II. О греко-болгарской распре

Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the enterprise of Exarch 171 Stoilovich to print church liturgical books in the Slavic language in Constantinople The hierarchy of Constantinople acts to the detriment of itself and the Orthodox Church by adamantly trying to have a Greek clergy in Bulgaria. The people cannot have instruction in the faith from the clergy, whose language does not understand, and cannot enter into communication with them that is sincere in the spirit of faith. And without the guidance of the Orthodox, and not being in sincere spiritual communion with the clergy, the Bulgarian people have no protection from the proselytism of non-Orthodox people, who send to them missionaries prepared for their work, speaking their language, having political support for themselves, equipped with material means to attract people, especially the poor. It is not difficult to see what consequences this may have. To prevent them, it is necessary that the Bulgarians have a clergy of the same tribe, and if partly Greek, for communication with the hierarchy of Constantinople, then sufficiently knowledgeable in the Bulgarian language. It is desirable that means be found to convince the Constantinople hierarchy of this. The enterprise of Exarch Stoilovich to print Orthodox liturgical books in the Slavic language in Constantinople is not entirely explained by the sole intention of eliminating the memory of the Russian imperial family and offensive expressions against the Ottoman power. For this purpose, it would be appropriate to begin printing with such books in which the remembrance of the imperial family and the appeal against Mohammedanism are most heard in the church; but it began with the Apostle and the Gospel, in which this is completely inaudible in the church. In the Gospel, only the title page represents the names of the Russian imperial family, and in the indication of the Gospel readings there is one expression: for the emperor and for the people during the battle. There is something similar in the Apostle, and also the troparion: Save, O Lord, Thy people, and bless Thy inheritance, granting victories to our blessed emperor in opposition. Therefore, one can fear more harm from Stoilovich’s enterprise than at first appears. Therefore, it is worth the effort to try to deliver to the Bulgarians from Russia the most necessary liturgical books, printed so that the enemies of Orthodoxy cannot point out them as contrary (?) to the political situation of Turkey. However, the implementation of this requires significant meetings. In the litany, the name of the Holy Synod is not difficult to replace with the name of the patriarch. The petition for the overthrow of the Hagarian kingdom can be replaced with a petition for the conversion of those who do not know the truth to the true knowledge of God about faith. It is especially difficult to decide how to deal with the petition of the litany for our most pious, autocratic, great sovereign, and so on. Exarch Stoilovich can interpret the complete omission of this petition as a rebellion against the Sultan; for the Christian faith commands us to pray for those in power. If we say in the words of the apostle: about the tsar and about everyone who is in power, let us pray to the Lord, and this can be interpreted so that the name of the tsar is actually the name of the Russian emperor. Perhaps the following expression of the petition may be more satisfactory: for him who is in power in this kingdom and for all who are in power, let us pray to the Lord. I repeat that this requires no small meetings. 172 March 5-September 10. Review by Metropolitan Philaret on the letters of the rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Peter, on the issue of transformations in the eastern hierarchy Until now I have not said anything about the letter from Fr. Archimandrite Peter 173 from Constantinople. Perhaps now is more opportune than before to say something. It is noticeable, with displeasure (and fairness) that he says that one of the members of the Russian hierarchy 174 was the originator of alarming thoughts about the Bulgarian patriarchate. And truly, it is worthy of note that this one was accidentally (after they saw him in full health during the highest coronation) by the fate of God, he was recalled at the very time when the government authorized him to act on the Bulgarians. Continuation of this action could lead to church and political difficulties. Then Archimandrite Peter sets out his inquiry, which disagrees with what was communicated to him in Moscow, and which, it seems, he understood one-sidedly. He wants to refute the opinion that the Greek hierarchy does not favor the performance of divine services among the Bulgarians in the Slavic language. But he himself says that at the present time a verbal order has been sought from the Porte so that services should be performed in the Slavic language in churches in which there are more Bulgarian houses than Greek ones. Isn’t it clear that this justice has not been shown to the Bulgarians before now? Isn’t it clear that this justice was given to the Bulgarians by the Porte, and not by the Greek hierarchy? He further says that he could not find out from anyone why in the Macedonian dioceses services are not held in the Slavic language. But what secret is there to look for here? Obviously, services are not celebrated in the Slavic language because the bishop ordered so. Is it difficult to get books? But if the bishops wanted to provide the people with an understandable divine service, they could ask Russia for books as freely as they could freely ask for financial benefits; but there were no requests from the bishops for Slavic books. 0. Peter guesses that the bishops prohibit Slavic worship in Macedonia because “the agents of Bore are rampant there” 175. This is not clear. Father Peter says that the Bulgarians choose worthy or unworthy candidates for the priesthood, the bishops do not interfere in this. Is this concern for the flock? And doesn’t this confirm the complaint of the Bulgarians that the bishops appoint as priest the one who gives the most money? Father Peter says that under him, Hilarion 176, a straightforward, solid, kind man and not without education, was elevated to bishop from the Bulgarians. But he immediately says that Hilarion had not previously enjoyed the mercy of the patriarch, and was even in captivity. Does this mean the favor of the Greek hierarchy towards the Bulgarians? Is it not because they took on the former prisoner because the Russian embassy is currently petitioning for the granting of the national priesthood to the Bulgarians? I had the bitter task of pointing out the dark clouds in the East, where Fr. Peter wants to see only pure light. But now I need to continue this bitter work beyond the Constantinople letter. In the relations of the Patriarch of Jerusalem 177 to the Eminence of Melitopol 178 even before 179 I showed cases that could not be signs of sincere affection for the Russian hierarchy. One circumstance can say a lot about the Patriarch of Antioch, Jerotheus 180, that, after the death of the Patriarch of Antioch, Methodius 181, from the Antiochian church, to Jerotheus, then Archbishop of Tabor, a request for the appointment of a patriarch was sent for presentation to the Patriarch of Constantinople 182 and the synod, without specifying name; but when this request came to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod, it contained the cleared name of the Right Reverend Hierotheos, as a candidate, as a result of which he was promoted to Patriarch of Antiox. The following requires reflection on the current Patriarch of Alexandria: the right Reverend Nicanor, Bishop of Thebaid, entrusted to this Patriarchate, repeatedly verbally and finally in writing asked for orders that the money collected in Russia for the benefit of the Alexandrian Church be sent to Patriarch Callinicus only on the condition that the Russian consul participate in its disposal. This means that the person entrusted to the patriarchy does not trust that this money will be used correctly by the patriarch and the clergy, for the benefit of the church, if it is not guarded by the guards of the Russian consul. About the member of the Synod of Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Nicomedia 183, there is information worthy of belief that he is far from being of the same mind with the current Patriarch of Constantinople 184, and is pursuing his own personal views. And Archimandrite Peter noticed in the patriarchal synod “an unfortunate disintegration of opinions” and that “the patriarch remains a calm spectator of what is happening” in the assembled people’s council on church affairs, which was supposed to arouse the liveliest and unanimous concern of the hierarchy. The bright ray of the eastern hierarchy was extinguished by the death of His Holiness Patriarch Constantius 185. Whether new pillars of the church are being erected in the Eastern hierarchy, which of its members predominantly combine with wisdom the zeal of the house of God, and to what extent their voice is strong, we know very little. It is advisable that Fr. Peter began to research and provide information about this. It is necessary to look attentively at the bleak views revealed here, while concern for the preservation of church unity, and brotherly concern for the difficult test through which the Eastern Church is now going through and some of the needs of the Russian Church strongly encourage us to active and sincere relations with the Eastern hierarchy. If we want to propose the strengthening of agreement between the Greek and Russian Churches in some subjects in which the ill-wishers of Orthodoxy are trying to create disagreements between these churches: we must carefully consider whether we can expect a consenting decision in the area of ​​​​people who themselves lack agreement and the dominant direction towards unity? Will our word find there a man strong in spirit and word, who would pronounce the definition of consent, and unite in it the minds that will take part in the judgment? Wouldn't our peace proposal, on the contrary, have met with a person stubborn in private opinion, who would have directed the opinions of others towards greater division? If we propose to draw up an eastern church act that would support the decision of the Russian hierarchy on the internal issue of the Russian Church: we must first keep in mind that if the proposal is successful, then there may be benefits; and if he doesn’t receive it, then our domestic enemies, of course, will find out about this, and things may end up in a worse situation than before the start of this unsuccessful enterprise. For all the above considerations, the path to formal church relations with the East, in my opinion, should be paved as follows: 1) Assign to Archimandrite Peter for the first time one object that can be subjected to experiment with greater safety. 2) Let him speak about this subject with the patriarchs and members of the synod staying in Constantinople, with each one separately. 3) He will say that this subject is occupied by the Holy Russian Synod, and will ask what could be expected if the Holy Synod proposed this subject for consideration by the Holy Patriarch and other senior members of the hierarchy. 4) Whatever judgments he hears from whom, he will provide information about them, about each separately. 5) To this he will add his own remarks, in whom he finds more favorable dispositions, and in whom he has the power to influence others. 6) The information obtained in this way will help determine further action with reliability. I propose to apply these more general thoughts, more specifically and closer to the case. 186 About the letter of Archimandrite Peter, dated June 20, 1859. With the idea of believing Archimandrite Peter’s accusation of partiality towards the Greeks, I read his letter. I. Archimandrite Peter says that “almost all of Bulgaria reads and listens to the word of God in the related Slavic language.” But then he says that “in an incomparably larger number of Bulgarian dioceses they would begin to read the word of God in the Slavonic language if they had our Church Slavonic books.” If the last reading is true, then the first is not entirely true. The sudden demand for 1000 copies of church books leads to the same conclusion. Testimony about. Peter is noticeably inclined towards the defense of the Greek clergy. But is it good that no one from the Greek clergy bothered to deliver church books to the Bulgarians in their language, and only the Russian archimandrite takes care of this? II. The necessary books must be sent; only, I think, for the first time there are less than 1000 copies. We need to see how they are used. III. Having said that the Protestants have a firman for the sale of church books to the Bulgarians, Fr. Peter could have added: how strange it is that the Greeks do not care about this, even when they see the danger from the Protestants! IV. 0. Peter says that all the priests of the Bulgarians, with a few exceptions, are Bulgarians. As a conclusion from this, he quotes the words of the envoy 187: the Bulgarians slander the Greek hierarchy a lot. Wrong conclusion. It seems that Fr. Peter wrote that Greek bishops ordain Bulgarian priests without delving into their dignity. How could this be? One eyewitness explained this to me with an example. The Bulgarians, parishioners who had lost a priest and had chosen a place for his ordination, agreed to give the Greek bishop 800 piastres for this; but when the chosen one was brought to him, the bishop demanded 1,200. There was a murmur; and I don’t know which of these, or the average price, they came to terms with. In seven cases one can understand why the question of dignity is left aside. Would there be a slanderer who in this case would complain about the Greek hierarchy? V. “To the honor of his Excellency, I can say that during my visits he repeatedly spoke to me about the current affairs of the church.” Don’t you place your honor too high, Your Reverence? VI. “Our young embassy is infected with a terrible, ugly hatred of the Greek hierarchs.” How do you prove this grave guilt? Are your expressions ugly? If the Sovereign Emperor found the prince worthy to be an envoy: is your condemning and mocking word appropriate: “young embassy”? The youngest member of the young embassy wrote such a remarkable book (about Huss and Luther) 188 as you have not written: is he very young before you? You are writing a letter at a time when the embassy protected the most holy patriarch from deposition: do you really see in him a terrible, ugly hatred of the Greek hierarchs? VII. “There were also patriarchs from the Bulgarians.” – Who exactly? And whoever it was, without a doubt, was wronged. This does not prove goodwill towards the Bulgarians in general. VIII. “Recently one of the Bulgarians was consecrated as a bishop.” - This is true. But you wrote that he was previously exiled by the patriarch to Athos. Probably, the action of the Russian embassy brought him out of captivity to become a bishop. Is this proof of the goodwill of the Greeks towards the Bulgarians? This seems to be the one to whom a church was given in Constantinople, not having the right of a parish church. It is good for the Bulgarians to give them a bishop who does not have the right of a parish priest 189 . IX. Father Peter cites the opinion of “the most prudent of the Greeks” that a bishop in Turkey requires not only spiritual education, but also “knowledge, if not of secrets, then of administrative techniques.” Well? Was this wisdom given only to the Greeks, but not to the Bulgarians? Greeks and Bulgarians, clergy and laity, all have the need to deal with the Turkish authorities carefully and skillfully; and it's not too deep a secret. Father Peter easily believed the “most prudent Greeks,” and took an insignificant thought as strong evidence against those complaining about the lack of production of Bulgarians as bishops. X. Archiepean fees from Bulgarians are “annual and mandatory”: 1) voifia, 2 or 4 piastres per crown, 2) family name, during the arrival of the bishop, 1 piastres per crown, 3) collection of wheat, butter, cheese, lamb, according to Fr. Peter, are such that he “would not know what to call” someone who would consider these fees burdensome. That is, he does not find a rather strong disgraceful name for this person? Isn't this too much? Is this the voice of impartiality? XI. Doesn't give any feedback. Peter about the following fees: 4) Philotimon, a fee from priests for the right to use the parish. 5) Vula (seal) for a wedding from 10 to 12 piastres, for a second marriage more expensive, for a third even more expensive (this is similar to the papal taxae cancelariae apostolisae). 6) Paryasani, adjustable book, from 260 to 1000 piastres and more. (It’s remarkable that this does not talk about divorce for the legal reason of adultery, but supposedly to avoid retaliation. Consequently, this is the sale of an illegal divorce). 7) Psychomeridion (soul particle) for commemorating the deceased from 50 to 100 piastres or more. 0. Peter adds that in some dioceses they do not know this; but the dead are, without a doubt, remembered everywhere. Consequently, this is not a gift for commemoration, but simply a tax on each deceased from 2 rubles. 50 k. silver up to 5 rubles. What didn’t Fr. say? Peter, does he approve of these taxes? XII. Further about. Peter talks about peace. The Bulgarians said that they were “ready to forget hostility and completely calm down if the Greeks 1) will allow them to conduct services in the Slavic language wherever they want; 2) if they are not prevented from opening schools; 3) if their nationality is not humiliated, and 4) they will give several bishops (3 or 4) Bulgarians, or at least those who know the Bulgarian language, for the Bulgarian dioceses.” Here it is impossible not to notice that there would be no need to offer this if it could be done; that the demands are fair and especially the latter is moderate. What are the most holy patriarch and the “most intelligent” members of the synod doing? “They promised to satisfy them on the first three points, and demanded instructions on where this should be done, or when the Bulgarians were offended in what way.” The matter began about peace, and they begin the trial. If they wanted peace, they could immediately order the bishops of the Bulgarian churches to, as a precaution against disagreement between nationalities, freely allow the Bulgarians to perform divine services in the Slavic language and establish schools, and to treat the Greeks and Bulgarians with equal respect and benevolence, being careful not to humiliate one before the other. This would be reassuring for the Bulgarians, and not offensive for the Greeks. For peace it is necessary to cover and extinguish the sparks of discord, and not fan them. 0. Peter, having demanded proof from the Bulgarians, says: “then he only found out that I was them” ...? What does it mean? Deceived? Why not say it directly? What are the mysterious dots for? Don't make dots; but tell me straight and prove that you were deceived. “No one indicated where anything like that happened.” Why? What are you talking about? And not proving it does not mean deceiving. Behaviors that are embarrassing and humiliating cannot always be documented. I was told the following case: in one city, a rich Bulgarian asked the Greek bishop for permission to build a house for a school, and did not receive it. He turned to the Turkish mayor of the city, asked permission to build a new house, invited the bishop to the renovation, and when the bishop performed a renewal prayer in one room, the owner opened other rooms with supplies for the school. Let the Bulgarians point to this case as proof that the clergy prevents them from establishing schools; the bishop will say: “It’s not true, I was at the renovation of the school building.” And that the Bulgarians are being humiliated, proof of this is now before our eyes: they installed a Bulgarian church in Constantinople with a bishop, and did not give it the rights of a parish church; and for performing some kind of service in it, it was not even the patriarch, but his monk who forbade priestly service in this church. 0. Peter generously hurls vague censures at the Bulgarians: “unfounded, petty, one-sided, biased,” and does not take note of any obvious deeds that refutes these censures. Retelling the words of the patriarch, he notes: “these words were accompanied by the most expressive facial expressions.” Why does it notice? Or does he consider facial expressions to be strong evidence of truth? XIII. “I come to the conclusion that if the personality of the Bulgarian tribe is not so clearly depicted in the life of the people, then the reason for this is the course of historical events.” I confess I don't understand this; and it is only with regret that I see here that a spiritual person adopts the impure language and unnatural expressions of St. Petersburg secular magazines and feuilletons, and, thinking of being in time, only obscures the thought with forcedly refined expressions. The following points of the so-called conclusion that the Greeks did not notice the recent movement in the spirit of the people are also not quite clear and unconvincing; that there is an inevitable humiliation of the crowd (to which the supposed humiliation of the Little Russians and Finns from the Great Russians is incorrectly brought up): that the Bulgarian people, “forcedly excited, directed in an evil way,” is the basis of all unrest. There is a party among the Bulgarians that is inclined to troubles, and complaints about the Greeks are made by the people. And it is not the Bulgarian people who are gravitating towards the West, but only the party, which I think is not yet strong. Giving the Bulgarians bishops from the Bulgarians, carefully chosen or knowing their language, is a precaution against this party. XIV. It comes to the patriarch. Members of the synod consider the current state of the church dangerous, and the patriarch assures that the intentions of the people's council are the best. Maybe in this case both sides are right. The Council with good intention attacks the disorders of the clergy in order to correct them; but, for this correction, by interfering in the affairs of the hierarchy, he can and does produce dangerous fluctuations. But what to do? The Gerons would probably like to destroy the council; but neither they nor the patriarch can do this, and therefore, perhaps, the patriarch wisely thinks that it is necessary, if possible, to maintain agreement with the council so that it does not increase the upheaval of the hierarchy. “He is out of time, out of place.” Why do the Geronts say this now, and not when he was elected patriarch? It is clear that it is unsatisfactory; But shouldn’t it be tolerated and supported as a precaution against headlessness, against unrest, against the choice of the seeker-member, against a successor, perhaps worse? If the Metropolitan of Solna and Typaldos 190 shamelessly give the patriarch the names that Fr. Peter does not dare to say, then they do not support their dignity well, reveal a judgment based on passion and weaken the credibility of their testimony. The ambition of the patriarch is believed to be the desire to remain on the throne. But he already asked for resignation. In order to truly know whether he is truly subservient to the Turks and members of the council, it would be necessary to point out certain cases. Isn’t Hierodeacon Laskaris a representative of the views and opinions of the Geronts, and consequently the views and opinions of one side in a controversial matter? XV. The turn comes to the people's council. The wrongness of his intentions. Peter proves that the patriarchs of Antioxia and Jerusalem were not included in it. The conclusion is very doubtful. If the council has intentions that are not good for the church, then zealous shepherds must enter it, strengthen the church side, and fight against the intentions that are not good for the church. Isn’t the reason for their evasion simply a fear that the council would limit their freedom in managing church estates and income? That the patriarch does not agree with the people's council on everything, this proves that he is not servile (as he is accused of), and does not prove the bad intentions of the council. Perhaps the council, with good intentions, views the church partly in a secular way, and therefore expresses opinions with which the patriarch cannot agree. XVI. The members of the synod “now look at the course of affairs much more calmly, although even now they express their displeasure through protest.” “The Patriarch was the first to speak for the Geronts. Now they see each other kindly and talk not without agreements.” How many contradictions are there? They look calmer; – patriapx for geronts; see each other kindly; and meanwhile the geronts write a protest against the patriarch, expressing an extremely restless and alien disposition. How to understand matters based on such information? XVII. It is noteworthy that Metropolitan Typaldos “is against the national assembly and innovations, and speaks very poorly of the geronts and the assembly.” This is strong evidence against the Geronts when a person who knows the matter and resolutely belongs to the church side speaks like this. From all sides there are convictions that it would not be useful to raise the geronts to their former height and to their former strength. XVIII. The Khalkin school is unsatisfactory for the Bulgarians not because it is cramped, but because it has a direction towards monasticism. Let it form a few of them, with a direction towards monasticism: from these bishops could be formed, for whom there is a real need, and who could then establish their own national theological schools. The Khalkin school is unsatisfactory because it also has a Greek one-sided direction: either Greekize the Bulgarians, or neglect them. At the Khalki school, as you can hear, they paid attention to the Slavic language, but then they abandoned it. It is inconvenient to open a school in Constantinople at Russian expense. Large costs will be required. Who will be the boss and mentors? Greeks? – They will stray into their Greek direction. Russians? – It is difficult to find people willing and it will be difficult to adapt to the Bulgarians. XIX. Danger for Bulgarians from heterodox propaganda. Peter describes clearly and unfairly. And the idea of ​​sending two or three secret missionaries from the Bulgarians to the Bulgarians, for protective suggestions, is worthy of attention. It's a pity he didn't say who he meant. XX. Exarch 191 and Tsankov with their printing houses are not beneficial, but harmful. If it were possible to transfer one of them into good hands, then this would mean turning a hostile force into an auxiliary one. Is it convenient to establish a Bulgarian printing house at the embassy? And won’t this be partly prevented by political considerations? XXI. Turkish taxes are terrible. But it is strange that they want to explain the complaints of the Bulgarians against the bishops. XXII. The Athonite letters are discussed elsewhere. 192 Here I will only note that it is unknown who wrote them and according to whose thoughts. The opinion of the “great ascetic Hilarion the Georgian” is not in them. XXIII. After considering everything written in the letter from Fr. Peter with the appendices, one can see that he is benevolently concerned about the good of both the Greeks and the Bulgarians: there is no reason to assume in him a partial disposition towards the former. But it is noticeable that he is especially close to the Geronts, who, according to information about them, are, of course, more skillful than others in presenting their views and putting those who reason with them into their point of view. On the contrary, a prejudice against the embassy is noticeable in him, combined with an unworthy of respect inclination towards the opposition. It seems possible, and, of course, it would be useful if here too he acted with great attention and caution in that peaceful spirit with which he tries to bring the patriarch and the members of the synod into mutual agreement. In August. Review by Metropolitan Philaret about the unpleasant incident between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Bulgarian Church in Constantinople Prince S.N. Urusov, in a letter dated August 14, 1859, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for reading, a copy of the dispatch from Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky with the following content. “The other day, an unpleasant clash occurred between the administration of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the clergy of the local Bulgarian church, in Phanar, which could have had harmful consequences for the church world if the Patriarch himself had not taken the trouble to prevent them with prudent measures. Several years ago, with the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a temporary Bulgarian church was established in Phanar, with the right to perform Slavic worship in it for the Bulgarians living in Constantinople. Having, at this point, its own, exclusively Bulgarian, clergy and at the head of this bishop, from among the natural Bulgarians, it is directly dependent on the ecumenical patriarch, but does not enjoy the rights of the parish church, so that, outside of ordinary worship, its priests cannot, without the special permission of the patriarch, and to the detriment of the benefits of the Greek parish clergy, perform any church services, even for natural Bulgarian This restriction often gave rise to a clash with the Greek clergy, when it happened that the priests of the Bulgarian church in Phanar were called upon by the Bulgarians living in Constantinople for baptism, funeral or wedding; but all such clashes have so far passed without further consequences. A few days ago, one of the Thessaloniki Bulgarians living here, who had asked in advance for permission from his kiriarch, the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, to marry a Bulgarian girl from the city of Slivna, invited the priests of the Bulgarian church in Phanar to marry them in Constantinople. At the same time, he turned to the Ecumenical Patriarchate with a request, in order to avoid unnecessary costs, to allow him to do without the presence, during the wedding ceremony, of the Greek priest of the parish in which the wedding was to take place. The Patriarchal Protosingel refused the petitioner and, calling upon him the rector of the Bulgarian church, Bishop Hilarion of Makariupol, began to reproach him, in an indecent tone, for the Bulgarians’ desire to violate the legal rights of parish churches and free themselves from canonical dependence on the Greek hierarchy. Getting more and more heated as the bishop objected, the protosingel ended up allowing himself, with his own authority, to impose a ban on the priests of the Bulgarian church, and released the Right Reverend Hilarion from himself, with the order to oversee the execution of this sentence. The next day, Sunday, the people who had gathered, as usual, in the Bulgarian church, were unpleasantly surprised by the news that the liturgy could not be celebrated due to the ban imposed. For his part, the Bulgarian Tsankov, who declared open war on the Greek clergy in his newspaper, hastened to take advantage of this opportunity to issue the order that followed on behalf of the Patriarchate, in the form of a planned insult to the honor and rights of the Bulgarian people. Having learned about what happened through Alexander (exarch), who in this whole matter, as well as in the previous journal polemic with Tsankov, showed himself on the commendable side, trying to calm the agitated minds of his local compatriots, the ecumenical patriarch immediately appreciated the full importance of this event and the harm that could result from the temptation aroused among the people. He immediately lifted the ban imposed on the Bulgarian priests, without his knowledge, dismissed the protosingel who was guilty of this matter and reprimanded the rector of the Bulgarian church, Bishop Hilarion, for the fact that, being directly dependent on one patriarch, he allowed the unauthorized order of the protosingel to be carried out without informing the patriarch himself in time and without asking for his personal orders in this case. One can hope that this concern of His Holiness to prevent the further development of evil will calm the unrest of minds, which was already beginning to manifest itself in the noisy gatherings of the local Bulgarian population, already hostile to the Greek clergy. I. The appearance of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople is sad: the laity are arguing with the Orthodox hierarchy about the organization of church affairs; members of the hierarchy are divided among themselves, so that the patriarch and the geronts, members of one organism, are mutually opposing elements to the point of incompatibility. The Greek and Bulgarian nationalities are each trying to increase their strength, not paying attention to the fact that by disagreement they insult both the general strength and their own individual ones. II. Regarding July 25, it is said that the Bulgarian church in Constantinople “does not enjoy the rights of a parish church.” Strange situation. Why was the Bulgarian Church founded? Is it really in order to tease the Bulgarians: “here is your church in your eyes and you serve in it in your language; but you cannot perform baptisms, marriages, or prayers for the dead in your natural language in it, but for this, go to the Greek priests so that they perform the sacraments and prayers for you in a Greek language that is incomprehensible to you”? Why are there a bishop and priests in a church that has neither a diocese nor a parish? Is it not also to tease the Bulgarian bishop and priests: “here in your eyes are your fellow tribesmen, who naturally make up your diocese and your parish; but they don’t give you either a diocese or a parish”? And what is all this for? There is no other reason visible than that the money of a lay Bulgarian should not deviate from the path into the pocket of a Greek priest and should not fall into the pockets of a Bulgarian priest. May 11. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the need to grant autocephaly to the Bulgarian Church Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on May 8, 1860, for No. 2619, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret two articles of the “Constantinople Bulletin” and a copy from the dispatch of Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated April 12, asked him “to return these papers, when the need for them has passed, and added that the Patriarch of Constantinople 195 renounced his consent to the establishment of an independent Bulgarian hierarchy.” A copy from the dispatch of April 12 and two extracts from the “Constantinople Messenger” are being returned. How the unfortunate Bulgarians darkened the bright day of Christ with a rebellion in the church, insulting not only the patriarch, but also Christ and Christianity. 196 Is it really all fair that the “Herald” should say about Bishop Hilarion 197? Now one can see whether it was rightly said that it is necessary to fulfill the correct demands of the Bulgarians, and to condescend to their desires, which do not go beyond the limits of church improvement, so that the already strong movement excited does not crush these limits, which the external Western force seeks to shake. The remarkable thing is that, at the sight of danger, the hierarchy gathered unanimously, and, as a precaution against the increase of unrest, decided to maintain a magnanimous calm against alarming movements, for the peaceful, if possible, understanding of the ignorant what they were doing. But if the Ecumenical Patriarch suddenly generously cedes independence to the Bulgarians, then suddenly renounces this: such hesitation can only irritate and encourage the restless more. From a distance it is difficult to see with accuracy what is, what element is in our strength, what is possible, and what is necessary. If Bulgaria were given a metropolitan, with the right to govern his region and appoint bishops in it, but so that this metropolitan, upon election by his bishops, would be ordained as an ecumenical patriarch; so that he would be present at the councils of the Orthodox Church, at which all the patriarchs are present, and so that for his region he would receive the sacred myrrh from the ecumenical patriarch, and if church peace were restored on these conditions: then such a division without a break would be the outcome of the matter, consistent with the ancient rules and the needs and benefits of the present. May 20–21. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on disagreements between Greeks and Bulgarians on church affairs The new information about the Bulgarian affair in Constantinople is as sad as the previous one. Strange confusion! If the Porte tried to approve church punishments: the patriarch, but in fairness, could say that this is a matter for the church, and the state does not need to get involved. But now, on the contrary, the patriarch is trying to get Porta to approve his proposed church punishments, and Porta says that this is none of her business. In this way, the Porte protects the integrity of ecclesiastical activities, which the patriarch wants to subordinate to the Porte. His Holiness seems to have the wrong view of the matter. He thinks that Porta will mistake a church rebellion for a state one, and will take part in taming it. But the Porte, of course, sees that in the Bulgarian case there is nothing against the state; they rebel only against the Greek clergy. And this, and the consequence of this - the separation of the Bulgarian church, the Porte will find not only not harmful to it, but also favorable. Orthodox Christians under Turkish rule are strong in their unity in Orthodoxy. The dissection of this unity into mutually antagonistic parts should weaken both parts: and the easier it will be for the Turks to rule. Therefore, it is likely that the Porte secretly favors the Bulgarians. The fact that the number of Greeks living in Constantinople does not exceed 1,500 families, and the number of Bulgarians ranges from 50,000 to 60,000 souls, may also give the Turkish government the idea of ​​bowing to the side of the majority. The Greek hierarchy could have realized all this in good time, and at the first movement of the Bulgarians on Easter, they could immediately inspire the most well-intentioned of them to stop the illegal movement and legally ask for church independence, with good hope. This way the matter could take the path of a peaceful resolution. But time was lost, the movement intensified, and Bishop Hilarion, who did not remain firm on Easter, after hesitation, was carried away further on an illegal path. Now it is more difficult to excuse him than before; and if they decide to condemn him, will they be able to put the condemning determination into effect? And will this disarm the people, or will they arm them stronger? Now the concession will not be as plausible as it would have been before; but a concession in the form stated in my previous letter would hardly have been the best outcome of the matter, and a precaution against great evils. May the Lord make His Holiness the Patriarch and his synod wise, and may he save the poor church from great troubles. The list from the dispatch sent on the 17th day, No. 2839, received on the evening of the 19th, is returned. July 30. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the complaint of the Philippopolitan Greeks against the Bulgarians Strange thing! The Orthodox Greeks complain about the Orthodox Bulgarians in church matters to the consul of the Western power, and surrender themselves into the hands of Latinism. How can we protect the safety of people who betray themselves to those who seek their souls? And what are they complaining about? The fact that the Bulgarians demand worship in a dialect that is intelligible to them. Have the Greeks already adopted the Latin rule so that worship would be in a language incomprehensible to the people? Under such strange circumstances, it is difficult to come up with a reliable method of action, and at other times it is difficult to begin to act on information that is secret and not public. Is it possible for our Orthodox fathers and brothers to read the words of the Apostle Paul (Gal. V, 15): if you bite and devour one another, take heed, lest you be destroyed from one another. And this is all the more likely if you bite those you are biting, and with them, inconspicuously, you put yourself into the open jaws of propaganda, seeking to devour Orthodoxy. December 8–10. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 20, 1860. I. Aali Pasha's opinion 201 that the patriarchal throne must make significant concessions in order to return the Bulgarians to the path from which they strayed is worthy of the attention of the Holy Patriarch. The Pasha's promise that the Porte will not tolerate the separation of the Bulgarians from the Orthodox Church is good. But can the Porte hold them back if they rush in large numbers to the side of the Western Church and Western politics? This policy, of course, will not push them back. II. A strong expression on the part of the Porte that it would not favor the separation of the Bulgarians from the Orthodox Church, or from the Patriarchal throne, might induce them to seek reconciliation with the Patriarch. But the meeting between Bishop Hilarion and the patriarch, although he promises to receive him, cannot suddenly be undertaken with hope. The gap between them is so wide that it is necessary first of all to build a bridge through decent mediation. Mediation should not be official, but private, free, and confidential. In the latter, success is more reliable, and failure is less unpleasant and less noticeable. The mediator could explain to Bishop Hilarion: that the Bulgarians’ demand for a special patriarch, on the one hand, is excessive and inconvenient to fulfill, on the other hand, is not necessary; that for the well-being of the Bulgarian church, a Bulgarian independent metropolitan, elected by the Bulgarian clergy, ordained by the ecumenical patriarch, with authority to govern the Bulgarian dioceses, with his council electing and appointing bishops, with some special relations to the ecumenical patriarch, would be sufficient, for the sake of the honor of the ecumenical throne and for the sake of church unity; that the arbitrary cessation by the Bulgarians of raising the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch in worship is an important violation of the cathedral rules and, in general, order and legality; that Bishop Hilarion, who at the beginning unwittingly allowed this illegality, later took full part in it; that therefore justice requires, and for success in the matter it is necessary that he turn to the patriarch with special humility, asking for his leniency and forgiveness of the irregularities he committed (according to his already well-known explanation) out of fear of the people falling away from the Eastern Church to the Western; that His Eminence Hilarion could fall under heavy responsibility if he does not make every possible effort to moderate the demands of the Bulgarians and protect church peace with his humility. On the other hand, the mediator could provide the Holy Patriarch with: that the apostasy of the Bulgarians, previously private, averted by attention to their desires, is now being revealed and proclaimed in an extensive form; that, consequently, it is necessary to choose one of two things: either to show leniency to the Bulgarians, and thereby keep them in Orthodoxy; or refuse them mercy, and see them fall away; that circumstances require all possible care both to arrange the matter and not to be completely late when there is already a lot late. After such preliminary mediation relations, a direct relationship between Bishop Hilarion and the Patriarch may be more reliable. III. The Patriarch looks at Bishop Hilarion from the dark side, placing him at the head of the Bulgarian movement, and considering him a disciple of the false teacher Kairis. The first accusation, according to previously received information, is incorrect. After the well-known demonstration of the Bulgarians in the church, on Easter Day, Hilarion avoided serving for some time in order to avoid participating in this demonstration and maintain his legitimate relationship to the ecumenical throne; addressed the then patriarchy with a request to take pacifying measures; and only due to the patriarch’s rejection of any measures, even the promised ones, did he deviate to the side of the popular movement. As for Kairis, this false teacher, with his hypocrisy, initially deceived not only his students, but also his spiritual superiors; but it does not follow from this that Hilarion remained his follower when his false teaching was exposed. Greeks often study in Latin and Protestant schools, but retain Orthodoxy. IV. The Patriarch recognizes Hilarion as incapable of episcopacy, as being prone to epilepsy. Against this, it was rightly presented to the patriarch that if this were true, he would not have been ordained. The patriarch’s objection that “almighty Vogoridis” is to blame for this is a grave censure on the hierarchy, allegedly it despised church rules, submitting to “almighty Vogoridis.” It is more likely that the opinion about Hilarion’s seizure is unfounded. V. Immediately after the interview about the case of the Bulgarians, the patriarch is asked about the acts of the church-people's assembly. It’s a pity that one annoying subject of conversation was followed by another of the same kind. The latter, as far as I understand, did not require such haste as the first; and therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to try to bring one difficult matter to a peaceful end, without touching, for the time being, another, so as not to arouse stronger opposition through increased insistence, especially since in the resolutions of the church-people’s assembly not everything can be rightly approved and defended. It is difficult to believe that His Holiness the Patriarch would peacefully listen to a very extended and merciless denunciation, such as this: “the provincial churches feel disgusted to remain dependent on the clergy, which is deeply vicious.” But truth and conviction, of course, enter the heart more conveniently through peace than through irritation. I apologize if this reflection is found inappropriate due to circumstances and considerations unknown to me. VI. The Patriarch recognizes the new resolutions on the composition of the synod as unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, there is truth here. VII. But that he “finds the destruction of the geronts contrary to the interests of the church,” let us be allowed to doubt that. The cathedral rules do not know the geronts. There were no geronts at the ecumenical and local councils. How could the “interests” of the church be observed without them? Geront means old man. There are elders in monasteries because there are young monks and novices who are guided by the elders. Why was this title transferred to the synod? Over whom do the synodal geronts age? Over other members of the synod? Eight over four? It would be ridiculous, and they won’t say it themselves. Over bishops and other clergy? The patriarch presides over the bishops, and the diocesan bishops preside over the rest of the clergy in the dioceses. So, synodal gerontia is an accidental, unnatural growth on the body of the church. Not accepting this into consideration, His Holiness Patriarch Joachim is disposed to support without change everything that was before, including the Geronts, whom the church-people's assembly recognized as harmful, and whose destruction is approved even, in their humble reasoning, by the Athonite elders. It is noticeable that in general he rejects the resolutions of the church-people's assembly. Therefore, one cannot help but fear that he will face a spirit of displeasure and more or less active confrontation among many significant, educated people, not only from the laity, but also from the clergy, who have influence on the masses of the people. May God grant that he can weaken this confrontation by vigilant, active, fair, insightful governance, protected from prejudice and arbitrariness, using in the assistance of people distinguished by wisdom and virtue, and not by the name of geronts. VIII. Indications of unfavorable information about the Greek clergy delivered to Porte Kiprizli Pasha, and of the expected, as a result, political insistence on correcting church administration, should have greatly aroused the attention of the patriarch. But when even this has produced nothing but an evasive answer: it is difficult to expect the desired relationships and actions from him. It’s a sad sight when the hierarchy, under circumstances that urgently require action, by its immobility seems to force other people’s hands to take up its affairs! IX. The patriarch’s response to the question about the contents of the berat is surprising: after receiving the berat, he did not have time to read it for three days. How did he not think that he was leading his interlocutor into the sin of not believing the word of the patriarch? Of course, under such circumstances it is difficult to bring the conversation to a good end; and it is difficult to say how it would be better to act. X. If the idea of ​​a mediator, stated above under number 11, was recognized as not inappropriate, then could not Archimandrite Antonin 202 be used for this? This is not difficult in relation to Bishop Hilarion; but not so in relation to the patriarch. If it does not turn out to be convenient for the archimandrite to personally appear before the patriarch, he can turn to Syncellus or another person trusted by the patriarch, starting the communication with the fact that the Russian clergy, honoring the Eastern Church, is very concerned about the announcement of the apostasy of the Bulgarians. December 8–10, 1860 203 Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. December 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the Greek-Bulgarian church feud In the dispatch of the envoy 204, dated June 12, 1860, delivered to me by your Excellency on the 7th day of this December (No. 8036), I found information about the Greeks and Bulgarians, on both sides, that was regrettable. The Greeks, under the leadership of the Greek consul (not at all due to his position), are coming up with means to destroy Slavic worship in the churches of Adrianople, and decide to turn to the beys for this, and call on the Demotic bishop Meletius, distinguished by his hatred of the Bulgarians. In Karklisia, according to rumors, Bishop Chrysanthos forces priests to serve in churches in Greek, under the threat of exile to Athos. In Eski Zagra, the Bulgarians proclaim many years, instead of the Ecumenical Patriarch, to the new patriarch Hilarion, Bishop of Makariupol, and forbid priests to commemorate the patriarch. On the one hand there is oppression, on the other there is rebellion. But oppression preceded it. Both sides are guilty; but the oppressors are themselves guilty and have given reasons for others to become guilty. To complete the evil, in Philippopolis the Bulgarians were invited to turn to the Western Church. This was in May. To what extent have they protracted this matter in these places to this day? One thing I can say is that the information shown here does not change my thoughts set out in my note on the 8th day of this December. Dispatches with attachments are then returned. December 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 22, 1860. I. At the last meeting of the Bulgarians in Constantinople, a phenomenon was revealed that gave hope that not only would they not fall away from the Orthodox Church, but that the discord, which had been randomly raised, would be put on the path to a peaceful end. Dengov's jealousy is worthy of praise; and his testimony that Macedonia is unanimously firm in unity with the ecumenical throne should have force in action. II. Dengov’s words are strong: “we would rather suffer for another 50 or 100 years if the patriarch does not bend his ear to our desires, but we will never agree to recognize the power of the pope.” But one can be afraid of what impression they will make on the patriarch when he recognizes them and concludes that the most important danger does not threaten, and that his power is firm? Would his inflexibility, which seemed to be diminishing, return? In my opinion, the Bulgarians should be advised to conduct business carefully and meekly, and not to expand their demands too much. III. The idea that the proposed metropolitan of the Bulgarian Church should sit in the Synod of Constantinople is worthy of approval if it turns out to be feasible. It corresponds to church unity, and can give it more weight in the hierarchy. IV. But the idea of ​​the Ecumenical Patriarch ordaining all Bulgarian bishops can lead to difficulties. It is impossible to demand that the patriarch ordain mechanically, without consulting reason and conscience. If the Patriarch is presented for ordination as Metropolitan of a Bulgarian man previously known, elected by a large number of significant voters: in this case there is no fear of doubt on the part of the Patriarch. But if they present to him those elected to each diocese, it may happen that he will sometimes say: in my conscience I cannot ordain. Then it will be necessary to resort to a new choice, and the matter will be prolonged and confused. And if the patriarch stands his ground, and such cases are repeated, then the Bulgarian choice will weaken in the face of the power of patriarchal arbitrariness, and a path may open, although not so wide, for abuses that they are trying to stop. It is more reliable for the Bulgarian metropolitan to ordain his bishops himself, with the exception of perhaps the few elders according to him, whose ordination would be granted to the patriarch. V. It is a pity that new dark features are being revealed in the face of Bishop Hilarion. When asked what he did during the six months under the authority of the people? Why didn’t he give any answer, asked for a five-day delay, and called in sick? Did he really do nothing, and thought to achieve his goal with one inactive retreat from the patriarch? Or did he allow himself to take actions about which nothing can be said openly? There would be a little wisdom and hope for the future in this. God grant that his confusion be explained by something better, which is now not visible. It is desirable that, as I wrote before, good advice be given to Bishop Hilarion. December 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the establishment of an Orthodox Church in the city of Varna and a school for Bulgarians attached to it The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated December 18, 1860, informed Metropolitan Philaret that “It was the pleasure of the Emperor to command him: to enter into communication with our vice-consul in Varna, who is in St. Petersburg, about the establishment of our Russian Orthodox Church there and with it a school for the Bulgarians, and his considerations, according to relations with Prince Gorchakov, to submit to the highest discretion of His Imperial Majesty.” Developing further details concerning the establishment of the Orthodox Church in relation to the spiritual department, Count A.P. Tolstoy expressed that the judgment of the Holy Synod “seems to be subject to the following questions: is it convenient, without the permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to establish a Russian church within its borders, even with a consulate, and what precautions, in the sense of the canons, should we have in mind when dealing with the Bulgarian clergy and people, who in 38 localities renounced obedience to the ecumenical patriarch.” Regarding the importance of these issues, Count A.P. Tolstoy forwarded to the discretion of the Metropolitan the note he received from Mr. Rachinsky 207 with three attachments, as well as a copy of the relationship of Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, No. 336, and asked the Metropolitan, when the need had passed, to return the papers to him, with a conclusion regarding the assumptions contained in them. At the top of the chief prosecutor’s letter, Metropolitan Philaret noted: “December 22. Replies with a note and the return of papers.” 0 churches at the vice-consulate in Barne. I. To what extent the establishment of a church at the vice-consulate in Varna may be convenient and useful at the present time, in political terms, this issue must be considered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But one cannot help but touch upon this issue when considering the case of the church from the church’s side. II. The note from the vice-consulate manager says that “the highest spiritual and political needs require the Slavonic language in the churches of Bulgaria” and that “the church path is the only way to bring us closer to them (the Bulgarians) in order to act on them.” This leads to the conclusion that the church is supposed to be built for the Bulgarians and to influence them. In this case, one cannot help but fear difficulties on the part of the local clergy, who are unfavorable to the Slavic language, and perhaps also on the part of the Turkish authorities. If, on the 30th day of August, at the liturgy performed at the request of the vice-consulate, they did not have the conscience to prohibit the elevation of the name of the Sovereign Emperor of All Russia, then can we expect anything good? III. He wrote to the manager of the vice-consulate: “about the relationship of mutual friendship” between him and the Varna Metropolitan Porfiry. But is this really visible? The Metropolitan allowed the vice-consul to perform liturgies in the Slavonic language in the Church of St. George on Saturdays, on weekdays, when it is not convenient for people busy with their own affairs to attend. This is such a small concession that it would be difficult to refuse to those of the same faith, even in a relationship of hostility. It also does not provide a bright view for the proposed church. IV. The Latin clergy and Protestants act in the Turkish possessions, not paying attention to the Greek clergy, as not being of the same faith with them. On the part of Russia, the same faith of the Greeks and Bulgarians, the action should be such that it does not violate the rights of the local hierarchy and does not harm the harmony of the churches. V. According to the 8th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council: “a bishop has no power in the diocese or region of another bishop.” Therefore, the Russian church under the Varna vice-consulate must be established with the consent of the local metropolitan, if he recognizes himself as having the right to give his own consent; and otherwise - with the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarch. To convince them, one must imagine that, in the spirit of brotherly love, churches were allowed in Moscow at the wishes of the patriarchs. VI. One cannot help but fear a particular difficulty in this matter regarding how the established church and its priest will position themselves in relation to the Bulgarians during their present church unrest. The manager of the vice-consulate thinks that it is impossible to hope to stop the Bulgarian movement. But now we can note that this hope is not completely lost. Be that as it may, the Bulgarians, in greater numbers, declare themselves to be resigning from the authority of the patriarch, arbitrarily proclaiming themselves the hierarch of the entire Bulgarian church 208 At the Council of Carthage, Bishop Epigonius said, and the entire council 64 approved the rule: it is not appropriate for a special leader to receive (of course, arbitrarily, without the permission of the legal authority) people who, in the so-called limit, are subject to the ancient to the bishop. So, the Bulgarians are now in a condemned position, at least until their case reaches a legal, perhaps mitigating, solution. In these circumstances, for the Russian clergy to resolutely bow to the side of the Bulgarians who are disobedient to the patriarch would be inconsistent with both the rule and the world of churches. But, on the other hand, it would be unfair to stand against them, because the Greek hierarchy gave them reasons for displeasure, depriving them of the popular priesthood and natural language in worship, and not satisfying them with justice. Therefore, a clergyman of the Russian Church must look at the case of the Bulgarians as an internal disagreement in the Eastern Church that has arisen and has not ceased; but, while awaiting its legal decision, keep yourself, as much as possible, in a peaceful attitude towards the obedient and disobedient Bulgarians, doing what you can for their common benefit, promoting, where possible, the calming of irritation, the cessation of strife, the movement towards peace and legality; instilling in the self-righteous that since church power is a gift of grace from Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit, no one can create a new spiritual power for himself, but it must be legally handed over, with the blessing that it has by succession from the apostles. VII. The idea of ​​hiring a church from the Bulgarian clergy, or setting it up in a rented house, is not plausible; and a different, better order is desirable. 209 December 29–27. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the current situation of the Eastern Church and the relationship of the Russian Church to it The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated December 21, 1860, briefly outlining the history of the church feud between the Greeks and the Bulgarians and the participation of Russia in this matter and fearing that the Bulgarians would not fall away from the Eastern Church, and that the cooling between the Russian and Greek churches would not increase, asks the questions: what guiding thoughts and rules should be accepted in these circumstances? What collisions can be foreseen? How to apply recognized guiding thoughts to them? How to act in these important matters in accordance with the will of God? “Fearing a heavy responsibility before God,” Count Tolstoy turns to the Metropolitan, “as a spiritual father and the oldest of the Russian hierarchs, with the most earnest request to resolve his perplexities.” At the beginning of the letter there is a note made by the Metropolitan’s hand: “December 27. Answers, with a note, The destinies of God are moving across the earth over the multiplied sins of the authorities and those under power. What kind of healing can alleviate them, perhaps repentance or prayer? The American president, seeing a great schism threatening the state, proclaimed a day of fasting or prayer (I don’t remember the exact word in the news). Have Europe and Asia thought about whether they also need this? 210 I. At present, the Eastern Greek Church is in a difficult situation, the reasons for which are within itself. The people were strongly aware of the unsatisfactory nature of its governance, and as a result, at their request, with the consent of the hierarchy, a church-people's assembly was formed. This meeting made decisions that partly have the appearance of legality, because they were approved by the patriarch, and partly are doubtful, because not all of them exactly correspond to church rules and the benefits of the church, and there are protesters against them, although not in greater numbers. This meeting destroyed the title of geronts and ephors, and most of them were removed by the Turkish government from Constantinople because their opposition stopped the action of the patriarch; but after this one of the Geronts was elected to the chair of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Bulgarian people first complained about the Greek hierarchy; then he began to talk about the establishment of his own national hierarchy, independent of the patriarch; Finally, in Constantinople he rebelliously stopped raising the name of the patriarch in the church, and declared one of his bishops 211 independent. The Patriarchate showed generous and wise tolerance, not pronouncing condemnation on this, which would have strengthened the division, expecting that those torn by passions would calm down, come to their senses and turn to the path of legality and peace. But for six months it was not seen that the wandering sheep turned to the lawful shepherd, and that the lawful shepherd called them and showed them soft pasture. An illness that has not been cured for a long time can weaken on its own; but can intensify to the extreme. The alarming movement of the Bulgarians, unsatisfied in the dreamy (?) desire of the patriarch, reaches the extreme of falling away from the Orthodox Church. According to recent news from Macedonia and Constantinople, this extreme does not threaten; but, following the previous example, we must still be wary of private apostasies from Orthodoxy in other places. After the conciliatory efforts of the Russian envoy and the Minister of the Porte, the meeting of the elders and two Bulgarian clergy that took place on the 27th day of last November did not open the way to peace. They do not want to enter into negotiations with the Patriarch, and refer to many petitions submitted to the Patriarch and the Porte, in all likelihood with exaggerated demands. II. Thus the present state of the Eastern Greek Church presents a gloomy appearance. According to the union of common faith, according to the spirit of brotherly love, could the Russian Church have done anything to reduce these difficulties, and has it omitted anything that should and was possible? I think it’s fair to answer: no. III. The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Great Church did not turn to the Russian Church with any demand. Therefore, she was not obliged to do anything, and could not interfere in other people's affairs, without fear of offending the dignity of the oldest church; and she could not determine her own course of action without having official information from the great church on which she could also officially rely. IV. We had, indirectly, some private information about the affairs of the church-people's assembly; and we, even those who were not called, did not keep silent about what we found in disagreement with the church rules and with the benefits of the church. How much our considerations became known to those who might need them, and how much attention was paid to them, this did not depend on us. We have done our duty. V. The Russian envoy knew in advance about the intention to remove the Geronts, and did not oppose this. You can't complain about this. The situation was such that it was necessary to choose one of two things: either to depose the patriarch (which the geronts attempted three times), or to remove the geronts. The latter was more fair and less harmful. But the envoy did not support the vizier’s opinion that not all the geronts should be removed. And you can’t complain about this. The importance of this restriction became clear from the consequences, namely from the protest. It is not surprising if no guesses were made about this before the event. Finally, no matter how the embassy acts in this case, the Russian Church is not involved in this. She found out after the event. VI. The geronts removed from Constantinople appealed to the Holy Synod with protest; 212 and the Holy Synod did not do anything in this matter, and thus no obligation was violated. They appeared before the Holy Synod as disobedient to the patriarch, with exaggerated, but unproven, expressions of their importance and danger to the Church. In this case, silence is not a violation of duty. Now we can even consider it useful that the Holy Synod did not respond to the letter of the Geronts. He could not answer them according to their wishes; because this would mean being in conflict with the patriarch. And if he had said something unpleasant to them, including the current patriarch, then now the Russian Church would find itself in an unpleasant relationship with the ecumenical patriarch. So, thank God it was silent. VII. Have we made a mistake in unconditionally approving the acts of the church-people's assembly? The Holy Synod, as far as is known, did not pronounce any condemnation about them; private individuals of the Russian clergy never unconditionally approved of them; Some clergy did not privately object to some articles, as not being contrary to church rules, and accepted by representatives of the Greek clergy and people, and made comments on some as disagreeing with the rules and benefits of the church. The Russian envoy used a petition to approve all acts; but the Greek bishops, if they are impartial, will not attribute this to the Russian Church, and they will not blame the envoy himself; because he proposed to approve what was done by the confidants of their people and approved by the modern patriarch, in the form of establishing order and tranquility. VIII. Have we not shown ourselves to be more disposed in favor of the Bulgarians, and have we not thereby aroused displeasure among the highest Greek clergy? One way or another, this is not us, not the Russian Church, not the Russian Synod, but political figures of the Russian government. If some of the Russian clergy, at home, out of a common duty of sincere participation in the destinies of the Orthodox Church, and due to special circumstances, entered into discussions about the emerging and growing ecclesiastical disagreement between the Greeks and Bulgarians, then they addressed both sides with the same desire for peace and the good of the Orthodox Church. They said, or wanted to say, to the Greeks: protect the unity of the church and, as a precaution so that no harm is done to it by the alarmed spirit of the Bulgarians, show them possible leniency. To the Bulgarians: protect the unity of the church, and therefore limit your demands, and if you have fair demands, such as the demand for a language understandable to the people in worship, a clergy understood by the people, ask the patriarchal throne for this humbly and lawfully. The political leaders of Russia did not act in a different spirit, although, perhaps, not everyone and did not always correctly break through the line of agreement between those who disagreed, which, given the nature of the matter, is not surprising. As far as we know, the previous patriarch was inclined to show leniency to the Bulgarians, and therefore recognized the good intentions of the advice of the Russian envoy. If the current patriarch is not so disposed, then his personal view does not make evil what his predecessor did not condemn. IX. Thus, from an examination of the actual relations between the Greek and Russian churches, it is revealed that the Russian in relation to the Greek did not do anything contrary to the rules of unanimity, unanimity and goodwill. If, in spite of this, some of the highest Greek clergy, paying all attention to preserving the space of patriarchal power and benefits, dissatisfiedly pay attention to the threatening dangers; if, on the contrary, the political leaders of Russia, seeing the opening internal schism in the Greek Church, expressed by the rejection of the Bulgarians from the Ecumenical Patriarch and the threatening danger of their falling away from Orthodoxy, advise, with the sacrifice of benefits, to show leniency to the Bulgarians, and thereby stop the schism and avert the danger; and if some of the highest Greek clergy accept this advice with displeasure, we can, of course, with sorrow, but with a peaceful conscience, look at this and pray to God so that the unacceptable advice is not finally justified by a more real, sad experience. However, one must hope that impartial people from the Greek bishopric and people will not share his displeasure; and from this there will be no greater cooling in the mutual relations of the Greek and Russian churches. X. But what can we expect if the Bulgarian movement is not stopped peacefully, with the restoration of their correct communication with the Orthodox Church? You weigh, Lord. When a society is properly and firmly organized, then the forces and influences operating in it can be discovered and determined, and actions and consequences can be foreseen. But when the organization of society is upset and the spirit of the people is agitated, then unexpected actions, sometimes indecisive, and sometimes decisive, can occur from inconspicuous influences and invisible forces. Dengov appeared at the Constantinople assembly of the Bulgarians; and the idea of ​​​​departure from the Eastern Church to the Western, proclaimed, widespread, unrefuted by anyone, as a result of his strong words, was trampled under foot. People with the opposite direction may appear in different places and achieve success. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of them. XI. A difficult case may arise if the Bulgarians adamantly remain with the self-appointed Bishop Hilarion, and more or fewer other Bulgarian bishops join him, and declare themselves an independent church. As legally subordinate to the ecumenical patriarch, they are subject in this case to trial for his violation of obedience. It may happen that, having condemned them, he will propose that the Russian Church recognize the definition that condemns them. May the Lord arrange the best. Meanwhile, our rules should be the same that we have followed until now: 1) Maintain peace with the Greek Church in every possible way. 2) Do not decisively condemn the Bulgarians, since their own judge, the Ecumenical Patriarch, did not condemn them. 3) Find (if still possible) and offer (as far as possible) means of reconciliation to the disagreeing parties, while maintaining unity and legality. Some more thoughts on the Bulgarian case. I. In the event of the establishment of an independent, although not entirely independent from the patriarchal throne, hierarchy for the Bulgarian Church, could this church, which does not have a ready and experienced clergy, begin a dangerous struggle with the enemies of Orthodoxy? Not only can this struggle begin, but it already exists, and the cuckoo incident 214 showed that the Greeks, in order to repel the enemies of Orthodoxy, both to send a Bulgarian bishop and to act themselves, delayed until they were prompted by the insistence of the Russian envoy, and not the Greek, but the Bulgarian bishop returned the sheep carried away from it to the fence of Orthodoxy. So, one might think that the defense will be no worse when the Greek authorities do not stop the Bulgarians, and their jealousy is aroused, and capable people are found among them. Now there is an archimandrite in St. Petersburg, who for some time prudently acted as the vicar of the Metropolitan of Thessalonica. There is news that some Greeks, Bulgarian bishops, want to share the fate of their flock, with its new proposed structure. II. Isn't the Bulgarian desire for church independence aimed at political independence? There are probably some Bulgarians who dreamed of this; but this feature is not visible in their general movement. Even if we assume that there is a political thought hidden in their church movement: is the Orthodox Church really obliged to ensure that the Orthodox people remain in Turkish slavery forever, or, better said, until their extermination, which, obviously, the Mohammedans are now working on? III. Can we hope that the Bulgarian Church will establish itself reliably in the supposed new situation? It is true that this is doubtful. But we do not advise her to seek this new position. We are faced with the question of what to do when she has already decided on this harassment, and there is no reliable way to stop her movement? And we come to the answer that it is necessary to moderate and direct this movement towards good with condescension, so that it does not rush to the West, which would be worse than its supposed, albeit imperfect, structure within Orthodoxy. IV. If so, then is it not necessary for the Holy Synod to address the Ecumenical Patriarchate with a message, expressing concern for the present difficult situation and expressing the desire that, in order to preserve the unity of the Church intact, some concessions should be made? This is a good thought, characteristic of the spirit of brotherly love in the Church. But even a good thought, if it does not arise from an indispensable duty, should not be carried out when no good consequences are foreseen from it, but bad ones are foreseen. If Jonathan had foreseen that his intercessory words in favor of David would be followed not by mercy, but by the aggravated anger of Saul, then he, of course, would have preferred silence. I’m not comparing anyone with Jonathan and Saul, but I’m only proving by example that sometimes you shouldn’t even say a good word in order to guard against bad consequences. If respect for the only Orthodox Tsar today, the defender and patron of Orthodoxy, did not prompt the Ecumenical Patriarch to bow to the good advice of the envoy, then the message of the Holy Synod of All-Russia to the Patriarch cannot be promised a better reception. In this case, the effect of the message would be: trouble for the ecumenical patriarch (for, of course, it will be unpleasant for him to hear what he considers an insult to his power and a violation of benefits), trouble for the Holy Synod when his brotherly movement does not meet with correspondence, a noticeable cooling between the two hierarchies. I believe that we need to guard against such consequences. If anything can be done by the Russian clergy in these circumstances, then perhaps it would be to bring some of their thoughts to the attention of the ecumenical patriarch through intermediary, private, trusted communication. This unwritten message of the Holy Synod, in the mouth of a mediator, could receive the following image: “From my relations with some of the Russian clergy, I know for certain that they look with sincere sorrow at the internal difficulties of the Eastern Church that have arisen near the throne of the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch. The movement of Christians of the Bulgarian tribe, illegal, but nevertheless continuing and spreading, having already violated the peace of the church, threatens even greater unrest, and what is especially sad, a falling away from the Orthodox Church, to which external opponents of Orthodoxy will, no doubt, greatly contribute. The Holy Synod of Russia would probably decide to express its grief over this with a direct message to His Holiness, and bring to his attention whether it would not see it necessary to allow something somewhat unpleasant in order to avert the disastrous - to allow the condescending satisfaction of some, more or less blessed desires of the Bulgarians, and to cover their wrong actions with merciful forgiveness, in order to restore peace and secure the indivisibility of the Orthodox Church. churches; but he refrains from such determination out of reverence for the universal throne, praying to God that by His all-pervading grace He will help His Holiness the Patriarch to arrange church affairs with peace and good and undoubted hope.” However, this assumption, without a doubt, requires consideration by the Holy Synod. V. There is information that the current Ecumenical Patriarch 215, upon his accession to the patriarchal throne, addressed the All-Russian Synod with an informative and sociable message. If this is true, then the way is open for a mutual message from the Holy Synod. 216 And if the Holy Synod has not yet responded to the Patriarch, then the question arises by itself: should we not include in the response message the above thoughts related to the present difficulty of the Eastern Church? In this case, one can be less afraid of displeasure from the patriarch, because the Holy Synod will approach the patriarch with its word not arbitrarily, and as if offensively, but having been called to this by the message of the patriarch. And as the Holy Synod writes a letter in response, this will not include a demand for an answer from the patriarch, and his subsequent silence will not have the meaning of coldness and inattention. However, all this is subject to consideration by the Holy Synod. December 30, 1860 217 In December. Extracts from letters: Polauzova 218, Burmova and Arnaudova about the Greek-Bulgarian church feud Bishop Hilarion ordained the priest in the Varna district. By the action of the Varna bishop, he was sent to Constantinople, imprisoned in the patriarchate, fled, was hidden in a Bulgarian courtyard, disguised, went to the Roman Catholics and accepted the union. From December 14 and 16. The Porta replied to the English embassy that the Bulgarians were inciting the Russians. “They found the time (Russia) to send their agents and consuls throughout Bulgaria in order to give the Porte and the Greek Patriarch a reason to say that the Bulgarians, prompted by Pan-Slavism, and especially by Russia, are coveting a natural hierarchy.” The Patriarch did not accept the mixed commission and is threatening his resignation. The priest (mentioned above) is captured by the Metropolitan of Varna, under the pretext that he is a Russian agent, and from Pan-Slavic propaganda. From the Lovchin diocese, a request to the Porte threatens to pester the union and the local bishops. In a letter from Palauzov, dated December 19: “The prudent wish that they should have a representative, the head of the clergy, approved by the patriarch, at the choice of the people, even if not a bishop, but through whom everything that relates to the Bulgarians would proceed, so that he would sit in the patriarchate, have the significance of a representative of the Bulgarian clergy, who would appoint bishops and priests to the Bulgarians.” The Bulgarians of Tsankov's party say that they have lost faith in Russia; that even if she wanted to do something, her intervention would provoke opposition from the West; that they suffer because of their loyalty to Russia. In a letter from F. Burmov to Palauzov, dated December 20. On December 18, the Armenian Catholics received perhaps up to 150 Bulgarians, the Athonite 219 hieromonk Macarius, priest Todor and Archimandrite Joseph with a deacon. They were given a special church. In a letter from Kh. F. Arnaudov, dated December 20 and 21. Some of those seduced by them were admonished and returned. If the embassy looks at all this in cold blood, it will alienate many Bulgarians, both from itself and from Russia. 220 January 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, expressing regret that his thoughts about the Greek-Bulgarian affair would come, with his name, to the attention of the Ecumenical Patriarch Most illustrious prince, gracious sir. From the copies of some written communications sent to me from your Excellency, not without a feeling of difficulty, I saw that my thoughts about the Greek-Bulgarian affair would reach the Ecumenical Patriarch with my name. I expressed these thoughts with confidence, and presented them for consideration by the domestic authorities, with the hope that they would be considered favorably, and even if they were not approved, this judgment would be pronounced in peace. This cannot be expected from the patriarch. As far as I know, our thoughts could reach the Greek clergy in such a way that even if they did not accept the thoughts presented, they had no direct reason for displeasure against the Russian clergy. This was both fulfillment of duty and precaution so as not to reduce the peace between the two hierarchies. My name will not give any strength to my thoughts. However, whatever has been decided and done will, by the grace of God, be done, if not to reduce, at least not to increase difficulties. Prefaced by your Excellency that I would receive sad information from the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, I expected detailed information so that I could better judge what had happened, but I only learned that 150 Bulgarians in Constantinople had converted to Latinism. Isn't this Tsankov's party 221? How do the most well-intentioned Bulgarians look at this? How do the Patriarch, the Synod, and the Porte view it? If there is a lack of such information, one can only mourn what happened, but it is not convenient to reason. Meanwhile, even before that, I knew from the Synodal Chief Prosecutor a question: would it not be useful for the Holy Synod to address the Ecumenical Patriarch with a message on the Greek-Bulgarian affair? What I wrote to him about this on the 30th day of last December, not knowing whether it was brought to the attention of your Excellency, I enclose herewith in the list. 222 Invoking God's blessing upon you, I have the honor to be your Lordship with perfect respect and devotion. January 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “about the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 3, 1861” The pity of the house of the Lord does not allow us to look indifferently at what is happening in the East. And condescending attention to my humble word gives me freedom to express my concerns, or better yet, to express my thoughts about general concerns. I present a note on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 3, this year, 1861, which I am now forwarding in another list to the synodal chief prosecutor. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. On this letter, Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, after reading the following notes, wrote in pencil: “In my opinion, all this is now too late.” 224 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 3, this year 1861 225 I. From the most recent information it is revealed that the apostasy of the Bulgarians from the Orthodox Church began to manifest itself long ago. On October 12, 1860, Bishop Hilarion told Archimandrite Antonin that he had been presented with a petition signed by 100 Bulgarians to join the Roman Church, but he had not accepted it. Whether this was then brought to the attention of the Russian embassy, ​​the Greek hierarchy and the Russian Synod is not clear. II. Openly proclaimed on December 18, 226, the retreat to the Roman church of 120 Bulgarians, by the way, carried away Archimandrite Joseph with the deacon, priest Todor and Hieromonk Macarius of Athonite Hilindar. The Armenian Catholic Patriarch gave them a church, and on the day of the Nativity of Christ, a liturgy was celebrated in it by the apostates, in which, as they say, up to 1000 people gathered, and on the next day up to 1500. At the same time, Russian vestments were used, according to Bishop Hilarion, stolen, and according to the Greeks, given from him from his church of St. Stephen. This last is doubtful: because Bishop Hilarion and other Bulgarian bishop Auxentius 227 protested against the act of the apostates. But even this protest is not free from doubt whether Bishop Hilarion stands firmly against the union, or whether by protest he gives himself plausibility before the Eastern hierarchy, until he loses hope of receiving from it the desired recognition of the independence of the Bulgarian Church. The magazine Bulgaria, responding to the protest, denounces the protesters for participating with those who have fallen away. The matter is complicated: however, it cannot be denied that the danger is not small. III. The Ecumenical Patriarch is thinking of “excommunicating Bishop Hilarion, thinking that “this measure will prevent him from maintaining the dignity of a priest when moving to another Christian church.” What does “excommunicate” mean? Deprive him of the episcopacy? The patriarch cannot do this without church court. The trial cannot be carried out quickly. The announcement of the beginning of the trial may increase irritation and prompt Bishop Hilarion to rush to the side of the fallen. How soon will he join the Western Church: it will recognize him as not subject to the Eastern court, and the patriarch’s court will become invalid. Will the Ecumenical Patriarch simply excommunicate Bishop Hilarion? This will probably have no effect. In ancient times, it happened that an Orthodox bishop excommunicated another bishop, finding him wrong in something, but the one against whom the excommunication was pronounced continued to act episcopalally until the assembled court found him right or wrong. IV. What could the ecumenical patriarch do in the present circumstances? They say: rather, give the Bulgarians what their moderate party asks for, that is, some church independence with some dependence on the ecumenical throne. To this the patriarch says, not without reason: let them ask. This is fitting for subordinates, and even more so for those guilty of willful renunciation of the legitimate authority of the patriarch. Let us assume that the patriarch, without asking, grants what the moderate party of the Bulgarians wants. But who can guarantee that this concession will pacify them, and will not give them an opportunity to dream more about their strength and become more daring and demanding? In this case, the church would needlessly bring upon itself a new insult. V. The Bulgarians do not want to turn to the patriarch with a request, because it would mean admitting their dependence on him. But are they independent of the patriarch? Did they become independent because they decided to call themselves that? No. By legal right, they still remain dependent, they have only become rebellious. So, in fairness, they should ask that the desired independence be granted to them in full, or in part. And presenting a request to the patriarch does not involve any danger for them. If their request is respected, they will get what they want. And even if it is not respected, they will remain in the same position in which they are now. VI. Late! Late! However, would it be possible to find a way out of the Greco-Bulgarian labyrinth using the following thread, or a similar one? 1) To persuade the most well-intentioned Bulgarians to turn to the Ecumenical Patriarch with a request, although without the participation of Bishop Hilarion, if they think that it is safer for him to remain on the sidelines. It will still have the appearance of modesty if he does not sign the petitions that will ask him for the highest degree. 2) Arrange a private, secret mediation between them and the patriarch, through prudent and well-intentioned people who would be trusted by both parties. 3) Through this means, agree on what the Bulgarians can ask for and what the Patriarch can grant. 4) His Holiness will reassure with his holy word that he will grant what was agreed upon. 5) To cover up the guilt of Bishop Hilarion, to give him credit for his protest against those who had fallen away from the Orthodox Church. 6) If this succeeded, then all that remained was to write the acts. VII. The difficulty of the present situation must increase if His Holiness the Patriarch does not bend to show mercy to Bishop Hilarion. Previously, when this one was connected only with the Bulgarians of Constantinople, it was impossible to tear him away so that at the same time another Bulgarian bishop would take his place and lead the Bulgarians on a more correct path. Such a measure can hardly be used successfully now that Hilarion has taken root in all directions where the Bulgarians live. VIII. It is a pity that the message that His Holiness the Patriarch issued to admonish or convict the fallen Bulgarians, and, of course, to strengthen the Orthodox, is unknown. The fear was explained that the dogmatic message would not be successful due to the lack of education of the Bulgarians. This is only partly true. Perhaps in the message of the patriarch, or better not in this official form, but in the form of a simple admonishing and admonishing word, something could be presented to the Bulgarians, and in such a way that even the simple ones would understand it, and could arouse the attention and action of conscience. For example, how can a simple Bulgarian not understand if they tell him: you know from your ancestors and are sure that the Orthodox Church has preserved the purity of the faith, as the apostles betrayed it or approved by seven ecumenical councils, and that, on the contrary, the Roman Church has largely departed from the true teaching and ancient tradition. How do you want to retreat from the Orthodox Church and join the wrong one, just because you think you will find more independence there? Doesn't this mean betraying the right faith for the desired independence? Is this in accordance with a good conscience? Could this be pleasing to God? Listen to good conscience; fear God; remain steadfast in the Orthodox faith. If you experience any difficulty: seek permission and relief in a legal way from the Orthodox hierarchy. The dissemination of such admonitions, and now, I think, is not too late to admonish those who have fallen away, or at least to restrain those who are drawn to fall away. January 27. Note by Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 10, 1861 Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated January 25, 1861, No. 364, reported to Metropolitan Philaret: “Yesterday, after sending to Your Eminence copies of the letter and dispatch of Prince Lobanov, dated January 10–22, I was present, by the highest order, at the most submissive report Prince Gorchakov. The dispatch and letter were the subject of the report. The sad events and fears expressed by Prince Lobanov led to the following questions: firstly, how to avert the approaching break of the Bulgarians with the great church; secondly, how should Prince Lobanov act if the patriarch approaches him, officially, with a request to act before the Porte to take measures to expel Hilarion? In relation to the first question, His Imperial Majesty fully deigned to approve the idea of ​​Prince Gorchakov (which I fully share): to order Lobanov to use all means in his power to convince the Patriarch so that he would not resort to the strict measure of excommunication of Bishop Hilarion and the Bulgarians. Prince Gorchakov announced that he had already let Prince Lobanov know about this will of His Majesty by telegraph. For this, the Sovereign Emperor, taking into account the danger of the circumstances and the speed with which events are taking place, again returned to the idea that the Holy Synod should address the Patriarch in convincing terms and present to him that in order to prevent a great loss, sensitive for the entire church, His Holiness needs to make all possible concessions to the Bulgarians and thereby take away from the enemies of the church the opportunity to accuse her of depriving herself of her children by her intransigence. It pleases the Sovereign Emperor that the Holy Synod discuss this idea with all possible haste; however, according to my report, His Majesty deigned that your Eminence’s opinion should first be asked about this important matter. In relation to the second question, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will order Prince Lobanov, if possible, to prevent such a demand from the patriarch, and, if it were to occur, to avoid fulfilling it in every possible way. Fulfilling, by communicating all of the above, the command given to me by His Imperial Majesty, I make it my duty to add that yesterday I reported to the Sovereign Emperor, firstly, that the more dangerous the state of affairs, the more necessary it is for us to refrain from reproachful judgments about the Greek clergy, which can only strengthen the hostile feeling of the Bulgarians; 2ndly, that it is possible to act with benefit on the Bulgarians, showing them that we do not approve of popular enmity, which extends to the readiness to sacrifice Orthodoxy; and 3rdly, that in this sad question, which the more you delve into it, the more it presents difficulties, no unimportant difficulty seems to be the fact that in European Turkey there is hardly a diocese, a city, or a significant place where the Bulgarian population is not mixed with the Greek. Together with the dispatch and letter from Prince Lobanov, a printed appeal of the Patriarch to the Bulgarians in Greek and Bulgarian and a response to this appeal were sent to me; but I cannot communicate them now to your Eminence because these papers were sent to me in one copy, with a request to return them, and at the same time I recognized it necessary to order their translation into Russian. As soon as this translation is ready, it is my duty to forward it to your Eminence.” At the top of this letter, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, it is noted: “January 25 and 27. Responded with a letter and note. About the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information before January 10, 1861. I. This information was received after the note was sent on January 25 on this matter. As the new movement has made things happen, and partly acquired a new form, some of the old considerations remain in force, and some require new ones. II. The Patriarch issued a message, and the Bulgarians objected to it 229. They are not meant, and this would be necessary, because what is proposed or demanded in private relations is more conveniently subject to change, and what is published publicly must express thoughts and intentions that are more firmly accepted. Consideration of the issued acts would help to judge whether the patriarch’s opinion is likely that the message was received favorably, whereas, according to other information, it made a grave impression. The lack of knowledge about this partly prevents us from planning for further progress of the matter. III. Against the demand that the Bulgarians themselves elect their own bishops, the Patriarch objects that the first ecumenical council left it to the council of bishops to appoint new bishops. But even before the rules of the Church-People's Assembly, and according to these rules, lay people take a lot of participation in the election of the patriarch. Why didn’t His Holiness the Patriarch recognize his own election as illegal, as disagreeing with the definition of the Ecumenical Council? He himself says that “from the beginning of the Christian Church, the population has always elected its own bishops,” and that the abuses caused the definition of the first ecumenical council cited by him. Therefore, it is impossible to return to the ancient custom at the request of new circumstances, which was allowed in the Greek hierarchy itself. IV. The Patriarch’s objection is more powerful that in the provinces the Bulgarians are mixed in residence with the Greeks, and therefore it is difficult to determine the boundaries of the dioceses. This is true; but if the unsatisfactory distinction between the Greek and Bulgarian Orthodox dioceses is difficult for administration, then isn’t it more difficult, and even dangerous, to mix the Greek Orthodox and Bulgarian Roman Unite dioceses, because Roman propaganda, having mastered the Bulgarians, will, of course, not leave its effect on the Orthodox Greeks? What should we be more afraid of: that a few Greeks will not submit to the Bulgarian bishop, or that entire Bulgarian dioceses will not fall away from the Orthodox Church? 230 V. When considering the question of the internal administration of the Bulgarian Church, the Patriarch said that he had the right to receive a part of the diocesan revenues, and that this had long been replaced by a certain tribute from each bishop upon receiving the diocese. Here he does not indicate any rule. But only one rule is known, which strictly condemns taking money at ordination. It must be admitted that need forced the patriarch, under a non-Christian government, to seek benefits in economic measures that were not justified by church rules. But if for the peace of the Orthodox Church he resorted to increased economic means, is it not just as blessed now, in order to preserve the integrity of the Orthodox Church, to agree to suffer damage in economic means? One must decide to lose piastres so as not to lose souls 231. The piastres will not be saved when the union steals souls. However, Bishop Hilarion offers his own solution to the economic difficulty - an annual contribution from the Bulgarians to the treasury of the patriarchate. VI. The Patriarch responded that he would never allow the Bulgarian bishop to constantly sit in the Patriarchal Synod as a representative of the Bulgarian Church. Sad word. This is a blow that almost completely destroys the hope of a successful outcome of the Bulgarian affair. The reason for his recall is the patriarch’s fear that the Bulgarian archbishop “will put his authority in the place of the ecumenical patriarch” and that “his overwhelming voice will paralyze the actions of the synod.” Is this fear exaggerated? The geront sits permanently in the patriarchal synod, and by this title ascribes to himself significance, and at the same time the title of ephor, who also has several dioceses, which he patronizes and which are attached to him. That the Holy Patriarch is not afraid that the Geront will put his authority in the place of the patriarchal, this is clear from the fact that His Holiness Joachim supported the Geronts and Ephors even when the church-people's assembly decided to destroy them. Why would a regional Bulgarian archbishop, who is in charge of several Bulgarian bishops, be more dangerous for the patriarch than the geront? Why will his voice prevail among the 12 votes of the members of the Patriarchal Synod? The Bulgarian archbishop will have an equal vote with the other members of the synod. How can the Bulgarian archbishop paralyze the action of the Patriarchal Synod? How can one voice of a synodal member, equal to the others, paralyze eleven voices, empowered by the ecumenical patriarch? One might even think that the Bulgarian regional archbishop, not being present at the Patriarchal Synod, is more likely to commit sinful and arbitrary actions than being present in it. Should only the central government be favored? Is it not necessary, most of all, to favor the rapprochement of bishops, communication, love, mutual reverence? And this is what the Bulgarian archbishop can find in the union of the patriarchal synod. 232 It would not be unnecessary, if not too late, to present these considerations to His Holiness the Patriarch, to see if he sees from them that the permanent presence of the Bulgarian apxbishop in the Patriarchal Synod can be allowed without fear. VII. His Holiness the Patriarch calls Bishop Hilarion an “atheist” and intends to “excommunicate him and send him to prison”; but, if he bows down, he promises to accept him and forget his previous actions. If His Holiness finds the latter possible, then, of course, he is not sure about the first, that is, about the atheism of the bishop. How, when applied to church rules, one should talk about excommunication, this is shown in the note of this January 25, 233 under number III, why it is not repeated here. If the patriarch, as can be noted from his words, without trial, by his own will excommunicates Bishop Hilarion from communion, or completely deprives him of his dignity and sends him to prison, then he will thereby provide a new weapon against himself. They can say: here before our eyes the patriarch, contrary to church rules and human justice, excommunicates and imprisons a bishop without trial; Since we are obliged to obey church rules, we ourselves are not obliged to obey the authorities that are clearly acting against church rules. 234 Moreover, it is very likely that the patriarch will not be able to carry out the proposed measure, for this can only be done with the help of the Turkish authorities. But there is already private news, probable by its very content, that in response to the Turkish government’s proposal to use restrictive measures against the Bulgarians, the English envoy 235 responded by pointing out the Gatti-Humayun, which grants freedom of religious conscience to all the Sultan’s subjects. Roman Catholic France, of course, will insist on the same in favor of its union. If the patriarch decides to carry out his drastic measure, despite its unreliability, one must think that the actor on the Russian side will stand aside. It is fair not to support an illegal measure. The hearts of Bulgarians should not be alienated. 236 VIII. A remark was made against Bishop Hilarion’s persistent refusal to enter into direct relations with the Patriarch in a note on the 25th day, number V. But the latest information shows that there is no hope of defeating this stubbornness. According to this provision, a method of rapprochement through an intermediary was proposed in the note of the 25th day, number VI. Now Prince Vogoridis has been put in this position. But the hope of success, after the previous one, diminished even more. IX. Bishop Hilarion relies on a request to the Porte. Strange way of thinking! This means telling the Porte: “we have decided to leave our legal obedience to the patriarch; make our illegal position legal. The Christian Ecumenical Patriarch does not give us the Bulgarian Patriarch; let the Mohammedan government give him to us.” But is it not possible, even from the edge of the abyss, to move towards salvation? If the request to the Porte had explained the conditions of church reconciliation, and in conclusion it was asked to petition the patriarch for what he wanted, and if the Porte had conveyed this request to the patriarch: would he not have agreed to accept this request, brought through through mediation, instead of directly, and show leniency? X. Anticipation of possible cases has accelerated the proposed question: what if the Bulgarians, no matter what, declare themselves an independent church under the command of Hilarion; What if the Turkish government looks at this with indifference, and if the Ecumenical Patriarch pronounces condemnation on those who have separated? What will the Russian Synod do? This question, even when it arises in reality, will require not a hasty decision, but time to examine the state of affairs. There is no doubt that the first concern of the Holy Synod will be the preservation of peace with the legitimate Eastern hierarchy. A useful preliminary guarantee of this is the recently prepared message of the Holy Synod in response to the Ecumenical Patriarchy, which has probably already been sent. 237 Then it will be a matter of justice and prudence not to enter into contact with separated bishops, or, as the ancient expression goes, to refrain from accepting them into communion. This will be consistent with justice, because they are in an illegal position, and with caution so as not to disrupt the peace of the Russian Church with the Greek. But what if the Ecumenical Patriarch officially notifies the Russian Synod of his condemnation of the Bulgarians and thus calls them to participate in the action of condemnation? This question can be answered only when it appears in reality with all the circumstances and details that should determine a thorough and careful resolution. This note was also forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince A.I. Gorchakov, with a letter from the Metropolitan with the following content: After sending a note on the 25th day of this January on the Greek-Bulgarian case, compiled on information that extended up to the 3rd day of this January, information on this matter was received on the 10th day of January. This new information required the preparation of a new note, which is being submitted herewith. Invoking God's blessing upon you with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant, January 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “about the relations of the Holy Synod with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the Bulgarian case” After sending a note to your Excellency on the Greek-Bulgarian case on the 27th day, I still have the obligation to present my opinion on the question: should the Holy Synod not use its insistence to bend the Ecumenical Patriarch in favor of the Bulgarians. I present this opinion in a special note. However, a detailed decision on this matter belongs to the Holy Synod, to whom may the Lord grant the spirit of counsel. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant. On the communication of the Holy Synod with the Ecumenical Patriarch in the case of the Bulgarians I. The dangerous situation into which the Greek-Bulgarian cause has been brought, despite efforts to give it a better direction, while finding means to stop the destructive actions, raises the question: should not the Russian Holy Synod present to the Ecumenical Patriarch that “in order to prevent a great thorn, sensitive for the Church, His Holiness needs to make all possible concessions to the Bulgarians, and thereby deprive the enemies of the Church of the opportunity to accuse her of being her own by intransigence she deprives herself of her children.” The Holy Synod has already given a positive, moderate answer to this question, and got down to business, composing a response to the sociable message of the new Patriarch Joachim. The draft response synodal message is compiled in such a way that it covers two subjects and is directed towards two goals. Firstly, the response to Patriarch Joachim itself expresses the unanimous, respectful and brotherly attitude of the Russian Church towards the ecumenical throne; and this may be some guarantee of her peace with this throne and for future unforeseen circumstances. In the second part of the synodal message, condolences are expressed about the Bulgarian disorder that has arisen near the patriarchal throne, and in modest terms it is presented to the attention of the patriarch whether the desires of the Bulgarians, more or less blessed, should not be satisfied, and their wrong actions should be covered with leniency. So 241 it was necessary to express myself modestly, firstly, because the great church does not allow anyone to stand at an equal height with it, and therefore would be offended by the advice boldly expressed; secondly, because the petition is presented not for the right, but for the guilty; thirdly, because the patriarch will probably not like this petition, and in this case modest expressions will not allow the displeasure to reach the point of irritation. If this peaceful message has not yet been sent, in my opinion, it is useful to send it immediately, even if the question remains unresolved whether it should not be written stronger than this. Let a peaceful word go ahead and make a pleasant impression; Let this be accompanied by a modest reminder of the unpleasant, so as not to destroy the first good impression. II. Shouldn't a stronger word follow this? – In my opinion, this is very doubtful. One of the essential demands of the Bulgarians, confirmed by Bishop Hilarion, is the permanent presence of the Bulgarian apxbishop in the patriarchal synod. About this, the patriarch has already expressed that he “will never agree to allow such a claim”; that, “being obliged to preserve intact the power devoted to him, he is obliged to decisively reject this demand, without entering into further proceedings about it.” So, if this demand is renewed, it will be rejected. And if it is not renewed, the Bulgarians will not be satisfied; the petition will be useless, and will bring not benefit, but harm - a violation of the peaceful relationship of the Greek Church to the Russian. III. 242 An important difficulty in this matter is that the Bulgarians do not want to ask the patriarch with a definite statement of their desires. Even if the patriarch agreed to make concessions, he cannot guess which concessions would be satisfactory. Besides the fact that it is not consistent with the dignity of the patriarch to chase after those fleeing from him and force concessions on them in order to return them, he can thereby make them more arrogant. Something similar to what happens to the Austrian emperor can happen to the patriarch. He made concessions to the Hungarians, thinking that they would be satisfied and reassured; and they, seeing the concessions, felt stronger, made them more daring, and did not want to put a limit to their demands. Likewise, it may happen that the Bulgarians, seeing the patriarch’s concessions, which they did not ask for, and which they did not first undertake to accept, will attribute this to his weakness, will not accept what is proposed, and will exaggerate their demands; the state of affairs will become even worse, and the church authority will be more insulted and humiliated than before by the neglect of the disobedient. Wouldn't it be regrettable for the Russian Church if, with its strengthened present, it moved the patriarch down this disastrous path? IV. There is undoubted information that the Porte recognized the Bulgarian Uniate Church and gave it a seal with the inscription: united Bulgarian Church, and that on the 7th of January, many years were proclaimed in this Uniate Church: to His Holiness the Bulgarian Patriarch Hilarion. After this, what can one hope from the strengthened intercession of the Holy Synod in favor of the Bulgarians, except for the strengthening of the prejudice already existing in the Greek hierarchy that the Russians support the Bulgarians in their rebellion. V. So, in my opinion, all the circumstances in mind, and all considerations, predispose us to limit ourselves to sending a prepared peace message to the Holy Patriarch, in which a word is said in good conscience, and which, if it gives little hope, at least is not connected with the fear of breaking the peace between the Greek and Russian churches. January 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “about the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after reading the patriarchal letter and the Bulgarian response” On the evening of the 29th day, I received from the synodal chief prosecutor a patriarchal letter to the Bulgarians and a Bulgarian response, and at the same time a question about the proposal to send a clergyman to the patriarch. I answered this with a note on the next 30 days. 244 But then there was not enough time to write another list. Now, having received news from Count Alexander Petrovich that my note of the 25th day did not reach him, I consider it an unnecessary precaution to forward to your Excellency the list from the note of the 30th day. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be our Lordship's most humble servant: Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. On this letter, Emperor Alexander II wrote in pencil: “I will eagerly await what the Synod will decide.” 245 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after reading the patriarchal message and the response Bulgarian article, entitled: short answer 246 I. The note of the 28th day sets out the opinion that circumstances require that the proposed written communication of the Holy Synod with the Patriarch on the Bulgarian case be limited to the message of the Holy Synod that has already been prepared, and in the letter of the same day the conclusion is drawn from this note that it is inconvenient to send a clergyman to the Patriarch. Now the question arises: is it not necessary to change these opinions, after taking into account the patriarchal message and the Bulgarian response? II. The Patriarch in his message denounces what has happened among the Bulgarians “the self-made proclamation of an autocephalous and independent ruler over them by an arbitrary announcement, without any canonical or other legality, personified in the famous - Bishop Hilarion of Makariupol and the former Dyrrachian Auxentius, who trampled on the terrible promises made before God at their ordination, laugh and curse sacred decrees of the church, serve only their pride, to the temptation and seduction of simple, ignorant Christians, from whom they alone received the rotten, windy and, one might say, ridiculous dignity of the independent, they remain incorrigibly clinging to their rotten wisdom.” At the end of the letter, the patriarch forbids going to the Uniate church in Pera, and says that one who prays with schismatics is worse than a heretic, for such a one tears apart the unity of Christians, and this sin is worse than idolatry. Is it possible to think that the patriarch will accept into communication and distinguish with advantages the person whom he publicly portrayed so shamefully? Will he dare to publicly contradict himself in such a way? And in Bishop Hilarion, if there was still any spark of peacefulness left, will it not be extinguished by the strong breath of the patriarchal message? What can the urgent peace message of the Holy Synod and its urgent peace envoy hope for? III. It is also difficult to look for seeds of peace in the Bulgarian response. Here it should be noted, firstly, that the Bulgarian response does not approve of the Uniates, and rejects the union; secondly, that, although it is not an official act, like the message of the patriarch, one cannot look at it only as an action of a private unknown person who would not have important significance in a public matter. The author of the answer accuses the patriarch of calling himself a church: therefore, it is incredible that he himself did the same, signing the answer from the people's Orthodox Bulgarian Church. So, it must be assumed that the answer was published not without the knowledge and consent of Bishop Hilarion and his most significant like-minded people, although it does not speak in their words. The essence of the answer agrees with what was heard from the lips of Hilarion. But what does the answer say? He does not show the slightest respect to the patriarch; composed, for the most part, of cruel censures against the patriarch and the Greek clergy, not a single feature hints at a desire for rapprochement with the patriarch; expresses the hope of the Bulgarians to obtain an independent hierarchy, at all costs, with the encouragement of the Turkish government. Here are the answer's own words. Brief response to the Patriarch's district message “We rejoice with all our hearts that His Holiness considered it his duty to say a few words against the papal movement that some people made among our simple-minded Bulgarians; but we deeply regret that he performed his office poorly and unreasonably.” The answer attributes to the patriarch “the sacrilegious insolence by which His Holiness calls his person, with the five synodal elders surrounding him, the Church of Christ. This is such blasphemy that can only be explained as a consequence of extreme ignorance combined with depravity.” “The pious Bulgarian people, in accordance with the spirit of the Divine Gospel and in accordance with church rules, rejected the illegal and oppressive power, expelled the bishops they sent from the dioceses, as true wicked ones, and quietly and serenely named the pious bishops their spiritual superiors.” “With five elders rooted in evil.” “His Holiness has not the slightest right to speak not only against us, but also against those accursed brothers of ours who had the weakness to separate from us and accept Catholicism.” “The Most Holy Patriarch, we repeat, had no right to blaspheme them: he should only have blushed and cursed himself if he had any conscience.” “Why did the named great church now only respond against the Bulgarians, when nine months have already passed since the Bulgarians favorably rejected it?” “It has come to the point that we, no matter what, will get a hierarchy independent of the pope and the patriarch. The government of His Imperial Majesty (that is, the Sultan) promised to satisfy the Bulgarian people.” Here it is impossible not to pay attention, by the way, to how the spirit of resistance has transgressed the limits of sound reasoning and utters strange incongruities, as if immutable truths. That the author of the answer calls the power of the patriarch “oppressive”, he can present true or false evidence for this; but on what basis does he call the power of the patriarch “illegal”? How is he not ashamed to say that the Bulgarian people rejected the power of the patriarch, expelled bishops from dioceses, arbitrarily elected spiritual leaders for themselves, simply to say, rebelled against the patriarch, “in accordance with the spirit of the Divine Gospel and in accordance with church rules”? On what basis does he say that the patriarch “has not the slightest right to speak against those who have abandoned their legal obedience to the patriarchal authority”? That the patriarch “has no right to blaspheme” those who have fallen away from Orthodoxy? With what hope will the message of the Holy Synod enter into contact with such people? Can we expect them to listen to sound advice and bow to peace? What concessions on the part of the patriarch can satisfy such people? IV. Everything stated here forces one to return to the previous conclusion that in the present circumstances of the Bulgarian case, neither an enhanced written insistence nor an embassy from the Holy Synod is inconvenient, and that it is necessary to limit oneself to sending a prepared peace message. V. It would be a different matter if the patriarch in his message denounced only those who had fallen away, and mentioned Hilarion’s party namelessly, in condescending terms. This would have a stronger effect on protecting the Orthodox Bulgarians, and could soften the rebellious, but still Orthodox, Bulgarians, or at least would not harden them. Now both the patriarch with his message and the Bulgarians with their response have widened the gulf that separates them. VI. The idea of ​​using Archimandrite Antonin as a modest mediator was previously imagined with more hope than now. And now we can instruct Archimandrite Antonin to explain to the divided parties the extreme regret of the Russian hierarchy about the division that has occurred, which even caused those who fell away from Orthodoxy, and the sincere desire that unity and church peace be restored through mutual concessions. But he should only be confidential, and not an official actor, for the precaution that inattention to the official trustee of the Russian Church does not diminish the peace that she is trying to increase. January 31–May 14. Notes of Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information: January 31, February 7, 22 and 28, March 7, 14, 15, 21 and 28, April 11, 18 and 25, and May 14, 1861 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from January 31, 1861 248 I. In the newly arrived information about the Greek-Bulgarian affair, the question that was already in mind is again attached: would it not be useful for the Holy Synod to send a bishop to Constantinople, with the aim of making peace between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Bulgarians. But this very information does not give good hope to this embassy, ​​if it took place. II. Despite the falling away of the Bulgarians from Orthodoxy, partly real, partly threatening, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not inclined to restrain them by leniently towards them, and does not abandon the intention to excommunicate Bishop Hilarion from church communion and send him to prison. By what force can the synodal envoy turn things towards the path of conciliatory condescension, while there is nothing on the part of the Bulgarians that would contribute to such a movement? III. The three conciliatory conditions offered by the Patriarch to the Bulgarians: the free use of the Slavic language in church and in school, the obligation of their bishop to know their language, and the right to present candidates for bishop known to the Church, the Bulgarians will no doubt find unsatisfactory and unsecured, and the Patriarch says that this is his last word. Where is the place for the mediator’s conciliatory word? IV. The Patriarch grants the above conciliatory conditions to the Bulgarians, under the special condition of the removal of Bishop Hilarion. Will the peacemaker agree for the Bulgarians to abandon Hilarion? Who, instead of Hilarion, will the peacemaker offer them? V. The Patriarch says that he would rather renounce the throne than yield to claims that are humiliating for him, that is, claims beyond the three conditions proposed by him. But the Bulgarians will certainly demand advantages beyond three conditions. What can a peacemaker do here? VI. The Patriarch is already grieving that “the Orthodox government of Russia allows the spiritual head of Orthodoxy to become the subject of humiliation.” Here precision requires the remark that if His Holiness really expressed himself this way, then his expression is inaccurate. The other patriarchs and the All-Russian Synod are not members of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as “heads” (for, otherwise, he would be an eastern pope), but his “brothers,” as his eastern patriarchs previously expressed it in the acts approving the All-Russian Synod. Let's get back to business. His Holiness the Patriarch complains that the Russian government allows him to be humiliated and dishonored by the bishops subordinate to him. But what could it do to prevent this? The Russian Orthodox government has always protected and continues to protect the Orthodox Patriarch from such attacks that can be opposed by political force. But did the Russian government have any means to prevent the humiliation of the patriarch that in the church under his jurisdiction, during the service of the bishop subordinate to him, the Bulgarians shouted: the name of patriarch is not needed? Did the Russian government have any means to prevent the disgrace of the Patriarch that in response to a printed letter in which he attributed rotten wisdom to Bishop Hilarion, the Bulgarians also responded with a printed letter in which they attributed ignorance and even worse to the Patriarch, which is difficult to say when thinking about such a person? Perhaps His Holiness the Patriarch believes that the Russian government should have decisively condemned the Bulgarian movement at its very beginning, and not offered the Patriarch concessions for reconciliation. But the Russian government could not do this in fairness. It is characteristic and desirable for him to be in peace, both with the Greeks of the same faith and with the Bulgarians of the same faith; and it would be unfair to decisively condemn the Bulgarians when their complaints were not refuted and, at least in part, remain unrefuted to this day. The Patriarch now, in the form of concessions, offers the Bulgarians the free use of their language in the church and in schools and the obligation of the Bulgarian Bishops to know their language. And from this, obviously, it follows that the Bulgarians until now have not enjoyed the free use of their language in the church and in schools, and the bishops who know their language consequently had reasons to complain. Consequently, the Russian government, rightly, did not condemn them decisively, and offered to find conciliatory means. But if, in this way, despite the obvious rightness and good intentions of the Russian government, His Holiness the Patriarch not only does not bow to its conciliatory proposals, but also expresses displeasure against them, then what hope of success can the envoy of the Holy Synod have? VII. If, upon receiving a very modest reminder of the Bulgarian case in the response message of the Holy Synod, displeasure was visible through the words of the patriarch, as stated in the news of January 31, then wouldn’t the Russian bishop have met a more clear and strong displeasure of the patriarch, who would have appeared before him with an urgent petition for conciliatory leniency for the Bulgarians? Thus, an effort to promote the internal peace of the Greek Church can only harm the peace between the Greek and Russian Churches. VIII. They think that an embassy from the Holy Synod would confirm the Bulgarians in Orthodoxy and revive their hopes. It is difficult to imagine how this embassy could carry out such actions. Who will the Russian bishop turn to to act on the Bulgarians? Of course, it will be inconvenient for him to gather people and speak like at a rally. Will he turn to Bishop Hilarion, whom the Patriarch, in a printed letter, declaring to adhere to rotten wisdom and a violator of terrible promises before God, intends to excommunicate from the church, who, for his part, resolutely does not want to have any relationship with the Patriarch, who in a printed letter attributes to the high Greek clergy obvious unworthiness and inveterateness in abuses, which the newspaper "Vostok" denounces in that duplicity, that he participated in the drafting of the act of entry of the Bulgarians into the Western Union, and then issued a letter against those who entered the union, which, according to private information, entered into relations with the Protestants, seeking union with the so-called Evangelical Church? What can a Russian bishop expect from relations with him, other than to alienate the Greek hierarchy from himself? Even whether the dignity of the envoy of the Holy Synod will allow him to enter into relations with a person who is marked and has marked himself with such gloomy features. IX. If it is already noted in advance that the embassy of the Russian bishop to Constantinople will be reinterpreted by the Porta and the Western powers not just in an ecclesiastical, but in a political meaning: then it can more or less cause political difficulties for the Russian government. Of course, one should not take a difficult path when it does not promise to lead to anything good. X. But can the Russian Church look indifferently at the difficulties of the Greek Church and at the falling away from Orthodoxy, which has begun and is still threatening? It can't and shouldn't. Therefore, the most pious Sovereign Emperor constantly paid careful attention to this matter; His ministry has repeatedly addressed, to whomever it should and can, with proposals and insistence on things useful for preserving the unity, improvement and peace of the Greek and Bulgarian churches; Finally, the Holy Synod, in an official message to the Most Holy Patriarch, with love and humility presented a reminder related to the same goal. The duty of conscience is fulfilled: acceptance and success are not in the power of those who give advice. We remain under the ever-present obligation to pray for the peace and well-being of God's holy churches and for the unity of all. The Lord is able to open the path of peace and salvation, now invisible: and His judgment is prepared, giving to man and society according to his heart, and rewarding according to deeds. About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after the news of the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion 250 I. After the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion from the church, the Greek-Bulgarian cause takes on a new look and requires a new direction. The path of conciliatory indulgence is closed; the path of justice has opened. If those who have left church obedience could not be attracted by leniency, one must try to bring them back through the prudent use of justice. II. Now the decision of the Holy Synod is justified that an urgent message about leniency towards the Bulgarians was not written to the Ecumenical Patriarch, and a bishop was not sent. Through these actions, the Holy Synod would now find itself in unpleasant contradiction with the determination of the Eastern hierarchy on the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion. If the Russian bishop had been in Constantinople, then, in all likelihood, he would have been invited, as everyone in the vicinity was invited, to the council for the trial of Hilarion; and this would not be without difficulty for our bishop. It is better that no one from Russia participated in a decision that was unpleasant for the Bulgarian people. 251 III. However, although the circumstances of the conviction are unknown, however, based on the available preliminary information, one can already see signs that the conviction was pronounced fairly. Hilarion, without legal grounds, separated from his patriarch and excluded his name from church prayers. Although this movement was started not by him, but by the people, and he withdrew from it for some time, and then, joining this movement, explained this with the fear of the Bulgarians falling away from Orthodoxy, and therefore seemed deserving of leniency, but then he turned out to be the leader of this illegal movement. To well-intentioned advice that he should ask the patriarch for leniency, he responded with a decisive refusal of any communication with the patriarch. Finally, in a printed document he unprovenly attributed to the highest Greek clergy obvious unworthiness and obstinacy in abuses. The Bulgarians who have fallen away from Orthodoxy publicly denounce him and challenge him to legally prove that he was in complicity with them. IV. What could be the next path for the Bulgarian cause? Now is no longer the time to write anything from the Holy Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch, or to send a Russian bishop. The condemnation of Hilarion was pronounced by the highest hierarchs and a fairly large council; it must be inviolable for the hierarchs of other areas. The further actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot be foreseen, and therefore it is impossible to determine what may be necessary and possible on the part of the Russian clergy. V. Could it happen that Hilarion and Auxentius will be joined by the Metropolitan of Philippopolis (about whom there is already information that he has joined the Bulgarian movement, although he is a Greek 252) and several other bishops of the Bulgarian dioceses, and will form a synod, and issue a protest against the conciliar definition, and the hitherto unapplied tolerance of the Gatti-Humayun will be applied to them? In this case, division and disorder may continue. VI. Against this, there is hope that the condemnation of Hilarion was pronounced by a rather strong council, and therefore can make a strong impression on the Bulgarian people and destroy their sympathy for Hilarion, who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. This hope could have been strengthened if Hilarion had not been slow, according to patriarchal custom, to be removed from Constantinople to Athos and in his place they had installed a well-intentioned, adherent to church unity, bishop from the Bulgarians, and at the same time, with firm hope, they had proclaimed the freedom of the Bulgarian language in the church and in schools and the obligatory nature of the Bulgarian language among the Bulgarian bishops. VII. Or will Hilarion rush into the Western Union? One can hope that the Westerners will be ashamed to accept the rank of bishop, so solemnly excommunicated by the Eastern Church, and that Hilarion will not find it advantageous to join the Western Church as a layman. VIII. These are the probable views from the point of view of Hilarion’s condemnation. To judge more accurately, it is necessary to see who in Constantinople and Bulgaria, having heard the clap of thunder, will show fear, and who will remain, without paying attention to it, busy with their thoughts and intentions. About the Bulgarian case according to information dated February 7, received after the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion 254 I. The pope’s letter says that “many spiritual and secular Bulgarians” turned to him with a letter to join the Roman Church. Is this the pure truth? The union was accepted by 1 archimandrite, 1 hieromonk, 1 priest and 1 deacon, and not a single bishop. These are not many spiritual ones. But if (so that the word of infallibility is without infallibility) we assume that the letter to the pope was signed by Bishops Hilarion and Auxentius, then how can we reconcile this with the information that Hilarion also signed the address to the Evangelical Union; How can we reconcile both with the news that he decided to stay within the bounds of Orthodoxy? We must wait to see if Hilarion's direction will become clear after he learned of the excommunication pronounced against him. II. It is noteworthy that the pope in his letter expresses all his advantages on behalf of the Bulgarians, and calls the Roman Church not only “mother,” but also “mistress” or “mistress” (maitresse) of all other churches, thus representing all other churches as households or slaves of the Roman church. This is where the Bulgarians came by seeking an independent hierarchy. III. The Bulgarians ask the Porte to give them a separate hierarchy under the command of the “archbishop of all Bulgarians”, who has a residence in Constantinople. Who will give the blessing to the Archbishop of all Bulgarians to hold this title? Turkish government? So, the Bulgarians want the Mohammedan power to be the highest source of their hierarchy? They will say: the Patriarch of Constantinople is approved by the Turkish government. This is completely different. The Patriarch exists on an ancient church basis. The person of the patriarch is elected by the church. Approval by the Turkish government here only means that it has chosen the patriarch according to existing church rules, and for its part recognizes and allows it to act. But the “archbishop of all Bulgarians” still does not exist. It will have to be created, which, according to church rules, can only be done by a patriarch with a synod. Further, the Bulgarians want there to be two separate departments in Constantinople: the department of the patriarch and the department of the archbishop of all Bulgarians. But the first ecumenical council, in its 8th canon, says: let there not be two bishops in the city. That is, in one city there should not be two separate episcopal sees. It would not be superfluous to communicate these considerations to the Bulgarians, for example, through the private communications of Archimandrite Antonin, and to hear from them how they think they can get out of their difficulties. IV. The Patriarch summons the Metropolitan of Rhodes, a Bulgarian by birth, to Constantinople, in order, as they guess, to put him at the head of the Bulgarian reaction. It is impossible not to notice here that a Bulgarian by birth was not installed as a bishop in a Bulgarian diocese, whereas in the Bulgarian dioceses the bishops are Greeks. Why is this, if not because of the fear that the bishop of the Bulgarians would support the Bulgarian language and nationality among the Bulgarians - but panellinism does not want this. But if, although now, the metropolitan, a Bulgarian by birth, is disposed to be placed at the head of the Bulgarians, then this order is worthy of attention. Let us remember that the Asian Department, in a secret circular, ordered to give hope to the Slavs that “they will receive appropriate participation in the highest spiritual government.” Promising and not keeping can be more harmful than not promising at all. So, is it not possible to imagine to the Most Holy Patriarch that in order to pacify the Bulgarians, it would be useful to take the bishop whom he places at their head into the Patriarchal Synod and at the same time grant the Bulgarians, as has already been said, freedom of their language in the church and in schools, and make it a rule that their bishop knows their language? V. It is not unworthy of attention that the Bulgarians run to the Uniates to get passports, because for a passport with a Uniate seal they pay five or six times less than for a passport in the Patriarchate. Why doesn’t His Holiness the Patriarch pay attention to the fact that a passport can be a disseminator of the union? On concessions or promises of the ecumenical patriarch to the Bulgarians, according to information dated February 22, 1861 I. The fourteen 256 points of the promises of His Holiness the Patriarch to the Bulgarians show their dark situation to this day, but do not shed much light on the future. II. In the first point, “purely Bulgarian” dioceses are promised a bishop from the Bulgarians, or who knows the Bulgarian language; Consequently, until now, even “purely Bulgarian” dioceses have not been provided with this. But just as there is hardly a Bulgarian diocese that does not have some Greeks, then almost any diocese can be refused to fulfill the new promise, for the reason that it is not purely Bulgarian. If the promise had been given to dioceses in which the Bulgarian population constitutes a significant majority, it would have been more satisfactory for the Bulgarians. III. The Bulgarians are also not provided with the second clause, which gives them the right to present a candidate for the department only to the “purely Bulgarian” eparchy, and gives only a vague promise that “the request will be accepted with favor.” IV. The seventh paragraph promises that one or two Bulgarian metropolitans will sit in the patriarchal synod. But this promise is deprived of meaning by the fact that it is immediately added: “as it was before,” because before this the presence of the Bulgarian Metropolitan in the synod was ineffective in relation to the benefit of the Bulgarian churches. There would be more hope for the Bulgarians if it were said: two Bulgarian apostles will constantly sit in the synod, with the general right to judge church affairs, and with the special purpose of representing the Holy Patriarch and the synod, which will be especially necessary and useful for the Bulgarian churches, for local reasons. V. The ninth paragraph promises an official determination of the income of the Bulgarian bishops. From this it is clear that until now arbitrariness has prevailed, but it is not clear whether the promised official decree will be any relief for the Bulgarians. VI. In the tenth paragraph, the Bulgarians are promised divine services in the Bulgarian language, but also in “purely Bulgarian” dioceses. Consequently, where a thousand Bulgarians and a hundred Greeks live, worship will be in Greek. VII. The thirteenth paragraph promises that patriarchal messages and church documents will be written in Bulgarian, but also in “purely Bulgarian” dioceses. Consequently, until now, even in purely Bulgarian dioceses, the people listened to the patriarchal messages and had church documents in an incomprehensible language, and in the future thousands of Bulgarians will be subject to the same if tens or hundreds of Greeks live among them. VIII. In general, it would be desirable for the patriarchal promises for the Bulgarians to have a more definite and more securing character, so that they would have the power to keep the Bulgarians in obedience to the Orthodox Church, while the Turkish government widely opens the door to union for them. About the Bulgarian case according to information from February 28, 1861 258 I. In the letter of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the condemnation of Bishops Hilarion and Auxentius is expressed as follows: “may they be expelled from all apical activities and rank; may they be excluded from the entire apostle class, naked from divine grace, alien to the host of initiates, rejected from the sacred fence; may they be recognized as laymen and commoners.” This is not only temporary excommunication from hierarchical communion, which can be transformed into repentance and forgiveness of those excommunicated and their return to hierarchical communion; but this is a decisive deprivation of the apostle and priesthood, irrevocable. After this, the patriarch, by the force of church rules, can no longer return the bishoprics to Hilarion and Auxentius. 259 II. The trial was carried out in accordance with church rules. Hilarion, in addition to the guilt already evident before the trial, again made himself, by the force of church rules, worthy of condemnation, because he did not appear before the council, at the threefold invitation made canonically. III. For the restoration of Hilarion, there remains only one legal way, if a new council was convened, larger than the one that condemned him 260, and if before the larger council he proved the injustice of the definition of the previous smaller council, which, in this case, should be declared invalid. But this is impossible. So, the opportunity to arrange a Bulgarian affair with Hilarion ended. And if the Bulgarians have any ecclesiastical reasoning, then they must abandon Hilarion, and look for a way to arrange themselves, somewhat easier, depending on the patriarch. This method could consist in the concessions already offered to the Bulgarians from the patriarch being somewhat strengthened and secured, as stated in the note of March 13. IV. What a sad spectacle Constantinople presented on February 26, Sunday, when the deposition of Hilarion from the episcopate was announced in all Orthodox churches, and when this deposed man at the same time celebrated the liturgy as a bishop! Harm will follow the disgrace if the Turkish government does not hasten to reinforce the action of the patriarch and the synod by removing Hilarion from relations with the people who no longer constitute his flock. V. No less regrettable is the patriarch’s threat that, if the government refuses to send Hilarion to prison, all actually serving patriarchs will refuse to serve. May the Lord save the Eastern Orthodox Church from this. But if they think it will come to this, then what consequences do they expect? The sudden abdication of all patriarchs is not like the resignation of ministers in some state, where their places are easily taken by others, and state activities go on as usual. For the Orthodox Church to suddenly remain without a single real patriarch is an extraordinary thing more striking for the church than for anyone else. The Turkish government is unlikely to be much concerned about this, because it does not seem to have much concern for preserving the strength of the Orthodox Church. What's next? If new patriarchs are elected in the same spirit as the previous ones, then won’t it be necessary to renounce their positions? And if, as expected, under the influence of unfavorable circumstances, patriarchs with a different way of thinking are elected and decide to undermine the conciliar case about Hilarion with concessions: will this be in accordance with the benefit and dignity of the Orthodox Church? There were times when the Orthodox bishops not only could not expel heretical bishops, but were themselves expelled by them, and this encouraged them not to leave ministry, but on the contrary, as much as possible, to stand firmer on the guard of the church, and with the spiritual power of faith, prayer, sound teaching, and good example to protect the flock, so that Orthodoxy would not be suppressed by worldly power. May the Lord grant the Orthodox patriarchs prudent wisdom! On the peculiarities of the letter of Archimandrite Antonin, dated March 6, 1861 262, on the Bulgarian case 1. It is worthy of approval and useful that Archimandrite Antonin, in his letter, presented to the attention of the spiritual authorities a fairly complete view of the Bulgarian affair at an important moment in it. But he very freely expands his views in considerations when, for example, he offers advice to the Holy Synod. II. Having said that the writer of the Byzantine newspaper 263 does not deny the reality of gifts or offerings made by the ordained bishop to the patriarch, the archimandrite comes from here to the conclusion: “it would be appropriate, regarding it (the newspaper article), to instruct “someone on behalf of the Holy Synod to ask His Holiness whether the great church recognizes the provisions of the said article as fair; and if there really is a seductive custom in it of giving and accepting offerings for ordination, then...” What are you talking about? Archimandrite, didn’t you finish? And if they wanted to finish, they would probably admit that they don’t know what to do here. Regarding the newspaper article, based on the words of the newspaper writer, is it reasonable for the Holy Synod to begin accusing the Ecumenical Patriarch? Is it decent? Is it possible? Is it proper for the Holy Synod to send, for example, Archimandrite Antonin to the Ecumenical Patriarch to interrogate His Holiness whether he takes gifts when ordaining bishops? Let us assume that the archimandrite interrogated the patriarch, and that he gave an answer, of course not in writing, signed by himself, but verbally; and the archimandrite reported this to the Holy Synod: what can the Holy Synod do in this case? Nothing. The archimandrite seems to think that after interrogation it will be possible to accuse the patriarch of simony. Who will judge him? No one else can do this except an ecumenical, or, if possible, a great council of Orthodox churches! Is it possible to arrange such a court? Why interrogate someone who cannot be judged? The effect of the interrogation proposed by the archimandrite would only be an insult to the patriarch and a violation of the peace of the churches. III. But the archimandrite is already judging the patriarch. The newspaper writer, in justifying the patriarch, cites the act of 1324 on annual offerings to the patriarch from each diocese. The archimandrite objects to this: “unfortunately, the act speaks of “another kind of offering, and not about the payment of newly appointed bishops to the patriarch.” The word payment contains censure, but not evidence. The archbishop who crowns an English king or queen, upon coronation, receives a purse of gold: the British do not say that this is a fee for the coronation. But to the archimandrite’s objection, this is how the patriarch responds: according to the act of 1324, the bishop must every year make a certain offering to the patriarch for the support of the patriarchy, which does not receive support from the government, as happens in Christian states. But, in time, the annual offering, whether for the needs of the patriarchy, or for the convenience of the diocesan bishops, was turned into a one-time offering to the patriarch, upon the bishop’s entry into the diocese. So, the matter is not so clear that the archimandrite could condemn the patriarch without fear of appeal. The archimandrite also objects that the patriarch has other sources of content. But perhaps they are not sufficient for the needs of the patriarchy. The archimandrite does not see the income books of the patriarchate. The matter here is not clear either. If the relations between the Holy Synod and the Ecumenical Patriarch were the closest, completely trusted and frank on both sides: then only it would be possible to quietly tell His Holiness whether he would not find ways to organize the economy of the patriarchy in such a way as to take away any reason for complaints about simony. IV. Noteworthy are the words of the letter that now only the great church “opens Slavic worship in the churches of Constantinople.” In Constantinople there are 15,000 Greeks and 50,000 Bulgarians: so, for 15,000 Greeks, 50,000 Bulgarians have been deprived until now of worship in a language they understand. Only recently was one church of St. Stephen opened to 50,000 Bulgarians, which is now in schism. Judge after this the schismatic Bulgarians! V. Having said that the Bulgarians, Roman Unites, refer in their favor to the 3rd, 4th and 5th rules of the Sardician Council, by which the supreme court in the universal church was allegedly given to the Roman bishop, Archimandrite Antonin allowed himself the following reasoning: “The mentioned rules of the Sardian cathedral, like the entire cathedral itself, are not without significance in the Bulgarian issue. One of two things follows from them: either the Roman bishop really had the right of final judgment in the entire church, or Illyricum at that time was really subject to his jurisdiction. Neither conclusion can be liked; but any third conclusion is hardly possible, for example, the one that in Sardika (now Sofia) matters were discussed that were alien to both the place of the council and the interests of the East.” This means that the archimandrite does not find any way to interpret the said rules in the Orthodox sense, and finds them strong in favor of the Western Church. In the Greek Pidalion (Helmsman), published with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, under the 3rd rule of the Sardician Council (also in relation to the next two) it is said: “Note that this rule should not apply to dioceses that are not subordinate to the pope, but only to those subordinate to him, according to the interpretation of Zonar.” In the book of the apostolic and conciliar rules, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod, a similar remark was made, and with reference to the 6th rule of the first ecumenical council, which the Sardician council could not revoke, since it was not ecumenical, but only local. So, Archimandrite Antoninus does not trust either the famous church lawyer, or the interpretation of the Greek Helmsman, approved by the Ecumenical Patriarch, or the interpretation of the book of rules published by the Holy Synod, but adheres to his opinion that “hardly any conclusion is possible” from the above rules, unfavorable to Rome, and favorable to Orthodoxy. I don’t think at all that Archimandrite Antonin was inclined towards non-Orthodoxy. But this could happen to a person who received his education not under firm guidance, but rather through his own efforts, and is not very careful in trusting his own wisdom. About the Bulgarian case according to information from March 7, 1861 265 I. New information about the state of the Bulgarian cause presents two thoughts for reflection: a change of person on the ecumenical throne 266 and legally condemned drivers of the Bulgarian cause by others, not condemned and more moderate. II. The Ecumenical Patriarch put an obstacle on the path of condescending reconciliation by deposing Hilarion. Now the Porte puts an obstacle in the path of justice for the patriarch by refusing to send Hilarion 267 to prison. Apparently, the Porte does not want to take the side of the 15,000 Greeks of Constantinople against the 50,000 Bulgarians located in Constantinople, which the patriarch should have taken into account earlier. So he's in a quandary. In this case, a threat was previously made that all the patriarchs would resign, but, in all likelihood, neither all the patriarchs nor any of Constantinople would carry out this threat. And fair enough; for this would be a blow that the hierarchy would inflict on itself, without benefit to the Bulgarian cause. No matter who is on the universal throne: the conciliar decision on the deposition of Hilarion cannot be canceled. And therefore, under any patriarch, reconciliation with the Bulgarians is impossible unless they renounce Hilarion. III. So, if Hilarion is not torn away from the Bulgarians by imprisonment, we must try to convince them that now they cannot achieve anything good with Hilarion, and therefore they need to leave him themselves, and look for another, more reliable representative, and at the same time moderate their demands. At the same time, we must try to ensure that a worthy bishop who corresponds to this new direction is brought closer to them, and that His Holiness the Patriarch makes his concessions in favor of the Bulgarians more precise and firm, safe from being weakened by reinterpretation, and therefore attracting trust and obedience. About information from March 14 and 15, 1861 on the Greek-Bulgarian affair I. This information was received after the information from March 21, and therefore is not new; however, they contain circumstances that can be seen as confirming what was said in the note on April 7. II. The Ionian Greeks, who were in Constantinople in large numbers, standing up for the patriarch and his decision with the council, attempted to make a demonstration against the deposed Hilarion if he began to serve the liturgy. This means that they are strongly aware of the importance and power of the patriarchal and synodal decision about Hilarion. So, if other Greeks, who came up with the idea of ​​​​shaking this definition, really began to do this, then before anything was done to pacify the Bulgarians, discord would have occurred between the Greeks. Here is a new consideration that should not shake the established definition. III. The disposition of some Bulgarians, Western Uniates, is manifested to return to Orthodoxy, under the condition of concessions announced by the patriarchate. Therefore, it is desirable that the patriarch make his concessions more definite and firm, in order to more easily attract the Bulgarians. And thus it is necessary to abandon Hilarion, with whom the patriarch can no longer reconcile, and look for another Bulgarian bishop capable of pacification. IV. It is again confirmed that Hilarion turned to Protestants, and says that it is not difficult to change some Orthodox dogmas to bring them closer to the Protestant confession. Here is new proof that Hilarion should be left to his fate. With what hope of God's blessing could one have founded the Bulgarian hierarchy on this man, even if he had retained the guise of an Orthodox bishop? V. At present, it is necessary to convincingly suggest to the Bulgarians that they carefully review their ongoing movement throughout the year, what it has led to, and what it is leading to, in order to give it a reliable direction at their discretion. The independent Bulgarian church is still only a word and an object of desire, and not a deed. Hilarion, who was appointed as its main support, has been lost, and it is impossible to raise him legally; and it would not be useful to raise a person who voluntarily falls to the West. They decided to start the work of an independent Bulgarian church by falling away from Orthodoxy. 120 or 140 Bulgarian laymen and 3 or 4 clergy want to form a Bulgarian-Latin church, and give a patriarch to such a number of people that is not enough to form a parish. The Pope does not agree to give a patriarch, but rejoices that he gains a handful of people; and, when the Bulgarian-Latin bishop is about to be ordained, in the church, during the service, after reading the Gospel, he faints, appears to be dead, and, barely regaining consciousness, is carried out of the church. Meanwhile, Hilarion and some other Bulgarians turn to the Protestants and the Reformed, and agree to change the Eastern dogmas in order to obtain the dream of an independent Bulgarian church, with damaged dogmas, without the correct hierarchy. Thus, the Bulgarians, with a thoughtless movement, are partly depriving themselves of Orthodoxy, dissecting their religious unity, and through this dissecting the unity of their nationality, and leading themselves towards relaxation and enslavement to various alien forces. If they want to preserve intact both Orthodoxy and national unity and strength, then at the present time there does not seem to be the most reliable means for this, how to accept the concessions proposed by the patriarch and receive a hierarchy, although imperfectly independent, however, national and sufficiently empowered to remove previous inconveniences and satisfy fair demands. About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information from March 21, 1861 I. This information reveals and proves the opinion of the Greeks, bishops and laity that the conciliar decision on the ejection of bishops Hilarion, Auxentius and Paisius 270 can be changed. But the evidence for this opinion is unsatisfactory, and the means to fulfill it are not indicated, and can hardly be indicated. II. They say: “many members of the clergy, even those who took part in the council, do not hesitate to pronounce a strict judgment on its decisions.” But they should have proposed such a judgment at the council, and then, perhaps, different decisions would have followed. But when the strict decisions of the council were included in the definition and published in the patriarchal charter, with the signatures of all those who composed the council, and none of them protested: then what dignity and power do the home opposite judgments of some who were at the council have? If they are telling the truth now, then they betrayed it at the council. If they acted truthfully at the council, now the truth is not on their side. III. They say: “the conciliar decision in vain places on Hilarion the blame for the incident in the Bulgarian church on Easter.” Hilarion had to prove this before the council; but he did not appear, and thus, in the words of Rule 28 of the Council of Carthage, pronounced a sentence against himself. Moreover, in the information on March 21 it is said that after the incident on Easter, Hilarion was called by the patriarch in the presence of the synod, was reproached, asked for the patriarch’s leniency, but after that for a whole year he continued the disorder that began on Easter. IV. Hilarion, in his justification, said that he could not separate from the Bulgarian movement, as a precaution so that they would not fall away from Orthodoxy. This may have served to excuse him to some extent, for a time. But in a printed letter, without evidence, he attributed to the high Greek clergy obvious unworthiness and obstinacy in abuses. This was not necessary to protect the Bulgarians in Orthodoxy. On the contrary, it set them against the Orthodox hierarchy. This is a rebellious act. If Hilarion thought he had a reason to complain about the patriarch, then, by virtue of Rule 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, he should have written about this to all the bishops and asked for a council consideration of the complaint, and not separated from the Orthodox hierarchy, and not publicly condemn it without evidence. V. They say: “for a year the patriarch did not bother Hilarion and Auxentius with either a remark or a reprimand.” But it is shown above that the former patriarch 271 condemned Hilarion in the synod; and Hilarion asked for leniency. Then the former patriarch was hampered by the affairs of the church-people's assembly, and more than once expressed his intention to retire from affairs. The new patriarch 272 also needed time to look around his new difficult situation. In addition, the delay of the two patriarchs is explained by their desire and some mediation efforts to achieve an end to the difficulties through peaceful means. Because the judge, due to circumstances, was slow to condemn the guilty, the guilty does not turn into the right, and the judge into the guilty. VI. They say: “the rule of summoning the bishop to court three times, intended to give him time to prepare,” was not observed. But there was a triple challenge. The Apostolic Canon does not set a time limit for calls 74. Carthage Rule 28 assigns a one-month period, and in special circumstances gives the defendant another month. But this, obviously, was done for bishops staying in dioceses, who need time to both prepare for the answer and arrive at the site of the council. Bishop Hilarion is located in the same city as the cathedral. And he had a year to prepare for the answer. VII. To justify Hilarion, they point to the separation of the Athenian church. The example is not similar to the case to which it is cited. The Athenian church did not rebel against the patriarch and the synod, like Hilarion and the Bulgarians; state power provided her with a barrier against communication with the patriarch; the Athenian church did not publish, like Hilarion, unsubstantiated censures against the patriarch and the synod; She correctly asked the patriarch for independence: Hilarion arrogates independence to himself arbitrarily. VIII. They say: “the text of Hilarion’s eruption was written four days before he was summoned to trial.” Can this be proven? And even if it were proven, it would not be enough to refute the conciliar definition. What Hilarion is accused of, it even had to be written in advance for the report to the council. If the draft decision was written: this did not bind those present at the council; they could give a different opinion if they found it fair. IX. They say: Hilarion, after the first call for trial, sent to Aali Pasha to ask for his personal freedom to be ensured.” So what? No one says that he told those sent from the council: “I will come as soon as I receive security for my personal freedom.” The council only knew that, when called three times, he did not appear; and condemned him. And could he have feared violence in the face of an entire council? And is it not more worthy for an Orthodox bishop to entrust himself to his Christian superiors, albeit at the risk of imprisonment, than to appear before them, relying on the Mohammedan guardian of his freedom? X. They say: “the patriarch spoke in the language of passion when he announced to the secretary of the Turkish minister at the council that it was too late, and that the council’s decision on the eruption of Hilarion could not be returned.” Whether passion was active in the patriarch at this time, the spirit living in him knows this; but his words were legal after the council unanimously condemned Hilarion. XI. They say that “the patriarch at this time has not inspired himself with the rules of justice.” Let us dare to judge the definition of the council. It's strict. It was only possible to remove Hilarion from hierarchical communication and from priestly service, in the expectation that he would come to his senses, and the matter would be considered more thoroughly than if the bishopric had been preserved for him, and he could have hoped for forgiveness. But if the condemnation is severe and not moderate, through this the guilty person does not become innocent. XII. They say that “the condemnation of Hilarion could have been canceled when the secretary of the Turkish minister appeared before the council, because it had not yet been signed.” Would it be consistent with both the correctness of the council’s action and the dignity of the council if the council, having heard from its envoys Hilarion’s threefold refusal to appear at the council, and as a result of this conciliarly condemning Hilarion, revoked its determination because a Turkish official appeared, again without Hilarion, and said, who knows what? It would be a different matter if Hilarion had appeared with the official: perhaps the council would have listened to him; but he, even though he was ensured of his personal freedom, which he cared about, by a Turkish official, did not appear before the council and under its protection. This can be considered the fourth refusal to the council. XIII. The severity of the patriarch is considered to be the reason for the increasing difficulties in the Bulgarian affair. This is true. But the same reason is the unyielding stubbornness of Hilarion and the Bulgarians. As far as is known, the Russian embassy repeatedly made conciliatory suggestions to both sides, and suggested means of reconciliation. Unfortunately, they did not heed the ill-intentioned warnings. XIV. They find it unfair that the Metropolitan of Philippopolis 273 was condemned without being tried and was not called to trial. That's fair. Therefore, he has the right to protest and ask for a new trial. But he lost this right by the fact that, instead of demanding a new trial, he pronounced an anathema on the patriarch and on the Greek hierarchy. He placed himself alone above the patriarch and the council, and condemned them also, without calling them to trial. So, he himself tried to make his wrong condemnation correct. XV. Let us assume that, despite all of the above, they find it possible to argue against the conciliar decision that condemned Hilarion. The Council, which deprived Hilarion of his bishopric, absolutely cannot return it to him. The rules prohibit this. For this, it is necessary for a new, larger council to be formed, so that this one would find the decision of the first council unjust and recognize it as invalid, and thus it would turn out that Hilarion was not deprived of his bishopric. It can be argued that the definition of the council on February 24 is strict, that there is an irregularity in its action; but can it be proven that it is completely unfair? The council on February 24 was composed of everything that is most important in the eastern hierarchy, of six patriarchs, of members of the synod, of geronts, of a total of 27 members. Is it possible to create a council that would be higher and more numerous than this? What power can convene it? Will the patriarchs agree to convene a new council and enter it in order to condemn their own definition together with it? XVI. The Greeks say that an agreement with the Bulgarians is possible, but that for this the clergy must be eliminated, and then “both nations can easily reach an agreement of mutual interests.” Amazing thoughts! Is it really about the interests of two nations, and not about the interests of faith, the church and Christian souls? Can the laity without the clergy make new orders in the highest hierarchy? Can the laity make the defrocked Hilarion a bishop again? XVII. “Patriarch Joachim, they say, will always be an obstacle to the pacification of the Bulgarians.” Let's assume that this is probable. What of this? Should the patriarch be removed? Will they find guilt in him sufficient for this? And to remove it, you will need such a cathedral, which is mentioned above. Or do they think that without further difficulties the power of the Porte will overthrow Patriarch Joachim from the ecumenical see? This would mean healing trouble with trouble. A blow to the patriarch would have an impact on the church. What power will the Orthodox ecumenical see have in church administration if the Mohammedan breath is blown away from the patriarch at will? XVIII. But perhaps His Holiness Joachim himself will leave his place, as he threatened. This would perhaps be beneficial, or perhaps lead to continued difficulties. Whether his successor will be more lenient towards the Bulgarians is impossible to know. If, because of the Bulgarians, the patriarch leaves his see, will they not see this as their victory and will this not reinforce their perseverance? XIX. In these sad circumstances, isn’t there any special responsibility for the Russian Church? Prayer for the reconciliation of the mother - the Greek Church. Official intervention in the affairs of a foreign church region would be wrong when there is no response from there giving a reason for this. Quietly, for example, through Archimandrite Antonin, it may not be useless to suggest to both sides that Hilarion be left to his fate, and that another Bulgarian bishop be found in whom demands and concessions would be reconciled; since until now even concessions have not been reconciled. XX. Isn't some kind of help possible from the Orthodox Russian government? Perhaps the efforts of the Russian embassy to give movement to the thought proposed in the previous article would be useful. The idea of ​​sending a new person trusted by the Sovereign Emperor to Constantinople does not promise to dispel the darkness there. Perhaps there is an inconvenience in the trusted relations of the envoy with the patriarch: between them stands the memory of the patriarch - the geront that the envoy did not support the geronts, and was in favor of their destruction. But can a newcomer suddenly embrace with attention and inquiry the diverse multitude of personalities, activities, sources and the power of open and hidden influences on the faces and thoughts of people in order to determine on what and how, and through what assistance it would be possible to reconcile those who have been irreconcilable until now? Peaceful action requires the most trusted relationships: is it possible to establish them suddenly? Meanwhile, the appearance and action of a new person may give rise to unfavorable complaints about interference. It is difficult to hope that this new effort will have the desired success. And taking action and not having time is worse than not taking action. May the God of peace guide both those deprived of peace and those called to restore peace to better things. About the Greek-Bulgarian case according to dispatch 275 of March 28, 1861 I. In this dispatch it is noted that the patriarch’s concessions to the Bulgarians are unsatisfactory because they are expressed vaguely and mutually, as, for example, they speak of purely Bulgarian dioceses, while it is impossible to find a diocese in which there are no Greeks. The same thing was said in the note on March 13th. So, it is clear that this is fair, and therefore the conclusion of the mentioned note is also fair, that it would be necessary to give these concessions a more definitive and more securing character. II. It is difficult to note in a dispatch that the Bulgarians lack religious conviction; but their actions agree with this remark. They have some devotion to tradition. But extreme ignorance of what true Christianity and Orthodoxy consist of, and on the other hand, hatred of the Greek clergy, brought up by their oppression, caused them to be dominated by one thought, how to free themselves from the Greeks; but in order to do this not in violation of Orthodoxy and church rules, they do not think about this at all. This further impedes a favorable resolution of the Bulgarian issue. III. To weaken this obstacle, there seems to be no other means than the one that has already been mentioned: to find a Bulgarian bishop who would take the place of Hilarion between the Bulgarians and the Patriarch, but not with a hostile, like Hilarion, but with a peaceful disposition. “On the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from April 11, 18 and 25, 1861.” Having received copies of 277 dispatches on the Bulgarian case, dated April 11, 18 and 25 (the latter in relation to May 10, No. 2772), I outlined my thoughts on them in the note attached. I happened to talk the other day with someone who had recently arrived in Moscow, educated, intentional and knowledgeable about Bulgarian affairs. He, like me, thinks that the Bulgarians are strongly attached to Hilarion, but that conciliatory means can still be used, not without hope. By the way, I asked about Archimandrite Sophrony, who is now in Russia. He confirmed what I had learned before, namely, that this archimandrite, although not very educated, was a sensible and honest man, that for some time he filled the position of vicar of the Metropolitan of Thessalonica with prudence and firmness. He defended him and the bishop of Kukush from the injustices of their bishop, and in general, wherever he served, he gained favor with himself. Here is a person who could probably usefully be a bishop for Bulgaria. I. The Bulgarian Philippopolis deputy proposed the idea of ​​arranging this matter through a meeting of the Bulgarian laymen with the Greek laymen, taking as a basis the concessions given by the patriarch. A strange path for church business. But let's assume that an agreement occurs. This is only half the way. How they think to pass the other one is not visible. A hierarchical matter cannot be brought to an end without hierarchy. II. But while the Orthodox Greeks and Bulgarians are slow to think what to do, those who have fallen away from Orthodoxy act quickly. Archimandrite Joseph had already managed to go to Rome and receive episcopal ordination, and returned to Constantinople with the rank of apostolic vicar. He serves the liturgy in the vestments used by the Eastern patriarch, and wears on his hand the ring of a Western bishop. After the liturgy in the church, he sings a hymn in honor of the pope and the sultan, composed in Bulgarian verses. The Constantinople magazine announces this, and with praise to the pope publishes a Latin double-mindedness, namely: Uniate Bulgarians are obliged to confess the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but the pope allows the creed to be read in church without adding and from the Son, in order to deceive the people by the Orthodox reading of the symbol and attract them to the union. III. This is how Orthodox laity think; non-Orthodox act. But what about the Orthodox clergy? Does it work? Can't hear it. What success can the inactive have against the active? IV. It is not known whether the local idea reached Constantinople so that, after the deposition of Hilarion, as soon as possible, another Bulgarian bishop would be immediately installed in his place, who would not be an opponent of the patriarch, but a mediator between him and the Bulgarian people. This has not been done; and now the deposed Hilarion, who had been hiding, boldly appears and officiates during Holy Week and Easter. What confusion! What a temptation! What a humiliation for the patriarch and other clergy who condemned Hilarion! V. And the Turkish government is confused and humiliated. It decided to exile Hilarion, but was slow in doing so; allowed him to hide, and when, contrary to the definition, he appeared in the capital, they did not dare to touch him, yielding to the revealed indignation of the Bulgarians, and was forced to ask for advice from the Russian envoy, who had not previously listened. VI. It is noteworthy that even at this time neither the patriarch addressed the envoy, nor the envoy addressed the patriarch, but only the diplomats of other powers. It is hardly possible to explain this otherwise than by the extreme dislike of the patriarch towards the envoy and alienation from him. But if a significant part of the duties of the Russian envoy in Constantinople is the maintenance of Orthodoxy, and for this purpose the patriarch, then can this duty be fulfilled with success, given such alienation from each other? Experience before your eyes. VII. Here an important point in the matter has opened, in which the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian envoy must have one common goal, and therefore mutual advice, in order to resolve the Bulgarian question in a manner favorable for Orthodoxy; but the envoy does not turn to the side that is naturally favorable to the cause, that is, to the patriarch, but to the side that is naturally unfavorable, that is, to other envoys who tend to favor not the Orthodox Church, which is alien to them, but the union of their own religion, which the Russian envoy had previously seen in them, as well as in the Turkish ministers. So, the cause of Orthodoxy has somehow fallen into the hands of people who are naturally unfavorable to Orthodoxy. Now it is planned to form a mixed commission of Greeks and Bulgarians. This means that, as stated above, half the way to the desired goal is indicated, and no attention is paid to the fact that what follows is an abyss, that is, the completed deposition of Hilarion, whom the Patriarch finally rejected and whom the Bulgarians do not want to leave. A bridge over this abyss cannot be built without the help of the patriarch; but they don’t turn to him, and they don’t know what to expect from him. VIII. The different parties involved in this matter seemed to be deliberately trying to bring it to a hopeless situation. The Church-People's Assembly, which at one time had considerable strength, when the Bulgarians turned to it with their demands, instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to pacify them, pushed them away. The former patriarch, through slowness and indecisiveness, gave the Bulgarian uprising against church authority time to strengthen and spread. Hilarion, with his stubbornness against the patriarch, extending to the point of insolence, blocked the path of his condescension for himself. The current patriarch, with his extreme measure of severity against Hilarion, has dug an abyss on the path of reconciliation. The Turkish ministry called for this extreme measure with a promise to imprison Hilarion (without which the patriarch would not have decided to depose him), and then paralyzed this measure by failure to fulfill its promise. Having asked the Sultan for a command to imprison Hilarion, the Turkish ministry for a long time left this command unfulfilled, to please the Bulgarians, and thus gave them a reason for more daring resistance to the authorities, which reached the point of rebellion. How difficult it is to hope for the best after so many times what was done was not what one could have hoped for! IX. What will the mixed commission of Greeks and Bulgarians do? Judging by how tightly the Bulgarians hold on to Hilarion even after his ecclesiastical deposition, considering this deposition as if nothing, and being present at the church service of a deprived man, as if at the service of a real bishop, one cannot help but expect that they urgently demand his restoration to the rank of bishop. But this, according to church rules, is either impossible, or is possible through means that there is no hope of finding in reality, as shown in the note dated April 7, this year, 1861. X. This encourages us to return to the idea that was already presented in the notes of March 30 and April 7 of this 1861, and which, perhaps, is not too late to put into action, namely, to try to place another bishop in Hilarion’s place, who would not hinder, like Hilarion, but would contribute to the resolution of the Bulgarian issue. Let's explain this in a little more detail. 1) Remove Hilarion from the capital in order to stop his relations with the Bulgarians, and induce them to accept another bishop. 2) For the same purpose, remove Auxentius. 3) Find a worthy bishop from the Bulgarians and put him in Hilarion’s place. 4) At the same time, he must promise the Bulgarians that he will, together with them, try to achieve satisfaction of their fair demands in a legal way. 5) And he must promise the patriarch that he will not allow himself to illegally resist church authority, as Hilarion did before. 6) As well-meaning Bulgarians and Greeks are already showing a disposition to seek reconciliation on the basis of the concessions made by the patriarch, as long as they are firm and undoubted: then appoint exactly three or four dioceses, the most Bulgarian, apply the patriarchal concessions to them completely, and in fact open this application now. 7) At the same time, in the concessions of the patriarch, to destroy restrictions that destroy the whole matter, such as, for example, so that the Bulgarian candidate for episcopacy must certainly be known to the great church. Under the pretext of lack of this fame, any election can be rejected. The dignity of a candidate for episcopacy can be verified by the testimonies of the electors and the authorities under whose jurisdiction he served before his election, and by testing before the face of His Holiness the Patriarch. 8) The proposed mixed commission can thus draw up a definitive position on what the hierarchy of the Bulgarian churches should be. 9) The Bulgarian bishop and the elders of the Bulgarians will present a respectful request to the Ecumenical Patriarch about this. 10) It must be hoped that the Holy Patriarch, who remained adamant when the falling away from Orthodoxy only threatened, now, when it has already opened and found support, will deign to show the Bulgarians leniency that will protect their Orthodoxy. 11) But who can make peaceful representations to the patriarch when he and the envoy are apparently separated by a wall? This issue requires attention if you want the business to succeed. 12) If there is no ready Bulgarian bishop capable of this work: they can find a worthy candidate and now ordain him. Whoever sees the best, let him discover it, and let the matter be directed towards the peace of the Orthodox Church. Addition to the note on the Bulgarian case dated May 14, 1861. Information about the Bulgarians obtained in different ways, recently supplemented on a special occasion from a reliable source, brings to attention the following: It is known that the inhabitants of the village of Kukusha fell away from Orthodoxy because they could not stand the actions of their bishop, a Greek. Therefore, they were given Bishop Parthenius, from the Bulgarians, who was educated in Russia at the Kyiv Academy 279. Having taken over the administration of the Polyaninsky diocese, to which Kukush belongs, he returned those who had fallen into the union to Orthodoxy, which he continues to affirm and defend verbally and in writing. He enjoys the respect and adherence of his flock, and the good opinion of him is considerably widespread. Here is a man who is capable of being put in the place of Hilarion, with a peaceful purpose, which is mentioned in the note of May 14, in Article X. He is a Bulgarian, governs his Bulgarian flock beneficently, and has shown himself through experience to be its guardian from unorthodoxy; all this gives hope that the Bulgarians, with good inspiration and admonition, can accept him in Hilarion’s place. He should have expected favor from the ecumenical patriarch, as a proven defender of Orthodoxy, and therefore necessary when Orthodoxy is threatened. But, by the way, there is a fear that should be recognized as completely incredible, but in which, unfortunately, there is some probability - will the Patriarch agree to put a person of Russian education at the head of the Bulgarians, and especially when the Patriarch has become noticeably aloof from the Russian envoy? May someone be found and find someone who would convince His Holiness not to dwell on insignificant doubts and suspicions when it comes to protecting the church from obvious disaster. Some Bulgarians think that the advice of the Holy Synod of Russia to the Ecumenical Patriarch would be useful. Doubtful. And official intercourse is especially inconvenient, as has already been said about this. Perhaps it would not be useful for the leading member of the Holy Synod, in the form of a private, trusted letter, to express to Archimandrite Antonin with what condolences the Russian Church views the difficulties of the Eastern Church, and what thoughts it has about means of pacification; and the archimandrite, also in the form of private frankness, would bring this to the attention of the patriarch. If the advice gains attention, the goal has been achieved. And even if the idea that has reached the patriarch is not accepted, this will not be an insult to the Holy Synod, and will not lead to cooling between the two hierarchies. July 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, with an opinion about the Bulgarian-Uniate Archbishop Joseph, who expressed a desire to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church Prince A. M. Gorchakov, while in Moscow, dated June 8, 1861, wrote to the Metropolitan that “The Sovereign Emperor personally informed Your Eminence about the desire to find refuge in Russia, expressed by the imaginary Archbishop Joseph 281, a Bulgarian who accepted the Latin faith, solemnly dedicated by the Pope in Rome and sent by him vicar in Bulgaria. Now Prince Lobanov notified me by telegraph that Joseph had already gone to Odessa and expressed his intention to return to the fold of the Orthodox Church. Considering the event to be very important, since it deprives the Uniate party in Constantinople of its leader, I considered it my duty to immediately inform Your Eminence of such comforting news. I don't know the details yet; Upon receipt of Prince Lobanov’s detailed report, I will certainly provide you with a copy of it.” At the end of Prince A. M. Gorchakov’s note he added in his own hand: “Now the Emperor has returned to me the text of Prince Lobanov’s telegram. I enclose a copy for our Eminence; but since it is written in numbers, I humbly ask you to destroy it after reading it.” Along with the note, in French, a copy was preserved from the dispatch of Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, from Constantinople dated June 7/19, 1861. In it, Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky reported that Archbishop Joseph went to Odessa on the eve of that day, with the intention of renouncing Catholicism, and therefore asked Prince Gorchakov “with his recommendation to assist in the warm reception of Joseph by the spiritual authorities in Odessa, and in providing him with the means of subsistence.” On the dispatch in his own hand, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: That Biskup Joseph is heading to Russia to return to Orthodoxy is a good sign. It shows that for Orthodoxy, which is suffering in the East, the first and last refuge is Russia. It is a pity that others do not understand this soon enough or too late. To judge the acceptance of Joseph into the communion of the Orthodox Church, you need to know whether he added any conditions to his intention, as well as how the ecumenical patriarch dealt with the priests returning to him from Latinity? The unity of the Church requires that the Holy Synod act in unity with the Holy Patriarch; but this is not always convenient, examples of which are visible. About the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph I. Joseph, who fell away from Orthodoxy into the Western Union, was ordained in Rome by the Pope himself as Archbishop of the newly established Bulgarian-Unite Church, who later appeared in Constantinople, solemnly celebrated the liturgy to show his title in action, and the new church in full organization, after which he sees the new building near him crumbling, leaves the Union himself, gives up the apostolic beam 282 and the Sultan's berat, testifying to his rank, into the hands of the Russian envoy and comes to Russia. The event is significant. The proselytism of Bore 283 and others and the infallibility of the pope are put into a shameful position by this event. The Pope ordained not just the bishop of the diocese, but the archbishop of the churches of the expected Bulgarian-Unite dioceses, according to the desire and opinion of the Uniate Bulgarians, even the patriarch (which they proclaimed in the Berat translation). It turned out that he was blessed by a ghost. Someone in a Constantinople journal, looking at the event from a Latin point of view, says that Joseph, “patriarch of the Bulgar Uniates,” “was a bad presbyter and a dishonest man.” If this is true, then did those who took a bad presbyter and a dishonest man act in good faith and made him the patriarch of the Bulgarian-Unite Church in order to present the soulless face of the hierarchy to the people in order to seduce and attract them? And weren’t they, thinking of charming others, preparing disappointment for themselves? But if Joseph was chosen as a pious man, as the Bulgarians knew him before his apostasy, is it fair to denigrate him now? Eastern Herald, apparently more conscientious. He says: “Joseph is a kind, simple man who is easy to deceive.” This leads to the conclusion that Joseph was deceived and made a Uniate archbishop; Then they explained to him that he had been deceived, and he left the union. One can hope that the enterprise, which was magnificent, but ended in a funny way, will besiege the zeal of Western propagandists and increase the caution of those who were faced with danger, seduction and infatuation; and thus turn in favor of Orthodoxy. II. The arrival of Archbishop Joseph in Russia brings with it a question; what to do with it? The generosity of the most pious Sovereign Emperor has already laid the foundation for the resolution of this issue by accepting Joseph to the Russian shore after his moral shipwreck. The highest patronage will no doubt continue. III. But the proposed question becomes more difficult when it is transferred to the Russian Church. The messenger's dispatch, No. 114 284, shows that the disorder of the Bulgarian union began with the discouragement of the laity and spread to the clergy, that the priest Theodore was the first to openly renounce the union before the ecumenical patriarch, that the priest Dimitri followed his example, that Archimandrite Macarius and others secretly worked to destroy the Uniate party; and that, finally, Joseph, tormented by remorse, and tired of dependence on the Latins, would like to honorably retire to his former monastery, but neither the monks nor the people would accept him for apostasy; He was afraid to appear before the Ecumenical Patriarch, and at the same time he was afraid that the Latin missionaries would collect the money spent on him; Out of all these difficulties, he found one solution for himself - removal to Odessa. He did not say a word about returning to Orthodoxy, either to the Ecumenical Patriarch or to the Holy Synod. Neither church rules nor simple prudence will allow any hierarchy to accept into church communion a person who has fallen away from the church, then left the non-Orthodox side due to the complexity of circumstances and has not expressed before the Orthodox Church either repentance or desire to join it. It is advisable to think about the face better than to speak deeds; but the deeds of Archbishop Joseph say that if he easily retreated from Orthodoxy, easily abandoned Latinism again, and is in no hurry to resort to the Orthodox Church, then what guarantee can we have that he will not again embark on Latinism if, by misfortune, the Bulgarian-Unite party arises and strengthens? Based on his current position, he can tell the Uniates that, due to difficult circumstances, he fled from Constantinople only to Russia, and not to the Russian Church. So, the Holy Synod, no matter how much it is disposed to receive Archbishop Joseph condescendingly and peacefully, cannot, however, do anything until the archbishop turns to him with a detailed and sincere written statement of his circumstances and his disposition, so that it can be seen without a doubt whether he condemns his falling away from the Orthodox Church, whether he brings his repentance, and whether with all his heart he desires reunification with the Orthodox Church. church. IV. The question then follows: under what conditions can Archbishop Joseph be accepted into the communion of the Orthodox Church? The dispatch notes that the ecumenical patriarch would have found it difficult to give Joseph any appointment in the church, even if he had forgiven him. It's not very clear. What is the difficulty of leaving an archbishop without a diocese, of which there are many examples? So, was it not this that made it difficult for the patriarch to recognize Joseph as an archbishop, or archimandrite, as he was in the Orthodox Church? Indeed, there is a strangeness in the fact that Joseph, who, being faithful to Orthodoxy, in all likelihood died as an archimandrite, but who through betrayal of Orthodoxy became an archbishop, should be accepted back into Orthodoxy and left with him the archbishopric, as if as a reward for treason. According to the power of Rule 8 of the 1st Ecumenical Council, according to the examples of ordinations given and accepted in the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council: Meletius, Archbishop of Antioch 285, Cyril of Jerusalem 286, Anatoly, Patriarch of Alexandria, etc., Joseph can be accepted as an archbishop. But will the Ecumenical Patriarch and his great Church agree with this condescending judgment? Will he not say that he alone has the right to judge and resolve Joseph, who belonged to his department and fell away, or, at least, that this should not be done without his consent? This requires the prudent consideration of the Holy Synod to preserve peace and harmony of the churches. V. Archbishop Joseph announced, among other things, in Odessa to the Governor General 287 that the priest Theodore, who returned from the union to Orthodoxy, was anointed by the patriarch with myrrh. Should Archbishop Joseph be treated according to this example? This is based on the rule of Basil the Great and the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. But the rules given in the previous article allow you to do without this. It is up to the Holy Synod to judge about this. 288 VI. Here is another consideration, not an ecclesiastical one, but which perhaps requires some attention. Dispatch No. 114 says that Joseph feared persecution from the missionaries for the money he received from them, and was unable to return it. The Constantinople Journal says that he received many magnificent gifts, crosses, miters, pastoral staffs, relics, money; and disappeared like a thief. Could it happen that honors will be hastily shown to him here, and then, due to prosecution, his extradition will be demanded? VII. It seems that it would not be superfluous to take precautions to stop him in Kyiv until his circumstances are better understood. How will the Holy Synod accept it in St. Petersburg, when it is not quite possible to foresee what the final decision about it should be? 289 August 19. Note by Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before July 25, 1861 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information before July 25, 1861 290 I. The Greek-Bulgarian affair has been ongoing for another year, and it is being conducted as if both sides are trying to confuse it rather than resolve it. Wouldn't seeing the obstacles encountered show where one could evade them in order to find a solution? II. The Bulgarians, in order to beg an independent hierarchy for themselves from the patriarch, began the matter by shouting against him in the church during worship. Rebellion and curses, of course, are not means for acquiring goodwill towards a request, but obstacles to it. III. It was not the Ecumenical Patriarch 291 (the predecessor of the current one) who should have seen in this explosion of previously inconspicuous popular indignation a danger for the peace of the church, and immediately taken care of means of pacification, which was then more convenient than later, when Bishop Hilarion was still wavering and the uprising had no church support. On the contrary, the patriarch hesitated, and thus gave time for the uprising to spread, strengthen and take shape. IV. The current patriarch 292, upon assuming the ecumenical see, found the matter in an uncertain situation; but he could notice that the uprising was not weakening, but intensifying. The very news of his situation gave him the opportunity to show leniency to the Bulgarians, and reconciliation was not as difficult as it would later be; but he preferred inflexibility. V. On the other hand, Bishop Hilarion, although already attached to the disobedient Bulgarians, but for a long time left by the patriarch without condemnation, could therefore, not without hope, turn to the condescension of the patriarch with humility and moderate demands; but he also preferred stubbornness and resolutely refused to appear before the patriarch, fearing, as he said, exile: but this was hardly an excuse, since it later turned out that the patriarch could not exile even the defrocked Hilarion by his own authority, but had to turn to the Porte for this, and not with good success. VI. Seeing no way, the Bulgarians rushed to various crossroads. They wanted foreign diplomacy to make them an independent patriarch, so that the Mohammedan government would make them an Orthodox patriarch. Some deviated from the Western Union. The only consequence of this was that the stubbornness of the will, without the participation of prudence, and ignorance of the principles of Orthodox Christianity, which, however, they did not want to become traitors, were exposed. VII. Meanwhile, Bishop Hilarion himself put an obstacle on the path of reconciliation by publishing a letter of reproach against the Greek hierarchy. VIII. The Patriarch added severity to slowness and inflexibility: he conciliarly and irrevocably defrocked the Bulgarian Bishop Hilarion, and thereby, for his part, dug an abyss on the path of reconciliation. IX. This measure did not bring any benefit, by the way, because the deposed Hilarion remained in Constantinople for some time and acted as a bishop, in which, to the general temptation, the powerlessness of the church authorities turned out to be. X. Finally, the patriarch decided to announce concessions to the Bulgarians, but unsuccessfully, firstly, because concessions, which in the first period of the case would have been an expression of the patriarch’s goodwill, and therefore would have been capable of arousing the mutual favor of the Bulgarians, are now an expression of the weakness of the previously inflexible patriarch; secondly, because they were expressed mutually, so that promises could easily be turned into refusals; and therefore it is not surprising that the Bulgarians did not trust these concessions. XI. After the deposition of Hilarion, one should try to install a Bulgarian bishop in his place with a conciliatory direction, which could be facilitated by the fact that both the Greeks and the Bulgarians, the laity, felt the harm of the discord that was weakening them. It is not clear whether the patriarch had any concern about this. XII. The Western Bulgarian Union was upset. But Western propaganda does not lose heart and continues to operate. And a handful of Bulgarian-Uniate laymen do not despair: they are thinking of making an archbishop out of a journalist. But does the patriarch take advantage of the circumstances? - Not visible. XIII. The Patriarch seems to be acting in pursuance of his concessions to the Bulgarians. Recently, as they write from Constantinople, he promoted Archimandrite Anfim 293 (a former student of the Moscow Theological Academy) to Metropolitan of Preslav (in Shumla) and Dionysius, a Greek who speaks Serbian well, to Metropolitan of Zvornitsa (in Bosnia). In addition to these, there are already bishops from the Bulgarians: Filippopolis, Sofia, Kestendi, Vrakansky, Polyaninsky. But the Sofian Dorotheus and the physician Paisius 294 were poorly received by the people in their dioceses; They wrote to the Preslavsky from the diocese telling him not to come, because he would not be accepted: that is why both the Kestendil and Philippopolis did not dare to go to their dioceses. If these bishops had been installed on the basis of a preliminary conciliatory provision on the Bulgarian hierarchy, then, probably, at least some of them would have been accepted by the Bulgarians with pleasure; but when they come from the autocracy of the patriarch, who is hated by the Bulgarians, they became unpleasant to the Bulgarians at the very beginning of their ministry, and it is difficult to make them pleasant later. XIV. On July 12, the Bulgarian deputies presented new points of the agreement to Aali Pasha. At the beginning of their note they talk about “the tyranny of the patriarch and oppression that cannot be described.” They pave the way for reconciliation well. XV. The Patriarch does not agree to accept the points proposed by the Bulgarians. And it is difficult to decide to complain about him for this. The first point says that Bulgarians have the right to participate in the election of the patriarch. The fifth point says that the name of the first Metropolitan of Bulgaria does not depend on the power of the patriarchs. So, the Bulgarians want that they have the right to participate in the election of the first person of the universal church, and that the first person of the universal church and the great church do not have the right to participate in the election of the first person of the private Bulgarian church. Is there respect for the patriarch and the great church here? Is there at least mutual uniformity? XVI. The third point is decreed by a mixed council of six Bulgarian metropolitans and six elders, on the affairs of the nation, except for church affairs. The fourth point grants the first Bulgarian Metropolitan and his secular assistant the right to directly address the Turkish government. From this it is clear that the Bulgarians want to separate from the Greeks not only in church terms, but also in civil terms. Now the Greeks and Bulgarians, under the command of the Ecumenical Patriarch, form one force, so significant that it itself serves them as some kind of protection against the arbitrariness of the Turkish government. But when, as the Bulgarians assume, one force is divided into two, obviously, each of them will be weaker, and, in all likelihood, they will weaken each other even more by continuing disagreements. So, aren’t the Bulgarians working in order to become weaker and more comfortable to be suppressed by the power of the Porte and other hostile forces? XVII. According to the fifth point, the deposition of the first Bulgarian metropolitan, if he is guilty, should occur no other way than by the Turkish government, on the proposal of the mixed Bulgarian council. Therefore, if the first Metropolitan of Bulgaria turns out to be guilty of heresy, he will be tried and condemned not by the council of the Orthodox Church, but by the mixed Bulgarian council and the Mohammedan government! XVIII. According to the seventh point, when it is necessary to appoint a metropolitan to a diocese inhabited by Greeks and Bulgarians, the candidate must be appointed from the nation that constitutes the majority of the inhabitants. About 15,000 Greeks and about 50,000 Bulgarians live in Constantinople. So, according to the seventh point, the bishop of Constantinople must always be from the Bulgarians, and not from the Greeks! XIX. From these comments one cannot help but conclude that the Bulgarian clauses of July 12 were drawn up without sufficient consideration of the essence of the matter, the circumstances and church rules. XX. There is news (Moskov. Vedom. No. 180) that the Turkish government has assigned maintenance to Hilarion and Auxentius. By this it expresses disrespect for the ecumenical patriarch and the council, and for their judgment over Hilarion and Auxentius, and weakens the power of the patriarch, and pleases the Bulgarians; but this is not of much benefit to the Bulgarians either, because Hilarion and Auxentius are no longer bishops before church law. XXI. What finally? Is there a way to resolve the issue? On the contrary, what is still visible is that, thinking to open the way, they close it and block it. XXII. Is it really impossible to find a solution at all? - No, it is possible, if a not too inflexible will gives more room to the spirit of peace and impartial reasoning. This has already been said before; but let it also have an effect. In the hierarchy of the ecumenical patriarch there is the Metropolitan of Ternovo and the Exarch of all Bulgaria and under him the bishops. Previously there was a deed marked by a title, but in time all that remains of the deed is the title. Why not turn the title into action again? Let the Metropolitan of Ternovo be a valid, plenipotentiary, exarch and head of the Bulgarian dioceses. He should be elected with the consent of the Bulgarians; to determine exactly which dioceses will be signed to him; to appoint bishops in this diocese, with the consent of the Bulgarians. What is said in the patriarchal concessions is vague and mutual, to be determined precisely and immediately fulfilled in these dioceses. Give freedom to the Bulgarian exarch and the Bulgarians to choose bishops, in accordance with the sixth point of the Bulgarian project of July 12. After consultation with the Bulgarians, make the necessary additional rules to this, which do not contradict the dignity of the patriarch and the unity of the church, as well as the freedom of the Bulgarian churches, and protect against simony and other abuses, and approve them unshakably through the mediation and assistance of the Turkish government. Why did some prudent and well-intentioned voices, which were sometimes heard in the church-people's assembly, fall silent? They could point out the danger to both dissenting parties and give protective advice. August 22. On the remarks of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the points of the Bulgarians, July 12, 1861. Representatives of the Bulgarians on July 12 submitted a petition to Aali Pasha with the following content: “Your Lordship is not unaware that the Bulgarian nation, which constitutes the most faithful part of the population, living in safety and tranquility under the imperial scepter, and which considers it an honor to serve the state, as shepherds and slaves, has suffered from ancient years from the Greek people and mainly from its patriarch cruelty and oppression that cannot be expressed. neither verbally nor in writing, but which are as obvious as the light of the sun. Unable to bear further their countless abuses and submit to their hostile actions, contrary even to religion, both in relation to secular and spiritual issues, our nation wanted to completely separate from the spiritual government of the Greek patriarch; but, despite the cries of despair, despite her requests and entreaties, despite the bloody tears shed and are still shedding for liberation from the mighty claws and devilish machinations of the Greeks, our nation nevertheless wanted to comply with the desire expressed by you to leave the question of separation at the present time and to set out in writing to you our rights and our privileges, as well as the means to save the nation from this excessive spiritual and temporal tyranny and to improve it fate. As a result, the guardians of the people who are in Constantinople, with a request for a favorable reception, dare to present to your lordship the following points, which seem to them consistent with the sense of justice of the imperial government and capable of satisfying the needs of the people. 1) Bulgarian subjects of the High Porte, who are religiously dependent on the Greek Patriarch, have the right to take part in the election of the Patriarch in accordance with their numerical majority. 2) The Synod, which until now consisted of Greek metropolitans, without the participation of Bulgarians, will henceforth be formed from an equal number of Greek and Bulgarian members. This synod, chaired by the patriarch, will deal with issues of our religion and our religious practices. 3) In addition to the Bulgarian metropolitans who will be present in the synod, an equal number of persons will be elected from the primates of our nation, who, together with them, will form a mixed council to consider and resolve issues and affairs of the Bulgarian nation, independent of religious issues. 4) The most capable of the Bulgarian metropolitans sitting in the said mixed council, with the assistance of one of the primates of our nation, especially for that chosen one, will receive the right to address directly the government on all important matters of our nation. These two persons will have a permanent residence in Constantinople, in the Bulgarian church, and the government will grant them, according to existing examples, a special seal of the Bulgarian nation. 5) The removal from office or the imposition of this first metropolitan and his assistant does not depend on the power of the patriarch, and can follow, if they are guilty, only from the government and upon the report of our council mentioned above. 6) When it becomes necessary to appoint a metropolitan to a diocese, the residents of this diocese will elect two persons and send them to Constantinople; our council sitting there will elect one of these candidates and notify the Greek metropolitan about this for approval of the chosen one, according to the rules of religion. 7) If it becomes necessary to appoint a metropolitan to a diocese inhabited by Greeks and Bulgarians, the candidate must be elected from the nation whose inhabitants will constitute the majority in that locality. This candidate must have a perfect knowledge of the Greek and Bulgarian languages ​​and, depending on the language of the inhabitants of the villages or neighborhoods, the Greek or Bulgarian language will be used in churches and schools, and no one will have the right to oppose such an order. 8) If the requests contained in the preceding paragraphs receive a favorable reception, then it is equally necessary that the metropolitans and priests, to whom our spiritual affairs are entrusted, can no longer, as before, arbitrarily tax the poor people. For this purpose, each of them will be assigned a permanent maintenance corresponding to their importance and approved by the government. 9) We finally ask that our wishes contained in these points be expressed in the form of mandatory requirements and approved by the state. We place our trust in the mercy of the Imperial Government. 296 On the stated points of the Bulgarians’ demands, the Ecumenical Patriarch made the following comments: “For one who rejects authority, proof is impossible. Having learned of the demands laid out in seven points, recently presented to the High Porte by several Bulgarians, we notice in the first point that they recognize as the basis their submission to the throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople and their dependence on this throne. Meanwhile, the other six points are diametrically opposed and reject the authority recognized at the beginning. This remark alone could save us from any answer; nevertheless, in order to state our opinion fully, we answer as follows: According to a custom that has been established since the most distant times, at each election of a patriarch there are present the most significant primates of all Orthodox tribes living within the empire, as well as the most important members of various corporations. In this number there were always many Bulgarians who never missed the opportunity to appear in the general meeting to elect a patriarch. The Synod, staying with the patriarch in Constantinople, accepts into its members, without ever making distinctions of nationality, the archbishops of the ecumenical throne living in different parts of the empire. Therefore, at all times, the archbishops of all dioceses of the empire were present in the synod, without distinction of their origin, and many archbishops of Bulgarian origin were not only members of the synod, but were even elected to the ecumenical patriarchate. Nevertheless, taking into account the complaints and demands expressed recently by some Bulgarians, the Patriarchate, in agreement with the imperial government, wishing to eliminate any cause for discontent, determined that two Bulgarian archbishops would always sit in the synod, hereditarily. This definition is set out in the 7th paragraph of the patriarchal concessions. By right, which has existed at all times and as a result of the ancient privileges bestowed by so many famous sultans on the ecumenical throne, the ecumenical patriarch is recognized, at the same time, as the national head of all Orthodox inhabitants of the empire; for this reason, as a representative of all Orthodox communities of various dioceses, he alone has the right to convene mixed commissions of ecclesiastical and secular persons to discuss with them general and temporary issues of the nation, and, if necessary, ask for government assistance. As for the mixed council of the Bulgarians in Constantinople, proposed by them in points III, IV and V, it would be a new independent power, arrogating to itself rights that in no way belong to it, and destroying the privileges recognized at all times for the Ecumenical Patriarchate - to guard all Orthodox subjects of the empire. With the establishment of a mixed Bulgarian council in Constantinople, the Bulgarians will consider themselves completely alien to the patriarchy, and all agreements and relations with them will be interrupted. Their independence from patriarchy would be confirmed by deed itself, and administrative unity would remain only nominal. This point is in conflict with the third point, which determines that the mixed council, composed of the Bulgarian archbishops present in the patriarchal synod, and an equal number of secular persons attached to them, will deal only with secular issues, without interfering in religious affairs. Indeed, at this point, bypassing their secular calling, they seize the most essential religious issue, namely, the election and appointment of bishops, a matter that, according to church rules, belongs exclusively to the patriarch and the synod meeting with him. This clause, moreover, contains an unprecedented innovation, because it gives the mixed council patriarchal rights, making the patriarch dependent on this council and reducing him to the role of a passive instrument, obliged to carry out the orders of the council. One of the consequences of this point would be to excite greater hostility and mutual antipathy between the Orthodox Greeks and Bulgarians living in the same diocese; it would be impossible and unfair to deprive the Geronts or Bulgarians of the right to participate in the election of a bishop appointed to a common bishop for both nations; hence, disputes and strife would inevitably arise between them. If, on the other hand, we grant the election to both nations together, we will get a result no less sad: we will see that each of these nations will try to strengthen the election of a candidate chosen from among itself. In both cases, if we allow the bishop to be elected in the locality itself, then in mixed dioceses two hostile parties will inevitably form, and each of them, trying to defeat the other, will resort to all possible means and will finally resort to physical force; History shows us how many murders such a rivalry can entail. Passions and mutual enmity will dominate among Christians, whom the head of our religion, Jesus Christ, united into a single belief, despite the diversity and differences of tribes. The government itself would be subject to constant unrest and anxiety. This would be the result of this last point. Anticipating this and desiring their peace of mind, the church, in its infinite condescension, determined by the first and second points of its concessions that the right to elect bishops will belong only to Christians of purely Bulgarian dioceses.” 297 I. To the first point, His Holiness the Patriarch says that the Bulgarians, like other Orthodox nations, have always participated in the election of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Consequently, the Bulgarians are asking for what they already have. But why would the Bulgarians ask for a right that they already have? Probably, this should be explained by the fact that the Bulgarians, despite the large number of their nation, are allowed to participate in the selection in the smallest number of people; why their participation turns out to be insignificant. In this case, it is unsatisfactory that the patriarch only tries to give the Bulgarians’ demand an appearance of stupidity. It would not be superfluous to enter into an agreement and provide them with a significant share of participation in the election of the patriarch. II. To the second point, in which the Bulgarians demanded that six Bulgarian metropolitans sit in the synod, the patriarch also unsatisfactorily answers that members from all dioceses sit in the synod. It is known that 8 metropolitans - geronts - constantly sit in the synod. Consequently, for the other 74 metropolitans and 2 archbishops, there remain four seats in the synod. How much of this will the Bulgarian bishops get? The Patriarch, in his concessions, appointed two seats in the synod for Bulgarian bishops. It is evident that not a single one of them was in the synod. And in this case it would not be superfluous to enter into a lenient agreement; and, perhaps, the four members of the synod from the Bulgarians would have made peace. III. Against the third, fourth and fifth points, about the mixed Bulgarian council, and about its attitude towards the government beyond the patriarch, the patriarch’s objection, in my opinion, is worthy of attention. I spoke about this in a note on the 18th day of this August, number XVI. 298 IV. Against the sixth point, the patriarch rightly notes that it contradicts the third. The third point establishes a mixed council for worldly affairs not related to faith, and the sixth point entrusts the mixed council with matters related to faith - the election and final approval of the metropolitan, bypassing the patriarch. But is it strictly fair that the patriarch admits that the election of a metropolitan by a mixed council is unheard of? Didn’t he say above in this very note that the noblest elders of different Orthodox tribes participate in the election of the patriarch? Isn't this also a temporary mixed council? Is it not without the patriarch that the election of the Cypriot metropolitan takes place? So, it would be possible not to affirm the demands of the Bulgarians, but not to completely reject it, but to enter into a consultation and agreement on how to arrange the election of the first Bulgarian Metropolitan, so that the reliability of the election would be ensured for the Bulgarians. V. Against the seventh point, about appropriating in mixed dioceses the election of a bishop to the largest nation, or to the Greeks and Bulgarians together, the Patriarch objects that this will lead to strife, and even to fights and murders. But didn’t the patriarch say above that different Orthodox nations participate in the election of the patriarch, without fear of fights and murders? Why is what is not dangerous in Constantinople dangerous in other dioceses? VI. And I proposed objections to the points of July 12, in the note of the 19th day, under the numbers XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX. 299 And, in my opinion, to insist on the patriarch accepting all these points without change would be unfair and harmful. But I did not think, and now I do not think, that it would be good to reject all the points outright, as the patriarch does, but it would be necessary to take advantage of the opening communication, and, with a will that is not too inflexible and impartial reasoning and condescension, enter into a meeting to achieve a peaceful solution to the matter. I spoke about this in a note on the 19th day, number XXII. VII. The following words are attributed to His Holiness the Patriarch: “if all the Bulgarians wanted to convert to Catholicism, then I would rather agree to allow the latter than to change anything in the centuries-old traditions of the church.” But His Holiness, I think, will not deny that there are traditions of the church that are unchangeable, and there are those that are subject to change. Let us point to an example close to us. First there was an All-Russian Metropolitan, then a Patriarch, then a Synod. The Eastern Church approved of all this, not finding in this a reprehensible change in centuries-old traditions. Among the centuries-old legends was that the Russian Metropolitan was partly dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, but acted with authority in the Russian dioceses. Why not do something similar to this age-old legend for the Bulgarians? What does His Holiness the Patriarch decide to do? So that he could not, having presented himself to the Lord, say: “Behold, I and the children are Bulgarians”; but so that he could only say: “all the centuries-old traditions are in words, or on paper, and the children - the Bulgarians - retired to the West, and I decided to lose them for the church in order to preserve the centuries-old traditions in words”? Lord, preserve the opportunity for the Orthodox Patriarch to say before You: “Behold, I and my children are Orthodox Bulgarians.” August 22, 1861, year 300 September 4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a review of the letters of Archimandrite Antonin Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. Your Excellency knows my activities, and, by the way, that part of them that passes from you to me, and from me to you; and therefore you will not doubt that my strength and time are barely enough for the necessary and urgent; and therefore the less necessary is slowed down. Therefore, you will not judge me strictly for the fact that the letter of Archimandrite Antonin, which was communicated to me, and with him his letter addressed to the Holy Synod, dated May 12, were read by me only these days. Father Archimandrite instructs me to decide: should I present his letter to the Holy Synod? I do not consider myself called upon to resolve this issue. But as he, in his letter addressed to the Holy Synod, justifies his report against the comments made on it in a note on April 2 of this year, 1861, 301, I recognize it as a duty of love of truth not to hinder, but to facilitate the fact that his letter is brought to the attention of the Holy Synod; Therefore, I am forwarding it herewith. To examine this letter in detail, in part, is not necessary for me, because my thoughts are known to the Holy Synod from the above-mentioned note, in part it is quite difficult, and of little use due to the obscurity and originality of the archimandrite’s views on subjects. Just so that what has been said now does not remain unproven, I will say something. I. O. Archimandrite sometimes uses unclear, indefinite expressions, partly opening, partly closing thoughts. For example: “As long as we hold on, we keep as much in the general composition of the Lord’s churches.” “But how could one not want to recognize this state of affairs as fatal.” What is fatal? What kind of blind fate (fatum) is there in the church? “What we deny is the initiative that belongs to us, in our independent position.” “Canonically fair, but is it quite historically fair.” What is canonically fair or legal: how can history make that unjust and illegal? “A bitter and obligatory lesson for us.” “There is no other way out of the rules except through the Roman Church.” What does it mean to follow the rules? Why does this road go through a Roman church? Where will she go, having passed through the Roman church? It seems that if you go beyond the rules, you will fall into lawlessness. Does the exodus lead there through the Roman Church? Especially both logic and speech are unclear in the discussion about the rule of the Sardican Council. II. Justifying himself against the remark that the expression payment of the ordained patriarch is derogatory, Fr. The archimandrite does not deny that this is indeed a censure, but finds the censure innocent because it is not too cruel, and that the Greek word φιλότιμον, which he translated the word payment, is much more condemnatory. Here are his words: “The word payment, in Greek φιλότιμον (that which is inspired by a sense of honor, comes from curiosity), used by me to mean the patriarchal exaction from the newly appointed axiepies. The expression payment is recognized as derogatory. It would be even more degrading if it accurately conveyed the meaning of the Greek, expressing an “immoral calculation”, ordaining the ambition of the one being ordained, it would be difficult to find an approving word.” Does Fr. remember? Archimandrite St. Chrysostom's saying in the word for Easter: God is curious, Lord, φιλότιμος γὰρ ὁ Δεσπότης? Hearing this in church, he, of course, did not think that the Saint was blaming the Lord here; of course I tried to understand the saying of the famous teacher on the famous day; Of course, either by the very course of speech, or by reference to the Greek text, and, if you like, with the lexicon, I realized that here the word: φιλότιμος, curious, does not mean ambitious, but means generous, loving to show honor to those who come to him with generous gifts. From this he should have concluded that the word φιλότιμον among the Greeks is not at all abusive, but honorable: it means the gift of a generous, or zealous, honorable gift. Probably known about. Archimandrite and the fact that Greek bishops in dioceses, at certain times, received φιλότιμον from the laity of their diocese, which the laity give, of course, not out of ambition, but according to custom that has turned into law. So, his justification has no force, because it is based on a false interpretation of the word φιλότιμον. III. 0. The archimandrite introduces himself as a judge, says that a “punitive sentence” was pronounced over some parts of his reports. It’s noticeable that there is a complaint in this. Therefore, let it be allowed to note that there is an exaggeration in this complaint. Nobody sentenced him to any punishment. Comments on some articles of his report are not the same as a court and a verdict, just as he, of course, will not call his objections to the comments of the note on April 2 a trial and a verdict. If he certainly wants to find a verdict in this note, then he will find not a condemnatory, but an acquittal, in the following words of the note on April 2: “I don’t think at all that Archimandrite Antonin was inclined towards non-Orthodoxy.” With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, dear sir, No. 91, September 4. 1861 Addition. Archimandrite Antonin, in what he himself pointed out, could have found an easy solution to the question of the Sardician rule. The Roman ambassadors denounced the Carthaginian church for falsely calling the Sardician rule the rule of the Nicene ecumenical council. If they were sure that the Sardician rule has universal dignity, and is obligatory for all churches, they would not need to pass off the Sardician rule as the Nicene rule, thereby oppressing their conscience, and exposing themselves to the danger of being exposed as a lie. So, obviously, they realized that the Sardician rule does not have universal dignity and is not obligatory for all churches, and therefore they covered up this shortcoming with the name Nicene. 302 September 5-December 27. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian case, according to information from August 15, 1861 303, and opinions on the case of the Bulgarian-Unite Archbishop Joseph I. The Greek-Bulgarian affair continues to present strange appearances. Here is the opinion of the vizier, more useful for the Greeks and Bulgarians than the opinion of the patriarch and the Bulgarians. While the exaggerated demands of the Bulgarians, and the equally exaggerated refusal of the patriarch, put the matter at a standstill, the vizier wants to give him, although not a very reliable, but not hopeless position, proposing a mixed commission of Greeks and Bulgarians 304 . With the hope of benefit on the part of the Greeks, Caratheodoros, who acted well-intentioned and with force in the church-people's assembly, could enter this commission. II. On the contrary, it is unfavorable for the matter to know that the influence of Hilarion and Auxentius is not decreasing, but increasing, and that they have hope for the patronage of the Turkish government. It is heard that it assigned them maintenance. This would be less difficult if the patriarch had only excommunicated them from church communion. If circumstances changed, he could forgive them and reconcile with them. But now, if the Bulgarians and the Turkish government strongly support them, what will the patriarch do when he has irrevocably deprived them of their dignity? That is why it was said that, after the deposition of Hilarion, it was necessary to immediately try to install another Bulgarian bishop in his place, mediating and conciliatory. Now it's more difficult. However, will the mixed commission end up on this path? About the Bulgarian Bishop Joseph Sokolsky, according to information from Kyiv The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on October 27, 1861, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the review of the Metropolitan of Kyiv 306 about Archbishop Sokolsky, which stated: “Having received news of the efforts of Catholic propaganda to convince those living in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Archbishop Joseph to join again the Catholic faith, he paid special attention to this matter, and, on the basis of correct inquiry, through the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite John 307, became convinced that the Polish agents of Roman propaganda had not yet dared or had not found any opportunity to contact the Right Reverend Joseph Sokolsky with their seductive convictions to accept the union again. The Eminence himself, in his way of thinking, is currently too far from being able to in any way incline towards such convictions. On the contrary, according to the report of the governor of the Lavra, he now seems deeply convinced that a union with Rome would be disastrous for the Bulgarian people of his kind and is ready, if circumstances demanded it, to testify with his blood: “I now need,” the Most Reverend Joseph said more than once, “let me shed my blood for Orthodoxy.” In addition, he again confirmed to the governor of the Lavra that he himself, directly and through the three other trustworthy persons under his jurisdiction and placed in close relation to the Right Reverend Joseph, should have strict and attentive supervision over all the communications of the Right Reverend with outsiders, and if in these relations, more than aspirations, there turned out to be anything dubious and ill-intentioned in relation to the Orthodox Church, he would inform him about it immediately.” I. The news that Bishop Joseph has not entered and is not inclined to enter into communication with the agents of Roman propaganda is reassuring. II. Another piece of news that requires consideration is that the Metropolitan of Kiev had already accepted him into the Church and celebrated the Divine Liturgy with him twice. If a Latin priest had asked the Metropolitan of Kyiv to join the Orthodox Church, with the preservation of the priesthood: the Metropolitan, of course, found that he would not have the right to join him without the permission of the Holy Synod. Moreover, he did not have the right to annex a bishop to the Orthodox Church. This required a conciliar judgment, and the Holy Synod would be faced with rather difficult considerations, as explained in the note dated July 1, 1861. 308 III. However, the mistake of the Metropolitan of Kyiv may be considered fortunate for the cause. The Holy Synod, due to the circumstances set out in the said note, would probably soon find it difficult to accept Bishop Joseph into church communion, and this could lead to Joseph’s doubt and hesitation and make an unfavorable impression on the Bulgarians. Now Joseph is reassured by his acceptance into the communion of the Orthodox Church: and if it happens that the Ecumenical Patriarch complains about this, this complaint will fall on one bishop and will leave the Holy Synod inviolable. IV. According to the latest private news, the matter is further improved by the fact that Joseph signed an act in Kiev by which he renounces the union, admits his mistake, asks for forgiveness from the patriarch and professes Orthodoxy in satisfactory terms. V. In these circumstances, it seems a matter of caution that Joseph should remain for the time being in the Kiev Lavra, in peace, with provision for his needs, and the Holy Synod would not rush to pronounce a final decision about him. It is not superfluous to require a papal charter in order to document what Joseph was ordained to. 309 November 2, 1861 November 3. “On information from Constantinople, according to a letter from Archimandrite Antonin, dated October 7, 1861.” I. The letter of Archimandrite Antoninus presents a sad view of the internal state of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But this is known in other ways. The conversation between Archimandrite Antonin and His Holiness the Patriarch on September 22 requires special attention of the Russian hierarchy. He arouses concern for maintaining peace between the Russian Church and the Greek Church. II. The Patriarch thinks that the Bulgarian movement is the work of not many people, and that its inevitable outcome is a return to the previous order. It is difficult to understand how he can hold this opinion. For example: the bishop he ordained comes to the diocesan city, and, knowing that he will not be received, he asks for gifts from the Turkish authorities for a military convoy; despite this, he finds the bishop's house locked and enters it by Turkish force; none of the people wants to accept blessings from him, even when the Turkish authorities encourage him to do so. Is this action of not many persons? And is this the road to the old order? III. From this subject, the patriarch moves on in conversation to the question: Is baptism through immersion strictly observed in the conversation? And further he notes that the current Metropolitan of Serbia 310, who was educated in Kyiv; he who allows pouring baptism may have seen examples of this in Russia; that he, the patriarch, had heard about the double service, on the same day, at the liturgy of the same deacon in Russia; also about the non-service of the liturgy by the bishops participating in the ordination of a bishop, except for the first one. His Holiness recognizes this as a deviation from the rules of the church. What does this transition from the Bulgarian case to the denunciation of the Russian Church mean? Is it not that His Holiness the Patriarch secretly blames the Russian Church for sympathizing with the Bulgarians; and therefore dissatisfied with her; and therefore seeks to point out some dark side in her? Sad and amazing! At the very time when the disorder of the unity of his own church is before the eyes of the most holy patriarch, he extends his searching gaze to the Russian Church and seeks objects that could cause a disorder of the unity of the Greek and Russian churches. IV. But why didn’t Archimandrite Antonin say anything to justify the Russian Church? For example, it was easy for him to say that the rules of the church were contrary to the communion of the holy mysteries twice on one day; but the deacons of Russia do not do this, but partake only at one liturgy, and at another they only read the litany, as needed. But His Holiness, of course, will not consider it a sin if one cleric reads and sings on the same day, first during the early and then during the late liturgy. There is no more sin in reading the litany by one person during the early and late liturgies. V. The priority attention of the Holy Synod requires the patriarch's response that the recognition of the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph in Russia as a bishop will lead to temptation in the East, and that their hierodeacon, ordained by a Latin bishop, was ordained again, and only in respect of special circumstances. It is good that the Holy Synod did not rush to recognize Joseph, but only the Kiev Metropolitan entered into communication with him, which should not fall on the responsibility of the Russian Church in general. VI. But at the same time, one must take into account that before this there was information from Constantinople about the clergy who had returned from the Bulgarian union, that they were received more leniently than how the patriarch responded in a conversation with Archimandrite Antonin. It is necessary for the Holy Synod to acquire correct and accurate information about this in order to consider the matter of Joseph. VII. Everything stated here shows that the Russian hierarchy needs great caution and insightful foresight in relation to the hierarchy of Constantinople, and specifically, to the current ecumenical patriarch, who is very unique and exceptionally wise. By reference, dated November 6 (No. 6261 312), your Excellency demanded my opinion on the petition to the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph. Your Excellency could already see this opinion in my two notes about Archbishop Joseph and in my note on November 25, under numbers V, VI and VII. However, I turn to the petition. The Archbishop explains his sincere repentance for his grave fall and his most ardent desire to be back in sincere communion with the one holy Orthodox Church. He deeply and completely condemns his unfortunate falling away from the Orthodox Church and brings sincere and tearful repentance before the Holy Synod. He says that he never recognized the pope as the head of the church and as one of his own, but sought only the independence of the Bulgarian church and its independence from the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is difficult to imagine how he could receive ordination from the pope without recognizing him as the head of the church. He asks that the Holy Synod, given grace and power from God, grant him forgiveness and permission from all excommunication. He explains that he could not come to the ecumenical patriarch, so as not to endanger his life, or at least his freedom, and now he cannot, so as not to be the involuntary guilt of new popular unrest; and therefore asks the Holy Synod to seek forgiveness from the Holy Patriarch. By the way, he expresses fear that if he returns now to Turkey, Western propaganda may seize him, hold him captive and act in his name to the detriment of Orthodoxy. The first question in this matter is the following: can Joseph, when accepted into the Orthodox Church, be recognized as an archbishop and under what rank should he be accepted? My answer to this is found in the note about Archbishop Joseph, dated July 1, under numbers IV and V 313 and in the note dated November 25, under numbers V and VI. The difficulty of this first question depends on the second question: is it possible, and how, for Joseph to obtain forgiveness from the Ecumenical Patriarch and his consent, so that Joseph would be graciously accepted into the communion of the Russian Church? The resolution of this issue, according to the information indicated above, is difficult and beyond doubt. It is necessary that His Holiness the Patriarch deviate from his strict judgment about Joseph, which he expressed to Archimandrite Antonin, and that he agree to leave Joseph without persecution, as his subordinate who had gone out of obedience. This requires a lot of condescension on the part of the Holy Patriarch, while, on the contrary, he showed a lot of inflexibility in the Bulgarian cause. If the Holy Synod had written about this to the Ecumenical Patriarch and received a refusal: the matter would have reached an insoluble situation and would have revealed an important violation of the consent of the churches, not without the danger of further harm. If the Russian embassy in Constantinople were in completely desirable relations with the ecumenical patriarch: it could assist this matter by entrusting verbal representation to the patriarch, whether he would allow the Holy Synod to intercede with him for forgiveness of Joseph. Such respectful modesty of the Holy Synod would not only not threaten discord, but would also predispose the patriarch to a friendly, condescending response. If this is inconvenient: is it possible to instruct Archimandrite Antonin to humbly bring to the attention of the Ecumenical Patriarch that the Russian clergy finds it useful for the Orthodox Church, so that Joseph would be shown leniency, and that the Holy Synod would decide to petition the Patriarch for forgiveness for Joseph, if it had the hope of a favorable acceptance of this petition. Based on the patriarch's response to this, one could easily judge the further course of the matter. Meanwhile, it is necessary to acquire reliable information about which of the members of the Constantinople clergy who fell away from the union returned to the Orthodox Church, retaining their church degrees, and according to what rank they were accepted. It is worth informing Archbishop Joseph that the Holy Synod favorably accepts his petition, and if it does not immediately resolve it, then so that this happens while maintaining peaceful relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch. The letter from the Metropolitan of Kiev and the petition from Archbishop Joseph are being returned. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, December 27, 1861 314 1861–9 December–1862–16 May. Notes of Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information from November 8 and December 13, 1861, January 3 and 31, February 26, March 3 and 6 and April 17, 1862. On the return of the Adrianople Bulgarian Uniates to Orthodoxy 315 I. Epitrope of the Uniate church in Andrianople, the Bulgarian Konstantin Karu-Kafa promises to convince his like-minded people to join Orthodoxy if they pay the debts of the Uniate church, and if they give him 40 thousand piastres in return for his expenses in favor of the union. II. The proposed sale of 50 Adrianople Uniate people and 40 rural families, for payment of Uniate debts and, in addition, for 40 thousand piastres, according to church reasoning is illegal, and from economic point of view it is expensive and unreliable. III. Does one who has betrayed Orthodoxy deserve trust when he refuses to return to Orthodoxy only under selfish conditions? IV. Karu-Kafa first promised to return the Uniates to Orthodoxy, it seems, only under the condition of paying debts. Then he interrupted the negotiations, of course, due to Tsankov’s action. Finally, he renewed them, but raised the price, and demanded another 40 thousand piastres. How can you make sure that someone who breaks his first word will not break his second? V. Latin propaganda, not without difficulty and not without money, won the Bulgarians into the union. Will she look indifferently at the damage caused to her and will she allow Karu-Kafu to distract the Bulgarians from the union? VI. Karu-Kafa alone promises reunion. It is not known whether there are others who are inclined to this? Will they allow themselves to be convinced and that’s it? If not everything, then the root of evil will remain, which can again give rise to and multiply industries. VII. The Uniates, returning to Orthodoxy, of course, must, as before, enter the department of Metropolitan Kirill, against whose robbery a complaint was submitted to the consul, and who, with the consecrated cathedral, in vestments, with censers, met the Turkish Pasha. Can we hope that those returning from the union will be firm in obedience to such authorities? VIII. This is the dark side of things. Whoever can, let him discover the light, and let the Orthodox Church receive true joy and undeceiving hope. About the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from December 13, 1861, and January 3, 1862 317 I. How much sad information in a short time, and this is only a particle of the troubles in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Sofia Metropolitan Dorotheos 318 is not accepted by the Bulgarians. ' He knits the archpriest and disgraces him by cutting his beard. For this reason, the people rebel against the metropolitan, attack his house, and bloodshed occurs. The people express their intention to move out if the Metropolitan remains. The higher authorities send him to Adrianople. The Metropolitan's case is being examined by a Turkish dignitary. The Demotic Metropolitan Meletios received numerous complaints from the villagers, especially for monetary harassment. 319 He is offered a tax from the diocese of 100 thousand piastres; he says: not enough, although he has about 20 tons on top of that. The Litish Bishop Ignatius was brought to trial by the Patriarch for a violent act by the Governor General; and is located in Adrianople, probably because he could not be left in his diocese. Constantinople newspapers count about 8 thousand in the Adrianople region who recognized the primacy of the pope. This may not be accurate; however, it is known that in the village of Genikoi, almost all 140 houses declared themselves Roman Catholics before the Turkish commission. How this dark picture would have expanded, how much more darkened it would have been, if in a similar way all the events unfavorable for the Orthodox Church in the patriarchate had been combined during the past year! The bright point was the return to Orthodoxy of Archbishop Joseph and some others who had fallen away into the union. But it is still not visible that this light has spread, and that the spread of darkness has been stopped. II. What should we do? There was a time when it was possible to offer some thoughts to correct the matter without being too spoiled; but when the time for a possible correction is partly lost in inaction, partly used to (of course, without intention) make things more difficult, then, naturally, means are exhausted by obstacles, and hopes by fears. As far as I know, the Holy Synod, in a letter to His Holiness Joachim, said a modest word in favor of leniency towards the Bulgarians; and this did not produce any effect, and the patriarch did not make any response to this. To renew this would mean hitting a wall instead of a door, and perhaps causing pain to oneself, that is, meeting an unpeaceful reception from the patriarch, which would more or less damage the peace of the churches. However, since during the dangerous suffering of one member of the body of Christ, the other should not remain completely indifferent, but must sympathize and contribute in every possible way to the relief of his suffering, then the question cannot be left without any resolution: what to do? It can be noted that the Ecumenical Patriarch suffers from a one-sided view of the state of his affairs; does not quite see the danger; exaggerates hope. Therefore, perhaps, it would not be useless, just as was done in the previous article of this note, to collect and combine into one review the most important available information about the unfavorable and unsafe position of the Church of the Patriarch of Constantinople, without accusatory reasoning, but at the same time point out the threatening consequences. For example: with the return of Joseph to Orthodoxy, the union seemed killed; but it lives and acts and threatens to spread. Hilarion, along with two other bishops, was defrocked; but he continues to recognize himself as a bishop and ordains; and the Bulgarians recognize it as such, and the Turkish government does not oppose it, but favors it. From this a split may arise, and the unblessed Bulgarian hierarchy may continue and spread, and the Bulgarians will decisively and definitively retreat from the patriarchal department. Perhaps the sight of danger will arouse in the Holy Patriarch a desire to seek an outcome other than the one he had previously preferred. For this purpose, add to the note something similar to what was said in the note on August 19, number XXII. 320 In conclusion, one could say that the Russian Church accepts sincere sorrowful participation in the difficulties of the Church of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and if the Holy Synod does not turn to the Ecumenical Patriarch with a word of sorrow and concern, then, of course, out of reverence for his throne. Archimandrite Antoninus could have received a note of such content through unofficial communication, and would have tried to also unofficially bring it to the attention of the Ecumenical Patriarch, either directly or through, for example, the secretary of the synod, Deacon Lascaris. May the Lord speak into the heart of the Holy Patriarch what is good and useful for His church. About the project of Metropolitan Kirill 322 to pacify the Bulgarians 323 I. The project is that the dioceses of the patriarchate should be divided into four categories: Greek, mixed, Eastern and purely Bulgarian, and that each category would have its own board under the patriarch, consisting of three metropolitans, in turn, who would at the same time be members of the permanent Holy Synod located in Constantinople. This means that this synod, according to this project, must receive a new device. II. But it is known that the church-people's assembly that was in Constantinople drew up an act for the organization of the synod, assigned each member a two-year term, and drew up a list for the queue of presence of all apkhiepeev in the synod; and this resolution was signed by the members of the assembly, and among them the Ecumenical Patriarch, the predecessor of the current one. It is noticeable that the current patriarch did not want to carry out this decree; but circumstances have led to the fact that, according to information from Constantinople, it is beginning to be implemented, probably at the insistence of the Turkish government. Metropolitan Kirill’s project does not show on what he could base the hope that he could subvert the decree, which was approved by such a significant meeting and is now entering into legal force, and put his own project in its place? III. The proposed division of the synod into four boards, complicating the organization of government, may, instead of facilitating it, complicate the movement of affairs. IV. The project wants members of the four boards to be “inspectors and managers of their rank.” This seems to be the restoration of the geronts, the ephors, whose abuses were exposed, and who were therefore completely destroyed by the church-popular assembly. V. The project requires that there be 15 more secular members with a logothete, who would hold either separate or joint meetings with the members of the synod. But the church-people's assembly has already established a mixed council, which, according to information, is also being put into action. Will Metropolitan Kirill really overthrow this too with his project? VI. The project wants one of two candidates to be elected to the abolished Bulgarian see by lot - presented by the Bulgarians and proposed by the synod. The Synod will probably propose a Greek; and, if the lot falls on him, the Bulgarians will be exposed to what they so strongly desire to get rid of. Will the Bulgarians agree to such a project and will it lead to peace? VII. The Bulgarians can be even less satisfied with Metropolitan Kirill’s proposed choice of bishop for mixed dioceses, which they have already expressed. VIII. In general, it is not clear what kind of guarantee Metropolitan Kirill’s project would provide to the Bulgarians, in favor of their national clergy, against the arbitrariness of the patriarch. II. Not for the first time, let it be said that there would hardly be a more convenient way to pacify the Bulgarians than to give mixed and purely Bulgarian dioceses a metropolitan who sits in the synod, ordains the patriarch and ordains Bulgarian bishops by diocesan or regional election. About the Bulgarian case according to information from February 10 and 26, March 3 and 6 I. His Holiness the Patriarch promises concessions to the Bulgarians. A mixed commission is being prepared for their case. And, unfortunately and surprisingly, it does not want to admit Parthenius, Bishop of Polyaninsky, 325 into this commission, whereas, according to the information available about this bishop, it should have accepted him with pleasure and hope. The Russian envoy 326 rightly represented to the patriarch that Bishop Parthenius had rendered important services to Orthodoxy by returning to the Orthodox Church the Kukushans, which under his predecessor had fallen into the Western union. There is information worthy of belief that he zealously guarded Orthodoxy in his diocese, that from the ordinary income belonging to his department, he gave himself only a third or fourth part, and turned the rest into the benefit of the diocese, to help churches, schools, and the poor; that, on this occasion, neighboring dioceses demanded the same from their bishops; that they turned this into an accusation against Parthenius, as if he was disturbing their dioceses, and that the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, on this charge, kept Parthenius in prison for several months. It is unknown whether this matter ended and how. II. The Metropolitan of Thessalonica informed the patriarchy that Bishop Parthenius had left Thessalonica for Constantinople, and that he was ready to join the Western Church. From the above, one must conclude, as Parthenius himself later showed, that he left death in the hands of injustice to seek justice from the patriarch. By his behavior in Constantinople, Parthenius refuted the slander. Despite the fact, the patriarch considers him guilty of rebellion against the spiritual authorities, it seems, for one thing, that in extreme cases, without permission, he came to Constantinople, and, as guilty, expels him from Constantinople, only at the request of the envoy, shortening the period of this exile. Seeing this, one cannot help but regret both Parthenia and the Patriarch, according to the state of the Bulgarian affair. III. It is desirable that the envoy continue his efforts to assure the patriarch that Bishop Parthenius is not only not guilty and does not deserve punishment, but that he is worthy of special attention and protection, that he is needed and can be useful, and that his acceptance into the commission on the Bulgarian case is a godsend. This is not the first time the thought has arisen: is it possible, in the place of Hilarion, who was an instrument of discord, to put Parthenius, and make him an instrument of peace? March 28–29, 1862 327 About the catechism prepared by Catholic propaganda for distribution among the Bulgarians The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in reference dated April 20, 1862, No. 2310, forwarded for the conclusion of Metropolitan Philaret “a fragment of an unprinted catechism delivered from Constantinople, which Catholic propaganda intends to distribute among the Bulgarians.” On the 20th day of last April (No. 2310), a fragment of an unfinished catechism was forwarded to me, delivered from Constantinople, which, through the efforts of Catholic propaganda, is being prepared for distribution among the Bulgarians, and it was added that propaganda does not cease to send new Uniate priests to different places in Bulgaria and intends to build numerous churches and establish schools in those cities and villages where there are small number of Uniates. This information is painful; but there seems to be no way to use the medicine. The unfamiliar Bulgarian dialect does not allow me to sufficiently understand everything that is contained in the reported passage; however, false interpretations are visible, which would be convenient to refute, but it is difficult to find a person familiar with the Bulgarian dialect for this. A real cure against evil should be found in the Orthodox Bulgarians moderating their demands from the Constantinople hierarchy, and for this to moderate its inflexibility against their demands, so that they receive their own hierarchy, quite free, but not completely independent and not separated from the ecumenical patriarch. On the Latin-Bulgarian Union, according to information 329 of April 17, 1862 I. Latin propaganda knows how to fish in troubled waters. He sees that the Bulgarians are at odds with the Greek hierarchy, and takes the opportunity to kidnap sheep that are not protected by shepherds. He knows that in Europe they are afraid of the unity of the Slovenian tribes with Russia; sees a disposition to move to Russia, and uses this to attract the Turkish and some other governments to her views, because, while distracting the Bulgarians from Orthodoxy, at the same time she distracts them from Russia. And what is happening on the opposite side? The Malotherno Orthodox Bulgarians cry out to Metropolitan Kirill of Adrianople that the agents of the union are spreading harmful rumors among the people, that they have forcibly taken possession of the school house, and also want to take possession of the church, and ask for protection and guidance in case the Orthodox Church is offended by the Latin ministry in it. The Metropolitan does not hide his fear of losing his entire flock; but remains inactive, turning neither to the Turkish authorities with a request for protection, nor to his flock with a word of instruction and reinforcement. II. With this information, one cannot but recognize the opinion expressed at the same time (which has been expressed here more than once) that the only present means of stopping the progress of the union would be a speedy resolution of the church-Bulgarian issue in the patriarchate, in a sense more favorable for the church people. It is desirable that there be a person from whom the Ecumenical Patriarch could, without prejudice and with confidence, listen to the concerns expressed by the Metropolitan of Adrianople, in order to carefully consider whether the need is approaching to choose one of two things: either to give the Bulgarians a national hierarchy with less dependence on the patriarchal throne than before, but with the preservation of church unity; or, on the contrary, leave the Greek bishops in Bulgaria without a flock and lose the Bulgarian flock for them, for themselves and for the Orthodox Church. And those Bulgarians who are more preoccupied with the idea of ​​nationality than with the idea of ​​Orthodoxy need to be taught in every possible way that by entering the union, they not only lose the purely Orthodox faith, but also the national unity that is precious to them, and they themselves destroy their own strength. May 24. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the election of a mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian issue According to the wishes of Prince A. M. Goncharov, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A. P. Tolstoy, with respect, dated February 10, 1862, No. 743, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret copies of reports from the Russian envoy in Turkey: 1) from January 20–February 1, under No. 9, on the Bulgarian case, and 2) from January 23–4 February, No. 14, about church affairs in Constantinople. In relation to Count A.P. Tolstoy, Metropolitan Philaret wrote in pencil: “May 24. Not responsible; because you just need to take note and expect what will happen.” The contents of the dispatches of Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky are not given here, in view of the fact that their essence is visible from the following opinion of Metropolitan Philaret. The dispatch of the envoy, dated January 20 (No. 9), contains information that a mixed commission of Greeks and Bulgarians has been appointed in the Greek-Bulgarian case. The same is said in Mr. Filaretov’s letter 331, dated April 4, and it is added that members of the commission have already been appointed. So, in 3 months only the appointment of members was completed. So, don't rush. They are in no hurry to correct a matter that has been spoiled especially by slowness. It is desirable that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs receive information about the appointed members and about the progress of the case. Maybe the ministry would see the need and opportunity to give advice to the success of the commission, that it would be too late if the commission ends in nothing, and the bridge built with difficulty over the abyss fails. Information from the consul 332 in Adrianople, dated January 17, that the exactions with which the Dimotik Metropolitan Meletius burdens the people and subordinates, the Turkish Governor-General 333 was forced to order partly to be reduced, partly to be destroyed (what a humiliation of the hierarchy and faith in the eyes of the Mohammedans!); that Metropolitan Dorotheos of Sofia is suspected of secret relations with Latin propaganda 334; that Paisius the doctor 335 forcibly entered the episcopal house, and from this there was a rebellion and bloodshed, and would it not be useful to combine a lot of information of this kind into one image of the state of the Bulgarian dioceses, and bring it to the attention of the ecumenical patriarch, not in the form of denunciation and condemnation, but in the form of a correct representation of the events taking place, in order to dispose him to carefully consider whether it is possible to hope to calm the Bulgarian movement through the existing Greek hierarchy, and whether it is not necessary for the Bulgarians to make significant and definitive concessions to stop the disorder and prevent destruction and falling away from Orthodoxy. May 28–29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the Greek-Bulgarian commission, as of May 8 Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, in relation, dated May 22, 1862, No. 3052, in accordance with the wishes of Prince A.M. Gorchakov, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the dispatch of the Russian envoy in Turkey, dated May 8-20, 1862, No. 67, with the attachment “more legible than the rewritten copy” translation of the dispatch into Russian. Translated from the dispatch of Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, it is stated: “Several weeks have already passed since my last messages to our Excellency about the progress of the Bulgarian affair, but even now I still cannot tell the Imperial Ministry that negotiations on this issue are in the right direction. Disputes between the patriarch and the mixed council slowed down the appointment of commissioners who were to sit on behalf of the great church in the Greek-Bulgarian commission. Such commissioners will be: the metropolitans of Arta and Larissa, Moussourus, an official of the Porte and brother of the Turkish ambassador in London 337, Adossidis and Karatheodoris 338. For their part, the Bulgarians renewed the previous election: Bishop Parfeniy, Chomakov 339, Burmov, Tsvetko and Slavchevich. There is no way to predict how this attempt at agreement will end. The previous circumstances, based on calculation, the slowness of the patriarch, his well-known stubbornness and hope for calming the Bulgarians who were agitated by the nationality, do not promise serious concessions from his Holiness. However, the persons elected by the great church, with the possible exception of Mussurus, belong to the least obstinate in the prejudices of the Greek tribe. Metropolitan of Art 340, in particular, always expressed the most correct judgments on the Bulgarian question; but whatever personal opinions may be, they will necessarily be subject to the intentions of the patriarch and the synod; It can be predicted that an agreement that could fully satisfy the Bulgarians will meet lively resistance from the Greek clergy, in whose eyes canonical arguments will in this case be inferior to considerations stemming from purely material calculations. However, just as much as the Bulgarians are currently disposed to abandon the idea of ​​a completely independent hierarchy and recognize, by dogma and subordination, the primacy or supreme power of the Patriarch of Constantinople, they stand just as much for achieving a certain guarantee or guarantee for their church government. I recently had a conversation about this with Bishop Parthenius. When I asked what the decisive demands of his compatriots in the commission would be, he answered me that the final decision had not yet been made, and that they were waiting for Chomakov, who had been written about his speedy return to Constantinople. In the opinion of His Eminence Parthenius, the Bulgarians recognize the supreme power of the patriarch and will agree to pay half of the debt of the patriarchate on the following conditions: 1) that the people be given the election of bishops; 2) that the synod should constantly consist of 6 metropolitans of the Greek dioceses and the same number of metropolitans from the Bulgarian dioceses, and 3) that a Bulgarian council be established in Constantinople, under the chairmanship of the patriarch, and for him - one of the Bulgarian metropolitans, half of them clergy and secular persons, with the same rights regarding the Bulgarian dioceses as provided to the mixed Greek council regarding the Greek dioceses, completely separate from this latter. His Eminence Parthenius accepts these conditions as the minimum concessions possible for his compatriots. The adoption of this program would lead to a change in certain parts of the church charter recently approved by the Porte; However, he thinks, based on several favorable words of Aali Pasha, spoken to the Bulgarian elders, that the Turkish government would not find any obstacles to this, if only they could overcome the difficulties facing any prudent agreement from the Greek clergy. About the Greek-Bulgarian commission, according to information dated May 8, 1862. I. Of the persons appointed as part of the Greek-Bulgarian reconciliation commission, Metropolitan of Art and Karatheodoris are somewhat known from the former church-people's council and Bishop Parthenius (who studied at the Moscow Theological Academy) from his work in the diocese. From these we can expect reasonable, moderate and conciliatory opinions. But it's a minority against other unknowns. We must agree with Mr. Envoy that there is no way to predict the outcome of this attempt at agreement. The extraordinary inflexibility of the ecumenical patriarch is especially not conducive to predicting what is desired. II. It is bitter to hear that the Greek clergy looks more closely at material calculations than at canonical arguments. A great service to the church would be rendered by someone who would help this clergy understand that there is no benefit in holding tightly to material benefits, where the point is to either reduce their material benefits and preserve their spiritual flock, or otherwise lose both material benefits and their spiritual flock. III. The good thing about the Bulgarian conciliatory proposals is that they are willing to recognize the supreme power of the patriarch, which preserves unity. IV. But leaving the removal of bishops to the people is too vague, and the Bulgarians hardly understood well what this could lead to. V. The demand to be equal to the Greeks in the number of members of the synod is not entirely necessary, but can interfere with peace, offending the seniority (if you like and pride) of the Greeks. VI. It is not very clear why the Bulgarians find it necessary to have a special mixed Bulgarian council, separate from the similar Greek one. And this can lead to disunity and strife, and give rise to enemies of the church. Is it not better to give the Bulgarians sufficient strength in one general mixed council through a sufficient number of members from their nation? However, this can only be judged upon closer inquiry into the extent to which the mutual dislike of the Bulgarians and Greeks is great. VII. If it comes to the point that they decide to make changes to the decrees of the former church-people's council, recently approved, then it is unsafe for what was recently decreed and not yet approved to be destroyed, and for the administration not to fall into the realm of arbitrariness, especially under the patriarch, who is so disposed to follow only his personal views. VIII. Can any practical conclusion be drawn from these considerations? Doubtful. We see a matter about which we can partially know, reflect, mourn, and hardly anything else. Both Greeks and Bulgarians are reluctant to listen to advice. May 30–31. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch in the case of the Bulgarian-Uniate Archbishop Joseph To resolve the request of Archbishop Joseph to be accepted into communion with the Orthodox Church, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, communication was made with the Minister of Foreign Affairs so that our mission in Constantinople instructed Archimandrite Antonin, in accordance with the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, to first enter into a confidential relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarch about allowing the Russian Synod to petition His Holiness for forgiveness Archbishop Joseph, and at the same time would allow this archimandrite to reliably find out which of the members of the Constantinople clergy who had fallen away into the union returned to the Orthodox Church, retaining their church degree, and according to what rank they were accepted. On May 22, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, informing Metropolitan Philaret of a copy of Archimandrite Antonin’s report to the Russian envoy in Constantinople dated April 1, about the execution of the assignment entrusted to him, asked the Metropolitan to deliver a conclusion on the content of Archimandrite Antonin’s report. In the said report, Archimandrite Antonin wrote: “In fulfillment of the order given to me by the Holy Synod to enter into confidential communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim regarding the forgiveness sought from him for the former Bulgarian-Unite Archbishop Joseph, I was on the 30th of the past month at his all-holiness, and informed him of the intention of the Holy Synod to petition him for the forgiveness of the said archbishop. The All-Holy Patriarch deigned to tell me in response to this that he never imposed any prohibition or punishment on Joseph, as a result of which he has no reason to forgive him. But if by forgiveness we must understand the forgetting of his temporary falling away into the union and his acceptance again into the bosom of Orthodoxy, then his all-holiness is always ready to do this, condescending to the guilty person to recognize him in the same sacred rank that he had before declaring himself a unite, in respect of his repentance. Believing that such an answer would not seem entirely satisfactory to the Holy Synod, I made an attempt to challenge his all-holiness to explain the degree of bishopric Joseph received from the Roman Church. The Patriarch simply called him Joseph, without attaching any title to his name, which apparently denied his bishopric. I reported to the All-Holiness that, judging by the expressions contained in the order given to me by the Holy Synod to enter into confidential relations with him, the Holy Synod does not directly deny the episcopal rank of Joseph, and that, perhaps, in the desired forgiveness lies the idea of ​​recognizing him in this rank by his all-holiness. To this, the patriarch said that he did not know the grounds on which the Holy Synod could recognize Joseph as a bishop; but if forgiveness specifically means recognition of him as a bishop, then he cannot do this either himself personally or with his entire synod together; for neither he himself nor all the Greek bishops, 1st, recognize the validity of the sacraments of heretics, and 2ndly, in the Latin Church, in particular, they do not see the true and legal celebration of the first Christian sacrament, St. baptism, which determines its very Christianity. 342 Moreover, the saint repeated to me the idea that he had already expressed before, that, assuming it was possible for some Latin bishop to convert to Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Church would demand from him first of all true baptism, and then the successive passage of all the sacred degrees, including up to the episcopal level, if it were considered necessary to have him as a bishop. He assured me that such an incident actually happened in his memory. Passing over in silence all the innumerable consequences of the provisions expressed by the patriarch, I drew his attention to the fact that last year the great church recognized two Melchite priests in their sacred degrees, after their accession to Orthodoxy. The interlocutor responded to this with a general argument that such a circumstance was allowed by the church in an economic manner, just as in Russia in 1839 it was committed with the Uniates, not as a rule and not as a model of general church practice. I allowed myself to notice at the same time his all-holiness that such an argument does not stand up in a dogmatic-canonical court, and that with it the ill-wishers of the Orthodox Church can reproach it for contradicting itself, as was partly done by the famous Anglican theologian Palmer 343 . Patriarch replied that the very word οἰκονομία already contains a hint that through it something is achieved, if not directly denying the established order, then in any case protruding from it. That is why this means is used by the Church very rarely, namely, when only very important church interests are in mind. But is Joseph in a similar position? I said that his conversion to Orthodoxy, as an archbishop of the Roman Church, could suffer a sensitive blow to its unfair claims and harm the success of its propaganda. On the contrary, the patriarch replied, it will benefit the local unist propaganda, but will have a detrimental effect on the Bulgarians. For the first, relying on the example of Joseph, will assure those seduced that there is no significant difference between the two churches, since the sacraments of one are accepted and recognized by the other, and the latter, in the hope of illegal promotion to church ranks and dignity, will willingly bow to the union, knowing that, leaving it later, they will retain for themselves one or another degree of priesthood received in it. Believing that my conversation prompted the patriarch to speak out much more than what the assignment entrusted to me by the Holy Synod had in mind, I considered it permissible for myself to dwell on this. His all-holiness added that, upon the return of His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill from Jerusalem, he, if he wished, could propose for council discussion the case of the former Bulgarian-Unite archbishop, but since this would lead to many theological studies, then, due to the unfavorability of modern circumstances for such undertakings, he would prefer not to begin the matter. As for the order by which the great church reunites with itself those who have fallen away into the union, it consists of the following order of prayers and actions: Blessed be God. King of heaven. Trisagion. Our Father. Troparion and Kontakion of Pentecost. The person who joins reads the renunciation of their errors, and they also read the creed. His anointing, according to the rules, with the pronunciation of words: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Psalm: I will exalt You, my God, my King. Litany about what is added. Vacation. The names of the clergy who fell away from the union and then returned to Orthodoxy were promised to be delivered to me from the Patriarchate in a short time.” On communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the Bulgarian-Unite Archbishop Joseph I. The precaution of private rather than official communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the Bulgarian-Unite Archbishop Joseph has now been justified in practice. It was revealed that the view of the Holy Patriarch on the matter of Joseph did not agree with the view of the Holy Synod. But this is a difference of opinion in conversation, and not in acts, in a cell, and not in a church. The peace of the churches, Greek and Russian, is not broken. Archimandrite Antonin expressed himself with prudent caution when he told the patriarch that the forgiveness of Joseph desired by the Holy Synod may include the idea of ​​recognizing him as an archbishop; and thus did not exhibit a decisive difference of opinion. II. His Holiness the Patriarch expanded his reasoning beyond the limits of the proposed question. He said “that neither he himself nor all the Greek bishops recognize the sacraments of heretics as valid.” It is not clear why this is said. Does he really think that Russian bishops do not adhere to the existing church rules about this? In vain. III. He further said that “he and all the Greek bishops in the Latin Church, in particular, do not see the true and legal celebration of the first Christian sacrament, St. baptism, which determines its very Christianity.” Whether this judgment is fair or not, it has no direct bearing on the case of Joseph, who was baptized with Orthodox baptism. Perhaps the judgment pronounced by the most holy patriarch should be connected with the case of Joseph through the following conclusion: since the sacrament of St. baptism determines the very Christianity of the church, and the Latin Church does not have the true and legal celebration of St. baptism, therefore, does not have what would determine its very Christianity, consequently the Latin Church is non-Christian, and the pope is a non-Christian, and consequently Archimandrite Joseph was ordained archbishop from a non-Christian. This would be the correct conclusion from the patriarchal saying, but it is better to refrain from a decisive conclusion here; because an unwritten saying easily passes from mouth to mouth without strict accuracy. IV. In the patriarch's reasoning one can see the assumption that Latinism is a heresy, and not just a schism. This is an opinion, not a church definition. However, it is inconvenient to enter into a detailed discussion about this here, as well as about Latin baptism, which the Constantinople hierarchy first recognized, and then began to reject. V. Archimandrite Antonin rightly pointed out to the Patriarch two Melchite priests, whom the Constantinople hierarchy accepted into the communion of the Orthodox Church without renewing their baptism and ordination, and in whose persons, consequently, they recognized both Latin baptism and Latin ordination as valid. This example refutes what the patriarch said to the archimandrite about the insignificance of the sacraments of the Latin Church. VI. However, the patriarch did not recognize himself as refuted, and, without retreating from his opinion at all, presented the act with the Melchites as an exceptional one, allowed to the church by the χάριν οἰκονομίας, as a church economy, that is, by order of a lenient one, somewhat deviating from the rigor of general church rules, to eliminate harm, or for the protection and increase of the good of the church, for example, for the most convenient reconciliation of the non-peaceful with it. The patriarch also brought the actions of the Russian hierarchy during the reunification of the former Uniates under this exceptional rule. There is something good in this review of the patriarch that he does not deny the possibility, out of special respect, to recognize Latin baptism and ordination, and at the same time justifies the action of the Russian Church, which disagrees with the strict judgment previously expressed from him. Here Archimandrite Antonin should have said: if what was done with the Melchites was χάριν οἰκονομίας, then is it not possible to do the same with Joseph χάριν οἰκονομίας? It would be short, but at the same time clear and closest to the purpose of the conversation: from your lips I judge you. Instead, by calling the patriarch before the dogmatic-canonical court, the archimandrite could provoke a strict response. VII. However, the patriarch showed the reasons why he did not find it possible to treat Joseph with leniency. The first reason: the recognition of Joseph as archbishop provides an opportunity for Latin propaganda to seduce the Bulgarians with the idea that there is no significant difference between the two churches. It seems that propaganda is ashamed to decide to point to Joseph, in whom it was so cruelly deceived; but if he decides, then with the said thought he can seduce Bulgarians who do not have a clear knowledge of the dogmas of the Orthodox Church. Another reason: the recognition of Joseph gives a reason for the Bulgarians to run over to the union, in the hope of receiving church degrees. This reason is less strong. If the example of Joseph arouses this hope, then it also undermines it; because after him the Roman hierarchy, of course, will not be as careless as before. VIII. That the patriarch prefers not to propose the issue of Joseph for a council discussion is very good because this discussion would end with the affirmation of the strict opinion of the patriarch and the matter would end up in a worse situation than it is now. IX. What should we do? Should we not recognize Joseph, despite the opinion of the ecumenical patriarch? This would be useless for the Bulgarians; because both the patriarch and the Turkish government would not allow him, as an instrument, in the opinion of the patriarch, illegal and as an instrument of Russia, to come and act in Bulgaria. But for the Orthodox Church this would be disastrous; because it would create discord between the Greek and Russian churches. Since Joseph belonged to the region of the patriarch, and not the Russian Synod, the patriarch, not without the right, Joseph, recognized in Russia as an archbishop, can be conciliarly recognized not only as not having the episcopal rank, but also deprived of the rank of both archimandrite and priest. Such a contradiction between the authorities would inflict a serious and incurable wound on the peace and unity of the churches, which the enemies of Orthodoxy so desire in order to humiliate the Orthodox Church both in opinion and in power. So, what should we do? But in my opinion, tell Joseph; The Russian Church, out of the spirit of love and sympathy for you and your fellow tribesmen, looks at your situation with sincere sympathy, but you belonged to the region of the Ecumenical Patriarch and without his consent it is inconvenient to resolve the issue about you, which is expressed in your very petition to the Holy Synod; Based on the measures taken, it became known that at the present time it is not possible to obtain a lenient decision about you from the Holy Patriarch; At the same time, the Russian Church, for the sake of the common good of Orthodoxy, considers itself obligated to take every possible precaution against disagreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch: at the present time it is impossible to offer you anything other than to remain with magnanimous patience awaiting the consequences of your continued efforts to achieve the desired solution without violating the agreement with the Holy Patriarch. To maintain him in patience and hope, it may not be superfluous to let him know that there is still half a hope, that is, the hope that the patriarch will recognize him in the same rank in which he was in the Orthodox Church. July 22–October 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov about the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information, dated April 6, September 18 and October 22, 1862 Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in reference, dated July 17, 1862, No. 4536, transmitting to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the dispatch of the Russian envoy in Turkey, dated April 3–15, No. 50, on the Bulgarian case, with the following appendix, asked, when the need had passed, to return the appendix. The Metropolitan’s papers preserved “a translation from French of a copy from the dispatch of Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated April 3–15, 1862, No. 50 from Pera,” with the following content: “The case of Bishop Parfeniy has not yet been resolved; the patriarch, whom I asked to hasten the end of it, let me know that he would like not to raise this matter at all; for, having restored the Right Reverend Parthenius to his former diocese, he would have subjected him to new clashes with the Metropolitan of Thessalonica. His Holiness at the same time informed me that he intended to appoint Bishop Parthenius as rector of the Bulgarian church in Constantinople. Having been forewarned of this intention, I instructed Mr. Filaretov to inform Parthenius about this and ask him if he could guarantee that, remembering the patriarch during services, he would not create any scene in the church that would later be regretted. The bishop replied that he really could not accept the rank given to him by Patriarch Joachim. The Bulgarians (Les primats bulgares) had already asked him to serve in their church, with the condition, however, that the name of the patriarch should not be exalted, and that, instead of his name, the name of Hilarion should be put. Parthenius resolutely refused. Having learned about this circumstance, the patriarch abandoned his previous intention and wants to appoint Parthenius to one of the internal Bulgarian dioceses. Delays in resolving the Bulgarian affair have a sad effect on the disposition of minds: aspirations for union are spreading, and the Orthodox side is willingly inclined to listen to the suggestions of Catholics. Recently they established the following program: the Bulgarians will recognize the named (funeral) primacy of the pope if they are fully ensured in preserving their dogmas, rituals, etc. Monsignor Brunoni 345, apostolic vicar of Pera, promises that these conditions will be accepted by the pope and invites the Bulgarian primates (les primats) to send a deputation to Rome. In general, Latin propaganda is in strong motion, and it is possible to fear that it will not succeed in achieving its goals. Unfortunately, the patriarch turns a blind eye to this state of affairs and does not give up his stubbornness; a few days ago, at a meeting of the synod, he boasted that he had restored calm among the Bulgarians, discouraging all their aspirations for independence. For a long time, invited by Aali Pasha to appoint his proxies to the mixed commission, he expected, in order to carry out this order, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would send him a formal order on this subject. The People's Council convened in late March; both Bulgarian members withdrew, unwilling to submit in all matters to the determinations of the overwhelming majority. The new synod also began to carry out its duties.” About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information dated April 8, 1862 I. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not want to restore Bishop Parthenius to his former diocese, because through this “he would expose him to new clashes with the Metropolitan of Thessalonica.” This review contains the idea that the patriarch does not consider Bishop Parthenius guilty, and recognizes him as worthy to rule the diocese. Parthenius is like that. But if Parthenius is innocent, then the Metropolitan of Thessalonica is guilty, and with him the other oppressors of Parthenius. Why doesn’t the patriarch resolutely defend the innocent and subdue the oppressors? He doesn't want to, or he can't, he knows that. We don’t want to think, and it’s unnatural to think that we don’t want to. And if it cannot, then what can be advised or done from outside to improve such management? II. Parthenius, who refused to serve in the church of the Bulgarians, with the condition not to raise the name of the patriarch and to raise the name of Hilarion, thereby proved his loyalty to the Orthodox Church and the legal hierarchy. And the Bulgarians who proposed such conditions revealed either extreme ignorance of church rules, or extreme disregard for them and unbridled arbitrariness. To think that Hilarion, by the sole will of them, the laity, the parishioners, from a simple bishop became an archbishop and the main head of their hierarchy is absurdity. And they don't stop thinking about it. To think that Patriarch Hilarion, who was conciliarly and solemnly defrocked, can recognize the Bulgarians as archbishop, is also an extreme inconsistency; and they obviously think so. Here again we need to ask: what can be advised or done to bring people who stubbornly stand in the illegal to a legal position? III. However, the fact that the Bulgarians want to accept Parthenius may be useful if they know how to take advantage of it. For this, it would be necessary, before this emerging ray of hope for the world fades away, to quickly draw up the proposed mixed council, establish conciliatory rules for the existence of the Bulgarian hierarchy, and place at its head Parthenius, fortunately already pleasant to the Bulgarians, and a new one is not easy to find. The grounds for reconciliation have already been proposed more than once in previous notes, with some modifications in order to be able to choose what can be more conveniently accepted by both parties. IV. But here’s the problem: the union does not lose heart, but tries to strengthen itself, inventing new forms to seduce the Bulgarians, “and the patriarch turns a blind eye to this state of affairs; at the meeting of the synod, he boasts that he has restored calm among the Bulgarians, discouraging all their aspirations for independence.” The news is incredible in content, but, of course, doubtful in its source. How are His Holiness’s eyes closed to such an extent? Why are the members of the reformed synod not trying to open them? Can't they see it too? Again it must be said: what can be advised or done to improve this situation? Will people who find that everything is fine and there is no danger accept any advice for improvement? There remains one piece of advice that no one can reject: one must pray with strong prayer for the peace and well-being of God’s holy churches. July 22–23, 1862 346 On the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian question Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, in reference dated October 4, 1862, No. 6335, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret “a copy of the dispatch of Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated September 18–30, 1862, No. 126, on the Bulgarian case.” In a dispatch from Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky wrote: “The mixed commission established for Bulgarian affairs continues its meetings. In the message of the meeting, they dealt exclusively with the second point of the Bulgarian petition, which relates to the composition of the Synod of Constantinople. The right demanded by the Bulgarians to have their national representatives in the synod in equal numbers with the Greeks is the subject of heated debate, which has not yet resolved anything, because the representatives of the patriarchate resist this harassment under the pretext that in matters of religion the church cannot allow the beginning of nationalities. Both sides are intensifying with equal ardor to concede nothing on this issue, which seems to have become a stumbling block to their mutual agreement. This circumstance is all the more regrettable because Roman Catholic propaganda is using all sorts of measures to take advantage of the slow action of the commission and strengthen the state of the Bulgarian Union society. Noticing the distrust that instills in most Bulgarians the absence of a people's archbishop at the head of this society, the leaders of the Roman movement intended to involve the Bulgarian Metropolitan Auxentius in their cause. For this purpose, a deputation of twenty people, among whom Tsankov was located, went to visit him in Ismid (in Nicomedia), where he lives in exile. They came to the Right Reverend Auxentius on the 11th of this month, and, after showing him countless signs of their respect, they begged him to declare himself in favor of the union, promising, if he decided to do so, to immediately seek his release, bring him the rank of patriarch and shower him with riches. But the elderly Auxentius answered them with simplicity: “all the treasures in the world will not be able to induce me to betray my Orthodox faith; your promises are useless, you are wasting your time and efforts in vain, return to yourself” 347. Thus sent with refusal, the deputation must return to Constantinople without reaching the goal of its journey; but this failure only suspended, and did not weaken, the activities of Roman propaganda.” In the dispatch communicated to me from Constantinople, dated September 18–30 (No. 126), one can see a dispute between the mixed Greek-Bulgarian commission about the number of Greek and Bulgarian members in the synod. The Patriarch says that “in matters of religion, the Church cannot allow the emergence of nationalities.” To this we can say: where is the church rule in which the patriarch found this idea? Secondly, is he not guided by the principle of nationality when he strives for the Greek element in the synod to suppress the Bulgarian element with its numbers? But the Bulgarian demand for equal membership in the synod, it seems, is not entirely fair, considering the number of Greek and Bulgarian dioceses. It would be enough to ask for 5 Bulgarian members and 7 Greek members. The other part of the dispatch contains a firm refusal by the ex-metropolitan Auxentius to those who seduced him into the union. The words are beautiful; but it would be desirable to penetrate into the soul from which they come. The Bulgarians who tempted him do not understand the matter, but he understands. He knows that even before his connection with the Bulgarians who rebelled against the patriarch, he was removed from the administration of the diocese (probably not for virtue); that, having accosted the rebels, he, together with Hilarion, signed and printed a letter scolding the Greek hierarchy; that for this three times, according to the rules, he was called to court, but did not appear; that after this council of 27 bishops, among whom were patriarchs, he was deprived of his episcopacy and priesthood, and that it is very incredible that such a pope would recognize such a bishop. With this consideration, the brilliance of Auxentius’ answer decreases. These considerations can also serve as an answer to the question: why shouldn’t the patriarch reconcile with Auxentius? One who has been deprived of his rank cannot be restored to his former rank. This could only happen if the decision of the council of 27 bishops was found by another powerful council to be unfair and illegal. Where can you get such a cathedral? In my previous notes it was already said that the patriarch dug a chasm on the path of reconciliation when he defrocked Hilarion and Auxentius. If only he had removed them from communion and banned them from the priesthood, rather than defrocked them, then forgiveness and reconciliation would have been possible. On the appointment of members from Greeks and Bulgarians to the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, 1862, October 24 Prince S. N. Urusov, in reference, dated October 22, 1862, No. 6762, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret “a copy of the dispatch of Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, No. 131, addressed to Prince A. M. Gorchakov, which states: “Having received a copy of the demands 349 presented by the Bulgarian envoys to the mixed commission, I charge myself with the duty to report it to your Excellency. The 2nd point, which was the subject of heated debate between Greek and Bulgarian deputies throughout the month of September, has not been resolved to this day. While formally rejecting the principle of nationalities in religious matters, the Greeks never ceased to assert that the church never made any distinction between Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and all other peoples subject to its spiritual authority; that she cannot undertake to elevate anyone to the rank of bishop except those who are worthy of it, and that consequently, whenever there are bishops among the Bulgarians who combine all the required qualities, the great church will not refuse to accept them as members of the synod, on the basis of the rules consecrated by the charter. The Bulgarians were not satisfied with these assurances, being convinced that they would never be fulfilled in good faith; and since the dispute remained constantly in this hopeless circle of reproaches of one side and vague promises of the other, then, by mutual agreement, they decided to turn to the Porte with a request for its decision, which should become binding on both sides. Both of them presented a statement of the issue to Aali Pasha, with a request to notify them of the decision of the Ottoman government. It is strange that a case of this kind was left to the Muslim government to judge. Such, however, are the feelings and distrust that separate the Greeks and the Bulgarians, that they preferred to rely on the opinion of the Turks rather than make mutual concessions that would avert the extraordinary interference of the Porte in the matter of church government. While awaiting a response from Aali Pasha, the commission decided to move on to discussing the 3rd point, relating to the establishment of a Bulgarian people's council, completely separate from the mixed council established under the patriarchate." Having read the list from the dispatch of October 2 (No. 131), I cannot hide my sorrow. Orthodox Greeks and Orthodox Bulgarians do not find it possible to decide in agreement how many Greek bishops and how many Bulgarians the Orthodox synod of the Ecumenical Patriarch should consist of, and the question of the composition of the upper class in the Orthodox Church is left to be decided by the Turkish minister, a Mohammedan. An amazing, sad event! Christians, in social-Christian affairs, enslave themselves to the judgment of non-Christians. Isn’t this hard for His Holiness the Patriarch? Will he really not use the most extreme efforts so that this grave reproach does not fall on the Orthodox Church? There might be an opportunity. If 4 or 5 bishops of the Bulgarian dioceses were allowed into the synod, the Bulgarians would probably be satisfied. And this would not threaten anything. The Greek, more educated, element would still be quite strong to give and force one to accept wise advice. The Patriarch says that the Church does not distinguish between nationalities. But if the Bulgarians are guilty of going against this rule, then the Greeks are no less guilty. Bulgarians demand a balance of nationalities, while Greeks support the predominance of Greek nationality. All nationalities are equal in the church. But this does not reject the adaptation of the hierarchy to nationalities, but on the contrary, it is required in some cases. The Greeks would find it inconvenient, strange and unreasonable if the Greek diocese were given a bishop from the Bulgarians, who knew neither the language nor the way of thinking and life of the Greeks. But just as the Greeks did this to the Bulgarians for a long time, it is not without reason that they demand that rules be established against this, and this would not be a violation of any church rules. Establishment of those who hope in Thee, establish, O Lord, the church which Thou hast acquired through Thy venerable Blood. 350 March 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with his opinion on the state of church affairs in the Patriarchate of Constantinople The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in reference dated March 22, 1863, No. 1802, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the report of our attorney 351 in affairs under the Ottoman Porte, dated March 4-16, No. 36. In the said report, E.P. Novikov wrote: “The Mixed Commission, which was tasked with ending the disagreements between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, submitted for the conclusion of the Ottoman Foreign Minister the decision of the 2nd point of the Bulgarian program, relating to the composition of the Patriarchal Synod. After much hesitation, Aali Pasha invited the members of the commission to Porto to announce to them that, in the opinion of the government, it would be best to divide the dioceses subordinate to the great church into three categories: the first of them, purely Greek, comprising Theccalia, Epirus, the islands and Asia Minor, would have in the synod four representatives from metropolitans of Greek origin; the second, which includes Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, will also appoint four metropolitans of Slavic origin to attend the synod; finally, the regions inhabited by a mixed population, such as Macedonia, Oracia and Upper Albania, supplement the composition of the synod with four bishops, whose origin will be determined by the majority of voters. The Bulgarians hastened to express their consent to this proposal, which provided them, if not a majority, then at least perfect equality of votes with their opponents. The Greeks, on the contrary, refused their consent under the pretext that the church could not allow the emergence of nationalities in synodal representation. The Greeks noticed that it would be unfair not to take into account the significant inequality in the number of dioceses, of which the Greeks are 70, while the Slavs will have no more than 15, and that the measure proposed by Aali Pasha completely overthrows the ancient tradition of the church, on the basis of which the synod consisted originally of metropolitans occupying sees that enjoyed the greatest respect in the hierarchical order. The Bulgarians objected, in turn, that this outdated system was condemned by the Greeks themselves in their people's council, which established the rule that all metropolitans, without distinction, would sit alternately in the synod. As for the superiority of the number of Greek dioceses, this condition stems from the abuses of the higher clergy, who, without any need, easily multiplied the number of bishops, so that sometimes separate dioceses were established for Greek communities consisting of some thousand families; Consequently, it is unfair that the Slavic dioceses, containing from 10,000 to 50,000 houses, are compared in the way they manage church affairs with small metropolises. Aali Pasha added, for his part, that the advantages of the senior hierarchical departments would remain inviolable through the primacy that would belong to all canonical assemblies; but that it is impossible to make of the bishops who occupy them a privileged class to the detriment of other primates. Due to the impossibility of reaching an agreement on the grounds proposed by Aali Pasha, this minister submitted another proposal for discussion to the commission, which had the advantage that it completely excluded the principle of nationalities in drawing up the synod. Based on this second proposal, all currently existing dioceses would be represented in the synod according to the size of their population. For example, taking as a unit of representativeness an epoch consisting of 50,000 souls, all dioceses that do not have such a number of souls will be distributed into separate groups, each of which in its totality will reach the indicated figure. Thus, several Greek dioceses connected with each other are compared with one Slavic diocese, and will have a collective right of representation identical to it. Under this condition, it would happen that while a bishop from the Slavic diocese would come each time to attend the synod after a certain number of years, the corresponding Greek group would send only one of its bishops, in turn, at the same intervals to sit in the synod. None of the metropolitans will be excluded from participation in the synodal administration, but only the turn for each of them will come less frequently, the smaller the number of his eparchy. The Bulgarians and Metropolitan Sophronius of Art immediately agreed to this proposal; but some Greek lay members raised strong objections against him, and among them Stefan Caratheodoros was distinguished by the persistence of his refusal. To Aali Pasha’s question whether this proposal was in any way contrary to the church canons, Carafeodori answered in the negative, but declared that it was contrary to his personal convictions and could not be allowed by him. The fact is that the Greeks shirk any method of reconciliation inspired by impartiality, and which will not satisfy their desire to dominate the government of the church. A few days later, Carafeodori completely resigned from the commission. The rest of its Greek members turned to the patriarch for advice on what they should decide on; His Holiness replied that, having not been asked when appointing the members of the commission, he would not take part in the debate until the Porte addressed him with an official invitation to do so. However, it dawned on me that the patriarch was showing hostility towards Aali Pasha’s proposal, as much due to his own rules as because of his hatred towards the Metropolitan of Art, who agreed to it. The patriarch's inflexible and suspicious disposition gave little hope of successful intercession on my part in favor of the Bulgarians; and therefore I chose to act on His Holiness through some influential members of the Greek community. I convincingly persuaded them not to oppose the conditions of a fair reconciliation, which in my eyes had a double benefit: preventing any division in the management of both churches, and delivering a final blow to the machinations of the Latin clergy in favor of the union.” I return to Your Excellency the French copies of the dispatches from the charge d'affaires (No. 36) and the manager of the consulate in Adrianople (39). An extraordinary state of affairs and people! Christians cannot agree with each other in church, hierarchical matters, and present themselves to the minister, a Mohammedan, to reconcile. This alien man invented the composition of the synod, which the Bulgarian Christians approved; but they didn’t invent it themselves. The Greeks insist that the church does not recognize the beginning of nationalities. But where is her definition of this? If any church does not recognize the origin of many nationalities, then it is the Latin one, which assigns dominance to the Latin nationality, and when it is impoverished, at least to the Latin language. But the Pope does not impose a Spaniard as bishop on the Germans, or a German on the Spaniards, as they impose the Greeks on the Bulgarians. The Greek Church once sent Greek metropolitans to Russia, and then allowed Russian metropolitans and even a patriarch for Russia. Is it possible that the current Greek Church will blame the ancient Church for this? Why not give the Bulgarians a bishop from the Bulgarians, and with this corresponding participation in the synod. Against the idea that the synod should consist of metropolitans from the oldest departments since ancient times, the Bulgarians rightly responded that this order had already been changed by the decrees of the church-people's assembly, which the patriarch, willy-nilly, recognized and partly carried out. An unexpected phenomenon is represented by Carathaeodori. In the church-people's assembly he stood strongly against the enslaving and abusive influence of the Geronts. Now he stands against an assumption that would relieve the embarrassment of the Bulgarians, and he stands, as he himself admitted, not on the basis of church rules, but on some personal conviction. His previous action gave hope that he would be one of the most useful members of the mixed commission; but he leaves her completely. Shouldn't the hope of the Bulgarians lie in waiting for a new patriarch, not so inflexible? But will they have the patience? And will Latin propaganda and policies hostile to Orthodoxy await? On the occasion of the news that the Greeks want to dominate, it would be necessary to say to them: “brothers! Strengthen brotherly love, and make it easier for another nationality of the same faith (with which agreement strengthens you, and disagreement weakens you), so that the Lord will ease the burden of another nationality of a different faith over you.” Unfortunately, one can only reflect on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, when those in difficulty made themselves difficult and contributed to troubles. April 6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with a review of the brochure of 10 Uniate Bulgarians who reunited with Orthodoxy A.P. Akhmatov, in relation, dated March 28, 1863, for No. 1905, forwarding to Metropolitan Filaret a copy of Mr. Filaretov’s report to the charge d’affaires in Constantinople, dated the 12th of the same month, on the Bulgarian case and the brochure following this report, asked the Metropolitan to return this brochure, after completing it needs. In the report, Mr. Filaretov, among other things, wrote that the Catholic Union had been dealt a new blow: ten more Uniate Bulgarians, having returned to the Orthodox faith, explained in a printed brochure the reasons that prompted them to both accept the union and abandon it. The Bulgarian members of the mixed commission on the church question intend to appear in Porto the next day with a new request, either to invite the Greeks to accept the Porte’s proposal on the 2nd point of the Bulgarian demands “on the personnel of the Holy Synod,” or to allow the Bulgarians themselves to establish their own independent national hierarchy. The brochure of Bulgarians returning from the union is returned. Its language is incomprehensible to me. The loss of ten people is not a heavy blow for the union. This case may be significant if these are people who have influence over their fellow tribesmen, and if their announcement is written with reason. The intention of the Bulgarians to ask the Porte for permission to “establish their own independent people’s hierarchy” shows that although the Bulgarians have already had enough time to think about their business, they still only have a stubborn desire and have not acquired a clue. A new independent hierarchy can only be established with the blessing of the legally existing hierarchy. Is it safe to take into the hierarchy the defrocked Hilarion and others like him? Will those who understand the matter accept them with a peaceful conscience? Will the people gain trust and respect for them? But, on the other hand, does the Ecumenical Patriarch think about the consequences of this? The Porte will probably find it more profitable for itself to have Greeks and Bulgarians divided and at war with each other, rather than one continuous mass of Greeks and Bulgarians. So, if she tells the Bulgarians, make yourself a bishopric, and if they tempt some archiepeans to separate from the ecumenical patriarch and form a special Bulgarian bishopric, what will the patriarch do? Will he judge? Will he curse? The Bulgarians had already decided to despise his court. So, by his inflexibility, will he become the reason for the dissection of his church? May the guardian angel of the Church of Constantinople instill in his Holiness thoughts of foresight and precaution. 353 (1863, August 18–1864, October 6.) Reviews of Metropolitan Philaret on the method of reconciliation between Greeks and Bulgarians and on measures to prevent the conversion of Bosnian Christians to Islamism Adjutant General A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter dated August 13, 1863, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the dispatch of the Russian charge d'affaires at the Ottoman Porte - dated July 30, August 11, 1863, No. 131. In the dispatch, Mr. Novikov, among other things, explained that “the duration of the struggle between the Greeks and Bulgarians in the bosom of the church, the efforts of some and the resistance of others led to mutual exhaustion. In this situation, the idea of ​​a complete administrative separation of the two churches more or more seems to be the only way out of rival claims, and begins to spread even among members of the Greek clergy. It is clear that such an outcome would cause serious damage to the authority and interests of the church, and therefore I tried to prove to the Greeks that fair concessions are more characteristic of their interests than the loneliness that would result from the break and bring the patriarchal region to insignificant proportions. Returning the French copy of the Constantinople dispatch on July 30, 1863, I can only say that, in my opinion, Mr. Novikov’s advice on unity is fair, as is the explanation of the harm from division. If I could talk to him, I would suggest to him: wouldn’t the pride of the Greeks be satisfied, and wouldn’t the Bulgarians be satisfied, if we assume 7 Greek and 5 Bulgarian bishops in the synod! 354 On measures to prevent the conversion of Bosnian Christians to Islamism Prince S.N. Urusov, in reference, dated July 19, 1864, No. 4678, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the report of the manager of our consulate in Sarajevo to the charge d'affaires in Constantinople, dated June 17 of the same year, No. 99, with the following content: “I hasten to inform your Excellency about a new sad fact of public life in Bosnia, a fact that is all the more sad because it is far from the first and, unfortunately, probably not the last. Yesterday, two women, one named Maria, 19 years old, with two children, the other a girl Elsa, apparently 18 years old, according to her father 13, both from Visegrad, converted to Islamism. Brought to Sarajevo, they, despite any admonitions from their parents, the local archpriest and Koja-bashi, the official defender of the interests of the Bosnian people, could not be deviated from the desire to become Muslims, and we can positively say that this matter is irrevocably over. Notified of this event, I acted with all my might on the archpriest and Koja-basha, who, however, consider it my duty to give them all justice, and without that they used all possible efforts, during the hour given to them by the pasha, to prevent these two Christian women from converting to the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Proto-Singel Benjamin, the ruler of the metropolitanate, who remained, as always in such cases, a cold-blooded spectator of what was happening. As for the Governor-General, I did not even consider it necessary to explain to him about this matter, confident in advance of the failure of my ideas, both because both Christians, as I have already mentioned, persistently declared their desire to accept Islamism, and because, despite my recent arrival here, I am fully aware of Osman Pasha’s modus operandi in such matters, especially during the continuation of the stay here of Dzhevdet Efendi, the Commissioner of the Porte, who himself belongs to the class of ulema. Since examples of conversion to the Muslim faith have become more and more repeated here, I consider it my duty to draw your Excellency’s favorable attention to this important subject and to those measures that seem to me necessary to suppress this evil. Considering the main reasons for this kind of facts, one cannot help but discover that they have the following circumstances as their main sources: 1) the lack of Christian virtues and sympathy for the local people in the higher clergy; 2) underdevelopment of the lower clergy and lack of funds for the spiritual education of the people; 3) lack of education and suppression of patriotic motives by selfish goals in the wealthy classes of Bosniaks. Your Excellency is already well aware that the local Metropolitan Ignatius, together with his assistant proto-Singel Benjamin, represent a rare example of immorality. With their selfishness and indecent behavior, these people, instead of being a support for Christians before the Turkish government, completely alienated the people. From this first reason flows the second: out of selfish and selfish calculations, people were ordained priests in Bosnia who were not recruited for their personal merits and, moreover, were not at all prepared for their high calling. In addition, these priests still do not have the necessary books for sacred worship, which Gavro Vulkovic, the Koja-bashi of the Bosnian people, personally known to you, has already asked me to bring to the attention of your Excellency more than once. Then, in order to characterize the local wealthy trading class, which, by supporting every good movement among the people and encouraging education among them, could have such an influence on them and prevent them from errors, it is enough to point out that Stana Skendereva, this woman, tactfully serving the benefits of the entire people, has been pointed out to Osman Pasha more than once, and even recently, as a dangerous woman for the Turkish government and as a spy for the Principality of Serbia; Apart from these persecutions, the local trading class did not want to help her in any way in the matter of forming a local women's society, saying that they would not give anything to her school, which is a Russian institution. Under such circumstances, promoting the development of Muslim as well as Catholic proselytism, I would consider the following measures necessary: ​​1) the appointment of a synod, either through the influence of the patriarchate, or through your Excellency’s own influence, of a metropolitan, full of virtues and understanding the importance of the vocation of the church in the cause of Christians in the East; 2) requesting, if possible, a vizieral letter, with an order to Osman Pasha to send, as before, anyone who has expressed a desire to convert to Islamism for a few days to the metropolis or to the community; 3) sending church books that the local community wants to acquire even by purchase; 4) to facilitate the sending of young men from here to the Belgrade seminary, where, in addition to acquiring knowledge, they could get used to looking at Serbia as the center of Slavism in the East, from where they can expect the best for their political life.” Information from Sarajevo, dated June 17, 1864, contains the following: 1) The woman Maria with two children from Visegrad and the girl Elka fell into Mohammedanism. 2) Pasha gave an hour to exhort them to remain in Christianity. 3) The archpriest and the koja used all possible efforts for this, but without success. 4) Protosingel Benjamin remained indifferent on this occasion, as usual in similar cases. 5) One of the reasons for such sad cases is believed to be that Metropolitan Ignatius and Protosingel Benjamin, through their lives, give the people not edification, but temptation. 6) Bosnian churches lack liturgical books. 1) Bring the above to the attention of the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch, in order to take measures to protect the Orthodox faith. 2) Take measures to supply Bosnian churches with liturgical books. 355 October 12–13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. N. Urusov, with an opinion on the note of the Varn vice-consul 356 on the Greek-Bulgarian question The note of the Varna vice-consul, dated May 9, 1864, on the Greek-Bulgarian question is worthy of attention, except for one thought that forces one to step aside - this is the accusation of the Greek clergy “of treason” when they reveal to the Turkish government “the conspiracy and uprising” of the Bulgarians. It is difficult to pronounce a decisive judgment on the conscience of the Ternov Metropolitan, who swore allegiance to the Turkish government and sees a conspiracy threatening disasters and threatened with vengeance. The burden of the Greek hierarchy, such as it is and how it works, is unbearable for the Bulgarians. Her insistence on resolutely denying the Bulgarians their desires has already produced a lot of evil, and threatens more. As could have been foreseen, soon, after the start of the strife, the idea was given here (I don’t know if it was conveyed to the Greeks) to make peace with the Bulgarians by admitting into the synod, if not half, then a little less than half of the members from the Bulgarians, and by promising them bishops from their nation. There was a time when reconciliation on these terms was likely. This time has passed. As for the 8 Bulgarian points 357, as far as I remember, they cut too much unity, not only church, but also political, which, as much as possible, should be preserved, because Greeks and Bulgarians in unity are stronger before the Porte than cut in two. And this was said here. It would be useful to limit the 8 points somewhat if we take them as the basis for reconciliation. October 12–13, 1864 358 December 27–28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov on the Greek-Bulgarian affair Adjutant General A.P. Akhmatov, with respect, dated November 12, 1864, for No. 7097, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, in copies: a) a report from the manager of the Russian vice-consulate in Varna to the envoy in Constantinople, dated September 26. 1864, for No. 72, and b) the attitude of N.P. Ignatiev dated October 21, the same year, for No. 329. N.P. Ignatiev, forwarding with the said attitude to the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the latest issue of the Bulgarian newspaper “Counselor”, which contained the response of the Bulgarian representatives to the objections of the Ecumenical Synod to the demands of the Bulgarians proposed to him by Aali Pasha, for his part explained that from this response it can be seen that these representatives, insisting on their previous demands, are trying to refute the objections of the Greeks. First of all, they challenge the integrity of the commission formed under the Patriarchate to examine their demands, which, creating its eloquent, but filled with sophisms, objections, decided to assert that these objections were pronounced unanimously, while it is known that four of its members (one secular person and three metropolitans) openly sided with the Bulgarians and protested against the decision of the commission. Further, the Bulgarian representatives recall the concessions previously made to them by the Patriarchate (set out in 15 articles of the district letter of 1859 359), and prove that, now objecting to the demands stated by the Bulgarians, the Greeks often contradict the facts that they themselves recognized in the said concessions of the Patriarchate in favor of the rights of the Bulgarian people. Representatives of the Bulgarians justify themselves against the judgment expressed by the commission that the concessions previously made by the patriarchate, confirmed by the Hatti Sheriff, were not carried out due to the stubbornness of the Bulgarians. Having outlined the reasons for the rejection of 15 articles of concessions by the patriarchy, the people's representatives proceed to a detailed comparison of 8 points of their demands with the synod's objections and subject each of these objections to critical analysis. The people's representatives prove that it is not their demands, but the established order of things that has created the exclusive predominance of the Greek element in the matter of church government, and that they protest only against such an order, inconsistent with the canonical rules, and propose means to eliminate this irregularity in the future. They further argue that the synod's objection that the Bulgarians' complaints are unfounded is obviously false; for the validity of these complaints was previously recognized by the patriarchy itself. Refuting each of the synod’s objections, the representatives at length prove that their demands regarding numerical representation in the synod, the method of electing and appointing metropolitans to the Bulgarian dioceses, etc. do not contain anything contrary to the church statutes, and if they constitute an innovation, then this cannot yet be considered a sufficient reason for maintaining the harmful order of things, which has not only an ecclesiastical, but also a civil character. The representatives also refute the division of dioceses into categories proposed by the synod and persist in the demand that representation in the synod should take place according to the number of residents in the dioceses, and according to the number of eparchies or categories of dioceses, according to the new proposal of the patriarchate. To the assurances of the synod that the clergy had never made any obstacles to the use of the Slavic and Bulgarian languages ​​in churches and schools, the people's representatives objected with living examples, pointing to cities and areas where the Slavic people are still subjected to open persecution. In conclusion, the Bulgarian representatives, expressing the opinion that the Patriarchate will never do anything in their favor due to the predominance of the Greek element, place all their hopes on the Turkish government and ask the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs to take into account that the Bulgarians are not looking for any privileges over other nationalities, but only demand equal participation with others in the government of the Church, which “is the common property of all the children governed by it,” and to satisfy their requests, in accordance "with the eternal justice of the Creator God." Aali Pasha, accepting the above answer from the Bulgarian representatives, announced to them that their arguments were presented with sufficient clarity and that he hoped that this answer would serve as a means to a speedy and fair resolution of the Greek-Bulgarian church feud. At the same time, the manager of the vice-consulate in Varna brought to the attention of the Russian envoy in Constantinople that the union was again rising, both in the capital and in the provinces. In the capital, a new organ of the Benedet propagandists “Bulletin of Turkey” has appeared, for which articles are written in French by the monks themselves, and its editor Genovich only translates it into Bulgarian. Not content, as before, with attracting a few individual youth into the union, propaganda decided to attract entire masses of Bulgarians, and therefore prepare them gradually. To do this, she first needs to tear them away from all their idols, smash them and, on the one hand, bringing the people to complete disbelief in receiving support from their former helpers, and on the other, instilling in them the conviction of their own weakness, offer them, as the only way out of such a desperate situation, union with Rome, through union. To this end, all the efforts of the “Vestnik” are still aimed at humiliating in the eyes of the Bulgarian people, first of all, Russia, then the clergy, teachers and Chorbajis. The Turkish government, which until now had not shown any obvious sympathy for the union, is now positively and openly taking its side. Minister Etem Pasha 360, traveling around Bulgaria, advised the Bulgarians to unite with the Catholics. The newspaper “Sovetnik”, the organ of the Tsaregrad Bulgarian community and representatives, is deprived of the right to send its pages free of charge by Turkish mail, and “Turkey” is given this right. Perhaps she also receives financial assistance from the Porte. The current Uniate community is again coming into great strength. No amount of intercession for the Viddin Chorbajis, Tsanko and his comrade, could alleviate the fate of these unfortunates. But the guarantee of the Uniate community was enough for the sick Tsanko to be sent to the St. Benedet hospital for treatment. Finally, the history of the imprisonment and exile of teacher Khrulev to Diyar Bekir from Sistov serves as direct evidence of the influence of the Catholic Party. The behavior of Aali Pasha during the entire existence of the church issue shows how undesirable it is for the Turkish government for the Bulgarians and Greeks to reach any kind of agreement. However, Turkish ministers act entirely in the interests of their state. A small Muslim tribe can maintain its dominion in Europe among large solid masses of the Christian population only by inciting discord within it and dividing this population. Aali Pasha, according to the tactics long accepted by the Turkish government, selects the opinions and testimony of both the Patriarchate and the Bulgarians, promising to resolve the issue in the shortest possible time; but as soon as the moment comes to pronounce a decision, he always finds an excuse, and sometimes, without an excuse, he destroys everything he has done and resumes the question from the beginning. Divide et impera. Blinded by the struggle, the Bulgarians and Greeks are unlikely to understand their position quite clearly, and if they do, they are unlikely to be able to make peace without arbitrary, disinterested mediation. Transmitted, dated November 12 (No. 7097), copies of dispatches from Varna, dated September 26, and from Pera, October 21, having read with grief, I cannot hide it in silence, although I have neither the right to speak, nor the corresponding knowledge, nor the hope of any success. The dispatch from Pera does not fully set out the Bulgarians’ response to the recent situation of the patriarchal council (this is not a synod, because the assembly consisted of ecclesiastical and secular); but according to information about the latter, it can be assumed that there is more truth in the Bulgarians’ answer than in the provisions of the council. Aali Pasha explained that the Bulgarians’ arguments were clear, and that their answer would contribute to a quick and fair resolution of the Greek-Bulgarian feud; Apparently, this gives good hope, and if after this you read the dispatch from Varna, then hope is hidden. The manager of the vice-consulate proves that the Greeks and Bulgarians are unable to make peace without mediation, and that this cannot be expected from the Turkish government, because it is beneficial for it to divide and thereby weaken its Christian nations, which when united are stronger than the Turks. I have been thinking this for a long time, and I wrote to your predecessor, is it possible to explain to both the Greeks and the Bulgarians that by mutual confrontation they are inflicting a destructive blow on themselves, both religiously and politically, while, through reconciliation, restoring mutual agreement, they would be stronger in front of a non-Christian government and safer from the infection of the union. It seems that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would not be disgusted if Archimandrite Antonin simply sowed such thoughts in a letter where they could fall not on stones or along the road. This is what I could not resist telling your Excellency. Sorry if I'm keeping you busy without any benefit. January 31st. A note from Metropolitan Philaret, after reading the report of our consul in Adrianople on the state of church affairs in Bulgaria A.P. Akhmatov, in reference dated December 31, 1864, No. 8048, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the report of the Russian consul in Adrianople, Zolotarev, dated 9/21 of the same month, in which some information was presented about the then state of church affairs in Bulgaria, collected by him during his trip to the Balkans. In his report, Mr. Zolotarev, among other things, wrote: “From Adrianople to the Danube, not a single, somewhat independent, Bulgarian wants to recognize the power of the Patriarchate anymore, and many of the Bulgarian elders asked me whether Russia looks favorably on the movement they have undertaken. Based on my answer to this question in the sense of the order given to the consulate I managed, I noticed that many Bulgarians were of the opinion that Russia was more in favor of the Greeks. To clarify these doubts, which may become disadvantageous for us in the future due to the arousal of the displeasure of 4,000,000 Christians, it would be necessary, in my humble opinion, to declare once and for all to the Bulgarians to what extent and to what extent we are disposed to support their demand; on the other hand, it would be necessary to act on the Patriarchate in such a way as to bring about those concessions that we would indicate are possible for the Bulgarians to achieve. Otherwise, if these latter, retaining their real doubts, manage to achieve what they demand from the patriarchy, then they will continue to think that on our part no moral compulsion was made to the Greeks, and that we used our influence solely in favor of the Constantinople clergy.” After reading this paper, Metropolitan Filaret, regarding A.P. Akhmatov, No. 8048, wrote: “January 31. The last opinion is remarkable. But the discord went far and broke the bridges behind it. If we offer, as far as possible, the best for both sides, everyone will be united.” 362 November 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov about the Greek-Bulgarian church feud Your Excellency, dear sir. I return copies of reports from Mr. 363 Russian Vice-Consul in Philippopolis, No. 29, on the actions of the annual meeting of deputies of the Philippopolis diocese for a meeting on church affairs, and from Mr. Manager of the Consulate in Adrianople, No. 72, about the Bulgarian families that went over to the union. The disease of patriapsia is deep. At first, the indecision of one patriarch did not heal her, although it was not difficult then; then the inflexibility of the other strengthened the stubbornness of the Bulgarians, and set up a new, strongest obstacle to reconciliation, by the deposition of two bishops, instead of temporary excommunication. Now it is difficult for us to give either side permission to speak, and it is difficult to expect to be heard. With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your excellency, dear sir, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. No. 53. June 13, 1865 364 August 15. A note by Metropolitan Philaret, after reading the dispatch of our envoy in Constantinople about the serious illness of the former Bulgarian bishop Avxentius Adjutant General N.P. Ignatiev, in dispatches dated February 2–14, 1865, No. 26, notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that “the Bulgarian Bishop Auxentius is hopelessly ill. Believing that his reconciliation with the great Church would serve as a dying consolation for himself and a beneficial example for his accomplices, I proposed to the patriarch to perform a duty of Christian love and at the same time an act of political wisdom by granting permission to this bishop, excommunicated from the church. “His Holiness accepted my thought favorably and reported it to the Synod; after a heated debate, they sent the bishop of Preslav to announce to the dying man that the patriarch had forgotten everything that had happened and was inviting him to accept the forgiveness of the great church.” “Unfortunately, having submitted to the influence of the most ardent Bulgarian leaders around him, Auxentius did not heed the admonitions of the Bishop of Preslav and rejected the hand of reconciliation extended to him.” “This circumstance deeply upset the patriarch, who informed our dragoman 365 that the Bulgarians were preparing an unusually solemn funeral for Auxentius; his body will be embalmed and sent for burial to the place of birth of the deceased - Samokovo, where he will be given the honors of a martyr and saint. The Patriarch does not want, for his part, to interfere with these statements; but since this could cause unrest among the common people, between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, he will warn the government about this.” “His Holiness ordered me to be told that he is ready to instruct the synod to be present in full force at the burial of the bishop, if only I can guarantee that these church dignitaries will not be subjected to any hostile and offensive actions on the part of the Bulgarians. I answered His Holiness that, not having direct influence on the Bulgarians, I could not accept such responsibility; but I find that the dignity of the church requires that it support the forgiveness it has given, even after its rejection.” Many oddities are connected with the death of Auxentius. They offer forgiveness to the non-asker, but he does not accept forgiveness. How to offer forgiveness to someone defrocked? Do they really want to accept him as bishop again? Is defrocking really a temporary, transitory measure, like excommunication? The entire synod wants to be present at the burial of someone who has been defrocked and who has not accepted forgiveness. The dignity of the church seems to require supporting forgiveness that has not been accepted. On the contrary, the dignity of the church is insulted by the refusal to accept forgiveness. And how to support unreceived forgiveness? August 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, on the Greek-Bulgarian case Count D.A. Tolstoy, with respect, dated July 24, 1865, No. 3835, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, at his discretion, a dispatch from the Russian envoy in Constantinople, dated June 29–July 11, 1865, No. 175, in which General Ignatiev informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among other things: a) that the commission on the Bulgarian case is supposed to the clergy and elders of each Bulgarian bishopric presented to the synod three candidates for the opened see; b) that, at the request of the Bulgarians, the commission agreed to increase the number of metropolises; c) that the election of the patriarch is carried out by members of the synod and the laity: but the Bulgarian metropolitans, instead of special participation in this, will sit in the synod alternately, on an equal basis with others, and thus they will constitute a sufficient number of voters from the clergy; as for lay voters, to expand the participation of Bulgarians, the number of regional representatives will be increased from 28 to 58, and 8 representatives will be appointed from the capital; d) that the commission, instead of establishing a special mixed council for the Bulgarian people, proposes to admit 4 Bulgarian lay members to the council existing under the patriarch; e) that these rules, after consideration by the patriarchate, will be submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; f) that the Greeks insist before the patriarch that he warn Aali Pasha that if the Bulgarians do not agree to these concessions, he himself will ask for a hierarchical separation of the Bulgarian church; but that the Porte will not dare to promote this division, finding advantage in maintaining the existing order of affairs; g) that the patriarch, who asked the opinion of the Russian embassy on the conclusion of the commission, was informed that its assumption contains a lot of good things, but is not yet sufficiently complete to satisfy the Bulgarians and stop church discord. To this, General Ignatiev added that the advice of the embassy was not without a beneficial influence on the intentions of the patriarchate. The new method of electing bishops and the admission of 4 Bulgarian members to the mixed council far surpasses the concessions proposed last year. I am returning the dispatch from the Russian envoy in Constantinople, dated June 29–July 11 of this year, No. 175, on the Greek-Bulgarian issue. The Greek-Bulgarian affair seems to be embarking on the path of reconciliation with hope. Thanks to Mr. Messenger. But it is not clear to me how the Ecumenical Patriarch could say that he himself would ask for a hierarchical separation of the Bulgarian Church. If he threatens to do something that he does not want to do at all, then this is not a patriarchal word. It is also incomprehensible that the Mr. Envoy’s opinion is that the Porte will not dare to contribute to this division, when he himself says in another dispatch that the Porte acts according to the rule: divide and dominate. But these are my perplexities that do not require any resolution. It is my duty to pray for the peace of the church. 367 April 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy with his opinion on Osman Pasha’s proposal to print liturgical books for Orthodox churches in Bosnia, in the Turkish-Serbian printing house reopened in Sarajevo Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, in reference, dated April 15, 1866, No. 2178, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret copies of two reports of the Russian consul in Sarajevo 368 to our envoy in Turkey, drew his attention “to Osman Pasha’s proposal to print liturgical books for Orthodox churches in Bosnia, and at the same time reported that he, finding the fears expressed by the consul quite well founded, submitted a petition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to instruct our envoy in Constantinople to take all possible measures to ensure that this assumption does not come true.” When communicating to me (dated April 15, No. 2178) a copy of the report of the Bosnian consul, your Excellency deigned to note that Osman Pasha’s proposal to print liturgical books for Orthodox churches in Sarajevo, in a Turkish-Serbian printing house, is most worthy of attention. The printing of liturgical books in Mohammedan hands is both offensive and can be harmful to Orthodoxy. Since ancient times, the Orthodox Church, according to the apostolic commandment, praying for the king, prays for his victory, without naming his enemies, and without uttering reproaches against them, in order to fulfill his duty to the king and not utter a word that would seem inconsistent with the commandment of love for enemies. But in the Middle Ages, national love for the Tsar and the Fatherland went beyond this limit, and we read, for example, in the liturgical book: “You child of Hagar, O damsel, subdue our emperor with your prayers” (Octoechos, tone 4, fifth, canon. cant. 9). For a long time the Turks did not know that there were such places in our liturgical books; but finally these ill-intentioned people pointed out to the government of Constantinople. 369 This, in my opinion, requires attention in the present circumstances. Shouldn’t it be left to the Patriarch to print our liturgical books and fight against the Turkish enterprise, and not for the leaders of the Russian government to openly enter into this fight? Whether it is necessary or not, let your Excellency know this thought. 370 June 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy regarding the idea that arose among the Greek clergy to appeal to the Russian and Athens Synods with a request for assistance in resolving the Greek-Bulgarian church feud Among the Greek clergy, the idea arose to turn to the Russian and Athens Synods with a request for assistance in resolving the Greek-Bulgarian controversial issue. 371 Before this thought goes into action, precaution requires considering the question: can the above assumption be considered feasible and expedient? Not long before this, there was communication between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the All-Russian Synod on the matter of Moldavian-Vlachian legislation, and it turned out to be satisfactory for the Holy Patriarch. Probably from this success the idea was born to make a similar communication about the Greek-Bulgarian question. But these are two very different things. In the first case, certain provisions and unfair defensive arguments of Prince Kuza 372 were in mind, which could be clearly refuted by church rules, history, and other considerations. In the second there is an indefinite demand of the Bulgarians, and also an indefinite confrontation of the Greeks. Bulgarians ask for national bishops; but in the eparchies that they consider theirs, the Bulgarian population is mixed in varying proportions with the Greek. The Greeks reject the beginning of nationality; but in fact they act to maintain the dominance of their nationality and do not remember that the Holy Spirit recognized the beginning of nationalities when he sent down the gift of tongues to the church, so that each nationality would have teachers of faith and worship in its own language. The matter, which at first is not very difficult, is more confused and complicated by the slow and changeable movement of it. It cannot be clearly and convincingly resolved by rules alone: ​​mutual agreements and concessions are needed. This can only be done on the spot, only by the disputing parties themselves. Whatever opinion the All-Russian Synod gives on this matter: the most likely consequence is that both sides will be dissatisfied and will not accept it; Consequently, there will be no benefit, the advising party will be offended, and the peace between churches and peoples will, more or less, be damaged. We can only say: beloved fellow-Orthodox brethren, Greeks and Bulgarians, do not weaken yourselves and each other by weakening your unity; strengthen yourself by preserving unity; Do not let your sharing of chance by strangers plunder your spiritual flock; Let them equally honor the common hierarchy, the Hellenes and the Bulgarians; Equally, let the general hierarchy take care of the Hellenes and the Bulgarians. Naturally, it is fair, and in accordance with the spirit of the Orthodox Church, that the Bulgarians should have pastors, worship and schools in their own language, and not in someone else’s, and for this they need a significant amount of freedom in choosing their own shepherds. It would not be contrary to the order of church government, in accordance with the circumstances and for the Bulgarians, it would be reassuring if it were established as a firm rule that some of the Bulgarian bishops should be present with the Holy Patriarch in the synod. Could these and similar thoughts not be brought to the attention of the great church, without official communication? And isn't it better this way? Because, in the case of non-acceptance of privately submitted thoughts, the consequences are not as significant as in the case of non-acceptance of official proposals. However, the Holy All-Russian Synod has the discretion to elect the best. With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your excellency, dear sir, and so on. June 11. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the letter from A.P. Akhmatov on the distribution of church taxes between the Greek and Bulgarian dioceses A.P. Akhmatov, in a letter dated January 26, 1865, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, at his discretion, a dispatch from the Russian envoy in Constantinople, dated January 5–17, No. 1, on the agreement that followed between the Porte and the Patriarchate of Constantinople regarding the provision of government collectors with the collection of church taxes and on the procedure for distributing them between Bulgarian and Greek dioceses. At the same time, the following considerations were brought to the attention of the Metropolitan. “The important difficulty encountered in the fair distribution of church taxes between the Greek and Bulgarian dioceses brings to mind that, during the discussion of the Bulgarian demands in the mixed commission, the question was raised about the significant inequality of those and other dioceses, of which there are 70 Greek, and only 15 Bulgarian, while the vast majority of the population is on the side of the latter. The Bulgarians argued that the large number of Greek bishops was an abuse of the higher clergy, who multiplied their number without any real need. There are separate dioceses for Greek communities consisting of no more than 1000 families, while Slavic dioceses contain from 10,000 to 50,000 houses. Wouldn't it be convenient to take advantage of the difficulty that has arisen to propose to the Patriarchate to reduce the number of Greek dioceses? There is no doubt that the small and poor Greek population is burdened with maintaining a significant number of its bishops, and their reduction will constitute a significant and great rapprochement for the Greeks. On the other hand, with the removal, as a result, of the need to pay the support of the bishops of the Greek dioceses to the Bulgarians, the inevitable increase in hostility between both peoples and new defections of the Bulgarians into the union will be prevented.” On this letter, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “1866, June 11. Reducing the number of Greek eparchies would be completely fair. But intervention in this matter by the Russian eparchy does not promise success and threatens disagreement. 374 January 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy regarding the intention of Uniate Bishop Raphael to return to Orthodoxy Count D. A. Tolstoy, in a confidential manner, dated January 17, 1867, No. 222, notified Metropolitan Philaret that the Russian envoy in Constantinople received from trusted persons a notification about the intention, allegedly expressed by the Uniate Bishop Raphael 375, to return to Orthodoxy and flee to Russia, pending the resolution of the Bulgarian issue, i.e. the time when it will be possible for him to receive one of the Bulgarian dioceses; that the envoy, not yet being sure of the truth of this news, but bearing in mind the need to act urgently, in the event of a direct appeal to him by Bishop Raphael, asked for permission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whether he could promise Raphael maintenance, where and in what amount, and in general what the conditions of his stay in Russia would be, and that the ministry reported this circumstance to the conclusion of the Holy Synod. Therefore, Count Tolstoy asked the Metropolitan to give him feedback on the present case. By your Excellency's confidence, dated January 14, No. 222, an opinion is required about the Uniate Bishop Raphael, who intends to convert to Orthodoxy and flee to Russia, pending the resolution of the Bulgarian question, i.e., until the time when he may be able to receive one of the Bulgarian dioceses. From the dispatch of the Russian consul in Adrianople 376, dated December 1, 1865, No. 250, it is clear that Raphael was once a deacon under the Bulgarian (deposed by the patriarch) bishop Auxentia, and was removed for immoral behavior; that Raphael tried to instill in the Uniates “a spirit of enmity and malice”; that, at his instigation, the Uniates in 1862 “expelled the Dimoti Metropolitan, tore his cassock to shreds and tore out the hair from his beard.” In Raphael’s letter attached to the same dispatch, he encourages the inhabitants of Ibruum to drive out the ruler of Orthaki; He calls the Greek rulers “cursed” and says that “they should be given the wooden Lord” (beatings with sticks). In such a person the Orthodox Church will receive an unenviable acquisition. Probably, Raphael only wants to flee to Orthodoxy and to Russia because it is bad for him in the union. And what hope does he have of getting a Bulgarian chair? He probably received his ordination as a deacon from Auxentius, an illegitimate bishop, and his ordination as a bishop was Latin, which the patriarch did not recognize in Joseph, and does not recognize in Raphael. The case of Joseph is unpleasant. His hopes for Russia did not come true; This made an unpleasant impression on the Bulgarians. Is it necessary to open the way to another, similar business, and even worse in Raphael’s qualities? In my opinion, one can only tell Raphael that if he converts to Orthodoxy and comes to Russia, then, out of common faith and love for the Bulgarians, he will be provided with a stay and the necessary maintenance, without encouraging him to recognize the bishopric and receive the see; because it is impossible to foresee whether these circumstances will allow it. His stay should, of course, not be in Kiev, in front of half of Russia, but in another place in the South. With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, and so on. No. 3. January 16, 1867 377 March 27. A note by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the disposition of the Philippian Bulgarians towards the world of the Church” I. A copy of the following telegram 378 from Adrianople has been received: “The Philippine Bulgarians are ready to put up with the patriarch on the terms that will be indicated to them by Russia.” II. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, recognizing the difficulty of this task, nevertheless requires consideration of it and opinions. III. How grievously the Church of Constantinople suffers from the Bulgarian strife! Without hastening to take conciliatory measures, which were not difficult at first, she was subjected to cruel insults from the Bulgarians; used extreme measures against them - the deposition of bishops, but with shameful failure; to the deposed Auxentius, during his dying illness, she peacefully, but not according to the rules and not quite in accordance with her dignity, offered reconciliation, and was again offended by his refusal 379; I saw before my face the abduction of my children by the Western Union, and the emergence of the Western Uniate hierarchy; this side does not remain safe even now; repeatedly drew up conciliatory conferences and conditions for reconciliation, but fruitless: and with all this it is not clear that she was inclined to brotherly bring the Bulgarians closer to equality with the Greeks; in its conditions of peace, as far as they are known, one can see the desire to place the Greek element in great height and dominating power over the Bulgarian; and the Bulgarians do not seem to have a clear assurance of the freedom of their church language and national schools, and of their safety from Hellenization. Under such circumstances, one cannot help but fear that if terms of reconciliation are offered that are moderately favorable to the Bulgarians, they will not be pleasing to the Greeks, and if conditions are offered that are pleasing to the Greeks, they will not be satisfactory to the Bulgarians. IV. After so many disputes, meetings, attempts at rapprochement between the Greeks and Bulgarians, it is not sufficiently known what both sides hold firmly and what less firmly; and therefore there is no reliable basis even for the conjectural drawing up of conciliation terms. V. Only the Philippian Bulgarians entrust their reconciliation to Russia. Let us assume that Russia offered the Philippine Bulgarians a way of reconciliation with the patriarch, and they agreed. But is this partial reconciliation possible when it comes to the organization of the entire church, namely, the composition of the patriarchal synod, in which the Bulgarians demand a certain number of places for their bishops? Is it possible to hope that the Philippian Bulgarians will be followed by others, and especially those of Constantinople, who are stronger and have more influence on others? Failure is highly likely. But. Of course, one should not go towards failure. VI. It seems that the Greeks already have the idea that Russia is not impartial, and is more disposed towards the Bulgarians than towards them. This idea will receive reinforcement if a draft condition of reconciliation is proposed, which the Greeks do not like. Those called to peacemaking must beware so that, through trying to bring peace to others, they do not acquire hostility for themselves. VII. The problem is not so abbreviated that it can be understood and solved in a short telegram. Who offers the remedy for peace? The clergy, or the people, or both? How significant is the number of consonants in this, and their influence on others? Is it possible to hope that those who are now demanding the conditions of peace, upon presentation of these conditions, will firmly adhere to them, and will not appear in powerless numbers? As long as there is no answer to these questions, no step can be taken based on the telegram. VIII. What kind of opinion can there be on this matter, in its present situation? - It seems like this: 1) demand additional information. 2) to convey the idea to the Philippine Bulgarians that it is not convenient for them to act privately on a matter that is common to all Bulgarians. 3) do not rush, and see if the Ecumenical Patriarch 380, who has recently taken over the administration, will do anything about this matter, and what his view of this matter will be revealed. 381 October. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the two editions of the note on the Greek and Bulgarian churches and on the alleged relations of the Russian Church with the Greek, regarding the Greek-Bulgarian feud 382 1. In one of the two editions of the note on the Greek and Bulgarian churches, in 1 of the 3 reminder provisions it is said: the existence of the Ecumenical Church infallible and immaculate without the Greek is impossible. This is said without reason. Neither Christ the Savior, nor councils, nor the holy fathers ever tied the fate of the Universal Church to any one nation. The councils gave primacy to the bishop of the Roman church; the Patriarch of Constantinople was installed second. The Roman bishop and his church fell away: the Patriarch of Constantinople remained supreme, and the Ecumenical Orthodox Church remained immaculate, as it was. If (from which God forbid) the Patriarch of Constantinople had wavered in faith: the Ecumenical Church would have remained the same as it was, with the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and the All-Russian Holy Synod. Something similar can be seen in the Old Testament church. In the beginning, the tabernacle in Palestine was in the tribe of Ephraim, and it, with Joshua, took precedence. Then Jerusalem took precedence with its church and king. Then ten tribes, including the anciently dominant tribe of Ephraim, fell away: this did not prevent the true Ecumenical Church from remaining in Jerusalem and in two tribes. Another edition of the above passage of the note deserves preference. II. But in this second edition, 3 of the same provisions, presented in allegorical expressions, are not clear: as members of the single body of the holy church, we cannot help but feel the diseases that affect the great body, and feeling them, we cannot help but make efforts to heal the affected parts. From this it is impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about what should be done. And isn’t it too harsh when we say that the great body of the church is stricken with illness? Does our eye penetrate through the whole body? We see sore members: this is a different matter. Here it is better to accept the first edition with some modification: we should not indifferently see among those who are like us the suppression of their language and the deprivation of shepherds of the same language with the flock so that the people can understand the worship and teaching of the church. III. In the note, which is shown here second, the Greek people are called the first-called of the languages. What is this based on? At the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Ponticians, Phrygians, Libyans, Romans, Cretans, Arabians appear, and it is unknown which of them believed first. Then Philip converted an Ethiopian eunuch to Christianity. Then Peter baptized Cornelius the Roman. Then the first of the languages ​​of the church was founded in Antioch, where the indigenous population is Syrian. Of the five first teachers of this church, three have Jewish names, and two have Roman names: Niger, Lucius. All this does not lead to the conclusion that the Greek people are the first-called of the languages. IV. In the first edition, under the title our desires and our responsibilities, the first point is stated in harsh terms, and at the same time not providing the truth. What does it mean; blame the disasters on the Greek clergy from the Turks? If this means; to blame the Greeks for bribery, which is caused by the bribery of the Turks, then although nothing should be blamed on the Greeks, they have their own burden of vice, partly worthy of a lenient judgment, but by no means an excuse. The article says that we must restore the Greek hierarchy in public opinion. It must, but with justice and impartiality; for otherwise our defense will not elevate it, but will humiliate us. It is necessary to maintain the canonical dignity of the hierarchy, but not to justify random and personal shortcomings and errors. V. The second paragraph says: do nothing regarding the church affairs of the East, bypassing the Greek hierarchy. Fair, but not to the same extent in all cases. If we want to build an almshouse or a hospital, we do not need to demand the permission of the Greek hierarchy, but rather tell it that our work will not be misinterpreted. At the same point, it is necessary to confess our brotherhood with the Greek hierarchy and confirm this union by resuming frequent friendly relations with it. This is desirable and necessary; But at the same time, we must not forget that the Eastern Patriarchs recognized the Holy All-Russian Synod as their brother, and they, for their part, sometimes forget this, as is clearly seen from their conciliar response to Pius IX 383, composed by them as if the All-Russian Church did not exist, while the attack of Pius IX, in its content, was not only on the Greek, but on the entire Ecumenical Eastern Orthodox Church. VI. The third point states: counteract measures that lead to the weakening of the Greek Church. The rule is fair; but the difficult question is how to fulfill it. May the Lord grant insight to see what is dangerous and wisdom to avert it. VII. Another rule: do not call for intervention by the Turkish authorities in relations between Orthodox tribes and their shepherds. And this is a fair rule of caution, but not without exception. The intervention of the Turkish authorities occurs without us; but when it is biased and harmful, we need to try to put it in order and within limits. VIII. Another rule: in no case should churches be allowed to be independent and separate from the patriarchal throne in European Turkey. And that's a good rule; but the Bulgarians can say: why is the Russian Church, which previously depended on the patriarchal throne, allowed to be independent? Why is this allowed even to the small church of the Greek kingdom (with very few restrictions) and recognized by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the All-Russian Synod? May God grant that such circumstances do not happen, or may not be allowed, that would give new force to the above objections. IX. The fourth point calls for agreement, and does not express objections. X. Let's turn to the second edition. The first paragraph of the rules of action requires explaining to the Bulgarians that the actions of the patriarch, which disagree with some of the wishes of the Bulgarians, are not as important as the possible consequences of the dispute. This rule cannot be applied to all cases that may arise. If, for example, the Bulgarians complain that the bishop took money from the diocese beyond the custom, and still collects others with violence, and the patriarch does not take measures against this: is it possible to accomplish the work of reconciliation with a word: is this not so important? In this case, it is necessary to explain to the Bulgarians that the power of the patriarch is sacred, that rebelling against it is illegal and harmful, that justice must be sought with patience and meekness, that for the injustice of any person to cause disturbance in the church there is another injustice that can lead to destruction; but at the same time, it is necessary to humbly present to the patriarch that it is necessary to speed up the correction of the disorder both out of justice and to prevent great harm to the church. XI. At the same point, it is assumed that there will be traveling actors from us in Bulgaria. The measure is useful if God gives the right choice and prudent action. XII. It is desirable that what is said in the second paragraph be carried out, but this too with caution. But why is it said here about eliminating suspicion of power-hungry desires? Why is it confirmed to remember all the benefits belonging to the ecumenical patriarch? Why place suspicions on ourselves of things that the patriarch has no reason to suspect us of? XIII. How desirable it is that the leading member of the Holy Synod should conduct a truly ecclesiastical correspondence with the Holy Patriarch, as, for example, Basil the Great did with Athanasius the Great! Even after this, there was a Greek hierarchy capable of this: Let us pray to the Lord, that it will continue to be so. But what can we say about the present time? I would not like to, but it must be said: is the patriarch, who during the last war, by an act of the church, slandered Orthodox Russia and ordered prayers for the victory of the Mohammedans over the Orthodox kingdom, is he capable of such relations? In this case, of course, complete silence is better, because in the case of established relations, an unpleasant word would be required that does not promise any benefit. Who can guarantee that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow there will not be circumstances connected with relations in which the relations established will lead to difficulties and not to benefit? Probably, the patriarch will be afraid to enter into close and permanent relations with the Russian hierarchy, and the Turkish government in this case will be suspicious and will interfere. Already the Patriarch of Jerusalem says that he received reprimands from the Turkish government for some honors shown to His Eminence of Melitopol 384 . Here’s another consideration: the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent an archbishop to Russia, received a lot of Russian money through him, and did not say that this was wrong. Now a Russian bishop has been sent to Jerusalem, who will do good there with Russian money; and the Patriarch of Jerusalem says that this is wrong, and is dissatisfied with this. Do such experiences promise sincere church relations? So, it is desirable that there should be relations between the Russian hierarchy and the Greek one; and this should happen on our part with respect, with goodwill, with sincerity, but also with caution, and, in all likelihood, better modestly through our archimandrite who is in Constantinople, rather than directly and openly. XIV. What should have been said about the remaining points of the second edition was said when considering the first. 385 November 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy about the consequences of his interview with two Bulgarian merchants regarding ways to resolve the Greek-Bulgarian feud Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a message dated November 10, 1867, No. 5976, asked Metropolitan Philaret, in agreement with the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to provide a favorable reception and attention to the Bulgarian merchants Georgiev and Shopov, who were going to Moscow, together with the Russian vice-consul in Filipopol Gerov, sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for a meeting on methods to pacify the conflict between the Bulgarians and the Ecumenical Patriarch. Yesterday I talked with two Bulgarians, almost silently, and with the consul in a lot of words. Unfortunately, they do not understand Russian, and I do not understand the Bulgarian dialect. The consul translated their words to me, and my words to them, very briefly; Moreover, he himself explained the matter to me. One cannot expect significant fruit from such intercourse. The Bulgarians want the Russian ambassador, together with the Greek envoy, to act on the Greeks in order to persuade them to make conciliatory concessions. To this I replied that if the ambassador had considered this method reliable, then, without a doubt, he would have used it, and, in all likelihood, he has already used it, to the extent possible. Before this, I had information that the patriarch had drawn up a project for a separate Bulgarian church region, that the Bulgarians were not satisfied with this project, but demanded the annexation of some more dioceses to this region, and that the patriarch promised to do this in the future. 386 For this information, I advised the Bulgarians to accept the patriarch’s project, in the hope that he will make the promised addition to the project when there is an opportunity, which is to be expected from his personal exalted character. But to this they made me an objection, which I cannot but admit. They say that the region constituted by the patriarch embraces only half of the Bulgarian population. Is it possible to demand consent for the Bulgarian people to be cut into two halves, and for one half to be given some relief, while the other remains in those truly unbearable difficulties from which all this people are trying to free themselves? If the testimony of the two Bulgarians and the consul is correct, then one must be surprised how the Ecumenical Patriarch decided to propose such a project. It would be a different matter if a strong majority of Bulgarians were included in the established region, and the minority was left in the hope of relief received by the majority: this could be persuaded. The Bulgarians want the Russian Synod to give a conciliatory response to the Ecumenical Patriarch, and through him to the Greeks of Constantinople. But how can this be done if the patriarch’s project turns out to be unfeasible? Is it really necessary for the Russian Synod to draw up its own project and propose it to the Church of Constantinople? It would be an insult to the dignity of this church; and it is impossible for the Russian Synod to do this, since it is impossible to have sufficient local information for this. Should not the Holy Synod decide, if not in the hope of success, at least in order to fulfill the duty of church brotherly love and zeal for the good of the entire Orthodox Church, through its first member, treat the ecumenical patriarch, firstly, with an expression of compassion for the violation of the internal peace of the church; secondly, with an expression of desire and prayer that the Supreme Divine Shepherd would grant him with the power of wisdom, love and condescension to calm disagreement, establish church peace, and avert the dangers that may arise from the continuation of disagreement? This question, in my opinion, deserves consideration by the Holy Synod. And if there is a discussion about this, then may you be pleased to take into account the note on constant relations between the churches of Constantinople and the Russian Church, which I forwarded to the incumbent of the post of synodal chief prosecutor in relation to this November 1, No. 505. 387 No. 516. November 14, 1867 388 The time of compilation of this note, which had no date in the original, is attributed to 1858, based on the following data: in 1858, the official “Response to the Russian Bulletin on Bulgarian Affairs” appeared in print from the spiritual department (Modern Church Questions by T. Filippov, part I, p. 28). In the answer, the attempt to publish church and liturgical books in the Slavic language in Constantinople dates back to 1857, and the head of this enterprise is called an exarch, and the first published books are listed as those that Metropolitan Philaret also names, i.e., the Apostle and the Gospel. Here are the true words of the “Response”, based on official data: “the innocent Greek Patriarchate, which seems to be destined from above to endure persecution from all sides, is slandered before the Holy All-Russian Synod and the government, allegedly, through the Turkish government, it banned books sent from Russia to Bulgaria. We ask you not to believe these lies. It happened like this: Alexander Exarch, an impostor and leader of the Bulgarian society, who will now publish in Constantinople, in the Bulgarian language. The Tsaregrad Herald, with the sole purpose of arousing the spirit of the Bulgarians against the Constantinople hierarchy, published last year the Slavic Apostle and Gospel for Bulgaria. This gentleman acted in this case differently from what the sons of the Orthodox Church do. Driven by hatred against the Patriarchate, instead of submitting the said books for consideration by the Patriarch and his Synod, he goes to the Turk, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and convincingly asks him to force the Patriarch to give permission for the publication of the Apostle and the Gospel. The minister wrote to the patriarch and forwarded, at the same time, the manuscript. Everyone understands with what sorrow His Holiness looked at this matter! In order not to show opposition to the minister and Bulgarism, he allowed the printing of books. At this time, books assigned for the Bulgarians arrived from Russia to the Constantinople customs. Alexander, having learned about this and fearing to lose the expected profit from the publication of the book, hurries to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and informs him that Slavic books have been brought to the Galata customs, which contain thoughts directed against the Ottoman power, and which, as can be seen from the signature, were published by order of the Russian government and the Synod. The books were confiscated. Reply, pp. 37–39. St. Petersburg, 1858). At the beginning of 1863, this alleged zealot of Bulgarism was already on the payroll of the patriarchy, receiving from it 15 thousand piastres a month, and was an agent of Patriarch Joachim in Bulgaria, where, on the instructions of the latter, he collected, albeit unsuccessfully, signatures of his compatriots about their imaginary reluctance to church independence. The Patriarch needed these signatures to report to the Porte that the Bulgarians’ demands for an independent hierarchy were the demands of individuals, and not of the entire Bulgarian people. (Despatch from Novikov, March 9, 1863; in the file of the archives of the Holy Synod, No. 94, vol. II; document 114). From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 105; document No. 6. Peter (Troitsky), VII course master, Kiev. spirit. academies; in 1853 inspector. the same academician; in 1856 rect. Kievsk spirit. family; in 1858 present the embassy church in Constantinople, and then in Athens; May 29, 1869, bishop. Akkermansky, vicar of the Chisinau diocese; † October 10, 1873. It seems that we are talking about Innocent Borisov, Archbishop. Kherson and Odessa. He's participating. at the coronation of Emperor Alexander II, and lived in Moscow. Zlatoust mon.; † May 26, 1857. Bore, Jesuit, papal vicar in Constantinople, author of the essay: “The Question of Holy Places.”, printed. in Constantinople in 1851, which proves that the Greeks, since the time of Patriarch Photius, as schismatics, have lost the right to St. places. For this ex. constants Patr. Constantius answered Borae: “Is it because the Greeks do not want to recognize the pope as the head of the bishops of the whole world? Friend! Fanaticism has misled you. How! The times of superstition have barely disappeared from people's memories, and you want to evoke them again? Do not be deceived; they will not return." See years. church personal 1880, p. 819. About him. see above, note. 107. Kirill 2nd. About him, see above, approx. 5. Kirill (Naumov) head of the Jerusalem mission, from October 13. 1857, to June 22, 1863; † 10 Feb. 1866. See Volume IV of the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Metropolitan Philaret. Moscow. 1886, No. 519. p. 410. Patriarch since 1851; † in March, 1855. Methodius, Patriarch of Antioch; † in October, 1850. Anfim 4th, from October 16, 1848 to November 3, 1852. Cyril 7th, from the metropolitans of Ammassia, was elected to the patriarchal throne on September 20. 1855, and on July 4, 1860, abdicated the throne. Constantius 1st, from archbishop. Sinai, elected to the patriarchal throne on July 6, 1830, August 14. 1834, slandered in his adherence to Russia, deposed; † January 5, 1859 Swed. about him in the magazine. Strange for 1860. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, vol. I; document No. 11. Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky. Secret of course. Embassy Evg. Peter. Novikov, later. ambassador. in Constantinople and Vienna. In 1859, he published an essay in Moscow, in two volumes, under the title: “Huss and Luther. Critical Studies". Of course, Hilarion of Makariupol, named patriarch. acts of the chorebishop. Tipald, rector of the Khalka school, Metropolitan of Stavropol. About him, see above, approx. 171. See above, Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the enterprise to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch, and on the removal of the geronts from the Synod of Constantinople. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95. T. I; document No. 3. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, No. 95, vol. I; doc. Nos. 1 and 2. Kirill 7th. About him, see above, No. 1, p. 1, note. 6 and No. 35, p. 148, note. 1. On April 3, 1860, on the day of Bright Sunday, when Bishop Hilarion of Makariupol was performing a solemn divine service, the Bulgarians who had gathered in large numbers in the church with noise and shouting demanded that Hilarion not remember the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the liturgy, and Hilarion yielded, beginning to commemorate “every Orthodox bishopric.” Russian Vestn., 1882, May, p. 413. Hilarion, Bishop of Makariupol, natural. Bulgarian from Edny, brought up in Athens. university; He became a monk on Mount Athos, and in 1858 he was ordained bishop for the Bulgarian Church of St. Stephen, in Constantinople, with the title of Makariupol, and patriarch. acts named chorebishop. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I; document Nos. 14 and 15. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I; document No. 17. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I; document No. 20. Megemed-Emin-Aali Pasha, from December 26, 1859, President of the Reform Council, and in 1861 Grand Vizier. See Gotha's Almanac, 1861 and 1862. Head of Mission in Jerusalem. From his own handwritten drawing. original, with a copy available, stored. in the arch. Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I: document. No. 31 and 32. Genuine. finds. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod 1860, 1st article, 2nd division, to this day. register No. 165. Found on a copy of this opinion. to Asia dept. m.i. d. there is a pencil mark made by the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II; “read it tomorrow in com. min." Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I: document. No. 28. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I: document. No. 35. Genuine. find. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod 1860, 2 departments, 1 table, to this day. Register No. 165. A copy of this opinion was submitted. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, dated December 25, 1860, No. 28. Rachinsky, Alexander Viktorovich, vice-consul in Varna. Of course, the rector of the Bulgarian Church of St. Stephen, Bishop Hilarion of Makariupol. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 29, document. Nos. 1 and 2. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I: document. Nos. 37 and 38. Hilarion of Makariupol. See above, Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with a review of the content of the complaint of the Geronts addressed to the Synod regarding their removal from Constantinople. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, in which the finding. and copy, storage. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, document. Nos. 86 and 87. We are talking about the transition of the inhabitants of the city of Kukusha to the union, the consequence of which was the order of the patriarch to appoint the bishop of Polyaninsky natural to the department. Bulgarian, bishop Parthenius, who soon returned Kukush to Orthodoxy. See Russian. Vestn., 1882, p. 409. Parthenius received a theological education at the Moscow Theological Academy, from where he graduated in 1850 with the title of candidate. passed away in the rank of Metropolitan of Niman. Joachim, from the metropolitans of Kizi, Geront. See above, Metropolitan Philaret’s Note on the Draft Message to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Draft Message to the Ecumenical Patriarch compiled by Metropolitan Philaret. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. I; document No. 43; in the Bible St. Petersburg spirit. acad. There is a copy of this document. ll. 122–127, in a special collection. Palauzov, Spear. Nik., Bulgarian by origin, b. July 16, 1818 in Odessa, and, after graduation. course at the Lyceum, went abroad, where for several years he studied at different universities. primarily a historian and philologist. science, and to Munich. univers. and political economy. science, for which he was awarded. step, doctor of political and economic. Sciences: in 1845 he stood in Moscow. univers. exam. on the steppe candidate in the 1st department philosopher. faculty, and in 1852 St. Petersburg. univers. udost. step. Master of Slavs literature; during eastern war, according to high led., was in charge. book Gorchakova; was a member. diff. scientist societies; From his studies the following are known: “The Age of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon” (1852); "Romanian States" (1859); "Austria since the Revolution of 1848" (1860): “Hungary in modern relations with Austria” (1861) Under his editorship, the “Chronicle” was published in 1871 based on the Ipatiev list”; † August 14. 1872 in Pavlovsk, 53 years old. See Russian. Star., 1872, October, pp. 471–473. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.1; document No. 36. Tsankov, Dragan, a native of the city of Sistov, was brought up in Constantinople, in a Jesuit school, and then in the Kiev spirit. academic; upon return from Russia, was a teacher in Galati, then a volunteer of the Bulgarian squad in 1853, again a student in one of the educational institutions. establishments in Vienna and, finally, after Crimea. war, settled in Constantinople, where he began publishing the newspaper “Bulgaria”, which received a lot of help. seduction of the Bulgarians into the Union: under the Governor General. Mithada Pasha Tsankov was in charge of the Bulgarian. schools, edited by official. newspaper "Danube" and was the vice-governor of Vildin; Now he is the head of the so-called Bulgarians. liberals. See Russian. Vestn. 1882, May, p. 414. See above, Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the current situation of the Eastern Church and on the relationship to the Russian Church. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T. I; document No. 47. Mean. letter find. in Asia dep. mip. foreign case, No. 128, according to inventory, boom. Metropolitan Filareta, No. 224. With original, keeping to Asia dept. minister foreign case, No. 128. This note was compiled by the Metropolitan on the basis of what was delivered to him by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count. A.P. Tolstoy, letters from the rector of our embassy church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Antonin, dated January 2, 1861. The closest reason for this event was the arrest of a Bulgarian priest in Constantinople, guilty only of the fact that he performed divine services in the Slavic language. (According to Mr. Teplov, the priest was arrested because in church sermons he ridiculed the shortcomings of the patriarch and invited the people not to recognize his power. Russian Vestn., 1882, May. p. 414). The priest fled from the patriarchal prison to the Catholic monastery of St. Benedict and announced to the Jesuits there his desire to accept the union. Out of conviction, several Bulgarians living in Constantinople joined him, and on December 25, as a result of the invitation of the Armenian Catholic Patriarch Hassoun, the first Uniate liturgy was celebrated. The papal vicar, Jesuit Bore, having entered into the situation of this matter, collected up to 4 thousand signatures of the Bulgarians on a petition to the pope to establish an independent diocese for them. In his response, dated January 26, 1861, the pope congratulated the Bulgarians “on their longed-for reconciliation with the true Church,” and at the end of March he received a deputation of the Bulgarians, headed by Archimandrite Joseph (Sokolsky), whom he appointed “archbishop and apostolic vicar of the Bulgarians.” But less than two weeks had passed before the Jesuits demanded that the Bulgarians add the Latin addition “and from the Son” to the creed. Then only Joseph’s eyes were opened, and on June 18, 1861, he secretly retired to Odessa, and from there to Kyiv, where he died not so long ago. Other see Years. church collection St. Petersburg 1880, pp. 824–825; and Russian Vestn., 1882, May. page 414. Auxentius, Met. Dyrrachian, Bulgarian from Samokov, tonsured. in the Khilindar monastery; ordination in 1859, and in 1861 he was defrocked and exiled to Volo. From his own handwritten drawing. vile, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 56 and 57. A copy of this opinion, signed by Metropolitan. Philaret, keeps. to Asia dept. minister foreign business This will be discussed below. On the margin, at the end of this paragraph, by Emperor Alexander II, in pencil, it is written: “Completely fair.” Against these words, Emperor Alexander II wrote: “Also.” At the end of this paragraph, Emperor Alexander II wrote: “Also.” See above, Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “about the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 3, 1861.” Against this remark, Sovereign Emperor Alexander II wrote: “Also.” Against these words, Sovereign Emperor Alexander II wrote: “Also.” See above, Corrected by Metropolitan Philaret, the draft response message of the Holy Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document No. 60. Keeps a copy of this note. in Asian minister's department foreign affairs On this letter, Emperor Alexander II wrote in pencil: “I fully share these views. After reading this, Count Tolstoy will find, I hope, that my thoughts and even words are completely in agreement with the thoughts and words of Filaret.” In the margins of the copy from the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, Emperor Alexander II made notes in pencil. These notes are placed in the notes to the opinion itself. Autographed, kept. in the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 128. With his own hand authentic, storing in the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 128. From the word “so” to the word “If” is literally printed in “Sovr. Church question." T. I. Filippova See page 37. This point, with the omission of a comparison of the position of the patriarch with the position of the Austrian. Emperor, published in the same work by Mr. Filippov. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, T.II; doc. No. 91. Copy of this opinion, signed. mit. Philaret, stored in Asia. Department of the Ministry foreign business Note, dated January 30, 1861, in Asian. dept. minister foreign no cases were found; Below it is given according to its own. black vile, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. From an autograph, keeping. in Asian dept. minister foreign case, No. 128. This note was written as a consequence of the letter of Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated January 7, No. 428, in which, among other things, it was said “that the Sovereign Emperor and Empress approve the idea of ​​sending a trusted ecclesiastical person in the rank of bishop to Constantinople.” From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; doc. Nos. 59 and 62. This note was written at the request of Count A.P. Tolstoy, who wished to know the Metropolitan’s opinion on the contents of Prince A.B.’s dispatch. Lobanov-Rostovsky. There was neither a dispatch nor a copy of it in the case. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 64 and 65. Upon receipt of this note, Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated March 8, No. 1313, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Your note on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information from January 31, I would now consider it unnecessary to communicate to Prince Gorchakov; because the idea of ​​sending a bishop from us to Constantinople was completely abandoned by the Sovereign, as a result of the first comments on them about this sending.” Right there, Doc. No. 70. The note was drawn up upon receipt from Count A.P. Tolstoy reported that “the general meeting of the Synod of Constantinople, consisting of six patriarchs and 27 bishops, excommunicated Bishop Hilarion from the church on February 24–March 8.” Against the last words, Sovereign Emperor Alexander II wrote in pencil: “Fairly.” We are talking about Paisius, Metropolitan of Philippopolis. See below. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 66 and 69. Copies of this document are stored in Asia. dept. min. foreign affairs, No. 128 and in the library. St. Petersburg Doctor of Academician: LL. 116–121. This note was compiled by Metropolitan Philaret, after reading those sent to him by Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated March 2, Nos. 1239 and 1241, a) letters from Archimandrite Antonin, dated February 7, and b) dispatches from Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated 7–19 of the same month, No. 25. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 67, 68 and 72. A copy of this document is kept in Asia. dept. min. foreign case, No. 128 1) We present these points as they are presented in the book by T.I. Filippov "Modern Church Issues". St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 40–41. All points are not 14, but 15, namely: 1) “In purely Bulgarian dioceses, from now on, metropolitans and bishops should preferably appoint clergy of Bulgarian origin, people of good behavior and ability, possessing the qualities required by the church canons, as well as having a thorough knowledge of the Bulgarian language. 2) If in some purely Bulgarian city a metropolitan or episcopal see becomes orphaned, and Christians unanimously propose for the orphaned throne a cleric who has the qualities required by church rules, a venerable man and known to the patriarchy in intelligence and ability (for the service to be given), then the filial forgiveness of those Christians will be accepted favorably by the patriarchy. 3) A theological school should be opened in a convenient location for the education of Bulgarians who want to serve the church. The funds required for its maintenance will be supplied by Christians living in purely Bulgarian dioceses, as well as those found in other places of the (Ottoman) empire. And the sciences taught there, in order to avoid contradiction with the Eastern confession, must be determined in advance by the program of the patriarchy. 4) Supervision over this school will be entrusted to the metropolitan of the diocese in which it will be located, and to the ephors elected from honorary clergy. 5) In all Bulgarian schools, the study of the Bulgarian language and its philology will be preferred to any other language, with the elimination of everything contrary to the Orthodox confession and the imperial (Sultan) government. 6) Any violation of the regulations and rules regarding schools depicted in the previous paragraphs, and any omission regarding the choice of mentors, as well as any negligence in the performance of their teaching duties, and in general any inattention and negligence both in the supervision and management of the school, exposes the metropolitan and the ephors to responsibility. 7) One or two of the metropolitans of Bulgaria have to sit, as before, in the synod of metropolitans, alternating in a certain opinion, or replaced on biennia through the canonical determination of the patriarch. 8) Pupils of Bulgarian schools will also be admitted to the theological school in Halki, as before. 9) The income of the Bulgarian metropolitans and bishops will be determined by a special official decree. 10) In churches located in purely Bulgarian metropolises and bishops, divine services must be performed in Bulgarian (i.e. in Slavonic). 11) Of the eminent Orthodox Bulgarians living in Constantinople, some in the epitropy of the Patriarchate and other public institutions can be elected and appointed. 12) For the education of children living in the capital of the Orthodox Bulgarians, and for the study of their own language, a preparatory school will be established in the fence of the Bulgarian church, under the supervision of the patriarchate. 13) Sent to metropolitans, bishops and Christians located in purely Bulgarian dioceses, official papers on church affairs must be written in Greek and Bulgarian. 14) The Patriarchate has to apply all necessary diligence to the speedy analysis and resolution of the serious petitions and proposals submitted to it from the Bulgarians. 15) In case of need, worthy clergy should be sent from the Patriarchate to audit the actions of the metropolitans and bishops located in Bulgaria, as well as all clergy and teachers in general, as well as to correct their misdeeds and omissions that may be revealed.” From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document No. 73. A copy of this opinion is kept in Asiatic. dept. minister foreign case, No. 128. This note was caused by a letter from Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, February 28–March 12, and his dispatch of the same date, which were transferred to Metropolitan Philaret for reading by Count A.P. Tolstoy. G. Teplov, in his study of the “Greek-Bulgarian Church Question,” says that the patriarch, upon the return of Hilarion and Auxentius from exile in Constantinople, “tried to make peace with them and even offered dioceses, if only they asked for forgiveness” (p. 420), and Patriarch Anthimus was the 6th, who became patriarch. throne, after Gregory the 6th, September 9, 1871, at the meeting of the Bulgarians. the delegation, headed by Hilarion, “embraced Hilarion” (p. 824). The council that condemned Hilarion, Auxentius and Paisius consisted of twenty-seven persons. Present and former patriarchs of Constantinople took part in it; Joachim 2nd, Gregory 6th and Anthimus 6th, as well as the patriarchs: Kallinikos of Alexandria, Hierotheus of Antioch and Cyril 2nd of Jerusalem. See dispatch from the book. Lobanov, dated February 28, boom. m. Filareta, No. 95, vol. II; doc. 74–75. According to a letter from Archimandrite Antonin, dated March 6, to Count A.P. Tolstoy, the six above-mentioned patriarchs, twenty-one metropolitans and six bishops took part in the council. Right there, Doc. 77. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 74 and 75. A copy of this document is kept. in the Asian department minister foreign case, No. 128 This letter is addressed to Count A.P. Tolstoy. The latter, forwarding a copy from it, in a letter dated March 29, No. 1814, to Metropolitan Philaret, among other things, wrote: “me and in previous messages about. Antonin, at times, was surprised by some very strange thoughts, and in the present letter his proposal to make a request from the Holy Synod to the great church about simony seemed completely unexpected. I humbly ask your Eminence to tell me your opinion: is it appropriate to carry out this assumption, and what do you deign to consider useful to write to Archimandrite Antonin.” Letter from the count and a copy from the letter from the arch. Antonina stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, No. 95, vol. II; doc. No. 77. Of course, the newspaper Byzantis, articles of March 1 and 4, which set out the conciliar act on the deposition of Bishops Hilarion, Auxentius and Paisius. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, T.II; document No. 92. A copy of this opinion is found. in Asian dept. minister foreign affairs, No. 128. The note was written after reading a letter from Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky and his dispatch dated March 7–9. The letter and dispatch were communicated to Metropolitan Philaret by Count A.P. Tolstoy, according to the wishes of Prince A.M. Gorchakova. We are talking about the overthrow of the patriarchs. Joachim 2nd. At the insistent demand of the Greeks, especially the Ionians, who threatened unrest. The Porte sent Hilarion to Kutaia, and Auxentius to Volo, Nakhod. on the other side of the Bosphorus. See “Sovr. Church question,” p. 39; Russian Vestn., 1892, May, p. 418. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 76 and 78. A copy of this document is kept. in the Asian department minister foreign affairs, No. 128. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document No. 84. Paisiy, natural. Greek, educated University of Athens, first Metropolitan. Smyrna, and then Philippopolis, where he abolished the elevation of the name of the patriarch during divine services, for which, together with Hilarion and Auxentius, he was subjected to the church. punishment. Russian Vestn., 1882, May, p.418. Paisiy. See above, note. 270. From his own handwritten drawing. original, with a copy kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 80 and 81. A copy of this opinion is kept. to Asia dept. minister foreign affairs, No. 128. The dispatch was delivered to Metropolitan Philaret by Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated April 11, No. 2145. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 83 and 85. A copy of this opinion is kept. in the Asian department minister foreign affairs, No. 128. Copies were delivered to the Metropolitan by Prince S.N. Urusov, to whom this letter is addressed. Letter with black handwritten original, and a note from a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document Nos. 90 and 91. A copy of the note is kept in Asia. dept. minister foreign affairs, No. 128, and in the library. s.p.b. acad., ll. 130–135, esp. collection. Parfeniy was educated not in the Kyiv, but in the Moscow spirit. academy. Metropolitan Philaret himself corrects this inaccuracy below. See also note. 214. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, T.II; document No. 92. Copy of this document. stores. in Asian dept. minister foreign affairs, No. 128, and in the library. s.p.b. spirit. acad. ll. 128 and 129, esp. collection. Until 1861, Joseph was the archimandrite of the Sokolinsky monastery, near the village of Grabovo, founded by himself in 1834–35. Breve is a papal official letter, differing from a bull in less importance. Bore, Jesuit, papal vicar in Constantinople, the main culprit in the establishment of the Uniate bishop for the Bulgarians. departments; author of the essay: “The Question of Holy Places”, published. In 1851 in Constantine, in which he proves that the Greeks since the time of Patr. Photius lost the right to St. places in Palestine. This essay was refuted by the former. constants Patr. Constantius. See note. 226. Dispatch number 114 was not found in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. Meletius, St. archbishop Antioch., was elected to Antioch. Prest. Arians; † in Constantinople, where he arrived at the second ecumenical council, 381 Pam. 12 Feb. Cyril, St. archbishop Jerusalem, b. Around 315 in Jerusalem; about 346 dedicated. to presbyter, and in 350 he occupied Jerusalem. throne; during the Arian Troubles he was deprived of the throne three times, but † assigned to the flock in 386 Pam. March 18. Konebu, Pav. Evst., adjutant general: from 1874 Warsaw. gene. governorate; born 1802; † April 19, 1884 At the end of this sheet, by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, it is marked: “Gethsemane. monastery July 1, 1861." From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 2; document Nos. 1–3, and d. 1861, No. 4241; ll. 26–31. A copy of this document. available in the library. With. p.b. d. acad., ll. 149–154, in a special collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret. This note was forwarded to Metropolitan. Filaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, following his letter, dated August 12, No. 4604, in which the dispatch of Prince A.B. was delivered to the Metropolitan. Lobanov-Rostovsky, No. 142. Anfim (Chalykov) was born in 1816 in Kirk-Kliss, Adrianople bishop. In 1836 he went to Mount Athos, where he was tonsured in one of the monasteries. In 1843 he entered the Khalki Theological School and, after completing the course here, held teaching and legal positions in different places. Wanting to receive higher theological education in Russia, he first entered the Kherson seminary to familiarize himself with the Russian language, and from here he entered the Moscow Theological Academy, where he graduated from the course in 1854 with a master's degree. Upon returning from Russia to his homeland, in 1858 he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and then ordained to the rank of bishop, with the title of Metropolitan of Preslav. In 1872 he was elected exarch of the Bulgarian, and in 1877 he was deposed and exiled to Angora (Ankyra), from where he was returned in 1878. (Ist. Moscow. D. Academician I. Smirnova, p. 447). “Paisios, upon arrival in the city of Plevno, was rejected by the people, and had to resort to the assistance of local authorities in order to settle in the bishop's house. The local mudir took the side of the bishop, and aroused the people against him with violent actions to such an extent that the matter ended in indignation, during which the mudir’s very personality suffered. He immediately notified the Viddin Pasha about this, who, two days later, arrived in Plevna with four squadrons of cavalry and two cannons and pacified the rebellion, killing four Christians and arresting more than twenty people.” See No. 95, vol.III; doc. 120-a. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol.II; document Nos. 102–104. Genuine find. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod 1860, 2nd department, 1st article, to this day. Register, No. 165. On a copy of this note, keeping. to Asia dept. minister foreign affairs, there is the following inscription, in pencil, by Emperor Alexander II: “In conclusion, I find the only practical outcome.” The indicated points of the Bulgarians' demands are set out, in abbreviation, in Art. Teplova: “Greek-Bulgarian church question.” Russian Vestn. 1882, May, p. 417, and without abbreviations, in op. T. I. Filippova: “We will modernize. church questions". St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 43–45. Synod matter. office, 2 departments, 1 table, to this day. register, No. 165. See above, “Metropolitan Philaret’s Note on the Greek-Bulgarian Affair, According to Information Before July 25, 1861,” dated August 19. See above, “Metropolitan Philaret’s Note on the Greek-Bulgarian Affair, According to Information Before July 25, 1861,” dated August 19. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, vol.II; document No. 95. Genuine. find. in the case of chancellor St. Synod, 1860, according to order. department, 1st table, 2nd department, to this day. register, No. 165. On a copy from this opinion, storing. to Asia dept. minister foreign affairs, there is a handwritten note from Emperor Alexander II: “Very sensibly. You should inform K. Lobanov.” See above, On the peculiarities of the letter of Archimandrite Antonin, dated March 6, 1861, on the Bulgarian case. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, vol.II; document No. 96. The note was written by the Metropolitan, after reading it was delivered to him by Prince S.N. Urusov dispatches from Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, from August 15–27, No. 158. According to Mr. Filaretov, the commission was caused by the following circumstance: representatives of the Bulgarians, having lost hope of a direct agreement with the Patriarchate and knowing “the unyielding disposition of His Holiness Joachim,” came to the Grand Vizier Aali Pasha and told him “that they will return to Bulgaria and announce to the people that the Sultan’s government cannot do anything for the Bulgarians. The vizier never expected this from the Bulgarians. He stroked his beard for a long time, silently and looking at the Bulgarians; finally declared that he would immediately order the Patriarch to appoint a commission mixte of Greeks and Bulgarians, which should resolve the Bulgarian question. The next day, a formal invitation was sent from the Porte to the Patriarchate to appoint a commission and resolve the Bulgarian issue as soon as possible. The Patriarch replied that he would hurry up with this matter and hoped that everything would be settled.” No. 95, vol. III; doc. 130. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol.III; document Nos. 107–109. Genuine find. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod, 1860, 2nd department, 1st class; to this day Register, No. 165. A copy of this opinion is kept. in Asian dept. minister foreign case, No. 128. Arseny (Moskvin), Metropolitan. Kievsk from July 1, 1860; † April 28, 1876. See above: Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with an opinion about the Bulgarian-Uniate Archbishop Joseph, who expressed a desire to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church. From his own handwritten drawing. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. No. 2; document Nos. 8 and 9. From a copy, corrected. by the hand of Metropolitan Philareta. Inventory No. 94, vol. II; document No. 104. The same copy is available in the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept. in the Bible s.-p. d. academy; ll. 158–160, and in arch. St. Synod, case 1861, No. 4291, pp. 43 and 44. In this regard, they were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret; a) a letter from Metropolitan Arseny of Kyiv and b) a petition from Archbishop Joseph Sokolsky to be accepted into communion with the Orthodox Church. See above: Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with an opinion about the Bulgarian-Uniate Archbishop Joseph, who expressed a desire to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church. From a handwritten draft. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 2; document Nos. 10 and 11. A copy of this letter is available in the library. St. Petersburg spirit. academic; ll. 146–153, in a special collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, and in the archives of the Holy Synod, case 1861, No. 4291; ll. 37–39. The note was compiled after reading a copy of the report of our consul in Adrianople, Nik. Dmitry Stupina, November 8, No. 149. From a handwritten draft. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. III; document Nos. 114 and 115. The information was delivered by the same consul Stupin. Dorofey, a Bulgarian by birth from Koprivshchina, was self-taught: he took monasticism on Mount Athos, and received the rank of bishop of Vrakansky from the Tarnovo metropolitan: in 1861 he was appointed to the See of Sofia. To occupy the department and the diocesan house, the participation of the gene was required. governor and a detachment of troops. At the beginning of 1863, he converted to the union, but soon repented and returned to Orthodoxy. The Bulgarians did not like him as a friend of the Turks. Dorotheus died in Constantinople in extreme poverty. See Russian. Vestn., 1882, May, p. 439. Regarding these complaints, Governor-General Megmed Pasha issued a circular for the Demotic district, which ordered: 1) the newly appointed bishop should not demand more than 12 piastres from each family and 15 for a wedding; 2) from priests he should not demand more than 50, 100 or 150 piastres, depending on the size of the village; 3) while traveling around the diocese, the bishop must be content with what he is given; but it is forbidden to collect money for him, along with government money; 4) if the villagers, who have until now given wheat to the bishop, do not want to continue this offering, then they cannot be forced to do so; 5) except for 50, 100 or piastres, the bishop cannot demand anything from the priests.” Before the publication of this circular, fees were made in the following amounts: a) “on St. George, when touring the diocese, the bishop took 600 piastres from each village; b) when a new bishop was appointed, each family paid 24 piastres, and the priests paid 664 at a time and 500 annually; c) each villager, in addition to money, gave the bishop 4 or 5 kilos of wheat and two carts of hay.” No. 95, vol. III; doc. 120-b. See above: Note by Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before July 25, 1861. With his own hand. black original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. III; document Nos. 116 and 118. Genuine. find. in the case of chancellor Holy Synod 1860, 2 departments, 1 table, to this day. register, No. 165. Kirill, Metropolitan Adrianople. The note was written after reading a list from the report of the consul in Adrianople to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated January 31, 1862, No. 18, on the Bulgarian Church issue. From handwritten draft originals, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. III; document Nos. 121 and 122. About him, see above, approx. 214. Prince Alexey Borisovich Lobanov-Rostovsky. With his own hand. black original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, volume III; document Nos. 121–127. With his own hand. black original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, volume III; document Nos. 128 and 129. The information was delivered by our consul in Adrianople, Nik. Pavel. Shishkin. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, volume III; document Nos. 131 and 132. Filaretov, Savva Vas., dragoman under the general. cons. in Constantinople. For his message regarding the reason for the establishment of a mixed commission, see above, note. 304. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, volume III; document No. 134. The documents on the basis of which this opinion was written are stored in the same inventory, under No. 95, vol. III; document at number 119. Mussurus Bay, last. from January 30, 1856 Caratheodori's direction regarding the Bulgarian issue was reflected in the meeting, February 16, 1860, constant. Church-People's Assembly, when Carafedori declared in his speech “that the Bulgarians are too naive if they imagine that speeches about the rights of the Bulgarian nation could ever be heard in an assembly of Greek representatives.” See Russian. Vestn., 1882, May, p. 411. Chomakov, Stoyan, Filippopolis deputy. More complete information about him see Art. Teplova, Russian Vestn., 1882 See above, Notes from Metropolitan Philaret to the information of His Eminence Sophrony, Archbishop of Art. From his own handwritten drawing. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, volume III; document Nos. 134 and 135. The words printed in italics in the document are underlined in red pencil by Metropolitan Philaret. Palmer, Velyamin, Master of Science and Divinity Specialist, Deacon by Ordination. Swedish about him, see "The Wanderer" 1883, vol. I, pp. 481 et seq. From a handwritten draft. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 2; document Nos. 12 and 15. A copy of this opinion is available in the library. S.-P.-B. academician; ll. 136–143, in a special collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, and in arch. St. Synod, case 1861, No. 1241; ll. 66–70. Brunoni, Paul, archbishop. and the apostle. vicar at Constant. since 1858. See Alman. Gotha, 1863, p. 911. From a handwritten draft. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94; vol. III; document Nos. 136 and 137. Auxentius mind. Feb 2 1865 From a handwritten draft. original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; vol. III; document Nos. 140 and 141. See above: “On the remarks of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the points of the Bulgarians, July 12, 1861.” From a handwritten draft. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; vol. III; document Nos. 142 and 143. Novikov, Evg. Peter, then a member. state advice. From autograph, storage. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94; vol. II; document Nos. 112 and 113. From a handwritten draft. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; vol. IV; document 150. From a handwritten draft. authentic, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94; vol. III; document No. 120, 121. From a handwritten draft original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 105; document No. 10. Olkhin, Alexander Alexandrovich. See above: On the remarks of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the points of the Bulgarians, July 12, 1861. From a handwritten draft original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; document No. 170. T.I. Filippov and the city of Teplov date this event to February 1861 (the city of Filippov to the 24th, and the city of Teplov to the 25th). See “Sovrem. Church issues”, ed. 1882, p. 40, in Russian. Vestn., 1882., May, p. 416. T.I. Filippov cite the very points. Edhem Pasha, min. folk education, since 1863. See Gotha's Almanac, 1865. From a handwritten draft original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; document No. 173 174. From a handwritten draft original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. IV; document No. 175. The beginning and end are from a copy, and the middle is from the letter written on the letter itself by the hand of the Metropolitan. Document storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 95, vol. IV; doc. No. 185 and 186. Bogoslovsky, Dim. Nick, Colonel. Note. written by Met. Filaret on rel. syn. o6er-prosecutor, dated March 2, 1865, No. 1290. Copy from N.P. Ignatiev’s dispatch stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. IV: document. 180. From the original, written on behalf of Count D. A. Tolstoy. Inventory No. 95, vol. IV; document No.-189. Shulepnikov, Evgraf Romanovich. See above: Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the enterprise of Exarch Stoilovich to print church liturgical books in the Slavic language in Constantinople. From a handwritten original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 29; document No. 4. Relation, dated April 15, 1866, for No. 2178, see inventory No. 105; document No. 5, with 2 appendices No. 5-a and 5-b. This letter is the Metropolitan’s response to the attitude of Count D.A. Tolstoy, dated May 26, 1866, for No. 3197, in which the count, as a result of N.P. Ignatiev’s dispatch, dated 10–12 of the same month, about the idea that arose among the Greek clergy that the Ecumenical Patriarch should turn to the Russian and Athens Synods for assistance in resolving the Greek-Bulgarian feud, asked the Metropolitan to give his opinion whether he recognizes, with on its part, the said thought is easy to implement and expedient. Cuza, Alexander, Prince of Romania, from Jan. 1859, influenced by Roman Catholic clergy, in strem. weaken the meaning of Orthodoxy. churches, closed up to 30 monasteries, confiscated their property, interrupted relations with const. patriarch, arrogating to himself the right to appoint bishops. The bishops protested against such arbitrariness. Kuzy's actions, last. which was the relationship between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch of Constantinople Sophronius the 3rd. Next In the year Cuza was expelled from Romania, and Prince Charles was elected to the throne (April 8, 1866), now the King of Romania. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol.V; document No. 213. From a handwritten draft original, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94; Vol.III; document No. 134. Raphael, natural Bulgarian; served as a bishop for some time. Auxentia became a deacon, and was removed for immorality, after which he joined Tsankov’s party; together with the latter, he accompanied Joseph Sokolsky to Rome, and after Joseph retired to Russia, he became the head of the Adrianople Uniate community; At his instigation, the Uniates of the village of Giokche-Bunar in 1862 expelled the Dimoti Metropolitan, tore his cassock and tore out the hair from his beard. Raphael's ordination to the rank of bishop took place in Constantinople in November 1865. For this purpose, Bishop Sembratovich was specially sent by the pope. The entire Austrian embassy was present at the consecration in full uniform. See No. 95, vol. IV; document 196 and 198. From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; vol. V; document No. 225. Neither the telegram nor a copy of it was found in the Metropolitan’s papers. See above: Note from Metropolitan Philaret, after reading the dispatch of our envoy in Constantinople about the serious illness of the former Bulgarian bishop Auxentius. Gregory the 6th, from February 10, 1867, for the second time: in August, 1871, he abdicated the throne; † 1882, other see about him “Sovr. church Questions", T.I. Filippova, 1882, part I, and Russian. Vestn. 1882, June, pp. 822–824. From a copy, corrected. by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95, vol. V; document No. 226. There were no notes preserved in the Metropolitan's papers. On January 6, 1848, Pope Pius IX issued the encyclical “litterae ad orientales” in the name of the titular Sidonian metropolitan, in which he invited Eastern Christians to unite with the Roman Church, accept the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son and recognize the primacy of the pope, while promising the preservation of all their dogmas, rituals and order liturgical The Eastern patriarchs Anthimus of Constantinople, Hierotheus of Alexandria, Methodius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem responded to this encyclical with a circular message in which they wrote that Eastern Christians cannot be content with the promised tolerance in dogmas and rituals, and want a revision and change in many innovations of the Roman Church. “It is not Orthodoxy that is valued by the pulpit, but the pulpit receives its value from Orthodoxy,” the patriarchs wrote, among other things. “There is no pulpit so holy that it is not subject to the possibility of falling into error; and popes and patriarchs may be subject to anathema." See years. church personal pp. 800–801. Kirill, (Naumov), master of the XVIII course, St. Petersburg. spirit. ac., episk. Melitopol, primary spirit. missions in Jerusalem from Oct. 13, 1857; recalled June 22, 1863; †Feb 10, 1866 From a copy, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94, vol. III; document No. 196. Of course, the project of Patriarch Gregory VI, which consisted of 18 articles. Details see “Modern. church questions”, Filippova, pp. 58 ff. See above: Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on disagreements between Greeks and Bulgarians on church affairs. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 95; vol.V; document No. 238. You might be interested in: