Conference of the District Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad – District Outside Russia
On 18 September 2026, a conference of the District Council was held by Zoom.
Present: Bishop Andrei and the members of the District Council. Archbishop Sophrony participated in the meeting by invitation.
The meeting discussed the question of reconsidering the decision made at the 6th All-Diaspora Council in Mountain View in 2017 concerning the establishment of two Districts, the Diaspora District and the Russian District.
At the beginning of the meeting, Bishop Andrei gave the following introduction concerning Church Districts.
St. Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukase No. 362 establishes the procedure for church administration in the absence of the Supreme Church Authority: the bishops are to unite into separate Church Districts. Since we do not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate as the lawful Supreme Church Authority, Ukase No. 362 remains for us the principal canonical act.
The meaning of the Ukase should be considered in light of the decisions of the Local Council of 1917–1918. In November 1918, the Council resolved to organize the Russian Church in the form of a number of semi-autonomous Church Districts with broad rights in internal matters, including the election and consecration of their own bishops, subject to the approval of candidates by the central church authority. The implementation of this decision was prevented by the Civil War and the persecution that followed.
In 1920, when it became evident that the Bolshevik authorities were preventing the normal functioning of the central church administration, Ukase No. 362 was issued for the event of the absence of a central church authority or the impossibility of its normal functioning.
Ukase No. 362 returns to the principle of organizing the Church in the form of Church Districts, but, in the absence of a central authority, grants them temporary full independence while preserving their accountability to the future Local Council of the Russian Church.
Church Districts are to administer their internal affairs independently while preserving unity of faith and Eucharistic communion. The basis of ecclesiastical unity is not so much a single administrative authority as the one Chalice — Eucharistic communion.
Consequently, in the absence of a lawful Supreme Church Authority—which has been our situation since 1927—the Russian Church should be organized not as a single administrative structure, but as a number of administratively independent Church Districts.
In accordance with the foregoing, at the 6th All-Diaspora Council in Mountain View in 2017, a decision was made to establish two Church Districts: the Diaspora District and the Russian District.
A discussion then took place concerning the possibility of merging the Diaspora and Russian Districts.
The following arguments were presented in favour of unification:
In the former ROCOR, there were parishes and bishops in Russia, but they did not constitute a separate District; they were part of ROCOR. ROCOR had approximately twelve bishops, yet it remained a single administrative structure. We now have only two bishops, and it would no longer be appropriate to speak of two Districts. We need to be realistic. At least for the present, it would be better to be together.
If the North American and Australian Dioceses, which are geographically distant from one another, can constitute a single District, then there is no reason why the Diocese of St. Petersburg could not also be part of this District.
The following arguments were presented against unification:
We enjoy a relative degree of freedom, whereas those in Russia may be subject to pressure or blackmail by the authorities, and through this our Church could lose its freedom. The danger is that destructive influences could enter the Church.
There is a historical example: ROCA remained under the authority of Patriarch Tikhon until his repose. On the one hand, the anti-Bolshevik activities of the Church Abroad exposed the Patriarch to persecution; on the other hand, the GPU forced him to issue decrees harmful to church life abroad. The same KGB now holds power in Russia. We could find ourselves in a similar situation if we unite the two Districts.
We cannot have a bishop in Russia as long as Russia remains under the oppression of the KGB. For the KGB, the possibility of influencing church administration in America is a highly desirable objective. Our Church is small, but it is independent. There is no doubt that the KGB is watching us, and this is confirmed by observations.
The bishops in Russia do not know the particular circumstances of life abroad, and vice versa. When the New York Synod administered the parishes in Russia, beginning in 1989, this did not work well, because the bishops in America did not understand the particular circumstances of life in Russia and made erroneous decisions.
On the other hand, after 2007, the Church Abroad suffered greatly from the actions of Russian hierarchs. It is better for church life abroad to be based on the administration of the local bishop rather than on that of someone from outside.
All church groups refer to Ukase No. 362, but for the most part they do not follow it. The Diaspora District, while remaining in communion with Archbishop Sophrony and at the same time maintaining a separate administrative structure, is an example of an exact implementation of Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukase.
For us, the most important thing is Eucharistic communion. Questions of a dogmatic and canonical nature extend beyond the scope of a single District. Such questions should be decided by the common voice of all the bishops who are in communion with one another.
By an overwhelming majority, the decision of the 6th All-Diaspora Council was reaffirmed: the Russian District and the Diaspora District are to maintain separate administrations while remaining in Eucharistic communion.
Bishop Andrei
Secretary of the District Council