1831 г.

March 15. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office to celebrate a prayer of thanksgiving on the occasion of the end of cholera in Moscow Proposal to the Moscow Synodal Office. The list from my order given to the consistory to perform a prayer of thanksgiving on next Tuesday, the 17th day of this March, on the occasion of the end of destructive diseases in Moscow, is hereby offered to the synodal office, for its discretion. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 105. March 15, 1831 The following document is attached to this proposal: 1831, March 15th day. Since from the 10th day of this month there are no more people suffering from cholera, and there are no more sick people left, then, according to my consultation with the Moscow Governor-General, it is necessary: ​​next Tuesday, the 17th day, to bring a prayer of gratitude to the Giver of all blessings to God for the end of this public disaster. Therefore, the consistory shall carry out the following order: 1) Perform church services on this day following the example of what happens on solemn days that occur during Lent. 2) Before the liturgy, perform a general memorial service in all churches of the capital for the repose of the souls of God’s servants who have died from destructive diseases, and it is desirable that in the parish churches at the great litany of the memorial service and at the liturgy, the deceased of their parish are remembered by name, in each one, since their names are known. 3) According to the liturgy, there should be a prayer service of gratitude, with ringing. 4) The cathedral service will take place in the cathedral church of the Chudov Monastery, with a full meeting of the clergy, which happens in the cathedral on solemn days. 5) From now on, the prayers that were offered on the occasion of illness should be stopped. 6) Order throughout the diocese that on the next holiday a prayer of thanksgiving should be performed in all churches for the cessation of destructive diseases, and prayers that were held on the occasion of illness should be stopped. 7) Stop weekly reports on welfare in relation to illness 241. April 15. Metropolitan Philaret's report to the Holy Synod on the reasons that prompted the missionary to destroy the Chembulat stone, idolized by the Cheremis To the Holy Governing Synod from its member Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, report. By decree of His Imperial Majesty from the Holy Synod, dated December 3, 1830, No. 9730, I was informed about the destruction of the Chembulat stone 242, idolized by the Cheremis, and about the remark made by the Vyatka civil governor that this stone had not been visited by the Cheremis for more than 40 years. This remark is quite important in relation to the mission; for if it is fair, then it tends to accuse the missionary of an unfounded enterprise, to the vain trouble of the authorities. On the contrary, if the missionary’s undertaking had a sufficient reason, then the remark made against him proves that people unfavorable to the cause of the mission extended their ill-intentioned suggestions right up to the city governor, trying to turn him away from patronizing and promoting the cause of the mission. Therefore, I ordered the Moscow Spiritual Consistory to demand from the missionary, Archpriest Pokrovsky, an explanation of why he imagined the destruction of the idolized stone, when this stone has not been visited by idolaters for a long time. The missionary, in the explanation given to him, wrote: “The reasons that prompted me to ask for the overthrow of this stone are the following: At the time when the Cheremis lived in the Kolenur volost, probably the Chembulat stone was one of their main idols, which is confirmed by various fables about it that have survived among the Cheremis, which I had the opportunity to hear when I was in 1829. The location itself favors the multiplication and reinforcement of these fables; for in the vicinity of this stone there are many holes or failures (according to Cheremis, seventy). All these pits have the shape of a cone or funnel; some of them, called bottomless, have holes at the bottom from which evaporation comes out, which is very noticeable in cold weather. Last year, 1830, I had the opportunity to go down into one of these bottomless pits and found a stone cave there, which, starting from the hole, expanded towards the bottom, as the outer pit narrowed, so that the whole hole looked like two funnels, oppositely connected. The outer part of the pit up to the hole is covered with turf and grass, with which animals were lured, became victims of their carelessness (and according to Cheremis, the devil), rolled through the hole into the inner pit, and, having no way to free themselves, died of hunger, from which I found the bottom of this cave covered with the bones of rotten animals. Fortunately, at the same time I managed to save one animal that had not yet lost its life. The cry of this animal, from the depth and special structure of the cave, which turned into a dull groan, during my descent at first produced timidity in me, and then rewarded me with joy when, having descended into the very interior, I clearly saw the animal struggling with smooth death, which was immediately pulled out. Probably, such groans of animals, the visible bottomlessness of the pits and the emanating fumes in severe frosts were the cause of various fables and horrors that support superstitious respect for Chembulat. With the removal of the Cheremis from the Kolenur volost, their visits should have decreased; and, finally, when the land on which the Chembulat stone is located came into the possession of Russian peasants, these visits apparently stopped due to insanity caused by the Russian peasants, but secretly continued until this time, which I heard from the peasants of the Chembulat village, near which this stone is located, and when examining this stone, I myself saw money and candles of Cheremis product in the cracks of it. However, the distance and obstacles to visits alone seemed to me insufficient to eradicate the error established by antiquity, of which the coffin of Mohammed served me as an example. His admirers, the Turks and Tatars, now live at a distance much greater from Mecca than the Cheremis moved away from their Chembulat, and very few of them can bow to the tomb of the false prophet; but behind all this, the Mohammedans, who have never visited Mecca, have almost even more respect for the tomb of Mohammed, just like those who visited Mecca and even live in it.” Based on the information on the case, it turned out that I reported the destruction of the Chembulat stone to the Vyatka civil governor on June 5, 1830, during the missionary’s departure to the Vyatka province; It is unknown when this permission was made, and the notification to me about this was signed by the civil governor on October 15. From the above, the Holy Synod deigns to see: 1) The missionary had sufficient reasons to demand the destruction of the Chembulat stone. 2) That, consequently, this enterprise was subject to objections and slowness in execution, unfavorable for the missionary, due to the secret influences of people unfavorable to the cause of the mission. 3) That the missionary’s determination to descend into the cave, considered dangerous, shows his efforts to use all possible means to free the minds of the Cheremis from superstitious opinions. Repeating to me verbally the above explanation about his descent into the cave, he added that immediately after this experience, to the people who were on the spot, with an indication of this experience, he explained how sinfully such caves are considered the abodes of spirits and that those who were afraid of the voices of imaginary spirits were, in fact, only afraid of the moaning of hungry cattle. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod, so that the missionary’s actions will not be clouded in the eyes of the higher authorities by an accusation to which, after due consideration, he is not subject. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 155. April 15, 1831 243 April 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod, with an opinion about the clergy in Cheremis parishes 244 Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor! With the most respectful attitude of your Eminence, on the 4th day of this April, a copy was forwarded to me from the resolution of the Holy Synod, on the 3rd day of this month, on the matter of finding those who were guilty of spiritual indoctrination contrary to the orders of the mission for the Vyatka diocese, and at the same time, your Eminence demanded that I notify whether the missionary Archpriest Pokrovsky had informed me about those secretive obstacles against the mission, which he was officially afraid of discovering, and delivering such information to Your Eminence, with an opinion. In order to present to your Eminence the missionary’s testimony with accuracy, I made it my duty to take it from him in writing, on the issues extracted from his previous report. I present this testimony of Archpriest Pokrovsky in the original. 245 As for the opinion required by your Eminence from me, first of all, I make it my duty to present to your Eminence that it is difficult for me to base a definitive opinion on insufficient knowledge of distant, complex events, not brought into clarity by the local authorities, and the brevity of the copy delivered to me from the definition of the Holy Synod was dissatisfied with the discovery. But out of duty of obedience, with due frankness and with possible moderation, I will state what the documents in question say, as far as I understand. The investigative file presented by the Vyatka diocesan authorities to the Holy Synod did not reveal any of the local clergy guilty of actions that were illegal and harmful to the mission. Therefore, one must admit one of two things: either that the missionary reported this unfoundedly, or that the investigation was carried out insufficiently and did not lead to the discovery of the real truth. In my opinion, the latter should be considered fair, for the following reasons and considerations extracted from the case: 1) According to the investigation, the parish clergy of the Tours parish approved 16 people; the clergy of the Koledurga parish approved 10 people; the clergy of the Kuknur parish approved 10 people. Why only 10 or 16 people from the whole parish were asked, why those were asked and not others, there is no reason for this. It remains to be argued about what is meant. So, I ask: when only 10 people approved a priest from an entire parish during the investigation, what should be concluded? Is it that the whole parish is happy with him? On the contrary, it is much more likely in this case that most of the parish is dissatisfied with him; otherwise the majority would have approved of it. But what do the producers of the investigation do? They are not bothered by such insufficient evidence, and the testimony of 10 people is given to the authorities as proof that the entire parish is satisfied with the priest. One cannot be quite surprised to what extent these investigators have convinced themselves of the reliability of their unfounded case and the lack of insight of their superiors. Such insufficiency and, one might say, the insignificance of witnesses, extends to the entire investigative case, as it is spelled out in the definition of the Holy Synod. For out of eleven parishes of all the approving clergy, 617 people are represented; but this number of people, without a doubt, constitutes a small fraction of one parish, for the number of souls in the Cheremis parishes, which for the most part have more than one clergy, ranges from 2000 to 4000 in each. What does the testimony of 617 people mean for eleven such populous parishes! 2) Of the four parishes, Tours, Makarov, Urzhum Cathedral, Urzhum Kazan, 21 people were acquitted by the local clergy, as written in the investigation, only due to their rudeness and stubbornness they did not announce their names to the investigator, and 5 people from three parishes fled. It is known that questioning people during investigations begins by asking everyone about their name; So, if these people did not answer the first question and did not announce their names, then why do the investigators know their answer to further questioning? And what strangeness is it that these people were not stubborn to give evidence to justify their priests, but were stubborn to announce their names? The words of the investigators “due to rudeness and stubbornness” do not in the least explain this phenomenon; rudeness and stubbornness did not interfere, according to the investigators, with acquitting the priests. Why others fled from an investigation that did not threaten the parishioners, or perhaps the priests, is also a mystery that has not been resolved by the investigators. But if, according to the signs revealed in the previous paragraph, we assume here that the investigation was carried out not with a free search for the truth, but with an effort to collect evidence approving for the priests, then it is understandable why some parishioners, who were forced to praise the priests, but who did not have their own motivation, partly did not say their names, partly fled, for fear that the investigators, having taken their names, would write in the investigation not according to their words, which they, according to illiteracy, as a result they cannot reliably discern. 3) Together with the last report of the missionary, Archpriest Pokrovsky, I presented to the Holy Synod, in the original, a journal issued on August 14, 1830, and signed by the missionary, Archpriest Pokrovsky, the missionary, the Urzhum dean, priest Rezantsov, the missionary, the Yoledur priest Kaftannikov and the Urzhum police officer, Prince Devlet-Kildeev. In this journal it is said that the Cheremis, gathered in the old Toryal, made strong complaints against their parish priest and local dean Ignatius Ikonnikov about his bribery claims, when correcting church requirements and even sacraments, especially marriages, baptism and burial, from which, they said, many of them live without getting married, that is, fornication, and their children remain unbaptized until two or more years that babies brought to church for baptism are expelled from the church if less than a ruble, or at least eighty kopecks, is brought for baptism, and so on. Here is a priest, accused of illegal and harmful actions to the mission by an official journal, which was approved by two priests from the same region and the local police officer! Therefore, it is not difficult to judge how satisfactory the investigative case, which the priest has not opened at all, is; so publicly and strongly accused. This example, unfortunately, strongly proves how abuses prevail in the clergy serving the Cheremis; for the priest Ikonnikov not only was not held accountable for his abuses, but even remains a dean, and after a general confirmation from the Holy Synod to the diocesan bishops about the elimination of deans who are not trustworthy, and after a special confirmation to the Vyatka diocesan authorities about the use of the most faithful people to supervise the clergy of the Cheremis. 4) Together with the report of Archpriest Pokrovsky, dated September 3, a copy was given to the Holy Synod from the decree from the Nolinsky spiritual administration of the Urzhum dean priest Vasily, dated July 24, 1830. This decree spells out the sentence given by the Right Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Vyatka, on the 13th day of July, to the consistory, in which it is written: “During my current journey through the villages of Cheremis, I had the opportunity to hear strong complaints from Cheremis newly baptized about the local clergy, except for the parishes of Shurminsky, Gradsky Urzhum and part of Buysky Arkhangelsk for excessive claims when correcting requirements and collecting They say that in some places they, the newly baptized, represented the very thing to justify their cooling towards the church.” Here the Right Reverend Bishop of Vyatka says the same thing about the Cheremis clergy as the missionary Pokrovsky. According to the exact words of his Eminence, the clergy of only three parishes turned out to be pure - Shurma, Urzhum City and part of Bui Arkhangelsk; the clergy of all other parishes were subjected to strong complaints from the Cheremis for excessive claims. But the investigative file, contradicting the testimony of the Right Reverend himself, says that not a single Cheremis complained about a single priest, and that the parishioners approved of all the priests. If your Eminence deigns to take into account what is stated here, what is contained in the missionary’s reports and what is supported in them by evidence, and finally, what your Eminence directly knows about the local circumstances of the Urzhum clergy from previous years: then, I believe, the least doubtful is the following type of Cheremis mission: In 1829, Archpriest Pokrovsky began and carried out the work of the mission, with the help of God, with such zeal and success, to which the local bishop gave perfect justice, whose exact words were written down by me in the report to the Holy Synod, dated January 29, 1830, No. 38. But after that, passions awoke for which the work of the mission was unprofitable, by the way, the passions of some, and perhaps not a few numbers from the local clergy, whom the mission encouraged to serve more the eternal good of the Cheremis, and less to dominate their temporary goods and to reduce the countless and endless exactions: ruga, Peter's, autumn, bread, hay, flax, wool, butter, chickens, eggs, and which, in truth, I cannot count and name. Therefore, when the missionary appeared again, in 1830, the work of Christian preaching turned 246 into a difficult struggle with tricks and intrigues, the perpetrators of which hid and concealed each other, and which were revealed in the agitation of the minds of the people. The missionary’s report about this and my presentation to the Holy Synod about encouraging the local authorities to open up the ill-intentioned ones did not help those who loved human glory more than the glory of God. The local clergy was more concerned that his honor would be protected than that evil would be removed from his midst. The missionary noticed this and, in order to discover the truth and achieve a useful goal, not seeing hope in anything other than the personal insight and impartiality of His Grace Kirill, Bishop of Vyatka, he rushed to him 300 miles away and begged him to come to the Urzhum district himself. When this did not happen, the missionary remained as if an abandoned person. True, at this very time the Vyatka civil governor expressed confidence in the missionary Pokrovsky, inviting him to go to the Yaran district to check the actions of the local missionaries, but this case also put the missionary in a new difficulty. Not accepting the governor’s offer meant in some way not complying with his power of attorney, and by accepting this offer, the missionary would have been exposed to new difficulties, in a new unknown place, and could even have been accused of extending his actions beyond the limits assigned to him by his spiritual superiors. Thank God he was careful. What to do next in these circumstances? In order to express my opinion on this, I would need to guide myself by hearing the experienced judgment of your Eminence and the opinions of other members of the Holy Synod, and subject my thoughts to your judgments before I firmly establish myself in them. Since my absence deprives me of this important help, I do not dare to say anything more than this: 1) The request of Archpriest Pokrovsky to no longer be sent to the Vyatka mission, related to the attention of the Holy Synod. 2) We still need to convince the Vyatka diocesan authorities so that they try to strengthen their insight, activity and zeal to tame those who do not work for our Lord Jesus Christ, but for their own belly. 3) Although the above-proven insufficiency and incorrectness of the investigative work carried out may naturally give rise to the idea of ​​re-investigation, the experience of an incorrect small investigation before our eyes gives reason for fear that under the same circumstances, through similar people, the large investigation will reveal a little more truth. It is worth noting here that the Yaran police officer, who reported to the Vyatka civil governor about the missionary Pokrovsky’s alleged unfounded demand for the destruction of the Chembulat stone, was transferred to the Urzhum district, where he, of course, could no longer change his way of thinking in relation to the missionary Pokrovsky. Therefore, before deciding on a re-examination, it seems more reliable for the discovery of the truth to request information from the Most Reverend Bishop of Vyatka for consideration by the Holy Synod, who exactly are the priests against whom complaints were brought to him from Cheremis, as can be seen from his proposal to the consistory, and what kind of consideration of these priests he, the Eminence, has carried out, or is still going on, and what he intends to carry out. With deep respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence, gracious archpastor, most humble servant. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 160. April 22 days, 1831 247 30 October. Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal to the Holy Synod on the work of Archimandrite Apollos: “a short narrative about the false patriarch Ignatius” Proposal to the Holy Governing Synod. "Moscow Telegraph", in No. 15, on page 402 and following, printed: a short story about the false patriarch Ignatius 248. In this article on page 406, it is said: “he ordered that in the future the Latins should not be baptized, but only anointed with myrrh, although during the coronation of False Demetrius this rite was not performed.” What is said here about the non-baptism of the Latins, allegedly laid down by the false patriarch Ignatius, is, firstly, false; for this is based on the ancient Orthodox cathedral code; secondly, it is insulting to the Orthodox Church, as if it still follows the code of the false patriarch; thirdly, it is favorable for the schismatics of the rebaptized, who, if they learn this, can reproach the Orthodox for following the code of the false patriarch. There is no need to parse other words in the article. The thoughtless can be tolerated; the harm must stop. The note to this article says that this is an excerpt from a work written by a venerable spiritual person, Archimandrite of the Resurrection Monastery and Cavalier Apollos. It is my duty to bring this to the attention of the Holy Synod and submit it for its consideration. No. 417. October 31, 1831 The Holy Synod, on October 30, determined: the Moscow Holy Synod office should order by decree that Archimandrite Apollos 250 of the Resurrection Monastery was confirmed not to submit his works in the future, either in whole, or in parts, or in fragments, to print, without first examining them in spiritual censorship 251 . The case of the Muscovites. synod. offices, 1831, No. 72 (49); l. 1 and 2. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 1471, part 1, up to 1834, pp. 439–441. The missionary's testimony is not included. The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 1471, part 1, up to 1834; l. 427–433. Ignatius, a Greek, who came to Russia as Archbishop of Cyprus, under Tsar Boris Feodorovich, in 1595, was made Metropolitan of Ryazan in 1602, and on June 30, 1605, False Demetrius elevated him to the rank of All-Russian Patriarch, in place of Job, imprisoned in the Staritsa monastery. Having ascended the royal throne in 1606, Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky deposed Ignatius and sent him to prison, but he fled to Poland. About him, see vol. I, p. 427, approx. 1. Files of the archive of the Holy Synod, 1831, No. 133, and the Moscow Holy Synod office, 1831, No. 27 (204).