The view of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, on Edinoverie and his attitude towards it

Even at the end of the 18th century, the awareness of the illegality of the fleeing priesthood prompted many to seek union with the Orthodox Church on the basis of common faith. The first exponents of this trend were the Old Believers of the Elisavetgrad district, where they moved from Moldova and where they founded the village of Znamenka. They turned to the then Slavonic Archbishop Nikifor (Theotoki). He fulfilled their request and sent the Elisavetgrad priest to join them to the Church, and also blessed them to build a church in Znamenka. Which he himself consecrated, and on the right choir the bishop’s singers sang according to new books and tunes, and on the left the newly joined ones sang according to their old ones. Then the Reverend. Nicephorus appointed a priest for them and blessed them to perform the service according to the old books. This was in 1780. But that was, so to speak, an isolated fact. Edinoverie became widespread only after its appearance and approval in Moscow. In 1799, Moscow Old Believers, of the priestly consent, numbered 75 families, led by merchants: G. Alexandrov, D. G. Yamshchikov and F.A. Shelaputin, submitted a petition to Metropolitan Platon to join the holy church and for permission to have a church for worship. “Hoping for unparalleled generosity,” the Moscow Old Believers wrote in this petition, “and the great mercies of His Imperial Majesty Pavel Petrovich to the Old Believers, and for the benevolence of the shepherds of the Greek-Russian Church towards them, we accepted the indispensable intention and desire to take advantage of the Royal bounties, and pastoral mercy, and to ask for the discovery of saints for ourselves.” churches, and about supplying us with the right priests.” Having then set out in 16 points the conditions under which these Old Believers wished to unite with the church, they concluded their petition this way: “For this reason, commending ourselves to the merciful favor of your Eminence, we most humbly ask you to show us your archpastoral mercy and benevolence, to open holy churches to us and provide us with the right priests and a merciful decision regarding this request of ours.” commit." This petition, after consideration by the Holy Synod, was submitted to the discretion of the Sovereign, Emperor Pavel Petrovich. The Emperor inscribed on this same petition: “Therefore, October 27, 1800, Gatchino.” This important, historical document in the original is kept in the Trinity Church. Thus, from this time on, it became possible for Moscow Old Believers to be in unity with the Orthodox Church, to be Orthodox, remaining in the old rituals and performing divine services with the help of legitimate priests according to the Old Believer patriarchal books. Founded by Metropolitan Plato, Edinoverie continued to develop and grew, in fact, under Metropolitan Philaret. In this case, unity of faith can be compared to a fruitful tree that Plato planted and Philaret grew. Being a zealous missionary and looking for all kinds of ways to return the Old Believers to the Church, Filaret greatly contributed to the development of common faith, since he saw in it one of those saving means, thanks to which those who had fallen away from the Holy Church could most likely unite with it. Metropolitan Philaret’s view of unity of faith deserves special attention. “Unity of faith, according to Filaret, is not a beginning. The beginning is Orthodoxy; and unity of faith – spread, development; the movement of this beginning towards the side of the schism, with the goal of returning those rejected 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.” 1 Filaret holds the same view of common faith in one of his letters to Archbishop Alexy of Tver. – “Unity of faith is not the beginning. The beginning is Orthodoxy, and Edinoverie is a branch, or movement of this beginning towards the side of schism, to bring the alienated closer to the unity of the church and hierarchy.” 2 With these words, Saint Philaret clarified the very essence and purpose of common faith. – Orthodoxy is the basis, the center; Edinoverie is a branch, development, movement of Orthodoxy. And since unity of faith has as its goal to return those rejected from the Orthodox Church to the unity of faith,” “to bring the alienated closer to the unity of the church and hierarchy,” then, of course, the act of condescension of the Holy Church should have manifested itself precisely to these “rejected” and “alienated.” Why Edinoverie is the movement of Orthodoxy towards the side of schism. Consequently, in its essence, Edinoverie is the same Orthodoxy, which has as its goal the return to the church of those rejected from it. Any consideration or investigation of a subject that does not begin from the beginning will be confused and unsatisfactory. Filaret, defining the essence of Edinoverie, began precisely from the beginning, therefore anyone who would like to define what Edinoverie is must either accept Filaret’s definition of it. Or give up the idea - understand unity of faith as something integral. According to Philaret, the one-believer church is the church “which is united with the general Orthodox in faith, despite the difference in some rituals.” In these words he must be distinguished between two sides: dogmatic and ritual. The ritual difference does not differentiate between the two churches. The difference between them occurs when they differ in dogmas. “It is known,” Filaret wrote to Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod, “that the same faith differs from general Orthodoxy neither in dogmas, nor in commandments, nor in sacraments, but only in some faulty expressions of old printed books and in some rituals, indiscriminately accepted, but also contrary to the essence of faith” 3. Consequently, the external, ritual side does not constitute the difference between Orthodoxy and Edinoverie and does not serve as an obstacle to unity between the Orthodox and Edinoverie. Filaret clearly expressed this in his speech delivered at the St. Nicholas Church of Edinoverie, at the Rogozhskoe cemetery. “No one imagines,” he said, “to see division in the fact that in your church certain special sounds of words are heard, certain special details of rituals are seen. They judged this strictly when resistance to sacred authority was combined with it: and severity was just, because the sin of resistance is grave... But where, by the prevenient grace of God, and by the action of good intentions and good reasoning, there is no resistance, but there is a heartfelt disposition towards peace and gracious unity; where, moreover, there is already unity of faith in sacred dogmas and sacraments: there, can this internal unity be hindered by some external diversity... 4 Without hesitation, I say: let no one think of seeing division in the fact that in the church certain special sounds of words are heard, certain special details of rituals are seen.” 5 With these words, Metropolitan Philaret stops the mouths of all those who, out of malice, misunderstanding or for other reasons, call the same faith a “schism,” an institution “lawless” and “senseless,” an “anti-canonical Platonic institution,” “a double-edged sword, anointed with honey, cutting mortally all who accepted it,” “a step to Orthodoxy,” and the coreligionists themselves “schismatics,” “semi-schismatics”; who says that “co-religionists are neither New Believers nor Old Believers, but something in between; in a word, they are neither a cancer nor a fish - neither this nor that. Fellow believers are something similar to a jester who traveled in a foreign kingdom on his own land... 6 After the above words of St. Philaret, there is no place for such nicknames, rather blasphemous. “Why,” he said in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, “I wanted, or better, why I should have wanted, to see you here, and why it was fitting for you to want this... so that both your preliminary invitation and my present coming to you. It had no other purpose than a common faith, yours and mine” 7. And that the diversity of rituals cannot serve as a reason for the division of churches and, thus. The Church of the same faith can exist with this diversity, Filaret confirms with an example from the history of the church, namely the difference in the time of celebrating Easter between Eastern and Western Christians in the 2nd century after the Nativity of Christ. – This difference and the disputes that arose on this occasion did not hinder the unity in faith between these Christians. 8 Without differing in dogmas, but only in rituals, the Church of the same faith, therefore, is identical with Orthodoxy - one and the same Orthodoxy. That is why Filaret, addressing his co-religionists, called them “of the same faith,” “blessed” brethren. This is what he wrote to his Moscow co-religionists regarding their donation of 8,000 rubles for spiritual needs on the day of the 50th anniversary of his ministry. “To the brethren of the Church of the Most Holy Trinity, the trustees of the Edinoverie printing house and the parishioners, God’s blessing and peace”... And again: “In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the true God, - to the faithful brethren of the same faith Moscow churches, truly abiding in the unity of faith with the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, Orthodox Eastern Church, according to the power of the same divine dogmas, the same continuous hierarchy from the Apostles and the same grace-filled sacraments, grace to you and peace and prosperity, in the hope of eternal salvation." 9 In these short but powerful words of the saint’s grateful greeting, the unity of both churches, the unity of faith, the unity in sacred dogmas and sacraments is clearly visible. As for the very names of the church “of the same faith”, or, as others call it, “blessed”, names that seem unpleasant and even offensive to many - Philaret did not see them as such at all. On the contrary, with these very names he proved the unity of the churches - Orthodox and Edinoverie, the unity of faith. So, when the Ural Cossacks, being dissatisfied with the above names, expressed their resentment about this and wanted to replace the names - “edinovericheskaya”, “blessed” with the name of “Eastern Catholic, cathedral apostolic church of the Greek-Russian faith,” then Filaret looked at this as a misunderstanding of the Ural people and, admonishing them, wrote: “What does the unified faith church mean? The Church, which has one 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?” 10 The name “blessed,” explains Filaret, was given by the parishioners of the churches themselves, the services in which, with a blessing, are performed according to old printed books, “unlike prayer books that do not have a church blessing.” someone unpleasant and offensive." 11 This is Metropolitan Philaret’s view of unity of faith. This view does not define the essence and meaning of unity of faith, but also clarifies its position and shows it the path along which it should go. This path is the path to unity with Orthodoxy. There is no other way, and Edinoverie has all the capabilities and necessary means to both stay on this path and lead others along it. Filaret considers any solicitation of the same faith for the greatest possible leniency on the part of the church, any deviation towards the side of schism impossible. “Move on,” he said. - would mean not bringing those alienated closer to the church, but dragging Orthodoxy away from the right path, and plunging the well-ordered world of the church into the chaos of schismatic arbitrariness and disorder” 12. And, it must be said, that the common faith is still following exactly this path outlined by Filaret; it holds him steady. In accordance with his view of common faith, Metropolitan Philaret extended his relationship towards it. He treated his co-religionists extremely condescendingly, with fatherly love, with constant readiness to do, within the limits of the possible, everything they asked. Filaret was an intercessor for his fellow believers, he visited and served in their churches, talked with them, consoled them, rejoiced in their joys, grieved with their sorrows. Condescending to the weak conscience of the Old Believers and wanting to prove the truth and holiness of the old rituals, Filaret performed divine services in churches of the same faith according to old printed books, while observing the old rituals. “Because,” he said in the St. Nicholas Church, at the Rogozhskoe cemetery, “in the church books, mainly revered by you, we see the same faith, sacraments and church as in the corrected ones: then, with the blessing of the Holy Apostolic Church, in the peace of your and my conscience, I read your church books in your church, and fulfill the peculiarities of the priestly service and rituals that belong to them.” 13 Treating fellow believers condescendingly, Filaret advised others to treat them the same way. “...It is necessary,” he wrote to Bishop Nicholas of Kaluga, “to show them leniency and spare their old habits, in the hope that perfect unity will follow in their children.” 14 Philaret’s condescension was manifested both in the external and internal life of the same faith. Thus, Philaret left the report on the economic church management of his co-religionists not to the consistory, but to himself, or to the diocesan bishop in general, and in general he mostly removed the consistory from the affairs of co-religionists. By filling vacant clergy positions in Edinoverie parishes, he did not violate the elective principles granted to parishioners of Edinoverie churches. Thus, sending a letter to Bishop Arkady of Perm, Filaret asked to inform the schismatics that he was fulfilling in the most precise manner what the Holy Synod had promised to his co-religionists. “Tell them (the schismatics),” writes Filaret, “that the Moscow (i.e., the Metropolitan) is fulfilling in the most precise manner what the Holy Synod promised to fellow believers and confirms this with two examples of appointing priests to them with the consent of the parishioners.” 15 “To the fact that co-religionists,” Filaret wrote to Kaluga Bishop Nicholas, “take an oath from a priest, like schismatics, they objected to me: why such a priest who is unfaithful to his archpastor? There is truth in this denunciation: although it is also true that the bishop does not have the convenience of giving his co-religionists a priest of whose loyalty he would be completely confident, for they have been given the will to choose.” 16 As a result of the order of the Holy Synod, affairs of the same faith should be carried out by the bishop directly. And not through the consistory, Filaret himself gives the co-religionists a letter to open a co-religionist church at the Rogozhskoye cemetery. 17 Often schismatics, realizing their error, wanting to join the holy church, and not being able to overcome the fear of joining it, went to Philaret for an interview. The result of the interviews, which mostly remained secret, was that the schismatics became Orthodox. In particular, Philaret’s love was poured out on famous figures of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy - the local bishops: Onuphry of Brailovsky, Paphnuty of Kolomna, Hieromonk Joseph and Archdeacon Philaret, when they joined Orthodoxy. “We must receive them,” Filaret wrote to the governor of the monastery, Anthony, “according to the Apostle, just as a milkmaid receives her child.” 18 “I will speak about this matter in the words of the Apostle: to her, brother, may I receive this from you in the Lord.” 19 Philaret always treated his fellow believers with such love. Even at a time when they were disobedient and rebellious, he defeated them with his love and patience. He advised others to treat their fellow believers in this way, and he never recommended any repressive measures against them. This is what Filaret wrote to His Eminence Nicholas of Kaluga, in whose diocese the co-religionists were far from being of a peaceful nature. “It is clear among your fellow believers that there is little unity with the church: but, unfortunately, not everyone sees this. However, their improvement can be achieved not so much by the power of power, but by prayer for them, and persuasion from love with patience. Is there anything of this kind that you have not used? The current Bishop of Kiev did not complain about them when he was in Kaluga”... 20 “We need to generously endure the difficulties of the common faith cause.” 21 “It is clear that our fellow believers are dissatisfied with being children of obedience. What to do? Win with caution and patience." 22 “It is true that your fellow believers are a difficult burden for us. Manage to reconcile firmness with condescension, and with the oil of spiritual love soften soft hearts.” 23 The above view of Metropolitan Philaret on Edinoverie and his attitude towards it is significant precisely at the present time, when Edinoverie is entering another century of its existence. Under the influence of Philaret’s view of Edinoverie, in this second century of its existence, all confused and negative concepts about it should disappear and assure everyone of the saving idea of ​​Edinoverie. Filaret’s attitude towards unity of faith should serve as a role model for everyone. Currently, all Edinoverie churches in the Russian Empire number up to 500 and 20 monasteries. And all those who joined the holy Church are 270,576. Assembled. mp. and father Filar. T. V, part II. Page 562 Pis. to the archbishop. Tversk. Alex., p. 257 Collection mp. and St. Filar. vol.IV, p. 159. Sochin. Filaret. vol. V, 376–377. See something about edinoverie and co-religionists. Letter to a friend. Ed. "Word of truth." Braila, 1897. Shower floor. Thurs. 1882, V.121. Collection mt. and from. Filar. Vol. Suppl., pp. 495–496. Collection mp. and review by Filar. V, part 2. 562. Collection mp. and review by Filar. V, 378. Pis. ep. Nikolai. Thurs. Lyub., 1870, XI, 20. Collection mp. and review II. 303–304. Pis. Bishop Nikol. Thurs. Lyub., 1870, XI, 20. Collection mp. and review III, 558–561; 564. Pis. ep. Nikol. Thurs. Lyub, 1870, XI, 22