Blessed Averky of Holy Trinity Monastery and Syracuse
(Taken from Volume 2
of Современность в свете Слова Божия, compiled by A. D. Kaplin,
published by the Institute of Russian Civilization, Moscow, 2012.)
On Sunday, October 8/21 of this
year, 1962, if God wills and if we live to see that day, the regular Council of
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is to open in New York.
What significance do Councils of
Bishops have?
According to the canons, or
ecclesiastical rules, which have universally binding significance and force for
all members of the Church, the highest authority in each given region or Local
Church belongs to the Council of Bishops of that region or Local Church.
And the highest authority in the
entire Universal Church belongs to an Ecumenical Council, that is, a Council of
the Bishops of the whole world.
In each individual Diocese, the
local Diocesan Bishop possesses the fullness of canonical authority, that is,
the authority provided for by the canons. But questions that exceed local
significance and have significance for the Church as a whole, as well as
questions not clearly provided for by the canons and giving rise to disputes
and contentions, no Bishop—not even one who stands at the head of an entire
region or Local Church—has the right to decide on his own, without consultation
and deliberation with the other Bishops of that region or Local Church.
Councils of Bishops are convened
for the resolution of such questions as have important significance for the
Church as a whole.
According to the canons, such
Councils of Bishops: 1) properly order the affairs of their region or Local
Church; 2) deliberate concerning the dogmas of piety; 3) resolve ecclesiastical
disputes and doubtful cases; 4) examine complaints against Bishops; 5) decide
disputes between Bishops concerning parishes; 6) correct the decisions of
lesser councils; 7) elect and consecrate new Bishops; and 8) judge Bishops.
In the first centuries of
Christianity, Councils of Bishops, as required by the 37th Canon of the Holy
Apostles, the 5th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, and the 19th Canon of
the Fourth Ecumenical Council, were convened twice a year, in the spring and in
the autumn. Subsequently, however, because of various practical difficulties,
it was decreed that such Councils of Bishops should be convened once a year, as
stated in the 8th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the 6th Canon of
the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
The decisions of such regional or
Local Councils of Bishops are recognized as canonical and have binding force
for all the faithful of that region or Local Church, provided that they are in
complete agreement with the teaching of the Word of God and the Tradition of
the Church, and do not contradict the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. A
lesser Council, as is self-evident, has no authority to repeal or fundamentally
alter the decisions of a greater Council.
According to Orthodox teaching,
infallibility belongs only to the entire Church as a whole, and is understood
in the sense that, according to Christ’s immutable promise (Matt. 16:18), the
entire Church as a whole can never fall into error or depart from the Truth.
Councils of Bishops, as we have
already said, are needed only for the resolution of matters concerning the
Church as a whole, for in each individual Diocese the ruling Bishop possesses
the fullness of hierarchical authority inherited by him, through the Mystery of
the Priesthood, in succession from the Holy Apostles themselves, for which
reason he is also regarded as an “apostolic successor.” All the ecclesiastical
affairs of his Diocese are subject to the Bishop’s hierarchical authority—not
only purely spiritual matters, but also material and administrative ones.
However, according to the clear teaching of the Word of God and the
interpretation of the great Fathers of the Church, the character and nature of
this authority differ very substantially from ordinary worldly authority—the
authority of secular superiors and rulers.
The moral foundation of the
Bishop’s hierarchical authority lies not in external coercion, but in his lofty
personal spiritual authority, as the Holy Apostle Peter teaches persuasively in
his First Catholic Epistle: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking
the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly and according to God;
neither for filthy lucre, but readily; neither as being lords over God’s
heritage, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2–3). The canons
resolutely condemn “the smoky arrogance of the world” (see the Epistle of the
Council of Africa to Celestine, Pope of Rome), and the great Fathers of the
Church, such as Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Gregory the Theologian,
severely censure in Bishops the desire to resemble secular rulers in all
things.
The episcopal ministry is the
greatest ministry in the world, its purpose being the salvation of souls unto
eternal life. According to the remarkable definition of the Holy Apostle Paul,
it is “the work of the ministry”—“for the perfecting of the saints, for the
edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come into the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13).
From this, the special nature and
particular character of episcopal authority become self-evident. So lofty a
goal as the salvation of souls unto eternal life cannot be attained by any
external coercive measures, any administrative methods, or even the most
brilliant organization; while a formalistic and bureaucratic approach to this
work can only harm it and even cause irreparable damage.
The salvation of souls is a realm
of purely spiritual activity, and therefore it is precisely spiritual activity
and a personal, inspiring example (“pattern,” in the words of our Church
Slavonic text) that the Word of God places at the very foundation of the
episcopal ministry (see 1 Pet. 5:3 and 1 Tim. 4:12).
But where questions arise that
exceed the competence of a single Bishop, where a Bishop needs the counsel and
spiritual support of his brother Bishops, there arises the need—so that the
same great task, the salvation of the souls of the faithful, may be accomplished
more successfully—for the convocation of an entire Council of Bishops. The
canons attach extraordinarily great importance to a Council of Bishops, even
subjecting to canonical penance those Bishops who, without a sufficiently valid
reason, decline to participate in the Council (see the 8th Canon of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council and the 6th Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).
The entire Local Church as a
whole is governed by the Council of Bishops; therefore, no Bishop may be
arbitrarily excluded from participation in the Council, and no Bishop has the
right to neglect participation in it. All matters concerning the Church as a
whole must be decided with the knowledge and consent of all the Bishops; all
the Bishops must be fully informed of all matters that are the subject of the
Council’s deliberations; and those among them who have been unable to attend
the Council for some valid reason must express their consent to the Council’s
decisions by means of written letters.
Under the conditions of our life
as refugees, taking into account that the faithful, parishes, and dioceses of
our Russian Church Abroad are scattered throughout all five parts of the
world—truly “from the end even unto the end of the world”—the literal fulfillment
of the canonical requirement that a Council of all the Bishops be convened
annually is entirely impracticable. But in this difficulty, the 106th Canon of
the Council of Carthage comes precisely to our aid, allowing a certain measure
of condescension with regard to this requirement and stating “that there need
not be a general plenary Council except when necessity requires,” and that “it
is not necessary henceforth to burden the brethren every year, but only when a
common necessity requires it.”
It is upon this canonical
foundation that the custom became established in our Russian Church Abroad—more
recently, since the transfer of our spiritual center to the United States—of
convening a general Council of all the Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad
once every three years.
During the period between
Councils, matters concerning the Church as a whole are administered by the
Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which constitutes, as
it were, a lesser Council of Bishops elected for this purpose by the regular
general Council. The Synod of Bishops is merely the executive organ of the
general Council of Bishops, and its task is to put into effect all conciliar
decisions; to oversee their proper canonical implementation; to decide all
urgent matters concerning the Church as a whole that arise and admit of no
delay, only with the knowledge and consent of all the other Bishops, obtained
by consulting them; and to prepare materials for the forthcoming regular
Council of Bishops.
Such conciliar governance is the
fundamental principle of our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which
follows the example of the Holy Apostles themselves, who, in order to resolve
important questions concerning the Church as a whole, assembled at a council in
Jerusalem in A.D. 51.
The basis for such conciliar
governance of the Church is the 34th Canon of the Holy Apostles, which reads
literally as follows:
“The Bishops of every NATION must
know the first among them and acknowledge him as their head, and do nothing
exceeding their authority without his judgment; but each is to do only what
concerns his own diocese and the places belonging to it. But neither is the
first to do anything without the judgment of all. For thus there will be
unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit: the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Here, in this Apostolic Canon,
which has such important and foundational significance, the expression “the
Bishops of every nation” deserves particular attention—precisely “nation,” and
not some definite territory strictly delineated by state borders.
This expression clearly
emphasizes the ethnic, or, as it is now commonly called among us, national—and
by no means territorial—principle of a Local Church, which must spiritually and
canonically unite precisely a nation, and not a territory.
It is therefore on this
basis—which is naturally suggested both by ordinary common sense and by the
most elementary human justice—that our Russian Church Abroad spiritually and
canonically unites our entire Orthodox Russian people, “being in exile and dispersion,”
because of invasions and persecutions that are no longer “barbarian,” as they
were in antiquity, at the time when the canons were composed, but far more
terrible and grievous—“godless” and “theomachist.”
Only the malice of the enemies of
our Russian Church Abroad, viewing everything through the eyes of prejudice,
can pretend not to understand this and deny our Church the very right to exist.
This malice, however, is far from
accidental.
The very deep causes of this
malice lie in the fact that our Russian Church Abroad is at present the only
Orthodox Church that still remains free from the pressure of dark
anti-Christian forces and has not yet submitted to enslavement by them.
And that the other Local Orthodox
Churches are no longer free was demonstrated quite clearly, before the eyes of
the whole world, by the Rhodes Conference alone, from whose agenda the item
concerning the struggle against atheism—the chief evil of modern life—was very
tellingly deleted.
Some Local Orthodox Churches, as
we know, have long been completely enslaved by the “militant atheists” and
serve as instruments of their theomachist and misanthropic policy throughout
the world. Others, while apparently enjoying visible freedom, maintain close
friendship and cooperation with the former and, at the same time, have
voluntarily joined a “movement” that quite unambiguously sets itself the task
of abolishing all the world’s existing religions (including, of course,
Orthodoxy!) and creating one new religion common to all—an “ecumenical”
religion.
Until quite recently, this actual
betrayal of Holy Orthodoxy was concealed under the plausible pretext of an
alleged desire to bear witness to Holy Orthodoxy before the heterodox. Now “the
mask has been cast off,” and we continually read public statements by the
hierarchs of these Churches, outspoken to the point of utter cynicism,
declaring that some entirely new epoch is approaching, “when the boundaries
between religions and nations will be erased and peace will come upon the
earth” (an interview of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras with the press in
Istanbul on November 4, 1959); that “we stand upon the threshold of Christian
evolution”; and that “we live in a new age, and the past must be cast aside”
(his words published in The Living Church on May 15, 1960).
While we firmly believe that our
Holy Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of the Truth by virtue of
Christ’s immutable words: “I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18), and that there has never been, nor can
there be, any “division of the Churches,” but only apostasies from the One
Church of Christ, resulting from departure from the Truth preserved by the
Church, contemporary Orthodox hierarchs who have joined the “Ecumenical
movement” assert that the Church of Christ “has become divided” (see the 1960
Paschal Epistle of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople), and that the sole
cause of this “division” is not the steadfastness of some in the Truth and the
falling away of others from that Truth, but “human vanity alone” (the words of
Archbishop Iakovos, head of the Greek Church in America, spoken on television
from Manchester on March 11, 1961), and that therefore the Orthodox Church, in
his own words, must “cease proclaiming its ‘universal teaching.’”
This is how far contemporary
Orthodox Ecumenists have gone!
Are not such words, so appalling
to a sound Orthodox consciousness, already a departure from Orthodoxy?
But such, in general, is the
entire ideology of this so-called “Ecumenical movement,” which, under the
pretext of an imaginary “Christian love,” seeks to abolish all presently
existing confessions and religions, including, it goes without saying, Holy Orthodoxy
itself. As an indication of this, at the most recent Ecumenical conference,
held not long ago in New Delhi, all proselytism—that is, conversion to one’s
own faith, and consequently conversion to Orthodoxy as well—was branded
“anti-Christian.” All the Orthodox delegates, representing almost all the Local
Orthodox Churches, agreed to this, thereby renouncing their Orthodoxy.
Against the background of the
gloomy picture described above, the wholly exceptional significance of our
Russian Church Abroad and the immense responsibility resting upon it and its
hierarchs stand out with particular clarity.
We cherish the freedom of our
Church above all else, but not at all because we “have no love,” as the
“Ecumenists” have so lightly grown accustomed to accusing us—those who are
altogether too abounding in love toward the enemies of the pure and uncorrupted
Truth of Christ, and sometimes even toward the manifest enemies of our Holy
Faith (but only not toward us—their brethren by blood and faith!)—but precisely
because we possess love for the Truth: because we firmly believe (without
doubting it in the least, as the “Ecumenists” evidently do) that our Church,
the Holy Orthodox Church, is, as the Word of God teaches, “the pillar and
ground of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); and because, according to the commandment
of the Holy Apostle, we desire to “walk in this Truth” (2 John 4), and do not
wish, following the warning of the great Father of the Church, Saint Gregory
the Theologian, “to become betrayers of the doctrine of the Faith and of the
Truth,” “partaking of the evil leaven and joining ourselves to those infected”—the
apostates from the Truth (see The Works of Saint Gregory, Part 1, p.
192).
In the light of all these recent
events in world ecclesiastical life, which have occurred over the past three
years, the forthcoming autumn Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad
acquires particularly important significance. In view of all that has been said
above, there now naturally rests upon it a great and highly responsible duty—to
utter courageously and fearlessly its strong and weighty word in defense of the
Truth that is being reviled and humiliated.
And in order that this word of
ours may be truly authoritative and effective, all of us, the faithful sons and
servants of the Russian Church Abroad, must first of all preserve complete
unanimity and oneness of mind among ourselves, “doing nothing,” according to
the commandment of the Holy Apostle, “through strife or vainglory; but in
lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:2–3),
seeking not our “own things,” but being zealous solely for the triumph of the
Truth.
If we are all deeply imbued with
such an awareness, then in our holy struggle for the Truth, the Divine Founder
of the Church Himself will be with us and will fight on our behalf.
And if God be for us, who can be
against us? (Rom. 8:31).
Russian source online:
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Averkij_Taushev/sovremennost-v-svete-slova-bozhija-slova-i-rechi/2_20
