| Ataat rspunsului a fost o întiinare despre sesiunea extraordinar a Sfântului Sinod al Patriarhiei Constantinopolului, care a avut loc pe 6 iunie cu participarea tuturor episcopilor venii la Constantinopol, încare se declara c „Sfântul Sinod a recepionat cu uimire i consternare poziiile i opiniile enunate recent de ctre un numr de Biserici Ortodoxe surori i a constatat c o revizuire a procesului planificat pentru Sobor trece dincolo de orice angajamente instituionale”. În acelai timp, data convocrii Soborului este considerat ca fiind stabilit printr-o decizie panortodox, dei, dup cum s-a artat mai sus, aceast decizie nu a fost semnat de Biserica Antiohiei. Între timp, Sfântul Sinod al Patriarhiei Antiohiei la 6 iunie 2016, dup ce a dat motive detaliate cu privire la nevoia de a amâna convocarea Soborului, a hotrât în unanimitate: «1. S apeleze la Sanctitatea Sa Patriarhul Ecumenic ca în timpul care a mai rmas pan la data convocrii acestui Sobor s depun mai multe eforturi spre a ajunge la un consens pentru rezolvarea tuturor îngrijorrilor formulate de Bisericile Ortodoxe Autocefale referitor la Sfântul i Marele Sobor. În cazul în care eforturile de a ajunge la un consens vor eua, Biserica Antiohiei cere amânarea Sfântului i Marelui Sobor pentru o dat ulterioar, când între toate Bisericile autocefale vor predomina relaii panice, iar în privina chestiunilor pentru Sobor, a Regulamentului lui i a procedurii de organizare se va ajunge la un consens ortodox. 2. Patriarhia Antiohiei nu va participa la Sfântul i Marele Sobor atâta timp cât nu vor fi înlturate toate motivele care o împiedic s participare la Sfânta Euharistie în perioada Soborului, când va fi gsit o soluie final la problema invaziei Patriarhiei Ierusalimului în teritoriul Patriarhiei de Antiohia, ceea ce a dus la ruperea comuniunii cu Patriarhia Ierusalimului. 3. De a reconfirma importana participrii la Sfântul i Marele Sobor a tuturor Bisericilor Ortodoxe autocefale i lurii de ctre acestea a deciziilor pe baza unui consens general în scopul pstrrii unitii Bisericii Ortodoxe Ecumenice. |
| I have sinned by contempt for people, gloating over misfortunes others, self-reliance, pride and blasphemous thoughts. Forgive me, O Lord, and help me to become a better Christian. Sins of the tongue : I have sinned, my Lord, by idle talk, unnecessary laughter, speaking in the church and by using Your Holy Name in vain. I have sinned by criticizing others, by using rude words, yelling, and by making sarcastic comments. I have sinned by cursing people and wishing them evil, by mockery and insults. I have sinned by telling indecent jokes, bragging and breaking my promises. I have sinned by complaining, irreverent conversations and damning. I have sinned by spreading unkind rumors, gossiping, lying, slandering and denunciation. Forgive me, O Lord, and help me to become a better Christian. Sins through deeds : I have sinned, my Lord, by not loving You, my Creator and Benefactor, with all my heart and all the time as I should. I have sinned, by being selfish, lazy and by wasting time. I have sinned by careless and disoriented prayer, by missing church services and coming late to church. I have sinned by being disrespectful with my parents, by refusing to help them and to do what they said, by disobedience and stubbornness. I have sinned by negligence towards family needs and by failing to instruct my children in the Christian faith. I have sinned by self-centeredness, over-preoccupation with my career and success in life, greediness, stinginess and by failing to help the needy. I have sinned by over-eating, over-indulgence, breaking fasts, smoking, abusing alcohol, using stimulants, squandering resources and by gambling. Forgive me, O Lord, and help me to become a better Christian. I have sinned, my Lord, by looking at someone with lust, looking at indecent films or magazines, listening to music which evokes crude or lustful desires, listening to indecent jokes and stories. I have sinned by wasting too much time in front of a TV, by watching scenes of violence and sin. I have sinned by being obsessed with my appearance, by behaving in a tempting matter, masturbation, lasciviousness, sexual perversions, adultery, and other corporal sins which are too shameful to say aloud. |
| I have not preserved a love for God and for my neighbor nor have I made enough efforts, because of laziness and lack of care, to learn the Commandments of God and the precepts of the Holy Fathers. I have sinned: by not praying in the morning and in the evening and in the course of the day; by not attending the services or by coming to Church only half-heartedly, lazily and carelessly; by conversing during the services, by not paying attention, letting my mind wander and by departure from the Church before the dismissal and blessing. I have sinned by judging members of the clergy. I have sinned by not respecting the Feasts, breaking the Fasts, and by immoderation in food and drink. I have sinned by self-importance, disobedience, willfulness, self-righteousness, and the seeking of approval and praise. I have sinned by unbelief, lack of faith, doubts, despair, despondency, abusive thoughts, blasphemy and swearing. I have sinned by pride, a high opinion of my self, narcissism, vanity, conceit, envy, love of praise, love of honors, and by putting on airs. I have sinned: by judging, malicious gossip, anger, remembering of offenses done to me, hatred and returning evil for evil; by slander, reproaches, lies, slyness, deception and hypocrisy; by prejudices, arguments, stubbornness, and an unwillingness to give way to my neighbor; by gloating, spitefulness, taunting, insults and mocking; by gossip, by speaking too much and by empty speech. I have sinned by unnecessary and excessive laughter, by reviling and dwelling upon my previous sins, by arrogant behavior, insolence and lack of respect. I have sinned by not keeping my physical and spiritual passions in check, by my enjoyment of impure thoughts, licentiousness and unchastity in thoughts, words and deeds. I have sinned by lack of endurance towards my illnesses and sorrows, a devotion to the comforts of life and by being too attached to my parents, children, relatives and friends. I have sinned by hardening my heart, having a weak will and by not forcing myself to do good. |
| Archimandrite Hilarion proposed characterizing the Bolshevik socialization of Church property as “blasphemous violence,” and therefore, in its appeal to the CPC (Council of People’s Commissars) the Sobor was obliged “to declare that our churches and sacred objects cannot be socialized.” In so doing, Fr. Hilarion was aware that a declaration like this would not have any influence on the way the Soviet authorities treated the Russian Church and its property. “A declaration like ours, of course, will not change the mind of the Soviet government, and the socialization of churches and sacred objects in all likelihood will be carried out even against our will.” As the assistant rector of the MTA, Archimandrite Hilarion could not be indifferent to the issues of spiritual education raised at the Sobor. We see him as a participant in the exchange of opinions about the section’s report on religious-educational institutions “On the type and administration of educational-religious institutions.” After the section report on the monasteries and monastics Fr. Hilarion proposed an amendment making into law that an academic monk remain in academic service for the course of 20 years. The amendment found sympathy with some members of the Sobor, in particular Bishop Anatoly Chistopol’sky and Prof. I.V. Popov, but was voted down. The amendment proposed by Archimandrite Hilarion about the impermissibility of elections to the episcopal rank directly by laypeople was also voted down. Neither was Fr. Hilarion in agreement with raising to the status of law the principle of election when replacing the abbot of a monastery: “That isn’t election, it’s playing a game of election.” But no doubt the spirit of the times did not allow the Sobor to accept his arguments. Archimandrite Hilarion’s arguments about the inadmissibility of creating within the Russian Church a parallel edinovertsy hierarchy, fraught with the possibility of a new schism, had more success with the members of the Sobor. Bishop Seraphim Chelyabinsky assessed Archimandrite Hilarion’s answer to the edinoverty’s arguments as “wise.” A compromise version was adopted in the resolutions of the Sobor, in accordance with which the election of a vicar edinoverchesky bishop was allowed. |
| Singura decizie posibil în aceast privin este de a continua pregtirea Sfântului i Marelui Sobor i ajungerea ulterioar la un consens panortodox pentru convocarea lui la o alt dat. În legtur cu cele expuse mai sus Sfântul Sinod, întru executarea hotrârii Soborului Arhieresc al Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse din 2-3 februarie 2016 (Hotrâri, p. 6) , decide: 1. de a exprima sprijin propunerilor Bisericilor Ortodoxe Antiohian, Georgian, Sârb i Bulgar privind amânarea desfurrii Soborului Panortodox pentru un timp care va trebui stabilit ulterior drept rezultat al discuiilor general-ortodoxe i cu condiia indispensabil ca Întâistttorii tuturor Bisericilor Ortodoxe Locale autocefale general-recunoscute s fie de acord cu el; 2. de a trimite imediat propunerea respectiv ctre Sanctitatea Sa Patriarhul Constantinopolului Bartolomeu i ctre toi Întâistttorii Bisericilor Ortodoxe Locale; 3. în cazul în care nici aceast propunere nu va fi acceptat de Sfinita Biseric a Constantinopolului, iar Soborul din Creta va fi totui convocat, în ciuda absenei consimmântului unui ir de Biserici Ortodoxe Locale, - de a considera cu profund regret participarea delegaiei Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse la el imposibil; 4. de a continua prin toate mijloacele posibile consolidarea cooperrii panortodoxe la pregtirea viitorului Sfânt i Mare Sobor, care este chemat s devin o mrturie adevrat a unitii Sfintei Soborniceti i Apostoliceti Biserici; 5. de a exprima înc o dat prerea c unei finalizri cu succes a pregtirii Soborului poate servi intensificarea activitii reale a Secretariatului Panortodox, ca for în al crui cadru este posibil examinarea propunerilor cu privire la rezolvarea chestiunilor problematice, aplanarea neînelegerilor existente, definitivarea documentelor necesare i înlturarea tuturor obstacolelor din calea convocrii i unei încheieri plcute lui Dumnezeu a lucrrilor Sfântului i Marelui Sobor al Bisericii Ortodoxe; 6. de a considera foarte dorit, inându-se cont de propunerile exprimate în interiorul multor Biserici Ortodoxe Locale, participarea la viitorul Sobor a tuturor ierarhilor, fr restricii, din Sfintele Biserici ale lui Dumnezeu, ceea ce incontestabil va spori autoritatea general-ortodox a deciziilor luate de Sobor.„Numele de Biseric nu este al unei împriri, ci al unitii i armoniei”, înva sfântul ierarh Ioan Gur de Aur ( Tâlcuire la Epistola întâi ctre corinteni. |
| 5. The Russian Metropolia It was the Revolution of 1917 and the Communist control of the Church following it that forced the Russian Diocese in America to proclaim a temporary independence from the Moscow Patriarchate at the Detroit Sobor of 1924. In doing so, the Russian Church here was applying the historic decisions of the Great Russian Sobor held in Moscow in 1917-18, whose basic tendency was to return from the centralised and bureaucratic Church administration, established by Peter the Great, to the original Orthodox “sobornost” — the active participation of the whole Church — bishops, clergy and laity — in the totality of the Church’s life. Literally following the decisions of the Moscow Sobor, the American Russian Diocese elected its Primate, Metropolitan Platon (+1934), one of the senior Bishops of the Church of Russia who, having served in America before World War I, knew the needs of the Church here and could assure the continuity of her life. The Church, weakened by the Revolution, gathered around Metropolitan Platon and began its new growth. Under his successors, Metropolitans Theophilus (+1950) and Leonty (elected in 1950), new dioceses were created so that today the former Diocese had developed into a great Metropolitan District with nine dioceses. It has theological schools, a system of religious education, etc. It is governed, according to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, by a Synod (Council) of Bishops, led by the Primate, and by a regular triennial Sobor with the participation of clergy and laity. It maintains close relations with all other Orthodox Churches in America and abroad. Unfortunately, the genuine canonicity of the Metropolia, its organic continuity with the whole growth of Orthodoxy in America, its faithfulness to the very spirit of the Moscow decisions of 1917-18, are not understood and accepted by all. Two other Russian ecclesiastical groups maintain a separate existence, breaking the much needed unity of the Church. One takes its stand on a purely formal “canonicity.” This is the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate, organized in 1933 after the arrival of Archbishop Benjamin from Europe. Its claims are unacceptable to the Metropolia which wants to be in communion with the Orthodox people of Russia, but which cannot depend on a Church administration totally controlled by the Communist regime. The other is the Russian Church in Exile grouping mainly the political emigrants and deeply conditioned in its life by their political ideologies. |
| “One of the participants in the Sobor, a member of the State Duma, Prince I.S. Vasil’chikov, recalls: “By his speeches—always intelligent and beautifully worded—and by his whole external appearance he very soon won general sympathy at the Sobor. The young archimandrite was nominated by six votes as candidate to be a member of the Highest Church Council of the ROC from among the monastics, but, like the majority of monastics, declined to run. He was also among the candidates for election as Patriarch, and received at the first round of votes three votes, overtaking in the process such noted hierarchs as Agathangel of Yaroslavl’ (2 votes) and Evlogy of Volhynia (1), Bishop Andrei of Ufa (2), and also the chairman of the section on the HCA (Highest Church Administration) Bishop Mitrophan of Astrakhan (1). In the second round, four members of the Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church gave their votes for the candidacy of Archimandrite Hilarion. The newly-elected Patriarch Tikhon also took notice of Archimandrite Hilarion, to which Fr. Hilarion’s participation in the enthronement ceremony of His Holiness serves as witness. A member of the Sobor, an opponent of the restoration of the Patriarchate and a future Renovationist hierarch, Archpriest Dimitri Rozhdestvensky, spoke ironically about the three votes received by his colleague and fellow-professor at the Academy: “Of course, for a patriarch, it is barely enough… hardly sufficient at all… In order to be an ass, though, on which His Holiness the Patriarch will go out it’s plenty.” Whether Fr. Dimitri intended this or not, his ironic appraisal was not without a portion of prophetic truth, as in the years immediately after the Sobor Archimandrite Hilarion became the vicar bishop of the Patriarch, one of his closest helpers (including helping with the struggle against the Renovationists, whom Archpriest Dimitri also joined), administering the affairs of the Moscow diocese; that is, a kind of “Patriarch’s beast of burden.” With the coming of the Bolsheviks to power, the educational process at the MTA gradually died out, first and foremost from lack of funds. |
| One of the members of the Sobor, V.Ya. Malakhov, said that from “a historical point of view” in Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech (and in Prof. Sokolov’s) “were presented the most characteristic arguments in favor of the Patriarchate, but the gifted nature of his speech was acknowledged even by his ideological opponents. After this speech the final polarization of supporters and opponents of the Patriarchate took place. In the camp of those who believed the restoration of the Patriarchate to be unacceptable for the Russian Church were left basically only those who were opponents as a matter of principle, who, like Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky for example, were only hardened in their opinions after Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech. At the Sobor, by this time, according to Priest P.M. Volkov’s thoughts, which received their corroboration in the events of the Renovationist schism, “those who wish[ed] to take the Church administration into their own hands” did “not desire the Patriarchate.” After Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky’s) speech, which was heard on October 23, 1917, public debates about the issue of the Patriarchate took place only at the session on October 25, it being evident that the majority of speakers were under the effect of this speech, while at the next session on October 28 the question of electing the Patriarch ahead of schedule was raised, which notorious historical circumstances favored. “Those who wish[ed] to take the Church administration into their own hands” did “not desire the Patriarchate.” Thus, Archimandrite Hilarion was not only among the initiators of the election of the Patriarch at the Local Sobor of 1917-1918, he also to a significant degree facilitated the positive resolution of this issue, which was controversial for many, at the Sobor. The talents, the orientation towards Church life and traditions of Archimandrite Hilarion’s position, and his activity at the Sobor, which was directed towards the restoration of the Patriarchate, could not remain unnoticed. |
| In 1937, the Sixth All-American Sobor of the American Metropolia, meeting in New York City, affirmed a “moral” relationship with the Russian Synod in Exile, which restored intercommunion between the two bodies. However, when the Metropolia tried to have closer relations with the Patriarchate of Moscow during World War II, the Synod in Exile disapproved. In 1946, when the Synod renewed its claim to have governance over all the Russian Orthodox in America, this “moral” relationship, including intercommunion, was broken. The Sixth All-American Sobor also mandated the establishment of two theological schools-Saint Vladimir’s in New York City as a graduate school of Orthodox theology, and Saint Tikhon’s as a pastoral school at Saint Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. Both schools opened in 1938. The Seventh All-American Sobor of the Metropolia, meeting in Cleveland in 1946, requested of the Moscow Patriarchate that there be a close spiritual relationship linking the two bodies. But when, once again, demands were made from Moscow for loyalty to the Soviet government, the “spiritual” relationship was not realized. In 1950, upon the death of Metropolitan Theophilus, the Eighth All-American Sobor of the Metropolia, meeting in New York City, unanimously proclaimed as primate Archbishop Leonty (Turkevich) (1876–1965; r. 1950–1965), one of the original leaders of the American missionary diocese. He had been the dean of the seminary in Minneapolis, and then in Tenafly, New Jersey. After the death of his wife in 1933, he served as bishop of Chicago. Also in 1950, the Russian Synod in Exile set up its worldwide headquarters in New York City. Meanwhile, the Moscow Patriarchate was applying its strongest pressure for the reestablishment of its authority over the Metropolia, which it continued to call “illegal.” In response, at this Eighth Sobor, before his election as metropolitan, Archbishop Leonty made a speech reaffirming the specifically American destiny of the Church which had been planted in the New World by the Church of Russia more than a century and a half earlier. The Archbishop declared, “We will follow our line-the foundation of an administratively self-governing Orthodox Church in America.” Development of the Metropolia |
| Archimandrite Hilarion took part in the discussion of the issue of the autonomy of the Ukrainian Church, upholding the principle, in accordance with the canons, of correspondence between the church and government administrative divisions. The discussion at the Sobor on the reasons for dissolution of marriage naturally spilled over into a theological dispute over the boundaries of the Church. Archimandrite Hilarion’s position regarding this issue was unwavering: “Differentiating between being of a different religion and being heterodox is unacceptable, and to make a distinction between the degrees of falling away [from the Church] is impossible… Here one needs to talk about falling away from the Church—the external falling away from the Church is also joined with internal disunion. But Archimandrite Hilarion’s main focus at the time of the 1917-1918 Sobor was on issues of the Highest Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church and especially on the question of the Patriarch. Archimandrite Hilarion was not only a member, but also a speaker of the section on the Highest Church Administration (usually together with Prof. L.D. Lapin). He participated in debates, gave explanations as a speaker of the section on the HCA, upheld the position of the Council section that he had presented, and earned the gratitude of the Sobor for his activity as speaker of the section on the HCA. But what received the most fame, for its significance to the main resolution of the Sobor, was Archimandrite Hilarion’s speech in defense of the Patriarchate. Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin speaks about this speech as “made famous” and “classic.” It is known that the issue of the restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Church was not included among the subjects proposed for consideration at the Local Sobor of 1917-1918. The official proposal about the Sobor’s consideration of this issue was first made in a report by the chairman of the section on the Highest Church Administration, Bishop Mitrophan (Krasnopol’sky) of Astrakhan, at the session on October 11, 1917. |
|
|
