Часть III. Единоверие
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Metropolitan Philaret’s general view of Edinoverie
The question of the essence and significance of Edinoverie, in addition to serving as a starting point and point of departure for resolving other issues relating mainly to the internal history of Edinoverie, is of considerable interest in itself. Until very recently, such confusion of concepts reigned in this issue that it was difficult for a person not privy to such issues to understand it 1109. Not to mention the secular government officials, who understood very little about this whole matter, very often confused unity of faith with schism, so that the government itself was forced to remind them of the difference between one and the other, 1110 - even among the clergy there were quite a few who had very vague ideas about unity of faith, looked at the latter very suspiciously, seeing in it something, if not hostile to the church, then at least separate from it 1111 . This confusion of concepts in the issue under consideration was mainly facilitated by the internal state of the unity of faith itself in recent times.
It is known that during the reign of Nikolai Pavlovich, Edinoverie quantitatively reached significant proportions, but its quality was not very high. Many of the schismatics joined the church not out of sincere conviction, but out of extraneous calculations that had nothing in common with religion, and after conversion they remained essentially true schismatics, and therefore introduced purely schismatic concepts into co-religious communities. This circumstance alone can explain the fact that some, instead of understanding the reasons for such an abnormal phenomenon in the environment of Edinoverie, trying to correct it if possible, and leading schismatic coreligionists onto the path of true Edinoverie, reacted negatively to the very idea of Edinoverie and often expressed such judgments about it, from which it is clear that they attached almost no importance to it.
The merit of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret in this area is important because he not only revealed with sufficient clarity and detail the question of the essence and meaning of common faith, but also tried to lead the co-religionists of his diocese onto the real road, so that they could already at that time serve as an excellent example of true co-religionists who fully correspond to the idea of co-religion.
So, what is unity of faith in its essence? What is its significance and purpose, according to the views of the Moscow saint? In one of his later opinions (1864), answering the question posed in government spheres about the further development of Edinoverie, he thus defines the essence and significance of the latter. “Unity of faith,” he says here, is not the beginning. The beginning is Orthodoxy, and unification of faith is the spread, development, movement of this beginning towards the side of the schism, with the goal of returning those who are alienated from the Orthodox Church to the unity of faith, church and hierarchy, with the provision for them, by leniency, to use in worship books from editions that preceded the correction, and the rituals laid down in these books. Hence the name edinoverie and edinoverie church, that is, a church that is united with the general Orthodox in faith, despite the difference in some rituals. With such a structure of the co-religious church, those who join it are provided with everything that could be allowed without violating the purity of Orthodoxy” 1112.
Thus, already from the above words it is clearly clear what are the characteristic features of Edinoverie, what is its relationship to the schism and the so-called general Orthodoxy by Philaret, what is the purpose of its establishment and what significance does it have in the relationship of the Orthodox Church to the schism. Let us try, in the light of other opinions of the Moscow Metropolitan, to reveal in more detail the theses he expressed in the above words on the issue under consideration.
Unity of faith is not a schism, but only some concession to the latter, so insignificant, however, that nothing is allowed in it that violates the purity of Orthodoxy - this is the first position contained in the above words of M. Philaret. What is the point of contact between edinoverie and schism, which confuses some and forces them to confuse these two heterogeneous phenomena of church life and where are the essential features of the difference between one and the other? The Moscow saint explains this very thoroughly in his other opinions and, what is especially important for us, in contrast to the conviction expressed by some that there is no significant difference between schism and edinoverie. So, for example, he reveals this position in one of his opinions on the issue of granting priests from the Orthodox Church to schismatics, when he considers the evidence of the opposing party, standing for the satisfaction of schismatic demands, arising from this confusion of schism with unity of faith.
Priests from the Orthodox Church were given to fellow believers, this party said; why not give them to schismatics, who are almost no different from their coreligionists? Responding to these arguments, the Moscow saint tries to show that unified faith does not have that close connection with schism that the latter’s defenders would like to see, but that, on the contrary, there is a whole abyss between both. Characterizing the schism with three signs, as obstacles that eliminate its followers from church communion - recognition of the Orthodox Church as heretical, disobedience to the church hierarchy and the use of some special rituals, M. Filaret notes that only the first two signs are fundamentally included in the concept of schism and serve as significant obstacles to the communication of schismatics with the Orthodox Church, while the third is not particularly important and does not essentially interfere church unity, because, as he put it, “in these rites, although less correct, there is no contradiction to the essential dogmas of the faith.”
Now considering common faith from the point of view of the above-mentioned signs characterizing the schism, the Moscow archpastor points out that only the third, insignificant, sign has been preserved among the fellow believers; it serves as the external point of contact between unity of faith and schism, and constitutes in the former an insignificant movement towards the latter from the so-called general Orthodoxy. As for the other two signs, more significant, which actually convey to the well-known party of Old Believers the nature of the schism and pose an insurmountable barrier to the schismatics’ communication with Orthodoxy, these signs are destroyed in the unity of faith. This absence of the indicated signs of discord among co-religionists serves as a significant difference between co-religion and schism and was a sufficient reason for the Orthodox Church to accept them into its fellowship. “Because the first two obstacles,” says M.
Filaret, the co-religionists destroyed themselves, because they recognized the church as holy and entered into obedience to the hierarchy, then the Orthodox Church correctly accepted them into communion, showing leniency in allowing insignificant differences in rituals, since in the Orthodox churches, from time to time, by country, some local insignificant differences in rituals from ancient times were tolerated without condemnation" 1113. The Moscow saint expresses these same thoughts on the issue under consideration in his other opinion. Drawing here a parallel between schism and common faith, he notes: “what is most condemning and harmful in schismatics is their alienation from the church and their rebellious disposition against it. Fellow believers, having overcome these dispositions, upon entering into common faith, and having entered into the grace-filled communion of the hierarchy and the sacraments of the church, in accordance with their name, receive direction to unity and consider the Orthodox Church to be theirs, and schismatics to be strangers” 1114.
That there is no significant similarity between schism and co-religion is well understood by the schismatics themselves, who are far from the idea of recognizing co-religionists as their fellow believers. “When communicating directly with schismatics,” says Filaret in response to the unfair accusation of Count Zakrevsky, that the clergy deliberately obscures the truth and hides from the government the identity of the schism with the same faith, “and when inquiring about their opinions through fellow believers, it is not heard of them recognizing the identity of the schism with the same faith and complaining about the clergy hiding this from the government. And here is the proof: if schismatics recognized the identity of schism with unity of faith, then there would be no reason for them not to join unity of faith" 1115.
So, unified faith, according to the judgment of the Moscow archpastor, should in no way be confused with schism, because there is a significant difference between both. This is the negative side of their characteristics of Edinoverie, which, of course, does not exhaust the question of the essence of Edinoverie.
With no less clarity, the Moscow saint revealed the other, positive, side of the same faith - the latter’s attitude towards Orthodoxy. According to his conviction, Edinoverie in its essence is the same as Orthodoxy; the Edinoverie Church, differing from the so-called Pan-Orthodox or Greek-Russian Church by an insignificant difference in rituals, is united with the latter, as its very name shows, by the unity of faith, sacraments and hierarchy with such strong bonds that the first cannot be thought of separately from the latter, but both are one universal holy and apostolic church. And this position of his about the identity of Edinoverie with Orthodoxy, no less often than the previously discussed one, M. Philaret had to clarify and prove on various occasions, in contrast to the belief of some that “United Faith differs significantly from Orthodoxy.”
At one time, this exact idea was expressed by the head of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, the official Potulov, in a denunciation already known to us about the false, in his opinion, arrangement of school affairs in the Edinoverie Preobrazhensky School, which accepted not only Edinoverie but also Orthodox children. Armed in his denunciation against this education of Orthodox children in Edinoverie school, as very, in his opinion, dangerous for the religious beliefs of these children, Potulov, as a motive for this fear, puts forward his opinion that Edinoverie differs significantly from Orthodoxy. In a letter to Met.
Gregory, dedicated to the consideration of this denunciation of the caretaker of the Transfiguration cemetery, the Moscow saint dwells on the latter’s indicated opinion about the relationship of Edinoverie to Orthodoxy and proves, on the contrary, that between Edinoverie and Orthodoxy there is no serious difference, that one has significant points of contact with the other, and that some difference in rituals, if not contrary to the essence of faith, does not violate the unity that exists between Edinoverie and general Orthodoxy. “It is known,” says M. Philaret in the above-mentioned letter, that the same faith from general Orthodoxy does not differ either in dogmas, or in commandments, or in sacraments, but only in some faulty expressions of old printed books and in some rituals, not legibly accepted, but not contrary to the essence of faith. And therefore there is no need to say with fear that Edinoverie differs significantly from Orthodoxy” 1116. Similar views on the relationship of Edinoverie to Orthodoxy m.
Filaret also cites in his letter to the Urals, who were looking for union with the Orthodox Church on the rules of Edinoverie, but were only afraid, under the influence of certain schismatic prejudices against Edinoverie, of the name itself and therefore wanted to replace this latter with the name of their church “Eastern Catholic Catholic and Apostolic.” The first name, i.e. the name of their church, Edinoverie, seemed to the Ural Old Believers not only unpleasant, but even offensive, as if indicating that the Edinoverie belonged to some other church than the Orthodox Church. The Moscow archpastor, clarifying, in contrast to these schismatic rumors about Edinoverie, the true concept of the latter, writes in his message to the Urals: “What does the Edinoverie Church mean? The Church, which has the same faith with the Great Russian Church, is in union with it and in this way differs from those who have different views and are alien to the Great Russian Church. What is unpleasant or offensive about this?
To the brethren of the churches of the same faith we say: you are fellow believers with us, and we are fellow believers with you. How can a name that we give to ourselves along with others be offensive?” 1117 And regarding the desire of the Ural Old Believers to receive for their church the name Eastern Catholic Catholic and Apostolic, M. Filaret, proving to them the incongruity of such a name for their private church, at the same time notes that co-religionists, entering into communion with the Orthodox Russian Church, thereby become true Orthodox brothers and children of the same saints “Eastern Catholic churches”, and their church – “enjoying all the grace-filled advantages of the Eastern Catholic cathedral apostolic church, along with other private churches belonging to the Eastern Catholic Church, such as Greek, Russian, Georgian, etc.” 1118. Finally, this same idea about the indivisible unity of the Edinoverie Church with the Orthodox Church.
Filaret expressed this in the clearest way in one of his resolutions, namely in the resolution on the case of the transfer of the Rogozhin spouses (Moscow merchants) from an Orthodox parish to a common faith one. Condescendingly regarding this act of the Rogozhins, the Moscow saint at the same time noted that they “in vain prefer the Edinoverie church to the common Greek-Russian one,” and as a basis for this he put forward the consideration that “both are one universal holy and apostolic church” 1119.
More than once the Moscow archpastor had to dwell on the issue under consideration in his conversations, which he spoke on various occasions in Edinoverie churches, in order, on the one hand, to clarify the correct concepts for Edinoverie's fellow believers about the relationship of Edinoverie to Orthodoxy, and on the other, in order to calm their conscience, confused by those false rumors about Edinoverie in its relation to Orthodoxy, which schismatics tried to spread, and by those false views on this subject that reigned at that time time in Orthodox society. Let us at least point out some of these conversations of M. Philaret, where the question of the essence of common faith is revealed with particular clarity and detail. This is, for example, his conversation, said in 1840 (September 8) while visiting the Trinity Church of Edinoverie.
Noting here the undoubted fact that “edinoverie does not seem clear to everyone,” among other things, because among co-religionists they see “certain liturgical rites and customs that are externally different from those used in the great church,” he further tries to clarify this apparent ambiguity in the relationship between edinoverie and Orthodoxy. As a sufficient solution to this bewilderment, the Moscow saint already recognizes the fact that Edinoverie rites do not essentially contradict, as “proved by a short-term test,” the spirit and meaning of Orthodox rites, and therefore do not in any way violate the unity that exists between Edinoverie and Orthodoxy. “Where there is a single spirit of faith,” he notes, there is also a unity of spirit in love and obedience, since the apostolic word commands Christians to be children of obedience; there, some random diversity in rituals is not division” 1120. In another later (May 13, 1856) conversation, delivered in the Edinoverie church of the Rogozhsky cemetery, m.
Filaret again returns to the issue at hand and devotes most of the conversation to it. “No one imagines,” the Moscow saint again insists here, “to see division in the fact that in your church certain special sounds of words are heard, certain details of rituals are seen.” Why this is so, why, despite some difference between the same faith and general Orthodoxy, unity is maintained between them, M. Philaret explains in detail further in his conversation. Noting the difference that exists between co-religionists and Orthodox Christians in the content of some old and others new sacred and church books, and pointing out the unity between them in that the books of both preach the same dogmas, offer the same sacraments and commandments of God, are established on the word of God and on the rules of the apostles, conciliar and patristic ones and represent in the essence of the matter the same composition of worship and sacred rituals, with few and insignificant differences in details - the Moscow saint asks: “what?
Are these differences not reconcilable with this unity? “One cannot refuse,” he says, answering the question posed, “respect for the church books that you call new: they were corrected from Greek and Slavic manuscripts, which are older than the times of the first five Russian patriarchs. But your ancestors doubted the correctness of this correction and, out of respect for the saints and pious people who arranged their salvation according to the books that you call old, they decided to steadfastly adhere to these books. And you used to be guided in this not so much by research as by the tradition of your fathers. If your adherence to the opinions of your fathers went, as others do, to the point of opposing the holy Apostolic Church, to rejecting the sanctity or priesthood and saving sacraments, or to using them in a sacrilegious and therefore fruitless and condemning manner; then I would tell you: set a proper measure of your respect for your fathers; It is fitting to obey God rather than man.
But since your following the opinion and example of your fathers does not go to extremes, I respect the feeling of respect for your parents, and therefore, with the custom based on it, I wish to remain in peace. And since in the church books, mainly revered by you, I see one and the same faith, sacraments and church, as in the corrected ones, then, with the blessing of the holy apostolic churches, in the peace of your and my conscience, I read your church books in your church, and fulfill the peculiarities of the sacred liturgical rite and rituals that belong to them, and without hesitation I say: let no one think of seeing division in what is in your church some special sounds of words are heard, some special details of rituals are seen” 1121.
Holding such views regarding Edinoverie, respecting it and its rituals, the Moscow saint demanded the same attitude towards general Orthodoxy from his Edinoverie. “Unified faith,” he said, consists not only in the fact that we do not condemn their customs, but, of course, no less in the fact that they do not condemn ours” 1122. These are the desired relations between co-religionists and Orthodox Christians, according to the views of M. Philaret.
The latter, of course, was well aware that reality did not correspond to this ideal. In his Moscow diocese, upon his arrival here, he found far from ideal co-religionists, so for this reason he considered it best, in the first years of his management of the Moscow see, to refuse, despite all the invitations, from serving in co-religionist churches 1123. He also called out that quite a few such insincere co-religionists exist in other dioceses. But he was not at all embarrassed by this circumstance and did not think of drawing any negative conclusions from it in relation to Edinoverie in general. Fully understanding how difficult it is for most Old Believers, with their extremely ritualistic view of things, to immediately cast aside centuries-old prejudices against the Orthodox Church and its rituals, the Moscow saint was quite lenient towards schismatic coreligionists, and advised others to “show them leniency and spare their old habits,” in the hope that “time will correct their wrong prejudices and perfect unity will follow in their children.” 1124.
With such a truly fatherly attitude towards his co-religionists, the Moscow Metropolitan, indeed, in the best possible way, managed to bring them closer to the Orthodox Church, so that already in the time of Philaret, as we will see in its place, they could serve as an excellent example of true co-religionists.
Although not in such detail, M. Philaret and his views on the meaning and purpose of common faith are no less clearly revealed. The latter, in its meaning, is an act of condescension of the Orthodox Church towards adherents of the old rite, allowed for the purpose of attracting those rejected from the church to its unity - such is the general position of the Moscow saint regarding this subject in the above-mentioned opinion of 1864 1125. Dwelling on this position in other places of his opinions, M. Philaret notes that in this act the Orthodox Church showed all the leniency towards the Old Believers that it could have shown without violating church rules and the purity of Orthodoxy, and, moreover, quite sufficient for the purpose for which it was allowed. “The rules of the same faith,” he says in one place, are condescending and sufficiently satisfying to those who are attached to old printed books” 1126. The conditions for the reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church, he notes in another opinion, “were determined in 1800 not only with church rules, but also with possible leniency” 1127.
Under these conditions, the Old Believers were “provided with everything that could be allowed without violating the purity of Orthodoxy.” “To go further would not mean bringing those alienated closer to Orthodoxy and the church, but to draw Orthodoxy away from the right path, and to plunge the well-ordered world of the church into the chaos of schismatic self-inflicted acts and disorder” 1128.
Recognizing, therefore, the very important significance of Edinoverie as a means of bringing schismatics closer to the Orthodox Church, M. Philaret sometimes expresses, in the spirit of the rules of M. Plato, the idea that the ultimate goal of Edinoverie is to unite schismatics with the Orthodox, even in the unity of ritual. This is precisely the thought he clearly expressed in his draft message to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the issue of the oaths of the Council of 1667. Pointing here to the purpose of establishing common faith, the Moscow saint expressed himself: “so that through such condescension those who have gone astray from it may be more conveniently acquired by the Orthodox Church, with the hope that over time they will come to their senses more fully and move from the imperfect to the perfect” 1129. However, this complete unity of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church “can be accomplished, according to the conviction of the Metropolitan of Moscow, not so much by the power of power,” not through any special events, “but by prayer for them and persuasion from love and with patience,” and is thus only a matter of time 1130.
Having made these preliminary remarks about the views of the Moscow saint on the essence and significance of Edinoverie, we will now move on to consider his activities in the history of both the external and internal development of Edinoverie.
Chapter I. The activities of Metropolitan Philaret in the history of the external development of common faith
The activity of the Moscow saint in the area under consideration is not rich, according to his own consciousness 1131, in the number of facts of Old Believers turning to the Orthodox Church; But for that, the facts available to us, we note from ourselves, are so large qualitatively that they more than cover their quantitative shortcomings and place the Moscow archpastor in a prominent place among recent figures in the history of the external development of the same faith in the centers. We mean, firstly, the emergence of the Moscow Edinoverie and, one might say, the All-Russian schism, i.e. at the Preobrazhenskoe and Rogozhskoe cemeteries - an appearance due mainly to the energy of M. Philaret, and, secondly, the accession to Orthodoxy of prominent members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, which also took place with the active participation of the Moscow saint.
I. Unity of faith in the centers of the Moscow schism - at the Preobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye cemeteries
M. Philaret’s view on the significance of Moscow schismatic cemeteries in maintaining and spreading the schism. The need to weaken them. The idea of establishing a common faith here. Edinoverie at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. Unsuccessful government attempts, which preceded the emergence of unity of faith here, to limit the schismatic nature of the said cemetery. Changes in the government's attitude towards this cemetery since the time of Bibikov's ministry. The accession of the Preobrazhensky schismatics to Orthodoxy and the conversion of one of the cemetery chapels to the Edinoverie Church. Further successes of Edinoverie at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. - Unity of Faith at the Rogozhsky cemetery. Government measures against fugitive priests. The difficulty of the Rogozh Old Believers in performing divine services and, as a consequence of this, the idea of opening a church of the same faith in the cemetery. M. Philaret’s concerns about maintaining this disposition of the Rogozh schismatics to unite with the church and the measures recommended by him for this purpose. The first relations between the Rogozh Old Believers and the city.
Filaret in the case of the establishment of Edinoverie in their cemetery. The failure of these relationships and the reasons for this. V. Sapelkin and the resumption of interrupted relations in the said case. A petition from Rogozh Old Believers to convert one of the cemetery chapels to a Edinoverie church. Consecration at the cemetery of the Edinoverie Church and the report of this by M. Philaret to the Holy Synod. The joining of the last Rogozhsky fugitive priest to the Edinoverie and the significance of this event for the Rogozhsky cemetery. New government measures in relation to the Rogozh schism and new successes of unity of faith. The position of the Rogozhsky Edinoverie during the reign of Alexander II.
By the time of Filaret’s accession to the Moscow See, the schismatic cemeteries in Moscow - Rogozhskoe and Preobrazhenskoe, which appeared in such a memorable plague year for Russia (1771), had already managed not only to be fully organized, but also to achieve, during the reign of Alexander I, who was lenient towards the Old Believers, a flourishing state and received in the schism the important significance that they have to this day. The Moscow Metropolitan describes their significance in the schism as follows. “Two empty places,” he says, “begged from the authorities in the year of the plague for hospitals and cemeteries, gradually turned into two central places of schisms of the priestly and non-priestly, with magnificent houses of worship, with many buildings, with a populous population, with extensive funds. The splendor and wealth of these places, thriving in sight of the capital, constitute a charm and support for the dissenters and have a charming effect on the schismatic people, sensually presenting to them the inviolable firmness of the schism” 1132.
“These two schismatic institutions became centers of two schools of schism, strong for its spread and for persistence against the actions of the government and the Orthodox clergy” 1133. Having a direct influence on the Moscow schism, with its “flourishing and rich appearance”, giving the local schism special strength and stability, the 1134 schismatic cemeteries in Moscow at the same time are of enormous importance for the entire Russian schism in general. Thus, “the Preobrazhensky almshouse, as the main residence of the schism of the non-priestly sect, has influence on all branches of the non-priestly sect throughout Russia, directs the spread of the schism everywhere, supports it with money, connections, the appointment of abbots and spiritual fathers to certain points, resolves all issues, and at the same time acquires capital through various oppressions, permanent and temporary deposits” 1135. The same should be said about the Popovshchina Rogozhsky cemetery. To prove how far the influence of the latter extends, M. Filaret cites an extract from a letter to him from Kamchatka Archbishop Innocent.
“I tried to briefly get acquainted with the schismatics living along the Maya River,” the Right Reverend of Kamchatka wrote to the Moscow saint. Many of them agreed with me in their error. It seems to me that if it were not for their accursed teachers, who enjoy honor and income among them, then all the others would have converted quickly and even unconditionally. I consider one thing worthy of attention, namely: they all consider themselves subordinate to the Moscow Rogozhsky fathers, as they call them” 1136.
Such significance of the Moscow schismatic cemeteries in the maintenance and spread of the schism naturally could not help but draw the serious attention of Metropolitan Philaret to them. He, indeed, set the task of his anti-schism activity to weaken these centers of schism as much as possible, rightly believing that with their weakening not only would the Moscow schism weaken, but in general the schism would lose a significant share of its strength and stability 1137. The first time he expressed this idea about the need to weaken schismatic cemeteries in Moscow was in his famous 1835 opinion on means to reduce schisms. Among such means, he recommends, among other things, depriving Moscow schismatic cemeteries of the character of schismatic institutions and leaving them only as public charitable institutions 1138.
The government of Nicholas's time fully shared the views of the Moscow saint on this subject and from the very first years took a number of measures of a restrictive nature for Moscow cemeteries: in 1834, it limited the admission to these cemeteries of foundlings, from which active propagandists of the schism usually emerged 1139; the following year it closed the schismatic schools located here 1140, and in 1837 it forbade cemetery schismatics from conducting special metrics 1141. These events clearly indicated that the government, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, “turned a penetrating gaze” to the Moscow centers of schism 1142. But at the same time, all these orders were far from achieving their goal: the strength of schismatic cemeteries, in the opinion of the Moscow Metropolitan, consisted, among other things, in the fact that they very successfully paralyzed all these and similar activities of the civil authorities and still continued to maintain the character of purely schismatic institutions. Thus, such measures were too insufficient for this purpose.
In order to limit the Moscow schismatic cemeteries, it was necessary to oppose here the force of the schismatic community with another force - also living and, moreover, with a certain moral influence. Only unity of faith could be such a force. The idea of establishing unity of faith in the Preobrazhenskoye and Rogozhskoye cemeteries has long been cherished by Metropolitan Philaret, and only the lack of suitable soil for unity of faith among the local Old Believers, and the patronage of the Moscow schism by the local civil authorities, delayed its implementation for a long time. “The Borovsk schismatics refer (in their rejection of the same faith) to the Moscow schismatics,” the Moscow saint wrote to the Kaluga Bishop Nicholas in 1844, “and you can therefore complain about our inactivity. What do you want me to do? The policy of the Moscow schismatics is golden" 1143. “Congratulations on the success of Edinoverie in Borovsk, two years later M. Filaret writes again to the said Eminence. And we are ashamed before you. But what to do?
The golden policy of Rogozh and Preobrazhensk knows how to preserve itself undefeated by the wise policy of the government, achieving no small goals through small people” 1144. Thanks to this golden policy, the Moscow schismatic cemeteries, more than other centers of schismatics, managed to maintain their independence and rid themselves of common faith. The latter appears here at the very end of the reign of Nikolai Pavlovich - initially at the Preobrazhensky, and then at the Rogozhsky cemetery.
The establishment of Edinoverie at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery was preceded by a number of government measures aimed, according to M. Philaret, at the goal of “gradually liberating” this cemetery “from its schismatic character and bringing it closer to the general character of humane institutions and thus making it accessible to Orthodoxy” 1145. This particular program of action was quite clearly outlined for the first time in the Highest Command on April 9, 1838 1146. At the same time, the first attempt was made to implement it - an attempt with which the Moscow saint could not help but sympathize, since it fully corresponded to his own views on this subject. We already know that M. Filaret saw the main evil of all centers of schism not so much in the moral influence that they had on the simple schismatic people, but in the enormous material resources that they had at their disposal to strengthen and spread the schism.
In mind: this is what he proposed at one time (in 1835) to take away from schismatic public institutions the real estate that they illegally owned 1147. Now, in 1838, the government decided to implement this measure in relation to the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. The same Highest decree, which expressed the idea of the need to limit the schismatic character of the Moscow non-priest cemetery, commanded: to sell, within a certain period of time, all immovable estates in the possession of the Preobrazhensky almshouse and donated for its benefit. At the same time, at the same time, there was a change in the caretaker of the Preobrazhensky cemetery: Prince Urusov was appointed to this position - a man, according to the author of the history of the said cemetery, “imbued with true religious ideas, enriched with information about the essence of the schism from the lips of Metropolitan Philaret himself, blessed by him for the upcoming feat” 1148.
In view of such circumstances, one could hope, and the Moscow saint probably hoped, that from that time a new period would begin in the history of the Transfiguration cemetery. However, this is not what actually happened. The highest order to sell the immovable estates of the cemetery, although it was carried out; but it did not lead to any results: through a clever combination arranged at an auction by the Preobrazhensky schismatics, the estates actually again remained in the hands of the Preobrazhensky almshouse 1149. The new caretaker of the cemetery did not have to perform any feat, since just two years after his appointment he was dismissed from the designated position 1150. This is how this first attempt to implement the Highest thought about the need to weaken the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery ended unsuccessfully.
This idea, in the words of the Moscow saint, “did not move one step towards fulfillment” 1151 during the decade that followed, although, according to Philaret, the events of 1844 provided the fullest opportunity for its implementation. This year, schismatic manuscripts compiled here, already known to us, with extremely outrageous non-priest teachings on marriage and royal power were discovered at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery; At the same time, “a genuine letter from the elders of the same cemetery, signed and sealed, given to a mentor assigned by them to another city in another province” was opened 1152. The first “undoubtedly” testified that “the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery do not simply follow old sinful opinions, but again draw up harmful rules and distribute them even with the appearance of formality, signed by their superiors” 1153; and “the last act denounced the administration organized by the Preobrazhensky schismatics, which extends its power not only beyond Moscow, but also beyond the borders of the province” 1154.
Such discoveries at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery should, in the opinion of M. Filaret, serve as a sufficient reason for more decisive measures in relation to the said cemetery. However, for some reason the government omitted this favorable opportunity: the Minister of Internal Affairs ordered to postpone the matter that arose in the Moscow Secret Committee regarding these circumstances until a more favorable time, which the Moscow saint later regretted more than once 1155.
Apparently a new decisive blow was being prepared for the Preobrazhensky cemetery in 1847. This year, the Preobrazhensky almshouse was placed under the jurisdiction of the board of trustees of public charity institutions in Moscow, with the gradual establishment in it of the same management order as is observed in other similar charitable institutions. Adjutant General Count Stroganov was appointed trustee. At the same time, at this time it was proposed to allow the reception of co-religionists and Orthodox Christians into the Preobrazhensky almshouse, so that over time, when the number of those looked after here would increase, one of the chapels of the Preobrazhensky cemetery would be converted into a co-religionist church 1156. But for a long time nothing was done to implement this newly outlined and more extensive program.
Despite the subordination of the cemetery to the jurisdiction of the board of trustees, despite the fact that its trustee was not any merchant from the schismatics, but Count Stroganov, business at the cemetery was conducted in its usual order - to the detriment of the order that the government was trying to introduce there. Metropolitan Filaret was very dissatisfied with this state of affairs, especially dissatisfied since the epidemic disease that occurred in Moscow at the end of 1847 and the beginning of 1848 provided, in his opinion, a special opportunity to free the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery from schismatic intolerance and at least partially turn it back to its original purpose. “The place begged from the authorities during the plague for a plague hospital,” the Moscow saint regretted, “even during the cholera did not become the place of a cholera hospital.” The fact is that “the Preobrazhensky schismatics, with their support, established such a hospital in the near part of the city,” thanks to which “the Preobrazhensky almshouse has to this day retained the unchanged character of a schismatic monastery” 1157.
The work of weakening this most remarkable den of co-religionists in the history of schism has gone much more successfully since the appointment of Bibikov as Minister of Internal Affairs. The new minister, who upon his very appointment received the Highest command to “delve into the matter of the schism as closely as possible,” 1158 paid serious attention to the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery and was only waiting for an opportunity to tackle it more decisively. This opportunity soon presented itself. There lived in Moscow a rich merchant Grigoriev, whose legal heir was his nephew, the tradesman Smirnov. The Preobrazhensky elders, seeing that the old man did not have long to live, escorted the nephew somewhere away from his uncle, and persuaded the dying uncle to bequeath all his property and capital in favor of the cemetery. The nephew came to his senses, but it was too late: the will was made legally, and he had to remain without an inheritance. In this case, he started a lawsuit that reached the Governing Senate, but without success. Rumors. However, this incident was reported to a special Committee.
1159 The latter, through one of his trusted representatives, gave Smirnov advice to contact the minister directly, encouraging him to receive help from the latter. Smirnov did just that, which gave rise to a special inquiry about the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery 1160. This was at the beginning of 1853. At the same time, M. Filaret considered it his duty to recall the old sins of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, i.e. about the manuscripts discovered here in 1844 and the certificate given by the elders of the cemetery to one Saratov mentor. Communicating this forgotten information in a confidential letter dated June 7 to Count Zakrevsky, the Metropolitan asks the latter to make of it such use as he finds fair and possible 1161. Count Zakrevsky considered it necessary to present this information to the minister with special treatment 1162. Based on all this data, Bibikov organized an investigation, entrusting it to a former member of the council of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, N.P. Bezak, who amazed with his incredible zeal for service 1163.
Knowing the corruption of his clerks and the ability of schismatics to find out about everything they needed, Bezak sewed all his papers into his pillow every evening so that they would not be stolen or read during sleep. He did not allow his subordinates to leave him a single step, so that they would not reveal the secret: they even followed him to the bathhouse with papers under their arms. Such zeal should have been crowned with success. Bezak learned everything he needed, and by the way, that the Fedoseevites often disinherited not only their nephews, but also their sons; that money was usually taken from the houses of deceased capitalists to the cemetery by each schismatic; that the elders of the cemetery, who are all merchants and manufacturers, keep people without passports, runaways, etc. in their homes and in shelters.
1164 As a result, it was also discovered that the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery turned into a kind of institution that governed schismatics throughout the state, dividing it into districts, as it were, to which rulers and mentors were sent, through which the schism seemed to merge into separate civil communities, under the influence of the outrageous teaching discovered from the manuscripts found at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery 1165.
When, at the end of the same 1853, the results of the investigation were brought to the attention of the Tsar by the minister, the latter ordered (December 21) to take the most energetic measures in relation to the cemetery and its elders. Those most compromised by the investigation were ordered to be removed from Moscow, and the less harmful ones to be left in the capital under the supervision of local authorities.
The cemetery itself was ordered to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the council of the imperial philanthropic society and limited to the significance of a charitable and, moreover, only temporary institution, and for this purpose, all unnecessary people (various psalm-readers and psalm-readers, young choir members, etc.) should be removed from the cemetery, non-residents should be sent to their homeland, and only those in need would be left; but, as they decrease (through death, retirement or transfer to government charitable institutions), concentrate them in the buildings of the almshouse according to convenience and gradually, so that, after the buildings are cleared, they are closed or given another purpose; the economic part of the almshouse should be entrusted to the steward and other managers chosen from among those looked after by the caretaker of the cemetery; and subject to strict control so that there are no silent expenses or income 1166. Soon these orders began to be gradually implemented.
The main former elders of the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery were sent from Moscow to different places under the strictest police supervision; young people were removed from the cemetery and placed in the places of the revision registration; a caretaker of the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery was appointed from officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; The Preobrazhensky almshouse was transferred to the jurisdiction of the council of the imperial philanthropic society in 1167.
This kind of government reprisal had a corresponding impact on the Preobrazhensky schismatics and was the main reason why the same faith appeared in the Preobrazhensky cemetery. “The government’s attention, let’s say in the words of the Moscow saint, to the cessation of unrest at the so-called Transfiguration cemetery in Moscow for the sensible followers of the Transfiguration mentors became an occasion for such a movement of minds, according to which they began to realize the incorrectness of their position in relation to the faith and received a disposition to unite with the Holy Church” 1168. Some of the Preobrazhensk Old Believers (the two brothers Guchkov and Rogozhin) expressed their desire to join Edinoverie during Bezakov’s investigation at the said cemetery, and in this sense they filed a petition on December 11 addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs and gave their signatures 1169.
“We have always understood,” they wrote in this petition, “that our belief, which in fact rejects the sanctification of family ties, is not consistent with the fundamental rules of state improvement, for which family ties serve as the basis. Now in the orders of the government we have seen convictions directed towards our hearts and minds, but from the actions of recent times we have clearly become convinced that it is not persecution, but admonition, in the subject. By these measures we have been brought to the realization that continued existence as part of a separate society does not ensure our position, that our families, being separated, must necessarily be upset, and our children will face even more tragic consequences, which in time they will reproach us with. Regardless of this, we heard that our separation from the church, accompanied by such consequences, is regrettable to the heart of the most merciful Sovereign Emperor.
And for all this, in full consciousness of good measures aimed at uniting into one all the sons of the precious fatherland and loyal subjects of the Sovereign Emperor, and in the firm conviction that our well-being, benefit and all further existence are indispensably connected with following the call of the government, we have the happiness to bring to the attention of Your Excellency and most humbly ask to bring to the throne of His Imperial Majesty our firm determination to join with our families to the Holy Church on the rules of unity of faith and at the same time readiness, both by this example and by our further actions, to contribute to the admonition of others from our agreement who are still in disunity with the Orthodox Church, by which we hope to show before the throne of the Sovereign Emperor an undoubted sign of loyal devotion and boundless reverence.”
1170 When this desire and petition of the Preobrazhensk Old Believers was reported to Minister Nikolai Pavlovich, he (December 21, 1853) ordered to declare to them his royal pleasure in the fact that by turning to the truth they provide a moral benefit for themselves and for their offspring, and at the same time explain His Majesty’s hope that they will make every effort to convert other erring people to the truth; the petition was ordered to be forwarded to the Metropolitan of Moscow for action to join them to his flock and arouse jealousy in them for the benefit of the saint. churches 1171.
From that time on, the conversion of the Preobrazhensky Old Believers went very successfully in Moscow. At the beginning of the next year, on March 11, the priest of the Trinity Edinoverie Church reported to M. Philaret about the completed accession of 10 Preobrazhensky Bespopovites, and 6 days later another Moscow Edinoverie priest Vasily Zverev informed the Moscow saint about the accession of 53 of them. Among those who joined were, in addition to the mentioned Guchkov brothers, honorary persons from the merchant class - the Nosovs, Tikhomirovs, Bavykins, Popov, Gusarev, Shmakov and others. 1172
Finally, on March 18 of the same year, the newly affiliated co-religionists came to Metropolitan Philaret with a petition signed by 16 people, most of them heads of families, in which they explained to the bishop that, “honoring the memory of their ancestors, who worked diligently in acquiring holy icons and founding the Transfiguration almshouse, they wish to place their mortal remains near their graves, dear to their hearts,” and asked for requesting that in that almshouse a church of the same faith be established for them and others who had joined the same faith, and through a priest appointed by the diocesan authorities with a clergy, divine services and all spiritual needs would be performed in it according to the ancient statutes 1173. At the same time, the petitioners verbally announced to the metropolitan that they knew of more than a hundred souls who wanted to belong to the newly established Edinoverie church and that in general they could hope for an increase in the number of people joining it with the opening of the church.
“This hope,” the Moscow saint wrote to the synodal chief prosecutor, “can be considered solid, among other things, because among those who signed the petition for the church are the most significant persons who belonged by faith to the Transfiguration cemetery and from their example one can expect a beneficial effect on others” 1174. This hope really did not deceive the metropolitan: the number of those who joined the new Edinoverie parish on the day of the consecration of the church increased, as he himself subsequently reported to the Holy Synod, above 150 people 1175.
Having received this petition, M. Filaret the next day hastened to notify the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, about everything that had happened. Informing him of the above information about the conversion to Orthodoxy of some Preobrazhensky Old Believers and about their request to convert one of the existing chapels at the Transfiguration cemetery into a Edinoverie church, indicating a suitable chapel for this, noting at the same time that the desire of the petitioners to “open the requested church as soon as possible without delay,” the Moscow Archpastor suggests to the Chief Prosecutor: “to ask the Highest of His Imperial Majesty permission to establish, in accordance with the petition, a church of the same faith in the chapel building.” It is clear that Nikolai Pavlovich gladly allowed this. "God bless! - the Emperor wrote on March 22 of the same March in the most submissive report of the metropolitan letter - I sincerely rejoice, in the hope that I sincerely” 1176.
By the decree of the Holy Synod of March 27, the Metropolitan of Moscow was made aware of this consent of the Sovereign and was given the opportunity to make the appropriate order. At the same time, the same decree declared to the bishop the appreciation and gratitude of the Holy Synod for its pastoral attention and care in this matter, with the provision of the conversion of other Moscow schismatics to the same faith to his care 1177. Active work began to transform one of the cemetery chapels into a church of the same faith, under the leadership of a ministerial official sent specifically for this purpose, actual state councilor Ignatiev. The stone Assumption Chapel, located separately from other buildings in the courtyard of the men's half of the almshouse, was chosen for the new Edinoverie church. The absence of an altar in the chapel delayed work.
In order to speed up its completion as much as possible, it was decided, without touching the high iconostasis, placed, according to the custom of non-priestly prayer buildings, right up to the eastern wall of the chapel, to build for the first time a small chapel in the name of St. Nicholas on the northern side of the latter. The new iconostasis of this chapel, drawn up according to the plan approved by M. Philaret, was arranged in a splendid manner and was all gilded. The icons for him were given by the Moscow archpastor - the same ones that had recently arrived at the diocesan department from the closed Guchkov chapel and were kept in the Edinoverie church. On April 2, all preparations were completed. The chapel with everything in it was accepted, on behalf of the Moscow Metropolitan, by Edinoverie dean Vasily Zverev into the diocesan department 1178.
April 3 arrived - Lazarus Saturday, when the church at the Transfiguration cemetery was supposed to be solemnly illuminated. On this day, at 8 o’clock in the morning, the newly joined parishioners from the schism, living for the most part near the Transfiguration cemetery, gathered with their families, numbering over 150 people, into the church, and after that, a congress began, invited in advance by the Metropolitan of those in charge in Moscow 1179 and other public, who flocked at their own request. There were so many people in the cemeteries that they could not accommodate all the visitors. Among the latter there were quite a few schismatics. The archpriest of the same faith, with the clergy who had gathered even earlier, began to carry out the preliminary preparations and readings according to the church rite. At half past 10 o'clock M. Filaret arrived. Met at the entrance of the church by the parishioners together with the clergy, the bishop, showering his blessing on the church and those around it, began to consecrate it, after which the liturgy began. During the consecration of the church, an ancient antimension was laid, consecrated under Patriarch Filaret.
The consecration itself, in accordance with the points of Metropolitan Plato, was performed according to an old printed book, exactly according to the order set out in it. In order to impart greater solemnity to the service and, consequently, a greater impression on the newly joined, the Moscow saint “considered it appropriate” to use in this service the ancient sakkos of Metropolitan Macarius, the ancient autumnal cross with St. relics - the contribution of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich and ancient altar sacred vessels. There is no doubt that this celebration remained memorable for a long time for all those present. It made a strong impression even on the schismatics themselves, so that many of them, at the end of the service, immediately declared a desire to join the Orthodox Church and asked to have their names recorded among the parishioners of the newly consecrated church 1180.
This was the beginning of Edinoverie and the consecration of the first Edinoverie church in the Moscow center of the priestless schism. The cherished thought of the Moscow archpastor was thus realized. Now all his worries were aimed at strengthening and, if possible, growing this good beginning here. For this purpose, soon after the consecration of the Edinoverie Church cemeteries, a Edinoverie school was opened here. Founded mainly to educate the children of new co-religionists, it was supposed, according to M. Philaret, on the one hand, to protect these children “from the hands of schismatics - teachers of the former schismatic school here,” and on the other hand, to prepare “voluntary singers” for the new, co-religionist church, in which the latter felt a shortage. At the same time, according to the well-known synodal rules of 1836, surrounding schismatic children were also admitted to this school, with the goal of promoting their conversion to the Orthodox Church through this training 1181.
There is no doubt that this school had a beneficial significance for the younger generation of new co-religionists. We already know that it had a corresponding effect on local schismatics.
But while the Moscow saint was taking the necessary measures to strengthen the unity of faith at the Transfiguration cemetery, the Minister of Internal Affairs almost issued an order that should have had the most unfavorable effect on the state of this matter and on its further successes, and which, thanks only to the timely intervention of M. Philaret, was not carried out. We understand the minister’s intention to transfer his fellow believers from the Preobrazhensk almshouse to other suburban ones, and specifically to the almshouse located in the village of Bogoslovskoye - Almazov. We do not know what the minister was guided by. One might think that he was misled by some plausible idea of the new caretaker of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, the official Potulov, who had just been appointed at that time. A creature of Count Zakrevsky, Potulov looked at the latest events at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery through the eyes of his patron and, just like the latter, did not sympathize with the emergence of a common faith here.
It was probably he who proposed to the minister to transfer the fellow believers who were being held here to a rural almshouse. But M. Filaret learned about this performance in advance and, understanding what it was like. the execution of this project should be accompanied by harmful consequences for the unity of faith; he managed to prevent it in time. In the supposed displacement of the Preobrazhensky co-religionists, he saw some kind of exile for accepting the same faith and the desire to give the Preobrazhensky almshouse its former purely schismatic character. He tried to clarify this view of his in a letter dated December 9, 1854 to the synodal chief prosecutor 1182. The considerations of the Moscow Metropolitan expressed in this letter made a due impression in the ruling spheres, and the minister’s assumption was not implemented.
Meanwhile, the cause of unity of faith at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery became more and more strengthened and expanded. At the end of 1854, on December 19, another Holy Cross Chapel was illuminated. M. Philaret himself illuminated and celebrated the liturgy, and again with strict adherence to ancient rituals, which gave the priestly service a special character. The metropolitan wore an ancient Greek omophorion, a panagia of the first Patriarch of Moscow Job and an ancient hierarchal miter; The priests who served with him wore belts with sources, and they held leaflets 1183 in their hands. The liturgy ended with an instructive conversation by the archpastor, addressed mainly to the newly annexed 1184. The crowd of people at this celebration was just as enormous as the first time. At the same time, the number of parishioners of new Edinoverie churches also grew rapidly.
In September 1854, 178 people were considered to have converted to Edinoverie Preobrazhensk Old Believers, and by the end of the year this figure increased to 259 people; the following year, 1855, until January 4, there were already 293 people listed as co-religionists; by February 15, their number increased to 366 people, and by July 1, 1855, there were 407 co-religionists of both sexes 1185. This rapid quantitative growth of Edinoverie was greatly facilitated by the Highest command announced by the Minister of the Interior in October 1854 - to issue to schismatics, if they do not wish to join the church unconditionally or on the rules of Edinoverie, trade certificates for guilds only on a temporary basis.
With the increase in the number of people joining the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, the need for a larger church was felt. Then the Guchkov brothers expressed a desire to correct the main part of the Assumption Chapel that had not been consecrated using their own means, with the addition of an altar to it. Their wish was fulfilled. A three-part altar was attached to the square of the building of the former schismatic chapel, the tribune of the head was made through, with windows in it, inside there was a pointed vault and the walls were plastered to resemble marble with gilded ornaments. But what makes the new church especially remarkable are the icons, most precious in their antiquity and artistry. The consecration of the newly built altar was performed by M. Philaret, with the usual solemnity, on June 2, 1857 1186.
After this, Edinoverie could be considered firmly established in the men’s section of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, since only an almshouse or hospital building with a chapel located in it was left for the Fedoseevites. Subsequently, this department was completely cleared of schismatics; but we’ll talk about this in its place, and now let’s turn to the history of Edinoverie at another center of the Moscow schism - at the priest’s Rogozhsky cemetery.
The emergence of unity of faith at the Moscow Rogozhskoe cemetery, as well as at the Preobrazhenskoe, was facilitated mainly by government measures, directed, however, not so much against the cemetery itself as against the fugitive priests, who for a long time formed the main support of both the priestly schism in general and its center - the Rogozhskoe cemetery in particular. These government measures, already known to us, together with other rules restricting the schism, were a fatal blow for the Rogozhsky cemetery, which weighed on it throughout the reign of Nicholas I and forced the Rogozhsky schismatics to look for some way out of their situation, rush from side to side, from one extreme to another.
From the very beginning of this reign, they began to exhibit feverish activity, either disturbing the government with endless requests for permission to have new fugitive priests or those independent from the spiritual authorities, or taking care of the establishment of a false hierarchy outside Russia, and only the best of them were able to draw saving lessons for themselves from the historical destinies of their native cemetery and enter the fence of the Orthodox Church. Thanks to this best part of the Rogozh Old Believers, the Rogozh cemetery, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, saw unity of faith within its walls.
The thought of accepting the blessed church, as the best outcome from the difficult circumstances that resulted from the decisive measures of the Nicholas reign in relation to the fugitive priests, has long occupied some of the Rogozh Old Believers. According to the testimony of M. Philaret, back in the 30s, when “the Rogozh schismatics, due to the decrease in their number of fugitive priests and due to some other circumstances, had meetings to discuss what to assume for their future, there were among them those who, in these very meetings, proposed converting the chapel into a co-faith church” 1187; but nothing came of this proposal at that time, because, according to the remark of the Moscow saint, “in the dispute that took place, the charterers and fugitive priests gained the upper hand, whom the same faith cannot enrich as much as the schism enriches” 1188.
The desire of the Rogozh schismatics for unity of faith was supported in subsequent times; but for a long time it was muffled and suppressed both by stubborn schismatics from among the Rogozh residents themselves, and by the even more patronizing attitude towards the schism of the new Moscow Governor-General, Count Zakrevsky, whose almost ten-year struggle with the Moscow Metropolitan on the issue of granting independent priests to the Rogozh Old Believers is already known to us. It is also known what role the Moscow saint played in resolving this issue and what practical motives guided him in his negative activities on this issue. He hoped, as he expressed in one of the opinions of 1848, that a significant part of the Rogozh Old Believers, out of necessity, would turn to the church either unconditionally, or on the rules of unity of faith 1189.
In another opinion the following year, he, based on information from those who know the situation of the Rogozh Old Believers, already directly states that “in a significant number of them there is a disposition, after the death of the remaining priests, to get closer to the Orthodox Church on the conditions existing to this day, and the hope opens that some will form a co-religion church in the cemetery itself, while others will join the pan-Orthodox church” 1190. In view of this, he stood so energetically for a negative solution to the issue of granting independent priests to the Rogozh Old Believers, advising the government to “extend its firmness” in anticipation of the near future when unity of faith will appear in the Moscow center of priesthood. But in addition to these civil measures, M. Filaret also used spiritual measures to maintain and implement by the best Rogozh Old Believers their long-standing desire to unite with the church. For this purpose, by the way, M.
In 1840, on September 8, in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, not far from the Rogozhsky cemetery, Filaret performed his first episcopal service in the Moscow diocese according to the rite of early printed books 1191. For this purpose, he proposed at the same time to build a Edinoverie monastery near the Rogozhsky cemetery and to establish two anti-schism missionaries at the Moscow See 1192. For the same purpose, to promote the rapprochement of the Rogozh Old Believers with the Orthodox Church, the Moscow saint, as we already know, summoned the Chernigov Edinoverie priest Alexander Arsenyev in 1848, on whom he had high hopes in view of the fact that this latter had previously served at the Rogozh cemetery, had many spiritual children among the local influential Old Believers and enjoyed their respect 1193. Finally, M.
Filaret himself more than once acted as a missionary to the Rogozh Old Believers; he sometimes invited representatives of the Rogozh schism to his place, and sometimes the latter themselves visited him, and here the Moscow saint, in a convincing conversation, proved to them the need to unite with the church. History has not preserved for us these private conversations between the Moscow Metropolitan and the Rogozh Old Believers. It is only known that these conversations made a strong impression on the Old Believers. “When we visit him,” says one of these Old Believers, “how kindly he treats us! He’ll sit you down and start talking, but it’s a good thing, brother, that it seems he wouldn’t have come out!” 1194
The hopes of M. Philaret, unfortunately, were not completely justified: the majority of the Rogozh Old Believers remained faithful to the schism, finding an outcome from difficult circumstances in the so-called Austrian hierarchy, and only the more sensible of them were not satisfied with this outcome and, rightly doubting the legality and correctness of the newly-minted priesthood, hesitated to accept it. Among these wavering people in the 1950s, the idea of opening a Edinoverie parish at the Rogozhsky cemetery itself arose again, with one of its chapels converted into a Edinoverie church. In 1853, the first communications regarding this case began between representatives of the said party of Rogozh Old Believers and Metropolitan Filaret. Even during Lent of this year, according to the testimony of the Moscow saint, Fomin visited him and asked to establish a church of the same faith in their cemetery.
But the matter did not receive further movement then, partly because Fomin proposed to the Metropolitan some special conditions, which, in the opinion of the Moscow saint, “could not be accepted, so as not to shake the established rules of Edinoverie by diversity,” and mainly because at that time there was not a sufficient number of people who would openly join this movement in favor of Edinoverie, although they approved it in trusted relations 1195. The latter circumstance was greatly facilitated by one of the last Rogozh priests, Ivan Matveyevich Yastrebov, who was living out his life in the cemetery, who “under a curse forbade” his spiritual children to “think about opening a co-religion church in the cemetery,” and even cursed one of them, for secret relations with the metropolitan on this matter (probably Fomin); thanks to this, the “two or three meetings” that took place at the cemetery about the establishment of a Edinoverie parish here “remained fruitless” 1196, and Fomin ceased his relations with the metropolitan.
The cause of unity of faith at the Rogozhsky cemetery went much more successfully when, with the death of Yastrebov (in December 1853), his spiritual son Vladimir Andreevich Sapelkin became the head of the movement towards unification with the church. Even during the illness of his spiritual father, he was preoccupied with the thought of who, after his death, to choose as his confessor. Not recognizing the Austrian hierarchy, Sapelkin made a request to be his spiritual father and not to deprive the only fugitive priest Pyotr Ermilovich Rusanov of communion at the Rogozhsky cemetery at that time. But this frank remark about the dubiousness of the Rogozhsky communion forced Sapelkin to break all ties with the schism and seek union with the church 1197. Already in March (21st) of the following year (1854), Sapelkin was present at the consecration of the church at the commercial school and received a blessing from M. Philaret, and a few days after that he came to the latter with a request to convert one of the Rogozh chapels into a co-religion church, without offering any special conditions.
He also informed the Metropolitan that “not a small number of people share this desire, but, avoiding strife with those who are not disposed to this, they make it difficult to open themselves and, without a doubt, will join the same faith when this church is open.” The Moscow saint responded to this that in order to organize the church, “according to the accepted order and trustworthy,” it is necessary to keep in mind the parishioners, and without this he, the metropolitan, cannot “present” to the Holy Synod about the opening of the church 1198. But at the same time, he reacted very sympathetically to Sapelkin’s requests and in April of the same year made a petition to Minister Bibikov so that those who were among the Rogozh Old Believers to form a Edinoverie parish in the cemetery “were freed from the gravitating influence of the prevailing trustees” and other fanatical representatives of the Rogozh schism 1199.
The government itself had long been thinking about opening a common faith in the Rogozhsky cemetery; it already knew about the desire of some of the Rogozhsky Old Believers to unite with the church; and therefore the idea of the Moscow saint about the need for government support for these latter was met by the minister with complete sympathy. A series of government measures already known to us in relation to the Rogozhsky schism begins, supervision over this cemetery is strengthened and the well-known energetic official Mozzhakov is appointed as its caretaker, who is entrusted by the Imperial Order of August 9, 1854 “to monitor here the exact execution of legal decrees” 1200. Finally, the idea of establishing a common faith at the Rogozhsky cemetery receives approval from the Emperor himself.
“If a certain number of schismatics, it was said in the same Highest decree of August 9, assigned to the Rogozhsky cemetery, express a desire to join Orthodoxy or Edinoverie, then convert one of the prayer houses located at the Rogozhsky cemetery to the Orthodox or Edinoverie church for them” 1201.
Thanks to such government support, those who are inclined to connect with the church begin to declare their desire to establish a co-religious church in the cemetery. “The opening of the parishioners of the proposed church, according to the Moscow archpastor, continued with favorable orders from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which began to expose the unrest and illegalities of the Rogozhsky cemetery” 1202; These orders, “by reducing the power of the dissenters, made it easier for the well-disposed to escape from the chaff of the schism into the freedom of the sons of the church.” 1203
Finally, on September 17, some of the Rogozh Old Believers, or, as they called themselves, the Moscow Old Believer Rogozh Society parishioners, namely the Moscow merchants Vladimir Andreev Sapelkin, Makar Nikolaev Kabanov, Dmitry Pavlov Fomin and others, submitted a formal petition to M. Philaret, in which they explained that in their numerous societies there had previously been many priests, but and then they fulfilled Christian demands with great difficulty; now they have only priest Peter Ermilov left, who, bent by old age and illness, can barely fulfill the most essential Christian demands, and they are in the greatest danger, fearing the hour of death, in the words of the Savior: “unless you bear the flesh of the Son of man, nor drink His blood, you have no life in you”; therefore, in order not to perish, having lost this from carelessness and negligence about their souls, they most humbly ask the bishop to pay Christian and merciful attention to them - to bless them in a place they respect, where their ancestors were raised and lie, i.e.
in the Rogozhsky cemetery, of the three chapels, one, which turns out to be more convenient, should be converted into a church and consecrated according to the ancient rites, and to confirm them, fulfill the following articles: 1) to calm their consciences and for the greater return and joining of their brethren to the church, the oath previously laid down for the double-fingered addition and other rites, then resolved by the Holy Synod, again confirm its permission; 2) conduct worship without any derogation or addition, but in the same way as was printed in the ancient books of the first five patriarchs; 3) to place on the throne during the consecration of the church the antimension of ancient consecration; 4) for the unhindered performance of their worship in the church, so that it is not violated by outsiders who differ from them in rituals, reaffirm the rights given to the Holy One.
Synod of Edinoverie Churches on February 6, 1801; 5) consecrate the church to priest Simeon Nikolaev Morozov, experienced in the Old Believer service of the Moscow Edinoverie All Saints Church, identify him as trustworthy to this place and make him dean to restore order in this place. At the conclusion of their petition, they insisted on the immediate opening of the requested church 1204.
Since the Metropolitan already knew the Highest consent to the opening of a Edinoverie church in the Rogozhsky cemetery 1205, and since the petition of the Rogozh Old Believers did not contain anything contrary to the rules of Edinoverie churches 1206, he immediately made an order for the speedy satisfaction of their request, putting on September 20 the following resolution on their petition: “Lord bless! The permission to declare a charter is in accordance with the fact that the church is being founded, and that the Holy Synod prescribed to act in relation to fellow believers not through a consistory, but directly” 1207. In this letter, the Moscow saint, blessing the good intentions of the petitioners, expresses his complete readiness to satisfy their request, agrees to all points of the latter and in conclusion, dwelling on the formation of the pre-declared oath mentioned in one of the points, explains in some detail the correct meaning of it 1208.
For conversion to the church, the smaller of the three chapel was chosen, which had the convenience of having a ready-made area for the altar 1209. At the same time, according to a fair assumption of Prof. Subbotin, perhaps, were guided by the consideration that the selection of one of the vast, richly decorated chapels would not irritate the Rogozh schismatics and provoke open opposition, which could damage the expected good influence on the Rogozh residents of the Edinoverie parish established in the cemetery 1210. Upon the establishment of a new altar in the chosen chapel, upon the issuance of the ancient antimension for the consecration of the patriarch; Philaret and after preparing “other necessary things”, on September 22 an all-night vigil was held in the evening on the day of the consecration of the church, and the next day by priest Morozov, in concelebration with the hieromonk of the Chernigov diocese of the Edinoverie Pokrovsky Monastery, Fr.
Karion, a priest of the Edinoverie Church at the Transfiguration Cemetery and two Edinoverie deacons, consecrated a new church in the name of St. Nicholas, and “the church-created and at the same time permitting letter from Metropolitan Philaret to those who came and are coming to unite with the holy Apostolic Church was read publicly.” The celebration ended with a liturgy that had not been seen for a long time by the local Old Believers 1211. With the consent of the parishioners, Sapelkin 1212 was appointed elder to the newly established church.
On September 25, M. Philaret sent a detailed report to St. about everything that happened. Synod, in which, setting out the information already known to us about the gradual preparation and organization of the above-mentioned co-religionist church, he considered it necessary to find out those motives that prompted him to “satisfy the request of new co-religionists for the church, without delaying until their number increases.” Pointing out among these motives, first of all, the special determination and zeal of the new co-religionists, who demanded on the part of the Moscow saint corresponding determination and readiness to fulfill their desire; further reporting on quite a few others among the Rogozh Old Believers who are inclined to join the Edinoverie church when one opens in the cemetery, but who do not dare in advance, due to various circumstances, to openly declare their desire; - M. Filaret mainly focuses on other reasons that prompted him to rush to establish a co-religion church at the Rogozhsky cemetery.
These reasons lie in the special position of the new co-religionists among the Rogozh schismatic society and in the noticeable spread of the Austrian hierarchy among the schismatics. “They,” the Metropolitan wrote about the new co-religionists who were based in the Rogozhsky cemetery, “with their determination accomplished a feat in which they had to strictly support them, because, although among them there are very significant persons in terms of prudence, good intentions and position in society, the Rogozhsky schism still has untamed champions, strong in wealth and habitual influence on others and aroused by selfish views; and these people try to upset those who are disposed towards peace with the church, either with false reasoning, or with reproaches, or with an attempt to harm them in business. The power of the rich and bitter dissenters weighing heavily on the schismatic crowd is indeed such that many, especially the weak, do not dare to reveal their favor in the church, although they have it.
Even one honorary citizen, who personally expressed to me a desire to join the Edinoverie and be a parishioner of the newly established church, when it was necessary to declare this in writing, did not dare to reveal himself early by signing the petition, which is inevitably known to many, but sent me a separate letter about this. In these circumstances, it was necessary to show by deed that the schism is not invincible, and to open free entry into the church to the captives of the schism, in the very place of their captivity.” Further, the Metropolitan wrote about the Austrian hierarchy: “It has been known for several years that the false metropolis of Belokrinitsky has been established abroad with the help and machinations of Rogozh schismatics; that two false bishops have been appointed there for the Russian schismatics; that under civilian names and rank they secretly visit Moscow and other cities and set up false priests for schismatics... There is no need to explain how dangerous it is for the verbal flock when wolves no longer visibly attack from the outside, but walk among the sheep in sheep’s clothing unnoticed by watchmen.”
“So, for all reasons,” this is how the Moscow saint concludes his report, “it was necessary to strictly take advantage of the legally presented opportunity to sow a good seed on the soil of the Rogozhsky cemetery, on which so many evil chaff grew and from which were scattered” 1213. Emperor Nicholas, when the aforementioned report from M. Philaret was presented to him, personally inscribed on it: “Thank God, a good start” 1214.
It was supposed to be a good start indeed; On the ground of the Rogozhsky cemetery, overgrown with weeds, good seed was indeed sown, and the captives of the schism were given free access to the church at the very place of their captivity. Both the Tsar and the Metropolitan, without a doubt, hoped that with the opening of the Edinoverie church and Edinoverie parish at the Rogozhsky cemetery itself, the strengthened joining of Rogozh schismatics to Edinoverie would begin, that over time the two main chapels would be converted into Edinoverie churches, and the Rogozhskoe cemetery would cease to be the main center of the priestly schism.
Meanwhile, two months after the consecration of the Edinoverie Church in the cemetery, the Rogozh schismatics lost the last of their fugitive priests allowed by the government - Pyotr Rusanov. At the beginning of November 1854, this latter came to Metropolitan Philaret and expressed a desire to talk to him “in secret.” After several such conversations with the Moscow saint 1215, on the 20th of this month he submitted a formal petition to the Moscow Metropolitan, in which, mentioning that due to illness and old age, he was unable to fulfill the spiritual demands at the Rogozhsky cemetery and that he “wants to repent of his error at the end of his life,” he asked to join him to the Edinoverie church. This request was met with the metropolitan’s consent: the latter allowed the Edinoverie priest Simeon Morozov “to join Priest Rusanov to the Edinoverie Church (which was done on November 21) and if, depending on the state of his health, he needs to soon join St. Secrets, then, after confession, if there is no doubt, announce to him the bishop’s permission and blessing for this” 1216.
At the request of Rusanov and after making appropriate inquiries about him in the Kaluga diocese - his homeland and original place of service, he was left by Metropolitan Philaret, with the permission of the Holy Synod, at the newly established Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, as a person dismissed from active service, with the right to perform liturgies and some services, to the best of his ability, to help the local priest, at the request of the parishioners.” 1217.
The joining of the Edinoverie priest Peter Rusanov was of great importance both for the Rogozhsky cemetery in general, and especially for those of the cemetery parishioners who were not inclined to accept the Austrian priesthood. With the accession of the last fugitive priest to the church and the cessation of services in the schismatic chapels of the Rogozhsky cemetery, this part of the Rogozhsky schismatics found themselves in an extremely difficult situation regarding the satisfaction of religious needs and thereby were encouraged to accept the legal priesthood, to enter the same faith. At the same time, the cemetery itself, with the deprivation of the last permitted priest and the cessation of access to new ones, completely lost its religious character and its significance as the metropolis of the priestly schism, and thus the government was given a legal basis for new measures against it. These events were indeed not slow to follow. The government took care first of all to clear the Rogozhskoye cemetery of unnecessary people.
So, according to the caretaker Mozzhakov, at that time there was an order from the Moscow Governor General to remove from the cemetery, as unnecessary here, numerous sextons, who were distinguished by well-known outrages throughout Moscow 1218. In the same way, in the same year of 1854, according to the Highest decree of December 15, 1219, those who were illegally living in the cemetery under the guise of those in need were expelled; the seriously ill were placed in city hospitals, and the fools who served instead of jesters in the cemetery were sent to the Smolensk province - to the estate of Prince Golitsyn, who owned 1220.
Given this state of affairs, hope arose for a rapid increase in the number of parishioners of the Rogozh Edinoverie Church and for the conversion of the remaining Rogozh chapels into Edinoverie churches. “The fellow believers,” Filaret later wrote about this time, “wanted to consecrate the large chapel into a church; The Orthodox also desired and hoped for this; some who wavered between the schism and Orthodoxy were waiting for this, in order to accept this as a sign stronger than the established unity of faith, and to join it. This could have been expected especially from those more well-intentioned schismatics who were not inclined to recognize the schismatic false hierarchy abroad” 1221. These hopes especially intensified when, by the end of 1854, the number of Rogozh co-religionists began to increase rapidly.
The latter circumstance was mainly facilitated by the well-known decree on merchant guilds that followed in October of this year, which required from bearers of merchant capital a certificate of belonging to the Orthodox Church, and therefore all merchant rights were taken away from schismatics. The rich schismatics from the parishioners of the Rogozhsky cemetery, by whom it actually held, were forced to choose one of two things: either to renounce merchant rights and privileges, which included their well-being and, more importantly, freedom from military service, or to leave the schism and go to church, even closer to the common faith that already existed in the cemetery itself. Those of them who, by the very situation of the schism at the Rogozhsky cemetery, were already predisposed to accept the same faith, without hesitation now declared their desire to join the church; Other wealthy Rogozhians, who did not want to lose their merchant rights, were inclined to the same decision, of necessity.
Very frequent adherence to the same faith began; especially in the last days of December 1854, when the deadline for depositing capital for the new year arrived. These affiliations were so numerous that the priests of the Moscow Edinoverie churches did not even have the opportunity to observe legal and formal correctness in the execution of this matter 1222. In vain did the leaders of the Rogozh schism try to instill cheerfulness and energy in the Rogozh Old Believers by spreading false rumors about new laws supposedly issued in their favor 1223. None of this worked. The number of church affiliations increased and increased. According to the testimony of the Moscow saint, from the time of the consecration of the Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery and until the end of January 1855, “souls of both sexes joined the Edinoverie sect (that is, from the parishioners of the Rogozhsky cemetery) in 1451” 1224.
Now the number of co-religionists from the former parishioners of the Rogozhsky cemetery was so significant that there was sufficient reason to convert the extensive chapels of the cemetery into co-religionist churches. Undoubtedly, this would have happened, and the Moscow center of the priestly schism would have been dealt a decisive blow if the old order had continued for some time. But something else happened: on February 18, Emperor Nicholas died, orders changed, and a sharp turning point took place in the history of Edinoverie at the Rogozhsky cemetery.
With the advent of the new reign, the Rogozh schismatics became noticeably more emboldened, which was reflected in the facts already known to us of the refusal of the oath of allegiance in the Orthodox Church and new harassment of independent priests. In vain did M. Filaret insist on maintaining the previous order. The voice of modern times was stronger than the voice of the Moscow archpastor. The old order receded into the realm of history. The cancellation in April 1855 of the order on merchant guilds, which was very restrictive for schismatics, the resignation in August of the same year of Minister Bibikov and the removal of caretaker Mozzhakov from service at the cemetery - all this clearly indicated a turn in government relations towards the Rogozh schism and instilled new vigor in the Rogozh Old Believers.
At the same time, with the change in the situation of the Rogozhsky schism, with the cessation of government reprisals, the successes of Edinoverie in the Rogozhsky cemetery not only immediately stopped, but also began to decline. At this time, “not a small number, according to M. Philaret, of new co-religionists” went back into schism 1225. Some of them even decided to do this officially, submitting a petition addressed to the Governor General, in which, “despite clear evidence and handwritten subscriptions,” they claimed that there was no affiliation with the church on their part. To what extent the dishonesty of some of these petitioners reached in denying the validity of the annexation, an example of this can be pointed to the now well-known manager of the affairs of the Rogozhsky cemetery, Ivan Shibaev.
“Ivan Shibaev,” writes the Moscow saint in his resolution on this case, “signed, among others, a petition to open a church of the same faith at the Rogozhsky cemetery; joined to the same faith even before the consecration of this church, which shows voluntary haste; wrote an essay in defense of unity of faith against schism, a copy of which, written in his own hand, was presented to the case by priest Morozov. From this it is clearly seen that Shibaev was indeed attached to the Edinoverie church, but over time he again fell into schism” 1226. The matter that arose regarding this return of some co-religionists to schism ended quite happily for the latter - they were all acquitted, which was what M. Philaret foresaw when Archimandrite Filaret wrote about this. Anthony: “they say that these people, even in this case, if this case goes to the criminal chamber, hope to find excuses for themselves; everyone says that they prove their deeds with money, but there is no one who accuses them” 1227.
Such a change in the state of affairs at the Rogozhsky cemetery gave the Rogozhsky schismatics the opportunity to talk about the complete expulsion of the same faith from the cemetery; The schismatic leaders, writes the Moscow saint, have already begun to spread rumors that “the churches of the same faith, converted from the chapels, will again be given to the schismatics” 1228. They even made an attempt of this kind, which, thanks to M. Philaret, ended in complete failure. In their petition submitted on April 23, 1855, they complained to the Sovereign Emperor that “the prayer churches of them, the Old Believers, erected on the place allocated to their ancestors by their government behind the Rogozhskaya outpost in Moscow, except for two chapels, were taken away.” But the Moscow archpastor, in a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs, dedicated to the consideration of the abovementioned and other schismatic petitions from the same time, tried to expose the entire groundlessness and even bad faith of this complaint of the Rogozh Old Believers.
“If the petitioners,” he wrote against the indicated point of their request, want to be approved by the initial order of the government, then all their chapels and other buildings should be taken away from them or destroyed, because the place has been allocated by the government for a hospital and cemetery for those affected by the plague, and not for schismatic institutions.” “One might think,” he further notes, dwelling on the very wording of their complaint, “that a lot has already been taken from them when they write that their prayer churches, except for two chapels, have been taken away. The church is more than a chapel. So their words have such a meaning that many of the most important churches were taken away from them, and only two less important chapels were left to them. But is that really the case? Two huge chapels, magnificently decorated, remain untouched by them, but one small chapel was taken and converted into a church of the same faith.” According to M. Philaret, Rogozh’s co-religionists had every right to take away one of the cemetery chapels from the schismatics.
“Chapels,” he says to prove this, “like churches, are property dedicated to God, not belonging to private individuals, but for use belonging to the entire society that belongs to them. The current society of Rogozh co-religionists was formerly part of the society of Rogozh schismatics, participated in contributions to the chapels and had the right with others to use them. Separating from the schismatics and, moreover, moving from an illegal to a legal position, co-religionists had the right to take one of the chapels and, in respect of their legality, could demand the best of the chapels. But they acted modestly and asked for less.” “So, the Moscow saint concludes, without exaggeration we can say that the above-mentioned article of the schismatics’ petition was written not only falsely, but also unscrupulously” 1229. Thanks to this defense of the coreligionists on the part of the Moscow Metropolitan, the attempt of the Rogozh schismatics to expel the coreligionists from the cemetery was not successful.
But the very fact of this attempt clearly testifies to the degraded position in which the Rogozhsky Edinoverie found itself at that time.
To characterize the new order that came with the new reign in the Rogozhsky cemetery, and the change that has occurred since that time in the position of the Rogozhsky Edinovery, the case of the selection of the so-called Antonov Chamber from the fellow believers is extremely interesting. After the establishment of the same faith at the Rogozhsky cemetery, it was decided to separate the new co-religionists from among those who were to be looked after from the rest of the people who were to be looked after who remained in the schism, by establishing a special almshouse for the former. For this purpose, the government set aside the so-called Skachkov House. But this room, with the increase in the number of fellow believers here, turned out to be too cramped, which is why the caretaker of the cemetery Mozzhakov ordered a larger room, the so-called Antonov Chamber, to be allocated for the fellow religious almshouse. Since it was cold and had other shortcomings, fellow believers, using their church funds, repaired it.
When they were about to move their detainees into it, the new caretaker of the cemetery, Longinov, by order of the Moscow Governor-General, did not allow them to do this and ordered that it be left behind by the schismatics, and the money spent on its amendment be given to fellow believers from the cemetery office. Fellow believers turned to Metropolitan Philaret, asking for his protection. The latter decided to intercede for them before the Holy Synod. In his report (dated March 29, 1856) to the Holy Synod, the Moscow saint, proving the need to satisfy the said request of his fellow believers, i.e. the return of the Antonov Chamber to them indicates, first of all, the rights of fellow believers to cemetery property. Mainly, it draws the attention of the highest church authorities to the harmful consequences that must inevitably follow from the refusal of co-religionists in their request.
“If,” he says, it was regrettable for the coreligionists when they asked for the Antonov chamber and were not given to them, then it would be an even greater sorrow for them and the triumph of the schismatics that the chamber was given to the coreligionists, and they made expenses for it, and then it was taken away from them. “The obstacle presented to the spread of the Edinoverie almshouse,” he continues, will naturally turn into an obstacle when almshouse schismatics join the Edinoverie Church, who, upon joining, of course, would be expelled from the schismatic almshouse and would be left without housing and bread.” In view of all this, M. Philaret asks “for the benefit of the guardianship of the authorities to pay attention to this matter, so that the Antonov ward, given to the co-religionists, corrected by their support and then taken away from them, can be returned to them for the spread of the co-religionist almshouse, or at least provided with another, at least the so-called new ward, which has the convenience of being located near the co-religionist church itself 1230.
The Holy Synod fully agreed with the arguments of the Moscow Metropolitan, which he made known to the latter by decree of April 27, 1857 1231. But Count Zakrevsky then came out to defend the interests of the Rogozh schismatics, who, in his attitude towards the Minister of Internal Affairs, proving that the request of the Rogozh co-religionists to give them the almshouses occupied by the schismatics was as unfair as it was pretentious, he believed for his part to reject the real request of the co-religionists” 1232. In this sense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs probably responded to the Synod’s submission. Then the Moscow saint was forced to issue a new, extensive report (dated June 24, 1857) on this case 1233, in which, proving with new data the rights of Rogozh’s co-religionists to cemetery property, he wrote among other things: “I pray to St.
The Synod took into account, in its humaneness and concern for Orthodoxy and common faith, that in this way those who were looked after in an almshouse, who enjoyed housing and maintenance as schismatics, would be deprived of all this through joining the common faith. Without a doubt, this would lead to strengthening the schismatic character of the almshouse, and not to liberating it from the schismatic character, as required by the Highest Commands. I pray that firmness will be given to the just rule, consistent with these Highest commands, that schismatics who enjoy housing and maintenance in an almshouse are not deprived of the right to enjoy the same from the almshouse even when they become fellow believers.”1234 But this report from M. Filaret was not successful.
Instead of the Antonovsky chamber requested by their co-religionists, they were given the Konstantinovsky chamber - “the building, according to the Moscow saint, was dilapidated even to the point that it threatened the imminent collapse of the ceiling, cold from dilapidation, with the lower floor extremely damp and therefore harmful to the health of the weak and crippled” 1235. In view of this, the Moscow Metropolitan addressed the letter we quote to Count Zakrevsky, in which, informing him of the above-mentioned information about the inconveniences of the Constantine chamber allocated to co-religionists, he again insists on the need to satisfy the request of co-religionists - to give them a more convenient Antonov chamber. We do not know whether this letter from the Moscow saint had any consequences. But this whole story, which lasted for more than two years, sufficiently testifies to the position in which the Rogozhsky Edinoverie found itself at the time in question.
It cannot be said that this situation changed for the better in subsequent times. On the contrary, with the spread of the Austrian priesthood, the Rogozh schism became more and more powerful, and the Rogozh unity of faith gradually lost hope for a better future. Only one thing instilled some hope in people interested in the successes of Orthodoxy in the fight against the schism, including the Moscow saint, these were the well-known sentiments in the Austrian hierarchy, which began even before the publication of the so-called “District Epistle” and with the advent of the latter became even more aggravated - sentiments that brought down both this hierarchy itself and the entire clerical schism in the Austrian priesthood. “The invisible justice of God,” wrote M.
Filaret, in his diocesan report for 1863, is that the opponents of the Orthodox Church are being divided at the very time when they considered themselves to have found a strong unit of connection; one side strikes the other with mutually disorderly and disgraceful blows, and each, denouncing the other for illegality, draws upon itself the accusation of illegality.” 1236 “He notices some hope for Orthodoxy in one of the opinions of the following year, now showing that ignorance, outrages, mutual strife, denunciations and condemnations of false bishops have shaken the trust of schismatic laymen” 1237. This hope did not deceive the Moscow Metropolitan. As a result of the troubles in the Austrian hierarchy, something happened that exceeded his expectations: many of the persons of this hierarchy itself, and, moreover, prominent persons, realized the inconsistency of the schism and turned to the Orthodox Church. We now move on to the presentation of this joyful event that took place at the end of the days of the Moscow saint.
II. Accession to Orthodoxy of schismatic bishops and other members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy 1238
Bishop Paphnutius of Kolomna and the society of members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy grouped around him, who decided to end the schism and turn to Orthodoxy. Reasons that contributed to such determination. Relations between members of this society and M. Filaret. Some of them submitted a petition to the Moscow saint for their accession. Petition of the Metropolitan of Moscow for those joining before the Sovereign Emperor. Resolution of Alexander II on this case. Concerns of M. Philaret about the accommodation of those joining. His resolution on the matter of their accession. The joining of the monks Onuphrius, Paphnutius, Joasaph, Philaret and Melchizedek. Report of the Moscow saint about this event to the synodal chief prosecutor. The accession to Orthodoxy of other members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy - Sergius, Kirill Zagadaev, Feodosius, Vincent and Justin. Concerns of M. Philaret about the establishment of a Edinoverie monastery in his diocese. The opening of such a monastery at the Transfiguration cemetery.
In our place, we briefly mentioned the accession to Orthodoxy of a whole, however small, society of Old Believers - members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, which took place in 1865, and the significance that this event had and what M. Filaret attached to it in relation to the development of missionary anti-schism work. In the present case, we intend to dwell in more detail on this remarkable event in the history of Edinoverie and note the participation in it that belongs to the Moscow saint.
At the head of the mentioned society, which, through theoretical considerations of the basic principles of the Austrian hierarchy and through practical observations of the latest unsightly events in the priestly schism, came to the idea of breaking all ties with the schism and turning to Orthodoxy - at the head of this society was the intelligent and energetic Bishop of Kolomna Paphnutius. Several other members of the Austrian priesthood grouped around him. The mental process by which Paphnutius came to the conviction of the inconsistency of the schism, a long and painful process, concerned the very foundations on which the schismatics, in his own words, “dreamed” of establishing their church and the newly-minted hierarchy. This basis was the notorious theory of the famous founder of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, monk Paul, about the possibility of a temporary cessation of the divinely established hierarchy in the Church of Christ, following the example of the Old Testament Church, when the latter, for 70 years, was supposedly without a bishop and a victim.
This theory was of enormous importance for the priestly split. She reconciled the Old Believers with the new hierarchy and completely calmed their bewilderment about how to fill or explain the two-century gap that separates the times of Patriarch Joseph from the times of Metropolitan Ambrose, and how the divinely established hierarchy could fall and be restored again. Paphnutius, at that time still Polykarp Petrov Ovchinnikov, was “completely captivated” by the news of this theory and its apparent soundness. She dispelled all his doubts regarding the new hierarchy, and doubts for the resolution of which he deliberately came to Paul at the Belokrinitsky Monastery, and completely reconciled him with her. This was in the early 50s. From that time until 1862, Paphnutius completely devoted himself to the schism, in which he thought to see in this way a true church with a legitimate divinely established hierarchy. His activity became especially active since his consecration (September 20, 1858) as Bishop of Kolomna.
The time of Paphnutius' episcopate was a remarkable time in the modern history of the schism, for the revival that he gave to it, and for its very significant spread. The main thing to which he devoted himself was preaching precisely for the purpose of strengthening and propagating the schism; and the main subject of his sermon was Paul’s teaching about the possibility of restoring the sacred hierarchy in the Church of Christ after its temporary cessation - a teaching that Paphnutius in his sermons and conversations developed, put in order and made publicly available, so that even the most ignorant of the Old Believers could say something about it. True, this episcopal and preaching activity of Paphnutius did not last very long, less than two years: thanks to the troubles that arose between him and Archbishop Anthony, he was forced to leave the episcopal see in 1860.
But, not taking an active part in the affairs of the Old Believers from that time on, Paphnutius did not stop his service to the cause of the schism; on the contrary, the broadest plans for the exaltation of the latter were born at that time in his head, for the implementation of which he even took the famous trip to London to the Russian emigrants living here. Returning at the end of 1861 from this unsuccessful trip abroad, he entered into solitude and decided to study literature here in silence to maintain the split. For the first time, at the convincing request of one of the zealots of the Old Believers, he undertook to process for this purpose with all care and present in the proper order that teaching about the temporary cessation of the hierarchy in the Church of Christ, according to the transformative example of the Old Testament Church, which was conveyed to the Old Believers by the monk Paul, which was the main subject of Paphnutius’s own sermon and for a long time served as the main basis for the current schismatic hierarchy.
But this work unexpectedly led Paphnutius to completely different results than those he pursued when taking on the work in question. After a thorough study of the history of the Old Testament church, according to the guidance of the Bible itself and with the help of the famous “Outline of Church Biblical History,” Paphnutius, to his greatest amazement, did not find in it any traces of the cessation of the church and the divinely established priesthood, which his teacher Paul preached. This discovery, unexpected for Paphnutius, was of extreme importance for him: “with unbearable heart disease, I noticed, he testifies in his explanatory note, that the very foundation on which we dreamed of establishing our church and hierarchy was crumbling into dust” 1239. At the same time, the work of his entire previous life now lost all meaning in his eyes, and the authority of the famous teacher Paul lost a significant share of its charm. There is no doubt that the inquisitive mind of Paphnutius could not stop there: the critical thought that awakened in him required further work.
And, indeed, after this, an active work of thought began in him, little by little destroying all his other Old Believer convictions that rested on the authority of Paul. Finally, he set to work on the famous “Charter of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis,” drawn up in 1841, at the request of the Austrian government, or a statement of the Lipovansk faith, on which the hierarchy itself is based, with the approval of the government. A careful and lengthy analysis of this Pauline charter, in which Paphnutius, to his extreme surprise, now found many wicked and even heretical thoughts, put, according to Paphnutius’s own consciousness, the latter a decisive barrier between him and the schism, forced him to internally sever all ties with the latter and finally decide to join the Orthodox Church. This is the internal process by which Paphnutius came to the conclusion that the schism was untenable.
The turmoil and ugliness in the schism that began with the publication of the “District Epistle,” of which Paphnutius was a passive spectator, gave the latter only new food for the questions that occupied him at that time and new factual justification for the conclusions about the inconsistency of the schism that he came to through theoretical research.
Having internally broken all ties with the schism, having finally become convinced of its destructiveness, Paphnutius did not even think of hiding his convictions from the Old Believers - former participants and collaborators in his plans to spread and exalt the schism. Some of them left him with grief and anger; others, without interrupting relations with him, still hoped to shake his new views and find in him the former fighter for the interests of the split. Finally, among his former brethren there were also those who reacted with sincere sympathy to his new convictions, finding in them a solution to their own serious and long-standing perplexities. The first of these latter was the vicar of the Belokrinitsa metropolis - Bishop Onuphry of Brailov. He was previously acquainted with Paphnutius, together with him he once sought from the monk Paul the resolution of his doubts regarding the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, and also, together with him, he was completely carried away by Paul’s teaching about the possibility of a temporary cessation of the divinely established hierarchy in the Church of Christ.
Subsequently, fate seemed to separate them; Paphnutius entered into solitude and did not directly participate in the turmoil that began in the schism with the publication of the District Epistle; while Onuphrius, having taken the latter under his protection, zealously stood for it and was a direct witness to all the outrages that had been committed in the schism since the time of its publication. He was deeply amazed and saddened by all these regrettable phenomena in the Old Believers, which clearly revealed to him how much evil, lies and ignorance lurks in the schism. Under the influence of all this, previous doubts and unresolved questions regarding the Old Believers and their hierarchy arose in him with new force. At this time, he receives news that Paphnutius, who was occupied with the same questions, through long and solitary research and reflection, managed to come to a possibly satisfactory solution to them. Onuphrius wished to hear this decision personally, from Paphnutius himself, and for this purpose he entered into close communication with him.
Paphnutius most readily informed him of the results of his long and painful research, already known to us. “In these mutual conversations with Paphnutius,” Onuphry reports in his explanatory note, “the veil gradually fell from my eyes and, with the help of God’s grace, I realized more and more clearly the error of the schism and the rightness of Orthodoxy; Then, in the face of God the Almighty, I made a vow to sever all ties with the schism and seek a return to the bosom of my mother - the Orthodox Church" 1240.
Soon a small circle of Old Believers formed around these two individuals, who also belonged to the Belokrinitsky hierarchy and, like them, were looking for a way out of the suffocating environment of the schism. First of all, Archdeacon of the Belokrinitsa Metropolis Filaret entered into relations with Paphnutius, arriving in Moscow with a letter of trust from Cyril, with the rank of his envoy. His example was followed a little later by his comrade, another metropolitan ambassador, the hieromonk of the Belokrinitsky monastery Joasaph, who, due to some circumstances, delayed his arrival in Russia. This circle was also joined by: Bishop Justin of Tulchin, who was under the Orenburg Bishop Konstantin - Hierodeacon Vikenty, Protodeacon of Archbishop of Moscow Anthony Shutov, Kirill Zagadaev and some others.
The absence in these persons of schismatic fanaticism and prejudices against the Orthodox Church characteristic of schismatics and their sincere sympathy for the district epistle, in the struggle for which some of them had to take an active part, could already serve as sufficient guarantee that it was only a matter of time before they joined the church. The regrettable and even outrageous events in the priestly schism that began with the publication of the district message clearly showed all these persons the dark sides of the latter and forced them to think seriously about their position. This is where their spiritual rebirth began. The rapprochement and conversations with Paphnutius and Onuphrius, in which fundamental questions concerning the so-called Old Believers were raised and subjected to the most rigorous discussion, finally completed the spiritual rebirth that had begun in these persons, forced them to put an end to the schism and seek union with the Orthodox Church.
Finally, when all the issues that worried the members of this society were resolved and the results of the schism were finally summed up, some of them (Paphnutius, Onuphrius, Philaret and Joasaph) decided to begin to implement their intentions 1241. At the same time, their thoughts, as one would expect, turned with hope and trust to the Moscow Metropolitan Philaret, who had gained respect among the Old Believers themselves: they decided to entrust themselves and the fate of their cause to his wisdom and his fatherly care. But “not daring to dare to access him” 1242, they turned to the mediation of N.I. Subbotin, who, with his articles on modern movements in the schism, gained considerable fame among the Old Believers at that time. As an ambassador from the whole society, Archdeacon Philaret came to the Moscow professor with the above request. It is clear that N.I. Subbotin agreed with great pleasure and complete readiness to fulfill this request of the Old Believers.
For the first time, at the end of October 1864, he introduced the aforementioned Philaret to the Moscow saint. The meeting between the Orthodox metropolitan and the schismatic archdeacon was a long one in 1243. The Moscow Bishop asked Philaret about the schismatic orders, about their Metropolitan Kirill and other bishops. Moving on to Philaret himself and the matter for which he appeared, the Moscow saint dwelled on the conditions under which their society wanted to join Orthodoxy. And when Philaret noticed that they would like to immediately join the church, but not publicly, but in a secret way, in order to be able to more conveniently act among the Old Believers as missionaries of Orthodoxy, the Bishop of Moscow responded to this with a lengthy and very remarkable speech, in which he revealed the idea that this kind of double-mindedness and a certain kind of deception, allowed even for the good purpose of serving the Holy Church, he does not consider consistent with character and dignity servant of Christ's truth.
At the same time, he related one incident from the anti-schism activities of Metropolitan Seraphim, who once rejected a similar proposal 1244. During this conversation, the question of the legality of the Austrian hierarchy was also raised, and the Moscow saint briefly outlined the reasons why the hierarchy begun by Ambrose cannot be recognized as either correct or legal, and therefore members of this hierarchy cannot be accepted into the church with the preservation of orders, which in fact they do not have, therefore, the Metropolitan added, turning to Philaret, and you cannot be accepted into the diaconate; but the monastic title, if you wish, can be retained for you, and also, if you wish, it will be possible to promote you to sacred degrees. At the end of the conversation, the bishop wished Filaret’s good intention complete success, advised him to think carefully about the matter and added that he was always ready to see him and provide him with the necessary help.
This conversation with the Metropolitan of Moscow made a strong impression on Filaret, as one would expect. “A happy lot fell on my lot,” he later wrote in his explanatory note submitted to the Moscow saint, “to be the first to appear before you, gracious archpastor and father, expressing our desires and intentions. Those moments when I was honored for the first time to receive your holy blessing and hear your conversation, filled with wisdom and love, will remain unforgettable in my life and will always constitute the most gratifying memory for me: I do not have the strength to express the spiritual delight with which I was enveloped when, guided by your blessing, I went to the brethren to inform them of your merciful attention to us." 1245
Taking advantage of the advice of M. Philaret, the said persons were in no hurry to submit a petition, but first, over the course of four months, they thoroughly discussed the issue of their accession. At the same time, they talked more about how to join - unconditionally, or according to the rules of the same faith - and where to choose a place for collective residence? Their thoughts were inclined to join unconditionally and thereby break all ties with the schism. As for the question of place of residence, they considered it best to rely on the metropolitan’s decision in this matter, although for their part they considered it more convenient to reside in the Rogozhsky cemetery, in the half of it that was provided to fellow believers. In this sense, they submitted a petition to M. Philaret 1246 at the beginning of March 1865.
Informing in this petition about their sincere and unhypocritical desire, having broken all the ties connecting them with the imaginary Old Believers, to enter the saving fence of the holy Apostolic Orthodox Church, and asking the Metropolitan of Moscow to take a fatherly part in their situation and contribute with his wise advice and archpastoral authority to the implementation of their unhypocritical desires, the petitioners move on to the question about the method of their annexation and about the choice of a place for their collective residence. “At any time,” they wrote, “we are ready to fulfill everything that is found necessary and required for the actual joining of us to the Orthodox Church, without offering on our part any conditions for this: completely and irrevocably breaking all the ties that connect us with the schism, we desire complete and unconditional unity with Orthodoxy, so as not to differ in any way from its native sons, born and raised in it.”...
“We dare to ask you, gracious archpastor and father,” they further wrote, “to give us, until the end of our work, for our collective residence some kind of shelter in the church places under your jurisdiction. If we were allowed to express our own desire in this regard, then we would find it more convenient for ourselves, as well as not useless in the form of admonishing our erring brethren, to have for the first time shelter in the fence of the Rogozhsky cemetery - in that half of it that belongs to those who have joined Orthodoxy and is subject to the jurisdiction of your Eminence.”
Having received this petition, M. Filaret, before starting the matter of joining the petitioners to Orthodoxy, demanded that each of them write a note about their origin, life in schism and the reasons that prompted them to seek communion with the church, as well as present their passports. With the active participation of prof. Subbotin, the explanatory notes were soon ready and presented to the Moscow saint at the end of March. But regarding passports, one difficult circumstance arose. The fact is that three of the petitioners, Onuphrius, Paphnutius and Joasaph, having been born in Russia and being Russian subjects, secretly left Russia, were considered foreign subjects and lived in Moscow with foreign incorrect passports, for which they were subject to liability under the law. It was therefore necessary to ask them for the Highest forgiveness of the above-mentioned faults from the government.
In view of this, the Moscow saint, abandoning the “ordinary, as he put it, way” of conducting the case of annexation, 1247 considered it necessary to address this case with a confidential attitude to the then synodal chief prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov. 1248 By this attitude bringing to the attention of the said chief prosecutor the desire of four members of the Austrian hierarchy (whom he listed) to break ties with the schism and join Orthodoxy, noting at the same time that they do not offer on their part any conditions for their joining, the Moscow saint further proves the sincerity and purity of their intentions.
Besides the fact that he was convinced of this by repeated communications with them, as well as by their explanatory notes, one of which (the note of Paphnutius) he attaches to the indicated attitude, an important sign of their sincere conversion to Orthodoxy is the fact that they leave an honorable and advantageous position with the schismatics and that they do not ask for the preservation of their bishopric or priesthood, but only wish that they be recognized as monastics, or were tonsured into monasticism, and so that they could serve the conversion of other erring people.” Having further outlined the information necessary “in relation to civil order” about each of those seeking accession, borrowed from their passports and notes, M. Filaret points out the exceptional nature of this case, which therefore requires a special direction. “This matter,” he says, is connected with such circumstances that it goes beyond the ordinary circle of affairs and requires a special direction.
The above-mentioned four significant persons of the schismatic false hierarchy, deciding to join the Orthodox Church out of fear of acts of schismatic hatred, found themselves in the need to hide not only their intentions, but also themselves until they were provided with the protection of the legitimate government. Meanwhile, their intention, revealed only in secret, by special proxy, is already finding imitators... Therefore, one can expect in the schism a significant movement in favor of Orthodoxy, when the above-mentioned four persons will be attached to Orthodoxy and will have the opportunity to act in favor of it under the auspices of legitimate authority.” In view of the importance of this matter, it is necessary, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to present it to the highest view and to intercede for the petitioners before the Sovereign Emperor. “Such circumstances,” says the Moscow saint, inspire boldness to strive to ensure that this matter receives the most merciful attention and patronage of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, defender of the Orthodox Church.
It would be ensured if His Imperial Majesty were pleased to all-mercifully forgive the first three of the above-named persons (i.e. Onuphrius, Paphnutius and Joasaph), by virtue of religious errors and sinful conscience, and allow all four, upon joining the Orthodox Church unconditionally, or on the rules of unity of faith, to be classified as spiritual rank and tonsured as a monk, or recognized as a monk, as, according to the closest inquiry, justice will require, in accordance with church rules.” In conclusion, the Moscow Archpastor asks Akhmatov to “submit the above to the most merciful discretion of His Imperial Majesty,” and asks the Sovereign Emperor to “look upon this matter with the eye of his most merciful condescension.”
M. Filaret accompanied this attitude with a private letter to the chief prosecutor 1249, in which, explaining why he is conducting the said case in such an exceptional way, he insists on the need for a lenient attitude towards the civil faults of those seeking accession. “From the attitude sent along with this,” he writes in this letter to the Chief Prosecutor, “please see that I dare to pave an unusual path to the resolution of an extraordinary case. Otherwise, the matter will not achieve its goal.” Having further pointed out the outstanding position of persons seeking accession, the acquisition of which for the Orthodox Church is therefore “worth the trouble” to attend to, and noting that “if the matter is carried out in the usual way, then three of them may be subject to trial for living abroad with expired Russian passports and for acquiring Moldovan passports under the name of Moldovan subjects,” the Moscow saint further clarifies in detail the need for their pardon.
“If these people,” he says, who lived freely and acted unhindered in the schism, when expressing a desire to join the Orthodox Church, are subject to judgment; then this will be a triumph for the schism and an obstacle to the entry of other schismatics into the Orthodox Church. The mercy of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, and only this mercy, can in this case do the greatest benefit to the Orthodox Church. I believe with confidence that Onuphrius, Paphnutius, Joasaph and Philaret will not change their intention to become Orthodox; but if they see that this is a problem for them in Russia, then, probably, with the written forms they have, which represent them as foreigners, they will go abroad and join Orthodoxy there, and thus save themselves, but will leave here the thought that people like them will not find support for themselves in the Russian Church. May there be mercy for those who return from error! May there be the mercy of the Orthodox Church that accepts them!”
This persistent intercession of the Moscow saint for those joining was a complete success. Upon presentation of this case by the Chief Prosecutor to Emperor Alexander II, on May 20, this highly remarkable resolution of the Sovereign Emperor followed: May God grant that their appeal be sincere. If they really join Orthodoxy, then I authorize not to subject them to any punishment for their previous false and even criminal actions. May this serve as an example for the other lost sheep of our Orthodox Church" 1250.
Having received such comforting news privately, M. Filaret became concerned about finding a suitable place for the collective residence of those preparing to join. At the same time, for some reasons, he did not agree with their idea of placing them in the Rogozhsky cemetery, but considered it more convenient to temporarily place them in the Gethsemane monastery, where several monks of strict life and also those who had converted from the schism then lived. He found out the conveniences of this room in a letter to Archimandrite Anthony, to whom he turned with a request to help him in this matter. “A special kind of work lies ahead, not without difficulties,” he wrote to his friend on May 24, “take the trouble to help accomplish it. And then, having briefly said that several members of the alleged schismatic hierarchy have expressed a desire to join the Orthodox Church, and that they have already been granted the Highest permission and forgiveness, the Bishop continued: “Now they live, withdrawing and hiding from the schismatics. It is necessary to place them and arrange their future life.
I would suggest placing them in the Gethsemane monastery for a while, so that you could instruct them and confirm them through spiritual conversation and, together with their joining the holy church, establish them in monasticism, or recognition, or new tonsure, and the skete elders, who have gone through a similar path, could be their successors... I ask you to accept God-pleasing work in this matter... Their position is such that it is necessary to accept According to the Apostle, they are like a milkmaid who warms her children. They need a room so that they do not seem neglected. It may be necessary to encourage some of the brethren to push themselves aside for a while, which will be a donation for the benefit of Orthodoxy” 1251. The Lavra governor, of course, gladly agreed to fulfill the request of the Moscow archpastor. “Thank you for your kindness in helping those who turn from error,” the latter writes to him again a few days later. These days I will forward them to you" 1252.
But this intention of M. Philaret was not destined to come true. When he informed those who joined about this, the latter’s removal from Moscow, from the society of the Old Believers, among whom they intended to act, to the secluded Gethsemane monastery seemed too inconvenient. Moreover, at this time they changed their intentions regarding the method of joining. By this time they had come to the conclusion that, in the interests of their same missionary activity among schismatics, it was much better for them to join the Orthodox Church on the rules of unity of faith, and not unconditionally. In this sense, they submitted a new petition to the rulers on May 29 for their annexation, in which they detailed the motives that forced them to change their previous intention 1253. “It is not in our personal dispositions,” they wrote among other things in this petition, “the main motivating reason why we decide to petition for permission, for the first time, to remain with the rites of the same faith...
Our petition was inspired in us by strictly and predominantly Christian condescension for the weak conscience of our former brothers, the so-called Old Believers, and the desire, through such condescension, to attract them into the fold of the Orthodox Church, in which we see our direct responsibility imposed on us by our actions, harmful to the church, during the times of false shepherding and false teaching in the schism. And we, from many years of close acquaintance with schismatics, know with what insurmountable disgust they look at everyone who has betrayed the rituals they respect, and we are quite sure that the rumor about our communication with the church in the very rituals would only serve as a triumph for the enemies of the church and would put a barrier to meetings and interviews with us even for those of the Old Believers who, as we well know, are ready to follow us.”
Metropolitan Filaret recognized the soundness of the arguments set out in this petition and, for his part, expressed his full consent to join the petitioners on the terms of common faith. In view of this, he hastened to cancel his previous order to place them in the Gethsemane monastery. “You have the right to complain about me,” he wrote on June 7 to Archimandrite. Anthony, - that I worried you about seeking to join the holy church and then I kept silent for a long time. They wrote to me that they wished to join, without offering any conditions; but when I announced to them what I was planning to do, two of them urgently asked to join the Church of the same faith, so that this would be visible to the schismatics, because they hope to attract others to this path more conveniently. To divide them into two ways would be to weaken them. Therefore, other orders turned out to be necessary, more difficult, but necessary” 1254. The next such order was the appointment of a new place for the placement of those joining.
Such a place, according to the wishes of the latter, was allocated in Moscow itself, even in the center of Moscow - in the Kremlin Miracle Monastery, where, after correcting the cells assigned to them, those who joined and moved. Hierodeacon Melchizedek, who had also arrived from Belaya Krinitsa not long before, settled here with them and also expressed a sincere desire to join the Orthodox Church, for which he submitted a petition to M. Philaret.
When, therefore, everything was already ready - official news of the Sovereign’s decision on this matter was received, a place for those joining was found and they were accommodated here - M. Philaret, having given them some time to prepare for such a great event in their lives, put on June 20 at their last petition the following resolution: “The Holy Church looks with meek compassion on those who, without differing from it in essential dogmas of faith, or only by ignorance overshadowing their pure understanding, for names and rituals they alienate it and deprive themselves of sanctification from the descent. The Holy Spirit and from the Apostles successively abides in it, and therefore joyfully accepts those who turn to it, both those who absolutely unconditionally join it, and those who at the same time want to preserve the use of rituals according to the special known rules of the same faith. The reasons why petitioners choose the latter are worthy of attention. May Christ bring after them into his saving fence others who are deprived of true sanctification, unity and protection.
So, let the holy churches be accepted into communion according to the rules of common faith” 1255, Prescribing at the same time this resolution to carry out the union according to the established order, with the anointing of St. with the chrism of those joining who were born in the schism and were not chrismated in the Orthodox Church, with the imposition of monastic robes on all of them, the Moscow saint, due to the weakness of his strength, entrusted this work to the Right Reverend Vicar Leonid. The joining ceremony was scheduled to take place on June 23 at the Trinity Edinoverie Church.
According to this order of M. Philaret, on the appointed day in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, the Most Rev. Leonid, according to the established order, joined the church of five members of the schismatic hierarchy. At the end of all the actions of joining, four of those who joined “were granted the sacrament of anointing” 1256, and finally, all of them, with the blessing of the Right Reverend, were clothed in monastic attire, since their monastic order was recognized as valid. This event, as one would expect, attracted many people to the Trinity Church, including quite a few schismatics, and even one member of the Austrian hierarchy, Bishop Sergius of Tula, on whom this whole ceremony made such a strong impression that he shed tears of tenderness throughout it.
Bringing the completed annexation to the attention of the synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count D. A. Tolstoy, who had just been appointed at that time, with a special message on June 28, M. Philaret clarifies the significance of this fact both for the schism and for the Orthodox Church: “there is no doubt that the schism in these people has lost a significant part of its false hierarchy. They conscientiously adhered to the schism, out of ignorance and sinful conviction, and zealously acted in its favor, especially Paphnutius, distinguished by natural abilities and curiosity; but when, in the strife, unrest, and temptations of the schismatic hierarchy, they clearly saw the inconsistency of the schism both in the teaching and in the church structure, and through their own research they completed their disillusionment with it; then they also conscientiously and sincerely turned to unity with the true Orthodox Church, leaving the honors and benefits of their position in schism. A comforting event and associated with good hope for the Orthodox Church" 1257.
An event took place that was truly comforting for Orthodoxy; in the person of the monks who joined, an important acquisition was made for the Orthodox Church, but for the schism it was a great loss - a loss all the more sensitive for it because it was soon followed by others similar to it. So, at the beginning of the next month, the aforementioned Bishop of Tula Sergius turned to Metropolitan Philaret with a formal request to join Orthodoxy, also on the rules of unity of faith. After a satisfied test, “whether due to pure and reasonable motives he leaves the wrong path,” and at the intercession of the monks of the same faith who had previously joined him, who vouched for the sincerity of his intentions 1258, and upon the presentation of an explanatory note about himself by him 1259, Sergius was annexed by the Right Reverend Leonid on July 21, and, like the previous ones, he was confirmed only in the monastic rank.
At the same time, another member of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy was added to the church - Protodeacon Kirill Zagadaev, who, as a non-monastic, was left in a lay rank, awaiting the opportunity to be ranked as a clergy of the same faith, according to his ability 1260.
The following year, the schismatic hierarchy lost several more prominent members, who followed the example of Paphnutius and the brethren. Back in October 1865, the monk Theodosius, a young man of good life and not at all stupid, broke all ties with the schism. He had previously, secretly from his bishop, had relations with Paphnutius, and now, no longer tolerating the schismatic environment, he came to the Chudov Monastery, where, with the permission of the Moscow saint, he settled for a while to test his trustworthiness both in relation to Orthodoxy and in relation to monasticism. In May of the following year, he went to Metropolitan Philaret with a formal petition, in which, expressing a sincere desire to leave the schism and accept Orthodoxy, he asked the Moscow Bishop “to make an order to join him to the Orthodox Church, following the example of the monks who had previously joined and on the same rights as them.”
Since Theodosius, after testing, turned out to be trustworthy, and since Onuphrius and Paphnutius, who knew him personally, “gave a good testimony about him,” the Moscow Archpastor decided to intercede for him, through the synodal chief prosecutor, before the Sovereign Emperor. The latter respected the request of M. Filaret.
At the end of July 1866, Theodosius joined the Orthodox Church in 1261.
In the same year, and also with the active participation of the Moscow saint, another hierodeacon, Vincent, who was Bishop of Orenburg under Constantine, managed to get out of the schism. This Vincent, while in Moscow at the schismatic council, as a representative of his bishop, had relations with Paphnutius, from which he doubted the correctness of the schism. But at that time he could not take part in further conversations and intentions of Paphnutius, since, at the end of the assignment entrusted to him, he had to return back to his bishop. Departing from Moscow, he gave his word to Paphnutius to return here for further consideration of the issues raised by Paphnutius; but could not fulfill this promise, because soon after arriving at the place, he was arrested by the police and imprisoned in the Verkhoturye prison castle. Having received news here that Paphnutius and his brethren had joined the church, he decided to join Orthodoxy and, in this sense, sent a petition to the Perm Bishop Neophytos.
Not receiving any response to this petition, he decided in August 1865 to make the above request to the Moscow Metropolitan. In this remarkable petition, outlining in detail his life in the schism and the circumstances of his conversion, Vincent asked the Bishop of Moscow to join the Orthodox Church and to place him in the Resurrection Edinoverie Monastery, Ufa Diocese. Having received the said petition through the Perm provincial prosecutor, the Moscow saint hesitated for some time in his petition for Vincent, perhaps because, in view of the exceptional position of the petitioner, he did not particularly count on the sincerity of his appeal and was waiting for more compelling evidence of this sincerity. This evidence was not long in coming. Desperate to receive an answer to his last petition, Vincent turned to the mediation of the monk Paphnutius, asking for his intercession with the Moscow archpastor.
“I ask God, most honorable father,” he wrote among other things to Paphnutius on September 17, “be so kind as to help the suffering one; you are near the First Throne Archpastor Philaret, try to inform him of my unfortunate situation; invite him to take some part in my business” 1262. Paphnutius took an ardent part in the fate of the prisoner and, presenting the received letter to the Metropolitan, turned to the latter and, for his part, with a petition for Vincent, in which, vouching for the sincerity of the latter’s appeal, he asked the Bishop of Moscow to “ease the fate of the prisoner with his strong intercession and open up for him the opportunity for his entry into the Holy Church” 1263. After this, M. Filaret decided to make a petition to the highest authorities.
In his letter to the Chief Prosecutor (dated January 13, 1866), the Moscow saint, reporting biographical information about Vincent, borrowed from his petition, also mentioning the guarantees for the sincerity of his appeal from Paphnutius, asks Count Tolstoy “to take expeditious measures so that Vincent is accepted into the Edinoverie monasticism and installed in the one indicated by him Edinoverie Resurrection Monastery." “Vincenty,” wrote M. Philaret, appears with significant ability and reputation in the schism. Remaining in schism, he could do a lot of harm to Orthodoxy by seducing the ignorant. Consequently, joining him to the same faith is the suppression of harm and more or less hope of benefit” 1264. And this petition of M. Philaret was not without success. The Holy Synod, to which the chief prosecutor presented the aforementioned letter from the Moscow saint, determined to terminate the case of Vincent’s arrest and, upon release from prison, to annex him to the church, according to the rules of Edinoverie, with a residence permit in the Resurrection Edinoverie Monastery in 1265.
Finally, in 1867, Bishop Justin of Tulchin entered into relations with Metropolitan Philaret on the matter of converting to Orthodoxy. The Moscow saint was very pleased with his appeal to the church, since he saw in him a person “useful for Orthodoxy.” “Wouldn’t the monk Paphnutius write to him,” the Metropolitan wrote about Justin to his vicar Leonid, “that we rejoice at his entry onto the pure path, we will accept him in peace and wish to promote his peace” 1266. At the beginning of May, Justin presented an explanatory note about himself to the Moscow saint, and then had a personal meeting with him. From this conversation, M. Philaret got the impression of him as a person, although inferior in mental qualities to his mentor Paphnutius, but nevertheless well-disposed, of a calm spirit. Reporting this information about Justin to the synodal chief prosecutor, the Moscow saint here speaks out in favor of Justin joining Orthodoxy on the rules of unity of faith, since in this case it will be more convenient for him to “enter into useful relations with schismatics” 1267. The illness and the death that followed soon after.
Philaret prevented him from completing the work he had begun regarding the conversion of Justin. The latter was annexed to Orthodoxy after the death of the Moscow saint on February 25, 1868. 1268
There are also other cases of joining Orthodoxy from among members of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, caused by the example of Paphnutius and his brethren; but since they are not marked by the participation of the Moscow saint, then for our purpose it is unnecessary to dwell on them.
In connection with the described event of the schismatic bishops and other members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy joining Orthodoxy, there is another, also no less remarkable event in the history of the Moscow Edinoverie - we are talking about the opening of the Edinoverie monastery at the Transfiguration cemetery.
Metropolitan Filaret, as we already know, had previously been concerned about the absence of such a monastery in his diocese and at one time (1848) proposed, in the interests of the missionary anti-schism cause, to establish such a monastery near the Rogozhsky cemetery; but then this idea of his was not realized, since it did not meet with sympathy among other members of the Moscow Secret Committee, to which it was proposed. At the present time, with the conversion of an entire society of monks of the same faith, the need for such a monastery has manifested itself with new force and has caused quite a few worries for the Moscow saint. The latter already stated this need in his resolution on the matter of annexing the first four persons of the Austrian hierarchy, 1269 and immediately after their accession he began his efforts on this matter. Bringing with a special attitude to the attention of the synodal chief prosecutor about the completed accession of five members of the schismatic hierarchy and pointing out the consoling side of this event, M.
Filaret noted at the same time that this event “at the same time imposes an important concern on the Moscow diocesan authorities.” “It is desirable,” he wrote further, that those who know the truth of Orthodoxy should try to open its light to others, and especially to those whom they have removed from it by their non-Orthodox service and with whom it is more convenient than anywhere else to enter into relations, on the occasion of previous relations. So they need to be in Moscow, or near Moscow. But there is no Edinoverie monastery in the Moscow diocese. They are now cramped in the Cathedral of the Miracles Monastery and do not have a Edinoverie church nearby, which is needed both for them and for their activities. We need a male Edinoverie monastery, or at least a monastery near Moscow. How to do this? - I carefully write the resolution of this issue in order to present the definitive resolution to the Holy Synod, with the boldness of hope for the Highest patronage of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, patron of the Orthodox Church" 1270.
This report of the Moscow archpastor was presented by the synodal chief prosecutor to the Highest view and the idea expressed in it about the need to establish a monastery of the same faith in Moscow or near it was approved by the Sovereign, which was given to know with a special attitude of July 6, the Bishop of Moscow 1271.
Meanwhile, the idea of the Moscow saint about opening a monastery of the same faith in Moscow was very sympathetically received among the community of Moscow coreligionists. The latter even turned to M. Philaret with a formal petition on this matter, in which they spoke in favor of opening such a monastery in one of the Moscow schismatic cemeteries. At the same time, the majority of petitioners gave preference to the Popovshchina Rogozhsky cemetery, citing the fact that the newly affiliated monks belonged to the designated sect and that therefore here it was closer for them to enter into relations with schismatics of the same kind in order to admonish them. And for this purpose, petitioners of this category considered it best to convert another of the Rogozh chapels into a Edinoverie church and give to the projected monastery some buildings occupied by schismatics 1272.
Metropolitan Filaret fully agreed with the idea of his co-religionists about opening a co-religionist monastery in one of the Moscow schismatic cemeteries; But on the question of which of these cemeteries to found such a monastery, he did not share the opinion of the majority: he found the opening of a monastery in the Rogozhsky cemetery inconvenient due to the fact that “the area of the Rogozhsky almshouse is such that it is difficult to outline the boundaries of the monastery and give it its inherent separation from the worldly.” Therefore, he settled on the idea of opening a Edinoverie monastery at the Transfiguration cemetery, which, “by its very origin, is adapted to the monastic structure” 1273.
This is the meaning of the Moscow saint and he made his petition to the highest authorities, sending his presentation on this case to the synodal chief prosecutor on August 13. Again pointing here to the urgent need for such a monastery for the Moscow hierarchy, indicating the highest approval of the idea of such a monastery, M. Philaret further reports the above information about the petition of fellow believers on this subject and his assumption about the construction of such a monastery in the Transfiguration cemetery - and precisely in the male half of this cemetery, where the common faith is already firmly established and the schismatic element is so insignificant that it can be transferred to the other, female, half of the said cemetery. “There are currently about 25 people in the men’s section of the almshouse,” writes the Moscow saint in relation to Count D.A. Tolstoy, “in the men’s section of the almshouse, occupying the eastern building with the house prayer room.
If these 25 people are transferred to a large women’s department, in which there are chapels and residential buildings, which could form a separate area for male schismatics; then in the area of the men’s department, with two existing Edinoverie churches, it would be convenient to establish a men’s Edinoverie monastery” 1274. Speaking so decisively in favor of converting the male half of the Transfiguration cemetery to a Edinoverie monastery, M. Filaret further tries to protect his thought from doubts and objections that may arise. “If,” he says, the question arose: is it convenient to place male prisoners in the same courtyard of the women’s department; the answer is not doubtful, that it is convenient. The yard is extensive, there are quite a few buildings; You can use a fence to separate the buildings in which male prisoners will be housed. You can even do without this, because, according to the law, the elderly and the sick and paralytic are treated here: in this case, it is enough that the male persons are treated separately, because they are in a special building.”
At the same time, defending his assumption from possible objections, the Moscow saint also points out that this proposal is in complete agreement with the Highest decree of December 21, 1853, which expressed the idea of closing or converting the Transfiguration cemetery buildings to other needs, and with the previous practice of the government, which had already provided the main of these buildings for the male half to co-religionists. In conclusion of his relationship, M. Filaret asks Count Tolstoy to “represent” the Sovereign on this matter 1275.
At this time the Emperor was in Moscow. Here, on August 17, the newly joined Edinoverie monks and deputies from the Moscow Society of Edinoverieves were presented to Him, who at the same time outlined their request for the establishment of a Edinoverie monastery in Moscow. The Emperor again approved of this idea, noting that the monastery would certainly be built in 1276. But since the Preobrazhensky almshouse was at that time under the jurisdiction of the imperial philanthropic society, the Sovereign Emperor considered it not unnecessary to demand a conclusion on this subject from the council of the said society 1277.
Having received news of this order of the Sovereign, M. Philaret on August 19 addressed a letter to the main trustee of the imperial philanthropic society, Metropolitan Isidore, in which, “in the name of the inviolability of the highest commands, in the name of truth, in the name of the good of the Orthodox Church,” he convinced the main trustee of the imperial philanthropic society and his “venerable collaborators” - “to promote the enterprise of fellow believers and to give fellow monastics of the same faith a firm place to stand for reuniting action on those wandering outside the saving fence of the holy church” 1278.
All these persistent intercessions of the Moscow saint had their effect, and his concerns were crowned with success. Despite the strong protest of one of the “venerable” employees of Metropolitan Isidore, Prince Suvorov, the Moscow saint’s idea of transferring the men’s department of the Transfiguration cemetery to the Edinoverie monastery was approved by the committee of ministers and on November 12 approved by the Sovereign 1279; and the next year, on May 16 - the Feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, the very opening of this monastery followed in 1280.
Chapter II. The activities of Metropolitan Philaret in the history of the internal development of Edinoverie
No less fruitful in its results and no less remarkable in its significance was the activity of the Moscow saint in the history of the internal development of the same faith. As is known, four main questions from time immemorial worried the co-religionists and caused that discord in the co-religionists, traces of which can be seen even today - these are the questions: 1) about an independent co-religionist bishop, 2) about the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1667, 3) about the so-called cruel censures of the “old” rituals and, finally, 4) about the free transition from Orthodoxy to the co-religion. All these questions reached the Moscow archpastor and required his authoritative word and decision of the highest church authority.
I. The question of an independent bishop of the same faith
Initial history of the issue. The initiation and positive resolution of this issue by M. Filaret in 1857. Reasons for this decision. New excitement in the governmental spheres of the said issue in the 60s and the negative attitude of the Moscow saint towards it at the indicated time. The grounds for this attitude. The thought of the Right Reverend Innokenty of Kamchatka about granting an independent bishop to co-religionists and M. Philaret’s remarks on it. The project of the All-Old Believer Church and the attitude of the Moscow Archpastor towards it.
The question of an independent bishop of the same faith, raised in the sixties of this century and to this day continues to worry co-religionists, does not represent anything new, unknown until that time. The idea of having an independent bishop is contemporary with Edinoverie itself. It is known that one of the points proposed by Nicodemus and his supporters among the conditions for reunification with the Orthodox Church included the granting of a “chorebishop” to them, i.e. a rural or suburban bishop, but so that he is subordinate directly to the Holy Synod, “not relative to the diocesan bishop” 1281. This petition of Nicodemus and his supporters for a special co-religious bishopric was rejected by the church and government authorities after a mature and careful discussion. In the petitions of Old Believers of other societies that followed Nikodimov, for example. Old Believers of Moscow, whose petitions, with comments on them by Moscow Metropolitan Plato, were later made under the name “rules of M.
Plato”, the norm of conditions for the admission of Old Believers into the church - in these petitions there was no mention of an independent bishop of the same faith. The Old Believers understood the futility of such petitions. Thus, the Chernigov Old Believers, in their note of 1822–1823, under the title “The cry of the Old Believers and their heartfelt prayer forever to the Most High in the Holy Trinity, Glorified God,” among other things, directly state that “they, after the resolution of the late Metropolitan of Moscow Platon at the request of the Moscow Old Believers, do not dare to ask The highest throne and the pastors of the church a special bishop for himself" 1282. Likewise, the famous Ekaterinburg schismatic leader, later a co-religionist, Ryazanov, who dreamed of reuniting the schismatics with the Orthodox Church, like the reunification of the Uniates, through not only his Old Believer pastors, but also independent archpastors, had to abandon the second half of his program precisely because, according to Melnikov, he had no hope for its implementation 1283.
There is no doubt that the idea of an independent bishop, a bishop of the old rite, was not alien to the co-religionists themselves of that time, especially if we take into account how far most of them were from the true co-religion, how highly they valued their rite and therefore how distrustful they were of the Orthodox bishops, trying to separate themselves from them as much as possible. And if this idea was not officially raised by co-religionists at that time, then, probably, for the same reason why Ryazanov did not raise it in his petitions.
But now the sixties are coming - a time of various reforms, even more so - a time of all sorts of aspirations, when the government itself moved towards various issues that worried Russian society, when, in the words of one co-religionist petition, “all the main building principles from which the strength, power and glory of states are composed, abundantly stored in the spirit and character of the Russian people, but hitherto not recognized in them, were called upon to renew state life our great fatherland" 1284. Fellow believers also responded to this call. They hastened to take advantage of this time in order to achieve what Ryazanov and his comrades could only dream of and what was the subject of the long-standing hidden desires of the co-religionists themselves. The latter initiate a whole series of petitions for the establishment of a Edinoverie church on new principles, other than those that form the basis of Edinoverie in the well-known points of Metro Plato.
Who first initiated these petitions, as well as what the initial nature of these petitions of fellow believers was, we do not know, because the documents related to this have not yet been published; but that in the initial petitions of the co-religionists the question of an independent co-religionist bishop was given a central place, this can be seen from the responses of the diocesan eminences to the question raised, thanks to the petitions of co-religionists, by the Minister of Internal Affairs Valuev, in his report to the Sovereign on October 4, 1863, the question of the further development of the beginning of co-religion 1285, in which the answers of the eminences, at least known to us 1286 , this question is understood in the sense of granting an independent bishop to fellow believers. One of these responses, with a fairly detailed consideration of the above issue, was submitted in 1864 by M. Philaret.
But before presenting this answer of the Moscow saint, we should go back a little, back to 1857, when the question of a bishop of the same faith was raised by M. Philaret on his own personal initiative, without any participation from the co-religionists themselves, and was resolved by him in a positive sense. The reason for the initiation of this issue by the Moscow Metropolitan and the favorable solution for fellow believers by this archpastor lies in the special circumstances of that time, already known to us. That was the time when, on the one hand, schismatic priests, still wavering between the old fugitive priesthood and the newly-minted Austrian hierarchy, made their last strenuous attempts to get priests independent from the spiritual authorities - attempts that met with support from some influential government officials and seduced the co-religionists themselves; when, on the other hand, the Austrian hierarchy, taking advantage of the more favorable time for a split that came with the new reign, began to make rapid progress among the schismatics.
At this sad time for Orthodoxy, M. Philaret, “trying, in his own expression, to open the way out of the difficulty” 1287, i.e., as he himself finds out, in order, on the one hand, “to provide assistance on the part of the spiritual authorities to the government’s leniency towards schismatics, without violating church rules and without fear of upsetting the hierarchy” 1288, and on the other hand - “to reflect the beginning influence of the foreign false hierarchy” 1289, - he proposed, in a secret letter to Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg (dated December 24), “to the judgment of the hierarchy,” by the way, the idea of establishing a single-faith bishopric “in a limited, in his later expression, form” 1290, namely, as a second vicariate of the Moscow diocese, with the name a new vicar by the Bishop of Bogorodsk, since “the district city of Bogorodsk, says Filaret, has one church with service according to the rank of Edinoverie and the largest number of schismatics of all the districts of the Moscow diocese.”
This Edinoverie Bishop of Bogorodsk could, according to the Moscow Metropolitan, entrust the Edinoverie churches not only of the Moscow diocese, but, “at the discretion of need and convenience,” and “of some nearby dioceses.” He should have “subordinated the Bogorodsk spiritual government so that it would replace the consistory for co-religious affairs.” The Moscow saint also indicated the location of this new bishop - “with the existing, beautifully constructed, church of the Edinoverie in Moscow, a cemetery, at which there are two two-story stone buildings. Here he will build a bishop’s house and together a Edinoverie monastery in the likeness of Chudov” 1291.
Metropolitan Philaret was currently very interested in the thought of a bishop of the same faith and therefore was eagerly awaiting an answer to his letter from the Bishop of Novgorod. “Is it possible for me to know,” he wrote to the latter just a week after sending the project, how my assumptions about the bishop of the same faith seemed to you? 1292 The said project of the Moscow saint, however, was not destined to come true: it was rejected by M. Gregory and therefore did not receive further movement 1293. The latter, although in principle, had nothing against the establishment of a co-religion bishopric, believing for his part that “it is possible to create a co-religionist bishop, and the co-religionists will be happy” 1294; but at the same time, he did not share M. Filaret’s brilliant expectations from the execution of his project. He, on the contrary, considered the granting of a special bishop to co-religionists practically not only useless, because “schismatics will not accept him,” but even “harmful for Orthodoxy” 1295.
The Moscow archpastor, having received such a response from His Eminence Gregory, although he did not completely agree with the said opinion of the “first person in the hierarchy,” however, he no longer insisted on his “assumption” 1296, but only expressed regret that he did not inform the synodal chief prosecutor of this project in due time 1297.
From what has been said, it is clear that the idea of granting a bishop to the co-religionists at this time did not appear to the Moscow Metropolitan as a result of any theoretical considerations about the incompleteness of co-religion; it is expressed by him not as a sincere need of the core faith itself, without the satisfaction of which the latter supposedly loses its meaning, as some of the core believers later began to look at this issue. – No, this idea came to him for purely practical reasons, in view of the special circumstances of that time. It goes without saying that when these circumstances passed, there was no longer any thought about a special bishop of the same faith. So, indeed, i.e. in a negative sense, M. Filaret resolved this issue when it arose again in 1864, as a result of the most humble note from Count Valuev, in which the question of the further development of the beginning of the common faith was raised. By this time, schismatic petitions for the granting of priests independent of the diocesan authorities had long since been ended by a categorical refusal.
The more courageous of the Old Believers, who insincerely joined the church in the last reign, again went into schism; the Austrian hierarchy was finally strengthened and was accepted by a significant majority of the schismatic priests; - in a word, all those circumstances for the sake of which in 1857 the Moscow archpastor cared about the establishment of a co-religion bishopric have now passed. Therefore, in his opinion, the need for a special bishop of the same faith has now passed.
True, M. Philaret, even now, does not deny that, “according to a condescending judgment,” “the establishment of a single-faith bishopric” and, moreover, “in a limited (only) form,” i.e. in the sense of establishing only a vicariate for co-religionists, “can be considered not impossible,” and at one time not even useless. But,” he further notes, “this timing has already passed,” and “now the bishopric of the same faith would bring harm instead of benefit.” And firstly, “now the bishopric of the same faith would not attract the respectful attention of schismatics.” “Their attention, says Philaret, is absorbed and their needs, although somehow, are satisfied by the false bishops and false priests scattered among them” 1298. Not only that. “False bishops and other dissenters would point to the new bishop of the same faith and say to their own: this is a belated and powerless imitation of our hierarchy: isn’t it clear that the Great Russian Church recognizes our old-printed bishops as correct, when, following our example, it itself makes an old-printed bishop?” 1299.
The establishment of a co-religionist bishopric is no less harmful, according to the Moscow saint, in another respect, namely in relation to the co-religionists themselves. Among the latter, in some dioceses there are quite a few “insincere” who, despite the fact that “the co-religious priesthood does not represent a separation from the pan-Orthodox church, because it comes from the Orthodox bishop and does not constitute a special complete hierarchy,” still “try, as much as possible, to remove their priesthood from the pan-Orthodox hierarchy and bring it closer to schism.” “Such a direction, notes M. Philaret, would be incomparably more dangerous if the church of the same faith received, through a special bishopric, a complete hierarchy and the appearance of a special church.” At present, M. Philaret was also forced to abandon the idea of a bishop of the same faith due to some practical inconveniences of its implementation. “A single-faith bishopric,” he says, “under the present circumstances, would disgracefully cross the boundaries of the dioceses.
In one village, one courtyard would belong to the department of a pan-Orthodox bishop, another to a common faith bishop, and a third to a false bishop. It is not difficult to understand what difficulties and unrest this would lead to” 1300. Last but not least, the opening of a co-religious bishopric “must be considered very difficult” in view of the need for preliminary communication on this issue with the Eastern patriarchs. Meanwhile, “such a relationship, according to the conviction of the Moscow archpastor, is very unreliable.” “The opinions and claims of the Russian schismatics,” he says in explanation of this, are so peculiar and strange and incomprehensible to those who do not know them in practice, that one can hardly expect that in relation to them and to the common faith, the Eastern hierarchy would take the same point of view as the Russian hierarchy” 1301. “All of the above,” M. Philaret concludes his present opinion, leads to the conclusion that it would be untimely and unreliable to think about a bishop of the same faith” 1302.
Thus, in the aforementioned opinion of May 15, 1864, rejecting the idea of the need to establish a co-religious bishopric in view of the circumstances of that time, M. Filaret, in principle, has nothing against such an institution, but only under the indispensable condition that this institution be “in a limited form, i.e. in the sense of only a vicariate for fellow believers.
As for the opening of an independent Edinoverie bishopric, the Moscow saint resolutely arms himself against this, finding the establishment of a complete independent Edinoverie hierarchy not only absolutely harmful for the church, but also anti-canonical. He clearly expressed this view already in his comments on the answers of His Eminence Innocent, Archbishop of Kamchatka. The latter, for his part, believed it was possible to give his co-religionists a special bishop “who would serve only in their churches” 1303. Noting to this that the granting of such a bishop to co-religionists is not only “harmful”, but also “contrary to church rules,” M. Philaret further explains what he finds in this to be anti-canonical. “The most perfect expression of the union of the members of the church in its unity,” he says, is the corporate communion of the body and blood of the Lord. The first degree of excommunication is excommunication from this. So, to establish a bishop of the same faith, who would not communicate in the liturgy with other Orthodox bishops, would mean to establish a schism.
This would mean leading fellow believers to division. Moreover, if this step had been taken, it would have been impossible to stop. One bishop is not enough; many should be appointed. And then the church would be cut into two uncommunicative churches, contrary to the word of God and the symbol of faith" 1304. Further, the establishment of a co-religious bishopric in the form proposed by the Right Reverend Innocent, in the words of the Moscow Metropolitan, is “unparalleled.” Those references by the Kamchatka Archbishop to the example of the Eastern Church, with which he thinks to support his idea of granting an independent bishop to his co-religionists, are unsubstantiated and unsuccessful. In particular, the example that “the Patriarch of Jerusalem has just ordained the Archbishop of Sinai, and besides this this archbishop is independent,” does not apply to this matter, because, says M. Philaret, “there is no division between them (i.e., the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Archbishop of Sinai); they can perform sacred acts together and unite in the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
“And,” he adds, “it has never happened in the church that in one city there were two bishops - one Orthodox, the other a pseudo-Old Believer, who would be out of mutual communication in worship and sacraments, which is what the compiler of the answers wants” 1305.
It is also impossible, in the opinion of M. Philaret, to justify the establishment of such a co-religious bishopric by moral motives, which is what the right reverend compiler of the responses in question does. The Moscow archpastor finds the latter’s association of the apostolic saying with his project – “to all, that I may save all” (1 Cor. IX.22) – unsuccessful. “In the likeness of your project,” he says, turning to the author of the answers, suggest to the apostle that for the Jews who are tempted by Christians who are not circumcised, he agrees to establish a special bishop who would have a special flock of circumcised and uncircumcised Christians who do not communicate with the church, because, in his own words, circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” “No,” notes Filaret, the apostle will not agree to this dissection of the church” 1306. It is impossible to justify such an establishment of an independent co-religious bishopric and overwhelming Christian love. “Love does not riot (1 Cor. XIII.5), does not upset the church order, does not violate church rules, does not dissect church unity” 1307.
“What could,” for the sake of Christian love and condescension towards the weak, “be allowed without violating the purity of Orthodoxy,” is already “provided to those who join the church of the same faith,” he says in another place. “To go further would mean, in his opinion, not to bring those alienated closer to Orthodoxy and to the church, but to draw Orthodoxy away from the right path, and to plunge the well-ordered world of the church into the chaos of schismatic arbitrariness and disorder” 1308.
If M. Philaret so decisively rejected the idea of an independent co-religionist bishop in the form as it was expressed by the Right Reverend Innocent, then one can judge how he should have reacted to the purely schismatic in nature, although tempting for the Old Believers, the project of co-religionists about a pan-Old Believer church with a complete, completely independent, even from the Holy Synod, independent Old Believer hierarchy.
The initiators of this business and the main propagandists of the said project were merchants - Kazansky Petrov, Moscow Shestov and the famous Edinoverie priest John Verkhovsky, who actually owned the literary presentation of this project.
The essence of the latter, as it is set out in the most submissive note on behalf of the co-religionists of Moscow and other cities, submitted in 1864 for preliminary review to the Minister of the Interior, Count Valuev 1309, as well as in the petitions of the Moscow and Yekaterinburg co-religionists 1310 - “the essence of it is that from co-religionism, clericalism and lack of priesthood there will be all the Old Believers are one; the rules of 1800 on Edinoverie churches and the very name of Edinoverie will be destroyed; only three persons from this entire Old Believers will receive episcopal ordination from Orthodox bishops; through these three Old Believer bishops, form a separate hierarchy with a patriarch or metropolitan at the head, with a synod under him, with the right to assemble councils from the clergy and from the laity, trustees of churches, to have a relationship with the Sovereign Emperor through his senior bishop, or through a specially appointed secular person; relations with the Orthodox Synod and the clergy should be stopped: to grant the Orthodox the right to transfer to the so-called Old Believer Church: the false bishops of the Austrian ordination, with condescension, will be recognized as real bishops, with the condition of joining the New Old Believer Church, without the right to ordain further.”
1311 This is how M. Filaret subsequently summarized, in a letter to the synodal chief prosecutor Akhmatov dated November 17, 1864 1312, the Edinoverie project of organizing an all-Old Believer church.
The essence of this project, although somewhat different in detail from the above, was known to the Moscow saint already in April 1864, 1313, and in May of this year its main points became known to him. At the same time, and in the same opinion in which he decides the question of the further development of the beginning of the same faith, he makes comments on the points of this project. But then, having no information about the author of this project, not knowing that the petition belongs to fellow believers, M. Filaret, solely on the basis of its content, interprets it as a project of schismatics, “with which they are attempting to seduce fellow believers” 1314.
Exposing the cunning and insincerity of the drafter - in those points where the dominant church is called Orthodox, containing the same faith with the Old Believers, belonging to the one holy Apostolic Church - and noting the democratic tendencies of the project where lay trustees are spoken of - the Moscow Archpastor regarding the establishment of an independent Old Believers hierarchy says the following in the opinion under consideration: “to demand that the Orthodox hierarchy, without paying attention to its church rules, to conscience, to common sense, blindly fulfill the desire of the schismatics, install three schismatic bishops and thereby found a schismatic hierarchy and a schismatic church - an incredible phenomenon, if it were not before our eyes! The schismatic, although with little religious understanding, although with an unenlightened religious conscience, could not offer this. This could only be proposed by a person who does not listen to any religious convictions or conscience, who dreams of turning sacred religious actions into a game of arbitrariness” 1315. Not only that.
How incredible and harmful this project seemed to the Moscow saint can be seen from the fact that he considered it at that time “the action of the hidden weapons of the underground European revolution, which, just as it is attempting to upset and divide Russia by rejecting Poland, Little Russia, etc., is also attempting to more and more upset the religious unity in Russia, which prevents its destructive work” 1316.
Having learned after some time the main propagandist of the said project, the Kazan merchant Petrov, and having familiarized himself with the project itself in its entirety, M. Filaret did not change his view of this matter at all. As before, he considered it schismatic in spirit and extremely harmful to Orthodoxy and the state. Having received news that some “significant persons” in St. Petersburg sympathize with this project, 1317 - also knowing that “Petrov is intensifying with his project to seduce the Moscow coreligionists with his project and distract them from unity with the Orthodox Church, and three or four of them have already been influenced by his influence” 1318, the Moscow saint took care, on the one hand, to illuminate the true aspirations of the coreligionists intercessors and the true meaning of their petition to senior government officials, and on the other hand, and mainly, to reject Moscow co-religionists from this project. His concerns were not unsuccessful.
One might think that thanks to his letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs 1319, in which the Moscow Metropolitan proves all the harm of the implementation of the considered undertaking of Petrov and his accomplices not only for the church, but also for the state, the minister refused to accept the petitioners’ project. On the other side. M. Filaret also managed to reject Moscow co-religionists from participating in this petition. Petrov, together with his fellow believers, was invited to Metropolitan Filaret; the former read and defended his project, and the latter objected. “The state of affairs,” the Moscow saint subsequently wrote (on November 17, 1864) to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Akhmatov, was quite difficult. For co-religionists, two ideas were attractive: to have a bishop of their own rite and to petition that the curse authorized by the Holy Synod, pronounced by the council of 1667, be confirmed by the consent of the Eastern patriarchs. This could entice the unwary to sign the project proposed by Petrov, which would cause disorder in the society of fellow believers” 1320. To avoid this, “to support fellow believers on the right path,” m.
Filaret “recognized it as necessary” to reject what is illegal and harmful and at the same time allow what is permissible and may turn out to be useful.” Namely, he rejected the idea of an independent hierarchy, explaining to his co-religionists that “the establishment of a special hierarchy with councils, uncommunicatively separate from the existing Orthodox one, cannot be approved as dividing one church into two, while we profess one church in the symbol of faith.” But at the same time, he agreed with the idea of interceding, “to reassure some doubters,” on the issue of the oaths of the Moscow Council, saying that “they can petition for confirmation of the permission given by the Holy Synod by the Eastern Patriarchs.” 1321 The convictions of the Moscow Metropolitan had their effect. “With this advice, he testifies, by the grace of God, fellow believers are protected from being carried away by Petrov and his like-minded people.
Some co-religionists, according to Filaret, themselves spoke of Petrov’s project that “its implementation would lead to an irritable and destructive division of the people, not only in church, but also in state terms.” At the same time, they also took advantage of the second part of the Moscow saint’s advice. “In a purely Orthodox spirit, they drew up an all-submissive petition” for confirmation of the permission of the oaths of the council of 1667 on the part of the Eastern Patriarchs, “which petition has been signed to this day (letter of M. Philaret dated November 17) by about 60 people, including the most significant in their understanding of the matter and in their influence on others” 1322. But it is not only this denial of the solidarity of Moscow co-religionists with Petrov and his like-minded people that this petition is important: it is important, in the opinion of M. Philaret, also because “it can serve as an act of justification against clever schismatic slander and censure against the spiritual government in general, against Metropolitan Plato, against Archbishop Ignatius, etc.” 1323
This petition of the Moscow co-religionists put an end to further harassment by Petrov and his accomplices regarding an independent co-religionist hierarchy. Their most loyal note was rejected by the minister as offensive to the Russian Church and its hierarchy 1324; Likewise, the request of the Ekaterinburg co-religionists, as “inappropriate harassment,” was categorically refused through the Minister of Internal Affairs in the last days of February 1865 1325. During M. Philaret’s lifetime, such petitions were no longer raised; the question of an independent bishop of the same faith dies for a long time (until 1888).
II. The question of the oaths of the great Moscow Cathedral of 1667
The original history and solution to this issue is in the rules of Metropolitan Plato. The first gap in this decision is the unclear relationship of Edinoverie to the resolution of the 1667 council. The solution to this issue by M. Philaret is to clarify the meaning of the conciliar oaths. Another objection to Edinoverie from the point of view of these oaths is the canonical insufficiency of their synodal resolution. The practical importance of this objection. Initiation by M. Philaret of the question of relations with the Eastern Patriarchs in the case of the oaths of the Moscow Council in 50 and 60.
In the history of the internal development of Edinoverie, a more serious significance than the considered issue of the Edinoverie episcopacy is another question that has worried and worries the Edinoverie, the question of the oaths of the great Moscow Council. This question concerns the fundamental principles of Edinoverie, and one might say that the very fate of Edinoverie depends on one or another of its decisions. This was well understood by the first founders of Edinoverie - Nicodemus and his collaborators. That is why they set out in their petition the first condition for their reunification with the Orthodox Church - the resolution of the oaths of the council of 1667 and, moreover, permission “by the intercourse of the most holy four-throne patriarchs.” Unfortunately, despite the importance of this condition, at that time it was not subjected to serious discussion and clarification, but was passed over in silence. Moreover, in the rules of M. Plato, this point was also not clarified with sufficient completeness, leaving no doubts or hesitations in the adherent of the old rite.
In response to the request of the Moscow Old Believers to allow “previous oaths for double-fingered addition and other similar rites,” M. Plato, changing the text and meaning of this request of the Old Believers, limited himself to one general remark that from them, as “now drawing closer or, even more so, uniting with the church and its truth, and its sacraments and priesthood, recognizing these as valid,” these oaths are removed, “and their conscience should no longer be burdened with those oaths”: but “those who still break away from the church will continue to be righteously under oaths” 1326. The entire explanation of the issue under consideration has so far been limited to this categorical statement. Metropolitan Plato did not consider it necessary to dwell on it any longer, perhaps because the very fact of the establishment of the Edinoverie clearly indicated that the oaths of the Council of 1667 no longer weighed heavily on the Edinoverie.
But it goes without saying that this fact at the same time did not at all clarify the relationship of Edinoverie itself, as an ecclesiastical institution, to the decrees of the great Moscow Council. This was an important gap in the points of M. Plato, which the schismatics hastened to take advantage of in order to confuse their fellow believers. They argued, as they continue to prove now, that the Russian Church, having established Edinoverie, became in obvious contradiction with itself - a contradiction that is all the more, in their opinion, undeniable because, while it allowed the Edinoverie to maintain the old rites, it did not change its previous view of them, because in the same rules M. Plato proclaimed that “nowadays (i.e., after the establishment of Edinoverie) it cannot be about all that (of course, “the ritual errors of schismatics” and “the errors of previous church books”) is a different thought for the church, unless it has hitherto been recognized and recognized as the truth” 1327.
At the present time, after the meaning of the conciliar oaths has been explained not only in Orthodox polemical literature, but, what is much more important, also by church and government authorities (in 1886), after the entire difference between the schism and the Old Believers has been clarified, 1328 such an objection has no meaning and if it can confuse the conscience of an Old Believer, then only one who is either completely unfamiliar with these explanations, or deliberately turns a blind eye in front of them. This was not the case in the early days of Edinoverie. For the majority of Old Believers of that time, with their ritualistic view of things, little able or inclined to make any distinction between the schism and simple Old Believers, this objection was very important and therefore required a thorough explanation.
But what was omitted by Moscow Metropolitan Plato was done by one of his successors in the department, M. Philaret. The latter not only took the initiative in this matter, but also thoroughly resolved the issue of the oaths of the council of 1667, so that the subsequent explainers of the meaning of the council oaths and the attitude of the latter to common faith in most cases do no more than repeat his reasoning.
For the first time, M. Filaret dwells on the issue under consideration in some of his “conversations to the so-called Old Believer,” precisely in those where they talk about the Stoglavy Cathedral. In these conversations, written in 1835 and 1836, the Moscow saint, resolving the above-mentioned objection of the schismatics, clarifies with sufficient completeness the meaning of the conciliar oaths of 1667 and the latter’s attitude towards unity of faith. Using the very acts of the council of 1667, he proves that the oaths of the council are not placed on the “old rites” but on those adherents of the “imaginary” antiquity who, at the same time, combine “obstinacy” and “resistance to the church” with the content of the old rites. “The stubbornness of the imaginary Old Believers against the church and the legal council (i.e. the council of 1667), he says in one of the conversations under consideration, was such an ecclesiastical crime that required strict condemnation, according to the exact saying of the word of God: “just as sin is enchantment, so sin is rebellion; and just as sin is idolatry, so is disobedience" (1 Sam. XV, 23)" 1329.
The Council of 1667, he writes in another conversation, “ordered the Holy, Eastern and Apostolic Church to submit in everything without any doubt, and the newly corrected books, which were already rightly corrected, to take precedence; but with a remarkable meekness worthy of a true council, it did not pronounce an oath condemnation on the incorrectness of the old books and rituals. But here is who he pronounced condemnation against: if anyone does not listen those who are commanded from us, or will begin to contradict or resist us; and we, by the authority given to us from the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, will cast out, etc. “You see,” the Moscow archpastor notes to his co-questioner, that the council condemns disobedient, contradictory opponents. churches of the same faith and at the same time enter into obedience to the Orthodox universal church, through this they get rid of the condemnation of the council of 1667, and are not subject to it” 1330 From all that has been said, it also follows that St.
The Synod, having established common faith, in this act of “Christian meekness, love and condescension” did not allow anything contrary to the great Moscow Council and, therefore, did not fall into any contradiction, for which schismatics reproach it. “If,” says the Moscow Bishop, the Holy Synod determined not to accept corrected books, or not to give them preference, as a right to corrected ones; In this case, he would have acted contrary to the decision of the great council. But he didn’t do this. In accordance with the decision of the great council, it accepts and prefers the corrected books; but he also tolerates old printed ones out of leniency” 1331.
What was expressed here by the Moscow saint, as if in passing, in connection with other subjects of conversation, and, moreover, as a private person, was subsequently, almost twenty years later (in 1854), presented by him in the form of a special, more or less integral, treatise on this issue and, moreover, stated as a representative of the church, by the Highest command. The reason for the appearance of this treatise, entitled “Explanation of the curse laid down by the council of 1667,” was the following circumstances at the Rogozhsky cemetery. In 1853 and 1854, some of the Old Believers of this cemetery began to turn to Metropolitan Philaret with requests to establish a Edinoverie church in their cemetery, and “at first they offered some special conditions” for union with the Orthodox Church 1332.
What especially confused them and stopped them in the process of joining was the oath of the Moscow Council of 1667, the meaning of which therefore they had to find out, and this was especially necessary in view of the fact that the bosses of this cemetery, Vinokurov and Zelenkov, in opposition to the movement of their brethren in favor of common faith, came out with a new solicitation to obtain priests at their disposal outside the legal hierarchical order. When this matter, by virtue of the Highest Command, came before the Moscow Secret Committee for consideration, the latter, having refused the above-mentioned request to the elders of the cemetery, among other things decided: “to instruct the Moscow Metropolitan to invite to himself those of the Rogozh schismatics who are known to him for their good intentions and straightforwardness, and explain to them in more detail,” among other things, “that the oath taken at the council of 1667 cannot extend to those who enter into the same faith" 1333.
What was said by the Metropolitan of Moscow at this private conversation with representatives of the Rogozh schism was soon processed by him into a literary article, “which was read in the Synod, as he wrote to Anthony, and the members went home and did not express any doubts” 1334. This is how the “Explanation” under consideration was compiled, which appeared the very next year (1855) in the Moscow academic publication 1335. In its content, the said “Explanation” does not represent anything new, compared with the above explanations of the issue under consideration in conversations.
Here the same theses as in the conversations are developed and proven by the most conciliar acts of 1667; namely, that the council of 1667 “expounded and confirmed” the rituals corrected on the basis of “ancient Greek and Slovenian charatean books”, that although it did not approve the rituals of the Stoglavy Council, it did not curse it, and “therefore, those containing these rituals, for this alone, are not subject to the curse of the council of 1667”; and those who are subject to it are “who not only contain the rites of the Stoglavy Council, but, on the occasion of these rites, are opponents of the Orthodox Church,” and, moreover, only until they come to their senses. Therefore, “whoever comes to his senses and ceases to be an opponent of the Holy Church must be allowed and free from the curse placed on opponents.” If there is anything new in this “Explanation” of the Moscow Metropolitan, it is only the answer to the question that was of great interest to the Rogozh Old Believers at that time who wanted to join the church: can an Old Believer who is reconciled with the church, i.e.
united with her on the rules of common faith, remember in prayers his relatives who died in schism? Answering this question in a positive sense, M. Philaret motivates this by the fact that the curse of the council of 1667 falls with all its force on people who consciously opposed the Orthodox Church, such as, for example, Avvakum and Nikita. “As for your relatives,” he says to his contemporary Old Believers, “who died outside communion with the Orthodox Church out of a duty of caution about love for one’s neighbor, which commands one to choose the most lenient side in an unclear matter, we believe that it is most likely that they remained in this position out of ignorance of the truth, and therefore we apply to them the lenient judgment of the council of 1667 about the followers of the Stoglavy Council.”
More than once M. Philaret had to repeat the above thoughts about the meaning of conciliar oaths; - he also wrote in 1854 in a letter given to Moscow co-religionists for the opening of a church in the Rogozh almshouse 1336, and then five years later in a draft letter to the people of the Urals 1337.
The indicated explanation of the meaning of the conciliar oaths - i.e. the one on whom they are placed - the question under consideration about the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1667 in their relation to common faith is not exhausted. During the establishment of the latter, another no less important gap was admitted, which, in the words of M. Philaret, “the schismatic cunning did not fail to take advantage of, intensifying (and not without success in its circle) questioning the synodal definition” 1338. Namely, according to the consciousness of the Moscow saint himself, “it was not done with strict accuracy and caution in the sense that “our predecessors, accepting into church communion those who came from the schism of fellow believers and resolving them from the curse placed on the schismatics by the council of 1667, assumed only the consent of the Eastern patriarchs, and did not ask for this consent through intercourse” 1339.
This circumstance was thus another very important reason that forced the Old Believers - not only schismatics, but also co-religionists, in other respects completely sincere - to consider co-religion subject to, or at least not completely free from, the oaths of the council of 1667. “The schismatics,” this is how M. Philaret formulates their new objection, “say that the Holy Synod, as a smaller council, did not have the right alone to lift the curse imposed by the larger council, in which the Eastern patriarchs participated, that therefore the co-religionists remain under the curse, using rituals condemned by the council, and that therefore it is dangerous to join the co-religionist church” 1340. This new objection to Edinoverie had, as the Moscow archpastor testifies, undoubted success among schismatics 1341, but according to Melnikov, it was one of the important reasons for the “unsuccessful perception of Edinoverie” 1342.
Realizing all the practical importance of the schismatics' objection to the same faith being considered, although without attaching to it any special significance on the merits of the matter 1343; M. Philaret considered it his duty, “to reassure some doubters” 1344, to take care that “the above-mentioned objection, especially often and stubbornly now (opinion from 1858) repeated by schismatics, is destroyed in ways obvious to them, and for this purpose, to enter into relations with the Eastern Patriarchs from the Holy Synod” 1345.
For the first time, the question of relations with the Eastern patriarchs on matters of our schism arose in the church and government spheres, on the initiatives of the Moscow saint at the end of the 50s (1858–1859). The reason for this was new attempts by schismatics to obtain priests independent of the spiritual authorities. The government, which wanted to calm the schismatics at all costs, without violating church canons, demanded that the spiritual authorities “find measures of leniency towards the schismatics, without shaking in any way the foundations on which our holy church is based.” Metropolitan
Filaret, in his opinion on this issue (dated March 19, 1858), noting that “the Orthodox Church showed the schismatics (in the establishment of the common faith) all the leniency that it could provide without violating its duties,” argued that any new “condescension to the schismatics, not protected by strict caution, can turn to the detriment of Orthodoxy,” and, as an example of this, pointed to the lax caution that was allowed predecessors in the establishment of Edinoverie, namely, that during the establishment of Edinoverie they did not secure the consent of the eastern hierarchy, which later gave rise to schismatic objections 1346. From the mention of this gap in the establishment of unity of faith, it did not take long for M. Philaret to come to the thought whether it was now possible to correct this omission and thereby eliminate one of the important obstacles for schismatics to their union with the Orthodox Church?
It is very possible that the Moscow saint hoped through this measure to attract a significant number of schismatic priests to the Church of the same faith and thereby stop all their solicitations for independent priests, against the gift of which, as we have seen, he so energetically and for a long time fought. Be that as it may, only Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter to the Metropolitan of Novgorod, written just nine days after the above-mentioned opinion, insists on the need for relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch on the matter of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1667 and proposes his draft of these relations, which he asks Metropolitan Gregory to submit “for the consideration of the Holy Synod” 1347. In this project, he recommends this way of relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople. According to those faults of the schismatics against the Orthodox Church, for which they were condemned by the council of 1667, as well as those reasons for which some of them were again accepted by the Holy Synod into communion with it, on certain conditions, i.e.
with the use of old printed, uncorrected books and some imperfect rituals, which use the Holy Synod, “out of well-intentioned condescension, left without condemnation”; - after explaining all this, “in conclusion, state that although St.
The Synod has no doubt that by its order it in no way deviated from the unanimity of faith with the Eastern Patriarchs and the entire Eastern Church, but for the clearer admonition of those who are mistaken and for the confirmation of those who doubt, it proposes this matter to the discretion of the Eastern Patriarchs, in the hope that they will resolve the schismatics who cease their blasphemy and resistance, recognize the holiness of the Orthodox Church and enter into obedience from the oath Council of 1667 deigned to approve with their consent the use of imperfect books and rituals by those entering into the communion of the Orthodox Church and also agreed to leave without condemnation, so that through such condescension those who have gone astray from it would be more conveniently acquired by the Orthodox Church, with the hope that over time they will come to their senses more fully and from the imperfect they will proceed to the perfect.”
The idea of the Moscow saint about relations with the Eastern Church on the issue of the oaths of the council of 1667 was met with very sympathy by the Sovereign himself. On the most comprehensive report on the spiritual department for 1858, in which these projected relations were mentioned and the idea of their importance was expressed, the Emperor wrote in his own hand: “These relations are necessary; present considerations on what basis it is proposed to arrange them”; and then, with a personal report from the synodal chief prosecutor, Count A.P. Tolstoy, he ordered that the Holy Synod enter into communication with the most holy patriarchs on matters of schism 1348. According to the project of A.P. Tolstoy, which was communicated, among other things, to M.
Philaret, should have been forwarded to the Eastern Patriarchs, through Archimandrite Peter, who was part of our Constantinople mission, a canonical message in which, in the words of the Chief Prosecutor, it would be appropriate to briefly outline the history of both the schism since the Council of 1667 and the unity of faith; then explain what influence the establishment of the Austrian false hierarchy had in Russia, what measures were taken until recently by the church and the government to weaken the schism, what its current state is, what schismatics reproach the Orthodox Church and Russian archpastors for, what hopes they have and what prevents their reunification with the church. Having stated all this, it is necessary, in the opinion of A.P. Tolstoy, to ask the most holy patriarchs to solemnly excommunicate the Austrian false hierarchy and publicly announce this excommunication, and write a letter of admonition to our schismatics.
Moreover, in a special letter to the Moscow saint, Count Tolstoy forwarded to him a draft letter to Archimandrite Peter, which was supposed to serve for the latter as a kind of instruction on the subject of relations with the Eastern patriarchs 1349. We do not know the content of the latter, but as far as we can judge from the response letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Moscow Archpastor in 1350, it was proposed to first begin communications on some issues not related to the schism, such as: about the rebaptism of Catholics who joined the Eastern Church, about how to look at Gentiles, etc. - and then move on to the question of current interest to the Russian Church oaths of the council of 1667.
Metropolitan Filaret found this method of intercourse very inconvenient. In view of the sensitivity of the issues proposed for initial relations, it would be “not safe” to begin business with them, in the opinion of the Moscow Bishop, since, instead of “strengthening agreement,” there could “be a disagreement,” which would, as Philaret put it, lay a heavy stone on the opening path of relations with the Eastern Church. Therefore, he proposes, for his part, to begin relations directly with the question of schismatics and co-religionists, citing the fact that this question “will be new to the Greek hierarchy” and “there is no preliminary prejudice against it.” Regarding, in particular, Count Tolstoy’s request that the patriarchs write a letter of exhortation to the schismatics; volume.
Filaret considers her “inconvenient”; “firstly, because the patriarchs cannot know this matter accurately and in detail, and therefore can utter words that will serve not for benefit, but for difficulty; but secondly, because it is not quite consistent with the order and dignity of the church for an outside hierarchy to teach the doctrine to the Russian flock.” “And it will be sufficient and more reliable,” says the Moscow Archpastor, for the patriarchs to confirm with their consent what was decreed by the Holy Synod. The adaptation of this for the edification of the flock should be made more convenient and more accurate by the domestic hierarchy.”
To show more clearly how, in his opinion, relations with the East should have been started, M. Filaret, when writing to A.P. Tolstoy, presented his draft letter to Archimandrite Peter. In this letter of 1351, Filaret advises, before any formal relations with the Eastern patriarchs, to prepare favorable soil for these relations. Outlining here the essence of the matter and the purpose of future relations, he recommends that Archimandrite Peter first find out “whether it is possible to undoubtedly hope that if St.
The Russian Synod will issue a letter regarding this to the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, will it receive a corresponding letter from the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod, which is in agreement with the reasoning of the Russian Synod?” And for this, in his opinion, it is necessary to secretly and confidentially propose this question for the first time to one of the members of the Synod of Constantinople, in which it is more possible to assume “the correspondence of this power of attorney and a favorable judgment based on experience and love for church unanimity”; then enter into a similar relationship with some other members of the patriarchal synod, “whose voice may have a more significant effect”; and then turn to the patriarchs themselves with the same question, “depending on convenience and reliability.” About the results of these relations, Archimandr.
Peter had to provide detailed information, adding to this his thoughts on what success can be counted on in this matter and whether there are any obstacles to formal relations between the Russian Church and the Eastern hierarchy, especially in view of “the changes currently taking place in the position of this hierarchy”?
Perhaps this last circumstance, to which M. Philaret hints in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor when he says: “the situation of the Greek Church today is not joyful” 1352, was the reason that the matter of relations with the East on the issue of the oaths of the council of 1667, which was so energetically begun, on the initiative of the Moscow saint and by the will of the Sovereign, did not lead to any results and did not received further movement.
New excitement in the church-governmental spheres of the issue under consideration followed already in the 60s and again at the initiative of the same M. Philaret. The reason for it, as we already know, was the desire of some co-religionists to obtain an independent hierarchy and form into a separate all-Old Believer church. In contrast to this petition of Petrov and his accomplices, Moscow co-religionists, on the initiative of Metropolitan Philaret, initiated another petition, “for confirmation by the Eastern Patriarchs of the permission given by the Holy Synod from the oaths of the council of 1667” 1353. We do not know the true content of this co-religionist petition. It is only known that this act was drawn up by the co-religionists themselves and edited by the first headman of the co-religionist church at the Transfiguration almshouse, Andrei Sorokin 1354.
When this petition, written in the Most High Name, was shown to the Moscow saint, he found that it was composed “in a purely Orthodox spirit” 1355, and deliberately did not propose to change a word in it, “so that it would be, in his words, a completely personal expression of his own thoughts and feelings of his fellow believers” 1356. It was advisable for the co-religionists to present their most submissive petition personally to the Sovereign Emperor through two or three deputies from among them. Metropolitan Filaret fully sympathized with them in this. “Already in this very thing, he wrote to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Akhmatov, on November 17, 1864, that the petition of the same faith will be awarded the highest attention. It will be beneficial for the Orthodox Church, reinforcement for the coreligionists, as well as for those still hesitating on the path to the same faith” 1357. Therefore, he, both in this letter and in the next one (dated November 26) 1358, asks the chief prosecutor to assist his co-religionists in this desire. Indeed, thanks to the latter’s active participation in this matter, the desire of his fellow believers came true.
Their deputies, led by the head of the Edinoverie church at the Rogozhsky cemetery, merchant N. M. Alyasin, came to the palace on December 6 and presented their request personally to the Emperor. The latter received them very graciously and reacted very favorably to their request, noting that he “will try to fulfill their petition, which has that gratifying feature for him, which testifies to filial devotion and submission to their hierarchical bureaucracy of the Orthodox Church and expresses both sincere unity of faith with Orthodoxy professed by His Majesty and the majority of Russia, and the correct consciousness that there is no disunity in the All-Russian the Orthodox Church cannot be allowed" 1359. Such attention of the Sovereign Emperor to the request of his co-religionists had the most favorable consequences not only for the latter, but also for the schismatics. “Now I had fellow believers straight from the road,” this is how M. Filaret describes in a letter to Akhmatov dated December 9 their state of mind after the Highest reception.
They are in admiration for the most merciful royal and paternal attention of which they have been awarded and for the most pious view of the Sovereign Emperor on the subject of their concern” 1360. “The request of fellow believers, the Moscow saint writes a month later to the same Akhmatov and the highest attention to her, promises fruit. Well-meaning schismatics say that if this request is fulfilled, then they will have nothing more to desire than to join the same faith, abandoning the ugly false bishops of Austria and Russia” 1361.
Unfortunately, at this time, as in the 60s, the request of fellow believers for confirmation from the Eastern patriarchs of the permission of the Holy Synod was not destined to come true, which was partly what M. Philaret feared when he demanded special caution and slowness in these relations. “In my opinion, he wrote to Akhmatov, there is no need to rush to write to Mr. Ignatiev (Russian envoy in Constantinople) about their (co-religionist) request; but first, carefully formulate the content of the matter, so that it does not happen that the patriarchs do not accurately understand the matter, which is little familiar to them, and cast an indirect glance at it, which will be more difficult to correct than to open a direct and precise view of the matter at the beginning” 1362. We know nothing about how relations with the Eastern patriarchs were conducted at this time; Only from the Constantinople embassy, as we later learn, were the most unfavorable information received.
They wrote from Constantinople that the mood of the eastern hierarchy was not favorable to the success of the matter, that the eastern patriarchs would hardly agree to recognize double-fingering and other pre-Nikon rites in the sense of common faith as correct 1363. How fair these fears were is unknown; in any case, thanks to them, the matter of relations with the Eastern patriarchs was suspended at the indicated time until a more favorable future 1364.
III. Question about the so-called cruel reprimands of old rituals
The essence and significance of the issue. Clarification of this issue by M. Philaret in “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer.” He officially raised this issue in the 50s. A new awakening of this issue by the co-religionists themselves in the 60s and the participation of the Moscow saint in this matter.
In close connection with the question of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1667, there is the question of the so-called “cruel censures” of the old rituals, by which we mean careless and too harsh reviews of the traditions and customs respected by the Old Believers, found in polemical and other writings of Orthodox writers. Being a product of the spirit of the time and made in the heat of polemical passion and in response to even greater harshness and blasphemy of the schismatics themselves, these censures, like the oaths of the council of 1667, over time became for the schismatics one of the important obstacles on the way to their rapprochement with the church, one of the accusations of the Orthodox Church and one of the criticisms of the same faith. The co-religionists themselves were not a little embarrassed by these censures.
True, when establishing Edinoverie, the Moscow Old Believers expressed the idea “so that discord, discord and blasphemy should not be heard on either side for the content of different rituals,” and this demand was recognized by the church authorities as “good and worthy, so that it would be preserved exactly from everyone” 1365; but the previous censures were not even mentioned, much less any definite explanation was given regarding them.
The initiative in this matter also belongs to M. Filaret. He not only reveals the illogicality of blaming the entire church for the judgment of private individuals, not only tries to remove from the latter part of the guilt that schismatics attribute to them, but also takes care of the destruction of these expressions in the books of Orthodox writers in order to show that the Orthodox Church does not share their strict judgments regarding the old rites.
Thus, already in one of his conversations with the so-called Old Believer about the name Is, the Moscow Archpastor touches on this issue, although not in its entirety, but only in relation to the “Search” of St. Demetrius of Rostov specifically regarding the latter’s “unseemly interpretation” of the name Jesus, and resolves it in the sense that the schismatics’ complaint against the saint is not founded. “If you want to be impartial,” he says, then you must complain for this against your false interpreters of the name Jesus. For what did St. Dmitry? He acted according to the rule of Solomon: “answer the fool according to his madness, lest the wise man appear in himself (Prov. XXVI, 5).” “Your false interpreters,” Filaret develops his thought, have split two pronunciations of one name into two, in their opinion, different names; he showed the consequences of this cut. They insulted the correct name with a fictitious reproachful interpretation; he replied that much more thoroughly an unseemly interpretation occurs from the name of the wrong one.
If you complain about the one who repelled the attack of your name interpreters with the same weapon; then what kind of indignation do those who started such abuse deserve?” “It is true,” the Metropolitan concludes his speech, that this interpretative dispute is difficult for reverent ears; but all the blame lies with the head of the interpreters" 1366.
It goes without saying that for any impartial Old Believer, the Moscow saint’s idea that a significant share of the blame for these censures lies with the schism teachers themselves should seem fair; For an impartial person, it is also clear that the conclusions drawn by schismatics from these negative reviews of Orthodox polemicists of the last century are “wrong and unfair” 1367. Every sane person can judge how unfairly the mistakes of a private person bring the blame to the whole church. But this impartiality is difficult to achieve from the majority of Old Believers, even if even such a sane one of them as Xenos, in his “circuit message,” without hesitation, raised the accusation in question to the church, putting it among the “important and blessed faults” of the separation of schismatics from the Orthodox Church 1368.
However, it should also be noted that this attitude of the Old Believers towards polemical censures and the false conclusions that they draw from them is partly explained by their unique view of the printed book: “in the eyes of the Old Believers, according to people very competent in this matter, well acquainted with the logic of the schism, every printed book, published with the permission of the censorship, is of extreme importance; in such books he sees the opinion and word of the very power that authorized their publication in the world” 1369.
In view of all this, it was not enough to just justify the former polemicists in their harsh expressions about the old rituals; It was also necessary to show the Old Believers by deed that the Orthodox Church does not share these censures of its writers, whose opinions, as private individuals, are not binding on it. It was necessary either to throw these censures out of the books, or, even better, to issue a special definition on behalf of the church, in which its view on this subject should have been clarified.
Metropolitan Filaret really took care of this too. Back in 1856, when the Holy Synod was in Moscow, on the occasion of the coronation, the Moscow saint proposed correcting one of the most harsh articles about the rite most respected by schismatics - the article on the sign of the cross, printed under the Psalter, and presented at one of the meetings of the Synod, with a report dated September 7, 1856, the very draft for correcting this article. But then for some reason this matter was not brought to an end; and in the new edition of the Psalter (1857), the said article was printed without any changes 1370. In 1858, Metropolitan Philaret again raised this issue; he had already posed it much more broadly: the matter concerned not only one indicated article in the Psalter, but also generally negative reviews of the old rituals. The reason for this was a note from one Ural Edinoverie priest, Fr. Savva Sevryugin; which, by the way, spoke of cruel censures of old rituals and the meaning that schismatics attach to these censures 1371. In his opinion about this note, Fr.
Savva, the Moscow archpastor, although he notes that the conclusions drawn by schismatics from the derogatory expressions of private individuals are not true and fair; however, understanding the practical importance of this issue, he again proposes to the Holy Synod to exclude from some books, for example, from the article printed under the Psalter, censure against schismatics. He does not advise publishing “some books with heavy roots against schismatics” again, “because they have been replaced by new, more satisfactory books written in a peaceful spirit”; When printing “The Search,” Saint Demetrius recognizes that it is “not useless” to exclude some expressions that are “difficult for both schismatic and Orthodox ears.” But this time, Filaret’s insistence did not lead to any results.
What was not achieved in the 50s was realized, although only partly in the 60s, with the re-emergence of this issue on the initiative not of Philaret, but of the co-religionists themselves, especially the members of the Austrian hierarchy who had just joined the church. The latter, from their personal experience while in schism, knew well what a powerful means of keeping less-informed people in schism the schismatic mentors see in the censure of the old rituals of our former polemicists, with what success they use them for their own purposes, and how, therefore, it is necessary to take care of their elimination. Their subsequent communications and conversations with the so-called Old Believers after their conversion convinced them even more, as they later wrote, “of the indicated regrettable significance of such censures” 1372; the latter did not little hinder their missionary activity among the schismatics.
The matter of clarifying the censures against the old rituals was carried out energetically this time, especially thanks to the enthusiastic participation that the then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, D. A. Tolstoy, took in it. On this subject, he turned to the professor of the Moscow Academy N.I. Subbotin 1373. Pointing out the significance of this issue in the fight against schism and in particular in the missionary activity of the newly joined Edinoverie monks, in which the count was very interested, Professor Subbotin noted that the latter “express an urgent need for a special definition or explanation to be issued on behalf of the Holy Synod regarding these censures in the sense that the church does not share or approve of them and that the blame for them cannot fall on the church” 1374. D.A.
Tolstoy fully agreed with the professor’s arguments and with the thoughts of his co-religionists about the synodal definition regarding censures and instructed the latter to draw up, after consultation with Paphnutius and others, a draft in what form this definition could be published and, on behalf of those who joined, to submit it for consideration. Philaret.
In early September (1865), the project was already ready and, together with a memorandum outlining the urgent need for the draft definition of censures, was presented through the Right Reverend Vicar Leonid to the Moscow Metropolitan 1375. Meanwhile, at this time, new factual confirmation appeared of how skillfully the leaders of the schism are able to use the cruel censures found among Orthodox writers to keep many ignorant in the networks of the schism. The accession to Orthodoxy of prominent members of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, as well as their well-known questions to the spiritual schismatic authorities, caused a strong movement in favor of Orthodoxy in the priestly schism. Unable to stop the movement and not being able to answer questions, the leaders of the schism decided to act against this indirectly, finding it more convenient to resort to the usual trick. “False Archbishop Anthony and False Bishop of Kazan Paphnutius, reported M.
Philaret, in a new memorandum (dated October 6) of the monk Paphnutius, compiled extracts from polemical and other Orthodox books, borrowing from them all the most cruel expressions about the rituals respected by the adherents of antiquity, and these extracts are distributed among the Old Believers” 1376. Along with this note, the monk Paphnutius presented M. Philaret with copies of the aforementioned schismatic notebooks.
The last memorandum with the notebooks of the schismatic bishops attached to it made an impression on the Moscow saint, and he considered it necessary to hasten his petition before the Holy Synod in the case of negative reviews of the old rites; but for some reason he put this matter much narrower than what Paphnutius and his comrades wanted, and therefore did not take advantage of their project. In his report to the Holy Synod dated November 17, 1865, 1377, M. Filaret, pointing out the existing censures in Orthodox books on the so-called old rituals and clarifying their origin (“the grave accusations brought by schismatics against the Orthodox Church caused strict views on the errors of the schism on the part of its defenders”), proves that the grave accusations of schismatics for these rituals, for example.
accusations of Arianism and Nestorianism, after two hundred years of experience, which showed that the schismatics do not adhere to the said errors, are not only “inconsistent with the present state of affairs”; but “and they only serve to irritate schismatics and feed their distrust of the Orthodox Church, which accuses them of something for which they are not guilty.” “This inconsistency,” the Moscow Archpastor continues his report, has been especially sharp since the time when the churches of the same faith were established, and the coreligionists, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, use the sign of the cross, which the articles printed to this day in the Psalter and Book of Hours, under the title: expression and tradition, recognize as Arian, Nestorian, damned.” Noting further that at the present time schismatics are especially taking advantage of this incongruity “in a manner regrettable for Orthodoxy,” and citing as proof of this the above-mentioned notebooks of schismatic bishops, as well as the “rite of how to receive schismatics” reprinted by foreign schismatics from the 1720 edition, m.
Filaret concludes his speech with the following words: “I believe that under such circumstances, Orthodox spiritual authority should not give in to inaction and leave the matter in such an unfavorable position. The books written by denouncers of the schism a century or two earlier are the fruit of the views of those times, partly personal, partly more general. Their severity belongs to their time and history. But it should not bind the current Orthodox church authorities, which, seeing the schism as neither Arian nor Nestorian, sees fellow believers as being in obedience to the Orthodox hierarchy. The Psalter and Book of Hours, now published by the Holy Synod, should not contain condemnation of what the Holy Synod condescends to and blesses. Consequently, the article before the Psalter: “statement” and so on, and the article before the Book of Hours “tradition” and so on. must be corrected." At the same time, M. Philaret proposed “for the consideration of the Holy Synod” the very draft of a new edition of the article, under the previous title “statement,” which he intended for both the Psalter and the Book of Hours.
Compared to the previous articles, in the newly revised “indications of cursing books (i.e., indications of the books: the Tablet, the Rod of Government, Spiritual Advice, etc., made “to heal the foolishness” of schismatics, i.e., in refutation of the two-fingered sign of the cross) were omitted. The schismatics’ references to Meletius, Theodoret and Maximus the Greek, discussed in the previous article, were retained in the revised article, showing their lack of evidence, in moderate terms. Then the condescension towards fellow believers is stated and concluded with the conviction of the pan-Orthodox to firmly maintain the sign of the cross, the most ancient and universal of the Church.”
The article in the form as it was presented by M. Philaret was published in the Psalter and Book of Hours. At that time, the explanation of the “cruel censures” against the so-called old rituals was limited to this. Metropolitan Filaret thought that by this the Orthodox Church had sufficiently declared its dissolidarity with the discreditable expressions of former Orthodox polemical writers, and therefore believed that this was quite enough to “counteract the cunning of the schismatics.” That is probably why the Moscow saint did not agree with the comments of Paphnutius and the brethren on his revised article on the sign of the cross, who, among other things, considered it more “useful” for the matter to analyze the three testimonies cited by schismatics against triplicity (i.e.
testimonies of Meletius, Theodoret and Maximus the Greek), completely excluded from the article, especially since “this analysis, according to them, introduces a polemical character into it, while it is desirable, on the contrary, that it contain only a positive presentation of the doctrine of finger formation and, moreover, a brief one, as its very title says” 1378; therefore, he rejected the new edition of this article drawn up by them 1379.
Thus, the matter, which had begun so broadly, narrowed significantly and did not satisfy anyone in the essence of the matter: what was required, as subsequent experience showed, was not the exclusion of some censures from the two books, but an explanation of these censures. This “explanation” appeared, but 20 years later and not under Metropolitan Filaret.
IV. The question of the free transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie
A brief historical sketch of the attitude of church and government authorities to this issue. The significance of this question in the internal history of Edinoverie. Its decision was made by M. Filaret.
The question of a free transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie was raised by the Old Believers at the very establishment of Edinoverie and was resolved by the church and government authorities in a negative sense. In response to the request of the Moscow Old Believers: “not to forbid joining the Old Believers Church,” the independent schismatics received a categorical refusal. “This is not otherwise permitted, perhaps, it was noted regarding this in the rules of M. Plato, as according to research from the bishop, that he (i.e., the Old Believer) had never previously gone to the Orthodox Church and did not receive its sacraments; and in our Orthodox Church those who have hitherto should not be allowed to join in such a way” 1380.
Such an attitude of the church authorities towards this issue is quite natural; it quite logically followed from her basic views - on the old ritual, as the fruit of unreason, on unity of faith, as an act of condescension towards the weak and on the purpose for which this condescension was allowed: “so that, as stated in the opinion of M. Plato added to the rules, there will be a good hope that such (i.e., the Old Believers) will eventually be honored by God and will not differ in anything agreement will come with the church" 1381. Therefore, to allow a free transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie would mean for the church authorities to become in obvious contradiction with itself, to elevate a temporary measure into a permanent phenomenon, to give equal integrity to the so-called old rite, which is not free from errors, with the Orthodox rite, corrected. Moreover, this would mean that the church authorities themselves would ruin the matter, the organization of which cost them so much trouble, and little by little return to that order of things, which in the 17th century it recognized as abnormal.
This is how they looked at this question in the first times of Edinoverie, and that is why all attempts by some adherents of the old rite to achieve, although not even a fundamental change in the accepted view, but only a private deviation from this general rule, were answered with a decisive refusal. How jealously the church government authorities really treated the fifth point of M. Plato’s rules can be seen from the cases of the Old Believers of Kaluga 1382, Domshinsky (Vologda dioceses) 1383, Sychevsky (Smolensk dioceses) 1384, Yekaterinburg, 1385 Perm 1386, Novoladoga (St. Petersburg dioceses) 1387, Yaroslavsky 1388, etc. This attitude of the church and government authorities towards coreligionists becomes even more understandable when we pay attention to the then coreligionists. The proximity of many of them to the schism rather than to Orthodoxy, the desire to propagate their ritual among the Orthodox, and similar facts, were indeed no small reason for the cautious and distrustful attitude of the church authorities towards them.
But on the other hand, this extreme caution of the spiritual authorities towards fellow believers, expressed, in addition to the fifth point, in the 11th point of the rules of M. Plato, which allowed the Orthodox to partake of the Holy Mysteries from an Old Believer priest only “in extreme need, in the event of death, wherever it happened to find an Orthodox priest and church” 1389, gave rise to schismatics to strongly object to Edinoverie and became one of the serious reasons for the weak success of Edinoverie among schismatics. The latter reacted negatively to him and called him nothing less than a “trap” and a “Uniate church.” And what is especially sad is that in the sixties, similar views began to be held among the Edinoverie themselves: we mean the party of the famous former Edinoverie priest John Verkhovsky, a party that currently still has its representatives among Edinoverie.
Verkhovsky and his followers, starting from the principle of unconditional ritual freedom on the one hand and the concept of equivalence of the old and corrected rites on the other, came to the same conclusions as the schismatics, i.e., that unified faith in the form as the Orthodox Church understands it is unified faith “not complete, but half, illusory, conditional, false, ambiguous” 1390. This is a “trap” and a “net” with which “the archpastorship hopes to catch the Old Believers, not for communicating with them on terms of equality and equality, but for absorbing them into their New Believers” 1391. “The archpastorship, say the co-religionists of Verkhovsky’s party, if it allowed the Old Believers with their letter to approach their communion, then at a respectful distance and at the same time tried to separate these associates from itself, placing them in a special one, deliberately invented for them, which has no meaning, although in name it is co-religionist, but in fact (according to the idea of the inventors) is by no means an Orthodox church, which is not Orthodox because the transition from the Orthodox Church is strictly prohibited from joining it" 1392.
“Whatever it is,” they say elsewhere in their project. Edinoverie either is Orthodoxy, and then the mediastinum from the side of the archpastorship does not make sense, or it is not Orthodoxy, and then the very permission of Edinoverie by the archpastorship is a betrayal of the church and Orthodoxy” 1393. From here begins a whole series of petitions from co-religionists in order to achieve the abolition of the points in question in the rules of M. Plato. It is remarkable that the said demand of fellow believers met with sympathy among Orthodox writers, even those who, for example. prof. Subbotin 1394, can in no way be suspected of sympathizing with Verkhovsky’s tendencies.
The reason for this attitude of some of the Orthodox writers to the issue under consideration lies in the fact that the said issue, in addition to the principled side, also has another side - a purely practical one. When deciding the question of the free transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie from this latter point of view, you necessarily come to the conclusion that strict adherence to paragraph 5 of the rules of M. Plato has very unfavorable consequences, that the measure by which, within the meaning of this paragraph, the church authorities were guided in distinguishing between the Old Believer-schismatic and the Old Believer-Orthodox, does not correspond to its purpose. The fact is that among the schismatics there were and are quite a few who always, and especially during strict government measures in relation to the schism, considered and still consider it best to hide themselves under the name of Orthodox, which they succeeded in doing very easily, thanks to the bribery of local authorities and the lower clergy. Constant falling away into schism further increased the contingent of this kind of secret schismatics.
Finally, some of the schismatics, such as, for example. Snasovites or Netovshchina, as well as wanderers during the period of belonging to the category of strangers, in appearance are almost no different from the Orthodox: from time to time they visit Orthodox churches, do not shy away from fulfilling church requirements and accept clergy into their home. In their views on the Orthodox Church, schismatics of the above categories are no different from registered schismatics; Meanwhile, while the latter has a free path to unity with the church based on the rules of common faith, the former, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of M. Plato’s rules, this path remains almost completely closed. The practical consequences of this order of things are quite understandable and, of course, could not go unnoticed by the church authorities. The inevitable consequence of this was, starting from the thirties, a whole series of attempts to limit the fifth point of the rules of Edinoverie 1395 - attempts, first separate and then general, extending to all Old Believers.
The result of these restrictions was that currently the considered obstacles to the reunification of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church have been significantly eased. Having made these necessary, in our opinion, comments about this issue, we will now move on to consider how M. Filaret resolved this issue.
We do not find a direct answer to this question from the Metropolitan of Moscow. His decision can only be guessed on the basis of his views on the essence and purpose of common faith and can only be inferred from the cases of his diocesan practice. True, in his opinion of May 15, 1864, the project of Verkhovsky and his followers on the All-Old Believer Church, Metropolitan Filaret also dwells on the point of this project that required “to allow a free transition from the dominant Orthodox Church to the same Old Believer Church and vice versa”; but here the Moscow saint does not resolve this issue, but confines himself to only a few remarks, which only show that at that time he did not yet know the true compilers of this project, and, having invited it to the schismatics, he interprets the question posed in this paragraph in the sense of a demand on the part of the schismatics to “allow the transition from Orthodoxy to schism” and, of course, has a negative attitude towards it 1396.
But the same negative solution to this issue should be thought to have followed from the side of the Moscow archpastor even if by the Old Believer Church he meant in this case the Church of the same faith. The fact is that the views of the Moscow saint on the essence and purpose of common faith, as we have already seen, did not diverge at all from the views of M. Plato. Like the latter, M. Philaret looked at Edinoverie as an act of condescension by the church to weak people, attached to the so-called old rite - a rite, although not contrary to the essence of faith, is nevertheless incorrect. He looked at unification of faith as a measure whose ultimate goal was not simply to bring the Old Believers closer to the Orthodoxy of the church, but to completely unite them with the Orthodox, even in the unity of ritual. From the point of view of this view, allow the reverse transition, i.e.
transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie would mean deviating from the intended goal, taking a step back; this “would mean, in the words of the Moscow saint, not to bring the alienated closer to Orthodoxy and the church, but to draw Orthodoxy away from the right path” 1397.
That the Moscow archpastor was indeed, in principle, against a positive solution to the issue under consideration, this can also be seen from the cases of his diocesan practice. We know of two such cases - the case of the residents of Kolomna and the case of the Pavlovsk peasants. On January 26, 1822, the Old Believers of the city of Kolomna submitted a petition to the Metropolitan to convert one of the local Orthodox churches, namely the Spasopreobrazhenskaya, into Edinoverie, and the parish of which no more than 13 households asked to be included in other churches. If this is not possible due to some circumstances, then they asked to be allowed to build the church again in stone with the appointment of a special priest with a cleric; Moreover, they motivated this request by the fact that the priests of the Moscow Edinoverie Church to which they are assigned to correct the needs due to the hundred-verst distance from Kolomna and the occasional muddy road, cannot keep up; Meanwhile, it may happen that someone else accidentally suffers death without repentance.
From the point of view of modern practice, the request of the residents of Kolomna in its second half did not represent anything special and it was all the easier to satisfy it because the construction of both the church itself and houses for clergy, as well as the further maintenance of the church and the clergy, were undertaken by two of the petitioners, merchants Fyodor and Pavel Shaposhnikov. Metropolitan Filaret, however, refused the request of the Kolomna Old Believers on the grounds that among the 83 petitioners (male 39, female 44), the Old Believers were schismatics, according to the list of spiritual board, only 40 people (male 18, female 22), and only 7 co-religionists (male 4 female 3), the rest of the petitioners were either Orthodox or unknown where belonged. “For such a small number, it was noted in the resolution to establish a Edinoverie church in the city of Kolomna, no need was foreseen” 1398.
Much more interesting both for characterizing that time and for judging the views of the Moscow saint on the issue under consideration is another matter - the case of the Pavlovsk peasants. (Bogorodskaya economic district of Vokhonskaya volost), which lasted about three years. The initial request of the Pavlovtsy submitted to the Metropolitan in 1824, signed by 106 people, was of the same nature as the first half of the request of the Kolomna residents, i.e. they asked to convert the pan-Orthodox Church of the Resurrection, existing in the village of Pavlov, into a common faith church. It goes without saying that the request of the Pavlovsk Old Believers in such a head start could in no way be satisfied by the diocesan authorities for the simple reason that the number of petitioners was far from sufficient to see in their request the desire of the entire parish 1399.
Indeed, the Moscow saint refused the petitioners by putting the following resolution on their request on August 21, 1824: “Since most half of the parish goes to church, then leave the priesthood according to the general rite of Orthodox churches, and the clergy should admonish those who need it, that this priesthood is true Orthodoxy and the books are intact with the ancient Greeks, and that the disobedient falsely slander the church and bear their own judgment” 1400. But while indicating in the resolution this is quite a sufficient basis for refusal, Metropolitan Filaret was guided by another kind of considerations, which he later put forward in his report to the Holy Synod in 1401.
Proving here that the said request of the Pavlovsk peasants could not be satisfied, the basis for this, in addition to what was said by him in the resolution of August 21, 1824, he also puts forward the fact that among the petitioners, as it turned out from private intelligence, “there should be, if not all, then many Orthodox Christians, attracted by the suggestions of schismatics to be close to the schism, instead of the fact that Edinoverie churches were established to attract schismatics to Orthodoxy"; and then also that “the transformation of the pan-Orthodox church into a Edinoverie church is derogatory for the Orthodox Church.” Guided by these considerations, he later refused all new renewals of petitions from the Pavlovsk Old Believers 1402. The latter, however, were not satisfied with this decision of the diocesan authorities and turned with their request - “for permission in their parish Church of the Resurrection to conduct priestly services using old printed books” - to the Holy Synod.
The latter forwarded this petition to deliver the necessary information on it to the Moscow Metropolitan: and he responded with his above-mentioned report in which outlining the history of the petitions of the Pavlovites before the diocesan authorities, and finding out why their request was not granted at the time, adds to this only the fact that the above-mentioned, on the basis of private rumors, the assumption of his metropolitan about the affiliation of the petitioners with the Orthodox Church was officially confirmed that “the petitioners, as The dean of the village of Pavlovsk reported to Filaret that those who signed the requests had all been going and going to the Orthodox Church and receiving its sacraments, but none of the schismatics had signed up to those requests.” Having received this information, the Holy Synod refused the request of the Pavlovites, referring to paragraph 5 of the rules of M. Plato. The petitioners were not satisfied with the decision of the highest church authorities.
Having changed the attorney (previously there was a peasant Dimitry Andreev, and now they have chosen Andrei Gavrilov), they appear before the diocesan authorities with a new series of petitions, but in a changed form. Now they no longer ask for the transformation of their pan-Orthodox church into a Edinoverie church, but due to the “extreme desire to have a Edinoverie church,” they agree to build one at their own expense with a stone building “so that there will be a special clergy with it, without destroying, however, the current Orthodox Church.” The first petition in this sense was submitted by them already in the amount of 80 families in August 1826; but this request was also denied to them, again on the grounds that, according to the certificate, it turned out that the petitioners “were all baptized in the Orthodox Church and were in confession and with St. Communions" 1403. The second petition, and again in a new form, was submitted by them the following year (1827). Here, as one can judge from M. Philaret’s resolution, they only asked to join the Edinoverie church, without mentioning anything about its construction.
This request was followed on February 28 by the following resolution of the Moscow saint: “the attached petition of the attorney of the peasants of the Old Believers of the economic Vokhonsky volost, the parish of the village of Pavlov of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, the village of Ignatiev of the peasant Andrei Gavrilov, to listen to the attribution of those who signed the attached verdict to the Edinoverie church, and what should be presented, paying attention to the fact that called the attorney did not present the certified power of attorney that those who signed the verdict do not form any legal society and therefore it is not known where they gathered, at whose call or perhaps by agreement 1404, and what right they had to draw up the verdict, that whoever wants to join the church of the same faith and has legal reasons for this could ask for himself, without persuading with others, with whom he does not form any legally established society” 1405.
Based on the above resolution of February 28, 1827, one can think that this collective request of the Pavlovsk peasants was rejected, and if, perhaps, some of them were allowed to join the Edinoverie, then only on individual requests.
In addition to the two above-mentioned cases, relating to the first years of the diocesan practice of M. Philaret and testifying to the negative attitude of the Moscow saint to the issue we are considering, a fact of later times has also been preserved, interesting in the sense that it shows how M. Philaret looked at cases of transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie of individuals, and not entire societies. There was such a case. One Orthodox Christian, calling himself a schismatic, wished to join the Edinoverie church. The priest of the Edinoverie Church accepted him without any inquiry and, when a matter arose about this, he justified himself by saying that “this is how it usually happens.” We do not know what punishment the Moscow Consistory imposed on the offending priest. It is only known that she decreed that in the future priests of the same faith should join the church with schismatics upon the certification of the secular authorities. Based on this decision of the consistory, the bishop made the following resolution: “Such unrest (i.e.
similar to the actions of a priest of the same faith) require active measures against their resumption. The consistory's proposal that priests of the same faith join schismatics to the church with the certification of the secular authorities is not satisfactory. Which boss? Can a priest address him? Is there a legal basis for requiring him to certify that such and such is a schismatic? Review the matter in accordance with the laws, with the points of Metro Plato and other instructions of the Holy Synod” 1406. How this matter ended, how the consistory decided the questions raised by Filaret, as well as what criterion for recognizing this or that petitioner as a schismatic or Orthodox was indicated by the Metropolitan himself in his new resolution, unfortunately, we do not know. But even from the above resolution it is clearly visible how far the Moscow archpastor was from the idea of allowing anyone who wanted to convert to the same faith.
But while resolving this issue in a negative sense, M. Philaret at the same time well understood that it is impossible to strictly follow paragraph 5 of M. Plato’s rules, without allowing any exceptions from it, and that following may also be accompanied by phenomena undesirable for the church. Therefore, his diocesan practice left us with quite a few cases where he went against the exact meaning of the rule of unity of faith under consideration.
Here is one such case, showing us M. Philaret’s attitude towards the so-called secret schismatics. Kostroma merchant A.P. Konovalov, who belonged to the non-popovshchina schism, specifically to the Netov sect or the so-called Spasov Concord, and who, like most of the schismatics of this sect, belonged to the Orthodox Church, wished with his family to join the Edinoverie Church. The local diocesan authorities, guided by the exact meaning of paragraph 5 of Platonov’s Rules, denied him this request, since, according to the certificate, it turned out that Mr. Konovalov, as well as his family, were officially listed as Orthodox. Frequently visiting Moscow, Konovalov met here with the famous adherent of the Edinovery V.A. Sapelkin, to whom he conveyed his difficult circumstances. The latter promised to talk about his case with M. Filaret. Having delved into the matter, the Moscow saint, although contrary to the letter of the law, allowed the annexation of the city.
Konovalov with his entire family to the Moscow (St. Nicholas) Edinoverie Church, which was performed by the priest of this church, Morozov, on December 2, 1855, 1407.
But M. Philaret was less lenient towards those Orthodox Christians who, having been seduced into schism, wanted to rejoin the church, but on the rules of unity of faith. Here are a few examples of this: “As Gerasimov, the Metropolitan writes in one resolution, fell behind the sacraments for six years, so that, out of his own misjudgment, he would not remain in this disastrous situation and continue to show him leniency and allow him to confess and, if he turns out to be worthy, to partake of St. Sacrament in the Church of the same faith and upon fulfillment of this, release it" 1408. “Like a peasant G–v. (recently seduced into schism) he says in another resolution, wished to belong to the newly blessed church; then, condescending to this, call him and escort him to a priest of the same faith, so that in the local church he fulfills his Christian duty with confession and holy communion” 1409. Thus, resolving the issue in these cases contrary to the meaning of Plato’s rules of unity of faith, M. Philaret interprets them as an act of condescension towards the weak, as a matter that can only be allowed in exceptional cases.
How far the Moscow saint really was from the idea of looking at these cases from his diocesan practice as a desirable phenomenon is shown by this circumstance; that both in these and other similar cases 1410, before allowing these persons to join on the rules of unity of faith, he instructed his clergy to convince the petitioners to join the church “unconditionally,” and only after the failure of these admonitions allowed them to do what they asked.
Finally, one case from the diocesan practice of M. Philaret shows how condescendingly he treated even those Orthodox Christians who, undoubtedly belonging to Orthodoxy, were only disposed towards antiquity and, for the sake of this adherence to the old rite, wanted to belong to the Church of the same faith. In 1835, a case arose regarding the transfer of the Rogozhin spouses (Moscow merchants) from an Orthodox parish to an Edinoverie parish. During the proceedings, it turned out that the Rogozhins were tempted into schism and were indeed inclined towards antiquity, and Rogozhin’s wife even had an inclination towards schism; but instead of going into schism under the flock of fugitive schismatic priests, she decided to go over to the same faith with the blessed Edinoverie priests, however, giving the children the freedom to continue to go to the Orthodox Church. Archpriest Alexey Evdokimov of the same faith actually accepted them for confession. The act of the Rogozhins and the Edinoverie priest was clearly subject to prohibition and punishment on the basis of paragraph 5 of M. Plato’s rules.
But the Moscow saint, proceeding from the consideration that “it is undesirable to resort to judicial rigor when there is an opportunity to provide leniency,” and also from attention to the fact that “The Rogozhins do not persist against the Holy Church, but ask only for leniency for their weakness in order to allow them to be parishioners of the Edinoverie Church, and, moreover, they assure about their children that they are being brought up in the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church and will remain with it forever, that, finally, Rogozhina has already been accepted by the clergy of the same faith for confession and holy communion,” guided by all this.
Filaret decided: “to allow the Rogozhins, husband and wife, to enjoy the services and sacraments of the Edinoverie Church from the local clergy,” “until,” he noted, “by the grace of God they will understand that how justly and godly they prefer the Edinoverie Church and its blessed priesthood according to the rules of the apostolic and paternalistic order to the arbitrary schismatic and unblessed and condemned by the sacred rules of the fugitive priesthood so in vain do they prefer the common faith church to the common Greek-Russian one, for both are one universal, holy and apostolic church” 1411.
From all that has been said, it is clear that M. Filaret, although he allowed private exceptions from paragraph 5 of the rules of Edinoverie, was generally far from the idea of allowing a free transition from Orthodoxy to Edinoverie as a general rule.
In the presented review of M. Philaret’s activities in relation to the schism, one cannot fail to note, first of all, the enormous energy that the Moscow saint expended on this matter, and the amazing influence that he had on the general formulation of the government’s fight against the schism. We can safely say, without fear of falling into exaggeration, that the system of government relations to the schism, which is known as Nikolaevskaya, developed under the predominant influence of the Moscow archpastor. Thus, the very view of schism, as a phenomenon extremely harmful not only for the church, but also for the state, is the view that underlies the government’s attitude towards schism during the reign of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, which owes a lot to M. Philaret.
Let us further take the governmental relations of that time towards the schismatic community, towards schismatic prayer buildings, fugitive priests, the Austrian hierarchy, etc., and here everywhere we see noticeable traces of the influence of the Moscow saint: most of the government decrees of that time regarding these subjects, as we have already noted in our place, took place under the influence of his opinions and notes, and some of them in their entirety were his work. There were, however, several questions, for example: the question of schismatic metrics, - in resolving which the government went against the insistence of Metropolitan Philaret; but there were too few such questions; in most cases the government was completely submissive to his authority.
How highly the government looked at the activities of the Moscow saint, what importance it attached to his advice and instructions in this matter, this is clearly evidenced by the very facts of this activity. Let us recall some of them. From the very first years of Nicholas's reign, a serious question arose in government spheres about granting schismatics priests independent of the spiritual authorities. Dissenters from different places submit request after request for this subject. The government sends these requests for consideration by M. Filaret and fully agrees with his decision. In the 50s, a sect of wanderers accidentally opens. A whole matter arises on this occasion. All papers related to this matter are again sent for consideration by the Moscow saint, and his conclusions on this subject are relied upon as the basis of government relations towards the said sect 1412. At the beginning of the 50s, Bibikov was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, who was instructed by the Emperor to pay special attention to the matter of combating the split. Then the new minister turns to M.
Filaret with a request to “honor him with wise advice” in this matter, and the latter, in response to the said request, sends the minister an extensive letter in which he outlines his desired program of relations towards the split 1413. And there are a lot of such facts testifying to the enormous authority of M. Filaret in the area we are considering; but we think those indicated are sufficient for our purpose.
Further, paying attention to the range of subjects of the activity of the Moscow ruler under consideration - to the number of issues he raised in this area, one cannot help but be surprised at its extraordinary breadth and versatility. With M. Philaret one can find solutions on almost all issues relating to both measures to weaken the schism and regarding unity of faith. To verify the validity of what we have said, it is enough to look at the table of contents of our essay.
With these qualities of yours, i.e. Energy, authority and versatility, the anti-schism activity of the Moscow saint, like all his administrative activities in general, differs significantly from that of the Russian archpastors of his time and places him in the most prominent place among recent anti-schism leaders.
Being so valuable for his time, the work of M. Philaret is very instructive for our time. And above all, the remarkable energy with which the Moscow saint fought the schism is instructive - energy stemming from his deep conviction of the enormous harm of the schism both for the Orthodox Church and for the state. One can, of course, dispute, and some actually do dispute, the last conviction of the Moscow Metropolitan, i.e., his idea that a schism is extremely harmful for the state; but no one will deny the harmful significance of the schism for the church and the need, in the interests of the latter, to vigorously combat it in order to weaken it. And it is best to learn such energy from M. Philaret.
But in addition to this general characteristic feature of the anti-schism activity of the deceased saint, this activity of his is instructive for us in its particulars - we mean the very opinions of the Moscow archpastor in this area. True, some of these opinions have already lost their significance for our time and do not represent anything other than historical interest. This is not surprising, since despite all his greatness, despite his wonderful mind, M. Filaret was still a man of his time and, therefore, in his opinions and views he had to pay tribute to his era. But being a man of his time and an exponent of the views of his era, the Moscow saint went further than his time on some issues and in resolving them, and therefore - we repeat - his activity can be instructive for our time.
Such, for example, are the majority of his judgments on the issue of spiritual measures to combat the schism which, despite the quarter of a century that has passed since the death of the ever-memorable saint, have not at all lost their significance to this day and the implementation of which, for the most part, even today represents the same piurn desiderium as it was in the time of Metropolitan Philaret.
Finally, the anti-schism activity of the Moscow saint, in addition to its positive aspects, is instructive for us in a negative way. Paying attention to the results of the diocesan activities of the Moscow archpastor - to the number of conversions of Moscow schismatics to Orthodoxy and, in general, to the degree of weakening of the Moscow schism under Metropolitan Philaret, one cannot help but notice that these results do not correspond to the enormous energy that he expended on the fight against the Moscow schism. M. Filaret himself, as is known, explained this phenomenon by the special nature of the Moscow schism and, of course, there is a certain amount of justice in this. But the main reason, in our opinion, for the relatively weak successes of Metropolitan Philaret’s diocesan anti-schism activities is still not the circumstance he indicated.
This is much more justly and simply explained by the general lack of anti-schism activity of that time - a shortcoming that was also inherent in the activities of the Moscow saint - we mean the preference for civil measures over spiritual ones. Towards the end of his life and work, M. Filaret, in one of his private letters to the Right Reverend Evgeniy Simbirsk, openly admitted this general shortcoming of the then staging of the fight against the schism. “We must tell the truth,” he wrote to the said bishop in 1863, “that we have not carefully studied and used the art of spiritual and moral healing of schismatics, preferring to rely on the help of the authorities.” “The present time,” he adds to this, does not want to strive to help us, but refers us to the word of Christ the Savior, that His kingdom is not of this world. It is necessary to return closer to the first centuries of Christianity and refine the weapon that then conquered the world - your faith.
Faith, zeal for faith, self-sacrifice for the service of God and the salvation of others - these should be our means, our strength against non-Orthodoxy, unbelief and moral corruption, so vigorously spread by writing and examples” 1414. We will finish our essay with this wonderful instruction from the blessed saint.
This difference of opinion in views on common faith was stated even recently at the Kazan meeting of archpastors (1885) Brother. Word 1886 No. 7.
Collection resolution on the part of the schism, 1875, p. 399. To characterize the views on this subject of secular government officials, it is enough to point to the notes on the schism of ministerial officials placed in the Kelsiev Collection, in which unity of faith is often interpreted as the meaning of schism.
Brother. Word 1889, vol. II, p. 228.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 562.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, p. 310.
Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 159–160.
Collection pl. and otz, vol. IV, pp. 159–160.
Ibid., supplementary volume, pp. 495–496.
Resolutions of M. Filaret. Orlov. ed., p. 307.
Works of M. Philaret, vol. IV, pp. 135. Moscow 1882.
Works of M. Philaret, vol. V, pp. 376–378. Moscow. 1885
Read total loves. 1877 dept. III, p. 130.
Ibid., 1870, book. XI, dept. II, pp. 20–21.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 562. M. Filaret expresses this very thought in “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer,” p. 105, according to ed. 1885
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 275.
Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 567.
Ibid., vol. IV, p. 313. This same thought, although not so clearly, was expressed by M. Philaret in Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer, p. 145, according to ed. 1885
Read total love 1870 book. XI, dept. II, pp. 21–22.
Assembled. opinion and review. vol. additional, p. 224; Wed Read total loves. spirit. enlightenment 1870, book. XI, dated. II, p. 13.
Collection pl. and review v. supplement., p. 225; Wed vol. V, part 2, pp. 910–911.
Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 598.
Soulful. Read 1881, part III, p. 511; Wed Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 299–300.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 328.
Assembled. resolution according to the schism of 1875, pp. 130–131.
Collection pl. and review v. supplement., p. 226.
Read total loves. 1870, book. XI, dept. II, p. 27.
Assembled. pl. and review v. supplement., p. 227; Wed vol. V, part 2, p. 732.
Collection resolution according to hours 1875, p. 232.
Collection pl. and otz, vol. II, pp. 366–367.
Collection Kelsieva, vol. I, pp. 71–72.
Collection pl. and review vol. supplement., pp. 227–228.
Ibid., p. 109, vol. III.
Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 227.
Ibid., vol. III, pp. 512–513, 529–530; v. supplement., p. 191.
Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, pp. 369–373.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. supplement., p. 228.
Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 136, p. 653.
A special Committee for the revision of decisions on schismatics was established on February 18, 1833 and consisted of the Secretary of State Count Bludov, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the Minister of Internal Affairs. Collection regulation according to hours page 465.
Collection Kelsieva, vol. II, p. 204, Russian. Vestn. 1881, vol. 156, p. 661.
Collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 510–513.
Collection regulation according to hours 1875, p. 477.
Collection Kelsieva, vol. II, p. 204; collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 536.
Collection Kelsieva, vol. II, pp. 204–205.
Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, pp. 485–487.
Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 156, p. 663. Details of the execution of the Highest Conduct on December 21, 1853 can be read in Livanov - “Raskolniki and Ostrozhniks”, vol. III, pp. 245–257.
Collection pl. and review v. supplement., p. 370.
Zakrevsky, in one of his official notes, submitted to Emperor Alexander II in 1855, testifies that the desire of the said schismatics was far from sincere, that Bezak, with threats, forced them to submit the aforementioned petition. Russian West. 1881 vol. 156, p. 673.
Livanov. Split. and Ostrozh. vol. III, pp. 261–262.
Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, p. 487.
Collection pl. and review v. supplement., p. 370; anniversary, collection, p. 652.
Collection pl. and review vol. additional, p. 371.
Collection opinion and review vol. suppl., pp. 371–372.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. suppl., pp. 372–374.
Of those invited, only Count Zakrevsky was absent, citing illness, which M. Philaret did not fail to note in his report to the Holy Synod about the consecration of the Edinoverie church at the Transfiguration cemetery. Assembled. pl. and review t. supplement., p. 374, note.
Assembled. pl. and review t. add. pp. 372–374; Right review 1866 vol. 20, pp. 122–123.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 155–156.
Ibid., vol. supplement, pp. 410–412; Russian Vestn. 1881, vol. 156, p. 664.
Information about the unit. churches, ed. Sapelkina. M. 1858 l. 28.
Works of M. Philaret, vol. V, pp. 288–292.
Right Review 1866 vol. 20, p. 124, note.
Swedish o unit. church ll. 52 and 55; Wed Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod dated June 5, 1857 Read. total loves. 1873, book. XI. dept. III, pp. 140–141.
Collection pl. and review, vol. additional, p. 233.
Ibid., vol. III, p. 530.
Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 233.
Ibid., vol. III, p. 297.
Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 229.
Russian Vestn. 1864, t, 54, p. 237 – From the story. and recording V. A. Sapelkina.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 551 and 562.
Russian Vestn. 1864 vol. 54, p. 192.
Collection pl. and reviews, vol. III, pp. 551 and 562–563.
Collection resolution according to hours 1875, p. 494, paragraph 1.
Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 563.
Mixed. about unit church, l. 47; Anniversary Collection, pp. 655–656; Collection pl. and review. vol. III, pp. 563–564.
Collection pl. and review vol. III, p. 562.
Collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 558–560.
Brother. Word 1891, vol. II, p. 449.
Collection pl. and review vol. III, pp. 564–565; Anniversary Collection, p. 657; Swedish about unit church ll. 21–22.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. III, p. 567.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. III, pp. 563–567.
In the same place, t. will add. page 405.
Letter from M. Philaret to the rector of Moscow. Academy A.V. Gorsky. Brother. Word 1890, vol. II, p. 42.
Collection pl. and review, vol. supplement., pp. 406–407.
Brother. Word 1891, vol. II, p. 455.
Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, p. 496.
Rukov. for rural shepherd 1881 vol. III, pp. 200–201; Brother. Word of 1889, vol. II, p. 557. According to the testimony of M. Philaret, in the period from 1854 to 1856, 157 people were removed from cemeteries (Collected plurals and reviews, vol. IV, p. 242).
Collection opinion and review vol. IV, p. 80.
Brother. Word 1891, vol. II, pp. 456–457.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 8.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 291, cf. vol. V, part 2, pp. 598–599.
Soulful. Reading 1884, vol. I, p. 380.
Letters to Anthony, vol. IV, p. 64.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 280; Wed letters from the arch. Anthony, vol. III, p. 339.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. IV, 45–46; Wed; page 279.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 93–96.
Letter from M. Philaret to gr. Zakrevsky dated May 13, 1858 Dushep. Read 1890, part II, p. 114.
Soulful. Read 1876, part 1, p. 273.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 569.
In compiling this essay, we used the articles of N. I. Subbotin (“The accession of schismatic bishops to Orthodoxy”... in Russian Vestn. 1865, vol. 60, pp. 592–647 and “Twenty-fifth anniversary of the accession of schismatic bishops to the church”... in Brother. Sl. 1890, vol. II), in which the Moscow professor, former at one time, a direct witness and active participant in the event in question, outlined in all detail - in the first, the reasons that influenced the conversion of the said persons to Orthodoxy, and in the second, the actual side of the annexation itself and the circumstances closely related to it, as well as the participation that belongs to the Moscow saint in this matter. To explain the reasons that contributed to the transition of the mentioned persons from the schism to Orthodoxy, we also benefited from the explanatory notes of some of them submitted to M. Philaret (Paphnutius’s note was published in Collected pl. and otz. vol. V, part 2, pp. 679–686 and in Brat. Sl. 1884, vol. II, pp. 165–176; notes of Onuphrius and Philaret - in Brother. 1884, vol. II, pp. 222-232; note of Joasaph - in Brother. 1890, vol.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 684.
Brother. Word 1884, vol. II, p. 229.
Others were temporarily prevented from taking part in this by some official matters.
Brother. Word of 1890, vol. II, p. 289, is the expression of Archdeacon Philaret in a letter to Professor Subbotin.
The details of this meeting have been preserved, thanks to prof. Subbotin, who was a direct witness to him and, upon returning home, recorded the conversation between the Metropolitan and Philaret. Brother. Sl. 1890 II, pp. 43–46.
It seems to us that this is a well-known case from the anti-schismatic activities of Metropolitan Seraphim, which served as the reason for the publication of lenient rules in 1822 about fugitive priests, and which, therefore, occurred at the end of the reign of Alexander I (and not under Nicholas, Pavlovich, as Prof. Subbotin says), when Metropolitan Seraphim rejected the proposal of some members of the St. Petersburg Secret Committee to send to the schismatics Orthodox priests, who, apparently joining their society and gaining their trust, would try to reconcile them with the church (and not the proposal of some schismatics, as Professor Subbotin claims; and it would be strange for schismatics to propose that secret missionaries be sent to them who would act in favor of Orthodoxy). At the same time, we consider it worth noting that in other cases, when the matter concerned not future missionaries of Orthodoxy, but ordinary schismatics, Metropolitan Philaret allowed them to secretly join the Orthodox Church. See the letter from his Eminence. Vicar Innocent (Appendix to the works of the Holy Father, part 25, p.
211), where he, by the way, writes: “In permission to the priest of Elokhovsky, you can add that, condescending to a schismatic who converts, but is ashamed, he can join him to the church secretly at the same time as he accepts him to confession. It seems to me that sometimes it is permissible for a schismatic to join the church secretly from the schismatics, just as pagans once entered the church secretly from the pagans.”
Brother. Word 1884 vol. II, p. 232.
This petition was published in Brother. Sl. 1890, vol. II, pp. 290–292.
Letter from M. Filaret Akhmatov. Pis. High Special Part II, p. 293.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 676–679 – relation dated May 16, 1865.
Letters to the Highest. Special Part 2, pp. 292–293.
Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 686.
Letters from Archimandrite Anthony, part IV, p. 467.
This petition was published in Brother. Sl. 1890, vol. II, pp. 295–298.
Letters from Arch. Anthony, vol. IV, pp. 469–470.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 700–701.
Onuphry, being born and baptized in the Orthodox Church, had no need to repeat the sacrament of confirmation over him.
Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 702–703.
Soulful. Read 1883, part 1, p. 399 – letter from M. Philaret (dated June 13, 1865) to the Reverend. Vicar Leonid.
Ibid., page 394 – another letter from M. Philaret to the Reverend. Leonid on July 4th.
Report from M. Filaret to the synodal chief prosecutor, D. A. Tolstoy, dated July 27. Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2 p. 714.
Report from M. Filaret D. A. Tolstoy. Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 886–887; Brother. Sl. 1890, vol. II, pp. 208–209 – letter to prof. Subbotina also to Tolstoy.
Vincent's letter to Paphnutius was published in Brat. Sl. 1890, vol. II, pp. 393–398.
This petition is printed in the same place, pp. 393–395.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 813–815.
Soulful. Read 1883, part I, p. 528.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 964.
Brother. Sermon of 1890, vol. II, p. 208. At the same time as Justin entered into relations with the Moscow saint, and at the same time the rector of the priestless monasteries in Prussia, the monk Paul, joined Orthodoxy. But we have already spoken about the relationship of M. Philaret to this latter in its place.
Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 701. p. 7.
Collection opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 731–732.
Brother. Word 1890 vol. II, p. 124.
Collection opinion and feedback vol. V, part 2, page 736.
Collection resolution according to hours 1875, pp. 625–627.
Historical essay. fellow believer M. S–go, p. 161.
Point 3, Orthodox. Review 1867 vol. 22, p. 511.
Proceedings Kievsk. Spirits. Academy 1881 III vol., p. 24.
Russian Vestn. 1864, part 51, pp. 25–26. If you believe the Ekaterinburg co-religionists, then even Emperor Alexander I himself sympathized with the idea of an independent co-religionist bishop at one time. See Catherine’s petition. co-religionists in the manuscripts of the Bible. stud. Kazan. spirit. academy.
Asked. Moscow fellow believers in hand. Bible stud. cauldron spirit. academy.
Extraction from all subjects. report, p. 11, § 4.
The answers of the Muscovites are known. Metropolitan Philaret (Collected opinions and reviews, vol. V, part 2, pp. 561–564 and Kamchatka, Archbishop Innocent (Russian Archive 1889, vol. II, pp. 146–153);
Assembled. opinion and review. vol. IV, p. 294.
Collected, opinion. and review. vol. IV, p. 292.
Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 563; Wed page 642.
Read General loves. spirit. enlightenment 1877, dept. III. page 179 – letter dated December 31, 1857.
Metropolitan Gregory, as Archimandrite Filaret himself reports. Anthony, returned to him “an official attitude about this, not shown to anyone else.” Letters to Anthony vol. IV, p. 137.
Ibid; Wed letter from M. Filaret to the synodal chief prosecutor, A. P. Tolstoy. Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 306.
Letters to Anthony, vol. IV, p. 137.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 562–563. M. Philaret expresses the same thoughts in a letter to the Reverend. Alexy, written not long after the note. See Letters to Alexy, page 257.
Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 643.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 564.
Russian Archives 1889, vol. II, p. 148.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 641–642. At the same time, regarding these answers, the Reverend. Innocent M. Filaret wrote privately to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Akhmatov: “The Reverend Innocent, in his spirit and exploits, is an apostolic man, but, I dare to say, the Irkutsk Seminary did not sufficiently provide him with aids for judging canonical and historical subjects with strict caution.” Letters to the Highest. Special Part II, p. 265.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 643.
We had at hand a copy of this note in the Bible manuscript. stud. cauldron spirit. acad. In an abbreviated form, with the omission of the most harsh expressions regarding the Orthodox Church and hierarchy, it was published in the magazine “Truth” (book 70, pp. 1–57) under the title: “Note on the freedom of Russian ritual interpretations.” In the note under consideration, the pleading clauses of the co-religionists, presenting the conditions for the organization of the All-Old Believer Church (separately, these clauses were also printed in Reading. General history and ancient history, 1870, book 2, section V, pp. 143–146 - under the title: “Rules of co-religionists on the establishment of the Old Believer hierarchy in Russia”), are preceded by an extensive introduction, “fulfilled, in the words of M. Philaret (Collected books and reviews, vol. V, part 2, p. 633), false interpretations of teachings and historical events and offensive judgments about the Orthodox Church, hierarchy and government.”
The petitions of the Ekaterinburg and Moscow co-religionists differ little from each other and from the final points of the most obedient note. We also used these petitions in the Bib manuscript. stud. Kaz. spirit. acad.
We consider it worth noting that the last point, i.e. the demand for recognition of the Austrian hierarchy is found only in the most obedient note.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 632–633.
Letters to the Highest. esp. Part II, pp. 244–245.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 564.
Ibid., pp. 565–566. Metropolitan At that time, Filaret thought that the project was drawn up for schismatics by some “outsider who, without knowing the matter (since in one of the points of the project the dominant church is called Orthodox, which the drafter, a schismatic, would in no way allow), wanted to exalt the schism, strengthen the division and create a new ferment by allowing a transition from Orthodoxy to schism.” Ibid., p. 564.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 567.
Ibid., p. 633; Wed Letters to the Highest. esp. Part II, p. 244.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 633. cf. page 615.
Letters to the Highest. esp. Part II, p. 260.
Historical research serving to justify the Old Believers, vol. I, p. 166. Moscow 1881
Bible manuscript. stud. Kaz. spirit. acad.
Assembled. resolution according to the schism, St. Petersburg. 1875, p. 8.
“Old Believers and Schism” prof. N.I. Ivanovsky, see in the Wanderer for 1892 and sec. brochure
Conversations to verb. Old Believer, pp. 90–91, according to ed. 1885.
Assembled. pl. and review vol. IV, p. 8; Wed vol. III, p. 562.
Assembled. resolution according to h.r. St. Petersburg, 1875 pp.691–692; Wed Art. Petrova: “The Cases of the Moscow Old Believers”; Russian Vestn. 1881 vol. 156, pp. 665–666.
Pis. Anthony, vol. III, p. 318.
Arr. to creativity St. father, vol. XIV, pp. 24–30. Subsequently, it was reprinted in “Information about Edinoverch. churches", ed. Sapelkina. 1858, l.l. 43–46; also "East." 1868 book. V, pp. 41–45.
Assembled. opinion and feedback vol. III, p. 560.
Ibid., supplementary volume, pp. 494–495.
Ibid., vol. V, part 2, p. 563.
Ibid., vol. IV, pp. 311–312; Wed pp. 310–311; also vol. V, part 2, p. 563.
Collection Kels. issue I, page 173.
“For the impartial,” says Filaret, the objection is not strong and is destroyed by a simple answer: if you doubt joining the Edinoverie church, then unconditionally join the Orthodox Church, which is obviously untouchable by the curse of the council of 1667. But schismatics do not easily recognize the difference between correct and incorrect conclusions and repeat the same objection, despite the answers they receive” (Collected plurals and reviews, vol. II, p. 312). “As for the curse,” he says in another case, it was resolved by the Holy Synod. enough for peace of conscience.” (Collected plurals and reviews, vol. V, part 2, p. 634).
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, p. 634.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 309–311.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 385.
Ibid., supplementary volume, pp. 507–509.
Ibid., vol. II, pp. 386–389.
Ibid., vol. supplement., p. 507.
There. same, vol. V, part 2, p. 634.
Ibid., p. 641. This Sorokin is how Prof. characterizes him. Subbotin, “was engaged in private advocacy and considered himself a writer, - he was distinguished by his broadcasting and pretensions to wit and eloquence; but he was a zealous man for the church.” Brother. Sl. 1890 vol. II. page 121 approx.
Pis. High Special, Part II, 260–261 pp.
Right Oboz. 1865 vol. 16, p. 150.
Pis. High Special Part II pp. 262–263.
Ibid., p. 267. According to prof. Subbotin, Xenos, the author of the District Message (Br. Slov. 1890, II vol. p. 127, note), was very interested and delighted by this matter. It also had an influence on the determination of the members of the Austrian hierarchy who joined in 1865 to leave the split, as can be seen from the explanatory notes of some of them, for example. hierome Joseph (See Br. Sl. 1890, II vol. p. 294) p. hierodeacon Theodosius (Br. Sl. 1885, II vol. p. 570).
Letter from High. Special page 263.
Moscow. Eparch. Led. 1873 No. 43; Wed "Modern Churches. questions". T. Filippova, pp. 430–431, 299.
This question has now been completely abandoned.
Collection resolution according to the schism of 1875, p. 15, paragraph 16.
Conversations to the verb Old Believer, pp. 63–64, according to ed. 1885
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 347.
Brother. Word. 1885, vol. II, p. 706.
Ibid., 1890, vol. II, p. 377, - a remark by members of the Austrian hierarchy who joined the church in 1865 in their memorandum to M. Philaret.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, p. 347; Read General East. and ancient 1880, book. 2, dept. V, page 26.
Collection pl. and review vol. IV, pp. 346–347; Wed t. add. p. 476, note.
Brother. Word. 1890. II vol., p. 375.
From the article of Moscow professor N.I. Subbotin - “Twenty-fifth anniversary of the accession of schismatic bishops and other members of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy to the church” (Brotherly Word, 1890, vol. II) we borrow all the information below for this purpose.
The draft and memorandum were published in Br. Sl. for 1890, volume II, pp. 374–380.
This memorandum is printed in the same place, pp. 380–382.
Collection pl. and review vol. V, part 2, pp. 788–791.
Brother. Sl. 1890, vol. II, p. 390 – letter to K. M. Filaret; It was written by Mr. Subbotin himself only on behalf of those who joined.
Assembled. resolution according to hours 1875, pp. 10–11 para. 5.
Historical Essay on Edinoverie M. S-go. St. Petersburg. 1867 pp. 168–169.
Collection regulation according to hours 1860, book. II, pp. 16–17.
Collection resolution according to hours 1875, p. 13.
The project is all-subject. petitions, pp. 33 and 133 according to manuscript. Bible stud. Kaz. spirits acad.
Ibid., p. 34; Wed page 127.
Brother, Word 1886, vol. II, p. 624; 1887, vol. II, p. 40; 1889, vol. II, pp. 221–233.
The first such restriction of paragraph 5 of M. Plato’s rules followed on the initiative of Rev. Arkady of Perm in 1832 in relation to the Old Believers of Solikamsk and Cherdyn district; Collection resolution according to the split. St. Petersburg 1860 book. II, pp. 250–251.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. V, part 2, p. 564.
Anniversary Collection, pp. 264–265.
According to the certificate, it turned out that there were 2093 Orthodox souls in the Pavlovsk parish. floor. Soulful. Thurs. 1874 h, I, p. 124.
Soulful. Thurs. 1874, part I, pp. 124–126.
This obviously hints at the fact that the desire of the Pavlovsk Old Believers to move to the Edinoverie Church appeared to them, as the dean of Pavlovsk reported to Bishop, not for any particularly valid reasons, but simply “at the instigation of the parishioners of the Moscow Edinoverie Church, with whom the petitioners had frequent contact in trade.” Soulful. Thurs. 1874, part I, p. 126. But, it goes without saying, the persistence with which the Pavlovites tried to get what they asked for does not speak in favor of the indicated point in the dean’s report.
Soulful. Thurs. 1876, part 2, p. 252.
Resolution dated July 6, 1858 in Orlov. ed., pp. 43–44.
Resolution dated February 22, 1856. Soulful. Thurs. 1892, part II, p. 137; Wed Brother. Word 1889. II vol., pp. 231–233.
Resolution from 26 Feb. 1837 Duchen. Read 1891, part II, p. 598.
Soulful. Thurs. 1892, part 2, p. 142, resolution. 28 Apr 1855
Ibid., 1890, part I, p. 362; 1872 Part I, p. 352.
Resolution July 5, 1835 Orlov. ed., pp. 306–307.
Assembled. opinion and review vol. suppl., pp. 377–390.
Ibid., vol. III, pp. 527–530.
Russian Archive 1893 book. VI, p. 174.