Collection of opinions and reviews on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East

Contents I. About the disorders in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1858, April 3. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on salaries for the Orthodox clergy in Turkey on December 11. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1859. March 31. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the acts of the church-people's assembly in Constantinople On the acts of the church-people's assembly in Constantinople on April 9. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the issue of the evasion of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and the Archbishops of Cyprus and Sinai from attending the Constantinople People's Assembly on April 9. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret to the information of His Eminence Sophrony, Archbishop of Art on May 16. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret “on a permanent, mixed, church-people’s council” August 15–16. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion “on the enterprise to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch and on the removal of the Geronts Addition August 21–24. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the protest of the Geronts About the protest of the Geronts Addition about the protest of the Geronts on September 4. 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 on November 6–8. 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 on December 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the message of the Geronts to the Holy Synod in 1860, January 27. Remarks by Metropolitan Philaret on the draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch About the draft attitude towards the Ecumenical Patriarch January 30. A draft message drawn up by Metropolitan Philaret to the Ecumenical Patriarch on April 24–25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the attachment of a note on the acts of the Constantinople Church and People's Assembly. On the acts of the Constantinople Church and People's Assembly, in view of their end on May 23. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret regarding the resolution of the Church People's Assembly on increasing the content received by logothete Nicholas Aristarkha on May 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philip to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the inaccuracy of the dispatches communicated to him from Constantinople and the incorrect conclusions that came from here about inaccurate extracts from the dispatches of June 1. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, with a note attached: on the revision of the acts of Constantinople. On the revision of the acts of the Constantinople-church-people's assembly on June 14–17. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the letter of Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated May 24 I. About the letter of Prince L.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated May 24, 1860. II. About an extract from a letter from Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, dated May 24, 1860, received in Moscow on June 16 to June 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov regarding the note, dated June 14, 1860, July 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, regarding the letter from the Russian adviser, in Constantinople, embassy, ​​H.P. Novikov, dated May 7, 1860 About the letter from the adviser to the Russian embassy in Constantinople, dated May 7, 1860 July 12, August 4, August 22. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the method of the upcoming election of the ecumenical patriarch on October 24–25. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the latest circumstances of the election of the Ecumenical Patriarch on November 9. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on new details of the election of the ecumenical patriarch, according to information from October 11, 1860. In November. The draft response message of the Holy Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim, 1861, corrected by Metropolitan Philaret, October 24–November 12. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret about the hierarchy of Constantinople, according to information from October 3, 10, 17 and 24, 1861 About the Greek hierarchy of Constantinople, according to information from October 3, 1861 About what is happening in the Constantinople hierarchy, according to information from October 10 and 17, 1861 About the Constantinople hierarchy hierarchy, according to the news of October 24, 1861, 1862 February 4. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the state of affairs in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, March 26, 1862–June 20, 1864. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret on the Eparchy of Constantinople, according to information from February 10, 1862, June 27, July 2 and 9, 1863 and the beginning of 1864. On the Eparchy of Constantinople, according to information from February 10, 1862, 1863, 1864, March 16. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the draft response message of the Holy All-Russian Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch Sophrony, 1865, May 5. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on a way to provide financial assistance to the Ecumenical Patriarch on November 21. Metropolitan Philaret's remark on the contents of the dispatch of the Russian envoy in Constantinople, dated October 12–24, on the state of affairs in the Church of Constantinople in 1866. September 28. A note by Metropolitan Philaret on the contents of the report of our vice-consul in Alexandria about the strange behavior of Patriarch Nikanor of Alexandria, 1867, August 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Yu. V. Tolstoy, with a note about the trial of Kirill, Archbishop of Sinai. About the trial of Kirill, Archbishop of Sinai on November 1. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the issue of permanent relations between the churches of Constantinople and Russia. On permanent relations between the churches of Constantinople and Russia II. About the Greek-Bulgarian feud of 1858. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the enterprise of Exarch Stoilovich to print church liturgical books in the Slavic language in Constantinople, 1859. 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. In August. Review by Metropolitan Philaret about the unpleasant incident between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Bulgarian Church in Constantinople in 1860, 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 on May 20–21. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on disagreements between Greeks and Bulgarians on church affairs July 30. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the complaint of the Philippopolitan Greeks against the Bulgarians on December 8–10. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 20, 1860. December 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the Greek-Bulgarian church feud on December 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 22, 1860. 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 with it a school for Bulgarians 0 church at the vice-consulate in the city of Barna. December 29–27. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the current situation of the Eastern Church and on the relationship to the Russian Church in December. Extracts from letters: Polauzov, Burmov and Arnaudov about the Greek-Bulgarian church feud 1861 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 on 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” About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 3, this January 27, 1861. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before January 10, 1861, January 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “on the relations of the Holy Synod with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the matter of the Bulgarians” On the relations of the Holy Synod with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the matter of the Bulgarians on January 31. 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.” About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after reading the patriarchal message and the Bulgarian response article, under the title: short answer Short answer to the district letter of the patriarch 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 January 31, 1861 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after the news of the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion About the Bulgarian affair according to information dated February 7, received after the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion About concessions or promises of the ecumenical patriarch to the Bulgarians, according to information dated February 22, 1861 About the Bulgarian affair according to information dated February 28, 1861 About the peculiarities of the letter Archimandrite Antonin, dated March 6, 1861, on the Bulgarian case About the Bulgarian case according to information dated March 7, 1861 About information dated March 14 and 15, 1861 on the Greek-Bulgarian case About the Greek-Bulgarian case, according to information dated March 21, 1861 About the Greek-Bulgarian case according to the dispatch dated 28 March 1861 “On the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from April 11, 18 and 25, 1861” Addition to the note on the Bulgarian case dated May 14, 1861 July 1. 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 About the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph on August 19. Note by Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before July 25, 1861. On the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information before July 25, 1861. August 22. On the remarks of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the points of the Bulgarians, July 12, 1861 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 September 5-December 27. A note by Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to information dated August 15, 1861, and opinions on the case of the Bulgarian-Unite Archbishop Joseph About the Bulgarian Bishop Joseph Sokolsky, according to information from Kyiv “On information from Constantinople, according to a letter from Archimandrite Antonin, dated October 7, 1861” 1862 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. About the return of the Adrianople Bulgarian Uniates to Orthodoxy About the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from December 13, 1861, and January 3, 1862 About the project of Metropolitan Kirill to pacify the Bulgarians About the Bulgarian affair according to information from February 10 and 26, March 3 and 6 About the catechism, prepared by Catholic propaganda for distribution among the Bulgarians About the Latin-Bulgarian Union, according to information dated April 17, 1862 May 24. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the election of a mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian issue on 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, according to information dated May 8. About the Greek-Bulgarian commission, according to information dated May 8, 1862. 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 About communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the Bulgarian-Unitarian Archbishop Joseph 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 from April 6, September 18 and October 22, 1862 About the Greek-Bulgarian affair, according to April 8, 1862 About the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian issue On the appointment of members from Greeks and Bulgarians to the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, 1862, October 24 1863 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 on 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 (1863, August 18–1864, October 6.) Reviews of Metropolitan Philaret on the method for reconciliation of Greeks and Bulgarians and on measures to prevent the corruption of Bosnian Christians into Islamism in 1864. On measures to prevent the conversion of Bosnian Christians into Islamism October 12–13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, with his opinion on the note of the Varna vice-consul on the Greek-Bulgarian question on December 27–28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov on the Greek-Bulgarian affair of 1865, January 31. A note from Metropolitan Philaret, after reading the report of our consul in Adrianople on the state of church affairs in Bulgaria on November 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov about the Greek-Bulgarian church dispute on 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 on August 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, on the Greek-Bulgarian case of 1866. 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 on 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 on June 11. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on a letter from A.P. Akhmatova on the distribution of church taxes between the Greek and Bulgarian dioceses in 1867, January 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy regarding the intention of Uniate Bishop Raphael to return to Orthodoxy on March 27. Note by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “on the disposition of the Philippian Bulgarians towards the church world” 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 on 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 III. On the affairs of our spiritual mission in Jerusalem 1859 May 15. Feedback from Metropolitan Philaret on the report of the Right Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, dated February 10, 1859, 1861 June 28. Note from Metropolitan Philaret about the Betsakur church and the dome of the Jerusalem temple About the Betsakur church and the dome of the Jerusalem temple July 14. Note by Metropolitan Philaret about the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher About the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher 1862 August 25–28. Review of Metropolitan Philaret “on the letter of the Right Reverend Kirill of Melitopol, dated January 9, 1861, on the case of the Melchites” 1863 April 29. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion “on the considerations and project for the management of charitable institutions in Palestine” on December 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion regarding the complaint of Bishop Kirill of Melitopol about his recall from the post of head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, 1864, February 4. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the “Russian spiritual mission according to the letter of January 3, 1864” 1865 February 22-April 27. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret on the troubles in the spiritual mission in Jerusalem Continuation of the troubles in the spiritual mission in Jerusalem In April. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov, with a review of the inappropriate installation of the throne of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Russian Church, in Jerusalem, on May 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with a draft message to the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the matter of unrest in our spiritual mission in Jerusalem on June 9. A note from Metropolitan Philaret regarding the “very confidential letter” of our envoy in Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev about the disorders in the Russian Jerusalem spiritual mission on July 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov about the need to interrogate, separately, Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny in the case of disturbances in our spiritual mission in Jerusalem on September 4–6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with feedback on the assumption of the Russian envoy in Constantinople, N. P. Ignatiev, regarding the reconciliation of Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem with Archimandrite Leonid on September 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the members of the Jerusalem spiritual mission who were the cause of the unrest in it on December 8–10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the “report of Archimandrite Antonin, October 18, 1865, on the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission” On the report of Archimandrite Antonin, October 18, 1865, on the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission, 1866 June 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a draft message to Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem on behalf of the leading member of the Holy Synod about the disorders of the Jerusalem spiritual mission on September 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the interrogation of Hieromonk John in the case of disturbances in the Jerusalem spiritual mission on October 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the assumption of the closure of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem on October 23. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the unrest in the Jerusalem spiritual mission This volume of “Collected Opinions and Reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna” is primarily a monument to the great concerns of the ever-memorable saint “about the welfare” of the Church of Constantinople, whose internal peace in the late fifties was disrupted on the one hand by the beginning of transformations in the structure of its hierarchy, on the other by the so-called Greek-Bulgarian church discord. In February 1856, at the insistence of the Western European powers, the Ottoman Porta issued the Gatti-Humayun, by which it invited Christians of various denominations to establish at a certain date special commissions, or assemblies, in order “with the knowledge and under the supervision of the Porta, to consider the rights and advantages granted to them at different times, and to bring them into harmony with the progress and enlightenment of the age.” “This deceitful and not very skillfully drawn up,” according to A.P. Butenev, “an act invented and imposed on the Turks by the Western powers more out of hatred of Russia and fear of its political and church influence in the East than out of real concern for the Christian population in the Ottoman state,” served as the beginning of great unrest in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which caused such an intensified and in many ways fruitful “for great church" activity of the saint of the Moscow church. In November 1857, the Porta announced detailed rules on the establishment and duties of church-people's assemblies, and then a strong disagreement arose between the ministers of the porta and the Patriarchate of Constantinople on various points of the Gatti-Humayun and rules: namely: 1) in the Gatti-Humayun and the rules on the establishment and duties of church-people's assemblies it was said that patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops and Rabbis must, upon taking office, swear allegiance to the porte. The Patriarchate of Constantinople presented strong objections to this, and the obligation of the oath was eliminated. 2) The Porta demanded that a representative from it be present at the meetings of the Church and People's Assembly. The Patriarchate objected to this that the presence of a government deputy would restrict freedom of debate; but this objection was not accepted, and, after the opening of the church-people's meeting, a Turkish official began to be present in it. 3) The Porte demanded that the church-people's assembly have one member from each region (and each region embraces several dioceses). The Patriarchate proposed one member per diocese; but this just desire of the patriarchy was also rejected by the port. 4) Regarding the selection of secular members from the capital, the Porta wanted the Patriarchate to propose twenty persons from the nobles of Constantinople, from which the Porta would choose ten. The Patriarchate objected to this that this method of election would lead to the fact that in the church-people's assembly there would be a majority devoted to the views of the Turkish government; but the Patriarchate’s objection was rejected. 5) Regarding deputies from the clergy, the port ordered the election of seven metropolitans as spiritual members of the church-people's assembly. According to this, 6 geronts were appointed from among the metropolitans in the general people's assembly, i.e. permanent members of the Patriarchal Synod (Ephesus, Heraclius, Kyziche, Nicomedia, Chalcedon, Dercon), and the Metropolitan of Didymotykh. This election was approved by the port. But in July 1858 suddenly an order is sent to the Patriarchate to expel six metropolitan-geronts from the assembly and elect others in their places, with the remark that those who elect cannot be elected. As a result of this, the following metropolitans were elected and appointed: Thessaloniki, Adrianople, Amasia, Arta, Meleniki, Sozoagathopolis and Didimotikh. This is how the church-people's assembly was formed. “A church council has been appointed,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret. “How do they compose it? Members are appointed not by dioceses, but by provinces, which is why the choice does not correspond to the subject and is not proportional. Ten secular members in the capital were elected by the port from twenty appointed by the patriarchy. Porta naturally looks at the matter not from an ecclesiastical, not from a Christian point of view, but from the opposite; Consequently, it probably elected those who do not know church affairs, who are not well disposed towards the church, but people with qualities that are opposite or less relevant to the cause. Members of the synod, who primarily have the right and ability to judge church affairs, are not allowed into the council, under the pretext that voters cannot be elected; but they do not need to be elected; they are natural members of the church council, being members of the synod. The council is supposed to have 7 spiritual and 20 secular members: this is no longer proportional and is restrictive for church affairs. If they wanted to balance the inclination of the clergy to strengthen church power and the inclination of the secular to weaken it, an equal number of both members should have been appointed. But in reality it went beyond the original purpose, and the council has 7 spiritual and 31 secular members. This is a revolution when not only junior bishops, but even more laymen, become legislators for the patriarch and the synod. And although the patriarch is in this assembly, each of the 31 laity is equal to him here” (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople”). The Church and People's Assembly opened its meetings on October 3, 1858. The first two sessions were devoted to discussions about its internal structure. In the third, they decided to invite deputies from Syria, Egypt and Cyprus, whose hierarchy is independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Porta expressed its consent to this. At the same meeting, the church-people's assembly appointed a commission of 3 persons, which was tasked with drawing up draft rules for the election of the patriarch. The project was submitted to the meeting for consideration on November 14, and consisted of the following: after the death of the patriarch, the temporary locum tenens elected by the synod will invite all diocesan bishops to cast, in person or in writing, their vote in favor of the person who considers worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne; the three persons receiving a majority of votes will be considered candidates; The church council, which is dominated by secularists, nominates one of the three candidates and proposes it to the Sultan for approval. “It is worthy of insightful reflection,” notes Metropolitan Philaret, “what moral consequences may occur if the patriarch is a creation of the laity.” The metropolitan’s thoughts, expressed in a note dated December 11, 1858 (Articles IV–IX), found complete sympathy among the majority of influential members of the Synod of Constantinople. The metropolitans of Kizi and Nicomedia managed to win over the bishops of the church-people's assembly to their side, and when they were awaiting the final approval of the rules proposed by the commission, the spiritual members of the assembly announced that, based on mature considerations, they considered it a duty of conscience to abandon their previous opinions and again proposed for consideration the question of the method of electing the patriarch. Despite the objections of the secular members that they did not agree to discuss any other subject before the question of electing the patriarch was finally decided, it was decided that a commission of several spiritual and secular members of the assembly would seek and present a measure that would satisfy all parties. Such a measure was found. It consisted in the fact that the election of 3 candidates was left to the general meeting of clergy and secular persons, and the final election of the patriarch from these three candidates was given to one senior clergy, i.e., members of the synod. “For this article,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret, “we must thank God. This is not what was seen in the previous information, but what the note on December 11 suggested. Through the final election of the patriarch from three candidates by the members of the synod and the metropolitans, with the secular only present as witnesses, the entire matter of election is included in the order of church rules” (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the acts of the church-people’s assembly in Constantinople,” art. III). At the conclusion of the debate on the election of the patriarch, the church-people's assembly moved on to consider the issue of electing diocesan bishops, and adopted the following rules: when the need arises to elect a bishop to any department, the synod, having appointed 3 candidates, elects one of them in the church, by a majority vote, through a closed ballot; in case of equality of votes, the vote of the patriarch decides the choice. But the synod does not begin to appoint a diocesan bishop until it receives an official report on the death of his predecessor, and this is so that the clergy and secular persons of the diocese, for their part, can indicate the person they wish to have as bishop, and in this case this person is accepted as one of the three candidates (Article VI). At the same time, the rules established that each candidate for bishop must be required, first, for at least 5 years, in the rank of priest or deacon, to be engaged in church or diocesan affairs in the patriarchate or with one of the bishops, and have an approving certificate from the person under whom this service took place. Only persons who enjoyed universal respect and were known for their virtues and experience in church affairs were exempted from this condition (Articles IV and V). Other rules stipulate that diocesan bishops, as well as patriarchs, remain at the head of their diocese for life, and that the movement of bishops from department to department ceases. If the need arises for a significant diocese to appoint a proven bishop from among the junior ones, then the synod is supposed to ask the three bishops in mind for consent to move to a vacant diocese, and then elect one of them; but such a movement cannot in any case entail other movements. In case of dissatisfaction between the pastor and the flock, the synod, having exhausted all means to reconcile the warring parties, if the flock demands it, calls the bishop to trial in Constantinople, and if the offenses of which the bishop is accused relate to the faith or violation of the church charter, the trial is carried out by one synod; if the case concerns extortion and deception, three secular members of the permanent council are present in court. “Will not this rule pave the way for secular members to join the synod?” wrote Metropolitan Philaret. “This fear could be eliminated in the following way: if the matter concerns extortion and deception, then the judicial presence is composed of three members of the Holy Synod and three secular members of the permanent council. The court presence will consider the question of guilt, and present the person found guilty to the Holy Synod to determine punishment according to church rules, and to resolve the question: can the convicted person remain in the administration of the diocese” (Article VII)? After the rules on the election of bishops, the church-people's assembly decided on the rules on the composition of the patriarchal synod. All diocesan bishops dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to the significance of the dioceses, are divided into 3 classes. From each class 4 bishops are elected to the synod, which thus consists of 12 members. The Synod, chaired by the patriarch, manages church affairs; a decision of the synod that is not approved by the patriarch is powerless, just like a decision made by one patriarch without a synod. Of the 12 synodal members, 6 are replaced annually by others, two from each class of dioceses, so that each bishop sits in the synod for no more than two years (Article IX). These rules radically changed the previous composition of the synod. The Synod of Constantinople previously consisted of 8 lifelong members and all bishops temporarily present in Constantinople. The permanent members, called geronts, constituted the entire strength of the synod, and each of them, in addition, was an ephor or patron of certain diocesan bishops, who thus, in the person of the geronts, had in Constantinople their attorneys and intercessors before the patriarch and before the port. Now it was decided to destroy gerontia and euphoria (“Notes of Metropolitan Philaret to the information of the Right Reverend Sophrony, Archbishop of Art”), which was not a little promoted by the Bulgarian deputies, who saw in the geronts one of the main reasons for unrest and abuses in church administration. The Geronts were not pleased with this measure and, attributing it to the weakness of the patriarch, made an attempt with some of the secular members of the church-people's assembly to depose him. Prince A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky supported the patriarch, and the attempt of the Geronts failed, and then they themselves, by order of the port, were dismissed for a time to their dioceses (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret “on the enterprise to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch and on the removal of the Geronts”). The Gerons protested against such a government order before the Patriarchate, and, regardless of this, they filed a complaint with our Holy Synod. Both in the East and here, the protest made a strong impression. “The Great Church has been undermined, the Church of New Rome has been undermined,” they wrote in Athens (“Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the protest of the Geronts”: “Addition on the protest of the Geronts”, III). “The fundamental decrees of the church have been violated,” we said (“Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the message of the Geronts to the Holy Synod”), and demanded the intervention of our and the Athens Synods in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But the ever-memorable Moscow saint in a number of notes (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the protest of the Geronts”, “Letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the enterprise to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch, and on the removal of the Geronts from the Synod of Constantinople", "Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with a review of the content of the complaint of the Geronts addressed to the Synod about their removal from Constantinople", "Letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count To A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the message of the Geronts to the Holy Synod”, “Metropolitan Philaret’s remark on the draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch”, “The draft message compiled by Metropolitan Philaret to the Ecumenical Patriarch”, “Letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the appendix of a note on the acts of the Constantinople Church-People's Assembly") presented the significance of the Geronts in the Synod of Constantinople in the present light, and their complaint to our Holy Synod was left unanswered ("A draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch compiled by Metropolitan Philaret"), which protected the Russian Church from an unpleasant collision with the Church of Constantinople ("Letter of the Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the attachment of a note on the acts of the Constantinople Church and People's Assembly"). On the mutual relations between the synod and the patriarch, the church-people's assembly decided: all actions of the synod are monitored by the patriarch, who must honor and respect all members of the Holy Synod, treat everyone indifferently with meekness and brotherly love, without becoming especially attached to any of them, and without having private relations with anyone, in order to avoid any reason for disorder and distrust. “What is a strong expression of distrust of a person to whose rank belongs the highest degree of trust from all Orthodox Christians in matters of faith and conscience”? Metropolitan Philaret noted this. Is it possible to strictly fulfill this prohibition? What is the unfortunate position of the patriarch if he does not have the right to privately and secretly consult with one person or two, but, having a need for advice, must suddenly consult with twelve? Meanwhile, there is no visible prohibition for the members of the synod to have private relations with each other; they have the freedom to conspire against the opinion of the patriarch: the patriarch alone does not have freedom for well-intentioned private relations, he alone is bound. Previously they bound the patriarch with abuses, now they want to bind him with the law” (Article XIII). On the issue of dethroning the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Church-People's Assembly decided: if the patriarch deviates from his patriarchal and spiritual duties and, after the two-time respectful representations of the synod, does not want to correct himself, the Synod will communicate with the members of the permanent council and resume, with common consent, the respectful representation of what the sacred canons and church order require. In case of persistence on the part of the patriarch, the synod and council will jointly write to the high port with a request for his removal. Likewise, if the patriarch retires from his political duties, the permanent council, after two representations, will meet with the synod and, together with it, submit a petition to the port. The deposition of the patriarch can only take place if two-thirds of both united assemblies express their consent to this. “If any other official,” Metropolitan Philaret wrote on this occasion, “was supposed to be removed from office after three remarks, without trial, there would probably be people who would say that this was wrong. Shouldn't we act more carefully with a person whose fall is in some way offensive to the dignity of the church? The Patriarch is also supposed to be deposed for violating political duties. Vague expression. Has it been thought out, and has it been reliably recognized as not presenting any danger, that, having received the force of law, it will be applicable to unimportant cases and will also produce frequent depositions of the patriarchs, as before” (Article XVI). At a meeting on March 13, 1859, the church-people's assembly decided: permanent councils consisting of 4 spiritual and 8 secular members were established in the capital and dioceses. Half of the members, i.e. 6, retires annually and is replaced by others. No member may, after the expiration of a two-year term, be elected for another two-year term. Members of the council receive a salary, as do the secretaries of the office attached to it. Councils in dioceses will, if necessary, make representations through their archbishops to the patriarch, who transmits them to the capital council. This latter, under the chairmanship of a synodal member or the patriarch himself, is in charge of public schools and charitable institutions; he also controls the financial administration of the capital's churches and oversees the management of the income of monasteries that depend on the ecumenical patriarch. “It is difficult to judge the organization of the council,” Metropolitan Philaret notes. “It is extraordinary because the position of the church and the people is extraordinary” (“Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret “on a permanent, mixed, church-people’s council”). “The rights of the permanent council,” wrote Prince Lobanov, “positively defined by the Church-People’s Assembly, should completely dissuade those who unfairly assume that the Ottoman government or the majority of the secular members of the Church-People’s Assembly wanted to take away from the Church the secular power that it has had over the Orthodox since the conquest of Constantinople. It is true that according to the project, in accordance with the Gatti-Humayun, the management of the financial affairs of the community is subordinated to a permanent council, but the council itself is dependent on spiritual authority, for, in addition to the fact that half of the members will be appointed by the synod, the patriarch is given main control over the actions of the council. Even in purely secular matters, such as the financial management of churches and monasteries dependent on the patriarchate, the assembly made significant concessions to the clergy, because it granted the permanent council only the right to oversee this management, without any interference from secular persons in the collection and use of church revenues. This is not how Metropolitan Philaret understood this matter. He classifies the management of church property among church objects, to which the worldly only comes into contact. “How good it would be if the shepherds could say with the apostles: It is not acceptable for us, who have abandoned the word of God, to serve meals; but for this, an apostolic flock is also needed, which spared nothing for the needy members of the church (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” XI). The assembly is said to have made a concession to the clergy, giving itself only control and supervision. But, firstly, the rule does not simply say: let the bishop manage the church estate, but adds: let him rule imperiously. If the last word is used with meaning, then it means: yes, he controls without outside interference, without control. Secondly, what does observation mean? Will the council really only watch what is being done and do nothing? Why bother with such observation? And if he, having found some orders of the clergy inconsistent with his thoughts, demands different orders, then observation will quietly become the highest management. The apostolic canons, while granting the bishop full power in the management of church estates, did not forbid, however, abuses in this management to be submitted to the judgment of the council” (“Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret “on a permanent, mixed, church-people’s council”). In conclusion, the church-people's assembly, in accordance with the program of the port, began to consider the important issue of assigning salaries to the Orthodox clergy in Turkey. The idea of ​​this measure was first proposed by the former prince of Samos Vogorides, who proposed it to representatives of the European powers on the occasion of the meetings on Gatti-Humayun. Article 3 of this act states, and the rules on the establishment of church-people's assemblies repeat that “incomes assigned to the clergy by customs or laws are abolished without distinction and that they will be replaced by a certain salary for the patriarch and salaries for other church servants, consistent with the degree of their dignity.” Long before the convening of the church-national assembly, during the time of our Jerusalem mission in Constantinople, the Greek hierarchs expressed their concerns about such a measure. Thus, Metropolitan Dionysius of Nicomedia, in a conversation with the Right Reverend of Melitopol, noting in passing that the port’s intention to assign a permanent salary to the clergy is contrary to church law, because those who serve the altar must also eat from the altar, added that this measure could be allowed in the Russian church, in which the government and the clergy belong to the same confession, but that in Turkey it would produce disastrous results. action. And the Ecumenical Patriarch explained to A.P. Butenev all the danger that, in his opinion, would threaten the Greek Church if the Porta managed to insist on its demand to determine a permanent salary for the bishops, and asked for the intercession of the Russian embassy before the Turkish government, so that the solution to this issue would be completely rejected and everything would remain as before. “The Turkish government,” Metropolitan Filaret wrote on this occasion (“Metropolitan Filaret’s Opinion on the Salary of the Orthodox Clergy in Turkey”), “is collecting information about the existing methods of maintaining the Orthodox clergy, and wants to replace it with a salary, probably assuming to take church property at its disposal. The Russian embassy in Constantinople, noticeably, supports the idea of ​​the Turkish government. When one of the members of the Synod of Constantinople said that bishops on salary would visit their flocks less, the embassy took this as an admission that the flocks were now visited for selfish reasons. Upon careful examination of the case, this conclusion may seem hasty. Let us assume that the bishop, when traveling around the diocese, takes advantage of the benefits of his flock: there is no need to rush to condemn this. The Apostle wrote: The Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14), and also: let the teacher communicate in every good word (Gal. 6:6). If the flock is zealous according to the apostolic teaching and the shepherd, accepting the surplus of the rich, gives it to the poor, then through this mutual goodwill is expressed and maintained on both sides.” “The idea of ​​assigning salaries to members of the higher clergy,” Metropolitan Philaret further wrote (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Opinion on the Transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople”), arose before Gatti-Humayun and among the Greek laity. Consequently, it is now to be expected that they will strongly insist on this idea. Is it possible to convince them that the more they weaken the higher clergy, the more they will weaken their national unity and strength? The above comments of the Metropolitan and others, which are not given here for brevity, did not go unnoticed in Constantinople (“Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the attachment of a note on the acts of the Constantinople Church and People’s Assembly”). Regarding, in particular, the question of salaries, the Holy Patriarch, to whom the thoughts of Metropolitan Philaret were promptly communicated by our Constantinople embassy, ​​at a meeting on March 13, 1859, at the conclusion of the debate on this issue, announced on behalf of the bishops of the church-people's assembly that they consider the assignment of salaries to the clergy a measure contrary to canon law, the rules of St. apostle, to the traditions and centuries-old privileges of the church, and the most humiliating thing for the clergy. With the same unflagging zeal, although with less success for the cause, the great Moscow saint cared about the pacification of the Greek-Bulgarian feud. Changes in the organization of the Patriarchate of Constantinople brought to the surface the long-existing hostility between the Greeks and Bulgarians. With the publication of the Gatti-Humayun, the Bulgarians received hope that with the general transformation both their ancient desires and legal demands would be satisfied, and they decided to energetically seek this satisfaction. Their initial desires were quite moderate: the Bulgarians wanted to have worship in the Slavic language, a higher clergy from natural Bulgarians and representatives from their nation in the patriarchal synod and mixed council. Ecumenical Patriarch Kirill the 7th supported, for some time, the hope among the Bulgarians that their wishes would be fulfilled; but soon the Bulgarians had to abandon this hope (“Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the need to grant autocephaly to the Bulgarian Church”). A man of weak character, according to the reviews of our diplomatic agents in Constantinople, His Holiness Cyril could not, even if he wanted, do anything in favor of the Bulgarians. The regulations of church administration drawn up in 1858–66 did not in any way change the position of the Bulgarians and did not increase their rights in church affairs. Having thus been deceived in their hopes for the patriarch and having become convinced from experience that in the general task of transforming the system of church life in the patriarchate no attention was paid to their desires and demands, the Bulgarians took a decisive step that gave a new direction to the Greek-Bulgarian question: in 1860, on the day of Holy Easter, during a service in the Bulgarian church of Constantinople, on the Phanar, the Bulgarian people demanded that the name of the ecumenical The patriarch was not commemorated at the services and, instead of him, the Bulgarian bishop (who was attached to this church) Hilarion was commemorated. The desire of the people was fulfilled (“Review of Metropolitan Philaret about the unpleasant incident between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Bulgarian Church in Constantinople”). The example of the Constantinople Bulgarians was followed by many Bulgarian dioceses, and the Greek-Bulgarian feud took on the character of open hostility and the desire of the Bulgarians, which later became more and more established, for a decisive hierarchical separation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchate turned to strict measures, but to no avail (“Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the disagreements between the Greeks and Bulgarians on church affairs”). Meanwhile, important changes took place in the patriarchy itself. The old Phanariot party, hostile to any kind of transformation in the organization of the patriarchy, gained the upper hand, and Patriarch Kirill, who, due to his indecisive way of acting, could not satisfy any of the parties of the patriarchy, had to leave the patriarchal throne. His place (October 4, 1860) was taken by Joachim II, Metropolitan of Kizi, who took the patriarchal throne at the special insistence of the Porta, which acted in this case under the influence of the Old Phanariot party. The new patriarch looked at the Bulgarian affair with feelings of personal hostility. He was among those geronts whose title had been abolished in the previous year during the transformation of the synod and who were removed to their dioceses from Constantinople. The Geronts viewed their removal as a violation of the rights of the church, and this removal occurred as a result of the accusation leveled against the Geronts (and the Bulgarians, by the way) that they were one of the main causes of unrest and abuses in church governance, and therefore Joachim II looked at the Bulgarian affair with feelings of personal displeasure. These feelings were not slow to show up in the patriarch immediately upon his accession to the throne. During one of his first meetings with Prince A.B. Lobanov, he told the latter that he considered any kind of compliance towards the Bulgarians to be unnecessary and, on the contrary, hoped to resolve the issue through measures of church severity. In December 1860 the patriarch issued a district message in which the Bulgarians, both those inclined towards union with Rome and the Orthodox, but seeking hierarchical independence, were declared opponents of the church, the Bulgarian bishops, Hilarion of Makarioupolis and Auxentius, the former of Dyrrachia, were threatened with excommunication, and any hope of having a representative of their nation in the person of their hierarch in the patriarchal synod was taken away from the Bulgarians (“Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 22, 1860”, “Metropolitan Philaret’s letter to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “on the Greek-Bulgarian case, according to information before January 3, 1861”,” Metropolitan Philaret’s note on the Greek-Bulgarian case, according to information until January 10, 1861”, “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” and “Metropolitan Philaret’s notes 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"). The Orthodox Bulgarians responded to this message with a printed refutation, in the sharpness of tone and expressions not inferior to the district message (“Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov on the Greek-Bulgarian affair”). The patriarch’s threat was fulfilled on February 24, 1861: at a general council consisting of all patriarchs (both those in service and those staying in Constantinople), the Bulgarian bishops Hilarion and Auxentius were deposed and defrocked (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Notes on the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information: January 31, 7, 22 and February 28, 7, 14, 15, 21 and 28 March, April 11, 18 and 25, and May 14, 1861": "On the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after the news of the excommunication of Bishop Hilarion", "On the Bulgarian affair according to information from February 28, 1861"). At the same time, Patriarch Joachim began to insist in front of the port that Hilarion and Auxentius be sent to prison. But this desire of the patriarch was fulfilled by the port only at the end of April (“Metropolitan Philaret’s notes 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 Bulgarian affair according to information dated 7 March 1861). “The former Patriarch (Cyril 7th) through slowness and indecision gave the Bulgarian uprising time to strengthen and spread,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret in a note dated May 14, 1861 (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Notes on the Greek-Bulgarian Affair according to information: January 31, February 7, 22 and 28, 7, 14, 15, March 21 and 28, April 11, 18 and 25, and May 14, 1861": "0 Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information from April 11, 18 and 25, 1861", VIII.); “Hilarion, by his stubbornness against the patriarch, extending himself 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 a chasm on the path of reconciliation between the Greeks and Bulgarians.” The entire subsequent history of the Greek-Bulgarian feud fully confirmed the validity of this remark of the ever-memorable saint. The Bulgarians connected the cause of their nation with the name of Hilarion and, especially after he appeared in their eyes as a martyr for the people's interests, they could not possibly abandon him, although at the same time they could not help but realize that he had been defrocked by the council of hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. On the other hand, even if the patriarch wanted to make concessions to the Bulgarians, he could not do this without renouncing the condemnation pronounced by him and the council against Hilarion (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Notes on the Greek-Bulgarian affair according to information: January 31, February 7, 22 and 28, March 7, 14, 15, 21 and 28, March 11, 18 and 25 April, and May 14, 1861": "On information from March 14 and 15, 1861 on the Greek-Bulgarian affair"). That is why Metropolitan Philaret quite rightly called the deposition of Hilarion an abyss on the path of reconciliation. When news was received in St. Petersburg about the direction and character of Patriarch Joachim, the idea was born to send a bishop to Constantinople as a representative of the Russian Holy Synod, who would, with his influence and advice, promote the reconciliation of the Bulgarians and Greeks. This thought, for the first time, was expressed by Count A.P. Tolstoy to the Empress, and then to the Emperor. After a strict discussion of the events taking place in Constantinople, as well as the character and direction of Patriarch Joachim, Metropolitan Philaret rejected the implementation of this assumption, as a measure that, not achieving the expected goal, could endanger peaceful relations between the Russian and Constantinople churches “(Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the current situation of the Eastern Church and on the relationship to the Russian Church,” “Letter of the Metropolitan Philaret to Prince A.M. Gorchakov, with a note attached: “on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, after reading the patriarchal letter and the Bulgarian response” and “Metropolitan Philaret’s notes 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"). Meanwhile, the port entered into the dispute. Back in August and September 1861, the Grand Vizier surveyed the Bulgarian provinces and received many complaints against the Greeks and the Patriarchate (“Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the Bulgarian case according to the dispatch of November 20, 1860, paragraph VIII”); At the same time, he had the opportunity to make sure that the Bulgarians have and are ripening the idea of ​​​​the need to obtain, following the example of the Serbs, political independence, after achieving church-hierarchical independence. This thought could not help but seem dangerous to the port, and she decided to turn the Bulgarians away from it, again involving them in an agreement with the great church. In these types of ports, she began to insist that the patriarch form a mixed commission of Greeks and Bulgarians to consider the controversial case (No. 56). The petition presented by the Bulgarians at the end of 1861 (“On the remarks of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the points of the Bulgarians, July 12, 1861”) on church needs was supposed to serve as a program for the studies of the mixed commission. In this petition, the Bulgarians expressed the desire to have participation in the election of the patriarch, to have representatives from their nation in the synod, to form a special people's council under the patriarch, separate from the existing similar Greek council, and finally to change the procedure for the appointment of diocesan bishops by granting each diocese the right to elect candidates to replace its see. For a long time the Patriarch put off, under various pretexts, the creation of the commission, and it was drawn up only in July 1862 (“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”). The commission devoted the first 6 meetings to resolving the issue of how to elect the patriarch, which was resolved satisfactorily for both parties; It was assumed that in the future the Bulgarians would have from 25 to 30 representatives when electing the patriarch. But there was a decisive disagreement on the issue concerning the composition of the synod and the people's council under the patriarchate. Bulgarian deputies demanded that both of these institutions be composed of an equal number of Greeks and Bulgarians. The Greeks did not agree with this demand, pointing out that the Orthodox faith does not allow the division of believers by nationality. “Where is the church rule in which the patriarch found this thought”? Patriarch Filaret notes this (“Letter from Metropolitan Filaret 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”: “On the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian issue”). “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. The Bulgarians demand a balance of nationalities, and the Greeks support the predominance of the Greek nationality" ("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": "On the appointment of members from Greeks and Bulgarians to the mixed commission on Greek-Bulgarian affair, 1862, October 24"). After a long dispute, both sides decided to leave the issue to the Ottoman government. “A surprisingly deplorable event,” notes the Metropolitan. “Christians in social-Christian matters submit themselves to the judgment of non-Christians. Isn’t this hard for the Most Holy Patriarch” (“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”: “On the appointment of members from Greeks and Bulgarians to the mixed commission on the Greek-Bulgarian affair, 1862, October 24")? After much hesitation, Ali Pasha proposed to the members of the mixed Greek-Bulgarian commission to divide the dioceses subordinate to the great church into three categories, so that the first of them, purely Greek, comprising Thessaly, Epirus, the islands and Asia Minor, had in the patriarchal synod four metropolitans of Greek origin; the second, comprising Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, appointed four metropolitans of Slavic origin to attend the synod, and the third, embracing areas with a mixed population, such as Macedonia, Thrace and Upper Albania, supplemented the composition of the synod with the remaining four bishops, whose origin would be determined by a majority of voters. The Bulgarians hastened to express their consent to this proposal, but the Greeks decisively rejected it, and thus the government’s attempt to reconcile the warring parties failed (Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the state of church affairs in the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Meanwhile, the unyielding character of His Holiness Joachim aroused strong opposition against him in the synod and council, the consequence of which was his demotion from the patriarchal throne (Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the hierarchy of Constantinople, according to information from October 3, 10, 17 and 24, 1861, II-IV), and the latter was occupied by Sophronius in September 1863, former Metropolitan of Amassia. In February 1864, His Holiness Sophrony, after a preliminary conference with E.P. Novikov, convened, with the permission of the port, a meeting composed of all the patriarchs, both in service and retired (except Joachim), metropolitans of the synod, all the bishops who were in the capital and many secular persons (up to 70 people in total), and entrusted him with the consideration of the works of the mixed commission established in 1862 under Patriarch Joachim on the Bulgarian case. The meeting continued its studies until June, and came to decisions that could not satisfy the Bulgarians, since they provided them with very limited concessions. The Bulgarians finally declared that they expect an impartial solution to their national cause solely from the Ottoman government (Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov on the Greek-Bulgarian affair). At the same time, they persistently petitioned the government for the return of their former bishops Hilarion and Auxentius from exile. Their wish was fulfilled in September 1864. The return of the excommunicated bishops encouraged the Bulgarians and embittered the Greeks even more. “The disease of the patriarchy is profound,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret in June 1865. “In the beginning, 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 and powerful obstacle to reconciliation by deposing two bishops, instead of temporarily excommunicating them from the church. Now it’s difficult for us to give permission to both sides, and it’s hard to expect to hear” (“Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov about the Greek-Bulgarian church feud”, “Note from Metropolitan Philaret, after reading the dispatch of our envoy in Constantinople about the serious illness of the former Bulgarian bishop Auxentius”). And therefore, when among the members of the Patriarchal Synod the idea was born that the Ecumenical Patriarch would turn to the Russian and Athens synods with a request to express their opinion on the emerging church discord and indicate the best ways to pacification, Metropolitan Philaret rejected the official intervention of the Russian Holy Synod as a hopeless measure and therefore useless (“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"). The great saint seemed to have foreseen the sad outcome by which the Greek-Bulgarian dispute was to be resolved and how it actually ended on September 16, 1872. Nevertheless, the efforts undertaken by the saint to prevent this unfortunate day will forever remain a monument to the saint’s pious zeal “for the peace and welfare of God’s holy churches.” And His Holiness Patriarch Gregory, without a doubt, had these merits of the metropolitan in mind when, on the occasion of his blessed death, he wrote to the Holy Synod on behalf of the ecumenical throne: “From the telegram transmitted on November 21 to our capital, it was hard for us to hear the sad news about the transfer from temporary to eternal and glorious monasteries of the famous Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret. Reflecting on a misfortune so close to us and lamenting in the depths of our hearts about the extinguishing of such a lamp of piety, we not only, out of fraternal duty, publicly remembered his name at the patriarchal sacred rites performed at the council on November 30, but also did not hesitate to report our heartfelt sorrow and let the pious and high mission of the fraternal host of bishops with us know. His Imperial Majesty. The Apostolic and Patriarchal Church of Constantinople with the same participation shares in the Lord the sufferings and sorrows of all the holy Orthodox churches, with which they share their days of happiness: she considers Philaret as much a hierarch of Moscow, as much as a pillar, lamp and teacher of all Orthodoxy, an indestructible link of inextricable unity in the faith; for, distinguished by the depth and insight of his mind and the kindness of his heart, given to him by God in abundance, constantly revealing in himself a firm and tireless zeal for the great and inviolable paternal piety and at the same time adorned with many truly evangelical virtues and virtues, especially glorified by a variety of wise and abundant beautiful writings, he exalted and adorned the entire Christian church. Therefore, even now, when three months have already passed since our regularity received the news of the death of Philaret, we are struck by the greater spiritual confusion, the more vividly we remember that wise and kind shepherd, whom the heavenly Beneficiary deigned to call to Himself, may He give him rest from many long and fruitful labors. Sick in heart and spirit, we do not know how else to calm our emotional unrest and sorrow, except by placing, by patriarchal and synodal decree, the glorious name of the blessed and worthy Philaret in the sacred diptychs of the great Christian church governed by us, for eternal remembrance through constant bloodless and propitiatory sacrifices and offerings, humbly praying to the Eternal Bridegroom and the perfecter of the church May the Savior Jesus Christ not forsake His immaculate and God-adorned bride as an orphan, but may he always grant her, in times of need, zealous shepherds and teachers, builders of the mysteries, workers and champions of piety, which, if ever, then precisely in these difficult times, we need for the building of the faithful, for the perfection of the saints and for the preservation of the Orthodox faith from all alien and vain teachings. flattery." As for the third section of this volume, it includes the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, relating exclusively to our spiritual mission in Jerusalem, for the period from May 15, 1859 to October 23, 1866. There are nineteen papers in this section. Of these, the metropolitan’s notes deserve special attention: “on the restoration of the dome of the Jerusalem Temple” (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Note on the Betsakur Church and on the dome of the Jerusalem Temple and Metropolitan Philaret’s Note on the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre”); comments “on the project of managing charitable institutions in Palestine” (“Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion “on the considerations and project of managing charitable institutions in Palestine””) and a number of articles on the case of disturbances in our spiritual Jerusalem mission (“Metropolitan Philaret’s Notes on disturbances in the spiritual mission in Jerusalem,” “Letter of Metropolitan Philaret to A.P. Akhmatov, with a review of the inappropriate installation of the throne of the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Russian Church, in Jerusalem", "Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, with a draft message to the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the matter of unrest in our spiritual mission in Jerusalem", "Memorandum of Metropolitan Philaret regarding the “very confidential letter” of our envoy in Constantinople N. P. Ignatiev about the disorders in the Russian Jerusalem spiritual mission", "Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a review of the assumption of the Russian envoy in Constantinople, N. P. Ignatiev, regarding the reconciliation of Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem with Archimandrite Leonid", "Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the report of Archimandrite Antonin, October 18, 1865, on the case of disorder in the Jerusalem spiritual mission,” “Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a draft message to Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem on behalf of the first member of the Holy Synod about the disorders of the Jerusalem spiritual mission,” “Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the interrogation of Hieromonk John in the case of disorders in the Jerusalem spiritual mission,” “Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D. A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the assumption of the closure of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem", "Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the disorders in the Jerusalem spiritual mission"). The indexes of personal names and items for this volume were compiled by A. V. Gavrilov. You might be interested in: