Local churches and the highest administration in them (canonical foundations; historical outline) The formation of local churches Ancient metropolises. Each autocephalous local Church is a collection of several bishops, therefore it must have organs

§54. Cathedrals

§54. Cathedrals The best collections of documents from cathedrals: Harduin (1715, 12 vols.), and Mansi (1759, 31 vols.).Pp. J. Hefele (Catholic, Bishop of Rottenburg, participant in the Vatican Council 1870): Conciliengeschickte, Freiburg 1855; second ed. 1873 sqq., 7 vols., to the Council of Florence, 1447 (see vol. I., pp. 83–242). English translation by W. R Clark and H. R. Oxenham

LOCAL ORTHODOX COUNTERS ABOUT THE HOLY. SCRIPTURES

LOCAL ORTHODOX COUNTERS ABOUT THE HOLY. SCRIPTURES P.s. are called councils convened by individual Local Churches to resolve canonical, disciplinary, liturgical and other issues. The rule about periodicity convocation of P.s. was adopted at the First *Ecumenical Council (325). A number of P.s.

Requirements of the Mosaic Law (Acts). The decisions of a number of local councils, along with the Ecumenical Councils, became the norms of church law.

The councils of antiquity are named after the cities in which they took place (Laodicea, Sardicea, etc.). There is also a division according to the geographical location of the churches whose representatives participated in the work of the cathedral (Eastern Church, Western Church), according to the names of local churches in which the cathedrals met (cathedrals of the Church of Constantinople, Antioch, Rome, Carthage, etc.), by the names of the countries and territories where they took place (Spanish, Asia Minor), by nationalities (cathedrals of the Russian, Serbian, Romanian churches), by confessions (cathedrals of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Georgian, Armenian, Lutheran churches).

In the Russian Church

Until the 20th century, the term “local council” was actively used in Russian historical literature to designate private (non-Ecumenical) councils of antiquity.

Although the term was also used in the 19th century to designate local councils of the Russian Church and even in the phrase “All-Russian local council”, widespread use of the term in the modern sense came at the beginning of the 20th century in connection with the preparation for the All-Russian Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, which opened in August; more than half of the participants in the Council were laymen.

The latest normative documents of the Russian Orthodox Church understand the Local Council as a meeting of the episcopate, as well as representatives of other clergy, monastics and laity of the local Russian Orthodox Church.

According to the definition of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 and the Council of 1945

1. In the Orthodox Russian Church, the highest power - legislative, administrative, judicial and supervisory - belongs to the Local Council, convened periodically, at certain times, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity.<…>

In connection with the death of Patriarch Alexy II, which followed on December 5, 2008, the Local Council took place on January 28, 2009.

The procedure for forming the composition of the Local Council

The composition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, according to the “Regulations on the composition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church” as amended on December 10, 2008, includes:

1. Diocesan bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church;
2. Vicar bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church;
3. Heads of the following Synodal institutions:
   1. Administration of the Moscow Patriarchate;
   2. Publishing Council;
   3. Educational Committee;
   4. Department of Catechesis and Religious Education;
   5. Department of Charity and Social Service;
   6. Missionary Department;
   7. Department for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies;
   8. Department of Youth Affairs;
4. Rectors of the Theological Academies and the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University;
5. Five delegates from theological seminaries elected at the rector's meeting;
6. Vicars in the episcopal rank of male stauropegial monasteries;
7. Four delegates elected at the congress of abbesses of women's stauropegial monasteries;
8. Head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem;
9. Members of the Commission for the preparation of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.
10. Three delegates from each diocese consisting of one clergy, one religious and one lay person.
11. Patriarchal parishes in Canada, the USA, Turkmenistan, Italy and the Scandinavian countries each elect two delegates (a clergyman and a layman).

See also

Write a review about the article "Local Council"

Notes

Links

• M.A. Babkin.. NG Religions (January 21, 2009). - Patriarch Tikhon can undoubtedly be considered the popularly elected head of the Church. Retrieved January 21, 2009. .

Excerpt characterizing the Local Council

That night Rostov was with a platoon in the flanker chain, ahead of Bagration’s detachment. His hussars were scattered in chains in pairs; he himself rode on horseback along this line of chain, trying to overcome the sleep that was irresistibly pushing him over. Behind him he could see a huge expanse of our army’s fires burning dimly in the fog; ahead of him was foggy darkness. No matter how much Rostov peered into this foggy distance, he saw nothing: sometimes it turned gray, sometimes something seemed black; then lights seemed to flash where the enemy should be; then he thought that it was only shining in his eyes. His eyes closed, and in his imagination he imagined first the sovereign, then Denisov, then Moscow memories, and again he hastily opened his eyes and close in front of him he saw the head and ears of the horse on which he was sitting, sometimes the black figures of the hussars when he was six steps away I ran into them, and in the distance there was still the same foggy darkness. “Why? It’s very possible, thought Rostov, that the sovereign, having met me, will give an order, like any officer: he will say: “Go, find out what’s there.” Many people told how, quite by accident, he recognized some officer and brought him closer to him. What if he brought me closer to him! Oh, how I would protect him, how I would tell him the whole truth, how I would expose his deceivers,” and Rostov, in order to vividly imagine his love and devotion to the sovereign, imagined an enemy or deceiver of the German whom he enjoyed not only killed, but hit him on the cheeks in the eyes of the sovereign. Suddenly a distant cry woke up Rostov. He shuddered and opened his eyes.
“Where am I? Yes, in a chain: slogan and password – drawbar, Olmütz. What a shame that our squadron will be in reserves tomorrow... - he thought. - I’ll ask you to get involved. This may be the only opportunity to see the sovereign. Yes, it won't be long until the shift. I’ll go around again and when I return, I’ll go to the general and ask him.” He adjusted himself in the saddle and moved his horse to once again ride around his hussars. It seemed to him that it was brighter. On the left side one could see a gentle illuminated slope and the opposite, black hillock, which seemed steep, like a wall. On this hillock there was a white spot that Rostov could not understand: was it a clearing in the forest, illuminated by the moon, or the remaining snow, or white houses? It even seemed to him that something was moving along this white spot. “The snow must be a spot; spot – une tache,” thought Rostov. “Here you go…”
“Natasha, sister, black eyes. On... tashka (She will be surprised when I tell her how I saw the sovereign!) Natasha... take tashka...” “Straighten that, your honor, otherwise there are bushes,” said the voice of a hussar, past whom Rostov was passing, falling asleep. Rostov raised his head, which had already dropped to the horse’s mane, and stopped next to the hussar. A young child's dream irresistibly beckoned him. “Yeah, I mean, what was I thinking? – don’t forget. How will I speak to the sovereign? No, that’s not it – it’s tomorrow. Yes, yes! On the car, step on... stupid us - who? Gusarov. And the hussars with mustaches... This hussar with a mustache was riding along Tverskaya, I also thought about him, opposite Guryev’s very house... Old man Guryev... Eh, glorious little Denisov! Yes, all this is nonsense. The main thing now is that the sovereign is here. The way he looked at me, and I wanted to say something to him, but he didn’t dare... No, I didn’t dare. Yes, this is nothing, but the main thing is not to forget that I thought the right thing, yes. On - the car, we are - stupid, yes, yes, yes. This is good". - And he again fell with his head on the horse’s neck. Suddenly it seemed to him that they were shooting at him. "What? What? What!... Ruby! What?...” Rostov spoke, waking up. The moment he opened his eyes, Rostov heard in front of him, where the enemy was, the drawn-out cries of a thousand voices. His horses and the hussar standing next to him pricked their ears to these screams. At the place from which the screams were heard, one light came on and went out, then another, and along the entire line of French troops on the mountain, lights were lit, and the screams became more and more intensified. Rostov heard the sounds of French words, but could not make out them. There were too many voices buzzing. All you could hear was: ahhh! and rrrrr!
- What is this? What do you think? - Rostov turned to the hussar standing next to him. - It’s the enemy’s, isn’t it?
The hussar did not answer.
- Well, don't you hear? – After waiting quite a long time for an answer, Rostov asked again.
“Who knows, your honor,” the hussar answered reluctantly.
- Should there be an enemy in the area? - Rostov repeated again.
“It may be him, or it may be so,” said the hussar, “it’s a night thing.” Well! shawls! - he shouted at his horse, moving under him.
Rostov's horse was also in a hurry, kicking the frozen ground, listening to the sounds and looking closely at the lights. The screams of voices grew stronger and stronger and merged into a general roar that could only be produced by an army of several thousand. The fires spread more and more, probably along the line of the French camp. Rostov no longer wanted to sleep. The cheerful, triumphant cries from the enemy army had an exciting effect on him: Vive l"empereur, l"empereur! [Long live the Emperor, Emperor!] was now clearly heard by Rostov.
- It’s not far, it must be beyond the stream? - he said to the hussar standing next to him.
The hussar only sighed, without answering, and cleared his throat angrily. Along the line of hussars the tramp of a horse riding at a trot was heard, and from the night fog the figure of a hussar non-commissioned officer suddenly appeared, appearing like a huge elephant.
- Your honor, generals! - said the non-commissioned officer, approaching Rostov.
Rostov, continuing to look back at the lights and shouts, rode with the non-commissioned officer towards several horsemen riding along the line. One was on a white horse. Prince Bagration with Prince Dolgorukov and his adjutants went to see the strange phenomenon of lights and screams in the enemy army. Rostov, having approached Bagration, reported to him and joined the adjutants, listening to what the generals were saying.
“Believe me,” said Prince Dolgorukov, turning to Bagration, “that this is nothing more than a trick: he retreated and ordered the rearguard to light fires and make noise in order to deceive us.”
“Hardly,” said Bagration, “I saw them on that hill in the evening; If they left, they left there. Mr. Officer,” Prince Bagration turned to Rostov, “are his flankers still standing there?”
“We’ve been standing there since the evening, but now I don’t know, your Excellency.” Order, I will go with the hussars,” said Rostov.
Bagration stopped and, without answering, tried to make out Rostov’s face in the fog.
“Well, look,” he said, after a short silence.
- I’m listening s.
Rostov gave spurs to his horse, called out to non-commissioned officer Fedchenka and two more hussars, ordered them to follow him and trotted down the hill towards the continuing screams. It was both scary and fun for Rostov to travel alone with three hussars there, into this mysterious and dangerous foggy distance, where no one had been before. Bagration shouted to him from the mountain so that he should not go further than the stream, but Rostov pretended as if he had not heard his words, and, without stopping, rode further and further, constantly being deceived, mistaking bushes for trees and potholes for people and constantly explaining his deceptions. Trotting down the mountain, he no longer saw either ours or the enemy’s fires, but heard the cries of the French louder and more clearly. In the hollow he saw in front of him something like a river, but when he reached it, he recognized the road he had passed. Having ridden out onto the road, he reined in his horse, undecided: to ride along it, or to cross it and ride uphill through a black field. It was safer to drive along the road that became lighter in the fog, because it was easier to see people. “Follow me,” he said, crossed the road and began to gallop up the mountain, to the place where the French picket had been stationed since the evening.
- Your Honor, here he is! - one of the hussars said from behind.
And before Rostov had time to see something suddenly blackened in the fog, a light flashed, a shot clicked, and a bullet, as if complaining about something, buzzed high in the fog and flew out of his ear. The other gun did not fire, but a light flashed on the shelf. Rostov turned his horse and galloped back. Four more shots rang out at different intervals, and bullets sang in different tones somewhere in the fog. Rostov reined in his horse, which was as cheerful as he was from the shots, and rode at a walk. “Well then, well again!” some cheerful voice spoke in his soul. But there were no more shots.

The orderers and developers of the current Church Charter illegally abolished the provisions concerning the prerogatives of the Local Council, turned it from a governing body into an advisory body and made it almost impossible to convene it. Thus, they essentially seized power and carried out a revolution in the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. The reason for this is the lust for power of the Moscow church bureaucracy, which is eager to replace the true and only Head of the Church - Christ.

One of the most important problems of modern church life is the distortion of its conciliar principles. It has gotten to the point that some believe that such an important church body as the Local Council has now been abolished and will no longer be convened.

Is this true? If you look at the matter from a formal point of view, then this, of course, is not so. However, in fact, the Local Council, as an institution of church authority, can be said to have been liquidated. To verify this, let’s take a look at the history of the issue and conduct a brief comparative analysis of church legal acts that determine the structure of church government.

DEFECTIVE COLLABORITY

So, in 1988, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was held, timed to coincide with the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. At this Council, the “Charter on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church” was adopted. This main normative act of the Russian Orthodox Church stated: “In the Russian Orthodox Church, the highest authority in the field of doctrine, church administration and church court - legislative, executive and judicial - belongs to the Local Council. The Council is convened by the Patriarch (Locum Tenens) and the Holy Synod as needed, but at least once every five years, consisting of bishops, clergy, monastics and laity” (clauses 1-2 of Section II of the 1988 Charter).

Thus, according to the Statute of 1988, the Local Council in the Russian Orthodox Church has supreme power in all three of its varieties: legislative (doctrine), executive (church government) and judicial (as the highest church judicial authority). This is understandable: church canon law does not know the liberal-democratic principle of separation of powers, therefore the competence of the highest church body should include the entire range of powers at once.

In accordance with the 1988 Charter, the Local Council must be convened at least once every five years. However, despite this very definite ecclesiastical legal norm, until now (and fifteen years have passed since then) Local Councils have not been convened, except for the one that was held in 1990 to elect a new Primate of the Church after the death of the Patriarch Pimena. During all this time, only Bishops' Councils were held, and even those were not very frequent (in any case, less than once every two years, as provided for by the 1988 Charter).

In 1997, a Council of Bishops was held, at which, among other things, it was decided to transfer the issue of canonization of the Royal Family to the Local Council, which it was decided to convene in 2000, that is, in the year of celebrating the 2000th anniversary of the Nativity of Christ. However, on July 18, 1999, when very little remained before the appointed time, at a meeting of the Holy Synod, for an unnamed reason, it was decided to hold the Anniversary Council of Bishops in 2000 instead of the Jubilee Local Council.

Let us recall that the main difference between the Council of Bishops and the Local Council is that, as follows from the very names of these church bodies, only bishops can be participants in the first, and in the activities of the second, in addition to bishops, priests, deacons, monastics and laity can take part. . In other words, at the Local Council the entire Local Church is represented (in this case, the Russian Orthodox Church), the entire conciliar church organism, which is also called the fullness of the church, which is the actual guardian of the truth. True, today in official church documents the concept of “ecclesiastical fullness” is used in a completely unacceptable way - as among Catholics - to designate only the church hierarchy (see, for example, the Message of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' dated February 19, dedicated to the “TIN problem” / March 4, 2001).

So, the question is: is the 2000th anniversary of Christianity a lesser reason for convening a Local Council than the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'? And the mandatory five-year period provided for by the then-current Church Charter had long expired: by that time Local Councils had not been convened for a whole decade.

What is the reason for such a sudden change in the decision to convene the Local Council? The change was not only sudden, but also controversial from a legal point of view, because the decision to hold the Local Council was made by the Council of Bishops, and this decision was canceled by the Holy Synod, a body subordinate to the Council of Bishops and accountable to it. Isn’t this the reason that at the Local Council the church community could raise with all the urgency many pressing issues of modern church life, namely: the expediency (more precisely, inexpediency) of the further participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement (being part of the World Council of Churches and etc.); the attitude of Orthodox Christians to the wholesale appropriation of digital names and the correspondence of these processes to the prophecies of the Apocalypse; neo-renovationism and modernism within the Church; glorification of the Holy Royal Martyrs at the head of the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia?

CREEPING COUP

Tsar Nicholas II and members of his Family at the Jubilee Council of Bishops were nevertheless glorified, but not as martyrs or great martyrs, but as passion-bearers, which, to please the Jews, emphasizes the denial of the ritual nature of the murder of the Royal Family by the Jews.

But what’s even worse is that the Council illegally canceled the 1988 Charter, adopted, let us remind you, not by the Bishops’ Council, but by the Local Council. It turns out that again the lower body overturned the decision of the higher body, which contradicts elementary legal logic. The Council of Bishops did not have the right to cancel the Charter, but only to make amendments to it, and even those “with subsequent approval by the Local Council” (clause XV.3 of the 1988 Charter).

Instead of the canceled Charter, another document was adopted at the Council of Bishops on August 16, 2000 - “The Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church”, which determined: “In the Russian Orthodox Church, the highest authority in the field of doctrine and canonical dispensation (on church administration and church court, that is, on the highest executive and judicial power is no longer said! - G.A.) belongs to the Local Council” (clause II.1 of the Charter-2000).

A general legal analysis of the provisions of the Charter 2000 shows that the Council of Bishops, in terms of its powers, is placed in the place of the Local Council (and, in a sense, in the place of the Patriarch). The new Charter left to the Local Council the decision only on issues of “religious doctrine and canonical dispensation” (which, in general, has already been defined and formulated long ago and does not require special authoritative regulation); all other issues of (real) church authority are within the competence of the Council of Bishops .

The 2000 Charter calls the Council of Bishops “the highest body of hierarchical governance of the Russian Orthodox Church” (clause III.1), which was not in the 1988 Charter. That is, in essence, the Charter of 2000 declared the Council of Bishops to be the bearer of the highest executive power of the church, except that the concept of “higher church government” in the text of the new Charter was slyly replaced by the concept of “higher hierarchical government.” Perhaps, according to the logic of its developers, “hierarchical government” is “church government” minus the “canonical dispensation.” In any case, since in relation to the Local Council there is no longer any talk about “higher church government,” we conclude that this type of power is transferred to the Council of Bishops.

As for the third type of church power - judicial, the Charter of 2000 directly calls the Council of Bishops the “highest church court” (clauses III.5 and VII.4). According to the new Charter, the Local Council is generally excluded from the number of church-judicial bodies (see paragraph I.8). The 1988 Charter contained the rule that the Local Council is the final court competent to consider dogmatic and canonical deviations in the activities of the Patriarch and decide on his removal and retirement (paragraphs II.6-7); The Council of Bishops was the first instance in such cases (clause III.6). The document replacing the 1988 Charter (undeservedly called the “currently valid Charter of 2000”) declared the Council of Bishops to be the first and last instance competent to judge the Patriarch without a Local Council! (clauses III.5 and IV.12).

In other words, an attempt was made to introduce the alien secular principle of separation of powers into church-legal relations. The Council of Bishops is now, by analogy with state structures, a kind of Government and the Supreme Court, only united in one body.

As for the timing of convening the Local Council, the Charter of 2000 does not provide for any time frame for this at all, but gives the Council of Bishops the right, at its own discretion, to decide the question of when the Local Council should be convened (clause II.2). The Patriarch and the Holy Synod, according to the 2000 Charter, can now convene a Council of Bishops only “in exceptional cases.” At the same time, the norm establishing the timing of convening the Council of Bishops remained: in accordance with paragraph 2 of Section II of the Charter of 2000, Councils of Bishops are convened at least once every four years. Let us note here that according to the apostolic rules, the Local Council must be convened twice a year (Rule 37).

And one more important detail. Common sense dictates that the Charter adopted by the Council of Bishops instead of the Charter adopted at the Local Council should come into force only after its approval by the latter. But no, the developers of the Charter 2000 announced that the new Charter is mandatory for the entire Russian Orthodox Church and comes into force immediately after adoption (Section XVIII).

Moreover, the Charter 2000, again contrary to any legal logic, contains the rule that from now on only the Council of Bishops has the right to adopt the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church and make changes and additions to it (clauses III.4 and ХVIII.3). The Local Council - the unconditional bearer of supreme power in the Local Church - is completely deprived of such a right by the developers of the new Charter.

True, the preamble of the Charter 2000 speaks of its approval at the Local Council, but what is the point of this if the new Charter “came into force after adoption” (preamble), without any approval, and the Local Council, according to the same Charter, does not have the right to make any changes to it or cancel it altogether?

According to the 1988 Charter, the Local Council approved all resolutions of the Council of Bishops (clause II.5-1988). According to the Charter of 2000, the Local Council approves only those decrees of the Council of Bishops that relate exclusively to “the doctrine and canonical structure” (clause II.5-2000). It turns out that the decisions of the Council of Bishops on other issues are final and are not subject not only to revision (cancellation, change or addition), but also to approval by the Local Council.

The clause that was present in the old one (clause III.4-1988) on the accountability of the Council of Bishops to the Local one also disappeared in the new Charter, which also indicates that it was the Council of Bishops that became the actual highest church body. Instead, Clause III.4 appeared in the Charter 2000, demonstrating the boundaries of power (or rather, the limitlessness thereof) of the Council of Bishops - from the approval of new church-wide awards to the adoption of the Church Charter and the creation, reorganization and liquidation of Self-Governing Churches, Exarchates and Dioceses.

WHO BENEFIT?

Charter 2000 is a false charter. Only because it was not approved by the Local Council, that is, by the entirety of the Russian Church. This document has no right to exist either under ecclesiastical or secular law. Nevertheless, we are all obediently guided by it, and the state, without a shadow of a doubt, registered this illegal document.

It is known for certain that the bishops who participated in the Council of Bishops in 2000 were not even previously familiar with the materials that were then put to vote, including the draft of the new Charter. The materials were not sent to the bishops in advance so that they had the opportunity to study them and formulate their comments and amendments to the project; they were not distributed even during the registration of the Council participants who had already arrived. So the bishops voted blindly, having received the draft documents immediately before the vote. It is also known that the development of the 1988 Charter was led by Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev), which allows us to assume his involvement in the drafting of the illegal 2000 Charter.

Who needed all this? We should not forget that in the periods between Councils of Bishops, church governance is carried out by the Holy Synod (clause V.1-2000), the prerogatives of which, by the way, are also significantly expanded by the new Charter. Abolished this Charter and the accountability of the Holy Synod to the Local Council (see paragraph V.2-2000). Decreasing the role of Local Councils in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as increasing the duration of inter-council periods for Bishops' Councils from two (1988) to four (2000) years allows the permanent members of the Holy Synod to feel more free and rule practically without control, without anyone counting. That is why in 1999 the members of this “metropolitan bureau” did not even stop at canceling the already announced Local Council!

And to this day, representatives of the highest church hierarchy say nothing about the possibility of convening a Local Council, deliberately avoiding even mentioning it, as if such a body does not exist at all. Even such an important issue of church life as unification with the Russian Church Abroad, as Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) said in one of his interviews, will be “submitted for discussion at the next Bishops’ (and only! - G. A.) Council.”

The conclusion suggests itself: the Local Council has been “written off as unnecessary,” since the synodal administrators do not want to hear and take into account the voice of the people of God when making decisions. If the bishops (more precisely, the permanent members of the Holy Synod, who actually lead the work of the Council of Bishops and prepare its decisions, as is directly stated in the Charter of 2000: see paragraph 3 of Section III) do not wish to convene the Local Council, then it will not be convened, and all this will be on completely “legal” grounds.

Any careful study of the Charter 2000 leads to the conviction that its drafters did everything possible so that, while the institution of the Local Council itself was formally preserved - “on paper”, it could not be actually convened. At the same time, they tried to build in the Charter such a legal structure so that the Local Council, if it were somehow somehow convened, would not have any power and legal instruments for real leadership of the life of the Church. It was impossible to do more: after all, you can’t completely erase this traditional church body from the Charter, even if you really want to.

So, we can admit that in 2000 the Local Council, as a canonical institution, was indeed abolished, and we have almost no hope of convening it. Of course, this deals a significant blow to the main principle of church governance - conciliarity.

The Church is catholic by its very nature, therefore, in the Creed, the Holy Fathers called Her not only One, Holy and Apostolic, but also Catholic. Conciliarity is the most important basis of church life, an essential property of the Church of Christ. According to the words of St. John Chrysostom, “An assembly and a council are called the Church” (Commentary on Psalm 149). This is one of the main ecclesiological postulates: all members of the Church together constitute a kind of permanent council of the people of God, which is the “defense of the faith” (Response of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX. 1848).

RECOGNIZE WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING...

“Meekness, teaching and our very life,” wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage, even at the dawn of the Christian era, demanded that the primates, having gathered with the clergy in the presence of the people, dispose of everything by common consent.” And St. Basil the Great teaches that “decrees concerning the Church are adopted by those who are entrusted with Her administration, and are approved by the people themselves” (“Letter to the Citizens of Nikopol”).

The editor of the newspaper “Orthodox Rus'” Konstantin Dushenov rightly notes on this matter: “History testifies: despite the fact that only bishops always enjoyed the right of personal decisive vote at Councils, the collective consent or disagreement of the clergy and people was also of decisive importance for the council’s definitions. From time immemorial, the episcopate in the Church belongs to the arbitrium (decision), while the people and elders have the consensus (agreement). And if the arbitrium of bishops is not confirmed by the consensus of the entire Church, then any of their conciliar resolutions are invalid” (“Orthodox Rus'”, No. 3-4, 2003).

The conciliar way of life presupposes the participation in church work of all members of the Church, from bishops to ordinary laymen - the people of God. Moreover, it is the people of God that are the foundation of conciliarity, without which the full-fledged activity of the church hierarchy is unthinkable. The most striking and visible manifestation, the crown of the conciliarity of the Holy Apostolic Church is currently the Local Council - the highest, grace-filled body of church government.

“In the structure of church life, the participants are not only the top, but the entire body of the church,” wrote Hieromartyr Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd, in 1928, “and a schismatic is one who arrogates to himself rights that exceed his powers, and in the name of the Church dares to say what which the rest of his brethren do not share” (Letter of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd to Archimandrite Lev (Egorov). 1928 // Acts of P. Tikhon, p. 561).

“The Orthodox Church has always organized its life through Councils,” says Athonite Elder Paisios. – If the Synod in the Local Church or the Spiritual Council in monasteries does not work correctly, then, speaking in words about the Orthodox spirit, we have a papal spirit. The Orthodox spirit is this: everyone must express and record their opinion, and not remain silent for the sake of fear or honor - in order to be on good terms with the Primate of the Church or the abbot of the monastery" (Elder Paisius the Svyatogorets of blessed memory. Words. Volume 1. With pain and love about the modern man. M., 2002).

Considering everything that has been said about the illegality of the Charter of 2000, it would hardly be a great exaggeration to say that those who ordered and organized the adoption of this document, by abolishing the provisions relating to the prerogatives of the Local Council, transforming it from a governing body into an advisory body and making its convening almost impossible, essentially affairs, seizure of power, carried out a revolution in the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. And the reason for this, obviously, is the lust for power of that part of the episcopate that decided to become the head of the Church, replacing its true and only Head - Christ.

How can one not recall the famous prophecy of the Optina elder Anatoly (Potapov): “Heresies will spread everywhere and deceive many. The enemy of the human race will act with cunning in order, if possible, to incline even the elect to heresy. He will not rudely reject the dogmas about the Holy Trinity, about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, about the Mother of God, but will imperceptibly begin to distort the teaching of the Church, transmitted by the Holy Fathers and from the Holy Spirit, its very spirit and statutes, and these tricks of the enemy will be noticed by the few who are most skilled in spiritual matters. life.

Heretics will take power over the Church, they will place their servants everywhere, and piety will be neglected... These are spiritual thieves, plundering the spiritual flock, and they will enter the sheepfold - the Church, “climbing elsewhere,” as the Lord said, that is, they will enter by illegal means, using violence and trampling on God’s statutes... Recognize them, these wolves in sheep’s clothing, by their proud disposition, lust and love of power: they will be slanderers and traitors, sowing enmity and malice...”

What should we do? Fight! We all need to fight for the restoration of the principle of conciliarity. This will make it possible to solve many problems: to expose and expel apostates and heretics-ecumenists, to stop schisms, to build canonically impeccable relations with state authorities, to stop the Church from being drawn into the processes of Antichrist globalization.

The Church is strong in its conciliarity, and it is in conciliarity that the salvation of Rus' lies! The work of the struggle for the purification of Russian Orthodoxy and the revival of the Orthodox Autocracy should begin precisely with the preparation of the Local Council, the immediate holding of which the people of God have the right to demand from the hierarchy.

May God help us!

Priest Georgy Andreev