Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Wholeness in the Orthodox Church

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dear List, Concerning the events that have been devastating our Church, it may be interesting to remember the decisions of the Council of 1917 regarding the
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 7 12:45 AM
      Dear List,

      Concerning the events that have been devastating our Church, it may
      be interesting to remember the decisions of the Council of 1917
      regarding the role of laity, bishops and Patriarch. To what extend
      were we faithful to those decisions? To what extend would the rules
      below have avoided what happened? Should we not consider reinstating
      those principles?

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff



      1. Role of the laity.

      In the elections to the Council of 1917, the necessity of Episcopal
      approval of elected delegates was completely abrogated; once elected,
      delegates were recognised as representatives of the clergy and laity
      of the diocese. At the same time it was decided that there should be
      an equal number of representatives - three clerics and three laymen -
      from every diocese. Unlike the regulations of the Pre-Council of
      1906, the present Council Statute gave the clergy and laity not a
      consultative but a decisive voice.

      2. Role of the bishops.

      Having given the same voting rights to the clergy and the laity as to
      the bishops, the new Council Statute simultaneously granted the
      bishops the right to veto any decision of the General Assembly of the
      Council that seemed to them unacceptable. According to the Council
      statute, all bishops present at the Council formed a
      special "Bishops' Conference". The latter would "consider each
      decision of the General Assembly of the Council, which establishes
      general rules or fundamental principles of ecclesiastical
      organisation, and measure its agreement with the Word of God, the
      canons, the dogmas and the tradition of the Church." (Statute Art.
      64).

      3. Guaranteeing "wholeness" (sobornost) in the Church

      This arrangement guaranteed the supremacy of the episcopate. However,
      the bishops could only accept or reject those decisions that had
      first been adopted by the General Assembly of the Council, where the
      bishops sat side by side with the clergy and laity.

      In practice therefore every decision of the Council had to be an
      expression of the singleness of mind and common accord of the whole
      Church: bishops, clergy and laity. If there was no common accord, no
      decree could be passed. The councils of 1917-1918 clearly determined
      that the patriarch was to be responsible to a council composed of
      bishops, clergy and laity.

      4. Power of the Patriarch (Metropolitan in our case).

      On November 4th, 1917, the Moscow Council accepted the Patriarch
      as "first among the bishops, who were equal to him," and on December
      7th of the same year, it gave him a right of protest which raised him
      above the Sacred Synod of twelve bishops and also above the Supreme
      Ecclesiastical Council (the ecclesial body composed of bishops,
      clergy and laity with the Patriarch as president); ...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.