Fr. David made a comment in another thread that I found interesting.
This is a topic that I know very little about, but sparked my curiosity. I really have a two-fold question. One is really about what the current practice is (or should be), and secondly what has been the historic experience?

Currently, in general terms, what should the nature of responsibility be in a parish between the council and the priest. Who should make decisions, and what kind of decisions are those? For instance how money gets appropriated for repairs, or what language to use in the liturgy? Who should hold the title to the church itself? Do practices differ between or within jurisdictions?

Secondly, what was the historic situation, and in particular I think I really mean North America. I gather there was an issue of lay trusteeism, meaning the church title was actually held by the congregation and not by the bishop, so the parish in effect could end up calling the shots and treating the priest more or less as a hired hand. This may not be specifically Orthodox issue, as I ran across this for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_Kostka_Church_(Saint_Louis)

Here is a link to normal Parish Bylaws of the Russian Orthodox Church. All your questions should be answered here.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/regulations/parishlaws.html


Alexandr

Thanks, that defitely helps. My two questions would remain:

Is there any difference across jurisdictions now?
The historic situation.

Also, I didn't specify but meant to, I'm speaking specifically of Orthodoxy and essentially in North America.

AMM:

I think what Father was referring to was the situation in the OCA and some of its parishes. Historically the situation wherein the parish council gained much more authority over the parish priest came about because of the circumstances of the Russian Revolution and its repercussions in North America.

After the Revolution, there were many property battles arising from the question of who was the canonical bishop, which side of the Revolution one was on, and other reasons that divided parishes and made it difficult for the people of the Russian Metropolia. Bishops, to avoid many of these property battles, deeded the parish properties in most instances over to the parish councils and allowed each parish to incorporate themselves to protect their assets. That way the property battles were supposed to be avoided.

The upshot, however, was that the priest became virtually the employee of the parish and many parishes could resist their bishop if they so chose. This is not the way that the Church functioned because it severed the canonical authority of the clergy and made them somewhat helpless to enforce Church discipline. I remember one OCA priest of my acquaintance tell me--many years ago--that no one could serve in his parish, even his own bishop, without his permission and that of his parish council. I found that rather strange, but, not knowing the history behind such a development, took it for face value. I am also familiar with a parish that used to have a revolving door for its parish priest. They used to last just a few years before they were forced out and the parish could start again with another at a lesser salary. They'd also had an argument with one of their priests and the council voted not to give him health insurance at his annual contract renewal.

BOB

I think such parishes should be punished by removing a priest altogether. In extreme cases, the parish should be simply suppressed (shut down). Can't an OCA bishop take measures like that ?

-- John

I will bet my bottom dollar that all these situations with parish councils involve the almighty dollar!

John:

Don't know the answer to that question. Much of the information I've learned about the parish situation came from a book put out by the OCA some years ago detailing its history from the Russian missionaries going to Alaska. For any updates, you'd have to go to someone who is currently in-the-know in that Church.

BOB

Dear Bob,

In my in-laws' parish, the council is now going to someone in the know as well - the Superior of the parish priest to lodge a formal complaint.

It will be interesting to see who wins this tug of war - the majority of the parish is now against you-know-who.

Alex

ALEX:

Been there; done that. If I weren't in the middle of some controversy, I wouldn't know how to act.

Well, if it's your or your father-in-law, either of you have to remember that the only way to stay out of controversy is to do or say nothing. And even that's not fool-proof; just advice for fools.

BOB

How is the relationship in ACROD between the priest and parish councils?

I think that would be a parish by parish answer. But speaking for my parish (board member and cantor) the relationship is very good. Essentially the priest takes care of the spiritual and the board takes care of finances...

Job

In our parish, the advisor board does just that. We advise the priest, but ultimately he makes the managerial decision and signs contracts for the parish.

We put our trust in him and appreciate him taking our advice on many issues concerning the parish.

We vote on things left and right in our 12 person board, and then he moves on that.

The same modified congregational model of a large portion of North American Orthodoxy is followed. The pastor of the parish is charged with the spiritual care of the parish, and the material aspects of parish life are dealt with by the elected members of the council. The pastor leads the council from a spiritual standpoint, but is a non voting member and it is up to the parish council president to actively represent a good deal of the interests of the parish.

Having gone back and read the sample bylaws posted by Alexandr, I have to say I am struck by how different the parish regulations for the ROCOR are. I would assume they are much more in line with the old world model.