bishops would have a deliberative vote. In 1917, this idea is applied to a council “composed of bishops, clerics, and lay people.” This might explain the discretion of the conciliar texts that do not specify the modalities of the application of article 1. The local council’s area of competence can only be discerned indirectly, through decrees published that same month con-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

75

cerning the patriarch,22 the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church.23 The legislative authority of the local council only extends to matters that are not of the domain of the synod, of the Supreme Council, or of the patriarch. This legislative authority only concerns questions of ecclesial administration, questions of doctrine belong to the Holy Synod (episcopal).24 In the liturgical domain, the local council can decide to inscribe a saint in the pan-ecclesial martyrology.25 The administrative power of the local council consists mainly in its right to modify ecclesial organization through legislative acts. Nonetheless, the “Definition on the Property and Economic Management of the Church” gives the council “the highest authority with regards to the disposition of church property.”26 It is likely that circumstances (this definition was promulgated on August 24 [September 6], 1918) played a role in the recognition of this competence. The judiciary power of the local council is limited by the fact that the patriarch can only be judged by an episcopal council and would have been limited still further if the council had instituted a supreme ecclesiastical court. But the council did not succeed in making a decision regarding ecclesiastical courts.27 The only decision was to transfer the functions of the diocesan courts to an elected institution, the diocesan council.28 The power of oversight is limited to the examination of the rapports between the council and the organs that answer to the council: rapports with the patriarch,29 with the Holy Synod, and with the Supreme Council of the Church.30 Moreover, the council serves as a court of appeals against the acts of two bodies of the supreme administration of the Church—the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.31 On the other hand, the application of article 4 of the “transition formula,” which has the patriarch along with the other organs of Church governance answering to the council, is not specified.32 For the time being, we can sum up by saying that the conciliar texts do not offer a clear definition of the council: they do not envisage how frequently the council should be held nor do they specify its area of competence. The fathers of the council were anxious to restore the authority of the patriarch, and, on the other hand, they were aware of the exceptional characteristics of the Council of 1917 due to its composition and the scope of its powers. As a result, they were content to simply affirm the primacy of the council. According to the texts, the essential function of

76

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the council is elective; the council elects the patriarch,33 and the members of the Holy Synod34 and the Supreme Council of the Church.35 Circumstantial Arrangements The council fathers were also led to make decisions dictated by the circumstances of the times. First of all, because there were financial problems right from the start—and this would be one of the principal reasons why the council would disband the following autumn—they decreed, on December 2 (15), 1917, the institution of a “special collection to cover the expenses of the council” until January 1, 1919.36 At the end of the council, on September 5 (18), 1918, it was decided that the members of the council would keep “their full powers until a decree of the patriarch on the convocation of a new regular council.”37 In the meanwhile, the patriarch would have the right to reconvoke the council at any time with the same members,38 and the members of the council could participate, with a deliberative vote, in their own sectors—in the local assemblies of the diocese, of the district, province, and deanery.39 Finally, two days later, September 7 (20), 1918, the definition “on the convocation of the next council and on the powers of the members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church” decided to give the patriarch “the right to convoke the future regular council in the spring of 1921 guided by the principles laid down in the report of the Commission on the Supreme Church Administration which calls for the convocation of great councils every nine years.”40 The Patriarchate and Sobornost’

Without doubt, the restoration of the patriarchate appears as the most symbolic act of the council. Nevertheless, even though it had been one of the most important topics in preconciliar exchanges, this restoration was not a sure thing when the council began. Even among the supporters of the patriarchate, there were different ways of envisaging it: should the patriarch be simply a presiding bishop, or would the office invest him with powers of his own? To understand the significance of the restoration of the patriarchate, we must study the debates on this topic before looking at the rights and powers of the patriarch.

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

77

The Restoration of the Patriarchate The restoration of the patriarchate took place in two phases.41 The first phase, which was preceded by long debates between conciliarists42 and patriarchists, ended on October 29 (November 10) with a “transition formula” synthesizing the two currents—which corresponded to two possible conceptions of sobornost’. The second phase concerned the election of the candidates and the selection of the patriarch on November 5 by the drawing of lots. The Debate between Conciliarists and Patriarchists    The question of the restoration of the patriarchate was the backdrop to the ensemble of preconciliar debates. The Memorandum of the ThirtyTwo maintained that the president of the Russian council should be the archbishop of the capital city and would have the title of “Patriarch of All Russia.”43 If the declaration of Metropolitan Antony was less explicit, that of the synod mentions the patriarchate often.44 The preconciliar consultations tended toward the restoration of the patriarchate, though envisaged more as an intercessor and representative of the Church than as an independent authority with rights and duties.45 In the context of a tsarist regime, the objective was more the independence of the Church in its relationship to the state rather than an independent patriarch. On the other hand, the Preconciliar Committee, unlike the Commission of 1906 and the Preconciliar Consultative Committee of 1912, was not favorable to the restoration of the patriarchate.46 The members of this committee were, in fact, more liberal. The question that kept reoccurring was the compatibility between the patriarchate and conciliarity. The incompatibility argument had already been invoked by Peter the Great to justify the suppression of the patriarchate. “Permanent conciliar government, a sort of synod or Sanhedrin, is better and more perfect than government by just one man.”47 On a more theoretical level, the council was afraid of appearing antirevolutionary.48 Like the Preconciliar Committee, the council itself was composed of liberal members. The patriarchate loomed as the symbol of episcopal authority over the Church.

78

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

   :                    The commission of the council concerned with the administration of the Church, under the presidency of Bishop Metrophan (Krasnopolsky) of Astrakhan, which was the focus of special interest given the number of its members (226),49 began its debates centering on the theme of conciliarity. But, according to the patriarchists, the debate could not get around the question of the patriarchate: the position of the patriarch was too important to be omitted from a discussion of the definition of a project of ecclesial governance. It was for this reason that the commission decided to pose the question directly to the council. On October 11 (24), 1917, the commission, through its president, submitted a “transition formula” for discussion; it included four articles that restored the patriarchate but within a conciliar system.50 In the proposition of Bishop Metrophan, the restoration of the patriarchate would be the starting point for the rest of the council’s work concerning the definition on Church governance. Those opposed to the restoration of the patriarchate objected, as a question of principle,51 that the council must first define the rights and duties of the patriarch. Those who favored a patriarch who, in the line of canon 34 of the Apostles,52 would simply be the first among bishops defended the same position but more for tactical reasons,53 that is, to give so much importance to the restoration of the patriarchate, to the point that it conditions the ensuing work of the council, would amount to presuming a great part of the rights of the patriarch. In spite of all this, the assembly agreed to debate the formula presented by Bishop Metrophan.54 This represented an initial victory for the patriarchists.   :    The question of the prior approval of the transition formula illustrated the different currents within the council: the right wing wanted a patriarch to be chosen immediately, the left wing wanted an elected synod to be empowered. The arguments can be classified according to four categories according to whether they are based on theology, the canons, history, or psychology.55

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

79

Theological Arguments: Conciliarity Most of the patriarchists, following the lead of Sergius N. Bulgakov, affirmed that “the patriarchal office is not a dogma of the Orthodox Church in the same way that the papacy is a dogma for Catholicism.”56 They advanced mostly canonical arguments but also had recourse to Holy Scripture and the apostolic tradition. Along these lines, Ivan F. Iordansky, a doctor and a layman from the diocese of Kostroma, used the Pauline image of the body of Christ (Col 1:18, 1 Cor 12:13) to argue for the necessity of a visible head of the Church.57 Another layman, Nikolai Troitsky, a delegate from the diocese of Tula, cited the primacy of honor accorded to Peter, who acts in the name of all the apostles.58 But the most important theological argument was that of conciliarity, of sobornost’. This concept was central in all the arguments for or against the restoration of the patriarchate. Those of the left understood conciliarity in terms of democracy and stressed the collective character inherent in ecclesial organization and the role of the laity at all levels of Church life. This position revealed a desire to avoid a form of episcopal despotism and a “patriarchal papacy” that could be encouraged by a collapse of the state. The conservative tendency understood the principle of conciliarity as an element that defined the differentiation of functions within the ecclesial body—which in turn implied submission to the head of this body. For this current of thought, conciliarity did not mean equality and did not exclude personal power. Afanasy V. Vasiliev, an elected lay delegate from the diocese of St. Petersburg, made a distinction between sobornost’ and collegiality.59 The latter was an innovation of Peter the Great and was a purely formal principle that introduced parliamentary structures into the Church: this makes the bishops nothing more than the presidents of councils of clerics and laity that, by majority vote, defend their particular interests. Conversely, conciliarity is a moral principle that demands the sacrifice of each for the good of all, especially through obedience. Any danger of excessive “papalism” would be dissipated by submitting the patriarch to the council thus making him the primus inter pares. The Argument from the Canons The canonical argument held priority in the debates. From the very beginning, the return to the basic canons seemed to be the reason why the

80

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

council was convoked.60 The partisans of the patriarchate tried to show that the synodal system, imposed by Peter the Great in the name of conciliarity, was anticanonical. This was hard to demonstrate. The system had been approved by all the Eastern patriarchs.61 Moreover, up to the eve of the council, all the bishops had sworn an oath of fidelity to the synod. Bulgakov asked if this meant that the Russian Church had been anticanonical for two hundred years. In Bulgakov’s opinion, the concept of “Moscow, the Third Rome,” and the institution of the patriarchate were the source of the Russian Church’s deviation from an ecumenical sensitivity in favor of a Protestant ecclesiology: cuius regio, cuius religio.62 The partisans of the patriarchate did not limit themselves to attacking the anticanonical aspect of the present situation. They also tried to give positive proof of the canonical character of the patriarchal system. The canon most frequently cited, along with the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and Zonaras,63 was canon 34 of the Apostles, which stipulated that each people should have a “First Bishop,” the “Head of the Church.” Its supporters saw the canonical foundation of the patriarchate with its specific powers confirmed by certain canons that speak explicitly of the office: canon 7 of the Council in Trullo (692) and canon 15 of the First-Second Council (861). Among the ecumenical canons, they invoked canon 6 of the First Council, canon 3 of the Second Council and, especially, canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which attributed to the bishop of Constantinople the same prerogatives64 as the bishop of Rome.65 The Historical Argument The partisans of the patriarchate also appealed to historical precedents. They pointed out that all the autocephalous Churches had a patriarch at their head. Focusing on the patriarchate of Constantinople, they claimed that, in spite of a centralizing tendency and certain failures, the patriarchal institution had always been linked to the concept of conciliarity. Ivan I. Sokolov, a professor of history at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, showed that from the Turkish conquest until the nineteenth century, there were more than fifty councils and that the synod played the role of a permanent council for the patriarch.66 Moreover, the history of the patriarchate of Moscow enabled the patriarchists to point out that, in fact, the Russian Church had always had a patriarch because the Russian metro-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

81

politan, prior to the institution of the patriarchate of Moscow in 1589, depended on the patriarch of Constantinople. Subsequently, under the patriarchate, the Russian Church became more “conciliar,” held more councils.67 Above all, the partisans of the patriarchate evoked the political role of the metropolitans and patriarchs of Moscow: these, especially Peter, Alexis, and Jonah, were instruments of not only ecclesial unity but also of national unity.68 The opponents of the patriarchate countered this argument by pointing out that the Raskol took place under the patriarchate and even because of the Caesaropapist tendency of Nikon.69 The Psychological Argument The “conscience of the Church” was also brought up by the supporters of the patriarchate, who did not distinguish the national question from the religious question. There was need of an intercessor (molitvennik),70 of a father,71 of a leader, of a hero capable of heroic deeds (podvig), whereas a collegiate institution would not have the necessary sense of responsibility to do this.72 The absence of a chief put the Russian Church in a situation of inferiority in relation to the other autocephalous Churches and to the Catholic Church. Finally, on a national level, the restoration of the patriarchate seemed like a guarantee of stability—not just for the Church but also for the country: “When there is a war, there is only one leader; otherwise the army would fall apart.”73 The External Circumstances External events gave the psychological argument a new vigor. First of all, the end of its subjection to the state implied that the Church needed someone to represent it in its new relationship with the secular powers. On the other hand, the increasing secularization, the rupture between the Church and a sector of the intelligentsia, the progressive disintegration of the state—the natural support of the Church—all these factors, in the midst of a gathering storm, made the council aware of the need to organize the supreme power of the Church. As the debates rolled on, the more the restoration of the patriarchate seemed like a guarantee of stability. The external pressure of the Bolshevik revolution of October 25 (November 7) gave impetus to the movement favoring a figure who could lead the Church efficaciously in the struggle ahead and decided the question. The vote on

82

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the restoration of the patriarchate was taken on the same day that the Bolsheviks overcame the resistance of the cadet officers holed up in the Kremlin since October 27 (November 9), in a chaotic political context that forced the council to intensify its activities.74     “ ”    ( ),  The question of the restoration of the patriarchate was presented under the form of the “transition formula” proposed by Bishop Metrophan. In order to justify this procedure—which consisted of adopting a general principle that would serve as a foundation for subsequent debates— Metrophan compared it with the institution of the Duma.75 The formula the commission proposed consisted of four articles.76 Article 1 affirmed the primacy of the principle of conciliarity in Church governance: “In the Orthodox Church of Russia the supreme power belongs to the council.” Piotr P. Kudryavtsev, a professor at the Kiev Theological Academy and a partisan of conciliarity, had the article emended to specify the nature of the council: “In the Orthodox Church of Russia, the supreme power—judicial, legislative, administrative, and oversight — belongs to the local council, convoked periodically at determined dates and composed of bishops, clerics, and lay people.”77 Article 2 reestablished the patriarchate: “The Patriarchate is restored, and the Patriarch presides over the government of Church.” Here also the article was criticized by the conciliarists, who were suspicious of power concentrated in a person: what does it mean to “preside” over organs that don’t yet exist? Nonetheless, the article was approved as it was written.78 Article 3 was presented by the patriarchists as a safeguard against “papalism.” “The Patriarch is the first among bishops who are his equals.” This was, however, the article that drew the most criticism from the conciliarists, who denounced its ambiguity. What was the meaning of the formula primus inter pares?79 Did the patriarch have personal powers or was he simply the first bishop—according to the interpretation of canon 34 of the Apostles—within a conciliar system? In the latter case, why honor him in a special way—something forbidden by canon 48 of Carthage— with the risk of confusing administrative power and sacramental grace, as manifested by the ancient practice of the imposition of hands upon the patriarch? Could a distinction really be made between primacy of honor

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

83

(primus) and of power (inter pares) or, as put by Prince Grigory Trubetskoy, between ecclesiastical right (primus) and divine right (inter pares)?80 N. I. Troitsky defended the formula primus inter pares by founding it in the Holy Trinity itself.81 The article was finally accepted as it was written. Article 4 specified the relations between the patriarch and the council: “The Patriarch, together with the institutions of ecclesial governance, is accountable before the Council.” Once again, the conciliarists82 would have preferred a prior definition of the rights and duties of the patriarch, but the article passed.83 Thus it was that this “transition formula” approved on October 28 (November 10), 1917, prior to the council’s definitions on Church government, respected the point of view of the conciliarists even though it restored the patriarchate. The declaration of the reestablishment of the patriarchate was included in a disposition that affirmed the primacy of the local council in the Russian Church. In political terms, the regime remained, in spite of everything, more of “parliamentary” inspiration than “presidential,” more synodal than patriarchal. The Election of Candidates and the Drawing of Lots The restoration of the patriarchate did not necessarily mean that an immediate vote would be taken since the Executive Committee of the Council had not prepared the modalities of the election. Could a lay person84 or a member of the white clergy85 be elected? Could a patriarch be elected before the council determined the electoral procedure?86 On October 30 (November 12), while still awaiting definitive answers by the council concerning the election procedure, a negative response was given to the first two questions. A small majority favored an immediate election. There was a first examination to determine the list of possible candidates. Each member was required to write a name on his ballot sheet. Two hundred and seventy-three ballot sheets were turned in, sixteen of them blank. Twenty-five names were proposed: twenty-one bishops, two protopresbyters, an archimandrite, and a layman. The candidacies of the layman and one of the protopresbyters, a married priest, were disallowed.87 The following day, October 31 (November 13), there was an election of three candidates. This time three names were to be written on each ballot sheet. Only those names that received an absolute majority would be

84

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

declared final candidates. On the first ballot, only Archbishop Antony of Kharkov obtained a majority and was declared elected. On the second round, Arsenius (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod was elected. On the third round, Tikhon of Moscow was chosen.88 The final step was the drawing of lots to choose the patriarch. The council set November 4 (17) as the date for the ceremonies of election and enthronement.89 In order to not delay the drawing of lots any longer and given the impossibility of holding it in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin, it was decided to separate the ceremony of election—which was to take place the next day, November 5 (18)—from the enthronement.90 We cite Kartashev, who played a part in the events and observed them attentively:91 Since the ceremony could not be held, according to the ancient Moscow tradition, in the Kremlin Cathedral of the Dormition, which had become inaccessible, it was decided to have it in the church of Christ the Savior. However, in order to maintain a bond with the sanctuaries of old Moscow, the ancient miraculous icon of the Virgin of Vladimir was carried from the Cathedral of the Dormition to Christ the Savior despite great difficulties in doing so. There were no longer any newspapers, and it was impossible to inform the terrified populace in a normal way. The members of the council tried to convey the news to the parish priests so that they, in turn, could inform the faithful. On November 5 the ceremony took place as scheduled. Before celebrating the liturgy, the Metropolitan of Kiev, Vladimir, in the presence of witnesses chosen among the members of the council, wrote the names of the three candidates on three sheets of paper. He placed these sheets in a box which had been especially chosen for this, wrapped a ribbon around it and, after sealing it, placed the box before the icon of the Virgin of Vladimir. . . . After the liturgy, fifty bishops and priests, in their liturgical vestments, left the sanctuary to celebrate a moleben. In front of all the people, the seals of the box containing the names of the candidates were broken and Metropolitan Vladimir blessed a hieromonk hermit from the Zosimov monastery (diocese of Moscow) who was to draw the lot.92 The first sheet to be drawn bore the name of Metropolitan Tikhon. On the spot, the council sang the Axios and

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

85

the Te Deum. In conformity with the ritual, the three candidates were not in the church. A delegation from the council, headed by Metropolitan Vladimir, immediately went to the podvorie 93 of the TrinitySt. Sergius lavra, where the metropolitan of Moscow resided at that time. There, according to the ritual, the delegation announced to Metropolitan Tikhon that he had been elected patriarch. They received the acceptation of the newly elected, wished him “many years” and exchanged compliments.94 The enthronement was finally celebrated on November 21 (December 4) in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin: The ritual for the consecration of a patriarch was put together using liturgical elements borrowed from the rituals for the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria as well as elements from the ancient ritual of Moscow. In the case of the Moscow ritual, the repetition of the episcopal consecration and the investiture by the tsar through the remission of the cross to the newly elected were eliminated. The ceremony was limited to the following rites: at the beginning of the liturgy, the Patriarch Tikhon was clothed with the patriarchal vestments and went to sit, three times, on his throne behind the altar; then, after the liturgy, he put on the patriarchal mantia (velvet not silk) and the white patriarchal klobuk, designed according to the ancient style and adorned with cherubim, and, having received from the metropolitan of Kiev the cross of the first metropolitan of Moscow, Peter, he went to sit, three times, on the throne in the middle of the church, near the right-hand column.95 Legislative Arrangements: The Patriarch as the “First Hierarch of the Church of Russia” It was only after having reestablished the patriarchate that the council determined the rights and duties of the patriarch and the way future elections would be held. Several conciliar definitions concern the patriarch. His rights and duties are described in the “Definition on the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,” issued December 8 (21), 1917,96 and completed by some articles in the “Definition on the Holy

86

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

Synod and Supreme Council of the Church,” issued on December 7 (20), 1917.97 On the other hand, the definition of July 28 (August 10), 1918, treats of measures concerning the “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne,”98 and that of July 31 (August 13), 1918, treats of the rules of “the election procedure of the Most Holy Patriarch.”99 Finally, in its last meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, the council, confronted with Soviet persecution, gave the patriarch certain special powers.100 Rights and Duties of the Patriarch: “First among the Hierarchs” and President of the Institution of Governance The council defined the patriarch as “the first among the hierarchs of the Church of Russia.”101 This definition is based on the mention of the “First Bishop” in canon 34 of the Apostles, which does not specify whether it refers simply to the dignity of a president or real personal powers. The patriarch has two personal liturgical privileges: his commemoration in the liturgy—in the place of the synod102—and the consecration of the myron or holy chrism.103 This latter privilege is a symbol of the independence of the patriarch104 in so far as it is an attribute of sovereign jurisdiction whose full exercise belongs only to the heads of autocephalous Churches and whose prerogative is maintained in the diocese of Kiev.105 The patriarch also has specific moral rights over the ensemble of the Russian faithful: the right to send pastoral letters to the whole Russian Church,106 the right to give a special blessing in the name of the Church,107 the right to pardon,108 and, above all, the right to intercede (pechalovanie) with civil authorities.109 This ancient right, exercised on many occasions during the history of Russia (most famously by Metropolitan Philip or the Patriarch Adrian), sets up the patriarch as the authentic defender (pechal’nik) of the people in the face of civil authority. On the juridical plan, the council affirmed that the patriarch would have real powers in Church governance. This can be recognized by the general principle enunciated in Title 5 on the institutions of government: “The governance of ecclesiastical affairs belongs to the Patriarch of all Russia together with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.”110 “The governance of ecclesiastical affairs” seems more restrictive than the “power” attributed, in the transitional formula, only to the council “in the

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

87

Orthodox Church of Russia.”111 All the same, in this general principle, the patriarch appears as independent of the other units of government, especially the Holy Synod. Among these rights in Church governance, some are exercised personally by the patriarch over the whole Russian Church. He should “exercise care for the internal and external welfare of the Church of Russia”112 and report on it to the council.113 The patriarch convokes the councils and presides over them.114 Taking into account the worst scenario, the council, in its final meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, gave the patriarch the right to convoke the next regular council in the spring of 1921.115 The patriarch has the right to visit the dioceses116 and to assure that the episcopal seat is occupied.117 Regarding the bishops, the patriarch has disciplinary and juridical powers: the granting of leaves,118 warnings,119 arbitration in cases of disputes among bishops,120 and the reception of complaints against bishops.121 Regarding the other central institutions of power, the patriarch plays a decisive role even though his prerogatives fall far short of those exercised by the chief procurator. He presides over the Holy Synod, the Supreme Council of the Church, and their joint sessions.122 As patriarch-president, he can propose the subjects to be discussed at the joint meetings of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.123 Most importantly, the council also gave the patriarch-president the power of veto124 in cases where he judged that “the decisions taken do not contribute to the welfare of the Church.” In such a case, the affair is to be reexamined by the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church: “If, however, the Patriarch will not find it possible to agree with the new resolution, then its action is either suspended or it is submitted to the All-Russian Local Council for a final resolution, or the Patriarch makes his own decision in this case and brings it to action. The decision that has been taken in this way shall be added to the agenda of the nearest Council, either a regular or an extraordinary, which will make a final resolution in this matter.”125 This means that if a decision is adjourned without being referred to the next local council, that decision will not be effective. Not only are the supreme organisms of the Church unable to make a decision without the approval of the patriarch, but the patriarch can make a “personal decision” that will be effective until the next council and this without the approbation of the Holy Synod or even in spite of its opposition. This extraordinary power

88

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

was justified by the climate of antireligious persecution. It must be noted, however, that this power of veto is only over the decisions of the central institutions of the Church, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council, but not over the Council of Bishops—an institution that is only mentioned in relation to judgments against the patriarch. Finally, the patriarch is also the representative of the Church as regards the other autocephalous Churches126 and the state.127 The supremacy of the patriarchate is backed up by the restrictive conditions for bringing a judgment against him. The Holy Synod is not competent to initiate a judgment against him. If the patriarch does not fulfill his duties, three bishop members of the Holy Synod or of the Supreme Council of the Church can give him “fraternal warning.” If a second “fraternal warning” fails, the affair is taken up not just by the Holy Synod, but in a joint session of the synod and the council, that is, with the participation of twelve bishops and twelve elected clerics and lay persons. This joint session can refer the judgment to a Council of Bishops of Russia to which other patriarchs and representatives of autocephalous Churches would be invited. A sentence must be approved by at least two-thirds of the assembly.128 Let us conclude by mentioning that the patriarch, as bishop of a diocese, has a “personal” jurisdiction over the clergy of the army and navy129 through the protopresbyters, and territorial jurisdiction over the patriarchal diocese and the stavropegial monasteries.130 As the “first among the hierarchs of the Russian Church,” the patriarch, according to the statute of 1917, is not simply a president with liturgical and symbolic authority within the Church and as regards its relations with the exterior. He has moral authority over the ensemble of faithful, hierarchal prerogatives over the dioceses, and a real power of initiative—and, above all, of veto—over the central institutions of the Church. His special rights, however, are always exercised within the framework of a conciliar conception of the Church. The patriarchate, envisaged in this way, was by no means a return to the past but rather a new institution that opened fresh perspectives to the Russian Church. “Rather than being reestablished, the patriarchate was re-created. Far from being a restoration, it was the fruit of life’s creativity. The patriarchate did not signify a return to the époque prior to Peter the Great, it was not a return to the seventeenth century; it was the beginning of a courageous meeting with the future.”131

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

89

The Election of the Patriarch The preeminence of the patriarch over the other elements of the Church was assured by the extraordinary procedure of his election. Patriarch Tikhon was elected in autumn of 1917 according to the provisory regulations of the council. Basing itself on the way Eastern patriarchs were elected,132 the council specified this process of voting in the definition of July 31 (August 13) “On the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch.”133 The general principle of the election was stated in the very first article: “The Patriarch is elected by the Council, which consists of the bishops, clergy, and laity.” When the patriarchal throne becomes vacant, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, under the presidency of the locum tenens, issue a decree convoking an electoral council in three months time.134 The composition of the members of the electoral council assures equal representation of clerics and lay people: for each diocese, all the diocesan bishops and protopresbyters, the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, a priest and two lay people for each diocese (with special proportional representation for Moscow, Kiev, and St. Petersburg), the superiors of the principal monasteries, and representatives from the academies and the Missionary Society.135 The election takes place in three sessions. The first session designates the candidates to the patriarchal throne. Each elector writes a name on a secret ballot sheet.136 The following can be designated as candidates: “Any bishop who is a monk and a person who belongs to the holy priesthood and fulfills the canonical requirements is eligible to be a candidate for the Patriarchal throne. If a person who belongs to the holy priesthood and is not a monk was elected as Patriarch, he must receive a monastic tonsure before his installation as Patriarch.”137 The president makes public the list of candidates and the votes each has received.138 At the second session, after having eliminated the candidates who ask that their names be withdrawn, three candidates for the patriarchate are chosen by a secret ballot in which each elector proposes three names.139 The three candidates who receive the most votes among those who have an absolute majority are declared elected.140 Finally, at the third session, which takes place in the patriarchal cathedral, the name of the patriarch is drawn by lots from among the three candidates—as was done for the election of the apostle Matthias.141

90

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

The status of the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne is specified in the definition promulgated on July 28 (August 10), 1918.142 This definition was approved, in the sixty-ninth meeting, under the increasing pressure of persecutions that could threaten the patriarch himself from one day to another.143 When the patriarchal throne is vacant, the senior member of the Holy Synod convokes a joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.144 This assembly elects a locum tenens, who then, in turn, convokes the council that will elect the patriarch. In the meanwhile, the locum tenens presides over the institutions of supreme administration and inherits the ordinary prerogatives of the patriarch.145 The note in article 8 that treats of the vacation or illness of the patriarch, of the judicial procedures against him, of the case where he abandons his office, and of his death would play a decisive role in the years after the council. The Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church: The Units of Conciliarity

The other units of the supreme government of the Church are described in the definition “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church”146 and in the definition “On the Scope of Authority of the Institutions of the Supreme Administration of the Church.”147 These two units are on the same level as the patriarchate: “The governance of ecclesial affairs belongs to the Patriarch of all Russia together with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.”148 Even if the order of the phrase hints at a certain preeminence of the patriarch (who, according to the definition, presides over these two institutions,149 presents the topics to be discussed,150 and has a personal right of veto that can nullify decisions taken by these bodies151), the three institutions are all responsible (they give an account of their activity) before the council.152 The Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are envisaged as the means of assuring the permanence of the conciliar system within the Church. A Holy Synod Closer to the Rest of the Church and with Spiritual Authority

The Holy Synod is the episcopal group composed of the patriarch and twelve bishops: the metropolitan of Kiev as a permanent member, six

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

91

bishops elected by the local council for three years, and five bishops who serve in rotation for one year.153 For this rotation the dioceses of the Russian Church are divided into five groups: Northwest, Southwest, Central, East, and Siberia—which includes North America and the missions in Japan, China, and Urmia.154 The Holy Synod has authority for “matters of a hierarchical and pastoral nature that especially concern the inner life of the Church.”155 The competence of the synod is exercised in four areas: the teaching of the faith (dogmatic vigilance, the interpretation of the canons and the translations of Holy Scripture, relationships with the other autocephalous Churches, missions), liturgy, theological formation, and ecclesiastical governance and discipline (approbation of bishops, appointment of the heads of the institutions under its authority, supervision of the administration of dioceses and of monasteries, etc.). Along with its administrative and disciplinary authority, the Holy Synod had an extended legislative authority, independently of the council, in the “spiritual” domains of dogma and morality. The Holy Synod would seem to be a direct descendent of the Council of Bishops, the primary unit of governance of the local Churches. But it is not a question of an episcopal council made up of the diocesan bishops. A council of this sort is only convoked for judging the patriarch.156 On the other hand, unlike the old synod, the fact that its members are chosen by the council and alternate periodically breaks down the wall between the synod and the ensemble of the bishops and, finally, that between the synod and the rest of the Church. The Supreme Council of the Church: A “Mixed” Institution for the Governance of Temporal Affairs The Holy Synod does not supervise all the administrative activities of the Church. Its concern is more the “spiritual” domain. The administration of the Church is supervised by the Supreme Council of the Church. The originality of the council is that it is “mixed.” Under the presidency of the patriarch, the council is composed of three bishops who belong to the Holy Synod, five clerics, one monk, and six lay persons.157 There is thus an equal number of laity and clerics who are not bishops (who can be priests, deacons, or psaltists as indicated in the note). The clerics, monk, and lay people are elected for three years (the time between councils) by the council.

92

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

The Supreme Council has competence for “ecclesiastical-social matters, principally concerning the external aspect of the life of the Church.”158 Five areas are particularly considered: ecclesiastical administration (the setting up of administrative cadres, the establishment of institutions, etc.), economic affairs (financial development), the administration of theological schools and publications, matters of control, and inspection or those of a juridical nature. In all of this, the council was following a practice characteristic of the period that left room for a certain dualism in ecclesiastical administration between what was the domain of the “spiritual” and what belonged to the “temporal.”159 Whatever might be the appropriateness of the principle and the practice of this distinction between the spiritual and the temporal,160 the Supreme Council of the Church allowed clerics and lay people to have a real influence in Church administration. For questions where domains overlapped or that concerned the whole of the Russian Church, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council make their decisions in joint sessions.161 This could involve the budgets of the ecclesial institutions, the examination of the accounts of the Holy Synod and Supreme Council, appointments to high functions in the central administration of the Church, and so forth. The composition of these joint sessions—the patriarch, twelve bishops, six clerics, and six lay people— made for a majority of bishops. Circumstantial Dispositions Circumstances obliged the council to make certain arrangements regarding the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. On April 3 (16), 1918, in a context that was obviously very difficult, it established the compensation and obligations for the members of these institutions.162 On September 7 (20), 1918, it ruled on the status and salaries of the personnel of the chanceries of the Holy Synod, the Supreme Council of the Church, and the patriarchal administration.163 That same day, the council decided to maintain the full powers of the members of the units of the supreme administration of the Church who had been elected by the Council of 1917–1918 until the election of new members by a future council (foreseen for the spring of 1921).164 It was decided to do the same for the members of the council.165

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

93

The reform of the supreme administration of the Church was the first work of the council. The restoration of the patriarchate was accelerated by the pressure of circumstances that called for a strong authority, able to represent the Church. This was done by putting forth the principle of conciliarity in its diverse forms: the supreme power belonged to the council itself, which, it was hoped, could be convoked on a regular basis; the Holy Synod, whose composition was based on the principle of election and rotation, was renewed; and finally, the institution of a mixed group at the head of the Church is a testimony to the concern of having a permanent participation of the laity in Church governance. These principles and these institutions installed at the highest level of the Church were to serve as a matrix for the lower levels of government.

T A   D The diocesan administration of the Church was organized during the sixty-ninth meeting of the second session as the conclusion of the organizational questions treated in the first session.166 It is presented in the definition of February 1 (14), 7 (20), and 9 (22), 1918. Its eighty-five articles make up the fifth part of the first issue.167 The arrangement of the chapters of this long definition shows that the principles used in determining the supreme governance of the Church can be found in the administration of the diocese: the diocese, its structure, and institutions (chap. 1), the diocesan bishop (chap. 2), the diocesan assembly (chap. 3), the diocesan council (chap. 4), and the deaneries (chap. 5). The same organization is immediately recognizable: the elected bishop replaces the patriarch, the diocesan assembly replaces the council, the diocesan council replaces the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.168 The Diocese: “Part of the Orthodox Church of Russia”

The statute defines the diocese before mentioning the bishop. This approach, which gives priority to the substance of the ministry over the minister, to the Church over the authority that governs it, seems to manifest the concern to give the diocese, governed by its bishop, its own ecclesial

94

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

consistency instead of defining it as a simple extension of synodal administration.169 All the same, the diocese is defined as “a part of the Orthodox Church of Russia, canonically administrated by a diocesan bishop.”170 This word “part” (chast’)—which we will find again in the definition of parishes,171 concerning the Church in Ukraine,172 in Poland,173 and, finally, in the definition of the Russian Church itself as “part of the one Universal Church of Christ”174—seems to lead to the idea that the plentitude of the Church is not to be found in the diocese.175 This idea is reinforced by certain measures that specifically limit the autonomy of the diocese; for example, the opening of a new parish in the diocese is subject to the approval of the supreme administration of the Church.176 Two months later, on April 2 (15), 1918, the council declared that the size of the existing dioceses should be reduced and that the vicariates should be made independent dioceses.177 This opened the path for the foundation of new dioceses, which was regulated by a special definition issued on July 26 (August 8), 1918.178 The initiative had to be local. The question would be treated at the general assembly of the regions179 capable of being made into dioceses or vicariates.180 This assembly is convoked with the blessing of the local bishop who presides over it.181 The project of the foundation, along with propositions for assuring its subsistence, must be submitted to the approval of the supreme ecclesial authority.182 The supreme administration of the Church should take into account the desires of the pastors and the faithful, the number of parishes, of monasteries and of Church schools, missionary needs, the resources available, the cities, and the means of communication.183 The Diocesan Bishop

The statute on the dioceses is concerned with reinforcing the bond between the bishop and his diocese through his election and through his government. A Bishop Linked More Closely to His Diocese The bishop is elected according to a three-step procedure that involves bishops, clerics, and lay people.184 In the first step, the bishops of the region (or, in the absence of a region, the Holy Synod) put together a list of candidates, including, after canonical confirmation, candidates from the

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

95

diocese. In a second step, the regional bishops (or the delegates of the Holy Synod), along with clerics and lay people from the diocese, elect a candidate who has to obtain two-thirds of the votes. This is done according to a special set of rules. Finally, this candidate has to be confirmed by the supreme authority of the Church. The council only authorizes the nomination or transfer of bishops by the supreme ecclesiastical authority in “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, for the good of the Church”185 or for the missions.186 With the same concern for bonding the bishop more closely to his diocese and to avoid changes stemming from career ambitions, the council stipulates that “the bishop remains at his see for life.”187 Moreover, he cannot be absent from his diocese for more than two weeks without the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority.188 This concern to bring the hierarchy closer to the clergy and the faithful is reflected in the definition promulgated on April 2 (15), 1918, on vicar bishops, which calls for reducing the sizes of the dioceses. The vicar bishops, named by the Holy Synod upon being presented by the diocesan bishop,189 govern sectors of the diocese under the general direction of the diocesan bishop and have the rights of an independent bishop.190 In large dioceses, they can also find themselves entrusted with a defined area of diocesan activity,191 and, if possible, they should be the superiors of the monasteries.192 A President with Veto Power The statute on the dioceses tries to reinforce the relationship between the bishop and his diocese by affirming the charismatic character of the bishop’s authority while, at the same time, invoking the principle of sobornost’: “The diocesan bishop, in accordance with the succession of his power from the holy Apostles, is the presider of a local Church who governs the diocese with the conciliar collaboration of its clergy and laity.”193 The bishop exercises the supreme power in the diocese. He “enjoys all the fullness of hierarchal authority in the matters of teaching of faith and morality, liturgical worship, and pastoral care for the souls.”194 He “enjoys the right of initiative, leadership, and guidance in all aspects of the life of the diocese”195—catechesis, confirmation of the election or nominations of ministers, approval of all decisions. Lastly, like the patriarch in his relationships with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church,

96

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the bishop has the right to veto any decision of the diocesan assembly196 or council.197 In the case of a veto, the affair is then brought to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. But in the definition of April 6 (19) “On the Measures for the Ending of the Discord in the Life of the Church,” the council took measures to prevent the bishop from misusing the powers he had received. A bishop who opposed himself to supreme ecclesiastical authority and sought the support of civil powers “is suspended from his sacred functions and is handed over to the ecclesiastical court.” After three refusals “he is deposed from sacred orders.”198 The Diocesan Assembly and the Diocesan Council: Units of Conciliarity in the Diocese

The bishop does not govern alone. He guides his diocese “with the conciliar collaboration (soborniy) of its clergy and laity.”199 This conciliar guidance is realized through the assembly and the council of the diocese. The diocesan assembly “is the highest institution, which collaborates with the bishop in his administration of the diocese.”200 The assembly is made up of representatives of an equal number of clergy and laity, who are elected for a three year term. The assembly discusses the questions on an agenda drawn up by the bishop who presides over the assembly.201 These questions can cover the whole sphere of the life of the diocese: evangelization, education, administration, economy. The diocesan council “is a permanent administrative and executive body that operates continuously and consists of the elected members. It assists the diocesan Bishop in his administration of the diocese.”202 Mutatis mutandis, it is the equivalent, at the level of the diocese, of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. Its five members are elected for six years by the assembly of the diocese. At least two of its members should be priests. The elected president should be a priest.203 The Deaneries and Other Levels of Diocesan Administration That Bring Together the Diocese and the Faithful

In its desire to make the diocesan administration more accessible to the faithful, the council multiplied the intermediary links between the diocese and the parish.

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

97

The Deaneries The deaneries (blagochiniya) are the diocesan structures most clearly defined: “For its government, the diocese is divided into deaneries under the authority of deans who act in concordance with the councils that are constituted under them.”204 Like the supreme and the diocesan administration, the deaneries are organized around two units: on the one hand, the deanery assembly, made up of the priests of the deanery, elected lay people, and the superiors of monasteries, and, on the other hand, the deanery council. The parity between clerics and laity is always maintained. The dean, elected by the assembly, has ample powers as the executor of the decisions of the council and the intermediary between the diocese and the priests of the deanery. His tasks include “the direct supervision and directives to the clergy of the district regarding their activity in the course of their service,” the collection of taxes, the publication of orders from the diocese, supervision of the clergy, pastoral vigilance, and the granting of leaves to the clergy when they are for less than two weeks.205 In its final meeting, the council, foreseeing that in these troubled times elements hostile to the Church could infiltrate its administration, decided that “the deans and the members of the council of the deanery cannot be elected if they have been dishonored by a condemnation or are the object of a judicial process.”206 Three Other Levels: The Province, the District, and the Region Later on, the council will set up three other levels of ecclesial structure, which are mentioned but not really defined: the province, the district, and the region. The “district assembly”207 is convoked at the level of a district (uyezd) composed of several deaneries. This assembly, whose area of concern is more pastoral and missionary,208 is made up of the members of the councils of the deaneries of the province, delegates to the diocesan assemblies, and representatives of the parishes. It is convoked by the diocesan bishop or by a dean of the province and usually has a vicar bishop as president. The general assembly of the provinces is empowered to debate the foundation of new dioceses or new vicariates.209

98

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

Another level210 can be set up on a facultative basis: the districts can be brought together as a “province” (okrug), the last level before the diocese. The provincial assemblies (okruzhnye sobraniia) are made up of all the clerics of a province and an equal number of lay people elected by the parish assemblies; their function is to elect the members of the diocesan assembly for a three year term.211 Finally, the region or “metropolitan province” (oblast’ or mitropolichiy okrug), which comprises several dioceses, is the ultimate level of local administration in the Church.212 According to the council, the institution of this new entity has a twofold justification. There is an historical reason— “the need to form regions is recognized by the Councils of 1666 and 1681– 82 and the Church’s subsequent awareness of this.” There is also the fact of “the actual number of dioceses in the Russian Church”—a number destined to increase since the council was asking that the size of the dioceses be reduced.213 The “councils of metropolitan provinces” are especially competent for the canonization of local saints.214 The council leaves it up to the supreme administration of the Church to fix the number of regions and the distribution of the dioceses among the regions. The synodal system had made the bishop a disposable functionary who could be recalled by the Holy Synod and who thus had no real bond with his clergy and his faithful. By applying to the diocese the same principles used at the supreme level of Church governance, the reforms of the council reestablished both the authority of the bishop in his diocese—by the fact of his being elected and by a greater independence from the synod—and set up a more conciliar system of administration—by the assembly and the council. These same principles are applied at the parish level.

R   P The question of the parish was one of the principal themes taken into consideration by the bishops during their survey (otzyvy) of 1906. Of particular significance was that of Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland, whose diocese was in Lutheran territory, and that of Archbishop Tikhon, who was in the United States.215 The regulations were discussed in the second session and approved on April 7 (20). The document is the longest one that the council issued. Its exceptional status is highlighted by an im-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

99

portant introduction. The council’s commission on the parish, originally presided by Bishop Andrew (Ukhtomsky) of Oufa, then by a layman, Vasiliy A. Potulov, was the second largest commission after that which treated the supreme administration of the Church (233 members).216 The commission based itself on the temporary statute of 1917 that tried to revitalize parish life, but it also had to deal with the new juridical situation created by the “Decree on the Separation of the Church and State and the School from the Church” promulgated on January 23 (February 5), 1918, and which stripped the Church of its juridical personality. The Introduction to the Parish Statute: A Spirituality of the Parish

The long introduction to the statute217 distinguishes itself from the rest of the texts by a certain spiritual tone. In this sense it is unique among the definitions and decrees. At the request of the council, this introduction was written by Archbishops Seraphim (Chichagov) of Tver and Andronik (Nikol’sky) of Perm along with two laymen, Leonid K. Artamonov, a general of the infantry, and Pavel I. Astrov, a lawyer. It is with a great deal of depth that the document examines the ecclesiological and spiritual aspects of the parish and shows it to be the fundamental element of Church life. The Ancient Russian Parish: The Parish as a “Little Church” The first part of the text is dedicated to the theological foundations of the parish as a “particular little Church” in the body of Christ where each one has a ministry according to his charisma.218 The introduction includes a brief history of the Russian Orthodox parish.219 According to this history, the origin of the parish was the diocese led by the bishop. The diocese evolved differently in Greece and in Russia: “while in the [Christian] East, the dioceses expanded progressively from one parish to the union of many parishes, in Russia the process was reverse: the borders of the dioceses were gradually shrinking, and the number of dioceses increased. A Russian bishop who administered a much more extended diocese with a multitude of parishes could not closely oversee the governance and administration of each individual parish.” This isolation and independence of the Russian parish—which was partially offset by “Collegial Sunday” (sbornoe voskresen’e), which united all the parish priests around the bishop on the Sunday

100

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

of Orthodoxy 220—favored a certain autonomy as well as a widespread development of its activities. These activities were not only religious but economic, social, and cultural—the organization of “Houses of God” (bozhedomki) by the wardens and their assistants, the bratchiki, as well as control of the “community chest” (vsemirskaya korobka), which held the parish funds and documents. According to the introduction, the parish statute looked to reestablish this ideal of the ancient parish: “The gradual and careful, but, at the same time, resolute and planned realization of the Statutes of the Orthodox Parish, passed by the Church Council, will result in the restoration of the above mentioned ancient order of parish life.” The Bond between the Pastor and the Faithful The introduction then goes on to envision how the regulations are to be put into practice.221 The pastors should hold meetings to inform their parishioners of the importance their participation in parish life has for their Christian life and draw up a list of those who are ready to really commit themselves. The pastors will then organize groups of leaders who will implement the regulations under the guidance of the rector. The authors of the introduction insist on the bond that should exist between the parish priest and the faithful: “His life will be inseparable from the life of his flock, and the flock will maintain a close, living connection with its shepherd, as a conductor of divine grace which illumines, vivifies, and unites them into one ecclesial body. Only under these conditions can the pastor, out of his personal pastoral inspiration, put the ‘breath of life’ into the dry bones of the Statutes on the Orthodox Parish. Thus gradually the parish life will come into order in all of Russia, in order to revive her from the current experience of spiritual devastation.” This section ends by linking the renewal of the parish to the renewal of the nation: “The living source of Christian faith will enlighten the darkness of our spiritual impoverishment, will raise the spirits of individual Christians, will lay the foundation for a good family life, and will by this ameliorate our society. The soul of the people will be revived by the revival of faith through the parish life, and thus also the body of the people’s life will be revived, that is, our statehood.” The introduction concludes with six articles that sum up its content.222 Christ founded the Church “as Noah’s Ark at the time of the uni-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

101

versal flood.” “Outside of his Church, no one can be saved.”223 The savior entrusted his Church to the apostles who transmitted it to the bishops. Since the bishops cannot attend to the totality of their diocese, they entrust sectors to parish priests.224 These sectors, the parishes, are “small Churches” in and through which Christians help one another on the way to salvation.225 Everyone should take part actively in the life of the parish226 so as to constitute “one spiritual family in Christ”227 under the bishop— mindful of the saying of St. Cyprian: “The bishop is the Church, and the Church is the bishop, and whoever is not with his bishop, he is outside of the Church.”228 In an appendix to this introduction there are sixteen articles on the liturgical duties of the parishioner, the patronal feasts, and the blessings of homes—all measures designed to strengthen the bonds between the clergy and the faithful.229 The introduction manifests the desire to breathe a new life into the parish, which is considered—according to the ideal of ancient Russia— as the foundation of Russian spiritual and even social life. It wants to challenge the tendency of the clergy and bishops to isolate themselves and, using historical perspectives, stresses both the bond between the clergy and the faithful and that between the parish and the bishop. Parish Statutes

Parish statutes230 consist of 177 articles divided into thirteen chapters: (1) general principles, (2) the parish church, (3) the clergy, (4) the parishioners, (5) the administration of parish affairs, (6) the parish assembly, (7) the parish council, (8) the parish institutions, (9) the education of the people, (10) the property of the church and the parish, (11) the cathedral churches, (12) cemetery churches and cemeteries, and (13) unions of parishes. These statutes are supplemented by the definition of November 25 (December 7), 1917, and that of March 21 (April 3), 1918, “regarding the division of local resources for the support of parish clergy.”231 The Parish, a Community of Orthodox Christians The statutes try to renew parish life by strengthening the unity of the community with the clergy and the bishop. This preoccupation appears

102

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

in the definition of the parish given in article 1: “A parish in the Orthodox Church is a community of Orthodox Christians that consists of clergy and laity that dwell in a specific locality and united around a church, which constitutes a part of a diocese and is subject to the canonical supervision of its diocesan Bishop, and which is led by a priest, the rector, who is appointed by the diocesan Bishop.”232 This article, which clearly manifests the bishop’s authority over the parish, gives a more traditional definition than the provisory statutes, which insisted more on the autonomy of the parish.233 This autonomy is also limited by the fact that juridical personality is recognized for the Church itself—not the parish community. The Juridical Personality of the Church and the Parish The most important article of this first chapter on the General Statutes is article 7, which attributes juridical personality conjointly to the parish church and the parish: “Both the parish church building and the parish itself possess the rights of juridical persons.” This brief article, which was not in the original project, ended the debate between those who wanted to attribute juridical personality to the parish community and those who favored its attribution solely to the parish church. This debate, which was taken up during the preconciliar discussions of 1906, 1912, and 1917,234 presented itself in different terms after the Decree on the Separation of Church and State, which stripped the Church of its juridical personality. The question was reopened during the discussion of chapter 10 on the property of the Church and of the parish. In Russia, the parish church was traditionally considered as belonging to the parish community. The partisans of attributing juridical personality exclusively to the parish community (the lawyer Nikolai D. Kuznetsov and Vasily A. Potulov) believed that this position corresponded better to Bolshevik legislation, which recognized only groups of believers, and that it encouraged the faithful to defend Church property — the juridical personality of the parish communities would allow them the right to defend their churches before the civil authorities. Those who wanted to attribute juridical personality for the parish church, Archbishop Seraphim (Chichagov) and Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), thought that this would better protect the churches from aggressions by the state while preserving the right of the whole Church to oversee its common assets.

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

103

By recognizing, in a compromise, the juridical personality of both the community and the church, the council hoped to both facilitate the recuperation of the churches that had been confiscated by making the parishioners responsible235 and circumscribe the power of the parish community.236 The most important consequences of this double juridical personality can be found in chapter 10, which clearly distinguishes what is proper to each of these institutions.237 Soviet legislation confirmed, to a certain extent, the position of Kuznetsov and Potulov since, according to the directives of the Narkomiust (the People’s Commissariate of Justice in the Bolshevik government) of August 11 (24), 1918, which interpreted the January 23 (February 5) decree on the separation of Church and state, juridical personality was only recognized to groups of believers united in parish communities of at least twenty persons (dvadtsatka).238 With the loss of its assets and property, the parish became a purely “associative” institution—according to French juridical terminology. The council tried to neutralize the effects of these directives through its definition “On the Protection of the Church Possessions from Blasphemous Usur pation and Profanation” issued on August 30 (September 12),1918, which called on the faithful to defend Church property and to celebrate in private homes.239 The Members of the Parish: A Closer Community The council tried to intensify the unity between the parish community and its clergy and church (a parish could include, along with the parish church,240 other different types of churches: attached church buildings, cemetery churches, houses of prayer, chapels,241 all of which should be maintained by the parishioners242) by having the community play a role in the bishop’s choice of ministers and by making the inscription of parishioners obligatory. The Clergy: The Question of the Election of Priests and Their Salary The clergy of a parish243 includes a priest, a deacon, and a psaltist, or, at least, a priest aided by a deacon or a psaltist.244 Along with the question of juridical personality, that of the nomination or election of priests was one of the most disputed points of the

104

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

regulations.245 Those opposed to an elective process put forward arguments of principle and of circumstance. On the level of principles, Christ himself chose his apostles and lay people risked choosing those who resembled them—priests without formation, incapable of shepherding their flock (an argument presented by Archbishop Kirill [Smirnov] of Tambov).246 With the revolution going on, Bolshevik pressure could compromise the liberty and responsibility of the voting (the argument of Metropolitan Antony). Those who favored the election of ministers (the priests Aleksandr G. Al’bitsky and Leonid E. Ivanitsky) advanced the idea that the best pages of Russian history were linked to the elective principle (Patriarch Hermogenes), that no system was infallible, and that the elective process contributed to the unity of the body of Christ. The council finally adopted a compromise position suggested by Bishop Seraphim (Aleksandrov) of Cheliabinsk.247 The ministers are named by the bishop, “who also takes into consideration the candidates presented by the Parish Assembly.”248 This article is different from the provisory regulation that had the ministers being elected by the parishioners. The appendix to the introduction mentions some of the duties of the parish priests: visits to parishioners during the patronal feasts,249 the blessings of homes,250 and burials.251 The definition of November 25 (December 7), 1917, treats of “the distribution of local resources intended for the support of the Orthodox clergy.”252 The precision of this decree is indicative of the importance of the problem that was exacerbated by the cessation of state subventions. It was decided that, as of January 1 (14), 1918, all the parish resources destined for the clergy — resulting from collections, capital gains, produce tithes, lands, subventions, and “casual” income — would be distributed according to a general rule: “each psaltist who is on staff receives one part (1), each deacon who is on staff receives one and one third part (1 1/3), each priest who is on staff receives two parts (2).”253 This general rule is sprinkled with many reserves and adaptations — a variation of coefficients for cathedrals, exceptions for personal gifts, and so forth. It should be mentioned that the same day that the council approved the parish statutes, it passed a measure to improve the formation of the clergy: the institution of pastoral schools parallel to the seminaries.254

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

105

Inscribed Parishioners The parishioners are invited to participate more actively in parish life.255 According to the statutes they are defined by three characteristics: confessional, geographical, and spiritual. “All people of the Orthodox faith who reside within the boundaries of the parish and who maintain a living connection with their parish church are recognized as parishioners.”256 The parishioners have a right to the spiritual assistance of the parish priest.257 In return, they must inscribe in the parish register.258 This inscription, as the introduction explains, is above all motivated by the need for the pastors to know those who are the most loyal and on whom they will be able to rely in times of persecution.259 The parishioners should also participate in the liturgical and social life of the parish260 and support and lodge the clergy.261 The appendix to the introduction to the parish statutes mentions other duties: attendance at Sunday liturgy under pain of excommunication after three absences,262 and participation at blessings and memorial services (panikhidy 263).264 A Conciliar Administration The statutes give a very exact definition of the different institutions of parish administration.265 “The rector administers the affairs of the parish, with the guidance of the diocesan Bishop and with the cooperation of other members of the clergy and of the church warden, and with the participation of the parishioners.”266 This participation is realized “through the Parish Assembly and the Parish Council.”267 Except for an article on the administrative duties of the rector of the parish,268 the rest of chapter 5 is dedicated to “the church warden,” or starosta, the real manager of the administration of the parish. The starosta is elected for three years269 by the Parish Assembly and can be a woman.270 The starosta carries out the decisions of the assembly as to the functioning of the parish271 under the control of the parish council272 of which he is a member by right.273 The Parish Assembly,274 which is convened to discuss all that pertains to the parish,275 meets at least twice a year and gathers all the parishioners— women included—over twenty-five years old inscribed in the registers276 and who have not lost this right277 or, if it is a question of large parishes, a

106

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

delegation of parishioners.278 The assembly elects a Parish Council,279 which carries out its decisions regarding the “administration of the affairs of the church and the parish, and for the management of the parish property.”280 This latter unit, instituted by the assembly, watches over the daily running of the parish. The Cultural and Social Role of the Parish: The Parish Institutions, the Schools The statutes insist on the cultural and social vocation of the parish. In the context of the parish, its institutions281 should play a social and cultural role: orphanages, hospices, hospitals, kindergartens, and libraries.282 Among these institutions, parish schools provide secular and religious formation for the people.283 These schools, founded by the Parish Assembly284 and administered by the Parish Council,285 are under the direction of a school council.286 Other parish institutions also contribute to the people’s education: fraternities of evangelizers, museums, mobile libraries, and so on.287 While the conciliar reforms on the levels of the supreme government and the administration of the dioceses were paralyzed by historical circumstances, parish reform, which did not create any new institutions, could be applied immediately via a few arrangements. By recognizing the juridical personality of the parish community, the council gave it a status that aligned with the Soviet legislation and mentality. By making the parish independent, and giving it a real autonomy even though it had little power, the council gave the Russian Church a solid base for the dark hours that were on the horizon.288 Conclusions on Church Government: The Conciliar Principle on All Levels of Church Life

The conciliar principles applied to the supreme government of the Church can be found on all levels of ecclesial administration: diocese, deanery, and parishes.289 On each level of the administrative organization can be found a presider (patriarch, bishop, dean, rector), an assembly (council, diocesan assembly, parish assembly), and a permanent council (Holy Synod and Supreme Council, diocesan council, deanery council, parish council). The

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

107

elective principle is applied for all the assemblies, which elect the councils. In these assemblies and councils, there is an equality of participation between the clergy and laity. The authority is either elected (patriarch) or named from a list of candidates proposed at a lower level (rector). This authority has a power of veto over the decisions of the assembly or council: veto power of the Conference of Bishops at the council, that of the patriarch290 and of the bishop.291 But at all the levels, the council tried to reinforce the bonds between the bishops and the clergy and between the clergy and the faithful: reduction of the size of the dioceses and the cooperation of the parishioners with the rector.

M L Unlike the first three sections of this chapter, the definition of August 31 (September 13), 1918, “On Monasteries and Monastics”292 does not, strictly speaking, concern Church governance. All the same, we are including it here because it seems to us that it corresponds, according to the spirit of the council, to the same concern for the conciliar organization of the Church—and the weakness of this definition might well lie in the fact that it is, above all, an organizational reform.293 During the preconciliar period there was a renewal of the debate on monasticism, which had divided the Russian Church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.294 The question of the relations between monasticism and the world was brought up again by the representatives of “learned monasticism” in a context of secularization. During July 5–11, 1909, at the lavra of Holy Trinity and St. Sergius, a monastic congress brought together 110 representatives of different male monasteries from all parts of Russia to debate this question and, more generally, the very concept of monasticism.295 This national congress, which was followed by several local congresses (1911–12), served as a preparation for the definition that is, after the one on the parish, the longest of the council’s legislative decrees: ninety-seven articles are divided into fifteen chapters, the first three of which concern what article 22 calls “the external organization of the monastic life”: (1) the brotherhood of the monastery, (2) the offices in the monastery, (3) the

108

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

council of the monastery, (4) the inner organization of monastic life, (5) everyday life and discipline in a monastery, (6) the property and economy of the monastery, (7) educational institutions for monastics, (8) the missionary and educational work of monasteries, (9) the charitable work in the monastery, (10) the governance of the monasteries, (11) the diocesan monastic assembly, (12) the participation of monastics in the diocesan assemblies of the clergy and laity, (13) the All-Russian monastic assembly, (14) learned monasticism, and (15) the All-Russian monastic brotherhood of religious education.296 The common principles defined in this definition should be placed in the context of the extreme diversity that marked Russian monasticism from its beginnings. Article 22 distinguishes monasteries governed by common law and those that have a special status such as the lavras,297 the stavropegial monasteries,298 and those whose abbot is a bishop.299 Departing somewhat from the plan of the conciliar definition, we will study the question of the external and internal organization of the monastic life before turning to their characteristics and their activity. The Internal and External Organization of the Monastery: The Application of Conciliar Principles to Monastic Life

The definition seeks to reinforce the unity and conciliarity of monastic life not just within the monasteries but throughout the whole of Russian monastic life. The Monastery: A Stable and Autonomous Community The monastery should be a united and stable community. This is the message of the first chapter on “the monastic brotherhood,” which stresses, on the one hand, the maturity of the candidates, who must be at least twentyfive years old—unless there is a special dispensation from the bishop300— and, on the other hand, the stability of the members who cannot be transferred except in case of extreme necessity. The canons of several councils are cited in support of this policy.301 But the regulations reinforce, above all, the “conciliar” dimension of monastic life. The abbot is elected according to a two-step procedure—

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

109

similar to that used for the nomination of parish rectors. In the first step, the professed brothers propose a candidate by a secret vote. The names of the two candidates who have received the most votes are proposed to the diocesan bishop, who chooses one of them.302 The abbot is responsible not only for the material organization of the monastery but also for its spiritual life: “While undertaking every measure toward the facilitation of the salvation of the brotherhood and making a good example always and in everything, the abbot focuses his main concern upon spiritual direction and nurturing of the souls entrusted to him.”303 “Nothing is undertaken and nothing is done in a monastery without the permission of the abbot.”304 For the immediate supervision of his brethren, he is assisted by a dean of the monastery.305 The administration of the monastery is the responsibility of the abbot, but in economic affairs he has the assistance of the monastery council.306 The council is composed of the abbot, the superior, if there is one, the treasurer, the sacristan, the dean, and the cellarer (economos).307 The council has the responsibility for preserving the possessions of the monastery and presenting inventories and financial reports to the diocese.308 As was the case for the diocese or the parish, this definition tries to reinforce the monastery’s autonomy. The Diocesan and All-Russian Dimensions of the Monastery The new element in the definition is its attempt, while respecting the autonomy of the monastery, to involve the communities more deeply in the life of the Church and, above all, to arrive at a federation of Russian monastic life on a diocesan and national level in a conciliar spirit. The monasteries are, in fact, under the government of the bishop and closely involved in the life of the diocese. “The church governance of the monasteries is exercised by the diocesan Bishop with the cooperation of the Diocesan Council and the Diocesan Monastic Assemblies.”309 The bishop is assisted by one or several monastery deans,310 special investigators who do surveys,311 and a special commission that verifies the finances of the monastery.312 In the dioceses where there are few monasteries, the bishop himself, with authorization from the Supreme Church Administration, can exercise a direct administration of the monasteries. The monks

110

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

are represented at the different diocesan levels where they have a deliberative voice in the proceedings: on the level of the diocesan council for affairs concerning the administration of monasteries313 as well as on the level of the assemblies of the clergy and laity of the diocese.314 Moreover, the diocesan monastic assembly,315 convoked and presided over by the bishop, brings together the monastic abbots and abbesses of the diocese, elected representatives of the monks, the members of the diocesan council, and qualified guests invited at the bishop’s discretion.316 This assembly is competent for all questions concerning the life and activities of the monks and monasteries of the diocese, the examination of reports on the status and needs of the monasteries, and the election of monastic representatives, notably those to be elected to the diocesan council. On the national level, there was to be a monastic assembly of all Rus317 sia, which would be convoked at the lavra of the Holy Trinity prior to the opening of councils and which would include monks appointed or elected to discuss general questions concerning the life and activities of the monasteries and elect a representative to the council. Finally, the monastic regulations note that “supreme governance over all monasteries and monastics belongs to the Most Holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church.”318 The Character of Monastic Life and Missionary Activity

The definition does not limit itself to laying down the principles and institutions of the conciliar government of monastic life. It also invokes its characteristics and promotes its missionary activity. The Characteristics of Monastic Life: Communal Living Communal living is the primary characteristic of monastic life: “In accordance with the monastic profession, the cenobium (communal living) is to be recognized as a higher form of monastic life in comparison with individual living. For this reason, the cenobial monasteries even further on must remain cenobial, and it is desirable that those that are not may be converted into cenobial monasteries, where this is possible in the local situation.”319 Three elements are particularly stressed: the putting into com-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

111

mon of all possessions, which is encouraged in order to facilitate communal living,320 faithfulness in attending the liturgical services,321 and, finally, spiritual direction under the guidance of an elder, or starets,322 and confessors.323 A confessor is elected by the abbot and the whole community and is confirmed by the bishop.324 Work and the economy are an important dimension of this common life. The council affirmed—in a context of violent expropriations—that “all movable and immovable property, as well as the capital belonging to the monastery, constitute the possession of the monastery and are the inheritance of the entire Orthodox Church of Russia.”325 The council invites the monasteries to develop their economic activities. They are “not only the brotherhoods of prayer, but also of labor.”326 Moreover, the monastic economy and industry “must not only take into consideration the needs of the monastery itself, but also be directed to satisfying most pressing ecclesiastical needs and benefiting the neighboring populace.”327 Finally, the definition underlines the importance of the formation of the monks. Every monastery should arrange for weekly spiritual, moral, and theological talks for all the members of the community, and catechetical courses (fundamentals of the faith, of the religious life, civil education, and liturgical music) for the members who are uneducated or illiterate. The large monasteries and lavras should establish schools of general formation for the continual education of monks or for the special education of clergy. The dioceses should establish schools for the formation of monks belonging to small monasteries.328 Every monastery should have a library and appoint a competent librarian.329 “Special Councils on Education” in the monasteries would be able to set up pedagogical and missionary institutions.330 The Activities of the Monastery: Its Missionary, Social, and Intellectual Role Russian monasticism always had an important missionary dimension.331 The conciliar definition stresses the actuality of this dimension and seeks to promote its organization. The definition first points out that all the aspects of monastic life have, in themselves, a missionary dimension: “The ministry of the monasteries to the lay population in the area of spiritual

112

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

education is expressed through the zealous celebration of the liturgy of the Church in accordance with the Typicon, through the ministry of confessors and elders, through preaching, through offering prayer services and processions, through organizing talks with the people outside of the liturgy, through the distribution of printed pamphlets dealing with religion and morality, through the establishment of schools.”332 But the monasteries are also summoned to develop activities that are missionary in the proper sense of the word. They should set up circles or fraternities of preaching,333 publish “pamphlets, brochures, books, calendars, and magazines aimed at religious education, in order to disseminate these among the people,”334 found “one-year or two-year monastery schools, providing an education in trade or agriculture, in particular including the study of the Orthodox Christian art of painting and iconography,”335 put in place publishing houses run by the monks themselves so that “the word of God and edifying literature could have been broadly disseminated among the people and could satisfy its spiritual hunger.”336 The missionary activities of the monasteries should be especially intense among populations “influenced by sects, the Schism, and non-Orthodox faith,”337 and the work of evangelization could even be an exclusive tasks for monasteries situated among foreign peoples.338 Thus it is that the mission is, on several grounds, an essential component of Russian monasticism.339 The definition on the monasticism also insists on the social role of the monastery. The charitable works of the monastery should be practiced within the community as well as outside it.340 Every monastery should have, either within its walls or in conjunction with other monasteries, a shelter and infirmary for the monks. As regards pilgrims and the local populace, the communities are urged to establish, according to their possibilities, emergency rooms, pharmacies, orphanages, shelters for invalids, and hostels for pilgrims341—especially in times of public calamity.342 “Educated monasticism,”343 which includes the many monks who work in research, as teachers, or as diocesan administrators, forms a separate category within monastic life.344 This type of vocation was challenged during the preparation of the council. It was criticized for being cut off from the rest of monasticism by certain students for whom the monastic life seemed to be just a springboard to high ecclesial functions. In fairness to this educated monasticism, it must be recognized that, as heir, in some as-

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

113

pects, to the patristic ideal of the “philosophical life,”345 it gave generations of saintly and cultivated bishops to the Russian Church.346 The definition insists on the unity between this type of monasticism and the ensemble of religious life: these monks “are one entity with the entire monastic community, due to the unity of the goal of monastic life, despite their special ministry, which they fulfill under special conditions.”347 For this reason, these monks are invited to be “members of a monastery brotherhood,” to “remain in living communication with the brotherhood of their monastery, spending their free time therein and collaborating in its activity,”348 and, above all, “remain subject to their monastic discipline ” and “complete their monastic obligation of prayer to the extent which is possible in their current obedience.”349 Certain monasteries can specialize more in this activity; in this case, their abbots and members will be chosen with this specialization in mind.350 Students of the academies and pastoral schools who manifest a desire for the monastic life will prepare themselves with a spiritual father by passing their free time in the monastery of their starets.351 A candidate will not take the monastic habit without the blessing of his confessor and must be presented by the rector of his academy or pastoral school and authorized by the diocesan bishop.352 “The All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education”353— for the “scholarly study of the most important issues in theology”—is established in order to promote the unity of educated monasticism. This includes the foundation of establishments of ecclesiastical teaching, the publication of manuals, the translation of the fathers of the Church, liturgical, historical, canonical, and archeological studies, and the study of particular questions by societies of scholars. From its beginnings, Russian monasticism was torn between different currents that had distinct ways of envisaging the fuga mundi, the “flight from the world.” This became particularly acute in the sixteenth century when the movement of the “Possessors,” spearheaded by Joseph of Volokolamsk, clashed with that of the “Non-Possessors,” led by Nilus of Sora.354 The Council of 1917–1918 had the difficult task of organizing monastic life on a common foundation. That was possible thanks to a more conciliar conception of monastic governance that gave the monasteries a certain independence. It could be asked, however, how far this mainly external reform could serve to revive monastic life.355 Moreover, it would seem that

114

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the definition takes its inspiration more from the “Josephite” conception of monasticism than from that of the “Non-Possessors”—but it is also true that a purely ascetic life needs a certain social peace, which no longer existed.

R   E    O C The council considered relations with three different segments of the Russian Church: the Edinoverie, the Ukrainian Church, and the Church of Poland. Although these questions are somewhat marginal to the reform of Church administration, they are nonetheless characteristic of a more conciliar conception of ecclesial organization. In this section, we will also consider two questions that the council treated but without arriving at an effective decision: the autocephaly of the Church of Georgia and relations with other Christian confessions. The Edinoverie

The definition on the Edinoverie356 was the first to be approved on February 22 (March 7), 1918.357 Until that time, the status of the edinovertsy had been defined by the charter of October 27, 1800, which, for the first time, permitted Old Believers to be received into the Orthodox Church through a prayer of individual absolution, which lifted the anathemas pronounced against them by the Council of 1666–1667.358 This charter, however, kept the edinovertsy in a certain position of inferiority: they depended directly on the local Orthodox bishop, and the celebration of the rite used prior to the Nikonian reform was simply tolerated. Moreover their status—considered as a passage to the fullness of Orthodoxy—was asymmetrical: while they could receive communion in an Orthodox church, the Orthodox were not permitted to commune in their churches except when in danger of death. In 1905, the Edict on Religious Tolerance submitted the Orthodox Church to the now-legal competition of the Old Believers. In order to favor the Edinoverie, the Preconciliar Commission of 1906 had proposed a revision of the regulations of 1800, which would

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

115

allow for full sacramental communion and the opportunity for the Edinoverie to have its own episcopate made up of auxiliary bishops. The conciliar definition of 1918 “On the Edinoverie and the Old Believers” was authored by the tenth commission under the presidency of Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) and followed these recommendations. In this document, the edinovertsy are clearly considered full members of the Orthodox Church: “The Edinovertsy are the children of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church who, with the blessing of the Local Church, maintaining the unity of faith and governance, celebrate the church services in accordance with the liturgical books published under the first five Russian Patriarchs, and keep intact the traditions of the Old Russian household.”359 The council showed that it was careful to defend the special identity of the edinovertsy even while integrating them more completely into the Orthodox Church. A Church Closely “Integrated” through “Edinovertsy” Bishops The unity of diocesan administration is indirectly assured by the edinovertsy bishops who depend on the ruling bishop of the diocese, that is, the Orthodox bishop: “The Edinovertsy parishes are included into the Orthodox dioceses and, in accordance with the definition of the Council or by the commission of the diocesan Bishop, are administered by special Edinovertsy bishops who are dependent upon the diocesan Bishop.”360 This constitutes the Orthodox bishops as the pastors of the edinovertsy parishes to which they make canonical visits and celebrate the liturgy according to the ancient rite. The edinovertsy bishops govern the edinovertsy parishes in the name of the diocesan bishop “in accordance with general regulations”361 and, with the authorization of the ruling bishop, they visit these parishes as well as Orthodox parishes. In these latter parishes they celebrate according to the new rite.362 They are elected by an assembly of the edinovertsy presided over by the diocesan bishop and confirmed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority.363 They receive their title from the place where the edinovertsy are found, but this cannot be the titular city of the Orthodox bishop.364 All their relations with the supreme ecclesiastical authority should be through the intermediary of the diocesan bishop.365

116

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

Respect for the Identity of the Edinoverie In spite of the integration that accompanied the institution of edinovertsy bishops, the council manifested a great deal of respect for the specific identity of the edinovertsy. It conceded, “In view of the good estate and strengthening of Edinoverie, the edinovertsy have the right to gather for diocesan, district, and All-Russian conferences to discuss the issues pertaining to the needs of Edinoverie.” Except for the diocesan assemblies— where the local edinovertsy bishop could preside as representative of the ruling bishop—these sessions are presided over by a bishop named by the patriarch or the Holy Synod.366 The edinovertsy bishops take part in the local councils of the Russian Orthodox Church.367 On the other hand, the council manifests its desire that the ancient liturgy and especially the ancient chant be conserved in their entirety in the churches and monasteries of the edinovertsy.368 In general, individuals are allowed to pass from one rite to the other “since the books and rites used by the Edinovertsy at their services are also Orthodox.” This is also allowed collectively on the level of whole parishes if 80 percent of the registered parishioners so request.369 Moreover, the council encourages the establishment of edinovertsy schools to prepare the edinovertsy clergy “for the struggle against Raskol.”370 Finally, additional edinovertsy episcopal sees are instituted to respond to pastoral needs.371 The council was aware that the Edinoverie is the only response that Orthodoxy could use to counteract the Old Believers who, since 1905, were the principal beneficiaries of the edict on religious tolerance, which allowed them to practice their rites freely and openly. So it is that the council strengthened the standing of the Edinoverie by establishing new episcopal sees, encouraging the conservation of particular customs, and revitalizing the clergy. All the same, there is a certain fuzziness as regards the true status of the Edinoverie, beginning with the vocabulary: the edinovertsy are said to be Orthodox, yet the council continually distinguishes between the edinovertsy bishop and the Orthodox bishop.372 This is a sign that the Edinoverie and Orthodoxy remain separate worlds. This ambiguity is, without doubt, a factor in the decline of the Edinoverie precisely at the moment when it was fully recognized by the Orthodox Church.373

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

117

The Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia

The war and the revolution modified the composition of the Russian Empire and obliged the council to articulate the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Churches on its borders. The texts on the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and Poland are interesting because they reveal how the council saw relationships with Churches that had a special status but were still a “part” (chast’)374 of the Orthodox Church of Russia.375 The Church of Georgia, for its part, was reasserting its independence unilaterally and justified this move by its history and isolation. The Provisional Supreme Government of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine In March 1917, a Ukrainian National Council declared the autonomy of Ukraine. In January 1918, it declared its independence.376 Parallel to this political evolution, there were two tendencies within the Ukrainian Church—one in favor of a status of autonomy for the Ukrainian Church within the context of the All-Russian Church, the other in favor of autocephaly. The National Council organized a Ukrainian Ecclesial Committee that, in turn, proposed the convocation of an All-Ukrainian local council. This proposition was received favorably by the council, and the patriarch gave the convocation his blessing.377 The Ukrainian council opened on January 7 (20), 1918. On July 9 (22), it decided against those in favor of autocephaly and adopted a draft of “The Statute of the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” The Council of Moscow introduced this statute into its decisions along with articles of interpretation. The Draft of the Statute: An Autonomous Church Canonically Linked to the Patriarch of Moscow The draft begins by stating the principle of autonomy of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: “The Orthodox Church in Ukraine, whose supreme, provisional administration is organized on the principles of autonomy, maintains its canonical bond with the Patriarch of All Russia.”378 The

118

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

draft goes on to state that the patriarch of all Russia “confirms and gives his blessing to the Metropolitan of Kiev,” but it is the council of Ukrainian bishops that confirms the other bishops—the patriarch only gives them his blessing.379 The internal organization of the Ukrainian Church is mostly inspired by what the council had established in Russia. The project stipulates that the “Ukrainian Church Council is the highest body of the legislative, administrative, and judicial power in the Church.”380 Like the All-Russian Council, the Ukrainian Council is convoked every three years381 and is composed of the diocesan bishops and of elected members from the clergy and laity.382 The supreme government of the Ukrainian Church is organized around the Bishops’ Council and the Supreme Council of the Church with the same schema and the same division of competencies.383 But the Supreme Council of the Church plays a more important role than in Moscow. The Bishops’ Council, which is convoked at least once a year, habitually entrusts its full powers to the Supreme Council of the Church, whose members include rotating bishops and clergy and laity elected by the council.384 The metropolitan of Kiev, as president of the supreme governing bodies of the Church of the Ukraine, represents the Church before civil authority.385 The Interpretive Articles: Autonomous Dioceses but Closely Integrated within an “Ecclesial Territory” The definition of September 7 (20), 1918,386 decided to apply this status through several articles of interpretation that defined the principle of autonomy in a rather restrictive way387 and accentuated the integration of the Ukrainian Church into the rest of the Russian Church. It should be noted that the patriarch, in virtue of his prerogatives in the domain of relations with other Churches, plays an important role in this procedure since it is he who ratifies and inserts the statute. According to this definition, the Ukrainian Church, although it is an “indissoluble part” of the Church of Russia and constitutes one of its “ecclesiastical districts,” enjoys a status of “autonomy” with “special privileges”: “The Orthodox dioceses in Ukraine, while remaining an inalienable part (nerazryvnaia chast’) of the one Orthodox Church of Russia, form its ecclesiastical province (tserkovnaia oblast’) with special privileges (osobye

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

119

preimushchestva) based on the principle of autonomy (avtonomiia).”388 On this point there is a difference from the formula used in article 1 of the provisory statute, which, from the start, spoke of “the Orthodox Church in Ukraine” and only made mention of a “canonical bond” with the patriarch of Moscow. The definition goes on to say that this autonomy applies to all local affairs— administration, education, missionary work, charity, monastic life, economy, justice, and marriage—but “does not encompass the matters that concern the entire Church.”389 One can speak here of a principle of “subsidiarity.” The decisions of the councils of the Church of All Russia necessarily apply in the Ukrainian Church as do also the orders of the patriarch.390 The patriarch “confirms” not only the metropolitan but also the bishops—who, according to the draft of the statute, should only be “blessed” by him and confirmed by the Ukrainian Council.391 The patriarch can send representatives to the councils of the Ukrainian Church,392 and, within this Church, he can exercise all the rights given to him by the conciliary definitions. On the other hand, the council clarified that the bishops and the representatives of the clergy and laity participate in the pan-Orthodox councils according to common arrangements. The metropolitan of Kiev participates in the Holy Synod as does another rotating Ukrainian bishop. To this end, the council brings all the Ukrainian dioceses into one group and scatters the other dioceses of the group of the southwest393 among other groups.394 The Orthodox Diocese of Warsaw The invasion and subsequent occupation of the Kingdom of Poland by Prussia in the summer of 1915395 obliged the council to clarify the status of the Orthodox Church in this country. The status of the Orthodox diocese of Warsaw was defined by the conciliar definition of August 25 (September 7) concerning “the establishment of the diocese of Warsaw within the borders of the former Kingdom of Poland.”396 In the definition, the diocese of Warsaw is declared “a part of the Orthodox Church of Russia,” governed “on the basis of the general regulations approved by the Sacred Council for all the Orthodox dioceses of the Church of Russia.” The statute organizes the diocese under the “canonical

120

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

dependency on the Supreme Church Administration,” as is the case for all the dioceses in Russian territory. Furthermore it is attached to the northeast group for convocation to the Holy Synod. It should be noted that the council claims equal rights with other confessions for this Church—that is, with the Catholic majority: “The Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Poland enjoys all the same rights as defined by the state legislation of the Kingdom of Poland with respect to other Christian confessions.”397 The definition thus limits itself to confirming, in this new political context, that the Orthodox Church within the borders of the former Kingdom of Poland is an integral part of the Russian Church and that the dispositions of the council apply to it.398 The Question of the Autocephaly of the Church of Georgia The council did not have time to debate the report on the autocephaly of Georgia,399 prepared by the eighteenth commission on “The Organization of the Orthodox Church in South Caucasus in View of the Proclamation by the Georgians of the Autocephaly of Their Church.” The Preconciliar Commission of 1906 had envisaged a reform that would canonically restore the Church of Georgia with its ancient privileges. But the revolution of 1917 precipitated events. The Georgian revolutionaries, profiting from the upheavals, arrested the Russian exarch Platon and announced the election of a catholicos. The Holy Synod refused to recognize this act. Then Chief Procurator L’vov, for his part, recognized the autocephaly of the Church of Georgia in the name of the Provisional Government—but with the condition that its canonical status be regularized at the next council. L’vov set up a commission to study the question, one of whose members, Vladimir N. Beneshevich, a professor of canon law, was sent to Georgia. In the meanwhile, the Georgian bishops elected a catholicos and didn’t think it was necessary to organize elections for delegates to the council. They sent a delegation to the Holy Synod where they assured “the sister church of Russia of their prayers as the council began and of their hopes that important reforms would be approved.”400 The provisional Holy Synod replied that it was not competent to ratify an autocephaly and invited the delegates to assist at the council meetings since the council alone was qualified to resolve this affair. In the end, there was no Georgian representative at the council.401

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

121

The political upheavals obliged the council to specify the type of relationship the Russian Church would have with the Church in countries that had been invaded and with Churches that were seeking their autonomy or independence: Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia.402 These relationships were, of course, profoundly different according to the type of political relations the new Russian state had with these neighboring countries. The Churches of Poland and Ukraine are both defined as being “parts” of the Russian Church. But while the Polish diocese is governed by “common principles,” the Church of the Ukraine, even though it is considered an “ecclesiastical province” of the Russian Church, enjoys an autonomous status. The council made no decision concerning the Church of Georgia. This Church, which was very proximate territorially and whose autocephaly dated from the eighth century, was doubtlessly considered a part of the Russian “ecclesiastical province” and the provisory weakening of political bonds prevented the conservation of overly intimate ecclesial relations. The Question of Unity with the Old Catholics and the Anglicans

The council did not limit itself to the question of relations with the Orthodox Churches. At the end of the third session, a Commission for the Unity of Churches was set up with a view to approaching certain non-Orthodox Churches: the Old Catholics and the Anglicans.403 The interest members of the Russian Church had for dialogue with other non-Orthodox Christian Churches was nothing new.404 Since the nineteenth century, there had been numerous contacts between Russian Orthodox theologians and Protestant theologians.405 In 1878, a dialogue also began between Old Catholic and Orthodox theologians.406 Moreover, the missions in Alaska, Canada, and the United States had led the Russian Church into lands where it was in close contact with members of the Anglican Church.407 Between 1902 and 1905, the question of union with the Old Catholics and Anglicans was broached in an exchange of letters between the Holy Synod and the ecumenical patriarchate that, for the first time, tried to define common principles for the relations of the Orthodox Churches with heterodoxy (inoslavie).408 In 1918, the persecution of the Soviet state, initiated by the assassination of the metropolitan of Kiev on January 25 (February 7), caused an awareness of the urgent need of improving relations with other Christian confessions in the face of a common

122

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

enemy. A sign of this was Patriarch Tikhon’s response to the greetings of the general consistory of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches which was held in St. Petersburg.409 At the end of the third session, on July 19 (August 1), 1918, thirty-three members of the council signed a proposition of Emilian M. Vitoshinsky, a lay high-school teacher from Warsaw, to establish a Commission for Church Unity (Otdel o soedinenii Tserkvei). According to this proposition, the council “would have a grave historical responsibility if it did not pose the question of the unity of Christian Churches and respond to it according to the needs of an epoch where disbelief and atheism threaten not only this or that Christian confession but the totality of the Christian world.”410 On July 21 (August 3) the council constituted the commission. There were forty-four registered participants, most of whom were lay people, such as Professors Vladimir A. Kerensky of the Kazan Theological Academy and Ivan P. Sokolov of the St. Petersburg Academy, as well as Anton V. Kartashev, the Minister of Cults. The only bishops who participated were Metropolitan Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky) of the Aleutian Islands and North America, who was elected its chairman. On September 4 (17) the commission proposed the following resolution: The Commission for Church Unity has examined the question of union with the Church of the Old Catholics and the Anglo-American Episcopalian Church who are seeking unity and bonding with loyalty and perseverance. The Commission does not see any insurmountable obstacle on the road towards such a goal. It considers that Church unity is particularly important in these times of struggles against incredulity, gross materialism, and moral disorder and, consequently, proposes to the Holy Council that it adopt the following decree: 1. The Holy Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia looks with joy on the sincere efforts of Old Catholics and Anglicans to unite with the Orthodox Church (k edineniiu s pravoslavnoi Tserkov’iu) on the basis of the teaching and tradition of the ancient catholic Church (drevnekafolicheskoi Tserkvi).411 It blesses the studies and zeal of all those who seek to find paths towards unity with other friendly Churches (druzhestvennye Tserkvi).

T H E C O N C I L I A R O R G A N I Z AT I O N O F T H E C H U R C H

123

2. The council empowers the Holy Synod to establish a permanent commission, with offices in Russia and abroad, for the future study of questions concerning the Old Catholics (starokatolicheskogo) and Anglicans in the hope of overcoming the difficulties on the road to unity (k edineniiu) and of contributing, according to the possibilities, to the rapid attainment of the final goal through contacts with the Old Catholics and Anglicans.412 On September 6 (19), the council added this proposition to the agenda of the 170th meeting of the council on September 7 (20). The resolution was examined and approved by the council during this meeting, but it was not able to be confirmed by the Conference of Bishops on September 9 (22). This would probably explain why it does not appear in the official list of decrees. It would surely be exaggerated—and, moreover, anachronistic—to qualify this declaration as “ecumenical.”413 Its motivation is more practical and defensive than authentically theological; the perspective envisages more a juridical union (edinenie) of the Churches rather than a unity (edinstvo) in communion. It is limited to seeking a bilateral dialogue with Churches that have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox Church. Nonetheless, for the first time since the Council of Florence, the legitimacy of a process oriented towards union with other Christian Churches, recognized as such and even qualified as “friendly Churches” (druzhestvennye), was affirmed at the highest level of the Orthodox Church. For the first time, the work of those artisans of such a reconciliation was recognized, and contacts with the “heterodox” were encouraged. Above all, in an unprecedented move, a permanent commission dedicated to this task was set up within the Holy Synod—the predecessor of the Department of External Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which was founded in 1946. This was truly an innovative decision since, for the first time, it institutionalized the commitment of a Church in what was not yet called “ecumenism”—and this two years prior to the encyclical of the ecumenical patriarchate addressed “To the Churches of Christ throughout the Universe” and forty-four years before Vatican II.

CHAPTER 2

Pastoral Activity and Discipline in the Church

The Council of 1917–1918 did not limit itself to organizing the Russian Church according to the principles of sobornost’. Its members also wanted to give the Church a pastoral dimension, which implied modifications to ecclesial discipline. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the rise of atheism presented new challenges to religious teaching. Moreover, since the revolution of 1905, the Russian Church found itself in a new context of religious liberty, which put its teaching on the same level as that of other confessions. Beginning in 1917, the onset of Bolshevik propaganda and open persecution provoked a resistance on the part of the Church. All that called for a renewal of ecclesial activity in the domains of preaching, missionary work, and theological formation, as well as an adaptation of its discipline and a reflection on its liturgical life.

P From the very beginnings of the Russian Church, preaching was an underdeveloped activity.1 It was only in the 1880s that it experienced a certain renewal in its defense of autocracy during the struggle against revolutionary propaganda.2 During this period of persecution, the council gave preaching a special importance right from the start by issuing an important definition concerning it on December 1 (14), 1917.3 But the council did not legislate on this matter only because of the circumstances; it wanted to provoke an authentic renewal of preaching in Russia. 124

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

125

The Principles: Obligatory Preaching, Diverse Preachers

The council encouraged pastors to preach whatever the circumstances, during the liturgy and outside of it, and gave even to lay people widespread authority to preach. Preaching as the Principal Duty of Pastoral Ministry If the council pushed for increased preaching, this was for reasons both theological and circumstantial. Preaching is presented as “one of the major duties of the pastoral ministry” which should be “heard as often as possible,” on every occasion—and not just on Sundays or major feast days—during the divine liturgy and other services or outside of them.4 The definition makes reference to numerous scriptural passages and asks that certain canons related to the encouragement of preaching be incorporated into the hierarchical ritual and ceremonial.5 Preaching should be in the local languages and dialects.6 The final article of the definition adds still more importance to the necessity of preaching due to the historical circumstances and asks that “all the more decisively and persistently may sound the teaching voice of the Church, which is ever salvific and indispensable, but especially in the days of greatest calamities experienced by our Fatherland.”7 Lay “Evangelists” The right to preach was extended even to include lay people. To be sure, “the right to teach in the Church belongs to the pastors of the Church”— and the council cites canon 64 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council—but, “in order, however, to enhance and develop Orthodox Christian preaching of the gospel, in concord with the demands of modern times, it is very much desirable to involve in it deacons and psaltists, as well as pious lay people who have ability to preach.” Moreover, this permission to preach extended to deacons, psaltists, and lay people is not only “most appropriate and useful when the homily takes place outside of the liturgy, is also permissible from the church pulpit during the divine service, with the blessing of the bishop and, in every case, with the permission of a local priest.” In this case, “the homilists who have shown themselves especially zealous in

126

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

teaching the Church . . . are blessed to wear the sticharion8 and bear the title of ‘evangelizers.’”9 If the right to preach from the pulpit is given even to nonclerics, there are, however, three conditions: that the person demonstrate both the capacity and piety as well as a “special desire” for preaching; the need for the authorization of the bishop and local priest for each case; the “formalization” of the function by the consecration to the sticharion and the bestowal of the title of evangelizer. It was not just a simple dispensation but rather the official recognition of the possibility for lay people to preach. The Organization of Preaching

In addition, the council proposes a number of practical measures for promoting and facilitating preaching. Three types can be discerned. The principal measure is the organization of brotherhoods of evangelization on all levels of the Church—parish, deanery, district, diocese—composed of clerics and lay people and open to monks.10 On the level of the diocese, the preaching is directed by the Diocesan Brotherhood over which the bishop presides and which includes all the clergy of the diocese, lay people who feel called to evangelize, and seminarians. “Diocesan homilists,” the closest collaborators of the bishop in the field of preaching, work in conjunction with these brotherhoods.11 Special attention should also be given to the formation of seminarians in the art of preaching. The council recommends certain measures with a view to improving the teaching of homiletics in the seminaries: to build up the scriptural and patristic foundations of the “discipline of homiletics,” the publication of manuals and establishment of specialized libraries, the organization of practical exercises, adequate recruitment and promotion of professors of homiletics, be they clergy or laymen, and the institution of “evangelizer groups” in the seminaries.12 Finally, the council set up different types of assistance for the continuous formation and support of preachers: the publication of a pan-ecclesial review of homiletics, which would be both theoretical and practical and which would provide documents and bibliographies; the organization of courses in homiletics for monks, clergy, and lay people; and the sending of experienced preachers into the parishes for their brotherly cooperation with the local pastors.13 In its desire to promote preaching, the council manifested a threefold priority:

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

127

to associate the most competent lay people to the task of preaching; the establishment of fraternal structures that could give preaching a truly ecclesial dimension; and an initial and continuous formation, both profoundly spiritual and adapted to the needs of the faithful.

M A The nineteenth century saw a missionary activity unique in the history of the Russian Church.14 During that time, the emphasis was on exterior missions to the indigenous populations of the empire who were strangers to Christianity. Without abandoning this perspective, the council designated a new field of missionary activity. The surge of nihilism (even within seminaries), the 1905 legislation on religious liberty, and the necessity of facing up to atheistic propaganda all contributed to giving a new significance to missionary activity just as they gave a new meaning to preaching. The interior mission had to be thought out and organized within a changed context.15 The missionary theme is treated by the council in the important definition—the fourth longest in the number of its articles—on “the Internal and External Mission,” issued on April 6 (19), 1917.16 The definition’s forty-six articles are divided into three chapters: the mission within the Church, the mission to those outside the Church, and the Missionary Council of the Holy Synod. The proportion of articles dedicated to the mission within the Church (thirty-three of forty-six) indicates that this was a chief preoccupation of the council fathers. The New Urgency for Missionary Activity

The missionary impulse is founded on the commandment of Christ and the very essence of the Church: “The mission that was established and commanded by the Lawgiver of our faith, Lord Jesus Christ, is that great ministry in the Church, the existence of which is conditioned by the purpose of the Church, and requires special care and concern from the Church.”17 But if the gospel urges missionary activity, circumstances intensify this urgency and require that it become active, especially within

128

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the Church. The fathers of the council affirm that “in view of an extraordinary strengthening of the propaganda of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, the Schism, and sects, and of atheism, it is necessary in due time both to solidify and to strengthen the internal mission, setting up its organization in accordance with its significance and tasks in the situation of the modern times.”18 The Organization of Missionary Activity

After noting these facts, and as it did for the theme of preaching, the council organizes the mission by setting up institutions of coordination and by creating the position of a “missionary.” Missionary Councils on All Levels The organization of the mission within the Church should be carried out with the cooperation of clerics and lay people and should take place at all levels of the renovated ecclesial administration: the parish, the province, the diocese, the monasteries, the region, all of Russia.19 On the level of the district, a District Missionary Council, made up of an equal number of clerics, lay people, and district missionaries, directs the mission and carries out the decisions of the District Assembly.20 It is the same on the level of the diocese: a Diocesan Missionary Council, elected by the Diocesan Assembly, coordinates the mission within the diocese.21 On the regional—or “metropolitan province”—level, regional missionary congresses are convoked by the metropolitans.22 Finally, missionary congresses for all Russia are convoked by the Missionary Council of the Holy Synod at least once every three years.23 The mission to those outside the Church is administrated by the Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Missionary Society—a society under the patronage of the patriarch and headed by a bishop.24 The council seems to envisage this society as different from the “foreign mission” without specifying the nature of this distinction. It is possible that the mission to those outside the Church concerns the non-Orthodox living in Russian territory while the foreign mission is concerned with missionary work outside of Russia. The supreme element of the administration of the missions to those both inside and outside the Church is the Synodal Missionary Council.

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

129

Its chairman is elected for three years by the Holy Synod and its two vicechairmen are, respectively, the president of the Orthodox Missionary Society of Russia—for the exterior mission— and the head of the internal mission of the Church. The council is composed of representatives of the different types of missions (diocesan, exterior, and foreign). In a note, the definition specifies that the representative of the mission to those outside of the Church “must have expertise in the missionary struggle against Islam, Buddhism, and paganism.”25 The “Missionaries” The principal protagonists of the mission are the provincial, diocesan, or foreign “missionaries.” They are named as the “evangelizers”26 by the bishop, at the level of the district, and by the supreme ecclesial authority, upon presentation by the bishop, at the level of the diocese.27 These missionaries, who can be clerics or lay people, should receive a special training especially at the diocesan level. Each diocese should have three types of missionaries, specializing in the mission against the Raskol, against the sects, and against Latins.28 The document on the mission defines the role of the missionary in detail. The missionary is to spearhead the mission within the Church. Salaries, pensions, bonuses, and career possibilities are described.29 As was the case for preaching, the resolutions of the council concerning the mission are characterized by a concern for organization and formation. On all these points, circumstances rendered the practical application of these decrees impossible. Survival took precedence over missionary work.

T E  E E: T F  P S In order to restore the desired dynamism to preaching and mission activity, the council had to bring about the reform of the “establishments of ecclesiastical education.” This term included different types of institutions: theological academies,30 seminaries, schools of theology for men,31 and schools of the diocese or of the “ecclesial department” for women.32 The reformation of these institutions, especially the academies and seminaries,

130

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

was a necessity recognized by all.33 It was one of the themes most debated in the different preconciliar commissions.34 The council set up two commissions to treat this important reform. One, focused on “theological academies,” had forty-six members.35 The other, concerned with the “institutions of theological education,” had 110 members. Unfortunately, the council did not have time to debate the reports of these commissions 12 and 13.36 At any rate, all of these establishments were quickly nationalized by the Bolshevik state, and the council could only take provisory measures.37 The only real decision of the council in this domain was the creation of pastoral schools. There were several conflicting points of view concerning seminaries and theology schools.38 Certain members of the commission on seminaries proposed the establishment of two types of pastoral schools: one would offer a humanities program supplemented by theology courses—this type would attract students outside of the clerical ranks—while the other would be more pastoral and reserved for the clergy. Other members proposed a sole model of a four-year pastoral school—with the risk of limiting recruitment to these schools to the priestly caste. The council finally decided to keep the old system of seminaries and theology schools while establishing pastoral schools. The seminaries, the theology schools, and the synodal women’s schools maintained their administrative and pedagogical status. The supreme administration of the Church took it upon itself to make the necessary improvements “in conformity with the main task of their service to the Church of Christ.”39 On the other hand, the council established pastoral schools parallel to the seminaries. These schools were to be opened in 1918–19 and would be set up in the buildings of diocesan educational institutions, monasteries, and bishops’ residences.40 For lack of time, the council was not able to discuss the report of the conciliar commission relative to theological academies.41 Consequently, the council handed over the report of the commission treating the reform of the academies42 to be examined by the supreme administration of the Church and gave it the right to promulgate, at the beginning of the school year 1918 –19, the statute of the theological academies elaborated by the commission.43 On the financial plan, the council had already set up an emergency church fund through collections and a tax on the sale of candles in order to assure the salaries of professors and employees.44 At

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

131

the end of the council, it was decided that, given the circumstances, the central direction of the establishments of ecclesial education would be confided directly to the supreme administration of the Church.45

D   C At the moment of the council, the most progressive elements wanted an adaptation of ecclesiastical discipline, especially for the cases of the remarriage of priests who were widowed or divorced, and as to what concerns the participation of women in the life of the Church.46 The council examined these petitions at length in a commission for ecclesiastical discipline and discussed them in plenary meetings but remained prudent in its decisions. Discipline Relative to Ordinations

The council made the legislation on the ordination of celibates more flexible and tried to improve the conditions of ministers who were widowed or divorced but retained the prohibition of a second marriage. First the council modified the laws concerning the ordination to the diaconate and priesthood of persons who were celibate and who were not monks.47 Such candidates could not be ordained until they were forty years old; they were now admitted to ordination after having reached the age of thirty “after they have been thoroughly examined by the Bishop who will be ordaining them.” The council also responded to a petition made to the supreme administration of the Church and to the council itself asking authorization for widowed or divorced ministers to contract a second marriage.48 The council firmly reiterates the principle of the interdiction, which is based on scripture and the canons: “The prohibition for the widowed and divorced clerics to enter a second marriage, based on the apostolic injunctions (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), the canons of the Church (canon 3 of the Council in Trullo et al.) on the ideal of a Christian marriage, and on the elevated understanding of the duties of priesthood, must remain inviolable.”49 But the council tried to alleviate the situation of widowed

132

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

and divorced ministers. They could receive help from the bishop—who could offer them tasks suited to their skills, additional education, and so forth—and from their colleagues.50 In addition, those who are unable to support their widower status or their divorce and remarry—and thus lose their pastoral job—can still do other tasks in the Church (as lower clergy, in administration, education, and so on).51 In the same spirit, the council maintained the traditional principles concerning legally defrocked clerics while giving proof of a certain openness. In the definition of August 2 (15), 1918, concerning the “Restoration into the Holy Orders of the Persons Deposed by the Decision of the Ecclesiastical Court,”52 the council reaffirmed the principle according to which “the persons who were deposed from holy orders by the verdict of a spiritual court, which was correct in its substance and form, cannot be reinstated in their orders.”53 But it asked that irregular judgments be reexamined54 and permitted those who had been deposed prior to the council to appeal their sentences.55 While competent ecclesiastical courts were being reorganized, the appeals could be made to the Holy Synod for cases that the synod has already confirmed.56 The Participation of Women in Church Activities

The council was especially innovative in its desire to promote the participation of women in Church activities even if its resolutions remained modest.57 At the beginning of the council a letter from the Women’s Group for Work of the Church was read. Its author expressed her hope that the council would not forget “the feminine half of the family of the Church’s people.”58 The discussions of the Commission of Ecclesiastical Discipline, the only commission competent in this domain, took up the question of the access of women to the ranks of the clergy—as psaltists, readers, or deaconesses—as well as the related question of their access to the sanctuary.59 The commission wrote a report on these two points: “Concerning the Restoration of the Institution of Deaconesses”60 and “Concerning the Right of Women to Enter into the Sanctuary.”61 A third theme was the participation of women in the different assemblies and councils of the Church—a question that was discussed in a general assembly of the council on November 23 (December 6), 1917.62

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

133

It was only at the first meetings of the third session —July 11 (24), 1918 — that the report of the Commission for Church Discipline “On the Participation of Women in the Life of the Church” was finally submitted to the council.63 During the interesting discussion of this project,64 Ilya M. Gromoglasov, a professor of canon law at the Moscow Theological Academy and one of the most ardent defenders of the participation of women in Church activities, argued that canon 69 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 681), which barred the laity from entering the sanctuary, concerned the laity in general and not women in particular. Since, in practice, men were now allowed in the sanctuary, there was no reason to exclude women. In addition, Gromoglasov invoked the the Byzantine liturgical rite for the ordination of deaconesses (as found in Matthew Blastares) and the fact that, according to this ritual, the deaconesses placed the chalice on the altar after communion to demonstrate that women were allowed in the sanctuary. Finally, he cited the lists of clergy in the Church of Constantinople to prove that deaconesses were considered members of the clergy.65 At its last meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, the council issued the definition “On the Active Participation of Women in Various Areas of Church Ministry.”66 The document represented a compromise and was modest in comparison to the perspectives opened up during the discussion. The decree gave women extensive legal rights on the local level, but remained moderate concerning their liturgical role and their access to the sanctuary and did not assimilate them to the clergy. The council began by recognizing “the usefulness of the women’s active participation in all areas appropriate to their calling.” Women had already seen the council concede them important and innovative (for the era) rights at the parish level. According to the new parish statutes, they could participate in the parish assemblies,67 in the parish council,68 and be elected as church warden (starosta).69 But the definition also authorized women to participate in the assemblies of the deanery and of the diocese.70 Women can hold positions in certain diocesan institutions (education, social work, mission, economy). Moreover, the parish statutes explicitly envisaged recruiting “educated female parishioners” to direct the parish education program (especially the libraries).71 But women were not allowed to occupy posts on the councils of the deanery or diocese nor

134

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

could they be employed in legal and administrative institutions.72 “In special cases,” however, they can be psaltists but without becoming part of the clergy.73 The decisions of the council might seem regressive if one considers the perspectives envisaged in the discussions. Nonetheless, by the scope and liberty of its debates and by the novelty— however modest — of its decisions in this domain, the council responded in a particularly courageous manner to some of the preoccupations of its times while maintaining a constant reference to tradition.74

L The liturgy was one of the many themes that the council did not have time to treat decisively. It was, however, one of the dominant themes in the preconciliar debates.75 The questions of liturgical language, parallel translations of the Slavonic text, the correction of liturgical books, the organization of the ordo, the celebration of the divine liturgy, and liturgical art had all been treated extensively by the bishops since 1905, in their responses to the survey of the Holy Synod, in reunions of the clergy, and in the religious press, as well as in the multiple preconciliar commissions. Moreover, the council’s commission for “liturgy, preaching, and the churches,” headed by Archbishop Evlogy (Georgievsky), with its 174 members, was the most numerous after those focused on the supreme administration of the Church, on the diocese, and the parish.76 A subcommission on the liturgical language approved a text that reaffirmed the conservation of Slavonic as the basic liturgical language but authorized, for pastoral reasons, the liturgical use of Russian and Ukrainian, especially for the Gospel readings. In these cases the Gospel would be read in two languages: Slavonic and Russian or Ukrainian.77 Another subcommission proposed a report on “the liturgical order.”78 Neither of these texts could be debated by the council. Because of this, the council did not make many effective decisions regarding the liturgy. Outside of decisions on the prayers for the patriarch and his liturgical privileges (as well as those of the metropolitan of Kiev), the invitation to pray for the martyrs of the faith during the persecutions, the liturgical rec-

PASTORAL ACTIVITY AND DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

135

ommendations mentioned in the parish statutes, and the decision to consecrate to the sticharion the lay preachers named to be “evangelizers,”79 only two of the council’s definitions, approved during the third session, concern the liturgy.80 The procedure for canonizations was redefined by the definition of August 21 (September 3), 1918, “On the Procedure for the Local Glorification of Saints.” Ever since the Councils of 1547 and 1549, convoked by Saint Macarius of Moscow,81 which saw the first solemn proclamations of saints, canonization and hagiography had become an important element of the Russian ecclesial and national identity, a motive for convoking local councils and a factor in Church reform.82 It seems that the procedure set up in 1918 was due to a concern for decentralization—in contrast to the synodal era when only eleven canonizations were proclaimed.83 The definition states that the first principle is that “the glorification of a servant of God for the local veneration in the Russian Orthodox Church is performed by the Council of the metropolitan province with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod.”84 In reality, this principle was never able to be put into practice since the council never organized these metropolitan provinces and their councils. This situation was taken into account by the council itself, which provisionally transferred the canonization process to the patriarch and the synod: “Up until the proper establishment of metropolitan provinces and provincial Councils, the glorification is performed by the Most Holy Patriarch together with the Holy Synod.”85 The second principle is that the petition should come from the local populace with the approval of the diocesan bishop.86 The two conditions that are required to inscribe a servant of God in the local list of saints87 are, on the one hand, holiness—confirmed by miracles attested under oath by witnesses in the presence of a commission approved by the metropolitan—and, on the other hand, popular veneration.88 The evidence of relics—a controversial point in Russian hagiology89—is not indispensable.90 The feast day of the saint is determined by the metropolitan council with the approval of the supreme ecclesiastical authority.91 The name of the saint is then inscribed into the list of saints of the whole Church with an indication that the saint is celebrated locally.92 Only the council can inscribe a local saint into the list of saints for the whole Church.93 When this is done, the patriarch informs the other patriarchs.94

136

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

The other council document on the liturgy was the definition of August 13 (26), concerning “The Restoration of the Feast of All Saints of Russia.”95 This commemoration is celebrated on the first Sunday of the Apostles’ Fast.96 Thus it was that the Council of 1917–1918 did not make any farreaching decisions concerning the liturgy. All the reflection that had been going on since 1905 did not bear fruit during the council. It is doubtful that the council would have made any clear-cut decisions in this very sensitive domain anyway. The fact that the members of “The Living Church” approved certain ideas discussed in the council during their own Councils of 1923 and 1924 discredited these ideas for a long time.97

CHAPTER 3

The Church, the State, and the Revolution

Since the decree on religious tolerance, promulgated on April 17, 1905, and especially since the abdication of the tsar on March 3 (16), 1917, the Russian Church found itself in an unprecedented situation that led it to a complete reconsideration of its relationship with the state and with society. The revolution, in a way, facilitated the convocation of the council, but, at the same time, it obliged the Church to distance itself from the “secular” spirit of the Provisional Government and then oppose itself radically to the measures of the Soviets. The council promulgated decrees on the legal status of the Church, on the catechism and parish schools, on marriage and divorce, and on the finances and properties of the Church. These were not merely circumstantial decisions. They were intended to affirm, in a new context, the basic principles that would henceforth regulate the Church’s relations with the state and society.1

T L S   C The council’s definition “Concerning the Legal Status of the Orthodox Church of Russia,”2 issued on December 2 (15), 1917, is especially noteworthy. For the first time, the Russian Orthodox Church defines the place it intends to have within the state in the context of a regime where there is separation of Church and state—a situation it had never experienced before. The “basic principles” that “the Government has to accept” are meant to “secure liberty and independence of the Orthodox Church in Russia, in 137

138

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

view of the changes that occurred in the political system.”3 At the time when the definition was written, the council could not yet foresee that the new regime would completely ignore the Church’s claims. The Principles: Preeminence and Independence

Article 1 of the conciliar definition is especially illustrative of the way the Church, at that moment, envisaged its place within the state and with respect to other confessions. Prior to affirming the Church’s independence, the council affirms the preeminence of the Orthodox Church in Russia over the other confessions. This is founded on a theological argument and an historical-social one: “The Orthodox Church of Russia, being part (chast’) of the one Universal Church of Christ, occupies in the State of Russia the position of priority among other confessions from the point of view of the public law. This position is befitting to the Orthodox Church as it is most sacred to the larger majority of the population and as to the great historic force that created the State of Russia.”4 The Russian Orthodox Church thus considers itself “a part”5 of the universal Church — the word used here is vselensky and not soborniy, which translates the Greek word katholikê used in the Nicene Creed6—and, with this title, claims the right to occupy, within the Russian State—the Russian word gosudarstvo designates both the state and the country—“position of priority among other confessions” that are legally recognized. If the phrase stopped there it could be understood as meaning that the Russian Orthodox Church should occupy the first place because it is the only representative of the Church of Christ in Russia. That is the theological reason. But the rest of the phrase highlights another type of reason which is rather fuzzily articulated: “as it is most sacred to the larger majority of the population and as to the great historic force that created the State of Russia.” Here the preeminence is justified by a social factor — the confession of the majority of the population—and an historical factor—the role of Orthodoxy in building the Russian State. Thus the council puts forth two types of arguments, one theological and the other socio-historical in order to justify the preeminence of the Orthodox Church within the Russian State. It is only in article 2 that the council affirms not only the “independence”— and not the separation—of the Church in respect to the state,

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

139

but also its “autonomy” and “self-government,” which are based on its own principles: “The Orthodox Church in Russia is independent from the state authority in the matters of the teaching of the faith and morality, liturgy, internal church discipline, and communications with other autocephalous Churches. On the basis of its own dogmatic and canonical principles, the Church enjoys the rights of autonomy and self-government in matters of ecclesiastical legislation, administration, and judgment.”7 The Applications of These Principles

In Political Life Such principles imply, first of all, that the state recognize the decisions of the Church: “The decrees and legislation which the Orthodox Church issues for its own use according to the established order, as well as the acts of the ecclesiastical administration and court, from the moment of their publication by the ecclesiastical authority, are to be recognized by the State as having legal force and significance, as long as they do not commit a breach of the state laws.”8 This recognition by the state extends to the hierarchy and the institutions of the Church,9 whose activity cannot be controlled by the state except to assure its conformity with state laws.10 These principles suppose not just the recognition of the state but an authentically positive attitude on its part. Thus it is that public laws concerning the Orthodox Church cannot be promulgated unless the ecclesial authority agrees to it.11 The head of the Russian State, the Minister of Cults, and the Minister of Education should be Orthodox.12 Finally “in all occurrences of the life of the state, in which the State turns to religion, the Orthodox Church enjoys the priority (preimushchestvo).”13 Application of the Principles in the Social, Juridical, Administrative, and Economic Domains These principles also have practical consequences on the social and juridical levels: the recognition of the Orthodox calendar as the civic calendar,14 the recognition of feast days as paid holidays,15 and the recognition of Church registers as valid civil documents.16

140

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

As for religious freedom, the council applied the principle of liberty of cult, which was granted to the heterodox in 1905, and asserted that the state should protect religious liberty, the preaching of the Orthodox faith, and the celebration of Orthodox services. But the council also demanded punitive sanctions for public blasphemy, profanations, and the use of violence in order to lead people astray from the Orthodox faith.17 Authorization to voluntarily leave Orthodoxy cannot be given to anyone before that person reaches the age in which he can legally marry; before reaching this age, children cannot leave the Orthodox Church unless their parents desire it and only in the case when the parents themselves have left Orthodoxy.18 Public legislation concerning marriage should be “established in conformity with the norms of the ecclesiastical law.”19 This legislation should recognize the civic legality of a religious marriage performed according to the Orthodox rite20 as well as that of canonical declarations of divorce, illegality, or invalidity. In the case of a mixed marriage, Orthodox legislation should prevail.21 In the domain of education, all the schools founded by the Orthodox Church should enjoy the same rights as public schools. Moreover, in all schools—be they public or private—“the education of Orthodox children in all of the secular public and private schools has to conform to the spirit of the Orthodox Church”; catechism (teaching of the Orthodox faith) is obligatory and the catechists are to be paid by the state.22 The Orthodox faithful who serve in the armed forces should have chaplains.23 Priests, monks, and psaltists are excused from military service and other forced personal obligations.24 In the economic realm, Church properties cannot be sold, confiscated, or seized,25 nor can they be taxed if they do not receive rents.26 Most importantly, the Orthodox Church receives an annual contribution from the public treasury in function of a budget drawn up by the supreme ecclesiastical authority and ratified by the legislature.27 Finally, on the juridical level, the institutions of the Orthodox Church should have juridical personality that will be accorded upon its request by an ecclesiastical authority.28 This “juridical status of the Orthodox Church of Russia” shows that the ideal of a “symphony of powers,” formulated by Justinian I (527– 65),29 clearly takes precedence over their separation. In the name of its historical, sociological, and perhaps theological primacy, the Russian Orthodox

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

141

Church claims a status that would unequivocally assure a privileged place—not only with respect to other confessions but as regards all other Russian institutions. By claiming this preeminence, the council sometimes seems to resist the idea of separation from the state—especially in its insistence that the principal political leaders profess the Orthodox faith.30 This was an idealistic project, drawn up in the abstract, and soon to be proven an illusion as the Soviets took over. In fact, the “Decree on the Separation of the Church from the State and of the Schools from the Church,” promulgated on January 23 (February 5), 1918, and modeled after the 1905 legislation of the French Republic, stripped the Church, as such, of its juridical personality. Juridical personality was only recognized for groups of believers consisting of 15—and then 20— persons.31 This decree marked the end of the period of “ecclesial Constantinianism.”32 It would not be until the year 2000 that the Russian Church, in a context as original as that of 1917, would resume its reflection on its relationship with the state in a document entitled “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.”33

C  P S The question of the parochial schools and catechism quickly became symbolic of the changes in Church-state relations under the Provisional Government. The council’s declarations often mix together several themes: that of parochial schools, that of the teaching of the text “Law of God” in schools, that is, classes of religious instruction or, better, catechism, and that of freedom of conscience. Moreover, these declarations are often circumstantial: they refer to laws or drafts of laws that are seen as restrictions on the activities of the Church: the law of July 14 (27), 1917, on freedom of conscience, the drafts of law of June 20 (July 3), 1917, and July 11 (24), 1917, concerning religious schools. The transferal of these schools to public domain—the “nationalization” of these schools—was condemned by the ensemble of the clergy and even by the All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity, a very liberal institution. The Provisional Government claimed that it did not question the possibility of religious schools and that it only wanted to control the schools that received state subsidies and offered to

142

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

reimburse the Holy Synod for the money the Church had invested so far. This position, however, was not accepted by the clergy. The question of parochial schools and catechism came up at the same time. On October 11 (24), after a declaration by the leftist Union of Teachers calling for the suppression of catechism, the council sent a delegation, headed by Archbishop Kirill (Smirnov) of Tambov, to Prime Minister Kerensky to resolve the twofold question of parochial schools and catechism. If the first question had already been resolved—without any hostility on the part of the government—the second would have to wait until the reunion of the Constituent Assembly. The Church, which had made the school the privileged terrain of Christian instruction, had to face up to this new situation where children would have to be catechized outside of the schools. Although these dispositions were circumstantial, they were still an occasion for the council to affirm some positions of principle.34 Obligatory Catechism in Public Schools

The Circumstances: The Law of July 14 (27) Concerning Freedom of Conscience The definition of September 28 (October 11) concerning “The Teaching of the Orthodox Faith in the School”35 was, in part, a response to the law of July 14 (27) on the freedom of conscience, which allowed a person, from the age of fourteen, to change his confession or profess agnosticism and thus cease to attend catechism classes at school. The council seeks the abrogation of the minimum age disposition on the grounds that the age of fourteen “appears to be too young, as it does not ensure a proper maturity of judgment due to spiritual and physical characteristics pertinent to the adolescent.”36 Principles: Obligatory Catechism and Limitation of Conversions In this definition, the council stresses that catechism is obligatory even in lay institutions: it should be taught “in all secular schools, whether public or private,” where there are Orthodox students, as an obligatory course, on the same level with and in the same conditions as the other principal courses in the program.37 Moreover, “the transfer into another religious

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

143

denomination, as well as professing oneself as non-religious”— which, concretely, means leaving Orthodoxy—“may not be performed by students at elementary or secondary schools.”38 In addition, “The students of secondary and elementary schools may cease the study of the Orthodox faith only if they leave Orthodoxy due to the abandonment of the Church by their parents.”39 In fact, the definition on the legal status of the Orthodox Church in Russia40 stipulates that a person cannot leave Orthodoxy before the age when he can legally marry unless three conditions are fulfilled: the wish of the parents, the abandonment of Orthodoxy by the parents themselves, and the agreement of the child if he is more than nine years old. It is only when all three of these conditions are present that students of elementary and secondary lay-administered schools can be exempted from the obligation to follow classes of catechism. Finally, the council points out that the catechists (zakonouchiteli) should be considered as on the same pedagogical and juridical levels as other teachers of the core curriculum.41 Parochial Schools

The question of parochial schools42 was more conflictive since it involved property issues. The definition on “Church Schools”43 and the one published “Regarding the Government Proposal Concerning Parochial Schools”44 are circumstantial responses to the projects of law of June 20 (July 3), 1917, and July 11 (24), 1917, initiated by the Provisional Government. These projects envisaged the transfer of parochial schools and their buildings to the Ministry of Public Education—in other words, their “nationalization” of sorts—and this implied the cutting off of the different credits, pensions, and public salaries that were paid to the Church for its activities. These projects did not pretend to forbid parochial schools; they simply envisaged occupying their buildings and justifying this measure by the fact that their construction had been realized, at least partially, by public funds. The council affirms its role as representative of the nation and considers that the project “shows a clear tendency toward the elimination of the very category of parochial schools.” The credits given by the state for the construction of these schools cannot justify its property rights by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, according to the council, most of

144

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

the funds came from gifts made by ecclesiastics or individual lay people. The only thing the government can hope for is the repayment of its loans—something that is already stipulated, according to the definition, in the law of June 12, 1913. The project is thus one in which “the Church, which was deprived of the schools that previously received funding from the government, is at the same time deprived of the possibility of having its own schools on its own school premises that are now being alienated”: the law does flagrant violence to the wishes of the benefactors and leads to the profanation of Church schools.45 The council demands that the Provisional Government not only return these schools to their parishes but that there also be an equality in the pedagogical and financial conditions of religious and public schools.46 It asks the bishops to explain to the clergy and the laity that these schools “remain for the Orthodox Church as indispensable means for the spreading of Christian enlightenment and education” and that it is therefore indispensable for the Church to keep its buildings and other possessions.47 Given the situation at the end of the council, the fathers decided48 to entrust the supreme administration of the Church with the overall direction of parochial schools and the organization of catechetical instruction in the public schools49 as well as the protection of those in charge of religious education—a protection seen as “needed in the current circumstances.”50 The conciliar definitions on parochial schools may have been circumstantial, but they show how much the Russian Orthodox Church was attached to its schools, which were “of a different category [and] pursue different goals” and gave the parishes the possibility “to carry out one of their most important duties, that of Christian education and enlightenment of the people.” The definitions also showed that the council had not yet fully realized all the implications and consequences of the new regime where Church and state were separate.

M  D As was the case for catechism and the schools, the declarations of the council concerning marriage were circumstantial. At the same time, the question of the simplification of the divorce procedure was a theme dis-

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

145

cussed at length during the precouncil period.51 Soviet legislation, in a way, provoked the Church to pronounce itself on this matter and gave it the opportunity to articulate its principles.52 A First Circumstantial Definition

The conciliar definition of February 19 (March 4), 1918, was promulgated to respond to the state’s decrees on the dissolution of marriage and on civil marriage,53 which, according to the definition, authorized the dissolution of a marriage at the simple request of one of the parties and the conclusion of a marriage merely through inscription at a civil court—without any restriction on the number of times one could do so. The council was vigorously opposed to these decrees. It did not recognize civil marriages or divorces as valid. Consequently, Orthodox who seek the civil dissolution of their religious marriage are profaning the sacrament of marriage.54 Those who contract a civil marriage after a civil dissolution are guilty of polygamy and adultery and can be excommunicated (the council cites a canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and another of Saint Basil).55 Those who contract a first marriage in a purely civil ceremony would be considered concubines.56 A Reminder of the Principles of Indissolubility and Economy

In a second definition issued on April 7 (20), 1918, “Concerning the Causes for the Dissolution of a Matrimonial Union Sanctified by the Church,”57 the council reaffirmed the fundamental principles of the Church as regards marriage and divorce. This definition was complemented by that of August 20 (September 2), 1918.58 The council begins the definition by evoking two fundamental principles. First, the principle of the indissolubility of a religious marriage: “The marriage union of husband and wife, sanctified and strengthened in the sacrament of marriage through the power of grace, must remain inviolable for all Orthodox Christian spouses. All of them who accepted with obedience to the will of God their lot in life must until the end of their days bear both joys and sorrows of marriage, seeking to implement the saying of the Savior and Lord: ‘What therefore God has joined together,

146

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

let not man put asunder’ (Matt 19:6).”59 On the other hand, it is only by applying the principle of “economy” that the dissolution of a marriage— which has already dissolved in practice — is accepted by the Orthodox Church: “The Holy Church admits the dissolution of a marital union only as a concession to human weakness, caring for the salvation of people, as a prevention of inevitable transgressions and for the alleviation of unbearable sufferings, on the condition that the marriage union to be dissolved has already actually collapsed or that this union is impossible to actualize.”60 The council restates the methods used in applying these two principles—in particular the decision of an ecclesiastical court—as well as the reasons for the dissolution of a religious marriage. An exhaustive list of possible reasons is given: the apostasy from the Orthodox faith, adultery and sins against nature, the incapability of living a conjugal life, diseases such as leprosy or syphilis, disappearance, the criminal sentence of one of the spouses that entails the loss of civil rights, assaults against the life and the health of the spouse or children, incest in the family, encouraging of extramarital relations, profiting of the spouse’s prostitution, and the new marriage of one of the spouses. The definition issued on August 20 (September 2)61 completes the list by adding mental illness and abandonment.62

T P  A   C The question of the finances and properties of the Church were at the core of its relationship with the state. While the council took circumstantial measures concerning the buildings of the parochial schools nationalized by the Provisional Government or in reaction to the new abuses of power against the Church on the part of the Soviets, it also enunciated general principles regarding the property and economy of the Church.63 The essential debate centered on to whom the possessions of the Church belonged: to the Orthodox Church (which no longer had juridical personality according to civil law) or to the communities of believers? In the parish statutes, the council resolved the issue by a compromise that recognized the juridical personality of both the communities (in conformity with civil law) and the churches themselves (to preserve the common character of ecclesiastical assets).

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

147

The “Basic Principles” on the “Property and Economic Management of the Church,” promulgated on August 24 (September 6), 1918,64 laid down the general principles regarding the property and economy of the Church taking into account the evolution of civil legislation. In a reaction to the legislation that recognized only the juridical personality of groups of believers, the council reaffirmed that ecclesiastical property is held in common and that this is manifested by the juridical personality of the churches themselves. The general principle is that “the property that belongs to the institutions of the Orthodox Church of Russia constitutes the common possession of the entire Church.”65 Consequently, the council is the supreme authority with respect to the administration of Church property and the management of its finances.66 The council, through the mediation of the supreme administration of the Church, dictates its regulations,67 verifies its accounting during the periods between councils, and controls its management through the institutions that it has established68 and that present their accounts annually to the supreme administration.69 The council and the supreme administration can levy taxes for the general needs of the Church70 as can individual ecclesiastical institutions for their particular needs.71 The assets of ecclesiastical institutions can only be used for predetermined purposes.72 But the separation of Church and state, the persecutions of the new Soviet regime, and the context of crisis obliged the council to urgently find new resources in order to finance its institutions. First among these resources were collections and the sale of candles. In the new context, the situation of the establishments of religious education was especially critical. This is why the definition of March 15 (28), 1918,73 created a “special general church fund” to “meet the general needs of the Church and to cover the expenses for the salaries of those who work at the ecclesiastical schools until the end of the 1917–18 school year (up to September 1/14, 1918).” As for its own financing, the council was obliged to decree, as early as December 2 (15), 1917, the institution of “a special collection to cover the expenses of the council” until January 1 (14), 1919.74 Here too, the primary sources are the taxes on the sale of candles, collected directly from the candle factories themselves. Finally, in the definition of August 31 (September 13), 1918, a new collection called “the Church’s Coin” was announced.75 This collection of money or in kind was taken up in all the

148

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

churches and religious houses in order to shore up the resources of the special general church fund.

I  F  P Under the Provisional Government, the Church accepted the revolution with resignation, but it took an attitude of resistance in the face of an increasingly violent persecution by the Soviets. The assassination of Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev, who became the symbol of the martyrs of the revolution, marked a turning point in the persecutions. At the same time, the Church realized that it had to face not just an exterior enemy but also an enemy within itself. The Exterior Enemy

Prayer for the Martyrs and the Organizing of Opposition to the Enemy In a first reaction to the persecutions, the council, at the end of its second session on April 5 (18), was obliged to issue a definition “On the Measures Caused by the Ongoing Persecution Against the Orthodox Church.”76 The council begins its decree by asking for prayers for those victims of the persecution who are still alive and for the confessors and martyrs who have died.77 Throughout all of Russia, the eternal memory of the martyrs and confessors is to be celebrated annually on January 25 (February 7)—the date of the assassination of Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky)— or the following Sunday.78 In each parish where these martyrs and confessors bore witness, processions to their graves should be organized on the Monday of the second week of Easter.79 The examples of the martyrs and confessors should be published and disseminated among the people through pamphlets that the members of the council would distribute when they returned from Moscow after the second session.80 In addition, the patriarch—in collaboration with the local diocesan bishops—is invited to intercede with the civil authorities for those who had been arrested because of their faith.81 More concretely, the council, in this same definition, asks the faithful to organize themselves to save Church property from looting, to recuperate

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

149

what had been confiscated, and to defend those who were being persecuted. To this end, the faithful ought to organize, on all levels of Church life, special fraternities charged with presenting petitions to the civil authorities. Their activity is to be coordinated by the All-Russian Council of Parish Communities under the aegis of the patriarchate.82 The members of the council can play a decisive role by organizing these fraternities on a local level.83 In a final article, care is taken to declare that the (Local/Moscow) Council, “composed of the people chosen by the entire Orthodox population, including peasants, is the sole lawful and supreme administrator of the affairs of the Church, the protector of the churches of God, of holy monasteries, and of all of church property that was put together throughout the centuries mainly through voluntary offerings of the faithful people and is God’s possession. No one but the Sacred Council and the church authority commissioned by the Council has the right to administer the affairs of the Church and the church property, and even less right to do so have the people who do not even profess themselves to be Christians or who openly declare themselves to be atheists.”84 The Protection of Churches Several months later, in its 169th meeting on August 30 (September 12), 1918, the council issued another definition “On the Protection of the Church Possessions from Blasphemous Usurpation and Profanation.”85 This decree was a reaction to the directive of the People’s Commissariate of Justice (Narkomiust), promulgated on August 11 (24), 1918, which applied the decree on the separation of Church and state. Once again the council affirmed the core principle that the sacred objects conserved by the faithful belong only to God; consequently, it is a sacrilege to expropriate them: “Holy churches and chapels with all sacred objects that are found in them are the Divine inheritance, which signifies the exclusive right of possession [of these buildings and objects] by the Holy Church of God, represented by all its children of Orthodox faith, presided by the Divinely instituted hierarchy. Any alienation of this inheritance from the Church is a blasphemous usurpation and an act of violence.”86 At the same time as it invokes this principle of the community of possessions within the Church, the council makes each one of the faithful responsible for the defense of these possessions “by any means accessible

150

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

to him that are not alien to the spirit of Christ’s teaching.”87 It threatens those who participate in the confiscation of Church property with excommunication.88 The parochial assemblies cannot give an inventory list to civil authorities unless they are certain that this will not lead to profanations.89 Neglect on the part of the faithful could lead to the suspension of offices or the closing of the church by the bishop.90 Those possessions confiscated by civil authorities should be handed over to Orthodox communities so that they might be used as they were intended to be used and this should always take place with the authorization of the diocesan bishop.91 If this is not done, the objects need to be reconsecrated.92 If the Christian communities lose their churches and possessions, they can gather together with their pastors for simplified domestic celebrations: “The community of the Orthodox Christians that was deprived of their church and of its holy objects, is to unite around its pastor who, with the permission of the diocesan Bishop, may perform the divine services for this community, including the Divine Liturgy, in a private home or in any other appropriate location. . . . The objects needed for the liturgy are acquired with the voluntary donations of the faithful. The sacred vessels [thus acquired] may be without any ornamentation, and the vestments may be made from a common linen.”93 The council gives a spiritual meaning to this persecution that forces the Church to become poor and simple and a better witness “so that it may be known to all that the Orthodox Church appreciates its holy objects because of their inner significance, rather than for the sake of material value, and that violence and persecution is incapable to deprive the Church from its chief treasure—its holy faith, the pledge of its eternal triumph, for ‘this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith’ (1 John 5:4).”94 Internal Discipline

The enemy was not only external. During the 108th meeting, a petition signed by eighty-seven members of the council denouncing “ecclesial Bolshevism” was published.95 The crisis had repercussions within the Church itself, at all levels, inciting movements of rebellion or even betrayals. The council reacted against these enemies from within by issuing, the very next day, April 6 (19), a definition “On the Measures for the Ending of the Discord in the Life of the Church.”96 In their introduction to this definition,

T H E C H U R C H , T H E S TAT E , A N D T H E R E VO L U T I O N

151

the council members call attention to the existence of “some bishops, clergymen, monks, and lay people who disobey or oppose the church authority and turn for the resolution of church affairs to the secular authorities that consist of the adversaries of the Church, thereby bringing manifold troubles upon the Church, her ministers, her children and inheritance.” The definition is addressed “to the faithful children of the Church, as a measure of safeguarding of their faith and piety, and as an admonition toward repentance for those who have fallen away from the truth of the Church or are wavering.” The council vigorously condemns these “disobedient people and opponents of the Church as the adversaries of God, following the commands of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, laid out in the Word of God and the canons of the Apostles, Councils, and holy fathers.”97 The council used the apostolic and ecumenical canons to sanction those members of the Church who oppose themselves to it by having recourse to civilian authority. Two types of sanctions are envisaged: suspension from sacred functions in a first instance, followed by deposition from holy orders if the guilty party persists. A bishop who sets himself against the supreme ecclesiastical authority should be stripped of his office and judged by an ecclesial court; after three unheeded warnings, he will be “deposed from sacred orders.”98 The ministers, monks, and lay people who oppose themselves to their bishop or their superior, work in organizations that oppose the Church, or support the application of the decree concerning freedom of conscience will be suspended from their ministries, expelled from their monasteries, and eventually be excommunicated.99 Those churches whose parishioners are guilty of profanation, confiscation, or violence against the clergy will be closed.100 But this sanction will only be applied after “the on-site investigation will establish without a doubt that the actions listed in this article came as a result of the decision of the parish assembly, parish council, or, in any case, a significant number of parishioners, to whom the remaining members of the parish did not show any practical or moral resistance.”101 Those dioceses whose hierarchs have been attacked or killed will lose the right to elect their bishops.102 The firm language used by the council shows its determination to not allow this “ecclesial Bolshevism” to develop at any price.103 The persecution prevented the council from working as it would have wanted and finally prevented it from working at all. At the same time the persecution gave the council a greater authority than its legitimate

152

THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

canonical authority. The Council of 1917–1918, which was initially envisaged as an institutional council, became a council of martyrs. Several of its members were slain for their faith even before the council ceased its work,104 such as Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev and Bishop Hermogenes (Dolganov). Many others died later as authentic confessors of the faith, such as the Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin), Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd, Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl, Bishop Eugene (Zernov), the future metropolitan of Gorky, Bishop Procopiy (Titov), Hieromonk Athanasy (Sakharov), who became a bishop in 1921, Archimandrite Sergius, the secretary of the council, Protopresbyter Aleksander Hotovitsky, and many other bishops, priests, monks, and lay people who were canonized by the Councils of 1992, 1997, and 2000.105

PART 5 T H E A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E CEPTION O F T H E D E C R E E S O F T H E C O UNCIL

The canonical authority of a council does not come only from its composition and its members—even if they are saints. Its reception by the Church as a whole is equally important. In the case of the Council of 1917–1918, which, in fact, tried to assemble representatives of the ensemble of the body of the Church, it could be asked what value an assembly of this type placed on the reception of its decrees.1 Such a question does not take into consideration the fact that time plays a role in reception; even if a council assembled representatives of all the groups within the Church as in 1917 and not just the bishops, this composition would not dispense it from the necessity of a verification, over a period of time, by the Church as a whole.2 It is certainly too soon to evaluate here all the aspects of the reception of the Council of 1917–1918, which, moreover, was greatly limited by the prevailing political conditions. Nonetheless, we will try to evaluate the practical application of its decrees in Russia and abroad and see how it is judged by some theologians.

R  P: T A   D   C  ‒  It is difficult to evaluate the application of the Council of 1917–1918 for two reasons: on the one hand, during the Soviet era the Russian Orthodox Church was more focused on its survival than on its internal reform; on the other hand, it is still too early for us to see how this same Church

153

154

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

will exploit what G. Schulz calls “an untapped potential of reform.” All the same, whether at the top, with the providential preservation of the patriarchate and the functioning, be it purely symbolic, of the conciliar institution, or at the bottom, with the intense parish life of semiclandestine communities, the Russian Church benefited from certain essential reforms of the Council of 1917–1918. From 1988 up to the last Council of 2000, that of 1917–1918 served, implicitly or explicitly, as a point of reference in the statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church — even though a new context called for different solutions.3 The Application of the Council in the Patriarchate of Moscow

The reestablishment of the council as an institution, with its statutes, elections, and procedures, was certainly the first result of the Council of 1917–1918.4 Since the council scheduled for 1921 could not be held, the members of the Council of 1917–1918 lost their full rights. As a consequence of this, several schismatic groups, supported by the Soviet government, tried to usurp the conciliary tradition.5 After the arrest of Patriarch Tikhon and his designated successor, Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), and the execution of Metropolitan Benjamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd, the provisional administration of the Church, which was controlled by the “Living Church,” convoked a council for April 29, 1923. This assembly was called “The Second Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church”—the first being, of course, that of 1917–1918. Most of its 430 members belonged to the “Living Church” or “The Union of the Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church,” presided over by Alexander Vvedensky, or the “Renewal of the Church,” headed by Bishop Antonin (Granovsky). This “council” abolished the patriarchate, reduced Patriarch Tikhon to the lay state, voted to do away with the obligation of celibacy for bishops, authorized second marriages for all clerics, and established a supreme ecclesial council.6 This victory of the “Living Church” was short-lived. In June 1923, because of the pressure of foreign governments and after a humiliating selfcriticism, the patriarch was freed. On June 14, 1923, he condemned the council and declared that the sacraments administrated by the schismatics were invalid. But his health quickly deteriorated and, on April 7, 1925, he passed away under dubious circumstances. The “Living Church,” which

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

155

had changed its name to the “Renovated Church,” convoked a new council, which adopted certain liturgical and disciplinary reforms: the services in Russian and the reestablishment of an order of deaconesses.7 It was only during World War II that the Russian Orthodox Church was able to return to the conciliar tradition that had been rediscovered in 1917. In 1943 a Council of Bishops, chosen by elections, came into being; there were elections for a local council in 1945. In 1961 the Council of Bishops convened. A local council was elected in 1971. There was a local council in 1988, an elected local council in 1990. The Council of Bishops convened in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2004. Of the ten councils, only four were really “local”—that is, open to the participation of nonepiscopal clergy and laity, one cleric and one lay person per diocese. Of the four local councils, only that of 1988 was not elective. We will mention here only those councils that promulgated regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church in order to examine whether these statutes were in line with the principles of 1917. These are the local council of 1945, the local council of 1988, and the episcopal council of 2000. Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Promulgated by the Local Council of 1945 and Modified by the Bishops’ Council of 1961 The first legitimate council of the Russian Orthodox Church after 1918 was that of September 1943. Stalin, in order to assure the cooperation of the Church in the war effort, authorized the convocation of an episcopal council that was finally able to elect a successor to Patriarch Tikhon.8 This council did not follow the statutes of 1917 relative to the convocation of a local council and, in particular, those concerning the election of the patriarch. The council was made up exclusively of bishops, nineteen in all, who elected—by acclamation, thus without an election and the drawing of lots as specified by the Council of 1917–1918—Metropolitan Sergius, who, since 1926, had been the “acting locum tenens of the patriarchal throne,” patriarch of Moscow and of all Russia. This council was, nonetheless, recognized by all of the Orthodox patriarchs and brought an end to the different schisms that had divided the Russian Church since 1921. This turnaround in the relations between the Church and the government made possible, in 1945, the convocation of the first local council since 19179 by Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad,10 the locum tenens of the

156

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

patriarchal throne. It was, in fact, urgent to proceed to a valid election of a patriarch and to reorganize the Church while the context was more favorable. The decisions of the Council of 1917–1918 were inapplicable such as they stood and could only be canonically modified by a new council, convoked according to the same principles, that is, with the participation of clergy and laity along with the bishops. On January 31, 1945, with the material collaboration of the Soviet government, a local council was opened. It would only last three days and consisted of only 175 members. Each diocese was represented by its bishop, a cleric, and a lay person. The latter were not elected but named by the synod. This was the representation and procedure recommended by the Preconciliar Commission of 1906. In addition to the delegates of the Russian Church, there were thirty-four representatives of sister Orthodox Churches—a disproportionate number that reflects the desire of the state as well as the Church to bolster their international legitimacy. The Regulation of January 31, 1945 A “Regulation for the Administration of the Church” (Polozhenie ob upravlenii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi), which had already been approved by an assembly of bishops (November 21– 23, 1944), was unanimously approved by the local council without discussions or amendments. The “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, was a compromise between the dispositions of the Council of 1917–1918 inspired by the principle of conciliarity and the limitations imposed by Soviet legislation.11 This brief document contains only forty-eight articles divided into four chapters: the patriarch, the Holy Synod, the dioceses, and the parishes. The local council, “convoked periodically and composed of bishops, clergy, and laity,” remains “the supreme power in the areas of doctrinal teaching, of ecclesiastical administration, and ecclesiastical discipline— the legislative, administrative, and judicial powers.”12 But this clause seems more a declaration of principle than an effective element of ecclesial life: there is no rule for how often a council should be held, how it should be composed, or how the clerics and laity should be designated. When the patriarch believes that “it has become opportune to resolve important church problems,” he convokes the Council of Bishops (rather than the

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

157

local council), and he can only do this “with the authorization of the government.”13 A local council can only be convoked “when there is a need to hear the voice of the clergy and the laity and there is an external possibility for the convocation of a regular” local council.14 By comparison with the statutes of 1917, the organization of the Church is much more centralized. At its head is the patriarch, “who governs together with the Holy Synod.”15 The synod has only six members, three of whom are permanent—the heads of the metropolitan sees.16 Whereas the Council of 1917–1918 decreed that, when the patriarchal throne became vacant, a locum tenens would be chosen among the members of the synod at that moment,17 the “Regulation” makes the oldest permanent member of the synod (the one who has been consecrated for the longest time) the locum tenens.18 The patriarch appoints the diocesan bishops by his decree.19 Moreover, in the “Regulation” the Russian Church as a whole is presented as the center of ecclesial unity and not the diocese whose definition is symmetrical to that of the deanery: just as “the Russian Orthodox Church is divided into dioceses whose limits should coincide with the boundaries within the state, that is those of regions, territories, and republics,”20 “the diocese is divided into deaneries headed by deans appointed by the diocesan bishop.”21 The participation of lay people in the administration of the Church, which the Council of 1917–1918 had organized at all levels, is abandoned. The Supreme Council of the Church, instituted in 1917, is no longer mentioned. On the diocesan level, the bishop administers his diocese either alone or “with the cooperation of a diocesan Council”22 composed of three to five members, all of whom must be priests.23 The regulation no longer mentions the possibility of convoking diocesan assemblies, modeled after the local council, with the participation of clerics and laity, such as the Council of 1917–1918 had envisaged. The organization of the parish described in the “Regulation” of 1945 is more in the spirit of the Council of 1917–1918. The Soviet decree of April 8, 1929, entrusted the supervision and protection of ecclesial property to an executive body composed of three persons—the starosta, his assistant, and a treasurer—who would be elected by the parish community through a show of hands and subject to the approval of the local authorities.24 In order to be considered a “religious society,” the parish community

158

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

must have at least twenty members.25 A civil authority gives the community the right to use the church and the objects of cult.26 This decree made no provisions for the priest — not mentioned even once in sixtyeight articles — who not only does not preside over the council but is not even part of it. Spiritual and temporal activities were strictly disassociated, and the priest found himself restricted to a purely cultic role. The “Regulation” of 1945, however, makes the priest the president ex officio of the parish council,27 such as had been envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918. This measure not only restored a center of unity for parish activities but also reinforced the authority of the clergy. The Revision of the “Regulation” by the Episcopal Council of July 18, 1961 In the context of new antireligious persecutions,28 a Council of Bishops was convoked on July 18, 1961,29 to modify the dispositions of 1945. From a canonical point of view, this could only be done by a new local council. But Patriarch Alexis, under pressure from the Soviet government, was obliged to recognize that the “external conditions” for the convocation of such a council did not exist. Two points of the “Regulation” had to be modified. The government, after having tolerated the contradictions between civil and ecclesial legislation concerning the parish, demanded that the patriarch apply the decree of 1929. Consequently, on April 18, 1961, the Holy Synod modified the “Regulation” of 1945 and changed the whole of section 4 relative to the parish. The Holy Synod then had this amendment ratified by a Council of Bishops on July 18, 1961, in order to “improve the actual organization of parish life and bring it into conformity with the civil legislation on ‘Religious Associations’ in the USSR . . . until such time as a local council of the Russian Orthodox Church can be convoked.”30 According to this amendment, the priest is restricted to functions concerning cult and is excluded from the parish council whose three members administer the parish autonomously.31 “The rector of the church, mindful of the words of the apostles ‘As for us, we will devote ourselves to prayer and the service of the word’ (Acts 6:2– 3), assures the spiritual direction of his parishioners.”32 In reality, the priest is thus only a hired hand of his parish, subject to the authority of a starosta, theoretically elected but actually designated by the local authorities as their official representative. The second modification of

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

159

the “Regulation” concerned the composition of the Holy Synod. On March 16, 1961, the patriarch and the Holy Synod decided to increase the number of permanent members of the synod. Henceforth, the chairman of the Department of External Relations and the chief of the administrative department of the patriarchate would become members ex officio. This decision was ratified by the council.33 The equilibrium of the synod was disrupted and it became, de facto, a permanent synod.34 The Statute Promulgated by the Local Council of Zagorsk in 1988 The first council convoked after that of 1961 was the local council held in Zagorsk from May 30 to June 2, 1971.35 It was the first local council since that of 1945, the second since 1917. There were many more participants than in 1945. There were 236 members along with 74 Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant observers (in 1945 there were 175 members and 29 observers), and it was convoked, essentially, to elect a successor to the patriarch Alexis, who had held the position since 1945.36 In conformity with the principles of 1917, this council included clerics who were not bishops and lay people. As in 1945, each diocese was represented by its bishop, another cleric, and a lay person. But, as in 1945, the decision-making procedure was the reverse of that employed in 1917. The assembly was given the task of approving the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, which had met previously on May 28 at the Novodevichy monastery—whereas the regulations of 1917 envisaged things in reverse: the Conference of Bishops, an integral part of the council, had to approve the decisions made by the General Assembly. As for the procedure for electing a patriarch, there was a compromise between a secret vote—envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918— and an election by acclamation, such as the Council of 1945 wanted. At the suggestion of the secretary of the council (Metropolitan Alexis of Tallinn and Estonia) each diocesan representation (bishop, cleric, and lay person), beginning with the youngest bishop, should rise, and the bishop, in the name of the delegation, should affirm: “I, the clergy and laity of the diocese of N. choose N. as patriarch of Moscow and of all Russia.”37 This procedure led to the unanimous designation, on June 2, 1971, of Patriarch Pimen, formerly metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna, and locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.38

160

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

The only nonelective council convoked after that of 1917–1918 was celebrated on June 8, 1988, at Zagorsk on the occasion of the baptism of St. Vladimir and Kievan Rus’ in 988.39 As in 1945 and 1971, each diocese was represented by its bishop, a cleric, and a lay person; this formed an assembly with 272 members.40 On June 8, 1988, this local council of the Russian Orthodox Church approved, without making any new amendments, a new project of internal statutes that had already been ratified by an episcopal commission of seventy-one bishops under the direction of Archbishop Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk. This statute was to replace that of 1945 (revised in 1961). The statute is not even designated by the same word (Ustav instead of Polozhenie—the word used in 1945) and has fifteen sections, whereas that of 1945 had four.41 The statute begins by reviewing the juridical foundations to which the Church must submit itself and mentions: (a) Holy Scripture and the holy traditions; (b) the apostolic canons, the ecumenical councils, and the local council, and the fathers of the Church; (c) the decisions of the local councils; (d) this statute itself; and (e) the laws of the state concerning the Church.42 This enumeration is something new, especially the inclusion of the laws of the state concerning the Church.43 As in 1917 and 1945, the local council is the supreme power. But this time the Council of 1988 specifies that a local council should be convoked at least once every five years. The authority of the diocesan bishops is strengthened. The Council of Bishops, which, according to the Council of 1917–1918, was only convoked in order to pass judgment on the patriarch and which was not mentioned by the Council of 1945, should assemble at least once every two years.44 Moreover the number of the members of the Holy Synod is increased, going from five permanent members and three temporary members to five permanent and five temporary members. The domains of the different organs of government are defined much more precisely than in 1945. The procedure for designating the locum tenens of the patriarchal see is a compromise between the decisions of 1917 and those of 1945. In conformity with the dispositions of 1917, the locum tenens is elected (and is not automatically the senior member as was decreed in 1945), but, as in 1945 (and contrary to the 1917 dispositions where he could be elected from “among the attending members”), he can only be chosen from

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

161

among the five permanent members of the Holy Synod. The election is held under the presidency of the metropolitan “of the most ancient see of the Russian Orthodox Church,” that is, Kiev, and not the senior member as stipulated in 1917.45 This latter disposition reflects the concern to restore the see of Kiev to its traditional preeminence in the Russian Church. The Statute of 1988 specifies the conditions of eligibility for a candidate to the patriarchal throne. These conditions are new with respect to those of the Council of 1917–1918 (the “Regulations” of 1945 is silent in this regard); he should be at least forty years old, a Soviet citizen, have a theological background, and be a bishop of the Russian Church. This detailed action partially contradicts the Council of 1917–1918, which envisaged the eligibility of “any bishop who is a monk and a person who belongs to the holy priesthood and who satisfies the canonical requirements.”46 But the action most notable in relation to the Council of 1917–1918 and the most original in relation to the modified regulation of 1961 is found at the parish level. It concerns the status of the priests. According to the decrees of the Council of 1917–1918—which were ratified in 1945, and contrary to the actions taken by the Council of Bishops of 1961, which applied the 1929 decree and submitted them, in fact, to the starostas—the rectors were restored to their role of authentic parish leadership. In virtue of the new statute, the priests again became the heads of the parish councils. This meant that the parishes recovered their autonomy in relation to the government.47 The Statute Promulgated by the Episcopal Council of Moscow, 2000 After the death of Patriarch Pimen on May 3, 1990, a new local council was convoked by the locum tenens, Philaret (Denisenko) of Kiev, at the monastery of the Trinity-Saint Sergius in Zagorsk on June 7–10, 1990. Its three hundred members elected Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad and Novgorod to the patriarchal throne. Subsequently, there were three Councils of Bishops in 1992, 1994, and 1997. The jubilee year of 2000 was the occasion for convoking a new council at Moscow on August 13–16, 2000.48 In certain aspects, the context of this council—which was inaugurated in the restored Cathedral of Christ the Savior where, eighty-three years previously, Patriarch Tikhon had

162

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

been elected—had points in common with the Council of 1917–1918. The new political situation inaugurated in 1991 gave the Church a freedom comparable to the one it enjoyed under the Provisional Government. But this council, made up exclusively of bishops, belonged to a Church whose status and whose relationship with society were deeply different from 1917, and this called for further reflection. The new situation made it possible to proceed to the canonization of many of the new martyrs and to update the actions of the Council of 1988. Two important documents were approved: “The Basic Principles of the Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Non-Orthodox”49 and “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.”50 We will limit our study to the report of Patriarch Alexis and, above all, to the new statute of the Russian Orthodox Church. During the Council of Bishops on the occasion of the Great Jubilee, the patriarch explicitly referred to the Council of 1917–1918 twice. The first reference is in the chapter on dioceses and parishes. The patriarch points out that “the Council of Bishops of 1994 entrusted the liturgical commission of the synod with the task of taking up the work, begun but left unfinished, of the Local Council of 1917–1918 concerning the organization of liturgical practice.”51 In addition, treating of monasteries and monks, the patriarch suggests “using the experience of the Local Council of 1917–1918 where a general regime for monasticism was discussed, including the examination of questions concerning educated monasticism, monastic life, monastic discipline and the financial status of the monasteries and their properties.”52 The “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” published during the Council of 2000, is presented as being in continuity with the Council of 1988. Not only is its title (Ustav) the same, its structure is nearly identical— with the exception of a four-part introduction that treats, respectively, of the autonomous Churches, the exarchates, the ecclesiastical courts, and stamps and seals.53 It should be noted, however, that the mention of “the laws of the state that concern the Church” has disappeared from the list of the canonical principles that govern the Church.54 This change shows the desire of the Council of 2000 to update the statute of 1988, introduced in the context of the Soviet state, by adapting it to the new realities in Russia55 and bringing it more in line with the decisions of 1917.

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

163

Similarities As for the essentials, the statute of 2000 has obvious points in common with the actions of the Council of 1917–1918. Even if a lack of references in the text makes it difficult to prove that there was a direct dependence on 1917–1918, the general presentation, the spirit, and the use of identical formulas leave no doubt as to the source of the inspiration of the decisions that form the local canonical norms presently in vigor in the Russian Church. We cannot do a systematic comparison of the two texts here. Rather we will limit ourselves to showing the convergences that manifest that the authors of the new statute were inspired by the dispositions of 1917–1918. As in 1917, the local council is given great importance. It appears at the head of the statute, just after the general principles: “In the Russian Orthodox Church, the local council retains the supreme power in the areas of doctrine and canonical organization.”56 The decisions do not specify its frequency, its composition, or the place of the laity. But the decisionmaking procedure, with the Council of Bishops having the right of veto, is very similar to that of 1917. As in 1917, if a decision of the full assembly is rejected by a majority of the bishops, it is returned to the assembly. If rejected a second time by the majority of the bishops, the decision has no juridical value.57 The definitions of the rights and duties of the patriarch are very similar—or sometimes literally identical—to those defined in 1917. For example, the patriarch should give an account of the state of the Church for the period in between councils (as Alexis II did at the beginning of that of 2000), send pastoral letters, and handle contacts with the representatives of the autocephalous Churches and with civil authorities.58 Most importantly, the patriarch’s right to veto the decisions of the Holy Synod is maintained in the same conditions as in 1917. The same similarities can be found in the definition of the rights and duties of the bishop. Article 6 (X) defines the bishop as “the presider of a local Church,”59 which is literally identical to that given in article 15 of the Council of 1917–1918. The same can be said of article 11, which describes the full powers of the bishop in the domains of the teaching of dogma and morals, the liturgy, and pastoral activity.60 The bishop also has the

164

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

right to veto the decisions of the assembly of the diocese.61 The administration of the diocese, the deanery, and the parish is likewise entrusted to an assembly and a council. Developments These points of convergence, however, cannot cover up striking differences due to the evolution of the situation and the contemporary problems of the Russian Church. First of all, there is an insistence on the unity in diversity of the Russian Church. This insistence appears in the definition of article 1. The Church that is under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Moscow is no longer described as being “of Russia” (rossiiskoi) as it was in the Council of 1917–1918 but as “Russian” (russkoi). This puts the accent more on the cultural community than on the political one. What is more, the Russian Church is defined as “multinational”: “The Russian Orthodox Church is a multinational, local, autocephalous Church, in a union of doctrine, as well as in liturgical and canonical communion with other local Orthodox Churches.”62 The reference to the “canonical territory”63 that is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church also seems to underline the unity of the Russian Church above and beyond national borders: “The jurisdiction (iurisdiktsiia) of the Russian Orthodox Church extends (prostirayetsia) over persons of the Orthodox faith who live in the canonical territory (kanonicheskoi territorii) of the Russian Orthodox Church: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Estonia, as well as over those Orthodox who live in other countries and who willingly accede to this jurisdiction.”64 The term “canonical territory” was not used by the Council of 1917–1918, but it has its equivalent in the term “ecclesiastical region” (tserkovnaia oblast’), which was employed to refer to the Ukrainian dioceses—which formed part of the “ecclesiastical region” of the Russian Orthodox Church.65 The patriarch should assure the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church.66 The composition of the Holy Synod also bears witness to this desire for unity. Of the twelve members, seven are members by virtue of their office. These include representatives of the autonomous Churches: the metropolitans of Kiev (as in 1917), but also of Minsk, Be-

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

165

larus, and Moldova. Chapter 8 defines the status of the “autonomous” Churches—Latvia, Moldova, and Estonia—and of the Church of Ukraine, which enjoys “greater rights of autonomy.” On the other hand, the role of the Council of Bishops,67 which meets at least once every four years, is given much more importance than in 1917, where its only role was that of the supreme court for the judgment of the patriarch. In contrast, the Supreme Council of the Church, an institution with strong lay representation that was responsible for the administration of “temporal” affairs, no longer appears in the organization of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Its tasks are assumed by the “patriarchate of Moscow and the synodal institutions.”68 The diocese is defined as “the local Church”69 instead of “a part of the Orthodox Church of Russia”70—even though the reference point in this definition is still the Russian Orthodox Church “divided into dioceses.” The place and role of the laity represents a regression in comparison to the Council of 1917–1918. The local council is composed of “bishops, representatives of the clergy, monks, and lay people” but “in a quantity and order to be determined by the Council of Bishops.”71 In the same way, the elective principle is in retreat at all levels of Church life: for example, the deans are named by the bishop72 rather than being elected by the assembly of the diocese and confirmed by the bishop as was the case in the Council of 1917–1918.73 The rectors are also directly appointed by the bishop, whereas the Council of 1917–1918 envisaged that the bishop would “take into consideration” the candidates proposed by the parish assembly.74 It must also be noted that “auditing commissions ”75 were introduced in the parishes to oversee their financial doings. After this brief overview of the councils and rulings of the Russian Church, what conclusions can be reached concerning the application of the Council of 1917–1918 in Russia? First, thanks to the restoration of the patriarchate, the Orthodox Church, in spite of persecutions, was able to conserve a certain visibility—which had practically disappeared on the eve of the Second World War.76 Secondly, as of 1943—and again thanks to the patriarchate—the conciliar institution began to function once more, with the Councils of Bishops (1943, 1961, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2004) and local councils (1945, 1971, 1988, 1990). To be sure, the Councils of Bishops played a greater role than was envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918.

166

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

Moreover, the rules for the designation and participation of clerics and lay people in the local councils were different from the dispositions laid down in 1917. Finally, these local councils were either for the election of a patriarch—with an electoral process quite different from the one envisaged in 191777—or simply to rubber-stamp statutes already adopted by the hierarchy. Nonetheless, the conciliar institution functioned, and the principle of the participation of clerics and laity was maintained. Thirdly, the parish statutes approved in 1917, which favored the autonomy and cohesion of the parishes, allowed parish life—and, ultimately, ecclesial life— to survive under Soviet rule. The status of the parish as a community— even if its application had been frustrated by the decree of 1929 on religious associations (except between 1945 and 1961), which subjected the priest to the starosta—proved to be particularly adapted to Soviet legislation and enabled the parish community to be more aware of itself and its interests during the terrible period of persecution. Since 1988, the Russian Church has entered into a new phase of its history, but the importance of these three elements of the 1917–1918 Council—the patriarchate, the conciliar institution (with the participation of lay people in the local council), and the parish statute— are not questioned by anyone. Moreover, as Patriarch Alexis urged in his report to the Council of 2000, it can be expected that the Church will continue to “exploit the experience” of the Council of 1917–1918 by drawing upon its intuitions—the fruits of a particularly brilliant epoch of the Russian Church—rather than its legislative dispositions. The Application of the Council of 1917–1918 in the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe

During the time of the Soviet state, Russian Orthodoxy found conditions in the West to be more favorable than in the USSR for putting the decisions of the Council of 1917–1918 into practice. This was the case for the Russian archdiocese of Sourozh, in Great Britain, which depended upon the patriarchate of Moscow, as well as for the Russian archdiocese of Eucarpia, in France, which was under the patriarchate of Constantinople. We will restrict our study to the latter (the former, moreover, is very similar).78 The Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe79 applied some important dispositions of the Council of 1917–1918

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

167

to the dioceses and parishes. The organization of the archdiocese is based on the “Statutes Governing Russian Orthodox Associations,”80 which was approved on February 26, 1924,81 modified on February 7, 1998, and again on May 1, 1999. According to these statutes, the archdiocese has the legal status of an authorized association according to French law whose terminology it uses: the diocesan assembly appears as the “general assembly,” the council of the archdiocese is the “administrative council,” the archbishop is the “president,” the secretariat becomes the “board.” The archdiocese is defined more precisely as a union of cultural associations. These cultural associations, regulated by the laws of July 1, 1901, and December 9, 1905, are the juridical designation of the parishes belonging to the archdiocese.82 It is interesting to note that, at the same time, the Russian Church was adapting itself to similar legal situations since Soviet law83 as well as French law84 only recognized juridical personality for groups of believers constituted as associations and not for the Church as such. The Statutes of the Archdiocese The statutes of the archdiocese are explicitly based on the Council of 1917–1918. The archdiocese wants to assure, for the associations that compose it, “the exercise and coordination of a cult rigorously in accordance with the Greco-Russian Orthodox rite and the decisions of the PanRussian Council of 1917–1918. It thus hopes to respond to the spiritual and religious needs of the members of these associations while respecting the doctrine and canon law of the Orthodox Church.”85 Moreover, when the canonical foundations of the statutes are enumerated, the Council of 1917–1918 is mentioned just after the fathers of the Church: “The liturgical, pastoral, canonical and spiritual life of the archdiocese and the associations that compose it are regulated by the rules of the Orthodox Church according to the Russian tradition such as these are found in the collection of the canons of the Holy Apostles, in the Holy Ecumenical Councils, in the Local Councils, and the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the acts and decisions of the 1917–1918 Council of Moscow.”86 The statutes of the archdiocese are inspired by the “principle of conciliarity” at all levels of Church life, as the Council of 1917–1918 envisaged. The council had established a diocesan assembly in each diocese and a diocesan council composed of clerics and lay people equally represented.

168

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

These two units facilitated the conciliar administration of the diocese by the bishop: “The diocesan bishop, whose authority comes from the Holy Apostles, is the president of the local Church and administers his diocese with the conciliar collaboration of the clergy and laity.”87 The statutes of the archdiocese incorporate this conception of diocesan administration: “The Archbishop is, ex officio, the president of the archdiocese, which he administers with the collaboration of clergy and laity following the principles of collegiality inherent in Orthodox ecclesiology.”88 This concept of “collegiality” is surprising in this context since, during the council, kollegial’nost’ was exactly the term used in opposition to sobornost’ (counciliarity) in so far as it was a secular theory applied to the Church by Peter the Great (the system of “colleges”).89 The statutes of the archdiocese do not only apply this conciliar organization of equal representation of clergy and laity both in the composition and functioning of the diocesan assembly and council but even go further on certain points. The General Assembly of the archdiocese, both in its ordinary sessions (convoked every three years to approve the reports of the different diocesan institutions and elect their members) and extraordinary sessions (to elect an archbishop), includes, under the presidency of the archbishop or his locum tenens, all the members of the clergy (active or retired—as well as active readers officially named by the bishop)90 and lay representatives elected for three years by the general assemblies of the affiliated associations: “the number of lay people sent by each association should be equal to the number of the members of the clergy or readers in the parish.”91 In addition to these, there are a certain number of delegates.92 This is in conformity with the Council of 1917–1918, which specified that “the Diocesan Assemblies consist of the representatives of clergy and laity in equal numbers, elected for three years”93—with the difference that the clerics were also elected for three years (not all the clergy could be present) and that at least half the clerics should be priests.94 In certain aspects, the statutes of the archdiocese go further than the Council of 1917–1918 in promoting conciliarity in the composition and functioning of the General Assembly. For example, the parity between clerics and laity is applied at the level of the offices of the General Assembly since the two vice-presidents should be a priest and a lay person95—a disposition not found in the 1917

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

169

definition. The procedure for settling disputes also reflects conciliarity. If there is a disagreement between the archbishop and the ordinary General Assembly, a second examination was to take place under the presidency of the first vice-president when the archbishop could put forth the reasons for his disagreement. If there was no consensus, the assembly submits the disputed matter to a vote—but the vote required a majority of 4/5. “If a majority greater than 4/5 of the voters is opposed to the opinion of the archbishop, the latter should not maintain his position, for the sake of ecclesial conciliarity. In extreme cases, however, when the preservation of the orthodoxy of the faith is at stake, the archbishop is free to submit the question to the judgment of the Synod of the Patriarchate.”96 This procedure, which is partially explicable by the special status of the internal autonomy of the archdiocese but also by the principle of “ecclesial conciliarity,” is different from that envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918, which always referred to the supreme ecclesial authority as a last resort while, in all cases, leaving the bishop “the power to make urgent decisions” for contentious issues.97 The General Assembly elects the Archdiocesan Council. The council, composed of the archbishop, his auxiliary bishops, six members of the clergy, and six lay people elected for three year terms,98 is “the permanent executive organ that assists the archbishop in all the domains of Church life for which he is responsible.”99 The council is “invested with the prerogatives necessary for the accomplishment of its functions and can authorize any act or operation that is not reserved to the General Assembly.”100 This is the exact equivalent of the “Diocesan Council” established in 1917—“a permanent administrative and executive body that operates continuously and consists of the elected members. It assists the diocesan Bishop in his administration of the diocese”101— and the counterpart of the Supreme Council of the Church, which was itself a mixed administrative institution. But the council imagined a slightly different composition and a more clearly defined separation from episcopal authority: of the five elected titular members, at least two should be priests.102 It was obligatory that one of these priests, elected by the council and confirmed by the bishop,103 serve as president—the bishop presiding only when he esteemed it necessary.104 In case of disagreement between the archbishop and the Archdiocesan Council, the project is presented again in a second

170

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

session during which the archbishop and the members of the council who disagree with him are invited to present their objections in writing. As a last resort, the archbishop should consult the Bishops’ Committee before making a definitive decision.105 This procedure gave the archbishop more possibilities than was envisaged in the Council of 1917–1918—which referred the affair to the supreme ecclesiastical authority106—yet required him to consult the Bishops’ Committee, which could thus serve as a sort of mediator. The statutes of the archdiocese establish, in fact, an institution that is not found in the definition of the Council of 1917–1918—the Committee of Bishops, composed of all the bishops regardless of whether or not they have charge of a diocese (the archbishop, the auxiliary bishops, retired bishops).107 It is thus founded on the charisma proper to bishops and not on their functions. It is convoked by the archbishop when he deems it necessary (at least once a year)108 and is competent in all that pertains to spirituality and theology—the teaching of the faith, Holy Scripture, liturgy, icons—as well as for issues concerning the recruitment and discipline of the clergy, differences among bishops, and the resignation or retirement of the archbishop.109 This institution is understandable given the context of the archdiocese’s status of autonomy. In its relationship to the Council of the Archdiocese, it is, mutatis mutandis, what the Holy Synod (competent for all spiritual affairs) should be in relationship to the Supreme Council of the Church (competent for temporal affairs) according to the Council of 1917–1918. The most symbolic aspect of the application of the Council of 1917–1918 by the archdiocese is the election of the archbishop. The Council of Moscow envisaged the following procedure: when the see is vacant, the bishops of the region—or, in the absence of a region, the Holy Synod—should draw up a list of candidates that includes, after canonical confirmation, the candidates of the diocese (from the diocesan assembly). After this list has been published in the diocese, “the bishops of the district or the bishops appointed by the Holy Synod for the election of this diocesan bishop, the clergy, and laity of the diocese elect the candidate in accordance with special regulations, casting their votes for all candidates on the list. The candidate who has received no less than two-thirds of the votes is considered to have been elected, and is presented for the confirmation by the supreme ecclesiastical authority.”110 The statutes of the archdiocese en-

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

171

visage a similar procedure; first, the Council of the Archdiocese draws up a list of candidates and makes it public after it has been submitted to the patriarchate for approval.111 In a second step, the General Assembly, in an extraordinary session, elects one of the candidates by a secret vote. The elected candidate must receive two-thirds of the votes.112 In a third step, the Holy Synod “proceeds to the canonical election of the new archbishop mindful of the vote of the extraordinary General Assembly.”113 This last step is, in reality, a “confirmation” (that is the title of the article concerning it), and seems to be more a formality. The procedure is thus elective; the role of the laity is more important since the council envisaged that the bishops of the region or the synod would draw up the list of candidates— and not the “mixed” Diocesan Council. Once elected, the archbishop exercises his functions for life.114 Here too the statutes are inspired by the principle of the immovability of bishops such as it was decreed by the Council of 1917–1918, which stated that the bishops could only be moved in “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances”115 and should normally remain in their diocese “for life.”116 The Parish Statutes The statutes of the parishes belonging to the archdiocese, presented as cultural organizations according to French law, are also an application of the Council of 1917–1918. The object of this association, moreover, is explicitly defined in reference to the council: “to assure . . . the exercise of Orthodox cult rigorously conformed to the Eastern Greco-Russian Orthodox rite (Vostochnoye Greko-Rossiiskoye Pravoslavie) and to the decisions of the All-Russian Council of the Orthodox Church of February 1/14– 9/22, 1918.”117 As the parish statute of 1918 saw it, the parish has two governing institutions: the General Assembly and the Parish Council. The General Assembly includes all the members of the association118—in other words, all the faithful enrolled in the parish, since the council wanted the faithful to be inscribed in the parish registers.119 The Parish Council is composed of all the members of the clergy and a fixed number (determined by the General Assembly) of lay people elected for three years.120 As stipulated by the Council of 1917–1918,121 (and contrary to the statutes adopted by the 1961 Episcopal Council of Moscow in compliance with the application of the decree of 1929), the rector of the parish presides

172

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

over the Parish Assembly and the Parish Council.122 The starosta, elected by the General Assembly for three years with the possibility of renewal, is the vice-president of the Parish Council123—something not envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918 (the statutes of 1961 made him the president). Like the council, the statutes of the Russian archdiocese and its parishes did not consider having the clergy elected by the faithful (although the council stipulated that the bishop should “take into consideration the candidates presented by the Parish Assembly”124). The clergy are appointed by the archbishop.125 Priests and deacons are also chosen by the archbishop “who takes into consideration the opinion of their confessor and informs the Archdiocesan Council.” The archbishop gives priests, deacons, and psaltists their ecclesial assignments.126 He also names the rectors of parishes and can change them “after first consulting the concerned parties.”127 In this way the statutes of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe apply the principle dispositions of the Council of 1917 to the diocese and the parish. There are mixed organizations with an equal participation of elected lay people (assembly, council) that allows for a conciliar government. There is the election of the bishop who is immovable, the autonomy of the parish, the rector who is in charge of the whole of parish life, and the inscription of parishioners. Yet this application takes place in a context that is particular in two ways. Firstly, the application of the principle of conciliarity is more justifiable due to the fact that the archdiocese enjoys a certain internal autonomy in its relationship with the ecumenical patriarchate. This favors less recourse to hierarchical authority—as can be seen from the procedure that regulates disagreements between the archbishop and the assembly or council. The special status of internal autonomy explains why the organization of the archdiocese is very similar to that of the supreme administration of the Church as envisaged by the Council of 1917–1918. The council wanted a symmetrical structure between the central administration and the diocese with the correspondence: Diocesan Assembly vs. Local Council, Diocesan Council vs. Holy Synod and Supreme Council of the Church. The statutes of the archdiocese are even closer to the structure of the supreme administration such as it was projected in 1917–1918. Indeed, the Diocesan Council corresponds exactly to the Supreme Council of the Church, both because of its mixed composition of clerics and lay people

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

173

and its predominantly “temporal” competence—while the Holy Synod finds its exact correspondence in the Committee of Bishops of the archdiocese, which is competent more in affairs of the “spiritual” order. There is, however, a difference in so far as this committee includes all the bishops, titular or not, active or retired—a difference explicable by the size of the archdiocese. Thus the statutes of the archdiocese not only apply the principles of 1917–1918, but, in a certain sense, go further than the Council of 1917–1918 in its desire to give the diocese a structure symmetrical to the supreme administration of the Church. This “conciliarity” certainly manifests a decision to apply the work of the council, but it is also due to the context in which the archdiocese was formed, far from its historical center, and its actual status of autonomy. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the conciliar principles concerning the autonomy and juridical personality of the parish seem perfectly adapted to French legislation concerning cultural organizations. This legislation favors a greater autonomy and even a certain decentralization, since the archdiocese is defined as a union of associations that it coordinates: “The Archdiocese is composed of adhering associations registered by its President, the Archbishop, following consultation with the Archdiocesan Council.”128 This concept of an association is, moreover, implicit in the very name of the archdiocese: “Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe.” Perhaps it could be said that the French legislation on associations is particularly adapted to the ecclesiology of the Russian archdiocese. It is better to think that the archdiocese knew how to get the most out of the resources of the relatively elastic French laws concerning cultural associations.

T R The reception of a council is not limited to its practical application. Sometimes circumstances prevent its decisions from being carried out, and those that followed the Council of 1917–1918 were particularly dramatic. Since we cannot evaluate how this council was received by the ensemble of the Christian people to whom it was addressed, it would be interesting to consider the opinion of some recognized theologians. Such a consideration is hampered by the fact that theological reflection was, for

174

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

all practical purposes, interrupted in Russia during the Soviet era. Another factor is that Russian theologians living in the West could not always have access to the acts and decisions of the council. Those who ventured a theological judgment only did so when other questions were raised— but there was never a systematic study of the council itself. In spite of this, the references that we have found seem, as a whole, to show a certain reticence: on a theological level with Afanasiev, on a canonical level with Schmemann, on an historical level with Meyendorff, and on a spiritual level with Florovsky.129 A Democratic Conception of the Church (Nicholas Afanasiev)

The promotion of the laity is one of the most characteristic traits of the Council of 1917–1918 even though it did not issue a decree specifically concerning this question. Conciliarity, understood as an active participation of the laity in the life of the Church and, in particular, in its administration, was really the dominant note. Nicholas Afanasiev was especially critical of the role the council gave to the laity in Church administration.130 Because of this he appears as one of the theologians most reserved about the spirit, work, and even the institution of the Council of 1917–1918.131 In his opinion, the concept of giving the laity a role in the council was influenced by an ideal that was purely democratic and secular. For Afanasiev, the exercise of the royal and prophetic ministry of the laity should be through the charisma of testimony and not in the line of administration or teaching. The participation of lay people in the administration of the Church in the name of a democratic exigency would be based on a juridical conception of the Church. This conception has become so generalized that it is difficult to oppose it. Afanasiev complains that “As lay participation in the administrative institutions of the Church became normative, any questioning of it would entail an accusation of clericalism.”132 The Principles and Their Perversion In Afanasiev’s opinion, the ministry of the laity as priests, prophets, and kings should be exercised in different ways according to the distinct aspects of Church life. As priests, lay people exercise their ministry directly:

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

175

“the entire people of God are called to the ministry of priesthood, for everyone entering the Church is ordained for this ministry through bestowing of the charismatic gifts of royal priesthood.”133 This is the reason why lay people or laics concelebrate, they “concelebrate with those who preside over them.”134 But on the other hand, “laics can neither govern nor teach jointly with those who govern or instruct them.”135 According to Afanasiev, who invokes 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11, Church administration, like preaching, is “a special ministry . . . that necessitates special gifts.”136 And yet, as is illustrated by the practice of St. Cyprian (as described, for example, in Epistle 14, 4) who always requested that his acts be confirmed by the people, the laity has a role of discernment as regards administration and teaching: “The prerogative of the people in these spheres is examination, expressed through consensus and ecclesial reception.”137 It is in this way that the people express their royal priesthood: the laity do not have the charisma of administration or of teaching but “the people whom God has ordained for the ministry of kings and priests give their consent to what occurs in the Church, by this action witnessing to the will of God that works in the Church. The people do not govern in the Church, for they do not have the charism of administration; rather the will of God reigns, for it has provided the grace of the royal priesthood.”138 For Afanasiev, “Modern dogmatic theology and ecclesiastical law construe the participation of the people in the life of the Church through opposing principles. Liturgical worship is ascribed to the ecclesial hierarchy alone, while the lay people are deprived of any role. Yet the lay people are admitted to the administration as co-administrators with the bishop. And the ministry of teaching is ascribed to individuals who do not possess the gift of teaching.”139 There would therefore be a reversal of values and roles, rooted in a process which began in the times of Constantine: “Zealously protecting the sacramental ministry from lay people, church authorities made concessions in the area of administration to the extent that they practically called lay people to take part in church governance.”140 The cause of this evolution would be the domination of a juridical principle in the Church whereby the bishop becomes a high functionary to whom the clergy and the people would be submitted. This process reached its apogee in Russia during the synodal epoch.

176

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

The Erroneous Democratic Solution of the Council of Moscow Leads to a Prolongation of the Synodal Epoch The Council of Moscow, which wanted precisely to remedy this separation between the bishop and the people, was, in Afanasiev’s opinion, the final step in the process of alienation: “However, legal norms had entered so deeply into the mind of the church that in implementing its reforms it was the legal norms that guided the Moscow council. Thus this council unwillingly furthered the period of the Russian Church which it intended to terminate.”141 In reality, “the council called the lay people into administration — in contradistinction to the ancient standard which it could not restore without reforming the whole ecclesial structure. Rather the council was guided by the principle of representation, positing the lay people as the co-governors together with the bishops.”142 At all levels of Church life— supreme, diocesan, parochial, or monastic — the council organized the Church according to the principle of representation. The council “failed to see that the principle of representation, as a principle based on law, cannot have any application in the Church. The bishop does not represent his diocese and cannot act as its representative. He is at the head of his diocese, presiding over it and acting in the name of the Church constantly accompanied by the people’s consent and by their subsequent reception. The Church acts through the bishop by means of consent and reception.”143 For Afanasiev, the Council of Moscow only has the laity participating in so far as they represent the interests of certain groups. But “the sum of particular groups within the Church does not make the living body of the Church. God’s will disclosed itself in the Church rather than in the conglomeration of the representatives from particular groups.”144 Thus, However paradoxical this is, according to the design of the Moscow council, the people of God—laos tou Theou— do not have a part in the governance. Calling the lay people as co-administrators with the bishop is not equivalent to the participation of God’s people in the administration. Rather, what this accomplishes is nothing but creating public servants and ecclesiastical institutions. The majority of these institutions were newly established by the Moscow council but

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

177

some were transplanted from the Synodal period, naturally with corresponding changes. There is no substantial difference between the consistory and the diocesan council—both the former and the latter are legal institutions—while there is a difference in the scope of privileges. The individuals elected by lay people share the governance in the Russian Church with the parish priest, the diocesan bishop, and the Holy Synod.145 When all is said and done, the council puts two types of authority in competition with one another: the juridical authority of the representatives and the charismatic authority of the bishop. But In the Church, how can the common election of lay representatives endow them with the ministry of governance and the grace for this ministry? The indirect election of the diocesan council and of the central institutions cannot guarantee that what happens is an ecclesial act, because election cannot bestow any charismatic gifts.146 The introduction of a democratic legitimacy alongside the charismatic legitimacy finally leads to a secularization of the Church: Surely the Moscow council did not deny the bishops their charismatic gifts of administration. However, having set the laity whom general opinion views as non-consecrated on the same plane with the bishops, the council thereby recognized that the charismatic gifts are to a certain extent unnecessary for governing the Church. In any case, those governing in the charismatic organism of the Church are deprived of grace. They are laicized in the negative sense of the word. This is the dead end to which law has led ecclesial thinking.147 Afanasiev’s criticism does not mean that he denies the royal ministry of every baptized person. Rather he is reflecting on a certain conception of the manner in which this ministry is exercised—not by the intermediary of representatives but under the form of testimony. Only the bishop possesses the charism of administration; in this domain the people only possess the charism of testimony or witness. But the Council of Moscow leaves no room for the charismatic ministry of witness. In fact

178

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

Ultimately it does not matter for the people of the Church whether the bishop rules by himself or with lay representatives. It does not matter because the people do not fulfill their ministry in the field of administration, the ministry to which God has called them—the ministry of witness. The people cannot pass this ministry onto their representatives, for grace cannot be transferred to someone else. These representatives cannot express the consent of the people or their reception of the bishop’s acts, for both consent and reception belong to all the people rather than to its representatives. In fact, the structure of the administration established by the Moscow council has no place either for the people’s consent or for ecclesial reception.148 But “if in church organization consent and reception by the people of the Church does not exist, the activity of laics in church administration does not exist either.”149 Afanasiev concludes, affirming that, by introducing the principle of representation into the Church, the Council of Moscow let itself be influenced by the democratic ideals of its times: However sublime and perfect the democratic principles which the Moscow council had introduced into church government, they have no place in the Church, for the Church is not a democracy but the people of God whom God himself has chosen and ordained for service. The activity of the people has nothing in common with elective or representative principles, but originates from charismatic gifts. The people of God cannot jointly govern with those who were endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and called to govern in the house of God.150 Afanasiev bases his judgment on a particular form of ecclesiology and a conception of the baptismal mystery that we cannot enter into here. In his criticism of the council, he rightly points out a certain continuity with the spirit of the synodal epoch and the influence of democratic ideals. It is true that the diocesan councils resemble the consistories—with the difference that their members are elected. It is also uncontestable that its historical context seems to have led the council to make the principle of elections something of an absolute with the risk of transforming the administrators

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

179

of the Church into representatives of sectional interests. Afanasiev attributes both symptoms to a juridical concept of the Church. The criticism of the law that Afanasiev formulates was also used in the precouncil debates, but in a very different sense. A minority within the Preconciliar Commission that favored equal voting power for the bishops and the other members of the future council criticized the majority for making a distinction between a deliberative vote and a consultative vote. Nikolai S. Suvorov had answered this objection by stating that the earthly Church could not be disassociated from the heavenly Church. The doctrine of the Body of Christ could not be detached from the temporal contingencies inherent in the rule of the Incarnation. Among these contingencies, according to Suvorov, was the fact that the fathers of the first councils had been influenced by Roman law, which clearly distinguished the different rights of participants in an assembly.151 We would be tempted to use the position of Professor Suvorov to balance Afanasiev’s criticism. If Afanasiev is justified in pointing out symptoms of a secularization of the Church, his opposing the charismatic principle and the democratic principle seems too rigid. In 1917, the Russian Church had to assume the inheritance of two centuries of forced secularization of its administration, the situation of a clergy divided into narrow castes, and a strong democratic pressure from within, which could have led to nothing less than a schism. Could the council ignore these historical facts in the name of an idealistic and, ultimately, disincarnate conception of the Church? The new procedures and institutions, beginning with those proposed by Metropolitan Sergius for decision making in the council, were not presented as panaceas but as temporary solutions for the needs of the times. Moreover, if the council recognized a need for democracy, it also preserved the charismatic principle by a certain number of guarantees— and, in particular, by three principles that were applied to the different levels of Church life: the confirmation of elections by the superiors,152 the presidency of councils and assemblies by the clergy,153 and the right of veto by the clergy.154 Finally, can we really speak of democracy here? It is a word the council never uses. Perhaps it would be more correct to speak of an articulation of the ensemble of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that leaves the final word to the charism of the hierarchy without, however, allowing this charism to be used in an isolated and autosufficient manner.

180

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

The Separation of the Spiritual and the Temporal (Alexander Schmemann)

Schmemann, in a brief but suggestive footnote on this subject,155 seems to share the reservations of Afanasiev concerning the Council of 1917–1918, but he concentrates his criticism on the danger of canonically separating the spiritual domain and the temporal domain in the Church. While he respects the “example of vitality” given by the council, Schmemann takes issue with its canonical aspect. In his mind, this is based on a conception of sobornost’ that relies on the principle of representation and, consequently, on a conflict of interests: From this point of view, the Russian Council of 1917–1918 still needs an ecclesiological evaluation. Without denying its positive significance at a tragic moment in the history of the Russian Church—a significance that consists, above all, in its example of vitality—the value of its canonical contribution should not be overestimated. Sobornost’ was understood by the Council as a complicated system of “representation” of the different orders within the Church; the most bothersome consequence of such a concept is the idea that, within the Church, the “interests” or the points of view of the bishops, the clergy, and the laity are opposed to one another.156 This conception of the Church as a sum of particular interests— which, for Schmemann, is the reason why the council separates the spiritual and the temporal—can, in fact, be found in the distribution of roles between the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. In Schmemann’s eyes this is contrary to the Christian principle of incarnation: “This leads to an ever more evident tendency to divide the Church into two spheres: one purely ‘spiritual’—the domain of dogma and morals, exclusively reserved to the clergy—the other the sphere of ‘government,’ of administration, etc., where the laity would have something of a leadership role. All that does not fit in with the doctrine of the Church–Body of Christ, which implies the incarnation of the spiritual and the spiritualization of the material in the indivisible mystery of the Church, of Christ in his Body.”157 The criticism of the separation between the temporal domain and the spiritual domain within the Church and the establishment of two corresponding types of decision-making bodies—mixed for temporal affairs,

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

181

clerical for spiritual affairs—would be perfectly justified if this separation were as iron-clad as Schmemann affirms it to be. If it were applied strictly, this division of work would effectively attack the very unity of the Church and its government. Schmemann is right in denouncing a danger and real temptation. But the fact is that the council, even though it invited certain competent lay people to participate in decisions that directly concerned their specialties, was careful not to erect this distinction between the temporal and the spiritual into a general principle, and when it did use it, it did not apply it strictly. The council never envisaged a spiritual sphere “exclusively reserved to the clergy” and an administrative sphere where the laity would have “something of a leadership role.” The council was far from using the distinction between the temporal and the spiritual as a universal principle. In reality, it only used it explicitly in reference to the supreme administration of the Church when it instituted the Supreme Council. On the parish level, as we have already seen, the council affirmed the authority of the rector over the ensemble of parish activities, even though it integrated the laity in the management of the parish. This union of the temporal and spiritual on the parish level was even wholeheartedly defended against the Soviet government, which sought, by all possible means, to restrict clerics to the domain of the purely spiritual so that lay people approved by the party158 might run the parish. It is true that, on the diocesan level, the diocesan council could include a majority of lay people (only two of the five members had to be priests) and the bishop did not preside over it. The president, however, was one of the priests. But the council in no way envisaged a distinction between a temporal domain confined to the diocesan council and a spiritual domain that depended on the bishop. On the contrary, affairs concerning “spreading and safeguarding the Orthodox faith”159 were also part of the diocesan council’s functions (and even the first one mentioned), and the statute not only gave the bishop the right of veto160 but required his explicit approval, in all cases and in all domains, both spiritual and temporal, of the decisions of the different institutions of diocesan administration.161 It was, therefore, only at the level of the supreme administration of the Church that there was a real application of the principle of distinction between the spiritual and temporal. But the Supreme Council of the Church—which was not an innovation in Orthodox practice162—does not seem to have been conceived as an

182

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

authority representing the interests of the laity. It was rather a “council” where certain lay persons who were competent in the fields of economy, finances, and law could participate in the decision making without, however, having a decisive voice. Let us remember that the six lay members of the council, even though they were equal in number to the five clerics and one monk, were still a minority,163 since the council also included, in addition to the patriarch-president, three bishops. Moreover, the distinction between the areas of competence of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council was far from being mutually exclusive. The temporal authority of the Supreme Council of the Church was limited to a role of administration and day-to-day management. For the more important temporal decisions, the Council of 1917–1918 envisaged joint sessions of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church164 where the bishops were a majority— even an absolute majority: thirteen bishops (with the patriarch), six clerics, and six lay people. Finally, let us remember that the Supreme Council of the Church could never be put in place. Only the archdiocese of Western Europe applied this principle to some extent—distinguishing the Committee of Bishops and the Archdiocesan Council (where all the bishops participated anyway). An Inadequate Conception of the Relationship between the Church and the State (John Meyendorff)

Unlike Afanasiev and Schmemann, John Meyendorff is more prudent and discerning in his specifically theological evaluation of the Council of 1917–1918 and its work: The Assembly . . . elected by indirect suffrage in the different dioceses, was the expression of the principal ecclesiological tendencies prevalent in the Russian Church at the end of the nineteenth century. According to these, the laity should have a share in the responsibilities for the affairs of the Church at all levels of its administrative apparatus along with the bishops and the clergy.165 Meyendorff ’s criticism is centered on the concept of the relations between the Church and the state that is implicit in the work of the council or, better, on the absence of a doctrine in this domain.

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

183

But what was lacking in most of the members of the council and in most of the Russians of that epoch, is a sufficiently clear doctrine concerning the Church and the new Russian State. During the brief rule of Kerensky, the Church’s desire for independence was very articulate in ecclesiastical milieus, but it did not have a positive doctrine on a State which would be independent from the Church.166 This absence of a doctrine concerning the new relationship between the Church and the state led the council to adopt positions according to circumstances. These positions showed that the Church, although it aspired to independence, did not have the intention of renouncing its privileged relation with the state or of separating itself from it. Thus it was that the leaders of the Church were able, first of all, to affirm their responsibility for the destinies of Russia by demanding that the Provisional Government give material support to Orthodoxy since it was the dominant religion in the new republic, by calling upon the army to continue the war with Germany, and, later, by solemnly denouncing the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk concluded by Lenin. These acts showed that the Church, at the beginning, had no idea of completely separating itself from the state and that this separation, which came about by force of circumstance, did not mean that the Church had any intention of refraining from judging the government’s positions. The Church had prepared and accomplished its internal reform, but its attitude toward the different phases of the Russian Revolution was determined ad hoc by the consciences of its leaders and especially by its head, Patriarch Tikhon.167 Meyendorff ’s criticism is more selective and historical than that of Afanasiev and Schmemann, but it is no less profound. Let us keep in mind that the question of Church-state relations was the principal motivating force of the conciliar process. The absorption of the Church by the state during the synodal regime seemed even more intolerable after the proclamation of the decree on religious tolerance on April 17, 1905, in so far as this decree exposed the Orthodox Church to the open competition of the Old Believers and other confessions. The inequality produced by the new legal situation of religious freedom was the principal motive for the reform championed by Metropolitan Antony (Vadkovsky) in his Memorandum to the Committee of Ministers. All the same, the preconciliar commissions, as well as the council itself, concentrated their attention mainly on

184

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

the internal reforms of the Church and did not engage in any meaningful reflection on its relationship with the state. Although the Church aspired to be free of state control, it nonetheless claimed for itself not only protection but privileged treatment—certainly more because of the ideal of a “symphony of powers”168 than because of habits acquired under the synodal regime. At the same time, it is certain that the legal situation created by the abdication of the tsar and the installation of a violently anticlerical and atheistic government put the Russian Church in a context it never would have been able to imagine several years earlier nor anticipate. A Council Marked by a Spiritual Crisis but Opening up the Future (Georges Florovsky)

The Council of 1917–1918, Marked by a Spiritual Crisis, Cannot Be an End in Itself Georges Florovsky shows the same reserve as the other theologians about the Council of 1917–1918 but for a spiritual reason. For him, the crisis that Russia was experiencing at that time was, above all, a spiritual crisis— which was not propitious for a calm reflection, anchored in prayer, asceticism, and the traditions of the fathers. Florovsky points out that, from the very beginning of the precouncil process in 1905, the bishops proposed reforming the Church solely through organizational changes, without seeking to regenerate it from within. It is certain that the attention was centered on organizational reforms. Very few recognized the need for a spiritual revival; very few recognized that the restoration of peace and interior order could not be obtained through the political action of the Church, but only through spiritual and ascetical exploits (podvig). The only real solution was to be found in the growth and re-birth of asceticism. The “ascetical idea,” however, could not be an abstract idea, for monasticism itself certainly needed to be revivified.169 This spiritual crisis was intensified by the experience of war. This was the epoch when Russian religious thought—symbolized by the Vladimir Solovyov Philosophical and Religious Society, which was founded in 1907

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

185

and which included such intellectuals as Sergius Bulgakov and Nicholas Berdyaev (both of whom were Marxists for a time) or Pavel Florensky and Evgeny Trubetskoy (who took refuge in German romantic idealism)—was as cut off from the Christian people as it was from the Church’s hierarchy.170 On the other hand, during these times of war and democratic aspirations, the people did not have the “ascetical moderation” that the Church could have provided: Dangerous mystical forces were accumulating in the subconscious. The hypnotic empoisoning of the masses during this period was producing an increasing restlessness, a visceral anxiety accompanied by sinister premonitions, superstitions and fanaticism, evil spells and even full-blown illusions. The somber figure of Rasputin was the most characteristic symbol and symptom of this sinister spiritual chaos. The Revolution enabled this malevolent and poisonous worm to erupt and inundate this particular historical moment.171 In such a context of spiritual crisis, the Church and the council let themselves be swamped by a movement that they could not control and that prevented them from achieving a “creative historical synthesis.” The same crisis was evident in the life of the Church, in the dioceses and the general assemblies, as well as in public and private reunions. The elements were erupting. The All-Russian Council felt the effects of all this when the heritage of a cumbersome past found its expression. It also erupted and nothing could stop it, nor calm it or transform its work into the wisdom of an historically creative synthesis. It was too late. The process went on and will continue to go on even though it escapes the competencies of an historian.172 For Florovsky the Council of 1917–1918 could not be an end in itself. Moreover subsequent schisms demonstrated a posteriori that the council had not really answered the questions that were put to it. One thing is clear: the All-Russian Council of 1917–1918 did not represent a final solution. It was only the beginning of a long, dangerous, and obscure journey. There were too many contradictions in this council, too much indecision. The revolt of the “Living Church” and the ensuing history of renovations and schisms demonstrate how far the council was from having been able to resolve the problems.173

186

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

The End of the Era of Peter the Great and the “Encounter with the Future” In spite of his many reservations about the Council of 1917–1918, Florovsky—unlike Afanasiev who saw a continuity with the synodal period— credited it with putting an end to the era of Peter the Great: “There is only one sense in which it could be said that the Council represented a terminus and a conclusion: the Petrine era of the Russian Church came to an end; the patriarchate was restored.”174 According to Florovsky, another merit of the council was not to have attempted to reproduce the past. The patriarchate in particular “was created rather than restored.” In general, the council tried to resolve the problems of its epoch by basing itself on original thought: “What was beginning was a courageous encounter with the future.”175 Whereas Afanasiev, Schmemann, and Meyendorff tend to accentuate the continuity between the council and the synodal era, Florovsky is one of the rare authors who sees the council as an historical turning point. Moreover, he is particularly sensitive (and rightly so) to the spiritual crisis that Russia was experiencing on the eve of the revolution. This crisis, manifested by a craze for a mystical syncretism, the esoteric, and even the occult, is in many ways indicative of the spiritual culture of this period.176 To some extent, it can be interpreted as an escape on the part of the intelligentsia in order to avoid the hard work of bringing about the indispensable political and social reforms. But through the council, the Russian Church, on the contrary, gave proof of its refusal to take flight by courageously engaging itself in a pragmatic work of reformation that touched upon all aspects of Church life. On the other hand, it is doubtlessly true that simple structural reforms, “ecclesiastical politics,” were not enough. Yet, at the same time, can the council be criticized for taking the “exterior” organizational and pastoral measures that it had the authority to take? It was precisely through such measures that the conditions for a “regeneration” of the Church could be put in place.

C Is the Council of 1917–1918 a hapax, an absolutely singular occurrence in the history of the Russian Church? Its exceptional context makes an histori-

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

187

cal evaluation more delicate. Nonetheless, we can try to resume the principal conclusions of our presentation, especially in what concerns the origins of the council, the manner in which it unfolded, and its final result. The causes of the convocation of the council were multiple and are difficult to identify with precision due to the intermingling of initiatives on the part of the Church and of the state, the mixture of a sense of crisis and a desire for reform, and the pressure of diffuse and ambiguous external factors. It is generally thought that the council was convoked to remedy a crisis in a Church as moribund as it was influential, a Church symbolized by Rasputin.177 To be sure, as Florovsky points out, Russian society, at the beginning of the century, was incontestably going through a serious spiritual crisis. But, at the same time, the situation of the Russian Church on the eve of the council was certainly at a sort of peak. Far from being a decrepit institution, the Church was experiencing a renaissance in all areas. The council is the fruit of this renewal. The most painful question for the Russian Church was that of its relationship with the state. The synodal period had subjected the Church to a juridical and institutional servitude. This malaise was even more acute after the 1905 decree of tolerance put the Orthodox Church in a situation of inferiority with respect to other confessions, notably the Old Believers. Metropolitan Antony used the decree of tolerance as a pretext when, in 1905, he called for a reform of the Church. The question of the relations between the Church and the state— the reestablishment of the patriarchate being only one aspect—was one of the principal reasons for the reform. It is commonly believed that the council was convoked in spite of the revolution. In reality, the relations between the council and the revolution are more complex. It is certain that the conquest of power by the Bolsheviks sabotaged much of the work of the council. But the convocation of the council itself was only possible because the political conditions were conducive, because the tsar had abdicated, and, lastly, because the Provisional Government itself backed the project (it was, of course, supported by an internal desire of reform both on the part of the faithful and the hierarchy). The political changes were thus factors that led to the convocation of the council as well as obstacles in the course of its work.

188

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

The first fruit of the council, even before it made any decisions, was the renewal of the conciliar institution. This institution was characterized by three especially remarkable traits. First, the most original aspect of the council was the fact that it was mixed and had a method of procedure that gave a deliberative vote to all its members but reserved for the bishops, as a conference, a right of veto over decisions made by the general assembly. Such a procedure, which had no pretense of ecclesiological perfection (its principal promoter himself, Archbishop Sergius, recognized this), at least permitted a provisional response to the isolation of the Russian clergy and to pressures for democracy. Second, it is particularly striking that the council did not want to exclude a priori any of the questions, even the most innovative—the role of the laity, the place of women, the remarriage of divorced priests, and so on. It faced up to all these questions with a remarkable courage and vitality. But, far from making spectacular reforms, the council treated these new questions with moderation (one of the advantages of the study of the decrees is to show this) and with a prudence that the “Living Church” will later denounce in its Council of 1923. Finally, it should be noted that the council did not seek models in the presynodal period. Far from idealizing and romanticizing the Muscovite era, it takes a fresh look at each one of the questions it faced with constant references to the teachings of the fathers and of the councils, which it tries to adapt to contemporary society. Its most important decision, the reestablishment—or rather the “re-creation”—of the patriarchate is the prime example of this methodological principle. It is certainly regretful that the council was unable to finish the examination of all the reports prepared by the different commissions. Yet it can still be said that, through the reflection that took place and that synthesized, even though imperfectly, twelve years of preparation, the essential was accomplished. It is still difficult to arrive at an objective appreciation of the decisions of the council that were never put into practice due to political circumstances and were never really received by the Church as a whole. All the same we will make three tentative conclusions. What history will certainly remember from this council is the restoration of the patriarchate. But we should not deceive ourselves about the significance of this restoration. First of all, the council was not con-

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

189

vened for this purpose: it was only progressively, within a council with “conciliarist” tendencies, that a majority finally emerged in favor of the patriarchate. Moreover, this restoration would not have taken place so quickly were it not for the pressure of an outside threat that made a visible authority necessary. Finally, as Florovsky observes, the patriarchate was not so much restored as “created” again. The introduction of the principle of conciliarity at all levels of Church life is one of the most distinctive features of the council. Lay participation is established not only in the local council and in the assemblies (particularly those for the election of a patriarch or bishop) but also, through the councils, in all the different degrees of Church administration. It is certain that this application of the conciliar principle often led to an excessively democratic vision of the Church—something which Afanasiev criticized—and to a strict separation of the spiritual and temporal domains—something that Schmemann denounced—that would favor the Soviet regime by allowing it to set up administrators who would follow government orders. But, once again, could the Russian Church do otherwise given its heritage of several centuries of secular administration and the threat of schism? The conception of Church-state relations appears as one of the main weaknesses of the council. Although the convocation of the council was intended to address this problem, the preconciliar deliberations, focused as they were on the internal reformation of the institutions of the Church, did not dwell over-much on the Church-state problem. If the Church was less surprised than the state by the revolution, the council did not treat of the problem in depth—as John Meyendorff points out. The Church took a defensive stance or—while clamoring for independence—seemed rather to resist the idea of separating the Church from a state that had supported it for so many years. The Council of 1917–1918 never finished. Since it was interrupted by the revolution, it could not bring to term all the reflection that had been going on since 1905 and that had mobilized all the forces within the Church. It would be chimerical to think of the Soviet era as a mere parenthesis and imagine that the decisions of the council could be applied today, to expect that the reports that were left in suspense could be reopened such as they are. It is always a great temptation for the Church, in Russia and elsewhere, and especially today, to refer to a presumed “golden age” as an

190

A P P L I C AT I O N A N D R E C E P T I O N O F T H E D E C R E E S

immediate goal and to seek in it the fervor of an idealized identity. But history and identity are inseparable. Eighty-four years of history, of which seventy-three were under the Soviet regime, are now part of the identity of the Russian Church. If the questions of 1917 remain intact and the reflection on these questions is still profitable, the solutions of the past should be read in a new context. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) recently pointed this out: The questions posed by the Council of 1917–1918 still await an answer; they have not lost their actuality. It seems to me that we cannot really make any progress in the different aspects of Church life unless we recover the heritage of this council and examine its decisions in the context of the situation today—and examine the current situation in the light of the council’s decisions.178 This is why the Council of 1917–1918 still interests us: it reminds us that the Church, in every epoch, even the most troubled, can only be built up again by posing apparently ancient questions in order to find new answers and thus pour an ever-new wine into ever-new wineskins, the wine of its own marriage feast.

APPENDIX I The Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917–1918

Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoy Tserkvi. Sobranie opredelenii i postanovlenii [The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia. Definitions and Decrees] (Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918), in four issues as an appendix to the second book of the Acts (Prilozhenie k “Deianiiam” vtoroe: Vypusk perviy, 33 pages; Vypusk vtoroy, 29 pages; Vypusk tretiy, 67 pages; Vypusk cetvertiy, 53 pages). Republished as Sobranie opredeleniy i postanovleniy Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Vypuski 1– 4 [Collection of the Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia 1917–1918: Issues 1– 4] (Moscow: Izdanie Novospasskogo Monastyria, 1994). The presentation is based on the original edition. Unless there are indications to the contrary, the notes are of the translator. A table of contents (absent from the original edition) can be found on pages vii –x of this volume.

VOLUMES 1–4

191

V I

I. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Basic Principles of the Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church of Russia November 4, 1917

1.

2. 3. 4.

In the Orthodox Church of Russia,1 the supreme power—legislative, administrative, judicial, and supervisory—belongs to the Local Council, which is convoked periodically, at determined times, and which is composed of bishops, clerics, and laity. The Patriarchate is restored and the Patriarch presides over the government of the Church. The Patriarch is the first among bishops who are his equals. The Patriarch, together with the institutions of ecclesial governance, is accountable before the Council.

II. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia December 8, 1917

1.

192

The Patriarch of the Church of Russia is its First Hierarch, and has the title of “The Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.”

VO L U M E I

2.

193

The Patriarch (a) exercises care for the internal and external welfare of the Church of Russia; when it is necessary, he makes proposals to the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church with regards to the measures that need to be taken; he represents the Church before the civil authorities; (b) convokes the Councils of the Church, in accordance with their statutes, and presides over them; (c) presides over the Holy Synod, the Supreme Council of the Church, and its joint sessions; (d) gives a report to the Council on the state of the Church of Russia during the period between councils; (e) maintains correspondence with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches with regards to the questions of ecclesiastical life in fulfillment of the decrees of the All-Russian Church Council or those of the Holy Synod, as well as in his own name; (f ) has the duty of intercession before the civil authorities; (g) has the right to remit or shorten the terms of the discipline and warnings within the limits laid down by the Council; (h) addresses the entire Russian Church with epistles of instruction and with pastoral exhortations; (i) imparts a special blessing to ecclesiastical and civil personalities in recognition of their activity that is beneficial for the good of the Church; (j) ensures that bishops are appointed to dioceses in due time; (k) ensures for a timely preparation and consecration of the holy myron/ chrism2 for the needs of the Church of Russia; Note: The Metropolitan of Kiev retains his ancient right to consecrate the holy chrism. (l) authorizes leaves of absences for the hierarchs from their dioceses [for travels] within the country or abroad for the period which is more than 14 days and less than a month; (m) gives hierarchs brotherly advice concerning their personal life, as well as concerning their exercise of their archpastoral duty; if they do not heed his advice, he refers their case to the Holy Synod; (n) accepts for his review the cases of personal misunderstandings between hierarchs when they voluntarily request his mediation without a formal judicial process; in such cases, the decisions of the Patriarch are binding for both parties; (o) has the right to visit all the dioceses of the Church of Russia when circumstances require such a visit (canon 34 of the Apostles;3 canon 9 of the Council of Antioch4);

194

APPENDIX I

(p) receives complaints against hierarchs, and determines what is to be done; (q) exercises the supreme authoritative supervision over the offices of central administration under the auspices of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, overseeing the proper conduct of their affairs and the fulfillment of the resolutions of the Synod and the Supreme Council. 3. The name of the Patriarch (instead of that of the Holy Synod) is proclaimed during the liturgical services in all the churches of the Church of Russia. 4. The clergy of the army and the navy, with its protopresbyter, is subject to the care of the Patriarch as their supreme archpastor. The protopresbyter administers the clergy who have been entrusted to him in accordance with the special statutes to that effect and annually presents a report to the Patriarch regarding the state of clergy, entrusted to him, during the year that was past, and, through the intermediary of the Patriarch, has recourse to the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church in all matters. 5. The Patriarch is the diocesan bishop of the patriarchal province.5 6. The patriarchal province embraces the city of Moscow and the whole diocese of Moscow as well as the stavropegial monasteries of the Church of Russia. To provide a relief to the Patriarch in his service to the whole Church, the patriarchal province is administrated, according to the directives of the Patriarch, by the patriarchal vicar who has the title of Archbishop of Kolomna and Mozhaisk. 7. The Great Cathedral of the Dormition and the other cathedrals, churches, and monasteries of the Kremlin, the Lavra of the Trinity-Saint Sergius, the stavropegial monasteries, as well as all the patriarchal institutions are directly administered by the Patriarch himself. 8. If the Patriarch fails to fulfill his duties, depending on the nature of this transgression, the three senior members of the Holy Synod or the hierarchs who are members of the Supreme Council of the Church give the Patriarch a fraternal warning; if this does not produce results, they give him a second warning; if this second warning goes unheeded, they will take the appropriate measures such as indicated in article 10. 9. The complaints against the Patriarch are presented to the Holy Synod through the hierarch who is senior among the members of the Synod. 10. In the case of the transgression by the Patriarch of the rights and duties of his ministry, a joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church resolves whether the Patriarch should be held accountable for his actions. However, the commitment of the Patriarch for the judgment and judgment itself are carried out by the All-Russian Council of Bishops, to which, if possible, other Patriarchs and primates of autocephalous Churches are invited. The decision to commit the Patriarch for the judgment and the

VO L U M E I

195

sentence of conviction require a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes of those present. 11. If the Patriarch desires to resign due to illness or any other cause, he should present his request to the Holy Synod. The Synod passes on this request to a joint session of the Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, which decides the matter. 12. If the Patriarch has died, is on the leave of absence, or under judgment, his place in the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church will be occupied by the most senior hierarch among the members of the Synod, while the Patriarch’s rights and duties as a diocesan hierarch are assumed by the Archbishop of Kolomna and Mozhaisk. 13. The Patriarchal Throne is the sole heir of the Patriarch’s property after his death.

III. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church December 7, 1917

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

The governance of ecclesial affairs belongs to the Patriarch of all Russia together with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. The Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church answer to the Local Council of All Russia and give the Council a report on their activities during the period between councils. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. In case of his illness or absence, it is the most senior hierarch of the members of the Synod who presides. The Holy Synod is composed of the President, who is the Patriarch, and twelve members: the Metropolitan of Kiev as a permanent member, six hierarchs elected for three years by the Local Council of All Russia, and five hierarchs who rotate annually. For the convocation of diocesan bishops to participate in the Holy Synod, all the dioceses of the Orthodox Church of Russia are divided into the following five groups: (1) North-West: the dioceses of Arkhangelsk, Finland, Grodno, Lithuania, Minsk, Mogilev, Novgorod, Olonets, Petrograd,

196

APPENDIX I

Polotsk, Pskov, Riga, Vologda, and Warsaw; (2) South-West: the dioceses of Chelm, Chernigov, Don, Ekaterinoslav, Kharkov, Kherson, Kishinev, Kursk, Podolsk, Poltava, Taurida, Volhynia, and Voronezh; (3) Central: the dioceses of Kaluga, Kostroma, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Oryol, Penza, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver, Tula, Vladimir, and Yaroslavl; (4) East: the dioceses of Astrakhan, Kazan, Orenburg, Perm, Samarkand, Saratov, Simbirsk, Stavropol, Sukhumi, Tiflis, Ufa, Vladikavkaz, and Vyatka; (5) Siberia: the dioceses of Blagoveshchensk, Irkutsk, Omsk, Tobolsk, Tomsk, Turkestan, Vladivostok, Yakutsk, Yekaterinburg, Yeniseisk, Zabaikalye, North America, and the missions in Japan, China, and Urmia. 6. A bishop cannot be summoned by rotation to participate in the Holy Synod unless he has administered his diocese for at least two years. When the Holy Synod summons bishops by rotation, it should be guided by the general rule that requires the representation from each of the groups of dioceses mentioned above. The hierarchs of the missions in Japan, China, and Urmia are summoned for six months. 7. The Supreme Council of the Church is composed of the Patriarch as its President and fifteen members: three hierarchs— members the Holy Synod, elected by the Synod itself — one monk living in a monastery, five clerics, and six lay people, all elected by the All-Russian Local Council. Note: The members of the Supreme Council of the Church representing the clergy can be chosen from either priests, deacons, or psaltists. 8. The members of the Supreme Council of the Church, representing clergy, monastics, and laity, are elected for the period between two councils (three years) by the Local Council of All Russia and can be chosen either from among the participants of the Council or from those who did not participate in the Council, if they agreed to stand for election. Note: The members of the Supreme Council of the Church can be reelected for another term. 9. When the Local Council elects members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church, it also elects an equal number of alternates. 10. Any diocesan bishop, as well as the Protopresbyter of the army and navy chaplaincy, can be present at the sessions of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church in an advisory capacity when the case under review concerns their diocese or department, unless the case was initiated because of a complaint against an action or decision of this bishop or Protopresbyter. Note: This right is extended to the person who substitutes for the diocesan hierarch if the hierarch himself is unable to be present in person at a meeting of the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church.

VO L U M E I

197

11. The members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church have the right to leaves of absences that together should not exceed three months per year. Note: This limitation does not apply to the Metropolitan of Kiev. 12. The members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church who have not attended the meetings of the Synod or the Council for a period of more than one month without a justifiable reason are considered as having abdicated their posts in these institutions. 13. In the case when it is impossible for a member who was elected to the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church to participate in their sessions or in the case when a member leaves either of these institutions before the end of his term, the alternate is summoned to the Synod or the Council, in the order of the majority of votes received at the Local Council. The alternate then replaces the former member until the expiration of the latter’s term. 14. The sessions of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, whether held separately or as a joint session, are considered valid when, except the Chairman, at least a half of the members of each body is present. 15. The decisions of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are passed by the consensus of all the members who take part in the session, or by majority vote. If the number of votes is equal, the vote of the Chairman will be decisive. 16. No one who participates in a session of the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church can abstain from voting. 17. Any member of the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church, if he disagrees with the decision that was passed, may present his special opinion, which he must make known, with the reasons behind it, in the course of the same session. He should submit his opinion in a written form within three days after the session, not counting the day of the session itself. These special opinions are then attached to the case but do not prevent the decision from taking effect. 18. Matters that require the attention of the Holy Synod or the Supreme Council of the Church or a joint session of both are entered into the agenda by the direction or by the initiative of the Patriarch. Each member of the Synod and Council also has the essential right to enter questions for the review of these bodies, but these requests should be submitted in a written form through the mediation of the Patriarch. 19. The Patriarch does not have the right by his authority to remove from the agenda any matter submitted to these two institutions, nor does he have the right to prevent the resolution of the case from being passed or to impede the fulfillment of these resolutions.

198

APPENDIX I

20. In the case where the Patriarch might judge that the resolutions that were passed do not contribute to the benefit or good of the Church, he has the right of veto,6 which must be made known by the Patriarch in the course of the same session and presented in a written form within three days after the passing of the resolution. After that, the matter should be reexamined by the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, or, if necessary, by a joint session of both, within seven days after the submission of the veto. Moreover, all those who took part in adapting the first resolution must also be present at this second session. If, however, the Patriarch will not find it possible to agree with the new resolution, then its action is either suspended or it is submitted to the All-Russian Local Council for a final resolution, or the Patriarch makes his own decision in this case and brings it to action. The decision that has been taken in this way shall be added to the agenda of the nearest Council, either a regular or an extraordinary, which will make a final resolution in this matter. Note: The aforementioned right of veto belongs exclusively to the Patriarch. 21. When the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church examine a matter that involves a complaint against the actions of the Chairman or of one of the members of these bodies, the person of interest may be present during the report on the case and give explanations, but when the decision is taken, he must leave the hall where the session takes place. When the complaint concerns the Chairman, he should turn over the presidency to the senior hierarch. 22. All the minutes and decrees of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are first signed by the President, and, after him, by all the members who were present at the session, even if some of them did not agree with the resolution that has been taken, and have expressed their disagreement. The statement on the resolution of the case should be signed by all those who were present at the session. 23. Once they have been signed, the decrees of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church enter into effect and are not subject to review, unless new information has been presented that alters the substance of the case. 24. The President of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church has supreme supervision of the proper conduct of affairs at the chanceries of the Synod and the Council and in their related departments, as well as the responsibility for assuring that the decisions that have been taken are carried out in a timely and precise manner. 25. The Patriarch, together with the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, establishes the principles for the internal organization of the

VO L U M E I

199

chanceries of these institutions and for their personnel. However, no member of the Synod or of the Council can be appointed the chairs of the departments of the Synod and the Council. 26. The Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, respectively, share among their members the responsibility for supervising the areas of matters submitted for the resolution in these institutions. Note: The members of the Holy Synod and Supreme Council of the Church who have responsibility for supervising a specific area of affairs will ensure the accuracy and the timely manner of the reports [presented to the Synod and the Council].

IV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Scope of Authority of the Institutions of the Supreme Administration of the Church A The scope of the authority of the Holy Synod The authority of the Holy Synod extends to matters of a hierarchical and pastoral nature that especially concern the inner life of the Church. These include: I. The teaching of the faith (1) Supreme oversight and care for the inviolable preservation of the dogmas of the faith, and their correct interpretation according to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church; (2) the safeguarding of the text and of the composition (the canon) of the books of Holy Scripture and the supervision for establishing a text of these books, which is commonly accepted in the Church, and for the translations of this text; (3) the authorization to publish books with the blessing of the Holy Synod, such as the books of Holy Scripture, with or without commentaries, books of dogmatic or moral theology, and the collections of ecclesiastical canons; (4) the approval, as far as the doctrinal content is concerned, of manuals and textbooks pertaining to the teaching of catechesis and theological disciplines; (5) communications with other autocephalous Churches through the intermediary of the Patriarch; (6) missionary affairs.

200

APPENDIX I

II. The liturgy (1) The safeguarding of the text of liturgical books, the supervision over its revision and translation, and, with the approval of the Council of the Church [of Russia], the blessing to publish specific divine offices, rites, and prayers that were newly composed, as well as to reprint the already existing ones; (2) matters concerning the order of the divine services. III. Ecclesiastical education General supervision over the state of religious education in ecclesiastical schools. IV. Ecclesiastical government and discipline (1)

The examination of the reports on the state of the dioceses, in the parts pertaining to the scope of the authority [of the Synod]; (2) the confirmation of the bishops elected for the dioceses, the appointment of bishops in necessary cases, and their retirement; (3) the leaves of absence for bishops from their diocese for a period of longer than one month or for travel abroad; (4) the directions to summon bishops to participate in the Holy Synod according to the procedural regulations established for this; (5) the summoning of the clergy for their turns in serving the divine liturgy and preaching the Word of God; (6) the confirmation and dismissal of the Protopresbyter for the army and navy chaplains; (7) the appointment of superiors and employees in the departments of the Holy Synod; the confirmation and, in exceptional cases, the appointment of clergy as superiors of diocesan institutions; the confirmation and, in exceptional cases, the appointment of abbots and abbesses of monasteries (including stavropegial monasteries); (8) the foundation of new monasteries, the general administration and oversight of the monasteries and the monastics, as well as of the scholarly and educational institutions for monastics; (9) the matters pertaining to the Edinoverie; (10) the resolution of complications concerning marriages and funerals; (11) the confirmation of the sentence of deposition from the clerical rank; (12) the cases pertaining to ecclesiastical awards of the clergy.

VO L U M E I

201

B The scope of authority of the Supreme Council of the Church Social-ecclesiastical matters, principally concerning the external aspect of the life of the Church, belong to the authority of the Supreme Council of the Church. These are: I. Church administration: (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

The establishment of and making of changes in the personnel of the central, regional, and diocesan institutions of ecclesiastical administration and ecclesiastical courts; the appointment of nonclerical superiors and employees of the departments of the Supreme Council of the Church, and the confirmation of the superiors of diocesan institutions—with the exception of clergy who are confirmed by the Holy Synod; authorization for public fund-raising; delegation and authorization to travel abroad for those who are entrusted with ecclesial commissions or scholarly projects, and provision for remuneration for such persons; the establishment of societies, committees, and museums of church archeology, ratification of their statutes, the care for the preservation of ancient ecclesiastical artefacts, and for the development of ecclesiastical art.

II. The Management of the Church: The matters concerning: (1) the administration and disposal of the property and capital that belongs to the Church as a whole; (2) the construction and repair of churches and other buildings belonging to churches or clergy in the case where a transfer of general church funds is involved; (3) the acceptance, according to the established rules, of donations, and properties acquired through inheritance or purchase by churches, monasteries, parishes, episcopal households, and other church institutions, and the securing of their possession by the Church, church institutions, and societies; (4) the alienation of church property;

202

(5) (6) (7) (8)

APPENDIX I

the appointment of salaries, pensions, and stipends to the clergy and to persons who work in ecclesiastical institutions; the charitable activity and charitable societies that work in concert with the Church; collections for the general church needs; all types of economic and financial matters (insurance, the provision of wax, liturgical wine, oil, and of other articles for ecclesiastical use).

III. Schools and education: Where applicable, the affairs concerning Theological Academies, of the Pedagogical Committee, of the Council on Schools, of the Council on Publications, the Synodal Press and Synodal Archive; IV. Inspection and control: (1) (2) (3)

The review of the reports on the state of the dioceses within the limits of its authority; the inspection of regional and diocesan institutions; the inspection of the budgetary accounts according to a list of income and expenditure for those sums that came from the general church fund, and for those sums which were received from the government.

V. Legal matters: (1) (2)

(3)

The compilation of the conclusions concerning the affairs of ecclesial government that are linked to juridical questions; the protection of the interests of church institutions and their representation in court and at other state and public institutions, where by the law the attorneys are allowed to present either written or oral depositions; the participation in commitees, as well as other commissions customarily entrusted to legal representatives.

C Affairs subject to the authority of a joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church The joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church has authority in matters that concern the domains of both institutions or are of special importance, such as:

VO L U M E I

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(6) (7)

(8) (9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13) (14)

203

matters that concern the protection of the rights and privileges of the Orthodox Church of Russia; matters related to the execution of conciliar decrees concerning the creation of new dioceses; matters related to the opening of parishes that require the payment from the general funds of the Church; matters related to the opening of new ecclesiastical schools; the review of proposed new statutes of theological academies and other ecclesiastical schools, as well as partial amendments to the existing statutes, and the settling of disputes occurring at the application of the articles of these statutes; the creation of new chairs in theological academies; the confirmation of rectors, vice-rectors, professors, and instructors of theological academies, as well as the lay people appointed superiors at the ecclesiastical schools; the awarding of the Prize in Honor of St. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow; the matters of the Pedagogical Committee, of the Council on Schools, of the Council on Publications, of the Management Department, of the Audit Department, of the Synodal Press and Archives, and other central institutions of the Church that were formerly subject to review and approbation by the Holy Synod; the examination and approbation of long-term plans for Church publications presented by the Council on Publications and by other Church institutions with an equal status with the Council; the care for the strictly Orthodox and [genuinely] artistic direction in the development of ecclesiastical art, namely, architecture, iconography, music, and applied arts; the compilation of a provisory list of candidates to the positions of superiors in the central institutions of the Orthodox Church of Russia such as: the Chancery of the Holy Synod, the Chancery of the Supreme Council of the Church, the Pedagogical Committee, the Council on Schools, the Council on Publications, the Synodal Press and Archives, as well as the Management Department, the Department of Audits, the Insurance Division, the Committee on Candle-making, and other central institutions concerned with economical and financial matters; the appointment of clerics as superiors at the departments of the Supreme Council of the Church; the review of the reports of the activity of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, the compiling of the report on the activity

204

APPENDIX I

of the joint session of these bodies, the review of the reports of the Management Department relative to the management of Church property, and its audit during the period between the Councils, in view of their presentation at the next Local Council; (15) matters relative to the approval of the budget of income and expenditures for each of the institutions of the Church; (16) the discussion of the events to take place in preparation for the forthcoming Local Council; (17) any matter that the Patriarch, the Holy Synod, or the Supreme Council of the Church deem necessary to be put forth at a joint session due to its importance or in order to give more authority to the resolution of the Church. D The Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, each separately or in their joint session, according to the scope of the authority, resolve all the ambiguities and questions that stem from deficiencies or opacities in the laws and the conciliar decrees.

V. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Diocesan Administration February 1(14), 7 (20), 9 (22), 1918

Chapter 1 On the Diocese, Its Structure, and Its Institutions 1. 2. 3.

A diocese is a part7 of the Orthodox Church of Russia that is canonically administered by a diocesan bishop. The boundaries of a diocese are defined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Each diocese has its own administrative and judicial structures, which function according to the Regulations that have been established for them.

VO L U M E I

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

205

The foundations of the administrative and judicial authority of a diocese are: (a) Holy Scripture; (b) the dogmas of the Orthodox faith; (c) the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils, and the Holy Fathers; and (d) the existing ecclesiastical laws and the state laws that do not contradict the foundations of ecclesial government. In each diocese, the diocesan council is under the direct authority of the diocesan bishop. For its government, the diocese is divided into deaneries under the authority of deans who act in concordance with the councils that are constituted under them. Each deanery consists of several parishes that are constituted on the basis of the parish statutes. With a view to affirming and propagating the Orthodox faith and to combating doctrines opposed to it, each diocese sets up Missions, Brotherhoods, and Societies, which operate in accordance with their own Statutes and Regulations under the immediate jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. The ecclesiastical educational institutions, church schools, and other diocesan educational institutions (pastoral schools, schools and courses for psaltists and singers, and others), which are established in the diocese and function on the basis of their own rules and statutes, are under the immediate jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. Each diocese has a Center of Diocesan Aid for the poor among the clergy, as well as nursing homes, orphanages, and other charitable establishments, which all function on the basis of their own rules and statutes and also are under the immediate jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. It is permissible for the clergy of the diocese to set up, under the immediate jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, the funds for retirement, loans, and funerals, and other mutual assistance organizations. These will be established on the basis of the Statutes confirmed by the respective ecclesiastical authority. The diocese should have candle factories and other ventures for ecclesiastical needs. Note: The right to open candle factories and other ventures for ecclesiastical needs belongs exclusively to the diocesan authority. Each diocese establishes diocesan societies of church archeology, church history, and of sacred music, as well as diocesan museums, which all function in accordance with their own Statutes. Each diocese establishes a Diocesan Audit Committee, which functions on the basis of a special Statute, and is elected by the Diocesan Assembly.

206

APPENDIX I

Chapter 2 The Diocesan Bishop 15. The diocesan bishop, in accordance with the succession of his power from the holy Apostles, is the presider of a local Church who governs the diocese with the conciliar8 collaboration of its clergy and laity. 16. The election of the diocesan bishop takes place as follows. When the diocesan see becomes vacant and before it has been filled, the bishops of a District— or, if there is no District established, the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia—compile the list of candidates, which also includes the candidates presented by the diocese, after their canonical approval. After the list of candidates is made public in the diocese, the bishops of the district or the bishops appointed by the Holy Synod for the election of this diocesan bishop, the clergy, and laity of the diocese elect the candidate in accordance with special Regulations, casting their votes for all candidates on the list. The candidate who has received no less than two-thirds of the votes is considered to have been elected, and is presented for the confirmation by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If in this round of voting none of the candidates received the required majority of votes, the new round of voting takes place when the assembly votes for each of the candidates, who were on the list for the first round, separately. The candidates who receive no less than half of the votes of the assembly are presented to the supreme ecclesiastical authority for confirmation. Note 1. In exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, for the good of the Church, the supreme ecclesiastical authority is allowed to appoint and to transfer bishops. Note 2. In the dioceses where the work of mission must be greatly expanded and where a significant number of foreign population resides, the diocesan bishops must be elected out of those candidates who are experienced in the missionary work. If this condition cannot be fulfilled, the bishops for such dioceses may be appointed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Note 3. The bishops for the missions outside of Russia are appointed by the Holy Synod. 17. The candidates for the election as a diocesan bishop, if they do not have the episcopal rank, are chosen from those monastics or nonmonastic clerics and lay people, not bound by marriage, who are no less than thirty-five years of age. It is mandatory, however, that both nonmonastic clerics and lay people should be clothed as riasophor [monks], if they do not accept the monastic tonsure.9 The candidate who stands for election should be suitable for the high calling of a bishop by the criteria of his education, his knowledge of theology, and by his moral qualities.

VO L U M E I

207

18. The bishop remains at his see for life, and abandons his see only in accordance with the decision of the ecclesiastical court or by the decree of supreme ecclesiastical authority in the cases indicated in the Notes to Article 16. 19. According to the divine command, the bishop enjoys all the fullness of hierarchal authority in the matters of teaching of faith and morality, liturgical worship, and pastoral care for souls. 20. The diocesan bishop enjoys the right of initiative, leadership, and guidance in all aspects of the life of the diocese. 21. The diocesan bishop exercises the oversight for the teaching of Orthodox faith (lit. “the Law of God”) at the secular educational institutions. 22. The diocesan bishop exercises the right of canonical approval of the candidates for the positions of priests, deacons, and minor clergy, of their election and appointment. 23. No resolution of the institutions of the diocesan administration can take effect without the assent of the diocesan bishop. 24. The diocesan bishop is granted the right to bestow the established awards upon the worthy priests, deacons, and minor clergy who have spent a sufficent number of years in service to the Church. 25. The bishop has the right of a direct paternal intervention and injunction, in accordance with the chapter on episcopal court of the statutes of Ecclesiastical Consistories. 26. The pastoral and parochial matters, which are presented to be resolved directly by the diocesan bishop at his discretion, are referred to the bishop’s chancery for their execution. 27. The diocesan bishop has at his disposal his personal secretary and Chancery. 28. The diocesan bishops are allowed to be absent from their diocese for the excusable reasons no longer than fourteen days, without asking the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The bishops request such permission, should they be absent for a longer period of time. 29. The salary of the diocesan bishops is established by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 30. Upon their retirement from their ministry, the diocesan bishops have the right to receive pension, the amont of which is determined by the law. Chapter 3 The Diocesan Assembly 31. The Diocesan Assembly is the highest institution, which collaborates with the bishop in his administration of the diocese. 32. The Diocesan Assemblies can be (a) regular, which gather at established times, most convenient for each diocese, given the local situation, and

208

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

APPENDIX I

(b) special, which are gathered when such need arises. Both kinds of assemblies are convened at such terms, so that the issues to be discussed can be discussed in advance at the district (deanery) Assemblies, in accordance with the agenda determined by the diocesan bishop. The ruling bishop has a right to introduce into the agenda the issues for the consideration of either regular or special Assembly out of a regular order. No one else has this right without the approval of the Bishop. Note: The dioceses that due to their vastness or other local conditions cannot convene the Diocesan Assembly annually are granted the right to determine for themselves the periods at which the Diocesan Assemblies are to be convened. The Diocesan Assemblies are convened by the ruling bishop [of the diocese]. The regular Assemblies are convoked at the time established by the previous Diocesan Assembly. The special Assemblies are called at the discretion of the ruling bishop or at the request of no less than one-third of the deaneries in this diocese. The Diocesan Assemblies consist of the representatives of clergy and laity in equal numbers, elected for three years. The delegates of the Diocesan Assemblies are elected by the provincial Assemblies, which consist of all members of the clergy in that district and the equal number of lay people elected by the Parish Assemblies. If such manner of election proves to be difficult, the provincial Assemblies send their delegates to the District (uyezd) Assemblies, which elect the deputies for the Diocesan Assembly. The members of the Diocesan Council participate in the Diocesan Assembly along with other delegates. The persons who (1) have not, for more than a year, fulfilled their Christian obligation of confession and Holy Communion; and (2) have been condemned by the ecclesiastical court, cannot be members of the Diocesan Assembly. The deputy who has served his term can be reelected. No less than half of the clerical delegates must be presbyters. The Diocesan Assembly includes the delegates from the monasteries and ecclesiastical schools. The number of such delegates is established by the Diocesan Council. Also the Diocesan Council regulates the representation from other diocesan institutions. There must be no less than one delegate from each of the ecclesiastical schools. The Diocesan Assembly: (a) elects the members of the Diocesan Council, the members of the Diocesan Court, other officials, and candidates for the positions in those diocesan institutions that Statutes and Regulations do not give specific instructions [for the appointment of officials];

VO L U M E I

209

(b) compiles regulations and directions for the development and application of the general regulations and decrees of the Orthodox Church of Russia; (c) reviews the complaints against all the diocesan institutions subject to the Assembly; (d) oversees the progress of church life in the diocese; (e) reviews the activity of the diocesan institutions. 38. With regards to satisfying the spiritual and religious needs of the Orthodox people of the diocese, the Diocesan Assembly: (a) hears the reports and suggestions of the diocesan authorities regarding the state of faith and piety in the diocese and seeks out measures for their strengthening and expansion; (b) resolves the issues pertaining to the missionary work: regarding the opening of new missionary stations, the establishing of missionary classes, the organizing of the preaching groups, etc.; (c) establishes the proper network of schools (both elementary and secondary), classes (Sunday and evening ones, regular and occasional), libraries, reading rooms, and other institutions, which have as their goal implanting the principles of Christianity in the life and consciousness of the people; (d) establishes the diocesan brotherhoods, councils, societies, and committees of religious education and charity that are funded or supplied from the general diocesan budget; (e) creates the societies of history, archeology, sacred music, etc., which act within the boundaries of the diocese and are funded or supplied from the general diocesan budget. Note: In the dioceses with foreign populations where the missionary work is directed by the [local] Committees of the Orthodox Missionary Society and by special directors of missions, the issues relating to missions are decided by the Diocesan Assembly after preliminary communication with the local missionary organizations, and in the presence of their delegates. 39. In the matters of religious education, the Diocesan Assembly: (a) exercises general supervision over the welfare of the ecclesiastical schools of religious education in the diocese, in view of both their educational and economic aspects; (b) grants stipends for the upkeeping of buildings, staff personnel, and others who work in these institutions, the students, especially orphans and poor, without regards to class; (c) establishes the fees for the students who fund their own studies;

210

APPENDIX I

(d) creates stipends both for the diocesan institutions of ecclesiastical and religious education, and for other schools, for the preparation of specialists in answer to the needs of the diocese; (e) allocates loans for the upkeeping of parallel classes in the diocesan institutions of ecclesiastical and religious education; (f ) distributes funds from the general diocesan treasury for the financing of the above mentioned institutions, proportionate to their needs and without regards to the division of the diocese into the school districts; (g) reviews and confirms the budgets of the institutions mentioned in this Article. Note 1. Diocesan Assemblies exercise the right of general supervision over the welfare of theological seminaries, ecclesiastical secondary schools for men, diocesan schools for women, as well as Synodal schools for women that are found in the diocese. The Assembly directs its queries to the administration of these schools and reports the explanations that it finds unsatisfactory to the supreme authority in the matters of church education. Further course of action is determined by the decision of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Note 2. The changes that the Diocesan Assembly makes in the budgetary allocations [for the diocesan schools] cannot apply to the loans allocated from the general church fund. 40. In the area of administration, the duties of the Diocesan Assembly include: (a) the general management of the candle factory, retirement and funeral funds, and all the institutions of mutual assistance that operate within the boundaries of the diocese on the basis of the statutes composed by the Diocesan Assembly and approved by the diocesan Bishop or by the supreme ecclesiastical authority within the scope of its authority; (b) similarly, the organization and management of the diocesan poor houses, hospitals, sanatoriums, and other institutions of this kind; (c) similarly, the management of the diocesan press, diocesan periodical, the house of the bishop, and other property belonging to the diocese; (d) the resolution of the questions of acquisition, alienation, and use of the real estate that belongs to all of the diocesan institutions; (e) the management of the Diocesan Center of Aid for the poor among the clergy and the care for the financial protection of the retired clergy, their widows, and orphans. 41. In the area of economy and finances, the Diocesan Assembly: (a) resolves the issues pertaining to the search for the sources of the general income of the diocese, the organization of ventures that bring in-

VO L U M E I

211

come to the diocese, the taxation of the diocese at large and for each parish separately, the establishment and cancellation of all direct and indirect taxes imposed upon churches, and monasteries and other diocesan institutions, except for those established by the supreme ecclesiastical authority—the size of taxation imposed upon the monasteries, however, is determined locally after preliminary discussion at the local diocesan monastic assemblies and is approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority; (b) reviews and approves the general diocesan budget of incomes and expenditures, and the budgets of each of the diocesan institutions that are financed from the diocesan funds; (c) reviews the budgets of the diocesan institutions that receive a subsidy from the general diocesan fund, and makes decisions on the requests for such subsidies; (d) makes decisions on all the local economic questions concerned with the disbursement of the general diocesan fund; (e) seeks out ways and means for improvement of the financial situation and the retirement subsidy for the persons working at the diocesan institutions. Note: In dioceses where, due to the local situation, it is impossible to convoke the Diocesan Assembly on a yearly basis, the right of approving the general budget of the diocese is delegated to the Diocesan Council, which will give an account to the next Diocesan Assembly. 42. In the area of auditing, the Diocesan Assembly reviews the reports from diocesan institutions, which are maintained with the general diocesan funds or are subsidized from the latter, as well as the reports from the Center of Aid for the poor among the clergy. The Assembly certifies the monetary sums that are at the disposal of these institutions, as well as other property acquired with the means allocated by the Diocesan Assembly. 43. The decisions at the Diocesan Assembly are made with a simple majority of votes, however, the resolution of the issues concerning the general diocesan taxation, the acquisition and alienation of real estate, as well as concerning the spending of sums exceeding 15,000 rubles for every item from the general diocesan fund, is passed if this resolution received no less than two-thirds of the votes of the Assembly members. 44. If the ruling Bishop disagrees with the decision of the Diocesan Assembly, at which he presided, the matter is submitted for the consideration of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If, however, the Assembly was presided by another person and the ruling Bishop subsequently objected against the resolution of this Assembly, he states the reasons for his objection and submits

212

APPENDIX I

the issue for another consideration of the same Assembly. If consensus is not attained at this time, the matter is submitted for the consideration of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop has the power to make urgent decisions in connection with the matter under dispute. 45. All expenses connected with the convocation of the Diocesan Assembly are covered from the local funds on the basis of the Assembly’s resolution, while various institutions represented at the Assembly cover their own expenses. Note: The delegates representing the ecclesiastical schools are subsidized from the general diocesan fund for the duration of their presence at the Assembly. 46. The Diocesan Assembly is chaired by the diocesan Bishop or by another bishop to whom the former delegates this authority. The Diocesan Assembly elects the Vice Chair from among the presbyters, who presides in the absence of the Chair. Chapter 4 The Diocesan Council 47. The Diocesan Council is a permanent administrative and executive body that operates continuously and consists of the elected members. It assists the diocesan Bishop in his administration of the diocese. 48. The Diocesan Council has the right of initiative in raising general questions that concern the church life in the diocese, discussing these questions, and implementing the measures that have been worked out in response to these questions, after their review by the Diocesan Assembly and approval by the diocesan Bishop. 49. The Diocesan Council consists of five elected members. The Council elects one of its members in the presbyteral rank as its President, with the approval of the diocesan Bishop. Note: If needed, the number of the members of the Diocesan Council can be supplemented by additional members; however, if the number of the Council members is unexpectedly reduced, the alternates are chosen, so that the work of the Diocesan Council may continue uninterrupted. 50. The Diocesan Council has its own Chancery under the direction of the Secretary of the Diocesan Council. 51. When necessary, the diocesan Bishop presides in the Diocesan Council himself. 52. The members of the Diocesan Council, both regular and additional ones, as well as the alternates, are elected for six years, and are confirmed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority at the request of the diocesan Bishop.

VO L U M E I

213

53. The President and no less than two members of the Diocesan Council must be presbyters who serve in the diocese, while other members may be chosen from the clerics or lay people who are known for their religious piety and their devotion to the Holy Church. All members must have at least a secondary education and be no less than thirty years of age. The same proportion of presbyters, clerics, and lay people must be maintained at the election of additional members and alternates. 54. Persons known for their open and notorious vices or those who have left the sacred orders cannot be elected. 55. The President and members of the Diocesan Council— both regular and additional ones — cannot occupy positions in other diocesan institutions or in other institutions that may conflict with their proper exercise of their duties in the Council. For example, they cannot teach more than twelve classes a week, and they cannot serve as Deans or members of the Deanery Councils. 56. The President and members of the Diocesan Council must be absent from the sessions where a case reviewed concerns them directly. If the investigation has been initiated against them, or their case has been submitted to the ecclesiastical court, they are suspended from taking part in the work of the Council until the case has been reviewed. 57. In the case of the illness, death, or absence of the President of the Diocesan Council, the most senior presbyter among the members of the Council temporarily exercises the duties of the President. 58. The following matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Council: (a) spreading and safeguarding the Orthodox faith; (b) liturgy; (c) construction and adornment of churches; (d) the clergy; (e) parishes; (f ) church management; (g) matters concerning the diocesan institutions and societies that are presented for the consideration of the Council (1) when the final resolution of the matter cannot be found in the statutes given to these institutions and societies for their guidance, or (2) in order to report and make known to the Council the state of affairs in these institutions and to receive direction and guidance from the Council. Note: Until the establishment of ecclesiastical courts, the judicial and matrimonial cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Council.

214

APPENDIX I

59. When the matters indicated in Article 58 “g” are under consideration, the representatives of the institutions concerned are also invited to the sessions as consultants. 60. If during the discussion and consideration of a matter, variance of opinion occurs, the matter is resolved by a majority of votes; if the number of votes are equal, the vote of the presiding member breaks the tie. 61. If the ruling Bishop disagrees with the decision of the Diocesan Council that was passed in the session where he presided in person, the matter is submitted for consideration to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. If the Bishop disagrees with the decision passed in his absence during the discussion of the matter, the Bishop states the reasons for his disagreement and submits the matter for another consideration by the Council. If even in this case consensus is not reached, the matter is submitted for consideration to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop has the power to make urgent decisions in connection with the matter under dispute. 62. The Secretary of the Diocesan Council is elected by the Diocesan Council from clerics or lay people. He must conform to the moral stipulations that are required of the members of the Diocesan Council, in accordance with Articles 53 and 54, and he must have a university education. The Secretary is confirmed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority at the request of the Diocesan Bishop. 63. The Secretary of the Diocesan Council is obliged to be present at all sessions of the Council. While he does not take part in the making of the decisions, during the discussion, the Secretary gives legal advice, as well as provides information and clarification on the circumstances of the case under discussion. 64. The Secretary of the Diocesan Council has a right: (a) to authorize those who wish to enter the service at the Chancery of the Council to work at the Chancery, and after examining them, to present them for the confirmation in their position; (b) to accept for the work at the Chancery of the Council those who work as copyists and registrars, to set their monthly salary, monetary awards, and subsidies, proportionate to their labor and abilities and not exceeding the sum set for this item in the budget, with the agreement of the Diocesan Council and upon the approval of the Diocesan Bishop. 65. The supreme ecclesiastical authority shall determine the process by which the regulations concerning the Diocesan Councils will come in force, in conjunction with the abolishment of the Spiritual Consistories.

VO L U M E I

215

Chapter 5 The Deanery 66. The borders of the deanery districts are defined by the Diocesan Assembly. 67. The district Deanery Assemblies function in every Deanery, and, in the general order of the diocesan life, are the administrative and executive bodies second to the Diocesan Assembly. 68. The district Deanery Assemblies can be (a) pastoral and (b) general. 69. The pastoral Deanery Assemblies include ex officio all the priests of the Deanery, and other clerics, if they desire. These assemblies are called no less than once a year for the examination of the general questions of pastoral ministry. 70. The time and place of the pastoral Deanery Assemblies are determined by the assembly itself, or by the Dean. Extraordinary pastoral assemblies are called by the Dean (a) at his own discretion; (b) at the request of one-third of the priests in the district; or (c) at the order of the diocesan Bishop. The Dean presides at the assemblies, and in the Dean’s absence, the president, in the presbyteral rank, is chosen by the assembly. 71. General Deanery Assemblies include: (a) all the current members of the district clergy assigned to the parishes, house churches, and monastery churches, as well as the priests attached to the churches of the district; (b) the lay members of Parish Councils, elected by the latter, so that the number of lay delegates would be equal to the clerical staff of every church. General Assemblies are presided by the Dean or his deputy, while the secretarial duties are assumed by one of the members, chosen by the Assembly. Note 1: The abbots of the monasteries represent the men’s monasteries at the General Deanery Assemblies. Note 2: If important issues that concern a specific parish community are discussed at the Assembly, the number of lay people from that community that are admitted to the Assembly is twice as large. 72. The presence of the members of the clergy at the General Deanery Assembly is mandatory. Those absent must explain the reasons for their absence. If the explanations are found to be unsatisfactory, the Assembly may impose sanctions upon the absentees. 73. The regular General Deanery Assemblies are called no less than once a year and must be held before the Diocesan Assembly. Special Deanery Assemblies are called (a) due to urgent matters pertaining to specific parishes, to be resolved by General Assemblies; (b) at the petition of one-third of the members of the Assembly; and (c) by the demand of the diocesan authority.

216

APPENDIX I

74. The resolutions of the Assembly are inscribed in a short form in a special book and are signed by the president, the secretary, and by the members of the Assembly, if they desire. 75. The resolutions of the Deanery Assembly that require the approval of the diocesan authority are submitted for the confirmation of the diocesan Bishop, while other resolutions are [merely] brought to his attention. 76. The following matters fall under the jurisdiction of the General Deanery Assembly: (a) the care for the beauty and uniformity of the liturgy of the Church; (b) the review of the financial budget, compiled by the Deanery Council, with respect to all the institutions of the district, the discussion of annual reports on the state of religion and morality in the district, as well as the reports of the educational, charitable, missionary, and other institutions of the deanery and parishes; (c) the discussion of the proposals of the Deanery Council aimed at invigorating the life of the parish churches in the district and toward the elimination of the conditions that affect it negatively, the measures toward the struggle with schism, sectarianism, and atheism; (d) the discussion of the affairs of church schools in the district in general, and of the teaching of the Orthodox faith (catechism) in particular; (e) the resolution of misunderstandings reported to the Deanery Council that concern the ecclesial life of specific parishes; (f ) the opinion regarding the opening of new parishes, and on the closure of existing ones, as well as on changing the borders of parishes within the boundaries of the District, either at the petition of the parishes themselves or at the proposal of the diocesan authority; (g) the revision and distribution among the churches and clergy personnel of the Deanery of the taxes aimed at the upkeeping of the educational (ecclesiastical schools, libraries), charitable, and other institutions; (h) the preliminary discussion of matters to be considered at the Diocesan and District (uyezd) Assemblies; (i) the discussion of questions regarding the opening and upkeep of educational, charitable, and economic institutions, the mutual assistance funds, funeral funds, as well as other funds that function within the boundaries of the deanery district; (j) the review and approval of the budget for the remuneration of the Dean, the members of the Deanery Council, and other officials of the district; (k) the election of the Dean, of the members of the Deanery Council, their deputies, and of other elected officials within the boundaries of the district;

VO L U M E I

77. 78.

79.

80.

81.

82. 83.

217

(l) the review of those matters within the jurisdiction of the parishes that were submitted to the Assembly due to the disagreement that has emerged between the Parish Assembly or Parish Council and the president thereof; (m) the review of the matters transferred by the diocesan authority to the jurisdiction of the Deanery Councils; (n) the election of delegates from the deanery district to the general assembly of the diocese or the District (uyezd) Assembly. The Dean with the Deanery Council that functions under him are the executive body of the Deanery Assembly. The Deanery Council consists of the president who is the Dean, two members of the clergy, of which one should be a presbyter (who also is the Deputy Dean), and two lay people. The Dean and the members of the Deanery Council (as well as the alternates) are elected at the General Deanery Assembly with a secret ballot. The candidate who receives more than half of the votes is considered to have been elected. The Dean (the president) is elected for five years, while the members of the Council for three years. Those elected have to be approved by the diocesan Bishop. No one can be elected as Dean or a member of the Deanery Council who is of ill repute or has been on trial.10 The lay people who are elected as member of the Deanery Council must be persons known for their piety and moral standing, as well as for their devotion to the Church. The Deanery Council is gathered by the Dean when necessary, but no less than once a month. For the gathering to be valid, no fewer than three members, including the Dean, must be present. The resolutions of the Deanery Council are in a short form inscribed into the book of minutes. The duties of the Dean are as follows: (a) the direct supervision and directives to the clergy of the district regarding their activity in the course of their service; (b) the collection of taxes from churches and clergy, and the distribution of forms, the reception of parish reports for their presentation to the diocesan offices, i.e., of parish registers, pre-marital inquiry registers, and of financial reports for the entire district; Note to paragraph (b): The Dean may invite one of the members of the Deanery Council to assist him in the review of parish reports, as well as in other circumstances when this is needed. (c) the announcement of the directives from the diocesan or supreme ecclesiastical authority, of the decisions of the Deanery Assemblies and

218

APPENDIX I

Deanery Council, and the control over the implementation of these decisions and directives; (d) the supervision and care for the fulfillment by the clergy of their immediate duties as ministers and for their good behavior, reporting the negligent clergy and the clergy who lead a blameworthy life to the Deanery Council, after first and second warnings; (e) the care for the fulfilling of religious needs of the faithful in the parishes that at the time are without clergy; (f ) the granting of leaves of absence to the members of clerical staff for the period no more than fourteen days, if the leave will take place within the diocese; (g) the inspection of the parish churches and documentation, in accordance with the Dean’s instructions regarding the parish churches; (h) the supervision of the repairs and construction of churches in the district. Note to paragraph (h): Repairs in the ancient churches and the renovation of icons and iconostases that possess an archeological value may be performed only with the permission of the diocesan Bishop. 84. The duties of the Deanery Council are as follows: (a) the general guidance and supervision over the good order and proper course of religious life and of pastoral activity in the parishes of the district; (b) the composition of an annual report regarding the state of religion and morality in the parishes of the district; (c) the gathering of information and the preparation of reports on all the matters on the agenda of the General Deanery Assembly; (d) the composition of the financial budget for all the institutions of the Deanery district; (e) the resolution of questions concerning local church expenses that, according to the the parish statutes, require the approval of the Deanery Council; (f ) the collection of information regarding family and financial situation of widows and orphans of the clergy families of the district, the issuance of subsidies and the seeking of resources for supporting the needy clergy of the district; (g) the preparation and issuance of certificates concerning the family situation and financial means of clerics who petition for state or diocesan subsidies for the students of theological schools, as well as for other reasons;

VO L U M E I

219

(h) the review of cases that concern the collection of undisputed debts from the members of clerical staff, in order to indicate the ways to collect those debts and the settling of those debts; (i) the review of complaints and misunderstandings between clerics and individual members of parish staff, and between the clergy and the parishioners; (j) the demarcation and delimitation of church land, in case of a dispute; (k) the verdicts regarding petitions on the closure of existing cemeteries and on the opening of new ones, to be presented to diocesan authority; (l) the confirmation of church wardens in undisputed cases, and the appointment of prosphora bakers; (m) the compiling and maintenance of the deanery libraries. 85. The Dean has his own official seal.

V II Mo s cow, 1 9 1 8

I. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Edinoverie February 22 (March 7), 1918

1.

2.

3.

4.

220

The Edinovertsy are the children of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, who, with the blessing of the Local Church, maintaining the unity of faith and governance, celebrate the church services in accordance with the liturgical books published under the first five Russian Patriarchs and keep intact the traditions of the Old Russian household. The Edinovertsy parishes are included in the Orthodox dioceses and, in accordance with the definition of the Council or by the commission of the diocesan Bishop, are administered by special Edinovertsy bishops who are dependent upon the diocesan Bishop. The diocesan Bishops provide the same archpastoral care for the religious life of the Edinovertsy parishes, as they do for the Orthodox parishes. During their visitation of the diocese, they also visit the Edinovertsy parishes and celebrate in them in accordance with the typicon accepted in the Edinovertsy churches. So also the Edinovertsy Bishops, who by the commission of the diocesan Bishop oversee the Edinovertsy parishes, with his blessing visit both Edinovertsy and Orthodox parishes and celebrate in the latter in accordance with the liturgical rite accepted in the Orthodox Church. They give report to the ruling Bishop on their travels. The Edinovertsy Bishops are given their title after the city or some other place that has an Edinovertsy parish, if the name of this place is not included in the title of the ruling Bishop.

VO L U M E I I

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

221

The Edinovertsy Bishops take part in the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia in the number determined by the Statutes of the Council. The candidates for the Edinovertsy Bishops are elected at the assembly of the delegates of the Edinovertsy clergy and laity under the presidency of the local ruling Bishop who presents the act of the election, together with his own opinion, for the approval of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The elected Edinovertsy Bishops are installed by Orthodox and Edinovertsy Bishops together. In accordance with general regulations, the Deans and Deanery Councils function under the Edinovertsy Bishops. In the parishes, the Parish Assembly and Parish Council function in accordance with general regulations. All the positions of priest, deacon, and minor clergy in the Edinovertsy parishes are filled in the order established for the church in general, i.e., through the election by the parish community with the approval of the Edinovertsy Bishop. In view of the good estate and strengthening of Edinoverie, the Edinovertsy have the right to gather for diocesan, district, and All-Russian conferences to discuss the issues pertaining to the needs of Edinoverie. The district and All-Russian conferences are presided by the Bishop appointed by the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod, while the diocesan Edinovertsy conferences are presided either by the local Edinovertsy Bishop, commissioned by the ruling Bishop, or by the diocesan Bishop himself. All relations with the supreme ecclesiastical authority concerning the affairs of Edinovertsy of this diocese are maintained through the diocesan Bishop. The petitions to institute an Edinovertsy bishopric in one or another diocese, together with indicating the means for its sustenance, are also filed through the local diocesan Bishop. The Edinovertsy churches and monasteries must carefully maintain the ancient chants and the ancient order of the liturgy. The superiors of the monasteries and the clergy of the churches must not allow alterations to the ancient order. At the solemn concelebrations, arranged by a mutual agreement between Orthodox and Edinovertsy parishes, the chants of both traditions are alternated. Nothing prevents the Edinovertsy to be registered at Orthodox parishes, just as nothing prevents the Orthodox to be registered at Edinovertsy parishes, since the books and rites used by the Edinovertsy at their services are also Orthodox. The persons who transfer from Edinovertsy parishes to

222

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

APPENDIX I

the Orthodox, and from Orthodox parishes to the Edinovertsy ones must not be subject to any kind of oppression. Note: At the request of no less than four-fifths of the registered parishioners, an Edinovertsy parish with its church building may be registered as an Orthodox one, in which the liturgy is established in accordance with the rite blessed by the Council of 1667. In the same manner, the Orthodox churches and parishes may be registered under the jurisdiction of the Edinovertsy Bishop and in these churches the liturgy is served according to the ancient printed books. Regarding marriages — if one of those to be married is an Edinoverets, while another is Orthodox, the crowning is performed either in an Edinovertsy or in an Orthodox church, by mutual agreement. The Edinovertsy children who enter the Orthodox schools and professional schools, as well as the Orthodox children who study at the Edinovertsy schools, freely observe the rites and customs of their respective parishes. At the Edinovertsy churches and monasteries, where it proves to be possible, special elementary schools, the higher-level elementary schools, as well as pastoral schools should be opened in order to nurture among the students love and attachment to the ancient way of life, without denigrating the rite commonly accepted in the Church, in order to prepare the students for the Edinovertsy professional schools and candidates for ordination, and to educate them for the struggle against Raskol. The Edinovertsy are not exempted from the collections for the general needs of the Orthodox Church of Russia and of the diocese, as well as the Edinovertsy clergy is not exempted from collections for the needs of local theological schools and diocesan charity institutions. The sees of the Edinovertsy bishops for the Edinovertsy parishes that have expressed desire to have Edinovertsy bishops and have indicated sufficient means for the sustenance of them and their chancery staff, are instituted in the following dioceses, with the consent of the diocesan bishops: • in the Diocese of Petrograd—the see of Okhta with the bishop’s residence in Petrograd; • in the Diocese of Nizhny Novgorod — the see of Pavlovo with the bishop’s residence in the village of Pavlovo; • in the Diocese of Ufa — the see of Satka with the bishop’s residence in the Edinovetsy monastery of the Resurrection in the town of Zlatoust; • in the Diocese of Tobolsk—the see of Tyumen with the bishop’s residence in Tyumen.

VO L U M E I I

223

II. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Concerning the Legal Status of the Orthodox Church of Russia December 2, 1917

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia recognizes that in order to secure liberty and independence of the Orthodox Church in Russia, in view of the changes that occurred in the political system, the Government has to accept the following basic principles: 1. The Orthodox Church of Russia, being part of the one Universal1 Church of Christ, occupies in the State of Russia the position of priority among other confessions from the point of view of the public law. This position is befitting to the Orthodox Church as it is most sacred to the larger majority of the population and as to the great historic force that created the State of Russia. 2. The Orthodox Church in Russia is independent from the state authority in the matters of the teaching of the faith and morality, liturgy, internal church discipline, and communications with other autocephalous Churches. On the basis of its own dogmatic and canonical principles, the Church enjoys the rights of autonomy and self-government in matters of ecclesiastical legislation, administration, and judgment. 3. The decrees and legislation that the Orthodox Church issues for its own use according to the established order, as well as the acts of the ecclesiastical administration and court, from the moment of their publication by the ecclesiastical authority, are to be recognized by the State as having legal force and significance, as long as they do not commit a breach of the state laws. 4. The state laws that concern the Orthodox Church are issued only upon reaching consensus with the ecclesiastical authority. 5. The church hierarchy and church institutions are recognized by the State as having the same force and significance as attributed to them by the ecclesiastical decrees. 6. The activity of the institutions of the Orthodox Church is subject to the oversight of the state authority only from the aspect of its conformity to the state laws, which is exercised in a judicial or executive-judicial order. 7. The Head of State of Russia, the Minister of Cults, and the Minister of Public Education, as well as their Deputies, have to be Orthodox. 8. In all occurrences of the life of the state, in which the State turns to religion, the Orthodox Church enjoys the priority.2

224

APPENDIX I

9. The Orthodox calendar is recognized as the state calendar. 10. The twelve great feasts,3 Sundays, and the days especially honored by the Orthodox Church are recognized by the State as holidays. 11. The freedom of profession and preaching of the Orthodox faith, as well as the freedom of Orthodox worship, are protected by the state authority. Therefore, under penalty of criminal persecution, it is prohibited: (1) to publicly denigrate and defame the Orthodox faith, the objects of religious veneration, as well as its ministers; (2) to profane the places of worship and religious veneration; (3) to use violence or threats to turn someone away from Orthodoxy. 12. A voluntary apostasy from the Orthodoxy is allowed no earlier than upon the reaching of the age established for entering a marriage. Before reaching this age, children may leave Orthodoxy only if their parents so desire, and only in the case that the parents have left Orthodoxy as well. The children who reached nine years of age have to express their consent. 13. The state legislation pertaining to the conditions for contracting a marriage for Orthodox persons is established in conformity with the norms of the ecclesiastical law. 14. The ecclesiastical rite of crowning according to the Orthodox tradition is recognized as a legal form for contracting a marriage. 15. The decision of ecclesiastical courts concerning divorce or concerning the recognition of the marriage contracted by the Church as unlawful or invalid, are recognized as judicially binding. 16. The legal conditions and consequences of mixed marriages, if one of the married belongs to the Orthodox Church, are determined in accordance with the legislation of the latter. 17. The church registers of baptism and marriage are kept in accordance with the state laws and are recognized as valid documents. 18. The elementary and secondary schools and colleges, established by the Orthodox Church, either theological or secular ones, enjoy in the State of Russia the same privileges as the public schools on the general basis. 19. The education of Orthodox children in all of the secular public and private schools has to conform to the spirit of the Orthodox Church: the teaching of the Orthodox faith is obligatory for the Orthodox students both in elementary and secondary schools, as well as in colleges; the salary for the teachers of the Orthodox faith4 in the public schools are covered at the public expense. 20. The State should take care for the satisfaction of religious needs of the members of the Orthodox Church who serve in the army and navy. Every military unit must have an Orthodox chaplain. 21. Priests and deacons, monks, and psaltists who are on staff are exempt from the military service and other personal obligations to the State. Officials at

VO L U M E I I

22.

23.

24.

25.

225

church institutions enjoy the same rights as those who serve in the civil service. The property that belongs to the institutions of the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation or alienation, and these institutions cannot be dissolved without the consent of the ecclesiastical authorities. The property that belongs to the institutions of the Orthodox Church is not subject to taxation by the State taxes or the collections on a regional (volost’ ),5 city, or local government (zemstvo)6 level, unless this property brings income by being rented or leased. The Orthodox Church receives from the State Treasury annual subsidies in accordance with its needs, following a special budget compiled by the supreme church administration and approved by [its] legislative body. The Church submits a report on the expenses of the sums received as usually required. The institutions of the Orthodox Church that presently enjoy the rights of juridical personhood retain these rights, while the institutions that do not have these rights, as well as the institutions newly created, receive such privileges per the request of the ecclesiastical authority.

III. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Church Preaching December 1, 1917

1.

Church preaching, in accordance with the word of God (Matt 28:19– 20, Mark 16:15, Acts 1:8, 1 Cor 9:16, 2 Tim 4:2, et al.), church canons (Apostolic canons 367 and 58,8 canon 19 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,9 canon 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council10), and the directions of the typicon of the Church, is one of the major duties of the pastoral ministry and must be heard as often as possible at the public and private services, outside of services, but without exception at every Divine Liturgy celebrated on Sundays or Feast days (canon 19 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council), as well as in special circumstances that concern the life of the Church, society, or the State. As a reminder of this, canon 58 of the Holy Apostles, canon 19 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and canon 2 of the Seventh

226

2.

3. 4.

5.

APPENDIX I

Ecumenical Council shall be printed in the new editions of the Priest’s Service Book and of the Archieratikon, with the following Commentary: If a bishop or a presbyter celebrates the Divine Liturgy on a Sunday or a feast day and does not preach the word of God or commission the preaching to his concelebrants, and thus shows neglect for the clergy and the people, he commits a grave sin, for he saddens Christ, who commanded to the shepherds of his Church to preach the Gospel. He disregards the word of the Apostle who says “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16), and forgets the injunctions of the Holy Fathers, shepherds, and teachers of the Universal Church. But, following the example of Christ the Chief Shepherd, of the Holy Apostles and of the Holy Fathers, may the bishops and presbyters of the Orthodox Church of Russia be divinely inspired preachers who console by the salvific teaching, denounce those who oppose it, and rather than only on Sundays or feast days, as was said above, but in every day may they preach the word of God, and rather than only at the time of Divine Liturgy, may they also preach at other services and sacramental rites, if it is possible. So also may they at any other time call their flock to the hearing of the word of God. The privilege of teaching in church belongs to the shepherds of the Church (canon 64 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council11). In order, however, to enhance and develop Orthodox Christian preaching of the gospel, in concord with the demands of modern times, it is very much desirable to involve in it deacons and psaltists, as well as pious lay people who have ability to preach. The participation of the former and the latter in the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4), most appropriate and useful when the homily takes place outside of the liturgy, is also permissible from the church pulpit during the divine service, with the blessing of the bishop and, in every case, with the permission of a local priest. The homilists who have shown themselves especially zealous in teaching the Church, but do not belong to the clergy, are blessed to wear the sticharion (robe)12 and bear the title of “evangelizers.” Local languages and dialects are to be used from the church pulpit, so that the homily may be understandable to all. In order to rejuvenate and to achieve steady growth for church preaching, the clerics and lay people who are devoted to this cause and experienced in it are to be organized into parish, deanery, district (uyezd ), and diocesan Brotherhoods of Evangelizers. Such Brotherhoods, with a broad participation of monks, should be installed at every monastery, and especially at lavras and those monasteries where from ancient times are preserved the sacred relics that are piously venerated by the people and attract a large number of pilgrims.

VO L U M E I I

6.

7.

8.

227

Special care has to be taken for the preaching on the days of local feasts and solemnities, when the divine service is celebrated with the great multitude of people present, who do not only come from the nearby area, but also from faraway villages and towns. The superior oversight for the preaching in the church during liturgy and outside of liturgy within a diocese is entrusted to the Diocesan Evangelizers’ Brotherhood, installed at the bishop’s see or at the theological seminary. This brotherhood, headed by the bishop, includes all members of diocesan clergy, lay people who undertake the task of homilists, and the students of the senior years of the seminary who prepare for pastoral ministry. Where it is possible, at the Diocesan Brotherhoods a special office of diocesan homilists is created, who would be the closest collaborators of the Bishop in the matters of preaching. In order that the candidates for priesthood may receive a proper preparation for the work of preaching, it is necessary: (a) to build the discipline of homiletics upon the biblical and patristic foundations, and give it a living and practical dimension, so that it may be a teaching of the living word; (b) to introduce a manual of homiletics theory to the seminaries that would conform to the principles and would explore the crucial significance of close familiarity with ascetical writings for the preachers; (c) to establish special libraries for the benefit of theology students at the seminaries that would contain the most valuable works of patristic, Russian, and foreign (in translation) homiletics; (d) to extend the number of practical exercises in church homiletics classes that would include the presentations by the seminarians first outside of the church, and later from the church pulpit; (e) to offer the chair in church homiletics only to the pastors who were properly prepared and experienced in preaching, and to those from the laity who have proved their ability to teach homiletics not only in theory, but by their personal living example; the instructors in this subject have to be provided with the most beneficial conditions, as for their classroom work, so also for a wider ecclesial and public work outside of the classroom; and (f ) to organize at the seminaries evangelizer groups; in which the members of the Diocesan Evangelizer Brotherhood must certainly be invited to take part. Note: It is desirable for the seminarians who are members of the seminary evangelizer groups to be involved in the parish preacher societies, as well as in the preaching tours outside of the diocesan see, under the direction of their professor.

228

APPENDIX I

9.

As the means to aid the preparation of preachers, the following is necessary: (a) the publication, as soon as possible, of a journal on homiletics, associated with the supreme church administration, aiming to address basic issues of the theory and organization of church education, as well as to supply, in a timely manner, the clergy with the best prepared materials for liturgical and extraliturgical preaching; the journal should contain detailed bibliographies and guides related to everything that could serve as a useful tool for the preachers; (b) a regular — depending on local situation — organization of shortterm preacher seminars for clergy, monastics, and laity; and (c) the commission of the most experienced and renowned preachers to various places in the diocese, at the invitation of parishes, for the sake of their brotherly cooperation with local laborers at God’s harvest, on the days of, e.g., significant parish feasts or in connection with some special needs of the parish life. Note 1. Where the finances allow, it is desirable to create a special department on preaching at the local diocesan administration. Note 2. It is also desirable for the supreme church administration to publish collections of sermons, as well as journals concerned with church and religious topics, in the languages of the Orthodox nonRussian population, giving priority in these periodicals to the publication of sermons. 10. With a special encyclical, to bestow the blessing of the Sacred Council upon all who zealously labored and still labor in the field of church education, and in the name of the Council to call them to increased labors of preaching in the future and toward instituting evangelizer brotherhoods on a parish, deanery, district (uyezd), and diocesan level, so that as all the forces of the Church will be brought together in brotherly unity, all the more decisively and persistently may sound the teaching voice of the Church, which is ever salvific and indispensable, but especially in the days of greatest calamities experienced by our Fatherland.

IV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith in Schools September 28, 1917 1.

The teaching of the Orthodox faith as a mandatory subject in all secular schools, whether public or private, whether elementary, secondary, or higher,

VO L U M E I I

2.

3.

4.

5.

229

where there are Orthodox students, must have the same privileges as all the main subjects in the curriculum. The age of fourteen years, established by the freedom of conscience law of 14 July 1917 for transfer to another religious denomination, for professing oneself as nonreligious, and, consequently, also for the decision to cease one’s study of the Orthodox faith in school, appears to be too young, as it does not ensure a proper maturity of judgment due to spiritual and physical characteristics pertinent to the adolescent. Therefore, this regulation with respect to age must be immediately revoked by a legislative body. The transfer into another religious denomination, as well as professing oneself as nonreligious, may not be performed by students at elementary or secondary schools. The students of secondary and elementary schools may cease the study of the Orthodox faith only if they leave Orthodoxy due to the abandonment of the Church by their parents. The instructor in Orthodox faith serves the cause of enlightenment in the same—or even in the greater measure—than the rest of the instructors in other mandatory subjects, and, therefore must enjoy all the privileges of public service.

V. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Church Schools (A) We petition the Provisional Government: (1) to abrogate the law of 20 June 1917 on the merger of the schools of different departments under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education, in view of the implementation of the universal education, in the parts that concern: — the transfer of the church parish schools, two-year and church teacher schools to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education; — the closure of the pension fund for the teachers and women teachers of the church parish schools, and the transfer to the budget of the aforesaid Ministry of the credits alloted for the subsidizing of church schools, for the Synodal and Diocesan Councils on Schools and the departments thereof, for the salary of church school inspectors, for the needs of schools’ building funds, and for the pension

230

APPENDIX I

fund, as well as the sums of the Emperor Alexander III Foundation for the Building of Church Schools; (2) to grant to the church schools the same legal and material status as the schools under the jurisdiction of the ministry and the local government (zemstva); however, with respect to fulfilling the requirements for the placing of schools in the network, and for receiving the state support, the church schools still remain under control of the State and local institutions entrusted by law with the implementation of universal education; (3) to make urgent directives to cease the local transfer of church schools to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education. (B) After passing the law on the abrogation of the decree of the Provisional Government, as stated in paragraph 1 of Section A: (a) all church parish schools and schools of literacy are to be transferred into the jurisdiction of Orthodox parishes on the basis of the regulations that will be specified by the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, except the schools attached to monasteries, theological seminaries, second-category schools and the teachers’ schools, women’s professional schools under the auspices of the diocese, and those under the auspices of the Synod.13 (b) The Synodal Council on Schools, diocesan councils, and their district branches are to be reformed on the basis of electoral principle, and (c) the teaching of general subjects in the church parish schools placed into the school network and subsidized by the government is to be conducted according to the syllabi in no way inferior to those accepted for similar schools by the Ministry of Public Education. (C) The Holy Synod shall instruct the Bishops to explain to the clergy and the laity that church schools remain for the Orthodox Church as indispensable means for the spreading of Christian enlightenment and education, and, in case the currently existing church schools will be transferred out of the jurisdiction of the Church, the Church will be pressed to open its own schools again. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve the buildings, property, and assets of these schools in the jurisdiction of the Church. Churches, monasteries, brotherhoods, charities, and other ecclesiastical organizations that are currently the owners of schools must not transfer school buildings, property, or assets to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education or of other institutions. They may cede the buildings and property of the schools for temporary usage on the basis of written lease contracts for a period of no more than one school year, and only in case of dire necessity.

VO L U M E I I

231

VI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Regarding the Government Proposal Concerning Parochial Schools October 23, 1917

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, which is composed from all the representatives of the entire Orthodox Russian people, bishops, clergy, and laity, considers it as its duty to declare to the Provisional Government that the law of June 20, 1917, concerning the transfer of the parochial schools into the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education, causes great harm to the Orthodox Church in its work of Christian education, abruptly depriving Orthodox parishes of an indispensable means for fulfilling their important vocation. According to the definition of the Holy Synod Nr. 3096 from May 8 of this year, the administration of the parochial schools is entrusted to the Orthodox parishes that have undergone structural reform. By means of these schools, parishes were to carry out one of their most important duties, that of Christian education and enlightenment of the people. The alienation of the parochial schools puts the parishes in a very difficult position with regards to implementing of the above mentioned responsibility and impedes this new phase of their development. In addition to the law of June 20, 1917, the Ministry of Public Education has prepared a draft of a new law that will soon be presented for the review of the Provisional Government. This proposal shows a clear tendency toward the elimination of the very category of parochial schools, which are now to be transferred into the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education. At the same time, the proposal forcibly hands over the school premises that belong either to ecclesiastical institutions or to private persons, for the needs of the ministry schools. Thus, the Church, which was deprived of the schools that previously received funding from the government, is at the same time deprived of the possibility of having its own schools on its own school premises that are now being alienated. Meanwhile, during the exchange of views with the delegates of the Sacred Council on October 11 of this year, the Prime Minister declared in the name of the Provisional Government that the Provisional Government in no way intends to deprive the Church of the possibility of establishing schools with its own resources, nor will prevent the Church from doing so. The All-Russian Sacred Council perceives it as its duty to announce what was previously stated to the Provisional Government, and at the same time cannot but direct the Government’s attention to the provisions in the draft of the

232

APPENDIX I

new law that can lead to conflict with the interests of the Orthodox Church, not intended in actuality by the proposal. Section I of the proposal establishes that the church elementary schools transferred to the Ministry of Public Education are to be reorganized into elementary public schools but does not specify that this reorganization cannot affect those already existing schools, which are subsidized exclusively by the resources of parishes, other church institutions, or private persons, even if these schools were included in the school networks or received funding from the government. Section II, article 1 of the proposal states that the buildings of the parochial schools constructed with the help of a subsidy or a credit from the State Treasury in accordance with the law of June 12, 1913, cannot be used for any other purpose than as premises for the schools of the Ministry. The proposal does not specify the period during which it will not be possible for the Church to open its own schools in these buildings. In general, the church buildings were organized with the help of ecclesiastical or private donations and with the help of limited subsidies from the treasury. However, the ecclesiastical institutions or private persons who provided for the buildings of church schools were spending their own resources for the construction of schools in the conviction that these buildings would be used specifically for the needs of parochial schools. Thus, the proposed law may lead one to conclude that the use of the premises of parochial schools by the Ministry, in the conditions previously stated, violates the rights with respect to the use of the church institutions’ property and constitutes an evident breach of the will of donors and testators, protected by law. The issue concerning the buildings of parochial schools, constructed in part with the subsidy from the treasury, is resolved with sufficient clarity in the law of June 12, 1913, referenced in the Ministry’s proposal (Section I, article 1). This law established a building fund for ecclesiastical schools, attached to the Holy Synod, and regulated the issue of subsidies from the State Treasury for the construction needs of parochial schools. This building fund was allocated by the law to the special resources of the Holy Synod and, consequently, was designated for meeting the needs of the Church. The law contains no indication that the treasury established any—let alone, full—rights of ownership for itself with respect to the buildings, constructed with assistance from this fund, especially since for the most part it was ecclesiastical institutions and private persons who covered the expenses for the constrution of these buildings. Conversely, as it is clear from Articles 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the Regulations of the Fund for Church Schools, the law intends only to secure the restitution of the credit received from the treasury, with certain interest. Of course: if the treasury issues a credit to some organization or to a private individual for the repairing or even for the building of a house, the right of ownership for the newly built

VO L U M E I I

233

house, in part set up with that credit from the treasury, belongs to this organization or individual. The treasury has the right to demand the repayment of the credit, rather than to take possession of the house itself. The injustice of the law in question appears with special clarity in Article 2 of Section II,14 according to which, at the same time with the requisition of the premises of ecclesiastical schools into the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education, the repayment of credits and interest on the credits issued to church institutions is just delayed until January 1, 1920, while the restitution of the sums expended by church institutions or private persons for the church school buildings is not even mentioned. Article 3 of Section II allows the parochial schools transferred to the Ministry of Public Education to use the buildings that they now occupy until June 1, 1919, on the same conditions of free use or the size of payment as during their use by churches, monasteries, parishes, brotherhoods, charities, and other church institutions. It is difficult to see this provision as anything else but an unjust requisition of the premises occupied by the parochial schools for the schools of a different category, which clearly creates obstacles for church institutions to continue their work in education. Having surrendered to the Ministry their school premises for free or for a reduced payment, the churches, parishes, brotherhoods, and other church institutions must, at the same time, rent other buildings for their schools at their own expense, thus enduring a double financial burden for the upkeeping of the schools. Alternatively, they will have to cease completely their cultural and educational activity among the people. Article 4 of Section II possesses similar characteristics. Private individuals, societies, and institutions, which previously offered their premises on specific conditions for the use of parochial schools, are obliged by this law proposal to leave these schools even after their transfer to the Ministry of Public Education, even though they will be used for the schools of a different category, which pursue different goals. The owners of the property are thus limited in their disposal of their own property. Moreover, being members of the Orthodox Church, they are deprived of a possibility to offer the premises that belong to them for the church schools, which could have been opened in them, instead of those alienated for the benefit of the Ministry of Public Education. Note 1 to Article 3 of Section II deserves special attention. It states that the question regarding the use of the premises of school churches by professional schools is resolved by the Minister of Public Education after consulting the Minister of Cults. The school church is a building in which there is a holy altar. Such building in no way may be used for nonreligious purposes. The Minister of Cults does not even have a right to give his assent for the transfer of such building. The All-Russian Council with all its resolve protests against any application of

234

APPENDIX I

the law of June 20, 1917, to the school churches, as this leads to an open breach of ecclesiastical canons. Paragraph “b” of the note to Article 3 contains an indication that the effect of Article 3 does not apply to the school premises that were built with the resources of donors or testators, if the conditions of the testament or donation specify that the resources are to be used exclusively for a parochial school. Donors or testators could not foresee that parochial schools could be converted into the schools of a different category against their will. Therefore, when they indicated that such or another sum is designated for parochial schools, the donors or testators presumed that thereby their will was expressed clearly enough, and did not see it necessary to supply their will with some conditions. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Public Education requires now that such conditions be present, even though they could not have been known to donors or testators at the moment when the donations or testaments were made. The interpretation of the meaning of the wills and bequests must be reserved by law exclusively to the court, which makes one or another decision in case of a dispute. It is unacceptable to deprive the court of this right and bestow it upon other institutions. These institutions do not possess such legal apparatus, as do the courts, and, being interested themselves in one or another interpretation of the document, they could not be impartial in their judgment of the last wills or bequests in their own favor. To leave the mentioned terms in the text of the law would mean to attempt to predetermine the will of donors or testators, to undermine the authority and competence of the court, to create in many people the impression of violating the will of the donors and testators, protected by the law, and to make people disillusioned in the prospect of donating or bequesting sums for charitable goals. The Sacred Council resolves to entrust the Most Reverend Chair of the Council with a task to communicate the above mentioned objections to the Provisional Government, through the Minister of Cults.15

VII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Regarding the Decree on Divorce and on Civil Marriage February 19 (March 4), 1918

In the Journal of the Provisional Government of Workers and Farmers (Nos. 36 and 37, 1917), the Council of People’s Commissars has published decrees on the

VO L U M E I I

235

dissolution of marriage and on civil marriage. These decrees, which were published without any consultation with the Orthodox Church and in a complete disregard to the requirements of Christian faith, allow the dissolution of marriage through civil court and, moreover, just per the request of both, or only one of the spouses. This decision openly violates the sanctity of marriage, which, as a general rule, is indissoluble, in accordance with the teaching of our Savior (Matt 19:9), and only in specific, exceptional cases may be dissolved by the ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, in accordance with these decrees, merely a registration notice, made in the court, is sufficient for the performing of a marriage, and there is no prohibition for the divorced to contract new marriages for an unlimited number of times. In its concern for the salvation of the children of the Orthodox Church, the Sacred Council exhorts them not to enter the wide path of sin that leads to destruction, and to adhere strictly to the laws of the Church, keeping in mind that those who transgress the church rules bring upon themselves the wrath of God and the condemnation of the Church. Such decrees that are directed at the overthrowing of the church laws cannot be accepted by the Church. Following the teaching contained in the word of God and in the church canons, the Sacred Council defines the following general rules with regards to marriage and divorce, in view of the decrees [of the Government], recently published: (1) The marriage that has been sanctified by the Church cannot be dissolved by civil authority. The Church will consider such dissolution as invalid. Those who commit the dissolution of their marriage by a mere petition to the secular authorities are guilty of violating the sacrament of marriage. (2) If Orthodox Christians whose marriage was sanctified by the Church and was not dissolved by the church authority contract a new civil marriage only on the basis of a civil divorce, they are guilty of polygamy and adultery. Such marital cohabitations will never receive recognition and sanctification from the Church and constitute a grave sin that, according to ecclesiastical canons, entails penance and excommunication from the Holy Mysteries (canon 87 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,16 canon 77 of St. Basil17). (3) The registration of a marriage in civil institutions cannot serve as a substitute for the rite of ecclesiastical marriage as the holy sacrament that sanctifies and strengthens the marital union of a husband and a wife by the power of grace. Therefore, the marital cohabitations done on the basis of civil registration or the so-called civil marriages must be without exception sanctified by the rite of ecclesiastical marriage. Ecclesiastical marriage, however, is only possible if there are no canonical impediments to the celebration of marriage.

236

APPENDIX I

(4) This definition shall be made public as a guidance to the children of the Orthodox Church. At the same time, the issue regarding the Church’s stance in relation to civil marriage shall be committed for a detailed review to the Conciliar Department on ecclesiastical courts, while the issue regarding the registration of marriages under new conditions shall be committed for the review of the joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.

VIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Superior of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity and St. Alexander Nevsky and on Its Work in Education January 25, 1918

1.

2.

The office of the Superior of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity and St. Alexander Nevsky is restored to the Metropolitan of Petrograd, who will bear the title of the Archimandrite of the Lavra. The Conciliar Commission on the Monasteries and Monasticism is commissioned to prepare the regulations regarding the organization of the educational activity of the Lavra’s monastic brotherhood.

IX. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Regarding the Division of Local Resources for the Support of Parish Clergy November 25, 1917, and March 21 (April 3), 1918

I. The following changes are made to the existing procedures concerning the distribution of local resources intended for the support of the Orthodox clergy: 1.

All the local resources for the support of the parish clergy — such as revenues from private contributions, the interest from the parish capital, the revenues from the tithe of natural produce, the land, the predetermined

VO L U M E I I

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

237

subvention issued by the parishes, as well as the offerings of bread or other produce that it is customary to make to all the clergy in certain places for the celebration of special offices—will be distributed in the following manner, whatever might be the composition of the clergy: each psaltist who is on staff receives one part (1), each deacon who is on staff receives one and one-third part (1 1/3), each priest who is on staff receives two parts (2). For convenience, the proportion of the parts could also be expressed as follows: 1½, 2, and 3, or 3, 4, and 6. Note 1. In parishes where the clergy consists of one priest, one deacon, and two psaltists, the division of local resources is done in the following manner as long as the composition of the clergy remains the same: 3-3-5-9, and if the clergy consists of one priest and two psaltists: 1–1– 2. Note 2. The goodwill donations for special services made to specific members of the clergy, each according to his rank, done outside of the church, are considered as the private recompense of the person who received them and are not subject to distribution. Note 3. The homestead land attached to the houses and outbuildings, with the orchards and gardens that are adjacent to them, is not subject to redistribution. The local resources are distributed in this same proportion for the maintenance of the clergy of prison churches, house churches, cemetery churches, and the churches at the women’s monasteries. For all the cathedral clergy: the archpriest, who is on staff at the cathedral, receives 2 2/3 parts, the dean of the cathedral 2 1/3 parts, each priest and protodeacon, 2 parts, each deacon 1 1/3 parts, each subdeacon 1 1/6 parts, each psaltist 1 part (or, more simply, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3 1/2, and 3 parts). The present definition becomes effective as of January 1, 1918. The redistribution of the parochial land in proportions 3, 4, and 6 should be accomplished after the issue of land ownership is resolved by the Constituent Assembly, unless the latter indicates another procedure for using this land. Until that time, payments for the surpluses of land that, according to the new rules, are due from the priests and deacons to the psaltists, are made in cash, in accordance with existing lease rates in this locality. The salary that the clergy at present receives from the state treasury, pending the final resolution of the issue regarding the financial support of the clergy by the State, shall be issued in the amounts that were established, without redistribution. The present definition does not apply: (a) to the interest from the capital or the income from the property which were intended by the donors for the support of specific clerics only, e.g., of the deacons who are not on staff;

238

8.

APPENDIX I

(b) to such cases when the division of the interest from the donated capital or of the income from the donated resources is determined by the donor himself; (c) in general, to all revenues and property with the special intended purpose. Except for the modifications indicated in the preceding articles, the regulations concerning the local resources for the support of parish clergy, approved on March 24, 1873, with subsequent amendments, remain in effect.

II. The Supreme Church Administration is asked to publish, after the Council is finished, the consolidated list of the previously approved regulations, which were not suppressed and concerned the means of support for the clergy and their distribution, including the present definition and all other future resolutions on this matter.

X. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Formation of the General Church Fund, and on the Salaries for the Professors and Staff of Ecclesiastical Schools until September 1/14, 1918 March 15 (28), 1918

1.

2.

In order to meet the general needs of the Church and to cover the expenses for the salaries of those who work at the ecclesiastical schools until the end of the 1917–18 school year (up to September 1/14, 1918), a special general church fund is established under the auspices of the Supreme Church Administration. In order to supply resources for this general church fund, the following collections will be taken up: (a) a special plate collection18 in the churches during all-night vigil and Liturgy in the course of one year, on certain days, in accordance with the calendar drawn up by the joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, and (b) a temporary collection from May 1 (14), 1918, to April 30 (May 13), 1919, intended for the needs of ecclesiastical schools, and consisting of

VO L U M E I I

3.

4.

5.

6.

239

ten rubles per poud 19 of candles issued for sale by the diocesan candle factories and warehouses, in addition to the already established fiveruble collection per poud of candles for the expenses of the Sacred Council. Note. In the dioceses where the local resources have already been used for salaried appointments at the ecclesiastical schools (salaries of the faculty, the students, and the maintenance staff, according to the amount of appointments already made) for the first semester of 1918, the established amounts are reimbursed from the next ten-ruble collection in the diocese, and the rest of that collection, if any, is directed to the general church fund. The general church fund is also supplemented by voluntary contributions from parish communities, whether by lump sum or by installments, intended either for the support of the institutions of the Church in general or, more specifically, for the support of the ecclesiastical schools. All the money that comes from collections or contributions listed above is distributed, according to its intended purpose, by the Supreme Church Administration. The general church fund is used for: (a) the salaries for all the faculty and staff of the ecclesiastical schools: theological academies, theological seminaries, ecclesiastical professional schools for men, and women’s schools under the auspices of the Synod, in the amount of the fixed salary from the fund and special resources of the Holy Synod, without indexation for inflation, up to September 1 (14), 1918; (b) the salaries for the faculty and staff of the diocesan women’s schools in the part that they receive from the treasury and from special amounts issued by the Holy Synod; (c) the salaries for all the faculty of ecclesiastical schools who were evacuated from the dioceses that were occupied by the enemy, until the further fate of these schools is finally decided, as well as the fate of the above mentioned dioceses; these monies are paid if no other source can be found to cover this expense; and (d) the pensions for the service at the ecclesiastical schools according to the established amount. At the expense of the money collected from the sale of candles, and if there is an immediate necessity to satisfy the needs of the faculty of ecclesiastical schools, temporary loans may be taken out from the diocesan pension funds, diocesan charities, and candle factories, if such loans have received the approval of the diocesan congress of clergy and laity, which should not be convoked any later than May 1 (14), 1918.

240

7.

8.

APPENDIX I

The diocesan congresses of clergy and laity and the ecclesiastical schools themselves should seek out also other means for supplying the amounts needed for the support of ecclesiastical schools until September 1 (14), 1918, while respecting the established procedures. It is desirable that the amount of the basic salary of the faculty and staff who work at the diocesan women’s schools be, to the extent that it is possible, made equal to the salary of the faculty and staff of other ecclesiastical schools.

XI. The Resolution of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On a Special Collection to Cover the Expenses of the Council December 2, 1917

1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

Establish a special surcharge of five rubles per poud, collected from all church candles issued by the diocesan, monastery, and other church candle factories, beginning on January 1, 1918. This collection will be in effect throughout 1918, until January 1, 1919. The responsibility to collect the surcharge lies with the candle factories, when they deliver the candles, while the management of this collection will be placed upon the Central Committee of the diocesan candle factories. The Committee, indicated above, is allowed to issue up to 500,000 rubles in the year 1917 to cover the current expenses of the Council, with the assurance of a new surcharge, and up to 2 million rubles in the year 1918. The sum will be paid partially at a monthly rate of 300,000 to 500,000 rubles, from the cash available at the Central Committee, with the interest upon the borrowed capital of 4% per year, so that this loan will be progressively covered by the collection from the candle factories that comes to the disposal of the Central Committee. The money obtained from the surcharge or borrowed on the basis of its guarantee should be used only to cover the expenses of the Council, in accordance with the instructions of the Council’s Executive Committee or of the Economic and Administrative Consultation, working under the auspices of the Committee. Grant to the Holy Synod the right to issue necessary directives concerning this subject.

V III Mo s cow, 1 9 1 8

I. Introduction to the Parish Statutes Composed, by the commission of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, by the members of the Council: Archbishop Seraphim of Tver, Archbishop Andronik of Perm, L. K. Artamonov, and I. I. Astrov. Reviewed by the Supreme Church Administration, in fulfillment of the resolution of the Sacred Council of April 7/20, 1918. I The goal of the Christian life is salvation of the soul unto life everlasting. The inspiring principle for the Christians is their faith in Christ, the Son of God, who became man for our salvation. Such inspiration through faith shows itself in the spiritual state of Christians who are being saved, as well as in their life, which reflects their faith, and in their relationships with each other. Being held together by one spirit of faith, Christians, quite naturally, fulfill in themselves Christ’s commandment regarding the unity of those who believe in him, after the image of the unity of the Holy Trinity. As in the Holy Trinity there is one life of Divine essence, so also in the multitude of Christians who are being saved there is one life of him, the faith in whom inspires them all. This is one life after the image of the life of a body, in which all and every member fulfills its purpose for the whole body, moved and enlivened by one life of its head, which permeates the entire body and its members with its source of life. This is what was created by the Savior—His Holy Church, His Body. It encompasses in itself all believers of every time and every nation of this world. For this reason, it is the only guide on the way to the eternal life, for salvation may be attained only in Christ’s Holy Church. From the very beginning of Christianity, the realization of this ecclesial spirit among neighboring Christians was achieved through individual, small churches, led and guided by bishops. With the increase in the number of Christians, bishops ordained presbyters and entrusted to their guidance some parts of their dioceses, which are now called Orthodox parishes. Thus, the Lord 241

242

APPENDIX I

entrusted the building up and the governance of his Church to his Apostles and to their successors, the Bishops, and through the latter he entrusts the small churches, the parishes, to the presbyters. He entrusted to his laborers and shepherds the souls of the faithful in order to bring them to the obedience of faith, according to St. Paul (Rom 1:5). They are those who inspire and build up both the entire Church and also individual small churches, the parishes. They are those from whom the Lord will require answer for the fate of the Church, of parishes, and of individual Christians. Built upon this principle, the Christian life in parishes is sanctified by the grace of the Savior who dwells in the Church. The faith that inspires all quite naturally motivates all for a living, active participation in the ecclesial life of a parish, as in the salvation of one’s own soul (1 Cor 12). Every individual Christian, in accordance with gifts and responsibilities given to him, fulfulls his task of obedience, which constitutes his vocation within the ecclesial body. On the other hand, if any individual Christian deviates from his vocation, his obedience, or seizes a ministry in the Church that has not been given to him, not only does he bring disarray into the life of the entire ecclesial body, but moreover puts himself afar from the hope of attaining his soul’s salvation. Here, as in the living body filled with grace, no one may derelict from his duty—but also no one may seize for himself one or another ministry in the Church that was not given to him. The loss of the living connection with the Church and of the understanding of one’s purpose in the Church in view of the inheritance of eternal life creates disputes and quarrels between individual members of the Church, condemned by St. Paul (1 Cor 12), which demean the holy salvific work of Christ. However, the correct ecclesial life in a parish is arranged in accordance with this grace-filled testament of the Holy Apostle Paul: Do not think of yourselves more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourselves with sober judgment in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. . . . If a man’s gift is prophesying let him use it in proportion to his faith; if it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach. Let him who gives do so with simplicity; let he who presides do so with diligence; let he who shows mercy do so joyfully. (Rom 12:6– 8) Therefore, in an Orthodox parish, the pastors, endowed with grace through the Bishop, must be responsible guides and organizers of the entire life of a parish. Under their direction, other clerics and lay people, their flock, must to the measure of their gifts from God and the obediences imposed on them, work for the building up of the parish for the most suitable way for the attainment of the salvation of the souls of all and every Christian parishioner. The care for this as-

VO L U M E I I I

243

pect gives a possibility and an opportunity for everyone to apply the best of their strength and ability in order to labor for Christ unto salvation of their souls: for one, by serving at liturgy and in church; for another, in charity; for a third, in education; for yet another one, in admonishing and denouncing those who lapsed; etc., in accordance with the Apostle’s words— to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4:12–13) About this community of Christians who are being saved, who readily receive the word concerning Christ, one can indeed say what was spoken about the first Christians: They unceasingly devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship and to the breaking of bread and the prayers. All who believed were together and had all things in common: and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need . . . having favor with all the people. (Acts 2:42, 44– 45, 47) “None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor” (Acts 5:13). So also all of Christians, by their spirit coming into unity among themselves in the liturgy, in the common prayer of the Church, seeing it as the soul of the entire life in Christ for those who believe in him, through this in the unity of their spirit are filled with the grace and power of Christ, the Head of the ecclesial body, and are united also in their whole Christian life and activity. This is how it comes to be in the entire Church of Christ, and this is also true for the small churches, the parishes. This is the essence and purpose of the Church of Christ, this is the ecclesial foundation and organizing principle for an Orthodox parish, as a small church of Christians who are being saved. It is from this aspect that we must regard all of the regulations pertaining to the organization of an Orthodox parish. II The Statutes of the Orthodox Parish do not introduce any novelty, but rather something that existed from ancient times in the Greek Orthodox Church. As we said above, from the very beginning, the parishes that were coextensive with the dioceses and were headed by bishops were like small churches, having an

244

APPENDIX I

inner bond of unity among them. Such unity had ensured that at the time of persecutions the Church did not become dispersed, but was uniting in itself the Christians of all places and all nations. The Edict of Milan (AD 313) of emperor Constantine, Equal to the Apostles, found the Orthodox parishes as already organized, and recognized their legal rights as owners of the parish property. Each small Christian church consisted of clergy and laity, headed by the bishop, and constituted a parish (paroikia). Through the clerics whom he ordained, the bishop was the leader of ecclesial life in a parish, and he was the steward of the use of its church property exclusively for the needs of the Church (Apostolic canons 38,1 40,2 413). Having received our faith from the Greeks, we Russians have also received from them their order of ecclesiastical parish life—however, using our peculiar approach to the matter. First of all, while in the [Christian] East the dioceses expanded progressively from one parish to the union of many parishes, in Russia the process was reverse: the borders of the dioceses were gradually shrinking, and the number of dioceses increased. A Russian bishop who administered a much more extended diocese with a multitude of parishes could not closely oversee the governance and administration of each individual parish. In part this situation was corrected by the fact that parish priests from within the diocesan borders gathered to their bishop on the Sunday of Orthodoxy or on another Sunday, which was thus called the “Sunday of the assembly.”4 Such assemblies discussed ecclesiastical and parish affairs and needs, while the priests received direction and advice from their bishop to implement in their life. Due to such conditions, our parishes naturally organized themselves under the direction of their pastors, guided by the diocesan bishop. Parishes selected the candidates for holy orders for the bishop. Parishes were the ones that built and supported churches and rectories, as well as other parish buildings that were considered secular. They also provided a parish salary for the clergy. Such order was affirmed by the decree of the Stoglav Council of 1551, as well as by the Spiritual Regulation [of 1721]. Having been organized on these principles, an ancient Orthodox parish was an active supporter of church education and of the charitable work. The clergy was responsible for teaching literacy and liturgical music, and the Stoglav Council itself attests to a high level of success in this endeavor. At that time, “there were very many of those who knew letters, could write, sing, and read,” and they “were renowned in the entire land until today.” The charitable work was conducted by the parish and through elected wardens and brotherhood members (bratchiki) with their assistants. Thus also various hospices or “God’s homes” (the source of the word bozhedomki) and all-parish festal meals (for the feasts of Protection of the Theotokos, Dormition, St. Nicholas, etc.) were organized under the auspices of parish churches. On feast days

VO L U M E I I I

245

the parishioners, together with the clergy, gathered to the parish house, discussed parish affairs and needs, heard the warden’s report, and checked the “people’s box,” that is, the cash box containing the parish treasury and documents. By means of this “box,” the church treasury was a kind of parish bank, from which supplies were drawn for one or another help to parishioners in difficult times in their life. For the clear record of its membership, the parish kept a parish register, which later was replaced by the register of births, marriages, and deaths. The gradual and careful, but, at the same time, resolute and planned realization of the Statutes of the Orthodox Parish, passed by the Church Council will result in the restoration of the above mentioned ancient order of parish life. III How is this organization of an Orthodox parish to begin? Given the proclaimed freedom of religion, but also the undoubted persecution against the Church, one ought first of all to know who actually belongs to the Church of Christ, who, being ready to suffer peril for the faith, “readily receives the word of the Apostles” concerning Christ the Savior unto life eternal. For this end, it is necessary at this time to conduct in the parishes the registration of all who desire to belong to a given parish attached to one or another church. In order to prepare Christians for this registration for the parish records, one must conduct talks with the Orthodox people, both in churches and in villages, concerning the saving faith, concerning the Church, outside of which salvation does not and cannot exist, concerning parish life and work, and concerning mandatory personal participation of each parishioner in the work of a parish, as the sacred duty of a Christian for salvation of his soul, and that without fulfilling this duty, a Christian will be a dead member of the body. In these talks, one must point out that in the life of a parish there is a task both for a pastor and other clerics, as well as for every parishioner. It would be even more prudent if each individual point of these talks would be summarized in a separate statement and the audience would be made to learn it by heart by repeating this statement at once during this talk. In order to inspire the audience, it is not only necessary that these talks begin and end with prayer, but also that the popular singing of prayers should accompany and intercalate these talks. After what was said has been explained, one must with insistence point out that the neglect of true ecclesial life, our loss of the sense of belonging to the Church, which unites us all and inspires us for brotherly fellowship for eternal salvation, among other things, led to the current moral decline with its ominous consequences that we now experience, when such a malicious hostility exists today among the people who call themselves

246

APPENDIX I

Christians. After this point has been repeatedly and clearly explained, one may, and should, offer to all who freely desire to become parishioners at one or another church to enroll into the parish register. Only after the registration is complete, one may begin to organize the entire work of the parish, beginning with the organization of the Parish Council. After all specific areas of the parish’s life have been discussed, the measures for their better organization and amelioration should be indicated, as well as the means by which to achieve these goals. At the same time, the pastor must not begin to implement the Statutes for an Orthodox Parish without having prepared in advance some of the parishioners for a conscious and active participation in this cause. Without a doubt, any pastor has in his parish a number of particularly pious and sensible parishioners. They must be united around the pastor, and the latter should encourage them to take active part in the affairs of the parish and to bring others to such participation. Thus, step by step, there will appear in parishes large or small groups and fellowships of zealous people. They will be the pastor’s closest supporters who will promote his initiatives in the parish. This will also be a means for a gradual and reasonable preparation for the expedient, rather than blind and haphazard, elections to the Parish Council and to other ministries in the parish. Only after such attentive preparation, one must begin to implement the Statutes for an Orthodox Parish approved by the Sacred Council. The supervisors for the affairs of the parish are elected from the most pious and hardworking parishioners, as well as from the zealous people, who may be useful for the close oversight of one or another ministry in the parish: one could direct education; another, charitable work; a third one, youth work; another will keep an eye on sectarian propaganda; and yet another, on the education of children; etc. Moreover, for the convenience of overseeing the life of the parish and directing its affairs, the entire parish should be divided into groups, which leadership is entrusted to specific parishioner supervisors and leaders. In this way, the high pastoral duty of the priest in a parish will be fulfilled with the assistance of parishioners themselves: what previously had eluded the attention of a parish pastor, overburdened with parish affairs, will now be brought to him through his assistants, the inspired members of his flock, in order to evoke from him a needed response and direction. Being personally inspired, as a pastor, for the above mentioned parish work for the salvation of his soul, the parish priest will indeed be a real leader and even a father to his flock. His life will be inseparable from the life of his flock, and the flock will maintain a close, living connection with its shepherd, as a conductor of divine grace that illumines, vivifies, and unites them into one ecclesial body. Only under these conditions can the pastor, out of his personal

VO L U M E I I I

247

pastoral inspiration, put the “breath of life” into the dry bones of the Statutes on the Orthodox Parish. Thus gradually the parish life will come into order in all of Russia, in order to revive her from the current experience of spiritual devastation. The living source of Christian faith will enlighten the darkness of our spiritual impoverishment, will raise the spirits of individual Christians, will lay the foundation for a good family life, and will by this ameliorate our society. The soul of the people will be revived by the revival of faith through the parish life, and thus also the body of the people’s life will be revived, that is, our statehood. IV All that has been said above leads us to conclude the following : 1. The Lord who suffered on the Cross for the salvation of human souls has founded for the same purpose on earth his Holy Church, as Noah’s Ark at the time of the universal flood. Outside of his Church, no one can be saved. 2. This Church of his, which is full of grace, the Savior has entrusted to the leadership of the Apostles and to their successors, the Bishops, who, deeming it impossible for one person to govern the entire diocese, entrust some parts thereof, as parishes, to the presbyters as executors of episcopal directives for the Christians. 3. Under the charismatic leadership of the pastors, the faithful are united in prayer, in liturgy, in life, constituting small churches, the ecclesiastical parishes for the common work and mutual assistance in order to ascend to God illumined by his law laid down in the Gospel, and guided by the canons of the Church. 4. As an image of the life in a human body, the grace-filled life of Christ that spreads in the entire body of his Church manifests itself similarly in the life of a parish. Therefore, every Christian should take an active part in the improvement for the better of the parish affairs, and by that to reach his personal salvation. 5. For this purpose, all the parishioners under the leadership of the pastors divinely ordained through the succession [from the Apostles] constitute one spiritual family in Christ and take an active part in the whole life of the parish, to the best of their strengths and gifts. 6. However, so that both the pastors and their flock would remain under the grace-filled guidance of Christ himself in his Church, they must remember the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage: “The bishop is the Church, and the Church is the bishop, and whoever is not with his bishop, he is outside of the Church.”

248

APPENDIX I

Appendix I On Divine Services 1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

On Sundays and feast days parishioners and their families attend their parish church in order to be present and to participate in the liturgy of the Church, to the extent allowed by the church canons, keeping in mind that, in accordance with a strict church canon, they are subject to excommunication from the Church if they do not attend liturgy on three Sundays [in a row] without an honorable reason (canon 80 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). On other days, parishioners attend church and take part in the liturgy of the Church to the extent that they are able. On the days in which the typicon of the Church appoints the Great Blessing of Water to be celebrated at the rivers, lakes, streams, etc., such blessings are to be celebrated in places established for this by a local tradition or appointed by the church authority, and all the parishioners are to be present at these services, if possible, with their whole families. On the days in which the Church commemorates the departed, parishioners participate in the services established for this end at their parishes. Wherever there is a cemetery, the memorial services5 are celebrated, if possible, at those cemeteries. On the days of public calamities, parishioners come together for public services, celebrated in churches and, whenever needed, outdoors (in the streets, squares, fields, etc.). On the days established by a local tradition or appointed by church authorities for holding public processions, all the parishioners take part in these processions, if possible, with their whole families.

II On Patronal Feasts 7.

8.

9.

The feast days and commemorations of Saints, in whose honor the parish churches and their altars were built, are to be especially observed in the parishes. The divine services on those days shall be conducted with special solemnity, with all of the parishioners present, if possible. The church observance of patronal feasts may continue over several days, in accordance with local customs and traditions. If possible, these days serve as occasions for the most important events of the parish’s public life: general and parish assemblies are organized, the schools, newly established by the parish, are opened, etc. On the days of patronal feasts, the rector of the church with the minor clergy, or one of the priests with the minor clergy, pay visits to the homes of

VO L U M E I I I

249

parishioners where they celebrate a short prayer service in honor of the feast, as stipulated by the existing local customs. 10. In the cities, the patronal feast of the cathedral church is observed as the patronal feast of the entire city. 11. In the dioceses, the patronal feast of the cathedral church is observed as the patronal feast of the entire diocese. 12. The patronal feast of the Patriarchal cathedral church is observed as the patronal feast of the entire Russian Church. III Concerning the Visiting of Homes 13. Aside from patronal feasts, the rector of the church, together with the minor clergy, or a priest together with the minor clergy pay visits to their parishioners at their homes for a short prayer, on the days fixed for this purpose by local custom and church tradition, e.g., the days of Pascha, of the Nativity of Christ, of the Baptism of the Lord, in the beginning of Lent. 14. The rector of the church or a priest with the minor clergy visit the parishioners’ homes in order to give the last rites to the departed, when invited. 15. When specifically invited by parishioners, the parish rector or a priest with the minor clergy may celebrate in the parishioners’ homes also other sacraments and liturgical services which the Church permits to be celebrated at private homes. 16. The rector and a priest may — and even should— pay visits to the homes of their parishioners at their own initiative in order to provide them with spiritual guidance. They may delegate such visits also to other members of the local clergy.

II. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Orthodox Parish April 7 (20), 1918 THE PARISH STATUTE Chapter I Basic Regulations 1.

A parish in the Orthodox Church is a community of Orthodox Christians that consists of clergy and laity that dwell in a specific locality and united

250

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

APPENDIX I

around a church, which constitutes a part of a diocese and is subject to the canonical supervision of its diocesan Bishop, and which is led by a priest, the rector, who is appointed by the diocesan Bishop. The purpose of a parish is that the Orthodox Christians united through the faith in Christ, prayer, sacraments, Christian teaching, and church discipline, would work together to attain salvation through Christian education, a good way of life, and the works of Christian charity, and would take care of the needs of their church, its clergy, and parish, together with its institutions, as well as for the needs of the diocese and the general needs of the Russian and Universal Church. A new parish is opened with the permission of the Supreme Church Administration or at the request of the populace, or by the decision of the diocesan authority, while observing the regulations and laws established in this regard. The boundaries of a parish may be changed by the diocesan authority at the petition of the parishioners and with the agreement of the clergy and of the parishes whose boundaries are being changed. If for any reason the number of parishioners in a parish will significantly decrease, and the remaining parishioners will not be able to provide the clergy and the church with an appropriate subsidy, or if the parishioners overall become greatly impoverished and it is impossible to provide the necessary subsidy from the general diocesan or ecclesiastical fund, or if the parishioners neglect their essential duty of supporting the church and its clergy, the diocesan authority shall resolve to merge this parish, together with its church building, with one of the nearest monasteries or neighboring parishes. Accordingly, in the parishes that are served by multiple clergy, the number of clergy will be reduced. If the parish is closed due to the parishioners’ transition to another confession or for any other reasons, the churches, houses of prayer, chapels, and the entire property of the church building and of the parish is transferred by the order of the diocesan authority to another church building and parish, at the discretion of the bishop. Both the parish church building and the parish itself possess the rights of juridical persons.

Chapter II The Parish Church 8.

The parish church is the holy place of the parish and, therefore, the care for the adornment of the church is the sacred duty of the clergy and parishioners. The duty of protecting the church lies with the parishioners under the direction of the clergy.

VO L U M E I I I

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

251

Aside from the parish church, the parish may have churches attached to it, cemetery churches, as well as houses of prayer and chapels. The parish churches, houses of prayer, and chapels are established with the permission of the diocesan authority and adhering to the ecclesiastical and civil legislation in this regard, with the financial support of the parish, diocese, state treasury, private benefactors, public associations, etc. Note. At the request of the parish, the diocesan bishop may grant the title of a Church’s Trustee to the persons who built or contributed with their labors to the construction, adornment, or maintenance of the parish church. If local financial resources are required for the construction of a church or for its urgent major renovation, a collection may be allowed to take place either (a) in that same diocese, by the power of the diocesan Bishop, (b) in other dioceses, by agreement with local Bishops, or (c) throughout Russia, by the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Divine services may also be celebrated in the houses of prayer and chapels, not excepting the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, with the permission of the diocesan Bishop. The churches that are attached to the parish, as well as the cemetery churches, must be preserved and maintained in good condition.

Chapter III The Clergy 14. The clergy of the parish is composed of a priest, a deacon, and a psaltist. The diocesan authority may increase or reduce the number of the people composing the clergy of a parish, at the request of the parish in accordance with its needs. In any case, the clergy of a parish should include no fewer than two persons: a priest and a deacon, or a priest and a psaltist. Note. A person ordained to the diaconate may also exercise the duties of a psaltist. 15. Priests, deacons, and minor clergy are elected and appointed by the diocesan Bishop who also takes into consideration the candidates proposed by the Parish Assembly. 16. The members of the clergy of a parish may be transferred or dismissed from their position only in accordance with the decision of the [ecclesiastical] court, or by their own request. 17. The duties of the members of the clergy that they exercise in their positions as priests, deacons, and minor clerics are determined by the canons of the Church and by the directives of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 18. The rector of the parish and other priests (where there are such) of the parish, together with other members of the parish clergy, are accountable

252

APPENDIX I

before God and before their Bishop for the good welfare of the parish with regard to the state of religious piety, spiritual education, and moral wellbeing in it. 19. In addition to their pastoral and liturgical duties, the parish clergy are responsible for keeping in order the parish registers and other church documentation. Chapter IV The Parishioners 20. All people of the Orthodox faith who reside within the boundaries of the parish and who maintain a living connection with their parish church are recognized as parishioners. 21. For the celebration of ritual services, the parishioners come to their parish priest who is obligated, in accordance with the church canons, to perform ritual services for all his parishioners. In some cases, specified by the law, he is obligated to perform ritual services also for the members of other parishes who reside within the boundaries of his parish, but also for those who reside outside of his parish’s boundaries. 22. All the parishioners with their families, who take residence within the boundaries of the parish, are listed by the clergy in a special parish register. This register, in special columns, contains the surname, name, patronymic, title, and occupation of every parishioner, the date of his birth, baptism, confession, Holy Communion, marriage, death, of his moving into the parish, and the date of his departure from the parish. The book of register is issued once and for all by the diocesan authority. Note. The format of the parish register is approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 23. In the case of the change of residence and of a transfer of someone from one parish to another, the rector issues, at the request of the person who is moving, an extract concerning that person from the parish register, with an appropriate signature and seal. This extract is then entered into the register of that person’s new parish. 24. The parishioners of one or another parish may at the same time, if they so desire, be inscribed into the register of other parishes where they live or where their immovable property is situated, if they inform the Parish Assembly of each parish in this regard. Note. The persons who do not go to confession to their parish priest must present to him the certificate from their confessor that they have received the sacrament.

VO L U M E I I I

253

25. Every parishioner contributes to the good estate of his parish as concerns spiritual, moral, and other matters: participates in the divine services, observes fasts, goes to confession and receives the Holy Mysteries, and takes part in the works of charity, Christian education, and mutual assistance. 26. It is a duty of parishioners to take care for materially supporting the clergy, and for providing them with houses in villages or with houses or apartments in the cities. Note. The parishes, where due to local conditions the clerics live in their own houses, built upon the land that belongs to the church, may make an agreement with the clerics that leave the parish in order to acquire their houses for the needs of the local clergy. Chapter V The Administration of the Affairs of the Parish 27. The rector administers the affairs of the parish, with the guidance of the diocesan Bishop and with the cooperation of other members of the clergy and of the church warden, and with the participation of the parishioners. 28. The cooperation of the clergy and the parishioners in administering the affairs of the parish is exercised through the Parish Assembly and the Parish Council. 29. The duty of the rector is to take care for all affairs of the parish and to supervise the correct procedures regarding financial matters and correspondence, as well as to communicate with the diocesan authority regarding the affairs of the church and the parish. 30. The church warden is elected by the parishioners for three years. With the cooperation of the clergy and the Parish Council, he acquires, safeguards, and disposes the church finances and all church property, under the supervision and guidance of the Dean and of the diocesan Bishop. Note. The Instruction to church wardens is issued by the Supreme Church Administration. 31. The church wardens at the parish churches and their assistants are elected by the Parish Assembly. Note. Women may also be elected as church wardens. 32. After his election, the church warden takes an oath, and is the executor of the directives of the Parish Assembly and Council with regard to the management of the church’s economic affairs. 33. The church warden is ex officio a member of the Parish Council. 34. The church warden works under the control of the Parish Council; at the end of the year, he presents to the Parish Council a report regarding the

254

35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

APPENDIX I

state of the church’s property, and regarding the receipts and expenditures of the church’s money. This report is submitted to the diocesan authority, according to the normal procedure. In exceptional cases and at the request of the parish, the offices of the church warden and of the parish treasurer can be merged. Church wardens of the cathedral churches, of the district (uyezd) churches that do not have parishes, as well as of the cemetery churches in the cities that do not have parishes, are elected by the general assembly of the delegates of all Orthodox parishes in that city. Note. The number of the members of this assembly and the procedure for the election is determined by the diocesan authority. Church wardens may also be elected for the churches attached to parishes, which do not have their own clergy, if these churches have liturgical services, possess their own property, and manage their economic affairs separately from the parish church. The wardens for the domestic churches attached to the educational institutions, hospices, charities, and others are elected by the management of the institutions where the churches are situated. The church wardens are confirmed, in the cases beyond dispute, by the Deanery Council, and in disputed cases, by the diocesan authority. Note. The wardens of the cathedral churches are confirmed by the diocesan Bishop. At the discretion of the Parish Assembly, an assistant to the church warden may be elected, on the basis of the articles above that concerned the church warden.

Chapter VI The Parish Assembly 41. The Parish Assembly is called by the decision of the Parish Council no less than once in six months. If needed, the Council may call a special Parish Assembly, on the basis of (a) the decision of the Council; (b) the directive of the diocesan authority; (c) the petition of no fewer than twenty-five parishioners who can be members of the Parish Assembly. 42. Parish Assemblies take place in the space convenient for such purpose or, if no such space is available, they may be also convoked in the church. 43. The announcement regarding the convocation of a regular Parish Assembly is done in the church after the liturgy on three Sundays or feast days that precede the day of the Assembly. Moreover, the announcement should be posted on the church doors or can be distributed through other

VO L U M E I I I

255

means by the direction of the Parish Council. The announcement should contain the precise time and place of the Assembly, as well as the subjects on the agenda. The Parish Assembly may be called in seven days for the cases of extreme urgency, on the condition that the announcement be made speedily to the entire parish. Such an assembly, however, cannot make decisions on any monetary taxes imposed upon the entire parish. Note. In the case of special importance, the calling of the Parish Assembly may be done without delay, by informing through all possible means and ways the members of the Assembly that they must appear to the place of the Assembly. 44. The right to be a full voting member of the Parish Assembly belongs to all members of the parish clergy and the parishioners of both sexes who have reached twenty-five years of age and are listed in the parish register, with the exception of the persons indicated in Articles 45 and 46. The right to take part in the Assembly as nonvoting members belongs to all parishioners who have reached the age of marriage and who manage their own household. 45. The Parish Assembly may rescind the right to take part in its sessions, and the right to be elected to the offices of the parish from the persons who: (a) are guilty of disorderly conduct in the church, as well as at the Parish Assembly; (b) persistently neglect to contribute for the collections for the needs of the entire parish; (c) have a disreputable occupation or lead a disreputable way of life. The Assembly may restore all these persons in their rights, on the condition that they repent and with their life bring witness to their changing of ways. 46. The persons who do not have a right to take part in the Parish Assembly are the following: (1) those who live in the parish for less than a year and are not listed in the parish register; (2) those who neglect to fulfill every year their Christian duty of confession and Holy Communion, excepting the cases when the Assembly may restore to such persons the right to participate in the Assembly due to special excusable reasons, attested by the parish priest; (3) those who have been convicted of theft, fraud, embezzlement of entrusted property, harboring of stolen property, purchase and taking as a pawn of a property that he knew to be stolen or acquired through deception, usury, or other more serious crimes, unless the case against a person ended with reconciliation or a person has served his prison term and three years have passed since then; (4) persons who are guilty of open cohabitation without ecclesiastical marriage.

256

APPENDIX I

47. The Parish Assembly checks the qualifications of its members. Every member of the Parish Assembly who for one or another reason lost his right to take part in the Assembly is obliged himself to abstain from participation. 48. The items on the agenda that were not indicated in the announcement on the convocation of the Assembly cannot, in any case, be reviewed by the Assembly without the consent of the Parish Council. 49. The items on the agenda to be decided at the Parish Assembly are prepared either by the Parish Council or by a special committee chosen by the Parish Assembly. 50. The Parish Assembly is considered valid if, aside from the rector, no less than one-tenth of the parishioners with full rights have appeared for the Assembly. When, however, the item on the agenda includes the proposing of a candidate for a vacancy among the clergy or the election of the members of the Parish Council, or the decision regarding self-taxation or any financial matter, the Assembly requires the presence of no less than half of the parishioners with full rights for its decisions to be valid. 51. In large parishes, where more than five hundred parishioners with full rights are included in the parish register, the Parish Assembly may be composed of the delegates from the parishioners. For the election of the delegates, the parish is divided into sectors, while the number of the delegates are determined by the size of the parish and the number of sectors in the parish. The establishment of such a composition for Parish Assemblies and the number of delegates in every parish is subject to confirmation by the diocesan authority at the request of the parish. For such an Assembly to be valid, no less than two-thirds of the delegates must be present, aside from the rector. 52. If the Assembly does not take place due to the lack of a quorum, it is called for a second time at the time decided by the Parish Council, and is considered valid with any number of parishioners present. The parishioners are notified of this in the announcement on the convocation of the Assembly. 53. The parishes that are dispersed over a large area and consist of many villages and hamlets must send to the Parish Assembly the delegates from every sector of the parish. The number of the delegates is determined by the first Parish Assembly. 54. The Parish Assembly is chaired by the rector of the parish or another priest in his place, in case of his illness or absence. The deputy chair is elected by the Assembly from the laity. If the case that is discussed concerns the rector personally, as well as when the candidates for the clergy vacancies are elected, the Dean or his assistant always presides at the Assembly. 55. The Parish Assembly discusses and resolves all the affairs of the parish, administers the parish capital and property, through its trusted and elected officials—the members of the Parish Council and trustees—oversees the

VO L U M E I I I

257

affairs of all parish institutions, and imposes taxation on all the members of the parish. 56. Specifically, the matters that are subject to discussion and resolution by the Parish Assembly include: (a) the matters concerning construction, repairs, and suitable maintenance of the churches and all the buildings belonging to the church, as well as of the cemeteries; (b) the evaluation of the candidates for the clergy positions in the parish; (c) the provision of housing and salary for the members of the clergy; (d) the matters concerning establishment and repair of the homes for the clergy with necessary outbuildings; (e) the election of the parish officers: the church warden, the members of the Parish Council, the members of the auditing committee, trustees, guardians, and those in charge of parish institutions and property; (f ) in applicable cases, the determination of the size of the salary for the parish officers; (g) the determination of the procedures for the executive bodies of the parish; (h) the approval of the regulations pertaining to the administration of the capital and other property belonging to the parish, or remain under its management and direction, as well as the administration of the medical, charitable, educational, and other institutions that are attached to the parish; (i) the presenting of resolutions on the issues that either the diocesan authority or the Government submit for discussion at the Assembly; (j) the initiation of petitions to the diocesan Bishop and the civil authorities; (k) the provision for the religious and moral education and upbringing of the young generation and the administration of the parish educational institutions, as well as the care for the church music, for the organization of the religious moral talks and readings, for the parish library, supplied with the books on religion and morality, and for the publication of the instructive pamphlets and booklets; (l) the provision for the formation of missionary groups and brotherhoods, for the foundation of groups and establishments concerned with education, the church-cleaning groups, charitable groups and the groups of mutual assistance, of the fire brigade, of the cooperatives, the consumer store, the parish house, of the parish apiary, and others; (m) the finding of resources for the needs of the parish by means of collections, self-taxation, subscriptions, as well as of credits and loans, using the church finances as collateral; (n) the creation of special funds for the needs of the church and the parish;

258

57.

58.

59.

60.

APPENDIX I

(o) the matters concerning the acquisition and alienation of immovable property; (p) the matters concerning the accepting of donations in favor of the church and the parish; (q) the matters concerning the submission of mandatory payments and granting subsidies for the needs of the diocese and the church as a whole; (r) the review and approval of the estimate and apportionment of pledges in the form of money or produce; (s) the conversion of the produce pledges into money and vice versa; (t) the release from the irretrievable and incorrectly allotted collection debts; (u) the control over the activity of the Parish Council, the approval of its reports, and the review of complaints against the Council and the officers of the parish; (v) the initiation of the procedures regarding the accountability of the chairman, his deputy, and the members of the Council, as well as of the other officers of the parish; (w) the judgment regarding [specific] actions of the members of the parish (see Art. 45). The Parish Council is granted the right to bring to the attention of appropriate authorities a petition regarding the changing or amending of the present Statute in accordance with the local situation. The Chair of the Parish Assembly proposes the matters to be discussed, leads the discussion, and directs it, if possible, toward general consensus and summarizes the resolutions that have been passed, while terminating the discussion on the items that go outside the scope of the Assembly’s jurisdiction. He also assures the exterior decorum of the Assembly, issues warnings to those who disrupt it, stops those who speak out of order, and makes a proposal for the expulsion from the Assembly of the disobedient disruptors (see Art. 45) and those who behave irreverently. If even after this the decorum is not restored, the chair declares the Assembly dissolved. The motion at the Parish Assembly is passed by a simple majority of votes. If the number of votes is equal, that motion that is supported by the chair passes. The resolutions of the Parish Assemblies are inscribed into the book of resolutions, which also registers declarations or minority opinions if such will be presented by the members of the Assembly. The resolutions are written down immediately, if possible, and are signed by the chair and the secretary of the Assembly and by all who desire out of those members who took part in the discussion of the matter.

VO L U M E I I I

259

61. The resolution that has been signed is read to the parishioners in church or other location on the first feast day after the signing. The resolution should bear an inscription concerning the time when it was announced, and everyone who has a right to participate in the Parish Assembly is entitled to make a copy of the resolution. 62. If in the opinion of the chair, the resolution of the Assembly clearly transgresses the laws or the canons of the Church, or can be acknowledged as harmful for the parish, the chair, no later than seven days after the session in which this resolution was passed, submits his opinion regarding the resolution to the diocesan authority, through the mediation of the Dean. 63. No less than one-third of the parishioners who took part in the Assembly and disagree with the resolution may within seven days from the time when the resolution was announced bring a complaint to the Dean, through the mediation of the Parish Council. The Dean, judging by the circumstances of the case, either offers to the parish to review the matter again or immediately directs the resolution to the discretion of the diocesan Bishop. 64. Every resolution of the Parish Assembly is communicated in a week’s time to the Dean, by means of a copy certified by the rector. 65. The resolutions of the Parish Assembly that concern the election of the church warden, loans and new collections, acquisition, alienation, or mortgage of the immovable property, as well as those concerning extraordinary events in the parish, are submitted for the approval of the diocesan Bishop. 66. The resolution of the Parish Assembly is carried out, if, within seven days after its copy was received by the Dean, it was not appealed by the Dean, by the rector of the parish (or the priest), or by the parishioners (Art. 63). 67. The resolution of the Parish Assembly that requires confirmation by the diocesan or other authorities is carried out only upon receiving the necessary permission. Chapter VII The Parish Council 68. The Parish Council is elected for the purpose of administration of the affairs of the church and the parish, and for the management of the parish property. The Council consists of all the members of the clergy, the church warden or his assistant, and the lay people of both sexes elected for three years out of the persons who can participate in the Parish Assembly. The number of the lay members cannot be in any case fewer than the number of the clergy members.

260

APPENDIX I

69. In those rural parishes that consist of many attached villages, every village must have its own delegate in the Parish Council, who communicates between the Council and the village populace. 70. Every year, the duties of one-third of the elected members of the Council expire— for the first two years, by lot, and thereafter, by seniority — and new members are elected in their place. The members whose duties have expired may be reelected by the general Assembly. 71. The persons in charge of the parish institutions participate in the sessions of the Parish Council as voting members when the matters concerning these institutions are on the agenda. The president may decide to invite to the session the experts to give explanations, as well as the parishioners whose opinion the Council desires to hear. 72. All members of the Parish Council, with the exception of the secretary, fulfill their duties without pay. They may, however, be granted reimbursement for the fulfillment of special tasks imposed by the general Assembly or the Council. 73. The duties of the Parish Council include: (a) the convocation of the Parish Assembly, the preparation of its agenda, the discussion of the ways of carrying out the Assembly’s resolutions, and the carrying out of these resolutions; (b) the management of the economy of the parish and the church, including the property and the parish capital; (c) the care for the growth of the financial resources of the church and the parish; (d) the carrying out of collections established by the Parish Assembly; (e) the monthly audit of the parish finances and of the books of income and expenditures; (f ) the drafting of the estimates and apportionments; (g) the disposal of the collections in accordance with the estimate, guided by the decision of the Assembly; (h) the granting of full powers for the signing of the acts concerning property, and for the representation of the church and the parish in courts and in other places, including in the pending court cases, on the basis of the decisions of the Parish Assembly; (i) the election of the supervisors for the parish’s auxiliary establishments and their presentation to the assembly for confirmation; (j) the compiling of the list of parishioners who have a right to take part in the Parish Assembly and are obligated to make contributions for the needs of the parish; (k) the inspection of the financial records of the auxiliary establishments of the parish;

VO L U M E I I I

74.

75.

76.

77.

261

(l) the examination of the state of the poverty of those who ask for help from the parish and the provision of such help; (m) the care for the protection and adornment of the church, for the decorum during liturgical services and processions, for the parish cemetery, and for the burial of parishioners who are poor; (n) the care for the religious and moral education and for the upbringing of the young generation, and close supervision of the educational establishments of the parish; (o) the compiling of the reports on the activity of the Council, on the state of the finances and of the areas, institutions, and property under its supervision, and the presentation of these reports to the Parish Assembly; (p) the formation of missionary groups; (q) the creation of charitable and educational institutions and groups, shelters, hospices, and schools, founded by the Parish Assembly; (r) the formation of a temperance society; (s) the founding of the libraries, reading rooms, and the parish house; (t) the formation of the church-cleaning groups; (u) the creation of the society for mutual assistance; (v) the formation of the parish fire brigade; (w) the organization of talks and lectures on religion and morality; (x) the organization of the parish apiary; (y) by invitation, the participation in the district (uyezd) pastoral conferences of the deanery for the joint discussion of parish activities and of the directives from the Archpastor and from the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The Parish Council elects from its midst the treasurer and the secretary. Note 1. The secretary may also be elected from the midst of the parishioners who are not members of the Council, if the Council decides so. Note 2. If the secretary receives salary from the parish, he is also obligated to maintain the parish register. The rector of the parish church presides at the Parish Council, by virtue of his status as the spiritual leader of the parish, while a lay person may be elected as his deputy. The president of the Parish Council calls the members for the sessions of the Council, leads the discussions, takes care for the observance of the statute, maintains correspondence in the name of the Council, certified by the secretary or the treasurer, if necessary, and generally oversees the execution of the Council’s decisions and the proper handling of paperwork. The treasurer accepts the amounts received and other donations, keeps the books for incomes and expenditures as well as for materials, carries out all financial operations and payments, in money or in goods, by the decision of

262

78.

79.

80.

81.

82. 83.

APPENDIX I

the Council, prepares the annual report concerning the transactions in the parish treasury, and is generally responsible for all the financial operations. The amounts of money exceeding two hundred rubles, capital, and securities that belong to the parish are kept in the place indicated by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The secretary supervises the paperwork and all correspondence concerning the affairs of the parish, prepares the minutes of the sessions of the Council and of the general Assembly, under the guidance of the President, and keeps the list of the parishioners who participate in the general Assemblies. His duties also include the preparation, under the guidance of the rector, of the annual report concerning the state of affairs in the parish. The duties of the members of the Parish Council include: (a) to offer every assistance to its president — the priest and spiritual father — in his fulfillment of his pastoral duty, and with the general assent of the Council, to carry out the tasks entrusted by him; (b) to supervise the section of the parish which will be given to their care; (c) to try to quell, in private, the enmity and malice among the parishioners at the very beginning, as unacceptable in a Christian community, without bringing it out in public, and in general to struggle against evil and bring the principle of peace into the family and public life of parishioners; (d) in rural areas, to look after the young generation, its state of moral life, and its leisure activities on feast days; (e) to take measures to protect the parishioners against spreading among them of books, booklets, and pamphlets that undermine religion and morality; (f ) to guard the Orthodox faith against the antireligious, schismatic, and sectarian false teachings that may try to find their way into the parish or may have already done so, as well as to guard the parishioners themselves against malicious instigations and mean provocations on the part of obscurants, vile and vicious people. A session of the Parish Council is called by the president as needed or by the request of no less than one-third of its members, but in any case on a monthly basis, during the first dates of the month. It is considered valid if more than half of its members are present, including the president and the treasurer. The responsibilities among the members of the Council are distributed in accordance with the decision of the Council. The cases that are subject to collegial discussion by the Council are decided by a majority of votes. If the number of votes is equal, the vote of the president is decisive.

VO L U M E I I I

263

84. The diocesan Bishop can make an inspection of the Parish Council as well as of all establishments under the jurisdiction of the parish. He may perform the inspection personally or with the mediation of the Dean or of a special emissary. 85. Every member of the parish has a right to make known to the Parish Council, in person or in writing, his suggestions for the improvements and useful innovations in the parish. After discussing a proposal, the Council gives necessary instructions, but if the matter exceeds its scope of authority, refers the case to the decision of the Parish Assembly. 86. Every member of the Council is accountable for his actions that endangered the property of the parish due to his malicious forethought or evident neglect, in accordance with the law. 87. In all business communications, the Parish Council uses the seal of the church. Chapter VIII The Institutions of the Parish 88. In accordance with the decisions of the Parish Council and with the religious and moral needs of the parish life, every parish may open schools, orphanages, hospices, hospitals, kindergartens, libraries, reading rooms, and other institutions. 89. If it is necessary, the parish may provide assistance from its own resources to the existing or newly founded institutions within the boundaries of the parish, which are funded by the state, local government, by the public or privately. 90. In order to achieve greater success in promoting religion and morality, neighboring parishes of the same diocese may join their efforts in organizing common parish institutions for several parishes. The supervision over these institutions is established through the consensus of Parish Assemblies, with the approval of the diocesan authority. Chapter IX Education of the People 91. One of the most important tasks of the parish is the instruction and education of the Orthodox population in the spirit of the Orthodox faith and of the Church of Christ. 92. The parish fulfills this responsibility mainly by means of its parochial schools (professional schools) and institutions for extracurricular religious education of the people, as well as by providing assistance to such education

264

93.

94.

95.

96. 97.

98. 99.

100.

APPENDIX I

and instruction in other schools where the Orthodox population of the parish study. In addition to the obligatory study of the principles of faith, liturgical language, and church music, parochial schools offer classes in all other subjects taught in secular schools, using curricula that are not inferior to the curricula of elementary schools run by the Ministry of the People’s Education. The instruction in the principles of the Orthodox faith at a parochial school is the responsibility of the parish priest, or of one of the priests chosen by the Parish Assembly, if there are several priests in the parish. If for some reason it is completely impossible for the priest to fulfill this responsibility, the Parish Assembly may entrust the instruction in the principles of faith at the parochial school to a lower cleric or to one of the school staff or to another person, but under the guidance and responsibility of the priest. The parochial schools fall under the jurisdiction of the parish. The Parish Assembly may open and close the schools, may choose the type of the school to be opened, resolves the questions pertaining to the expansion of the school curricula, seeks out the means for maintaining the schools, approves the budget, and controls its execution. The Parish Council is the executive body of the Parish Assembly as far as the affairs of the schools are concerned. The scope of authority of the Parish Council, with respect to its supervision of the parochial schools, includes the choosing of candidates for the teaching positions from the people who have experience in education and are devoted to the Church. The person chosen by the Council, with the assent of the rector, is allowed to fulfill his duties, but his final confirmation depends on the respective church authority. The Council also dismisses teachers from their positions, with the approval of the respective church authority. The close supervision over every school is entrusted to the School Council. The School Council consists of the priest, the delegates from the parents of the students, which number no more than one-third of the entire membership of the Council, two delegates from the parish elected by the Parish Council, the trustee if such is available, and the school teachers. The president of the School Council is chosen by the Parish Council. The church parochial schools are supported from the following means: (1) the resources of the church and the parish, subsidies from the state, local government, city and other public and private establishments, individual donations, and income from other sources; and (2) the general diocesan resources directed for church schools. The seeking out of such resources in all of the diocese, their payment and spending procedures are established by the Diocesan Assembly (of clergy and laity).

VO L U M E I I I

265

101. For the purpose of convenience, adjacent parishes may form special unions in order to open and to maintain parochial schools. 102. The Parish Assembly has a right to introduce in a parish school the instruction in crafts, agriculture, gardening, bee-keeping, horticulture, etc. 103. In a degree proportionate to the need and available resources, parishes may open professional schools, such as schools of agriculture, crafts, handiwork, and others, or, alternatively, additional courses under the aegis of elementary schools. These courses may be general or specialized, but the proper instruction in the principles of faith in them must be ensured. 104. In order to fulfill its duty to educate and to instruct the Orthodox population, the parish has a right to establish and to maintain the brotherhoods of evangelizers, collections of antiquities (museums), houses of people’s education, libraries, reading rooms, additional schools and classes, classes for adolescents and adults (catechist classes, music classes, general education classes, professional classes), kindergartens, and all other institutions of instruction and education. 105. Every parish church has to have a church library, under the supervision of the priest. It should not only contain liturgical books, but also the books necessary for the clergy in order to broaden and to deepen their theological knowledge, and the books useful for parishioners that concern religion, morality, and church history. This library must be established and supplied with books using the resources of the church and the donations of parishioners. Aside from religious books, it should have a section containing books by secular authors. 106. The rural parishes that consist of several villages joined together should obtain a so-called “mobile library,” in order to supply villages with such reading that is needed in our time. Mobile libraries should contain leaflets, booklets, and small books that would answer all contemporary spiritual queries of the people. Every library can have thirty to forty issues with different content and as many small libraries as there are separate villages in a parish. The members of the Parish Council from these villages should oversee these small libraries and distribute their materials for reading and, after a certain time, collect them and pass them to the neighboring village. Thus making rounds, these small libraries will eventually come back to the priest who will replace the issues with new booklets and leaflets, and will send them back to villages. 107. The educational establishments indicated in the preceding article6 are supervised and administered by the Parish Council. The Parish Council may entrust the close supervision over every one of these establishments to the School Council, to individuals or to special committees, and may allow

266

APPENDIX I

them, if necessary, to start fulfilling their duties immediately. Educated female parishioners should also be invited to take part in this cause, for which purpose they should receive special training. The Parish Assembly has to confirm the people chosen for the positions or for the committees. The Parish Assembly also dismisses those who work at the parochial educational institutions, which decision is presented for the approval of the respective church authority. Note. The institutions aimed at the instruction in the faith work under the direction and responsibility of the priest or the rector of the parish, if there are several priests. 108. With the exception of the cases indicated in the Arts. 92 and 99, the professors of the parochial educational institutions are dismissed by the decision of a relevant ecclesiastical authority. Chapter X The Property of the Church and the Parish 109. The property of the church includes the following: (a) the building of the church with all its annexes, as well as the attached churches, houses of prayer, and chapels; (b) everything donated for the good of the church, what is offered toward the altar of the Lord, as, e.g., the objects necessary for the ecclesiastical use; (c) the movable and immovable property, donated for the adornment of the church; (d) the money that comes to the church from various sources, namely, the income from the selling of candles, collections, the remainder of amounts from previous incomes, incomes from the immovable estates and leased properties, and from the sale of places at the parish cemeteries and various smaller incomes; (e) the movable and immovable property and capital that was considered at the disposal of clergy until the day of the publication of these Statutes; (f ) the movable and immovable property and capital that are either donated or willed specifically to the church—for the “benefit” or for the “possession” of the church—even if with the special condition that it be used for the charitable and educational needs of the parish and for the subsidy to the clergy. Note. The incomes of the attached churches, houses of prayer, and of the chapels provide for their maintenance and renovations.

VO L U M E I I I

267

110. The property of the parish consists of all of the movable and immovable property and capital that serve to satisfy the religious, educational, and charitable needs of the parish. Such include: (a) voluntary payments; (b) plate collections within the boundaries of the parish; (c) voluntary collections by subscription lists; (d) voluntary collection of produce from the parishioners; (e) income from the immovable estates that belong to the parish; (f ) income from the leased and auctioned property; (g) collections mandated by the general Parish Assembly. 111. The administration and management of the property and capital of the church and of the parish is entrusted to the Parish Assembly and the Parish Council, in accordance with the present Statute, with the limitations indicated in the forthcoming articles. 112. The real estate of the church may be acquired in accordance with the resolution of the Parish Assembly, based on the resources at its disposal without the need for a special permission if the costs are within the limits authorized by the diocese. The sale of the church estate, its alienation, exchange, its use as a collateral, its lease for more than three years, as well as the rent with the right to build on the site, takes place only with the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. Note. The buildings of the churches, houses of prayer, and chapels cannot be used as collateral. 113. The financial assets and income belonging to the church should be disbursed in the following manner: those indicated in Article 109, (e) and (f ), of this chapter, should be used for the support of the clergy and for special needs; the other amounts can only be used for the needs, protection, and maintenance of the church itself and the objects of liturgical use—but they can also be used, in cases of extreme necessity, for the issuance of subsidies to members of the clergy. Moreover, the Parish Assembly has the power to make these expenditures on its own authority within the limits imposed by the Diocesan Assembly. The expenditures that exceed these limits are to be made every time with a special permission of the diocesan authority. The financial assets of the church are also used for the general needs of the Church or the diocese. Note 1. The sum of the expenditures from the church’s funds used for the general needs of the Church or the diocese is determined for each church by the Diocesan Assembly of clergy and laity. Note 2. If the diocesan authority has issued the parish registers and other ecclesiastical documents to house churches, and if the liturgical

268

114.

115.

116. 117.

118. 119.

120.

121.

122.

APPENDIX I

rites celebrated in these churches are not only served for the people who belong to the institutions and homes, to which these churches are attached, but also for the outside people, the house churches also participate in the taxation for the general needs of the church and the diocese, on the same grounds as the parish churches. The parish property of all kinds may be acquired, sold, alienated, exchanged, given as collateral, leased, and rented with the purpose of rebuilding by the decision of the Parish Assembly. The execution of the decision of the Parish Council with regards to the administration of the property of the church and the parish is done by the Parish Council, which oversees the current running of affairs. The Council also is entrusted with the direct management of the parish property, the representation of the parish on all necessary occasions, the signing of contracts in the name of the parish, the selection and certification of authorized persons, representing the parish both for the court cases and for other contingencies. If a group of parishioners withdraw themselves from the parish, they cannot present any claim for the property of the parish that they leave. If an independent parish is dissolved, all property of the parish is transferred under the administration of the parish to which the former parish is attached. The inspection of the economic management of the church and the parish is done by the Dean. The Parish Council draws up the inventory of all the movable property, real estate, and the capital of the church and the parish. Two copies of the inventory is made, one of which is kept in the parish, with the files of the Parish Council, while the other is given to the diocesan chancery. The Parish Assembly presents the reports regarding the expenditures of the parish property and capital to the diocesan authorities, for their information, following the established procedure. The Parish Council compiles the annual estimates of income and expenditures with respect to the parish property, and the Parish Assembly confirms it, if these do not exceed the limits of the amounts established by the diocesan authority. If they exceed these amounts, the estimate should be approved by the diocesan authority. Note. The procedures for compiling the estimates are established by the diocesan authority. The Parish Assembly may petition the diocesan authority, with the mediation of the Parish Council, to use a part of its floating funds or of its outstanding balance for the needs of the parish institutions.

VO L U M E I I I

269

123. The parish determines on its own the procedures and standards for the taxation with money or produce (Art. 57), with the possibility for some parishioners to substitute one kind of taxation for another, if the Parish Council agrees. 124. The calculation per capita of contributions by produce uses the same procedures as the calculation of monetary contributions. 125. Anyone who does not wish to render his assigned contribution by produce may pay a previously established amount in advance. In view of this, at the time when the contribution is legislated, the Parish Assembly determines its cost either per a working day or with respect to some definite unit, depending on the kind of contribution, but not higher than the existing price for similar services in this area. 126. The Parish Assembly has the right to take punitive measures against the incorrigible nonpayers of parish taxes, namely, by issuing them a censure and by depriving them of a right to take part in the parish assemblies (Arts. 45 and 56). 127. The regulations regarding the keeping of books and accounts for the collection of dues are compiled by the diocesan authority. Chapter XI Cathedral Churches 128. In every city that is a diocesan see, one of the churches is designated as a cathedral church for the local diocesan Bishop. In every city, one of the churches is designated as a district (uyezd) cathedral. 129. Parishes can exist at the cathedral churches, and in these cases the resources of the parish shall support the churches and the clergy. If these resources are not sufficient, the Diocesan Assembly shall be involved in seeking out the resources for the support of the cathedral church. 130. The cathedral churches that do not have parishes are sustained by the general diocesan funds, if there are no other sufficient sources of support. 131. If a parish church, with the consent of the parish, in accordance with the statement of the Diocesan Assembly and at the request of the diocesan Bishop, is transformed into a cathedral church, the Diocesan Assembly must determine the extent to which the diocese will be responsible for the expenditures for the maintenance of the cathedral. 132. The management of the cathedral churches that have parishes is accomplished by its Parish Assembly and the Parish Council in accordance with general procedures. 133. The cathedrals without parishes are administered by the Cathedral Council, which consists of the rector, other members of the clergy, the cathedral

270

134. 135. 136.

137. 138.

139.

140.

APPENDIX I

warden, and the elected members of the Council, under the leadership and supervision of the diocesan Bishop. The elected members of the Cathedral Council are elected by the Diocesan Assembly. The diocesan authority determines the number of members of the Cathedral Council who will be elected. The economic activity of the cathedral churches without their own parishes is managed by the Cathedral Council and two plenipotentiaries elected for the purpose of a monthly inspection of the monetary sums belonging to the cathedral. In all other respects, the Cathedral Councils operate in accordance with the regulations for the Parish Councils. The inspection of the sums belonging to a cathedral church without a parish must take place every month in the presence of two plenipotentiaries elected by the same Assembly of the delegates from the urban parishes that elects the church warden, with the participation of the cathedral clergy. The property of the cathedral churches is inspected by the diocesan authority no less than once every three years. All expenditures for the needs of the cathedral are performed in accordance with the budget confirmed by the diocesan Bishop. The church warden of the cathedral church presents directly to the diocesan Bishop the annual report on the expenditures of the monetary sums belonging to the cathedral.

Chapter XII Cemetery Churches and Cemeteries 141. The places of burial for the Orthodox Christians, or the cemeteries, are under the jurisdiction of the Church and in her care. A. Urban cemeteries 142. The cemetery churches that have their own parish as well as the cemetery churches and the cemeteries attached to the parish churches are administered by the Parish Council. 143. If such cemeteries serve the population of several parishes, or of the entire city, representatives from each of these parishes, elected by the Parish Councils, participate in the administration of the cemeteries together with the Parish Council.

VO L U M E I I I

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

271

Note. In the capitals and generally in the cities with many parishes, the administration of the cemeteries includes, instead of parish representatives, the representatives from the deanery, of which the cemetery is a part. The number of these representatives is determined by the Diocesan Council; moreover, the administration of a cemetery includes two representatives of the city government. The cemeteries that have churches without a parish, but with their own clergy, and serve the population of the cities, are administered by the Cemetery Council, which is presided by the rector of the local church, and comprised of the clergy and the church warden, two representatives from the local Brotherhood, if the cemetery has such a brotherhood, and two representatives of the deanery, to which the cemetery belongs. Note. In Moscow and other cities where a portion of the income from the cemeteries is allocated to the needs of the Charitable Society for the Poor Clergy, two representatives from this Society are included in the Council that administer the cemeteries, being elected by the said Society. Special brotherhoods or charitable societies may be established at the urban cemeteries, with the goal of providing support for the maintenance and protection of the cemeteries. The cemeteries attached to the institutions that have their own churches are administered on the basis of the regulations established for the house churches. Note. This regulation does not apply to the churches and cemeteries of the monasteries. The opening of Orthodox cemeteries and the establishment of the churches and chapels on their grounds must always be done with the authorization of the diocesan authorities. The diocesan authorities may also on their own initiative open Orthodox cemeteries and erect churches and chapels on their grounds. The institutions that open cemeteries transfer them into the jurisdiction of the Church, and if the church is built and the clergy is appointed, it is obliged to provide annual financial support and living quarters for the clergy of the cemetery church, until that time when the clergy will be receiving sufficient support from the cemetery, from the capital and the income from rents and leases. At their establishment, new cemeteries, as well as the free spaces on the grounds of old cemeteries, must be separated into sectors. The cemeteries must be maintained in respectable condition. Parishes, Cemetery Councils, and those institutions that maintain cemeteries are allowed to set the price for the burial lots and to set aside free lots for the poor.

272

APPENDIX I

B. Rural cemeteries 151. Every Orthodox rural parish must have a cemetery for the burial of the departed. Note 1. In case of necessity, the parishes may establish not one, but two or more cemeteries. Note 2. The founders of the church and the members of the clergy have a privilege to be buried next to the church, with the consent of the Parish Council. 152. The space to be used for the cemetery is acquired by the parish, but in case of necessity it may be allotted in accordance with the regulations established for the alienation of real estate for the state or public needs. 153. New cemeteries must be established with adherence to all the medical conditions and sanitary regulations. 154. The grazing of animals at the cemetery is forbidden; moreover, the cemetery must have a sufficiently strong enclosure to keep the animals out. 155. The rector of the parish and the Parish Council are entrusted with the oversight over the maintaining of the cemeteries in tidy and respectable condition, corresponding to the Christian duty of remembering those departed in faith. 156. A fee may be charged for the burial lots at the cemetery for the needs of the church. The fee is established by the Parish Assembly. Chapter XIII Unions of Parishes 157. In order to achieve greater progress in the attaining their religious, moral, ecclesiastical, and social goals, the parishes of the diocese may form unions. 158. The membership of the union may include independent parishes, Orthodox Christian societies, temperance societies, brotherhoods, as well as the administration and clergy of house churches. 159. The unions of parishes may acquire and alienate movable property and real estate, take out mortgages, accept and issue debt certificates, as well as accumulate capital. 160. The affairs of the Union are managed by the General Assembly, as the administrative body, and the Council of the Union, as the executive body. 161. The local diocesan Bishop is included into the Union of parishes as its honorary President, while the local auxiliary Bishops are included as honorary members.

VO L U M E I I I

273

162. The General Assembly is composed of the rectors of parishes and of house churches and of the delegates elected by the Parish Assemblies and by other institutions that are Union members for the term of one year. 163. The honorary president and honorary members of the Union represent themselves at the General Assemblies, while all other members represent the institutions that elected them. 164. The General Assembly of the Union elects the president from its own members. The president fulfills the duties of the chair, if the honorary president is absent, or even if he is present, and delegates this duty to him. 165. Every member of the Union must be notified, at least one week in advance, concerning the day, hour, and place of the General Assembly, as well as concerning the agenda of the Assembly. 166. The General Assembly is called by the Council of the Union either by its own initiative, or by the petition of one or several Parish Councils, or by the suggestion of the diocesan Bishop. 167. The General Assembly is considered legitimate with the participation of no less than one-third of its members. If on the day on which it was appointed, the number of member delegates who have gathered is less than one-third of their total number, the Assembly is appointed for the following day and is considered legitimate regardless of the number of participating members, of which the members should be reminded at the time of the announcement. The resolutions of the Assembly are recognized as valid regardless of the number of the members who took part in the Assembly, but only with respect to the cases that were on the agenda of the Assembly when it was called. 168. Aside from reviewing the cases that concern religious, moral, ecclesiastical, and social issues, the General Assembly determines: (a) the shares of individual members of the Union in the expenditures of the Union; (b) procedures for the Council of the Union, with specific instructions; (c) it approves the annual budget of the Union with respect to income and expenditures; (d) it determines the requirements for the new members who wish to join the Union; (e) in the name of the Union, it acquires, alienates, gives, and accepts as a loan the movable property and real estate of the Union; (f ) permits the Council to issue the debt certificates and to accept such from the debtors of the Union; (g) determines the requirements for the individual members who want to leave the Union;

274

169.

170. 171. 172.

APPENDIX I

(h) in the case of final dissolution of the Union, determines the future disposal of the property belonging to the Union. Note. This article does not apply to the regulations concerning the honorary president and honorary members. The General Assembly elects from its members the Commission for the preparation of reports to the Assembly and the Audit Commission for the examination of the financial activity of the Council and for the inspection of the institution subject to the Union. The Council of the Union is elected by the General Assemby for the term of one year. The number of members is established by the Assembly. The Council of the Union elects from its members the president, vicepresident, treasurer, and secretary. The Council supervises all affairs of the Union, excluding those that fall under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. Specifically, its scope of authority includes: (a) managing the current affairs, and communication with the members, as well as with the outside persons and institutions; (b) receiving applications from those who desire to join the Union and setting the number of delegates from the parishes that are members of the Union; (c) the convocation of regular — and, in case of necessity, of special— General Assemblies of the Union; (d) the preliminary discussion of all issues that are brought to the discussion at the General Assembly; (e) the preparation of the budget and of the annual report of the Union, as well as of periodic surveys of the activity of all members of the Union; (f ) the appointment and dismissal of the employees, the search for the collaborators, and the management of the current affairs of the Union; (g) the election of the president of the Council, the vice-president, the treasurer, and the secretary; (h) the discussion and making of resolutions on the proposals regarding the future work of the Union in accordance with this Statute, the development of the plan for the activity, and the preparation of instructions; (i) the decision on the proposals on the expenditures not foreseen in the budget, and on the sale of the movable property of the Union for the amount of one hundred to five hundred rubles, the signing of any contracts, the addressing of petitions from the Union to the state or church authorities, and the management of civil lawsuits between the Union and other persons, etc.

VO L U M E I I I

275

173. The Council of the Union conducts its communications in the name of the Union. 174. The Union of parishes has its own seal. 175. Every year the Union shares the report on its activities with the parishes that are members of the Union, and presents it to the diocesan Bishop. 176. If the diocesan Bishop sees that the Union has deviated from the goals and tasks that were set before it, he gives a warning to the Council. If the Council continues to act in the same direction, the Bishop calls the General Assembly and offers these questions for discussion. If the General Assembly passes the decision, which the diocesan Bishop cannot accept, he may suspend the execution of the said decision, and the matter is submitted for the resolution of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. In the meanwhile, the urgent directives [on the matter] are made by the Bishop. 177. The present Statute on the Unions of parishes is a model; the General Assembly of the Union may introduce additions and changes into the statute of the Union, with the consent of the diocesan authority.

III. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Auxiliary (Vicar) Bishops April 2 (15), 1918

1.

2.

3.

The size of the dioceses that exist today should be diminished. Where it is possible, the existing vicariates should be gradually transformed into independent dioceses. The existing auxiliary Bishops receive into their jurisdiction parts of the dioceses, which they administer with the rights of independent Bishops, under the general guidance of the diocesan Bishop and in accordance with the regulations established by the Holy Synod. In addition, the diocesan Bishop can also confer upon the auxiliary Bishop other responsibilities in his diocese. In the dioceses of the capital or other cities, in accordance with the local needs, the auxiliary Bishop may be entrusted with the responsibility for a specific area of diocesan affairs, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop.

276

4. 5. 6.

APPENDIX I

The auxiliary Bishops are appointed by the Holy Synod at the recommendation of the ruling Bishop. The auxiliary Bishops receive their salary from local financial resources, in the amount determined by the Holy Synod. The auxiliary Bishops take their residence in their titular city and, where possible, also serve as abbots of monasteries.

IV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the District Assemblies April 2 (15), 1918

1.

2.

Wherever it will be deemed necessary and possible, the District (uyezd )7 and Province (comprising several uyezdy of a vicariate) Assemblies are convoked, consisting of: (a) the members of the Deanery Councils of a district (or the districts of the vicariate); (b) the members elected by the Deanery Assemblies for the Diocesan Assemblies; (c) the delegates from the parishes (representing clergy and laity in equal numbers), elected by Parish Assemblies. The District Assemblies are called either at the suggestion of the diocesan Bishop or at the request of one of the deanery districts of the province. The diocesan Bishop entrusts the organization of the Assemblies to his auxiliary Bishop or to the rector of the district cathedral or to one of the Deans of the province, while the rector of the district cathedral is by right a member of the Assembly. The auxiliary Bishop presides over the Assembly if his residence is in the main city of a district, or if the presidency is entrusted to him by the diocesan Bishop; otherwise, one of the members of the Assembly in the rank of presbyter is elected to be the chair. Note 1. The district Assemblies are convoked prior to the Diocesan ones. Note 2. In special cases, where an urgent discussion of local ecclesiastical affairs is required, the rector of a district cathedral is allowed to call an extraordinary District Assembly, with the blessing of the diocesan or auxiliary Bishop. Such Assemblies are composed of the entire clergy of the district

VO L U M E I I I

3.

4.

277

and of lay people, the members of Parish Councils, elected by the latter, in the number twice as large as the number of clergy. The chair of the Assembly gives to the diocesan Bishop a detailed report on the convocation of an extraordinary District Assembly and on the decisions taken. Note 3. The announcement regarding the convocation of a District Assembly should also list the items on its agenda. The scope of the jurisdiction of District Assemblies includes: (a) a preliminary discussion of issues and questions subject to the resolution at the Diocesan Assembly; (b) issues that concern religious and, in general, the church life of the parishes of the city, district, or province, specifically, the measures toward religious and moral education, the struggle against schisms and sects, the state of preaching, and other questions; (c) the election of the delegates to the Diocesan Assembly out of the members of the District Assembly: one from the clergy and one from the laity of every deanery, if such procedure of election is approved by the diocese. The resolutions of a District Assembly are presented with the mediation of the chair of the Assembly to the diocesan or to the auxiliary Bishop, or to the Diocesan Assembly, if it is necessary.

V. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Internal and External Mission April 6 (19), 1918

A. Internal Mission 1.

2.

The mission that was established and commanded by the Lawgiver of our faith, Lord Jesus Christ, is that great ministry in the Church, the existence of which is conditioned by the purpose of the Church, and requires special care and concern from the Church. In view of an extraordinary strengthening of the propaganda of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, the Raskol 8 and sects, and atheism, it is necessary in due time both to solidify and to strengthen the internal mission,

278

APPENDIX I

setting up its organization in accordance with its significance and tasks in the situation of the modern times. 3. In conformity with the reform of the parochial, diocesan, and the Supreme Church Administration, the mission of the Orthodox Church of Russia is organized at the levels of (a) the parish; (b) the district; (c) the diocese; (d) the monastery; (e) the region; and (f ) all of Russia. 4. The parish mission is exercised through the joint efforts of the clergy and the laity of the parish, with the assistance of missionaries, directed by the local Bishop. 5. The district mission works within the boundaries of a district in accordance with the statute, approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 6. The supervision of the district mission is exercised by the District Assembly of clergy and laity, which has the District Missionary Council as its permanently functioning body. 7. The District Missionary Council consists of pastors and lay people, elected in equal numbers by the Assembly, as well as the district missionaries, by virtue of their office. 8. The diocesan Bishop appoints and dismisses district missionaries at the recommendation of the diocesan missionary, after a preliminary consultation with the District Missionary Council. 9. The number of district missionaries in the diocese is determined by the Diocesan Assembly. In case of necessity, one district missionary may be entrusted with the missionary activity in several districts. 10. The diocesan mission, which has the same goals as the parish and district missions, accomplishes those goals within the boundaries of the entire diocese with the joint efforts of the clergy and laity of the diocese, with the participation of all missionaries of the diocese, as well as of the District and Diocesan Missionary Councils, under the superior guidance and oversight of the diocesan Bishop. 11. Due to the complexity of its tasks and difficulties in their accomplishment, which require from its leader special knowledge and skills, the diocesan mission must involve specially trained missionaries in its work. Every diocese should have missionaries specializing in the mission against the Raskol, against the sects, and against the Roman Catholics. 12. Diocesan missionaries should preferably be the persons with higher theological education, who in addition have served for some time in the position of a district missionary and have acquired sufficient experience in the field of mission. Note. Both ordained and lay people may serve as diocesan, as well as district missionaries.

VO L U M E I I I

279

13. Diocesan missionaries are appointed and dismissed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority at the recommendation of diocesan Bishops. As evangelizers, they are included among the diocesan clergy and are guided in their work by the statute approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 14. In every diocese, there should be a Diocesan Missionary Council under the supervision of the diocesan Bishop. The council is elected by the Diocesan Assembly of clergy and laity from local public church activists who have expertise in the field of mission. The council in its work is guided by the statute, approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 15. Both men’s and women’s monasteries are involved in the missionary work for the protection of holy Orthodox faith. 16. The monasteries exercise the work of mission in accordance with the statute approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority and in accordance with the conciliar definitions on monasteries and monasticism. 17. The regional or provincial metropolitan mission is accomplished within the boundaries of a metropolitan province, and is established on the principles of spiritual unity among the missionary workers of the dioceses that constitute parts of this region. The mission comes together at the Regional Missionary Congresses, which are called as necessary by the Metropolitan of the region, and are composed of the representatives of all kinds of mission who are sent to the Congress at the diocese’s expense. The Metropolitan of the region presents the resolutions of the Congresses to the supreme ecclesiastical authority either for confirmation, execution, or information. 18. The All-Russian mission is established on the principles of unity among the missionary workers of the dioceses that constitute the Orthodox Church of Russia. It is brought together at the All-Russian Missionary Congresses, which are called as necessary, but no less than once every three years by the Missionary Council of the Holy Synod, with the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 19. The resolutions of the All-Russian Missionary Congress are confirmed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 20. Until the formation of the general church fund, the diocesan missionaries receive from the diocesan financial resources an equal salary in the amount of 3,200 rubles per year and 1,000 rubles for travel and office expenses. Note. In the dioceses that do not have local diocesan resources, the salary for the missionary workers is drawn from the general church fund, by the decision of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 21. Diocesan missionaries who have higher education receive, in addition to their salary, four bonuses every five years, equal to four hundred rubles for each five-year period. Those who have secondary education receive the

280

22.

23.

24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31.

APPENDIX I

bonus of two hundred rubles per every five years, while reserving the right for future bonuses, proportionate to their level of education and the years of service, when they transfer to the department of theological education. Diocesan missionaries who do not have either higher or secondary education do not receive bonuses. District missionaries without parishes in all dioceses receive their salary in the amount of 2,500 rubles per year, and travel expenses in the amount of no less than five hundred rubles. District missionaries with higher education receive, in addition to their salary, four bonuses every five years, which amount to four hundred rubles each. District missionaries with a secondary education receive the bonus of two hundred rubles every five years, and upon transferring to the office of theological education, reserve the right for future receiving of bonuses, proportionate to the years of their service and the level of education. District missionaries who do not have either higher or secondary education do not receive bonuses. District missionaries that occupy positions in the parish receive no less than five hundred rubles per year for travel expenses. Diocesan Assemblies may increase the salaries to the missionaries from local financial resources. Diocesan missionaries receive their pension from the general church fund in the amount of 2,400 rubles per year, while the pension of district missionaries amounts to 1,800 rubles per year. When the diocesan or district missionaries transfer to the department of theological education, their time of service as missionaries is calculated into their pension, in the proportion of one year per one year. Prior to the publication of this statute, previous service as a diocesan or a district missionary is calculated into their pension and bonuses, in the proportion of one year per one year, while the work for the diocese is calculated for the new missionaries in the proportion 7:5. The minimal term of service for diocesan and district missionaries to receive their pensions is twenty-five years. Diocesan and district missionaries who served in the position of a missionary for ten to fifteen years receive, upon the termination of their service, one-third of the full pension. Those who served for fifteen to twenty years receive two-thirds of a full pension, while those who served twentyfive years or more receive the full pension. Missionaries whose service was terminated six months before the established pension terms receive the full pension corresponding to the full term of service.

VO L U M E I I I

281

32. Missionaries who leave their service due to the weakened state of health acquired at the exercise of their duties or due to an incurable illness receive the following pension: those who served fifteen years receive one half of the full pension, those who served fifteen to twenty years, two-thirds, while those who served twenty years receive the full pension. 33. Missionaries who are beset with such incurable illnesses that not only prevent them from continuing their service, but also require a constant outside attention, receive the following pension: those who served ten to fifteen years receive two-thirds of the full pension, and those who served more than fifteen years receive the full pension. Missionaries who served less than ten years and who during the exercise of their duties received an injury or such an illness that prevents them from continuing their service receive a pension, the amount of which is established every time by the Supreme Church Administration. B. External Mission 34. External mission is directed by the Council of the Orthodox All-Russian Missionary Society, which works in accordance with a special statute approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 35. The Orthodox All-Russian Missionary Society is under the protectorate of the first hierarch of the Church of Russia, the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. 36. The President of the Orthodox All-Russian Missionary Society and of its Council should be a person appointed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority and known for his zeal, knowledge, and experience in the field of mission, scholarly training and relieved of all other duties, and having the episcopal dignity. 37. The President of the All-Russian Missionary Society serves as the Deputy Chair of the Synodal Missionary Council, with the right to report directly to the Supreme Church Administration regarding the issues of external mission, with the agreement of the Chair of the Synodal Missionary Council. 38. The President of the Society and the Council has his residence in Moscow and serves as the abbot of the missionary monastery of the Protection of the Theotokos. 39. The regulations regarding the salaries and pensions for the missionaries of the internal mission, established in Arts. 20– 33, also apply to the missionaries of the external mission. 40. The Note to Art. 20 also applies to the support of the external mission and the foreign mission.

282

APPENDIX I

C. The Missionary Council of the Holy Synod 41. The Synodal Missionary Council is established for the discussion of the needs of the internal and external mission of the Orthodox Church in Russia and abroad, for the management of the entire mission, and for the protection of its interests. 42. The Chair of the Synodal Missionary Council is a Bishop who is a member of the Holy Synod, elected by the Synod for three years. The President of the AllRussian Orthodox Missionary Society serves as one of his deputies, and oversees the affairs of the external and foreign mission. A person who has a priestly, preferably episcopal rank, elected by the Synod for three years, and who oversees the affairs of the internal mission serves as another deputy Chair. 43. The Synodal Missionary Council is composed of: one member of the Holy Synod; one member of the Supreme Council of the Church; one missionary from the diocesan missionaries that specialize on the mission against the Raskol, the sects, and Roman Catholics, who is called to the Council for the term no longer than one year; one missionary from the external mission, elected by the Council of the Orthodox Missionary Society for the term determined by the Council of the Society; one representative from the foreign missions, called by the Synodal Missionary Council for the term not exceeding one year; one representative from the Academies; and one from public ecclesiastical institutions, invited by the Synodal Missionary Council, if necessary. Note. The members of the Synodal Missionary Council who represent the external mission must have expertise in the missionary struggle against Islam, Buddhism, and paganism. 44. Out of the members of the Synodal Missionary Council, only the deputy chair who is responsible for the affairs of internal mission receives the salary in the amount determined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The missionaries of the internal and external mission who are called to participate in the work of the Missionary Council and the representatives of the Academies and of the public ecclesiastical organizations receive a per diem stipend and money for travel expenses in the amount determined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The representative of the external mission receives his stipend and travel expenses from the resources of the All-Russian Orthodox Missionary Society. 45. The paperwork of the Synodal Missionary Council is handled by the Chancery of the Holy Synod. 46. The Synodal Missionary Council supervises and directs the internal mission, in accordance with the statute approved by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The Council supervises the external mission with the mediation of the All-Russian Missionary Orthodox Society.

VO L U M E I I I

283

VI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Basic Principles of the Reform, and on the Introduction of New Structures in the Orthodox Theological Academies April 7 (20), 1918 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

Due to shortage of time, the Council is unable, at present, to give detailed consideration to the report presented by the Conciliar Department on Theological Academies, which included the basic principles of the statute of Theological Academies. Therefore it is resolved to pass this report for review by the Supreme Church Administration. The Supreme Church Administration is granted the right, if it be possible, to promulgate the statute of Theological Academies that the Department has prepared from the beginning of the 1918–19 academic year, so that they might uninterruptedly continue their teaching in conformity with the main task of their service to the Church of Christ. The salaries and pensions for the staff of the theological academies, established in the minutes of the Provisional Government on October 4, 1917, and announced by the Holy Synod in Tserkovnye Vedomosti 7– 8 (1918), shall come into effect from January 1, 1918. The general church fund will be responsible for the support of the Theological Academies connected with the payment of the above-mentioned salaries. The years professors of academies have worked in the Church in the field of education, mission, and diocese will count towards the five-year bonuses.

VII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Theological Seminaries and Schools, and on Pastoral Schools April 7 (20), 1918 1.

2.

The seminaries and church schools are to remain under the same administrative and educational system. At the same time, the Supreme Church Administration is granted the right to make necessary improvements in this system, in conformity with the main task of their service to the Church of Christ. The Pastoral Schools are established alongside Theological Seminaries.

284

3.

4.

APPENDIX I

The Pastoral Schools may be opened, with the approval of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, from the 1918–19 academic year in those places where the diocesan Bishop and the Diocesan Assembly will consider it necessary. The Pastoral Schools shall use for their needs the buildings of one of the diocesan educational institutions, monasteries, premises attached to the bishop’s residence, and other buildings.

VIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Diocesan and Synodal Schools for Women April 7 (20), 1918 1. 2.

3.

4.

It is desirable to maintain the present general system of diocesan schools for women under the auspices of the Church. The Supreme Church Administration is granted the right to maintain the diocesan schools for women in the future within the school network of the ecclesiastical educational institutions, providing, if it is financially possible, pensions for their administrative and teaching staff and bonuses for every five years of service, in the amounts equal to those established for the schools for men. The Supreme Church Administration is given the right to implement at this time necessary reforms in the administrative and educational aspects of the diocesan schools for women, in conformity with their main task of serving the Church of Christ. The measures laid out in the Arts. 1– 3 shall also apply for the current Synodal schools for women.

IX. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Measures Caused by the Ongoing Persecution against the Orthodox Church April 5 (18), 1918 1.

Establish in the churches during the divine services the offering of special petitions for those persecuted at the present time for the Orthodox faith

VO L U M E I I I

285

and the Church, and for the confessors and martyrs who have completed their life. 2. Celebrate solemn prayer services: (a) the memorial one for the repose of the departed with the saints; and (b) the thanksgiving one for the salvation of those who remain alive. Note. Such prayer services have been celebrated by the joint assembly of the clergy: the memorial one at the church of the Theological Seminary on March 31, and the rogational one at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on April 1. 3. Establish throughout Russia the annual prayerful commemoration of all confessors and martyrs departed in the present perilous age of persecution on January 25, or on the Sunday following it. 4. Organize processions on Monday of the second week after Pascha, in all parishes where were confessors and martyrs who ended their lives for the Faith and the Church, to the places of their burial, where solemn memorial service will be celebrated, with the glorification in the homily of their holy memory. 5. Bestow the blessing of this Sacred Council upon all the confessors of faith. 6. Address the Most Holy Patriarch with the proposal to issue patriarchal letters with blessings to those who suffered for the Faith and the Church. 7. Publish and distribute to the members of this Sacred Council, before their departure from Moscow, a brief announcement regarding those who suffered in these present days of persecution for the Orthodox Faith and the Church, so that they may disseminate these booklets among the Orthodox population. 8. Petition the Most Holy Patriarch so that henceforth and in accordance with the established procedure, in case of an arrest of those persecuted for the Faith and the Church, His Holiness would communicate with the local authorities regarding the release of those arrested, and at the same time that local diocesan Bishops would be notified regarding these communications. 9. Commission to the Supreme Church Administration to gather information and to make it known to the Orthodox population, through printed editions or by the word of mouth, regarding all cases of persecution against the Church and of violence against the confessors of the Orthodox Faith. 10. Publish as a separate booklet the conciliar definition on the legal status of the Church in the state, with necessary commentaries, in order to disseminate widely among the population the proper understanding on the relationship between the Church and the state, which is all the more necessary in the ongoing time of troubles when the movements of the enemies of the Church arise.

286

APPENDIX I

11. Take measures toward the restitution of all of the seized property that belongs to churches, monasteries, church institutions, and organizations, including the buildings of ecclesiastical schools and consistories. 12. Encourage in the name of the Council the parish and diocesan organizations for the protection of those persecuted, and for the release of the imprisoned for the Faith and the Church, and for taking measures toward the restitution of the seized property belonging to the churches, monasteries, church institutions, and organizations, including the buildings of ecclesiastical schools and consistories. 13. Encourage all Orthodox Christians, in order to safeguard the church heritage from looting and to ensure the restitution of what was seized and the protection of the persecuted, to do the following: (a) to form under the auspices of parish churches and monasteries special brotherhoods from the people devoted to the Church, including the members of Parish Councils; (b) to compose written declarations (in four copies) at the meetings of the parish, provincial, deanery, district, and diocesan brotherhoods, with personal signatures of the participants in the meetings, in defense of the Church and her heritage, and to present these declarations to the Supreme Church Administration and to the local and national secular authorities; if it is necessary to maintain direct communications with the secular authorities, to entrust these relations to the lay brotherhood members, and if there are no brotherhoods, to the lay members of Parish Councils, due to the open persecution of the clergy and church wardens; (c) to deprive trust and the right to represent the church from the traitors among the clergy and laity who consciously work for the benefit of the enemies of the Church; (d) to establish under the aegis of the Patriarch the All-Russian Council of Parish Communities (in application of Chapter 10 of the Parish Statutes approved by the Sacred Council), in order to bring together all local forces of the Church and to direct their work toward the protection of the Church. 14. Issue special certificates to the members of the Sacred Council with a recommendation from the Council to local diocesan authority to show cooperation with them in their work of making known the acts of the Council to the Orthodox population and, with the blessing of the diocesan Bishop and in unity with local ecclesiastical workers, in their assistance and guidance in setting up parish (and other kinds of ) brotherhoods, unions, and fellowships for the protection of the Church’s interests.

VO L U M E I I I

287

15. Give a commission to the Supreme Church Administration to seek out resources for providing financial support to the people who suffered from persecutions, and to their families. 16. Give a commission to the Committee on the Relations with the People’s Commissars, which was formed by the Sacred Council, to make known to the Commissars the demand to restore to the Church the seized central and local printing presses that are under the auspices of the Synod, with the understanding that henceforth these will be not served by the hired labor but by the organizations of the people of the Church. 17. In the name of the Sacred Council, to announce a special resolution that the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, under the presidency of the Most Holy Patriarch and the Most Reverend hierarchs, composed of the people chosen by the entire Orthodox population, including peasants, is the sole lawful and supreme administrator of the affairs of the Church, the protector of the churches of God, of holy monasteries, and of all of church property that was put together throughout the centuries mainly through voluntary offerings of the faithful people and is God’s possession. No one but the Sacred Council and the church authority commissioned by the Council has the right to administer the affairs of the Church and the church property, and even less right to do so have the people who do not even profess themselves to be Christians or who openly proclaim themselves to be atheists.

X. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Measures for the Ending of the Discord in the Life of the Church April 6 (19), 1918 Having taken consideration of some bishops, clergymen, monks, and lay people who disobey or oppose the church authority and turn for the resolution of church affairs to the secular authorities that consist of the adversaries of the Church, thereby bringing manifold troubles upon the Church, her ministers, her children and inheritance, the Sacred Council makes it known herewith to the faithful children of the Church, as a measure of safeguarding of their faith and piety, and as an admonition toward repentance for those who have fallen away from the truth of the Church or are wavering, that the Council condemns those disobedient people and opponents of the Church as the adversaries of God, following the commands of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, laid out in

288

APPENDIX I

the Word of God and the canons of the Apostles, Councils, and holy fathers. Moreover, the Council resolves: 1. A bishop who opposes the supreme ecclesiastical authority and, moreover, turns for the assistance to the secular authorities is suspended from his sacred functions and is handed over to the ecclesiastical court. If subsequently he does not appear in person at this court, after having been invited three times, he is deposed from sacred orders (Apostolic canon 74,9 canon 14 of the First-Second Council10). 2. The clergymen who oppose their diocesan Bishop maintaining the canonical unity with the supreme ecclesiastical authority, but who moreover turn to the judgment of the civil authorities, or seek the help of civil authorities in their quarrels on church affairs with their superiors from the church hierarchy, are suspended from all sacred functions and are handed over to the ecclesiastical court. Thereafter, if they do not show repentance for the above mentioned deeds, they are deposed from sacred orders (Apostolic canon 55,11 canons 812 and 913 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, canon 34 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,14 canons 1215 and 2916 of the Council of Carthage). 3. The clergymen who are employed by the institutions adversarial to the Church, or to the same effect, who cooperate with the implementation of the articles of the decree on the freedom of conscience, which are directed against the Church, or of any similar acts, are subject to suspension from all sacred functions and are deposed from sacred orders if they do not show repentance (Apostolic canon 62,17 canons 1218 and 1319 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, canon 10 of Peter of Alexandria20). 4. Minor clerics who are guilty of the crimes mentioned in Articles 2 and 3, are deprived of their ecclesiastical rank. 5. As regards to the monastics who are guilty of the crimes mentioned in Articles 2 and 3, as well as those guilty of the violent acts against the superiors of their monastery, of arbitrary replacement, or an unsanctioned election of new superiors—(a) those who are ordained are suspended from all sacred functions and are handed over to the ecclesiastical trial, and if they do not repent, they are deposed from sacred orders; (b) the monks in lesser schema are deprived of their mantia; and (c) novices, male and female, are expelled from the monastery and excommunicated until they repent (canons 4, 8, 24 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, canons 34 and 49 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). 6. If the brothers or sisters of one or another monastery show resistance to the directions of the ecclesiastical authority, substituting the authority of the Church with the civil authorities, the churches of such a monastery are to be closed for Divine services. As regards to the rebels against ecclesiastical

VO L U M E I I I

289

authority, the ordained monastics are suspended from all sacred functions, while others are deprived of their monastic rank and, until they repent, are excommunicated and expelled from the monastery. Those priest-monks who persist in their rebellion against ecclesiastical authority are deposed from their orders. 7. The employees of church institutions who are guilty of the crimes mentioned in the Articles 2 and 3 are immediately dismissed from their service, without a right to be employed again by the church institution of any kind. Those in sacred orders are suspended from all sacred functions and are handed over to the ecclesiastical trial and, if they do not repent, are deposed from sacred orders, while lay people are excommunicated. 8. The lay people who are guilty of the crimes mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 are subject to excommunication from the Church and cannot be elected to any position in an ecclesiastical institution of any kind (canon 4 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Wisdom 3). 9. Profanation of holy churches by their own parishioners, demonstration by them of blasphemous behavior, desecration of the remains of the reposed Christians, allowing for severe violence against the members of the parish clergy, alienation by them of church lands, and the looting of the church property of any kind, as well as the forceful seizure by the neighboring villages of any kind of property belonging to monasteries—all these acts have as a consequence the closure of the parish churches of these villages and the recalling of the remaining members of the clergy from those churches, until all the guilty persons repent in the above mentioned crimes and restore in full the church or monastery possessions that were stolen (canon 12 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council21; canon 42 of the Council of Carthage22). Note. The measure indicated in this Article must be applied if the on-site investigation will establish without a doubt that the actions listed in this Article came as a result of the decision of the Parish Assembly, Parish Council, or, in any case, a significant number of parishioners, to whom the remaining members of the parish did not show any practical or moral resistance. 10. In case of violence committed against the diocesan Bishop and, especially, in the case of his violent death, after the proper investigation of the incident by the ecclesiastical authority, the diocese is deprived of its right to elect their Bishop. Note. The Bishop remains on his see, if the canonical court does not find any culpability in his actions. 11. The measures laid out above are taken against Bishops and deposed clergymen through the decision of the Holy Synod, and in all other cases, by the decision of the diocesan Bishop. If the diocesan Bishop has special difficulties

290

APPENDIX I

in the application of the above mentioned measures, the Holy Synod, at the Bishop’s request, delegates another Bishop to assist him. 12. The Holy Synod shall take care to put into effect the above mentioned measures into the life of the Church.

XI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Concerning the Causes for the Dissolution of a Marital Union Sanctified by the Church April 7 (20), 1918

1.

2.

3.

The marriage union of husband and wife, sanctified and strengthened in the sacrament of marriage through the power of grace, must remain inviolable for all Orthodox Christian spouses. All of them who accepted with obedience to the will of God their lot in life must until the end of their days bear both joys and sorrows of marriage, seeking to implement the saying of the Savior and Lord: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt 19:6). The Holy Church admits the dissolution of a marital union only as a concession to human weakness, caring for the salvation of people, as a prevention of inevitable transgressions and for the alleviation of unbearable sufferings, on the condition that the marriage union to be dissolved has already actually collapsed or that this union is impossible to actualize. The marriage union sanctified by the Church can be dissolved only in accordance with the decision of the ecclesiastical court, in response to the petition from the spouses themselves, due to specific causes, properly proven, and if the conditions indicated in the following articles are observed. The causes for the dissolution of a marriage may include: (a) apostasy from the Orthodox faith; (b) adultery and sins against nature; (c) incapacity for marital cohabitation; (d) the contraction of leprosy or syphilis; (e) disappearance without knowledge of their whereabouts; (f ) criminal sentence imposed on one of the spouses that entails the loss of all civil rights;

VO L U M E I I I

291

(g) an attempt endangering the life or health of a spouse or of the children; (h) illicit incestuous relations in the family, encouragement of extramarital relations, and profiting from the spouse’s sexual immorality; and (i) the contraction of a new marriage by one of the spouses. 4. In the case of an apostasy of one of the spouses from the Orthodox faith, the right to petition the ecclesiastical court for the release from marital vows and for the dissolution of marriage belongs to the spouse who remained Orthodox. 5. A spouse has a right to petition for the dissolution of a marriage if another spouse violates the sanctity of marriage by committing adultery or sins against nature. 6. The adultery committed by both spouses does not impede each of the spouses from initiating a request for the dissolution of their marriage. 7. The request for the dissolution of a marriage due to adultery can be initiated within three years from the time when the violation of the sanctity of a marriage became known to the spouse who asks for the divorce. If the violation of the sanctity of marriage is expressed through the ongoing adulterous liaison, the case for divorce may be initiated during the entire time when the liaison is continuing, as well as within three years after it has ended. In any case, the case on the dissolution of a marriage cannot be initiated if more than ten years has passed since one of the spouses committed an adulterous act or ended the adulterous liaison. 8. The adultery of one of the spouses cannot serve as grounds for the dissolution of their marriage if the adultery was committed with the consent or at the instigation of another spouse who intended by these means to find grounds for divorce. 9. The incapacity of one of the spouses for marital cohabitation can serve as a cause for the dissolution of marriage, if this incapacity preexisted the marriage and did not come as a result of advanced age. 10. The case concerning the dissolution of marriage on the basis of a premarital incapacity of one of the spouses can be initiated no earlier than after two years following the contraction of the marriage. Note. The term indicated above is not mandatory in the cases when the spouse’s incapacity is indisputable and undoubtable due to the absence or malformation of the organs. 11. The incapacity of one of the spouses for marital cohabitation may serve as a cause for the dissolution of marriage if this incapacity came as a result of physical injury intentionally inflicted upon himself by the spouse or by someone else with his consent, in order to make the spouse impotent. 12. The contraction of leprosy gives both to the healthy spouse and to the spouse afflicted with leprosy the right to ask for divorce.

292

APPENDIX I

13. The contraction of syphilis serves as a cause for divorce by the petition of the healthy spouse, if the marital cohabitation presents a danger to the healthy spouse and to his/her progeny. 14. The disappearance of one of the spouses without any news of his/her whereabouts serves as a cause for the dissolution of marriage, if it continues for no less than three years. 15. The three-year term established in the preceding Article 14 can be reduced to two years, (a) for the spouses of the persons who have gone missing in connection with military warfare or due to other natural disasters; (b) for the spouses of the persons who were present on a ship that perished during voyage and are missing without any news since the time of the sinking. 16. The term indicated in Articles 14 and 15 is calculated from the end of the year during which the last news from the missing person was received. In any case, the decision of the court concerning the dissolution of marriage due to the disappearance of a person who took part in the war or went missing due to military actions may follow no sooner than one year after the war had ended. 17. The case of the dissolution of a marriage due to the sentencing of one of the spouses to a punishment that entails the loss of all civil rights may be initiated by the spouse of the one condemned after the sentence comes into effect. It can also be initiated by the condemned person in accordance with the regulations laid out in Articles 181 and 182.1 of the Statute Concerning the Exiled Persons. 18. The pardon of the person who was condemned, as well as the cancellation of the previous criminal sentence due to the permission to review the case, deprives the spouse of the right to petition for divorce but does not nullify the divorce that has already taken place. 19. The marriage cannot be dissolved for the reason of the sentencing of a spouse to a punishment entailing the loss of all civil rights, if the spouses continued to live together after the release of the spouse who was condemned from imprisonment. 20. A spouse has a right to petition for divorce, in the case of: (a) an attempt by another spouse on the life of the spouse or on the life of the children; (b) an intentional infliction by another spouse upon the spouse or the children of serious wounds or injuries, of incurable disfigurement of the face, of heavy beatings that threaten their lives, of mutilations or torture, or of any harm that impacts their health.

VO L U M E I I I

293

Note 1. The marriage is dissolved on the basis of the causes indicated in Article 20, if the ecclesiastical court is convinced that to continue to live in this marriage for the spouse who asks for divorce is unbearable. Note 2. The limitation indicated in Article 18 does not apply to the cases of divorce in accordance with the causes indicated in Article 20. 21. A spouse has a right to ask for divorce if an incestuous relationship took place in the marriage, if one spouse encourages another for extramarital affairs, if one spouse instigates another to profit by prostitution, or seeks to achieve profit or material advantage from the prostitution of a spouse. 22. A spouse has a right to ask for divorce from a spouse who entered into a new marital union while being married to a spouse who asks for divorce.

XII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Concerning the Financial Support to the Members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church April 3 (16), 1918

1.

2.

3.

4.

The members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church are provided a salary of six thousand rubles a year, and with their own apartment that has heating and light. Note. The Metropolitan of Kiev receives a salary based on six thousand rubles a year when he participates in the sessions of the Holy Synod. The members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church who do not receive any subsidy from other sources connected with other positions that they occupy are paid additional salary, due on inflation, of three thousand rubles a year each. In the case of shortage of actual apartments, the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are paid a housing allowance in the amount of three thousand rubles a year each. Note. The members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church who live in Moscow and are employed as staff for other services do not receive a housing allowance. The salary and housing allowance established for the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are issued on a monthly

294

5.

6.

7.

8.

APPENDIX I

basis from the day they begin to exercise their duties to the day when their term is expired or they are dismissed from their position. During the sessions of the Council, the financial subsidy that the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church receive as members of the Council is calculated as part of the salary that they are due to receive as members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. Once during the term for which they were elected, the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church are compensated for their travel expenses from the place of their residence to Moscow and back, in the amount equal to the double price of the first-class railway and steamship ticket, and of the actual cost of traveling by horse carriage. The members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church who are sent on business trips receive a traveling stipend in the amount of the cost of the first-class ticket and a stipend for daily expenses of fifteen rubles a day. The members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church who take the leave of absence retain the right to receive their salary only for the time not exceeding one month each year. Note. The housing allowance is issued for the entire time of the leave of absence.

XIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Collection from the Issuance of Church Documents 23 April 7 (20), 1918

The Supreme Church Administration is to be presented with the report of the Sixteenth Conciliar Department concerning the collections from the church documents. After this report is reworked with regards to its application in different instances and under diverse conditions, it is to be temporarily brought into effect so that necessary changes and amendments may be introduced into it, in accordance with the needs that have become clear, and so that the regulations passed by the Supreme Church Administration may be put on the agenda of the Sacred Council next time it assembles for its sessions.

V IV Mo s cow, 1 9 1 8

I. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch July 31 (August 13), 1918

1. 2.

3.

4.

The Patriarch is elected by the Council, which consists of the bishops, clergy, and laity. When the Patriarchal throne becomes vacant, the Locum tenens immediately (using the telegraph) informs all the diocesan bishops about this, as well as concerning his own election. The Holy Synod gathers in a special session together with the Supreme Council of the Church, under the presidency of the Locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, and decrees the convocation of the Council within three months for the election of the Patriarch. This decree is made public to all by the Letter issued in the name of the Locum tenens. Note 1. If the time of the convocation falls during Great Lent or during Bright Week, the calling of the Council is postponed until the day of MidPentecost. Note 2. If the time of the election of the Patriarch coincides with the time when a regular Council is in session, the Patriarch is elected at this same Council, to which a fixed number of representatives from the Moscow Diocese are invited (see Article 4f ). The Council for the election of the Patriarch is composed of: (a) the members of the Holy Synod; (b) all diocesan bishops of the Church of Russia; (c) Archbishop of Kolomna, who is the Administrator of the Patriarchal diocese; (d) the members of the Supreme Council of the Church; 295

296

APPENDIX I

(e) one presbyter and one lay person from every diocese, except the Moscow Diocese; (f ) from the city of Moscow, three clerics, two of whom should be presbyters, and six lay people; from the Moscow region (uyezd), one presbyter and two lay people; one presbyter and two lay people from every two of the remaining twelve regions (uyezdy) of the Moscow diocese; (g) one presbyter and two lay people from Petrograd and Kiev; (h) Protopresbyter of the Great Dormition Cathedral; (i) the abbots of stavropegial monasteries, the superiors of lavras, the abbots of the Valaam, Sarov, and Optina monasteries; (j) Protopresbyter of the Army and Navy Chaplaincy; (k) a delegate from the Orthodox Missionary Society; (l) two delegates from every Theological Academy respectively; (m) one delegate from every University, Academy of Arts, and Academy of Sciences, chosen by elections in which only Orthodox members of the above institutions take part. Note 1. If it is impossible for the diocesan bishop to take part in the election Council in person, he delegates his vote to his auxiliary bishop or to a cleric ordained to holy priesthood, and informs of this the Holy Synod. Note 2. The remuneration of travel and per diem expenses to the members of the Council is covered from the budgets of dioceses and institutions. 5. After certifying in advance the credentials of its members, the Council holds three sessions. 6. The sessions of the Council are valid with the participation of no less than one-half of its members. 7. At the first session of the Council, the definition of the Council regarding the procedure for the election of the Patriarch is read aloud, and the candidates for filling the vacancy of the Patriarchal throne are indicated. 8. Any bishop who is a monk and a person who belongs to the holy priesthood and satisfies the canonical requirements is eligible to be a candidate for the Patriarchal throne. If a person who belongs to the holy priesthood and is not a monk was elected as Patriarch, he must receive a [first] monastic tonsure before his installation as Patriarch. 9. In order to indicate candidates for the patriarchal throne, every member of the Council writes one name on a special ballot and, in a sealed envelope, passes it to the Chairman of the Council. Note: The members of the Council who arrived at the session after the ballots were collected do not have a right to object against the actions at the Council that occurred in their absence. 10. The Chairman of the Council, assisted by the present members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church, reads aloud every name

VO L U M E I V

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19.

20.

21.

297

that was written in the submitted ballots and makes a list of all candidates nominated by this vote, together with the number of votes given for each candidate. At the second session, the Chairman proposes to the Council to strike from the list the names of those candidates who orally or in writing declined to be considered for the election. After the list thus has been finalized and announced, no one may decline to be voted on further. From the candidates in the list that has been announced, the Council elects by a secret ballot three candidates for the Patriarchate, by submitting ballots with three names written on every one of these. Those three candidates who received no less than half of all votes each, and a larger number of votes than others who stood for election, are recognized as elected. If no one will be elected at the first ballot, or the number of those elected will be less than three, another ballot takes place, as described in Article 13. The ballots that are submitted must have three, two, or one name, corresponding to the number of candidates that need to be elected. The seniority of the candidates who received an equal number of votes is determined by lot. If it seems necessary to determine by lot whether a candidate will or will not be included in the list of the three candidates for the Patriarchate, the lot is not used, but the names of those who received an equal share of votes are put on another ballot. The names of the three elected candidates are inscribed, in the order of votes which they received, into a special conciliar act, which is signed by all bishops who participated in the Council, as well as by the members of the Supreme Council of the Church and by the delegates of the Moscow diocese, if they desire. In the case of a unanimous election of a candidate for the Patriarchate, the election of two other candidates is not necessary. At the third session of the Council, which takes place in the patriarchal cathedral church, the Patriarch is elected by lot from the candidates nominated in the conciliar act. In the case of a unanimous election of the Patriarch (Article 18), the name of the one elected is announced. The Patriarch announces his election and his enthronement in an epistle given in his name to the Russian Orthodox flock and to the primates of autocephalous Orthodox Churches. The Council gathered for the election of the Patriarch is given the right to review also the matters that are deemed as urgent by the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.

298

APPENDIX I

II. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne July 28 (August 10), 1918

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The Locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne is elected for the time of vacancy in the office of the Patriarch. When the Patriarchal throne becomes vacant, the most senior member of the Holy Synod, after a preliminary consultation with other members of the Synod, immediately calls for the joint session of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. At the joint session, presided by the same most senior bishop, the members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church elect the Locum tenens by a secret ballot out of the members of the Holy Synod who are present. The candidate who received more than half of the votes is considered as elected. Note: If in the course of the first round of voting no one will receive more than half of the votes, another round takes place. In this round, those who did not receive the required majority of votes are also considered as candidates. The Locum tenens immediately informs the state authorities and all diocesan bishops (by telegraph) regarding the vacancy in the office of the Patriarch and regarding his election as Locum tenens. The Locum tenens convokes the Council for the election of the Patriarch, in accordance with the definition of the Council on the procedure for the election of the Patriarch, and presides at the Council. The Locum tenens chairs the meetings of the Holy Synod, Supreme Council of the Church, and of their joint session, and administers the affairs that are the responsibility of the Patriarch. The Locum tenens, together with the Holy Synod, (a) maintains communications with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches regarding the questions of church life in fulfillment of the decrees of the All-Russian Ecclesial1 Council or of the Holy Synod; (b) addresses the entire Russian Church with epistles of instruction and with pastoral exhortations; (c) takes care for the timely appointment of diocesan bishops to their sees. During the period of vacancy in the office of the Patriarch, the Locum tenens and the Holy Synod are commemorated in prayer during Divine services in all churches of the Russian Church.

VO L U M E I V

299

Note: During his leave of absence or illness, the Patriarch delegates the temporary presidency in the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church to one of the members of the Holy Synod. If the Patriarch is on trial, the most senior of the bishops takes his place in the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church. If the Patriarch leaves the office of the Patriarch (lit. “patriarchal throne”) or dies, the articles of the conciliar definition on Locum tenens come into effect. The rights and duties of the Patriarch as the diocesan bishop pass to the Archbishop of Kolomna and Mozhaisk.

III. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Full Powers of the Members of the 1917–1918 Council September 5 (18), 1918

1.

2.

3.

The Members of the All-Russian Church (Moscow) Council of 1917–1918 retain their full powers until the decree of the Most Holy Patriarch on the convocation of the new (regular) Council. The Most Holy Patriarch has the right at any time, depending on the circumstances of the life of the Church, to call the Sacred Council in its present composition, while the Members of the Council still retain their full powers. For the entire time when the Members of the Moscow Council of 1917–1918 retain their full powers, they have a right to take part, depending on their place of residence, in the diocesan, provincial, district (uyezd), and deanery assemblies, and to vote as fully empowered members of these assemblies.

IV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Convocation of the Next Council and on the Powers of the Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church September 7 (20), 1918

1.

The Most Holy Patriarch is entrusted with convocation of the future regular Council in the spring of 1921, guided by the principles established in

300

2.

APPENDIX I

the report of the Department of the Supreme Church Administration for the convocation of the great Councils every nine years. The Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church, which were elected by this Council, retain their full powers until the election of the new members of these bodies by the future Council.

V. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Statute and Personnel of the Supreme Church Administration September 7 (20), 1918

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to certify the statute and the personnel for the Chancery of the Holy Synod, the Chancery of the Supreme Council of the Church, and of the Office of the Patriarch, with those changes that will be deemed necessary. Regardless of the above and in accordance with the circumstances of the life of the Church and corresponding to the financial means of the Church Administration, the Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to make changes in the above mentioned statute and personnel, as with regards to its composition and the positions themselves, so also with regards to the raising of the salaries. Together with the right to raise wages for those who work at the institutions of the Supreme Church Administration, the Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to raise proportionally also the wages of the members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church. The Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to establish bonus payments to those who work [for the Church] after five years of service, to take into consideration the five years of previous service, to establish the retirement subsidy (pension, retirement fund), and the subsidy to those who are not on the list of active clergy.2 The Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to amend into the statute of the Chancery of the Supreme Church Administration and of the Office of the Patriarch a decree stating that: (1) the employees of the institutions of the Supreme Church Administration and of the Office of the Patriarch have the right to an annual paid one-month vacation;

VO L U M E I V

6.

301

(2) in the case of a properly certified illness, the employees have the right to receive their salary in the course of two months, but without pay may retain their position for four months. The definition of the Sacred Council of April 3 (16), 1918, on the salaries of the Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church, is amended with Article 9, which reads thus: The Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church who did not attend the sessions for the reason of a properly certified illness retain their salary for the period of two months.

VI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Administration of Theological Schools and Parochial Schools, and on the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith to the Students of Secular Schools September 7 (20), 1918

1.

2.

The administration of the theological schools and of parochial schools, as well as the organization of the teaching of the Orthodox faith for the students of secular schools shall be concentrated directly at the Supreme Church Administration, which is granted permission to organize these matters in accordance with the actual needs of the present time and conciliar definitions regarding the institutions of the Supreme Church Administration. The Supreme Church Administration is entrusted with providing protection and support, which is needed in the current circumstances, to those who work at church schools on a local level.

VII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Ecclesiastical Provinces September 7 (20), 1918

Keeping in mind that the need to form provinces (okruga) within the Russian Church was acknowledged by the Councils of 1666 and 1681–1682 and by the

302

APPENDIX I

subsequent consciousness of the Church, and taking into account the current number of dioceses in the Church of Russia, the Sacred Council, guided by the sacred canons, defines that ecclesiastical provinces shall be established in the Church of Russia. The definition of the number of provinces and the distribution of the dioceses among them shall be entrusted to the Supreme Church Administration.

VIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine September 7 (20), 1918

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia has reviewed the draft of the Statute on the provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine,3 presented for the confirmation of the Most Holy Patriarch, submitted by the Most Holy Patriarch for the consideration of the Council, and approved by the Ukrainian Church Council, and resolves: A. 1.

2.

3.

4.

The Orthodox dioceses in Ukraine, while remaining an inalienable part of the one Orthodox Church of Russia, form its ecclesiastical region with special privileges based on the principle of autonomy. The autonomy of the Ukrainian Church encompasses local ecclesiastical affairs: administration, education, mission, charity work, monasteries, economy, judicial affairs of specific instance, and marriages, but does not encompass the matters that concern the entire Church. The decrees of the All-Russian Church Councils as well as the decrees and directives of the Most Holy Patriarch are binding for the entire Ukrainian Church. The bishops and the delegates from clergy and laity of the Ukrainian dioceses participate in the All-Russian Church Councils on the basis of the current definitions on the Councils. The Metropolitan of Kiev, by virtue of his office, and one of the Ukrainian diocesan bishops, in his turn, participate in the Holy Synod on the basis of the conciliar definition on the composition of the Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia.

VO L U M E I V

5. 6. 7.

303

The Most Holy Patriarch can send his representatives to the Ukrainian Church Council. The Most Holy Patriarch confirms the Metropolitans and ruling bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses. With respect to the Ukrainian Church, the Most Holy Patriarch maintains all the privileges foreseen by the conciliar definitions on the rights and duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

B. 8.

The draft of the Statute on the provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which was approved by the Ukrainian Church Council, shall be presented to the Ukrainian Church with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch to put it in effect in conformity with the provisions laid out in Articles 1– 7 of the present definition.

The Additional Decree of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine Dated September 7 (20), 1918 (an addendum to the Conciliar definition on the same subject, of the same date) In order to reconcile Article 4 of the Conciliar definition on the draft of the Statute on the provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which concerns the summoning of Ukrainian bishops for their turn to participate in the sessions of the Holy Synod, with the previous Conciliar definition regarding the order of the summoning of the bishops in accordance with five groups, the Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to include all the Ukrainian dioceses into one group, and to assign to other groups the dioceses outside of Ukraine that now are part of the South-Western group, which also encompasses the Ukrainian dioceses. The Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (Approved by the Council of the Ukrainian Church on July 9, 1918) I. 1.

The Orthodox Church in Ukraine, whose supreme, provisional administration is organized on the principles of autonomy, maintains its canonical bond with the Patriarch of All Russia.

304

2.

APPENDIX I

The Patriarch of All Russia possesses the following privileges with respect to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: (a) the Patriarch confirms and gives his blessing to the Metropolitan of Kiev, while all the bishops for the Ukrainian dioceses are confirmed by the Sacred Council of the Ukrainian Bishops and receive the blessing from the Most Holy Patriarch; (b) the Patriarch receives complaints against the Metropolitan of Kiev, and enjoys the right of the higher court (the court of appeals) over all the Bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses; (c) the Patriarch gives his blessing for the convocation of the Church Councils in Ukraine; (d) the Patriarch confirms the Statute on the provisional supreme administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine; (e) the name of the Patriarch of All Russia is commemorated at divine services in all churches of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

II. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

The Ukrainian Church Council is the highest body of the legislative, administrative, and judicial power in the Church. The Ukrainian Church Council is called periodically once in three years, and more often in extraordinary circumstances. The Ukrainian Church Council consists of the ruling and auxiliary bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses (ex officio), and the clerics and lay people elected at the regional (uyezd) assemblies. Note: If the ruling Bishop does not have an auxiliary bishop, he may send to the Council his deputy in the rank of a presbyter. The Sacred Council of all ruling Bishops of the Ukrainian dioceses and the Supreme Council of the Church are continuously functioning executive bodies of the Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The Sacred Council of Bishops is called no less than once a year. During the time when the bishops remain in their dioceses, the Council delegates its powers to those Bishops who are members of the Supreme Council of the Church. The Bishops become members of the Supreme Council for one year in the order of rotation established by the Sacred Council of Bishops. The Supreme Council of the Church consists of three Bishops (aside from the Metropolitan of Kiev), four clergy (including one psaltist), and six lay people, of which the clergy and lay members are elected by the Ukrainian Church Council for the term of three years.

VO L U M E I V

305

9.

The Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia presides ex officio at the Ukrainian Church Council, the Sacred Council of Bishops, and in the Supreme Council of the Church. 10. The Metropolitan of Kiev retains his ancient liturgio-ecclesiastical distinctions: the cross on the mitre, the right to wear two panagias4 during the liturgy, and the right to be preceded by the cross in processions.

III. 11. The matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Sacred Council of Bishops are the hierarchal and pastoral affairs that primarily pertain to the internal aspect of the life of the Church, but specifically include: (a) teaching of the faith; (b) liturgy; (c) church administration; (d) ecclesiastical court; (e) ecclesiastical discipline. 12. The matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of the Church are the ecclesiastical and public affairs, which primarily pertain to the external aspect of the life of the Church, but specifically include: (a) church administration; (b) church economy; (c) schools and education; (d) auditing; (e) legal affairs. 13. The joint sessions of the Sacred Council of Bishops and of the Supreme Council of the Church are called for the resolution of the matters of special importance, such as: (a) reviewing of the report on the work of the Sacred Council of Bishops and of the Supreme Council of the Church; (b) approving of the budget of incomes and expenditures for the church institutions; (c) calling of the Ukrainian Church Council; (d) as well as every matter that the Sacred Council of Bishops and the Supreme Council of the Church deem necessary to submit to the joint session. 14. The Sacred Council of Bishops and the Supreme Council of the Church present to the regular All-Ukrainian Council the plans, suggestions, legislative drafts, and reports that concern their activity.

306

APPENDIX I

IV. 15. The Ukrainian State has the right to control the expenditure of the sums allotted from the state treasury and to oversee the activity of the institutions of church government, from the point of view of their conformity to the state laws. 16. The Metropolitan of Kiev, as the President of all the institutions of the Supreme Church Administration, represents the Orthodox Church to the Ukrainian State and mediates between the Church and the State. 17. The Minister of Cults, who must belong to the Orthodox faith, mediates between the State and the Church from the side of the Ukrainian State. 18. The Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia participates in the work of the higher representative body of the state. 19. These Statutes on the provisional Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, prior to their confirmation by the Most Holy Patriarch, are submitted for the approval of the supreme state authority, in view of their conformity to the state laws. The Resolution of the Ukrainian Church Council on the Binding Character of the Resolutions of the All-Russian Church Council and of the Most Holy Patriarch for the Dioceses of Ukraine All resolutions of the All-Russian Church Council and of the Most Holy Patriarch must be absolutely binding for all dioceses of Ukraine.

IX. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Changes in the Articles 80 and 83 of the Conciliar Definition on the Diocesan Administration September 7 (20), 1918

In the conciliar definition on the diocesan administration, the first half of Article 80 must be read as follows: “No person who has been convicted in court or who currently is on trial can be elected as Dean or as a member of the Deanery Council.” And section “e” of Article 83 must be read thus: “the granting of vacations for the members of the clergy within the borders of Russia for the period that is no longer than fourteen days.”

VO L U M E I V

307

X. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Establishment of New Dioceses and Auxiliary Sees July 26 (August 8), 1918

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The question regarding the establishment of a new diocese or an auxiliary see is to be discussed at the General Assembly of the districts (uyezds) that will form a new diocese or an auxiliary see. Note: If the General Assembly desires, this question may be raised at the Diocesan Assembly. The General Assembly of the districts (uyezds) is called with the blessing of local diocesan bishops, in accordance with Article 1 of the conciliar definition on the District Assemblies. The General Assembly is chaired by the diocesan bishop of the diocese where the Assembly takes place or, after the bishop’s directive, by an Auxiliary Bishop, or by one of the members of the Assembly in the presbyteral rank, elected by the Assembly. When the General Assembly makes a decision with respect to the establishment of a new diocese or an auxiliary see, it must seek and indicate the financial resources for the upkeeping of the newly formed diocesan chancery or of an auxiliary see. The proposal on the establishment of a new diocese or an auxiliary see, together with the final opinion of the diocesan bishops, is presented for the resolution of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The Supreme Church Administration is granted permission to establish dioceses or auxiliary sees, in accordance with the proposals submitted, taking into account the following: (a) the wishes of the pastors and the flock of one or another diocese that one or several parts thereof may be segregated into an independent diocese or an auxiliary see; (b) the number of parishes (churches) and monasteries; (c) the distance from the diocesan see, the inconvenience of the means of transit, and the vastness of the territory; (d) the presence of theological schools, which may serve the newly founded diocese; (e) the special characteristics of the flock, as well as missionary and educational needs of the region; (f ) the availability of local financial means for the subsidizing of an episcopal see and an episcopal chancery.

308

7.

APPENDIX I

The administration of newly formed dioceses may be organized in accordance with simplified regulations established with a special Statute, approved by the Supreme Church Administration.

XI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Establishment of the Diocese of Warsaw in the Borders of the Former Kingdom of Poland August 25 (September 7), 1918

The Statute of the Orthodox Diocese of Warsaw 1.

2.

The Orthodox Diocese of Warsaw remains established in its former borders and, while constituting a part of the Orthodox Church of Russia, is administered on the basis of the general regulations approved by the Sacred Council for all the Orthodox diocese of the Church of Russia, namely: (a) it maintains canonical dependency on the Supreme Church Administration under the presidency of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia; (b) it sends its delegates to the All-Russian Church Councils; (c) it is governed by the diocesan Bishop, Diocesan Assembly, and the Diocesan Council, in accordance with the definitions of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia on the diocesan administration and court and in accordance with local situation and needs; (d) the diocesan Bishop of the Orthodox diocese of Warsaw is elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese from the candidates approved by the Holy Synod and is to be confirmed by the Holy Synod after his election; in exceptional circumstances, he is appointed in accordance with Notes 1 and 2 to Article 16 of the conciliar definition on the diocesan administration. The Diocese of Warsaw, following the laws that are in effect in the State of Poland, opens and maintains the schools of general and special education, with Russian as the language of instruction and with the mandatory study of the Polish language, as well as other charitable and educational institutions (hospices, shelters, trustee societies, printing presses, et al.).

VO L U M E I V

3.

4.

5.

309

All Orthodox churches, chapels, and monasteries, with their properties and capital, remain the rightful property of the diocese of Warsaw, if they belonged to it before the war and were in the borders of the Kingdom of Poland. Likewise, the properties and capital that belonged to the household of the Bishop of Warsaw and to other diocesan institutions constitute the property of the diocese. Note: The churches and properties of the Orthodox parishes that will be dissolved due to the absence or to a low number of Orthodox population, as well as all military chapels, in the Kingdom of Poland are transferred to the property of the parishes closest to them and considered to be under their jurisdiction. The means for the support of the clergy, officers, and diocesan institutions of the diocese of Warsaw are drawn from the local financial resources, the allotments from the Supreme Church Administration, and the allotments granted by the Government of Poland. The Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Poland enjoys all the same rights as defined by the state legislation of the Kingdom of Poland with respect to other Christian confessions.

XII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Procedure for the Local Glorification of Saints 5 August 21 (September 3), 1918

1.

2.

3.

The glorification of a servant of God for local veneration in the Russian Orthodox Church is performed by the Council of the metropolitan province with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod given through a special written letter (gramota). Note: Up until the proper establishment of metropolitan provinces and provincial Councils, the glorification is performed by the Most Holy Patriarch together with the Holy Synod. The petition for the glorification of a servant of God for the local veneration must come from the local Orthodox populace, with the blessing of the diocesan Bishop. In order that a servant of God may be numbered among locally venerated saints, it is necessary that the life of this righteous person that pleased God

310

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

APPENDIX I

is attested by the gift of working miracles after his death, and by popular veneration. Before the glorification of a saint, his miracles that were written down by those who honor his memory, as well as by the clergy, are verified by a special commission appointed by the diocesan Bishop, with the blessing of the Metropolitan or of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. In the process of verification of miracles, those who report them and witnesses give their depositions under oath regarding the truthfulness of the miraculous signs that were recorded. It is not a requirement for the local veneration of a servant of God as a saint to open and examine his relics. If the examination of the relics of the servant of God does take place, it is performed with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch and in the presence of his representative. With the blessing of the diocesan Bishop, the life of a saint is composed, or the life that was already composed is reviewed, and it is established whether the life corresponds with the witness accounts, the memoirs of the saint’s contemporaries, and with the records and narratives in the historical chronicles. The life of the saint is used to compose an epitome (prolog) or synaxarion6 for liturgical use. With the blessing of the diocesan Bishop, the liturgical service to the saint is composed (troparion, kontakion, stichera, and the canon), but before its composition, the service to the saint is celebrated following the General Menaion. Any newly composed liturgical hymns and prayers are to be used in the divine services only with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch and the Holy Synod. The date for the feast of a saint is established with the blessing of the Council of the province or by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The name of the saint is inscribed into the ecclesiastical menologion (calendar) with the note concerning the local character of this saint’s veneration. After the blessing for the glorification of the servant of God has been received, the forthcoming celebration is announced to the public through the printing in the Church Bulletin of the patriarchal letter, of a brief synopsis of the saint’s life, and of the troparion and kontakion to him, which should be composed by that time. The rite for the glorification of a saint is performed by the local diocesan authority and is confirmed by the Most Holy Patriarch with the Holy Synod. The right to prescribe the general church veneration for a local saint belongs to the Sacred Council of the Church of Russia. However, even before such glorification, the service to him as to a saint may be performed in any place, in accordance with the desire of those who honor him.

VO L U M E I V

311

14. The name of the saint who was glorified for the general church veneration is printed in the common menologion of the Russian Church without the indication to the local character of this saint’s veneration. 15. The Most Holy Patriarch, through a special letter, informs the Ecumenical Patriarch and the primates of other autocephalous churches regarding the canonization of saints for the general veneration [in the Russian Church].

XIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Restoration of the Feast of All Saints of Russia August 13 (26), 1918

1. 2. 3. 4.

The celebration of the memorial of all saints of Russia, which previously existed in the Russian Church, is [hereby] restored. This celebration is held on the first Sunday of the Apostles’ Fast. The service for the feast of All Saints of Russia is to be printed at the end of the Pentecostarion. The Supreme Church Administration is entrusted to correct and to supplement the service for the feast of all holy new wonderworkers of Russia, composed by Monk Gregory.

XIV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Protection of the Church Possessions from Blasphemous Usurpation and Profanation August 30 (September 12), 1918

1.

Holy churches and chapels with all sacred objects that are found in them are the Divine inheritance, which signifies the exclusive right of possession [of these buildings and objects] by the Holy Church of God, represented by all its children of Orthodox faith, presided by the Divinely instituted

312

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

APPENDIX I

hierarchy. Any alienation of this inheritance from the Church is a blasphemous usurpation and an act of violence. Every Orthodox Christian by his very name is endowed with a duty to protect the possessions of the Church from blasphemous usurpation and profanation by any means accessible to him that are not alien to the spirit of Christ’s teaching. No Orthodox Christian, under the penalty of excommunication from the Church, shall dare to take part in the confiscation of holy churches, chapels, and sacred objects that are found in them, when these are in effective possession of the Holy Church. While the parish assemblies and other guardians of church inheritance do not have a right to hand over church property from the possession of the Church, they may, at the demand of civil authorities, hand over only the inventories of the churches and objects that are found in them. When the inspection of the church property takes place, they must closely observe that the inspection occurs with the participation of the clergy and of the members of the Parish Council or of the monastic brotherhood, and that sacred objects will not be touched by persons not belonging to the clergy, and that non-Orthodox will not enter the sanctuary, which would be an act of sacrilege. The local diocesan authority may order to cease the celebration of the divine services in the holy churches that became victims to an usurpation by force or to an act of profanation. In the case of evident neglect or indifference of parishioners toward the usurpation and profanation of the holy things, the churches of such parishes are closed by the order of the local diocesan Bishop, and the celebration of public liturgy and, in some exceptional cases, also of some private ritual services in that parish is ceased until complete repentance of those guilty of neglect. Holy churches and other sacred objects that the civil authority took into its possession may not be received from the civil authority for keeping and proper usage by random associations of individuals calling themselves Orthodox, but rather by Orthodox parishes, brotherhoods, and other church organizations with the approval of the diocesan Bishop, and on the general basis of ecclesiastical canons. The parishes and other ecclesiastical organizations that accept on the conditions indicated above (Art. 7) the holy churches and holy objects into their possession, may express in the letter required by the civil authority that they accept responsibility only with respect to the following: (a) that the church property received by them will be preserved whole and safe; and

VO L U M E I V

313

(b) that it will be used in conformity with its religious and ecclesiastical purpose. 9. If an Orthodox church passes even temporarily to the de facto possession of persons alien and adversary to the Orthodox Church, which in particular involves their contact with the sacred objects, it is necessary to perform the dedication of the church and of the sacred objects according to the established church rite, before resuming liturgical services in that church and using the sacred objects in accordance with their purpose. 10. The community of the Orthodox Christians that was deprived of their church and of its holy objects, is to unite around its pastor who, with the permission of the diocesan Bishop, may perform the divine services for this community, including the Divine Liturgy, in a private home or in any other appropriate location. 11. In such case, the objects needed for the liturgy are acquired with the voluntary donations of the faithful. The sacred vessels [thus acquired] may be without any ornamentation, and the vestments may be made from a common linen, so that it may be known to all that the Orthodox Church appreciates its holy objects because of their inner significance, rather than for the sake of material value, and that violence and persecution is incapable to deprive the Church from its chief treasure—its holy faith, the pledge of its eternal triumph, for “this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith” (1 John 5:4).

XV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On Monasteries and Monastics August 31 (September 13), 1918

The Basic Articles of the General Statute I. The Brotherhood of the Monastery 1. 2.

The persons of the Orthodox faith are admitted into the Orthodox monasteries in strict observance of the ecclesiastical canons established in this regard. Those who come from the world, as well as workers and novices from other monasteries, are admitted into the monastery by the abbot. The

314

3.

4. 5. 6.

7.

APPENDIX I

novices should be accepted into monasteries with great discernment, and the presentation of the letter from their spiritual father is required at their admittance into the monastery. The novices who have shown a good disposition at the monastery are attached to this community by the order of the Bishop at the request of the abbot. The dismissal of a novice from a monastery follows the same procedure. The abbots should nurture future novices in the monasteries and in the monastery schools. The candidate for tonsure7 must have a good inclination toward monastic life and must be examined by the abbot. One must be guided by the church canons and the practice of the Orthodox Church in determining the age of tonsure and the length of the novitiate. The candidate for tonsuring must not be younger than twenty-five years old. Note: The tonsuring at a younger age is allowed only with a special permission of a diocesan Bishop, given in each individual case. In accordance with the canons of the holy Councils (canon 4 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council,8 canon 21 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council,9 canon 4 of the First-Second Council10), the monastics are obliged to stay in their monastic obedience in those monasteries where they have made the beginning [of their repentance], were tonsured, and rejected the world. They must not pass over to other monasteries, except in cases where the spiritual authority sees it as beneficial to transfer a monk known for his piety and honorable way of life to another monastery for the upbuilding of the latter and for common good. The transfer of monastics from one monastery to another takes place with the assent of their abbots and with the approval of the Bishop in whose diocese the monastic is transferred, upon prior consultation with the monk’s former diocesan Bishop.

II. The Offices of the Monastery 8.

The abbot of a monastery is elected from among the persons who are sufficiently experienced in monastic life. Note 1. If a retired Bishop resides in a monastery, he also could be elected to the position of abbot, with his consent, if the brotherhood so desires. However, as far as his subsidy is concerned, he does not enjoy any privileges above the abbots who are not bishops. Note 2. The bishops who do not have a monastic tonsure, but were clothed as riasophor [monks], may not serve as abbots of monasteries and may not be supplied from the portion of the monastery income which is used by the abbot.

VO L U M E I V

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

315

The election of the abbot of a monastery takes place in the presence of the dean of monasteries or a monastic appointed by the diocesan Bishop. The election takes place by secret ballot with the participation of all brothers of the monastery tonsured to the lesser schema, except those who were dishonored by a court verdict or remain under investigation for the accusations of dishonorable conduct. Everyone who takes part in the vote writes on his ballot the name of one candidate. The two candidates who received the largest number of votes are inscribed into the act of election, which thereafter is submitted by the dean of the monasteries to the diocesan Bishop to choose the abbot at his discretion. Note. These regulations concerning the election of an abbot by the brotherhood do not apply to the monasteries where the diocesan or auxiliary bishops are abbots ex officio, or to the monasteries with a special purpose. The diocesan Bishop, with the consent of the elect, presents him to the Holy Synod for his appointment. If the candidate will not be approved, the Bishop presents his own candidate. If the brotherhood is unable to elect the candidate for the position of abbot, the candidate is presented to the Holy Synod by the diocesan Bishop, at the latter’s discretion. After their retirement, the abbots should be provided by the monastery with an appropriate residence and subsidy, which is determined by the diocesan authority. The regulations (Arts. 9 –12) concerning the abbots of monasteries are in effect also concerning the abbesses of women’s monasteries. The bishops who were sent into retirement without pension and prescribed to take residence in a monastery, receive their subsidy and board from the monastery, as determined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The election of the superior in lavras and monasteries where the office of a superior has been instituted follows the same procedure as the election of the abbot of a monastery. The responsibility of a superior is to substitute for the abbot in his absence. The treasurer, the sacristan, the deputy abbot (dean), and economos, where there is such position according to the statute, are appointed and dismissed by the diocesan Bishop at the request of the abbot. Note. In the monasteries that do not have many residents, and where there are not found enough people to occupy the positions in a monastery, the abbot has a right to petition the diocesan Bishop to allow to merge several positions for one person, or to appoint to some of these positions monastics from other monasteries. The number of clerics on staff in a women’s monastery depends on the financial resources of the monastery suitable for their subsidy.

316

APPENDIX I

III. The Council of the Monastery 18. The monastery is administered by the abbot. The Council of the Monastery assists the abbot in managing the economic life of the monastery. 19. The Council of the Monastery includes, aside from the abbot: the superior, where such position exists, treasurer, sacristan, dean, and economos, where such position exists. 20. The Council of a women’s monastery includes the abbess, treasurer, sacristan, dean, and the director of the refectory (the senior nun appointed to the obedience at the refectory). 21. The resolutions of the Council of the Monastery are binding for all the residents of the monastery. If the abbot or the abbess disagrees with the Monastery Council, the matter is submitted to the decision of the diocesan Bishop. 22. The above regulations regarding the external organization of the monastic life (Arts. 1– 21) apply to all monasteries of the Orthodox Church of Russia, including the monasteries that now have special status, such as lavras, stavropegial monasteries, and the monasteries where the Bishops serve as abbots. IV. The Inner Organization of Monastic Life 23. In accordance with the monastic profession, the cenobium (communal living) is to be recognized as a higher form of monastic life in comparison with individual living. For this reason, the cenobial monasteries even further on must remain cenobial, and it is desirable that those that are not may be converted into cenobial monasteries, where this is possible in the local situation. 24. In the women’s monasteries where due to shortage of means the residents support themselves with their own labors, i.e., they purchase shoes and clothes with their own means, the abbesses are obliged to introduce gradually the fully cenobial (communal) way of life. 25. The principal attention of the leadership of the monastery and of the zeal of the brothers must be directed to the liturgy of the Church performed strictly in accordance with the Typicon without omissions, without reading the parts that are supposed to be sung, and accompanied by the word of instruction. 26. In the monasteries where certain centuries-old practices are followed during liturgy that are not envisioned by the Typicon but do not contradict the spirit of Orthodoxy, such practices must be preserved. 27. The unfailing and pious participation in the celebration of divine services, as well as being present at such, must be supported by the example and encouragement of the leadership of the monastery.

VO L U M E I V

317

28. It is desirable that an elder (or eldress) should reside in each monastery for spiritual nourishment of those that dwell therein. 29. Elders (and eldresses) are monks or nuns who have made progress in their spiritual lives, who know the word of God, patristic writings, and the canons of Holy Fathers, and are able to give direction in spiritual life. They are entrusted with giving instruction to the brotherhood. 30. Every monastery must have a confessor of the brotherhood. 31. The confessor is chosen by the abbot with the participation of the entire monastic brotherhood, and is confirmed by the diocesan Bishop. 32. The confessor for lesser schema nuns in the women’s monasteries is a monk appointed by the diocesan Bishop. V. The Everyday Life and Discipline in a Monastery 33. While undertaking every measure toward the facilitation of the salvation of the brotherhood and making a good example always and in everything, the abbot focuses his main concern upon spiritual direction and nurturing of the souls entrusted to him. 34. With regards to monastic discipline, the abbot is guided by the general statute of the monasteries and by the typicon of his own monastery. 35. Nothing is undertaken and nothing is done in a monastery without the permission of the abbot. 36. All residents of the monastery, including monastics, novices, and those who dwell in the monastery temporarily, remain under unconditional obedience to the abbot. 37. The abbot exercises general supervision for the conduct of the brethren, while the close supervision is delegated to the dean of the monastery and to his assistants, if such exist. 38. The monastics who are deemed to be absolutely incorrigible in their way of life are subject to expulsion from monastic ranks. Note. It is necessary to take possible measures so that those who were expelled from monasticism or the novices who left the monastery would not continue wearing monastic habit. VI. The Property and Economy of a Monastery 39. All movable and immovable property, as well as the capital belonging to the monastery, constitute the possession of the monastery and are the inheritance of the entire Orthodox Church of Russia. 40. Alienation and exchange of the immovable property belonging to the monastery are not allowed except with the permission of the supreme ecclesiastical authority.

318

APPENDIX I

41. If a monastery is merged into another monastery, all the movable and immovable property and capital for the former monastery now belong to the monastery with which it is merged. 42. The sources for the monastery’s incomes and the means by which they are produced must correspond to the principles and foundations of monastic life. 43. All the work on which the monastic economy depends must, to the extent that it is possible, be performed by the residents of the monastery themselves. Each person who is a member of the brotherhood, to the measure of his strength and ability, must bear his working obedience, alongside his labors of prayer, and does not have a right to refuse it. 44. The monasteries that in their substance are not only the brotherhoods of prayer, but also of labor, have a right to own land as property. 45. All monasteries that own land as property must introduce a more sophisticated means of production, appropriate for the conditions and needs of local surroundings, and must develop their trades both for the satisfaction of their economic needs, and for the selling of the commodities and manufactures produced at the monastery. 46. The economic activity and trades of the monastery must not only take into consideration the needs of the monastery itself, but also be directed to satisfying the most pressing ecclesiastical needs and benefiting the neighboring populace. 47. The direct supervision over the economic activity of monasteries belongs to the diocesan Bishop, who exercises it with the mediation of the Diocesan Council and the deans of monasteries. 48. The immediate management of the monastery’s economic activity belongs to the abbot (or abbess), together with the Monastery Council, in accordance with the regulations established by the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 49. The duties of the Monastery Council are as follows: (a) constant care for the safeguarding of the movable and immovable property and the capital of the monastery, as well as of all documentation supporting the monastery’s possession of these properties; (b) the compiling of the inventory for all the movable and immovable property and capital of the monastery in two copies, one of which is kept among the files of the Monastery Council, and the other is submitted to the diocesan administration; and (c) the preparation of the annual report on the monastery’s economy, the budget of income and expenses for the next civil year, and the submission of these documents for the approval of the diocesan Bishop.

VO L U M E I V

319

VII. Educational Institutions for Monastics 50. In order to foster education among the monastic brotherhood, it is necessary: (1) to conduct on a weekly basis in all monasteries talks on the subjects of religion, morals, and theology for all residents, with the assistance of competent persons; (2) to establish schools in lavras and large monasteries, namely: (a) secondary schools, so that monks and novices may continue their education; (b) professional schools for monks and hierodeacons who are preparing to be ordained as hierodeacons and hieromonks; (3) in one or several of the monasteries of each diocese, if it proves to be possible under local conditions, to open secondary schools for monks and novices of the monasteries that are poor and small in numbers, so that after their studies, the students may return to their monasteries; the local diocesan authority should take care to establish such schools and to seek out resources for their support; (4) to organize classes for the illiterate and poorly educated monastery residents, in proportion to their age and ability, in order to teach them the principles of faith, ecclesiastical and civil literacy, and liturgical music. 51. Every monastery must have its own library, constantly supplemented, containing the books of the Holy Scriptures, with commentaries and handbooks, the works of the Holy Fathers, spirituality, morality, asceticism, church history, homiletics, and other books of theological and edifying content. The monastery librarian, chosen from the persons who are competent in theological literature, shall provide the books for the residents of the monastery at the direction of their confessors and elders. 52. Special Councils on Education may be established in the monasteries, with the blessing of the diocesan Bishop, in order to foster the development of the educational and missionary activity, and to oversee the educational and missionary institutions of a monastery. They implement their decisions after these were approved by the abbot of the monastery and under his guidance. VIII. Missionary and Educational Work of Monasteries 53. The ministry of the monasteries to the lay population in the area of spiritual education is expressed through the zealous celebration of the liturgy of the Church in accordance with the Typicon, through the ministry of confessors and elders, through preaching, through offering prayer services

320

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

APPENDIX I

and processions, through organizing talks with the people outside of the liturgy, through the distribution of printed pamphlets dealing with religion and morality, and through the establishment of schools. The groups or brotherhood of homilists, consisting of monastics, are formed in large monasteries, as well as in every diocese if it is possible. At the direction of the diocesan Bishop or with the blessing of the abbots, these homilists must preach to the pilgrims on feast days and in other monasteries. The monasteries that are more well-funded should emulate the monasteries who had broadly enhanced their work in publications and should dedicate, if it is possible, a part of their efforts and resources to the publishing of pamphlets, brochures, books, calendars, and magazines aimed at religious education, in order to disseminate these among the people. The educational work of the monasteries situated among the population influenced by sects, the Schism, and non-Orthodox faith should have a missionary orientation. The monasteries that are situated among the non-Russian population may direct their work exclusively to the preaching of the gospel, may have a special missionary orientation, and may establish schools aimed at the spreading of the mission. Wherever it is possible under local circumstances, the monasteries establish one-year or two-year monastery schools, providing an education in trade or agriculture, in particular including the study of the Orthodox Christian art of painting and iconography. Note 1. Wherever there is such possibility, women’s monasteries establish the classes of needlework for the girls that come to the monasteries from the local population. Note 2. With the permission of the diocesan Bishop, the abbesses may serve as principals of the schools established at the women’s monasteries, if they have satisfactory level of education. The lavras and monasteries take care to establish their own special printing presses, where the work would not be performed by hired workers, but by the residents of the monasteries, so that the word of God and edifying literature could have been broadly disseminated among the people and could satisfy its spiritual hunger.

IX. The Charitable Work in the Monasteries 60. The charity work of the monastery should be expressed through the efforts to aid both the residents of the monastery and the lay population. Every monastery is obliged to provide shelter and care for its monks who are elderly or ill. If each monastery on its own is unable to establish its own hos-

VO L U M E I V

321

pice and infirmary, the resources must be sought out in order to establish the hospice and infirmary for all the monks of this diocese in one of the monasteries. In order to satisfy the needs of pilgrims and of the local population, the monasteries establish, wherever possible: (a) emergency rooms and pharmacies; (b) orphanages; (c) shelters for the disabled; (d) guesthouses for poor travelers. 61. The monasteries shall offer assistance to the populace at the times of public pestilence, e.g., famine, war, epidemics. They help the families of the prisoners, feed the beggars, and clothe the naked. X. The Governance of the Monasteries 62. The church governance of the monasteries is exercised by the diocesan Bishop with the cooperation of the Diocesan Council and the Diocesan Monastic Assemblies. 63. For the coordination of the governance of the monasteries, the Diocesan Council includes one monastic member who has no less than the secondary school education. He is responsible for all the matters concerning monasteries and monastics. Note. The scope of the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the department on the monasteries [of the Diocesan Council], and the ways in which these matters are discussed and resolved in the Diocesan Council, are defined by a special Directive, approved by the Supreme Church Administration. 64. Every diocese has one or several deans of the monasteries, who may have their own assistants. Both deans and their assistants are selected by the diocesan Bishop from among the monastics. 65. The investigation of the matters concerning monastics is commissioned to a special investigator, chosen from monastics, who is appointed by the diocesan Bishop for three years out of (two or three) candidates elected by the Diocesan Monastic Assembly. 66. The inquests and investigations involving the abbesses are conducted with the participation of one nun and the abbess of another monastery, by the appointment of the diocesan Bishop. 67. The annual audit of monetary sums, the financial documentation of the monasteries, and the state of the economy of the monasteries is conducted by a special Committee, appointed by the diocesan Bishop. 68. In the dioceses with a small number of monasteries and monastics, the supreme ecclesiastical authority may allow for the monasteries to be under direct governance of the diocesan Bishop.

322

APPENDIX I

XI. The Diocesan Monastic Assembly 69. The Diocesan Monastic Assembly consists of the delegates from both men’s and women’s monasteries and is called by the diocesan Bishop when it is necessary. 70. The Diocesan Monastic Assembly includes as its members: (a) abbots and abbesses of all the monasteries in the diocese; (b) delegates from the monasteries of the diocese, elected for six years, whose number is determined by the diocesan Bishop in accordance with the local conditions; (c) members of the Diocesan Council; and (d) by the invitation of the diocesan Bishop, the monks who are experienced in spiritual life and can contribute the most to the matters at hand. 71. Only lesser schema monks and nuns participate in the elections of the monastery delegates to the Diocesan Monastic Assembly. 72. The diocesan Bishop or, at his request, his auxiliary bishop chairs the Diocesan Monastic Assembly. The Assembly chooses assistants to the chairman and secretaries from among themselves. 73. The scope of the authority of the Diocesan Monastic Assembly includes: (a) the discussion of the issues pertaining to the life and activity of monastics and monasteries in the diocese; (b) the review of the reports from those in charge of the monasteries regarding the state and the needs of the monasteries; and (c) the election of the member of the Diocesan Council from monastics, as well as other monastic representatives. 74. The implementation of the resolutions of the Diocesan Monastic Assembly is the responsibility of the Diocesan Council. XII. The Participation of Monastics in the Diocesan Assemblies of Clergy and Laity 75. The member of the Diocesan Council from monastics, abbots and abbesses of the monasteries, and the delegates of the monasteries, elected from monastics, one from each monastery, take part in the special Diocesan Assemblies of clergy and laity as voting members. 76. The number of monastic delegates who take part in regular Diocesan Assemblies is established by the Diocesan Council. 77. The issues regarding the taxation of the monasteries with monetary contributions for general needs of the diocese, as well as all other issues that concern monasteries and monastics, are submitted for discussion and resolution in the Diocesan Monastic Assembly.

VO L U M E I V

323

XIII. The All-Russian Monastic Assembly 78. The All-Russian Monastic Assemblies are convoked at the Holy Trinity Lavra before the opening of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, and at other times at the discretion of the supreme ecclesiastical authority. 79. The All-Russian Monastic Assembly is composed of: (a) Bishops who expressed desire to take part in the Assembly; (b) the monastics appointed by the diocesan Bishop, and the elected delegates from every diocese, whose number is determined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority; (c) the abbots or superiors of lavras, and the most important monasteries, as determined by the supreme ecclesiastical authority; (b) twenty monks, representing the All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education; and (e) by the direction of the Most Holy Patriarch, those monks who are experienced in the spiritual life and can contribute the most to the matters at hand. 80. The Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia or the Bishop who is a monastic, appointed by the Patriarch, serves as the chair of the All-Russian Monastic Assembly. The Assembly elects the assistants to the chairman and secretaries from its own members. 81. The scope of authority for the All-Russian Monastic Assembly includes: (a) the discussion of issues pertaining to the life and work of all Russian monasteries; and (b) the elections of the monastic representatives to the [All-Russian] Church Council. 82. The supreme governance over all monasteries and monastics belongs to the Most Holy Patriarch, Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church. XIV. On Educated Monks 83. The monks who have received a higher or secondary education, and fulfill their ministry in the area of education or scholarship, diocesan administration, or in any other public church ministry (educated monasticism) are one entity with the entire monastic community, due to the unity of the goal of monastic life despite their special ministry, which they fulfill under special conditions. 84. Educated monks must be members of a monastery brotherhood. The monks who undergo their struggle outside of the monastery must remain in living communication with the brotherhood of their monastery, spending their free time therein, and collaborating in its activity.

324

APPENDIX I

85. The monks who fulfill an educational, pedagogical, or other ecclesiastical public ministry must: (a) remain subject to their monastic discipline; and (b) complete their monastic obligation of prayer to the extent that is possible in their current obedience. 86. Among the monasteries, monasteries may be founded with a special purpose of scholarship, missionary work, and education. The abbot for such a monastery should be chosen from the monks whose qualifications conform to the monastery’s special mission, and the brotherhood must receive primarily educated monks. 87. The students of theological academies and pastoral schools who show sincerity and stability in their inclination for monastic life are allowed to be tonsured. 88. These persons should prepare for monastic life under the guidance of spiritual elders and reside in their free time at the monasteries where elders live. 89. Their monastic tonsure is performed with the blessing of their elder, at the petition of the rector of the academy or the director of the pastoral school, and with the permission of the diocesan Bishop. 90. The monastics who have an advanced degree in theology may occupy positions in the administration and faculty of theological schools, on equal basis with those who have an advanced degree, and enjoy the same rights for pension on the basis of general regulations. XV. The All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education 91. The All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education is founded in order to unite educated monks for their fruitful service to the Church in diverse areas of religious education, and for mutual brotherly assistance. 92. The All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education is given several monasteries for its disposal, if it is possible, with one of those monasteries located in Moscow. 93. The activities of the All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education comprises the following: (a) the work of religious education by means of establishing and upkeeping of specialized ecclesiastical schools (of higher education, i.e., academies and others, the secondary and elementary schools, and the professional pastoral and missionary schools), which are served primarily by monks, the publication and composition of textbooks, translation of patristic works, the study of ancient liturgical books and music, as well as other scholarly work in theology, church history, canon law, and liturgy;

VO L U M E I V

94. 95.

96. 97.

325

(b) evangelization; and (c) the charitable work with the same educational goals in mind. One of the main goals of the All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education lies in the scholarly study of the most important issues of theology. Under the auspices of the academy served by the Brotherhood, there shall be an academic society, with its own statute, which shall have as its goal the in-depth study of the questions of theology, church history, and archeology. The Brotherhood shall have its own printing press and publishes its own proceedings. The All-Russian Monastic Brotherhood of Religious Education has the rights of juridical personhood in order to acquire and own property of any kind, as well as for other purposes foreseen by the law.

XVI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Admission of Unmarried Persons to Holy Orders July 18 (31), 1918

Amending the established rule in the Russian Church that the persons who are not bound either by marriage or monastic vows are not allowed to be ordained as deacons and priests until they reach forty years of age, it is hereby allowed to ordain as deacons and priests the unmarried persons who have reached the age of thirty years, after they have been thoroughly examined by the Bishop who will be ordaining them.

XVII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Restoration into the Holy Orders of the Persons Deposed by the Decision of the Ecclesiastical Court August 2 (15), 1918

1.

The persons who were deposed from holy orders by the verdict of a spiritual court, which was correct in its substance and form, cannot be reinstated in their orders.

326

2.

3.

4.

APPENDIX I

The verdict of the court on the deposition from holy orders, which was deemed by the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court to have been irregular in its substance or in its form, is subject to another hearing and can be revoked if it was found to have been invalid. The persons who have been deposed from holy orders before the opening of the Sacred Council have the right to appeal for another hearing of the verdicts of the spiritual court within the period established for this by a special definition of the Council. Before the new structure of ecclesiastical courts has been established by the Sacred Council, all cases on the validity of the deposition verdicts that were confirmed by the Holy Governing Synod are subject to review and final resolution by the Holy Synod.

XVIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Remarriage of Clerics July 19 (August 1), 1918

In view of the petitions received by the Supreme Church Administration and by the Sacred Council requesting the permission for the clergy to enter a second marriage, the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia decrees: (1) The prohibition for the widowed and divorced clerics to enter a second marriage, based on the apostolic injunctions (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), the canons of the Church (canon 3 of the Council in Trullo11 et al.) on the ideal of a Christian marriage, and on the elevated understanding of the duties of priesthood, must remain inviolable. (2) Taking all measures to ease the burden of the widowed priests and deacons who remained faithful to their sacred vocation must be the subject of constant concern and active care both of the church authorities who have at their disposal various means to this end (giving specific parish assignments, providing opportunities to continue education, involving them in various spheres of active church work), as well as of their fellow workers in ecclesiastical ministry. (3) The priests and deacons who cannot undertake the burden of single life after becoming widowed or divorced will have no impediments to their release from the holy orders. At the same time, they should not be deprived of their right to take positions as lower clerics, as well as to be involved in

VO L U M E I V

327

various kinds of service in religious education, scholarship, administration, and economic activity. The exception is made for the positions where special restrictions have been made by the supreme ecclesiastical authority or that involve responsibilities tied to pastoral office.

XIX. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Active Participation of Women in Various Areas of Church Ministry September 7 (20), 1918

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia recognizes the usefulness of the women’s active participation in all areas appropriate to their calling and therefore decrees: 1. In addition to the right of women to take part in the parish assemblies and parish councils, and to occupy the positions of church wardens, they are also granted the following rights: (a) the right to take part in the Deanery and Diocesan Assemblies; and (b) the right to serve as officers in all diocesan institutions of education, charity, missionary work, and economic activity, with the exception of the Deanery and Diocesan Councils and the institutions of ecclesiastical court and governance. 2. In special cases, women are allowed to fulfill the duties of a psaltist with all the rights and responsibilities of paid psaltists, except their inclusion into the rank of clergy.

XX. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Amendment to the Conciliar Definition on the Reasons for the Dissolution of Marriage Sanctified by the Church August 20 (September 2), 1918

1.

The reasons for the dissolution of a marriage sanctified by the Church, in addition to those reasons indicated in the conciliar definition of April 7 (20), 1918, can include the following:

328

2.

3.

APPENDIX I

(a) the incurable and serious mental illness of one of the spouses, which makes it impossible to continue their marital life and which has been properly certified; (b) the malicious abandonment of a spouse by the other spouse, if according to the conviction of the ecclesiastical court, it makes the continuation of marital life impossible. The recovery from mental illness that has occurred prior to the resolution of the ecclesiastical court on the dissolution of marriage invalidates the reason for the dissolution of a marriage, but does not nullify the resolution of the court that has already been made. The right to petition for the dissolution of a marriage due to malicious abandonment of a spouse by the other spouse belongs to the spouse who had been abandoned.

XXI. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Property and Economic Management of the Church August 24 (September 6), 1918

Basic Principles 1. The property that belongs to the institutions of the Orthodox Church of Russia constitutes the common possession of the entire Church. 2. The highest authority with regards to the disposition of the church property belongs to the All-Russian Sacred Church Council. 3. The specific institutions of the Church that possess the property on the basis of the right of ownership manage it in accordance with the church canons, the decrees of the All-Russian Church Council, and the directives of the Supreme Church Administration, and under the supervision of the latter. 4. The church regulations concerning the church property and economic management are published by the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia and, at its direction, by the Supreme Church Administration, within the scope of authority granted to the latter. 5. The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia exercises its management of the church property and economic resources through the insti-

VO L U M E I V

329

tutions established by the Council, which operate on the basis of special regulations approved by the Sacred Council. 6. The Sacred Council and the Supreme Church Administration, within the scope of its rights, may levy taxes upon the property and income of specific church institutions and establish other kinds of collections and taxations for the general needs of the Church. 7. Specific church institutions, within the scope of the privileges attributed to them, are also granted the right to assign collections and other kind of taxation for the needs of the Church. 8. The movable and immovable property, as well as monetary funds, that belong to church institutions may be used only for the goals that correspond to the purpose of the church institution that owns the property. Note. This article does not exclude the possibility of levying taxes for the general needs of the church, as specified by Article 6. 9. The funds allotted for the needs of the Orthodox Church from the State Treasury are dispensed in accordance with their direct purpose. The accounting and reporting with respect to these sums are conducted in accordance with the general state regulations in this regard. 10. The institutions indicated in Article 5 present the annual report on the church economic management and property to the Supreme Church Administration. These reports are made available for the public knowledge. 11. The Supreme Church Administration presents reports on the state of church economic management and property for the period between the councils for the review of the All-Russian Sacred Church Council.

XXII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Financial and Economic Institutions of the Church August 25 (September 7), 1918

The reports presented by the Conciliar Department on the church property and economic management that concern: (1) the mutual church insurance, (2) the All-Russian Church Cooperative, and

330

APPENDIX I

(3) the All-Russian Credit Union formed by parishes and church institutions, shall be passed to the Supreme Church Administration, with the permission, to the extent to which it is possible, to form financial and economic institutions, proposed by these reports, as well as other institutions, in order to seek out resources for the realization of the educational, charitable, and missionary goals of the Church.

XXIII. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Fees Collected from Petitions and Documents to the General Church Fund August 25 (September 7), 1918

The Regulations on the fees for the General Church Fund collected from petitions and documents, which was presented with the report of the Conciliar Department of the church property and economic management, shall be submitted to the Supreme Church Administration for the approval and implementation of the changes that the Administration will deem to be appropriate.

XXIV. The Definition of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia On the Collection “the Church’s Coin” August 31 (September 13), 1918

1. 2.

In order to strengthen the resources of the General Fund of the Church, a special church collection called “the Church’s Coin” is instituted. This collection will take place in all parishes of the Orthodox Church of Russia every year and in all regions during the period from October 1 to November 21.

VO L U M E I V

3.

331

This collection will take place: (a) in the churches during the liturgy, with the plate for “the Church’s Coin” collection being carried first; and (b) in the parishes in the cities, villages, rural settlements, and suburbs, and at the parishioners’ houses and by other means depending on local situation. The donations are accepted as money, as well as by means of natural produce, i.e., of the products of rural economy, gardening, orcharding, bee-keeping, of the products of artisanship or industrial labor, or with other objects. The items thus collected can be sold locally and exchanged for monetary funds.

APPENDIX II The Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia

Ustav Pomestnogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Vserossiiskoi Tserkvi, in Svyashchennii Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi. Deianiia, vol. 1: Dokumenty, materialy, deianiia I–XVI. Moscow: Novospassky Monastery, 1994 [reprint of idem, vol. 1, issue 1: predislovie, dokumenty i materialy k sozyvu i deiatel’nosti Predsobornogo Soveta i Sobora (Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918); idem, vol. 1, issue 2: Deianiia I–IV (Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918)], 38– 51.

The Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia I. Basic Principles 1.

2.

3.

4.

The Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia has the fullness of ecclesiastical authority for the upbuilding of Russian ecclesial life on the basis of the Word of God, the dogmas, the canons, and the tradition of the Church. The Holy Synod, the Chief Procurator, and the persons who were commissioned for this by the government, at their own initiative, can make announcements to the Council and provide explanations either at a general meeting, or at the Commissions of the Council with regards to the state of any kind of affairs. The Holy Synod presents the Council with all the information concerning its own activities and orders, as well as those of the persons and institutions who are subject to it. The Chief Procurator of the Synod presents the Council with all the information concerning his activities and orders relative to the administration of the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church, as well as those of the persons and institutions who are subject to him. 333

334

APPENDIX II

5.

The Council establishes the structure of the supreme administration of the Orthodox Church of All Russia, and elects the members of its permanent bodies. 6. All current affairs pertaining to the administration of the Orthodox Church of All Russia remain under the authority of the Holy Synod and the institutions that are under its auspices until the election of the permanent bodies of the supreme church administration, mentioned in Article 5. 7. All the rights and obligations that belong to the Holy Synod in accordance with this Statute are transferred to the permanent body of the supreme church administration after it is elected by the Council and assumes its duties. 8. No direct personal addresses, petitions, complaints, or requests will be allowed at the Council. 9. The Council acts through the intermediary of: (1) the general meeting of the Council; (2) the Conference of Bishops; (3) the Council’s Executive Committee;1 (4) its Commissions; (5) the President and Vice-presidents of the Council; (6) the Secretary and his Assistants. 10. The resolutions of the Council that establish regulations or lay down other basic principles take the force of conciliar definitions or epistles only if they are approved by the general meeting of the Council and not rejected by three-quarters of the votes of the Conference of Bishops. 11. The Council addresses the Supreme Government of the God-preserved State of Russia, the children of the Orthodox Church of All Russia, the primates of the autocephalous Churches, the Holy Synod, the bishops, and those who fell away or are swayed away from the true faith and are called to return into the Church’s fold, by means of conciliar epistles or by sending the copies of Conciliar definitions and acts. 12. The Council has its own seal. II. The Opening of the Council, the Closing and Adjournment of the Council 13. The Council is opened by the Presiding Member of the Holy Synod or, in his absence, by the Member of the Synod most senior in rank, on the day of the glorious Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos on August 15 in the Great Dormition Cathedral in Moscow, by means of the reading of the epistle of the Holy Synod addressed to the Council. 14. The Council is closed either on the basis of a conciliar definition in this regard or in accordance with the decision of the Conference of Bishops,

APPENDIX II

335

which is approved by three-quarters of the votes of all Bishops who take part in the Council. 15. The adjournment of the Council is declared by the resolution of the Council itself, passed at the general meeting by a simple majority of votes. 16. The time for the reconvening of the Council is either precisely indicated in the resolution regarding its adjournment or is decided by the consensus between the Executive Committee of the Council and the Holy Synod. III. The Members of the Council 17. The Council is composed of elected Members (Regulations on the Convocation of the Council, Articles 62, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93), Members ex officio (ibid., Articles 2, 3, 84, 85, 86, 88), Members by invitation of the Holy Synod (ibid., Articles 91, 96, 97), and Members by invitation of the Council itself (ibid., Article 3). 18. Upon his arrival to take part in the meetings of the Council, the Member of the Council himself informs of this the Chancery of the Council, indicating his place of residence and all the necessary information regarding himself. He informs the Chancery of any change in this information. 19. The Members of the Council must be present at the meetings of the Council. The failure to appear at the meeting is allowed only for excusable reasons. 20. The Member of the Council marks his name in a special list, indicating his presence at every meeting of the Council. 21. If the Member of the Council, who is not on leave of absence, is unable to appear at the meeting, he must inform the Secretary of the Council with regards to the reasons for his absence. 22. The Members of the Council cannot be absent from the Council without leave of absence. The leaves of absence for the term not exceeding fourteen days are granted by the President of the Council, the leaves for a longer period of time are allowed by the resolutions of the Executive Committee of the Council. 23. A Member of the Council who has been elected to be a member of a Conciliar Commission, cannot refuse to take part in it without excusable reasons. The decisions on the petition for relieving the Member from being part of a Commission is the privilege of the Executive Committee of the Council. A Member of the Council who already is a member of two Commissions has a right to decline the membership in other Commissions. 24. If the elections of a Member of the Council have been annulled, the President of the Council immediately informs of this the Holy Synod, which invites the alternate to serve instead of the Member who was dismissed (Reg. conv. Counc., Arts. 77– 79, 87, 90, 92).

336

APPENDIX II

25. The invitation of Members to the Council (Reg. conv. Counc., Art. 3) takes place either at the suggestion of the Council’s Executive Committee or at the suggestion of no fewer than thirty members of the Council, which is reported by the Executive Committee to the Council together with its opinion. The Council decides the matter by a simple majority of votes, without discussion and by secret ballot. 26. A Member of the Council can be dismissed from the Council for the following reasons: (1) apostasy from the Orthodox faith; (2) renunciation of his sacred orders; (3) condemnation by the ecclesiastical court; (4) condemnation by the criminal court for the deed that the Council recognizes as incompatible with the high office of the Member of the Council; (5) actions incompatible with the high office of the Member of the Council; (6) failure to attend the meetings of the Council for a month without excusable reasons; (7) renunciation of the membership in the Council; (8) the annulment of his election. 27. In the cases indicated in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the preceding article, the Member of the Council is considered as dismissed on the basis of the resolution of the Council passed by a secret ballot after the report of the Membership Commission. In the cases indicated in paragraphs 1, 2, 6, and 7, the membership ceases by the resolution of the Council’s Executive Committee, which informs the Council of its decision. 28. If a Member of the Council is indicted as a defendant in a criminal case, by the decision of the Council’s Executive Committee he is suspended from participation in the work of the Council until he is acquitted or released from criminal investigation and trial. 29. Every Member of the Council receives a certificate confirming his dignity, which bears the signature of the President, the certification by the Secretary, and the seal of the Council. 30. Every Member of the Council enjoys all the rights entailed by his membership until the passing of the resolution regarding his dismissal. 31. The Membership Commission invites the Member of the Council whose case is under review, in order to hear his explanations, if he wishes to present them, which in this case are added to the report of the Commission. 32. No Member of the Council shall take part in the work of the Membership Commission as its member when the case concerning him is under review, nor does he take part in the voting by the Commission and by the Council

APPENDIX II

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

337

on all issues connected with the verification of his powers or on any issues connected with his case. The final decisions of the Membership Commission with regards to the validity of the elections against which the complaints were brought or doubts were raised, as well as with regards to the dismissal of a Member of the Council, are passed by a secret ballot. If, while reviewing the electoral procedure, the Membership Commission shall find irregularities that, however, in the opinion of the Commission, do not give enough reasons to annul the elections, the Commission may propose to the Council to inform the Holy Synod of these irregularities. The reports of the Membership Commission with suggestions regarding the annulment of elections, as well as in the case indicated in Article 34, are presented in written form for the deliberations of the Council. During the discussion at the general meeting of the report investigating the powers of a Member of the Council, the first item to be brought to the vote is the regularity or irregularity of the elections, in accordance with the opinion of the Membership Commission. If the elections are recognized as irregular, the next item to be put to the vote is whether the elections should be annulled. This question is resolved by the majority of two-thirds of the vote by a secret ballot. If the elections are annulled in the entire diocese, the question regarding the rights of representation from that diocese is resolved by the Council itself.

IV. The Officers of the Council 38. The Hierarch who opened the Council temporarily chairs the Council, with the assistance of the members of the Holy Synod in the episcopal rank, until the Council elects its President. The duties of the Secretary and Assistant Secretaries of the Council under the temporary chair are bestowed, by the latter’s commission, upon the Members of the Council and the officers of the Synodal Chancery. 39. The Council elects from among its Members the President, six Vicepresidents, the Secretary, and two Assistant Secretaries. 40. The President and two Vice-presidents are elected from among the bishops, two Vice-presidents from among the presbyters, and two Vice-presidents from among the laity. The Secretary and his Assistants are elected from among the Members of the Council regardless of their clerical orders. 41. The elections of the officers indicated in the preceding Article 40 are accomplished by a secret ballot.

338

APPENDIX II

42. Before voting by ballots, the candidates are designated by written notes. Then each of the candidates who assented to run for the election is submitted to a vote. 43. The person who received the largest share of votes from the candidates who gathered more than half of all votes is considered as elected. If the number of votes is equal, the election is decided by lot, which is drawn by the chair. 44. If no one receives more than half of the votes at the election, new elections take place (Arts. 41– 43). If even at the second vote no one receives more than half of the votes, the candidates who received the largest share of the votes are considered to have been elected. If the number of votes is equal, the election is decided by lot, which is drawn by the chair. 45. The procedure indicated in Articles 41– 44 is also followed for the election of three members of the Council’s Executive Committee, representing bishops, clergy, and laity (Art. 56). 46. The President chairs the general meetings of the Council, the Conference of Bishops, and the Council’s Executive Committee. He also represents the Council and communicates with the Provisional Government and supreme government institutions, with the Holy Synod, and with the autocephalous churches. 47. The President maintains order during the meetings of the Council and directs the discussions and voting. 48. The Vice-presidents share in the work of the President. When the President is absent or is unable to fulfill his duties, he is replaced by the Vice-presidents in the episcopal rank, in order of seniority. 49. The Secretary of the Council manages the Chancery and maintains the records of the Council. 50. The Assistant Secretaries share in his work of the management of the chancery and maintaining the records of the Council. The Secretary may entrust his Assistants with a specific area of the record maintenance. 51. If the Secretary is absent or is unable to fulfill his duties, one of the Assistant Secretaries assumes his duties, by the Secretary’s instruction, and if there is no such instruction, by the order of the Conciliar Executive Committee. V. The Council’s Executive Committee 52. The Council’s Executive Committee is established for the consideration of general questions pertaining to the internal organization and coordination of the entire activity of the Council. 53. The Committee compiles proposals regarding the process of the Council’s meetings, and decides upon the further course of the affairs that are brought before the Council.

APPENDIX II

339

54. The Committee establishes the rules governing the internal procedures of the Council in all cases unforeseen by the Statute, which are not resolved by the decisions of the Council’s general meeting, nor referred by the Statute or by the Council’s decisions to the responsibility of its other organs. 55. By its own initiative or on the basis of submitted requests, the Committee annuls the decisions of all the bodies of the Council that contradict the canons of the Church, the law, this Statute, or the resolutions of the Council. 56. The Committee consists of the President of the Council as its chair, six Vicepresidents, the Secretary of the Council, his Assistants, and three members elected by the Council: one bishop, one clergyman, and one layperson. 57. For its decisions to be valid, the Committee requires the presence of no less than five of its members, including the President of the Council or one of the Vice-presidents in the episcopal rank, as well as the Secretary of the Council or his Assistant. 58. The Committee’s meetings are closed for anyone who is not its member. 59. The President may invite Members of the Council whose presence he sees as useful for the examination of a certain matter to participate in the meeting of the Committee as non-voting members. 60. The Committee continues its work even after the Council is adjourned. VI. The Conference of Bishops 61. All bishops who participate in the Council as its Members constitute the Conference of Bishops. 62. The President of the Council or one of the Vice-presidents in the episcopal rank serves as the chair of the Conference; the secretary of the Conference is elected by the latter from among its members. 63. The presence of the Members of the Council who are not bishops or of any outside persons at the meetings of the Conference is not allowed. 64. The Conference of Bishops discusses every resolution passed by the general assembly of the Members of the Council that establishes rules or lays down basic principles, from the perspective of its conformity to the Word of God to the dogmas, canons, and the tradition of the Church. 65. The resolutions of the Conference are passed by the roll call vote of all members who take part in the meeting, each of whom certifies with his signature his support or rejection of the resolution under discussion. 66. If the resolution of the Council that establishes rules within three days from its submission to the Conference will be rejected, either in its entirety or in its parts, by the majority of three-quarters of the votes of the bishops present at the meeting of the Conference, with the motivation for the rejection clearly stated, this resolution is brought again before the general

340

APPENDIX II

meeting of the Council where it undergoes the second review. The new conciliar resolution is then submitted to the Conference of Bishops. 67. If even after this the resolution in question will be rejected by the Conference of Bishops, it does not come into effect as a conciliar definition, of which the Council is notified at its nearest meeting. 68. The day when the resolution of the Council came to be discussed at the Conference, as well as the next day after the vote in the Conference, as well as Sundays and great feast days are not included in the three-day period established by the preceding article. VII. The Commissions of the Council Basic Principles 69. The Commissions are formed from the Members of the Council in order to elaborate beforehand the affairs that will be reviewed by the Council. 70. The Members of the Council who desire to be members of a certain Commission notify of this the Conciliar Executive Committee. Prior to the election of the Members to the Commissions, the lists of those who registered themselves are announced or posted for information. 71. The Members of the Commissions are elected by the Council by a secret ballot with written notes. 72. In order to be elected as members of specific Commissions, Members of the Council have to gather the largest share of votes among those who gathered more than half of all votes. 73. The proposals regarding the formation of specific Commissions are introduced by the Conciliar Executive Committee. The proposals of the Council Members regarding the formation of specific Commissions, bearing no less than thirty signatures, are submitted to the Council’s Executive Committee, which reports concerning the proposal to the Council, with its opinion. 74. Commissions are formed by the resolution of the Council, according to the needs, and include no more than thirty Members. Each Commission should include bishops, clerics, and lay people. 75. The first meeting of the Commission is appointed by the most senior bishop who is the member of this Commission. At this meeting, the Commission elects from among its members the chairman and his deputies. 76. No one can serve as a chairman of two Commissions. 77. The Commission elects from among its members a spokesperson who will give explanations to the Council during the discussion by the latter of the opinion of the Commission. If the character of the matter requires it, the Commission may elect several spokespersons.

APPENDIX II

341

78. Nothing of what transpires in a Commission may be communicated by the spokesperson or by some of the Commission members to the Council without the authorization or permission from the Commission itself. 79. Commissions may form subcommissions from its own members. The process of their formation is left to the discretion of the Commissions. 80. The Members of the Council who are not included in a specific Commission may be present at its meetings without the right to vote; they may participate in the discussions as nonvoting members only by the decision of the Commission. 81. A Member of the Council who was the first to sign the proposal that initiated the matter that is being reviewed by the Commission may take part in the work of the Commission as a nonvoting member, if he is not included in the said Commission. He may pass this privilege to another Member of the Council who also signed the proposal. 82. If the Commission deems it necessary to hear personal explanations of officials or experts or to invite a Member of the Council who is not included into the Commission to participate in the discussion of some matter, or to review certain documents, he informs of this the Secretary of the Council, who forwards this request to the Holy Synod or to the Chief Procurator of the Synod, according to the scope of their authority, or takes measures to invite experts or a Member of the Council, or to present necessary documents to the disposition of the Commission. 83. The Commission presents to the Council a written report of each matter treated; the conclusion of the Commission is put forth in the form of a supposed definition of the Council. If it is necessary, the report can include the substance of the motives on which the conclusion is based. 84. The report of the Commission is signed by its president, the member who is the spokesperson, and those members who desire to sign it, and it is sealed by the secretary. The report can include the personal opinions of members of the Commission who want these opinions brought to the attention of the Council. 85. The meetings of the Commissions shall be recorded in the minutes, which will note the time of the meeting, the names of those present, the items discussed, the propositions put forward, and the resolutions made. 86. In order for a meeting of a Commission to be valid, no less than one-third of all the members of the Commission must be present, and in any case, no fewer than three persons. 87. The Council may set a deadline date for the Commission by which the report must be presented on the case that has been given for its examination.

342

APPENDIX II

88. If a case concerns the scope of expertise of two or more Commissions, the Council may decide for the case to be examined at a joint meeting of the Commissions. In these cases, the election of the chair and of the spokesperson takes place at the joint meeting of the Commissions. 89. Joint meetings of the Commissions may also be arranged at the initiative of these Commissions themselves. In such cases, the chairman of the Commission to which the matter was entrusted by the Council will preside at the meeting. 90. When no special rules exist for the discussion of cases in a specific Commission, the rules that apply are those that regulate the review of cases at the meeting of the Council. 91. Three Commissions of the Council are formed from the very beginning of the Council’s work: (1) the Commission on Statutes, (2) the Drafting Commission, and (3) the Commission on Membership. A. The Commission on Statutes 92. The Commission on Statutes, composed of thirty members, is elected for the preparation of the Statutes for the future local Councils, as well as for the structure of the supreme administration of the Orthodox Church of All Russia on the basis of the canonical and historical traditions of the Church, as well as of the experience and instructions of the current Council. B. The Drafting Commission 93. The Drafting Commission is elected for the drafting of the final redaction of the resolutions passed by the Council and for the preparation of all the acts of the Council for publication. 94. The Commission is composed of no more than ten Members of the Council who have a higher education degree in law or theology, regardless of the fact whether they are ordained or not. 95. The designated member-spokesperson always participates in the work of the Commission. C. The Commission on Membership 96. The Commission on Membership consists of twenty members chosen for a preliminary review of the cases concerning the validity of elections, on the expulsion or dismissal of the Members from the Council. 97. The Members of the Council who are not members of the Commission cannot participate in its meetings.

APPENDIX II

343

VIII. The Process for Submitting Matters to Be Examined by the Council 98.

99.

100.

101.

102. 103.

104. 105.

The matters are introduced for the examination by the Council: (1) by the Holy Synod; (2) by the Chief Procurator of the Synod; (3) by the Commissions of the Council; and (4) by the Members of the Council following the procedure described in Article 99. The Members of the Council introduce their propositions concerning the things that are needful and beneficial for the Church in writing, with the signatures of at least thirty Members, to the Council’s Executive Committee, which, within seven days, will pass these propositions for the examination of the Council, adding its own opinion whether this proposition should be directed to the Holy Synod, or passed to a Commission of the Council, or declared as not belonging to the jurisdiction of the Council. The Commissions introduce their own propositions concerning the things that are needful and beneficial for the Church in writing, with the signatures of the chairman of the Commission and at least half of the Commission’s members, to the Council’s Executive Committee, which from that point follows the procedure in Article 99. If even before the Council has approved the project which was prepared by the Commission following the legislative proposal presented by the Members of the Council (see Art. 99), the Holy Synod or the Chief Procurator of the Synod will introduce their own project concerning the same subject matter, the latter will be transmitted to the same Commission, so that one common report for the Council might be prepared. Before the Council in its general meeting will begin to review the case, it can be withdrawn by those who initiated it. The proposition may be presented to address the Holy Synod or the Chief Procurator of the Synod with the request for information either regarding their own actions and orders, or those of the persons and institutions under their authority. It is initiated at the Council on the basis of the report of a Commission which found necessary to clarify the circumstances of the issue at hand, or on the basis of a written request of at least thirty members of the Council. Each proposition presented to the Council for discussion or resolution must be in writing. The Members of the Council who wish to make an extraordinary announcement that does not require the decision of the Council present the announcement in writing to the President of the Council. It is the decision of the President whether to allow the announcement to the floor. The time for the announcement is limited to five minutes, and no discussion is allowed.

344

APPENDIX II

IX. The Protocol of the Meetings of the Council 106. Every meeting of the Council opens and closes with a common prayer. 107. The day and hour of the regular general meetings are established by the Council by the suggestion of the Council’s Executive Committee. 108. Extraordinary meetings of the Council are called by the President of the Council. The meeting must be convoked if the request, submitted in writing, bears the signatures of at least thirty members of the Council. 109. The public meetings of the Council take place only with a special resolution of the Council, issued for any such occasion. 110. The visitor passes to the meetings of the Council are issued to certain individuals and representatives of the press in accordance with the resolution of the Council’s Executive Committee, or by the Holy Synod until the Committee is elected. 111. No outside persons or representatives of the press are allowed to the closed meetings of the Council. The meeting is declared closed by the order of the President or by the decision of the Council or of the Council’s Executive Committee. 112. Each meeting of the Council is presided either by the President of the Council or by one of the Vice-presidents in the episcopal rank, or by a bishop who is a Member of the Council, if the Council invites him. In the latter case, one of the Vice-presidents directs the work of the meeting. 113. The validity of the meeting of the Council requires the presence of at least one-third of all Members of the Council. 114. A recess during the meeting is declared at the discretion of the President. 115. The proposal to call for a recess in the meeting, if it proceeds from a Member of the Council, is put by the President to a vote of the Council, and no discussion is allowed. 116. The meetings are adjourned either at the hour established by the Council or after all items on the agenda have been reviewed or earlier than that, by the decision of the Council or, in certain cases (Arts. 125, 168), by the order of the President. By the decision of the Council, the meeting may be extended beyond the established time limit. 117. The speeches are pronounced from the rostrum. 118. The reading of speeches is not allowed. It is allowed to use notes and to recite brief excerpts from documents or other people’s opinions. 119. It is forbidden for the Members of the Council to address other Members directly during speeches.

APPENDIX II

345

120. Applause and other noisy expressions of approval or disdain are not allowed during meetings of the Council. It is also forbidden to interrupt the speakers or in any other way to disrupt the proceedings of the meetings. 121. The chair shall instruct the speaker to return to the question at hand, if he deviates from it. 122. If the speaker does not obey the instructions of the President, and allows himself to use insulting and tactless expressions that are incompatible with the dignity of the Council, or if he in any other way disrupts the proceedings, the President, judging by the severity of the violation, may call the speaker to order, may deprive him of the right to speak, or proposes to the Council that the speaker may be expelled from this meeting or excluded from participation in several meetings, from one to five. 123. Every Member of the Council who in one or another way has disrupted the proceedings of the meetings is called by the President to order or, by the proposal of the President, may be expelled from this meeting or excluded from participation in several meetings, from one to five. 124. The proposition indicated in Arts. 122 and 123 is put to the vote without discussion. Before this, however, the Member of the Council who breached the order may present his explanations in person. These explanations are allowed only once and may not be longer than five minutes. 125. If noise or disturbance erupts during the meeting, which prevents a normal work of the meeting, and the President has no means to restore order, he declares a recess for thirty minutes and leaves his seat. If, after the meeting is reconvened, noise and disturbance will continue, the President shall declare the meeting closed. 126. No one may speak at the meeting of the Council without asking and receiving permission to speak from the President. 127. No objections to the orders or instructions of the President are allowed. 128. Written objections to the actions of the President are not publicly announced but are appended to the minutes of the meeting. 129. No matter may be resolved by the Council in its essence without the discussion of it at the general meeting. X. The Protocol for the Consideration of Matters at the Council 130. The consideration of matters at the Council includes: (1) a discussion of the general foundations of a project or proposition; (2) a discussion of it article by article; and (3) a review of the redaction of all the articles of a project or proposition, from the point of view of its conformity with the resolutions of the Council.

346

APPENDIX II

131. After the general deliberation regarding the project, the Council resolves either to reject it, to refer it to a Commission for further deliberation, or to begin to review the project article by article. 132. A project is considered as rejected if the motion to review it article by article does not pass. 133. At the discretion of the President, the examination of the project article by article may proceed either following the order of the articles or in accordance with the internal connection between them. 134. During the discussion of a project article by article, it is permitted to propose, in writing, amendments to some of its articles, as well as new articles to be added to it. 135. The amendments and additions are announced by the President before the discussion of the article in question begins. 136. The amendments and additions, introduced during the consideration of an article, are announced by the President during the nearest interval between the speeches of two speakers. 137. The amendments that concern the redaction of articles are not put to a vote, but are referred to the Drafting Commission. 138. At the end of the consideration of a project article by article, it is referred to the Drafting Commission for the establishing of the final redaction of a project. 139. The question whether to approve or reject the project in its entirety is decided by the Council after the report of the Drafting Commission. At this point, no discussion of the essential aspects of the project is allowed, and amendments may concern only the wording of the articles. 140. On the day when it is passed, and no later than the next day, the text of the conciliar resolution is referred to the Conference of Bishops. 141. The differentiation between the general discussion of a matter and the article by article examination does not apply to the matters that do not pertain to legislation. 142. Before each matter is discussed, no fewer than thirty Members of the Council may introduce a proposal that the matter should not be brought before the Council. During the discussion of this proposal, four speeches are allowed, with two in favor and two against the proposal. XI. The Debates 143. The floor is opened for debates after the speech by the member presenting the report.

APPENDIX II

347

144. Requests to give the floor are made in writing not earlier than the review of the matter has begun. 145. The member who submitted a request to be given the floor cannot submit a second request to the same effect, before he uses his first opportunity to speak. 146. The President gives the floor to speakers in the order in which the requests were submitted. 147. No one, except the person presenting a report, may speak for more than one half hour. This term may be extended by the decision of the Council, which is passed without discussing it. 148. No one, except the person presenting a report, may speak more than once on one and the same subject. This limitation does not apply to speeches pronounced after the debates have ended, according to the procedure described in Article 160. 149. If the number of people who submitted requests for the permission to speak exceeds the number of speeches allowed at a meeting of the Council, the choice of speakers from among these people is decided by consensus between them or by lot. 150. At any moment during the debates, a petition, signed by at least thirty Members of the Council, may be presented stating that it is necessary to cease the consideration of the matter that was started by the Council, and to refer the project, or a part thereof, to a Commission for additional deliberations. The debates with regards to this petition are limited to one speech in favor of the request, and one opposed. 151. The following have the right to speak out of turn but without interrupting the person speaking: the spokesmen of Commissions and one of the three members who were the first to sign the proposition under discussion (by agreement between them), as well as a member of the Holy Synod, speaking on behalf of the Synod, the Chief Procurator of the Synod, and the representatives of the Government. 152. At the request of either the member of the Holy Synod, speaking on behalf of the Synod, or the Chief Procurator of the Synod, or the representative of the Government, the officials of relevant institutions and experts may provide explanations to the Council. 153. The right to indicate the violation of the Statute that is in progress belongs to any Member of the Council regardless of his turn to speak. In this case, the announcement is limited to five minutes, and no discussion is allowed. If the President provides a definitive explanation as to the supposed violation, further discussion of the same question is not allowed.

348

APPENDIX II

154. Explanations concerning a personal matter are given after the vote on the matter has ended, but, in any case, at the same meeting. In these cases, the speeches are limited to five minutes, and debates are not allowed. 155. If when his turn comes, the person who requested the floor will not happen to be in the Council hall, his name is crossed out from the list of speakers. If the list of speakers is not yet closed, the person who missed his turn has to register again to be given the floor. 156. The persons who requested the floor may by mutual agreement exchange their turns and cede the right to speak to a person who did not submit the request. 157. If the President wishes to speak on the question under discussion, he must register as a speaker and cede his chairmanship for the duration of his speech. 158. The proposals to close the list of speakers, to limit the length of speeches, and to end the debates may be introduced only after the debates have begun, with the signatures of at least thirty Members of the Council. 159. When the list of speakers is exhausted, or when the resolution of the Council has been passed, ending all debates on this matter, the President announces the debates to have ended. After this, the floor is given to the member presenting the report and one of the first three signatories of the proposition under discussion. 160. After it was announced that debates have ended, a member of the Holy Synod, representing the Synod, the Chief Procurator of the Synod, and other representatives of the Government may exercise their right to speak. If after this, the Council will see it necessary to reopen the floor for the debates, the permission to speak is given only to four speakers. XII. The Voting Process 161. Each question that is subject to the decision of the Council is put by the President to a vote. 162. The President formulates the question to be voted on in such a way that the answer to it would be a simple “yes” or “no.” 163. After it was announced that the debates on this matter have ended, no new propositions are accepted or put to a vote. 164. After naming the proposals that will be voted on, the President announces the order in which he intends to put them to a vote. 165. Every Member of the Council may present his comments on the proposed order of the vote. These comments are limited to five minutes. 166. The number of Council Members who take part in the vote must not be less than the number required for the meeting to be valid.

APPENDIX II

349

167. The verification of the number of Council Members present is at the discretion of the President. 168. If after the verification of the number of Members present, their number will be less than the one required by the Statute, the President at his discretion may adjourn the meeting or announce a brief recess. If even after the recess, the required number of Council Members will not assemble, the meeting is adjourned. 169. At the proposition of any Member of the Council, all opinions, articles, propositions, and decisions that are put to a vote may be divided up [into smaller sections]. 170. The amendments and additions that have been proposed are voted upon before the vote on the other sections or articles to which these refer. 171. If several amendments to the same article of a project or proposal are submitted, the order in which these are discussed is determined by the President. 172. If a project or a proposal that was presented by a Commission is put to a vote, it is submitted to the vote in the form in which it was proposed by the Commission. 173. Only the resolution itself, rather than the reasons for its approval or rejection, should be submitted to the vote. 174. In order for the vote to take place, the President asks those who are opposed to the question at hand to rise. The President may then verify the vote, asking those who are in favor of the proposed question to rise. 175. If this verification does not give sufficient indication to the partition of the votes, the President has at his discretion two other means of verification: (1) by dividing the voters (who leave by different doors), or (2) by a roll call vote, described in Article 177. 176. Before the vote is to begin, the Members of the Council have the right to demand from the President that a roll call vote be taken. This request has to be supported by at least thirty Members of the Council, and is left to the decision of the Council, without discussion. 177. At the discretion of the President, the roll call vote can be carried out in one of the following ways: (1) the list of all the Members of the Council who are present at the meeting is read, and each person, when his name is called, announces his vote from his seat; (2) each Member of the Council submits a written ballot bearing his own signature for or against the proposition. 178. Only the Members of the Council who are present at the meeting take part in the vote. It is not allowed for one Member of the Council to vote on behalf of another, as his proxy.

350

APPENDIX II

179. The Council passes its resolutions by an open vote. The closed vote by ballots occurs at the request of at least one-third of all Members who are present at the meeting. 180. In an open vote, which is not a roll call, each Member of the Council has a right to submit to the Secretary a written statement of his disagreement with the majority’s decision, including a brief argumentation, which will be appended to the minutes. This minority opinion shall not be made public in the general assembly. 181. After every vote, the votes are counted during the same meeting, immediately after the voting has ended. The results of the count are announced by the President during the same meeting or during the one that follows. 182. If during an open vote, the number of votes is equal, a one-hour recess is declared, or the vote is postponed until the next meeting. If even during the repeated vote, the votes will again tie, the President’s vote will be decisive. XIII. The Records of the Council 183. Each meeting of the Council is recorded (1) in the minutes and (2) in the conciliar acts. 184. The minutes include: (1) the day and the place of the meeting, and the time when it was opened; (2) the person who chaired the meeting; (3) the persons who participated in the deliberations; (4) items that were discussed at the meeting, indicating the decisions made with regards to them, announcements, and the voting procedure used; (5) the resolutions of the Council as a direct citation. 185. When the vote is conducted by written ballots, the minutes indicate only the number of votes in favor or against the proposition. If the roll call vote takes place, the minutes list the names of those who voted in favor or against the proposition. 186. The minutes for each meeting are prepared for the next meeting and are displayed for examination by the Members of the Council one hour before the meeting is opened. 187. Objections regarding the formulation of the minutes are presented to the President, who makes the final decision regarding all doubts that might have arisen. If before the meeting has ended no objections were presented regarding the minutes of the previous meeting, the minutes are considered to have been approved. 188. The approved minutes are signed by the President and are sealed by the Secretary.

APPENDIX II

351

189. The conciliar acts are compiled either by the functionaries of the Chancery or by stenographers and contain the exact transcription of everything that transpired during the meeting, and of all the opinions expressed, in a strictly chronological order. 190. Every speaker has the opportunity to review the record of everything he said at the meeting of the Council to ensure the exactness of the transcription. The speaker must submit his corrections to the Chancery no later than by the next day. The President of the Council resolves all doubtful issues that were caused by the making of the records and by the corrections thereof. 191. The conciliar acts and the minutes of the meetings of the Council may be communicated to the representatives of the press for their examination only with the knowledge and consent of the Secretary of the Council. 192. The communications that concern the affairs of the Council are signed by the President and are sealed by the Secretary. The communications that concern the affairs of the Chancery and the records are signed by the Secretary and are sealed by the Records office.

A D D E N D U M O F S E L E C T E D R E C E NT SCHOLARSHIP

With the increasing intimacy of the Russian Church and state, of President Putin and Patriarch Kirill, media attention usually underscores the miraculous recovery and resurrection of the church in Russia after almost eighty years of oppression by the Soviet regime. Students of modern Russian history, that of the Church in particular, know better. In the closing years of the nineteenth century there was widespread agitation and calls for reform, not just of the state but of the Church as well. The movement for Church renewal culminated in the Moscow Council of 1917–18, which is the focus of Hyacinthe Destivelle’s study, presented here in translation. It is not without reason that some have compared the decisions of this council with those of the Second Vatican Council for their radical rethinking of church life and return to the sources of the early church and its writers. This selection of recent scholarly work is intended to show the range of investigation of Russian life and faith by a number of contemporary scholars, and these works serve as a complement to Father Destivelle’s masterful assessment of the council itself. Arjakovsky, Antoine. The Way: Religious Thinkers of the Russian Emigration in Paris and Their Journal. Edited by John A. Jillions and Michael Plekon, translated by Jerry Ryan. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. Bisha, Robin, Jehanne M. Gheith, Christine C. Holden, and William G. Wagner, eds. Russian Women, 1698–1917: Experience and Expression; An Anthology of Sources. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Cunningham, James W. The Gates of Hell: The Great Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1917–1918. Minnesota Mediterranean and Eastern European Monographs 9. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. ———. A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russsia, 1905–1906. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. Destivelle, Hyacinthe. Les Sciences théologiques en Russie: Réforme et renouveau des Académies ecclésiastiques au début du XXe siècles. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2010. Ellis, Jane. The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Evtuhov, Catherine. “The Church in the Russian Revolution: Arguments For and Against Restoring the Patriarchate at the Church Council of 1917–1918.” Slavic Review 50, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 497– 511. ———. The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. 352

ADDENDUM OF SELECTED RECENT SCHOLARSHIP

353

Geffert, Bryn. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Geraci, Robert. Windows on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late Tsarit Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. Geraci, Robert, and Michael Khodarkovsky, eds. Of Religion and Empire: Mission, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Greene, Robert H. Bodies like Bright Stars: Saints and Relics in Orthodox Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009. Hedda, Jennifer. His Kingdom Come: Orthodox Pastorship and Social Activism in Prerevolutionary Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2011. Kenworthy, Scott. The Heart of Russia: Trinity-Sergius, Monasticism and Society after 1825. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Oxford University Press, 2010. Kizenko, Nadieszda. A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Manchester, Laurie. Holy Fathers and Secular Sons: Clergy, Intelligentsia, and the Modern Self in Revolutionary Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2011. Meehan-Waters, Brenda. Holy Women of Russia. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997. Miller, Matthew Lee. The American YMCA and Russian Culture. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. Paert, Irina Spiritual Elders: Charisma and Tradition in Russian Orthodoxy. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010. Plekon, Michael. Living Icons: Persons of Faith in the Eastern Church. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002. Plekon, Michael, ed. Tradition Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time; Readings from the Eastern Church. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Pospielovsky, Dimitry. The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime 1917–1982. 2 vols. Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984,. Shevzov, Vera. Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Strickland, John. The Making of Holy Russia: The Orthodox Church and Russian Nationalism Before the Revolution. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Publications, 2013. Valliere, Paul. Conciliarism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. ———. Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Wagner, William G. Marriage, Property and Law in Late Imperial Russia. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Williams, Rowan. Sergii Bulgakov: Towards a Political Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Zhuk, Sergei I. Russia’s Lost Reformation: Peasants, Millenialism, and Radical Sects in Southern Russia and Ukraine, 1830–1917. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.

NOTES

Foreword to the French Edition 1. The Russian version is Destivelle, Pomestniy Sobor Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi.

Preface to the French Edition 1. Réglement ecclésiastique de Pierre le Grand. 2. Hilarion (Alfeyev), Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe stoletiy, 388. 3. On learned monasticism, see Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum, 450– 69. Also Florovsky, Ways, 2:113–14, 259– 67. 4. See the classical study by Glazik, Die russisch-orthodoxe Heidenmission. 5. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des Tsars et les Russes, vol. 3, La Religion. 6. Freeze, The Russian Levites. 7. Collection “Unam Sanctam” 20 and 72 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1950, 1968). 8. La Conference Oecumenique de Lausanne “Faith and Order,” August 1927 (Paris: Fischbacher, 1928), 66 (declaration of section V). 9. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, III.26: “The exercise of ordained ministry should be rooted in the life of the community and requires the effective participation of the community in its search for the will of God and the guidance of the Spirit.” 10. A search for a better balance between all/some/one is also taking place within the Catholic Church. We need only think of the creation, after Vatican II, of pastoral committees, diocesan synods with lay participation, or episcopal collegiality. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II opens the possibility of reexamining the papal ministry—a ministry of a single person—by stating: “I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us . . . that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (para. 95). In para. 96 he adds: “This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself.” Ut Unum Sint is available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals /documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html. 11. In 1969, the Church of England also established a General Synod made up of three chambers—bishops, clergy, and laity—along the lines proposed by the 354

N O T E S T O PA G E S x v i i – 1

355

Council of Moscow and anticipating the future recommendations of the BEM; cf. P. A. Welsby, How the Church of England Works (London: Church House Publishing, 1985), 50– 56. 12. His political interpretation can be found in Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 29 and 32. 13. The works of the German Lutheran Hans Dombois were ground-breaking in this domain, especially Hierarchie, Grund und Grenz einer umsrittenen Struktur (Freiburg: Herder, 1971) and, more to the point, Kodex und Konkordie: Fragen und Aufgaben ökumenischer Theologie (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1972). Concerning these two works, there is the study J. Hoffmann, “L’horizon oecumenique de la reforme du droit canonique,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 27 (1973): 228– 50.

Introduction 1. In Russian, sobor (собор) has the same root as sobirat (собирать) and conveys the idea of “gathering together.” It can be used to designate (1) an important church building or (2) an ecclesial meeting, which could be (a) a temporary council (for the different councils, see note 2 below) or (b) a permanent council: the chapter of a monastery (dukhovniy sobor, духовный собор) or an extraordinary council of hierarchs (osviashchenniy sobor, освященный собор) as was the case in the period between 1700 (the death of the patriarch Adrian) and 1721 (the institution of the Holy Synod); (c) a feast on the occasion of a solemnity, or a synaxis. The adjective soborniy (соборный), which appears in the Slavonic version of the Nicene Creed (in the accusative соборную), translates the Greek word for “catholic.” Using the root sobor, the Slavophiles created a new word—sobornost’. Although the terms sinod (синод) and sobor are synonymous, it became a custom in the Russian Church to usually reserve the word sinod to designate a permanent episcopal committee, the “Holy Synod.” In the Latin Church, the word synod is used to designate either a diocesan assembly (the “diocesan synod” composed of clergy and laity since Vatican II; see the 1983 Code of Canon Law [hitherto referred to as CCL], canons 460– 68) or the “Synod of Bishops” (instituted in 1965 by Paul VI; see CDC, canons 342– 48). 2. In Russian, the word pomestniy from the root word mesto means the place, the site. The Moscow Council distinguishes several types of councils that we can classify according to their authority: an ecumenical council (vselenskiy sobor), a local council (pomestniy sobor), an episcopal council (arkhiereiskiy sobor), a council of the metropolitan province (sobor mitropolich’iago okruga)—the latter type receiving a simple mention. In Catholic terminology, pomestniy is usually translated as “national” (see Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe”; Bois, “Chronique sur le congres monastique de 1909” and “L’Église russe et la réforme projeteé”; Wuyts, Le

356

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 – 6

Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou) so as to align these according to the Latin distinctions that classify among the “particular” (i.e., nonecumenical) councils (1) the “plenary” council, defined by Vatican II as the assembly of the ordinaries of a same Bishops’ Conference (which was generally called a “national” or “regional” conference prior to Vatican II; cf. CCL, canon 439) and (2) the “provincial” council of a same metropolitan province (cf. CCL, canon 440). But to translate pomestniy by “national” would mean qualifying the Russian Church as “national” because it calls itself Pomestnaia Tserkov’ and yet defines itself as “multinational” (article 1 of the Statutes of the Council of 2000). We will use the literal translation of pomestniy as local even though the term does not indicate all the amplitude of the concept. 3. The Russian language has two words to indicate the link to “Russianness”: (1) rossiiskoi, which indicates, primarily, a political link and will be translated as “of Russia”; and (2) russkoi, which evokes, primarily, a cultural link and will be translated as “Russian.” In the documents of the Moscow Council, the Church calls itself rossiiskaya: “the Orthodox Church of Russia.” At the episcopal council of 2000, the Church calls itself the “Russian [russkaya] Orthodox Church.” This is significant in so far as it indicates a transition from a political conception to a more cultural perspective as the foundation which unites the different dioceses or Churches attached to the patriarchate of Moscow. 4. Concerning dates: On February 1, 1918, the Soviet government did away with the old style Julian calendar and adopted the new style Gregorian calendar (there was a difference of 13 days). Prior to 1917 we will give the dates according to the new style; for 1917–1918 we will indicate the dates according to both styles; after 1918 dates will be according to the new style. 5. See further discussion below, 152. 6. For the archives and recent republications of the acts of the council, see the commentaries listed in 379n3 and the bibliography at the end of this volume.

P 1

The Council’s Origins

1. For an overview of the Russian Church at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century see Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes; Palmieri, La chiesa russa; S. L. Firsov, Russkaya Tserkov’ nakanune peremen; Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime 1917– 82, 1:19– 24; Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 15– 47; Zernov, The Russian Renaissance of the Twentieth Century, 35– 62. 2. For the classical presentation of these three periods of the history of the Russian Church, see Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoi Tserkvi. 3. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church; Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. 4. Florovsky, Ways, 1:33– 85.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 – 7

357

5. Ibid., 1:64– 85. The predominance of Latin was condemned in 1814 by a statute of the academies. As of 1840, under the influence of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), the use of the Russian language was imposed in all seminaries and academies (Florovsky, Ways, 1:212– 30). This did not, however, signify the abandonment of scholasticism. For the development and reforms of the ecclesiastical academies and the importance of Latin as the language used for teaching, see M. Köhler, “Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland.” For an overview of ecclesiastical academies, Köhler-Baur, Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland; for their problems, according to contemporary witnesses, Hilarion (Alfeyev), Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe stoletiy. 6. Florovsky, Ways, 1:104–13. 7. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand. 8. Theophan (Prokopovich) (1681–1736), born in Kiev, first studied at the Academy of Kiev, then, having converted to Catholicism (1698), studied at the Greek college of St. Athanasius in Rome where he conceived a hearty disgust for “papism.” He renounced Catholicism when he returned to Russia (1701) and took a great interest in the reform. As a professor of rhetoric and then of philosophy at Kiev, he attracted the attention of Peter via his panegyrics to the glory of the tsar (1708). He became rector of the Academy of Kiev (1711–18) and subsequently bishop of Pskov (1718). He was the principal author of the Spiritual Regulation (1721). A few months before the death of the tsar (1725), he was promoted to the archiepiscopal see of Novgorod, all the while remaining in very close contact with the imperial court of St. Petersburg. As a partisan of the Enlightenment and an admirer of Bacon and Descartes, he shared most of the Protestant positions of that epoch—especially concerning justification. See Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tserkvi, 2:330– 45; H. J. Hartel, Byzantinisches Erbe und Orthodoxie bei Feofan Prokopovic, Das östliche Christentum 23 (Wurzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1970); and J. Cracraft, Feofan Prokopovic: A Bibliography of His Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). 9. The emperor had carefully prepared both the draft and the promulgation of this statute. After he personally supervised the draft of Bishop Theophan, he had it signed by the senators, six bishops, and three archimandrites. He then signed it himself. Encouraged by this beginning of the legitimization process, he secured the signatures of seventy other prelates. More importantly, Peter obtained the approbation of the other Eastern patriarchs. In 1723, the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch recognized the Holy Synod as “their brother in Christ.” Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tservki, 2:311– 67; also the monumental biography, Massie, Peter the Great. 10. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, Preface, 18; also ibid., 1– 5, “Decree for the establishment of the Ecclesiastical College.” 11. Peter went to great lengths to justify its validity. 12. On this theme Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 46– 48.

358

N O T E S T O PA G E 7

13. See Riasanovsky, Histoire de la Russie, 254– 55. Also the commentary of C. Tondini in Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 3n1, and Florovsky, Ways, 1:114– 22. 14. Peter consulted G. Leibniz on this point and is said to have received the following reply: “Collegial administration is the only good form of government. It is a mechanism which works like a clock where all the wheels move one another.” 15. Massie, Peter the Great, 726– 27. 16. For the Lutheran influence, see Lütiens, Dissertatio historico-ecclesiastica de religione ruthenorum hodierna, a dissertation dedicated to the Grand Duke Peter Feodorovich, the future Peter III, on the occasion of his marriage to the Lutheran Princess Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst, the future Catherine II. This dissertation tries to show to what point the Spiritual Regulation and the Catechism of Prokopovich were in harmony with Lutheranism: the religion “established and purified by the All Glorious Peter according to the sacred texts and the most ancient and pure tradition of the Church . . . is in perfect harmony with the evangelical Lutheran religion” (vii). On the occasion of Peter’s marriage, the author expresses his hope that the Grand Duke will continue the work of Peter the Great (70). Also Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tservki, 2:323– 30. Muller, The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great, points out the importance of the Lutheran model; however Stupperich, “Ursprung, Motive und Beurteilung,” gives more importance to specifically Russian and Byzantine influences rather than Lutheran ones. 17. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 5, 23. 18. At the beginning, the Holy Synod was composed of three bishops, four archimandrites, and four priests appointed by the emperor; as of 1763, the bishops formed the majority (cf. the commentary of Tondini in Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 31n1). At the end of the nineteenth century, the synod was made up of the three metropolitans of Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg, who were members by right, and then, named by the emperor and subject to rotation, four or five archbishops or bishops, and four members of the white clergy, two of which had to be archpriests. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 204– 5. 19. Supervision by the state kept increasing. In 1817, under Alexander I, a Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education was created. This was vigorously opposed by Metropolitan Michael of Novgorod in a letter he wrote to the emperor. When this ministry was abolished in 1824, the archimandrite Photius exclaimed: “In the glory of God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ is now our only Minister.” Florovsky, Ways, 1:238. In the second half of the nineteenth century, N. A. Protasov put the synod at the service of national expansion, and D. A. Tolstoy put it at the service of education. See Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 207– 9. 20. Ibid., 210–11. 21. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #1– 3, “Devoirs des eveques,” 54–103; Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 213–18.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 – 1 1

359

22. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #1– 3, “Devoirs des eveques,” IV, 57. 23. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #1– 3, “De la visite pastorale,” 90–103. 24. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #1– 3, “Devoirs des eveques,” V, 58. 25. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #1– 3, “Devoirs des eveques,” III, 56, 57. 26. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 215–18. 27. Ibid., 216. 28. This close administrative surveillance of the bishops was due to several factors. Centralization, a traditional element in the Russian Church since the Kievan era, was rendered necessary by the enormous distances that made it difficult to appeal local abuses. Also the rivalry between the two clergies called for an authority that could serve as a moderator. See Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 218–19. 29. Ibid., 235– 36. 30. See the statistics in I. Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum, 538. 31. Rule 36 in the section on monasticism. See Florovsky, Ways, 1:136; LeroyBeaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 235. 32. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 211–12; Palmieri, La chiesa russa, 606–12. 33. A tactic used by Khomiakov, Samarin, and Solovyov. 34. On the Russian priesthood, see Freeze, The Russian Levites, especially chap. 7, “A Separate Society and Culture,” 184– 217. Its observations are still valid for the nineteenth century. 35. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 5, 23: Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 263– 64. 36. The four protopresbyters (the chief army chaplain, the chief navy chaplain, the chaplain of the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin, and the chaplain of the Imperial Court) were the highest dignitaries of the secular clergy in ancient Russia. 37. See note 18 above. 38. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 272– 88. 39. The seminaries had only an insignificant number of students who were not descended from priests: see the statistic tables of Freeze, The Russian Levites, 20. 40. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand II, #4 “Des predicateurs,” 166– 78, and especially 173n1 by Tondini (some interesting remarks on Prokopovich as a preacher). Also Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 315– 20. 41. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 269. 42. Ibid., 270. 43. Reglement ecclesiastique de Pierre le Grand I, 31 and 32n1 by Tondini.

360

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 – 1 4

44. Florovsky, Ways, 1:156– 61. 45. Many saints from this era have been canonized recently—notably by the Council of 1988 (5) and that of 2000 (14). This has contributed to the rehabilitation of the synodal period. 46. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988. 47. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988. 48. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988. 49. Canonized by the Local Council of 1990. 50. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988. 51. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988. 52. For feminine monasticism, see S. Senyk, “L’Autre monachisme,” and Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum, 429– 46, which describe several women’s communities. 53. On this phenomenon see Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe. 54. Florovsky, Ways, 1:175– 81, 1:220– 38, 2:4–101, Köhler, “Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland.” 55. On the missionary activity of the Russian Church, see S. Bolshakoff, “Les missions étrangères”; Glazik, Die russisch-orthodoxe Heidenmission; Meyendorff, L’Église orthodoxe, 96– 98. 56. Canonized in 1970. 57. Canonized by the Local Council of 2000. 58. Canonized in 1977. 59. Canonized as “equal to the apostles” in 1970 when the Japanese Church became autonomous. 60. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 310–14. 61. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) was the chief procurator of the Holy Synod from 1880 to 1905. The son of a priest, he began his career as a functionary and professor of civil law at the University of Moscow. In 1861, he was appointed tutor to the son of Alexander II, the future Alexander III. In 1864, he proposed a series of judicial reforms. In 1868 he was named to the Senate, in 1872 to the State Council, and in 1880 he became the chief procurator of the Holy Synod. After the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, he became the leader of the conservative reaction movement. Alexander III and, later, Nicholas II—of whom he was one of the chief advisors—allowed him to play a decisive role not only in religious affairs but also in overall domestic policy. As chief procurator, he presided over a considerable development of the parish school system and exercised a strict control through the censure and the nominations of bishops. He translated The Imitation of Christ and was both an admirer of the West and a fierce defender of national Orthodoxy. He excommunicated Leo Tolstoy in 1901. His social and political ideas were influenced both by positivism and national populism (they are summed up in his book Moscow Compendium, whose French translation was published under the title Questions religieuses, sociales et politiques). The revolution of 1905 obliged him

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 – 1 6

361

to resign. See Byrnes, Pobedonostsev; Simon, Konstantin Petrovic Pobedonostsev; Curtiss, Church and State in Russia, 42– 44; Florovsky, Ways, 2:259– 83. 62. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 313. 63. The zemstvo was an assembly of a district or province. It was created by the law promulgated on January 13, 1864, in the context of the reforms of Alexander II. Until then, all the local institutions in Russia had been controlled solely by the nobility. The zemstvos inaugurated a system characterized by a significant degree of local autonomy and a merging of social classes. They were composed of deputies who were elected for three years and convened once a year in the provincial capital under the presidency of the marshal of the nobility. The zemstvos had authority in economical and social affairs. One of their most notable contributions was the construction of the first train tracks. Russia remained without a central parliamentary assembly until 1905, and it was through the zemstvos that the bourgeoisie and the liberal intelligentsia made their voices heard. 64. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 20. 65. A local council was convoked in accordance with canon 5 of the Council of Nicea (a canon which called for the reunion of provincial synods twice a year to judge, in common, cases of excommunication); canon 19 of the Council of Chalcedon (“synods will be convoked in each province twice a year”); canon 8 of the Council in Trullo (“an annual synod should be held in each province at a site determined by the metropolitan”); canon 6 of the Second Council of Nicea (“the provincial synod should be convoked once a year”); Apostolic canon 37 (“the provincial synod should meet twice a year”); canon 20 of the Council of Antioch (“the bishops of a province should convene in synod twice a year”). See the Greek text and French translation in P. P. Joannou, Fonti, vol. I-1, Les canons des Conciles oecumeniques, 27– 28; 84– 85; 134– 35; 258– 60; vol. I-2, Les canons des synodes particuliers, 26, 120. 66. Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tservki, vol. 2. 67. Let us also mention a council in 1311 that declared that a certain priest from Novgorod was a heretic because he refused to recognize the institution of monasticism; a council in 1441 that decreed that Latin converts must be rebaptized; and a council in 1448 that elected Jonah as metropolitan of Moscow in opposition to the Union of Florence. 68. The “Non-Possessors,” sometimes called “the hermits from beyond the Volga” since they were originally from the northeast, were represented by Nil Sorsky (or Nil of Sora). They criticized the possession of property by the monasteries and the intrusion of the state in ecclesiastical affairs. More generally, they accentuated the necessity of a radical death to the world, a religion based primarily on spirituality, and the primacy of scripture over human tradition. On all these points they were opposed to the “Possessors” represented by Joseph of Volokolamsk. On this subject see Meyendorff, “Partisans et ennemis.” 69. Canonized by the Local Council of 1988.

362

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 – 1 8

70. Cf. P. Pascal, Avvakum et les debuts de Raskol; also Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tservki, 2:165– 73. 71. Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoy Tservki, 2:165– 73. 72. Ibid., 2:424– 25. 73. Philaret (Drozdov) (1783–1867) was one of the most remarkable hierarchs of the nineteenth-century Russian Church. He started as a monk in the Trinity-St. Sergius monastery (1808). He later became professor then rector in 1812 of the Academy of St. Petersburg. He gained fame by his inspired preaching, his polemics with the Jesuits, and his support for translating the Bible. In 1819 he became bishop of Revel. In 1820 he was named archbishop of Tver and became a member of the synod. He went on to become archbishop of Moscow (his title was changed to metropolitan in 1826) and he remained in this charge for forty-six years. He was a humanist, an outstanding theologian, and the author of a Catechism that, even though it had its critics, exercised a profound influence on nineteenthcentury Russian theology. For his works, see Florovsky, Ways, 1:201– 20. 74. Florovsky, Ways, 1:238– 68. Also Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 7– 9. 75. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 218. 76. Archbishop Agathangel’s O plenenyi Tserkvi was only published in 1906 in Moscow by S. F. Sarapov, cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 10n6. 77. Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 10n7. 78. The Moscow councils of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries mention the election of priests, and this was still the practice in certain dioceses up to the beginning of the nineteenth century—the bishop would only ordain candidates who had been approved by the parish. See Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 305. 79. Sobornost’: the most common translation of this term is “conciliarity” rather than “synodality” or “collegiality.” See Destivelle, “Le concile local de Moscou et la conciliarité.” On this theme, cf. G. Cioffari, La sobornost’ nella teologia russa, and M. Stavrou, “Lineaments d’une théologie orthodoxe de la conciliarité.” We will use the word “conciliarism” to designate the position that, in the name of conciliarity, is opposed to the reestablishment of the patriarchate (the “patriarchist” position, which is also founded on a certain way of interpreting sobornost’). When we use this word, therefore, it has a different meaning than the one it had during the great Western ecclesiastical debates of the fourteenth century. 80. Concerning this translation see the (polemical) article by A. Deubner, “La traduction du mot καθολικήν dans le texte slav du Symbole de NiceeConstantinople.” 81. See Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe, 1:350– 64. 82. A. S. Khomiakov, L’Église latine et le protestantisme; in this book (with respect to the 1844 Encyclical Letter of the Patriarchs cited in the following footnote), see 48– 49, 61.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 8 – 2 2

363

83. This Encyclical Letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox Christians throughout the World, published in May of 1848, was a response to the encyclical letter of Pius IX, In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede, sent on January 6, 1848, to the Eastern Christians. In February 1847, Pius IX had received the Turkish ambassador to Vienna who transmitted to the pope, on behalf of the Sultan Abdul-Megid, the assurance that the Christians living in the Turkish Empire would be protected. This was the first time that a Turkish sultan had made a promise of this sort to a pope, and Pius IX took advantage of it to dispatch Archbishop Innocent Ferrieri to Constantinople to request an improvement of the situation of the Catholics in the empire. The pope also profited from the occasion to send his encyclical to the Eastern Christians. In the encyclical he summoned the Orthodox to unite themselves with Rome. There is a complete translation of the Encyclical Letter in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum. Concerning the substance of the patriarchs’ reply and its interpretation by Khomiakov, see B. Schultze, “A. S. Chomjakow und das Halb-Jahrtausend.” 84. Quoted and translated by Deubner, “La traduction du mot καθολικήυ dans le texte slav du Symbole de Nicee-Constantinople,” 55. 85. We shall see how this via media affected the proceedings of the council. For the three interpretations of sobornost’ (“democratic,” “episcopal,” and “charismatic”), see Destivelle, “Le Concile local de Moscou et la conciliarité,” 189– 90.

P 2

Towards the Council, 1905–1917

1. G. Schulz, “Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917–18,” 24. 2. For this preparation see Pospielovsky, “Verso il concilio,” and Firsov, “La preparazione del concilio.” 3. Count Sergei I. Witte (1849–1915) was one of the last great statesmen (along with P. A. Stolypin) of Tsarist Russia. He descended from a family of GermanBaltic nobility that had a long history of service to the state. His career began in railroad administration. He became Minister of Transport in 1892 and then Minister of Finance from 1893–1903. During this period he effectively presided over the whole economic and financial life of Russia. He used important loans from Western capitalists to extend the network of railroads (the Trans-Siberian) and industrialize the country (including the exploitation of the Donets basin). As chairman of the Committee of Ministers (1903), he was sent to Portsmouth to negotiate peace with Japan (August 1905). He was named prime minister of the first constitutional government of Russia (October 1905). It was he who put down the mutiny of the sailors of Kronstadt and inspired Nicholas II to draw up the fundamental laws that would establish the State Duma. After the elections that gave a majority to the opposition (the Constitutional Democrats, or K. D.), Witte fell into disgrace (May 1906).

364

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 2 – 2 3

4. Antony (Vadkovsky) (1846–1912) came from a family of priests. He studied at the Kazan Academy where he specialized in pastoral theology and homiletics. He wrote his thesis on “The History of Preaching in the Ancient Church.” He was a professor, then became a priest of the white clergy. When his wife died, he took monastic vows (1885). He was consecrated bishop of Vyborg (vicar see of St. Petersburg) in 1887. He became rector of the academy, then the first archbishop of the new diocese of Finland (1892). When he was named metropolitan of St. Petersburg (1892), he tried to bridge the gap between the Church and the intelligentsia (e.g., by supporting the foundation of the Society of Religious Philosophy in 1901) and also tried to make the Church present to the new working classes (by founding new parishes and parochial schools). See Simon, “Antonij Vadkovskij, Metropolit,” and Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 51– 59. 5. For an historical presentation of the events of 1905, see Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 49–126; Firsov, Russkaya Tserkov’ nakanune peremen, 175– 92; Orekhanov, Na Puti k soboru, 19–118. 6. Georgy A. Gapon (1870–1906), chaplain of the prison of St. Petersburg and a brilliant orator, founded — with a certain cooperation on the part of the police—the “Workers’ Unions.” For the tsarist government, these had the advantage of steering the workers away from the opposition parties. Gapon organized the demonstration of January 9 (22), 1905, when 100,000 protesters, unarmed, carrying icons and portraits of the tsar and demonstrating in front of the Winter Palace, were fired upon by the army. According to the official figures, 130 died and several hundred were wounded on that “Bloody Sunday.” Gapon was forced to emigrate, but his luxurious lifestyle abroad made him lose all credit with the revolutionary milieus. When he returned to Russia in December 1905, he became a simple agent of Okhrana. A revolutionary exposed him, and he was ambushed and hanged. See Sablinsky. See also Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 83– 94, and Riasanovsky, Histoire de la Russie, 440– 41. 7. One of the important members of this group, Father Filosof Ornatskiy (1863–1918), was a friend of Gapon. 8. The memorandum and the accompanying letter, as well as all the other documents of the period we are treating, can be found in the “collection of articles in the religious and secular press on the question of the reform” (a testimony to the vitality of the press once it was left uncensored) published in 1905 in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 1– 6 and 281– 82. Parts were translated in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe.” 9. Slovo 116, April 5, 1905, 3, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 281 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 166). 10. Slovo 116, April 5, 1905, 3, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 282 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 167). 11. Tserkovniy Vestnik 11, March 17, 1905, col. 321– 25, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 1– 6 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 172).

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 4 – 2 9

365

12. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 85– 89, and Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 12–14. 13. Slovo 108, March 28, 1905, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 133– 36. 14. The “Austrian hierarchy” or “the hierarchy of Belaya Krinitsa” (an Old Believer monastery in Bukovina, Austria) designated the episcopal hierarchy that a sector of the dissidents had succeeded in establishing in 1846 thanks to a Greek bishop from Bosnia, Metropolitan Ambrose, who became an Old Believer. See Johannes Chrysostomus, “Die Einrichtung der Hierarchie der Altglaubigen in Jahre 1846”; A. Lambrechts, “Conciles, diocèses et évêques des vieux-croyants de Belokrinica.” 15. Slovo 108, March 28, 1905, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 134 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 175). 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 136 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 175). 19. Slovo 108, March 28, 1905, 5 and 6, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 122– 33. 20. Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 14. 21. Slovo 108, March 28, 1905, 6, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 132, 133 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 177, 178). 22. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 132. 23. Nikolai A. Zaozersky was a professor of canon law at the Moscow Theological Academy. By his application of the historical method to canon law, he exemplified the approach of the Russian historical movement (Florovsky, Ways, 2:259– 67). He was an advocate for the participation of all the component parts of the Church (white clergy and lay people) in the organs of its governance—including local councils—but wanted to reserve the deliberative vote to the bishops. He participated in the Preconciliar Commission of 1906, where he was one of the chief proponents of this idea. 24. Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 16. 25. For this maneuver see Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 91– 93. 26. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1899. 27. Rus’ 117, May 5, 1905, in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 484– 88. 28. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 485. 29. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 486 (trans. in Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 181). 30. Rus’ 117, May 5, 1905, 1 and 2; in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 488– 92. 31. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1897– 98. It was published only after the dismissal of Pobedonostsev. It does not appear

366

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 9 – 3 5

in Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, which only covers the months of March– May 1905. 32. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1897 and 1898 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 308). 33. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1898 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 307). 34. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1899 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 310). 35. Tserkovnye vedomosti 14, official version, 99, 228 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 310). 36. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1900 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 313). 37. The peace of Portsmouth put an end to the Russo-Japanese War. See Riasonovsky, Histoire de la Russie, 436. 38. Tserkovnye vedomosti 43, official version, 487 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 312). 39. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45, November 5, 1905, supplement, 1897–1905. 40. Concerning this questionnaire and especially the parts relative to lay participation, see Jockwig, Der Weg der Laien, 113– 25. 41. Tserkovnye vedomosti 1, January 7, 1906, 1 and 2 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 316) 42. Concerning the development of this “ecclesiastical journalism” beginning in the 1860s, see Florovsky, Ways, 2:161– 75. 43. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 220. 44. Concerning the composition and work of this commission see Orekhanov, Na puti k soboru, 131– 98; Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 125– 312; also Smolitsch, “Der Konzilsvorbereitungsausschuss des Jahres 1906”; Jockwig, Der Weg der Laien, 133– 77; Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 122– 34; Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 21– 36; Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée.” 45. In accordance with Orthodox usage in English, we are translating the word nastoyatel’ as “rector.” The term corresponds to the pastor of a parish. 46. The exact list can be found in Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 113. 47. Antony (Khrapovitsky) (1863–1936) was archbishop of Volhynia, then of Kharkov (1914–17), and finally became the metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. He received his formation at the St. Petersburg Academy, became rector of the Moscow Academy and, subsequently, of the Kazan Academy. He was a supporter of enlightened monasticism and believed this institution should have a guiding role in all aspects of the life of the Church. He was very much influenced by the moral and religious Slavophile vision of Fedor Dostoevsky. He favored the collaboration of Church and state but upheld the primacy of ecclesiastical power. Since he was very

N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 5 – 3 8

367

concerned with the Church’s pastoral role in society, he called for the institution of a patriarchate that would have a great deal of authority. During the Council of 1917–1918, he was the spokesperson for the conservative wing and was elected vice-president of the council on August 18 (31), 1917. In 1920, Patriarch Tikhon recognized him as the supreme administrative authority of the Church in the territories occupied by the White Army. Following the schism with Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), he presided over the jurisdiction of the Karlovtsy Synod, which led to the emergence of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. He was the author of The Moral Idea of the Fundamental Christian Doctrines, published in French as L’idée morale des dogmas de la T.S. Trinité, de la divinité de Jésus-Christ et de la Redemption. For the theological and pastoral work of Antony (Khrapovitsky), see Florovsky, Ways, 2:203–11, 261– 67, and Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe, 2:133– 35. 48. Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projeteé,” 113. 49. For this debate, see Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope, 127– 62, and Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 21– 36, based on the acts of the Preconciliar Commission: Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia. Also Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,”316– 29; Ratel, “La question de réforme en Russie,” and “Deux partis dans le clerge orthodoxe russe”; and Destivelle, “ Le Concile local de Moscou et la conciliarité,” extracts of which are used here. For all the canonical questions being debated at this time and especially those concerning the application and interpretation of canons, see Belyakova, Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni, esp. 38– 67. 50. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 136 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 175). 51. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 132. 52. Tserkovnye vedomosti 1 (1906), 1, 2 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 316). 53. Here we will make use of Bogolepov’s presentation in Church Reforms in Russia. 54. Tserkovniy vestnik 21, May 26, 1905, col. 646 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 318). 55. Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi Akademii, 1906 (5), 116– 34 (signed by Professors V. Nesmelov, A. Mashanov, V. Zavitnevich, P. Svetlov, A. Rozhdestvensky and N. Aksakov). 56. “The apostles and the elders . . . with the agreement of the entire Church” (Acts 15:22, 25). 57. See 18–19 in this volume. 58. Novoe vremia, March 20, 1905, 3, used by Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaia reforma, 15 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 322n1). 59. Bogoslovskiy Vestnik, December 1905, 698– 710 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 20).

368

N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 8 – 4 1

60. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia, 1:9, 10 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 23n22). 61. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstvia, 1:14, 122, 123 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 23, 24n23). 62. Aleksei P. Lebedev (1845–1908) was a professor of history in Moscow— first at the academy, then at the university. He was the author of a thesis (roundly criticized by Fr. A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov) on “The Ecumenical Councils of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries” (1879). See Florovsky, Ways, 2:147. 63. Aleksei P. Lebedev, Ob uchastii mirian na soborakh (“On the Participation of the Laity in the Councils”), Moscow, 1906, 17 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 24). 64. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstvia, 2:466, 467 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 24). Professor Mikhail A. Ostroumov would be elected by his diocese to participate in the Council of 1917–1918. 65. A permission granted for a less strict application of ecclesiastical canons if this be more profitable for the salvation of the faithful. 66. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia, 2:461, 432, 433 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 26nn28, 29). 67. Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 30– 32. 68. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia, 1:18 and 190 (cited by Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 32– 34 and n43). 69. See 9 in this volume. 70. For a description of these two tendencies, see Ratel, “Deux partis dans le clerge orthodoxe russe.” 71. Tserkovniy vestnik 21, May 26, 1905, col. 646 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 319, 320). 72. Ibid. 73. “Dangerous Symptoms in the Life of the Russian Church,” Bogoslovskiy vestnik, November 1905, 575– 78. See esp. 577 (cited by Ratel, “Deux partis dans le clerge orthodoxe russe,” 175). 74. Sergius (Stragorodsky) (1867–1944). After completing his studies at the Academy of St. Petersburg, he was sent to the mission in Japan (1890). He was subsequently named inspector at the Moscow Academy (1893), then rector of the St. Petersburg Academy (1899). He was consecrated a bishop in 1901 and served as vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese. From 1901 to 1903, he presided over the religiophilosophical gatherings in St. Petersburg. In 1905, he was named archbishop of Finland. He played an important role in the preparation of the council (notably in the discussion on the procedure that would be used for making decisions). He was president of the synodal committee for education, then president of the synodal committee for missions (1913). In 1917, he was elected archbishop of Vladimir,

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 1 – 4 3

369

given the title of metropolitan, and finally appointed to the see of Nizhny Novgorod. In December 1923, he became the “acting locum tenens of the patriarchal throne” after the death of Patriarch Tikhon and the arrest of the locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Poliansky). He was himself arrested on December 26, 1926, for having insisted on the application of the 1918 decree of separation of Church and state. He was released on March 9, 1927, after making a declaration of loyalty to the government (see 405n8 in this book). Metropolitan Sergius was then able to assemble a provisional synod that was officially recognized by the government. In 1934, he assumed the title of Metropolitan of Moscow. He was elected patriarch by a limited episcopal council in 1943. He reestablished the canonical links with the Church of Georgia and strengthened relations with the other Eastern Churches. He died the following year, March 15, 1944. His book, The Orthodox Teaching on Salvation (1895), is an attempt to elaborate a moral theology using a psychological interpretation of the ascetic experiences of the Church fathers. Like the study of Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky), it is an example of the Russian school of “moral monism” (see Florovsky, Ways, 2:213–15). 75. O sostave ozhidaemogo chrezvychainogo pomestnogo sobora Russkoy Tserkvi (On the Composition of the Upcoming Special Local Council of the Russian Church), St. Petersburg, 1905, reprinted in Tserkovnye vedomosti 1 (1906) supplement, 11– 22 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 325– 28). 76. O sostave, pp. 13, 14 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 326). 77. See 18–19 in this volume. 78. O sostave, pp. 13, 14 (Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 326). 79. O sostave, p. 15. 80. In principle, the right of veto usually refers to the prerogative of one or several persons who are not part of an assembly to oppose a decision taken by the assembly in question. We will use the term here, however, since the bishops, although they are part of the general assembly, still constitute a separate committee. 81. A complete report and a partial translation can be found in Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée.” 82. Art. 1 of the meetings of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 113). 83. Art. 4 of the meetings of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 114). 84. Art. 7 of the meetings of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 114). 85. Art. 2 of the meetings of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 113). Further on, we will see that the council was somewhat flexible on this point. 86. Art. 2 of the meeting of June 1, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 118). 87. Chapters A and B of the meeting of June 1, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 116).

370

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 4 – 4 8

88. Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysocayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia. 89. For information on this committee, see Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 11. 90. On the role of Rasputin in the life of the Church on the eve of the council, see Curtiss, Church and State in Russia, chap. 9, “The Sway of Rasputin,” 366– 409. 91. Riasanovsky, Histoire de la Russie, 492– 98. 92. Vladimir N. L’vov (1872–1934) was a deputy at the fourth and fifth Dumas where he was associated with the moderate right wing (Octobrists). The Provisional Government named him chief procurator of the synod on February 28 (March 13), a charge he held until August 5 (18), 1917. He was a member of the council in his capacity as a member of the Preconciliar Committee. He took part in the conspiracy of General Lavr Kornilov (August– September 1917). After 1921 he became affiliated with the “Living Church” movement but was arrested and sent to Tomsk (1927), where he died. 93. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 9–13. 94. Ibid., 13, 14. 95. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 15, 16. 96. Anton V. Kartashev (1875–1960) was president of the Society of Religious Philosophy at St. Petersburg. After the events of July 3 and 4 (16 and 17), 1917, he replaced L’vov as chief procurator of the Holy Synod. He was the last chief procurator in Russia. On August 5 (18) his title was changed to that of minister of cults. He gave the final impetus to the preparation of the future local council. He emigrated to Paris where he was one of the founders of the St. Sergius Institute and a professor of church history in that establishment. He was the author of a history of the Russian Church, Ocherki po istorii russkoi Tserkvi, and the article we are using here,“La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” which was originally published in Bogoslovskaya Mysl’ 1942 (1), and subsequently translated in Russie et Chrétienité. 97. “Formerly, the bishops sat at a long table and the chief procurator, with his staff, sat at a smaller table off to one side. In reality, these ‘humble observers’ had a decisive power over the decisions of the bishops. Now, all were ‘amicably’ seated at the same semicircular table. The prelates occupied the outer seats, the chief procurator and his aide, the inner seats—in such a way that they were facing the bishops. The idea behind this symbolism—and that set the tone for the synod—was that, just as the government was provisional, a transitional institution whose role it was to lead the nation toward the Constituent Assembly, so the synod was merely a committee whose role it was to lead the Church towards the council. The goals were analogous and both powers were only provisory” (Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 16). 98. Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 221. 99. According to Riasanovsky, Histoire de la Russie, 495, “Since the members of the Provisional Government attached so much importance to the election of a

N O T E S T O PA G E S 4 8 – 5 0

371

Constituent Assembly, their biggest mistake was not doing so quickly enough. Time elapsed as some of the best Russian jurists tried to put together a perfect electoral law. When the Constituent Assembly finally convened, it was too late: the Bolsheviks had already seized power.” The historian shares the opinion that “the absence of a representative and responsible parliament certainly contributed to giving an orientation to the Russian Revolution that made it different from the English, French, and American revolutions which had preceded it.” 100. As of this date, all the documents relating to the council can be found in the Acts (Deianiia) published in 1918 by the Executive Committee of the Council and republished in eleven volumes, beginning in 1994, by the Novospassky Monastery Publications under the title Deianiia Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918. The act of the convocation of the council is the first document published in the first volume of the Acts of the Council: Deianiia, vol. 1, issue 1: Predislovie, dokumenty i materialy k sozyvu i deiatel’nosti predsobornogo soveta i sobora [Introduction, Documents and Materials concerning the Convocation and Work of the Preconciliar Commission and Council] (Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918), and republished in 1994 under the title Deianiia Sviashchennogo sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918, vol. I:3– 5. 101. Deianiia, I:3, I and II. Henceforth we shall refer to the acts of the council according to the 1994 reprinting by indicating, following Deianiia, the number of the volume in Roman numerals followed by a colon and the page number in Arabic numerals, and then, if necessary, the internal numeration of the document in Roman numerals. 102. Deianiia, I:4. 103. Deianiia, I:5, 6, III and IV. 104. “Instead of seeing the council as a revival of the Church, the members of the government considered it as a democratic organism that would react against the clergy or, at least, thwart its influence” (Volkonsky, “La reconstitution du patriarcat en Russie,” esp. 197). 105. The edinovertsy—which could be literally translated as “uni-believers”— are former Old Believers (starovery). Since the 1905 edict of tolerance, the official designation of the latter as schismatics (raskol’niki) had been replaced by the term “old-ritualists” (staroobriadtsy) which was, in fact, the term used by those Old Believers themselves who, since 1811, had been in communion with the Orthodox Church of Russia while still using the rituals such as they are described in the liturgical books published under the first five Russian patriarchs, prior to the Council of 1666– 67. See 114–16 in this volume. 106. Deianiia, I:6, XLV. 107. Ibid., I:29, XLV. 108. Ibid., I:34– 36. 109. See 55–56 in this book. 110. Benjamin (Kazansky) (1873–1922), auxiliary bishop of the diocese of St. Petersburg, quickly became popular among the workers and was elected

372

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 0 – 5 2

metropolitan of this city in April 1917. He refused to recognize the “Living Church” movement and excommunicated its leader, A. I. Vvedensky, who belonged to his diocese. He was accused of opposing the expropriation of sacred objects and was arrested in April 1922. His comportment during his trial was exemplary. He was condemned to death on July 5, and executed during the night of August 12–13, 1922. He was canonized in 1992. 111. Tikhon (Bellavin) (1865–1925) was the son of a village priest. He became, successively, bishop of Lublin (1897), of North America and Alaska (1898), of Yaroslavl (1907), then of Vilnius (1913), which he had to abandon because of the German advance. He was elected metropolitan of Moscow in June 1917, then patriarch of Moscow on November 5 (18) of that same year—the first Russian patriarch since the times of Peter the Great. During the civil war, he refused to take sides. He was imprisoned in the Donskoy monastery in May 1921 by the Soviet regime, which accused him of opposition to the expropriation of sacred objects. He had to confront the schism provoked by the “Living Church,” which the Bolsheviks supported and which had announced his deposition. In June 1923, he published a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet government and was freed. He died under mysterious circumstances on April 7, 1925. Patriarch Tikhon, in his testament, named three possible locum-tenens candidates until a local council could be convoked: Metropolitans Kirill (Smirnov), Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), and Peter (Poliansky). He was canonized in 1992. Concerning the conditions and signification of his declaration of loyalty, see Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 2:483– 87 (appendix 3). 112. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 16, 17. 113. Psalomshchiki: clerics in minor orders (psaltists or chanters) or lay people attached to the service of parish churches where they served in the choir. 114. Alexander I. Vvedensky (1888–1946) was the founder of the “Living Church” movement. It was he who organized the pseudo-council of 1923 (see 154–55 in this volume). He was ordained a bishop and, in 1924, given the title of metropolitan. He considered himself patriarch and the supreme hierarch of the Orthodox Church. 115. “This Congress, which was a sort of dress rehearsal for the council, gave evidence that the majority of the clergy, even though of leftist tendencies, did not disassociate itself from the bishops when it was a question of the apostolate” (Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 19). 116. “Decree of the Provisional Government on the Establishment of the Ministry of Cults,” art. 1, Deiania, I:52, LVI. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid., art. 3, Deianiia, I:52, LVI. 119. Ibid., art. 4, Deianiia, I:52, LVI. 120. “Decree of the Provisional Government on the Rights of the Council,” Deianiia, I:53, LVII.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 3 – 5 6

P 3

373

The Council Itself

1. “Regulations on the Convocation of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia at Moscow, August 15, 1917” (henceforth “Regulations on Convocation”), Deianiia, I:12–18. See Schulz, “Conciliarita e concilio”; for the history of these procedures, also Destivelle, “Compositions et procedures.” 2. Deianiia, I:19– 20, XX. 3. Deianiia, I:19. 4. Art. 62, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:16. 5. Art. 4, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:12. 6. Art. 1, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:12. 7. Art. 6 of the General Assembly of the Preconciliar Commission of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 114). 8. Art. 70, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:17. 9. Art. 7 of the General Assembly of the Preconciliar Commission of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 114). 10. Art. 62, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:16. 11. Arts. 61 and 62, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:16. 12. Art. 14, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:13. 13. Art. 35, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:14. 14. Art. 55, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:16. 15. Arts. 82– 97, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:18. 16. Cf. 50 in this volume and Deianiia, I:33– 37. 17. “Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia” (henceforth “Statute of the Council”), Deianiia, I:35– 51, LV. See the appendices. 18. Deianiia, I:37, LIV. 19. Art. 1, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:38. 20. Art. 1, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:42. 21. Art. 2 of the General Assembly of the Preconciliar Commission of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 113), see also 42–43 in this volume. 22. Art. 3, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:12. 23. See art. 62, “Regulations on Convocation,” Deianiia, I:16, and 55–56 in this volume. 24. We will see that this possibility was seldom realized. 25. Arts. 69– 91, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 26. Art. 74, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43, 45. 27. Art. 73, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. This signified that nothing could be proposed without the approbation of thirty persons who had previously discussed the topic. 28. Art. 77, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 29. See 62 in this book.

374

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 6 – 5 9

30. Art. 70, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 31. Art. 72, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 32. Art. 75, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:44. 33. Art. 92, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 34. Arts. 93– 95, “Statute of the Council, ” Deianiia, I:45. 35. Arts. 96– 97, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 36. Arts. 52– 60, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:42. 37. Art. 4 of the General Assembly of the Preconciliar Commission of May 5, 8, 12, 15, and 16, 1906 (Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projetée,” 114). 38. Art. 10, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 39. Art. 98, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. The regulation, which was drawn up before the office of chief procurator was changed to minister of cults, gave him the right to submit proposals. 40. But it could also reject it or send it to the Holy Synod. See art. 99, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 41. Art. 100, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 42. For a session to be canonical, at least a third of the members of the council had to be present. See art. 113, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:46. 43. Art. 130, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:47. The use of notes was permitted but the speeches were not to be read (art. 118) nor last more than a half hour (art. 146). 44. Art. 139, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:49. 45. Art. 179, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:50. 46. Art. 174, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:50. The president could then verify the vote by asking those who voted in favor to rise (art. 174), or by having the voters leave, passing through different doors or by having each one express his vote orally (art. 175). 47. Art. 64, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 48. Art. 65, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 49. Art. 67, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 50. See 56–57 in this volume, and art. 75, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 51. Art. 199, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:45. 52. Art. 65, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 53. Deianiia, I:37, LIV. 54. Art. 64, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 55. Art. 64, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 56. Art. 66, “Statute of the Council,” Deianiia, I:43. 57. Such a way of resolving the relations between bishops, clergy, and laity was, it seems, hitherto unknown in Orthodox practice. Until the twentieth century, Orthodox assemblies that brought together bishops, clergy, and laity were either purely elective (such was the case, according to the law of 1860, for the patriarch of Constantinople; according to the law of 1872, for the metropolitan of Romania; ac-

N O T E S T O PA G E S 5 9 – 6 0

375

cording to the law of 1890, for the metropolitan of Serbia; and according to the law of 1895, for the metropolitan of Bulgaria) or assemblies of small churches along the Austrian-Hungarian border (the metropolis of Karlovtsy). In this latter case, twothirds of the assembly were lay people who could block not only the action of the bishops but that of the clergy as a whole. See Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche, 346– 51. See also Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 45. 58. As Kartashev seems to do when he talks of “two chambers”; “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 25 and 28. 59. The first part (Dokumenty i: Materialy) of the first volume of the Acts (Deianiia I) gives three lists: (1) a “general” alphabetic list (60– 96) indicating the names, the diocese of origin, clerical or monastic rank, by what right the person participates in the council (“in virtue of their office,” “through election”—we did not find any explicit cases of “by invitation,” but the representatives of the autocephalous Churches would enter into this category), age, and place of residence; (2) a list “according to mandate” (97–118), which distinguishes the members according to their right to belong to the Council Assembly: the members of the Holy Synod (members by right), ruling diocesan bishops (members by right), those elected by the dioceses or the vicariates, the superiors of certain monasteries (members by right), the representatives elected by the monks, the protopresbyters, the elected representatives of the clergy of the army or navy, the laity elected by the army, the elected representatives of the Edinoverie, the members of the Preconciliar Committee (members by right), the elected representatives of the theological academies, the elected representatives of the Academy of Sciences and of the universities, the elected representatives of the Duma and the Council of State, and the representatives of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and their alternates; and (3) a list by hierarchal rank in the Church (119 – 33): metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, protopresbyters, archimandrites, hegumens, hieromonks, mitred archpriests, archpriests, priests, deacons, psaltists, lay people, and their alternates. 60. See the list in Deianiia, I:97–118. 61. Three metropolitans, two bishops, one protopresbyter, and three archpriests. 62. There were five representatives from each diocese: two clerics and three lay people. One of the two clerics had to be a priest, the other could be a bishop (a vicar or a retired bishop), a deacon, or a psaltist (psalomshik). 63. There were four vicariates: Baku, Erevan, the Urals, and Kamchatka. Deianiia, I:111. 64. The Lavra of the Caves in Kiev, the Trinity-Saint Sergius Lavra (Sergiev Posad), the Pochaev Lavra, and the Lavra of Alexander Nevsky (St. Petersburg); Deianiia, I:111. [Lavra in the Russian Church is a title accorded to a particularly significant and influential monastery. Only four monasteries are given this title.— Editor’s note] 65. The monasteries of Valaam, Solovki, Optina, and Sarov.

376

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 0 – 6 2

66. The protopresbyter of the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin and that of the clergy of the army and navy (the office of protopresbyter of the Imperial Court no longer existed). 67. These were included through a special decree of the synod on August 2 (15), 1907: “The inclusion of the members of the Preconciliar Committee, who took part in the activities of the commission, in the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of all Russia”; Deianiia, I:29 and 30, XLVII. 68. The theological Academies of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, and Kazan. 69. Romania and Serbia, Deianiia, I:117. The bishops of Georgia, who had just elected a catholicos (patriarch), did not think that it was necessary to elect representatives to the Moscow Council. They proposed to the synod that they participate as members of an autocephalous sister Church. The synod replied that the canonical problems of autocephaly should be resolved by the council, which was the only competent authority. See 120–21 in this volume and Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 13–14. 70. In the list of the seventy-three ruling archbishops and bishops who were ex officio members of the council (Deianiia I:97– 99), there were only two bishops who retired while the council was in session and who became members through a special decree of the Council (archbishops Joachim [Levitsky] of Nizhny Novgorod and Nazarius [Kirillov] of Kherson). According to the lists, only four bishops were members of the council through election and not in virtue of their charge; two were designated in elections on the level of the diocese (Bishop Vladimir [Tikhonitsky] of Belostok, who was vicar of the diocese of Grodno, and Bishop Theophylact [Klimentiev] of Slutsk, vicar of the diocese of Minsk; Deianiia, I:101 and 104); three were designated in the context of monastic elections (Archbishop Antony [Khrapovitsky] of Kharkov, who was already a member ex officio anyway; Bishop Tikhon [Obolensky] of the Urals, vicar of the diocese of Samara and, in fact, the pastor for the edinovertsy of that region; and Bishop Theodore [Pozdeevsky] of Volokolamsk, vicar of the diocese of Moscow; Deianiia, I:112). Finally, Bishop Procopius (Titov), the superior of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, was made a member by virtue of a special decree (Deianiia, I:111), even though he should have been a member ex officio as superior of a lavra, according to article 86 of the “Regulations on Convocation.” Therefore, all in all, of the eighty members of episcopal rank (patriarch, metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops) only seven (if Antony of Kharkov is left out) were not members by virtue of their pastoral charge but by virtue of elections (four) or a special decree of the council (three). 71. List in Deianiia, I:119– 33 (this list includes only 163 members). 72. See 51 in this volume. 73. Deianiia, I:134. 74. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 29. 75. For a portrait of the Russian episcopate in 1917, see, E. Bryner, “L’episcopato della chiesa ortodossa russa.”

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 2 – 6 4

377

76. Before 1917, these functions were exercised by two different protopresbyters. 77. Deianiia, I:134– 38. 78. Jockwig, Der Weg der Laien, 5. 79. For a detailed description see Deianiia, I:53– 54. The entire ceremony can be found in ibid., volume 1, issue 2, I:9– 24. 80. Alexander F. Kerensky (1881–1970) was a lawyer and a socialist who initially defended the revolutionaries. He became minister of justice in the provisional government of Prince G. E. L’vov (March 1917). In July 1917, he replaced L’vov as prime minister. In September 1917, he deposed Gen. Lavr Kornilov, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who attempted a military coup. The October revolution of 1917 drove him from power. 81. Lobnoe Mesto (literally “the place of the skull”— Golgotha) was a small raised structure in Red Square that was used as a public tribune for the proclamation of imperial edicts. 82. Moleben: a little office (composed of a canon, litanies, psalms, and readings) celebrated independently of the liturgy on special occasions as a thanksgiving service. It can also be used as a solemn prayer of intercession. 83. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–18,” esp. 26– 27, which take up themes treated in the article which appeared in Russian in Bogoslovskaya Mysl’ in 1942. 84. Mantia: a silk cape worn by simple monks and by bishops. The episcopal mantia is a violet cape crisscrossed by horizontal stripes of white and purple silk (the “rivers”) that extend from four squares of embroidery (the “tablets of the law”) placed at the four corners and attached two by two under the chin and knees. These corners symbolize the Old and New Testaments, which should not be disassociated and from which flow the “rivers” of the bishop’s teaching. The velvet mantiia is reserved for the patriarch. See Roty, Dictionnaire russe-francais, 53– 54. 85. Black klobuk: (1) headdress/cowl of monks: a black veil that covers the hat and ends in three folds. Legend has it that these were tied together by the holy patriarch Methodius to conceal a wound he had received in the face during the iconoclast persecutions of the Emperor Theophilus. (2) headdress of bishops: the term is used to designate both the hat and the veil that is adorned with a cross for the archbishops. See Roty, Dictionnaire russe-francais, 53– 54. 86. White klobuk: the hat and white veil used by Russian metropolitans. This privilege is based on the legend of the white cowl given to Pope Sylvester by Constantine and later transferred to Constantinople and then to Novgorod (a residue of the rivalry between Novgorod and Moscow during the epoch of the Third Rome theory). The white klobuk of the patriarch is in the ancient style (round) and adorned with cherubim. See Roty, Dictionnaire russe-francais, 47– 48. 87. Solea: the section of the nave reserved for the clergy (a platform raised in front of the iconostasis for the lower clergy).

378

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 4 – 6 7

88. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 27. 89. Ibid., 28. 90. Ibid., 29. 91. See the schema in Deianiia, I:144. 92. G. Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 33– 40. 93. One urgent question was the support of the army and the counterrevolutionary forces. In the hope of encouraging an army that was falling apart, the protopresbyter of the military chaplains, Georgy Shavel’sky, had the council issue an appeal which was distributed on the principal battlefronts by the council delegates. The conspiracy of August 27– 29 (September 9–11) led by General Kornilov looked to the council for moral support. Many members of the council were, in fact, tempted to support the counterrevolutionary forces. A secret meeting of the council was dedicated to this problem. In the end, the detention of Kornilov by A. F. Kerensky made it unnecessary for the council to take a position and thus averted a possible split. All the same, the council asked Kerensky to spare Kornilov. On the other hand, the council ordered special prayers on September 14 (27), the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, for the safety of the state. This decree was accompanied by a pastoral letter addressed “to the whole Russian Orthodox people” urging them to cease all plundering. Another message, issued during the electoral campaign for the Constituent Assembly, encouraged the faithful of the Orthodox Church to maintain the spirit of Orthodoxy. On September 30 (October 13), the council debated whether it should send representatives to the “Pre-parliament” and decided against it. Finally, on October 8 (21), it issued another letter condemning looting. See Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 30– 32. 94. This proclamation followed funerals organized, on the one side, by a committee for the burial of the victims of Bolshevism and, in the other camp, by the Bolsheviks for their members buried in Red Square. When it was announced that talks with Germany would begin, the council published a letter of protest in which it declared itself competent to affirm “in the name of a hundred million Orthodox Christians” that “the persons who, in the name of the state, have just entered into international negotiations, were not representatives freely chosen by the people, that they did not express the thought or the will of the nation, and, because of this, they were totally incompetent to negotiate a peace treaty.” See Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 39– 40. 95. The text of this anathema can be found in Deianiia, VI:4– 5, LXVI; French translation in N. Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 301– 3. 96. The Russian name of Petrograd had replaced that of St. Petersburg— judged to be too Germanic—at the beginning of the First World War. On March 11, 1918, the Soviet government transferred the capital to Moscow. On January 26, 1924, five days after the death of Lenin, the Second Soviet Congress decreed that the former imperial capital would henceforth bear the name of Leningrad. 97. See Sviashchenny Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi, 7.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 6 7 – 7 1

379

98. “Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the Separation of the Church from the State and of the School from the Church,” complete French translation in Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 370– 71. 99. Deianiia, XI:218. 100. The lity is a prayer of petition that takes place in the narthex or outside of the church on the occasion of certain offices: (1) On the vigils of feasts, when the troparia are sung during vespers, a procession forms and proceeds to the narthex, prays for the needs of the Christian people, and returns to the church during the singing of the aposticha verses—in this case there is a blessing of bread at the end of vespers. (2) In case of a catastrophe, the lity, often held outside the church, accompanies an office of intercession (moleben) or a procession. (3) The lity of the dead (litiia zaupokoinaia) takes place when the body of the deceased is taken away at the end of the funeral liturgy, after the memorial service (panikhida). The report here refers to the last two instances. See Roty, Dictionnaire russe-francais, 61.

P 4

The Decrees of the Council

1. The chancery of the council registered the meetings in two versions (cf. “Statute,” arts. 183– 84, Deianiia, I:51). The verbal proceedings indicate: the date and place of the meeting, the time of its opening, of the person who chairs the meeting, the persons who took part in the debate, the subjects debated, and the decrees of the council (art. 184). The acts (Deianiia) are stenographed notes of all the speeches during the council arranged in chronological order (art. 189). The speakers could correct these notes by having recourse to the chancery (art. 190). Each meeting takes up between sixty to one hundred type-written pages. Speeches that could not be made (because of a suspension of debates, for example) could be published later as an appendix to the acts 2. The council tried to circulate its decisions among the population as widely as possible by publishing its acts, definitions, and decrees (meetings 131, 165). The first edition of the acts appeared in 1918, but it was a partial edition: for the first session it included all the meetings (1– 65, Acts, vols. I–V, 1808 pages); for the second session it included twenty-four of the sixty-four meetings (66– 82, 104– 6, 116–19, Acts, vols. VI–VII, IX–X, 681 pages); no meeting was recorded for the third session. Cf. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy tret’ia sessiia, 8. 3. The archives of the acts of the council are divided up between the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF, fonds 3431) at Moscow and the State Historical Archives of Russia (RGIA, fonds 833) at St. Petersburg. The archives of the council conserved in Moscow include notes taken at each meeting, the daily agendas, lists of those present and of those who asked to speak, and the projects discussed. It would seem that the text of these acts that are missing in both the 1918

380

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 1 – 7 3

edition and in the GARF collection were lost when the documents were taken to the printer. These documents can be found at present at the RGIA of St. Petersburg, which possesses the most complete and exact version of the acts. (For the sources of documents and editions, see Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 64–100. Also see A. A. Pletneva, “Istochnikovedcheskie problemy podgotovki teksta [The Problem of Sources for the Preparation of the Text],” in Sviashchenniy Sobor Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 23– 27, and Sviashchenniy Sobor Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, tretya sessiia, 37. 4. For the first six volumes: Deianiia Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 (Acts of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia) vol. 1, Dokumenty, materialy, deianiia I–XVI; vol. 2, Deianiia XVII–XXXI; vol. 3, Deianiia XXXI–XL (vols. 2 and 3 republished in 1994); vol. 4, Deianiia XLI–LI; vol. 5, Deianiia LII–LXV; vol. 6, Deianiia LXVI–LXXXII (vols. 4– 6 republished in 1996). 5. For the last five volumes (published by the Novospassky Monastery from the incomplete GARF archives): vol. 7, Deianiia 83–101; vol. 8, Deianiia 102–17 (vols. 7 and 8 published in 1999); vol. 9, Deianiia 118– 36; vol. 10, Deianiia 137– 51; vol. 11, Deianiia 152– 70 (vols. 9–11 published in 2000). 6. Except for the decree on “The Unity of the Churches”; see Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 197. 7. For example, the monograph Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, is based solely on the first issue. 8. Sobranie opredeleniy i postanovleniy Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918, vypusk 1– 4 (“Collection of the Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia of 1917–1918, Issues 1– 4”), published at Moscow in 1918 by the publishing house of the Executive Committee of the Council, republished in Moscow in 1994 by the Novospassky Monastery press (a volume including 4 issues of 33, 29, 67, and 53). 9. Cf. Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 88–100. 10. For example, a category like the parish, which we have placed in the chapter concerning the organization of the Church, could just as easily have been placed in the chapter on pastoral activity. But it seemed to us that a similar logic governed the organization of the parish as that of the supreme administration of the Church and that of diocesan administration. The same could be said for parish schools, which fit in well with pastoral activity of the Church but which we have chosen to treat under the rubric of Church-state relations because of the context of the problem. Chapter 1

The Conciliar Organization of the Church

11. “Statute,” art. 1, Deianiia, I. 12. The texts sometimes also use the expression “supreme ecclesiatical authority.”

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 3 – 7 5

381

13. Unlike the other issues of the acts, the order in which the documents concerning Church administration is presented is significant: after affirming the primacy of the council in the first definition, the definition on the patriarch is presented next, and the one concerning the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church occupies the third place. Finally, at the end, the definition on the diocese appears. The supreme administration of the Church is thus described in the four first definitions of the first issue. 14. I. II. “Definition on the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,” art. 2b. Henceforth we will refer to the definitions of the council by two Roman numerals: the first indicates the issue, the second the definition. 15. I. III. “Definition on the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church,” art. 8. 16. We don’t know anything more on the competencies of this “great council every nine years”; see IV. IV. “Definition on the Convocation of the Next Council and on the Powers of the Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church,” art. 1. 17. IV. I. “Definition on the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch,” art. 3. 18. I. II. art. 10. 19. I. I. “Definition on the Basic Principles of the Supreme Church Administration of the Orthodox Church of Russia,” art. 1. 20. I. I. 21. Decisions of June 12, 1906, general assembly of the Preconciliary Commission. French translation in Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projeteé,” 119– 20: “Article 1: The supreme government of the Russian Church belongs to the national council (i.e. local) of bishops held periodically under the presidency of the patriarch. Article 2: The periodic councils of the Russian Church will be composed of the same elements as those already proposed for the extraordinary council [the council that was to establish the foundations of the new ecclesiastical organization] i.e. bishops, clerics and laity. These will have the same rights except in the cases when, according to canonical regulations, not just the solution [as we have seen, only the bishops had a deliberative vote according to this project] but the examination of certain problems belongs to the bishops. Article 3: The periodic council will have the power to legislate, direct, revise and, as a last instance, to judge.” 22. I. II. December 8 (21), 1917. 23. I. IV. “Definition on the Scope of Authority of the Institutions of the Supreme Administration of the Church,” December 8 (21), 1917. 24. I. III. A. I. arts. 1– 4, December 8 (21), 1917. 25. That is, in the list of saints of the whole of the Orthodox Church depending on the patriarchate of Moscow. IV. XII. “Definition on the Procedure for the Local Glorification of Saints,” art. 13.

382

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 5 – 7 8

26. IV. XXI. “Definition on the Property and Economic Management of the Church,” art. 2. 27. See 69–70 in this volume for a list of the projects that were not discussed. On the question of ecclesiastical courts, cf. E.V. Belyakova, Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoy zhizni, 85–193. 28. I. V. “Definition on the Diocesan Administration,” art. 58, note. 29. I. II. art. 2d. 30. I. III. art. 2; I. IV. C. art. 14. 31. I. III. art. 20. 32. I. I. art. 4. 33. IV. I. art. 1. 34. I. III. art. 4. 35. I. III. arts. 7– 8. 36. II. XI. “Decree on a Special Collection to Cover the Expenses of the Council,” December 2 (15), 1917. 37. IV. III. “Definition on the Full Powers of the Members of the 1917–1918 Council,” September 5 (18), 1918, art. 1. 38. IV. III. art. 2. 39. IV. III. art. 3. 40. IV. IV. “Definition on the Convocation of the Next Council and on the Powers of the Members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church,” art. 1, September 7 (20), 1918. 41. See the description of Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 33– 47, and the analysis of I. V. Solovyov, “Il concilio e il patriarca.” 42. For this term, see 362n79 in this volume. 43. Preobrazhensky, Tserkovnaya reforma, 6. 44. Tserkovnye vedomosti 45 (November 5), sup. Col. 1897–1899, Malvy, “La réforme de l’Église russe,” 308–10. 45. Compare the project of the restoration of the patriarchate according to the June 3, 1906, assembly of the Preconciliar Commission, trans. Bois, “L’Église russe et la réforme projeteé,” 118–19. 46. Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 21. 47. Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great I, Preface (the argument of the nine considerations), 18. 48. Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 21. 49. This was the largest commission. See Deianiia, II:274– 75. 50. Report given by Bishop Metrophan, Deianiia, II:225– 36. 51. Objection of Professor P. P. Kudryavtsev, Deianiia, II:236– 39. 52. “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, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything

N O T E S T O PA G E S 7 8 – 8 2

383

without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit” (Apostolic canon 34 in Les Constitutions Apostoliques III, SC 336, pp. 284– 85; English translation from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995; repr. of 1900 ed.], 596). Cf. Lanne, “Le canon 34 des Apôtres.” 53. Position of N. D. Kuznetsov, Deianiia, II:264– 66. 54. For the proposition of N. A. Liubimov, see Deianiia, II:263. 55. Here we follow the presentation of Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 66–120. 56. Speech of Sergius Bulgakov on “The Significance of the Patriarchate in Russia,” Deianiia, III:16– 21, esp. 19, French trans. by F. Suel-Haverland in Istina 46 (2001): 351– 57, esp. 353. 57. Deianiia, II:422– 24. 58. Speech “In Defense of the Patriarchate,” Deianiia, III:21– 28, esp. 26. 59. Speech “The Patriarchate and sobornost’,” Deianiia, III:28– 37, esp. 33. 60. See, for example, on 32–33 of this volume, the letter of Nicholas II dated December 27, 1905. 61. See 357n8 in this volume and Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoi Tserkvi, 311– 67. 62. Deianiia, III:18 (Bulgakov, “The Significance of the Patriarchate in Russia,” 355). 63. Deianiia, III :17 (Bulgakov, “The Significance of the Patriarchate in Russia,” 352). 64. See the note on this canon and the meaning of “prerogatives” in G. Alberigo, Les Conciles oecumeniques: Les Decrets, vol. II–I, De Nicee I a Latran V (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994), 226. 65. See Wuyts, Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou, 89– 96. 66. Speech in Deianiia, II:383– 91, esp. 386. 67. Andrei G. Kulyashev, Deianiia, II:346. 68. Speech of Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan, Deianiia, II:225– 36, esp. 230. 69. Archpriest Nikolai P. Dobronravov, Deianiia, II:347. 70. Intervention of Metrophan of Astrakhan, Deianiia, II:229. 71. Vasily Ya. Bakhmetiev, Deianiia, II:407. 72. Speech of Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan, Deianiia, II:228. 73. Speech of Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan, Deianiia, III:6. 74. A delegation from the council pleaded with the Bolsheviks to spare the cadet officers who had occupied the Kremlin. 75. Speech of Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan, Deianiia, II:226. 76. I. I. art. 3. 77. Deianiia, III:9. 78. Deianiia, III:10. 79. Ilya M. Gromoglasov, Deianiia, II:439.

384

N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 3 – 8 7

80. Prince Grigory N. Trubetskoy, Deianiia, II:395. 81. Nikolai I. Troitsky, Deianiia, III:26. 82. Boris V. Titlinov, Deianiia, III:26. 83. Deianiia III:10. 84. This was proposed by Aleksandr I. Pokrovsky, Deianiia, III:48– 49. 85. Pavel A. Prokoshev, a professor of law at the University of Tomsk, pointed out that the question was already settled by the canons, Deianiia, III:50. 86. Deianiia, III:47– 48. 87. Deianiia, III:53. 88. Deianiia, III:56. 89. Details of the ceremony and of the enthronement can be found in Deianiia, III:105–11. 90. Deianiia, III:91. 91. See also the account and speeches in the acts: Deianiia, III:112– 21. 92. This hieromonk hermit, Alexis (Solovyov) (1846–1928), starets of the Zosimov hermitage, was canonized during the Council of 2000. 93. Podvorie (metochion): the representation or “consulate” in a large city of a monastery in the countryside or abroad. It usually had one or several churches that were served by hieromonks and was a source of revenue for the community. 94. Kartashev, “La Révolution et le concile de 1917–1918,” 35. 95. Ibid., 36. 96. I. II. 97. I. III. 98. IV. II. 99. IV. I. 100. IV. IV. 101. I. II. art. 1. 102. I. II. art. 3. 103. I. II. art. 2k. 104. Myron: the oil used for chrismation, the consecration of an altar or of the antimension, and in the anointing of the monarch. Its preparation on Holy Thursday is the exclusive prerogative of the patriarch. M. Arranz, “La consécration du saint myron.” 105. I. II. art. 2k, note. See B. Dupuy, “ La concession du saint myron.” 106. I. II. art. 2h. 107. I. II. art. 2i. 108. I. II. art. 2g. 109. I. II. art. 2f. 110. I. III. art. 1. 111. I. I. art. 1. 112. I. II. art. 2a. 113. I. II. art. 2d.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 8 7 – 9 0

385

114. I. II. art. 2b. 115. IV. IV. art. 1. 116. I. II. art. 2o. 117. I. II. art. 2j. 118. I. II. art. 2l. 119. I. II. art. 2m. 120. I. II. art. 2n. 121. I. II. art. 2p. 122. I. II. art. 2c and I. III. art. 3. 123. I. IV. C. art. 17. 124. Literally, the power to “protest” (pravo protesta). 125. I. III. art. 20. 126. I. II. art. 2e. 127. I. II. art. 2a. 128. I. II. arts. 8–10. 129. I. II. art. 4. 130. I. II. art. 5. 131. Florovsky, Ways, 2:282– 83. 132. On the election of patriarchs by “mixed” councils (especially that of the patriarch of Constantinople since 1860), see Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche, 331– 35. 133. IV. I. 134. IV. I. arts. 2– 3. 135. IV. I. art. 4. 136. IV. I. arts. 7– 9. 137. IV. I. art. 8. 138. IV. I. art. 10. 139. IV. I. art. 13. 140. IV. I. art. 14. 141. Acts 1:23– 26. This mode of designation by the drawing of lots, inaugurated in 1917, was not used afterwards (see 156–58 in this volume). Patriarch Tikhon was the only Russian patriarch to have been elected in this way. 142. IV. II. “Definition on the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne.” 143. Meeting of January 25 (February 7), 1918, Deianiia, VI:74. 144. IV. II. art. 3. 145. IV. II. arts. 5– 7. 146. I. III. 147. I. IV. 148. I. III. art. 1. 149. I. III. art. 3. 150. I. III. art. 18. 151. I. II. art. 20; cf. 87 in this volume.

386

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 0 – 9 4

152. I. III. art. 2. 153. I. III. art. 4. 154. I. III. art. 5. Urmia was a mission among the Assyrians, considered Nestorians, of Iranian Kurdistan. For the origins of this diocese see Gilson, “Conversion of the Nestorians of Persia to the Russian Church,” and A. Ratel, “L’Église nestorienne en Turquie et en Perse.” 155. I. IV. A. 156. I. II. art. 10. 157. I. III. art. 7. 158. I. IV. B. 159. This canonical approach was adopted by the patriarchate of Constantinople in 1860 when it set up both an episcopal synod and a “mixed” council consisting of twelve members (four bishops and eight lay people); other local churches did the same—the metropolis of Karlovtsy (law of 1875) and the Bulgarian exarchate (laws of 1871 and 1898). In all of these councils, the laity were in majority. See Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche, 339, and Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia, 48. 160. See the criticism of A. Schmemann in part 5 of this book. 161. I. IV. C. 162. III. XII. “Concerning the Financial Support to the Members of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church.” 163. IV. V. “On the Statute and the Personnel of the Supreme Church Administration.” 164. IV. IV. art. 2. 165. IV. III. art. 1; cf. 76–77 in this volume. 166. Deianiia, VI:61– 80. 167. I. V. 168. Several other definitions complement this statute on the diocese: “On the Changes in the Articles 80 and 83 of the Conciliar Definition on the Diocesan Administration,” September 7 (20), 1918 (IV. IX.); “On the Auxiliary (Vicar) Bishops,” April 2 (15), 1918 (III. III.); “On the Establishment of New Dioceses and Auxiliary Sees,” July 26 (August 18), 1918, (III. X.); “On the District Assemblies,” April 2 (15), 1918 (III. IV.); “On Ecclesiastical Provinces,” September 7 (20), 1918 (IV. VII.). On this topic see Tsypin, “Il problema dell’administrazione diocesana.” 169. This observation should be counterbalanced by the fact that, in the overall arrangement of the first issue—which treats of the administration of the Church—the patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the Supreme Council of the Church are presented before the diocese. This is obviously by choice since this issue is the only one that reflects a certain concern for organization. 170. I. V. art. 1. 171. III. I. “Introduction to the Parish Statutes,” IV. art. 2; III. II. “On the Orthodox Parish,” art. 1.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 4 – 9 5

387

172. IV. VIII. art. 1. 173. IV. XI. art. 1. 174. II. II. art. 1. 175. Chast’: We will see later that the Statute of 1945, while not using the word “part,” will, nonetheless, return to this administrative conception—in the context of a Soviet state, to be sure—when it states that “the Russian Church is divided (разделяется) into dioceses whose borders should coincide with the borders within the state” (art. 23). This definition, unlike that of 1917, uses the Russian Church as its point of departure and does not include the diocesan bishop. (See 159 in this volume.) The statute adopted by the Council of 2000 changes the approach somewhat: “the diocese is the local Church.” The point of reference of the definition, however, remains the Russian Orthodox Church: “The Russian Orthodox Church is divided into dioceses, local Churches (местные церкви), governed by a bishop” (art. 1). This term “divided into” is also applied to the deaneries (cf. 164–65 in this volume, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X, The Diocese, art. 50). We know that Vatican II wanted to avoid describing the diocese as pars ecclesiae—since the “part” does not contain the essence of the whole within itself—and, instead, used the term portio: “the diocese is a portion of the people of God entrusted to a bishop so that, with the aid of his presbyterium, he might be their pastor” (decree Christus Dominus, n. 11); “the bishop should govern his Church as a portion of the universal Church” (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 23). The decree Christus Dominus (n. 11) and, especially, the Code of Canon Law issued in 1983 (can. 368) also define the diocese as a particular Church: this term has the same root as pars but does not convey the idea of being a part of (in Latin as in French there is the same difference between partiel and particulière); the dioceses are the particular Churches with which and from which (in quibus et ex quibis) the Ecclesia Catholica exists (can. 368). 176. III. I. art. 3. 177. III. III. art. 1. 178. IV. X. “Definition on the Establishment of New Dioceses and Auxiliary Sees.” 179. See 97–98 in this volume. 180. IV. X. art. 1. The vicariates are those parts of a diocese that are in the care of a vicar bishop (III. III. art. 2). 181. IV. X. art. 2. 182. IV. X. art. 5. 183. IV. X. art. 6. 184. I. V. art. 16. 185. I. V. art. 16, n.1. 186. I. V. art. 16, n.3. 187. I. V. art. 18. 188. I. V. art. 28. 189. III. III. art. 3.

388

N O T E S T O PA G E S 9 5 – 1 0 0

190. III. III. art. 2. 191. III. III. art. 3. 192. III. III. art. 6. 193. I. V. art. 15. 194. I. V. art. 19. 195. I. V. art. 20. 196. I. V. art. 44. 197. I. V. art. 61. 198. III. X. art. 1. 199. I. V. art. 15. 200. I. V. art. 31. 201. I. V. art. 32. 202. I. V. art. 47. 203. I. V. arts. 49 and 53. 204. I. V. art. 6. 205. I. V. art. 83. 206. IV. IX. Definition of September 7 (20), 1918. 207. Instituted during the second session by the definition of April 2 (15), 1918, III. IV. 208. See 128–29 in this volume. 209. See the definition of July 26 (August 18), 1918, IV. X. 210. According to the same definition, III. IV. art. 1. 211. I. V. art. 34. 212. Instituted by the definition of September 7 (20), 1918, IV. VII. 213. See 94–95 in this volume. 214. See 134–135 in this volume. 215. See Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 19– 20. 216. Deianiia, II:275. 217. III. I. 218. III. I. I. 219. III. I. II. 220. Sbornoe voskresen’e: The Sunday of Orthodoxy is celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent to commemorate the victory over the iconoclasts. The icons are brought to the center of the church and a moleben is sung in their presence. In the cathedrals the Rite of Orthodoxy is celebrated. During this service a long list is read—of heretics (in Russia: Avvakum, Sten’ka Razin, or Grigory Otrep’yev) who are objects of anathemas; of deceased defenders of Orthodoxy (such as Constantine, Helen, Justinian, Vladimir, and Olga, the imperial heads of Russia) in honor of whom “Memory Eternal” is sung; or of defenders still alive to whom “Many Years” is sung. 221. III. I. III.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 0 – 1 0 4

389

222. III. I. IV. 223. III. I. IV. art. 1. 224. III. I. IV. art. 2. 225. III. I. IV. art. 3. 226. III. I. IV. art. 4. 227. III. I. IV. art. 5. 228. III. I. IV. art. 6. 229. III. I. 10–12. 230. III. II. 231. II. IX. On the reform of the parish during the council, see Schroder, “La communita parrochiale.” 232. III. II. art. 1 of chap. 1 (arts. 1– 7) on the general statutes of the parish. Article 2 defines the parish in more spiritual terms, as a community reunited for its salvation. 233. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 11–12. 234. Concerning this debate, ibid. See 35–36 and 49–50 in this book. 235. This is seen in the disposition that invites the laity, rather than clerics, to treat with the civil authorities; cf. III. IX. art. 13. 236. Methodius (Prikhod’ko), Die Pfarrei in der neueren Gesetzgebungen der russischen Kirche; G. Schulz, Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche, 159. 237. III. II. arts. 109–10. 238. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 12. 239. See 149–50 in this volume. 240. III. II. chap. II. 241. III. II. art. 9. 242. III. II. arts. 8, 13. 243. III. II. chap. III. 244. III. II. art. 14. 245. Especially in meeting 95– 96, cf. Deianiia, VII:200– 214 (“protocol”) along with the acts published in Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 173– 86. 246. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 176. 247. Ibid., 179. 248. III. II. art. 15. 249. III. I. appendix art. 9. 250. III. I. appendix art. 13. 251. III. I. appendix art. 14. 252. II. IX. 253. II. IX. art. 1.

390

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 4 – 1 0 6

254. III. VII. “Definition on Theological Seminaries and Schools, and on Pastoral Schools,” April 7 (20), 1918. Cf. 129–30 in this volume. 255. III. II. chap. 1. 256. III. II. art. 20. 257. III. II. art. 21. 258. III. II. art. 22. 259. III. II. chap. 3. 260. III. II. art. 25. 261. III. II. art. 26. 262. III. I. appendix art. 1. 263. Panikhida: a memorial office for a deceased person, composed of a canon, litanies, and troparia of the dead, and celebrated by the priest in the nave of the church in front of a small funeral table. Literally the “all night office”: in the Russian tradition, this term has its explanation in the fact that the panikhida resembles a part of the vigil or because, in times of persecution, it was celebrated at night. The panikhida is sung before the burial and then on the third, ninth, twentieth, and fortieth day after the death, on birthdays and anniversaries of the death, and on the feast day of the deceased. 264. III. I. appendix art. 5. 265. III. II. chaps. 5– 7. 266. III. II. art. 27. 267. III. II. art. 28. 268. III. II. art. 29. 269. III. II. art. 30. 270. III. II. art. 31. 271. III. II. art. 32. 272. III. II. art. 34. 273. III. II. art. 33. 274. III. II. chap. 6. 275. Among the many attributions defined in article 56, the presentation of candidates to the ministries to the bishop, mentioned in article 15, is not mentioned. 276. III. II. art. 44. 277. III. II. arts. 45 and 46. 278. III. II. art. 51. 279. III. II. chap. 7. 280. III. II. art. 68. 281. III. II. chap. 8. 282. III. II. art. 88. 283. III. II. chap. 9. 284. III. II. art. 95. 285. III. II. art. 97.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 6 – 1 0 9

391

286. III. II. art. 98. 287. III. II. arts. 104– 6. 288. But cf. 159–60 in this volume for the obstacles to the application of these dispositions (especially the decree of 1929, which restricted the priest to a purely spiritual role and which was in vigor until 1945 and applied again after the Episcopal Council of 1961). 289. See H. Legrand, “La synodalité mise en oeuvre par le concile local.” 290. I. III. art. 20. 291. I. IV. art. 44. 292. IV. XV. 293. See the criticism of Florovsky—184–85 in this volume. 294. For the history of Russian monasticism and its characteristics, see Rouet de Journal, Monachisme et monasteres russes; I. Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum; and Behr-Sigel, Prière et sainteté dans l’Église russe. On this particular debate, see J. Meyendorff, “Partisans et ennemis.” 295. As regards this congress and the debate over monasticism at the beginning of the twentieth century, Piovano, “Fuite du monde et mission dans le monde.” The twenty-five propositions of this congress are translated in the chronicle of J. Bois, “Chronique sur le congres monastique de 1909.” 296. See the presentation of this debate in the council by Piovano, “La discussione sulla reforma monastica.” See also, from a more canonical viewpoint, Řezáč, De monachismo secundum recentiorem legislationen russicum, with the Latin translation of the definition. 297. Lavra of the Caves in Kiev, the Trinity-St. Sergius lavra (Sergiev Posad), the Pochaev lavra, and St. Alexander Nevsky lavra. 298. Stavropegial (from a Greek word that evokes the ritual in which the patriarch took possession of the site of the monastery by implanting his cross there): monasteries under the immediate jurisdiction of the patriarch who names its superiors. In the hierarchy of monasteries, they are just below the lavras. There were eight at the time of the council (among them the monastery of the Solovki and the Simonov monastery in Moscow). There is little bibliography on these monasteries. For the Byzantine sources see Laurent, “Charisticariat et commende à Byzance”; Herman, “Richerche sulle istituzioni monastiche bizantine”; and Deslandes, “De quelle autorité relevant les monastères orientaux.” 299. The definition on the vicar bishops asks that they remain in the titular city of their see and that they be, if possible, the abbots of the monastery. III. III. art. 6. 300. IV. XV. art. 6. 301. IV. XV. art. 7. 302. IV. XV. art. 9. 303. IV. XV. art. 33. 304. IV. XV. art. 35.

392

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 0 9 – 1 1 2

305. IV. XV. art. 37. 306. IV. XV. art. 18. 307. IV. XV. art. 19. 308. IV. XV. art. 49. 309. IV. XV. art. 63. 310. IV. XV. art. 64. 311. IV. XV. art. 65. 312. IV. XV. art. 66. 313. IV. XV. art. 63. The representatives of the monks on the diocesan council are elected by the monastic assembly of the diocese, art. 73. 314. IV. XV. chap. XII. 315. IV. XV. chap. XI. 316. IV. XV. art. 70. 317. IV. XV. chap. XIII. 318. IV. XV. art. 82. 319. IV. XV. art. 23. 320. IV. XV. art. 24. 321. IV. XV. art. 25. 322. IV. XV. art. 28. 323. IV. XV. art. 30. 324. IV. XV. art. 31. 325. IV. XV. art. 39. 326. IV. XV. art. 44. 327. IV. XV. art. 46. 328. IV. XV. art. 50. 329. IV. XV. art. 51. 330. IV. XV. art. 52. 331. Cf. 13–14 in this volume. On the role of Russian monasticism in the mission see Glazik, Die russisch-orthodoxe Heidenmission, 13– 23; Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum, 145– 80 and 291– 95. 332. IV. XV. art. 53. 333. IV. XV. art. 54. 334. IV. XV. art. 55. 335. IV. XV. art. 58. 336. IV. XV. art. 59. 337. IV. XV. art. 56. 338. IV. XV. art. 58. 339. This missionary role of the monasteries can be illustrated by the definition of January 25, 1918, “On the Superior of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity and of St. Alexander Nevsky and on Its Work in Education” (II. VIII.), which, aside from giving the charge of superior of the lavra to the metropolitan of St. Petersburg (II. VIII. art. 1), invites the conciliar commission on monasteries and monasticism to

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 2 – 1 1 6

393

“prepare the regulations regarding the organization of the educational activity of the Lavra’s monastic brotherhood” (II. VIII. art. 2). 340. IV. XV. chap. IX. 341. IV. XV. art. 60. 342. IV. XV. art. 61. 343. IV. XV. chap. XIV. 344. On “educated” monasticism and its links with the episcopate, see Smolitsch, Russisches Monchtum, 447– 69. Also Řezáč, De monachismo secundum recentiorem legislationem russicam, 234– 53; and Florovsky, Ways, 2:161– 75, 203–15. 345. On this ideal see Hilarion (Alfeyev), Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe stoletiy, 67–121. 346. Such as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (1783–1867), Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) (1807– 67), Saint Theophan the Recluse (1815– 94), Archbishop Nikanor (1827– 90), Metropolitan Antony (1828–1913), etc. See 11–12 in this volume. 347. IV. XV. art. 83. 348. IV. XV. art. 84. 349. IV. XV. art. 85. 350. IV. XV. art. 86. 351. IV. XV. art. 88. 352. IV. XV. art. 89. 353. IV. XV. chap. XV. 354. See 361n68 in this volume and Meyendorff, “Partisans et ennemis.” 355. See 184 – 85 in this volume for the reservations of Florovsky on this subject. 356. For a definition, see 371n105 in this volume. On the history of the ecclesial status of the Edinoverie and the attempts of reforms, see Lambrechts, “Le statut ecclesial des Edinovertsy.” See also Palmieri, La chiesa russa, 451– 60; Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 422– 24. 357. II. I. 358. Lambrechts, “Le statut ecclesial des Edinovertsy,” 457 and 458. 359. II. I. art. 1. 360. II. I. art. 2. 361. II. I. art. 8. 362. II. I. art. 3. 363. II. I. art. 6. 364. II. I. art. 4. 365. II. I. art. 11. 366. II. I. art. 10. 367. II. I. art. 5. 368. II. I. art. 12. 369. II. I. art. 14.

394

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 1 6 – 1 2 0

370. II. I. art. 17. 371. II. I. art. 9. 372. See, for example, art. 6. 373. In 1905, there were 300,000 edinovertsy and 10–12 million Old Believers. In 1925, while the hierarchy of Belaya Krinitsa was at its height during the Council of Moscow (16 bishops, 76 priests, 81 lay people, 249 invited) and invited the edinovertsy to join them, these latter were represented by a single bishop. In spite of an effort of revitalization by the patriarchate after World War II, they had just one church at Moscow and another near Stravropol. Lambrechts, “Le statut ecclesial des Edinovertsy,” 463, 464. 374. For this term, see 386n170 in this volume. 375. The texts do not seem to distinguish between “the Church in Ukraine” and “the Church of Ukraine.” 376. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:31– 39. 377. Report of Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan in the meeting of August 31 (September 13), 1918, Deianiia, XI:157– 66. 378. IV. VIII. Statute #1. 379. IV. VIII. Statute #2a. 380. IV. VIII. Statute #3. 381. IV. VIII. Statute #4. 382. IV. VIII. Statute #5. 383. IV. VIII. Statutes #6, 11–13. 384. IV. VIII. Statutes #7, 8. 385. IV. VIII. Statute #16. 386. IV. VIII. “Definition Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” 387. IV. VIII. Definition, B art. 8. 388. IV. VIII. Definition, A art. 1. 389. IV. VIII. Definition, A art. 2. 390. IV. VIII. Definition, A art. 3. 391. IV. VIII. Definition, A art. 6. 392. IV. VIII. Definition, A art. 5. 393. For the second group see I. III. art. 5. 394. IV. VIII. “Additional Decree Concerning the Draft of the Statute on the Provisional Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.” 395. After the fourth partition of Poland by the Congress of Vienna (1815), the grandduke of Poland, deprived of the territories annexed to Prussia and Austria, established a “Kingdom of Poland” constitutionally united to the Russian Empire. During the First World War, the successive defeat of the powers that had partitioned Poland led to the proclamation of an independent government headed by Josef Pilsudski (January 1919). 396. IV. XI. 397. IV. XI. art. 5.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 0 – 1 2 1

395

398. After the war, the new Polish borders, traced out by the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Riga, included a population of more than 4 million Belarusian and Ukrainian Orthodox. On November 13, 1924, these dioceses were granted autocephaly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In 1939, the USSR again occupied Poland and annexed the eastern part of the country. The Church of Poland became canonically attached once more to the patriarchate of Moscow. At the end of the war, the new Polish borders, extended westward, included not more than 350,000 Orthodox. In 1948, the Polish bishops were obliged to do penance before Patriarch Alexis who granted them a new act of autocephaly (the Polish Church consisted of 5 dioceses and 160 parishes). In 1951, a Russian bishop, Macarius, became the head of the Polish Orthodox Church. See Janin, Les Églises orientales et les rites orientaux, 265– 67. 399. The Church of Georgia, established in the fourth century, was initially under the patriarchate of Antioch. It became autonomous in the sixth century (553) and autocephalous in the eighth century. In 1586, the Georgian Orthodox Kingdom, threatened by the Muslims, asked the tsar to accept it as a vassal. In 1801, Georgia again asked for support from the Russians against the Persians and became part of the Russian Empire. Along the same lines, the Georgian Church asked to be attached to the patriarchate of Moscow. Its independence ended in 1811 when the last catholicos, Antony II, was exiled to Russia and replaced by an exarch who was a member of the Russian Holy Synod. Only the first of these exarchs was a Georgian; the sixteen others who came later were all Russians and pursued a policy of Russification. See Tamarati, L’Église géorgienne de origins jusqu’à nos jours. 400. Quoted by Kartashev, “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918,” 24. Also see 13–14. 401. The autocephaly of the Church of Georgia would be recognized by the Russian Church only in 1943. 402. Finland, which became independent in 1918, could be added to these three countries. In July 1923, the Orthodox Church of Finland (70,000 faithful among a Lutheran population of 4 million) placed itself under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which granted it autonomous status. The annexation of Finnish Karelia by the USSR in 1939 provoked the immigration of Finnish Orthodox to the West. In 1958, the protection extended to the Finnish Orthodox Church (two dioceses) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate was finally recognized by Moscow. Concerning the history and status of the Orthodox Church of Finland see J. Rinne, “The Orthodox Church in Predominantly Lutheran Finland.” 403. Until 1996, Günther Schulz was the only one to have published (in German) the draft of a decree in “Der Ausschuss für die Vereinigung.” The last issue of the acts (Deianiia, XI), published in 2000, gives the Russian text, 221. Also see Pravoslavie i ekumenizm: dokumenty i materialy, 1902–1998 (Moscow: Department of Exterior Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1999), 65– 67 (a very useful document that gives the text of this decree in Russian, but retranslated from German).

396

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 1 – 1 2 6

404. For a history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement, see Vitaly Borovoy and A. S. Buyevsky, “Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ i ekumenicheskoe dvizhenie,” in Pravoslavie i ekumenizm: dokumenty i materialy, 6– 53. 405. Florovsky, “L’oecumenisme au XIX siècle.” 406. On contacts between Russian Orthodox and Old Catholics, cf. Horuzhy, “Russiche Haltungen und Kontakte.” 407. On the history of the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church, see Waddams, Anglo-Russian Theological Conference, Moscow, 1956, and Bryn Geffert, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans. 408. Letters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate dated July 12, 1902, and May 14, 1904; replies of the Holy Synod dated February 23, 1903, and March 8, 1905, cited in Pravoslavie i ekumenizm: dokumenty i materialy, 54– 64. Cf. also the mention of these documents in the declaration of the Council of 2000, “Basic Principles of the Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Non-Orthodox,” in Sbornik dokumentov i materialov iubileinogo Arkhiereiskogo sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi Moskva, 13–16 avgusta 2000 g. (Nizhny Novgorod: Izd-vo Bratstva vo imia sv. kniazia Aleksandra Nevskogo, 2001), 149– 70 (154). 409. Sources: RGIA, fonds 833, I, 191n26; quoted and translated into German in Schulz, “Der Ausschuss für die Vereinigung,” 198. 410. Pravoslavie i ekumenizm: dokumenty i materialy, 65. 411. In Russian there is a distinction between the adjective kafolicheskiy— which is one of the possible translations of the Greek katholicos (καθολικός) (others are soborniy and vselenskiy; see 355n1 and 138n6 in this volume) and katolicheskiy, which is used to designate the Roman Church. 412. Deianiia, XI:221. See also Schulz, “Der Ausschuss für die Vereinigung,” 197. 413. As does, for example, Schulz, “Der Ausschuss für die Vereinigung,” 70. Chapter 2

Pastoral Activity and Discipline in the Church

1. For the discussion of its deficiencies, see 9–10 in this volume. 2. For preaching in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century, see Felmy, Predigt im orthodoxen Russland. Also see Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, 318– 20. 3. II. III. 10 articles. 4. II. III. art. 1. 5. II. III. art. 1. 6. II. III. art. 3. 7. II. III. art. 10. 8. Sticharion, from the Greek word στιχάριον, tunic. A silk liturgical vestment worn by priests, deacons, and subdeacons, as well as readers and psaltists with

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 2 6 – 1 3 0

397

the bishop’s consent. That of the priest is also called podriznik because it is worn beneath the phelonion (outer vestment). 9. II. III. art. 2. 10. II. III. arts. 4, 5. 11. II. III. art. 7. 12. II. III. art. 8. 13. II. III. art. 9. 14. See 13–14 in this volume. Also S. Bolshakoff, “Les missions étrangeres,” and Glazik, Die russische-orthodoxe Heidenmission. 15. See Kravetsky, “Il nuovo sviluppo dell’attivita missionaria.” 16. III. V. 17. III. V. art. 1. 18. III. V. art. 2. 19. III. V. art. 3. 20. III. V. arts. 5– 9. 21. III. V. art. 10. 22. III. V. art. 17. 23. III. V. art. 18. 24. III. V. arts. 34– 40. 25. III. V. art. 43 26. See 125–26 in this volume. 27. III. V. arts. 8, 13. 28. III. V. art. 11. 29. This takes up no less than fourteen articles: III. V. arts. 20– 33. 30. There were four academies dedicated primarily to the formation of seminary professors: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev (near the three great lavras), and Kazan (focused on missionary activity). 31. For the formation of the lower clergy. 32. These schools for women, founded for the daughters of priests, had become generalized since the 1840s. For these schools and their history, see Palmieri, La chiesa russa, 541– 48. 33. See 13–14 in this volume. 34. For these projects of reform, see Palmieri, La chiesa russa, 548 – 606; Kohler-Bauer, Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland; and M. Kohler, “Die geistlichen Akademien in Russland.” 35. Deianiia, II:275. On the work of this commission, see Destivelle, “La reforme des académies écclesiastiques au Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918.” 36. See 51–52 in this volume for a list of reports that were not discussed (nos. 12 and 13). 37. The question is treated in four brief definitions. The first, “On the Formation of the General Church Fund, and on the Salaries for the Professors and Staff of Ecclesiastical Schools until September 1/14, 1918” (II. X.), was issued on

398

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 0 – 1 3 2

March 15 (28), 1918 and was of a purely financial nature. There were three other definitions promulgated on the same day, April 7 (20), 1918, “On the Basic Principles of the Reform, and on the Introduction of New Structures in the Orthodox Theological Academies” (III. VI.), “On Theological Seminaries and Schools, and on Pastoral Schools” (III. VII.), “On Diocesan and Synodal Schools for Women” (III. VIII.). 38. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 29. 39. III. VII. art. 1; III. VIII. art. 1. 40. III. VII. arts. 2– 4. 41. III. VI. 42. III. VI. art. 1. 43. III. VI. art. 2. 44. II. X. 45. IV. VI. Definition promulgated on September 7 (20), 1918, “On the Administration of Theological Schools and Parochial Schools, and on the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith to the Students of Secular Schools,” art. 1. 46. For the discussions in the council concerning the discipline of clerics, see Belyakova, Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni; for the remarriage of clerics, 350– 81, their celibacy, 382– 90, and the monastic state of the bishops, 391– 421. 47. IV. XVI. Definition of July 18 (31), 1918, “On the Admission of Unmarried Persons to Holy Orders.” 48. IV. XVIII. Definition of July 19 (August 1), 1918, “On the Remarriage of Clerics.” 49. IV. XVIII. art. 1. 50. IV. XVIII, art. 2. 51. The possibility for priests to remarry was finally adopted by the “Second Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church” convoked by the “Living Church” on April 29, 1923. 52. IV. XVII. 53. IV. XVII. art. 1. 54. IV. XVII, art. 2. 55. IV. XVII. art. 3. 56. IV. XVII. art. 4. 57. On this theme see: R. Prokschi, “Die Rolle der Frau in der Kirche.” See also Belyakova, Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoy zhizni, 422– 65. 58. Meeting 11 of August 28 (September 10), 1917, Deianiia, I:150. 59. As regards the exclusion of women from the priesthood, the fundamental text is canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea (341) “concerning the fact that women cannot be established as elders or presidents in the Church” (Syntagma tôn theiôn kai hierôn kanonôn, ed. G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles [Athens, 1852– 59] 3:181). Canon 44 of the same council prohibits women from entering the sanctuary (Syn-

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 2 – 1 3 5

399

tagma, 3:212): “Women should not enter the sanctuary.” This canon is justified by Zonaras either by canon 69 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which prohibits lay people from entering the sanctuary (women being considered more “laity” than men), or by the risk of impurity (found in other canons from Alexandria concerning the liturgical calendar). For this whole question see Beaucamp, “Les femmes et l’Église,” and, more generally, the whole issue of Kanon 16 (2001), entitled Mutter, Nonne, Diakonin: Frauenbilder im Recht der Ostkirchen. 60. This report was translated from Russian to German in Prokschi, “Die Rolle der Frau in der Kirche,” 139– 42. 61. Ibid., 144. 62. Meeting 49, Deianiia, IV:102. 63. Meeting 133, Deianiia, IX:185– 87. See also Pospielovsky, Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:35– 36. 64. Meeting 133, Deianiia, IX:187– 205. 65. Meeting 133, Deianiia, IX:191. 66. IV. XIX. 67. III. II. art. 44. 68. III. II. art. 68. 69. III. II. art. 31. 70. IV. XIX, art. 1a. 71. III. II. art. 107 72. IV. XIX. art. 1b. 73. IV. XIX. art. 2. 74. There were other discussions in the council on matters of Church discipline, but these did not result in decisions: the Lenten discipline, penances (epitimia), clerical vestments, funerals (of those who committed suicide, of infants who died before being baptized, cremation, etc.), prayers with and for the heterodox. See Belyakova, Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni, 466– 539. 75. On this subject, cf. N. Balashov, Na puti k liturgicheskomu vozrozhdeniiu; H. Destivelle, “La liturgie au Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918.” The acts of the council’s subcommission on liturgical language have been published: Bogosluzhebniy iazyk Russkoi Tserkvi: istoriia popytki reformatsii, as well as the acts of the subcommission on religious chant: Pomestniy Sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 goda o tserkovnom penii: sbornik protokolov i dokladov. For the problem of liturgical language see Pletneva, “Il problema della lingua litugica.” 76. Deianiia II:274– 75. 77. Balashov, Na puti k liturgicheskomu vozrozhdeniiu, 134– 57. 78. Ibid., 303– 27. 79. II. III. art. 2. 80. The council also approved the joint decision of the commission on the liturgy and the commission treating the juridical status of the Church—a decision that does not appear in the list of decrees—to maintain the Julian calendar for use

400

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 5 – 1 3 7

in the Church. Deianiia, VI:186– 88, and Balashov, Na puti k liturgicheskomu vozrozhdeniiu, 330– 34. 81. See 15–16 in this volume. 82. This importance was confirmed by the Councils of 1988 and 2000. 83. Concerning the evolution of the process of canonization and its criteria for the recognition of holiness, see Behr-Sigel, Prière et sainteté dans l’Église russe, 24– 35; also Kniazeff, Cours d’hagiologie, 16. 84. IV. XII. art. 1. 85. IV. XII. art. 1, note. 86. IV. XII. art. 2. 87. Mesiatseslov or menologion: the calendar of saints that indicates the names of the saints honored by the Orthodox Church on a given day. It is printed separately and also includes the movable feasts for each year. It can be printed at the end (or in the middle) of the collection of the akathists, the canons, or the prayer book. In this case it is called sviattsy. 88. IV. XII. arts. 3– 5 89. The criteria of the incorruptibility of relics certainly contributed to limiting the number of those whose holiness was recognized during the synodal period. An echo of this controversy can be found in Dostoevsky when he describes the death of the starets Zosimas in The Brothers Karamazov. The investigation of relics in 1919– 20 to discredit their veneration would be, in a way, the backlash of the restrictive application of this criteria. See Kniazeff, Cours d’hagiologie, 27– 33. 90. IV. XII. art. 6. 91. IV. XII. art. 9. 92. IV. XII. art. 10. 93. IV. XII. art. 13. 94. IV. XII. art. 15. 95. IV. XIII. 96. IV. XIII. art. 2. This commemoration of all the saints of Russia is now celebrated on the second Sunday after Pentecost (the first Sunday commemorates all the saints of Orthodoxy). 97. Especially the use of Russian. See 154–55 in this volume. Chapter 3

The Church, the State, and the Revolution

1. On the relations between the Church and the Russian state at the beginning of the twentieth century, see Firsov, Russkaia Tserkov’ nakanune peremen; Curtiss, Church and State in Russia; Rozhkov, Tserkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Especially on relations in 1917–18: Kartashev, “La révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918”; Kashevarov, “Il concilio e la rivoluzione.” 2. II. II. See Destivelle, “D’un concile à l’autre.” Parts of this text are reproduced here.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 3 8 – 1 4 0

401

3. II. II. intro. 4. II. II. art. 1. 5. See 386n170 of this book. 6. The difference between vselenskiy and soborniy: vselenskiy invokes a quantitative, geographic meaning and can be translated as “ecumenical” as in the expression “ecumenical councils” (vselenskie sobory). The distinction between the Russian Church and the Universal Church can be found in the parish statutes, II. II. art. 2. This is also, in the Roman Catholic Church, the official Russian translation of the word katholikên (καθολικήν) in the Nicene Creed. Soborniy, from a root also found in the words meaning “to assemble” and “council,” invokes the idea of the eucharistic assembly and plentitude. See Deubner, “La traduction du mot καθολικήν dans le texte slav du Symbole de Nicée-Constantinople.” Also see Bobrinskoy, Le mystère de l’Église, 151– 58. 7. II. II. art. 2. 8. II. II. art. 3. 9. II. II. art. 5. 10. II. II. art. 6. 11. II. II. art. 4. 12. II. II. art. 7. 13. II. II. art. 8. Preimushchestvo can also be translated as “privilege,” “advantage. ” The same word is used in reference to the Ukrainian bishops in the Russian Orthodox Church—but in the plural—in the expression that we have translated as “special privileges.” See IV. VIII. A. art. 1. 14. II. II. art. 9. 15. II. II. art. 10. 16. II. II. art. 17. 17. II. II. art. 11. 18. II. II. art. 12. 19. II. II. art. 13. 20. II. II. art. 14. 21. II. II. art. 16. 22. II. II. art. 19. 23. II. II. art. 20. 24. II. II. art. 21. 25. II. II. art. 22. 26. II. II. art. 23. 27. II. II. art. 24. 28. II. II. art. 25. 29. This “theory of the symphony of powers” distinguishes the political and religious realities but gives precedence to their unity under the authority of the emperor. This is manifested by the existence of a legislation distinct but unique (“nomocanonic”) of the laws of the Church and the laws of the State. For this

402

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 1 – 1 4 5

theory, which has been compared to the Latin theory of the “two swords,” see the provocative article of Rouleau, “L’Aigle bicéphale et les deux glaives.” For Justinian, see Ostrogorsky, Histoire de l’État Byzantin, 99–116. Also see Janin, “Justinien Ier,” and Jugie, “Justinien.” 30. II. II. art. 7. 31. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia, 8. 32. Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:25– 27. 33. See 161–62 in this volume; “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” in Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000, Sbornik dokumentov i materialov, 171– 250; for an analysis of the evolution, see Destivelle, “D’un concile à l’autre,” 40– 51. 34. Four declarations treat this theme: “On the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith in Schools,” September 28 (October 11) 1917 (II. IV.); “On Church Schools,” undated but probably issued on the same day as the precedent declaration (II. V.); “Regarding the Government Proposal Concerning Parochial Schools,” October 23 (November 5), 1917 (II. VI.); and “On the Administration of Theological Schools and Parochial Schools, and on the Teaching of the Orthodox Faith to the Students of Secular Schools,” September 7 (20), 1918 (IV. VI.). 35. II. IV. 36. II. IV. art. 2. 37. II. IV. art. 1. 38. II. IV. art. 3. 39. II. IV. art. 4. 40. II. II. art. 19. See 139–40 in this volume. 41. II. IV. art. 5. 42. Concerning parish schools, see 14–16 in this volume. 43. II. V. 44. II. VI. 45. II. VI. para. 2. 46. II. V. chaps. A and B. 47. II. V. chap. C. 48. IV. VI. 49. IV. VI. art. 1. 50. IV. VI. art. 2 51. Freeze, “L’ortodossia russa e la crisi della famiglia”; Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianii, vtoraia sessiia, 13. 52. The three documents on marriage treated: “Decree on Divorce and on Civil Marriage,” February 19 (March 4), 1918 (II. VII.); “Concerning the Causes for the Dissolution of a Marital Union Sanctified by the Church,” April 7 (20), 1918 (III. XI.); “On the Amendment to the Conciliar Definition on the Reasons for the Dissolution of Marriage Sanctified by the Church,” August 20 (September 2), 1918 (IV. XX.).

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 5 – 1 4 8

403

53. II. VII. 54. II. VII. art. 1. 55. II. VII, art. 2. 56. II. VII. art. 3. 57. III. XI. 58. IV. XX. 59. III. XI. art. 1. 60. III. XI. art . 2. 61. IV. XX. 62. All these reasons are presented together with the conditions developed in articles 4– 22 of the definition of April 7 (20) (III. XI.) and articles 2– 3 of the definition of August 20 (September 2) (IV. XX.), particularly for what concerns the initiator of the request for dissolution, the waiting periods, etc. 63. The council did not have time to examine certain reports of the conciliar Commission on Church Property and Resources, which laid down the foundations of different economic and financial institutions—specifically the Church’s mutual insurance plan, the All-Russian Church cooperative, and the All-Russian credit union. By the definition of August 22 (September 6) concerning “On the Property and Economic Management of the Church” (IV. XXI), the council transmitted these questions to the supreme church administration. The supreme administration was also given the task of establishing other economic and financial institutions to collect funds for education, charitable works, and the missions. The same was done for the reports “On the Collection from the Issuance of Church Documents” (III. XIII) and “On the Fees Collected from Petitions and Documents to the General Church Fund” (IV. XXIII). By these two definitions—of April 7 (20), 1918, and August 25 (September 7), 1918—the council decided to transmit these reports directly to the supreme administration for modification “as circumstances might dictate,” ratification, and application. 64. IV. XXI. 65. IV. XXI. art. 1. 66. IV. XXI. art. 2. 67. IV. XXI. art. 4. 68. IV. XXI. art. 5. 69. IV. XXI. art. 10. 70. IV. XXI. art. 6. 71. IV. XXI. art. 7. 72. IV. XXI. art. 8. 73. II. X. 74. II. XI. See 76 in this volume. 75. IV. XXIV. 76. III. IX. 77. III. IX. arts. 1– 2.

404

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 4 8 – 1 5 2

78. III. IX. art. 3. 79. III. IX. art. 4. 80. III. IX. arts. 7, 9. 81. III. IX. art. 8. 82. III. IX. art. 13. 83. III. IX. art. 14. 84. III. XIV. art. 17. 85. IV. XIV. 86. IV. XIV. art. 1. 87. IV. XIV. art. 2. 88. IV. XIV. art. 3. 89. IV. XIV. art. 4. 90. IV. XIV. art. 6. 91. IV. XIV. arts. 7– 8. 92. IV. XIV. art. 9. 93. IV. XIV. arts. 10–11. 94. IV. XIV. art. 11. 95. Deianiia, 9:111– 24. 96. III. X. 97. III. X. intro. 98. III. X. art. 1. 99. III. X. arts. 2– 8. 100. III. X. art. 9. 101. III. X. art. 9, note. 102. III. X. art. 10. 103. A decision of the conciliar definition of September 7 (20) “On the Changes in the Articles 80 and 83 of the Conciliar Definition on the Diocesan Administration” (IV. IX.) can be linked to these dispositions. This definition, taking note that elements hostile to the Church will doubtlessly try to infiltrate the ecclesiastical administrative structure, decides that “no person who has been convicted in court or who currently is on trial can be elected as Dean or as a member of the Deanery Council.” 104. The final meeting on September 7 (20), 1918, ended with the reading of a provisional list of new martyrs. Four members of the council figured in the list: Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev (canonized in 1992), Bishop Hermogenes (Dolganov) of Tobol’sk (canonized in 2000), and two lay people: the judge Boris Bialynitsky-Birulya and the officer Georgy Polonsky, both of the diocese of Polotsk (we did not find their names in the list of the canonizations of 2000). See Deianiia, 11:236– 37. 105. See the list of new martyrs in Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000, Sbornik dokumentov i materialov, 109– 27 (compare with the list of the members of the council in Deianiia, 1:60– 96).

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 5 3 – 1 5 5

P 5

405

The Application and Reception of the Decrees of the Council

1. See the criticism of Afanasiev later in this chapter. 2. Afanasiev, “Le concile dans la théologie orthodoxe russe.” 3. On the application of the council during Soviet rule, see Shkarovsky, “La ricezione del concilio di Mosca in epoca sovietica.” For Western views of the event, see Melloni, “Chronache e letture occidentali del concilio nazionale russo de 1917–1918.” 4. Schulz, “Das Landeskonsil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917–18.” 5. On May 10, 1921, the patriarch was arrested on the pretext that he was opposing the confiscation of sacred objects. Several days later, a group of secular priests from St. Petersburg, led by Alexander I. Vvedensky, asked the patriarch to hand over the chancery to them. The patriarch agreed to do so until the return of Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky) to whom he had delegated his powers. Vvedensky took advantage of the situation to confide these powers to a provisional ecclesiastical administration. It was this administration that founded the “Living Church” movement and approved the detention of Metropolitan Agathangel. On August 12, 1922, Benjamin, the metropolitan of St. Petersburg, was executed. For the schisms in the Russian Church during this period, see Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:43– 92 and 113– 62 on “left wing” and “right wing” schisms. See also his “Il patriarca Tichon”; Goudal, “Les Églises russes”; and Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 31– 51. See also the moving testimony of Father Arseny concerning the tragic death of a bishop who was a member of the Council of 1917–1918 and who passed over to the “Renovationists” in a sincere desire to transform the Church and who finally became a collaborator of the regime and a persecutor of the “Tikhonites”; Bouteneff, Father Arseny. 6. For a presentation and German translation of the principal decisions of this “council,” see Hauptmann and Stricker, Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland, 684– 90. 7. Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 36. 8. In his will, Patriarch Tikhon had designated three eventual locum tenens candidates until a local council was held: Metropolitans Kirill (Smirnov), Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), and Peter (Poliansky). Since the first two had been deported, Peter of Krutitsy became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne on July 28, 1924. When he refused to recognize the Renovationist Church, he was arrested on December 10, 1925. According to Metropolitan Peter’s dispositions, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny Novgorod (see 368n74 in this volume) became the “acting locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.” Sergius was detained on December 26, 1926, for having asked that the 1918 decree on the separation of Church and state be respected. He was freed on March 9, 1927, after having made a declaration of allegiance to the government: “We want to recognize the Soviet Union as our civilian motherland whose joys and successes are our joys and successes and whose failures

406

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 5 5 – 1 5 7

are our failures” (cited in Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 38– 39). It has not been sufficiently noted that in this controversial phrase the relative pronoun—in feminine in the Russian text—very deliberately refers to the “civilian motherland” and not to the Soviet Union. See the clarification of Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1:109. For an explanation of the attitude of Sergius, see Lossky, “L’election du patriarche de Moscou,” 380– 82. Metropolitan Sergius was able to set up a provisional synod that was officially recognized by the government. But several bishops and theologians, including Kirill (Smirnov) and Agathangel (Preobrazhensky)—the first two choices of Patriarch Tikhon—as well as Father Pavel Florensky, led by the metropolitan of Leningrad, Joseph (Petrovykh), rejected the authority of this synod, which they considered anticanonical and false. This “right wing” or “Josephite” schism justified its attitude by its fidelity to Metropolitan Peter, the locum tenens designated by the last patriarch but who was still in exile. 9. See Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 68– 74. See also the presentation and German translation of some of the acts of this council in Rössler, Die Orthodoxe Kirche im Russland, 763– 81. 10. Alexis I (Simansky) (1877–1970), descended from nobility, studied at the Moscow Theological Academy (1903), became inspector of the Pskov Seminary, and rector of the Tula Seminary then of the Novgorod Seminary. He was consecrated bishop of Tikhvin in 1913, named vicar at Leningrad in 1921, then archbishop of Novgorod in 1926. As a member of the Holy Synod, he was the principal collaborator of Metropolitan Sergius. In 1932, he became metropolitan of Leningrad. As locum tenens of the patriarchal throne after the death of Patriarch Sergius, he was elected patriarch on February 2, 1945, by the local council. His patriarchate was characterized above all by his activity outside of Russia. Autocephaly was granted to the Orthodox Church of Poland (1948), of Czechoslovakia (1951), and the Orthodox Church in America (1970). Also in 1970, autonomy was granted to the Russian Church in Japan. Ceding to pressure from Stalin (see Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 2:301– 25), he declared the “annulment of the union with Rome” of the “Ruthenians of Poland” (1946) and the “Ruthenians of Subcarpathia” (1949). During the patriarchate of Alexis I, the Russian Orthodox Church entered the World Council of Churches (1961) and sent observers to Vatican II (1962), and the Holy Synod allowed Old Believers and Catholics who were without pastors to receive the sacraments in the Orthodox Church (1969) (a measure suspended as regards Catholics in 1986; see Documentation Catholique 83 [1968]: 1145). Alexis I died on April 17, 1970. 11. The “Regulations of the Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church” appeared in the calendar of the Orthodox Church for the year 1946, translated in Russie et Chrétienté 2 (1947): 47– 52. 12. Preamble to the “Regulation” of January 31, 1945. 13. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 7. 14. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 7.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 5 7 – 1 5 9

407

15. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 1. 16. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, arts. 17–19. 17. IV. II. art. 3. 18. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 12. 19. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 24. 20. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 23. This article defines the diocese in relation to the Russian Church. The definition of 1917, although it applied the same ecclesiological principle, began with the diocese and included the diocesan bishop: a diocese “is a part of the Orthodox Church of Russia that is canonically administrated by a diocesan bishop” (I. V. art. 1; see also 94 in this volume). 21. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 29. 22. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 26. 23. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, art. 27. 24. “Decree of the Central Executive Committee of All Russia and of the Council of People’s Commissioners Concerning Religious Associations,” April 8, 1929, arts. 13–14. This decree is translated in its entirety in Struve, Les Chrétiens en URSS, 371– 82. 25. “Decree” of April 8, 1929, art. 3. 26. “Decree” of April 8, 1929. art. 27. 27. “Regulation” of January 31, 1945, arts. 35 and 40. 28. For the antireligious persecutions under the regime of N. Khrushchev between 1959–1964, see Pospielovsky, The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 2:327– 63. 29. The acts and decisions of the Council of Bishops of July 18, 1961, can be found in Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 8 (1961): 3– 29. For this council and the question of the relationship between the Russian Church and the Soviet state, at a time when the first generation of the clergy born under the new regime appears, see the material in Istina 11 (1965– 66) esp. the translation of the “Regulations,” 371– 74, and the letter of Fr. Vsevolod Shpiller to Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad, 469– 96. See also the presentation and German translation of the principal decisions in Hauptmann and Stricker, Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland, 824– 33. 30. Amendment, art. 2, preamble. 31. Amendment, art. 2c. 32. Amendment, art. 2j. 33. Compare the translation in Istina 11 (1965– 66): 363. 34. This same council also approved the affiliation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches. 35. There is a detailed and nuanced report of this council by N. Lossky: “L’election du patriarche de Moscou.” See also the report in Documentation Catholique, July 4, 1971, n. 1589 (which uses the account given in Episkepsis, the information bulletin published by Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, June 8, 1971). See also the presentation and the translation of some of the acts in

408

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 5 9 – 1 6 0

Hauptmann and Stricker, Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland, 864– 78. The acts and decrees of the Council of 1971 were recently republished in an appendix to the memoirs of Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein); see Basil (Krivoshein), Pomestniy Sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i izbranie patriarkha Pimena. 36. This council also confirmed the decisions of the Council of Bishops of July 18, 1961, and made important resolutions concerning the exterior relations of the Church: (a) the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by the Moscow Councils of 1666–1667 on the Old Believers; (b) the approval of the granting of autocephaly, by the Patriarch Alexis and the Holy Synod, to the Orthodox Church of Poland (1948), of Czechoslovakia (1951), and the Orthodox Church in America (1970) as well as the granting of autonomy to the Russian Church in Japan (1970); (c) approval of the “annulment of union with Rome” by the “Ruthenians of Poland” and the “Ruthenians of Subcarpathia” decided, respectively, in 1946 and 1949; (d) a request to the supreme administration of the Church to make an appeal to the faithful belonging to “the autocephalous Orthodox Ukrainian Church in exile” and to the “Karlovtsy schism ” (that is, the émigré “Synodal Church”—or the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—who, since 1920, refused submission to the Moscow patriarchate) to rejoin the Russian Orthodox Church (with the threat of anathema for the latter if they refused); (e) encouragement in the furthering of interorthodox and ecumenical relations; and (f ) a message (essentially political) calling all Christians to work for peace. 37. See Lossky, “L’élection du Patriarche de Moscou,” 372– 73. 38. Pimen (Izvekov) (1910– 90) was the superior of the Pskov Monastery of the Caves (1949), then of the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra (1957). In 1957, he was consecrated bishop and named vicar at Moscow. He became a permanent member of the Holy Synod in 1960, was subsequently named archbishop of Tula, then metropolitan of Leningrad (1961) and metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna (1963). After the death of Patriarch Alexis I, he became the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne and was elected patriarch by the local council of 1971. Patriarch Pimen distinguished himself by his visits to the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in Geneva (1973) and to that of the United Nations (1982) as well as by his reception of the patriarch of Constantinople, Dimitrios I (1987). The last years of his patriarchate were marked by the religious tolerance of the “Perestroika” symbolized by the solemn celebration of the millennium of the baptism of Rus in 1988. 39. There is a report on this council and the new statute in Istina 33 (1988): 400– 404. 40. Five women were elected delegates to this local council. See Istina 33 (1988): 400n1. 41. I. General Principles; II. The Local Council; III. The Council of Bishops; IV. The Patriarch; V. The Holy Synod; VI. The Institutions of the Synod; VII. The Diocese; VIII. The Parishes; IX. The Monasteries; X. The Church Academies; XI. The Institutions Outside of the Country; XII. Finances and Property; XIII. Pensions; XIV. Publications; XV. Amendments to This Statute.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 0 – 1 6 2

409

42. General Principles, art. 4. 43. The only enumeration we have found of the juridical principles to which the Church must submit itself is in the Statute of the Council of 1917, which gives the college of bishops the task of examining each definition approved by the full assembly “from the perspective of its conformity to the Word of God, to the dogmas, canons, and the tradition of the Church,” art. 64 (see 59 in this volume). 44. Let us remember that the Council of 1917–18 mentions three types of councils without entering into the details: the regular local council, convoked every three years to elect the members of the organs of the supreme ecclesiastical administration (I. III. “Definition on the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church,” art. 8); the full local council, which assembles every nine years (nothing more is known of the competencies of the “great Council convoked every nine years,” cf. IV. IV. “Definition on the Convocation of the Next Council and on the Powers of the Members of the Holy Synod and of the Supreme Council of the Church,” art. 1); the extraordinary local council to elect the patriarch (IV. I. “The Definition on the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch,” art. 3); finally, the Council of Bishops was only convoked to judge the patriarch (I. II. “The Definition on the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia,” art. 10). See 73–74 in this volume. 45. IV. 13. 46. IV. I. art. 8 47. The council also canonized nine saints: Dmitri Donskoy (1350– 89), Andrew (Rublev, 1360 to the beginning of the fifteenth century), Maximus the Greek (1470–1556), Macarius of Moscow (1482–1563), Paisius Velichkovsky (1722– 94), Xenia of St. Petersburg (1719– 32), Ignatius (Brianchaninov, 1807– 67), Ambrose of Optina (1812– 91), and Theophan the Recluse (1815– 94). 48. The acts and decrees can be found in Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000, Sbornik dokumentov i materialov iubileinogo arkhiereiskogo sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (henceforth Sbornik). 49. Sbornik, “Basic Principles of the Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Non-Orthodox,” 149– 70. 50. Sbornik, “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” 171– 250. 51. Sbornik, “The Report of the Patriarch,” 16. 52. Sbornik, “The Report of the Patriarch,” 19. 53. The 2000 Statute itself has 18 sections: I. General Principles; II. The Local Council; III. The Council of Bishops; IV. The Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia; V. The Holy Synod; VI. The Patriarch of Moscow and the Synodal Institutions; VII. The Ecclesiastical Court; VIII. The Autonomous Churches; IX. The Exarchates; X. The Diocese; XI. The Parish; XII. The Monasteries; XIII. The Educational Establishments of the Church; XIV. The Synodal Institutions Abroad; XV. Finances and Property; XVI. Pensions; XVII. Seals and Stamps; XVIII. Amendments to This Statute. In comparison with the statute of 1988, there is the additional mention of

410

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 2 – 1 6 5

the ecclesiastical court in section VII, of the autonomous Churches in section VIII, of the exarchates in section IX, and of seals and stamps in section XVII. 54. Sbornik, “The Regulation of the Russian Orthodox Church,” I. General Statute, art. 4, p. 47. 55. Sbornik, “The Report of the Patriarch,” 47. 56. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” I. General Principles, art. 1, p. 251. 57. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” II. The Local Council, art. 13, p. 253. 58. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” IV. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, art. 7, b, e, h, i, p. 256. 59. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X. The Diocese, art. 6, p. 266. 60. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X. The Diocese, art. 11, p. 266. See art. 19 of the definition of the Council of 1917–1918, I. V. “On the Diocesan Administration.” 61. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X. The Diocese, art. 18e, 267. See art. 44 of the definition of the Council of 1917–1918, I. V. “On the Diocesan Administration.” 62. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” I. General Statute, art. 1, p. 251. 63. This term expresses a very ancient element in the ecclesiology of both the Eastern and Western Churches. It was invoked by Popes Nicholas I and John VIII when Emperor Leo III the Isaurian took Illyricum out of their jurisdiction and confided it to the patriarchs of Byzantium. See especially Dvornik, “La lutte entre Byzance et Rome. ” 64. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” General Statute, art. 3, p. 251. 65. IV. VIII. Definition A, art. 1. 66. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” IV. The Patriarch, art. 7c, p. 256. 67. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” III. The Council of Bishops. 68. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” VI. The Patriarch of Moscow and the Synodal Institutions. 69. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X. The Diocese, art. 1, p. 266. 70. I. V. art. 1. For this question, see 93–94 in this volume. 71. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” II. The Local Council, art. 2, p. 252. 72. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” X. The Diocese, art. 50.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 5 – 1 6 7

411

73. I. V. art. 79. 74. III. II. art. 15. 75. Sbornik, “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,” XI. The Parish, arts. 55– 59, 278. 76. In 1939 only four out of 150 bishops were at liberty. 77. By acclamation in 1943, 1945, and 1971. 78. See Destivelle, “L’application du Concile local de Moscou.” Part of this study is used here. 79. This archdiocese succeeded the “Provisional Administration of the Russian Parishes in Western Europe” founded by Patriarch Tikhon and entrusted to Archbishop Evlogy (Georgievsky) on April 8, 1921. On February 17, 1931, this was replaced by the “Temporary Russian Orthodox Exarchate of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Holy Throne of Constantinople in Western Europe,” which was established by the Ecumenical Patriarch Photios II at the request of Metropolitan Evlogy, who judged that it was impossible to maintain regular and normal relations with the Moscow patriarchate. The exarchate was shut down on November 22, 1965, by Patriarch Athenagoras, and the extraordinary general assembly of February 16–18, 1966, noting that the provisional character of its structures no longer corresponded to reality, renamed the archdiocese “The Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches of France and Western Europe.” On January 22, 1971, it was taken under the protection of the patriarchate of Constantinople with a status of internal autonomy (“Charter of Patriarch Athenagoras I, January 22, 1971”; see art. 7 “Canonical and Historical Foundations”). 80. “Statutes Governing Russian Orthodox Associations” (which we will henceforth refer to as “Statutes of the Archdiocese”) were kindly made available by the Administration of the Archdiocese, 12 rue Daru, 75008, Paris. 81. Journal officiel, February 28, 1924, 2080n58. See “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 1. 82. Typical statutes of Orthodox cultural associations, kindly made available by the Administration of the Archdiocese. 83. According to the directive of the People’s Commissariate of Justice (Narkomiust) of August 11 (24), 1918, which applied the January 23 decree on the separation, juridical personality was only recognized for groups of believers united in parish communities of at least twenty members (dvadtsatka). See 103 in this volume. 84. Law of July 1, 1901, Law of December 9, 1905, decree of March 16, 1906. Cf. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 1. 85. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 1. 86. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 1. If the mention of the “acts” of the council means that they are distinct from the “decisions”—i.e., the decrees—of the council, does that mean that the archdiocese attributed a certain juridical validity to the reports that were presented during the council but not officially promulgated?

412

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 6 8 – 1 7 1

87. I. V. art. 15. 88. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 37. 89. Compare the intervention of A.V. Vasiliev on “The Patriarchate and Sobornost’,” Deianiia, 3:28– 37. See also 79–80 in this volume. On the meaning of the terms “collegiality,” “synodality,” and “conciliarity” in the Russian context, see Destivelle, “Le Concile local de Moscou et la conciliarité,” 188, 191. 90. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 16. 1, 2. 91. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 16. 4. 92. A delegate of the St. Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology, two from each monastic community of more than ten monks or nuns (one for a community of fewer than ten and more than three monks or nuns), one from each cultural association other than the parishes, one from each retreat house (art. 16, 5– 8). In practice this assembly includes about 180 persons with, in fact, a small majority of lay members since some priests are pastors of several parishes. 93. I. V. art. 34. 94. I. V. art. 35. 95. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 23. 96. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 28. 97. I. V. art. 44. 98. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 67. 99. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 66. 100. “Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 71. 101. I. V. art. 47. 102. I. V. art. 53. 103. I. V. art. 49. 104. I. V. art. 51. 105. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 74. 106. I. V. art. 61. 107. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 56. 108. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 57. 109. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 58. 110. I. V. art. 16. 111. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 41. 112. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 43. 113. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 44. 114. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 40. 115. I. V. art. 16, n.1. 116. I. V. art. 18. 117. “The Statutes of the Parish,” art. 4. (These were kindly made available by the Administration of the Archdiocese, 12 rue Daru, 75008, Paris.) Curiously, the date refers to the definition on diocesan administration and not to the parish statutes (April 7– 20, 1918). The transliteration in parenthesis is the original.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 7 1 – 1 7 4

413

118. “The Statutes of the Parish,” art. 12. 119. III. II. art. 23. 120. “The Statutes of the Parish,” art. 26. The Council of 1917–1918 specified that the number of lay people should not be “in any case inferior to the number of members of the clergy” (III. II. art. 68). 121. III. II. art. 75. 122. “The Statutes of the Parish,” art. 18. 123. “The Statutes of the Parish,” art. 25. 124. III. II. art. 15. 125. “The Statutes of the Parish,” arts. 4 and 26. 126. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 46, 1. 127. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 46, 2. 128. “The Statutes of the Archdiocese,” art. 3. 129. Sergius Bulgakov, a member of the Council of 1917–1918 (elected as a lay delegate from the diocese of Taurida), was also critical of its work. As early as 1918, in his dialogue At the Feast of the Gods (Na piru bogov, published in an anthology on the Russian Revolution entitled De profundis (Iz glubini) republished in Geroizm i podvizhnichestvo, [Moscow: Russkaya kniga, 1992], 380– 481) he criticizes the council for not having the courage to treat dogmatic questions—like those of “Name-worshippers” (a spiritual and theological concept defended by the monks of Mount Athos). See Hilarion (Alfeyev), “Il concilio del 1917–1918 e la questione dell’onomatodossia.” See also Nivière, “Les moines onomatodoxies et l’intelligentsia russe.” In another dialogue, At the Walls of the Chersonese (U sten Khersonesa, written at Yalta in 1922 but not published in Russian until 1991 in the magazine Simvol [25]. It was subsequently published at St. Petersburg in 1993 and in Moscow in 1997 in the collection Trudy po sotsiologii i teologii, vol. 2: Stat’i i raboty raznykh let, 1902–1942 [Moscow: Nauka, 1997], 351– 500. It was translated into French by Bernard Marchadier as Sous les remparts de Chersonèse [Geneva: Ad Solem, 1999]) Bulgakov criticizes the council through the voices of the different characters he presents (the “Refugee” and the “Parish Priest”) for having made the patriarch a “constitutional monarch,” for continuing to hold up the monastic ordo as the model for parish liturgy, and even for having included the laity as members with full rights. But because of the special circumstances in which the book was written, its rejection by Bulgakov later on, the literary style, and the fortuitous character of his remarks, it is difficult to use the work as the basis of an analysis of the author’s opinion (who, as far as I know, never expressed himself elsewhere on this topic). 130. Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit; see esp. chapter 3, “The Ministry of Laics, ” 33– 79. 131. On this last point, there is a basic criticism of the Council of 1917–1918 in so far as it manifests a “universalist” conception of the Church as opposed to a “eucharistic” conception; see Afanasiev, “Le concile dans la théologie orthodoxe russe.”

414

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 7 4 – 1 8 1

132. Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit, 59. 133. Ibid., 60. 134. Ibid., 78. 135. Ibid., 79. 136. Ibid., 59. 137. Ibid., 79. 138. Ibid., 64. 139. Ibid., 79. 140. Ibid., 59. 141. Ibid., 66. 142. Ibid., 66. 143. Ibid., 66. 144. Ibid., 67. 145. Ibid., 67. 146. Ibid., 67. 147. Ibid., 67. 148. Ibid., 67– 68. 149. Ibid., 68. 150. Ibid., 69. 151. See 37–39 in this volume. 152. Notably the confirmation of the election of the diocesan bishop (I. V. art. 16) and the diocesan council (I. V. art. 52) by the supreme authority of the Church (in this case the Holy Synod, I. V. A. IV. art. 2). 153. Notably the presidency of the parish council by the rector (III. II. art. 75), and of the Holy Synod and Supreme Council by the patriarch (I. III. art. 3). On the other hand it is not stipulated that the bishop must preside over the diocesan council (I. V. art. 49). 154. Compare the patriarch’s veto power (I. III. art. 20) and that of the bishop (I. V. arts. 23, 61). 155. Schmemann, “La notion de primauté dans l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe,” esp. 150n1. 156. Ibid., 150. 157. Ibid. 158. See 157–58 in this volume; the dispositions of the “Regulation of 1945” did not apply the Soviet decree of 1929, which excluded the priest from the parish council. 159. I. V. art. 58a. 160. I. V. art. 61. 161. I. V. art. 23. 162. In 1860, the patriarch of Constantinople had instituted, parallel to the Synod of Bishops, a mixed council in which lay people were the majority (four bishops and eight lay people). See 386n158 in this volume.

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 8 2 – 1 9 3

415

163. Unlike other mixed councils in the East. See Milasch, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche, 339. 164. I. IV. C. 165. Meyendorff, L’Église orthodoxe, hier et aujourd’hui, 100. 166. Ibid. 167. Ibid. 168. See 140–41 in this volume and Destivelle, “D’un Concile à l’autre,” 44– 46. 169. Florovsky, Ways, 2:259– 61. 170. Ibid., 276. 171. Ibid., 282. 172. Ibid. 173. Ibid., 281. 174. Ibid., 282. 175. Ibid., 283. 176. For this spiritual crisis, see the interesting testimony concerning “the poets of the Silver Age,” in Bouteneff, Father Arseny, 163– 82. For the influence of occultism among the prerevolution intelligentsia, see Carlson, “Fashionable Occultism.” 177. See 42–43 in this volume and Florovsky, Ways, 2:282. 178. Hilarion, Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe stoletii, 388.

A I Volume 1 1. Rossiiskoy will be translated as “of Russia” and russkoy by “Russian.” See 356n3 in this volume. 2. For the Holy Myron, see 354n104 in this volume. 3. “The bishops of each nation must know who has the primacy, whom they will consider as their leader, and not do anything important without his consent; each bishop shall occupy himself only with his own district and its dependent territories; but the primate, in turn, will not do anything without the consent of all; in this way harmony will reign and God will be glorified, through Christ in the Holy Spirit” (Apostolic canon 34, Les Constitutions apostoliques, 3:284– 85). 4. “The bishops of each province should know that the bishop who presides at the metropolis is responsible for the whole province since people from all parts go to the metropolis to regulate their affairs. Therefore, it has been decreed that he will have primacy of honor and the other bishops—in conformity with the ancient rule established by our Fathers—cannot do anything without him other than administrate their city and the surrounding countryside; each bishop is, in fact, the master in his diocese and should administer it religiously and take care of the countryside

416

N O T E S T O PA G E S 1 9 4 – 2 2 5

which depends on his episcopal city; he should even ordain priests and deacons and do everything with discernment. But, outside of that, he can do nothing without the assent of the metropolitan bishop—just as the metropolitan should not decide anything without consulting the other bishops” (canon 9 of the Council of Antioch [v. 330 or 341] in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-2, Les Canons des Synodes particuliers, 110–11). 5. “Province ” here translates the term “oblast’,” which includes his diocese and the stavropegial institutions, making it larger than just a diocese.—Editor’s note. 6. Literally: “the right to protest” (pravo protesta). 7. Chast’: “part.” See 387n175 in this volume. 8. Soborniy: “conciliar,” from sobor. See 355n1 in this volume. 9. Russian monasticism has three degrees, each one of which is marked by a tonsure in the form of a cross (postrizhenie) at the hands of the superior of the monastery: (1) The first tonsure (inochestvo) is that of the inok who has not yet taken the vows. This degree is also called riasofor, since it authorizes the wearing of the monastic habit, riasa (oblechenie v riasofor). (2) The second tonsure (postrizhenye v mantiyu) is accompanied by the monastic vows and authorizes the wearing of the “little schema,” specifically the mantiya or mantle. (3) The third tonsure, which is less frequent, allows the wearing of the “great schema” consisting of a decorated scapula and the cowl/hood. 10. Amended by the definition of the Council of September 7 (20), 1918. Volume 2

1. Vselenskiy and not soborniy. See 355n1 and 401n6 in this volume. 2. Preimushchscestvo: (1) preference, advantage, priority; (2) privilege. 3. The twelve great feasts of the Orthodox Church include three moveable feasts—Palm Sunday, Ascension, and Pentecost—and nine fixed feasts: Nativity of the Theotokos, Exaltation of the Cross, Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, Nativity of Christ, Theophany, Meeting of the Lord in the Temple, Annunciation, and Dormition of the Theotokos. 4. Literally “those who teach the law,” zakonouchiteli. 5. Volost: an administrative district inferior to the zemstvo (province)— both of these were established at the same time (1846). 6. Zemstvo: See 361n63 in this volume. 7. “Anyone who is ordained a bishop but who does not assume the ministry and care of the people confided to him will be excluded until he assumes his responsibilities; the same law applies to priests and deacons. But if the bishop is not received when he arrives and when this is not his fault but due to the malice of the people, he will remain a bishop but the clergy of the city will be excluded for not having corrected this disobedient population” (Apostolic canon 36, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3:284– 87).

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 2 5 – 2 3 5

417

8. “The bishop or priest who neglects the clergy and the people and does not instruct them in the faith will be excluded; if he persists in his negligence, he will be deposed” (Apostolic canon 58, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3:296– 97). 9. “The heads of the diocese should instruct the clergy and the people in the true faith every day but especially on Sunday, selecting truthful ideas and judgments from Holy Scripture, without contradicting definitions that have already been decreed or the God-inspired tradition of the Fathers” (Canon 19 of the Council in Trullo [691]: “The heads of dioceses should give religious instruction to their clergy and their people according to the God-inspired tradition of the Holy Fathers”; in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 159– 61). 10. “We decree that the candidate to the episcopal dignity should . . . conduct himself according to the divine commandments and catechize his people” (Canon 2 of the Second Council of Nicea [787] in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 248– 50). 11. “A lay person should not speak publicly on matters of doctrine nor should he teach and attribute to himself a teaching ministry, but rather obey the order established by the Lord and listen to those who have received the gift of teaching and learn of the divine realities from them; for God has established different members in the unique Church according to the word of the Apostle” (Canon 64 of the Council in Trullo: “A lay person should not pretend to teach in the Church,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 200– 202). 12. Sticharion: see 396n8 in this volume. 13. Dukhovnoe vedomstvo: depending on synodal or diocesan administration. 14. The text has “section 11.” 15. This was communicated to the Minister of Cults on October 23, 1917. 16. “‘The woman who abandons her husband commits adultery if she goes off with another,’ according to the theologian St. Basil the Great, who gleaned this very correctly from the prophet Jeremiah: ‘if a married woman has been with another man, she will not return to her husband but, being soiled, she will remain in her filth’; and again: ‘he who keeps an adulterous woman is foolish and impious.’ If, therefore, he states that the woman has left her husband without a good reason, the husband is deemed excusable, but the woman is liable to Church sanctions; the husband’s excuse allows him to be able to communicate. On the other hand, he who abandons his legitimate spouse and takes another falls under the condemnation of adultery, according to the Lord’s judgment. The canonical sanctions imposed on such sinners by our Fathers consist in passing a year among the weepers, two years among the listeners, and three years among the ‘prostrate.’ The seventh year they assist with the faithful and only then are they judged worthy of the offering—if they tearfully regret their fault” (Canon

418

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 3 5 – 2 8 8

87 of the Council in Trullo: “Concerning she who has left her husband or he who has left his wife to unite one’s self with another person,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 222– 24). 17. “He who abandons his legitimate spouse and takes another falls into the sin of adultery, according to the judgment of our Lord. Concerning these, our Fathers have established as penance, that they spend a year among the weepers, two years among the listeners, three among the prostrate. The seventh year they assist simply among the faithful and are then judged worthy of the offering if they tearfully regret their sins” (Canon 77 of St. Basil: “Concerning those who abandon their spouses and unite themselves to others,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-3, Les canons des Pères grecs, 153). 18. Tarelochniy sbor. 19. Russian measure equivalent to 16.38 kilos or 36.11 pounds. Volume 3 1. “The Bishop is responsible for all the assets of the churches and he will administer them knowing that God is watching him; he is forbidden to take anything whatsoever of what belongs to God for himself or to give to his relatives; if his relatives are poor, let him help them because of their poverty, but he cannot use that as a pretext for selling the goods of the Church” (Apostolic canon 38, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3:286– 87). 2. “One has to know how to distinguish between the assets of the bishop— if he has any—and what belongs to God so that when the bishop dies, he might be able to dispose of his estate as he wishes and to whom he wishes” (Apostolic canon 4, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3:288– 89). 3. “We decree that the bishop has power over the assets of the Church; for if it is right to entrust him with the precious souls of people, how much the more is it suitable that he dispose of the resources he needs so that, under his authority, everything be administrated and distributed to the needy by the priests and deacons” (Apostolic canon 41, Les Constitutions Apostoliques, 3:288– 89). 4. Sbornoe voskresen’e: see 388n220 in this volume. 5. Panikhidy: see 390n263 in this volume. 6. The Russian text is in the singular, but it seems that the reference concerns the “preceding articles” and not just article 106. 7. Henceforth, the term “district” translates uyezd as the second-level administrative unit (equivalent to “county” in the US and UK), and the term “province” translates okrug, as a larger unit.—Editor’s note. 8. Here and further, Raskol refers to the Old Believers.—Editor’s note. 9. “If a bishop is accused by trustworthy believers, he should be summoned by the other bishops; if he presents himself and recognizes his error, after being ad-

N O T E S T O PA G E 2 8 8

419

monished, he will be given a punishment; if he does not obey the summons, two bishops will be sent to summon him a second time; if, even after that, he does not obey, a third summons will be issued and again delivered by two bishops; if he still ignores the summons and does not present himself, the assembly will decide what measures to take against him, so that he does not imagine that it will do him any good to elude justice” (Apostolic canon 74, Les Constitutions apostoliques, 3:302– 3). 10. Concerning the schism of bishops with their metropolitans: “If a bishop, on the pretext of a grief against his metropolitan and prior to a review of the affair by the synod of bishops, breaks communion with the metropolitan and ceases to mention his name as is customary during the divine celebration of the mysteries, the holy synod has decided that such a bishop will be deposed as soon as he is convicted of having separated himself from his metropolitan and provoked a schism. For each one should keep his place; the priest should not despise his bishop nor should a bishop despise his metropolitan” (Canon 14 of the First-Second Council [861] in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-2, Les canons des Synodes particuliers, 472– 73. 11. “If a cleric calumniates his bishop unjustly, he is to be deposed, for it is written ‘You shall not speak evil of the leader of your people.’” (Apostolic canon 55, Les Constitutions apostoliques, 3:296– 97). 12. “Those who do not obey their bishop are subject to canonical sanctions if they are clerics and if they are monks or lay people they will not be allowed to receive communion” (canon 8 of the Council of Chalecedon [451]: Que les hospices, les sanctuaires de martyrs et les monasteres doivent etre sous l’authorite de l’eveque, in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques, 75– 76). 13. “If a cleric has something against another cleric, he should not ignore his bishop and have recourse to civil tribunals; let him first submit his case to the tribunal of his bishop or, if his bishop sees fit, to the arbitration of a party acceptable to both sides; should a person act contrary to these regulations, let him suffer the pains of canonical sanctions. If a cleric has a grief against his own bishop or against some other bishop, he should bring his complaint to the provincial synod. If a bishop or a cleric has something against the metropolitan of the province, he should present his case to the primate of the diocese or to the see of the imperial city of Constantinople and seek justice there” (canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon: “Clerics should not have recourse to civilian courts but should be judged by their bishop,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques, 76– 77). 14. “We want to observe the Holy Canon which states specifically that ‘the crime of belonging to a secret society or fraternity, which is already forbidden by civil law, should, with greater reason, be prohibited in the Church of God.’ For this reason, clerics or monks who bind themselves together with secret vows or plot and orchestrate conspiracies against the bishops or against their confreres in the clergy

420

N O T E S T O PA G E 2 8 8

should be stripped of their clerical dignity” (Canon 34 of the Council in Trullo: “Concerning those who take part in a conspiracy or a plot against a bishop or a cleric,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques, 168). 15. This Canon 12 of the Council of Carthage (419) does not correspond to the subject in question according to the numeration of the Pedalion. It certainly refers to Canon 15: “Concerning the different orders which are at the service of the Church in such a way that if someone among them is accused and refuses to be judged by an ecclesiastical court, he risks losing his rank”: “It was decided that if a bishop, whoever he might be, or a priest or a deacon or a cleric, who is the object of a criminal or civil accusation on the part of the Church, turns his back on the ecclesiastical tribunal and seeks to get himself absolved through the civil courts, he will lose his place among the clergy” (Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-2, Les canons des Synodes particuliers, 228). 16. In this case also, according to the numeration of the Pedalion, the canon cited has little connection with the topic. It certainly refers to Canon 36 in the Pedalion (= 28 in the text of Joannou): “Those priests, deacons and clerics who appeal to overseas courts to judge their cases should be refused communion.” 17. “If, through human respect, a cleric denies the name of Christ before a Jew, a pagan or a heretic, he is to be excluded; if he denies his clerical title, he is to be disposed; if he repents, he is to be received as a lay person” (Apostolic canon 62, Les Constitutions apostoliques, 3:298– 99). 18. “If a bishop or a hegumen has handed over a part of the possessions of his diocese or monastery to a noble or some other person, this transaction is invalid according to the apostolic canon on this subject [Apostolic canon 38; see 418n1 in this volume]. Even if he alleges, as a pretext, that the upkeep of the property is expensive and not profitable, he has no right to abandon it to the nobility but rather should give it to clerics or colonists. If, after that, these latter act treacherously and a noble buys this property from the clerics or colonists, this sale is invalid: the bishop or hegumen who did such a things is to be thrown out—the bishop from his diocese and the hegumen from his monastery, for they have dissipated what they have in no way gathered” (Canon 12 of the Second Council of Nicea: “The bishop or hegumen should not sell the rural properties of the Church,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques, 267– 68). 19. “During times when evils have befallen the Churches because of our sins, certain people have expropriated religious houses, episcopal residencies and monasteries and used them for profane purposes. If these people want to voluntarily restore these building to their original use, no further problem will be raised. If, however, they do not do so, we ordain that they be deposed if they are clerics and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people because they are condemned by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let them be cast into Hell where the

N O T E S T O PA G E S 2 8 8 – 3 1 4

421

worm does not die and the fire is never extinguished—for they have opposed the voice of the Lord, ‘Do not make the home of my Father a house of commerce’” (Canon 13 of the Second Council of Nicea: “Concerning the serious condemnation merited by those who have profaned the monasteries,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques, 268 and 269). 20. “It is not reasonable that those clerics who voluntarily gave up, who failed and then took up the struggle again, remain in their functions since they have abandoned their flock and made themselves worthy of blame” (Canon 10 of Peter of Alexandria: “Concerning clerics,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol II, Les Canons des Pères grecs, 46– 48). 21. Cited on 420n18. 22. In the numeration of Joannou, Canon 42 of the Council of Carthage states that “Banquets should not be held in churches.” 23. This treats the fees paid by the faithful for different certificates (baptism, marriage, death), which were valid as civil documents. Volume 4 1. This certainly means “local”—it is the only place where “ecclesial” is used to describe the Council. 2. Lit. za shtatom = off the staff [list]. This, as previously, concerns the clergy who are not under ecclesiastical penalty (suspension, deposition), but do not have any appointment to a parish or a monastery. 3. This statute is printed below (note from the original edition). 4. Panagia is a special insignia of a bishop, which is an encolpion—an ovalshaped medallion worn on the chest—with an icon of Theotokos (usually), which may also contain pieces of relics and be decorated with precious stones. The bishop wears the encolpion on its own when outside of the services, and alongside his pectoral cross when he celebrates the liturgy. The wearing of two encolpia is usually the privilege granted to a head of an autocephalous or autonomous Church. If a second panagia is worn, it is decorated with the icon of Christ. 5. That is, the canonization of saints. 6. Synaxarion: a reading, containing the life of the saint being celebrated or a commentary on the mystery being honored, which is read between the sixth and seventh ode of the canon at Matins. This term also designates the source that provides the essentials of the lives of saints and the feasts. 7. Postrigaemy from the root postrizhenie, ‘tonsure.’ Cf. 416n9 in this volume. 8. “Those who lead the true and authentic monastic life should receive the honor which is due them. But since certain people, using the monastic life as a pretext, stir up trouble in the affairs of the Church and the State, without any care for what is going on in the cities, and even trying to build monasteries for themselves, it

422

N O T E S T O PA G E S 3 1 4 – 3 4 4

has been decided that no one can build or erect a monastery or oratory in any place whatsoever without the permission of the bishop of the city. Moreover, the monks of the city and of the countryside should be submissive to the bishop, love peace, dedicate themselves exclusively to fasting and prayer and maintain their stability in the place where they made profession. They should not involve themselves rashly in the affairs of the Church and the world, leaving their monasteries to do so, unless they have the authorization of the local bishop for an urgent matter” (Canon 4 of the Council of Chalcedon: “That monks should do nothing which goes against the opinion of the Bishop, nor found a monastery, nor become involved in temporal matters,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 72– 73). 9. “No monk or nun should abandon their own monastery and pass over to another. If that should happen, hospitality must be extended but it is not suitable to inscribe such a person in the community without the consent of his higoumene” (Canon 21 of the Second Council of Nicea: “That monks should not leave their monasteries and enter others,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 281– 82). 10. “[Th]e Holy Synod has decided that the monk who flees from his monastery and takes refuge in another monastery or in a household of lay people will be excommunicated, along with those who have taken him in, until such time as the fugitive returns to the monastery he has irregularly abandoned. If, however, the Bishop should wish to transfer certain monks, who are well known for their piety and the modesty of their life, to another monastery in order to assure its proper functioning, or to a house of lay people with a view to saving the souls of its inhabitants, or if he wants to entrust them with a responsibility elsewhere, he does not infringe this canon nor do those who receive such monks, nor do the monks themselves” (Canon 4 of the First-Second Council: “Concerning those who leave their monastery and never return,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-2, Les canons des Synodes particuliers, 453– 55). 11. “[We] decide that those clerics who have allowed themselves to contract a second marriage and who, being slaves of sin, have not desired to free themselves from this bond . . . are condemned by canonical sanctions” (Canon 3 of the Council In Trullo: “Concerning the place in the sanctuary of priests who have contracted a second marriage or who have married after their ordination and of those who have married a widow or divorced person,” in Joannou, Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline génerale antique [II–Ix s.], vol. I-1, Les canons des conciles oecumeniques, 425– 30 [427]).

A II 1. Here we use “Executive Committee of the Council” for Sobornyi Sovet, in order to avoid tautology and confusion between the terms translating sobor and sovet respectively.—Editor’s note.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

C D Definitions and Decrees of the Council of 1917–1918 Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi: Sobranie opredelenii i postanovlenii [The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia: Collection of Definitions and Decrees]. Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918, four issues and appendices to the acts (Prilozhenie k “Deianiiam” vtoroe: Vypusk perviy, Vypusk vtoroy, Vypusk tretiy, Vypusk chetvertiy). New edition: Sobranie opredeleniy i postanovleniy Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Vypuski 1– 4 [Collection of the Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia 1917–1918: Issues 1– 4]. Moscow: Izdanie Novospasskogo Monastyria, 1994. Acts of the Council of 1917–1918 Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi. Deianiia, 7 vols. (Kniga I–VII). Petrograd-Moscow: Izdanie Sobornogo Soveta, 1918. Repub. as Deianiia Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi, 1917–1918 [Acts of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia, 1917–1918], 6 vols. Moscow: Izdanie Novospasskogo Monastyrya, 1994– 96. Vol. I. Dokumenty: Materialy. Deianiia I–XVI, 1994 [repr. of Kniga I, vypusk 1: predislovie, dokumenty i materialy k sozyvu i dejatel’nosti predsobomogo soveta i sobora. Moscow, Kniga I, vypusk 2: deianiia I–IV, Moscow]. Vol. II. Deianiia XVII–XXX, 1994 [repr. of Kniga II, vypusk 1, Deianiia XII–XIX, Petrograd]. Vol. III. Deianiia XXXI–XL, 1994 [repr. of Kniga III, Deianiia XXXI–XL, Petrograd]. Vol. IV. Deianiia XLI–LI, 1996 [repr. of Kniga IV, Deianiia XLI–LI, Petrograd]. Vol. V. Deianiia LII–LXV, 1996 [repr. of Kniga V, Deianiia LII–LXV, Petrograd]. Vol. VI. Deianiia LXVI–LXXXII, 1996 [repr. of Kniga VI, Deianiia LXVI–LXVII, Moscow; Kniga VII, vypusk I: Deyaniya LXXVIII–LXXXII, Moscow]. The Novospassky monastery published Deianiya Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi, 1917–1918 from the incomplete archives GARF (The State Archives of the Russian Federation, fond 3431): vol. VII, Deianiia 83–101, 1999; vol. VIII, Deianiia 102–17, 1999; vol. IX, Deianiia 118– 36, 2000; vol. X. Deianiia 137– 51, 2000; vol. XI, Deianiia 152– 70, 2000. 423

424

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This edition of the acts was completed by Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, pervaia sessiia. Edited by A. G. Kravetsky, A. A. Pletneva, G.-A. Schroder, and G. Schulz. Moscow: Krutitskoe Patriarshee Podvor’e, 2002 [complete edition of the acts of the first session from the archives of RGIA (State Historical Archives of Russia)]. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, vtoraia sessiia. Edited by A. A. Pletneva and G. Schulz. Moscow: Krutitskoe Podvor’e, 2001 [complete edition of the acts of the second session from the archives of RGIA]. Sviashchenniy Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918: Obzor deianiy, tret’ia sessiia. Edited by A. G. Kravetsky and G. Schulz. Moscow: Krutitskoe Podvor’e, 2000 [complete edition of the acts of the third session from the archives of RGIA]. Acts of the Conciliar Commissions Bogosluzhebniy yazyk Russkoi Tserkvi: Istoriia, popytki reformacii [The Liturgical Language of the Russian Church: History, Attempts at Reform]. Moscow: Izdanie Sretenskogo Monastyria, 1999. Pomestniy Sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 goda o tserkovnom penii: sbornik protokolov i dokladov [Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917–1918 on Liturgical Music: Collection of Protocols and Reports]. Edited by E.V. Rusol. Moscow: Pravoslavniy Sviato-Tikhonovskiy Bogoslovskiy Institut, 2002. The 1905 Survey of the Bishops Otzyvy eparkhial’nykh arkhiereev po voprosu o tserkovnoi reforme, Saint Petersburg, 1906, republished in 2 vols. Moscow: Krutitskoe Podvor’e, 2004. Acts of the Preconciliar Commission Zhurnaly i protokoly zasedaniy vysochayshe uchrezhdennogo Predsobornogo Prisutstviia. 5 vols. Saint Petersburg: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1906– 9. Other Ecclesiastical Documents Les Conciles Oecuméniques: Les Decrets, vol. II-1, De Nicée I à Latran V. Edited by G. Alberigo. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994. Les Constitutions apostoliques. 3 vols. Edited by M. Metzger. Sources Chrétiennes 320, 329, 336. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985– 87. Department of External Affairs of Patriarchate of Moscow. Pravoslavie i ekumenizm: dokumenty i materialy, 1902–1998. Moscow: Otdel Vneshnikh Tserkovnykh Snoshenii, 1999. Encyclical Letter of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Orthodox Christians throughout the World. In Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et

BIBLIOGRAPHY

425

amplissima collectio. Vol. 40: Synodi orientales, 1806–1867, col. 377– 418. Paris-Leipzig: H. Welter, 1909. Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1961, Acts and Regulations of July 18, 1961. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 8 (1961): 3– 29. French translation in “Texte de l’ordonnance synodale.” Istina 11 (1965– 66): 371– 74. Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov iubileinogo arkhiereiskogo Sobora Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, Moskva 13–16 avgusta 2000 [Collection of the Documents and Declarations of the Jubilee Episcopal Council, Moscow, August 13–16, 2000]. Nizhny Novgorod: Izdatel’stvo Bratstva vo imia sv. kniazia Aleksandra Nevskogo, 2001. Hauptmann, Peter, and Gerd Stricker, eds. Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland: Dokumente ihrer Geschichte (860–1980). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht, 1988. Joannou, Périclés-Pierre. Fonti, Fascicle IX, Discipline générale antique (IIe–IXe s.), vol. I-1, Les Canons des conciles Oecuméniques; vol. I-2, Les canons des Synodes particuliers; vol II, Les Canons des Pères grecs. Grottaferrata: Tip. italo-orientale “S. Silo,” 1962– 63. ———. “Les nouveaux statuts de l’Église russe,” adopted by the local council of the Russian Orthodox Church, June 8, 1988. Istina 33 (1988): 400– 404. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1945. Polozhenie ob upravlenii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, adopted by the First Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, January 31, 1945. Published in Moscow in Pravoslavniy Tserkovniy Kalendar’ na 1946 god. French translation in “Regulations of the Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Russie et Chrétienté 2 (1947): 47– 52. Rhalles, G. A., and M. Potles. Syntagma tôn theiôn kai hierôn kanonôn, 6 vols. Athens: Chartophylax, 1852– 59. Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great (Dukhovniy Reglament). French translation published as Règlement ecclésiastique de Pierre le Grand. Translation, introduction, and notes by C. Tondini [De Quarenghi], with Latin translation, original Russian text, and l’Instruction du procureur suprême du Synode. Paris: Librairie de la Societé bibliographique, 1874. Statutes of the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in France and Western Europe in the Jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. “Statuts de l’union directrice des associations orthodoxes russes” and “Statuts types des associations cultuelles relevant de cet archevêché (statuts paroissiaux).” Unpublished documents. Administration of the Archdiocese, 12 rue Daru, 75008, Paris.

W C Afanasiev, Nicholas. The Church of the Holy Spirit. Edited by Michael Plekon, translated by Vitaly Permiakov. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

426

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Press, 2007. French translation by M. Drobot as L’Église du Saint-Esprit. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1975. Orig. pub. Cerkov’ Dukha Svyatogo. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1971. ———. “Le concile dans la théologie orthodoxe russe.” Irénikon 35 (1962): 316– 39. ———. Tserkovnye sobori i ikh proiskhozhdenie. Moscow: Svyato-Filaretovskiy Pravoslavno-Khristianskiy Institut, 2003. Afanasiev, N., N. Koulomzine, J. Meyendorff, and A. Schmemann. La Primauté de Pierre dans l’Église orthodoxe. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1960. English translation: The Primacy of Peter, ed. John Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. Antony (Khrapovitsky). The Moral Idea of the Dogma of the All-Holy Trinity (Nravstvennaia idea dogmata Presviatoi Troitsy). Published in French as L’Idée morale des dogmes de la T. S. Trinité, de la divinité de Jésus-Christ et de la Rédemption. Translated from the third Russian edition by A. M. du Chayla. Paris: H. Welter, 1910. Arranz, Miguel, S.J. “La consécration du saint Myron.” Orientalia christiana periodica 55 (1989): 324– 38. Balashov, Nikolai. Na puti k liturgicheskomu vozrozhdeniiu. Moscow: Dukhovnaya Biblioteka, 2000. Basil (Krivoshein). Pomestniy Sobor Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i izbranie patriarkha Pimena. Saint Petersburg: Satis’, 2004. Beaucamp, Joëlle. “Les femmes et l’Église: Droit canonique, ideologie et pratiques sociales à Byzance.” Kanon 16 (2001): 87–112. Behr-Sigel, Elisabeth. Prière et sainteté dans l’Église russe. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1950. Belyakova, Elena V. Tserkovniy sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni. Moscow: Dukhovnaya Biblioteka, 2004. Bobrinskoy, Boris. Le mystère de l’Église: Cours de théologie dogmatique. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2003. Bogolepov, Alexander A. Church Reforms in Russia 1905–1918. Bridgeport: Committee of the Metropolitan Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of America, 1966. Bois, Jean. “Chronique sur le congres monastique de 1909.” Échos d’Orient 13 (1910): 238– 40. ———. “L’Église russe et la réforme projeteé.” Échos d’Orient 10 (1907): 112– 22. Bolshakoff, Serge. “Les missions étrangères dans l’Église orthodoxe russe.” Irénikon 28 (1955): 158– 75. Bouteneff, Alexander. Father Arseny: A Cloud of Witnesses, ed. Vera Bouteneff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998. Bryner, E. “L’episcopato della chiesa ortodossa russa nell’anno delle rivoluzioni (1917).” In Mainardi, L’autunno della Santa Russia, 37– 55. Bulgakov, Sergius. Sous les remparts de Chersonèse. French translation, introduction, and notes by Bernard Marchadier. Geneva: Ad Solem, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

427

Byrnes, Robert F. Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Carlson, Maria. “Fashionable Occultism: Spiritualism, Theosophy, Freemasonry, and Hermeticism in Fin-de-Siècle Russia.” In The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, ed. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, 135– 52. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Cioffari, Gerardo. La sobornost’ nella teologia russa: La visione della chiesa negli scrittori ecclesiastici della prima meta del XIX secolo. Bari: F.lli Zono, 1978. Cunningham, James W. A Vanquished Hope: The Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905–1906. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. Curtiss, John Shelton. Church and State in Russia: The Last Years of the Empire, 1900–1917. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Deslandes, S. “De quelle autorite relèvent les monastères orientaux.” Èchos d’Orient 21 (1922): 309–17. Destivelle, Hyacinthe. “L’application du Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918 dans l’archevêché des églises orthodoxes russes en Europe occidentale.” Contacts 205 (2004): 85– 99. ———. “Composition et procédures de decision au Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918: Les principes et leur application.” In Nouveaux apprentissages pour l’Église: Melanges offerts à Hervé Legrand, ed. Gilles Routhier and Laurent Villemin, 295– 321. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2006. ———. “Le Concile local de Moscou et la conciliarité: La question de la participation des laïcs au Concile local dans les débats préconciliaires.” In Synod and Synodality: Theology, History, Canon Law and Ecumenism in New Contact. International Colloquium Bruges, 2003, ed. Alberto Melloni and Silvia Scatena, 187 – 99. Christianity and History 1. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005. ———. “D’un Concile à l’autre: Les relations entre l’Église et l’État selon le Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918 et le Concile episcopal de 2000.” Istina 50 (2005): 31– 51. ———. “La liturgie au Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918: Un processus inachevé.” In Les Mouvements liturgiques: Corrélations entre pratiques et recherches, 239– 54. Conferences Saint-Serge, 50 Semaine d’études liturgiques, Paris, 2003. Rome: CLV-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2004. ———. “Le Pére Yves Congar et l’Orthodoxie russe: un dialogue de verité.” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 106 (2005): 363– 86. ———. Pomestniy Sobor Rossiiskoi Pravoslavnoi cerkvi 1917–1918 godov. Moscow: Krutitskoe Patriarshee Podvor’e, 2008. ———. “La reforme des academies ecclesiastiques au Concile local de Moscou de 1917–1918.” Contacts 205 (2004): 164– 88. Deubner, Alexandre. “La traduction du mot καθολικήν dans le texte slave du symbole de Nicée-Constantinople.” Orientalia christiana 16, no. 1 (1929): 54– 66. Dupuy, Bernard. “La concession du saint Myron à la métropole de Kiev (XIVe siècle) et ses aspects actuels.” Istina 35 (1990): 94–104.

428

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dvornik, Francis. “La lutte entre Byzance et Rome à propos de l’Illyricum au IXe siècle.” In Mélanges Charles Diehl, vol. 1, Histoire, 61– 80. Paris: Lib. E. Leroux, 1930. Felmy, Karl Christian. Predigt im orthodoxen Russland: Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Eigenart der russischen Predigt in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Kirche im Osten 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht, 1972. Firsov, Sergei L. “La preparazione del concilio e la ricerca di un nuovo modello di relazione tra chiesa e societa.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 41– 68. ———. Russkaya Tserkov’ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh–1918 gg). Moscow: Dukhovnaia Biblioteka, 2002. Florovsky, Georges. “L’oecuménisme au XIXe siècle.” Irénikon 27 (1954): 241– 74, 407– 47. ———. Ways of Russian Theology. 2 vols. Translated by Robert L. Nichols. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1978, 1987. French edition: Les Voies de la theologie russe. Lausanne: Éd. de l’Age d’Homme, 2001. Freeze, Gregory L. “L’ortodossia russa e la crisi della famiglia: Il divorzio tra la rivoluzione e la guerra (1917– 21).” In Mainardi, L’autunno della Santa Russia, 79–117. ———. The Russian Levites: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Geffert, Bryn. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans: Diplomacy, Theology, and the Politics of Interwar Ecumenism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Gilson, S. G. “Conversion of the Nestorians of Persia to the Russian Church.” Missionnary Review of the World, n.s. 12 (1899): 745– 52. Glazik, Josef. Die russisch-orthodoxe Heidenmission seit Peter dem Grossen: Ein missionsgeschichtlicher Versuch nach russischen Quellen und Darstellungen. Münster: Aschendorff, 1954. Goudal, E. “Les églises russes.” Echos d’Orient 27 (1928): 45– 67. Herman, E. “Ricerche sulle istituzioni monastiche byzantine.” Orientalia christiana periodica 6 (1940): 293– 375. Hilarion (Alfeyev). “Il concilio del 1917–1918 e la questione dell’onomatodossia.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 317– 28. ———. Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe stoletiy. Moscow: Krutitskoe Patriarshee Podvor’e, 1999. Revised and augmented edition: Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na rubezhe epokh. Kiev: Dukh i Litera, 2002. Horuzhy, Sergei S. “Russische Haltungen und Kontakte zur altkatholischen Bewegung in ihrer frühen Periode.” Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrijt 90 (2000): 186– 95. Janin, Raymond. Les Églises orientales et les rites orientaux. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1997. ———. “Justinien Ier.” In Catholicisme VI, col. 1335 – 39. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

429

Jockwig, Franz. Der Weg der Laien auf das Landeskonzil der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche Moskau 1917–18: Werden und Verwirklichung einer demokratischen Idee in der Russischen Kirche. Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1971. Johannes Chrysostomus. “Die Einrichtung der Hierarchie der Altglaübigen im Jahre 1846.” Ostkirchlichen Studien 18 (1969): 281– 307. Jugie, Martin. “Justinien.” In Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. Vol. 8.2, col. 2277– 90. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1908. Kartashev, Anton V. Ocherki po istorii russkoi Tserkvi. 2 vols. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1959. ———. “La Révolution et le Concile de 1917–1918.” Russie et Chrétienté 1– 2 (1950): 7– 42. Kashevarov, Anatoly N. “Il concilio e la rivoluzione: La relazione tra chiesa e stato nell’elaborazione conciliare.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 85–117. Khomiakov, Alexis S. L’Église latine et le protestantisme au point de vue de l’Orient chrétien. Lausanne: B. Benda, 1872. Kniazeff, A. Cours d’hagiographie. Paris: Institut de theologie orthodoxe SaintSerge, 1983. Köhler, Maria. “Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland: Ein Jarhundert hahere geistliche Bildung (1814–1917).” Ostkirchliche Studien 45 (1996): 116– 35. Köhler-Baur, Martin. Die Geistlichen Akademien in Russland im 19. Jarhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997. Kravetsky, Aleksandr G. “Il nuovo sviluppo dell’attivita missionaria.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 247– 64. Lambrechts, Antoine. “Conciles, diocèses et évêques des Vieux-Croyants de Belokrinica entre 1898 et 1928.” Orientalia christiana periodica 54 (1988): 429– 79. ———. “Le statut ecclésial des Edinovertsy dans l’Église russe du XVIIIe au XXe siècle.” Irénikon 64 (1991): 451– 67. Lanne, Emmanuel. “Le canon 34 des Apôtres et son interpretation dans la tradition latine.” lrénikon 71 (1998): 212– 33. Laurent, Vitalien. “Charisticariat et Commende à Byzance.” Revue des etudes byzantines 12 (1954): 100–113. Legrand, Hervé. “La synodalité mise en oeuvre par le concile local de l’Église orthodoxe russe de 1917–1918.” Irenikon 76 (2003): 506– 31. Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole. L’Empire des tsars et les Russes, vol. 3, La religion. Paris: Hachette, 1889. Lossky, Nicolas. “L’élection du Patriarche de Moscou.” Contacts 23 (1971): 359– 85. Lutiens, G. F. Dissertatio historico-ecclesiastica de religione ruthenorum hodierna. Göttingen: Iohann. Fridr. Hager, 1745. Mainardi, A., ed. L’autunno della Santa Russia: Atti del VI Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualita russa. Bose: Qiqajon, 1999. ———. Il concilio di Mosca: Atti del VI Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualita russa. Bose: Qiqajon, 2004.

430

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Malvy, Antoine. “La réforme de l’Église russe.” Études 107 (1906): 160– 82, 306– 29. Massie, Robert K. Peter the Great. New York: Ballantine, 1986. Melloni, Alberto. “Chronache e letture occidentali del concilio nazionale russo de 1917–1918.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 119– 47. Methodius (Prikhod’ko). Die Pfarrei in der neueren Gesetzgebungen der russischen Kirche. Brixen: A. Weger, 1947. Meyendorff, John. L’Église orthodoxe, hier et aujourd’hui. Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 1969. Rev. ed., N. Lossky, 1995. ———. The Orthodox Church, rev. ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. ———. “Partisans et ennemis des biens ecclésiastiques au sein du monachisme russe aux XVe et XVIe siècles.” Irenikon 29 (1956): 28– 46, 151– 64. ———, ed. The Primacy of Peter. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. Milash, Nikodim. Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche. Translated by A. Pessic. Mosta: Pacher et Kisic, 1905. Russian version: Pravoslavnoe tserkovnoe pravo. Saint Petersburg: Izd. V.V. Komarova 1897. Muller, Alexander V. The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972. Nivère, Antoine. “Les moines onomatodoxes et l’intelligentsia russe.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 29 (1988): 181– 94. Orekhanov, Georgii. Na Puti k Soboru: Tserkovnye reformy i pervaia russkaia revoliuciia. Moscow: Pravoslaniy Svyato-Tikhonovskiy Bogoslovskiy Institut, 2002. Ostrogorsky, Serge. Histoire de l’État byzantin. Translated by L. Gouillard. Paris: Payot, 1956. Orig. pub. Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates. München: Beck, 1940. Palmieri, Aurelio. La chiesa russa: Le sue odieme condizioni, e if suo riformismo dottrinale. Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1908. Pascal, Pierre. Avvakum et les débuts du Raskol: La crise religieuse au XVIIe siècle en Russie. Paris: Centre d’études russes “Istina,” 1938. Pioyano, Adalberto. “La discussione sulla reforma monastic.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 177– 212. ———. “‘Fuite du monde’ et mission dans le monde: Le débat sur le monachisme en Russie au début du XXe siècle.” Irenikon 71 (1998): 234– 79. Pletneva, Aleksandra A. “Il problema della lingua liturgica.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 233– 45. Pobedonostsev, Konstantin P. Questions religieuses sociales et politiques. Paris: Baudry et Cie, 1897. Pospielovsky, Dimitry V. “Il patriarca Tichon tra rinnovamento della Chiesa e scisma dei ‘Rinnovatori.’” In Mainardi, L’autunno della Santa Russia, 119– 67. ———. The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1917–1982. 2 vols. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983. Augmented Russian version: Russkaya pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ v XX veke. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Respublika,” 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

431

———. “Verso il concilio.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 21– 39. Preobrazhensky, I.V. Tserkovnaia reforma: Sbornik statei dukhovnoi i svetskoi periodicheskoi pechati po voprosu o reforme. Saint Petersburg: Tip. Arngol’da, 1906. Prokschi, Rudolf. “Die Rolle der Frau in der Kirche: Ein intensiv diskutiertes Thema auf dem Landeskonzil der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche yon 1917–1918.” Ostkirchliche Studien 49 (2000): 105– 44. Ratel, A. “Deux partis dans le clergé orthodoxe russe.” Échos d’Orient 9 (1906): 173– 76. ———. “L’Église nestorienne en Turquie et en Perse.” Échos d’Orient 7 (1904): 348– 53. ———. “La question de la réforme en Russie.” Échos d’Orient 9 (1906): 166– 73. Řezáč, Ioannes. De monachismo secundum recentiorem legislationem russicam. Orientalia christiana analecta 138. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1952. Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. Histoire de la Russie, des origines à 1996. Translated by André Berelowitch. Paris: Robert Laffont, coll. “Bouquins,” 1996. Rinne, Johannes. “The Orthodox Church in the Predominantly Lutheran Finland.” Kanon 12 (1994): 18– 43. Roty, Martine. Dictionnaire russe-français des termes en usage dans l’Église russe. Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1983. Rouet de Journel, M.-J. Monachisme et monasteres russes. Paris: Payot, 1952. Rouleau, François. “L’Aigle bicephale et les deux glaives: Église et État à Rome et à Byzance; Principes d’hier et problémes d’aujourd’hui.” Communio 17, no. 6 (1992): 37– 50. Rozhkov, Vladimir. Tserkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Moscow: Krutitskoe Patriarshee Podvor’e, 2004. Sablinsky, Walter. The Road to Bloody Sunday: Father Gapon and the St. Petersburg Massacre of 1905. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. Schmemann, Alexander. The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Translated by Lydia Kesich. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977. ———. “La notion de primauté dans l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe. ” In La primauté de Pierre dans l’Église orthodoxe, edited by N. Afanasieff, N. Koulomzine, J. Meyendorff, and A. Schmemann, 117– 50. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1960. Schröder, Gisela-Afanasiya. “La communità parrochiale, luogo di rinovamento e centro di resistenza.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 265– 88. Schultze, B. “A. S. Chomjakow und das Halb-Jahrtausend: Jubilaum des Einigungskonzils yon Florenz.” Orientalia christiana periodica 4 (1938): 473– 96. Schulz, Günther. “Der Ausschuss für die Vereinigung der Kirchen des Landeskonzils der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 16. 8– 29. 9. 1918.” Kirche im Osten 39 (1996): 70–100. ———. “Conciliarita e concilio: L’organizzazione intema del concili; composizione, statuto e decisioni.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 69– 84.

432

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917–18: Ein unbekanntes Reformpotential. Kirche im Osten 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995. ———. “Das Landeskonzil der Orthodoxen Kirche in Russland 1917–18 und seine Folgen für die russische Geschichte und Kirchengeschichte.” Kirche im Osten 42– 43 (2000): 11– 28. Senyk, Sophia. “L’autre monachisme: Saint Seraphim et la communaute de Diveyevo.” Irénikon 70 (1997): 5– 29. Simon, Gerhard. “Antonii Vadkovskiy, Metropolit von St. Petersburg (1846–1912).” Kirche im Osten 12 (1969): 9– 32. ———. Konstantin Petrovic Pobedonoscev und die Kirchenpolitik des Heiligen Synod, 1880–1905. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht, 1969. Shkarovsky, Mikhail V. “La ricezione del concilio di Mosca in epoca sovietica.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 289– 316. Smolitsch, Igor. “Der Konzilsvorbereitungsausschuss des Jahres 1906: Zur Vorgeschichte des Möskauer Landeskonzils von 1917–1918.” Kirche im Osten 7 (1964): 53– 93. ———. Russisches Mönchtum: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Wesen 988–1917. Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1953. Solovyov, Ilya V. “Il concilio e il patriarca: La discussione sul govemo ecclesiastico superior.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 149– 63. Stavrou, Michel. “Linéaments d’une théologie orthodoxe de la conciliarité.” Irénikon 76 (2003): 470– 505. Struve, Nikita. Les chrétiens en URSS. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1963– 64. Stupperich, R. “Ursprung, Motive und Beurteilung der Kirchenreform unter Peter dem Grossen.” Kirche im Osten 17 (1974): 42– 61. Tamarati, Michel. L’Église géorgienne des origins jusqu’à nos jours. Rome: Société typographico-éditrice, 1910. Tsypin, Vladislav. “Il problema dell’administrazione diocesana nel concilio del 1917–1918.” In Mainardi, Il concilio di Mosca, 165– 76. Volkonsky, P. M. “La reconstitution du patriarcat en Russie.” Échos d’Orient 20 (1921): 195– 219. Waddams, H. M., ed. Anglo-Russian Theological Conference, Moscow, July 1956. London: The Faith Press, 1957. Wuyts, A. Le Patriarcat russe au concile de Moscou de 1917–1918. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 129. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1941. Zenkovsky, Vasily V. Histoire de la philosophie russe, 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1957– 58. Orig. pub. Istoriia russkoi filosofii. 2 vols. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1948– 50. English translation by George L. Kline as A History of Russian Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Zernov, Nicolas. The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1963.

INDEX

Academy of Sciences, 55, 61 Acts 6:2– 3, 158 Acts of the Council (Deianiia), 71, 371nn.100, 101, 375n.59, 379nn.1, 2, 380nn.4, 5, 395n.403, 404n.105 Adrian, Patriarch, 86 Afanasiev, Nicholas: on charismatic principle, 175, 177– 78, 179; on Council of 1917–18, 174– 79, 182, 183, 186; on lay participation, 174– 79, 413n.131; on principle of representation, 176, 178, 189 Agathangel (Preobrazhensky) of Yaroslavl, Archbishop/ Metropolitan, 47, 154, 372n.111, 405nn.5, 8 Agathangel of Volhynia, Archbishop: O plenenii Tserkvi, 17; Vysshaia administratsiia Russkoi Tserkvi, 17–18 Aksakov, N. P., 35 Alaska, 13, 14, 121 Al’bitsky, Aleksandr G., 104 Alexander I, 11, 17, 358n.19 Alexander II, 9, 10, 17, 360n.61, 361n.63 Alexander III, 14, 360n.61 Alexandria patriarch, 85 Alexis (Solvyov), Saint, 384n.92 Alexis I (Simansky) of Leningrad, Metropolitan/Patriarch, 155– 56, 159, 395n.398, 406n.10, 408nn.36, 38 Alexis II, Patriarch, 161, 162, 163, 166 Alexis of Tallinn and Estonia, Metropolitan, 159

All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity, 51, 141, 372n.115 All-Russian Council of Parish Communities, 149 All-Russian Union of Democratic Orthodox Clergy, 51 Ambrose (Yushkevich), Archbishop, 17 Ambrose, Saint, 12 Ambrose of Optina, Saint, 409n.47 Andrew (Rublev), Saint, 409n.47 Andrew (Ukhtomsky), bishop of Ufa, 47 Andronik (Nikol’sky) of Perm, Archbishop, 99 Anglicans, 121– 23 Anna Ivanovna, Tsarina, 16 Antonin (Granovsky), Bishop, 154 Antony, Metropolitan (1828–1913), 393n.346 Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Volhynia/Kharkov, Archbishop, 13, 35, 38, 62, 65, 84, 102, 104, 115, 366n.47, 368n.74, 376n.70 Antony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg, Metropolitan, 33, 34– 35, 38, 44, 187; memorandum to Committee of Ministers, 22, 23– 25, 27, 29, 30, 35– 36, 77, 183 application and reception of council decrees, 2, 4, 153– 90; application in local councils, 154– 66; application in patriarchate of Moscow, 153– 66; application in the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western 433

434

INDEX

application and reception of council decrees (cont.) Europe, 166– 73, 182; theological reception, 2, 4, 173– 86 Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, 166 – 73, 182, 411n.79, 412n.92 Arsenius (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod, Archbishop/Metropolitan, 65, 84, 122 Arseny (Matsievich), Metropolitan, 17 Artamonov, Leonid K., 99 Assembly of Clergy and Laity of Moscow, 61 Association of the Progressive Clergy of St. Petersburg, 51 Astrov, Pavel I., 99 Athanasy (Sakharov), Hieromonk, 152 atheism, 127, 128, 184 Athenagoras, Patriarch, 411n.79 autocephalous Orthodox churches, 55, 61, 70, 80, 81, 86, 88, 91, 375n.59, 376n.69, 406n.10. See also Church of Czechoslovakia; Church of Georgia; Church of Poland; Church of Ukraine; patriarchate of Constantinople; Orthodox Church in America Avksentiev, N. D., 63 Azerbaijan, 165 Balsamon, Theodore, 80 “The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” 141, 162 “The Basic Principles of the Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with Non-Orthodox,” 162 “Basic Principles on the Property and Economic Management of the Church,” 147 Basil, Saint, 145 Belarus, 164

Beneshevich, Vladimir N., 120 Benjamin (Kazansky) of Petrograd, Archbishop/Metropolitan, 50, 64, 152, 154, 371n.110, 405n.5 Berdnikov, Il’ya S., 38, 39 Berdyaev, Nikolai A., 13, 185 Bialynitsky-Birulya, Boris, 404n.104 bishops, 9, 12, 18, 75, 79, 128, 132, 134, 171, 175, 180, 182, 414n.154; as abbots of monasteries, 108; Committee of Bishops, 170, 173; council participation of, 2, 3, 19, 23, 26, 32– 33, 35– 36, 38, 39– 40, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48– 49, 53, 54– 55, 56, 57, 58– 63, 64, 74, 155, 156– 57, 158– 59, 160, 180, 365n.23, 368n.80, 374n.57, 376n.70, 381n.21; diocesan bishops, 7– 8, 15, 17, 30, 32, 34, 40, 51, 89, 91, 93– 96, 97, 98, 99–100, 101– 2, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 126, 129, 135, 148, 150, 151, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163– 64, 165, 168, 176– 78, 181, 375n.59, 387n.175, 407n.20, 414n.152; edinovertsy bishops, 115, 116, 159; and election of patriarch, 89; elections of, 23, 37, 50, 68, 94– 95, 172, 414n.152; and Holy Synod, 16, 90– 91, 92; and judgment of patriarch, 88; and preaching, 10; and Supreme Council of the Church, 91, 92; vicar bishops, 95, 97, 391n.299. See also Council of Bishops Blastares, Matthew, 133 “Bloody Sunday,” 3, 22, 27, 33, 39, 47, 364n.6 Bogoslovsky vestnik, 40 Bolshevik uprising of July 1917, 51, 62 Bukharev, Aleksandr M. (Archimandrite Feodor), 13

INDEX

Bulgakov, Sergius N., 1, 13, 61, 62, 185; At the Feast of the Gods, 413n.129; At the Walls of the Chersonese, 413n.129; on Council of 1917–1918, 413n.129; on the patriarchate, 79, 80, 413n.129 canonical territory, 163, 410n.63 canonization, 135, 152, 360n.45, 371n.110, 372n.111, 404n.104, 409n.47 canons: canon 3 of the Council in Trullo, 131; canon 3 of the Second Council, 80; canon 5 of Council of Nicea, 361n.65; canon 6 of the First Council, 80; canon 6 of the Second Council of Nicea, 361n.65; canon 7 of the Council in Trullo, 80; canon 8 of the Council in Trullo, 361n.65; canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea, 398n.59; canon 15 of the FirstSecond Council, 80; canon 19 of Council of Chalcedon, 361n.65; canon 20 of the Council of Antioch, 361n.65; canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, 80; canon 34 of the Apostles, 80, 82, 86, 382n.52; canon 37 of the Apostles, 361n.65; canon 44 of the Council of Laodicea, 398n.59; canon 48 of Council of Carthage, 82; canon 64 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 125; canon 69 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 133, 398n.59 catechism, 62, 140, 141– 43, 144 cathedral churches, 101 Catholic Church, 37, 79, 81, 120, 128; Catechismus Romanus, 6; Vatican II, 123, 355nn.1, 2, 387n.175, 406n.10 Chernyshevsky, Nikolai, 10

435

Church as body of Christ, 36– 37, 38, 39, 79, 99, 104, 179, 180 Church discipline, 4, 62, 72, 91, 124, 131– 34, 399n.74 Church membership, 14–15 Church of Czechoslovakia, 406n.10, 408n.36 Church of Finland, 395n.402 Church of Georgia, 49, 62, 69, 114, 117, 120– 21, 368n.74, 376n.69, 395nn.399,401 Church of Poland, 94, 114, 117, 119– 20, 121, 395n.398, 406n.10, 408n.36 Church of Ukraine, 94, 114, 117–19, 121, 163, 165, 408n.36 Church property and assets, 35, 62, 69, 102, 103, 403n.63; confiscation of, 67, 111; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 75, 106, 111, 137, 140, 143– 44, 146– 48, 149– 50 Church schools, 49, 147; and catechism, 137, 141– 42; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 140, 141– 42, 143– 44, 397n.37, 398n.45, 401n.34; parish schools, 14–15, 35, 51, 62, 66, 67, 106, 380n.10; pastoral schools, 68, 104, 129– 31. See also seminaries; theology, theological academies Church-state relations, 4, 16, 19, 21, 26, 27– 34, 43, 44, 66– 68, 77, 81, 182– 84, 358n.19, 359n.28, 366n.47, 378n.93, 380n.10; and chief procurator of Holy Synod, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17–18, 21, 24, 25, 27– 29, 30, 31– 32, 35, 45– 46, 47, 51– 52, 87, 120, 360n.61; council of 1917–18 decrees regarding, 72, 86, 88, 99, 137– 52; imperial edict regarding religious tolerance, 3, 24– 25, 31, 114,

436

INDEX

Church-state relations (cont.) 116, 137, 183, 187; Peter the Great’s Spiritual Regulation, 6– 8, 10, 24, 357nn.8,9, 358nn.14,16; under Provisional Government, 3, 45– 48, 51– 52, 63– 64, 66, 120, 137, 141– 42, 143– 44, 146, 148, 162, 183, 187, 370n.92, 371n.104, 378n.93; under Soviet government, 67– 68, 69, 86, 102, 103, 121– 22, 130, 137, 138, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 155– 56, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 174, 181, 183, 184, 187, 189– 90, 368n.74, 372n.111, 378nn.94,95, 404n.103, 405nn.5,8, 406n.10, 407n.29, 408n.38, 411n.83, 414n.158; as symphony of powers, 141, 401n.29 church warden (starosta), 105, 133, 157, 158, 161, 166, 172 clergy, 8, 14, 16, 18, 22, 27, 34, 49, 51, 70, 97; black monastic clergy, 9, 39, 61; clerical caste system, 8, 9–10, 11, 39, 61, 179; council participation of, 2, 3, 19, 25, 26, 32, 35– 42, 43, 48, 53, 54– 55, 56, 57– 62, 74, 107, 156– 57, 159, 160, 166, 167– 69, 172– 73, 179, 180, 365n.23, 374n.57, 375n.62, 381n.21; and election of bishops, 94– 95; and election of patriarch, 89; and Supreme Council of the Church, 91, 92. See also parish priests Collection of the Definitions and Decrees of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia of 1917–18, 71– 72 “Collegial Sunday,” 99–100 Colossians 1:18, 79

composition and functioning, 3– 4, 53– 70; chancery, 71, 379n.1; Commission on Membership, 57; Commission on Statutes, 56; commissions (otdely), 56, 58, 59, 61, 62– 63, 65, 69– 70, 71, 76, 78, 82, 115, 120, 121, 122– 23, 130, 131, 132– 33, 134, 188, 373n.27, 399n.80, 403n.63; Conference of Bishops, 56, 58– 60, 61, 107, 123, 159, 188; council participation, 35– 42; decision procedure/ voting, 1, 2, 3, 19, 35– 42, 57– 60, 74, 159, 163, 179, 188, 369n.80, 374n.46; Drafting Commission, 57, 58; elected members, 54, 60– 61; Executive Committee, 56, 57, 58, 62, 72, 83, 371n.100; ex officio members, 54, 56, 60– 61, 375nn.59, 61, 376nn.67, 70; first session, 66– 67, 72, 379n.2; General Assembly, 56, 58– 60; invited members, 54; opening of the council, 63– 65; president, 57; presidium, 65; second session, 66, 67– 68, 72, 93, 98, 148, 379n.2; secretary, 57; third session, 66, 68– 69, 72, 133, 379n.2; vicepresidents, 57. See also conciliarity (sobornost’) “Concerning the Causes for the Dissolution of the Matrimonial Union Sanctified by the Church,” 145– 46 “Concerning the Legal Status of the Orthodox Church of Russia,” 137– 41, 143 conciliarity (sobornost’), 3, 4, 15–19, 23, 28, 29– 30, 32, 33, 49, 53, 54, 57– 58, 62, 154, 155, 361n.67, 374n.57; in archdiocese of Eucarpia, 167– 71; Council of

INDEX

1917–18 decrees regarding, 68, 69, 72, 73– 80, 83, 87, 88, 90– 93, 105– 7, 108– 9, 113–14, 119, 124, 156, 157, 166, 167– 69, 172, 173, 174, 179, 180– 82, 183– 84, 188– 89; and democracy, 79; in diocesan administration, 95, 96, 98; in parish administration, 105– 6; and patriarchate, 76– 80, 88, 93; and Peter the Great, 7, 79, 80; and Slavophiles, 5, 12, 15, 18, 19, 37, 38, 355n.1; and theology, 18–19, 37, 38, 61, 79; types of councils, 74– 76 Constituent Assembly, 142, 370nn.97, 98, 378n.93 1 Corinthians: 12:13, 79; 12:28, 175 Council of 1547, 135 Council of 1549, 135 Council of 1923, 136, 188, 372n.114, 398n.51 Council of 1924, 136 Council of 1945, 155– 59, 160– 61, 165, 407n.20 Council of 1971, 159, 165, 408n.36 Council of 1988, 155, 158– 61, 162, 165, 360n.45, 400n.82, 408n.41, 409n.47 Council of 1990, 165 Council of Bishops, 88, 91, 156– 57, 409n.44; of 1943, 155, 165; of 1961, 158– 59, 160, 161, 165, 171, 172, 391n.288, 407nn.29, 34, 408n.36; of 1992, 152; of 1994, 161, 162, 165; of 1997, 152, 165; of 2000, 152, 154, 155, 161– 66, 256n.3, 355n.2, 360n.45, 384n.92, 387n.175, 400n.82, 404n.105, 409n.53; of 2004, 165 Council of Carthage, 38, 43, 82 Council of Chalcedon, 80, 361n.65 Council of Florence, 123

437

Council of Jerusalem, 37, 43 Council of Moscow, Renovationist (1925), 394n.373 Council of Nicea, 361n.65 Council of State, 55, 61 Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Missionary Society, 128 Council of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglav), 16 Council of Trent, 6 Council on Church Publications, 69 councils of metropolitan provinces, 98 Cyprian, Saint, 101, 175 Cyril of Kiev, Metropolitan, 16 deaneries, 93, 97, 106, 157, 164, 165, 387n.175; deanery assemblies, 54, 55, 133 “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia,” 67 “Decree on Land,” 67 “Decree on the Separation of the Church and State and the School from the Church,” 99, 102, 141 decrees of the 1917–18 council: regarding the catechism and parish schools, 137, 141– 42; regarding Church of Georgia, 117, 120– 21; regarding Church of Poland, 117, 119– 20, 121; regarding Church property and assets, 75, 106, 111, 137, 140, 143– 44, 146– 48, 149– 50; regarding conciliar organization of the Church, 68, 69, 72, 73– 80, 83, 87, 88, 90– 93, 105– 7, 108– 9, 113–14, 119, 124, 156, 157, 166, 167– 69, 172, 173, 174, 179, 180– 82, 183– 84, 188– 89; regarding diocesan administration, 73, 93– 98, 106– 7, 109, 115, 119– 20, 129,

438

INDEX

decrees of the 1917–18 council (cont.) 157, 163– 64, 167– 68, 168, 169, 170– 71, 172, 173, 176– 78, 181, 380n.10, 381n.13, 386nn.168,169, 387n.175, 407n.20, 414nn.152, 154; regarding election of archbishops, 170– 71; regarding finances, 76; regarding legal status of the Church, 137– 41; regarding local councils, 73– 76, 83, 87, 92, 93, 116, 147, 163, 165– 66, 355n.2, 381n.13, 386n.159, 409n.44; regarding marriage and divorce, 68, 69, 119, 131– 32, 137, 140, 144– 46, 188, 401n.52, 403n.62; regarding monastic reform, 73, 89, 91, 95, 107–14, 162, 176, 392nn.313, 339; regarding parish regulations, 98–107, 109, 133, 146, 157, 158, 161, 166, 171– 73, 176, 181, 380n.10, 389nn.232, 235, 412n.117; regarding parochial schools, 140, 141– 42, 143– 44, 397n.37, 398n.45, 401n.34; regarding pastoral activity and discipline of the Church, 4, 72, 124– 36, 380n.10; regarding relationship between Church and state, 72, 86, 88, 99, 102, 137– 52, 183– 84, 404n.103; regarding supreme administration of the Church, 66, 73– 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 106– 7, 110, 120, 129, 130– 31, 135, 140, 147, 157, 163, 165, 170, 172– 73, 176, 180– 81, 186, 188, 380nn.10, 12, 381n.13, 386n.169, 403n.63, 409n.44, 414nn.152, 154; regarding women in the Church, 132– 34. See also application and reception of council decrees

“Definition on the Holy Synod and Supreme Council of the Church,” 85– 86, 409n.44 “Definition on the Property and Economic Management of the Church,” 75 “Definition on the Rights and Duties of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,” 85– 86 Dimitrios I, 408n.38 diocesan administration: decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 73, 93– 98, 106– 7, 109, 115, 119– 20, 129, 157, 163– 64, 167– 68, 168, 169, 170– 71, 172, 173, 176– 78, 181, 380n.10, 381n.13, 386nn.168,169, 387n.175, 407n.20, 414nn.152, 154; diocesan assembly, 93, 96, 98, 108, 110, 116, 128, 133, 157, 163, 165, 167– 68, 172; diocesan bishops, 32, 40, 51, 89, 93– 96, 97, 98, 99–100, 101– 2, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 126, 129, 135, 148, 150, 151, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163– 64, 165, 168, 176– 78, 181, 375n.59, 387n.175, 407n.20, 414n.152; diocesan consistories, 8, 17, 177, 178; diocesan council, 75, 93, 96, 98, 109, 110, 133, 163, 167– 68, 169, 172– 73, 177, 178, 181, 392n.313, 414n.152; diocesan monastic assembly, 108, 109, 110 Diocesan Brotherhood, 126 Diocesan House, 64– 65 Diocesan Missionary Council, 128 district assembly, 97, 128 District Missionary Council, 128 Dmitri Donskoy, Saint, 409n.47 Dobronravov, Nikolai P., 62

INDEX

Dostoevsky, Fedor, 2, 5, 12, 15, 26, 366n.47, 400n.89 Duma, 32, 44, 45– 46, 55, 61, 82, 363n.3 ecclesiastical courts, 35, 49, 62, 69, 75, 96, 132, 146, 151 ecumenical patriarchate. See patriarchate of Constantinople ecumenism, 123 Edict on Religious Tolerance, 3, 24– 25, 31, 114, 116, 137, 183, 187 Edinoverie/edinovertsy, 61, 62, 68, 114–16, 371n.105, 375n.59, 376n.70, 394n.373 Elizabeth Petrovna, Tsarina, 17 Encyclical Letter of the Oriental Patriarchs, 18, 41, 363n.83 Ephesians 4:11, 175 Estonia, 164, 165 Eugene (Zernov), Bishop, 152 Evangelical Lutheran Churches, 122 Evdokim (Meshchersky), Archbishop, 122 Evlogy (Georgievsky), Archbishop/Metropolitan, 134, 366n.47, 411n.79 Feast of All Saints of Russia, 136, 400n.96 February 1917 Revolution, 45, 47– 48, 51, 52, 66, 120 Ferrieri, Archbishop Innocent, 363n.83 filioque clause, 37 Filonenko, Feodor D., 47 Flavian of Kiev, Metropolitan, 33 Florensky, Pavel, 185, 405n.8 Florovsky, Georges, 6; on Council of 1917–18, 174, 184– 86, 189; on spiritual crisis, 184– 86, 187

439

France, archdiocese of Eucarpia, 166– 73 functionaries (chinovniki), 28 Gapon, Georgy, 22, 39, 364nn.6, 7 Gogol, Nikolai, 12, 13 Golubinsky, Fedor A., 13 Great Britain, archdiocese of Sourozh, 166 Great Moscow Council of 1666–1667, 1, 16, 114, 408n.36 Gregorian calendar, 256n.4 Gromoglasov, Ilya M., 133 Herman of Alaska, Saint, 13 Hermogenes (Dolganov), Bishop, 152, 404n.104 Hermogenes, Patriarch, 104 Hilarion (Alfeyev), Metropolitan, 190 Holy Synod, 14, 58, 60, 71, 95, 96, 121, 123, 158, 159, 173, 177, 355n.1, 357n.9, 358n.18, 375n.59, 406n.10, 408n.36; chief procurator, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17–18, 21, 24, 25, 27– 29, 30, 31– 32, 35, 45– 46, 47, 51– 52, 87, 120, 360n.61, 370nn.92, 96, 97, 374n.39; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 66, 73, 74, 86, 87– 88, 89, 90– 91, 92, 93, 106, 110, 116, 119, 120, 127, 132, 135, 163, 170, 172, 180, 182, 381n.13, 386n.169, 414n.152, 414n.153; decrees of 1945 council regarding, 157; decrees of 1988 council regarding, 160; decrees of 2000 council regarding, 164– 65; and election of bishops, 94, 95; and election of patriarch, 89, 90; members, 76, 90– 91, 93; Missionary Council, 127, 128– 29; and preparation for the

440

INDEX

Holy Synod (cont.) council, 3, 27– 30, 31, 32, 33, 34– 35, 43, 45, 47– 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 59, 77, 134; and Spiritual Regulation, 7– 8, 10, 24, 358n.18. See also synodal period Hotovitsky, Protopresbyter Aleksander, 152 Ignatius Brianchaninov, Saint, 12, 393n.346, 409n.47 Ilminsky, N. I., 14 Innocent (John) (Veniaminov), Saint, 14 Iordansky, Ivan F., 79 Ivan III, 16 Ivan IV, 6, 16 Ivanitsky, Leonid E., 104 Ivantsev-Plaotnoc, Fr. A. M., 368n.62 Japan, 14 Jesus Christ, 100–101, 127; Church as body of, 36– 37, 38, 39, 79, 99, 104, 179, 180; on marriage, 145– 46 Joachim (Levitsky) of NizhnyNovgorod, Archbishop, 376n.70 1 John 5:4, 150 John VIII, Pope, 410n.63 John of Kronstadt, Saint, 12 Joseph (Petrovykh) of Leningrad, Metropolitan, 405n.8 Joseph of Volokolamsk, 113, 114, 361n.68 Julian calendar, 69– 70, 139, 246n.4, 399n.80 juridical personality of the Church, 99, 102– 3, 140– 41, 146, 147, 167, 411n.83 juridical personality of the parish, 102– 3, 106, 173 Justinian I, 140

kafolicheskiy, 396n.411 Karlovtsky Synod, 367n.47 Kartashev, Anton V., 47, 49, 51– 52, 122; on Council of 1917–18, 63– 65, 84– 85, 355n.12, 370nn.96, 97, 372n.115, 375n.58 Kazakhstan, 165 Kazan Theological Academy, 14, 38, 122 Kerensky, Alexander F., 63, 142, 183, 377n.80, 378n.93 Kerensky, Vladimir A., 122 Khomiakov, Alexis S., 12, 18, 19, 37, 41 Kiev Academy, 6, 357n.8 Kiev period, 6, 259n.28 Kireevsky, Ivan V., 12 Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk, Archbishop, 160 Kirill (Smirnov) of Tambov, Archbishop/Metropolitan, 104, 142, 372n.111, 405n.8 klobuk, 64, 377nn.85, 86 Kornilov, Lavr, 370n.92, 377n.80, 378n.93 Kudriavtsev-Platonov, Viktor D., 13 Kudryavtsev, Piotr P., 82 Kuznetsov, Nikolai D., 102, 103 Kyrgyzstan, 165 laity, 47, 49, 51; council participation of, 1, 2, 3, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35– 42, 43, 48, 53, 54– 55, 56, 57– 62, 74, 79, 97, 107, 156– 57, 159, 160, 165, 166, 167– 69, 171, 172– 73, 174– 79, 180– 82, 188, 189, 365n.23, 374n.57, 375n.62, 381n.21, 386n.159, 413nn.120, 129; and election of archbishops, 170– 71; and election of bishops, 94– 95; and election of patriarch, 89; and preaching, 125– 26, 135; and Supreme Council of the Church, 91, 92, 93 Latin language, 357n.5

INDEX

Latvia, 164, 165 lavras, 107, 108, 110, 111, 375n.64, 391n.298, 392n.339, 397n.30 Lebedev, Aleksei P., 38, 368n.62 Leibniz, G., 358n.14 Lenin, V. I., 183 Leo III, Emperor, 410n.63 Leontiev, Konstantin N., 12–13 Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole, 34, 47– 48 “Letter of Convocation,” 53– 54, 60 Likhud brothers, 6 Lithuania, 165 liturgy, 112, 134– 36, 150, 162, 175 lity, 70, 379n.100 Liubimov, Nikolai A., 65 “Living Church”/“Renovated Church,” 154– 55, 185, 188, 370n.92, 371n.110, 372nn.111, 114, 398n.51, 405n.5 Lobnoe Mesto, 63, 377n.81 local councils, 82, 154– 66, 172, 361n.65, 365n.23, 381n.21, 398n.51; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 73– 76, 83, 87, 92, 93, 116, 147, 163, 165– 66, 355n.2, 381n.13, 386n.159, 409n.44. See also Council of 1547; Council of 1549; Council of 1923; Council of 1924; Council of 1945; Council of 1971; Council of 1988; Council of 1990 Lutheranism, 7, 358n.16 Lütiens, G. F., Dissertatio historicoecclesiastica de religione ruthenorum hodierna, 358n.16 L’vov, G. E., 377n.80 L’vov, Vladimir N., 45– 48, 50, 51, 120, 370n.92 Macarius (Glukharev), Saint, 13–14 Macarius (Nevsky) of Moscow, Metropolitan, 46, 65

441

Macarius of Moscow, Saint, 16, 135, 409n.47 mantia, 64, 377n.84 marriage and divorce, 8, 9, 35, 398n.51; civil marriage, 66, 67; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 68, 69, 119, 131– 32, 137, 140, 144– 46, 188, 402n.52, 403n.62 martyrology, 75, 381n.25 Matthew 19:6, 146 Matthias the apostle, 89 Maximus the Greek, Saint, 409n.47 mesiatseslov, 400n.87 Methodius, Patriarch, 377n.85 Metrophan (Krasnopolsky) of Astrakhan, Bishop, 78, 82 metropolitan provinces, 98, 128, 135 Meyendorff, John: on Church-state relations, 182– 84, 189; on Council of 1917–18, 174, 182– 84, 186 Michael (Bogdanov), bishop of Samara, 47 Michael of Novgorod, Metropolitan, 358n.19 missionary activity, 1, 13–14, 62, 68, 111–12, 124, 127– 29, 392n.339 Missionary Society, 89 Moldova, 164, 165 monastic assembly, 392n.313 monks and monasticism, 15, 49, 53, 55, 60, 62, 67, 68, 89, 126, 184, 366n.47, 375n.65; abbots, 108– 9, 111; black monastic clergy, 9, 39, 61; and charity, 112; communal living, 110–11; conciliarity in monastic life, 108– 9, 113–14; council decrees regarding, 73, 89, 91, 95, 107–14, 162; diocesan monastic assembly, 108, 109, 110; educated monasticism, 112–13, 162, 393n.346; election of abbots,

442

INDEX

monks and monasticism (cont.) 108– 9; lavras, 107, 108, 110, 111, 375n.64, 391n.298, 392n.339, 397n.30; and missionary work, 111–12; monastic council, 109; relationship to spiritual renewal, 11–13; stavropegial monasteries, 108, 391n.298; and Supplement to the Spiritual Regulation, 8 moral monism, 368n.47 Moscow period (1240–1725), 6, 11, 15, 16, 80– 81 Moscow Theological Academy, 133 myron, 86, 384n.104 Myshetsky, Prince, 46 nationalization of land, 67 Nazarius (Kirillov) of Kherson, Archbishop, 376n.70 Nicene Creed, 18, 138, 355n.1, 401n.6 Nicholas I, Tsar, 17 Nicholas I, Pope, 410n.63 Nicholas II, 360n.61, 363n.3; abdication, 3, 45, 48, 137, 184, 187; assassination, 68; and Council preparations, 21, 24, 28, 29– 31, 33– 34, 44, 57; edict regarding religious tolerance, 3, 24– 25, 31, 114, 116, 137, 183, 187 Nicholas of Japan, Saint, 14 Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, Philokalia, 11–12 nihilism, 10, 127 Nikanor, Archbishop, 13, 393n.346 Nikon, Patriarch, 6, 16, 41, 81 Nil Sorsky, 361n.68 Nilus of Sora, 113 Non-Possessors, 16, 361n.68 Novospassky Monastery, 71, 72, 379n.8

Obolensky, Alexei D., 35 October 1905 revolution, 30, 32– 34, 44, 45, 47, 52, 124, 360n.61, 363n.3 October 1917 revolution, 2, 4, 21, 67, 81– 82, 104, 187, 370n.99, 378n.94, 383n.74 Old Believers, 35, 49, 50, 62, 81, 365n.14, 394n.373, 406n.10; and Edict on Religious Tolerance, 24– 25, 114, 116, 183, 187, 371n.105; schism (Raskol), 6, 8, 16, 41, 129, 408n.36. See also Edinoverie/edinovertsy Old Catholics, 121– 23 “On Agricultural Committees,” 67 “On Monasteries and Monastics,” 107–14 “On the Active Participation of Women in Various Areas of Church Ministry,” 133 “On the Edinoverie and the Old Believers,” 115 “On the Holy Synod and the Supreme Council of the Church,” 90 “On the Internal and External Mission,” 127– 28 “On the Measures Caused by the Ongoing Persecution Against the Orthodox Church,” 148– 49 “On the Measures for the Ending of the Discord in the Life of the Church,” 96, 150– 51 “On the Procedure for the Election of the Most Holy Patriarch,” 89 “On the Procedure for the Local Glorification of Saints,” 135 “On the Property and Economic Management of the Church,” 403n.63

INDEX

“On the Protection of the Church Possessions from Blasphemous Usurpation and Profanation,” 103, 149– 50 “On the Scope of Authority of the Institution of the Supreme Administration of the Church,” 90 Optina Pustin’, monastery of, 12–13 Ornatskiy, Father Filosof, 364n.7 Orthodox Church in America, 406n.10 Orthodox Missionary Society of Russia, 128 Ostroumov, Mikhail A., 38, 368n.64 Paisius Velichkovsky, Saint, 11, 409n.47 panikhida, 105, 390n.263 parish assembly, 101, 104, 105– 6, 133, 151, 163, 171– 72 parish council, 101, 105, 106, 133, 151, 158, 161, 163, 171– 72, 414nn.153, 158 parish priests, 9, 18, 84, 99–102, 107, 126, 366n.45; duties of, 104, 105, 125, 158, 161, 166, 171– 72, 181, 391n.288, 414nn.153, 158; election of, 103– 4, 109, 362n.78; preaching by, 125 parish property, 102, 105 parish regulations, 157– 59, 165; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 98–107, 109, 133, 146, 157, 158, 161, 166, 171– 73, 176, 181, 380n.10, 389nn.232, 235, 412n.117 parish schools, 14–15, 35, 51, 62, 66, 67, 106, 380n.10 pastoral schools, 68, 104, 129– 31 patriarchate, 28, 117–18, 123, 182, 356n.3, 377nn.84– 86, 382n.52, 394n.373, 395nn.398, 399; canonical argument regarding,

443

78, 79– 80; and conciliarity (sobornost’), 76– 80, 88, 93; debate between conciliarists and patriarchists regarding, 77– 83; decrees of 1917–18 council regarding, 1, 30, 43, 66, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76– 90, 93, 110, 116, 118, 119, 135, 148, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 186, 187, 188– 89, 362n.79, 385n.141, 386n.169; decrees of 1945 council regarding, 157; election of patriarch, 30, 31, 69, 74, 76, 77, 83– 85, 89– 90, 107, 159, 166, 384n.85, 385n.141, 409n.44; historical argument regarding, 78, 80– 81; judgment of patriarch, 74, 75, 88, 91, 160, 165, 409n.44; locum tenens of patriarchal throne, 68, 69, 86, 89, 90, 155– 56, 157, 159, 160– 61, 368n.74, 405n.8, 406n.10, 408n.38; psychological argument regarding, 78, 81; restoration of, 1, 17, 30, 43, 66, 71, 74, 75, 76– 90, 84– 85, 89, 93, 161– 62, 165, 186, 187, 188– 89, 362n.79, 372n.111, 385n.141; rights and duties of patriarch, 76, 77, 78, 82– 83, 85– 88, 92, 95– 96, 118, 119, 128, 135, 148, 163, 171, 414nn.153, 154; theological argument regarding, 78, 79 patriarchate of Constantinople, 80, 81, 85, 121, 133, 166, 172, 357n.9, 386n.159, 395nn.398, 402, 408n.38, 411n.79, 414n.162 Peter (Poliansky), Metropolitan, 368n.74, 372n.111, 405n.8 Peter Mogila, Metropolitan, Profession of Faith, 6 Peter of Krutitsy, Metropolitan, 405n.8

444

INDEX

Peter the Apostle, 79 Peter the Great, 5– 9, 10–11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 31, 77, 88, 168, 186; and conciliarity, 7, 79, 80; Spiritual Regulation, 6– 8, 10, 24, 357nn.8, 9, 358nn.14, 16; Supplement to the Spiritual Regulation, 8 Petrograd Theological Academy, 46, 47 Philaret (Denisenko) of Kiev, 161 Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, Metropolitan, 10, 14, 17, 19, 25, 357n.5, 362n.73, 393n.346 Philip, Metropolitan, 86 philosophy, 12–13, 18, 37 Photios II, Ecumenical Patriarch, 411n.79 Photius, Archimandrite, 358n.19 Pilsudski, Josef, 394n.395 Pimen (Izvekov), Patriarch, 159, 161, 408n.38 Pitirim (Oknov) of Petrograd, Metropolitan, 45, 46 Pius IX, 37, 41; In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede, 363n.83 Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Georgia, Archbishop, 47, 64, 120 Pobedonostsev, Konstantin P., 14, 21, 24, 27– 29, 30– 32, 34, 360n.61 Poland, 394n.395, 395n.398 Polonsky, Georgy, 404n.104 “Possessors” vs. “Non-Possessors,” 113–14, 361n.68 Potulov, Vasily A., 61, 102, 103 preaching, 10, 66, 112, 124– 27, 135 preeminence of Orthodox Church, 138, 140– 41 preimushchestvo, 139, 401n.13 preparation for the Council, 2, 4, 21– 52, 71, 136, 184, 188, 189, 370n.96; Preconciliar Commission of 1906, 3, 5, 34– 44, 49, 54, 56, 57, 58, 74, 77,

102, 114–15, 120, 156, 179, 365n.23, 381n.21; Preconciliar Committee of 1917, 49– 51, 52, 53, 55, 59, 61, 77, 102, 370n.92, 375n.59, 376n.67; Preconciliar Consultative Committee of 1912, 3, 44– 45, 77, 102; role of Holy Synod in, 3, 27– 30, 31, 32, 33, 34– 35, 43, 45, 47– 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 59, 77, 134; role of memoranda in, 3, 22– 27, 29, 30, 33, 35– 36, 38, 39– 40, 45, 47, 77; role of Nicholas II in, 21, 24, 28, 29– 31, 33– 34, 44, 57 Procopiy (Titov), Bishop, 152, 376n.70 Prokoshev, Pavel A., 384n.85 Protasov, N. A., 358n.19 Protestantism, 16, 37, 80, 121, 122, 128, 357n.8, 358n.16 protopresbyters, 60, 83, 152, 375n.59, 377n.76; of army and navy, 43, 62, 65, 88, 359n.36, 376n.66, 378n.93; as secular clergy, 359n.36 provincial assemblies, 98 Provisional Government, 50, 370nn.97, 99; Church-state relations under, 3, 45– 48, 51– 52, 63– 64, 66, 120, 137, 141– 42, 143– 44, 146, 148, 162, 183, 187, 370n.92, 371n.104, 378n.93; February 1917 Revolution, 45, 47– 48, 51, 52, 66, 120 Raev, N. P., 45, 46 Rasputin, Grigori, 45, 46, 185 “Regarding the Government Proposal Concerning Parochial Schools,” 143 “Regulation for the Administration of the Church,” 156– 59 relics, 135, 400n.89

INDEX

religious tolerance, 27, 29, 35, 124, 127, 151, 408n.38; imperial edict regarding, 3, 24– 25, 31, 114, 116, 137, 183, 187 renewal during synodal period, 3, 5, 11–15, 52, 187 “Renewal of the Church,” 154 Renovationist Church, 405nn.5, 8 “Restoration into the Holy Orders of the Persons Deposed by the Decision of the Ecclesiastical Court,” 132 “The Restoration of the Feast of All Saints of Russia,” 136 Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., Histoire de la Russie, 370n.99 Rodzianko, Mikhail, 65 Rozanov, Vasily V., 13, 37 Rozhdestvensky, Alexander P., 47 Rus, 28 Russian Church in Japan, 406n.10, 408n.36 Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, 366n.47, 408n.36 salvation, 101, 368n.65, 389n.232 Schmemann, Alexander: on Council of 1917–18, 174, 180– 82, 183, 186, 189; on principle of representation, 180– 81 Schulz, Günther, 154, 395n.403 “The Second Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church,” 154 seminaries, 10, 68, 104, 126, 127, 129– 30, 259n.39, 357n.5, 397n.37 Seraphim (Aleksandrov) of Cheliabinsk, Bishop, 104 Seraphim (Chichagov) of Tver, Archbishop, 99, 102 Seraphim of Saron, Saint, 12 Sergius, Archimandrite, 152

445

Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland/ Vladimir, Archbishop/ Metropolitan, 19, 47, 98, 155; role in preparation for Council of 1917–18, 41– 42, 43, 57, 179, 188, 368n.74 Sergius of Nizhy Novgorod, Metropolitan, 405n.8, 406n.10 Shavel’sky, Georgy I., 62, 65, 378n.93 Siberia, 14 Sisters of Charity, 12 Sixth Ecumenical Council, 125, 133, 145 Slavo-Greek Latin Academy, 6 Slavonic language, 134, 355n.1 Slavophiles, 18–19, 35, 366n.47; and conciliarity (sobornost’), 5, 12, 15, 18, 19, 37, 38, 355n.1 Smirnov, Alexander P., 47 sobor, 1, 18–19, 355n.1 soborniy, 1, 18, 138, 355n.1, 396n.411, 401n.6 Sokolov, Ivan I., 80 Sokolov, Ivan P., 122 solea, 64, 377n.87 Solovyov, Vladimir, 13, 19 Soviet government, 106, 356n.4, 378n.96; Church-state relations under, 67– 68, 69, 86, 102, 103, 121– 22, 130, 137, 138, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 155– 56, 157, 158, 161, 162, 166, 174, 181, 183, 184, 187, 189– 90, 368n.74, 372n.111, 378nn.94, 95, 404n.103, 405nn.5,8, 406n.10, 407n.29, 408n.38, 411n.83, 414n.158; October 1917 Revolution, 2, 4, 21, 67, 81– 82, 104, 187, 370n.99, 378n.94, 383n.74; Stalin, 155, 406n.10; Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 183

446

INDEX

State Archives of the Russian Federation, 379n.3 State Historical Archives of Russia, 379n.3 “Statute of the Local of the Orthodox Church of All Russia,” 2, 3, 50, 53, 55– 56, 57– 58, 62, 163, 409n.43 “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church” (2000), 162– 64 “Statute on the Convocation of the Council,” 53, 54– 55 “Statutes Governing Russian Orthodox Association,” 167 stavropegial monasteries, 108 sticharion, 126, 135, 396n.8 St. Petersburg Academy, 122 Struve, Petr B., 13 St. Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology, 412n.92 Sunday of Orthodoxy, 99–100, 388n.220 Supreme Council of the Church, 73, 87– 88, 95, 96, 157; council of 1917–18 decrees regarding, 66, 75, 76, 86, 89, 90, 91– 92, 93, 106, 110, 165, 169, 172– 73, 180, 181– 82, 381n.13, 386n.169, 414n.153; and election of patriarch, 89, 90 Suvorov, Nikolai S., 38, 39, 179 Sweden, 7 Sylvester, Pope, 377n.86 synodal period, 6, 16–19, 54, 80, 98, 135, 175, 177, 178, 186, 360n.45, 400n.89; renewal during, 3, 5, 11–15, 52, 187; structural paralysis during, 2– 3, 5–11 Tajikistan, 165 “The Teaching of the Orthodox Faith in the School,” 142– 43

theology, 1, 11, 99–100, 124, 125, 138; and conciliarity, 18, 37, 38, 61, 79; and patriarchate, 78, 79; theological academies, 13, 129– 31, 357n.5, 376n.68, 397n.30, 397n.37; theological reception of 1917–18 council, 2, 4, 173– 86 Theophan (Prokopovich), Metropolitan, 7, 16–17, 357nn.8, 9 Theophan the Recluse, Saint, 12, 393n.346, 409n.47 Theophilus, Emperor, 377n.85 Theophylact (Klimentiev) of Slutsk, Bishop, 376n.70 Thirty-Two priests, 51; “On the necessity of Change in Russian Church Government,” 22– 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, 45, 47, 77, 364n.8; second memorandum, 36, 38, 39– 40 Tikhon (Bellavin), Archbishop/ Metropolitan/Patriarch, 46, 50, 64, 65, 67, 98, 122, 183, 366n.47, 411n.79; arrest, 154– 55, 405nn.5, 8; death, 152, 154– 55, 368n.74; election as patriarch, 66, 84– 85, 89, 161– 62, 372n.111, 385n.141 Tikhon (Obolensky) of the Urals, Bishop, 376n.70 Tikhon of Zadonsk, Saint, 11 1 Timothy 3:12, 12, 131 Titus 1:6, 131 Tolstoy, Dmitry A., 14, 358n.19 Tolstoy, Leo, 360n.61 “To the Churches of Christ throughout the Universe,” 123 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 183 Trinity-Saint-Sergius Monastery, 12 Troitsky, Nikolai I., 79, 83 Trubetskoy, Evgeniy N., 1, 62, 65, 185

INDEX

Trubetskoy, Sergei N., 18 Tserkovniy Vestnik (The Church Messenger), 22, 46, 48 Tserkovnye vedomosti, 31– 32, 33, 71 Tsvetkov, Nikolai V., 62 Turkmenistan, 165 Ukrainian National Council, 117 Union of Teachers, 142 United Nations, 408n.38 unity of Russian Orthodox Church, 163 University of Kharkov, 38 University of Petrograd, 47 Urmia, 91, 386n.154 Uzbekistan, 164 Valaam, monastery of, 13 Vasiliev, Afanasy V., 79 Vatican II, 123, 355nn.1, 2, 387n.175, 406n.10 vicariates, 60, 375n.63 Virgin of Vladimir (icon), 84 Vitoshinsky, Emilian M., 122 Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev, Metropolitan, 46, 63, 64, 84, 85, 121; assassination, 68, 148, 152, 404n.104 Vladimir (Tikhonitsky) of Belostok, Bishop, 376n.70 Vladimir of Moscow, Metropolitan, 33, 65

447

Vladimir Solovyov Philosophical and Religious Society, 184– 85 Volkonsky, P. M., 371n.104 voting, 1, 3, 19, 35– 42, 57– 58, 74, 179, 188, 369n.80, 374n.46 vselenskiy, 138, 396n.411, 401n.6 Vvedensky, Alexander I., 51, 154, 371n.110, 372n.114, 405n.5 Witte, Sergei Y., 24, 28– 29, 32, 363n.3; “The Present Situation of the Orthodox Church,” 22, 25– 27, 30, 36 women in the Church, 1, 69, 105, 131, 132– 34, 188, 397n.37, 398n.59; schools for women, 129, 130 World Council of Churches, 406n.10, 407nn.34, 38 World War I, 44, 119, 183, 378nn.93, 94, 394n.395, 395n.398 World War II, 155, 395n.398 Xenia of St. Petersburg, Saint, 12, 409n.47 Yurkevich, Pamfil D., 13 Zachary, Archimandrite, 12 Zaozersky, Nikolai A., 26, 365n.23 zemstvos, 14, 18, 25, 361n.63 Zhevakhov, N. D., 46 Zonaras, John, 80, 398n.59

H YA C I N T H E D E S T I V E L L E , O . P. is an official at the Oriental section of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the Vatican.

M I C H A E L P L E K O N is professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and in the Program in Religion and Culture at Baruch College of the City University of New York.

V I TA LY P E R M I A K O V teaches comparative and liturgical theology at Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Jordanville, New York.

J E R R Y R YA N is an independent scholar.

“As the centenary of the Russian Revolution approaches, Hyacinthe Destivelle’s study offers a valuable resource for assessing a critical dimension of that momentous event: the Orthodox Church Council of 1917–1918. Deploying a wealth of published sources to recount the origins, activities, and results of this remarkable gathering, Destivelle provides a synthesis that is at once insightful and accessible to a broad readership. His work covers the entire period from the first calls for a council in 1905 through the assembly’s conclusion in 1918, skillfully demonstrating how the conciliar ideal was translated into concrete ecclesiastical decrees. In doing so, Destivelle identifies the central players and the broad range of issues at stake in the Church’s reform, as well as the resonance of the council’s decisions for the rest of the twentieth century. His book represents a fine contribution to the growing scholarship on religion in Russia and provides an excellent point of entry for those seeking to understand the fate of the Orthodox Church in the twentieth century.” —PAUL W. WERTH, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS “Hyacinthe Destivelle’s study is a much-needed and timely examination of the historic All-Russia Church Council of 1917–1918—a council that marked both the culmination and the beginning of a new epoch in modern Russian Orthodoxy. The English translation of the council’s definitions and decrees, as well as the ‘Statute of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church of All Russia,’ along with Destivelle’s exceptional commentary and annotations, will remain a foundational work for scholars and students of modern Christianity and Orthodoxy, as well as for scholars and students of Russian history, for decades to come.” —VERA SHEVZOV, SMITH COLLEGE

HYACINTHE DESTIVELLE, O.P., IS AN OFFICIAL AT THE ORIENTAL SECTION OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY AT THE VATICAN.

TH E UN I V ERSI T Y OF N OTRE DAM E PRESS Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 undpress.nd.edu