Here are two articles, the first from recent times, the other from 1911, on the question of sobornost’ in relation to the Old Faith. The central core understanding of church life can be found in the idea of sobornost,’ an idea that is not merely conciliar, nor identified with unanimity, or even the vulgar ideas of “majority rule,” but exist from the manifestation of the Spirit, the Truth that is arrived at from the point of view of Orthodox asceticism. The Orthodox fathers believed in infallibility, but that exists only when one has been purified of the passions. Here, can Truth be arrived at with no other external aid other than the Spirit Himself. This is sobornost. It is the General Will of Rousseau placed on a spiritual level. The struggle with the passions is the central idea in Christian epistemology, and the rule of the passions, the lower drives fo the flesh, is the very formal definition of falsity. Truth can only be approached by a cleansed conscience. Here, conflict fades away, a single, familial idea develops, and that is the Truth, the same at all times and places, controlling for local considerations. The Sobor is not about “voting,” it is about the manifestation of the Spirit on earth, but this can only be done through the medium of the conscience, and the conscience is only such if it has been cleansed of heteronomous elements, that is, the passions, the lust for power or money, manifest in pride, that can only lead to the lie: modernity, democracy, capitalism, socialism, materialism, in short, the Enlightenment, or the manifestation of Lucifer/Prometheus on earth, rather than the spirit. Papism forgot about this, and all power was concentrated at Rome. Constantinople was forced to reject this, and the simoniac Turkish dominated clergy attempted to force a single idea upon all churches of its dominion. Furthermore, Nikon forgot about this, and it was his autocratic methods, and then, the control of the synod by the bureaucracy, that caused the rebellion of the Old Faith. Sobornost and Sobornopravan are just that important. Few Orthodox bodies follow it today–MRJ

On of the great Gifts of God to the church is sobornost. It is the interpenetrating unity of the members of the church with each other via the faith itself, embodied in the saints, and unembodied, within the canons and sacred writings. All of this is brought together in liturgy; the united hope. Christ Himself prayed for this unity in the famous passage: so that they would be united, as We. Christians form the eternal sobor through the identity of ideas, love and devotion, each together, each reinforcing the other.

The name of the church in the Creed it itself a testament to the fact that the church is a sobor; each member becomes a participant in this central sobor. All members of the church are equal to one another, differing only in function. Each of us will stand, regardless of rank, as equals before the throne of the Father.

All the pastors of the church are charged with maintaining this unity of sobornost. The church is not the church without it. Clergy cannot disregard the opinion of the council, and the laymen as a while. Feofilact says that each needs the other, the clergy needs the laity, for by themselves, they cannot arrange the church properly. Ephraim the Syrian writes, “The mutual needs of the church members sows love among them.” And again, “One cannot say that the head does not need the feet. You are all necessary. Even the weakest prove necessary to us. God created his church as a body, a body so that there is not one part that extols itself over the other.”

The spokesmen of the church itself can only be the joint soborny of the clergy and laity. This is necessary for the rational approach to day to day church problems, as well as the building of the body as a single unit.

In other words, all problems must be approached by the entire body, not by self-described leaders. Sobornost must be a living organism, as opposed to an organization. All element osf the church life are the joint responsibility of the entire body. This extends beyond the limits of the parish or diocese, but it is the church in itself.

This must be the case for it expresses the importance of the body as body. This is evidence of a living, organic spiritual life. This is true fraternity. The church is not only a hierarchy. But the clergy and people together. We compose a united family differing only as to function rather than to worth. The family is responsible for the behavior of its members; hence, the proper arrangement of the church; mutual responsibility and mutual aid.

This idea is apostolic in origin. The sobor of the Apostles themselves is proof of the ancient origin of sobornost,’ and of the dangers of ignoring it. All Christians were at that time in Jerusalem, and they took a direct part in the proceedings. The Acts say that “the whole church judged” in this case (cf. 15:22). This became the model for the church sobor.

The great historian Eusebius writes the same about later ecumenical sobory. It as “believers” that “were gathered from Asia for the Councils.” Cyprian says the same thing. He writes that “the church consists in the bishop, clergy and the faithful.” Never one ahead of the other, never one more powerful than the other. All synods under him, therefore, were always assemblies of laymen and clergy together. Everything was done according to the agreement of the people, not merely hierarchs. All the ancient soborny were popular assemblies. The local traditions can come together and sort out problems. Hierarchs were only one part of that. The ancient Church of Rome was no exception either.

Laymen were never meant to be the mindless instruments of hierarchal authority, but were to be an integral aspect of church organization, its living truth and its tradition. The church after Nikon self-consciously abandoned this idea, and clergy, as well as basic church government, was concentration in Peter’s synod. The rights of the body were abandoned. This has not changed with the modern Moscow Patriarchate and its arms abroad. This mentality was only corrected when the Old Faith reestablished its hierarchy. Christians always together carried out church cathedrals with the participation both the clergies and laymen.

The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed the rebuilding of Orthodox social structures, and the normal forms of decision-making were disrupted. If this is not continually rebuilt and reemphasized, the lack of interest in the common people will soon show itself. The church will end up like the Patriarchate in Moscow–a spiritual caste. The laymen becoming simple passive registers of the will of the hierarchy.

It does remain the case that the canons do only permit voting rights to bishops/monks. This canonical prescription has come up again and again, and cannot be denied. Nevertheless, the bishops do not make decisions on their own, for they too have soborny, those clergy and laymen attached to the cathedral. The sobor exists at the local level, the parish level, the diocesan level, and at the monastic level. A bishop in council is not free to ignore them. All representatives of the soborny, cathedral or otherwise, have the right to freely voice their opinions, and the bishop to judge by means of them. The final decision is left with the bishops, for this too is traditional and scriptural (1 Cor. 12:13). Desire the equality of all church members, they do function differently, each having its own “speciality.” (1 Cor. 12:28). Ultimately, the popular opinion is a part of church law and government, but can only be manifest in the person of the bishop, referring to himself as “we” reflecting on the nature of his own cathedral sobor.

This sort of participation allows hierarchs to compose a proper, realistic and accurate notion of local conditions when the bishop cannot be there in himself. As a result, policy will make more sense, and will be attached to the general will at that level.

This is a far cry from the notion of the “will of the majority.” Nothing can be passed that is at variance with the sacred writings. The general will is very different from this. The will of the majority is not to be trusted, but the will of tradition, the rule of generations passed and the solution to their problems is another matter. Solutions can only be pronounced when there is peace, when all elements of authority can coexist happily. The General will is that of the church tradition, the manifestation of the faith throughout history, rather than the mere will of the majority. Sobornost’ has nothing in common with parliamentarians.

Ultimately, the idea of sobornost resides in the notion that the church is present in all its actions, in all its manifestations. The church is whole in each of its parts, because the whole church is manifest in decisions and actions.

The Church is the Body of Christ, not a human institution at root. By Christ was it created, and by Him is it ruled. The Church believes in Him at all times, and brings her people to Him. Hence, those on earth are only a small part of the church. Those on earth form the organism, but those in heaven have a role as well. Sobornost’ includes the saints, the pious dead, as well as the organic aspect on earth. If this is forgotten, there is great danger.

The church is divided between the clergy and the people. For convenience, the church is organized along the lines of the old Roman dioceses. This is a simple matter of convenience. Within each are the holy communities. Bishop governs priests, and priests the people. Bishops and priests will be judged according to the extent their exercised their duties properly.

However, while the church is so divided, it remains that any changes in a diocese must occur with the hierarch’s consent. The saints have condemned any attempt to function apart from the Bishop. But bishops do not control their dioceses, they represent them. Each bishop is advised by the sobor, or a council of laymen and priests who bring local concerns to him. Thus, each part needs the other. These soborny, finally represented by the bishop, deals with liturgical and dogmatic matters at the diocesan level, and mete out any kind of punishment. It is the sobor, both local and church-wide, that is at the center of governance. But the sobor is not merely the hierarch.

Since God has given the Old Belief the care of the canons, each year the entire church meets in synod. In New Russia, laymen are no longer invited to the synod. This borders on heresy, for it assumes the church exists only as a head. A Sobor without the laity has no right to exist. Some have said that such a “sobor” is in reality a corpse.. . .

Iit is true that only bishops have the right to vote. It is true that the “laymen” at earlier synods included the heretics later to be condemned. There have been soborny with, and some without, the laity. In the soborny where laymen were present, they were not involved with the discussions or the voting, there were merely present to witness. This includes representatives of the Roman state who had nothing to do with the theology involved, but existed so as to keep order, and that was their sole purpose. The reality is that there was no significant lay responsibility in the ancient synods. In the 7th synod, monks from the Studion were permitted to take part in deliberations. At Chalcedon , there is some evidence of lay participation. And it remains that the only conclusion is that orthodox soborny can exist without laymen. Nevertheless, it remains true that, since each cathedral is governed by a local sobor, and the bishop acts on its advice, each bishop voting at a synod, of whatever type, is, to a great extent, governed by local clergy and laymen. Hence, the principle of sobornost’ is not affected. As a matter of course, in reflecting that, Old Faith soborny always include laymen.

The reality is that lay participation, in a direct way, is not justified by the canons. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that there are some very good, common-sense reasons for including them. They have knowledge of local problems that bishops may not have. It might become a problem if the laity are not part of the sobor, since that might split the church, the body, into two bodies, which would be disastrous. In our case, there are plenty of lay congresses of the Old Faith that serve the same purposes. And bishops ignore these at their peril. Of course, this is antoher view on lay participation at the sobor.

In terms of productivity, its seems to be that a joint sobor of clergy and laity are necessary for the proper oneness of the faith and church. They should not interfere with one another, but assisting one another in the spirit of equity, as different organs in the same body. Our most recent sobor in Moscow was a good step in that direction.

. Those elected from the diocese, as well as local brotherhoods, should be present at the sobor and issue reports on the consideration of various questions. Bishops should not be bound by such reports, but common sense tells us that substantial views of the laity should never merely be ignored. This amounts to a legitimate “division” of labor that can only help the business of a council.. . .