On the Significance of Councils

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