ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

Exarchate of Parishes of Russian
Tradition in Western Europe

The 1917-18 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

A talk given by Professor Alexei Svetozarsky at the 2003 Conference of the Sourozh Diocese

The Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-18 (here-after called the Sobor) was an historic moment for the Russian Church whose proceedings are very relevant to our situation today.

Chronology, composition and principles of organisation

On 5 July 1917, the Holy Synod declared that the Sobor would open in Moscow on 15 August (on the Julian Calendar), that is, the Feast of the Dormition. The Synod also published the regulations for summoning the Sobor. According to these regulations, parishes would elect representatives to their Deanery meetings. Deaneries would then elect representatives to Diocesan meetings, which in their turn would elect representatives to participate in the Sobor itself.

The Sobor duly got under way on 15 August after the Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow, which was celebrated by Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev, the future martyr.

There were three sessions of the Sobor, the first held from 15 August to 9 December 1917; the second from 20 January to 7 April 1918; and the third from 19 June to 7 September 1918. The work of the Sobor was of course to end prematurely. Once the Bolsheviks had taken power, they seized all Church property including anything that was held in the banks. Further, the strife surrounding the escalation of the Civil War effectively prevented the implementation of additional sessions, which had been envisaged for 1919 and 1920. Therefore the agenda of the Sobor was never completed. Nevertheless many important decisions were made.

The composition of the Sobor was as follows. Five hundred and sixty-four delegates attended the first session. Quite a number took part ex officio: all the episcopal members of the Holy Synod; every ruling bishop; all members of the pre-Conciliar Assembly; and the Abbots of the Lavras and the most important monasteries (Valaam, Solovki, Sarov and Optino). Other ex officio partici-pants in the work of the Sobor were the Dean of the Great Dormition Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, Nikolay Lyubimov; and the Chaplain-General of the Army and Navy, Georgy Shavelsky.

All the other delegates were elected representatives. There were twelve to represent monastic communities, ten from the military chaplaincies and a further fifteen to represent the armed forces themselves. There were eleven to represent the Edinovertsy group of Old Believers; ten for the theological academies; fifteen from the Academy of Science and the Universities; and three from the National Parliament. The majority of delegates, however, came as representatives of the sixty-six dioceses within the territory of the Russian Church. Each diocese was represented by its ruling bishop, two priests and three laymen. 

A significant characteristic of the composition of the Sobor, therefore, was the high proportion of married clergy and laypeople (though it may be noted that no women were present). Of the total of five hundred and sixty-four delegates, only eighty were bishops.

Long debates about the composition of the Sobor had taken place in 1905-6 and 1912-14 among Russian bishops, theologians and specialists in Church Law. A Sobor should strictly speaking be a gathering of bishops from a particular territory, in this case the National Territorial Russian Church. Only they, the bishops, successors of the Apostles by the grace of God, had the right to make decisions.

Nevertheless, this Sobor took a different path, by including representatives of the married priesthood, monks and laypeople, and organising its work according to the principle of a two-chamber parliament. This was obviously a reflection of the times. Russia – in the period from February to October 1917 – was considered the most democratic and liberal country in the world. Clearly an episcopal monopoly on making decisions about Church life would have caused a very negative reaction in society at large.

The situation was even more complex, however. The Church is a living organism, and it reacted to the external conditions prevailing at the time. People were able and willing to find a reasonable compromise between compliance with Canon Law and the requirements of contemporary society. The final voice therefore was still to rest with the bishops. According to the statutes of the Sobor, any proposal for legislation accepted in a plenary session still required the approval of a seventy-five per cent majority of the bishops.

The preparatory work, on the other hand, involved a great amount of energy and inspiration, spiritual insight and intellectual input on the part of clergy and laypeople. The junior clergy and laypeople not only supported their bishops but creatively and absolutely independently put forward their own views on the problems and issues of Church life. This ‘all-class representation’ makes the Sobor of 1917 very much like the National Congresses called in Russia before Peter the Great to make the most important national decisions.

The work of the Sobor was organised as follows. On 18 August Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow, the future Patriarch, was chosen as Chairman. Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev was made honorary president. The chairman had five deputies: two bishops, a priest and two laymen. There was also a Council Secretary, with two assistants. Working groups and commissions were set up, which delegates could choose to join. 

Altogether there were twenty-two such subdivisions. Some of the most important ones were: Church Management (at the highest level); Diocesan Management; Civil Law and the Church; Ecclesiastical Courts; Church services, preaching and premises; Church discipline; external and internal missions; relations with the Old Believers; Church property and maintenance. 

The working groups and commissions prepared proposals, which went before plenary sessions and then to the meeting of bishops. If a proposal did not achieve the necessary three quarters majority, it was sent back to the initiating group for reconsideration. If a proposal was rejected twice, it was not taken further.

Usually, when speaking of the 1917 Sobor, writers pay most attention to the reintroduction of the Office of Patriarch of the Russian Church. For decades, this was seen as its dominating issue and major achievement.

Without belittling the importance of this defining and prophetic decision by the Sobor, we should also note some of the many decisions which have attracted more attention in recent years, not only among historians, but also among specialists in Canon Law and those interested in principles of contemporary Church life.

The Sobor developed regulations concerning all Church structures, from the Sobor itself down to parish level. It described the roles and authority of the Sobor, the Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the High Church Commission, as well as the status of Diocesan and Parish Councils. A decision was made about introducing Metropolitan Areas. The proceedings of the Sobor also included issues such as selection of candidates for the priesthood, and the service of women in the Church.

Decisions of the First Session

1. The reintroduction of the Patriarchate

In order to understand this, we should consider the historic cir-cumstances surrounding the reintroduction of the Patriarchate, and the selection of the first Patriarch of All Russia for over two hundred years.

The Patriarchate, first established in the Russian Church in 1589, was abolished by Peter the Great, who replaced the rule of the Patriarch by a collegiate body known as the Synod. 

People usually link the abolition of the Patriarchate with the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, but the Synod was not estab-lished until 1721. During this interregnum, the Patriarchate had not been abolished, but there was no Patriarch, only a locum tenens, Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky). Only after his death did the Tsar decide to reform the Church leadership structure, creating the Synod as a kind of ‘Ministry of Church Affairs’. 

As is well known, Peter the Great appraised every social institution from the point of view of what he saw as ‘State utility’. He applied the same strictly utilitarian approach to Church reform. 

By creating the Synod, the Tsar not only took away from the Church its canonical leadership, establishing a Church hierarchy based in fact on a Protestant model, but he also integrated the Church into the State system, taking away its independence, and placing the Church life of his Orthodox subjects under State control.

Despite this, the State-controlled, non-canonically-led Church did not lose the grace of God as regards its spiritual life. The Synodal period in the history of the Russian Church in fact saw a renaissance of monasticism, of the starets tradition of spiritual guidance, and of the ascetic life in general. Such precious centres of spirituality as Optina Pustin, Sarov, the sketes of the Holy Trinity-St Sergius Lavra, and many others, became shining examples of Russian Orthodoxy. 

An undoubted achievement of the Synodal structure was the foundation and development of theological education in Russia: a Russian school of theology and Church history. Russian missionaries also achieved remarkable results, even bringing whole nations to Christ. Let us not forget that, despite the con-straints imposed on Church life by the Synodal system, State power was external to, and not an enemy of, the Church.

Since the eighteenth century, however, the best children of the Church had realised that this non-canonical organisation of the Church was not per se beneficial. In the nineteenth century, these critical opinions began to be more explicit. In Church history, the question of the legitimacy of leadership of the Church from a canonical point of view was very closely linked to the soborny – or corporate – life of the Church. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Sobor was called regularly and frequently, but with the foundation of the Synod these meetings were discontinued.

According to the plan of Peter the Great, the Synod – as a collegiate body – became a sort of replacement of the Sobor in making decisions about Church life. But this surrogate Sobor was strictly limited in its mandate, and the activity of such a Sobor lacked sobornost, or a truly corporate nature. Only a true Sobor could have made the decision to reintroduce the Patriarchate, and this fact linked the reintroduction of the Patriarchate even more closely with the holding of the 1917-18 Sobor.

Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, himself very aware of the need for sobornost in the life of Church, was nevertheless not optimistic about the idea of reintroducing the Patriarchate, assuming that, compared with the collective strength of a united team of bishops, it would be more difficult for a single Patriarch to defend the autonomy of the Church from the pressure of State bureaucrats. 

As time went by, however, the idea of reintroducing the Patriarchate and corporate principles in the life of the Church became more and more popular with educated monastics, and with the churchgoing intellegentsia. Amongst its most active support-ers we can name Bishop Michael (Gribanovsky), a spiritual writer; Archbishop (and future Metropolitan) Antony (Khrapovitsky); and Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who died in prison during the Bolshevik terror.

The idea of reintroducing the Patriarchate certainly had its opponents. The pre-Conciliar Assembly had proposed that the Synodal system should be retained, and it was at the Sobor itself (on 11 October 1917) that this issue was reintroduced, by Bishop Metrophan of Astrakhan in a plenary session. A long and heated discussion ensued, ending only on 28 October when the motion to reintroduce the Patriarchate was finally carried.

That same day coincidentally saw the first armed conflicts in Moscow between followers of the Provisional Government and the Bolsheviks, with a great deal of blood being spilled on the streets of the city. The Bolsheviks were opposed by teams of volunteers, mainly students and military cadets, who tried to protect the centre of the city. But the Bolsheviks used artillery to bombard the Kremlin, forcing the supporters of the Provisional Government to disarm.

The Sobor, although apparently absorbed with finding a candidate to become the new Patriarch, by no means remained aloof from these events. Members of the Sobor – Bishop Dimitry (Abashidze) and Bishop Nestor (Anisimov) – were seen in the streets of Moscow, personally tending the wounded. There was also a delegation from the Sobor, led by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestsvensky), which tried to initiate negotiations with the Bolsheviks to stop the internecine killing. Another delegation from the Sobor, headed by Metropolitan Tikhon, conducted an audit of the destruction caused by the barbaric bombardment of the Kremlin, including sacrilegious damage to some holy treasures. 

When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had prevailed, the Sobor issued a special address entitled ‘Enough of brothers’ blood!’ in which it called for mercy, and an end to the spilling of fraternal blood. The Sobor’s position of true Christian principle somewhat unexpectedly generated a great deal of positive response from many people who stood far from the Church, especially among the youth who had participated in the battle against the Bolsheviks.

It is remarkable that the members of the Sobor, being of such varying political orientations – from monarchists to Bolshevik sympathisers – did not follow their own narrow political persuasions. Rather, the statements which came from the Sobor itself were based on the Gospel.

Contemporaneously with these events, the next main subject for the Sobor was the election of the Patriarch. The first round of voting (held on 30 October) included as candidates not only a number of prominent prelates, but also some married clergy and even one layman. The second round (held on 1 November) resulted in three clear candidates: Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) received 159 votes, Archbishop Arseny (Stad-mitsky) 199 and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow 162. 

On 5 November lots were drawn among these three to fill the chair of the Patriarch. The lot fell upon Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin), who thus became the eleventh Patriarch since the first introduction of this office into the Russian Church. The newly appointed Patriarch was enthroned on 23 November during the Divine Liturgy in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. He had to carry this cross during the most tragic period of the entire history of the Russian Church.

By reintroducing the Patriarchate and selecting a new Patriarch for All Russia, the Sobor not only re-established a canonically correct form of leadership of the Russian Church, but also ensured a focal point around which the faithful of the Church could gather during the period of the Renovationist Schism and the Bolshevik Terror. 

2. Changes to the system of Church leadership

The 1917-18 Sobor reorganised the whole system of Church leadership. A decision was made to reform the Holy Synod and the Higher Church Commission. 

The Synod was now to look after issues of Church teaching; Church services; Church management and discipline; and theological education.

The Commission was to look after Church relations with society, and domestic issues; it was also to audit administrative aspects of Church life. Both the Synod and the Commission were to be chaired by the Patriarch. Only bishops were to be members of the Synod, while the Commission would consist of bishops, clergy and laypeople.

Joint meetings of the Synod and the Commission would be concerned with the protection of the Church’s rights and privil-eges, the creation of new dioceses, preparation of the next Sobor; and budgeting for all Church institutions. The election of members of the first Synod and Commission took place at the end of the first session of the Sobor.

3. Other decisions made at the first session

The most significant decision (discussed during the first session but only finalised at the third) was to create five Metropolitan Areas: North-West, South-West, Central, Eastern and Siberian. 

This decision was made formally on 7 September 1918, but it was never implemented. It was followed in a way, however, in the dioceses of Southern Russia and Siberia while these territories were under the control of the White Army; and again later in North America.

The first session of the Sobor also pronounced on preaching in churches, which it considered to be one of the most important aspects of pastoral service. 

According to this pronouncement, a sermon should be given at the Liturgy every Sunday and on major feasts. It stated that

the duty of preaching in the Church belongs properly to the priesthood, but in view of the demands of the present time it is advisable to involve not only deacons and readers in this activity, but also talented and pious laypeople. The most accomplished of non-ordained preachers should be blessed to wear stichari and be called blagovestniky (evangelists).

Another decision concerned the legal status of the Russian Orthodox Church, insisting that it should have explicitly the leading position among confessions in Russia, due to it as being the precious treasure of the dominant majority of the population, and the major historical force which created Russia. 

The Church should be independent of the State, but State laws regarding the Church should be made in agreement with the Church leaders. The Sobor demanded that the Head of State, ministers of the Ministries of Religious Affairs and Popular Education, as well as their deputies, should all be Orthodox. The State government should guarantee freedom to pursue the spiritual life, to take part in services, and to keep Sundays and major feast days; it should also acknowledge the legal status of Church marriages, and support the Church financially.

Obviously, these demands could not be met under the prevailing conditions at the time. The Provisional Government had clearly decided to move in the direction of secularisation of social life in Russia. Even more, these demands were not going to be acceptable to the Bolshevik government, which from the first days of its existence had declared itself to be aggressively against the Church. Very soon, the Sobor was forced to take new measures to protect Church treasures from sacrilege, and to defend the Church’s right to own property.

The second session
The second session of the Sobor began on 20 January 1918. Strictly speaking, this session had no legality, because the Sobor did not have the required quorum according to its own statutes. From the first day of the second session, only one hundred and ten members attended, of which only twenty-four were bishops. By that time the whole country was engulfed in a civil war, and the whole territory transformed into a battlefield. Many of the delegates who had gone home for the Christmas holidays were unable to return to Moscow. Nevertheless the Sobor decided to continue its work in these straitened circumstances. 

Many of the decisions made during the second session reflected the dire situation of the Church and of the entire territory. On 25 January the Patriarch was given the personal right to appoint his successor if the situation demanded. That decision flew in the face of Canon Law, but the history of the Christian Church nevertheless had precedents for it.

1. The commemoration of New Martyrs and Confessors

On 18 April 1918 the Sobor formulated a special liturgical prayer for persecuted martyrs and confessors, and ordained that all new martyrs and confessors should be remembered on 25 January or the nearest following Sunday. We can note that this is also the date established by the present hierarchy of the Church to remember the new martyrs and confessors.

Another remembrance of the new sufferers for the faith and the Church was to be held on the Monday of the second week after Easter, with a procession to the burial places of those killed by nonbelievers.

The second session of the Sobor concluded with the canon-isation of Martyrs Sophrony of Irkutsk and Joseph of Astrakhan.

2. The election of bishops and diocesan structures

The second session of the Sobor also made a number of decisions about the lower levels of Church structure: dioceses and parishes. 

The Sobor gave the following definition of a diocese:

It is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, canonically led by a diocesan bishop.

A diocesan bishop, with succession by grace of the power of the Holy Apostles, is the leader of a local church who rules the diocese with the corporate support of the clergy and laypeople.

Another formulation said ‘.... together with clergy and laypeople’ instead of ‘with their corporate support’. After a heated discussion, the majority of the Sobor rejected this version.

The following statement was made on the principle of electing bishops:

On a diocesan cathedra becoming vacant, all prelates of the area (or, if not a Metropolitan Area, the Holy Synod) should create a list of candidates, including those nominated by the diocese in question. This list should then be published in the diocese. The bishops, clergy and laypeople of the diocese should elect one person from the list. A candidate who receives two thirds or more of the votes is considered to have been elected, and is then submitted to the higher body for ratification. If none of the candidates gets such a majority, a new ballot should take place where electors vote for or against each candidate in turn, and any candidate with more than fifty per cent of votes in favour will be submitted to the higher instance.

In exceptional circumstances, the hierarchy could decide to appoint a bishop directly, or to transfer a bishop from one diocese to another. We can note that, in all overseas missions, the bishop was to be directly appointed by the hierarchy. At that time, the only existing overseas missions were in Japan, Korea and the United States.

Thus the Sobor did not make the electoral principle totally binding as regards the selection of bishops, nor for the appointment of priests. At the time, many clergy and laypeople were actively involved in politics, and there was a concern that the election of bishops could become too political a matter. This justified the Sobor’s stance. 

As regards the appointment of priests, it was clearly held that radical and irreverent factions among the people could be too influential and tend to promote people of a similarly misguided mind. The appointment of clergy was therefore reserved as the right of diocesan bishops, who were nevertheless charged to take into account the opinions of parishioners.

There are a number of points concerning the organisation of dioceses and parishes which could be relevant to the Diocese of Sourozh at the present time.

The Diocesan Assembly, according to the definition of the Sobor, is the highest instance of the diocese, which assists the bishop in running the diocese. It consists of clergy and laypeople, elected for three years to represent their parishes.

The Diocesan Council is the permanent executive body of the Diocesan Assembly. It consists of five people, all elected by the Diocesan Assembly. One of these should be in holy orders and take the chair with the approval of the bishop, and two others should also be in holy orders. The remaining two could be either priests or laypeople. All members should be 30 years old or more, and educated at least to the equivalent of ‘A’ level in the UK.

The Diocesan Council has a mandate to discuss any topic of Church life in the diocese, and to implement decisions after discussion by the Diocesan Assembly and approval by the ruling bishop. The Diocesan Council is concerned with spreading and protecting Orthodox belief; with Church services; with the construction and maintenance of church buildings; with the priesthood and pastoral coverage, the parishes, Church property and its management, and any existing diocesan societies, brotherhoods etc.

In the case of disagreement within the Diocesan Council, voting is by simple majority. If necessary the chairman has a casting vote. If the ruling bishop disagrees with the decision of the Diocesan Council, that decision is passed to the higher Church authority.

3. Parishes

The Sobor described the parish as

a community of Orthodox Christians consisting of clergy and laypeople of the particular territory and situated around its church, being part of its diocese and under the canonical leadership of the diocesan bishop, under the immediate supervision of the rector of the parish, who is appointed by the bishop.

The creation of a new parish should start by identifying those who

truly belong to the Church of Christ, and who despite all possible persecution willingly accept the sayings of the apostles about Christ, our Saviour unto eternal life.

The priest should give a number of sermons about salvation through faith; about the Church as the Body of Christ; about the Orthodox parish and parish activities; and on the duty of all parish members to take part in parish life. All those willing to become members of the parish should inscribe their names in the parish register.

We should note the Sobor’s emphasis on the formal registration of all members of a parish and the duty to participate actively in parish life.

The Sobor considered the major concern of a parish to be the care of the church building. It also said that every member of the parish should ‘with all energy and talents participate in the life of the parish, and this is an essential condition of individual salvation’.

The papers of the Sobor made many general recommend-ations concerning the structure of parish life, but it is evident that the main point is that the marks of real membership of the Church are not only participation in liturgical life, but also involvement in good works and spreading the Gospel.

Parish Meetings and the Parish Council are intended as means of uniting the efforts of priests and parish members in running the parish. 

The Parish Meeting should be called not less than once every six months, to discuss issues concerning the fabric of the church building, remuneration of the clergy, and selection of Parish Officers.

The Parish Council is the permanently acting body of the Parish Meeting, and consists of the clergy, the churchwarden and other laypeople of either sex who are elected at the Parish Meeting in such numbers that will at least equal the number of the clergy.

The chairman of the Parish Meeting and the Parish Council is the Rector (or Dean).

The churchwarden should be elected by the parishioners for three years, and his role is to ensure, with the support of clergy and the Parish Council, the collection and proper use of money and other resources for the church, under the general management of the diocesan bishop.

Every year, one third of the elected members of the Parish Council will retire and be replaced by newly elected ones. Retiring members may be re-elected. In the first two years of a Parish Council, the members to be retired will be selected by the drawing of lots.

The Parish Council appoints from its members a Treasurer and a Secretary, although the Secretary does not necessarily have to be an elected member of the Council.

‘All members of the Parish Council, except the Parish Secretary, are to fulfil their roles without compensation’. However, the Parish Council or the Parish Meeting may determine specific compensation for any other particular contributions.

The Third Session

The third Sobor session started on 2 July 1918 with a hundred and eighteen delegates, of which sixteen were bishops.

1. Election of the Patriarch

One of its outcomes was the decision on the order for electing a Patriarch, which gave considerable weight to the voice of the clergy and laity of the Moscow Diocese. This is the same order which is still followed today, with some differences. Then the electoral body also included some secular institutions (uni-versities, the Academy of Arts and the Academy of Sciences), but this is no longer the case. At that time also, candidates for the Patriarchal office were not required to be diocesan bishops, but could be anyone in holy orders, not even necessarily a monk. However, if a non-monastic were elected, he would then have to become a monk. At the final stage, there was at that time to be a drawing of lots between three short-listed candidates.

2. Monasteries and monastic status

On 31 August 1918 a new regulation was promulgated about monasteries and monastic status, regulating the internal organ-isation and life in the monasteries, and with the introduction of National Monastic Meetings. 

It was also ordained that the minimum age for profession of monastic vows should be twenty-five years, with any younger professions only made with the consent of the diocesan bishop. 

There was also the principle of stabilitas loci, urging monks to remain in the monastery where they had been professed. Permission was given for the election of abbots, but to be approved by the ruling bishop and by the Holy Synod. Bodies to be known as Monastery Councils were provided for, equivalent to the Parish Councils, their members to be appointed by the Abbot and approved by the Bishop.

The Sobor favoured monastic communities, and encouraged monks to carry out work under obedience. A desire was ex-pressed that each monastery should have a spiritual leader, a starets – or staretsa in the case of a convent.

3. The service of women

The Sobor also looked at the service of women in the Church, an even more topical subject today. Before the Revolution, in both the church and secular press, the idea of reintroducing an order of deaconesses was widely discussed, and many influential bishops were in favour of such a move. A particular proponent was the Princess Royal Elizabeth, sister of the last Empress, who devoted her life to the service of her neighbours, and whose final achievement was to gain a martyr’s crown. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the Sobor never reached a conclusion on deaconesses. 

They did, however, underline the importance of active involvement by women in the service of the Church, which was stated in several documents. 

Women gained the right to fulfil positions in diocesan education, in charities and domestic bodies, with the exception of the Diocesan Council and Church Courts. They could also per-form the role of psalomshchiki or psalm readers, but were not to wear clerical garb.

This Sobor decision not only recognised the increasing role of women, but also played a prophetic role in this regard.

During the Soviet period, and under Soviet circumstances, it was women who played the major role in preserving the faith and the Church. Owing to psychological, social and demographic conditions, the Russian woman of the twentieth century became the centre of Russian Church life, particularly at the parish level.

Mothers brought their children up in the Christian tradition, however difficult that was. It was natural that it should be women who cared for the church fabric, provided support for liturgical services and looked after the priests. And everywhere it was usual to find women as psalomshchiki.

4. Other topics on which decisions were not reached

As mentioned above, the work of the Sobor was prematurely brought to an end. The delegates did not have time to make decisions on the proposals which had been prepared. Topics in-cluded: the Old and New Calendars; theological education; Ecclesiastical Courts; the dissolution of Church marriages; and liturgical languages.

Let us look at just two of these: Ecclesiastical Courts and liturgical languages. Although neither reached a final decision stage, quite a lot of work went into the preparation of proposals, and these were discussed at the episcopal level.

The proposal on Ecclesiastical Courts was rejected by the Bishops. The major theme of this proposal had been to make a distinction between different levels, parallel to that in the Civil Courts where the judiciary is kept separate from executive government. This was deemed inappropriate to Ecclesiastical Courts, because of the special nature of the bishop’s authority – his total responsibility for his diocese.

A proposal on liturgical languages was put forward, but not decided upon.

According to this, Church Slavonic was to be retained as the main official liturgical language. But, in order to make Church services more comprehensible to the faithful, Russian and Ukrain-ian were also to have the status of liturgical languages.

Total and immediate replacement of Slavonic by these languages was not considered practicable, but a slow and partial introduction of Russian or Ukrainian was more or less agreed, in the Gospel and other scripture readings for example, and some hymns and prayers, as well as the replacement of some unfamiliar Slavonic words.

A committee on languages in the Higher Church Com-mission was proposed, to coordinate and approve translations into Russian and Ukrainian, and to revise the Church Slavonic liturgical texts. If a parish wanted to celebrate in Russian or Ukrainian, it was to be given permission to do so, using the approved texts.

It was also suggested that parallel text service books should be published, and more effort made to familiarise people with Church Slavonic in churches and schools. The use of appropriate popular verses and hymns on non-liturgical occasions was encouraged.

Since these proposals were never approved, we cannot know what form the relevant final decisions would have taken.

The Sobor ended in September 1918, now almost eighty-five years ago. For obvious reasons, many of its decisions have never been implemented, or have only been implemented in part. 

The influence of the Sobor

Nevertheless the Sobor had a significant influence. Its complete proceedings are regarded as an important precedent in Church Law, to which many Canon Law specialists have referred and continue to do so. They still influence Church leadership to quite a degree today.

The principles of the Sobor have for many decades been the foundation for Church life in the dioceses and parishes of the Russian tradition in the diaspora. 

Many of the issues considered at the Sobor are still important for us, and its deliberations have enriched the discussions and thought processes of Church historians, Canon Law specialists, Orthodox writers and the faithful in general. 

The study of this material should help to orientate us when we seek inspiration and advice about the problems of today. Our predecessors have left us, the Orthodox people of today a wise and well-thought through approach to the solution of those problems which we would be justified in referring to as ‘creative traditionalism’.

This means being deeply rooted in Orthodox tradition, but enriched by the experience of both Russian and Western social thought. This approach allows us to take decisions on those issues with which we find ourselves challenged by present-day reality, without getting into an extreme position to left or to right .

The idea of calling the Sobor had been nascent in the Russian Church since the middle of the nineteenth century. The implementation of this idea took place in an extreme external environment. There was a crisis within the Church itself, and in the country and society as well. Many decisions taken by the Sobor were dictated by the particular historical circumstances. The proceedings of the Sobor cannot be viewed without reference to those circumstances.

We cannot, then, mechanically apply its decisions to life today, since so many things have changed over the last decades, in the world, in the Church, and in people’s minds. 

It is unlikely that our generation of Orthodox Christians will experience an event of such immensity as that of the 1917-18 Sobor. For many of us ordinary Christians, the Sobor is a bright beacon and a guiding star.