Книга 2. История славянских церквей в XIX веке

Bulgarian Church in the 19th century Cathedral of St. Kralja in Sofia Chapter I. The Bulgarian people on the eve and at the beginning of the 19th century The disastrous fate of the Bulgarians on the eve of the 19th century. – Continuation of people’s suffering in the 19th century. – “The Lives and Sufferings” of Bishop Sophrony of Doctors. – Phanariot yoke and Hellenism in Bulgaria. – Church dependence of the Bulgarians on the Patriarch of Constantinople. – Efforts of the Greeks to Hellenize the Bulgarians. The successes of Hellenism in the first quarter of the 19th century. – Greek bishops, their oppression of the Bulgarian flock and the Bulgarian clergy, inattention to the religious and moral needs of the flock and the sad consequences of all this. The 18th century ended sadly for the Bulgarians. The people had long been deprived of political and ecclesiastical independence. He had neither a national political center nor his own national church. It was an unfortunate paradise, exhausted under a double yoke. Politically, the Bulgarians had to share the disastrous fate of the peoples who suffered under Turkish rule. By the end of the 18th century. The Turkish Empire was in anarchy. The power of the sultans has long been relegated to the realm of legend. The pashas and viziers did not value the will of the padishah and rebelled. (What) could a Christian paradise expect? Life was especially difficult for the Bulgarians. Despite their proximity to the government center, the Bulgarian regions (Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia) suffered more than others from disorder and, due to their geographical conditions, were especially convenient for all kinds of robbers who devastated the empire. And to this day the Bulgarians remember the devastation of the Kirdzhali (robbers in the deserts). For many years, their gangs, consisting of Turks, Albanians, Greeks and others, terrified Bulgarian villages and even cities. Kirdzhaliya robbed, burned and hid in the mountains with impunity. The government was busy fighting the rebellious Viddin Pasha Pasvanoglu, who took possession of almost all of western Bulgaria and gave shelter to the Kirdzhaliyas and all sorts of other thugs who mercilessly ruined and plundered the Bulgarian population. Amid such turmoil, with the glow of Bulgarian villages being burned by kirdzhaliyas, amid the groans of the people tortured by the Turkish authorities no less than by the robbers, the 19th century began. The administrative reforms undertaken by the Turkish government in the new century did not bring much relief to the Bulgarians. They had to suffer, if not from the Kirdzhalis, then from the Delibashis who replaced them. Delibashii were supposed to protect villages from robbers, but they themselves were no better. They ruined the people with all sorts of extortions, including “dental rights” because bad Bulgarian bread spoiled their teeth. The Bulgarians had to suffer a lot during the Turkish wars, especially with Russia. Abuses and violence by the Turkish administration continued. ...The Sultan’s government could not ensure peace and prosperity even for its “true” subjects... 67 Whatever the Bulgarians experienced in this troubled era, they vividly show the autobiographical “life and suffering of the sinful Sophrony,” Bishop of Doctors (1739–1815) 68 . The life of this only, perhaps in his time, Bulgarian bishop is a living picture of the suffering of the entire Bulgarian people. Orphaned early and suffering a lot at the mercy of his greedy relatives, Stoiko Vladislavov (secular name of Bishop Sophrony) managed to study the Slavic and Greek languages ​​and, for money, was ordained a priest in his native city of Kotla. Priest He was not steadfast like other priests: he taught at school and preached in church. For this he suffered a lot from the envy of other ignorant priests. Due to slander, he was banned more than once, once for being treated by a healer. Stoiko suffered a lot from the Turks. He was repeatedly beaten and imprisoned. Saving his life, he went to the Ankhial diocese. The local bishop gave Fr. Steadily coming. But even here, Stoiko was almost hanged by a Tatar for marrying a girl whom the Tatar liked to a Christian. After this, the widowed Stoiko retired to one of the Ternov monasteries, took the name Sophrony, and there, in 1814, received ordination as bishop of Vrakansky from the Ternov Metropolitan. The Vrakansky diocese, devastated by the Kirdzhalians and Haiduks, did not attract seekers of the bishopric, and it brought Sophronia a lot of grief. Fleeing from the Kirdzhali, he had to run from city to city, from village to village, hide in Turkish houses, chill and starve in the forest, in the mountains, until he managed to escape to Bukarest. There Sophrony died (1815), working on publishing books for his people. He published “Words for Holidays and Weekdays,” translated into the New Bulgarian language, and wrote an autobiography and other books. In the latter, Sophrony wrote: “My diocese was devastated, the villages disappeared, the Kirdzhali and Pazvan haiduks burned them; the people were scattered throughout Wallachia and other countries” 70. In the letter by which Sophrony in 1808 authorized his attorney, the Bulgarian Zambin, to petition the Russian government to accept Bulgaria as citizenship, it is added that the Turks in their fury “wish, under various pretexts, to destroy the shrine of God’s churches so that the Christian religion would fall into oblivion” 71 . It is not difficult to imagine how all this affected the church life of the Bulgarians. The Rylsky confessor in the city of Viddin, Kirill, wrote (1782) to his monastic authorities that in the whole Viddin district at that time there were no more than 15–20 priests, and that he (Kirill) could not go around his villages and towns for a year and perform the burial service for the dead and baptize the born. Many remained for years without baptism, just as many died completely unbaptized and remained uninveterate after death. There were villages where people did not remember the priest visiting them 72 . But this was not the end of the Bulgarians’ misfortunes. If political slavery was difficult for the Bulgarians, then the spiritual yoke to which the Bulgarians were subjected along with the loss of their political independence was no easier, when the Ternovo Bulgarian Patriarchate was destroyed and its dioceses became part of the Constantinople Patriarchate. In the second half of the 18th century. The same fate befell the Bulgarian Archdiocese of Ohrid, which remained independent. Thus, all Bulgarians found themselves under the rule of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Greek spiritual authorities did not think about preserving the Bulgarian nationality. On the contrary, the Greeks set themselves the task, through spiritual domination over the Bulgarians, to deprive the latter of their national consciousness and assimilate them with themselves. The Greek bishops were the conductors of Hellenism. The Patriarchate sent its bishops to all large and even small Bulgarian cities. The Bulgarians could achieve the bishopric only in exceptional cases, and even then they were Hellenized Bulgarians. Following the bishops, Greek priests, especially monks, appeared among the Bulgarians in many places. Greek teachers were also sent to Bulgaria. The Hellenizers set about destroying everything that could tell a Bulgarian about his national identity. The Bulgarians were taught that speaking and studying in Bulgarian was disgraceful and nonsense, that praying and performing divine services in the Slavic language was a sin and even heresy 73 . Slavic inscriptions in churches were erased and replaced with Greek ones. Slavic books and manuscripts were destroyed. They were thrown into water, heated stoves with them, or simply burned them. So what? After years of continuous effort, the Greek diocese has almost achieved its goal. By the beginning of the 19th century. in the Bulgarian cities there was not a single church where worship was performed in the Slavic language. The townspeople were ashamed of their nationality and did not use their language. Only in villages and towns did the Bulgarian language survive. Only in rural and some monastic churches were services performed in Slavic. But the evil went further. The Greek clergy did not care at all about Christian enlightenment and the spiritual salvation of their flock. It was little capable of this even in the person of the bishops themselves. As a result of the sale of patriarchal and episcopal seats introduced by the Turks into the system, dioceses went to those who gave the most money, and therefore were almost the exclusive property of the rich Greeks from Phanar. Particularly much was demanded from those seeking dioceses in Bulgaria. “For the once former patriarchal, and now... converted exarchical city of Ternov, for its diocese they give the most and promise to pay, and give everyone precious gifts” 74. Having achieved the diocese, the bishops hastened to reward themselves for the costs incurred. Collecting all kinds of taxes for the benefit of the patriarch and their own, the bishops did nothing without money. Every church rite, every sacrament was performed only worth its weight in gold. Bishops sold priestly positions, enriched themselves from divorce cases and committed all kinds of lawlessness without a twinge of conscience. The Bulgarian population could do nothing to defend itself against countless and illegal exactions. Those who disobeyed were threatened with church anathema and Turkish court. Bulgarian priests suffered no less from the Greek bishops. Illiterate and poor priests differed from peasants only in their kamilavka and beard. By purchasing parishes from bishops, they were in the complete power of the latter. The treatment of the priests by the bishops was most undignified. Bishops beat priests in the altar, forced priests to work in their courtyards, stables, and gardens 75. While oppressing the Bulgarians financially, the Greek bishops did not give anything to their flock in spiritual terms. They did not care about feeding their flock with the word of God, in order to console and delight it with the splendor of priestly service. Often the bishops themselves were the cause of temptation for the flock, performing sacred services without any reverence and uttering curses and indecent words in the midst of prayers and chants. Not knowing the Bulgarian language, the bishops not only did not teach the people in their language, but also forbade others to do so, using all means to replace the native language in churches and schools with an incomprehensible Greek language 76 . What could the religious and moral life of the people be like under the tutelage of such bishops and under the leadership of illiterate priests? Few people knew prayers. Superstitions reigned and spread unchecked. People have not been to churches or received communion for years. There were few churches. Often there were no priests either. With its oppression, the Greek clergy itself pushed many away from Orthodoxy and forced some to convert to Islam, others to rush into the arms of Catholics or, later, Protestants. Deprived of political and ecclesiastical independence, the Bulgarian people increasingly lost their national consciousness, forgot their past and were forgotten by almost everyone, even the same-tribal peoples. Russian monastery on Shipka in Bulgaria Chapter II. Revival of the Bulgarian people The beginning of the Bulgarian revival. - People's awakeners. – School educational movement. – The beginning of discontent with the Greek bishops. – Greco-Bulgarian feud. – Reforms of the Turkish government, which gave the Bulgarians the opportunity to declare their national and church rights. – Fighters for church independence: Neophyte Bozveli in Hilarion of Makariopolis. – Complaints against Greek bishops before the Patriarch and the Turkish government. – An open break between the Bulgarians and the Patriarch. – Attempts to reconcile the Bulgarians with the Patriarchate. – Establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate. – Election of the first exarch to the “schism.” Forgotten by everyone and completely Hellenized in the cities, the Bulgarians nevertheless remained faithful to their nationality among the masses of the simple, rural population, and this was mainly thanks to their lower clergy and their monasteries, especially Rylsky, Zografsky and Hilendarsky, which remained inaccessible to Greek influence. From the monasteries came the first awakeners of national self-awareness. Back in 1762, the Hilendar monk Paisiy (born around 1720 in the Samokov diocese) wrote “The Slavic-Bulgarian History of the Peoples and the Tsars and the Bulgarian Saints.” Paisius's story forced many Bulgarians to remember their best past and consciously relate to the sad present time, under the Phanariot yoke. Fr. Paisius went around all of Bulgaria with his book, letting his history be read and copied, until the Greek clergy forced Paisius to stop such travels when he came to the city of Kotel (1765). Here Fr. Paisiy met the priest Stoiko Vladislavov. The latter not only rewrote Paisiev’s history, but turned out to be the successor of Paisiev’s patriotic cause. For twenty years Stoiko taught in his native city and at the same time, as a priest, and then as a bishop, until the end of his long-suffering life he worked on the revival of the people, teaching them in their native language and enriching them with the first Bulgarian books. The same people's educational cause was served by those numerous Rylsk, Zograf and Hilendar monks who, as taxidiots, spiritual fathers, were scattered throughout various Bulgarian cities. They went and read in churches in the Slavic language, and often opened schools in their courtyards. These schools and schools at churches under the leadership of priests, usually called cells, were the guardians of Slavic-Bulgarian literacy, gave the people, although illiterate, but devoted to the interests of the people, shepherds and teachers, and did not allow the common people to lose their national feeling. From the second quarter of the 19th century, under the influence of national liberation movements in neighboring Serbia and Greece, under the impression of new victorious successes of Russian weapons, especially in 1828–1829, as well as under the influence of new historical studies regarding the ancient destinies of the Bulgarian people, especially the research of the Ugro-Russian Yu. Venelin (1802–1839) “Ancient and Present Bulgarians”, many of the Hellenized the Bulgarians cease to pretend to be the descendants of Pericles, are not ashamed to be called Bulgarians, and are even imbued with the idea of ​​the revival of their downtrodden people. But how to achieve this? How to free the people from the double yoke that weighs on them? “Through education, education, schools”! They also repeated Fr. Paisius, Sophronius and a number of other ardent patriots 77. And, indeed, through the diligence of wealthy Bulgarians who came to their senses, especially merchants living abroad, with the participation of the clergy, schools began to be established, Bulgarian educational and instructive books were printed. In place of the cells, which did not provide anything more than basic literacy, and which, moreover, did not escape Hellenization in many places, are schools in which St. history, catechism, Slavic grammar and geography. In the history of this school and educational movement, a particularly important moment was the founding of a school in the city of Gabrovo (1885). This school, using the latest (mutual educational) system, was established on the initiative and with the assistance of a Gabrovo native, V.E. Aprilov, who lived in Odessa and was previously a complete Greek fanatic. Other cities followed Gabrov’s example, and in just one decade (1835–1845), more than fifty Bulgarian schools of the new system appeared. Both the Gabrovsky school and many others were established with the participation of a well-known teacher in their time - the Rylsk monk Neophytos († 1880). The teachers in most schools were still monks. Having established schools in which they studied not in Greek, but in Bulgarian, the Bulgarians naturally came to the idea of ​​​​hearing a related language in worship, and having their own clergy, and not the alien, Greek one. The Greek clergy itself, by its inattention to the needs of the time, and in some places open opposition to the popular awakening, prepared the question of church emancipation. Seeing how the Greek bishops persecute the Bulgarian language, persecute Bulgarian teachers and do not allow Slavic worship, support Hellenism with the help of the Turkish authorities, the Bulgarians could not remain blind to the recent examples of their Orthodox brethren and neighbors in Greece, who broke away from the Patriarchate, and in Serbia, who expelled the Greek clergy completely. The persistent inattention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to fair complaints against unworthy bishops only made the Bulgarians feel the full weight of the spiritual yoke more and more and more and more accelerated the emergence of the unfortunate Greek-Bulgarian feud, or the Greek-Bulgarian question. With the awakening of the people's consciousness, the Bulgarians' desire to have their own clergy became more and more mature. However, this desire could not suddenly be expressed in the form of positive requests to the government. The Turks have always looked at the Bulgarians not as a separate nationality, but as part of those paradises that have the Patriarch of Constantinople as their head. Therefore, the desire to free themselves from patriarchal power could seem to the Turks a manifestation of the spirit of disobedience and rebellion, which, of course, would entail new disasters for the Bulgarians 78 . Only with the publication in 1839 of the Gulkha Hattisheriff, who promised a better future for all the peoples of Turkey, did the Bulgarians have the opportunity to fearlessly make complaints about cruel and unworthy bishops not only to the patriarch, but to the Sultan himself with his government, and even openly ask for bishops of their own people. However, the latter could not be achieved without fighting the Greeks and the Patriarchate. “Greek gold and the intrigues of the powers, each of which pursued its own goals, prevented the Bulgarians from freeing themselves peacefully from Phanarite pressure” 79. The Bulgarians' struggle for national-ecclesiastical independence lasted for thirty years. It was conducted either calmly, limited to complaints to the Patriarchate and the Porte, or violently, accompanied by popular unrest, when the Greek bishops had to abandon their dioceses and flee to escape from the irritated flock. The leaders of the Bulgarians, knowing that the establishment of an independent Bulgarian church would not only lead to the further awakening of the people, but would also give the official existence of the Bulgarian nation, with the hope of political freedom for it in the future, invested all their energy in the struggle for the people's church rights. The first fighter against the Phanariot clergy was the brave and unyielding Archimandrite of Hilendar Neophyte Bozveli, originally from the city of Kotla († 1849). For twenty years Neophyte wandered around Bulgaria, distributing Bulgarian books of his own publication (Glorious grammar, child breeding). He openly spoke to the people about the need to have their own Bulgarian bishops and taught his fellow populists to complain to the government about Greek abuses 80 . Later, Neophytos moved to Constantinople (1887) and here he continued his preaching about the need for a national diocese among the numerous Bulgarians in the capital. For this Neophyte was exiled to Fr. Halki. However, he was soon released, at the request of the Bulgarians of Constantinople, and even appeared as a candidate for the Ternov metropolitan throne. But the patriarch did not agree to send such a dangerous person to Bulgaria, he even achieved the imprisonment of Neophytos on Athos, and appointed the Greek Panaret to Ternovo 81 . Misbehavior of Metropolitan. Panaret served as the reason for the first open statement of dissatisfaction with the Greek bishops and the demand of bishops from the Bulgarians. In 1840, the residents of the Terniv diocese, being unable to tolerate the extortions and violence of Metropolitan. Panaret, sent commissioners to Constantinople with a request to remove him. The actions of Panaret were known to the government itself. It forced the patriarch to remove the metropolitan. By this time, Neophyte Bozveli, who had returned from captivity at Mount Athos, advised the Ternov commissioners to ask for a bishop - a Bulgarian. Having chosen Neophyte himself, the Ternivtsi asked the Patriarchate to ordain him. The Turkish government had nothing against Neophytos, and the patriarch showed that he was not opposed to this election, but at the same time, by bribery, he tried to persuade the Ternov commissioners to accept a Greek, also named Neophytos, into the diocese. As a concession, Neophyte Bozveli was sent to Ternovo as a protosingel under the metropolitan, but could not please the latter and was therefore exiled by him to Athos. Freed three years later from this imprisonment, Neophytos again appears in Constantinople as an agitator in favor of the Bulgarian folk clergy - this time in community with another Hilendar - Fr. Hilarion Stojanovic. Hilarion, originally from the city of Elena, Ternovsky district (1810–1875), after studying at local schools, took monastic vows at the Hilendar monastery and continued his education on the island. Andros, in Athens and the Tsaregrad “great school”. Hilarion was a member of the "Andros Society", formed around 1835–1838. from the Bulgarian students of the Greek philosopher Kairi. Modeled on the Greek etherii, the “Andros society,” under the influence of Kairi, an ardent denier of Christianity, but an unshakable Greek patriot, trained its members to fight against Hellenism in Bulgaria. What Kairi preached about the exaltation of Hellas, they adapted to the revival of Bulgaria. The Greek school, in their own words, taught them to beware of Greek and to honor and love their own 82. From Greece, going to Constantinople, Hilarion in 1841–1844. He studied at the Patriarchal school of Constantinople, but even here he did not succumb to the temptations of Hellenism. On the contrary, having become close to Neophyte Bozveli, who was agitating among the Bulgarians of Constantinople, he acted as a bold preacher of the church independence of the Bulgarians. The Bulgarian community formed in Constantinople authorized Neophytos and Hilarion to be its representatives before the Patriarchate and the government on church affairs, and in July 1845 they submitted two petitions to the Porte. One asked for permission to build a Bulgarian church in the capital; in another, by the way, Bulgarian bishops were asked for Bulgarian dioceses. For this, the patriarch ordered the arrest of Neophytos and Hilarion and exiled them to the Hilendar monastery. Hilarion managed to get rid of difficult imprisonment in 1849 at the request of A.N. Muravyov, who was on Mount Athos with V.K. Konstantin Nikolaevich. Neophyte ended his life in the cold and damp tower of the monastery on July 28, 1849, a little before the construction of the Bulgarian church he designed in Phanar, which was consecrated on October 3, 1849 and became the center of the Bulgarian national church movement. The Patriarchate allowed and even contributed to the construction of this church, allowing it to serve in Slavonic and preach in Bulgarian. At the request of the Bulgarians, the patriarch appointed a special bishop to her, which since 1858 was Hilarion Stoyanovich with the title: bishop. Macariol. But the patriarch did not think of going further than this in his concessions to the Bulgarians, despite the fact that the government itself insisted on limiting episcopal abuses in the Bulgarian dioceses. Therefore, the dissatisfaction of the Bulgarians intensified. And now in all the cities of Bulgaria a desperate struggle begins over the equality of the Slavic language with the Greek in worship. By half 50 opposition to Hellenism began to manifest itself in areas where the Bulgarians lived mixed with the Greeks. Only the Crimean War made the Bulgarians seem to calm down for a while, but only then, according to the publication of the much-promising Gatti-Humayun (1856), to make even more decisive demands. Already in 1857, the Constantinople Bulgarians asked the government for complete equality with the Greeks in church rights. These demands of the Bulgarians were submitted to the great people's council under the patriarchate, convened in 1858 to organize church affairs, according to the Gatti-Humayun. The council consisted of synodal bishops and secular representatives from the dioceses. There were only four Bulgarian representatives at the council (from Sofia, Viddin, Philippopolis and Ternov). And of those, three soon refused to participate in the council when the latter did not deign to consider their request that only bishops who were pleasing to the flock and who knew the Bulgarian language be sent to the Bulgarian dioceses. The remaining representative (from Ternov) continued to declare to the council the demands of his people, both orally and in writing. But his statements did not meet with support even among the secular members of the council, dissatisfied with the order of the patriarchal administration. Having done nothing for the Bulgarians, the meeting on February 16, 1860 ended with a speech by Carathéodory, who contemptuously rejected all Bulgarian claims regarding church-people's rights. Such a failure pushed many Bulgarians into the arms of Roman Catholic propaganda, which had spread its nets even earlier and now managed to take advantage of the moment of special discontent of the Bulgarians, drawing many to a union with the Roman Church. Many became Uniates with the cunning hope instilled in them that all this would force the Patriarchate to make concessions that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. On the other hand, the same failure and fear of a union with Roman Catholicism, as well as new tactlessness of the Patriarchate, which remained deaf to popular statements from various Bulgarian dioceses about the granting of Bulgarian bishops - all this pushed the Bulgarians to break with the Patriarchate, which is what many of them decided to do, leaving the commemoration of the patriarchal name at the service. On April 8, 1860, on the day of the Holy Resurrection of Christ, Bishop served in the Bulgarian Church of Constantinople. Hilarion of Makariopolis. When, before the reading of the Apostle, the deacon was supposed to pronounce many years to the ecumenical patriarch, the Bulgarians who had gathered in large numbers, by prior agreement, did not allow this to be done and insisted that many years be pronounced to the Sultan. Also after the consecration of St. the people forced the bishop to give gifts with noisy cries. Hilarion, instead of the patriarch, remember “every Orthodox bishopric.” After this Bp. Hilarion served several times without the usual permission from the patriarch. The news of the exclusion of the patriarchal name from worship spread throughout Bulgaria. The people almost everywhere demanded that the commemoration of Greek metropolitans during divine services be cancelled, and in many places they began to commemorate Hilarion as the hierarch of all Bulgaria. The Patriarchate was amazed by Hilarion’s act. Patriarch Kirill (1855–1860) demanded that the Porte punish the rebellious bishop and, feeling powerless to cope with the difficulties that had arisen, submitted his resignation. P. Joachim II (1860–1863) was elected in his place. The latter's first concern was to calm the worried Bulgarians. But the patriarch failed to get repentance from the Bulgarians, and when it became known that the bishop. Hilarion was joined by the metropolitans - the former Velesian Auxentius, a Bulgarian, originally from Samokov († 1865), and the Philippopolis - the Greek Paisius († 1872), a large council was convened in the patriarchate (February 24, 1861). The council deposed Hilarion, Auxentius and Paisius, who was in his diocese, and condemned all three to imprisonment. The Porte did not hesitate, at the request of the patriarch, to send the convicted bishops into exile, hoping that this would be followed by confusion and division among the Bulgarians, beneficial to the Turkish government. It was assumed that many would now accept the union even more willingly. The union was formally declared back in December 1860. The Bulgarian Uniates received an archbishop from the pope. On April 8, 1861, the completely ignorant Abbot Joseph Sokolsky, who had previously been a haiduk, was installed as Archbishop of all Bulgarian-Uniates. True, Joseph soon repented and fled to the Russian embassy in Constantinople, which immediately sent him to Russia, where Joseph ended his life († 1881 in Kyiv). American missionaries (Methodists), who by this time had developed activities among the Bulgarians and still have their stations in Constantinople, Samokov, Philippopolis, Bitoda, etc., also thought to take advantage of the Bulgarian-Greek unrest. But all these hopes hostile to Orthodoxy did not come true. The exile of the bishops did not discourage the Bulgarians. The struggle acquired new forces and new adherents. The Bulgarians' demands became more specific and broader. The government was forced to pay more attention to the movement and take Bulgarian demands more seriously. For their part, the patriarchs, who succeeded one after another on the ecumenical throne, were forced to make attempts after attempts to reach an amicable agreement with the Bulgarians. Another Patr. Joachim II, immediately after the council that condemned the Bulgarian bishops, addressed the Bulgarians with a district message, in which they promised to send Bulgarians or persons who knew the Bulgarian language as bishops to the purely Bulgarian dioceses, to give preference to the Bulgarian language in Bulgarian schools and to allow Slavic worship in Bulgarian churches. In fulfillment of his promises, the patriarch soon appointed several bishops of the Bulgarian nationality to the Bulgarian dioceses (Anthima - in Shumla, Panareta - in Philippopolis, etc.). But the Bulgarians were unhappy with the patriarch’s concessions. The Bulgarian dioceses did not want to accept Bulgarian bishops until the issue of the ecclesiastical rights of the Bulgarian people was finally resolved. Soon Bulgarian commissioners from all Bulgarian dioceses came to Constantinople and presented to the government their own project (in 8 points) of a church-folk structure under the jurisdiction of the patriarch. The Bulgarians wanted a) to participate in the election of the patriarch on an equal basis with the Greeks, b) to have six of their bishops in the patriarchal synod, c) to have their own people’s council of 6 bishops and 6 laymen, which would be in charge of all national affairs not related to religion, d) to have one Bulgarian bishop with an elected layman as permanent representatives before the Sultan’s government, e) to participate in the election of their diocesan bishops, who should be assigned a certain salary, etc. The mixed Greek-Bulgarian commission appointed by the Porte worked for a long time (July 18, 1862 - February 5, 1863) on the issue of reconciliation based on the “8 points”, but came to nothing. Then the Bulgarian commissioners, in view of the news of new cruelties of the Greek bishops, presented more decisive demands regarding church independence. Patriarch Joachim II, who was not inferior to them, and who was not to the liking of the Greeks, was forced to resign. Elected in his place, P. Sofroniy (1863–1866), prompted by the financial difficulties of the patriarchate and violent unrest in some Bulgarian dioceses during the collection of patriarchal tribute, convened a council of bishops and most honorable laymen who were in Constantinople (February 21, 1864). The council, in which there were only three Bulgarian bishops and one secular person, after a long consideration in the commission of the famous “8 points”, rejected them, giving the Bulgarians only the most vague promises regarding participation in the election of the patriarch and bishops and in synodal meetings. Having learned from the government the decision of the council, the Bulgarians subjected them to sharp refutations. At the same time, the government, in order to calm the Bulgarians and add fuel to the fire, allowed Hilarion and Auxentius to return from exile (in September 1864). Having arrived in Constantinople, despite the protests of the patriarch, the Bulgarian bishops settled in the suburban village of Ortakoy. Ortakoy henceforth became the seat of the highest Bulgarian clergy. The mutual hostility of the Greeks and Bulgarians after this reached the point that Metropolitan. Auxentius, even before his death (February 1, 1865), refused to accept the permission sent to him from the patriarch against the conciliar condemnation. In vain various commissions worked to draw up conciliatory projects. In vain did Patriarch Sophrony once again convene a council at the patriarchate. He had to hand over the Bulgarian question to his successor, without moving him forward at all. What became clear was that “an agreement between the Bulgarians and Greeks to jointly equally participate in the management of the church, on the basis of the principle of nationality, is impossible, and that the only sure way to end the strife can only be the complete separation of the Bulgarians from the Greeks on any basis... The ecumenical Pope Gregory VI took this new path in relation to the Bulgarians” (1866–1871) 83 The new patriarch soon submitted a project to the government, which was supposed to form a special church district of dioceses, which would be recognized as Bulgarian, under the control of the patriarchal exarch. But this most successful project did not satisfy anyone. The Bulgarians were afraid that the undefined borders of the exarchate would no longer turn out to be ethnographic Bulgarian territory. It seemed to the Greeks that the patriarch's project promised too much to the Bulgarians. The Turkish government was afraid that the creation of a church exarchate would not inspire the Bulgarians with thoughts of political autonomy. Seeing its benefits in the mutual strife of the Orthodox, the Porte for some time completely stopped paying attention to the new and new church harassment of the Bulgarians. Only frightened by the revolutionary movements in Bulgaria (1866) and at the insistence of the Russian ambassador, General Ignatiev, the Turkish government, which had hitherto all the time fueled the Greek-Bulgarian feud, seems to abandon its dual game and itself treats the patriarch with two projects for solving the Greek-Bulgarian issue, offering to accept one of them, or to develop its own. Both projects, with differences in details, proposed the formation of a special church district from all Bulgarians, without territorial boundaries. Therefore, the Patriarchate did not accept either one or the other project, recognizing them as anti-canonical and even anti-dogmatic. To resolve the protracted feud, the patriarch asked the Porte for permission to convene an ecumenical council in Constantinople and, without waiting for a government response, at the end of 1868 he sent out invitation letters to representatives of all Orthodox autocephalous churches. The answers received were mostly unfavorable for the Bulgarians. Only the Serbian metropolitan insisted on a peaceful resolution of the issue in favor of the Bulgarians, and the Russian Holy Synod, speaking out against the convening of the council, responded that it was in the power of the patriarch to make all concessions to the Bulgarians and even grant them complete ecclesiastical independence. The Porte, for its part, not wanting an ecumenical council to take place in Constantinople, inspired the Bulgarians at hand that it would not mind giving them a firman on the establishment of an independent church, as soon as the Bulgarian bishops gathered in Constantinople. Then the Bulgarian representatives in Constantinople summoned here from the dioceses the metropolitans - Anfim of Viddin, Dorotheus of Sofia and Hilarion of Lovchan, who had already stopped commemorating the patriarchal name during divine services. Arriving in the capital, the said metropolitans, together with Metropolitan Panaret of Philippolis, who lived in Constantinople, submitted a note to the patriarch in which, explaining that the state of affairs in Bulgaria was unbearable, that the people had not accepted Greek bishops for a long time and that, as a result, the churches were deprived of priests, they declared that they refused to recognize the patriarch as their leader, and were returning to the ancient autocephalous church of the Bulgarians. At the same time, the Bulgarian bishops, together with secular representatives from the Bulgarian dioceses, turned to the Porte with a request to issue a firman. In 1369 the government commissioned several commissions, one after another, to draw up new peace agreements, and in view of the extreme agitation of the Bulgarians, finally decided to abandon its policy of delays. On February 27, 1870, the Sultan signed and promulgated the firman on the 28th, which established an independent Bulgarian exarchate. The exarchate was to include all purely Bulgarian dioceses and those mixed ones whose residents, by a two-thirds majority, declared their desire to be under the control of the Bulgarian exarch. Firman, instructing the exarch to remember the ecumenical patriarch, to communicate with him on perplexed matters of faith, to turn to the patriarchy for St. peace, and at the same time eliminated any interference of the patriarch in exarchical affairs. Soon after the publication of the firman, the Porta allowed the Bulgarians to form a “temporary council” of clergy and secular persons to conduct national church affairs and to draw up a charter for the exarchical administration. The charter was drawn up. Gathered in February 1871 in Constantinople, representatives from the Bulgarian dioceses, having examined and approved the charter, presented it to the government for approval and asked for permission to elect an exarch. How did the ecumenical patriarchy react to all this? Knowing how unstable the decisions of the Turkish government were, the Patriarchate did not want to accept the firman, worked for its destruction, entered into negotiations with the Bulgarians again and managed to slow down the implementation of the firman for two years. Patriarch Gregory VI never wanted to accept the firman and abandoned the throne. His elderly successor Anthimus VI (1871–1873) was ready to make concessions just to end the discord. For their part, the Bulgarian representatives did not shy away from peace negotiations. The Provisional Bulgarian Council sent a deputation, headed by Hilarion of Macariopolis, to welcome the new patriarch. Anfim VI kindly accepted the deputation and himself visited the Bulgarian bishops in Ortakoy. The Patriarch agreed to recognition of the independent Bulgarian Church, as long as the Bulgarians abandoned the firman. In the Patriarchate, through meetings with Bulgarian representatives, a corresponding peace project was being prepared for the establishment of a Bulgarian archdiocese, which would embrace all Bulgarian dioceses. A completely unexpected end to this conciliatory attempt was put by the rash act of some Bulgarian representatives. The most extreme of the latter, not wanting to give up the firman and in the belief that with the firman the question of church independence of the Bulgarians was finally resolved, came with a crowd of people to Ortakoy and forced Hilarion of Macariopolis, Hilarion of Lovchan and Panaret of Philippolis to serve, without obtaining patriarchal permission, the liturgy on January 6, 1872 in the Bulgarian church. The Patriarch was irritated by the action of the Bulgarians and on the same day he asked the Porte to close the temporary Bulgarian council and remove the Bulgarian bishops from the capital, refusing any peace negotiations with the Bulgarians. Soon, the council of bishops gathered in the patriarchate declared Hilarion of Lovchan and Panaret deposed, and excommunicated Hilarion of Makariopolis. The Patriarch, indeed, did not want to enter into any peaceful relations with the Bulgarians, despite the fact that moderate Bulgarian representatives apologized to him for what happened on January 6. At the request of the patriarch, the Porte removed the Bulgarian bishops to Nicomedia (January 21, 1872) and closed the Bulgarian church. Then the Bulgarians gathered in a crowd in Plywood, covered the church with black cloth and submitted a petition to the government for the return of the bishops and the enforcement of the firman. In view of the ongoing unrest of the Bulgarians, the Grand Vizier tried three times to persuade the patriarch to accept the firman. Without receiving consent, the vizier returned the Bulgarian bishops from exile (January 30) and allowed the Bulgarians (February 10, 1372) to begin electing an exarch on February 11. He was elected exarch bishop. Hilarion of Lovchan, deposed by the Patriarchate. In view of the latter circumstance, and also realizing his senile weakness and unpreparedness for a high position, Hilarion himself refused the election five days later. Then the gifted, educated and eloquent Metropolitan Anfim of Viddis was elected. His Eminence Anfim (1816–1888), originally from the Thracian city of Kirk-klisse, studied first at local Greek schools, then at the Khalkin school and Odessa seminary and graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy. Returning to Constantinople, Anfim served for some time as a hieromonk at the Russian embassy, ​​then was a teacher of church history and Russian language at the Khalkin school. Appointed in 1861 as Bishop of Preslav (in Shumla) and not accepted by the flock, he lived in Constantinople and carried out various responsible assignments of the Patriarchate, which more than once sent him to pacify the Bulgarians, who in different places accepted the union due to dissatisfaction with the Greek clergy. From 1365, Anfim was the rector of the Khalkin school, and in 1868 he was appointed metropolitan in Viddin. Coldly received by the Viddinites, Anfim saw the impossibility of resisting the popular movement and from December 6, 1868, he stopped remembering the name of the patriarch during services. Arriving from Viddin in Constantinople and introducing himself to the Sultan, Exarch Anthimus three times asked the Patriarch for permission to appear to him and for permission to serve in the Bulgarian church. The Patriarch refused, demanding that Anthimus bring written repentance, renounce the title of exarch and, instead of the firman, accept a new peace project, according to which fewer dioceses were ceded to the Bulgarians and the name “Emos” was given to the exarchate. Then the exarch declared the deposition and excommunication of the Bulgarian bishops invalid, and on May 11, 1872, in his co-service, he performed a solemn liturgy in the Bulgarian church. At the liturgy, after the Gospel, an act was read that declared the Bulgarian Church independent. For this, the Patriarchal Synod declared Exarch Anfim deprived of the priesthood, M. Hilarion of Lovchansky and Panaret - excommunicated, and Bishop. Hilarion of Macariopolis “guilty of fiery Gehenna and eternal anathema.” Not content with this, the patriarch convened a local council in Constantinople, with the participation of other patriarchs and representatives of the autocephalous Greek churches. When the invited hierarchs arrived, the Greeks of Constantinople made every effort to get them to condemn the Bulgarians. Saint Cyril II of Jerusalem, who was against the condemnation of the Bulgarians, was subjected to insults from the Greek street crowd and did not want to remain in Constantinople until the end of the council. On September 16, 1872, the council declared the Bulgarian bishops and their hosts schismatics for ethnophyletism, or the introduction of tribal divisions into the church. The Greeks hoped that the “schism” would frighten the Bulgarians and force them to abandon their convicted bishops. But it turned out that the schism only further strengthened the isolation of the Bulgarians from the patriarchy. Metropolitan Kliment of Ternovsky (Pupil of the Kiev Theological Academy, † July 12, 1901) Chapter III. Bulgarian Exarchic Church from its foundation to the end of the 19th century (1872–1900) Streamlining exarchical affairs. – District letters of the exarchate to the people and autocephalous Orthodox churches. – Relations between the exarchy and the patriarchy. – New conciliatory attempts and their failure. – The beginning of the “Bulgarian horrors” and the church-folk activities of Exarch Anfim. His deposition and imprisonment. – Liberation of Bulgaria. – The difficult situation of the Bulgarian exarchy, due to the political disunion of the Bulgarian regions. – Exarch Joseph I and his church organizing activities. – Relations to the church of the Bulgarian princely government. Constraints of the church and persecution of bishops under Istanbul. - The suffering of Metropolitan. Clement. – Changes in the government’s relationship with church authorities with the fall of Istanbulov. – The state of church affairs in the principality by the end of the 19th century. – Disorder of exarchical affairs after the liberation war in Turkey. National struggle of Macedonian Christians. – Gradual streamlining of exarchical administration in Turkey. – The disasters of the Turkish Bulgarians at the end of the 19th century. On May 11, 1872, Anfim began to act completely independently. He ordained a metropolitan for the Samokov diocese, Dosifei, and appointed Hilarion of Macariopolis as metropolitan in Ternovo. Soon, metropolitans were ordained for the dioceses of Nishava († Victor), Preslav (Simeon) and Dorostol-Cherven (Gregory, † 1898). Although these dioceses were not considered widowed in the Patriarchate, the exarch received berata from the Porte for the Bulgarian bishops. The proclamation of schism forced the exarch to address all Bulgarian dioceses with a district message. The message inspired the Bulgarian people not to be embarrassed by schism and to strictly observe the Orthodox faith. On the same occasion, the exarchate sent a message to all autocephalous churches. Outlining the history of the Greek-Bulgarian feud, the exarch assured that the Bulgarian people did not want to separate from the Orthodox Church. The Patriarch, seeing that “schism” for Bulgaria was an empty phrase, in order to make the decision of the Council of Constantinople, which condemned the Bulgarians, valid, demanded that the Turkish government call the Bulgarians schismatics and in this sense change the firman, so that the Bulgarian clergy would be given special clothing, unlike the Orthodox clergy, etc. It seemed to the Greeks that all this would lead to confusion and divisions among the Bulgarian people and will keep many in the hands of the Patriarchate. Porta was ready to fulfill the demands of the patriarch. But the exarch resolutely opposed. As a result of the bloody local clashes between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, the Porte continued to insist that the exarch either agree to change the firman, which would make him completely independent of the Orthodox patriarch and would make it possible to send exarchical bishops and priests wherever the Bulgarians live, or enter into a direct agreement with the patriarch to finally settle the issue. But there were protests from all over Bulgaria against changes in the firman. The Bulgarian press urged the exarch to firmly adhere to the firman. But the Porte had difficulty issuing borates to the Bulgarian bishops, and even then not to all dioceses. In many dioceses with a predominant Bulgarian population, there were still Greek bishops. The government did not remove them, and the people did not want to know them. The needs of the Bulgarian population prompted the exarch in November 1873 to appoint bishops to the dioceses of Adrianople and Thessaloniki without the consent of the Porte. But the Patriarchate protested and the Porte demanded that the Bulgarian bishops be recalled. Metropolitan sent to Adrianople. Dorfey returned to Constantinople, and was appointed bishop to Kukush (Thessalonica region). Nile opposed and accepted the union with his diocese. On the other hand, the Porte did not comply with all the orders of the patriarch and did not give berat to all the bishops whom the patriarchate continued to appoint to the Bulgarian dioceses. The frequent changes of viziers and ministers that took place at this time gave the Greek-Bulgarian cause either favorable or unfavorable directions for the Bulgarians. Thus, under the great vizier Reshid Pasha, the Bulgarians managed to form a synod under the exarchy and create a mixed exarchical council to conduct non-spiritual affairs of the exarchy. At the same time, the exarch received berat for the Bulgarian metropolitans - Ohrid and Skopje. But, having issued berats to the Bulgarian metropolitans, the government left the Greek bishops in place. Therefore, the appointment of the Bulgarian bishops could not but cause protest from the side, who by this time had re-assumed the patriarchal throne of Jokim II (1873–1878). Patriarch Jokim II saw that it was impossible to return everything that had happened, and therefore he sincerely wanted to reconcile with the exarch, but only “on conditions that do not affect the definition of the great council of 1872.” Exarch Anthimus, for his part, sought reconciliation and was ready to annually pay the patriarch an amount for those dioceses that would become part of the exarchate. Unfortunately, the daily petty quarrels of individuals spoiled the general conciliatory mood and prevented it from developing and reaching a tangible result 84 . The successes of the exarchate during the survey of residents in mixed dioceses also impeded the progress of peace negotiations, although the exarch even agreed to retire from Constantinople, restore the commemoration of the patriarchal name, and in the matter of delimiting the dioceses, obey the decisions of the Porte and the mixed commission, as long as his rights over the dioceses specified in the firman remained unchanged. The matter dragged on without any success until 1876, when the difficult times that befell the Bulgarians diverted attention to another direction. The unrest of the Bulgarians in Northern Bulgaria and Thrace that began after the Herzegovinian uprising served as a reason for unprecedented Turkish cruelties. Bulgaria was illuminated by the glow of fires. Streams of blood flowed everywhere. The Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks pursued the Bulgarians and killed them like hares. Residents of not only villages, but also entire cities were beaten. During these horrors, it was especially difficult for the Bulgarian clergy, who always stood at the head of people's affairs. Many of the Bulgarian priests paid with their lives. They were hanged and crucified on crosses. Many languished and died in gloomy Turkish prisons. The Bulgarian bishops were removed from the dioceses, or through bribery they could only appease their local Turkish authorities, who looked at them as dangerous spies. The situation of the Bulgarian exarch turned out to be the most difficult, due to internal unrest in the exarchate and due to the hostility and suspicion of the government. The Exarch fearlessly interceded for the Bulgarians, who were victims of Turkish fanaticism. Neither good promises nor threats could divert the valiant shepherd from patriotic service to the people who were striving for political freedom 85. The Armenian-Catholic Patriarch Hassoun warned the exarch to be careful not to suffer the fate of Patriarch Gregory V. “God grant that your words are true,” answered the exarch, “because when P. Gregory was hanged, a free Greek kingdom was created, and if I were hanged, a free Bulgarian kingdom could be created.” When a conference of European representatives met in Constantinople in 1886, the exarch presented it with a memoir on measures to improve the situation of the Bulgarians. At the same time, he refused to sign the letter of gratitude prepared by some Bulgarians to the Sultan and did not attend the meeting with the Grand Vizier, which was supposed to reject the reforms planned for the Turkish Empire. The Porte was ready to depose the exarch. Some of the Bulgarians, who were hostile to the exarch, who was always inclined towards an amicable agreement with the patriarchy, also sought the same thing. The Bulgarian ill-wishers of the exarch tried to incite the bishops and people against him, they did not even hesitate to write in the newspapers that the exarch was a Russian weapon and could be responsible for the death of the Bulgarians. By informing the government about all the patriotic actions of the exarch, his opponents achieved that, at their request, the Porte ordered the exarchic synod to depose the saint. Anfima then exiled him to Asia Minor. Only at the end of the Russian-Turkish war, thanks to the petition of V.K. Nikolai Nikolaevich, the Reverend. Anfim was returned from exile and went to his Viddin diocese. Subsequently, high Anfim took part in the founding meetings of the emerging Bulgarian principality, traveled to Russia at the head of a delegation of gratitude and until the end of his life (1888), took part in the organization of Bulgarian church affairs under the new political conditions of the people. On February 19, 1879, the hour for the liberation of Bulgaria struck and the St. Stefan Russian-Turkish peace treaty was signed. According to this agreement, a self-governing principality of “whole” Bulgaria was to be formed. But the Berlin Congress of European Diplomats dispelled the Bulgarians' dreams of a great Bulgaria and divided the Bulgarian regions into three parts. The Bulgarian principality, or proper, was formed. Bulgaria and the autonomous region of the Turkish Empire under the name of Eastern Rumelia, and Macedonia with part of Thrace (Adrianople Vilayet) remained under Turkish rule. At the same time, the dioceses of Niš and Pirot were annexed to Serbia and became part of the Serbian Church. The unifying center of all three parts of the Bulgarian ethnographic territory in spiritual terms remained the Bulgarian exarchy, with its head the exarch, which since April 22, 1877 has been Blessed Joseph, elected to the place of Anthima I. Blazh. Joseph was born in 1840, in the town of Kalofer, where he received his primary education. Afterwards he studied at the Constantinople French School (in Bebek) and completed his education in Paris, where he took a course in philological and legal sciences. Upon returning to Constantinople, he was a Turkish official for some time, then received the post of chief secretary at the Bulgarian synod and the mixed exarchical council. Having accepted monasticism (1872), he became an exarchal proto-sinkel, then ruled the Viddin diocese, and in February 1876 he was ordained metropolitan of the Lovchan diocese, where he remained until his election to exarch. Blazh. Joseph had to take the exarchal throne in difficult moments of the Russian-Turkish war, when the Turkish government could be least inclined to the Bulgarian church cause. Immediately after the end of the war, the exarch was forced to move from Constantinople to Philippopolis. Porta did not want to hear about the existence of the Bulgarian exarchy. The exarch had to remain in Eastern Rumelia, although the interests of the Bulgarians remaining under Turkish rule forced him to rush to Constantinople. Only having secured his ecclesiastical rights by the organic charter of Eastern Rumelia, as its exarch, Blessed. Joseph was given the opportunity to return to Constantinople to act in favor of the Exarchic Church. The situation of the latter in Turkey after the liberation war turned out to be very sad. The Turkish Bulgarians did not have a single bishop left. Even before the war, the Metropolitans of Skopje, Ohrid and Veles were forced to leave their dioceses, after which they retired to the principality and could no longer return to their flock. The Bulgarians were given the power of the local Greek hierarchy. They were overwhelmed by Catholic and Protestant missionaries. At the same time, the Turks who evicted from Bulgaria took advantage of the defenselessness of the Bulgarians in every possible way. With all this, the exarch was deprived of the opportunity to help his flock. “Many and complex reasons paralyzed the exarch’s efforts to advance the church issue in Macedonia” 86. The exarch only managed to secure the personal favor of the Sultan and through this, to a certain extent, paralyze the harassment hostile to the exarchy, directing all efforts to the development of school affairs among the Turkish Bulgarians. While still involved in his activities in relation to the dioceses in Turkey, the exarch took an active part in the church organization of the liberated Bulgarian regions. After a period of devastating war and under the new political conditions of the people, many church needs were felt and many urgent issues arose. The Russian occupation administration also had to take care of the repair and restoration of destroyed and robbed churches in Bulgaria and Rumelia, and of means to improve the material and educational condition of the clergy. But with the publication of the Berlin treatise, which confused the external relations of the Bulgarian church, it was necessary to postpone the organization of church affairs until the uncertainty in the position of the Bulgarian church was clarified. Then the Bulgarian clergy itself took up the organization of the Bulgarian church, in relation to the new living conditions of the people. In the principality of Bulgaria and eastern Rumelia, this ordering of church affairs was carried out separately until these regions united on September 6, 1885. In eastern Rumelia, the organization of church affairs on the basis of the “organic charter” developed for the region and in accordance with the original exarchical charter was carried out with the close participation of the exarch while he lived in Philippopolis. Blazh. Joseph tried to put church affairs in order that had been upset by the war, and he especially contributed a lot to improving the life of the clergy, as far as this turned out to be possible under exceptional political conditions in a region that did not want to put up with its dependent position. The local diocesan authorities tried to eliminate unauthorized transfers of priests from parish to parish, to determine their rights and positions in relation to parishioners (district letter of the Metropolitan of Philippi, dated March 12, 1879) 87 and guided the clergy with their pastoral messages 88 . Apparently, it was easier to streamline church affairs in the Bulgarian Principality, which was placed in comparatively better conditions than other Bulgarian regions. The Bulgarian clergy, who had served so much in the cause of national revival, at first seemed to receive a grateful assessment of their labors, and were invited to take an immediate part in state organizational work. So, when the first great national assembly met in Ternov (from February 10, 1879) to develop an organic charter in the principality, the former exarch Anfim was proclaimed chairman. He also presided over the meeting that elected the first Bulgarian prince, Alexander Battenberg. Called to participate in the state life of the principality in the person of their highest representatives, who, according to the constitution, had the right to sit in the national assembly, the Bulgarian clergy could expect full attention to the church and their needs from the princely government. But in fact, the attempts of the spiritual authorities to organize church affairs here also met with no small difficulties. The government soon discovered an illegal desire to interfere in the affairs of the church beyond its jurisdiction and even give them a direction unfavorable for the church. Even in the first meeting in Ternov, the liberal party, which had the upper hand on the question of the church, was ready to introduce into the constitution such fundamental provisions on freedom of conscience and the press that the spiritual and moderate members of the meeting only by demonstrably leaving forced them to change the decision 89 . The liberal party, which took control of the government in 1879, led by Tsankov and Karavelov, did not hide its dislike for the church and decided to lay its hand on church government in the principality. Therefore, the Bulgarian government did not want the Bulgarian exarch to be in Sofia or Philippopolis for fear that he would influence church affairs, which were managed almost uncontrollably by the ministers 90. The first clash between the Bulgarian government and the exarch occurred in 1879, when the Bulgarian government raised the issue with the Porte about the rights of the Samokov and Kyustendil metropolitans to parts of their dioceses, which, according to the Berlin treaty, went to Turkey. Having achieved nothing directly, the Bulgarian government insisted that the exarch raise the issue. But the exarch did not find it timely to speak to the Porte with such a question. From here, the dissatisfaction with the exarch that began turned into outright hostility and was expressed at the end of 1880 by a number of measures aimed at clearly “diminishing the rights of the highest Bulgarian clergy.” The government obtained from the people's assembly a reduction in the salaries of bishops. The latter found it difficult to maintain themselves with decency. To the Exarch instead of 200,000 francs. only 50 tons were allocated, of which the exarch actually received 30 tons. Having thus humiliated and weakened the higher clergy, the same government, for party reasons, promised to increase the contents of the lower clergy. The government had the same goal - the humiliation and weakening of the highest spiritual authority - in mind when it had to approve the charter of church governance in the principality, developed by the spiritual authority. The draft charter was subject to such changes that the spiritual authorities had to protest. Then the government (D. Tsankov), without the knowledge of the spiritual authorities, developed “temporary rules of spiritual administration” and sent them to the bishops for implementation. Only after the refusal of the exarch and the bishops to accept the “rules”, the ministry submitted its draft rules to the episcopal council for consideration, and showed such intransigence that nothing was achieved to regulate church relations, until, finally, in 1883, during the reign of the conservative Russian ministry. General Sobolev and in the management of the ministry spirit. affairs of K. Stoilov, the “exarchical charter adapted to the principality” was not published. Further political life in the principality, full of unrest and anxiety, did little to improve church affairs, which the Bulgarian synod took up. In 1885, Eastern Rumelia was united with the principality, which led to a fratricidal war between the Bulgarians and the Serbs. The war ended successfully for the Bulgarian principality, but was accompanied within it by the movement of various parties, which led to the deposition and removal of the first Bulgarian prince from Bulgaria. The subsequent internal political turmoil, which led to a political break between Russia and Bulgaria, brought to the stage people like Istanbulov with a company of “stick insects” who formed a temporary administration until the election of a new prince. On July 7, 1887, the Catholic Prince Ferdinand of Coburg was elected prince. Having become minister-president, Istanbulov seized all power into his own hands and, on behalf of the prince, who was not recognized by the great powers and owed everything to him, did what he wanted. It was hard for the Bulgarian clergy then, especially its highest representatives. The cruel temporary worker, fearing most of all that the clergy would oppose his policy, which was contrary to the people’s spirit, treated the latter with all intolerance and hostility. The clergy was embarrassed in every possible way in their activities. The government interfered in purely spiritual matters. It prevented the receipt of liturgical books from Russia and decided to make its own publication, excluding the names of the Russian Imperial House. The government prevented the opening of the Stara Zagora diocese (1883), arbitrarily destroyed churches in the capital while planning the city, and did not want to provide financial support for the parish clergy, and deprived the clergy of voting rights. The actions of the Istanbul government offended the most sacred. feelings of the Bulgarian people were accompanied by persecution of church representatives. Thus, the government, without communication with the exarch, in 1887 decided to remove the exarchic delegate, Metropolitan Clement of Tern, from Sofia, as a person hostile to the prince. When the Right Reverend Clement, without the permission of the exarch, did not want to submit to the illegal demand of the government, the latter did not hesitate to make threats to him through its “stick insects.” The following year, 1888, the entire Bulgarian synod, which opposed the introduction of petitions in churches for the prince, who insulted Orthodoxy with many of his actions, and did not yield to other government demands, was dispersed by force. The synodal members (Metropolitan Clement, Simeon and Constantine) with the gendarmes were expelled from Sofia at night. After this, the government did not allow the hierarchs of the Bulgarian church to jointly speak out on the most pressing issues of church and public life. The Synod did not meet in Sofia until 1894. With such insults and violence, the government tried to deprive the Orthodox clergy of the opportunity to counteract its predatory regime. For the same purpose, it zealously patronized all sorts of enemies of Orthodoxy and the church (Catholicism, atheism, etc.). The exarch was deprived of any influence on the course of church affairs in the principality. The government even encroached on the religious principles of the constitution, deciding, in the interests of the prince’s dynasty. Ferdinand, who was thinking of marrying a Catholic princess, changed § 38 of the constitution on the faith of the heir to the throne. At the very first rumors about this Istanbul undertaking, the exarch protested and in an appeal issued to the Bulgarian clergy called on them to resist the intended insult to the people's faith. Most of the metropolitans took the side of the exarch and just as resolutely rebelled against the illegal actions of Istanbulov, for which the most decisive of them, Metropolitan Clement of Tern, paid severely. His Eminence Clement, originally from Shumla (1841), was educated at the Odessa Seminary and the Kyiv Academy. Having become a monk in 1873, he was vicar of the Metropolitan of Dorostolochervensk, rector of the Peter and Paul Seminary and for some time minister of education. After deleting the book. Alexandra, the Most Reverend Clement, already in the rank of Metropolitan of Terniv (since 1884) was for several days the minister-president of the revolutionary administration. He was an exarchic delegate to the princely government and a member of the synod. His Eminence Clement is not an unknown writer of fiction in Bulgaria, and is also known as a brilliant orator and spiritual writer. Government of the book Ferdinand has long looked askance at the valiant supporter of unity with Russia, which was always the Eminence Clement, who did not recognize the installation of the prince as legal. Ferdinand in Bulgaria and refused to commemorate the prince during the service. For this, Ave. Clement was repeatedly persecuted by Istanbulov, both personally and together with other bishops. This was not enough for Stambulov. He decided to completely get rid of the fiery zealot for the people's church interests. On February 14, 1893, on the day of Orthodoxy, on the occasion of the prince’s birthday, by order of Istanbulov, a solemn service was to be held in all churches. The Right Reverend Clement, who served in the Ternov Metropolitan Church, delivered a sermon after the service. Without saying a word about the prince in his sermon, the archpastor spoke about the ingratitude of the Bulgarians towards Russia and, on the occasion of the Day of Orthodoxy and in view of the impending attack on the Orthodox faith of the people during the revision of the constitution, he called on the people to seek support in the church and not to sacrifice themselves to their enemies. Soon, at the instigation of the prefect, the metropolitan was attacked in his house by a drunken crowd and, after various insults and beatings, he was thrown bound into a cart and sent with curses to the Peter and Paul Monastery located near Ternov 91. Despite the protests of the exarch and metropolitans against such outrageous violence, Metropolitan Clement was tried, convicted and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Monastery, where he suffered all kinds of torture. On hot summer days, the prisoner’s cell was heated to the point where he could not breathe. The guards did not allow the unfortunate martyr to sleep peacefully. From the Peter and Paul Monastery, the “sharpener” was secretly transported to the more remote and sparsely populated Glozhensky Monastery, where “excessive moisture kills all living creatures that settle there” 92. They demanded that the exarch appoint a new metropolitan in Ternovo. But Blessed Joseph responded with a protest against the violation of church rules in the case of Clement, more than once protested against the cruelties inflicted on him, and even earlier he made a sharp protest when “with the complete humiliation of the dominant religion in the principality,” the first son of the prince. Ferdinand was baptized into the Roman Catholic faith. For this, the Istanbul government threatened the exarch with resignation, the fate of Clement, and refused to give the exarchate a salary 93 . Finally, the dictatorship of Istanbulov, so difficult for the entire people, became burdensome for the prince. Ferdinand. “Already from the beginning of 1894, favorable omens began for the Bulgarian religious and national consciousness” 94. On May 18, 1894, Istanbulov received his resignation and everyone breathed more freely. Metropolitan Clement was immediately released. The state of church affairs began to change for the better. The church authorities no longer encounter such obstacles to organizing their affairs on the basis of the “exarchical charter,” which was again revised and approved by the prince in 1895. Prince Ferdinand, not finding it possible to resist the Orthodox feelings of the people any longer and in order to reconcile with the spiritual power of the Bulgarian Church, decided on February 2, 1896 to annex the crown prince Boris to the Orthodox Church. In the presence of the extraordinary representative of the Sovereign Emperor, the sacrament of anointing was performed on the prince by the blessed Exarch Joseph, with the participation of all the Bulgarian metropolitans of the principality. This marked the beginning of more normal relations between the Bulgarian church and the government of Prince. Ferdinand, who soon received recognition from the European powers. The highest church authority, taking advantage of this state of affairs, in recent years has been working with all diligence on church improvement in the principality, organizing monasteries, disseminating spiritual enlightenment, as far as possible under the conditions in which the spiritual authority is placed by the laws of the principality, with the general indifference to the affairs of the church of government officials, and with those meager funds that the government, during the economic crisis in the country, placed at the disposal of the spiritual authority. As for the church life of the Bulgarians who remained under Turkish rule, the situation of the latter, despite the reforms promised by the Berlin treaty, has hardly changed for the better. After the formation of the free Bulgarian principality, the Turkish government, as is already known, did not hide its dislike towards its Bulgarian subjects and their national-ecclesiastical institutions. Not having time to remove the exarch from Constantinople, the Turkish government tried to weaken and paralyze the influence of the Bulgarian exarchate in Macedonia and Turkish Thrace, giving freedom of action to forces hostile to it, which now are not only the Greeks, but also the Serbs with their national claims to the Macedonian dioceses. Taking advantage of the weakness of the exarchy, the Greeks again began to persecute the Bulgarian language and Slavic worship. Persecution is being launched against all more or less advanced and developed Bulgarians. The accusation of revolutionary plans was the simplest and most effective remedy in this case. Meanwhile, the Bulgarians were deprived of their bishops, who were the only legal representatives of Christians in Turkey. The Bulgarian bishops, having left their dioceses even before the war, could not return to their flock, which, now, if it did not submit to the local Greek diocese, was subjected to all kinds of restrictions and became the prey of heterodox missionaries. Only the patriotic zeal of the Macedonian and Thracian Bulgarians and the intensive educational activities of the exarchate, which enjoyed support from the principality, did not allow the Turkish Bulgarians to renounce their national ideals again and gradually moved the Bulgarian national church cause forward. The influence of the exarchy began to increase noticeably by the mid-80s. The exarch even received permission to send two bishops to Macedonia. Berats had already been prepared for the Ohrid and Skopje metropolitans. The metropolitans were ready to go to their dioceses. But at this very time the union of Eastern Rumelia with the principality occurred, which irritated the Turks. The government delayed the publication of the berats for five whole years. The metropolitans were forced to remain in Constantinople and govern the dioceses through governors. Only in August 1890, at the insistence of the Bulgarian government, the Porte issued the aforementioned berat to the metropolitans of Ohrid and Skopje, whose arrival to the flock gave the latter the opportunity to more boldly declare their inclinations towards the exarchy and more decisively resist the temptations of Catholic and Protestant (American) missionaries. The particularly troubled times of the Istanbul regime in the principality that followed, which strained relations between the Bulgarian government and the exarchy, changed the latter’s position for the worse. The Porte again begins to push back the exarchy and raises a fierce struggle against the autonomous rights of the exarchy over the Bulgarian schools 95 . Many of the Bulgarian schools in Macedonia were closed. Only the intervention of the Bulgarian government, after the fall of Istanbulov, helped the exarchy. In 1894, the latter even obtained permission from the Porte to send metropolitans to the Velevs and Nevrokop dioceses. This opened up the opportunity for the exarchate to expand its church-religious and public educational activities. At the same time, the expansion of the exarchic boundaries so greatly revived the Orthodox consciousness of the Bulgarians that the entire Bulgarian-Uniate (cuckoo) diocese returned to the bosom of the exarchic church, together with its bishop Lazar Mladenov, 96 who, however, joined the exarchate only temporarily. Having drawn the Kukushans into the union and living in Constantinople, the Uniate Archbishop Nile also reconciled with the exarchy (1895) and moved to the principality. After the Greco-Turkish War, during which the Bulgarian Principality maintained neutrality, the Bulgarian Exarchate (at the end of 1897) received from the Porte three more berat for bishops - Bitola (Pelagonian), Strumica and Debra, who were soon ordained and sent to dioceses. With the increase in the number of Bulgarian bishops, the Bulgarian Church in Turkey grows stronger and develops, attracting to itself all Bulgarians with an awakened national consciousness. Villages and hamlets with an Orthodox Bulgarian population are gradually transferred to the department of the exarchate, upon completion of the formalities required by law 97. At the same time, church affairs in the Bulgarian dioceses are being brought into greater order, in accordance with the original exarchical charter, and the opportunity is opening up for more successful religious and moral education of the people. In the 1898–1899 academic year, under the authority of the exarchate there were 858 primary schools with 44,988 students, 80 lower and secondary schools with 3,413 students 98 . Unfortunately, such obvious successes of the Exarchic Church and the Bulgarian nation it personified in Turkey seemed too dangerous to the Turks. Given its own powerlessness, the Turkish government is looking for support for itself in the discord of the subordinate population and for this purpose, as before, is trying to oppose the growing Bulgarians with everything that may be hostile to them. The Porte does not even hesitate to subject the Bulgarians to open persecution, in the belief that the Bulgarian government, preoccupied with the party struggle and the economic crisis in the principality, is unable to come to the aid of its oppressed brethren. According to the latest data, the Sultan's government is hostile to the exarchy. No attention is paid to the legitimate demands of the Bulgarian Church. The Porta openly arms its most cruel enemies against it and openly supports them. The situation of the Bulgarian church authorities in the Turkish provinces is desperate. Attempts are made on the lives of Bulgarian bishops, and the Turkish government leaves the conspirators unpunished. The Metropolitan of Strumica is still not allowed to build a church for himself in the diocesan city. Bishops do not dare travel around dioceses. Bishops' governors are not allowed to sit in the Majlis. Priests are sent to prison without trial and without guilt; they are persecuted, robbed and outright killed. Bulgarian teachers are almost declared enemies of the fatherland, and few of them have not been to prison unless they paid off with a bribe. Often there are reports of Turks raping Bulgarian women, abducting girls and forcibly converting them to Islam 100 . There is nothing to say about murders, robberies. Wanting to weaken the Bulgarian element in its European possessions, the Turkish government takes advantage of the national struggle of the Greeks, Serbs and Wallachians with the Bulgarians and, to the detriment of the latter, under various pretexts closes the Bulgarian churches or transfers them to artificially created insignificant communities of patriarchists, Serbs and Uniates. Dozens of Bulgarian villages remain without churches 101. Thus, despite all the efforts of the exarchic authorities, as a result of the Turkish policy hostile to the Bulgarian interests, the position of the exarchic church within the Turkish Empire by the very end of the 19th century. left a lot to be desired. Chamber of the Holy Synod in Sofia Chapter IV. The current state of the Bulgarian church Spiritual management. – Limits of the Bulgarian Exarchic Church. – Its highest administration is the synod. – Exarch and metropolitans. – Diocesan administration in the principality. – Parishes and parish clergy. – Maintenance of the Bulgarian clergy in Turkey. – Spiritual administration in the Bulgarian dioceses in Turkey. – Spiritual enlightenment. – The scarcity of spiritual and educational means among the Bulgarian people before the founding of the exarchy. – Enlightenment merits of monasteries. – Multiplication of educational means. - The emergence of religious schools. – Lack of enlightened pastors, lack of church preaching and scarcity of spiritual literature. – Activities of priestly brotherhoods. – The religious and moral state of the Bulgarian people under the Turkish yoke. – Change for the worse since the liberation of Bulgaria. – Causes of religious and moral decline and its manifestation. - The state of monasticism. Enjoying self-government under the name of exarchy, the Orthodox Bulgarian Church, in addition to the dioceses in the Bulgarian Principality, also includes several Bulgarian dioceses in Turkey, named or generally indicated in the firman of 1870. Bulgarian Holy Synod. From left to right: Simeon of Varney and Preslav, Dosifei Samokovsky, Konstantin Vrachansky There are eleven dioceses in the principality: Sofia, Filippopolis or Plovdiv, Ternov, Dorostolocherven (Rushutsk), Preslavo-Varna, Viddinsk, Vrakanskaya, Slivenskaya, Samokovskaya, Lovchanskaya and Starozagorskaya. Within Turkey, the dioceses included in the exarchy are: Veles, Skopje, Nevrokop, Strumica, Ohrid, Pelagonia, Debra, which have their own metropolitans, and Adrianople (in the Adrianople vilayet), governed by a governor. In addition, the exarchate has communities under its jurisdiction in the dioceses of Melnik, Polyanin (with the cities of Kukush and Doiran), Lerin, Kostur, Vodno, Ber, Thessaloniki, Ser and Drama. The supreme administration of the entire Bulgarian church belongs to the synod of metropolitans headed by an exarch. The exarch is the highest representative of the church with executive power. He is elected for life from among the Bulgarian metropolitans. The election is made by a special council, at which all Bulgarian bishops and secular representatives from the Bulgarian dioceses, two from each, and the same number from the Tsaregrad Bulgarian community, are elected to the exarchy. From the candidates proposed by the diocesan bishops, the council, by a majority vote, elects two or three worthy ones, whose names are submitted to the Turkish government for approval. From among those approved by secret ballot, the council elects one as exarch. The chosen one is presented to the Sultan and at the same time his election is notified by the Bulgarian prince by decree. The metropolitan elected to exarch retains his diocese. The current exarch is the Metropolitan of Lovchany. The exarch is the chairman of the synod, which consists of four metropolitans elected for a four-year term by the diocesan bishops by written vote. In the absence of the exarch, one of the members of the synod appointed by him presides. The latter is usual, since the Bulgarian synod constantly meets in Sofia and only on special occasions (for the election and consecration of bishops, etc.) meets at the residence of the exarch, who usually stays in Ortakea, near Constantinople. Four metropolitans make up the presence of St. synod, which meets twice a year in Sofia, and are in charge of all church affairs (in the principality, mainly). The presiding officer of the Bulgarian synod has recently been the Samokov Metropolitan Dosifei, and the metropolitan members are: Simeon of Preslavo-Varna, Constantine of Doctors and Parthenius of Sofia. Very Reverend Dosifei (born in 1837) is the oldest by ordination and the first of the metropolitans ordained in the exarchate. The Eminence received his initial education in his native city of Sofia, and continued at the Khalkin School. Having accepted monasticism (1862) and gradually rising in spiritual ranks, in the rank of archimandrite he achieved the rank of chief secretary at the patriarchal synod in Constantinople. By this time, the aggravated Bulgarian-Greek question was posed by Arch. Dositheus is in a difficult position in relation to his people. Therefore, on May 1, 1872, he voluntarily left his position, transferred to the department of the exarchy, and soon received ordination as bishop of Samokov. Since the liberation of Bulgaria, the Most Reverend. Dosifei was a member of the synod several times and more than once presiding over it, which he still is. Very Reverend Dosifei is known for his kindness to the poor, and is distinguished by his accessibility and simplicity in dealing with his clergy and with everyone. Eminence Simeon, originally from the city of Burgas, is a Hilandar monk, graduated from the Khalkin school and is also one of the first Bulgarian bishops who received ordination not from the patriarchate. High-sp. Constantine, originally from the city of Kalofer, studied in Constantinople (in Bebek), and then in Rome. In 1887 he was ordained bishop in the city of Bratsu, where he had previously been a manager with the rank of archimandrite. High-sp. Parthenius was elected to the synod at the very end of 1900 to the place of high pr. Clement, who refused the title of synodal member due to serious illness. Very Reverend Parfeniy comes from the village. Vaisala, in the Adrianople vilayet, studied at the Adrianople Greek School and continued his education at the Jerusalem Cross Monastery School. He passed his first holy degrees in the diocese of the Greek Metropolitan of Adrianople, received ordination to the episcopal rank from Exarch Anthima and was a vicar in Viddina. Subsequently he was rector of the Peter and Paul Seminary. Elected to the Sofia department in 1892. Diocesan bishops, using the title of metropolitans, are elected from those approved by the saints. Synod of Candidates. The election takes place in the diocesan city and is carried out by representatives of the local clergy and people. Two candidates are elected, of whom St. the synod approves one. A metropolitan, ordained to a diocese in a principality, is confirmed by a princely decree, and in Turkey receives a berat from the Sultan, and is recommended to the diocese by a synodal message. Movements of bishops from department to department are not allowed. For church administrative and judicial administration, under each metropolitan, under his chairmanship or protosingel, there is a diocesan spiritual council. It consists of four of the parish priests, chosen by the clergy for a four-year term. Parthenius, Metropolitan of Sofia (in Bulgaria) Metropolitan Methodius of Starozagorsky (Pupil of St. Petersburg Theological Academy) The dioceses of the principality in ecclesiastical and administrative terms are divided into vicegerentships (60), which are governed by bishops' governors living in the more significant cities of the dioceses. The metropolitan's vicar in the diocesan city is protosingel. In the principality by 1897 there were 2,123 parishes. In rural parishes there are 150–250 households, in urban parishes there are 200–300. Candidates for priesthood must be at least 25 years old and have a certificate of completion of a theological school. If there is a lack of trained candidates, those who have completed three classes of a secular school after passing a special priestly examination are also admitted. The parish priest is elected by a meeting of clergy, if there is more than one priest in the parish, and more prominent parishioners, under the leadership of the bishop's vicar. For the maintenance of the exarchy and St. Synod, the Bulgarian government annually contributes to the exarchic treasury an amount corresponding to the number of Orthodox families in the principality, counting 40 centimes per family or married couple. According to the 1900 budget, this amount was determined at 245,964 leva or francs. Diocesan bishops in the principality receive their maintenance from the state treasury according to estimates. In 1900, they were given, according to the two categories of the diocese, from 7,476 to 9,800 leva per year. The parish clergy is supported by income from corrections (at a certain rate: for baptism one lion, wedding 12 l., liturgy 3 l., etc.) and receives additional remuneration from the treasury (since 1891). According to the charter of 1895, parish priests (without ecclesiastical education) receive remuneration in villages of 480 l. per year, in county towns - 600 l., in district towns - 720 l. Accordingly, those who graduated from theological school received 720, 960 and 1,080 leva. A lot of deductions are made from the additional remuneration (for pensions, for official publications, etc.), and since 1899 it has undergone a percentage reduction common to all employees in the principality. Therefore, the clergy, already not richly appointed, throughout 1899 filled the pages of publications sympathetic to them with their tearful statements, but in vain. The described structure of church government in the principality is determined by the exarchical charter adapted to the principality (1895). In the Bulgarian dioceses of Turkey, the current law is the original “statute of administration of the Bulgarian exarchy” (1871), although it was not approved by the Ottoman government. Therefore, there are peculiarities in the church-administrative structure of these dioceses. These features also arise from the fact that some of the Bulgarian dioceses with the largest population remain without bishops to this day (Melnik, Polyanin, Voden, Adrianople, etc.). The Bulgarian dioceses in Turkey are under the closest authority of the exarch living in Constantinople, who only occasionally travels to the Bulgarian Principality. The spiritual affairs of the Turkish Bulgarians are subject to the supreme jurisdiction of the synod. The latter is sometimes compiled under the personal chairmanship of the exarch with the arrival of synodal members from Sofia. Sometimes issues arising in the life of Turkish Bulgarians are referred to the synod in Sofia. Since the liberation of Bulgaria, the mixed council for conducting non-spiritual affairs of the exarchy no longer exists. These affairs are administered by the exarch and the exarchic protosingel. To manage the educational affairs of the Turkish Bulgarians, which is entirely under the jurisdiction of the exarchy, there is a school council under the latter. Under the chairmanship of the exarch and with the participation of the exarchic protosingel, the council is composed of four secular members. Under each diocesan Bulgarian metropolitan in Turkey, under his chairmanship, there is a diocesan mixed council (of 3 spiritual and 5-7 secular members by election). The diocesan council owns the court and management of diocesan affairs, the opening and management of schools, the appointment of teachers in the diocese, etc. In purely spiritual matters, secular members of the council do not take part. Dioceses (in Turkey) are divided into kazy (districts) and nahiy (volosts). In both of them, church-administrative affairs are carried out by mixed councils, chaired by bishops' governors. In those Bulgarian dioceses where the Bulgarians do not yet have their own bishops, their place is taken by the chairmen of the communities. Chairmen are elected by communities from among clergy and approved by the exarchy. Where there are no suitable clergy, chairmen are appointed from the exarchy 102. The highest Bulgarian clergy in Turkey is supported by the amount contributed to the exarchy by the Bulgarian government. Bishops receive 10,008 francs each, the exarch himself receives up to 20 thousand francs. The lower clergy receives support from the population. The population supports their schools. Only poor communities come to the aid of the exarchy. The recently revived Bulgarian church in the field of spiritual enlightenment inherited nothing from the sad past of its people. The Bulgarians did not have any special hotbeds of spiritual enlightenment. Not only in the first decades of the last century, when there were only cell schools, but also in later times, someone who had learned “Our Father” and “I Believe” and understood a little Slavonic was a worthy candidate for the priesthood. The city schools, which had multiplied since the 1930s, provided more teachers than priests. The people had to choose shepherds from among themselves, who were only slightly literate. The best candidates for the priesthood were trained in monasteries, where they became familiar with the liturgical rites and church books. Some monasteries had special schools for this purpose. In the Rila Monastery, from the beginning of the century, the school did not cease to be supported, except for those moments when the monastery itself turned to ashes. The school trained those confessor-preachers who were “sent from the monastery throughout all of Bulgaria to strengthen the Orthodox in piety,” as stated in the petition submitted by the Rila monks to the Russian Holy Synod in 1851 103 . The monastery was thinking of acquiring a full seminary and for this purpose turned to the Russian government with a petition for help in setting up a school, “so that (monastic) pupils and a certain number of the youth of the only-begotten Bulgarians would be educated in it to preach the word of God and strengthen Orthodoxy” 104. Due to insufficient funds collected in Russia and other unfavorable circumstances, it was not possible to establish a seminary. But the monastery did not stop supporting the schools. The established exarchic church had more than one Rylsky pupil in the ranks of its foremost fighters and, if necessary, could find worthy candidates in the monastery even for the rank of bishop. Other monasteries carried out the same educational service, according to their means. Monks emerging from monasteries served as teachers in cities and villages; engaged in the compilation, translation and publication of spiritual books. For a long time, some have tried to give the people the Holy Scriptures translated into their native language (monk Seraphim (1828), Hierarch Neophyte Rylsky (1840) and Hierarch Paul (1852). But it is clear how all this was not enough for the cause of education among the Bulgarian people. Few managed to get into religious educational institutions abroad, and even those, upon returning home, preferred to be teachers rather than clergy. Only with the founding of the exarchy and with the receipt of its own higher clergy did the opportunity open up for a wider implantation of spiritual enlightenment among the people. This could be partly due to the multiplication of general education schools under the authority of the exarchate, reading rooms that arose throughout the cities, as well as educational and charitable societies that appeared here and there. But what is most important is that specially theological schools appeared. In 1874, a theological school with a seminary program was opened in the Rila Monastery. In the same year, a zealous champion of Bulgarian ecclesiastical independence, Metropolitan of Ternovo. Hilarion († 1875), to train clergy, opened a seminary in the Peter and Paul Monastery, near Ternov. Only due to troubled times and the outbreak of war, both schools had to close soon. The same fate befell the theological school that opened in 1876 in Samokov. With the liberation of Bulgaria, the educational activities of the Bulgarian church should have received more favorable conditions. Already in 1878, the Peter and Paul Seminary and the Samokov School reopened. The Bulgarian Synod, which first met in Sofia (1881), decided to increase the number of theological schools to three. The Rila School also resumed. A theological school was opened in 1884 in the city of Prilep (in Macedonia). Unfortunately, all these schools did not bring the benefit to the Bulgarian church and the cause of spiritual enlightenment that could have been expected. The Peter and Paul Seminary and the Samokov School were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and, given the already known dislike of the Bulgarian government towards the church, they were subject to all sorts of vicissitudes, could not receive the necessary amenities, and sometimes were completely closed. If students managed to complete the full course, they hurried to better service in the newly established principality, becoming officials, teachers, but not priests. The oldest Peter and Paul Seminary, with a five-year course, existed only until 1886. Having closed it, allegedly for economic reasons, the government opened a three-year school at the Ternovskaya gymnasium, which lasted until 1894–1895. The three-year theological school in Samokov, which existed until 1880, closed and was reopened only in 1883. Soon the study of philosophical subjects was included in the school program. The school turned into a four-year and then a five-year seminary. It remained in this form until 1891, when it was again made three-class. The intention was to prepare more candidates for the priesthood in the shortest possible time. But the expectations were not met. Those who graduated from both the seminary and the three-year school did not go to the clergy. Only in 1894, after many insistences, the Bulgarian synod managed to get control of theological schools into its own hands. The Samokov School, which remained the only one by this time, underwent transformations. A boarding house was set up under him. The students were given priestly uniforms. Those receiving government scholarships were obliged to subscribe to holy orders. In 1896–97 The school became a four-year “theological” school. It introduced a new program. Almost all subjects are studied at the school as in Russian seminaries, except for languages. In addition, a lot of space is devoted to pedagogy and natural history subjects. A four-year course is not at all sufficient to successfully complete such a variety of subjects. In addition, the needs of modern Bulgarian life require that the school produce more theologically educated people. Therefore, the transformation of the school into a full seminary is an urgent matter of time. The Samokov School remained and remains the only one in the principality. In recent years, under the supervision of the synod, the Rila school was transformed into a three-class school, but soon closed due to lack of free funds in the monastery. In the Bulgarian dioceses of Turkey, the needs of spiritual enlightenment are served by the Tsaregrad Seminary. The previously existing school in Prilep was later moved to Adrianople, and in 1892–1893. it was transformed into a six-year seminary in Constantinople. The seminary is administered and under the immediate care of the exarch. The seminary is currently located in its own comfortable building (on the outskirts of Sisli). Students live in a dormitory and wear a priestly uniform. The seminary is not crowded. Two spiritual educational institutions for the entire Bulgarian people, after so many years of spiritual and political slavery and stagnation, are, of course, not enough 105. Until recently, the Bulgarian clergy was not distinguished by enlightenment. Only among bishops and among monastics are there more educated people - often students of the old Greek school, more often - those who studied in Russian theological educational institutions. The lower clergy, especially the rural ones in western Bulgaria, remain at a very low level of education. Even in cities such as the capital Sofia, or Samokov, where the theological school is located, the majority of priests do not have special spiritual education. Is it surprising after this that Christian education among the masses of the Bulgarian people makes little progress, and the Bulgarian church hierarchy often turns out to be helpless when Catholic and especially Protestant missionaries preach among the people. The absence of church preaching for the latter is a particularly powerful weapon in attacks on Orthodoxy and the Orthodox clergy. Theological School in Samokov, Bulgaria Bulgarian spiritual literature is scarce. Few books with spiritual content have appeared and are appearing in the Bulgarian language. For the most part, these are only teaching aids and textbooks. Only recently did St. The synod published several more fundamental books (“Apologetics” by Luthardt and others) and undertook a translation of the Bible from Russian. The need to translate the Holy Scriptures into Bulgarian could not help but be felt for a long time. With the latest formation of the Bulgarian language, it is increasingly deviating from the Church Slavonic language. The latter is almost not studied at all in Bulgarian schools and therefore is little understood even by the priests themselves, especially if they have not undergone theological school. In addition, a cheap Protestant edition of the Bulgarian Bible is being diligently distributed among the people, which serves as one of the means of Protestant propaganda. Periodical spiritual literature, in its history, which begins almost simultaneously with the founding of the exarchy, has many titles of spiritual and social newspapers and religious and moral magazines: magazines - “Glory” (1871–1872), “Pravda” (1879–1880), “Christian Fraternal Word” (1879), “Dukhoven Prochit” (1881–1882), “Orthodox Preacher” (since 1898), “Blgarski Tserkoven pregled” (1895–1899), “Faith and Reason” (1895–1898), “Christian Zora” (1897), “Spiritual Conversation” (1899), “Good Pastir” (1896–1899), “Christian Teacher" (1898–1899), "Christian Books" and "Christian Zname" (since 1900), and church and public newspapers: "Selenii" (1879-1888), "Zashchita" (1888), "Adviser" (since 1888), "Novini" or currently "Vesti" (the body of the exarchy - since 1890), “Church Herald” - organ of St. Synod (since 1900). But of all these publications, very few survived until the end of the century (“Adviser”, “News”, “Orthodox Preacher” and later ones). The publications are little distributed, little read, and do not provide publishers with the means to continue them. And in terms of content, most of the publications did not stand high, supplemented by translated articles, touching little on the phenomena of inner life. With all this, no matter how poor the Bulgarian church was in terms of means for the spiritual enlightenment of the people, overwhelmed on all sides by the enemies of the church and faith - in the form of Latin and Protestant missionaries and the newest preachers of atheism and socialism, the Bulgarian clergy did not forget their pastoral duty. Feeling all their pastoral backwardness 106 and helpless in the face of many of their individual representatives, the Bulgarian clergy for a long time tried to help themselves by uniting their scattered forces, according to the national motto: “unified rule of silat.” Back in 1879, the priestly brotherhood “St. John of Rylsky”, with the aim of promoting the education of the local clergy, improving church deanery and disseminating religious knowledge among the people 107. The benefits of such societies were obvious. Therefore, they began to arise between the clergy and in other cities, and this emergence of more and more new priestly brotherhoods continues until recently. At the very end of the last century, the brotherhoods were faced with the difficult task of arming themselves against the campaign, raised by teachers and supported by part of the press, against religious education in school. The proximity of danger and the unceremoniousness of the enemies of the people's faith gave rise to several new priestly brotherhoods that came out in defense of age-old folk traditions. Thus, the Bulgarian clergy, despite all the adversity of their material and spiritual condition, cares about the religious and moral development of their flock, and the need for such education and development is glaring. Piety without deep enthusiasm, but strict, and extraordinary devotion to the church distinguished the Bulgarians in the old days. For centuries, the political oppression that lay on the people contributed to the fact that all the spiritual forces of the people, having no scope for anything else, were concentrated in the church-religious area. The consolation that the people drew from their faith, persecuted by Islam, made Orthodoxy inseparable from the national idea of ​​the people. But at the same time, the Turkish yoke, complicated by the spiritual domination of the Greeks, keeping the people at a low level of education, could not but harm the religious and moral development of the people. The Bulgarians were religious, but they gave too much room to various superstitions in their lives. The strictness of morals among the people reached the highest degree, but double slavery contributed a lot to demoralization, separating the usually Turkophile representatives of the people, or chorbajis, from the people themselves. The formation of an independent Bulgarian church and the subsequent political liberation of part of the Bulgarian people, apparently, should have brought new favorable conditions for the development of religious and moral life. Unfortunately, the reality turned out to be completely different. There is an obvious and increasingly intensifying religious and moral decline among the people. “During slavery,” says the newspaper “Counselor” (1896, No. 34), “although we were under the dominion of foreign sovereigns, although they... were sworn enemies of our faith and nationality, our people were strict confessors of the faith and defenders of their nationality. The churches were full of pilgrims, fasts and all other institutions of the Orthodox Church were strictly observed. After liberation, that fragrant breeze that brought us church and political freedom, due to unfortunate circumstances, changed its direction and turned into a sharp northwest wind... Instead of taking care of our faith and nationality, instead of practicing in deeds that strengthen the moral ideas of the people, instead of teaching the simple-minded people in goodness and truth, instead of teaching them the divine teaching, which is the pillar and affirmation of truth, truth and honesty, etc., etc.... we began to preach to them such teachings that not only do not strengthen the morality of the people, on the contrary, they serve to corrupt those good principles that are still with us" 108. Where does all this evil come from? The long struggle with the Greek clergy, under the influence of Catholic and especially Protestant influences, could not help but undermine the respect for the very church-hierarchical principle in many. But what was worse, the liberated Bulgarian people, with their immature national church, soon found themselves in the hands of people who were completely indifferent to the church or hostile to it - people imbued with ideas that arose under completely different conditions and therefore contrary to the national spirit. These ideas were propagated through the free press and turned out to be especially dangerous and destructive for centuries-old folk beliefs, when, under official patronage, often through schools, they began to take hold of the younger generation. Numerous and diverse schools that quickly emerged, led by young mentors, with a complete lack of discipline, gave the growing youth little of what was closest to the people's life, way of life, language and faith. Especially the latter received little attention. The “law of God” was completely disregarded in the schools. It is considered a minor subject. Its teaching was entrusted to people who had no idea about it, and even to those who were known for their hostility to the church and for their lack of sympathy for the Orthodox faith 109. Even in elementary schools, other teachers, after the presentation of the priest. historical stories, did not hesitate to tell the children: “these things are studied because they are in the program; but these are all old wives’ tales: don’t believe them!” In the gymnasiums these destructive seeds took root even more. This resulted in doubt about the most basic Christian truths, disrespect for church statutes and pious old customs 110. From the gymnasiums, according to the people's court, the real “atheists” came out. In pedagogical schools, the religious and moral education of future teachers is also completely neglected 111. In the higher school (in Sofia), with three faculties, theology is not taught anywhere, although graduates are teachers of the Law of God. And what kind of religious spirit there is in this highest seedbed of knowledge can be judged by the incident described in the magazine “Christian Teacher”. One young man, who received a Christian mood in his family, once reasoned with a professor and cited a fact from the Bible as proof. The professor looked at him with deep regret and said: “Do you still believe this?” “This one word,” says the young man, cut off my entire past from my life like a knife, when I lived under the beneficial influence of faith” 112. It is not for nothing that the newspaper “Svetnik” says with despair: “Our educational work is in such a state that we ourselves turn away from it and send our children to various propaganda schools, just to protect them from that “corruption”, which corruption the Ministry of Education itself is forced to talk about in its circulars” 113. After all this, it is not difficult to imagine all the sad results from such influences for faith and morality among the whole people. Piety and religiosity are left only to the common people. The masses, apparently, still remain Christian and even still pay tribute to many superstitions: they strictly observe “mouse”, “wolf” holidays, etc. But the common people, even in the villages, are already affected by “civilization”. He no longer observes fasts so strictly, is lazy to go to church, prefers to spend time in taverns on holidays, drinking and talking politically. Not only city dwellers, but also peasants do not proceed to confession and communion 114. True, confession is generally not a custom among Bulgarians, especially for women. Only a prayer of permission is read. “There is no longer that friendship between the people and the clergy that characterized the first years after liberation” 115. Among city dwellers, these religious and moral shortcomings are more common and more pronounced. Churches no longer find generous donors, do not shine with splendor, and even on major holidays are not overflowing with pilgrims. It is very rare to meet doctors, officers, and officials in churches, unless it is an official day 116. As the people weaken in faith, they also decline morally. “Wherever a person looks,” says the “Counselor,” summing up the results of 1899, “both in public and private life, he will see terrible things everywhere, everywhere he will see insane demoralization” 117. “The people have lost their Christian virtues and their virtuous national qualities. The people are divided into parties. Brother rebels against brother, son against father” 118. Vicious hostility, violence, murder are common manifestations of partisanship. The party press is struck by its obscene language and complete lack of principles. Conscience and convictions are sold for power, for service, for money 119. Even once strict family morals begin to waver. Divorce statistics are irrefutable proof of this. The religious and moral decline of the people is clearly reflected in the impoverishment of monasticism and the desolation of monasteries. There are no people willing to become monastics at all. Even in the Rila Monastery, where there were up to 400 monks, there are now only 87. Other monasteries, scattered in large numbers throughout the Balkans, are falling into complete disrepair 120 . Until recently, monasteries were revered by the people. Not so long ago, pilgrims from all over Bulgaria flocked to the Rila Monastery. Now, even from nearby places, few people go to venerate St. saint John. Instead of pilgrims, tourists and summer residents go to monasteries. It is the custom of teachers, officers, and officials to spend the summer season in monasteries. The princely family itself, during the life of the princess, usually spent the summer in the Rila Monastery. All this could not but entail violations of monastic customs and upset the order of monastic life. Only a few monasteries, especially in the Ternovsk diocese, are completely comfortable (for example, Preobrazhensky) 121. However, no matter how widely the evil of demoralization and irreligion spreads in modern Bulgarian society, the already clear consciousness of this evil by many, the search for a way out of the current sad state, all this - with a certain common sense of the entire Bulgarian people and their stubborn devotion to age-old traditions in the mass - makes it possible to hope that this people, after some wandering, will be able to get out on a healthier path in life, if they again completely surrender themselves to the leadership of their centuries-tested guides - the Orthodox faith and the Church, with its clergy devoted to the people's interests. Montenegrin Church in the 19th century Mitrofan, Metropolitan of Montenegro Monastery and Metropolitan House in Cetinje The fall of the Serbian kingdom. – Black Mountain as the last refuge of Serbia. – Concentration of power in the hands of the metropolitan. – Heroic struggle for faith and freedom. – Vladyka Peter I and his significance for Montenegro. – Subsequent rulers of the 19th century. – Separation of secular power from spiritual power. – Prince Nicholas and the last liberation struggle. – Church and religious state of Montenegro. – Metropolitan Mitrofan and his activities. – Danger from Latin propaganda. – Hopes for the future. When the all-destructive wave of the Turkish invasion, having destroyed Byzantium, poured into the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, the most powerful and prosperous kingdom was the Serbian kingdom. Suffice it to say that its ruler Stefan Dusan was called (in 1347) the Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian emperor. But on the ill-fated Kosovo field (1389), this flourishing kingdom fell victim to treason, and the Serbian people submitted to the common bitter fate of the Balkan peoples, falling under the heavy Turkish yoke for centuries. Among the Serbian lands was the flourishing Principality of Zeta 122. This name is taken from the river flowing south of the mountain citadel, towards Lake Scutari. The principality contained the current Montenegrin territory along with the coastal strip (later taken away from it by envious politics) and with the luxurious valleys that surrounded the bare, broken region of the inhospitable Black Mountain. Everything around was giving way and falling: Zeta alone stood firmly under the rule of the princely family of Balkhids. Finally, in 1478, Scutari was taken - on the southern side, and in 1488 - on the northern side, the ancestors of the hitherto brave population of Herzegovina were conquered. The enemies heavily constrained Montenegro from everywhere: Ivan Chernoevich, the then hero of the Montenegrin land, turned to Venice with a request for help, which he himself had served her more than once, and was refused. Then, together with him, all his people, in 1484, left the rich fields where he had lived for 700 years and, hiding on bare rocks, between gorges and abysses, stood here in defense of two precious blessings, higher than which there is nothing for a person: his faith and freedom. These were a handful of selflessly brave people who, having formed a brotherhood, bound themselves to the fundamental law. This law was that during the war with the Turks, none of the sons of the Black Mountain could leave the field without the order of the chief, that the fugitive would forever be deprived of honor and expelled from his land. They dress him in a woman's dress, give him a spinning wheel, and the women use spinning wheels to drive him out of the sanctuary of freedom. And since then, for more than four hundred years, the entire people have observed and are observing with all their inviolable force the covenant of this significant day, amid continuous trials, among such dangers, such needs, such feats that it is difficult to find anything similar in the annals of Europe, perhaps in the annals of all mankind. The center of this brotherhood became the monastery built by Ivan in Cetinje, which became the main city of the country. Of course, it could not be expected that the superhuman energy required by the situation would be equally preserved in the whole mass of a people or tribe. From time to time the weak appeared and fell away from the brotherhood. It happened that others spoke to Ivan the same speeches with which the Israelites addressed Moses: why did you lead us out of Egypt when you brought us to such a cursed place? Ivan died in 1490; His place was taken by his eldest son George, whom his wife, a Venetian by birth, persuaded in 1499 to go to another place, to Venice. Even worse happened: his younger brother Stefan left with an entire party for Constantinople and invited Bayazet the Second to betray his country to him. They were demanded to accept Mohammedanism, and they turned away. They united with the Turks and went with them to conquer Montenegro. George met them and completely defeated them, but the situation was still unbearable, and George decided to finally leave Montenegro. Leaving her, which happened around 1516, George transferred supreme power to the metropolitan. From that time on, the supreme control of the people was concentrated in the hands of the church authorities, and this church rule lasted for 336 years. The newest traveler, standing on the Corinthian cliff and looking across the bay at the heights of the Athenian Acropolis, recalls with amazement and pride that there was a time when these tiny states, a space no larger than another parish in the new world, shocked the world with their deeds and left them for all posterity to teach. In courage and fearlessness in the fight, Montenegro will compete with the heroes of Thermopylae and Marathon, and perhaps even surpass them: its forces and means were much less than those, and the enemy was incomparably more terrible and courageous. Its council was presided over by church leaders (a long row - about twenty in three centuries), like Moses, Joshua, Gideon or the son of Jesse, raised in the sanctuary - and ahead of everyone they themselves led the people into battle. Many of them were wonderful rulers. The rulers from the Njegosi family, which had established itself in power since 1687, especially showed themselves. Power is the only one of its kind: it brought so little comfort to life, and was so burdened with worries and responsibility that in the free air of the mountains no one chased after it, and no one had any reason to abuse it. The war between the Montenegrins and the Turks was constant, without interruption or reconciliation, and the entire history of this struggle presents an amazing picture of the heroic deeds of a handful of Christians with huge hordes of infidels for faith and freedom. The Turks tried to establish their supreme power by demanding and collecting kharaj, that is, taxes collected in kind for military service, and sometimes it happened that they managed to extort taxation on the open outskirts of the land. But even here the struggle did not stop. One day, as one epic tells, a collector began to swear while collecting that the measure was too small. The payer crushed his skull with the same measure: “here is the Montenegrin measure for you!” The most striking scenes from the history of all other countries, one might say, pale in comparison with the features of the life of the Montenegrin people, of course, in critical eras - which are repeated every now and then in their history. Porta continually moved entire hordes to conquer the rebellious Montenegrins, but these hordes were constantly broken against the impregnable rocks and iron breasts of the sons of the Black Mountain. Thus, in 1712, under Bishop Danil, 50,000 Turks crossed the Zeta between Spuzh and Podgorica; according to others, the army reached 100,000, while the entire population of Montenegro was considered no more than 40,000 inhabitants with wives and children. Danilo attacked the Turkish camp before dawn, June 29, with his army, which, consisting of three detachments, did not exceed 12,000. Having lost 318 of his own, he beat at least 20,000 of the Turks. As far as is generally known, of all the wars of modern times, only in the Montenegrin wars is such a disproportionate proportion of killed Turks in comparison with the attacking heroes constantly encountered. Great is the glory of the Swiss in the battles for freedom with the Burgonian troops; but is it possible to compare it with the exploits of the brave Montenegrin squads, led by their bishops? Here is how the people express themselves in one old song: “Seraskir writes to Danila: send me your pitiful tribute and three of your best warriors as hostages. If you don’t send it, I will destroy with fire and sword the whole land from Morea to the Salt Sea, and I will catch you alive and torture you with terrible torment. Vladyka read the letter and cried bitterly. He gathered elders from every community in Cetinje. Others said: pay them tribute; but others said: send them our stones instead of tribute... And they decided to fight with everyone to the last man. They swore unanimously that there would be no other tribute to the Turks other than a hail of bullets from Montenegrin rifles.” After this, three Montenegrins sneak up to the Turkish camp at night and walk through the entire camp between the heaps of sleeping people. Vuko, one of the three, says to his comrades: go back, and I will stay here to serve our cause. They returned to Cetinje and said: there are so many Turks that if the three of us were ground into salt, there would not be enough salt for them for dinner. But, so that the squad would not be afraid, they hasten to add that the huge Turkish horde is all cripples. And so, the people listen to the mass, accept the blessing from their ruler and go into battle - to victory or to death. Vuko, meanwhile, convinced the enemies to stop for rest on the Vlodan River, assuring them that there would be no more water until Cetinje itself. Here, before dawn, the Montenegrins woke them up with a hail of bullets. For three days they pursued and beat the fleeing Turks, and this is the speech with which the singer ends his poem: “Oh, my Serbian brothers, and all of you who have a free heart beating in your chest, rejoice! Our ancient freedom will not perish forever, as long as we stand and hold our little Montenegro.” Even on the eve of the 19th century (in 1800), the entire Montenegrin people had no more than 55 thousand souls, but they were a people of highlanders who did not cease to defend freedom against the Turkish hordes until the power of the great Russian people crushed the hitherto formidable power of the centuries-old enslavers of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. To the great happiness of the Montenegrin people, Providence gave them one of their most glorious rulers on the eve of the 19th century. In 1782, Bishop Peter I ascended the throne, to whom his compatriots, out of reverence for his memory, gave him the name Saint Peter. He was a handsome man, about 50 years old, of remarkable intelligence, and was distinguished by extraordinary dignity and nobility in his manner. His positive and legal authority in the country was insignificant; but the power of his moral power was limitless. As bishop, ruler, legislator and military leader, he successfully led his country through 48 years of almost continuous struggle. Before him, and partly after him, the government in Montenegro was completely patriarchal. The head of state was himself a high priest, a judge, and a military leader; he stood at the head of the assembly, composed not of representatives, but of the entire people, and the decisions of this assembly were considered binding on the people, like law. This so-called “gathering” was held in the open air; when there was noise on it, the bell in the neighboring bell tower was rung to restore order. Here, in 1796, the Bishop for the first time promulgated the Code for Montenegro, which until then had been governed only by oral authority and tradition. In 1798 he appointed properly appointed judges, and in 1803 he issued an addition to the code. Since the 19th century, Montenegro generally begins to strenuously strive for enlightenment: a matter that is extremely necessary for the people, whose entire life for ten generations consisted of nothing more than a constant struggle for life and death with the ferocious Turk. Since the time of Peter I, nothing has been heard about the Kharaj. Constantly busy fighting a fierce enemy, he did not have the opportunity to do much in church affairs. However, despite the constant wars and the difficult situation of the country, the bishop still cared not only about the reconciliation of discord and disagreement that often arose among the clergy, but also about the behavior and deanery of the latter and the conscientious performance of his pastoral duties. So he forbade the clergy some customs indecent to his rank, such as: carrying a gun in a belt, shaving the beard, and many others. In one of his letters to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim (1826), Peter I wrote about translating the New Testament into Serbian, intending to distribute it among the people with the aim of enlightening them in the Christian spirit. During his lifetime, the Russian Holy Synod recognized the autocephaly of the church in Montenegro. Peter I died on October 18, 1830 and was buried in the Cetinje Monastery of the Annunciation, where his body remained until 1884, when his incorruptible relics were discovered under his successor Peter II. In 1895, with the blessing of the current Metropolitan of Montenegro, Mitrofan, the service of St. Peter I, compiled by Metropolitan Michael of Serbia of blessed memory. The memory of him forever became the best asset of the people, and his contemporaries, the old people, loved to tell foreigners about him. “Between us,” Montenegrins recently liked to say, “there are still people who lived under the rule of Saint Peter, heard his speech and saw how he lived. For fifty years he ruled over us; fought for us in battle, negotiated and walked before us in purity and simplicity of soul every single day. He gave us good laws and put an end to the disorderly state of the country. He expanded our borders and pushed the enemy away from them. Even on his deathbed, he made a speech to our elders, and this speech, even after his death, keeps us at peace among ourselves. While he was alive, we swore by his name." Peter the Great was succeeded by his nephew Radotomovo, 17 years old, under the name of Peter II. He accepted the ecclesiastical vestments along with the throne, and in 1833, being no older than 20 years old, received episcopal consecration in St. Petersburg, in the Kazan Cathedral (August 6, 1833), in the presence of Emperor Nicholas I himself. An eyewitness wrote about him that he was 6 feet 8 inches tall, and at the same time built in perfect proportion. The shooter was so skillful that he could shoot through a thrown lemon on the fly. He was barely 19 years old when the storm of the Turkish invasion from Scutari arose on him: it arose due to the fact that he refused to accept a berat from the Porte and thereby recognize his vassal relationship to it. The Turkish vanguard of several thousand was defeated by a Montenegrin detachment of 800 people, at the head of which the brave priest Radoviti fell into battle: this ended the Turkish invasion. The new ruler, continuing the work of Saint Peter, began to strictly and steadily fight against internal turmoil and the remnants of the country’s wild customs. In his reprisal, curious moral traits are noticeable: for example, the murderer was supposed to be shot, and the thief was to be subjected to a shameful execution, the gallows. But when shooting, there was a considerable difficulty: a terrible custom of blood feud had taken root in Montenegro; This custom obliged the blood relatives of the murdered person to take revenge on the one who killed him. Then they came up with the idea of ​​shooting criminals in a whole squad, so that it would be impossible to identify one person as a murderer. So, the main task of this reign was internal transformation, which also had the form of military affairs. However, the ruler’s activities were not limited to this alone. During his time, by the way, one of those incredible things was accomplished that is possible only in Montenegro. In 1835, ten people took by surprise the ancient fortress of Zabljak, once the capital of Zeta, held it for three whole days against 3,000 Turks, and finally were forced to surrender by order of the ruler, who wanted to avoid war with the Turks. Almost all of his military affairs ended in victory. This giant was an educated and gifted man: he took a course in science in St. Petersburg. He was nicknamed: “Vladyka-hero, ruler and poet”: according to his poems, he occupies a very prominent place in Slavic literature. Here are the features in which he is depicted: “He was either a military leader, with a sword in his hand, at the head of his squads, setting a living example of all military valor, or a priest and preacher, with a cross in his hand, softening the savage morals of his compatriots; then, in the form of an inexorable judge, he ordered the execution of criminals; then, as an incorruptible prince-ruler, he protected his independence from all flattering suggestions.” Peter II was the last ruler who combined spiritual power with state power. Peter II's successor was elected in 1861 by his nephew Daniil Petrovich, who, not wanting to accept monastic rank, received consent from the people's council to separate state power from church power. Prince Daniel I granted church power to the metropolitan, and transferred divorce cases and spiritual litigation to the hands of the Senate. Prince Daniel appointed Nikanor Ivanovich as Metropolitan, who was ordained bishop in St. Petersburg in 1858. Thus, finally, the line of the Montenegrin rulers was cut short: they fulfilled their calling and accomplished for freedom, as well as for faith, a great deed, which can hardly be found equal to anything in the political history of the whole world. They were unaware of all the temptations and pleasures of power. The price of power, as well as its sanctification, was for them only hardships and dangers. Their valiant exploits, the simplicity of their life, full of selflessness and fearlessness, gained them high honor and glory in the annals of mankind and laid a solid foundation on which the destinies of the Montenegrin people are based. During his short reign, Danilo did not change the traditions of his predecessor metropolitans. He completed the great work of establishing internal order and issued a code in 1855 that remained in force and effect until 1876. In the war with Omer Pasha (1852–1853), the Montenegrins once again fully justified the military glory of their country, under the leadership of wonderful leaders, against an enemy who far surpassed them, as always happened, both in numbers and weapons. During the Crimean War, Danilo maintained formal neutrality, although this cost him an internecine war and almost led to the separation of Berda from Old Montenegro. In May 1858, his brother Mirko in Grabov revived with his victory the old legends of Montenegrin military glory. Without any artillery, with the help of a pitiful weapon, the Montenegrins attacked the Turkish artillery from the mountains and destroyed it. Grabov's victory aroused great unrest among the Turkish regions. But the great European powers rushed to the aid of the Porte, in defense of the huge empire from the tiny state that made up one speck on the map of Turkey. Montenegro had to submit to the verdict of diplomacy. The commission, which met in Constantinople, allowed it to take advantage of the establishment of a definite border, and in 1859 allowed a representative of Montenegro, despite the protest of Ali Pasha, to participate in the meetings. In 1857, at the Congress of Paris, the powers decided that Montenegro could take advantage of a small increase in territory and gain access to the sea, subject to the condition of finally recognizing the supreme power of the Porte; She resolutely refused this, although the prince was ready to agree. In August 1860, Prince Danilo was killed on the embankment in Cattaro. Like his predecessors, Danilo lived and died a hero. His body was taken to Montenegro and placed in the church. For several weeks, the church was filled all day and night with people, men, women, children: warriors, seasoned in battle, wept over the body like children. Prince Nicholas of Montenegro (during the last war of freedom) Danila was succeeded by his nephew Nicholas, the current prince of Montenegro. He was not yet 19 years old when he began to reign. At his very entry, he set himself two firm goals: first, to steadily continue the work of enlightening the people; the second is to free the native Serbian lands from the slavery that weighs on them. Soon after his accession, Montenegro, reluctantly and after long resistance, was involved in a war with Turkey. The war was difficult, but the Montenegrins again valiantly emerged from difficulties and during the last Russian-Turkish war they again acted as the foremost fighters for the freedom of the Slavs. And from that time on, Montenegro became even more the favorite of all Slavic peoples, and its valiant prince was and forever remained “Russia’s best friend.” When, after the death of Danila I, Metropolitan Nikanor left his see, Prince Nicholas I appointed Hilarion Roganovich, who was ordained bishop in Petrograd in 1863, as metropolitan. Under him, the monks began to receive salaries, and monastic income was allocated for educational purposes. Under him, a theological school was opened for candidates for the priesthood in Cetinje. During the reign of princes Danil I and Nicholas I, Montenegro acquired the Berda region and the border Herzegovinian tribes, so in 1878 a new diocese of Rasko-Zakhum was opened with a see in the Ostrog monastery, where Vissarion Lubisha was appointed bishop. When Hilarion Roganovich died in 1882, Prince Nicholas I appointed Vissarion Metropolitan of Montenegro and Berd. Metropolitan Vissarion tried to open a consistory in Montenegro on the model of Zar - in Dalmatia, but he failed. His Grace Vissarion did not rule his metropolis for long: in 1884 he died and his successor was appointed archimandrite of the Moraca monastery Mitrofan Ban, who was consecrated bishop in Petrograd in 1885. This is the ecclesiastical and political history of Montenegro in brief. Although at present the Metropolitan of Montenegro no longer holds civil power in his hands, even now the ruler is of enormous importance in the country: not a single important state matter is decided without his knowledge and advice, and the people truly and deeply respect this dignitary. He represents the most respectable, impartial dignitary, the most loving father of the Montenegrin people. Without receiving support from the government, the Montenegrin ruler lives on church income received from renting the lands of the Cetinje and Ostrog monasteries. The same income ensures the performance of divine services in all churches of the principality. But how insufficient this provision is is shown by the extreme poverty of the Montenegrin churches. An eyewitness, no more than 25 years ago, described the Cetinje cathedral church this way: “the cathedral church is the size of a large room; therefore, only the prince, princess, several senators and foreigners can be accommodated in it; the princely guard stands at the door, and the people crowd around the church and only fragmentary sounds of worship reach them. There are very few icons in the church, but there are many guns, revolvers and scimitars on the walls, on the shroud and on the relics of Vladika Peter I.” Next is a description of the service itself: “the metropolitan in an old shabby chasuble stood on a felt rug, the priests served in bast shoes and revolvers stuck out from under their vestments.” From this state of the capital’s cathedral church, one can form an idea of ​​​​simple village churches, which hardly differ from the simple wretched dwellings of the Montenegrin heroes themselves, who, in the centuries-long struggle for their existence and for the Orthodox faith, did not have the opportunity to take care of enriching themselves and decorating their churches. In the capital's church, however, there are quite a lot of rich decorations, donated by the generosity of the Russian emperors who were always kind to Montenegro and the piety of the Orthodox Slavs, especially Muscovites. The lower clergy, whose number reaches 400, comes from the common people and differs little from them. In terms of education, it is not much higher than the common people, and all its knowledge is limited to reading Church Slavonic books and performing divine services. In appearance, priests differ from the laity more by their beard than by their priestly clothing, which they often do not wear. Outside of their duties, they are in the habit of wearing a Montenegrin costume with a weapon at their belt. The history of this people developed in such a way that the sword became a necessary accessory for those whose entire strength should lie in the cross. On holidays in Cetinje, until recently, one could see walking through the streets of the capital, a priest decorated with military orders, with a long blond beard, dressed in a black cassock with a flowing red belt. This is Stevo Kapitsin, archpriest of the capital. How many times during the war with the Turks did he rush with a dagger in one hand and a banner in the other into the front ranks of soldiers, showing them the way to the enemies! Such feats are valued above all else in Montenegro - without distinction of rank, age or gender. Such feats, performed under the influence of a living religious-patriotic inspiration, constitute the strength of the clergy, borrowing from the legends of the past the charm that for several centuries surrounded the person of the warlike priests of the Black Mountain. Monastic life, which has as its main task calm religious contemplation, naturally could not develop widely in Montenegro, which was constantly in a desperate struggle for its existence. Therefore, the several ancient monasteries existing there are almost completely uninhabited, so that divine services in them are performed by simple priests. Of the monasteries, Cetinje Ostrog is the most remarkable. The Cetinje Monastery was originally (in 1484) built by Ivan the Black, but after being destroyed twice, it was rebuilt by Prince Danila, who located it on a more elevated place and made it into something like a fortress, which was supposed to serve as a bulwark against the invasion of the Turks. Its external appearance is extremely picturesque; it represents two monasteries: one below, at the foot of the mountain, and the other higher; its semicircular, unadorned vaults rest on low and thin abutments; all its buildings and even the church are distinguished by simple primitive architecture; The quadrangular tower rising above the monastery looks more like a multi-story dovecote than a bell tower. Adjacent to the monastery itself is a building of a more modern construction; the basement floor of this building serves as a prison, exclusively for women; The first floor is occupied by elementary schools, while the second floor houses the modest apartments of the bishop and the archimandrite. At the opposite end of the monastery there is a large space dotted with beehives. All the bishop's concerns are directed to this buzzing family, which, however, is rewarded with a fairly significant annual income. Possessing rich utensils, a gift from the Russian tsars, the small church, accommodating barely one and a half hundred people, would not represent anything remarkable if it were not a repository for the mortal remains of three of the most remarkable men of Montenegro. On both sides of the entrance are the tombs of Prince Danil and his brother Mirko-Petrovich, the father of the current Prince Nikolai. The third tomb, or rather, the shrine, contains the relics of Vladyka Peter II, whom the Montenegrins have honored as a saint for half a century; on major holidays, his relics are revealed and Montenegrins from all over the principality gather to worship them. But even more fans gather at the Ostrog Monastery, located half a day’s journey from the newly built town of Danilograd. To reach this monastery, you first have to drive for two hours across the plain to the banks of the Zeta River, which you cross by ford or in boats, and then enter the gloomy mountains, among which the monastery, consisting of two branches, is located. The Lower Monastery includes a large caravanserai (an inn in the east), intended for pilgrims, a small church and various services. A twenty-minute walk from the lower one, the upper monastery was built in the most deserted place of the mountains, in the depths of a vast cave, above which a huge sheer rock rises. Here in 1857 Mirko-Petrovich, the father of Prince Nikolai, with fourteen people withstood a real siege by Turkish troops. Here are the relics of St. Basil, to worship which pilgrims flock from the Austrian and Turkish provinces bordering Montenegro, such as Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia and from places even more remote, as well as from all Montenegrin regions. On the eve of Trinity Day, all the inns of the monastery are filled with pilgrims, tents are set up, and many are located in the open air. Merchants from Scutari and Podgorica open hastily made shops, displaying the best works of Albania: patterned weapons, embroidered dresses and all kinds of silk fabrics. Each admirer considers it his duty to bring his offering to the saint: those who are richer donate silver or some kind of family jewel, those who are poorer donate some household item or something from a dress. At the end of the holiday, all these items are sold to Albanian merchants at auction, and the proceeds, reaching up to one hundred and fifty talari (about 200 rubles), together with three or four thousand florins - the offering of pilgrims - are put into the treasury of St. Vasily. When the prince is not present at the holiday in person, he is represented either by the president of the Senate or one of the members of the princely family. But the personal presence of the prince gives this gathering of people a special vitality and brilliance, and it acquires enormous political significance, spreading, through admirers, the political influence of Montenegro to the neighboring Turkish and Austrian provinces with a Slavic-Christian population. That is why the Turkish authorities are very unfriendly towards the travel of Orthodox Slavs living in their provinces to Montenegro to venerate the relics. The Ostrog Monastery, owning large expanses of arable land and forests, receives significant income from them, which currently, thanks to reasonable management, reaches six thousand rubles, which goes towards the church needs of the entire principality. The lower Ostrog monastery houses the main educational institution of Montenegro - the seminary. This seminary was founded in the sixties, after Prince Nicholas's trip to Russia, with capital donated by the Russian sovereign, and was first located in the building of the old lord's palace in Cetinje. The remarkable theologian and writer Milan Kostic, who was the rector of the seminary for three years, managed to bring the seminary to a significant height. In 1878 it was transferred to the Ostrog Monastery, where it is currently located. Here, in complete solitude, young Montenegrins receive a mixed education, which includes: theology, grammar, history and those subjects in which seminarians will have poor knowledge when they enter the seminary. Young people leaving here are destined either for the clergy or for teaching. Before Vladyka Peter II, there were no traces of public education in Montenegro. This ruler, a scientist and at the same time a poet, was the first to found two small schools, which, however, did not exist for long. Later, his successor Danilo established a small college in his own palace, where he himself supervised the studies of several young people belonging to the best families. Public education made significant progress under Prince Nicholas, especially thanks to the work and remarkable perseverance of Milan Kostic, rector of the seminary. In three years, he managed to educate up to forty teachers, who surpassed all their predecessors in their knowledge, and spread in Montenegro the invaluable gifts of enlightenment, of which it had hitherto been completely deprived. At present, there is not a single significant village in Montenegro that does not have its own school, where boys and girls, with the amazing ease characteristic of this gifted people, acquire knowledge, which is now an urgent need of the population. It was necessary to dodge in order to include in state expenditures the maintenance of these new officials, to whom they wanted to provide real benefits. Through wise decisions, it was finally possible to determine their salary at 120 talari (about 150 rubles). The amount is considerable in a country where senators are content with an annual salary of 200 rubles. Judging by the current successes of public education, soon there will be no illiterate youth at all in Montenegro. At the same time, one cannot fail to mention the women’s institute founded in Montenegro, which is under the high patronage of Her Imperial Majesty the Russian Empress and under the supervision of Princess Milena of Montenegro. This useful institution, called "Theology" by the Montenegrins, was founded after the stay of Prince Nicholas in St. Petersburg. The purpose of the institute is to provide education to the daughters of the best families of the principality, of which they had been completely deprived until that time, and to prepare them by appropriate education for the appointment that will accrue to them among the resurgent people. Education in Montenegrin schools takes place in the local Serbian dialect, and the seminary devotes a significant proportion of study to the ancient Church Slavonic language. Montenegrins should not forget that they had the first liturgical Slavic books, therefore, the first written monuments in which the so-called Cyrillic alphabet was used. Georgiy Cernovich, the son of Ivan the Black, who ascended the throne in 1490, holds the honor of founding the first, famous, Slavic printing house. The first liturgical books were published here, which were distributed from here throughout Russia, and immediately revived and elevated the book industry in Montenegro. But already in 1591, only sad ruins remained from the printing house, witnesses of the destructive fury of the Turks. Not earlier than under Vladyka Peter II, a printing house was opened again, but this printing house was not destined to exist for long: under Prince Danil, the Montenegrins, constrained by the Turks and not having bullets, were forced to use the type, using it to make bullets for military operations. Only in modern times was the printing house restored in Tseteniy, in which the weekly newspaper “Glas Montenegrin” is printed, and liturgical books are delivered from Belgrade. As for the religious state of the common people themselves, they, locked by the iron ring of Islam in their inaccessible mountains, retained the same habits and religious customs that they inherited from their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, adding to them, in addition, many of their religious signs and vows, naturally caused by the conditions of continuous military life among hostile Islam. Therefore, among the people there are many beliefs, signs, religious vows of all kinds that run through the entire life of a Montenegrin. Priests and monks, with their enormous influence on the people, could contribute to the purification of the religiosity of the people; but, unfortunately, their insignificant education does not give them the means for this. But, despite many superstitions, Montenegrins sacredly preserve the church customs of the Orthodox Church. So, getting up, going to bed, before and after dinner, just like a Russian person, he certainly crosses himself and says a short prayer. From the description of the main annual holidays, one can see how sacredly Montenegrins honor various sacred things and the legends associated with them. Philip Radicevic, court protodeacon and secretary of the Montenegrin Metropolis Since in Orthodox countries it is generally the custom from Christmas Day to congratulate each other on the New Year and give mutual gifts, as a result of this in Montenegro, just like in Russia, both holidays are mixed or, rather, combined with a whole series of celebrations. On the day of Epiphany, houses are consecrated. In Cetinje, at the end of mass, the bishop goes with great triumph to the palace to sprinkle every room with holy water: the lower clergy does the same in the rest of the houses of the capital and collects voluntary offerings. A long fast, so strictly and sacredly observed that it seems more forgivable to a Montenegrin to kill an enemy than to eat meat during the forbidden time, naturally prepares him for great fun on Easter. Throughout Holy Week, the most intense mortification of the flesh continues. In ancient times, during this week, truces were appointed between two warring tribes and the most fierce tribal revenge was not carried out. Finally, at dawn, the singing of priests is heard from the depths of the iconostasis, announcing the resurrection of Christ, and this event is accepted by all those present as the most joyful news. Brotherly hugs begin, as on Christmas Day, as a sign of peace, friendship and common joy. Then they sit down to break their fast, which happens more or less abundantly even in the poorest families. Every home has its own patron saint, whose day is celebrated with extraordinary celebration. At a dinner to which all relatives and friends are invited, the hosts themselves and members of their family should not sit down under any circumstances. They, on the contrary, are obliged to serve their guests all the time, and they themselves dine after everyone else. Only in the prince’s house is this custom violated, and even here the guests are served by the first person in the family after the prince. According to custom, a large rye bread is placed in the middle of the table and a blessed candle burns on it, and it is strictly forbidden to light anything on it. In ancient times, perhaps even now in some remote villages, the day of the saint, the patron saint of the family, was celebrated somewhat differently. On the eve of the evening, the youngest son of the family, on behalf of his father, went to invite his friends and acquaintances to the holiday. Approaching the door, he usually said: “God grant you the kingdom of heaven!” My father bows to you and invites you to come to him this evening for a glass of wine. We will talk so that time passes faster, and we will not hide what the patron saint brings to the elder” (head of the house). Friends set off on their journey without further conversation and, arriving at the house, greeted the owner, saying: “Good evening! Congratulations on the holiday; May God grant you health and joy in celebrating it for many years to come!” Then they began to drink, eat, have fun, and the singers with delight began to sing their poetic songs about daring young men, so that dozens of Turkish heads would be chopped off in a bloody battle. The celebration was complete. Montenegrins are extremely fond of religious processions in which both men and women take part. These processions (processions of the cross) are organized either for the veneration of relics, or for the consecration of the harvest and water, or for a vow. At the same time, the men carry images of saints and diligently, although not particularly harmoniously, sing various prayers 123. The current Metropolitan Mitrofan tirelessly takes care of the spiritual enlightenment of his people, as well as the ordering of their church and religious state in general. One of his wise church measures was the establishment of a certain salary for the clergy (since 1900), which put an end to the sad bickering between pastors and flock over voluntary payment for services. This measure alone testifies to the high administrative talent of the ruler, who was wholeheartedly devoted to the spiritual good of his people. Knowing the Russian language well, the Bishop at the same time does a lot of literature and especially translations of Russian theological works into the Serbian-Montenegrin language. His active collaborator is the venerable court protodeacon Philip Radicevic, a very gifted writer-poet: his works are highly valued in Montenegro, the whole history and life of which serves as an inexhaustible theme for all kinds of poetic works. It is known that her valiant prince is not only a wise ruler and a brave warrior, but also a glorious poet, whose works are widely known throughout the Slavic world. Until the last Russian-Turkish war, the only religion in Montenegro was Orthodoxy - in the full sense - one flock and one shepherd. But after this war, she got part of Turkish territory inhabited by Catholic Serbs. Although the entire number of these heterodox Serbs seduced by Rome did not exceed 6,000 souls, which, moreover, had a natural outcome due to the difficulty of returning to the bosom of their ancient mother the Orthodox Church, Jesuit-Austrian diplomacy did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance in order to drive a wedge of Jesuit policy into the body of the primordially Orthodox people. Rome, supported by Austria, achieved the conclusion of a concordat with Montenegro (1886), according to which a Roman Catholic bishopric was established in Antivari, with the right of supreme supervision over all Montenegrin Roman Catholics in religious terms. The true friends of Montenegro warned her against this step, knowing from history what these concordats mean. And the fears were justified. Having settled in the “eagle’s nest”, previously inaccessible to black crows, the Jesuits carried out intensive propaganda of their church-political ideas and - an indirect result of this was an event that saddened the entire Orthodox-Slavic world - the transition to the Roman Church of Princess Elena, who sacrificed her Orthodox faith to become the queen of Italy... But of course, this was only a light cloud against the bright background of the glorious history of Montenegro, and you can be sure that the common sense of the Montenegrin people will not allow further successes of Jesuit propaganda, and the Montenegrin church, under the wise leadership of its ruler, will grow stronger and prosper for the benefit of the Slavic people, who shed so much blood for “Krst. Chasni" and his Orthodox faith. Orthodox Serbian Church in the 19th century I. History of the Church in the Kingdom of Serbia The fate of the Serbian church after the destruction of the Serbian kingdom. - The domination of the Phanariots. – The first metropolitan of the Serbs. – Autonomy of the Serbian Church. – Church and state in Serbia. - Mitrop. Michael and his fight for the rights of the church. - Exile of Metropolitan. Mikhail, return to the department and his subsequent activities. – General state of church and religious life in Serbia. Innocent, current Metropolitan of Serbia When in 1889 the Serbian kingdom fell after the battle with the Turks on Kosovo, Serbia did not immediately lose its political independence, which lasted until 1459. Church independence was not touched by the Turks at all, so the Serbian Peć patriarchate, approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1375, continued to exist, although the rights of the patriarch were often violated by the victors. However, after the Serbian Peć Patriarchs: Arseniy Chernoevich III in 1690 and Arseniy IV Iovannovic in 1737, due to the heavy Turkish yoke on the one hand and the tempting offer of the Austrian Emperor Leopold I on the other, moved from Serbia with part of the people to Hungary, the position of the Serbian Peć Patriarchate finally shook, and Sultan Mustafa III By decision of the Tsaregrad synod and Patriarch Samuil, he finally annexed it to the Tsaregrad Patriarchate in 1766. As a result of this, Greek bishops began to rule the Serbian church in the Turkish possessions. The latter were often without any theological education, performed divine services in Serbian churches in Greek and sought to impose it on the lower clergy who came from the Serbs. But it was precisely thanks to the lower clergy that the Greek language was forced out of the Serbian church, since at that time they performed divine services in the Russian-Slavic language. During the administration of the Serbian Church by Greek bishops, spiritual enlightenment declined greatly, since the latter, themselves being poorly enlightened people, could not take care of the education of the Serbian clergy and generally ruled the church with complete arbitrariness. The Turkish yoke was too painful for the Serbs, and they often rebelled against their oppressors. During these uprisings, Greek bishops often took the side of the Turkish government, and this was the reason that the Serbian people did not like their bishops and tried with all their might to overthrow their dependence on the Constantinople Patriarchate 124. Therefore, when in 1815 Prince Milos I Obrenovic managed to free Serbia from the hated Turkish yoke, his first order of business was to send a deputation to Constantinople with instructions to ask the Patriarch and the Porte for autonomy for the Serbian church. But the Patriarch of Constantinople was in no hurry to satisfy the request of the Serbian government and the Serbian church, and only thanks to the energetic demand of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I, the Serbs received internal political autonomy and ecclesiastical semi-independence, which was declared by the Hatti Sheriff of Sultan Mahmud Khan in 1830 125. In 1832 an agreement was concluded between Serbia and the Constantinople Patriarchate, according to which: 1) both the metropolitan and the bishops are elected independently from the Serbian clergy; 2) the metropolitan chosen by the people, the clergy and the prince is consecrated in Serbia, and all bishops must obey this metropolitan; 3) Serbian bishops chosen by the prince and metropolitan are consecrated without prior reporting to the patriarch; 4) for each election of a metropolitan, 800 ducats are sent as a gift to the patriarch; 5) the property of bishops and metropolitans remaining after their death passes into the possession of the state; 6) neither the metropolitan nor the bishops have the right to make debts either at the expense of the Serbian people or at the expense of the patriarchate; 7) the metropolitan cannot be overthrown from the metropolitan see without the legal permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Serbian prince, just as bishops cannot be deposed without the will of the metropolitan and the prince; 8) the metropolitan must commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople in the church, and the metropolitan must be commemorated by all bishops in Serbia 126. Meletius, the first Serbian Metropolitan of Serbia (after the Phanariot Greeks) Meletiy Pavlovich, the archimandrite of the Vratevshnitsa monastery, was elected the first metropolitan from the Serbs. Meletius was a man without a higher theological education, but he stood out for his merits in the liberation of Serbia and was known for his strict piety, as a result of which he enjoyed the love of the prince and the people. He was not destined to rule the Serbian Church for long; in 1833 he died, leaving the church in its former disordered state. In view of the fact that the Serbian church was in dire need of transformation of administrative and judicial power, spiritual enlightenment and educated clergy, Prince Milos, after the death of Metropolitan Meletios, turned to the then enlightened Serbian Metropolitan of Karlowitz (in Austria-Hungary) Stefan Stratimirovich with a request to indicate an educated and worthy person capable of taking the metropolitan position department in Belgrade. Metropolitan Stratimirovich pointed the prince to his secretary Pavel Iovanovic, a Serb from Srem who received a theological and philosophical education. Pavel Iovannovich agreed to the proposal of Prince Milos and, having accepted the name Peter in monasticism, was ordained by the Tsargrad Patriarch Gregory as Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia on December 6, 1832. Metropolitan Peter found the Serbian church in a very sad situation, and he had to work hard to streamline church affairs. And indeed, he took a number of measures to improve church affairs: he introduced strict discipline among the clergy, started books for recording those who were baptized, married, and dead; he also founded diocesan spiritual courts and the “Great Spiritual Court” in Belgrade, under the local metropolitanate; he took care of the correct division of the income of the parish clergy and sought from the treasury a salary of 25,000 francs for the metropolitan, and 12,000 francs for the bishops per year, as well as obtained a salary for all officials in the spiritual courts. Seeing the complete lack of education among the clergy, Metropolitan Peter paid great attention to the establishment of schools; Thus, in 1886, he opened a theological school (“Theology”) in Belgrade to train both white and monastic clergy and appointed Serbs from Austria as teachers in it, as they were more enlightened. For greater prosperity of the school, he subsequently invited two Russian teachers. For higher theological education and for preparation for theological departments, he sent students of his school to Russia to higher theological educational institutions. As a result of dynastic politics in Serbia (during the reign of Alexander Karageorgievich), Metropolitan Peter left his metropolitan see at the beginning of 1859 and returned back to Austria-Hungary, to Karlovtsy, where he was elected bishop of the Gorno-Karlovitz (Karlstadt) diocese. After a failed attempt to re-occupy the Belgrade see, he died in 1864 in Karlovci, where he came to attend meetings of the church and people's assembly 127. High-sp. Michael, deceased metropolitan in Bose After the abdication of Metropolitan Peter, a council was convened in Belgrade on July 25, 1859 to elect a new metropolitan, and the council elected the Šabac bishop and administrator of the metropolitan Michael. This choice was approved by Prince Milos and Patriarch Kirill of Constantinople, who sent his blessing and letter to Metropolitan Michael. Michael - in the world Milos Iovannovich - along with other young people was sent by Metropolitan Peter to Russia to receive higher theological education. While still a student at the Kyiv Theological Academy, he took monastic vows, and at the end of the course he was solemnly ordained as a hieromonk in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra by the then Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret. After returning to Serbia, he was for some time a professor of the Belgrade “Theology”, and in October 1854 he was already invited to take the Šabac episcopal see, being only 28 years old. Upon his accession to the metropolitan see, Met. Michael energetically set about improving his church: he separated church administration from church legal proceedings; as a result of his insistent demands, a “law on the ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox faith” was developed, promulgated on September 30, 1862. But since this law did not fully comply with the canonical rules, Metropolitan Michael protested against it. The main drawback of this law was that diocesan bishops were not recognized as presidents of diocesan courts, and also that the archbishop's council, the highest ecclesiastical authority in Serbia, remained without administrative rights, with power actually resting in the hands of the minister of ecclesiastical affairs. Due to protest from Metropolitan Michael, Prince Milosz ordered the government to correct this law, which to some extent was done. Although Serbia enjoyed independence, both political and ecclesiastical, this independence was not complete. Meanwhile, the time has come for complete liberation. In 1876 Serbia, with the fraternal help of the Russian people, decided to finally throw off the Turkish yoke, and in 1878, according to the Berlin Treaty, it was recognized as an independent principality. Having received political independence, the Serbian government and the Serbian church naturally could no longer be content with half church autonomy, as a result of which already in the next 1879 the government raised the issue of church independence with the Constantinople Patriarchate 128 . Negotiations with the Patriarch of Constantinople on this subject began to be held by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ristic and subsequently by Metropolitan Mikhail. Despite the intrigues of the Austrian envoy in Constantinople 129, Patriarch Joachim III, together with St. the synod in October 1879 issued a charter according to which it recognized the Orthodox Church in Serbia as autocephalous. However, in order for the Serbian Church, during its independence, to maintain unity both with the Constantinople Church and with the rest of the Orthodox churches, it had to, on the basis of the same charter: 1) commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in diptychs; 2) take St. myrrh from Constantinople; 3) the newly elected Serbian Metropolitan, upon taking office, is obliged to notify the Patriarch of Constantinople and other autocephalous Orthodox churches about this, and, finally, 4) in all difficult and dubious matters, the Metropolitan must communicate with other Orthodox churches. As you can see, all these conditions on the part of the Constantinople Patriarchate serve as clear indicators of the Serbian church belonging to the one, holy, catholic, eastern church, but in no way impose even a shadow of dependence on this church. But having received complete autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Serbian Church had to endure a strong struggle with its own government, which tried to take away from it the rights that belonged to it according to the canons approved by the Ecumenical Church. The relationship between the government and the church since its independence was determined by the constitution of 1869 and the church law of 1862. According to the constitution of 1869, the dominant religion in Serbia is recognized as the Eastern Orthodox, and any proselytism to the detriment of it is prohibited (§ 31). The prince and his heirs must belong to the Orthodox faith (§ 19). According to the ecclesiastical law of 1862, civil authorities must assist the clergy in eradicating superstitions, investigate cases of disorder that occurred during worship, and punish those responsible (§§ 38:39). When investigating abuses in church households, a police official is also required to be present (§ 43). In divorce cases, the police authorities bring to the district archpriest and to the diocesan consistory that party that itself did not appear when summoned by the church court (§§ 133:137). The police authority is obliged to announce, in necessary cases, the orders of the ecclesiastical authorities (§§ 112:192). – As can be seen from these laws, the relationship between the church and the government was not defined completely and too generally, so that the latter depended on various accidents, such as: on the religious beliefs of government officials, on political circumstances, etc. The life of the kingdom (since 1882) of Serbia also depended and depends, on the one hand, on the direction of the persons at the head of the ministry, on the other, on their relations with Austria and Russia, since the interests of Serbia are largely connected with these two states. Serbia is connected with Austria by geographical and economic position, and with Russia by tribal kinship and the Orthodox faith. Serbia has always been on friendly terms with one or the other of these states, and depending on with whom it was on friendly terms, the direction of its entire life was shaped one way or another. During its friendship with Russia, the government always cared much more about the interests of the church and respected its demands and laws. As a recent researcher rightly notes, “friendship with Russia cannot be limited to just the political side: it inevitably influences church events, the situation in the country of the local church and clergy.” On the other hand, as soon as the influence of Austria increased, the affairs of the church worsened; Thus, during the reign of the country, the Western influence and the religious indifferentism of the latter made themselves felt with all force in Serbia, and Roman propaganda, taking advantage of this, even achieved the construction of the first Roman Catholic church in Nis. The best proof of religious indifference and complete disregard for church canons on the part of the government is the tax law issued in 1881. By virtue of this law, every ordination to the priesthood, tonsure as a monk, bishop's permission to marry, etc. were subject to a certain monetary tax in favor of the treasury. At the same time, not only were the metropolitan and bishops not asked for their opinions regarding this law, but they were not even notified about it, and only found out after the law was published in an official government organ. By issuing this law, the government, as Metropolitan Michael put it, has embarked on a path that humiliates the church and diminishes respect for the rules that structure it and have existed for centuries. The Bishop, together with the council of bishops, energetically rebelled against the publication of this anti-canonical law and under no circumstances agreed to accept it 130. In a letter to the Minister of Public Education and Spiritual Affairs, St. To Novakovich (dated May 12, 1881), the Metropolitan, among other things, wrote: “The law on taxes amazed us both with its adoption in general, and especially with its general injustice, thoughtlessness and contradiction in which it stands with the spirit of the Holy Church and its decrees. It is unfair that the state makes orders regarding the church without first entering into an agreement with the church authorities... The imposition of taxes on ecclesiastical offices constitutes a violation of the internal independent life of the church. How can the state demand tax for an office that it does not give, and demand from an official that it does not appoint? With equal right one could demand such taxes from public and private servants, which, however, is not done by law. Moreover, the church cannot allow the payment of such taxes, because it would legitimize the sin of simony. Then, the significance of the tax is excessive. The monk could not pay 250 francs. Whoever devotes his life to God, really must still pay tribute to the state for this?.. The white clergy is taxed no less highly. Based on all this, one must come to the conclusion that the drafters of the tax law did not know the basic provisions of the Orthodox Church and Christianity, that they were not guided by the Christian heart and the reverence that we should feel for the church in whose bosom we were born and raised. The Serbian clergy of both types did not deserve such a reward for their service to the people. “I find,” the bishop concluded his letter to the minister, “that this law (on taxes) is harmful, and everything that can harm the Orthodox faith in Serbia is prohibited by Article 31 of the constitution. Therefore, as a result of the oath given before God and the church, we consider ourselves obliged to protest against the mentioned law.” And indeed, the Metropolitan, together with his synod, resolutely protested against the new law, finding it “in conflict with the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church” and demanding either its abolition or “a change in accordance with the canons.” But the brute force of the austrophilizing naprednyaks did not stop at the means for their dishonorable struggle. On October 18, 1881, by virtue of a princely decree, the metropolitan was removed from managing the affairs of the metropolis; Moreover, he was searched and his private correspondence was taken away, and the Negotin Bishop Moses was appointed temporary administrator of the metropolis. The Metropolitan again (dated October 20) protested against the princely decree. He wrote, among other things: “The dismissal of me from the post of Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia and the subsequent appointment of Moses, Bishop of Negotin, as manager of church affairs, is a flagrant offense in relation to both the Serbian constitution and the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is recognized by the constitution as the state church of the principality (at that time Serbia was still a principality, becoming a kingdom only in 1882), and the latter, by virtue of the basic laws of the Orthodox Church, is subordinate exclusively to the Patriarch of Constantinople (although since 1879 the Serbian church received full autocephaly). The dignity of the episcopal rank and the solemn oath I took publicly - to protect the holiness of the faith and the rights of the church - oblige me, as the head of the Serbian church, not to leave my residence, and to anathematize the order of the secular authorities, depriving me of the rank and appointing Bishop Moses in my place, as an act of violence directed against existing church laws." Further, the Metropolitan pointed out the right of representatives of all autocephalous churches to try him, to whom he “appealed.” “And only the synods of the Orthodox Church can deprive me of my dignity,” the metropolitan wrote, and not the council of ministers, which does not have the right to make any decisions on church affairs. As a Serbian citizen and a person who has served the state for twenty-eight years, I furthermore refer to Art. 26 of the Serbian Constitution, according to which no one can be convicted without trial and without hearing the accusation against him in order to have the opportunity to defend himself. Meanwhile, no charges were brought against me, and I was not brought before a competent court. The action of your ministry is the most blatant violation of the laws, as a result of which the decree is deprived of all force. By refusing to obey the order to impose a special tax on persons of clergy, I only fulfilled my duty and my obligation." Not without reason, after this, one Moscow church leader, in a word spoken on the day of the Metropolitan Bishop’s name day (November 8), equated his feat “to the feat of the All-Russian Patriarch Hermogenes and the Metropolitan of Moscow, St. Philip, who, with their blood, sealed their devotion to the Orthodox faith in the fight against the brutal violence of secular power.” Despite all the irregularities pointed out in this protest regarding the removal of the Metropolitan from office, brute force, however, temporarily achieved its triumph. The Metropolitan retired to his house on Vracar (on the outskirts of Belgrade) and remained there for almost two years, as if under arrest, surrounded by government spies and police. Finally, on Holy Week in 1883, on April 11, he was forced, to the great regret of his many admirers in Serbia, to leave his fatherland, and then went to the holy places of the Orthodox East, in the likeness of his distant predecessor at the Serbian archbishopric see of St. Savva. On the way, he stopped in Constantinople, where he was solemnly and fraternally greeted by the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III. Then he went to Jerusalem and other saints. places of Palestine; then he visited the holy Mount Athos, from where, returning through Constantinople to Varna and Rushchuk, in 1884 he arrived in Russia, where he remained until 1889, either in Kyiv, then in Moscow in his courtyard, then in other cities, visiting St. Petersburg more than once. During his last stay in Russia, Vladyka got to know her better, established even closer connections with her, which he began at school, and continued in his lively correspondence with his former mentors, schoolmates, friends, acquaintances and even with persons in power, connections that he cemented with a personal visit to Russia in 1869, when he came to the anniversary of his native Kyiv Academy (he was then elected honorary its member) and when he visited St. Petersburg, being elected at that time, by the way, an honorary member of the capital's university. Only after the abdication of King Milan in favor of his son Alexander, Metropolitan Michael, in 1889, under the pressure of Serbian popular desires, was invited to again take up his metropolitan see. Metropolitan, who temporarily occupied this department. Feodosius Mraovich voluntarily abandoned the department, and then (May 29) Metropolitan. Michael solemnly entered his cathedral city, again occupying his metropolitan see, where he remained until the last minutes of his life, until the time of his blessed death. The year of the return of Metropolitan. Michael's trip to Serbia was a jubilee year for the Serbs: the Serbs then remembered the 500th anniversary of the unfortunate Battle of Kosovo (1389), which marked the beginning of the rapid decline of ancient Serbian independence, and then they hastened to celebrate the anointing of their young king Alexander. The rite of anointing was performed by Metropolitan, who was restored to his department. Michael. Since then, he has continuously continued his tireless work for the good of the church entrusted to him and for the benefit of the people's cause with the same unchanging zeal and with the same Christian self-sacrifice that distinguished him before. It is known that before his expulsion from Serbia, he exerted all his strength and knowledge for the complete improvement of the church in his fatherland (under him, the law on church authorities in Serbia was issued in 1862, which remained in force with some changes and additions until the publication of a new law in 1890 - after the return of the metropolitan to Serbia, and many other orders relating to the improvement of the church), he accepted not only lively, but also the most important participation in the memorable events preceding the Russian-Turkish war in 1876–7, blessing, for example, the liberation feats of Russian volunteers, his fellow Serbs, etc., sending appeals for help to the Bosniaks and Herzegovinians, etc., collecting donations for wartime needs; further he petitioned the Patriarchate for complete autocephaly of the Serbian Church in 1879 and many others. etc. And after his return to Serbia in 1889, he also did not spare his strength to continue his great and fruitful ministry. True, it was not easy for him to understand the chaos that his predecessor Theodosius Mraovich left him in the affairs of the church. But Met. Michael, however, with his characteristic archpastoral zeal, and with rare selflessness, took up the task of internal improvement of the church. Upon his return and with his participation, a new law on church authorities was issued (in 1890), which is still in force, other church affairs were put in order, many charitable funds were established to provide assistance to spiritual literature, widows and orphans of the clergy, etc., bishops' departments were replaced by worthy candidates, the parish clergy began to show lively pastoral activity, establishing a “priestly brotherhood”, which is not unsuccessfully working in spiritual and educational terms and now, for the ninth year, issuing, for example, its magazine (monthly) “Vesnik Srpske Tsrkve”, etc. For their part, the monastic clergy at this time formed their own brotherhood, not unsuccessfully also pursuing the goals of external and internal improvement of monastic life. Finally, the latest successes of the Serbian church and school affairs in Turkey (in Old Serbia and Macedonia) are significantly due to the moral energy of Metropolitan Michael, who made appropriate representations to the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople on the account of some concessions already acquired. Of many other concerns, Metropolitan. Michael about the needs of the church entrusted to him, one cannot fail to mention his close participation in matters relating to the rise of the spiritual education of the Serbian clergy. For this purpose, he sent young people to receive theological education in Russia and even sometimes in Greek Orthodox schools (on the island of Halki and in Athens); He also took care of the reform of his Belgrade “Theology”, which, according to the law of January 11, 1896, now receives a new and better structure. In a short essay it is difficult to calculate all the fruits of the tireless activity of the glorious Serbian ruler. One can only generally note that there was and is not a single party in the sphere of church and popular interests of the country where the kind, sympathetic, ardent participation of the Metropolitan Bishop was visible. For this, his grateful flock was attached to him, always surrounding him with sincere, genuine love and the highest respect. But his authority was great even beyond the immediate boundaries of his flock. He represented the moral center for the entire Orthodox Serbian community, which saw in him its most typical representative. He created charm through the power of his moral authority throughout the Slavic and entire Orthodox world and, in particular, in Orthodox Russia, which, by the way, was clearly expressed, for example, in the anniversary celebrations of the Metropolitan in 1879 (the 25th anniversary of his bishopric) and in 1894 (the 40th anniversary of his archpastoral service) 131. Among his busy church and administrative activities, His Eminence Metropolitan Michael found leisure to engage in literature. He owns about 50 separate different publications and independent works, not counting his numerous journal articles, letters, messages, numerous correspondence to various individuals, institutions, etc. 132. For his tireless labors and exploits, Metropolitan. Mikhail was awarded at different times numerous and varied distinctions. So, for example, he had all the highest Serbian orders, received several highest Russian order honors (Order of St. Anne, 1st class, St. Vladimir, 2nd class, St. Alexander Nevsky), the highest Montenegrin Order of Daniel, 1st class. and many more etc.; was elected as an honorary member of numerous charitable and educational societies, scientific institutions and societies (he was, by the way, an honorary member of all Russian theological academies, including St. Petersburg since 1879, several Russian universities, etc.). And how much influence he had even in the heterodox West is shown, for example, by the case of the election of Metropolitan. Michael in 1862 as chairman of the society (in Paris) for the liberation of African slaves. In 1895 The Serbian Council of Bishops, giving its high priest-metropolitan a distinction in the form of a white hood with a diamond cross (similar to the distinction of Russian metropolitans) “for his valuable, laborious and fruitful deeds,” began its letter (dated October 14) with the following words: “By the power of faith you have acquired the highest wisdom and through labor you have acquired everything.” And in the anniversary year of 1894, many bishops and clergy greeted him, among other things, with the words: “Such is the Bishop who is fitting for us.” Tireless labors and the grief he experienced undermined the Metropolitan’s health. Mikhail and on February 5, 1898 he died. His death was mourned not only by the Serbian people who dearly loved him, but also by the entire Orthodox world, especially Orthodox Russia, which was so dearly loved by him and who loved him so much. Expressing purely Russian feelings, Prof. Palmov wrote in his obituary: “This great Orthodox saint, who enjoyed great moral authority throughout the Orthodox East and in particular here in Russia, has passed away, the great sadman of the Serbian people’s grief has passed away, the unshakable friend of Russia and the ardent zealot of Slavic unity under the auspices of the great, powerful Orthodox Russia, the ideals of which the blessedly deceased ruler adopted as his true Orthodox understanding and his truly broad, soft and kind Slavic soul. Peace be upon the blessed Metropolitan. Michael, eternal memory and eternal glory to his great exploits, which constituted the whole meaning of his righteous life and tireless activity." The cathedral elected (February 15, 1898) Bishop Innocent of Niš to the see of the Serbian metropolitan, who still governs the Serbian church, continuing the work of his glorious predecessor in the external and internal improvement of the church entrusted to his care. Currently, the Orthodox Church in Serbia has five dioceses: a) Belgrade with a see in Belgrade; b) Zhichskaya with the pulpit in Kraljevo; c) Nišskaya with a cathedra in Niš d) Timochka with a cathedra in Zaichar and Shabatskaya with a cathedra in Shabats. The highest ecclesiastical authority in Serbia is the “Council of Bishops,” consisting of diocesan bishops headed by the metropolitan. Each diocese has its own spiritual court, and the “great spiritual court” for all dioceses is located at the metropolis in Belgrade. In church services in Serbia, books are used, mainly printed in Russia, since books of the Serbian edition have been out of use for almost a century. The Serbian clergy does not receive salaries from the treasury, but is supported by voluntary and obligatory offerings from parishioners. The number of obligatory offerings is determined by law. Since the Serbian clergy took a great part in the liberation of their country from the Turkish yoke, after Serbia acquired independence, they also received the right to take part in the political life of their fatherland, and priests enjoy the right to be deputies in the national assembly. Monasteries have always played a very important role in the historical life of the Serbs: they were cultural centers from which rays of enlightenment emanated and spread among the Serbian people. The future princes and leaders of the Serbian people, and in general the entire Serbian intelligentsia, were educated in the monasteries. Monasteries acquired even greater importance after the fall of the Serbian kingdom (1889), when they remained the only seedbeds of enlightenment and guardians of the precepts of antiquity. With the opening of special schools, monasteries began to little by little lose their educational significance, and in the 19th century they were left with only a religious and moral mission, on the fulfillment of which their future depended. At present, the Orthodox Church in Serbia has 51 monasteries, and the historian Dučić rightly says that “not a single Christian nation in Europe has as many monasteries and churches in proportion to its number as the Serbs have” 133 . The financial situation of the monasteries is now very difficult, since the parishes that previously belonged to them and brought significant income have been taken away from them, and, in addition, they are subject to an unaffordable state tax 134. The Orthodox Serbian people, fully aware of what a treasure the Orthodox faith has always been for them, which has given them the opportunity to survive the most difficult times of historical life and again achieve freedom, firmly adheres to their mother church and courageously repels all attempts of heterodox propaganda. However, the influence of the West partly affected him. Around the eighties, under the influence of Protestant propaganda, the so-called Nazarene sect began to spread in Serbia. The Nazarenes do not have symbolic books, but their teaching is that they do not recognize St. sacraments, reject nationality and military service, considering the latter a work of the devil, do not recognize the authority of state authorities, refuse the oath, rebel against any education, considering it unnecessary and a product of scribes and pharisaism. Denying sacred tradition, they honor, as the source of doctrine, one sacred scripture and only knowledge of it is recognized as necessary for man. They do not attend churches, but for their prayer meetings they gather in private houses, where they sing songs of religious content with their elders. These songs were translated from the Magyar language into Serbian by the famous Serbian poet Zmaj Iovanovic. In view of the significant spread of this sect in Serbia, the Niš consistory in 1889 issued an order to the clergy to pay special attention to Protestants selling books of the Holy Scriptures in Serbia and taking advantage of this opportunity to spread Nazarene 135 . But in general, the sect does not have much success and with the intensification of the spiritual and educational activities of the clergy, it will lose all ground among the people deeply devoted to their church. The Serbian Church is not limited to Serbia alone. Its branches spread to Austria, and partly remained under Turkish rule, like Old Serbia and Macedonia. Passing by these last two areas, as having almost no church-historical movement, let us turn to a brief overview of the Serbian churches within Austria-Hungary. George Brankovic, Archbishop of Karlovets, Patriarch of the Austrian Serbs Karlovtsi, residence of the Karlovtsy Patriarch II. Serbian Church of Austria-Hungary in the 19th century The severity of the Turkish yoke and the resettlement of Serbs to neighboring countries. – Tempting promises from the Austrian government. – Foundation of the Serbian metropolitanate in Hungary. - Mitrop. Stefan Stratimirovich and his concerns for the improvement of the church. – Attempts by the Austrian government to introduce a union among the Serbs. - Failure of these attempts. – Internal movements among Serbs under the influence of Western culture. – Education of the clergy, monasteries, liturgical books. – The fate of the Orthodox Serbian Church in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Turkish yoke was so heavy for the freedom-loving Serbs that they could not bear it and often rebelled against their oppressors, who of course took revenge on them by shedding streams of Christian blood. Then many, not seeing any other outcome from the unbearable situation, left their native fields, seeking refuge in neighboring countries, especially across the Danube in Austria-Hungary. Such relocations often took on a massive scale, and for example, in 1481, up to 50,000 Serbs moved there. The Austrian government, hoping to receive in the person of the Serbs brave guards of its borders from the Turks, who were already threatening itself, gladly accepted them and even lured them with various promises and benefits. When in 1690 up to 87 thousand Serbian families moved to Austria under the leadership of Patriarch Arseny III, the Austrian government, settling them along its southeastern border, granted them a special charter outlining many benefits and privileges. The charter of Leopold I gave the Serbs: 1) the right to choose an archbishop, recognized as the spiritual head of the Serbs and independent of other spiritual authorities; 2) the Serbian archbishop was given not only spiritual, but also temporal power over all Serbs; 3) the Serbian population receives independent governance; 4) the Serbian settlers were promised to be returned to their former places of residence as soon as Austria managed to liberate them from the Turks; 5) upon the death of a lay Serb who left no heirs, his property should become the property of the archbishop and the local parish church, and in the event of the death of the archbishop and bishops, their property should become the property of the archdiocese; 6) the archbishop authorizes the construction of Serbian Orthodox churches and appoints clergy for all dioceses under his jurisdiction; 7) the Serbian Orthodox clergy is not subject to the jurisdiction of any secular authority, with the exception of the emperor; the archbishop has the right to sentence the clergy under his jurisdiction to punishment for misconduct; 8) the Serbian Orthodox clergy is exempt from all taxes; 9) real estate belonging to the church is recognized forever as the property of Orthodox churches, monasteries or diocesan bishops; 10) complete freedom is provided to conduct worship according to the rituals and rules of the Greek-Eastern Church. Since Austria failed to liberate the former places of residence of the Serbs from the Turks, they remained in their new fatherland, where in 1737 Patriarch Arseniy IV Ivanovich Shakabeta of Pec moved with part of the people and clergy 136. Back in 1710, during the time of Metropolitan Sofroniy Podgoročanin, the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria-Hungary received independence from the Peć Patriarch Kalinik, but still retained spiritual dependence on the Peć Patriarchate until 1766, when the latter itself lost its independence and had to submit to the Patriarchate of Constantinople 137 . The privileges given to the Serbs by Leopold I, apparently, were very broad and were repeatedly confirmed by the Austrian emperors in subsequent times. However, how illusory all this was can be seen from the fact that the Serbs soon began to complain about various oppressions, and at the Serbian congress in Temshivar, convened with the permission of the Austrian Emperor Leopold II, in 1790, they asked the government, among other things, that 1) they be allowed to use the old Julian calendar; 2) freely choose an archbishop and build churches; 3) so that bishops can freely survey their dioceses; 4) so ​​that the Orthodox parish clergy is fully equal in civil rights with the Roman Catholic parish clergy 138. At the same council on October 29, 1790, Stefan Stratimirovich, Bishop of Budim, was elected Metropolitan of Karlowitz, who ruled the Karlowitz Metropolis for forty-six years. Metropolitan Stratimirovich was one of the most educated Serbs of his time. He founded a library at the metropolitan court in Karlovtsi, which he filled with valuable scientific works of that time, not only theological, but also in other branches of science. In 1791 he opened a gymnasium in Karlovtsi, and in 1794 a theological school (theology). In 1797, with his personal funds, he set up an “alumneum” (grace), which still exists today, for poor students who receive free food there. Metropolitan Stratimirovich enjoyed great respect not only from the Austrian Serbs, but also from the Serbs living across the Danube, in the present kingdom of Serbia. Therefore, during the uprising of the latter, the Austrian government persuaded him to convince the Transdanubian Serbs to recognize the patronage of Austria over themselves. But the Metropolitan thought differently. In June 1804, he conveyed to Budapest the Russian Archpriest Andrei Samborsky, who was there under Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, wife of the Hungarian Palatine Joseph, a plan for the restoration of a new Slavic-Serbian state. Although Metropolitan Stratimirovich’s plan remained unfulfilled, it was thanks to his influence that the Transdanubian Serbs rejected the patronage of Austria 139 . At this time, the Austrian emperor was Francis I. Despite his indifferent attitude towards religion, he, nevertheless, together with the Jesuits acted in favor of a union against the Orthodox faith, which always served as a spiritual connection between the Austrian Serbs and Orthodox Russia, which the Austrian emperors were especially afraid of, since at a critical moment the Serbs could always betray the interests of Austria. In addition, Rome, through the Jesuits, strongly influenced the Austrian emperors. In the 18th century, the Austrian government, in the interests of the union, often even resorted to various forms of violence, and Emperor Francis I came up with a new means for the same purpose: in October 1814, he personally wrote a letter to Metropolitan Stratimirovich in which he suggested that, as the head of the local Orthodox Church, in the interests of greater rapprochement between the peoples of the Austrian Empire, he should leave the Julian calendar and accept the Gregorian calendar, used by the Roman Catholic Church. Metropolitan Stratimirovich, in his response letter, referring to the decisions of the ecumenical councils, proved to the emperor the complete impossibility for the Orthodox Serbian population to accept the Gregorian calendar. Having encountered a refusal from the metropolitan, the government suspended its plans for some time; but in the twenties it again resumed active propaganda in favor of the union in the Gorno-Karlovatsk (Karlstadt) diocese in Croatia, where it had some success. Acting with various baits, it seduced several priests without a parish, like Nikolai Gatesha and others. The local Uniate bishop Stanich promised Nikolai Gatesha, if he accepted the union, to provide him with a good parish, raising children at public expense, a pension, etc. Being in a difficult financial situation, Gatesha agreed to the proposal and on November 18, 1819, submitted a statement to Bishop Stanich that he agreed to accept the union, after which the bishop sent him a Uniate catechism to familiarize himself with Uniate teaching. Having returned home and studied the Uniate catechism, Nikolai Gatesha began to persuade many of his friends to accept the union. By the way, he managed to persuade the priest in Trzhit, Petr Glavaš, who also accepted the union, which, however, he soon abandoned. On June 6, 1820, priest Nikolai Gatesha celebrated mass in the Roman Catholic Church in Tržit. Having learned about this, the people were terribly indignant and began to threaten to kill him; but since this did not lead to anything, on June 9 the people carried out their threat. Already some time after the murder of Nikolai Gatesha, the Bishop of Gorno-Karlovak Moisei Miokovich received news from the military authorities (“General Command”) that Emperor Francis I commanded: “if the priest Nikolai Gatesha accepts the union, I assign him an annual salary of 200 guilders; also let him govern the parish in Trzhit, if the Greek Catholic Bishop Stanich finds him capable of doing so.” Thus ended the attempt to carry out a union in Trzhit; although attempts were renewed later, they remained unsuccessful. Metropolitan Stratimirovich paid special attention to Serbian monasteries, to which he attached great importance: “Serbian monasteries and monks, he used to say, are the pillar of the Serbian church.” This remarkable hierarch of the Karlowitz Metropolis, who brought much benefit to the Serbian Church and the Serbian people, died on September 23, 1836. In 1848, the Magyars rebelled against Austria with the intention of founding their own completely independent state, ruled by their own people's king. Austria, which was then saved by the Russian Emperor Nicholas I, was enthusiastically helped by the Serbs, who had a deep hatred of the Magyars for their constant oppression, which had especially intensified recently. The Serbs were especially dissatisfied with the fact that in Hungary the Magyars did not want to recognize another nationality and language other than Magyar. On May 1, 1848, the Serbian National Assembly met in Karlovci, in which Serbs from Serbia also took part, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Joseph Rajacic. The Assembly chose from its midst a “people's select committee” (committee) with the aim of leading the uprising. At the same assembly, the Serbs declared themselves a politically free people living under the rule of the Austrian emperors, and demanded that the provinces of Srem, Bačka, Banat and Vojna Border, inhabited by Serbs, become part of a special government territory called “Srpska Vojvodina”. At the same time, Stefan Šuplicac was elected governor, and Metropolitan Joseph Rajacic was proclaimed patriarch 140. Emperor Franz Joseph I, who at this time ascended the throne after the abdication of his uncle, was imper. Ferdinand, knowing the merits of the Serbs before the Austrian throne and in dire need of their help, recognized and approved the Serbian voivodeship and patriarchy. Subsequently, when the danger had passed and when the Magyars recognized the Austrian emperor as their king, the same Emperor Franz Joseph I abolished the Serbian voivodeship in 1860 and left only the Karlowitz metropolitan with the empty title of patriarch. This is how the Austrian government repaid the Serbs for the services they rendered to it. Meanwhile, the churches and their property suffered so much during this turmoil that Patriarch Joseph Rajachic was forced to turn to the Russian Emperor Nicholas I with a request for material assistance for his people, which was provided by the magnanimous emperor. Along with material impoverishment, a moral decline was also revealed, which was especially noticeable in the 60s. Under the corrupting influence of Western European liberalism, a ferment began among the Austrian Serbs, which went directly against the Orthodox Church and the principles of life sanctified by it. The spokesman for this direction was the “Society of Serbian Youth” (“Omladinski pokrst”). At first it was limited to the field of literature, but later it took on a political character and, ceasing to be a society, turned into a strong party, headed by Svetozar Miletić. Although this party had some good sides, its activities sadly affected the church life of the Austro-Hungarian Serbs. By taking an overly radical path and, by introducing an elective principle, giving the people, not yet prepared for liberal institutions, too much influence on the affairs of the church and clergy, she thereby undermined all authority and completely demoralized the people. And indeed, at the church-people's congress under Patriarch Mashirevich, a strong discord between the hierarchy and the people's party was already revealed, which subsequently assumed ever greater proportions and brought a lot of misfortune and evil to the Serbian church. Around the same time and under the same influences, the Nazarene sect, which already had its adherents among the Magyars, began to spread among the Austro-Hungarian Serbs. The main reason for the spread of Nazarism among the Austro-Hungarian Serbs is church troubles in the broad sense of the word on the one hand, and skillfully carried out Protestant propaganda on the other. Currently, there are about five thousand Nazarenes among the Serbs. Finally, a lot of turmoil was brought into church and religious life by the desire of the Romanians who belonged to the Karlowitz Patriarchate. When in 1864 they achieved separation from this patriarchate and received an independent metropolis with a see in Sabina (Germanstadt), this not only weakened the Karlowitz patriarchy, but also led to strong national strife between the Serbs and Romanians and to endless feuds and disputes over the division of church property. In approving such a division, the Austrian government logically followed its rule: divide et impaer! The state of affairs after this became more and more sad, especially since persons who were more pleasing to the government than serving their people began to ascend to the patriarchal throne. Therefore, during the elections, every now and then there was a struggle between the people and the government, with the people electing one candidate, and the government trying to impose another, in which it often succeeded. Thus, in June 1874, the church-people's council in Karlovtsy chose Budim Bishop Arseniy Stojkovich, one of the most enlightened bishops of his time, as patriarch, but the government did not approve this choice. In new elections called by the government on July 19 of the same year, Romanian Metropolitan Procopius Ivackovic (Serb by origin) was elected Patriarch of Karlowitz and confirmed by Emperor Franz Joseph I on July 26. Despite the fact that Patriarch Ivackovic was a government candidate, the government itself in 1879 invited him, against his will, to resign and appointed him administrator of the metropolis Bishop of Bach Herman Andzhelich. In January 1882, a church-people's council convened in Karlovtsi elected Bishop Arseniy Stojkovich of Budim as patriarch for the second time, but this time the government refused to approve him. Then the cathedral elected Bishop Feofan Zivkovich, known for his intelligence and preaching abilities, as patriarch. The government, however, did not approve this choice either, but appointed Bishop German Andjelić, who was then the administrator, as patriarch. It is clear that the patriarch imposed by the government could not be kind to the people, and a fierce struggle broke out between the hierarchy and the people. This struggle, the blame for which equally falls on both the hierarchy and the people, had a very harmful effect on the position of the church. Unfortunately, these hostile relations have not stopped to this day, depriving the Austro-Hungarian Serbs of the opportunity to ensure their rights and regulate their church autonomy. Patriarch German Andjelic was an educated man, but he put his personal interests above everything, even above church canons, as evidenced on the one hand by the fact that he took the patriarchal see against the will of the people, and on the other hand, that he illegally ordained Theodosius Mraovic as Metropolitan of Serbia after Metropolitan Michael was illegally overthrown. He also issued a circular prohibiting the celebration of the day dedicated to the memory of St. the first teachers of the Slavic Cyril and Methodius. One of the important merits of Patriarch German Andzhelich was that he, together with his brother Archpriest Stefan, built at his own expense in Karlovci a wonderful building for the Serbian gymnasium and theological school. Patriarch Herman died on November 26, 1888. After his death, the government appointed Bishop Vasilian Petrovich of Bach as administrator of the patriarchate, and in April 1890, the church-people's congress elected Bishop Georgiy Brankovich of Temisvar as patriarch, who still governs the Karlowitz metropolitan-patriarchate. Taking advantage of the disordered and virtually powerless position of the Serbian people in Austria, Roman propaganda tirelessly works among them, either imposing a union on them, or completely seducing them into Latinism, and although the successes remain very weak, this propaganda corrodes the healthy spiritual organism of the Orthodox people. In addition, the government dealt a strong blow to the Orthodox Serbian Church in Hungary recently (1894) by introducing church-political reforms, such as civil marriage, freedom of religion and equality of Jews. Such innovations completely undermined the significance of the church and seemed to legitimize complete unbelief. Despite vigorous protest from the Serbian Orthodox bishops, led by Patriarch George Branković (as a member of parliament), these laws were passed by a majority vote of the Magyar parliament. When carrying out these church reforms, the Magyar government was guided by the principle of Magyarization of all nationalities living in Hungary, hoping in this way to gain a predominant influence on their lives. But a natural protest began on the part of the people, and, despite all the efforts of Roman Catholic propaganda, a movement towards a return to Orthodoxy began in some places. So, about one and a half thousand Serbs of the Roman Catholic faith in the village of Santovo, Bacs district in Hungary, outraged by the crude measures of Magyarization, converted to the Orthodox faith in 1899. These Serbs who converted to Orthodoxy, the “Shoks,” were Orthodox until the middle of the 18th century, but then, under pressure from Roman Catholic propaganda, they adopted the Latin faith. In modern times, when the Magyars wanted to introduce worship in the Magyar language in their churches, they abandoned Latin and solemnly accepted their great-grandfather’s Orthodox faith. Due to the difficult conditions in which the Serbian Orthodox Church found itself in the Karlowitz metropolitanate in the 19th century, theological science developed very poorly, so that during all this time there was not a single outstanding theologian or theological work. Until recently, for the theological education of the Serbian clergy in the Karlovica metropolitanate there were four theological schools: in Karlovci, Vršac, Pakrac and Plaškom. These schools were extremely unsatisfactory, and, according to the decision of the Church-People's Congress and the approval of the emperor on August 10, 1868, they were completely closed, with the exception of one in Karlowitz, opened back in 1794 by Metropolitan Stefan Stratimirovich. This theological school (theology) stood at a very low level for a long time, since the successors of Metropolitan Stratimirovich cared too little about it. The situation has improved significantly recently, and the current “theology”, thanks to the care of the current Patriarch George Brankovich, who built the seminary at his own expense, is successfully fulfilling its purpose for preparing candidates for the priesthood. In "theology" only theological subjects and languages ​​are taught: Hebrew, Greek, Church Slavonic and, as an optional language, Russian since 1893. Those who have completed a classical gymnasium course with a certificate of maturity enter “theology”, and for higher theological education they go to Russia, to theological academies, and to the Chernivtsi University. “Theology” also has its own library, but it is still extremely poor. Both the Serbs of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Serbs of the Karlowitz Metropolis are very rich in monasteries: in the Karlowitz Metropolis alone there are twenty-seven monasteries. Despite the fact that almost all the monasteries of this metropolis have large material resources, their benefit for the Orthodox Serbian people, both material and religious-moral, is extremely negligible. Metropolitan Stefan Stanković, in his message of January 9, 1837, said that the monks in the Srem monasteries (most of the monasteries are located in Srem on Fruska Gora) live in an unworthy manner. One cannot but agree with Berezin, who says: “no one will deny that monasticism in its pure and bright image can represent a lofty and wonderful phenomenon; no one will deny that monasteries, properly organized and established on true principles, can have a great and beneficial influence on the people, who usually gather there in crowds and masses, seeking spiritual consolation, moral rest and peace of mind. Unfortunately, Serbian monasticism and Serbian monasteries in their modern form and position are often deviating from the goal they should strive for, not corresponding to their purpose, and therefore representing an abnormal and sad phenomenon” 141. The most remarkable of the monasteries are Krushedol, Grgetek and Novo-Khopovo in the Iriga district, Srem county. The relics of St. are kept in Nowy Khopov. Theodore Tyrone, and in Krushedol - a particle of the relics of St. Angelina's mother. Not far from Novy Khopov lies the Staro-Khopovo monastery, about which there is information from 1502. In the Rum district of the same Srem county there is the monastery of Vrdnik, otherwise called Ravanica; it contains the relics of St. Serbian prince Lazar, who died on the Kosovo field. In the same county lies the Jazak monastery, which houses the relics of the Serbian king St. Urosha. An hour's distance from Yazk is the Beshenovo monastery with particles of the relics of St. Kirik and Ulita. Not far from Besenova there is the Šišatovac monastery, which houses the relics of the Serbian despot St. Stefan Shtilyanovich. The richest monasteries on Fruska Mountain include Beocin, Krušedol and Grgetek. As for liturgical books, despite the efforts of the Austrian government to oust liturgical books received from Russia from church use among the Serbs, the latter are still most often found in church use. In 1852, a special commission was convened in Vienna, consisting of several Orthodox Serbian bishops and archimandrites, chaired by an imperial commissioner, with the aim of finding measures to remove liturgical books printed in Russia from use in Austrian Orthodox Serbian churches and monasteries, and to find means to replace them with others. The Commissioner proposed that all Orthodox monasteries and churches that house Russian liturgical books send them to the commission, which in return will give them books printed in Vienna. To this proposal of the commissioner, Archimandrite Nikanor Grujic (later bishop of Pakrack) said: “liturgical books, wherever they were printed, constitute the same property of the church as all objects belonging to it; Therefore, if it is possible to recognize as legal such a demand for liturgical books from Orthodox monasteries and churches, then it is no longer possible to ensure in advance the inviolability of the rest of the church property.” The commission dispersed without reaching any results. In 1859, the Ministry of People's and Spiritual Affairs in Vienna sent out a circular to the dioceses, which offered for sale liturgical books printed in Vienna at the cheapest prices, but this circular did not change the situation 142. Even now, the Magyar government every now and then rebels against the copying of liturgical books from Russia, but all attempts to stop this so far remain fruitless. The Karlovitsa Metropolis-Patriarchate consists of seven dioceses: Karlovitsa (archdiocese) with a see in Karlovtsy; Gornje Karlovatskaya (Karlstadt) - with a department in Plaškom (Croatia); Pakrac with the pulpit in Pakrac (Slavonia); Budimskaya with a pulpit in Budim; Temisvarskaya with the pulpit in Temisvar; Vršacka with a pulpit in Vršac and Bacska with a pulpit in Novi Sad. Each diocese has its own: a) consistory, b) “administrative selection” and c) “school selection”, the chairman of which is always the bishop. For the entire metropolitanate there is in Karlovtsy: a) “Narodna Shkolski Metropolitan Tsrkveni Savet”, b) “Saborski Odbor” and c) “Narodna Shkolski Savet” - all under the chairmanship of the Patriarch. Questions of a dogmatic-canonical nature are resolved by St. a synod consisting of diocesan bishops chaired by the patriarch, who also elects bishops. The Metropolitan Patriarch is elected by the Church-People's Congress, which also has the right to resolve other church-social, school and economic issues. The chairman of the congress is the patriarch. The royal commissioner is always present at the church-people's congress, and since 1872 also at the meetings of St. synod. Serbian church-people's autonomy is recognized by Article IX of the Hungarian law of 1868, but it is not always respected by the Magyar government. Important branches of the Orthodox Serbian Church are Dalmatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, a brief outline of the historical fate of which we will now present. Dalmatia, the resettlement of Serbs to which began a long time ago, but became widespread after the destruction of the Serbian kingdom by the Turks, passed from Austria to Italy and France and back several times, until it was finally (in 1814) approved by Austria. If in Hungary the government tried in every possible way to seduce the Serbs into a union, then in Dalmatia, lying between such zealously Catholic countries as Austria and Italy, this desire turned into a persistent policy, especially among Francis I, who found himself a willing accomplice in the person of the Orthodox Bishop Benedikt Kraljevic. By acting directly, the government could arouse popular passions and cause an uprising; therefore, in order to divert the eyes of the Orthodox Serbs from his main goal, the Austrian Minister of the Interior, Count Savrau, decided to establish a seminary in one of the cities of Dalmatia for the education of the local Orthodox clergy, the opening of which the Dalmatian Serbs were looking forward to with great impatience. After a long secret correspondence between the Austrian government and Bishop Benedikt Kralevich, Uniate priests from Galicia were invited as teachers to the newly opened seminary in Shebenik, who arrived at the beginning of 1820. There were four of them, namely: Alexey Stupnitsky - rector and professors: Yakov Chistinsky and Yakov Gerovsky, who taught theological sciences and Latin language and Vasily Terletsky, who taught German. The study of the latter was mandatory for everyone, and theological sciences were taught in this seminary in Latin. Meanwhile, proto-Sinkel Kirill Cvetkovich, who was close to Bishop Kralevich, having learned about his secret correspondence with the Austrian government regarding the union, informed the Dalmatian patriots about Kralevich’s secret plans, and they unanimously came out in defense of Orthodoxy, rejected the power of Kralevich and achieved the removal of Uniate teachers from their seminary. However, this did not bother Kralevich, and he continued to advocate so shamelessly in favor of the union that it caused terrible indignation and even a conspiracy was hatched against his life. Kraljevic used to ride daily in his carriage around the outskirts of the city of Sibenik. The conspirators decided to take advantage of this opportunity to carry out their plan, and waited for the bishop’s crew. It is unknown, however, for what reasons, on the day appointed for the murder, Kralevich did not go on his usual walk, and instead of the bishop himself, those who went for a ride in his carriage were killed - the rector of the seminary Stupnitsky, his assistant - a Uniate priest and the parade ground major of Sibenik (1822). This incident filled Bishop Kraljevic with such fear that he fled to Zadar, from where the Austrian government transferred him to Vicenza and finally to Venice, assigning him an annual pension of 3,000 guilders. In the early 40s, two Belokrinitsa monks Pavel and Alimpiy, in search of a bishop for the Russian schismatics, before they met Metropolitan Ambrose of Bosno-Kapaevsky, offered Kralevich to occupy the Old Believer see, but the latter did not accept the offer of the Belokrinitsa schismatics. Bishop Kraljevic died in Venice on February 1, 1826. In the last years of his life, he deeply mourned his actions and bequeathed much of his property, especially his library, to various Orthodox churches and religious schools. And in his will he wrote: “I die, believing in the most holy and unchangeable dogmas of my holy catholic, apostolic, Orthodox-Eastern Church, which received their beginning through a continuous series of centuries from St. the apostles who conveyed to us the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, and from the holy fathers who confirmed them with their canons at seven ecumenical councils and forbade any addition to it under pain of a grave curse. I firmly believe and recognize as true everything that contains the symbol professed and recognized by the Orthodox Eastern Church" 143. Rev. Nikodim Milas, (in Dalmatia) After the flight of Bishop Kralevich, the distributors of the union lost their main leader: the Uniate priests-teachers of the seminary went back to Galicia, the seminary closed and at the same time the Uniate propaganda ceased its activities for a while. The Austrian government, outraged by the act of the Dalmatian Serbs, arrested the most influential and popular people in Dalmatia. Among those arrested was the respected patriot and champion of Orthodoxy, Proto-Sinkel Kirill Cvetković, who was imprisoned for four years in the Zadre prison and then sentenced to twenty years of hard labor. But even upon returning from hard labor, this martyr did not receive the desired freedom, since he spent the remaining 14 years of his life in prison in the Bezdine monastery (in Vanat), where he died in 1830. The entire subsequent history of the Serbs in Dalmatia consists of their struggle for faith with the Austrian government, which never ceased to impose union on them in one way or another. Fortunately, the Serbs often found good shepherds who steadfastly guarded the pledge entrusted to them. Such were the bishops Joseph Rajachic (from 1829) and Panteleimon Zhivkovich (from 1835), who cared a lot about the education of the clergy and the improvement of church affairs. In 1843, the department was moved to Zadar, where “theology” was also transferred. Both the first Zadar bishop Hierofei Mutibratic and his successor (especially Stefan Knezevic, and Bovotorsky Gerasim Petranovich) significantly improved the theological school and church improvement. Under them, many Uniates again returned to Orthodoxy. Currently, Dalmatia has found itself an eminent shepherd in the person of its bishop Nikodim Milas. Master of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Rev. Nicodemus is widely known for his learned writings on church history and canon law, and more than once appeared with his literary works even in Russian spiritual magazines (for example, “Strannik”). In respect for his valuable scientific works, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy elected him as an honorary member, and in general, in his person, Orthodox-Slavic science has a figure whose name is highly valued not only throughout the Slavic world, but also beyond it. As for the Serbian regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, their fate in the 19th century was extremely sad. Being under Turkish rule, these regions bore a double yoke - Turkish and Phanariot, and it was so unbearable that it was there (actually, in Herzegovina) that the uprising broke out (in 1876), which led to the last Russian-Turkish war of liberation. But if for other Balkan countries, like Bulgaria and Serbia, this war was truly a liberation war, then for Bosnia and Herzegovina it was only a transition from the unbearable Turkish-Phanariot yoke to the no less painful Austrian yoke. According to the Berlin Treaty of 1878, these areas were given over to the temporary occupation of Austria; but more than 20 years have already passed since that time, and the temporary occupation has apparently turned into eternal. The Austrian government rules these areas as if they had been conquered, takes all measures to weaken the Orthodox-Slavic element, encourages Roman propaganda, undermines local church self-government, nominates the candidates it needs to the departments and generally oppresses the Orthodox Serbs in every possible way, as if taking revenge on them for the Herzegovinian uprising of 1876, which led to the liberation of the Slavic peoples of the Balkans. peninsula. The best archpastors of the people, like Savva Kosanovich, were forced to retire (1885) and give way to others - the chosen ones of Austria. In vain did the Bosno-Herzegovinians submit memorandums of complaint to both the Austrian emperor and foreign powers: their complaints remained a voice crying in the desert, and they learned from bitter experience how much heavier the Austrian yoke is even than the Turkish one, because the latter weighed only on the body, while the former threatened to suppress the very soul. In their difficult lot, they have only one thing left: to pray to God for deliverance from this Egyptian yoke and to trust in fraternal Russia, which alone can alleviate their bitter situation with its powerful voice. Mostar (main city of Herzegovina) Romanian Church in the 19th century Chapter I. Domination of the Phanariots in Romania The failure of the Prut campaign of Peter the Great and its historical significance for Romania. - Revenge of the Turks and the surrender of Romania to the power of the Phanariot Greeks. – Characteristics of the Phanariot regime and its significance for the subsequent history of the Romanian people. – Two periods in the history of the Romanian Church of the 19th century. In one of the many galleries of the famous Romanian Neamets Lavra, next to the old and completely faded map of the Russian Empire, which also includes the Danube principalities, there hangs a picture that has also faded significantly with time, which attracts the involuntary attention of every “musafir” of the hospitable Neamets Lavra. The content of this painting is highly dramatic. It depicts the inhuman execution through the beheading of the Wallachian prince Brakovan and his three innocent young sons, committed in Constantinople (August 15, 1714), in the presence of the Sultan himself and a huge crowd of Turks, greedily reveling in this bloody spectacle, which, obviously, gives them the greatest pleasure. This horror-filled execution of one of the best princes of Wallachia and his three beautiful young sons was a consequence of the unfortunate Prut campaign of Peter the Great (1711), for whom the above-mentioned map, in all likelihood, served as a guide in the war. As is known, this crusade 145 of the Orthodox Tsar against the infidel Turks to defend the Orthodox faith trampled upon by Islam, a campaign conceived in alliance with the Moldavian and Wallachian rulers, was so unsuccessful that Peter himself almost died, and only Catherine I owes Russia the liberation of the great hero of Russian history from shameful captivity. The Prut campaign and its failure is the most outstanding event in the entire Romanian history, from which the phenomena and facts of the entire subsequent history of the Romanians to the present day logically followed. The failure of the Prut Campaign constituted an extremely sad era in the history of the Romanian people. It struck him deeply as a truly national grief. After all, he always looked at the Russian Tsar as the head of the entire Orthodox Church and his only patron and defender, who was ordered from above, by the Lord God Himself, to come and deliver him from the eternal enemy, his cruel tyrant - the Turk. The Prut campaign of Peter the Great in the eyes of the Romanian people, in the eyes of even the boyars who suffered little from the Turks 146 was the fulfillment of the long-standing aspirations of the Romanian people. The people genuinely rejoiced when Peter the Great, with the empress and his retinue, entered Iasi. It was truly a bright holiday for the Romanian people. “In all the churches,” writes one of the modern Romanian historians, “all the bells were ringing, the people enthusiastically greeted the Christian emperor as their deliverer from the foreign yoke of the pagans.” And suddenly - all these hopes collapsed, replaced by the disaster of the Prut campaign. Much time has passed since this sad and terrible campaign in its consequences for the Romanians, much water has flowed under the bridge since then, many other events, apparently of much greater importance, happened later in Romania, but the unfortunate campaign of Peter the Great, which served as the beginning of innumerable troubles for the Romanian people, is still memorable for them. And nowadays, a historical proverb is in wide circulation among the common people. “Slut la Prut”, that is, “there is bad things on the Prut,” says the Romanian commoner even now whenever any misfortune happens to them. After the sad failure of Peter the Great on the Prut, the Turks, remaining victorious, no longer stood on ceremony with their rebellious and completely defenseless paradise and began a purely Asian reprisal against the Romanians. The first and immediate expression of their Asian rage after the Prut campaign was that terrible execution of Prince Brankovan and his three sons, which was so vividly depicted in the above picture in the Neamets Lavra 147 . But the matter did not end there, and Turkish politicians decided to completely put an end to the Romanian people, undermining any national identity in them. For this purpose, they completely handed it over to the power of the so-called Phanariot Greeks. In Istanbul, in that part of it known as the Phanar, lived a special class of Greeks who were held in contempt even by their own compatriots. By their rude flattery and humiliation before the Turks, their readiness, for the sake of personal gain, to sell not only their fellow tribesman, but also their own father, they gained great attention and trust in themselves from their rude conquerors. It was to these Phanariots that the Turks farmed out the Danube principalities at a great price, and began appointing princes from them to both principalities - to Moldavia from 1711, and to Wallachia from 1716. All Romanian historians unanimously agree that the rule of the Phanariots, which lasted more than a century, constitutes the saddest period in Romanian history. And indeed, if we take into account the low level of morality for which the Phanariots earned themselves sad historical fame, and the fact that they were not connected with the Romanians by national unity, as a result of which, naturally, they harbored a feeling of a certain Greek contempt for the Romanians as non-Greeks; If then we keep in mind that the Turks placed them in principalities with the aim of oppressing and suppressing the Romanian people, in which the conquerors did not forget to encourage them, then the picture of the disastrous state to which the Phanariot Greeks brought the unfortunate Romanian people during their rather long reign will be completely clear. It cannot be said that the reign of the Phanariot princes was particularly cruel. On the contrary, the Phanariot princes in this regard were much more humane than many national princes, who were truly classic examples of cruelty. But these cruelties were random and had little effect on the general condition of the people. Meanwhile, the Phanariot princes systematically and consciously pursued two main goals: 1) the complete robbery of the people and their final impoverishment and 2) the implementation of the idea of ​​Hellenism in Romania. In order to have an idea of ​​how the robbery of the Romanian people took place under the Phanariot princes, let us present some facts. Prince Nicholas Mavrocordato († 1730), during the war with the Germans, he himself robbed his own monasteries of Cozia and Arges (in Wallachia), and informed the Turks that he had taken these monasteries from the Germans; the same prince, incognito, disguised as a priest, entered shops, found fault with measures in order to have grounds to rob the shopkeeper; ordered his officials to go around the cities and villages and put on boyar caftans on rich citizens, in order to take from them the amount of money they needed for the honor of wearing boyar attire. Another Phanariot prince, Alexei Muruzi (1793–1796), during the terrible famine that occurred in Wallachia during his reign, took advantage of this national disaster for his own enrichment. He bought wheat at a cheap price - 7 leva 148 - in different places and sold it for 40 leva to bakers, obliging the latter to buy flour only from him; in the same way, he obliged the monasteries 149 to buy flour only from him and at the same expensive price. “And this prince,” writes Xenopol, after 3 years 150 returned to Phanar with untold riches, squeezed out of the tears and blood of the people.” These are extraordinary methods of robbing the people; the usual ones were various kinds of taxes, in the invention of which the Phanariot princes were very skillful. So, in addition to the already existing taxes, the Phanariots also introduced the following: vakarit (tax from oxen and horses), pogonarit (tax from vineyards), bow (gift to the prince upon his assumption of office), oyerit (tax from sheep), vinerit (tax from wine), prisakarit (tax from bees), etc. To collect these and numerous other taxes from the people, special police officers, two per county, were appointed for one year. Appointed for money by the central government agency under the prince, the so-called divan, consisting mainly of Greeks, these police officers were completely uncontrolled in their actions and were brutal robbers of the people, not afraid of punishment for their lawless actions, to which they were encouraged from above. Metropolitan Joseph Georgiyan, Primate of Romania Thus, gross personal arbitrariness established itself in the civil administration of the Danube principalities. The prince, buying a princely title from the Turks for a huge sum of money, came to Romania with the goal, firstly, to gain back the money he paid to the grand vizier for the principality (most often borrowed at high interest from Jews or Phanariots) and secondly, to accumulate as much money as possible for himself. “Appearing to rule,” let’s say in the words of the famous researcher of the Phanariot period Zalloni, “the Phanariot prince, like a hawk ready to attack his victim, surrounded himself with the lowest selection of Phanariot servants, who, like hungry locusts, swooped down on the principalities following the new appointment, and these locusts - the princely court - greedily destroyed everything, robbing the unfortunate people, not knowing where to expect help from.” Such a purely eastern tax-paying system of government brought the Romanian people to an extreme degree of impoverishment; At the same time, national self-awareness was killed in him. The Phanariot princes' accomplice in suppressing the national self-consciousness of the Romanian people was the latter's extreme mental ignorance. It was not in the interests of foreign rulers, who came to Romania only to make more ducats, to care about the mental development of the people, who only needed to be sheared, like sheep, and, of course, it was desirable that these sheep were silent. It’s even sadder that the Phanariots tried to turn the religion itself into a weapon to enslave the Romanians. Taking advantage of the commonality of religion and the completeness of their power over the Romanians, the Phanariot Greeks, having lost their kingdom on the banks of the Bosphorus, decided to create a Greek kingdom on the banks of the Danube. From here began the most shameless Hellenization of the Romanian principalities through the Greek religion and Greek schools. First, the Romanian nobility was Hellenized. Since the Phanariot princes, appearing in the Romanian principalities, accompanied by a whole flock of hungry compatriots, also Phanariots, distributed all the highest government positions to these latter, the Romanian boyars, not wanting to lose their importance in the principalities, had to turn into Greeks, imitating them in everything, in order to thereby gain at least some share of participation in government country. Therefore, among them, the Romanian language gives way to Greek, which becomes the language of the court, administration and school, serving as a sign of “nobility”. The Romanian nobility became so Greek that in the middle of the 18th century, the Romanian boyars themselves asked the Phanariot ruler to deny access to government positions to those boyar sons who could not read and speak Greek. Imitating the Phanariot Greeks in everything, the Romanian boyars eventually turned towards the Romanian people into the same inhuman robbers as the pure Phanariots, from whom they learned eastern debauchery and greedy appetites. Greek higher and lower schools were established for them, of which the Greek Academy in Iasi was the most famous: all higher-course subjects were taught in Greek in it. As for the church, the Phanariot Greeks tried to Hellenize it too. “At that time,” writes Xenopolus, “the Romanian Church was Greekized, especially in Wallachia, where the metropolitan and episcopal sees were mostly occupied by Greeks.” Granting the position of metropolitan in Moldavia and Wallachia to the Greeks was a great misfortune for the Danube principalities, for it dealt a terrible blow to the nationality of the Romanians. In order to understand this, you need to know what metropolitans were like in the principalities. The significance of the metropolitan in the country was enormous: he was not only the bearer of certain church power, but also enjoyed great political rights. He was the supreme representative of the people, their true national prince, the exponent of their interests, with whose personality the national, so to speak, integrity and identity of the Romanian people was closely linked. During almost the entire period of Turkish rule, the Romanian princes were a random element in the country, since they were appointed to princely places only for a short period of time (three years), and most importantly, these princes were only representatives of the tax-tax system of the Turks, being, for the most part, in the role of executioners and robbers of the people. The metropolitan occupied a completely different position. Presiding over the highest Romanian institution - the divan, an adviser to the ruler and boyars, who did not undertake any important business without the metropolitan, the metropolitan was the true supreme people's representative, the guardian of the ancestral rights of the Romanian people, the center to which the entire Romanian people was drawn and united. Therefore, he alone spoke on behalf of the country - and absolutely everyone listened to the voice of the metropolitan, as the head of state - the prince, the boyars, and the people; The Turkish sultans addressed their firmans relating to the Romanian country to him. In view of such an important importance of the metropolitan in the country, the commanders-in-chief of the power that wanted to occupy the country usually came to the metropolis; there, to the metropolis, in difficult times of historical life, the people flocked, seeking protection for themselves there. It is clear what a terrible blow was dealt to the Romanian people by the appointment of Greek metropolitans. But bishops were also appointed from the Greeks, who performed divine services in Greek; This was the case in all episcopal cities. True, the lower clergy remained Romanian, but they remained stagnant in complete ignorance and therefore could not exert an educational influence on the people. Under the Greek princes and metropolitans, the education of the lower clergy fell even more, because from future shepherds only literacy was now required, that is, the ability to read and write, and knowledge of church services. This circumstance made them mechanical performers of the requirements. Moreover, their social position was extremely low. Along with the peasants, they performed all state duties, contributed taxes to the treasury, etc. As for the performance of their pastoral ministry by these foreign metropolitans and bishops, it, as one would expect, was not of high dignity. The Greek metropolitan, having received his title from the Phanariot prince for a more or less significant sum of money, immediately after his appointment began to reimburse expenses, not embarrassed by any simony: he distributed archpriest positions to those who gave more, without inquiring about the moral qualities of those appointed. Archpriests were appointed to their places for only one year, and in the system of tax farming, which reigned in both civil and church administration, they played exactly the same role as police officers. Acting as spiritual administrators 151, the archpriests had the right to collect money from the priests and people under the name of the fee for the archpriest's staff in an amount not limited by any tax, of course. The metropolitan and Phanariot bishops appointed absolutely anyone who could pay for this appointment as priests; hence the huge number of placeless priests, like our sacral priests, hungry, unprovided for anything, who wandered around the country, not being tied to a specific place - a parish, looking for random food and completely losing the title of priest, which had already fallen in the eyes of the people. Monastic life at this time of general debauchery among the entire clergy was also in terrible decline. This was facilitated by the wealth that time and favorable circumstances placed at the disposal of the monasteries. The religious zeal of the pious princes and boyars of the good old pre-Phanariot times erected that abundance of monasteries that little Romania could boast of before great Russia. This same piety provided for all the monasteries, endowing them with land and money; the same holy feeling prompted many Romanian princes and boyars to “bow” 152 very many monasteries to the Holy Sepulcher, as well as to other most famous shrines and monasteries of the East. With the onset of Phanariot rule, a mass of Greek monks flew into Romania and attacked Romanian monasteries in order to profit from the accumulated wealth. The situation of the “bowed” monasteries, where the Greek abbots were complete masters, was especially bleak. There, drowning in pure oriental bliss and luxury, among all the temptations of the world, the Greek monks used their angelic rank in a completely unangelic way. All this had the saddest impact on the Romanian people. The Turks themselves would never have caused as much harm to the Romanians as the Phanariot princes, acting in alliance with the Phanariot clergy, did to them. They not only deprived the Romanian people financially, but darkened their soul, destroyed their consciousness of nationality and even human dignity. And this living, responsive to all good, deeply believing Orthodox Christian people was brought to a state of sad dullness and inertia, which later became a convenient field for the enemies of Orthodoxy and nationality to plant the chaff of Western culture. True, the people continued to remain pious, but this piety was devoid of initiative, life and was characterized by mechanicalness. The second consequence of the Phanariot regime was the perversion of the Romanian intelligentsia. When the trends of the West penetrated into Romania, and the intelligentsia became “Europeanized,” it immediately became hostile to Orthodoxy, the bearer of which was the Phanariots: hatred of the Phanariots was transferred to innocent Orthodoxy, which was interpreted as nothing other than “Phanariot culture,” a “dead institution,” destroying the people, excluding the possibility of progress and dooming them to gradual death. And what kind of memory the Greeks and the Greek clergy left for Romania is shown by the complaint of the Romanian boyars to St. the synod on the Greek Metropolitan Ignatius under the Moldovan exarch Gabriel, at a time when it became possible for the Romanians to protest against the Phanariots; The responses of these boyars when, regarding the complaint, the case was being examined are also interesting. When asked what they believe is the reason for the poverty of their fatherland, one of the boyars (Vakaresko) replied: “The Greeks are the reason for the poverty of our fatherland, for they neither plow nor sow, but only reap; when occupying positions, they have only personal interests in mind." And all the interrogated boyars answered in agreement in the sense of accusing the Greeks as the main culprits for the disastrous state of their fatherland. The above description of the Phanariot regime in Romania represents a necessary introduction to the history of the Romanian Church in the 19th century; without such a characterization, the latter would be incomprehensible, because all subsequent history constitutes a reaction against the Phanariot period, and from this reaction all the most important church and social phenomena in this country are explained. As we now begin to present the most important events in the church history of Romania in the 19th century, we must first of all note that this history has its own “Peter the Great,” as the Romanians like to call Prince Alexander Cuza, a remarkable political and church reformer. The reign of this reformer divides the Romanian church history of the past century into two periods. The first period, before Prince Cuza, is characterized by the fact that, under the influence of Russia, which weakened the Turkish and Phanariot yoke, the disorder caused by the Phanariots in the church and political life of the Romanians came to light and the darkness among which the Phanariots ruled gradually dissipated. This is, so to speak, a dark time in Romanian church history; The Russian government is also taking measures to heal the evils caused by the previous period. In the second period, a reaction against the so-called “Phanariot culture” began, characterized by hatred of both Orthodoxy and Russia, a violent reaction, overthrowing everything that the Phanariot Greeks had created for more than a century. Orthodoxy, in which the Romanian nationalists saw their enemy, was dealt a terrible blow; it was supposed to be replaced by another religion, and during the reign of Cuza they were preparing its complete destruction, but the sudden fall of the latter and the protests of some undaunted, ever-memorable representatives of the church saved Orthodoxy in Romania, although it continues to remain in danger, for with the fall of Cuza, that hundred-headed hydra of the Romanian Romanians was far from dead in Romania. nationalists who, having a poor understanding of the historical and everyday interests of Romania, fiercely took up arms against Orthodoxy. Roman and Protestant propaganda skillfully takes advantage of the blow dealt to Orthodoxy and builds strong nests for itself in Romania. On the other hand, especially in very recent times, the saving work of zealots of Orthodoxy has become increasingly noticeable, and the last years of the second half of the last century are characterized by the gradual restoration of the rights of trampled Orthodoxy, and at the same time the revival of church and religious life in the country. Chapter II. Romania under the spiritual and educational influence of Russia The liberation mission of Russia and the Romanians' hopes for it as the only anchor of salvation. – Glorious figures in the history of the Romanian Church. – Activities of Metropolitan. Benjamin Costakis and Exarch Gabriel. – Conversions of Met. Gabriel. – Question about venerated monasteries. – The activities of the monk Gerontius. – Romania’s attitude towards Russia. - The struggle of two principles. – The beginning of the pernicious influence of Western culture. – Decline of church and religious life. The resolution of the so-called Eastern Question, together with the desire of the Russians to free their suffering co-religionists from the Turkish yoke, led to the Russian-Turkish wars, accompanied by glorious victories of Russian weapons during the late 18th and early 19th centuries at Kugul, Izmail, Rymnik, etc. Beginning in 1768, these wars, the arena of which usually served as Moldavia and Wallachia, had a strong influence on principality in the sense of raising hopes for a brighter future. The thunder of the brilliant victories of the Russian troops over the Turks began to again bring the Romanians out of the stupor into which the Prut campaign plunged them; the darkness of the Turkish and Phanariot yoke began to be somewhat broken, and the Romanians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries again saw that light from the north, which earlier, throughout their long-suffering history, had always served as a guiding star of salvation, hope for the supreme leader of the entire Orthodox world - the Russian Tsar - again awakened in them, and that wonderful and deeply interesting for us centripetal force of gravity towards the last Orthodox Rome began to come into action again, which vividly runs through the history of all Orthodox Balkan peoples. Each Russian campaign against the Turks caused strong excitement among the Romanians, and entire crowds fearlessly pestered the victorious regiments of Orthodox Russia, which again, as in the era of the Prut campaign, in the name of the Savior and Christianity, went to defend their native and dear Orthodoxy and brought undoubted victory and freedom to the enslaved peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Already the first Turkish war of Catherine’s reign ended in 1774 with the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Treaty, favorable for the Romanians: by virtue of it, an amnesty was declared to all Romanians who acted during the war against the Porte; freedom of Christian religion and the right of Romanians to freely leave the country were confirmed; confiscated lands were returned; the rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia were allowed to maintain their attorneys of the Orthodox confession in Constantinople. Russia received the right to intercede for the principalities in their clashes with the Turkish authorities. The second liberation war between Russia and Turkey (1787–1791) ended with the Iasi Treaty of 1791, which confirmed the terms of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace in relation to the Danube principalities and provided the Romanians with a two-year tax exemption. In 1802, the reign of the rulers was increased to seven years. But the Romanian principalities wanted complete liberation from the Turkish and Phanariot yoke, and the Romanians saw the realization of their cherished ideals in their final annexation to Russia, with the rights of citizenship, where they dreamed, along with other subjects of the great Orthodox power, to enjoy peace and prosperity under the scepter of the autocratic Russian Orthodox Tsar. A sincere and fearless exponent of these aspirations of the early 19th century is the famous Moldavian Metropolitan Benjamin Costakis, who, in all fairness, can be considered the most remarkable of all Moldavian metropolitans. Benjamin Costakis was metropolitan twice - from 1803 to 1808 and from 1812 to 1842. His significance in the history of the Moldovan church has long been properly assessed. Just as in state affairs Moldavia had the truly great Stefan (a prince known in history under the name Stephen the Great), so in church affairs it had the great Metropolitan Benjamin. As a natural Romanian, a true friend of his people, Benjamin Costakis has always been a glorious exponent of their best aspirations, which determined his relationship with Russia. When the new Russian-Turkish war began (1806–1812), and Russian troops entered Moldova, the emperor. Alexander I was given the following address (dated June 27, 1807), signed in Iasi by Metropolitan Benjamin and 20 noble boyars: “Destroy the intolerable rule (Turkish), breathing oppression to this poor people (Moldavians), annex the rule of this land to your God-protected power... Let there be one flock and one shepherd, and then let us call: this is the golden age of our condition. This is the common prayer of this people from the bottom of my heart.” It was all the more regrettable for the saint and his people when the further liberation movement of the Russians suddenly ended with the Slobodzeya truce, and the Russian troops retreated beyond the Dniester. This is what M. Veniamin wrote about this in a letter to General Apraksin: “From the most ancient times, as far as we know from history, the only hope of the lands of Moldavia and Wallachia was in the Sovereign of all Russia... Every resident, seeing the Russian troops, was inspired and blessed his fate, because he believed that both he and his church would be freed for the future from the previous oppression... The rumor that Russian troops were leaving these principalities opened a deep wound in the chest of each of us, everyone was frightened by this news and lost all hope.” Repeating the request to accept the principalities under Russian citizenship, he wrote: “Our request does not stem from empty fantasy, but is motivated by deep feelings. It is as follows: the support of His Imperial Majesty is the true path to the happiness of these countries; the true happiness of these lands lies in their acceptance and annexation to the Empire, under the shadow of which the peoples happily live their lives throughout most of the globe. The whole country is ready to fall at the feet of His Imperial Majesty; faith and the people cry out for salvation, without which neither faith, nor honor, nor our very life is safe,” etc. And through the mouth of Metropolitan. Veniamin was spoken not by the metropolitan personally, but by the entire people, who were truly horrified by the fact that the Russian troops retreated back without freeing them from the Turks, that the Prut failure was being repeated with all its terrible consequences for the people. Fortunately for the Romanians, the Slobodzeya truce was interrupted, and the liberation war, to their greatest joy, continued. Benjamin Costakis is a very welcome phenomenon in the history of the Romanian church in the first half of the 20th century. Being, in the rank of Metropolitan, by a very happy and rare accident a natural Romanian, he energetically opposed the harmful influence of the Phanariots on the people. For this purpose, by the way, in 1804 he established a purely Romanian spiritual seminary in the Sokola monastery, 5 versts from the city of Iasi 153, often preached sermons and published many books of dogmatic and religious-moral content in the Romanian language. His church and civil reforms were aimed at raising the mental and moral level of the Romanians. It is clear that such activities of the famous metropolitan could not please the Phanariots, and they were not slow to launch all sorts of intrigues and crafty slander directed against him. In 1806, when during the war between Russia and Turkey, Romania was occupied by the Russians, denunciations and complaints rained down on him, as if he, surrounding himself with young and inexperienced people in church affairs, was causing a lot of unrest and confusion in both church and political government. Although the Russian government, knowing Metropolitan Benjamin from the best side, as a man who had rendered great services to the Moldavian church, did not pay attention to the libels and slander of the Phanariot boyars, the Metropolitan himself considered it best to retire, since he wanted to entrust the cause of the fight against Phanariotism to more recent forces. Then, seeing no other opportunity to pacify the Romanian church, the Russian government decided to unite it with the Russian one under the leadership of the Holy Synod. His choice fell on the former Metropolitan of Kyiv Gabriel Banulescu-Bodoni, who was retired in Dubossary (Kherson province). In 1808, on March 27, an imperial decree followed. Alexander I, commanding Gabriel “to be called again a member of the Holy Synod and its exarch in Moldavia, Wallachia and Bessarabia.” The subordination of the entire Moldovan Church to the All-Russian Synod and the appointment of its Metropolitan Gabriel as exarch is an act of a very wise and deeply thought-out policy of Russia towards Moldavia and Wallachia, so much evil as we saw suffered from the Phanariot princes, boyars and clergy. Firstly, the principalities were liberated from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was at that time in the hands of the Phanariots; secondly, the Romanians were given an intelligent and energetic church leader in the person of Gabriel. The choice of the exarch could not have been more successful and fully corresponded to the needs of the church in the then Danube principalities. And history should note the fruitful activity of Gabriel Banulescu in healing the spiritual wounds of the Romanian Church 154. The first task of Exarch Gabriel was to familiarize himself with the state of the huge church region entrusted to him; for this purpose, soon after arriving in Iasi, the exarch undertook a long trip, first through Moldavia, and then through Wallachia. M. Gabriel reported on his archpastoral trip to the Holy Synod. These messages from a highly educated exarch represent extremely valuable church-historical material, introducing us to the state of the Moldovan exarchate in the first half of the last century. Rev. Gabriel found that church customs and rituals in the principalities were the same as the rituals of the Greek Eastern Church. The exception was the custom according to which archpriests or priests, having received an antimension from the bishop, with his blessing, themselves consecrated churches in the same rite as the bishops. Since this is a deviation from the practice of the Greek-Eastern Church, Metropolitan. Gabriel found it incorrect, so he translated the rite of consecration of churches by archimandrites, archpriests or priests from the large Russian breviary and, having printed it, sent it to the bishops of both principalities, charging the latter with the obligation to henceforth act in accordance with the sent rite of consecration of churches. The exarch also abolished another ancient custom in the principalities, according to which the white clergy contributed 7 leva per year for the maintenance of diocesan bishops; in addition to this, by order of the princes, about 6 leva for the so-called princely Greek schools, where children of secular rank were educated. The exarch's acquaintance with the church region entrusted to him revealed an extremely sad picture of its condition. Bishops never visited their dioceses, which they ruled through archpriests; many bishops did not even live in their dioceses, but stayed out of old age, for the sake of life’s conveniences, or for other reasons in Bucuresti (for example, Bishop Nektariy of Rymnik, Joseph of Arge, etc.). Diocesan affairs were carried out mostly verbally and were decided individually by the bishop or those to whom he ordered, and instead of laws there were some rules translated from Greek, like the “Helmsman” book. As a result of this, the dioceses were in complete disorder: in some churches, even on the altars and in the very tabernacles, untidiness was found, and in the Buzeu bishopric, in the church of the bishop's house, the Holy Gifts turned out to be decayed; in other churches between St. Insects were found as gifts; there was no peace, there was very little order and splendor in the churches, and the clergy, especially in Wallachia, where the Greeks dominated in the full sense of the word, were so uneducated that, according to Gabriel, the priests did not understand the church rules and many did not know how to properly perform the Divine Liturgy; there were no registry books kept at the churches, no income and expense books, and there was no supervision over the priests; The archpriests were obliged to supervise them, who received this position for money and took over the churches. But the common people remained religious and deeply devoted to the Orthodox Church, which was confirmed by the abundance of parish churches, which were established by peasant communities, as well as an incredibly large number of parish priests, far exceeding the need for them: in villages with 50 households there were often 3-4 priests 155. All of the above-mentioned disturbances in the church life of the Danube principalities reigned in full force, especially in Wallachia, where the influence of the Phanariot princes and Phanariot clergy was much stronger than in Moldova, bordering Russia. The sad picture of the church and religious state of the region entrusted to Gabriel aroused in the energetic and zealous exarch a fiery desire to bring the Moldovan exarchate into proper order, and “he took the image of the transformation from the Russian clergy” (Prof. Erbiceanu). First of all, the exarch drew attention to the evil that had taken root in the principalities for centuries, which consisted in the excessive proliferation of the clergy. This proliferation of clergy in Romania depended on the nature and characteristics of parish life in it. Parishes in Romania were and are being established according to the type of so-called communal, and not administrative, like ours, structure. Parishes were organized by peasant communities, brotherhoods 156, and sometimes by private individuals, landowners on their estates. The church, as a place of public worship, was the focal point for this community and served as a school of religion and morality. In the matter of opening parishes and choosing a priest, as well as their number, the parishioners were complete masters. And since the priests at that time were very undemanding about their maintenance, but for the parishioners it was better than more priests, since the bishops not only did not limit the number of priests they ordained, but, on the contrary, even wanted this increase in their own interests (for they received payment from those ordained), then the appearance in Romania of an excessive number of priests and clergymen will be completely understandable. In addition, as some villages complained, (in Wallachia) an ancient, very useful custom was destroyed, by virtue of which not a single clergyman or clergyman, without the approval of the village and without direct need, was appointed to the clergy of the church. Taking advantage of this, many of the inhabitants, in order to evade zemstvo taxes and duties, accepted clergy without any notification to the civil authorities. It got to the point that in the insignificant village of Amaresti de Sousse there were up to 25 priests. This evil was so entrenched that Exarch Gabriel did not even dream of completely eradicating it, but the most decisive attempts were made to at least weaken this evil. For this purpose, the exarch sent a circular to all Romanian bishops ordering 1) not to ordain either priests or deacons unnecessarily; 2) the person being ordained must present to the bishop a certificate from the village elder and archpriest that he is free from taxes, of good moral character, and that the residents desire his ordination, having a real need for a priest; 3) due to the lack of supply of priests, some rural churches were allowed to have two priests, of whom one would go to work, and the other should remain in the parish to perform services: if there are two churches in the village, then there should be only one priest for each of them; 4) large urban parishes can have two priests, and parishes with no more than 100 families must have no more than one priest; 5) a priest or deacon moves to another church only for a good reason and not otherwise than with the written permission of the bishop; 6) no matter how large the parish, it should not have more than one deacon. To manage the clergy of the entire exarchate, the so-called “exarch dicastery” was established in Iasi; In addition, a “metropolitan consistory” was established in Iasi, transformed from the spiritual court that existed under Metropolitan Benjamin, as well as episcopal consistories in each bishopric, modeled on the existing consistories in Russia. On top of this, deans were appointed, for whose leadership M. Gabriel translated the “dean’s instructions” from Russian into Moldavian. These consistories were supposed to contain lists of all parishes in the diocese, priests and deacons, as well as registers in which there was information about all ordained persons; The bishop should not have ordained extra priests beyond those included in the register. Priestly letters were printed and sent to all bishops; they indicated the district, camp, village and church where they serve: all priests from now on were equipped with such priestly letters; if they found themselves in other parishes, and not in those in which they were registered, then they were subject to punishment by the spiritual and secular authorities. Priests and clergymen were ordained primarily by persons of clergy rank and only in cases of need - from the tax-paying class, and then with the written permission of the divan. This was the beginning of states with a certain number of clergy and clergy. It is clear that at the same time there were many supernumerary priests and deacons; these latter were recognized in their positions, they were given certificates, and they were assigned to known parishes as supernumerary priests: moreover, the exarch made an order that no new ones should be ordained until all these unplaced priests were placed as full-time priests. The implementation of all these rules had to be carefully monitored both by the diocesan bishops themselves, and by the archpriests and deans. These measures were carried out by Metropolitan. Gabriel with the help of the secular Russian authorities, which, seeing the extreme disorder in the church affairs of the country, willingly met the good undertakings of the exarch. “Such events,” writes Prof. Erbichan, “had good consequences, because they reduced the number of clergy.” Among the greatest merits of Metropolitan Gabriel in the matter of establishing the church are: 1) the introduction, in the established form, of metric books for recording births, deaths and marriages, which had not existed in the principalities until then, hence the terrible disorder in both the church and civil life of Romania, and 2) the requirement from persons of clergy a certain educational qualification, which all aspiring to the priesthood must have. Until then, priests only knew how to read, write and somehow perform divine services. In all of Moldo-Wallachia there was only one seminary, established by Metropolitan. Veniamin in Sokol, which taught reading and singing, rules, rhetoric, logic and “Damascene theology” in the Moldavian language. M. Gabriel had the intention of turning this theological school into a full seminary, on the model of Russian seminaries and with the teaching of the Russian language in it; Exactly the same seminaries were supposed to be established in other places. Since in Romania there were no such educated persons who could lead the education of the Moldavian and Wallachian youth, M. Gabriel turned to Russia, from where he ordered the Odessa archpriest Peter Kunitsky (as rector of the Sokol Seminary), Isidor Gerbanovsky, Ivan Nesterovich and others. But demanding from the clergy an educational qualification, diligence and, in general, a conscientious attitude towards their pastoral work, Metropolitan. Gabriel tried with all his might and the means at his disposal to improve the position of the clergy, to raise their authority, inspiring everyone to treat the clergy with due respect. The position of the clergy in the principalities in the era described was very difficult, due to the “farm system” of management already known to us. It was subject to zemstvo duties, oppressed by monopolistic tax farmers, the arbitrariness of boyars and zemstvo officials, who collected tithes from the clergy and clergy on their crops and other products on an equal basis with the peasants. During the occupation of the principalities by Russian troops, the political structure of the latter remained as before; they were still ruled by princes and divans, who were only under the weak supervision of Russian senators and, under the pretext of collecting taxes for the maintenance of the Russian army, shamelessly robbed the people. Taxes were collected with unheard-of cruelty, and since, due to the needs of wartime, the clergy was also involved in serving all duties, it came to the point that the police officers even grabbed priests in vestments while they were performing the Divine Liturgy and sent them with military convoys, and mercilessly beat both them and their wives and children. “Every day,” Metropolitan Dosifei of Wallachia wrote to the exarch, “in my house I see nothing else but wounds, broken arms and legs, broken heads.” The exarch vigorously defended his clergy, and these atrocities were brought to the attention of the emperor. Alexander I, who in a rescript addressed to Senator Krasno-Milashevich wrote: “It has come to my attention that the white clergy in Moldavia, and especially in Wallachia, disproportionately burdened with zemstvo duties, are sometimes used for work on an equal basis with the common people; It happened in Wallachia that other priests were taken out of the church during services to transport hay and provisions for the army, forcing them to do this with heavy punishment. I command you to take the most active measures to suppress such abuses and, in general, to restore due respect for the clergy, wishing that the church would find special patronage and protection in the power entrusted to you. While the clergy of both principalities, out of good will, donated a significant amount of 157 in 1810 to provide food for the army, which was accepted by me with excellent goodwill, for 1811 and the present year 1812 there was already a formal demand for indemnity from the clergy. I want to know on what basis this demand occurred, how much money was collected from the Moldavian and Wallachian clergy for both years, and where exactly this amount was spent.” Finally, in order to establish good order in all administrations, an order was given that the secular government should not interfere in any way in spiritual affairs, but would always communicate, where necessary, with the Right Reverend Exarch, and that, in any case, the secular government, at the request of the spiritual, would immediately provide its assistance in matters up to this last point. Metropolitan Gabriel, Exarch of Moldova The reforms of Exarch Gabriel, aimed at benefiting the church and the fatherland, met with strong resistance from the Phanariot Greeks, both boyars and the higher clergy, especially the Wallachian metropolitans - first Dositheus, and then Ignatius - Greeks by birth. Metropolitan Dosifei ignored the orders of Exarch Gabriel, did not deliver the required information about the monasteries, monasteries, their leaders, the clergy and clergy of the Wallachian metropolitanate, did not establish consistories, despite the order of the exarch, and did not accept Archpriest George Rodostat, who was sent by the exarch on the matter of establishing a consistory, saying that he did not have a consistory necessary, and the archpriest is also not necessary, since he has his own people, continued to appoint priests through titular (i.e., vicar) bishops for the sake of self-interest, thereby multiplying them so that their number extended to 7 thousand, and most of them did not even know how to read; in Wallachia the Sovereign and the Highest Family were not commemorated. In a word, Met. Dosifei was an ardent opponent of all the beneficent reforms of the exarch and defended the old order, beneficial for the Phanariots. The same opponents of Exarch Gabriel were the Phanariot boyars, who, naturally, wanted to return to Ottoman rule, because under the Russian state they could not so brazenly rob the people and enrich themselves at their expense. There was even a conspiracy of the Greek Phanariotes, whose goal was to overthrow the order established by Metropolitan. Gabriel, and the soul of this conspiracy was Metropolitan. Dositheus. The Exarch had to take decisive measures against the conspirators. As a result of the report to the Holy Synod, Metropolitan. Dositheus was dismissed from his position, and in his place, unfortunately, very unsuccessfully, also a Greek, Ignatius, was appointed. His appointment as metropolitan of Wallachia was a big mistake by Metropolitan himself. Gabriel, who, when appointing him, believed that although Ignatius was a Greek by birth, “he is an intelligent man and well known to the All-Russian Court and that he will manage and manage affairs in no other way than according to the instructions and guidance of the Holy Rule. Synod". M. Ignatius did not justify either the high confidence of the Russian government in him or the hopes of Gabriel. Instead of being involved in the affairs of the church and pastoral ministry, he preferred political intrigues and personal enrichment, and his zealous accomplice in the latter was his secretary, also a Greek Mostra, who fully supported the well-known Phanariot tax system of government. As a result of the report of Exarch Gabriel, and Ignatius, like Metropolitan. Dositheus, was removed from the post of Metropolitan of Wallachia and his place of residence was assigned to him in Crimea. In the history of the Church of Moldavia and Wallachia, the issue of the so-called “bowed” monasteries is of great importance. For a long time this question agitated the minds of Romania, arousing passions; even now it is considered not finally resolved, due to the still ongoing claims of the Greeks on them 158. Anyone traveling through Romania, even today, is amazed at the abundance of monasteries located in it. All of them were erected by the piety of the Romanian people and their princes 159. Pious builders, princes and rich boyars, provided the monasteries with land so generously that over time, almost a third of the territory of the principalities was the real estate of the monasteries, which at that time were the only guardians of the mental and moral heritage of the people. Treating the Greeks with complete confidence as their enlighteners and teachers, the pious princes and boyars - the builders of monasteries, in order to best preserve the statutes and faith in general 160, placed their monasteries under the supervision and protection of some Greek monastery, famous for the strict implementation of church statutes and serving as a stronghold of faith, so that the Romanian monastery, following in all respects the example of the exemplary Greek monastery and having in the latter, the rule of faith and ritual, did not deviate from them one iota. This transfer of a local monastery under the supervision of a Greek one, in order to best preserve church charters and faith, was generally called “indoration” in Romania and consisted, judging by the letters of princes and boyars who venerated their monasteries to Greek, in the following. The venerated monasteries still had to be governed by local, i.e. Romanian, abbots, according to the laws of the country; income from monastic estates should go to the maintenance of monasteries, schools founded at them, and to public charity, and only the remainder of the expenses should be allocated to the benefit of the Greek monastery to which the local monastery was devoted. Thus, by “worship” one cannot at all mean granting the Greek monastery the right of ownership over the local one. This, obviously, was only the spiritual primacy of the Greek monastery, which had the goal of preserving the purity and integrity of the Orthodox faith, which at that time was often in serious danger from various enemies. For this supervision, the Greek monastery received surpluses from the monastic income, which remained to cover all expenses for the monastery’s own needs and for charity. But “since then,” says the decree of the 17th-century Moldavian prince Matvey Basarab, “when people began to appear in the principalities as princes and metropolitans, alien to us not by holy faith, but by tribe, language and bad habits, that is, the Greeks, who, having trampled all our ancient customs and institutions, brought our fatherland to final ruin, they have not they were embarrassed to violate monastic rights and, trying to seize the monasteries into their own property, began to dispose of them as complete masters.” Before the appearance of Phanariots - princes and metropolitans - in Romania, such aspirations were rebuffed by princes and even by the Greek patriarchs (Parthenius and Theophanes). But after the unsuccessful Prut campaign of the Russians, when the principalities were given over to the power of the Phanariots, the revered monasteries of Moldavia and Wallachia fell into the unaccountable disposal of the eastern monasteries, which began to send there their trustees - monks, and sometimes simple laymen in robes; Using the support of the Phanariot princes and the metropolitan, the Greek abbots in the revered monasteries finally oust the local abbots, and by destroying documents on the founding of the monasteries and various other illegal methods they proved their rights to full ownership of them. The abuses of the Phanariot abbots were so great that even Phanariot princes (I. Mavrocordato and A. Ypsilanti) sometimes stood up for the rights of local monasteries. So the Greeks completely captured the worshiping monasteries into their own hands, forming from them a state within a state, in which terrible arbitrariness and blatant robbery reigned from them 161. With these self-proclaimed abbots of worshiping monasteries and with the arrogant plunderers of the property of the Romanian principalities, Metropolitan. Gabriel entered into a long and fierce struggle. Local monasteries were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the bishops in whose dioceses they were located, and the exarch took those venerated as stauropegials under his special direct jurisdiction. Then Exarch Gabriel sent corded books to these monasteries to record expenses and income, demanding that after sending an annual amount to the places to which the monasteries were dedicated, other income was used for the maintenance of the brethren, for schools and charitable institutions. The Greek abbots, of course, were very dissatisfied with Gabriel’s actions and began to complain about him to the Synod and the Patriarch, from whom they requested the so-called singelia, which legitimized the complete independence of the abbot Greeks from the local hierarchy. But this only further aroused energy in the zealous champion of church truth, who set out to root out the evil that was slowing down the church and religious life of the country. To get rid of the power of the Romanian exarch, the Greek monks did not even hesitate to declare themselves subjects of the French emperor. But this whole struggle ended with the complete victory of Exarch Gabriel. All the leaders of the conspiracy (Paisius, Anfim, Gregory, etc.) suffered due punishment and were exiled to various Russian monasteries. Unfortunately, the ensuing war with Napoleon I put an end to the fruitful activity of the most famous Moldovan exarch. The time of Gabriel Baculescu's administration of the Moldovan exarchate constituted a most remarkable era in the history of the Romanian Church. Relying on the strong and powerful authority of the Russian Tsar and the Holy Synod and loving his flock, as a true shepherd of Christ, a great expert on the history of the Romanian people, its laws based on the character of this people, Exarch Gabriel, by the power of his genius and pastoral love for the Romanian people, carried out beneficial reforms in all areas of church life in Romania. And M. Gabriel could be the forerunner of the glorious times that were so naturally to be expected after his tireless and fruitful labors. Unfortunately, these better times did not come: the Russian occupation ended under the Treaty of Bukurest on December 16, 1812, and unfortunate Romania again returned under the Turkish and Phanariot yoke. The Bucuresti treaty will only confirm the conditions of the Kuchuk-Kaykardzhi peace relating to the Danube principalities. “After the departure of M. Gabriel, the old customs began to come into force again: they again went across the Danube for ordination, again simony came into its own, again “admirers” of the priesthood flocked in droves to the cities to the bishops and, after a short time, through patronage, seeking, monetary bribery when passing the test in knowledge of the catechism, they received the rights to ordination" 162. But although the fruitful activity of M. Gabriel for the benefit of the church was stopped due to sad circumstances, it did not pass without a trace in the history of the Romanian church. Gabriel gave subsequent rulers a model of a steward, as well as indicated the goals and the only legitimate direction along which church life in Romania should go. Of the metropolitans who continued in the first half of the 19th century. to work on the soil cleared by the labors of Gabriel, two are remarkable: the predecessor already known to us in the metropolitan see in Iasi, Veniamin Kostyachi, who, after the removal of Gabriel, was again called to shepherd the Moldavian church in the high rank of Metropolitan of Moldova, and Gregory IV, Metropolitan of Wallachia (1823–1833). Ruling the Moldavian church from 1812 to 1842, Benjamin took Gabriel as a model in the structure of the church entrusted to him. Wanting to strengthen ties with Orthodox Russia, the liberator of Romania, Benjamin sent young Romanians there to receive higher theological education 163. Taking care of the splendor of churches and worship, he began the construction of the majestic Sretensky Cathedral on the site of a cramped and nondescript church in Iasi. Another remarkable saint was Gregory IV, who took monastic vows from the famous abbot of the Nyamets Lavra of the 17th century, the “native” of the Poltava province, Paisius (Velichkovsky). Since theological literature in the Romanian language was very scarce in his time, realizing the importance of enriching it, Gregory, long before his appointment as metropolitan, together with the same highly enlightened monk Gerontius, as highly enlightened as himself, diligently translated in Neamtse and Bukurest from Greek and Slavic languages ​​and published numerous works. Gregory studied the Slavic language in the Slavic monastery - the Nyamets Lavra, from numerous students of Paisius Velichkovsky, with whom he had the most lively and constant relations. Thus, M. Gregory, together with Gerontius, translated the following works into Romanian: Gregory the Theologian (words), Nicephorus Theoton (kyriacodromy) The book of souls, Instructions to the confessor, op. I. Postnik, Commentary on the Gospel, op. Theophylact, Exarch of the Bulgarian, Revelation of the Orthodox Faith by I. Damascus, Interpretation of the Antiphons, Summary of Divine Dogmas. The last two works were translated by the combined works of three illustrious men of the Romanian Church of the half of the last century during their joint stay in the Neametsky Lavra - Benjamin, Gregory and Gerontius. The first was there in the period from 1808 to 1812, when, leaving the metropolitan throne, he retired in order, together with Gregory and Gerontius, to work in solitude to educate his homeland in the spirit of the culture that was bequeathed to Romania by Byzantium and which, as true patriots of their fatherland, they considered the only saving one and the only one capable of satisfying the needs of the Orthodox Romanian people. A remarkable feature of these figures was that in carrying out this Orthodox-Eastern culture, like all true educators of the Romanians in general, they drew their strength and knowledge from neighboring Orthodox Russia. All three were students and friends of Paisiy Velichkovsky. Here we encounter an interesting question about Romania's attitude towards Russia. If in former times Romania had a considerable educational influence on Russia and gave it one of its most famous educators and theologians in the person of the famous Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv, then with the advent of the difficult times of the Turkish yoke for Romania, relations changed, and Romania, ruined and oppressed, began to turn to Russia, seeking from her help not only material, but also spiritual. Hence the dependence of Romanian culture, in the person of its most prominent representatives, on Russia, hence the conscious attraction to it as a source of light. After Benjamin and Gregory, the situation of church and religious affairs in Romania deteriorated again. Although the Phanariots were no longer there, their corrupting spirit remained, opposing all good undertakings. True, the Danube principalities again (since the Treaty of Andrianople of 1829) fell under the political influence of Russia and a smart and fair administrator Kiselyov was appointed to the principalities as a governor, who granted the Romanians an “organically statute” that streamlined the political life of Romania, but there was no second Gabriel in the church, and the pressure of hostile forces from the west was too great to be resisted already the elderly Benjamin and Gregory, and unrest began to reign in Romania again. Simony reigned supreme in the 40s and 50s 164 . Prince Cuza found the Romanian church in such a sad state, and with his transformations he created a new era in both the political and ecclesiastical history of Romania. Cathedral in Bucuresti Chapter III. The era of the pseudo-national movement in Romania Echoes of the Greek uprising in Romania. – Overthrow of the Phanariot yoke. – Movement towards the national revival of the Romanian people. – The harmful influence of Western culture. – Romania’s desire to alienate itself from the Orthodox East. – Prince A. Cuza and his church reforms. – Secularization of the Church. property and subordination of the church to the state. - The government's obvious sympathy for Latinism and Protestantism. – The sad fruits of radical reforms that are contrary to the church-folk spirit. When, in 1821, the great uprising of the Greeks against the Turkish yoke broke out, in the same year it was reflected in the Danube principalities, where a revolution also took place, raised by the Phanariot Greeks against the Turks. But at the same time, all the hatred of the Romanians for the Greeks was revealed, because not only did they not unite against the common enemy, as the leader of the Romanian heterists, Alexander Ypsilanti, had hoped, but, on the contrary, they directly assisted the Turks in suppressing the Greek uprising. At the beginning of 1822, a deputation from the Moldovans and Wallachian boyars was sent to Constantinople with a request to restore the right to elect native rulers. The request was granted; those elected were Ivan Sturdza for Moldavia and Gregory Ghika for Wallachia, both for 7 years. Thus ended the reign of the Phanariots in the Danube principalities. The year 1821 165 in Romanian history constitutes an entire era, because from that time Moldavia and Wallachia were actually freed from the yoke of the Phanariots, and the spirit of the Romanian people rose with hitherto unprecedented strength. A strong educational movement began in a purely national spirit. Immediately attention was paid to public education; Education in schools, now Romanian, was conducted in a strictly Romanian spirit. In the same way, they began to expel the Greek language from worship. Pupils of the Iasi school at the Monastery of the Three Saints, under the influence of the national idea, demanded from the abbot that he perform the service in Romanian. When the abbot refused this, there was even a fight between the students of the school and the abbot’s servants. The people took the side of the pupils, so, in the end, to settle the matter, the intervention of Count Kiselyov, who stood at the head of the provisional Russian government (during the 2nd occupation in 1822–1834), was needed. Kiselev ordered that at least part of the service be performed in Romanian. The Russian provisional government was generally very sympathetic to the educational national aspirations of the Romanians. In addition to the previously existing schools (Iasi and Bucushesti St. Sava), other higher public schools were founded. A Romanian theater was founded, where the Phanariot Greeks were now openly mocked; A number of newspapers and magazines began to be published, and a strong impetus was given to the development of the trade movement, of which Galati became one of the most important centers. All these successes depended on the concerns of the Russian government, whose influence in the form of a political protectorate, with the decrease in the influence of the Porte on the affairs of the principality, was enormous in the latter 166. But, not limiting themselves to education in their homeland, the mass of Romanian youth rushed to complete their education abroad - to Vienna, Paris, Rome, where they began to get acquainted with Western civilization, and the effect of this civilization on the minds of Romanian youth was all the stronger because the previous Phanariot period presented, as we have seen, a bleak picture of spiritual darkness and material poverty. Unfortunately, acquaintance with the West and fascination with it was fatal for Romanian youth, as well as for Romania in general. Given the extreme unpreparedness of the Romanians to accept the fruits of European civilization, it poisoned their very soul and, moving them away from the soil of old historical traditions, sent them onto the path of slavish imitation of what was alien to them by faith and tradition - the heterodox West. The Romanians discovered that they were the descendants of the ancient Romans, a “splinter of the west”, thrown by fate to the east, from which they now wanted to get rid of at all costs and return to their natural center. Particularly beautiful in the eyes of Romanian youth was the then ideal of all Romanesque peoples and of all Europe - the French people; hence a particularly strong passion for everything French, French fashions, books, manners, language, etc. Upon returning from abroad, the Romanians who received higher education there occupied the highest and privileged positions in the administration, court and school in their homeland and communicated their passion for the West to the Romanians, spreading the poison of Westernism throughout the country, with the exception of the simple rural peasantry, which, however, continued to remain in ignorance, but also in devotion to their mother church. The result of this passion for Western ideas (in connection with the previous Phanariot oppression) was that dangerous direction from which Romania has not yet freed itself. This is an almost fanatical hatred of the “intelligentsia” for Orthodoxy, which henceforth received the name “Phanariot culture.” And now Romania is perhaps the only country in the world where the historical religion, which has educated so many generations and has undoubtedly provided enormous services to the Romanian nationality, which it has more than once saved from enslavement by both the Turks and the West, has become the subject of simply painful hatred and violent persecution. And this did not come from religious indifference and not from atheism; The Romanians were ready to have any Western religion - Protestant or Latin, but not Orthodoxy, which supposedly darkened their “Latin mind”, as a result of which their development as a people of the Latin race was alien to their inner nature. This attitude towards Orthodoxy, together with their fascination with the West, constitutes the dominant feature of the subsequent history of the Romanian Church. This hostile attitude towards Orthodoxy did not fail to affect the attitude of the Romanian intelligentsia towards Russia. Enlightened by the “West,” the Romanians hated their liberator from the Turkish yoke, since she, temporarily ruling Romania together with the Turks, was in their eyes a representative of the hated Phanariot culture, especially since she naturally, in the person of her administrators, tried to restrain these unreasonable impulses. Added to this is the suspicion among extreme nationalists that Russia harbors a secret intention to finally absorb Romania and turn it into its province, completely losing sight of the fact that Russia itself took care of the establishment of public schools and a theater in them, and gave Romania the organic statute of 1831, drawn up in the sense of preserving the Romanian nationality 167. In 1848, the revolution that broke out in Wallachia was only a further development of the populist movement of 1821: just as at that time the yoke of the Phanariots was overthrown, so in 1848 they thought to get rid of the tutelage of the Russians, in order to then freely engage in the development of the Romanian people, on the basis of Western European civilization. The provisional revolutionary government, headed by Wallachian Metropolitan Niphon, declared unconditional freedom of printing and the emancipation of Jews, and discussed measures to eliminate the dependence of some Romanian monasteries, “bowed” to eastern monasteries. In 1853, when Russian troops crossed the Prut and approached the Danube, the Romanian principalities invited Turkey to occupy them and form a people's army in order to counteract Russia. When in 1856, according to the Treaty of Paris, the Russian protectorate over the principalities was completely abolished, Romania’s hateful feelings towards Orthodoxy, towards its liberator Russia and towards the Slavs in general reached the highest degree of tension, and led to very sad consequences, completely distorting the course of Romanian life. The abolition of the Russian protectorate over the principalities was enthusiastically welcomed by the nationalist party for the revival of Romania, which, according to the nationalists, had freed itself from the historical brake that prevented free development, based on its inherent Roman characteristics. The Papal-Protestant West also rejoiced with her: their regiment arrived; on the other hand, the inclusion of the Romanian principalities in the sphere of influence of the West (through the proclamation of a pan-European protectorate over the principalities) weakened Russia, dealt a blow to Orthodoxy, and in addition, Romania, liberated from Russian protectorate, formed a buffer between Turkey and Russia. The further course of events in the principalities justified the calculations of the West (mainly France during the time of Napoleon III) 168: the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were united into one state under the name of “Romania” (December 11–28, 1861, Prince Cuza officially announced the unification of the principalities), Colonel A. Cuza was elected prince of the united Romania, an inveterate nationalist and unionist, hostile to Russia and completely devoted to France. All this was the work of the papal-Protestant West, which, in touching agreement, persistently worked to the detriment of Orthodoxy and Russia. Arguing about the unification of the principalities, the main exponent of Western policy, the London Times, wrote: the main thing “is that the king does not expand his region beyond the current borders; hence, if the establishment of the Moldovan state puts a limit to the spread of Russia, then our goal has been achieved.” Then the Times expressed the hope that along with independence in the Romanian principality there would come a further weakening of the religious ties connecting it with Russia. And the Chancellor of the English Treasury, Lord Rossel, in his speech on May 4, 1858, regarding the unification of the Danube principalities into one state, says among other things: “the best resistance to Russia can be found in the strength of free people in these countries; I would like that by the day of the death of the “sick man” free states would be ready, to which the wreckage of Turkish possessions would gravitate.” Based on such reasoning, Western diplomacy, which ruled the political affairs of Romania, gave the latter the most extreme constitution, taking as a model the governmental system of France, based on the principles of the revolution of 1789. It was a constitution with a very broadly understood freedom of the individual, with freedom of education, the press, freedom of conscience and worship, without distinction of religion. For the sake of external decency, the Orthodox faith was declared to be the dominant faith among confessions; in fact, Orthodoxy turned out to be only a tolerant religion of the majority. This entire constitution was contrary to Orthodoxy in its principles. According to it, the Romanian people themselves became the source of power in Romania, expressing their will through the prince and national representation. And this constitution soon made itself felt, leaving the stamp of unbridledness and complete unprincipledness on further events of church life in Romania and, as if in a mirror, reflecting all the moral shortcomings of the Romanians, who, having just freed themselves from the Turkish and mainly Phanariot yoke and feeling completely free, in the rapture of the freedom slyly given to them, abused it in every possible way and forgot about the true beginnings of their history. The most striking representative and indicator of how strong the reaction was against the Phanariot period experienced by the Romanians, as well as the passion for everything Western European, was the first prince of Romania, Alexander Cuza. An undoubtedly talented man, who received a European education (in Germany - in Potsdam and Munich), a democrat and a unionist of a revolutionary nature, who suffered from the persecution of the Russian authorities hated by Romanian nationalists (he was arrested, but fled through Vienna to Constantinople), A. Cuza was very much to the liking of the then ruling nationalist party of democratic unionists, who carried out his candidacy. Romanians lovingly call Prince Alexander Cuza Peter the Great for the reforms he carried out in Romania; but the harm that he caused to the country by persecuting the Orthodox Church, and, consequently, to the state, his open mockery of religion and patronage of Western confessions to the detriment of popular religion, constitute a significant difference between the creative genius of Russian history and the evil destroyer of the primordial foundations of Romanian history, its reformer Cuza. Even the best Romanian historian, Xenopolus, points out this difference between the two sovereigns when he talks about the religious nature of the Prut campaign of Peter the Great. For Alexander Cuza, such a feat was completely unthinkable: throughout his entire reign, he was a merciless persecutor of Orthodoxy, which he misunderstood; Fully sharing the opinion of Romanian nationalists, he saw in it only an obstacle to the free development of the Romanian people. The saddest period in the history of the Romanian Church has begun, which we will now briefly describe. As soon as the Russian protectorate, which curbed the Romanian nationalists, was eliminated, the latter launched a whole campaign against Orthodoxy as a “Phanariot culture”: the Phanariots became the subject of ridicule even on the theater stage, monks and monasticism in general began to be subjected to the same ridicule, they started talking about the complete destruction of monasticism; They tried to arm the white clergy against bishops and monks. Even in parliament they said about monks that they should retire to the desert and there pray for the sinful human race. In order to limit and weaken monasticism, church rules were issued according to which only 60-year-old men and 40-year-old women could become monks, and only cripples under this age could become monks. There was even a conspiracy against the monks and bishops among the white clergy. Two newspapers arose that set as their goal to vilify bishops, monasticism and the entire structure of the Orthodox Church. But the Romanian liberals who seized power went even further: they began to generally reject religion, the need for the clergy, etc. “Why develop superstitions among the people and strengthen medieval prejudices, let reason come into its own! Down with the priests, these champions of darkness, charlatans, rip offs of the people! Long live reason! With such an attitude of the intelligentsia towards Orthodoxy and the clergy, it was not difficult for Alexandru Cuza to “reform” the Romanian church at his own discretion. First of all, the church was deprived of monastery and church property in general. In Romania there were two types of monasteries: native and dedicated or dedicated to the Greek monasteries of the Holy Land. Already in the first days of his reign, A. Cuza had the courage to announce to the clergy, who came to him with congratulations, that he would confiscate the property belonging to the foreign clergy. But it was not only the worshiping monasteries that A. Cuza planned to lay his hand on: the native monasteries suffered the same fate, and first of all in Moldova. Having previously verbally announced to the Metropolitan of Moldova Sofroniy Miklescu (1851–1862) that, by the will of the government, the property of the monasteries comes under the jurisdiction of the department, the Romanian bosses, led by Minister Mikhail Kogalniciano, having eliminated the legally appointed abbots and placed police guards inside and outside the gates of the monasteries, described all movable and immovable property monasteries to the treasury, declaring real estate (land and forest) the property of the state, and movable property (livestock, carriages), as well as houses, subject to auction 169. The government took upon itself the maintenance of the monasteries plundered in this way; For this purpose, it announced tenders for those wishing to take out food contracts for monasteries. The same was done with the monasteries in Wallachia; in addition, 30 monasteries were closed completely and their property was taken away. The bowed monasteries suffered the same fate; with the latter, however, there was much more trouble, because the patriarchs, Russia and other powers stood up for these monasteries, but like Krylov’s cat A. Cuza, despite all the threats and cries of diplomacy (often, however, feigned), “listened and ate,” calmly capturing the worshiping monasteries, especially since he found strong support for himself in his subjects, who, having deeply hated the Phanariots and Phanariot culture, only rejoiced looking at the peaceful exploits of their prince. This theft by the government of Cuza of the richest monasteries and church property in general dealt a terrible blow to the well-being of the Romanian church, and it was all the more sad because the monasteries of Romania were centers of charity and enlightenment in the country. The Nyamets Lavra, for example, founded in the 14th century by a Slavic monk, contained a large almshouse for the elderly, a mental home, a theological seminary, a printing house and many rural schools: now all this was ruined, the houses were sold into private ownership, or turned into prisons, and the money received from the sale was stolen by the bosses of this predatory raid on the monastery. The Neamet Lavra, the richest in its time, which played a very important role in the history of the Romanian church, now has a pitiful appearance, services are performed in only one church, the monks (most of them elderly) walk barefoot and in rags, because their support is extremely insignificant. The monks receive 200 francs a year from the government, with 150 francs being withheld for food for their very bad and meager food. The buildings have not been repaired for many years and deep cracks have formed in many places: the only church in the Neamets Monastery, where divine services are held, is completely empty during services, although in the spring, summer and autumn the Lavra is visited by many pilgrims, whom the Neamets Lavra, by virtue of a special agreement with the government, is obliged to feed and support for free for three days. Impoverished monks, due to the almost complete lack of income, find income in the sale of crosses, in the preparation of turned objects from wood, in the provision of various services to pilgrims, and so on. The described orders also exist in other monasteries; Moreover, those monasteries where there is no arfundarik are even poorer, and some of the monasteries that are not yet closed are complete ruins. The second important church reform of Prince A. Cuza was the declaration of independence (autocephaly) of the Romanian Orthodox Church and its transformation according to a special anti-canonical model. In vain constants. Patriarch Sofroniy protested at the cathedral against the arbitrariness of the Romanian government. Archimandrite Sent to Bukurest with a conciliar decision. Kleovul was received with hostility and, on charges of plotting against the government, was expelled under escort to the city of Zhurzhevo, on the Danube, along the Constantinople road. When Kleovul returned to Constantinople, the patriarch again convened a council, at which it was decided to seek advice from other Orthodox churches, including Russia; an official message was compiled to the Russian Holy Synod. In order to justify himself before the public opinion of Europe, Cuza ordered to write correspondence to foreign newspapers, which proved that the main reason for the disagreement of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the granting of autocephaly to the Romanian Church was the fear of material losses that the treasury of the Patriarchate would suffer. The response to the patriarch's message was also published in foreign newspapers; in a word, Cuza every time tried to bring to the attention of the public opinion of Western Europe, for in its support and hostile attitude towards Russia lay the whole secret of the success of the prince’s bold exploits. And only after learning that the patriarch had turned to the Greek and Russian churches, Cuza promised to enter into negotiations with the patriarch; but, instigated by the Western powers (mainly France), he did not fulfill this promise either. Then Patriarch Sophronius convened a council for the third time, at which it was decided to write a new letter to the Romanian prince refuting his answer and inviting him to return to legal order. When the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople was received in Russia, the Holy Synod entrusted Philaret of Moscow with drawing up a response. Metropolitan Filaret pointed out the legal path to acquiring church independence: asking for the blessing and consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Orthodox churches. Cuza did not agree to this and continued his willful church policies. The administration of the Orthodox Romanian Church was entrusted to a “general” synod, completely dependent on the secular authorities; the members of the synod included: 1) all Romanian bishops, 2) three deputies from each diocese from priests or laity, elected for 3 years. The synod is presided over by the Metropolitan of Wallachia, who is called the Primate of Romania, but he is the chairman of this synod on behalf of the ruler, and not by virtue of his rank. The Synod meets once every two years. The right to convene a synod, propose questions, take part in synodal orders, submit decisions for approval by the prince and carry them out belongs to the minister of confessions. If any member of the synod proposes a question, the Minister of Confessions has the right to close the synod. If there is an urgent need to convene an emergency meeting of the synod, then the bishops are obliged to make a request to the Minister of Confessions, on whose will it depends whether he agrees or disagrees with the request. In matters relating to faith and spiritual subjects in general, the synod has legislative and administrative power, but it has no right to supervise the teaching of science in seminaries; in the same way, it has no right to interfere in questions of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience, in which only the civil authorities want to consider themselves most competent. No other language than Romanian can be introduced into the Romanian Church. The conclusions of the synod receive the force of law through the approval of the prince. Diocesan synods meet under the chairmanship of the bishop; they consist of three members, elected through two synods to the third, and of the rectors of the seminaries; They have the responsibility of implementing the laws issued by the spiritual department. In 1865, these reforms were supplemented by a new law: metropolitan and diocesan bishops of Romania are appointed by the prince, at the proposal of the Minister of Confessions. Metropolitans and bishops are tried by the synod for spiritual crimes, and by the court of cassation for other offenses. And in order to put an end to the old system once and for all, a special article decreed: “all previous laws that do not agree with the present legislation are cancelled.” Having thus completely subordinated the church to their jurisdiction, Prince Cuza and the then Romanian nationalist bosses had the intention of going further. Having humiliated, ruined, and subjected the church to their strict supervision as an ill-intentioned institution, they intended to give Romania another Western European faith instead of the “Phanariot culture.” Prince Cuza, in his desire for unlimited autocracy in matters of faith, liked Protestantism more, while other revivalists of the Romanian nation, who wanted to join entirely with the Roman peoples, considered Roman Catholicism to be most consistent with the popular ideals of the “descendants of the ancient Romans.” Minister-President M. Cogalniciano in the National Assembly of 1857 proposed that this assembly adopt Roman Catholicism on the grounds that “Orthodoxy is the only obstacle to the prosperity of the Romanians.” The Gregorian calendar was introduced into general use, and civil marriage was made compulsory, while the church calendar was left to the discretion of those getting married (as is the case today). The Vatican, of course, did not fail to take advantage of the favorable times that had come for it and began its propaganda in Romania. In Iasi, near the Church of the Three Saints, there was already a Latin cathedral; On October 25, 1864, it was decided to establish a Roman Catholic seminary for the children of Romanian Catholics, and by the way, for everyone who would like to send their children there, because complete freedom of religion was proclaimed in Romania. The government of Cuza then intended to introduce organs and even filioque. In a word, Orthodoxy was in serious danger. The success of Latinism was somewhat delayed by the pope himself, who protested against the subordination of the Roman Catholic seminary to the minister of confessions, as well as against the appointment of the minister of religion to church positions. The infinitely power-hungry Kuza liked Protestantism more; but, not wanting to disagree on this issue with his former like-minded nationalists, as well as to irritate the people, in whom his sharp reforms were already causing unrest, Cuza cautiously patronized the Protestant ideas of the West, acting in this case through his wife Elena. The Protestant sects of the west were given complete freedom, on par with Orthodoxy; they even received encouragement, apparently aimed at strengthening and spreading them among the Orthodox Romanian population. On March 13, 1863, there was a celebration of the foundation of a new Reformed church in Bucuresti for the Hungarians under the patronage of Austria; The celebration was attended by the Austrian consul - a Catholic, a Reformed pastor as a representative of the community, a Lutheran pastor and deacon and a member of the Anglican missionary community. In a word, all of Western Europe gathered here to solemnly celebrate the holiday of their victory in the original Orthodox country, which was torn away from the Orthodox East. The Orthodox Romanian Princess Elena arrived in pomp from the Romanian government. All these persons took an active part in the Reformed celebration: some read prayers, others delivered sermons and speeches, etc. The Austrian consul, as the host of the celebration, kindly granted the right to lay the first stone to Princess Helena, who at the same time uttered the following words: “I feel happy that I am invited to lay the foundation stone of a new Reformed church. With heartfelt joy I see that the number of Christian institutions bringing comfort and spiritual balm to the suffering in the Romanian land is increasing. Amen, amen, amen." The mentioned representatives of the Protestant communities, of course, could not help but see in these words addressed to them from the height of the throne, not only broad religious tolerance towards all faiths, but also a call for them to act unhindered in the Orthodox field, that Orthodoxy in the country was shackled hand and foot by the reforms of Prince Cuza. In the same year, the Lutheran church was also rebuilt and enlarged, for which the supreme patron of the Lutherans, King Wilhelm of Prussia, sent on this occasion a precious Bible for the altar and a gift of 1,000 thalers for the construction, transportation and installation of a new organ. How did the Romanian clergy react to all the works of the nationalist party with Cuza at its head and to other doctors of Orthodoxy? Unfortunately, it should be noted that the Westernization movement, which swept the entire Romanian intelligentsia, did not remain alien to the clergy. The clergy took a very active part in the unification of the two principalities into one whole and in general in the work of the liberal nationalist party. The chairmen of the temporary divans, on which broadcast speeches about the unification of the principalities were held and other issues of a liberal nature were discussed, were the Metropolitan of Moldova and Wallachia. The metropolitans presided over the electoral meetings at which A. Cuza was illegally elected as ruler of Moldavia and then Wallachia. True, the Moldavian metropolitan (Sofroniy) protested against the elections (although it was useless), but the Wallachian did not do this either, but unquestioningly went with the flow. Even such bishops devoted to Orthodoxy as brothers Filaret and Neophytos Scriban took an active part in this movement. Of course, they did not foresee the terrible consequences that occurred from here for Orthodoxy and even for the Romanian nationality. The Romanian clergy in general has sinned and is sinning with passion for political affairs, passion for partisanship, the desire to play a role in parties, following one direction or another in politics. Against this shortcoming of the Romanian clergy, the most prominent priests of the Romanian Church of the last quarter of the last century (like Sylvester of Xush and Metropolitan Joseph of Moldova) took measures, explaining to the clergy that it was not their place to engage in political affairs. But, generally speaking, this passion of the clergy for politics, which constitutes the true misfortune of Orthodox Romania, still reigns in Romania. And until then, Orthodoxy in it will be trampled upon by enemies, until the clergy frees itself from this unfortunate passion for politics. The history of the Romanian Church knows cases where even outstanding bright minds in Romania succumbed to such a destructive hobby, such as the unforgettable memory of Bishop Melchizedek, who, being in the rank of archimandrite and being a deputy from the clergy in 1857 at the meeting on uniting the principalities into one, and in 1861 having received the portfolio of the Minister of Confessions and Education, contributed a lot to the liberal party, although He later bitterly repented of this. And if this was admitted by the luminaries of the Romanian Church, the most enlightened and intelligent Romanian saints, then there is nothing to say about other, less reasonable and more ardent members of the Romanian clergy in the era of general enthusiasm for rationalistic trends. These latter directly allowed themselves to openly and even brazenly mock not only the rituals, but also the dogmas of Orthodoxy. In general, the church reforms of Prince Cuza, having completely subordinated the clergy of the Romanian Church to secular power, had a very detrimental effect on his moral state. The secular authorities appointed unworthy persons to the cathedra, and the minister of confessions was guided in the selection of a candidate for the episcopal cathedra only by monetary calculations: the cathedra was given to the one who gave the most money. This circumstance developed simony to horrifying proportions, and on this basis there were a lot of scandalous cases about which there is no talk... Arge Cathedral in Romania Chapter IV. The struggle for the canonical structure of the church The Slavs are champions of Orthodoxy. - Sophrony of Moldova. – Filaret Scriban and his activities for the benefit of the Romanian Church. - Results of the struggle. – The fall of A. Cuza and the accession to the Romanian throne of a Roman Catholic in the person of Charles of Romania. – New dangers and new champions of Orthodoxy. – Melchizedek of Romanes and Silverst of Khush. - Triumph of Orthodoxy. – The canonical connection of the Romanian Church with other churches of the East and especially with the Russian Church. No matter how gloomy the history of the Romanian Church of this sad period is, against its background, however, there are many bright personalities. The providence of God raised up from among the Romanians themselves great men who, like David, armed with the sling of faith and truth, came out against Goliath-Cuza in defense of the trampled religion of their fathers; the struggle was long and difficult, but in the end they emerged victorious, and their names should be inscribed in golden letters on the tablets of history not only of the Romanian Church, but of the entire Orthodox East. Here are the names of these unforgettable fighters and historical figures in the Orthodox field of the long-suffering Romanian Church: Metropolitan Sophronius, Bishops Filaret and Neofit Scriban, and later the Reverend. Melchizedek, Roman Bishop, Rev. Sylvester, Bishop of Khush, Joseph, Metropolitan. Moldavian, and Athanasius, Bishop of Rymnik-Novosevarinsky. We will now proceed to a brief summary of the activities of these zealots of Orthodoxy. When church property was plundered and monasteries were plundered, Metropolitan appeared as a fearless opponent of this violence. Moldavian Sofroniy. The most worthy saint in the Moldavian see came from an ancient boyar family and in his direction belonged to the glorious galaxy of the ever-memorable Romanian rulers, his predecessors, such as Gabriel Banulescu, Benjamin Costakis and Gregory IV of Wallachia. A student of the Nyamets Lavra, who received his tonsure there from Metropolitan. Benjamin, a student of the latter, brilliantly gifted by nature, Sophrony in all his activities and life was a shepherd deeply devoted to Orthodoxy; He proved by his preaching activities and administrative orders for the benefit of the church and finally sealed his righteous martyrdom at the hands of the wicked minions of Prince Kuza. When the plans of this prince were fully revealed, Sophrony courageously opposed them and sought support from the Orthodox Church. Russia. He sent a note to Archbishop Anthony of Chisinau, as the closest spiritual and administrative official of the Orthodox state, about the persecution of the Moldavian church carried out by the princely government, begging the Reverend. Anthony to petition the Sovereign Emperor for the protection of the Moldovan church and clergy against oppression and persecution. The Cuza government looked at the protests of Metropolitan. Sophronia, as if resisting the princely power, sentenced him to exile. Together with him, the rector of the Nyamets Lavra, Gerasim, suffered the same fate. In vain did the Patriarch of Constantinople Sophronius, as the supreme shepherd of the Moldovan Church, protest against such violence by the Romanian government: it continued to persistently follow its destructive path and took revenge for the protests with new persecutions. And it is difficult to say how all this would have ended if other selfless fighters for Orthodoxy had not emerged from among the hierarchs of the Romanian Church, who finally managed to defend the ancient historical shrine and even give a slightly different direction to public opinion - namely, towards the awakening in the Romanian people of a sound historical self-awareness as an Orthodox people and only in Orthodoxy having a guarantee of its national identity. Joseph, Metropolitan of Moldova and Sochava At the head of these glorious champions of Orthodoxy is the great saint of the Romanian land Filaret Scriban-Popescu (i.e. Popovich), Bishop of Stavropol (nominal). Even the shortest history of the Romanian Church should give pride of place to this giant hero, the savior of the Romanian Orthodox Church from the terrible danger that threatened it, for everything that is currently good in Romanian church life is owed to Philaret Scriban. Assessing its significance, Prof. Const. Erbiceanu, says: “If at present Romania has its own defender, its apologist for Christianity, then this is him; If anyone among us boasts of knowledge of Christianity, he owes this entirely to him; if lamps are still visible here and there in the Romanian church, then these are his children; if, finally, there is still Christian life between us, then we should be entirely grateful to Philaret for this.” And this characteristic is not at all exaggerated. Indeed, the appearance of Philaret Scriban (as well as his brother Neophyte, who was a zealous assistant to him) on the historical arena of a time when Orthodoxy was in very serious danger, is an event of the greatest church-historical importance. This marks the beginning of a turn for the better in the history of the Romanian Church. Filaret Skriban, Bishop of Stavropol Neophytos Scribanus, Bishop of Edessa Filaret (in the world Vasily) was born in 1811 in the town of Burduzheni, on the border of Austria, and received his initial education in the house of his parents and with Greek monks, in the Fedorovsky monastery. Then he went to Iasi, where he brilliantly completed the course at the Iasi Academy, and, as its outstanding student, he was retained there as a professor of geography and French. A serious, thoughtful, deep connoisseur of Romanian history and the Romanian people, in the study of which his truly brilliant abilities, frequent trips to Romania and his treatment of ordinary Romanian people helped him, Filaret Scriban, to a greater extent than anyone else, understood the meaning, goals and ideals of the people, with what and for what the heart of the people beat and is now beating, and what his soul strives for. He understood that the Orthodox faith alone constitutes the soul of the Romanian people, spiritualizes them, that outside of Orthodoxy they are a corpse, a soulless toy in the hands of their enemies, for along with the death of Orthodoxy the Romanian nation must also perish. Therefore, he devoted all his rich energies to the defense of Orthodoxy. Fairly believing that Orthodoxy in all its strength and beauty was preserved in Russia, he, already a professor at the Iasi Academy, left the department and, as a simple student, entered the Kyiv Theological Academy, founded by his compatriot Peter (Mogila). Filaret Skriban spent only two years at the Kyiv Academy, but this time was absolutely enough for the gifted Scriabin to, having studied the Russian language, at the same time, with brilliant success, complete the full course of the academy and receive a master's degree in theology. At the Kyiv Academy, his ideals of Orthodoxy and his connections with Orthodox Russia were finally strengthened, which he perfectly expressed in his speech delivered at the end of the academy course in the presence of Metropolitan Philaret (of Kyiv). “I am a foreigner here,” he said casually, “my family, my fatherland is far from here, and our language is different. But here, in this cradle of faith and enlightenment of the greatest monarchy in the world, I am accepted as one of my own, and perhaps more than one of my own. I spent two years here under your fatherly protection, under the guidance of good mentors, in the friendship of everyone around me, and I consider these two years to be the best in my life... If I return to my homeland, and my fatherland asks me, have you learned true wisdom and Christian piety? I will tell him: I not only knew, but also saw them... If a European boasting of omniscience comes into competition with me, I will tell him that maybe he knows everything, but he has not seen the Orthodox Church in its ancient purity and splendor. How desirable it will be for my whole fatherland when I bring him the fruits of Christian enlightenment from that very Vertograd, which was planted by one of his sons, so famous for his zeal for the Orthodox faith.” In Kyiv, immediately after graduating from the academy, Vasily Scriban, with the consent of Metropolitan Benjamin Costakis, was tonsured a monk with the name Philaret. But before going to his homeland, he went to Moscow and lived there for 2 months with the Metropolitan himself. Philaret of Moscow. Conversations with this great saint, according to Philaret Scriban, had a very beneficial influence on him and further strengthened him in those good principles, which later formed the basis of his selfless activities for the benefit of the church and the fatherland. Filaret Scriban made a very pleasant impression on Filaret of Moscow. Saying goodbye to Scriban, the Moscow saint gave him an expensive panagia - as a sign of that glorious bishopric, which Philaret Scriban subsequently held with great honor and benefit for the church. Having visited St. Petersburg for a short time - a monument to the greatness and external splendor of Russia, which impressed the young Scriban with the strength and political power of Russia, he left for his homeland, where he was received with open arms by the venerable Veniamin Costakis, who soon successively ordained him as a hierodeacon, a hieromonk and elevated him to the rank of archimandrite with his appointment as rector of the Sokol Seminary. From then on, the fruitful activity of Philaret Skriban began. Filaret Skriban served as rector for 20 years, first in the rank of archimandrite, and from 1852 in the rank of bishop of Stavropol. Soon after he assumed the position of rector of the Sokol Seminary, he began to radically transform it: he transformed it into an 8-grade full seminary; enriched the seminary library with many books of the most varied content, especially theological, in different languages, and mainly in Slavic-Russian; founded a printing house at the seminary to reprint old necessary books and print new ones; encouraging seminary professors to write essays of theological content. According to his proposal, seminary professors were to preach in different churches in the city of Iasi on all Sundays and holidays; He himself trained his students in composing good sermons, teaching them to recite; The same attention was paid to church singing. Having been the rector of the Iasi Seminary for more than 20 years, F. Scriban laid the foundation for the revival of spiritual education in Romania, thus creating a counterbalance to those “revivers of the Romanian nationality” who had already gone too far in their activities, undermining the true national and religious foundations of the people. He encouraged the best students of the seminary to take the monastic rank, and, setting the Russian church with its great saints as a model, he gave those tonsured the names of Russian archpastors 170. For his scholarship and highly meaningful sermons, making an irresistibly deep impression on his listeners, he was given the title “Professor of Professors.” And the results of his tireless work as the rector of the seminary turned out to be brilliant: in what city, in what village, in what corner of Romania are there no students of his who would not have learned useful lessons for life from his teaching! “Oh, if,” exclaims Professor Erboceanu at the conclusion of Filaret Scriban’s characterization, “there were more such selfless and completely dedicated teachers in Romania, then our society would make significant progress in true enlightenment, then the bright future of Romania would be secured”! The outstanding abilities of Philaret Scriban were noticed by Prince Kuza, who wished to win him over to his side, offering him the chair of Metropolitan of Moldova, and his brother, Neophytos Scriabin, the chair of Metropolitan of Wallachia; but both of them refused to accept the appointment from the “wicked” Cuza, considering such a receipt of a spiritual position from a secular ruler to be uncanonical. Instead, he directly took on the Cuza government. They say that when church and monastery property was confiscated to the treasury, Filaret Skriban (then still ardently young), at a solemn meeting of the synod, in the presence of Prince Kuza himself, in episcopal vestments, pronounced a curse on him, on his entire family and on his entire clan. In addition, when the church reforms of Prince Cuza were announced, Filaret Scriban decided to go to Bukurest without invitations in order to oppose these reforms there; but on the road he was stopped by gendarmes and returned to Iasi under escort. Then he filed a protest with the consuls of the guarantor powers and in the name of the convened “general” synod, complaining about the arbitrariness of the ruler and the church innovations he had made. In petitions submitted to the Russian consul, Filaret asked the Russian government for intercession for the Romanian church, inviting it to take, for the sake of saving Orthodoxy, the most decisive measures in relation to the Cuza government: defrock bishops appointed by secular authorities as illegal, expel Prince Cuza from Romania and consign him to damnation as the culprit of evil. In polemical works written during this time, 171 the Scriban brothers argued that all members of the Orthodox Church - clergy and laity - are subject to judgment, that clergy can judge the laity like shepherds of sheep, and not vice versa; the synod should consist only of bishops, and not of presbyters and deacons, much less of the laity. As for the progress of which the Romanian revivalists are so proud and to which they subordinated the church, this progress is a conditional concept, and only that is truly progressive that is completely consistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Filaret Scriban suffered a lot of trouble for these thoughts from the Romanian rationalist revivalists, who shouted that for them, as for the descendants of the ancient Romans, the statue of Trajan was more valuable than the cross of Christ; They called the Scribans backward and rusty. But the truth has finally triumphed. Victory after seven years of stubborn struggle was on the side of the Scribans. The 1865 law, directed against the canonical institutions of the church, was repealed and replaced by the 1872 law, edited by the Scriban brothers. This period of fierce struggle between the Scribans, first with the government of Cuza, and then (from 1866) of Charles, is known in the history of the Romanian church under the name of the struggle for the canonical system of the church. Filaret Scriban, who thus appeared as a courageous defender of the church, died in 1878 in great poverty and was buried in the borough of Burduzheni, in his homeland, in the church of St. Trinity. When in 1884, in the same church, in the common grave crypt, his brother Neophytos, a worthy companion of his glorious deeds, was buried, the body of Philaret Scriban turned out to be completely incorrupt, which was reported to the Metropolitan of Moldova by the Bishop of Galati, Jeremiah Dyrtsu, who performed the burial. The results of the struggle of the two Scribans for Orthodoxy were very beneficial. They again aroused interest in Orthodoxy in society, and society itself, in the person of its best, unfortunately very few, 172 became its guardian. All the church innovations of Cuza collapsed: the filioque was not introduced into the creed, the Julian calendar still remained in the church, organs did not replace singing in Romanian Orthodox churches, etc., and most importantly, the law of 1865, for which the strong rationalist party in Romania stood strongly, was radically changed. According to the law of 1872, first of all, the name of the synod of bishops “general” was abolished as borrowed from the Protestant church structure; the synod now consists only of bishops, namely two metropolitans, all diocesan bishops (6) and 8 titular or suffragan bishops. Further, the law of 1872 completely eliminates, as contrary to the canons, the idea of ​​the omnipotence of the state in church affairs, by virtue of which secular power can have full control in church affairs, issue laws as it pleases, appoint superior clergy and remove them from office as simple officials. In this new law, the Minister of Confessions, whom the law of 1865 recognized as the head of the church, is given only an advisory voice in meetings of the members of the St. synod, as well as the right to submit resolutions of the synod to the discretion of the prince; According to the new law, the bishop's consistories, abolished by Prince Kuza, were restored, with their subordination to the authority of the diocesan bishop. The right of bishops to appoint rectors of parish churches and run theological schools has also been restored; interference of secular authorities in the internal life of monasteries was eliminated. Although the law of 1872 had some shortcomings in comparison with the completely legal canonical system of the church, such as, for example, the fact that the bishop is elected not by the synod, but by a special “meeting of voters”, in which, in addition to the bishops, all deputies of the chamber participate, with the exception of non-Orthodox ones, one cannot help but see that in comparison with the law of 1865, the new law - this historical monument to the activities of the Scriban brothers - represented a huge step forward in the sense of improving church life in all respects. On the night of February 10-11, 1866, an event of very great importance occurred in Bucuresti. Then a conspiracy was carried out against the despotic Prince Cuza, who, with his extravagance, debauchery and despotism, brought the state to the brink of destruction: the conspirators snuck into his bedroom at night, and with revolvers pointed at him, forced him to sign a “voluntary” act of his abdication of the Romanian throne. The fall of Cuza, naturally, caused joy among the Orthodox sons of Romania, but the West, intriguing against Russia, having given the Romanian throne to Cuza, did not fail to send another of its protege, the Roman Catholic Charles, to Romania, who, for his part, carefully but systematically began to serve Roman propaganda in Romania: as a result of this, of course, the Jesuits did not slow down, who, taking advantage of the patronage of the prince, many have caused and are causing harm to Romania, trying at all costs to bring it to the foot of the “infallible”... In 1885, the Romanian Church was granted complete independence from the Greek Patriarchate with the right to make peace within itself, and this circumstance was rather unfavorable for the Romanian Church, since after the proclamation of autocephaly it found itself alienated from other churches. The government did not fail to take advantage of this to enslave the church to the state. In 1885, a new church law was issued that extremely constrained the Romanian Orthodox Church. This law prohibits members of St. synod to participate in any meetings or societies to discuss church affairs, except St. synod; also prohibits them from traveling abroad without government permission. The purpose of these prohibitions is quite clear: the first point is meant to prevent the establishment of religious and educational societies for the maintenance of Orthodoxy, and the second to isolate them from all relations with bishops of other Orthodox churches with the aim of a joint and unanimous struggle for Orthodoxy. This anti-church tendency found even more pronounced expression in the law of 1893, which to this day underlies the governance of the Romanian church. It is clear that the Romanian intelligentsia, already infected with the poison of Western unbelief, fully sympathized with the government’s anti-church plans. The liberal press is not embarrassed by any antics against the Orthodox shrine. The dogma of the Incarnation, the cross, and the Most Holy Theotokos began to appear in the press as subjects for jokes, witticisms and mockery. Protests and even pleas from Orthodox bishops addressed to the government to prohibit newspapers from defaming sacred objects of faith and insulting the beliefs of an entire people led nowhere. In such cases, the ministers gloatingly referred, in their justification, to the article of the law of the Romanian constitution on freedom of the press, and sarcastically pointed out the absence in Orthodoxy itself of proper educational techniques in relation to the flock, due to which it would seem morally impossible for the latter to mock objects of sacred veneration. The same rationalism penetrated the school, where atheist teachers taught, and extremely corrupted the Romanian youth. According to Rev. Melchizedek, in schools they began to teach Darwinism instead of the Law of God in its extreme conclusions, that man descended from the ape, and has the same fate as all animals; deny the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, says that all mental functions are limited to the brain, and that that part of the brain, which until this time served as the repository of religion, should be subjected to atrophy through the removal of everything that resembles religion and superstition. How free-thinking and mentally unbridled young people in Romania have become is shown by the following facts. In 1881, students at the University of Iasi, during the second week of Lent, decided to destroy all the icons located on the university premises; Having done this godless deed, they went in a large crowd to a neighboring church, where they tore off several images and threw them out of the church. The brawlers left only when people gathered to defend the shrine, threatening to deal with the wicked in their own way. That same year, during the first week of Lent, students from the Iasi gymnasium told the priest that they would not confess because they did not believe in God. The priest reported this to the metropolitan, who sent his protosyncellus to exhort the disciples. The result of the admonition was the repentance of the students and the statement that they refused confession at the instigation of their teachers... It is even sadder that this same anti-church spirit partially penetrated into the clergy, giving rise to such an abnormal phenomenon as “Protestant bishops.” Bishop Callistratus Orlyanu (a student at the University of Athens) was especially distinguished in this regard, who performed baptism through pouring and rejected monasticism in principle, being a rationalist in the full sense of the word; he considered monasticism to be a barbaric and unnatural institution: “just as,” the Orthodox Romanian archbishop reasoned, “just as Greek words cannot be without stress, and a fish without water, so a man cannot do and live without a woman; The defenders of monasticism are people who are undoubtedly antediluvian, wild and devoid of common sense! This bishop, a protégé and instrument of the secular government, which wanted to completely undermine and destroy Orthodoxy in Romania, is the sad, but completely natural fruit of all the previous anti-church policies in Romania. Entirely imbued with extreme Protestant rationalism, he does not even hide his views and preaches them everywhere without hesitation. In 1883, on June 15, Kalistrat refused to sign the synodal message directed against Protestantism and Freemasons; Moreover, he began to publicly scold the members of the synod, and when the latter deprived him of the right to be present at the meeting, he, together with the ministers Kogalniciano and Myrzescu - obvious enemies and cruel persecutors of Orthodoxy - attracted St. Synod to the court of the Supreme Chamber of Cassation. Fortunately for the Orthodox Church in Romania, the Cassation Chamber recognized itself as having no right to interfere in church affairs 173 . It is not surprising that with the presence of such strange “bishops” in Romania, wide scope has opened up for all kinds of heterodox propaganda, which is shamelessly working there even now. Fortunately for the Romanian people, they still have no shortage of valiant shepherds who strictly observe the pledge of the Orthodox faith entrusted to them. Such were the especially (recently deceased) remarkable hierarchs - Melchizedek of Romans and Silverst of Khush. Rev. Melchizedek - student of Rev. Philaret Scriban, sent by him to Kyiv to receive higher spiritual education. He, like Philaret Skriban, thoroughly became acquainted with Russia, where he drew his strength to fight the enemies of Orthodoxy; was in Moscow, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra; then he went to St. Petersburg. While there, he introduced himself to Metropolitan Isidore, who asked him with great interest about Romania. Upon his arrival in Romania, Melchizedek at one time paid tribute to the nationalist movement of the country, but when he saw where its quasi-nationalists were leading Romania, he bitterly mourned his passion and forever became, like Philaret Scriban, a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. In defending Orthodoxy, he acted mainly as a gifted publicist and scientist 174. Of his apologetic works, the most remarkable are: “Papism in Romania and the present state of the Romanian churches”, “Protestantism in Romania and neighboring countries”, “The current state of the church and clergy in the kingdom of Romania”; he wrote an encyclical against the Freemasons in 1883 and many others. etc. All these writings reveal a deep understanding of the contemporary needs of the Romanian Church. He looked with sadness at the work of Romanian nationalists who were striving to finally break ties with the Slavs and Russia through the expulsion of Slavic words from the Romanian language. Therefore, dying (1892), Rev. Melchizedek bequeathed part of his savings (in the amount of 200 tons of francs deposited in the Russian state bank) to a scholarship of 1,000 francs. for one Romanian receiving education in the Kyiv spirit. Academy, with the condition that this Romanian student live in a dormitory 176. Taking care of the enlightenment of the Romanian clergy and people, Rev. Melchizedek founded an educational society called the “Orthodox Romanian Society”, with its goal 1) translation and dissemination of Orthodox spiritual works, specifically intended for the rural clergy, children, women and people; 2) sending young people preparing for the clergy to seminaries and theological academies of other Orthodox countries; 3) the establishment of educational institutions in the spirit of Orthodoxy for youth and especially for girls (the government, however, banned this society). Rev. Melchizedek was an honorary member of the Kiev and St. Petersburg Theological Academies, the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment in Moscow, and generally enjoyed fame in Russia. Melchizedek, Roman Bishop Another courageous defender of Orthodoxy amid the widespread unbelief in modern Romania, encroaching on the integrity of Orthodoxy, was the Rev. Sylvester, bishop Hushsky, an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, who recently (November 25, 1900) died, to the great grief of the Romanian Church. A student of Philaret Skriban, a graduate of the Kyiv Theological Academy, where he went on the advice of Philaret Skriban, Rev. Sylvester first worked in the field of teaching, and from 1886 with the rank of independent bishop of Khush. During a long period (1873–1886) of the highest leadership of pedagogical work in theological seminaries - hotbeds of spiritual enlightenment - Rev. Sylvester raised more than one generation of future church pastors and public figures. Like his great teacher F. Scriban, he tirelessly and courageously fought for the rights of the church, tried to prepare worthy shepherds and generally strengthen the position of the church. Being an excellent preacher-orator, he raised his voice in defense of Orthodoxy wherever the opportunity presented itself: in the church (in his diocese, sermons were mandatory everywhere), in the Senate, in school, in society. In these constant sermons and speeches, he developed mainly the following thoughts: that 1) every priest is the best teacher of the people, therefore the removal of priests from the responsibility of teaching is a great misunderstanding; and if for some reason the priest cannot be a teacher in all subjects, then, in any case, it is necessary that he be the guardian of the public school, monitor the direction in it and certainly teach the Law of God; 2) Rev. Sylvester insisted on the need for full financial support for the clergy. His speeches in the Senate, fascinating and persuasive, almost always led to good results. In the last years of his life, Rev. Sylvester, in view of the terribly intensified Latin propaganda, sent out district letters to the flock, convincing them to stand firmly for Orthodoxy. Sylvester, Bishop of Chush Finally, the same brave, energetic champion of Orthodoxy, defender of its canonical institutions and mutual communication with other Orthodox churches is the current Metropolitan of Moldova Joseph, a venerable old man, already 81 years old. On July 6, 1900, the 25th anniversary of his service in the rank of metropolitan was solemnly celebrated in Iasi. All of Romania took part in this rare anniversary: ​​some with personal participation, others by sending deputations and telegrams; The joyful circumstance that deserves attention is that the Most Holy All-Russian Synod greeted the most worthy Bishop of Moldova on the 25th anniversary of his archpastoral service in the rank of metropolitan. And this honor was a worthy reward to the venerable metropolitan bishop for his struggle against Latin propaganda and tireless work for the improvement of the Romanian church and the elevation of church and religious life in the country 177. Despite all the efforts of extreme nationalists to completely isolate the Romanian Church from communion with the churches of the same faith in the Orthodox East, it has invariably maintained and is preserving this communication. Independence or autocephaly was given to it by the Church of Constantinople on the conditions - to preserve unchanged Orthodox dogmas and traditions and to maintain canonical unity with other local churches, expressed in the communion of prayers and sacraments and mutual relations in necessary cases, for example, when taking the chair of the primate of the Romanian Church, when issues arise that are subject to joint discussion with other churches. Prince Cuza, as is known, completely isolated the Romanian Church from communication with other autocephalous churches. Even in the law of 1872, the communication of the Romanian Church with other autocephalous churches is limited only to unity in the dogmas of faith. But the Romanian Orthodox Church went further than this one-sided and incorrect law, remaining faithful to the canonical order recommended to it by the Church of Constantinople when granting it autocephaly. The current primate of the Romanian Church, Metropolitan Joseph Georgiyan, upon his appointment as primate of the Romanian Church, did not fail to notify the Russian Holy Synod about this. Likewise, the representatives of the Romanian Church at the Bonn Conference in 1875, Bishops Melchizedek and Gennady, asked their St. synod - to enter into relations with representatives of other Orthodox churches on the issue of uniting churches. Such canonical communication is also maintained by the publication of the law of 1898. When, after the appointment of St. Petersburg Metropolitan Anthony as the first-present member of St. Synod, the Romanian Church was notified of this, then in response to this notification the following letter was received in the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony, dated December 16, 1900, signed by the Primate of the Romanian Church Joseph: “In response to the message of Your Eminence dated October 2 of this year, I have the honor to notify you that with living joy in the Lord I received the news communicated to me that the grace and mercy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and by the command of His Majesty, the most powerful Emperor of All-Russia, the blessed Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich, you are invested with the high title of the highest leader in the management of the holy Orthodox All-Russian Church, with the title of the first member of the Holy Synod... Respectfully and with special respect, welcoming the appointment of Your Eminence to the above-mentioned high post, I embrace you with a brotherly holy kiss in Christ and, bending my knee with tenderness, offer my most fervent prayers to the Invisible Head of our holy Church, may He bestow upon Your Eminence abundant strength and health, so that the holy Russian Church may successfully guide in all matters the shore of salvation in the Lord. Constantly staying together with all the shepherds of the holy church of our Lord and Savior I. Christ, guarding its integrity, teachings, I pray to the Merciful God, may He multiply the life of Your Eminence and may He preserve the whole, honest, healthy, rightly ruling word of truth. At the same time, deign to always have my humility in your holy prayers.” This heartfelt, prayerful interaction of the Romanian Church with the Russian and other churches of the Orthodox East is the main guarantee of its further success. Church in Rozanov, Romania Lost/moved part of the text? Corr. Published in "Period. write-off" (books 5–6) and in Russian. language in “Slavs. collection", vol. II, 1877. Irechek, History of the Bulgarians, 639. Christian Fraternal Word, part I, book. IV, 103. Dismissed from the historian at Rila Municipality, 37. Dimitrov, Prince. Bulgaria, vol. I, p. 220. Neophyt Bozveli, “Mata Bulgaria” (in Period. Write-off, book IX–X, 40). From the Bulgarian brochure: “Bulgarians and the highest Greek clergy,” 1860. Readings in the society of spirit lovers. education, 1873, IV, 171. School of Pregled, Sofia, 1900, book. VII–VIII, 58. Readings, 1873, III, 124–125. Kanits Danube Bulgaria, 88. Neophyt Bozveli “Mati Bulgaria” in “Period Write-off”, book. IX–X. Dimitrov, Prince. Bulgaria, 272–278. Ivanov “Balg. Period. Printing." in “Anniversary Collection”, 24–25. Kurganov, in “Prav. Interlocutor", 1873, June, 202. Teplov, Greek-Bulgarian Church. question, 154. Milkov T. Antim, parvi Bulgarian exarch. Plovdiv, 1899. 2–3. Christ. fraternal word, g. 1, book. I, 133–136. Readings, 1879, Apr. 234–235. "Church Bulletin", No. 1893, Nos. 9 and 26. Ibid., 1893, Nos. 35 and 39. Kanchev, “Turkey and the Bulgarians”, (speech in the Bulgarian National Assembly), Sofia, 1899, 2–3. “Church. Vestn., 1895, No. 5. “Theologian.” Vestn.", 1899, January, 114. Maksimov, School almanac, Sofia, 1900, 792–794. Wed. "Church Herald", 1900, No. 7. Wed. "Church Herald", 1900, No. 6. Kanchev, “Turkey and Bulgaria”. "Church Bulletin" 1894, No. 23. Dismissed from the historian to Rila Munastir, 41. Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries between the Bulgarians each have the same number of theological schools at their disposal. "Readings", 1879, April, 232–233. Wed “Christian fraternal word”, book. I, page I. Okrzhno (Bulgarian Ministry of Education), No. 3396, Sofia, March 27, 1894 “Svetnik”, 1900, No. 10, Wed. “Christ. teacher", 1899, book. I, 85–88. “Christ. Teacher ", 1899, book. I, 86. “Christ. Teacher ", 1899, book. II, 182–183. Period. Write-off, book. XLIII. 156 “Orthodox Preacher”, 1894, book. V, page 74 “Light”, 1894, book. XII, 189 (Sofia). “Christ. Teacher ", part II, book. II, 185–186. See “Montenegro”, art. Gladstone in ed. K.P. Pobedonostseva. St. Petersburg 1877 See “Church Bulletin” for 1876, No. 38. N. Duchi h, History. Serbian Orthodox Church. book 9. pp. 200–205. Nil Popov, Russia and Serbia. Part I, pp. 240–242. N. Duchi h I. p., pp. 222–228. M.P. Cheltsov, Church of the Kingdom of Serbia, p. 16. The further presentation of this “cultural struggle” in Serbia, as well as the description of the valiant Bishop Michael, we borrow from the excellent brochure of Prof. I.S. Palmova - “In memory of high Michael, Archbishop of Belgorod, and Metropolitan of Serbia." St. Petersburg 1898 You can read about this in detail in two published (in Serbian) brochures: 1) Svetkovin 25th anniversary of the Arkhangelsk service of Metropolitan Michael of Serbia. Beograd. 1879 (I–II + 197 pp.) and 2) “The Fourth of the Year Glorification of the Archpastoral Service of the Metropolitan of Serbia, Mr. Michael.” Beograd. 5 (VI+319 pages). We present a list of the most important works and publications of Metropolitan Michael in the chronological order of their appearance, especially since this list can clearly indicate the nature of modern spiritual literature in Serbia. Here is the list. 1) “Look at the history of the Srpska Church.” Beograd. 1856 2) “Spiritual Diary”, 1859 3) “District letter to the diocesan sveshtenstvo”, 1860 4) “Archival teaching to the newly ordained sveshtenik”, 1860 b) “Ordinance of slander”, 1860 6) “Contract. Chokrlyanu", 1860. 7) “Pastorally teaching the Christians for this week and the holiday of the whole year.” 1860 8) “Crkveno theologije”, 1860 9) “Hermeneutics”, 10) “Crkveni teacher”, 1861 11) “Srbljak”, a book containing services to Serbian saints - with their images. Beograd. 1861 (This book was published twice earlier; but the edition of Metropolitan Michael was significantly expanded with his own creations - not only individual synaxariums, akathists, etc., but sometimes entire services, for example, to St. Maxim). 12) “The succession of the departed on Holy Easter and throughout Bright Week occurs.” Beograd. 1862 13) “Mudri Heguman” 1863 14) “Letter to the Patrijapxa Orthodox Catholic of the Eastern Church about the Orthodox faith: written by Inglesima,” 1864 16) “Pastoral Conversation Vojnitsima,” 1895 16) “Orthodox Preacher” (4 volumes), 1866–67–71. (a collection of sermons for all Sundays and holidays of the year). 17) “A brief prayer book for the use of accounting for her youth,” 1896. 18) “Hand Sveshtenichna Book,” 1867. 19) “On the Papacy and Lutheranism,” 1868. 20) “On Monasticism,” 1868. 21) “The Rite of Anointing of St. peace of Prince Srpskogo Milan Obrenovitya IV", 1868 22) “A Mother’s Teaching about raising a child”, 1870 23) “The Order of Christ”, 1870 24) “Nature and Reason in the Moral-Spiritual Region”, 1870 25) “Girl Punching”, 1871 26) “Favoured by the Truth”, 1872 27) “Letters to St. Ignat the God-Bearer", 1872 28) "The Order of the Religious Procession", 1872 29) "Spiritual Father", 1872 30) "Poke from the Belly of the Light", 1874 31) "Friend of the Young", 1874 32) "Orthodox Srpska Church at the Knezhevinya Srbiji", 1874. 33) "Spiritual Companion", August 10. 1878 34) “Service to the Reverend Father Prokhor Pshinsky”, 1879 35) “Service of St. Cyril and Methodius” for May 11 (compiled by the late Archbishop Anthony of Kazan, corrected by Metropolitan Michael and published in 1862 in Belgrade and then here in Russia several times). All of the above publications and works were published even before the removal of the Metropolitan from the department, and they are discussed in more detail in the anniversary brochure (in Serbian) “Svetkovina”, etc. Further literary and publishing activities of Metropolitan. Mikhail continued from 1883, after he calmed down from the unrest of 1881–1882. 36) “Science of the Orthodox Christian Church” 1883 37) “Christian Svetine on Istika” and 38) “Sveta Atoiska Hora” (both books are the result of the bishop’s journey to the holy places of the east and Athos in 1883) 39) “Painting of the Most Holy Theotokos” 1886 40) “Duzhnosti tsrkvenih pastor” 1886 41) “At the additional breviary” 1887 42) “Akathist to St. John Chrysostom "1893 43) "Akathist to the Most Holy. Theotokos" (the miraculous icon of which is in the Pechesk Patriarchal Church) 1894 44) "Conversation and other books of joy" (two books) 1894 45) "Poke from the Christian faith" 1894 46) "Orthodox Srpska Church" (this includes a description of churches and monasteries and newly annexed areas in 1879) 1895 47) “Service to St. Peter, Metropolitan of Montenegro, Wonderworker of Cetinje” (compiled by Metropolitan. Mikhail and printed in the Moscow Synodal Printing House) 1895 and other departments. publications of less importance. The most ancient and remarkable monasteries that still exist are: “Vitovchitsa” and “Gornyak” in the Pozharevatsky district; “Vratevshnitsa” in the Rudnichsky district; “Kalenit” in the Yagodinsky district and “Lyubostinya” there; "Manasiya", "Ravanitsa" and "St. Petki" in the Tyuprisky district; “St. Nicholas Monastery” in the Nis district and “Studenica” in the Chechansky district. Bogolyub. J ovanovi h. “Monastery nepokretno imane u kralevini Srbiji p. 1, Ep. Žički Sava Dečanac. Manastiri near Kraljevini Srbiji.” V. Dimtiri j evi h . Nazarene, pp. 106–165. “Why is it that we have a wider Nazarene”, pp. 67–68. "Voice of truth." 1889. pp. 318–319. Schwiecker. Politiscke Geschichte der Serben in Unarn S. 74. 75. M. Jakshih, Chronicle. 1901. St. II Ibid., 369–372 ff. N. Popov, Russia and Serbia, pp. 28–29. Die serbische Bewegung in Sudungarn. S. 70–81. Berezin, Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia I, p. 399. Berezin. I, 1 pp., pp. 374–375. Nil Popov, I. p. r. 767–769. Right in Dalmatia. Ave. About. 1973. “Musafir” – guest; this is the name given to pilgrims - visitors to the Lavra, which for three days gives them room and board completely free of charge; for this purpose, the monastery has a so-called “arfundarik” - an institution in charge of receiving and supplying food to guests. The sacred nature of this war, writes Xenopolus, is already visible in the preparations for it. 21 Feb. 1711 a solemn service takes place in the Moscow Cathedral in the presence of the Tsar. Two guards regiments were lined up in front of the church, and instead of the usual banner there was a special one - red with the inscription: “in the name of the Savior and Christianity.” Above this inscription is a cross with the words “in hoc vinces” around it. The authorities, writes the Romanian historian I. Neculcea, the boyars and honorable old townspeople, led by Metropolitan. Gideon and all the clergy went far beyond Iasi, where they arranged a solemn meeting for Peter I, worshiped with great joy, as a Christian emperor, praising God that the time had finally come for their liberation from the Turkish yoke. Another ally of Peter the Great, A. Cantemir, safely fled to Russia; his son Antioch Cantemir is known in the history of Russian literature as an “impartial satirist useful to society.” Ancient Romanian lion = 7½ kopecks. In addition to meeting the needs of the monastery itself, bread was bought by the monasteries to feed the numerous sick, elderly, and pupils whom the monasteries supported in their almshouses, hospitals and schools. All princes were appointed by the Porte for 3 years. The title of archpriest or archpriest in Romania has always, as now, been not a rank, but an administrative position, and corresponded to the rank of ancient Russian archpriests. Hence the so-called “bowed” monasteries, about which see below in Chapter II. The word “bow” is a literal translation of the Romanian word “inchinare” - inclination, bowing, in the sense of the Russian “beating with the forehead”, and means, as we will see in Chapter II, the transfer, under certain conditions, of a monastery under the supervision of another monastery. It was not a full seminary: it taught sacred and clergy children in the Moldavian language church reading and singing, rules, rhetoric and “Damascene theology”; 50 people were supported by the monastery. The Moldovalahian exarchate included the following dioceses: the Ugrovlahian metropolis with three bishoprics - Arge, Buzeu and Rymna; the Moldovan metropolis with two bishoprics - Romanesque and Khush, and the Pro-Ilava diocese, which included Bessarabia in its former volume. Subsequently, when circumstances changed the political map of Romania, i.e. Bessarabia went to Russia (in 12), and Dobrudzha was annexed to Romania after the last Russian-Turkish war instead of southern Bessarabia, which again passed to Russia, the Lower Danube diocese was formed, replacing the pro-Ilava diocese. The clergy, writes Professor Erbiceanu, at that time in Romania was so numerous that it rivaled the number of inhabitants. This was a great loss for the residents, who bore almost all the taxes and arrears. It is true that the priests paid taxes less than the common people, especially in times of peace. In addition, their advantageous position was that they, both in peacetime and in wartime, when they paid even more taxes, had the right to hope for more humane treatment by the zaptii, tax farmers of government revenues. That is why many aspired to the clergy... Everything that was collected was usually sold, they were given where they could, just to achieve the priesthood... They were not asked whether they were literate, but whether they had money? But where could they study? When they could not receive ordination in Romania, they went across the Danube to some Greek ruler and returned home as priests. It was a time of troubles, for simony had reached its apogee. In Romanian these societies were called "breslele" from slavs. words brotherhood. The clergy of Wallachia donated 150 thousand leva to the needs of the army, and 76,640 leva to Moldavia. This issue has a huge literature both in Romania and abroad; in different works it is resolved differently, but, in our opinion, Metropolitan Gabriel, who was guided throughout his life by the principle of justice and the desire to stand on the basis of historical truth, should be considered the most competent in resolving this issue. We will see the solution to this issue below. And after such a decision by his person, deeply knowledgeable about the nature of the venerable monasteries, the question about them should no longer be considered open. “Our ancestors,” writes the church historian, “the Romanian Eminence. Melchizedek - were very devoted to the Orthodox faith. She strengthened them in the struggles and failures of private and political life, she nourished them with hopes for a brighter future. They, one might say, were born Christians, their religious feeling developed in the parental home through the good example of their parents through constant attendance at divine services, where the boyars with their families were always at the head of the people, both in villages and cities. The boyars themselves read and sang in the choir; they supported the clergy of the church. The monasteries followed their example with their hospitality and piety of the religious spirit. Monastic church holidays were days of common prayer time. The boyars maintained public schools at churches to educate clergy and literates for the people. Monks and sextons at churches set up their own small schools for the people." This goal is expressly stated in the charters of worship of monasteries. (See the letters of devotion of the monasteries of Cotroceni and Marginene. Stadnicius Gabriel-Banulescu-Bodoni, pp. 200–201). The extent to which the abuses reached in the revered monasteries, where the Greek abbots ruled autocratically, with the rights of owners, is shown by Gabriel’s report on Paisius, the abbot of the Galata monastery, who ruined it in a short time and did not recognize any authority over himself. This abbot 1) showed 35,813 leva in expenses for 7 months, and spent 12,025 leva on firewood and grub in a monastery where there was not a single monk, but only 30 ministers; 2) sold the monastery property (gardens, cauldrons, etc.) and attempted to conceal the proceeds and 3) sold the monastery estates, etc. Of these Romanians, Filaret Scriban, the nominal bishop of Stavropol, was subsequently especially remarkable. They say about the Moldavian Metropolitan Meletius Lefter (1829–1834) that when one of his friends asked him what the meaning of the three letters written on all the metropolitan’s things was: M. M. M., he answered them: “miy, miy, miy,” i.e. thousands, thousands, thousands of chervonets, which he paid for the dignity. From 1821 to 1822, the Danube principalities were governed by a council of local boyars, known as the “kaimakavy”. According to the Ackerman Convention (1826), “both the appointment and the change of rulers cannot be made by the Porte without the consent of Russia.” And according to the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), which further limited the influence of the Porte on the principalities in favor of Russia, the rule of the princes was made for life, and Russia was officially recognized as the patroness of the principalities. This protectorate of Russia lasted until 1856, when it was abolished by the Treaty of Paris. This organic statute for a long time remained the basic constitutional law of the entire Romanian people, defining the procedure for electing rulers, the right of general assembly, financial management, legal proceedings, the competence of various government institutions and concluding statutes on trade, etc. The union of the Danube principalities into one was the work of France; Napoleon III, in his speech on this occasion, called the union of the principalities a matter of justice and the triumph of civilization; as a reward to the Romanians for their bravery, he even sent 10 thousand guns and assured Cuza in a telegram of his favor towards him. The confiscation of the two monasteries of Nyamets and Seksko alone brought the government the sum of 816,609 rubles. So, for example, he gave the name Innocent to his student Innocent Moisiu, bishop. Romanesque, in honor of Innocent Borisov, Archbishop of Odessa; in honor of Jeremiah (Solovyov), the bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, he named his other student Jeremiah Dyrtsa; the name Sylvester (bishop of Khush) was given in memory of Sylvester Kosov, Metropolitan of Kyiv, etc. Of these, the following are especially noteworthy. works by F. Scriban: “Defense of Truth and Law”; The need for clergy in society; Protest to the government against the violence of the church; Babylonism in the Church; Inadequacy of the project regarding the position of the clergy. Of his scholarly works, the most noteworthy is his History of the Romanian Church. The tireless activity of Filaret Scriban and other worthy defenders of historical truth did not remain without influence on secular Romanian society: it sobered up some part of it (especially in Moldavia, a former independent state, now enslaved and oppressed by Wallachia) and prompted a critical attitude towards those new trends, by virtue of which everything old was denied; many saw the terrible abyss into which the so-called nationalists were pushing the Romanians, and also understood the enormous danger for the Romanians from Rome. Catholicism, which has recently made enormous strides in Romania and has divided the hitherto united Orthodox Romanian people into two hostile halves - Orthodox and Latin. On the basis of this recovery, among secular society, more independent of the government than the dispossessed and disenfranchised Romanian clergy, protests began to arise against the destructive policies of Charles of Romania for Romania, as far as these protests are possible under the existing system of despotic governance of Charles, who in his despotism relies on German Berlin (which, by the way, has already managed to cut a window for itself into the Russian Black Sea in Constanta). In the manifesto of 1887, signed by representatives of the best families, it was stated that during the reign of Charles, the religion of the fathers was trampled upon as a result of the incredible efforts of Catholic propaganda. When in 1896, Metropolitan Gennady Petrescu was deprived of his metropolitan see non-canonically, under the pressure of the same Charles, the whole society protested against this, seeking support, as always, in difficult and difficult circumstances, in Russia of the same faith: a long letter was written to the Russian Synod with a request to provide protection to the innocently imprisoned their beloved hierarch. But the most fearless opponent of modern political and church orders, and the bravest defender of the former system, based on the principles of Orthodoxy and solidarity with Russia, is now G.A. Roznovan. Having recently been the chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, Roznovan ardently defended the rights of Orthodoxy, which was trampled upon by the Latinizing government, proving the need for Romania to form an alliance with Orthodox states, and mainly with Russia. When, by order of the Romanian government, a monastery known in the history of Moldova with the Slavic name Bystritsa (near the city of Petra), founded by one of the best Moldavian princes, Alexander the Good, was closed, Roznovan asked the king to preserve this monastery, at least as a historical monument. As a Russophile, Roznovan built a rich church on his estate in the strictly Moscow style, according to the plans of the Russian architect Sultanov; The icons for this church were also painted by the Russian artist Khlebnikov. This church, in its style and beauty of artistic decoration, is a wonderful work of Romanian architecture. This church, not yet completely finished, which has attracted the attention of all Romanians, already costs 200,000 rubles. The childless Roznovan would like to bequeath his entire enormous fortune to the church, but he is concerned about the idea that the Romanian government, which has already secularized church property and is constantly encroaching on it, as soon as the church manages to acquire it in any way, will take away his gift. His activities for the benefit of Orthodoxy and love for Russia were appreciated by Emperor Alexander III, who granted him the image of Alexander Nevsky. In addition, in counterbalance to the anti-Orthodox policy of Charles of Romania, the “Orthodox East” began to be published in Bukureşt, with the aim of counteracting the pernicious influence of the West and promoting the return of Romania to a union with Russia on religious grounds. It is interesting to note that this liberal bishop, a licentiate of the University of Athens, does not know how to read the Gospel, and when, at the unveiling of the monument to Stephen the Great, he read the Gospel, he caused everyone to laugh. Together with his brother Barb Constantinescu, Callistrat still stands at the head of the Protestant movement in Romania. Of his scholarly works, two are the most remarkable: “Chronicle of the Khush Diocese” and “Chronicle of the Roman Diocese”; – Grigory Tsamblak, Lipovanism, a very interesting and rare work even in Romania, introducing the state of the Russian schism in Dobruja; total printed by Rev. Melchizedek up to 30 volumes. This will is not without deep interest. “In former times in our fatherland, the church served as the guardian of pious desires and deeds entrusted to it by public piety. But, unfortunately, at present our church does not provide any guarantee for public trust in such matters. Through the heinous act of robbery called secularization, the church has become materially poor and politically the slave of certain persons called the minister of confessions. These ministers themselves are deprived of any concept of what the church is, what its purpose is in society. Often there are even enemies of Christianity among them. They will take away from the church the last remnants of its material existence and independence from the state. Being deliberately kept in ignorance, being governed by a dark selfish and capricious despotism, our church offers no attraction for thinking people and even for simple piety. A lot of time will pass until God’s providence will raise up in the Romanian Church learned people, with a sense of duty and holy zeal, who will raise it (the Church) to its proper height, which is required of a Christian nation, educated and free, such as our Romanian nation.” This is for this purpose, writes Rev. Melchizedek, so that in Romania there will never be a shortage of men, educated church theologians, who speak the Slavic language, which for centuries was the liturgical language in the Romanian Church and the official state language in Romanian countries in past times and which left indelible traces in the ecclesiastical and secular Romanian language and literature. The magnificent cathedral in Iasi owes its construction and decoration to him, where the splendor of the divine service is greatly contributed by the excellent choir, under the direction of the remarkable church composer Muzychescu.