The All-Russian Church Council assembled on this day in 1917. The first Russian Emperor, Peter I (‘the Great’), achieved the boldest dream of the Byzantine iconoclast Emperor Constantine V (718–775): he subjugated the Church to the empire, prohibited the election of a new patriarch, and in his place appointed “a collective patriarch” in 1721 – a collegial body of rotating bishops chaired by a representative of the Tsar (ober-procurator). In 1797, in the Empire’s Supreme Laws, Emperor Pavel named the Russian Emperor the head of the Church of Russia. In practical terms, this arrangement meant that all episcopal consecrations had to be confirmed by the Tsar. Only after the Holy Royal Martyr Tsar Nicholas II abdicated on March 2, 1917, could the Church assemble a council of its own. From the point of view of the Provisional Government, this Council had to define a new structure for the church, mirroring the Constitutional Assembly. The election of delegates took place at three levels – parishes, deaneries, and dioceses. As a result, the 65 dioceses of the Russian Church were represented by 564 delegates. 299 of them were laymen. (Although women participated in the parish-level elections, there were no female delegates.) The council continued until September of 1918, when its meeting place was confiscated by the Bolsheviks. While the council restored the patriarchate, it also preserved the synodal structure. The All-Russian Council became the supreme governing body of the church. The Patriarch, Synod, and Supreme Church Council, with priests and laity, became the executive arm of the Council in the three-year periods between councils. The three-tier structure of the parish and diocesan administration mirrored that of the supreme church authority. Although it proved impossible to implement the Council’s decisions in Soviet Russia, many decisions have been applied in the Russian diaspora. For example, all ‘Russian’ jurisdictions abroad follow provisions of the council regarding parish and diocesan organization. In Russia, it is only in this century that the Council archives have gradually come to be published. The solid, representative dimension of the Council seems to be at odds with the robustly hierarchical n of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad. However, fears and concerns about a ‘lay rebellion’ in this respect are counter-productive, since a rebellion can only arise when there is mistrust between the hierarchy and the People of God. After studying the Council’s acts, I have always thought that the delegates had striven to serve the Church, to be a ‘better version of themselves.’ This legacy of the Council that focused on expressing the transcendent, conciliar dimension of the Church rather than the imperial one can help us adapt the church order, allowing all members of the Church to perform their ministry. |
