---

Home I Russian version I  © 2000  This material may not be reproduced without permission

---

Address of His Excellency, Mercurius, Bishop of Zaraisk,
at the Ninth Convocation of the Patriarchal Parishes
of the Russian Orthodox Church in the U. S. A.
Antiochian Village Ligonier, Pennsylvania October 9-12, 2000

---

I would like to welcome you, first of all, to the Ninth Convocation of the Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States.  May the Lord help us, and may He grant us peace and accord throughout the Convocation, that we may discuss the many issues we face in single-minded and brotherly love.

We have gathered here in a most significant year: the 2000th Jubilee of the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Not only is this an occasion, then, to look back on two millennia of the history of the Church that He Himself established on earth, in accordance with His promise: “I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16: 18); it allows us, most importantly, to situate ourselves in the context of that history.

The Patriarchal Parishes in the United States, created on the pattern of a diocesan structure, exist as an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church, with deep roots in its more than 200-year history on the North American continent. And while external historical circumstances over the past two centuries have changed, the essential relationship between the Mother Church and Her flock in the United States has survived the test of time. This was especially so during the difficult years of testing and trial, when relationships between our two countries were often strained.

During the past ten years, as you are aware, the ecclesial life of the Russian Orthodox Church has undergone dramatic and fundamental change. This change has not only deeply influenced Her internal life in a positive way, but has also propelled Her into a most prominent role in both society and in worldwide Orthodoxy.

We all know, nonetheless, that life forges ahead swiftly. We are well aware that everything and everybody can change: only “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Heb.13:8). Today the Church faces a multitude of questions that the laborers of Christ’s vineyard – the clergy – are called to answer.  We must, therefore, formulate coherent answers to the issues facing us, evaluating contemporary issues from the point of view of eternity.  In this, we must be guided, first of all, by the teachings of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and by our patristic inheritance. It should be self-evident, indeed, that we must also be guided by the Tradition of our Holy Mother – the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, the decisions of the Council of Bishops in August of this year have been truly momentous in defining and focusing the life of our Church in the future.

In order that you might have a proper understanding of these developments, which also have significance for the life of our Patriarchal Parishes here in the United States, I have divided today’s address into two parts:

1. An overview of the Jubilee Council of Bishops and its decisions, with brief comments regarding their significance for pastoral work;

2. The basic issues that in my opinion we need to resolve for the further development of the Patriarchal Parishes in the United States.

Preparations for the Council, which took place over three and a half days, took three years of intensive labor.  Given that it occurred during the Millenium of the Birth of Christ, at the end of this century, the Jubilee Bishops’ Council could not focus only on current, ongoing tasks. Indeed, the Council was called to determine the Church’s approach to fundamental issues which contemporary life places before Christians today, among which were issues that had not yet received church-wide resolution. Thus it was felt that an essential task of the Council was to suggest, on the basis of a multi-faceted and systematic analysis of the current situation within the Church, in Russia and in the world, and considering also the possible paths of development of human civilization and culture in the coming millennium, such answers of the Church to the challenges of the contemporary epoch which would not only satisfy the demands of our own time, but which would also retain their validity in the approaching millennium.

Significant issues of internal Church life and Her external activity were addressed in an extensive report of His Holiness, Alexy, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, as well as in the reports of the heads of various Synodal institutions.

Four major clusters of issues were presented to the Council to evaluate and resolve:

Glorification in the ranks of saints of Russian martyrs and confessors of the 20th century;

Fundamentals of the Social Conception (social doctrine) of the Russian Orthodox Church;

Essential principles guiding the relations between our Church and other confessions;

Additions and amendments to the Statute of the Church.

Various criticisms of the Council have been expressed in the mass media.  No one can deny, however, the visible improvements in ecclesial life, nor the ability of the Church, even as She preserves abiding faithfulness to Orthodox principles, to respond proactively and in a dynamic fashion to the serious changes occurring in the life of individual and society.  It is crucial to emphasize that the Council demonstrated the unity of the episcopate even while resolving difficult issues where differences of opinion were possible.

 It is no secret that there are forces in society that would destroy this unity, just as they would destroy the unity between the ruling bishop and the clergy, including also in the Patriarchal Parishes.  The motives underlying such processes may differ, but the goals remain the same, bringing about the destruction of apostolic ordinances, the undermining of brotherly and prayerful communion, and alienation from the Church through various enticements.  In conciliar fashion, we must reject such attitudes as being inadmissible within the boundaries of the Church and among the clergy. We must declare them to be destructive for the Church and strive together, with God’s help, to resist this moldering spirit in our life.  The Jubilee Council did not in the least occasion any doubt as to the unity of the episcopate, and thus we too should follow this blessed example.

Understandably, differing positions were expressed during the council.  Yet this freedom to express one’s opinion for the good of the Church simply enriched and augmented the decisions of the Council, as St. Paul reminds us: “For there must also be disagreements among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” (I Cor.11: 19).  The labors and acts of the archpastors gathered in Moscow were blessed with the spirit of true unity of mind. In this lies a solid foundation for the hopes of the people of God, inasmuch as it is possible to serve the Church only on the condition of unity within the Church.

The bishops expressed grave concern for events in Ukraine and Estonia, where Orthodoxy, as the result of activities by both internal and external schismatics, is undergoing difficult times.  Decisions made by the Council regarding the situation in both countries give rise to hope that the religious crises in these countries may find ways to possible resolution.

For the first time, the Church has openly declared the possibility of disagreement with civil authorities.  There can be only one reason for such disagreement – a forced alienation of a person from faith in God. By virtue of inherent differences in their essential natures, Church and State use different methods to achieve their goals.  The power of the State rests essentially on the use of material force, including the power of compulsion, as also on appropriate systems of secular ideology.  The Church, on the other hand, has access only to religious and moral means for the spiritual governance of Her flock and for attracting new adherents.  The Church infallibly proclaims the Truth of our Lord and instructs people in moral precepts which derive from God Himself.  The Church is not empowered, therefore, to change anything in Her teachings.  Nor is the Church empowered to be silent, to stop teaching the Truth, no matter what other teachings are promulgated or propagated by government agencies.   In the given instance the Church is perfectly free from the State.  The Church retains loyalty to the State, but above this loyalty stands the Divine ordinance: to accomplish the task of salvation of humans in all circumstances and under all conditions.  If the authorities compel Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church, or to commit sinful acts that are damaging to the soul, the Church must refuse obedience to the State.

In this document reference is not so much to personal choices made by individual people, but to the position of the entire Church in concrete social situations.  Thus in the Fundamental Social Conceptions a special procedure is established which envisions a due process for such situations: “If the pleroma of the Church finds it impossible to obey state laws or administrative regulations, then the hierarchy of the Church, after due consideration of the issue, may adopt one of the following measures: enter into a direct dialogue with the authorities concerning the stated problem; call upon the people to use established procedural legislative mechanisms to amend the law or to induce reconsideration of the decisions of the authorities; appeal to international organizations and world opinion; appeal to the believers with a call for peaceful civil disobedience.”

The document also specifies when these procedures are to be followed.  There are no political situations where any of these extreme measures may be exercised.  They may be undertaken only if by the power of the State or civil authority believers are compelled to renounce Christ and His Church, if the authorities compel people to commit sin.

This thesis reflects the eras of persecution, not only during the first centuries of Christianity, but also of the previous century now passing.  But even during the years of intense persecutions, when hundreds and thousands of new martyrs professed their faith with their blood, the Church continued to pray for those in power and Christians remained law-abiding citizens, upholding the law insofar as they were not required by that law to renounce their faith.

These measures are applicable in an extreme situation, where Church-State relations are strained to the utmost.  As long as they develop normally, the Church remains faithful to the words of our Lord: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

This section also discusses areas where cooperation is possible and necessary between Church and State.  This includes international cooperation, peace-making, maintaining morality, spiritual guidance and cultural development, acts of charity and compassion, science and so forth.  All of this is not simply a declaration of possible areas for cooperation, but a direct prescription for our pastoral work in our parishes.

One often hears that our parishes are limited in their missionary work.  But who is limiting our ministry among our own parishes?  Who is preventing us from striving to be worthy pastors – not yielding to the dictates of this world, but conducting Divine services without violating church rubrics and Tradition. We must first focus on our mission within our own parishes and our own flock, for we will answer before God at the Last Judgment for any laxness on our part.   If all of us pastors fulfill our duties, then the Grace of God and the people will support us.  And our flock will multiply.  Conversely, when the flock diminishes, it is usually a sign of ineptitude or even inaction by the pastor.  Therefore, my dear Brothers, we see that the Church has laid a special burden on us.  We must lead the people to be truly baptized, truly enlightened.  And we must do this in an exceedingly difficult era of secularization, even in the Church.  Our flock should be enlightened not only in terms of learning, but alight with the inner light of God’s Grace.

I believe that the section concerning “Christian Ethics and Civil Law” is especially pertinent to our situation.  We are, after all, living and serving in a country where the judicial system is at a pinnacle of its development. We must instruct our people that civil law, instead of creating Heaven on earth, is called to prevent the world from becoming hell on earth.  God created Man as a free being.  No one has the right to deprive men of their freedom, but freedom and license are different concepts.  The criterion of their difference is to be found in man’s relationship with God.  The defense of individual freedom is often transformed into a defense of self-will.  Without God, we have only fallen man, who is subject to sin and vice, a consumer and an egotist.  Christian jurisprudence and definition of freedom are irrevocably linked to the idea of service to other people.  We as pastors are called to foster among people not only a rational understanding of unselfish service to others, but to inspire them by personal example to actively serve their families, their neighbors and their country.

The Church’s stance regarding the death penalty is an important issue that concerns many pastors.  A detailed answer to this question is provided in the Social Conception, which we must use as a guideline to our witness.  The death penalty was acknowledged in the Old Testament.  There are no indications in the New Testament, in Holy Tradition or in the heritage of the Orthodox Church that it was rescinded.  Christian ethics, however, have fostered in people a negative attitude towards the death penalty.  Mindful of the fact that compassion for the fallen is always preferable to vengeance, the Church welcomes efforts by governments to abolish the death penalty and notes that this serves to enlarge the sphere of pastoral endeavor amongst the fallen.

The Social Conception pays special attention to personal, family and social morality For instance, it covers the vital question of marriage between people of different confessions.  This is an issue that is frequently raised at pastoral conferences and meetings of deans.

In accordance with ancient canonical rules, as per the Conception, the Church still does not bless marriages between Orthodox Christians and non-Christians, though it acknowledges them to be legal and does not consider the individuals so married to be living in adultery.  Based on principles of pastoral eikonomia, the Russian Church today, as in the past, finds it possible to consecrate marriages of Orthodox Christians with Roman Catholics, with members of the ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches and with those Protestants who believe in the Holy Trinity, on the condition that such marriages are performed in the Orthodox Church, and that the children of these marriages are brought up in the Orthodox faith. Over the past centuries, this has also been the accepted practice of most Orthodox Churches.  The Church insists on lifelong faithfulness of the spouses to each other and on the indissoluble nature of Orthodox marriage.  Legitimate reasons for divorce include:

Adultery

A new marriage contracted by one of the spouses

Apostasy by one of the spouses

Unnatural vices

Impotency

Leprosy or syphilis

Long-term unaccounted absence

A court sentence that deprives the condemned of certain rights of possession of property

Attempts to harm the spouse or children

Procuring and pandering

Attempts to seek gain from the moral failings of the other spouse

Incurable mental illness

Willful abandonment

Contraction of AIDS

Medically certified chronic alcoholism or drug dependency

An abortion conducted without permission of the husband

Of special pastoral concern is the sphere of the marital relationships of spouses, childbearing, possibilities for termination of pregnancy, and contraception.

From ancient times, the Church has considered the intentional termination of pregnancy (abortion) as a grave sin. Canonical rules equate it to murder.  In cases where continuation of pregnancy poses a direct threat to the life of the mother, pastoral practice recommends condescension.  A woman that has terminated her pregnancy under such circumstances is not to be denied eucharistic communion with the Church, but this communion is conditioned on personal prayerful penance as determined by the priest who receives her confession.

The issues of contraception.  Some methods of contraception are in fact mini-abortions that artificially interrupt at a very early stage the life of the embryo, thus the reasoning used in the case of abortion is applicable. Other methods of contraception, which are not connected to the termination of procreated life, cannot in any measure be equated to abortion.  In making decisions concerning non-abortive methods of contraception, Christian spouses should remember that the continuation of the species is one of the main goals of the divinely ordained marital union.  A conscious refusal to have children that is based on egotism devalues marriage and is undoubtedly a sin.

One method of responsible contraception is to abstain from conjugal relations for a specified period.  However, one must be mindful of St. Paul’s advice to Christian spouses: “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (I Cor. 7:5).  It is evident that such decisions by the spouses must be mutual and discussed with their spiritual director. The latter, however, should, with pastoral discernment, take into consideration the concrete circumstances of the given couple – their age, health, spiritual strengths and weaknesses, and differentiate between those who can submit to the worthy demands of abstinence and those to whom it is not “given” (Matthew 19:11), striving first of all to preserve and strengthen the family.

Infertility and its treatment are yet another problem that contemporary spouses frequently face.  Surmounting infertility through the several different options offered by modern medicine should always receive a sober and spiritually justified pastoral evaluation.

The use of new biomedical procedures in many cases allows spouses to overcome the challenge of infertility.  Along with the many modern methods of overcoming fertility, we have also witnessed the development of the concept of so-called reproductive rights.  The Church cannot consider morally justified any method of conception that contradicts the design of the Creator of Life.  If a husband or a wife is unable to conceive, and neither therapeutic nor surgical methods of overcoming infertility are successful, the spouses should humbly accept childlessness as their special vocation in life.  In such cases, pastoral recommendations should include adoption as a viable option if both partners agree.  Permissible methods of medical assistance include artificial insemination using the husband’s donation, inasmuch as this does not violate the integrity of the marital union.  Procedures that require outside donors of sex cells, however, violate the integrity of the person and the uniqueness of the marital union by permitting interference of a third party.  From an Orthodox point of view, all varieties of extra corporeal, in vitro (outside the body) conceptions are also morally inadmissible, inasmuch as they entail the preparation, storage and intentional destruction of “surplus” embryos.  It is on the recognition, indeed, of the human dignity of the embryo that the moral condemnation of abortion is based (see XII.2).

Immutably tied to the preceding issue is the problem of genetic engineering. For this reason, even while noting the moral causes of illness, the Church at the same time welcomes the efforts of physicians to cure hereditary illnesses.  Genetic engineering, however, should not be utilized for the artificial ‘perfection’ of the human race or to interfere with God’s plan for mankind. Gene therapy is thus permissible only with the full consent of the patient or his legal representatives and only for purely medical purposes.  Genetic manipulation of sex cells is extremely dangerous, since it involves changes in the genome (the sum of hereditary traits) of several generations, which can lead to unpredictable consequences in the form of new mutations and a destabilization of the equilibrium between the human community and the environment.  The achievement of scientific success in the cloning (making genetic copies) of animals poses questions regarding the acceptability and possible consequences of cloning humans. The whole concept of cloning is without doubt a challenge to the very nature of man, as well as to the image of God in him, an integral part of which includes the freedom and distinctiveness of the person.

The actualization of the possibility of cloning humans, which has aroused protests from many people all over the world, is capable of becoming destructive for society.  To a greater degree than any other reproductive technology, cloning opens the door to the possibility of manipulation of the genetic components of personality and supports its further devaluation. Man has no right to aspire to the role of creator of creatures similar to himself, or to select their genetic prototype, defining their personal character traits in accordance with his own wishes. ‘Fabrication’ of people with pre-selected characteristics may seem desirable only to adherents of totalitarian ideologies.

Human cloning is capable of subverting the natural foundations of childbearing, blood relationships, motherhood and fatherhood.  A child could become the sister of her mother, the brother of his father or the daughter of her grandfather.  Psychological consequences of cloning are equally dangerous.  A human who appears as the result of such procedures may very well be unable to perceive himself as an independent person, but only as a mere “copy” of someone else now or previously living. One should also consider that the “side effects” of experiments with human cloning would inevitably include a multitude of unborn lives and, most likely, the birth of a high number of unviable children.  At the same time, the cloning of individual cells and tissues is not an assault on the dignity of personhood, and in many instances proves to be practically useful in biotechnology and medicine.

The attitude of the Church to contemporary transplantology.  Contemporary transplantology (the theory and practice of transplantation of organs and tissues) permits active medical assistance to many patients who previously would have been considered terminally ill, or who would have faced life with serious handicaps.  At the same time, the development of this branch of medical science, even as it increases the need for healthy organs, gives rise to certain moral problems and could present a danger to society. For instance, unconscionable recruitment of donors and the commercialization of transplantation give rise to a trade in human body parts, which threatens human life and health.

In the opinion of the Church, human organs cannot be seen as objects of purchase or sale. Transplantation of organs from a live donor can be based exclusively on voluntary self-sacrifice, for the purpose of saving another persons’ life. In such a case, agreement to explantation (removal of an organ) becomes an expression of love and compassion.  The potential donor, however, must be fully informed of the potential consequences of such an explantation to his health.  A donation that directly endangers the life of the donor is morally inadmissible. The most widespread form of transplantation is the practice of the removal of organs immediately upon the death of the donor.  In such cases, all ambiguity must be removed in the determination of the point of clinical death.

It is unacceptable to shorten the life of one person, which includes refusal of life support procedures, in order to prolong the life of another person.  Under no circumstances can a transplant be morally justified if conditions are such that they have the capability of threatening the identity of the recipient, either as a person or as a member of the human race.

Unconditionally unacceptable, in the opinion of the Church, is the utilization, for medical or cosmetic purposes, of methods of so-called fetal therapy, which is based on the removal and use of tissues and organs of human fetuses that previously had been aborted at different stages of development.

All of the above issues – the donation of organs suitable for transplantation, as well as the development of resuscitation techniques – give rise to the problem of determining the exact moment of death.  Earlier, the criterion of death was considered to be the irreversible cessation of breathing and blood circulation. Due to the perfection of modern resuscitation techniques, these important functions can now be artificially maintained for lengthy periods. Thus the act of death is transformed into a process of dying dependent on the decisions of a physician, which places a qualitatively new responsibility on contemporary medicine.

In Holy Scripture death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body (Ps. 145, Luke 12:20).  Thus, we can speak of life continuing as long as the entire organism continues functioning as a whole. Included in the process of continuation of life, in the Orthodox understanding of a ‘blameless end,’ is also preparation for death, which is considered to be a spiritually significant stage of human life.

Surrounded by Christian care during his last days on earth, a patient can experience a grace-filled transformation as a result of new understanding of past life and penitential attendance at the threshold of eternity.  For relatives and medical personnel, on the other hand, caring patiently for a dying person becomes an opportunity to serve the Lord Himself, in accordance with the Savior’s words: “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me” (Matthew 25:40).  Of singular importance is pastoral exhortation of children who refuse to care for their aged parents.

The process of human distancing from God and the Church has appropriately resulted in the development of a simplistic, shallow and often even a blasphemous attitude towards life and death.  The Church must reiterate: only God is the Lord of life and death (1 Sam 2: 6), “in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10).  For this reason, adhering faithfully to the Lord’s commandment “thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13), the Church cannot recognize as being morally acceptable current widespread attempts in secular society to legalize so-called euthanasia, i.e. the intentional putting to death of the terminally ill, even in accordance with their own express wishes.

The so-called ‘right to die’ can easily turn into a threat to the life of patients for whose medical care there may not be sufficient financial resources. The Church testifies: euthanasia is a form of either murder or suicide, depending on whether the patient participates in the decision.  An intentional suicide, who “has done so as a result of human offense or for any other reason due to weakness of will" is neither buried as a Christian nor liturgically commemorated” (Timothy of Alexandria, canon 14).  At the same time, it is important to remember that the guilt of the suicide is often shared by the surrounding people, who have thereby shown themselves to be incapable of demonstrating active sympathy and heartfelt compassion.

In direct connection to the preceding aspects of contemporary life, it is imperative that attention be directed to the relationship between religion and science.

The sciences—including both natural sciences and the humanities—have become one of the more significant components of culture today. The development of science and technology under the influence of secular ideologies, however, has brought about consequences that are grounds for serious apprehensions. For this reason, in order to safeguard normal human life, it now becomes necessary, as never before, to return to the lost ties between scientific knowledge and religious, spiritual and moral values.

Orthodoxy sees in scientific knowledge a natural tool for the beneficent structuring of life on earth, but a tool that should be used with great care. The Church warns man against the temptation of looking upon science as being completely independent of moral principles.

No social system can be called harmonious when a monopoly of secular understanding dominates the formation of public opinion. If art and scientific knowledge foster a moral and spiritual renewal of the person, the Church sanctifies them. If, however, culture and science are found to be in opposition to God and become anti-religious or anti-human, thus becoming anti-culture or anti-science, then the Church opposes them.

Of special import is the relationship between the Church and the mass media. The interaction of the Church and the media presupposes a mutual responsibility. Information released to journalists (especially by the clergy!) and conveyed to the public must be verifiable.

Opinions of clergy and other representatives of the Church, which are transmitted to the public through the media, should be in agreement with Church teachings and official pronouncements on public issues. Libel, insults directed at others and mocking of human weaknesses are unacceptable.

Such is a brief overview of this important document.  I reiterate: in accordance with the determination of the Council of Bishops, it is called to serve as a guideline for Synodal institutions, dioceses, monasteries, parishes and other canonical ecclesial bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church (including also our Patriarchal Parishes) in their relationships with governmental authorities, various secular associations and organizations, and the secular media. On the basis of this document, the Church hierarchy makes determinations pertaining to various issues, the applicability of which may be limited to the borders of certain countries, particular narrow time frames, or which may be occasioned by specific circumstances. This document is to be included in the curricula of all theological schools of the Moscow Patriarchate. In accordance with possible changes in government and social life, and possible appearance in this sphere of new issues of significance to the Church, the fundamentals of Her social conceptions may be modified and elaborated.

It is vital to note that to the present time, not one of the other Local Orthodox Churches has a similar document, even in a somewhat related fashion.

The second crucial Act of the Council was the canonization of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia, as well as other saints and confessors of the faith.  It is important to note the truly gargantuan labors of the Synodal Committee on Canonization during the past several years. This particular canonization was accomplished on the individual merits of each of the persons canonized! The conciliar act of glorification in the ranks of God’s holy saints of those who sealed their faith in blood is particularly momentous because it reveals to society the triumph of Divine justice. For those who were publicly shamed and secretly killed, whose struggle was burned out of the memory of their contemporaries, whose mortal bodies were killed but whose immortal souls could not be killed, are now and forever glorified by the earthly Church and the Heavenly Church. Their faithfulness to Christ even unto death is a great spiritual treasure of Russia.

At the preceding Council of Bishop in 1997 apprehensions were voiced that undue haste in the study of the problem of the canonization of the royal martyrs potentially could precipitate confrontation between two social blocs. Happily, this did not occur at the present time, because time had proven correct the prudent foresight of the participants of the Council of 1997. After due study of all materials pertaining to this question, the Jubilee Council of Bishops glorified among the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, in the rank of passion-sufferers, Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Aleksy and the Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.  Thus were concluded all attempts to bring political passions and ideological motivations to bear on the problem of evaluation of the personality and actions of the last Russian tsar. The Church bears testimony that the tsar and members of his family faced their final hour with true Christian humility, having wholly entrusted their fate to the will of God and with their martyrdom sealed their faithfulness to Christ.

Behind the many sufferings that were endured by the Royal Family in the last seventeen months of their life, which ended with their shooting in the cellar of the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely strived to embody in their lives the precepts of the Gospel.  In the sufferings which the Royal Family endured in imprisonment with meekness, patience and humility, as also in their death as martyrs, was revealed the light of Christian faith which conquers evil, in the very same way this light shone in the lives and deaths of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecutions for Christ in the twentieth century.  It was precisely in appreciation of this spiritual feat of the Royal Family that the Committee on Canonization unanimously, with the approval of the Holy Synod, found it possible to support the glorification of the Royal Family in the synaxis of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia.

The canonization of the holy royal passion sufferers has removed yet another barrier to the reunification with their Mother Church of members of Her flock who have distanced themselves from Her – the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.  We would like to believe and hope that with the assistance of God this process will begin, and that the devil will not sow in the hearts of the children of God will new weeds of division and enticement.

The Council of Bishops discussed and adopted yet another important document – Essential Principles guiding the relations of the Russian Orthodox Church to other confessions.  This document has not only clearly and fully formulated the Orthodox approach to dialogue with Christians of other denominations and with other religions, as well as the principles of such dialogue, but it will, God willing, end unconscionable speculation on this theme by opponents of internal ecclesial unity.
The significance of all of the above acts of the Council lies in the understanding that Christian motivation should be the defining factor not only in the personal and family lives of Orthodox Christians, but also in their social life.  When people speak of the need for morality in politics, what they have in mind is the same thing:  to tie faith in Christ, faithfulness to His commandments and the teaching of His Church to the ordinary daily life of people. In essence, the deeds and acts of the Jubilee Bishop’s Council were called to support this magnificent goal.

The changes and additions to the Statute of the Church reflect the social and economic changes that have occurred in society and the legal system since 1988.  In addition, some of the changes will improve the internal workings of Church administration.  The new Statute will be an ecclesiastic legislative document that will regulate the lives of thousands of parishes.

During the discussion of the changes and additions to the Statute, many bishops discussed the need to strengthen vertical hierarchy in relation to pastors and the laity.  We cannot allow the relations between the bishops, priest and laity that we have inherited from the apostles to be disrupted – this tears at the very fabric of the Church and Her unity with Christ.

These and other conciliar acts, through the practice of active parish life, will determine the entire spectrum of relations between the Church and State, society and other confessions.  For the Church on earth has no other vocation or purpose except that of effecting change for the better in the depths of the human heart.  The decisions adopted by the Council are aimed at making the Church more effective in Her work of human salvation. Without, however, an inner transformation of each separate person who has rejected sin in order to become better, purer, and more filled with light, spiritual transformation of society is impossible.

All that has been said above will remain on the level of beautiful sounds and a triumph of rhetoric unless it is actively reflected in daily parish life.  Therefore, each of us is equally responsible for our individual attitudes in the light of the Acts and decisions of this Bishop’s Council.  We are answerable to God, to the Church, to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, and also to our own consciences.

In my opinion, a truly global issue for such a small number of parishes is the Centennial Jubilee of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral, which is attached to the Representation of His Holiness, Patriarch Aleksy II of Moscow and all Russia in New York City.  In a way, the Jubilee is not a goal, but a result.  During the preparations for the celebration we will need to resolve many pressing issues.  Today, therefore, I ask all of you, as your Bishop, to be my steadfast coworkers and allies in this challenging task.

To my way of thinking, our joint efforts in the Celebration have a substantial historical foundation.  The Cathedral was built at the beginning of the twentieth century through the collaboration of people such as Archbishop Tikhon (Belavin) – who later became Saint Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia; and the holy new martyr, protopresbyter Alexander Khotovitsky.  The passion-bearer emperor Nicholas II viewed the construction of the Cathedral as vital and donated money, while the great miracle worker Saint John of Kronstadt blessed a collection for the Cathedral throughout Russia.  The Cathedral was an outpost of Orthodoxy in North America.  Today it continues, through various difficulties and efforts, to be such an outpost.

For many of our clergy, Saint Nicholas Cathedral is their spiritual home.  It is the place where they were ordained to the priesthood and began their pastoral work.  Thus it is their duty before God and their pastoral consciences to aid the Cathedral during this auspicious Jubilee.

The Cathedral is also the Representation of our Patriarch – His face.  Thus, anyone who is a member of the Russian Church and is therefore part of His flock should be involved in renewing the Cathedral.  I will go so far as to state that people judge the Russian Church, the Patriarch and the Patriarchal parishes by the condition of the Cathedral.

Lastly, the Cathedral is an important architectural monument in New York City, being one of the most beautiful buildings from the turn of the century.  It is our duty both as pastors and caring American citizens to renew it for the residents and guests of New York and America.

The Cathedral is in need of capital renovation.  We face an enormous amount of tasks:  1) changing the plumbing, wiring, drainage system and windows; 2) renovating the iconostasis and frescoes; 3) adding a new ventilation and conditioning system.  We are also planning to create a museum of the history of the Cathedral.

Much has already been accomplished: we have repaired the roof, re-created all of the plans that had been lost, developed plans for reconstructing the residence, the cathedral refectory, began work on the heating and air-conditioning systems, ordered new windows, created plans for new lighting, found highly qualified restorers to work on the iconostasis and the frescoes, opened a church store (where any parish can buy necessary vessels and accoutrements, vestments, icons and books).  We have also began to restore the office and waiting room where Patriarch Tikhon once worked and met with people.  Some of the funds for all of this have already been raised, some are being raised, but I sincerely hope that the Patriarchal Parishes will also contribute significantly to this worthy and holy cause.  I would like to make it very clear that I will account for any donations made by the Patriarchal parishes and will always be ready to provide any supporting documents to show how and where the money was spent.

The celebration of the Jubilee is also important because the Head of our Church, His Holiness Aleksy II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, has agreed to attend.  This is a serious responsibility, and I would like the Convocation to create a responsible working Committee for the Celebration of the Jubilee representing the Patriarchal Parishes.

In my opinion, our preparation can be focused in two main directions:

1. Development and improvement of parish life within the Patriarchal parishes;

2. Preparatory activities for the Jubilee.

The restoration of a vertical hierarchal structure based on apostolic and patristic traditions, with a corresponding relationship to the ruling bishop;

 

A mandatory restoration of the office of Deans, who will actively cooperate with their bishop.  Their activity, however, should not infringe on the prerogatives of the bishop;

Restoring the activity of the Bishop’s Council that works with the Bishop in the spirit of a conciliar mind;

Regular liturgical communion between the clergy, together with their bishop, on days of common church Feasts and parish Feasts  (I speak and spoke about this already when I visit various parishes.  I am firmly convinced that only in liturgical Communion we achieve that fruitful and grace-filled unity that can transform our flock and us).

As pastors, we must approach our service not only in accordance with the spirit of the time, but also in the spirit of eternal traditions of Orthodoxy, being guided by the golden patristic rule that it is not we who need to save the Church, but rather that we need to save ourselves within the Church.  Therefore, in the spirit of church rubrics, there is a need for a gradual, pastoral correction of liturgical practices, with courtesy and consideration of the needs of the flock, as we bring our practice in line with general Church practice. In my opinion, there is no justification for truncation of evening services on the eve of Feasts or on Saturdays to the limits of Vespers.  If we are unable to serve Matins in their fullness, we should at least read the appropriate selection from the Resurrection Gospel and accompany it by a living word – a pastoral sermon.  Dear Fathers, with humility I remind you that you are the ones leading your parishioners, and not the reverse.  I realize that to do this can often be difficult, but such is our pastoral obligation, that yoke of Christ that symbolically we put on ourselves every time we put on the epitrachelion before we begin Divine services.

We should especially strive for uniformity of Divine offices in neighboring parishes (when this word is appropriate, given the distances involved).  This is why we have deans, who are experienced priests endowed with the wisdom of life, who will always advise a new pastor on appropriate ways of resolving difficult issues.  Your last resource for all of your pastoral questions is your bishop, who is always prepared to help you.

It is necessary to restore the practice of regular Confession and Communion for the clergy, and not to limit oneself to the private prayer “Lord, remit and forgive my trespasses…” I would like to assign a Confessor in each Deanery to whom all clergy will make their private confession during Holy Lent.

It is important to note that there has been a significant increase in Russian-speaking parishioners in almost all of the parishes.  Let us remember that we are an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Thus it is our holy obligation to demonstrate pastoral care for these people, including, where necessary, exclamations and whole ektenias in Slavonic, and even to serve entire liturgies in Slavonic. If such necessity exists in the parishes or neighboring cities or towns, and your own opportunities are limited, I would ask that you inform me of such situations.

As I have already mentioned, our primary mission should be to our own parishioners, thus sermons are vital.  It is inadmissible not to preach at all services especially private ones (“treby” – baptisms, funerals, weddings and so on).

Every parish should have a Sunday school for children (and one for adults where possible) where the basics of the catechism and the Law of God should be taught, as well as elementary tenets of an Orthodox lifestyle.  The basis for such a school is the reverent attitude of the pastor, demonstrated in his actions.  I believe that it would be good to add basics of Russian history to the lives of Russian saints.  After all, we are part of the Russian Church, but our children often do not even know where Russia is located, much less anything about the country.  Russia has given world Orthodoxy thousands of saints and deserves that parishioners of the Patriarchal Parishes are aware of this (I would recommend, for instance, materials prepared by archpriest Mark Shinn).  I would like to stress that this is not just a wish, but a blessing for your activities, which I shall observe without fail, and which should be fully and concretely reflected in your annual reports, which every rector will submit to the Representation.

Another special and important issue is the theological education of the clergy.  Many parish problems, problems of personal and social life, arise from an insufficient—sometimes even totally lacking—theological education of the clergy.  I would like to immediately state, parenthetically, that I have no desire to appear to be demeaning those who did not have the opportunity to receive a seminary or graduate theological education, and yet have fruitfully served the Holy Church for several decades.  I address myself, first of all, to the younger clergy and to those who preparing to enter on the path of diaconal or priestly ordination: apart from personal character traits that render you worthy of ordination there is also the necessity and requirement of acquiring a theological education in residence or by correspondence, here in the United States or in Russia.  I think that all our parishes see the necessity of having as their spiritual guide a person who is theologically and spiritually literate. This is demanded by life, this is demanded by the Church, and the hands of the bishop will not be laid upon anyone who is not willing to receive a theological education.  On my part, I am prepared to lend my full support, as well as the support of St Nicholas Cathedral, to the task of preparation and internship of candidates for ordination.

Another crucial issue – the efficient functioning of the chancery of the Representation, indivisibly shared with the Deans and Rectors of parishes.  The organization of this effort demands not only strength, but also financial resources, which the income of Saint Nicholas Cathedral alone is unable to provide.

I would like to emphasize the need, on the level of parish contacts and liturgical communion, for continuing good relations with all canonical Orthodox churches in the USA, especially with the Orthodox Church of America, a legitimate daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church.  There is also the necessity of prayerful intercession for the divinely-protected Russian land and this country, in which our parishes bear Orthodox witness to the Truth of Christ.

I consider it necessary to note the issue of clerical and other ecclesiastic awards.  Church rewards are visible testimony of efforts in active service to the Church.  Awards are not granted simply for years of service in the priesthood or in the parish.  Awards are granted for concrete and active service.  I would therefore not only ask that all requests for awards be presented in a timely fashion (several months before Paskha or a Jubilee), but also that such requests should be accompanied by a letter from the Dean, in the case of clergy or parishioners, or, if the request concerns Rectors in his deanery, be issued by the Dean himself. The bishop makes the final decision on recommendations for awards, whereas His Holiness, the Patriarch, retains the final decision on the award itself.

I would like to say that with the assistance of the deans a full census of the clergy will be taken, especially those in the rank of deacon, inasmuch as there are cases where deacons have avoided their responsibilities to serve or otherwise work in their parishes, also instances when they have totally abandoned their ministry for unknown reasons. I would ask all Rectors and Deans to inform me of such cases by report in a timely fashion.  In such instances, canonical measures of interdiction will be taken, inasmuch as such behavior violates the vows given before the Holy Gospel and Cross prior to ordination.

1. Preparation and development of a detailed program for the visit of His Holiness to the Patriarchal parishes;

2. Preparation and publication in two languages of a book entitled “The Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States.” The book should be well illustrated and be well written, with meaningful and interesting content for its readers. I would think that the publication of such a book will not only be a good thing for the Patriarchal Parishes, but for Orthodox Russians will also serve as an introduction to good deeds and accomplishments in America. It would also be a worthy contribution to the development of bilateral Russian-American relations;

3. Through the efforts of the Representation it is necessary to have a functioning and dynamic website on the Internet, which will allow us to quickly and in depth provide information on the life and service of the Patriarchal parishes to Orthodox people in America, in Russia, and throughout the world;

4. The possibility of filming a jubilee documentary about the life of the parishes;

5. The possibility for recording a CD with sacred church music sung by the choirs of our parishes;

6. For your conciliar consideration I submit the question of reviving the publication of a bulletin of the Patriarchal Parishes.

In conclusion, I would like once again, my dear Fathers, Brothers and Sisters, to cordially welcome you, to thank you for all of your earnest labors in your parishes, and exhort you to work even harder, with the words of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Nikodim:  “We must do for the Church everything that lies in our power, and then some more.”  May the Chief among Pastors, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ strengthen us in this, for the sake of the prayerful intercession of His Most Pure Mother, the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary, and all the saints.

May the Grace of Our Lord be with all of you!