1838 г.

February 23. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the subject of the harassment of the dissenters of the Perm diocese about granting them the right to elect priests and deacons from all dioceses and to carry out all correspondence about them with the spiritual authorities through the chief head of the mining factories The dissenters, in a letter to the chief commander of the mining factories, propose a new way to obtain priests for themselves, which consists of the following: 1) Let them choose priests and deacons from all dioceses. 2) The mountain chief must take information from the diocesan bishops about who will be elected and authorize its acceptance. 3) These priests and deacons are under his authority. 4) The spiritual authorities can receive information about the metrics of these priests from the mountain chief. 5) Allow schismatics to send away a priest or deacon who, due to his actions, turns out to be unnecessary to them. 6) The schismatics sincerely wish to have the chief manager of the mining factories as a patron in their affairs, following the example of civil governors. Since this proposal of the schismatics to the boss whom they approached already seemed plausible, it will require all the more careful consideration. To do this, you need to take into account the following: 1) The schismatics, with this new assumption, do not accept the name co-religionists. From this it is clear that their intention is to remain, as before, in the form of a society separate from the church, and therefore, as before, to be at enmity against the church and, if possible, to tear the Orthodox away from it. If they have succeeded in this through the power of wealth and social connections until now, when the non-recognition of their priests by the government more or less hinders and humiliates them, then, without a doubt, they should fear an increase in corruption when their priesthood receives the appearance of legitimacy before the civil authorities. 2) Five Ekaterinburg schismatic leaders (for there were only five original subscribers to the letter, and thirteen signed later, for some reason) ask for the right to choose priests from all Russian dioceses. The right is very extensive and unprecedented. The courage with which the five dissenters assign rights to themselves is amazing. 3) When the schismatics choose a priest and deacon for themselves, then, at their request, the civil commander must ask the diocesan bishop only to provide information about the fact that the chosen one is not on trial, and to expel him from his department. If in this way the schismatics take from the bishop whomever they want, without caring whether he agrees to dismiss him, then this again will be an unparalleled right and incompatible with the improvement of administration. To disrupt discipline in any department, it is difficult to invent a means as effective as opening the way for subordinates to leave the authority of their boss, without even asking him, and move to where it is more profitable, where there is more will and less supervision and reporting. This method is already being used by schismatics against church discipline, accepting fugitive priests, and now they are even trying to legitimize this method. 4) If we assume that the rules proposed by the schismatics will be in effect, and that the schismatics, on the basis of these, will take a priest from the bishop through a certain authority to a certain place: according to the rules of the church, the bishop should not remain an inactive spectator of this case. According to the 15th Apostolic Canon and the 3rd Council of Antioch, the bishop must demand back a priest who has left the authority of his list, and in case of non-return, declare him deprived of all priestly ministry and the rank itself. If the bishop does not fulfill this, then he will act contrary to the rules of the church; and if it is fulfilled, then the civil authorities will be in conflict with the spiritual authorities, recognizing as a valid priest and patronizing among the schismatics the one whom the spiritual authorities consider deprived of the rank. 5) The dependence of schismatic priests on the schismatics themselves and on the secular authorities and independence from the spiritual is an inconsistency, which, of necessity, must be followed by other inconsistencies. Who, for example, will see to it that these priests do not solemnize marriages during childhood, in kinship, with living wives or husbands, so that they do not bury the murdered, without informing the police? The mining chief cannot do this personally. So, should the secular superior determine deanship over schismatic priests? Should schismatic spiritual boards be established? One way or another, things will come to the point that schismatics will form their own, special kind of spiritual government mixed with secular ones; The schismatics, who are now just a crowd, will little by little organize themselves into a separate society with special forms, which is what they strive for, and which will not only separate them forever from the church, but will also be unfavorable to another kind of unity, because they strive for democratic forms. 6. The schismatics’ demand for the right to send away a priest or deacon if they do not need him for some action is nothing more than a demand for the authority to exercise arbitrariness. A priest, subordinate to the spiritual authorities, is sued for improper actions, and if he is dissatisfied with the local court, he can transfer the case to the higher authorities. The schismatics want the right to impeach a priest without trial or to judge him themselves, and without appeal. The first crime for which a priest will suffer in this way, without a doubt, will be when he shows a disposition towards rapprochement with Orthodoxy or refuses the so-called correction among schismatics, that is, the ritual of accepting schismatics into society, combined with curses on the Orthodox Church. 7. This correction must be taken into account here. If a priest who goes over to the schismatics refuses it, he will not be accepted by them; and if he allows this to happen to himself, he will become an apostate from the church. The pious government is undoubtedly not disposed to legitimize an order that would directly lead a priest to apostasy from the church. Perhaps they think that the schismatics will probably agree not to make corrections. But if they were inclined to agree not to make corrections or, which is the same, not to condemn the Orthodox Church under the name of Nikonian heretics, then there would be no reason for them not to accept the name of co-religionists; but they don’t want this. Until they agree to be called co-religionists, even a promise not to make corrections, if they did it in words, will only mean an intention to do it secretly, why it is impossible for the authorities to see. Consequently, the order requested by the schismatics would directly lead the priests into temptation to act against the priestly conscience. Can any good or benefit be based on such a beginning? 8) If schismatics are allowed to send away a priest they have taken, who for some reason they dislike, then what will they have to do with him after this? To deprive him of his dignity without a spiritual court would be contrary to the general legal order. It would be inconvenient for the spiritual authorities to conduct research and judgment on him; because the actions that are subject to judgment were done by schismatics, and schismatics do not want to allow any word or action of the spiritual authorities to reach them. What to do? If we simply returned him to the Orthodox diocese, this would be difficult, harmful, and unseemly for the dioceses. For would it not mean giving free rein to schismatics to take from the dioceses what they like, and throw what is unsuitable for them back into the dioceses, as into a defenseless and disrespected place? 9) If the rules on priests now proposed by schismatics are compared with the well-known secret rules of 1822, it turns out that they require not only the same, but also much more. For before they took those who were apostatizing from the church into schism on the sly, and the government turned a blind eye to this, just as if they were stealing from the law, but now they want to take the same priests openly and formally, and give this lawlessness of the priests the appearance of legality. Previously, due to the type of need, they only tolerated priests; now they ask for deacons as well. 10) It is regrettable to see how daringly schismatics rely on the lack of insight of their superiors. They know that the government's goal is to bring them closer to the Orthodox hierarchy. They don’t want this, but they have to pretend that they are not completely against it. For this purpose, they inserted an insincere article into their rules that the secular boss can give information to the spiritual authorities about schismatic metrics and about the priests coming to them and leaving them, and they think that they will be deceived by this specter of rapprochement, while they do not concede to the spiritual authorities either a trial, or supervision over their priests, or even the right to call and ask their priest what may be needed in matters of business. From all these considerations it follows that, both to preserve the good and tranquility of the Orthodox Church, and equally to preserve the good and tranquility of the state, the articles proposed by the dissenters must be instilled in them so that they will refrain from ideas that are so incompatible with legal order and improvement. In April. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on measures to reduce the production of cases of schismatics It cannot be disputed that the increasing number of cases of those who have fallen away from the church, and the burdensome demands of some diocesan authorities regarding cases of this kind, especially set out in the submission of the Tambov civil governor, rightly attracted the attention and care of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. From this, naturally, the question arises: what measures should be taken to reduce the number of cases and to limit the unnecessary requirements for them? These measures can be either general and widespread, or private, directed only at those authorities whose actions are observed to be burdensome or incorrect. If the goal of making things easier and easier for people can be achieved by private measures, without using general ones, this course of action deserves preference not only for the general reasoning that the fewer means the goal is achieved, the better, but also for special considerations related to this type of matter, which are the following: 1) Since the matter is about limiting the action of local authorities on those who have fallen away from the church, then, in the case of a general and ubiquitous instruction about this, one can most likely fear that the local lower authorities will not quite accurately understand the order and weaken their action in circumstances requiring vigilance and firmness, and those who are inclined to please schismatics in any way will receive a plausible excuse for this. 2) The schismatic leaders, who by the firmness of the government in the adopted rules are now stopping attempts in favor of schisms, and all the more closely looking out for opportunities to renew them, will take from such an order a reason to assure those they lead of a change in the system of government, and will resume their efforts to maintain and spread schisms. These fears are all the more valid since, according to repeated experiments and conclusions, secret orders of the government do not hide from the surveillance of schismatic actors. If, with these considerations, we turn to the cases that have attracted the attention of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, we can assume the following measures: 1) Regarding the cases noticed in the Olonets and Perm provinces, since orders have already been made against the multiplication of cases and against immoderate actions, it would be possible not to proceed with new orders, waiting to see if what has been done will be sufficient. 2) In the Tambov province, as the required production of 517 investigations is obviously burdensome and, with full probability, it can be assumed that there are many unnecessary requirements, but, based on the vague designation of the objects of investigation, one cannot be sure that all of them are not needed, but on the contrary, by the sheer number of them, one can conclude that there are among them necessary and legal ones, the destruction of which would not be in accordance with the law and would embolden the illegal ones actors: then it would be fair and useful to instruct the Tambov Eminence 299 and the civil governor: a) to hold a secret personal meeting about all these matters, which of them should be carried out and which should be destroyed. b) The basis for judging this is that only such cases should be assigned for proceedings in which a clear violation of existing laws is announced, accompanied by harmful consequences, and cases of actions that fit the rules of tolerance, and denunciations of cases leading to a burden on the office work of public places and affected people, without important consequences, should be destroyed. c) Moreover, since the demands were burdensome on the part of the diocesan authorities, it would not be unnecessary for the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod 300 to advise the Eminence of Tambov, at the proposed meeting, not to be insistent; since the essential duty of the ministers of the church is to act on those who are in error with the word of persuasion, and the use of power and court in relation to them belongs to the government and subordinate civil authorities. 3) According to the demands of the Right Reverend Tambov about forcing the Molokans into the houses of priests, taking away young children from the Molokans for baptism, about the resettlement of the Molokans and similar demands, partly embarrassing, partly exceeding the power of the provincial authorities, partly not based on the law, let the civil governor respond why these demands cannot be fulfilled 301, and put the Right Reverend Tambov on caution so that he claims not based on the law were withheld; in case of a special need, measures not defined in the law, he submitted to the Holy Synod for consideration, without complicating the provincial government with his demands. 4) As a precaution against the multiplication of cases from the actions of subordinate ecclesiastical places and persons, His Eminence the Metropolitan of Novgorod could secretly explain to all diocesan eminences that in some provinces a multiplication of cases has been noticed regarding people belonging to different sects and schisms, which, among other things, stems from the imprudence of denunciations of clergy and the relations of subordinate places of diocesan administration, done without the knowledge of the diocesan authorities. In order to avert burdensome and useless paperwork, each bishop would give secret instructions to the consistory, ecclesiastical boards, deans and clergy, so that denunciations of illegal actions of sectarians and schismatics and measures against them should not be made to the secular authorities, but reported and presented to their diocesan bishop. The Right Reverend Bishops would carefully consider such denunciations and representations, and would only give effect to those that were thorough and legitimate, and would not at all allow paperwork that was unnecessarily burdensome. These restrained measures, it seems, will be sufficient to stop the too strict application of the rule about not allowing Molokan meetings in special prefabricated huts. Since the actions proposed here have the appearance of more specific rather than general orders of the provincial and diocesan authorities, rather than legislative and government measures: one can hope that they will be less noticed by sectarians and schismatics, and will not give them the opportunity to dissuade their like-minded people of the firmness of the rules adopted by the government 302. July 11. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the audit of the Moscow Theological Academy Report to the Holy Governing Synod, on the commission of theological schools. In pursuance of the decision of the commission of theological schools, dated May 20 of this year, for the immediate review of the Moscow Theological Academy, in terms of training, it was desirable for me to take direct part in the preliminary testing of students, but, due to the confluence of various urgent matters of service, it was not possible to win for that time, as can be seen from the following testimony of days and affairs. June 25 was a highly solemn day, before which I could not leave Moscow, and the 26 was Sunday. 27 and 28 an open test was carried out at the Theological Academy. 29 – holiday; however, in the afternoon hours a conference meeting was held to consider the essays of the students written during the course and during the tests, to consider how they performed in the preliminary and open tests, and as evidenced by the mentors, to determine, for all these reasons, the personal and comparative dignity of each and to compile, thus, a decisive rank list. On the 30th day, in another meeting of the conference, the same matter was continued. July 1 was a highly solemn day, but in the afternoon there was a third meeting of the conference, in which the compilation of the rank list was completed. On the 2nd day I remained without use due to my painful condition. On July 3, Sunday, 4 and 5, on the occasion of the feast of St. Sergius, there was no time for other matters from church activities. 6 and 7, an open test at the Bethany seminary, which had to be completed earlier than usual in order to make it convenient for the Bethany rector 303 to depart in time for the review of the Penza seminary entrusted to him. Meanwhile, in the evening hours of the 6th and 7th days, I inspected the academic writing department, the archive, the library, the dining room with its accessories, and the new building, and began to review the lessons written by some mentors, which continued on the 8th and 9th days. In order, if possible, to replenish my non-existence during the preliminary test at the academy, I instructed a member of the conference, the Kazan Cathedral, Archpriest Sergius 304, who was elected by the conference as a deputy for the preliminary test in theology, to keep written comments about the students being tested, and these comments were subsequently taken into consideration when drawing up a decisive rank list; and the open test, on the first day of the test, I continued for five hours and 20 minutes, and in such a way that all this time was used for the oral test of the students, and the proposed reading of essays, to increase the time of the oral test, was canceled, and the essays, in printed copies, were distributed to visitors. The review I have made, if possible, presents the academy in general in a state of improvement. The spirit of attention and diligence to their work, obedience and meekness, which animates the leaders and students, and communicated to the students, gives the entire composition of the academy a peaceful harmony. The strictly spiritual sciences are taught in general in accordance with the purpose of the school, and the teaching of the secular sciences introduced into the course of the Theological Academy does not represent anything contrary to the direction of the strictly spiritual sciences. I paid special attention to the teaching of dogmatic theology, which should primarily confirm those being taught in Orthodoxy. The rector of the academy taught it mostly from his own lessons. In order to better verify the merits of these lessons, in addition to what I heard from them during testing, I examined them at home, and found that the Orthodox dogmas were presented in them correctly; biblical evidence is presented clearly; exposition of church dogmas in the writings of St. Father and the definitions of the councils are indicated with correct consistency and completeness; correct comments and refutations are given to the most remarkable opinions of the wrong-minded. This work gives hope that during the next course of study it will be completed and can be strengthened for classical use. The class of reading the Holy Scriptures is also guided by written lessons, some previously compiled, partly compiled again, which contain information that is thorough and laboriously collected. From these lessons, over time, a guidebook can also be compiled. The students themselves wrote, as directed by their mentor, interpretations of some parts of the sacred books. Hermeneutics is taught from a classic book. Through the teacher of this part, facilitated by a classic book, it was found possible to make the experience of teaching biblical archeology possible. Some of the lessons on this subject were written by him. It is necessary to continue this experience in order to more decisively determine the degree of benefit from this part of the teaching. Active theology was taught based on previously compiled notes, which were partly continued by the teacher of this course. The doctrine of the shepherd of the church is taught according to lessons, partly compiled previously, partly by the continued work of the current teacher. Church eloquence is taught in a similar way. The current teacher owns special notes on the eloquence of the church fathers. Church biblical and church history are taught using classic books. Regarding the latter, the teacher wrote several of his own notes. He occupied students quite a bit with essays on his subject, especially with the compilation of biographies of some holy fathers, pointing out to them the primary sources for these works. From this came several biographies of significant size, which, if not yet processed to perfection, but, without a doubt, brought considerable benefit to the writers, multiplying, confirming and diversifying their knowledge about the life of the holy fathers and the details of church history. Philosophical sciences are taught from notes, partly previously compiled, partly compiled by the teacher. The nature of philosophical teaching in the academy seems to be as consistent with the essence of sound philosophy as it is adapted to the purpose of the theological school. Meanwhile, as foundations are laid in it by reason and experience, the limits of this knowledge and its insufficiency are shown, and thus the path to knowledge from the revelation of the divine is paved, and modest philosophy becomes the servant of true religion. The teaching of general literature is taught according to the teacher’s own notes, in which it is adapted to the place of teaching. General and Russian history was taught using classical books, and in some parts the teacher tried to make the teaching more entertaining through his notes. In the Hebrew and Greek languages, the test shows satisfied success. An active incentive for this is given in theological lessons, in which the sayings of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers are often, for greater accuracy, given in the original languages, and are explained according to the strength of the original text. In the French language class, the famous book of the language was translated, the famous book of Boten was translated: philosophy of Christianity, in volumes. In mathematics and German I was only a spectator of the test, and not a tester. However, I have no reason to doubt the success, according to the testimony of mentors and conferences. The physics test was interesting. It is worthy of attention that students engage in their own compositions. The most active, in two years, composed 9 discussions, or other works, some of them quite lengthy, and 6 sermons, not including in this number three short discussions written during the preliminary test. All these works were reviewed by mentors at one time and approved according to their merits, and some were sent for correction and reviewed a second time. In response to the observation that some students had a smaller number of essays, an explanation was given to me that some, having occupied themselves with one lengthy essay, sometimes missed the subsequent subject assigned for the essay. On this occasion, it is advised that, without restricting the freedom of students in their studies especially with any subject for processing it in a lengthy form, it should nevertheless be required from them, for the purpose following that, although a brief discussion, so that the general order is observed, and the admission of omission does not represent a form of inattention to the instructional purpose. However, in what respect the exercise of students in composition is now accepted, the commission of theological schools is pleased to see from the fact that the last two students in the rank list of the highest department are not presented for the master’s degree, due to a lack of exercise in their own composition, although they, however, are not unsuccessful in the sciences and are worthy of approval in morality. To this information about the state of the Academy as a scientist, I consider it not superfluous to add some other considerations: To assess the state of academic writing, I asked for journals of conferences, both external and internal academic boards, and found them in good order. From these journals, I saw, among other things, that the monthly certificate of academic amounts was produced in a timely manner and was entered into the journal accurately. Entering the academic archive, I demanded an inventory, and opening it, I demanded one file. It was immediately shown to me. Bringing the academic archive into order, more satisfactory than before, took place under the current rector of the academy. I am enclosing a special list and certificates about the leaders and students. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. leaders and students at the Moscow Theological Academy, with certificates I testify: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow The Commission of Theological Schools, in its journal on December 23, 1838, among other things, decided: to express gratitude on behalf of the commission to Eminence Philaret for fulfilling the assignment entrusted to him 320 . In November. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the issue of training clergy in medicine In assumptions about the structure of the rural clergy, it is recognized as not superfluous for priests to study the general principles of medicine, so that they can give advice on the use of medicines and guide people who will be specially prepared to look after the sick and to carry out priestly instructions, by order of the Ministry of State Property. The following preliminary information and considerations are presented for judging this subject: 1) This thought has already occupied the government before; and even at the beginning of this century an experiment was made to put it into action. The teaching of medicine was introduced in theological academies and seminaries; but this measure did not bring the desired consequences and was abandoned. Not a single priest was seen who became a doctor, and several students of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, attracted by the news of the subject and the encouragement of the teacher, became doctors, but no longer wanted to remain in the clergy. 2) It is more difficult to be satisfied with the study of general principles in medicine than in other sciences. Human life becomes a victim of superficial knowledge of medicine and the erroneous application of this knowledge. 3) To study the principles of medicine, in any thorough way, one cannot do without knowledge of anatomy; but the teaching of this subject, usually combined with experiments in corpse dissection, besides which would require burdensome benefits for numerous diocesan schools, is so out of harmony with spiritual teaching and seems so strange to the understanding of the common people and natural feeling that the villagers may be afraid of the priest when they hear that he cut up the dead at the school. 4) The village doctor especially often needs knowledge of surgery; but the priest cannot perform surgical actions involving the shedding of blood, because the helmsman of the book, second part, chapter 49, he, as a minister of a bloodless sacrifice, is forbidden to even shed the blood of an animal slaughtered for food. 5) It can be objected to that such actions will be performed by people whom the ministry intends to train. But if they are quite skilled in performing surgical operations, they can do without the guidance of a priest; if they are unskillful, then they will need not a verbal mentor, but an actioner. 6) It is worthy of note that so far no foreign government has undertaken, as a general measure, to combine in one person the office of a village priest and a doctor. But if this is not found convenient for the clergy of other Christian confessions, then how much more so for the Orthodox clergy, whose duties, both liturgical and other, are more numerous and extensive than in other confessions. 7) If what is required of priests is only to use medical books published for the people, then just as these medical books, for example by Dr. Kamenetsky, were written precisely so that the uneducated could use them, there is no need for special teaching for priests, but only an incentive to use these medical books, which have already been sent out to the churches. 8) But if the priest is dissuaded from such an impulse by fear, so that, instead of consoling him to help his suffering neighbor, in the event of unsuccessful treatment, he will not suffer a burden on his conscience, or a reproach, so common even for skilled doctors, when the treatment ends in death, and so that by engaging in outside activities he will not damage the goodwill of the parishioners, so necessary for his essential service: this excuse will not be easy to refute. 9) Finally, even if it were not yet impossible to show medicine hospitality in the circle of spiritual sciences and priestly duties: it cannot be denied, at least, that considerations about the possibility and compatibility of receiving a guest can be reliably made only by the owner, that is, by the spiritual authorities 321. November 22. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the issue of training the clergy in agriculture According to the assumptions of the Ministry of State Property, it is considered very useful for rural priests to have information on agriculture: 1) in order to at least not be inferior to the people whose education is entrusted to them, and 2) to improve their maintenance through improvement in the cultivation of church land. The following considerations are presented for judging this subject: 1) A priest who is enlightened in the faith, reverent in worship, honest in life, and with diligence and love of mankind performs the affairs of his office for the parishioners, will not be inferior to them because he has little knowledge of agriculture. One who does not have the above qualities cannot improve his knowledge of agriculture. 2) Experience shows that priests, who are more educated, turn out to be less inclined to engage in agriculture, using their time for other activities according to their ability, such as: teaching parishioners, teaching children, admonishing those who have deviated from the church; and those who lay their hands on the ralo often lose the book from their hands, and the perfection of the farmer increases by stealing from the perfection of the priest. 3) So, it is not necessary to teach the future priest agriculture either so that he would not be inferior to the parishioners, or so that he could better cultivate the church land, but perhaps so that, having become a mentor in a rural school, he could teach agriculture to the children of parishioners. 4) For this purpose, the commission of theological schools needs to consider whether the doctrine of agriculture can be introduced into the range of educational subjects for rural priests preparing for the position, without restricting other subjects of knowledge that are essential for a priest? 5) In particular, it is necessary to obtain information from the Ministry of Education whether in Russia the teaching about agriculture and agriculture has reached that certainty and practical fidelity so that it can be taught to the villagers in a simple and easily applied manner, without theories and systems that exceed peasant education and whose unsuccessful application sometimes ruins both the educated and the rich, and without mixing established experiments with those that, having been made in a different climate, are unreliable for use and may even be harmful. It is necessary to know by what guidance and what books this teaching could be taught. Conclusion of Metropolitan Philaret, written by him on behalf of the Holy Synod, on issues of teaching: a) medicine and b) agriculture in theological schools I. Regarding the teaching of medicine in theological schools, the Holy Synod took into account: 1) That, in the opinion of the medical council, it is impossible to give spiritual youth a thorough medical education in seminaries; and education, not quite thorough, would have achieved its goal, that is, it would not have gained confidence in the priests - doctors, and would not have benefited the parishioners - the sick. 2) That the medical council’s proposed teaching of certain parts of medicine to seminary students, with explanations at the bedsides of the sick, and their treatment in the hospital for at least a year, is impracticable, both due to the multitude of these students, and because too much would distract them from engaging in essential subjects of spiritual teaching. 3) That the conviction of such inconveniences is supported by the lack of an example of any foreign government attempting to combine in one person the positions of a village priest and a village doctor, although the position of a parish priest in other confessions involves less work and occupation than the position of an Orthodox priest. 4) That the experiment made in this way by the Russian government at the beginning of this century did not have the desired success; because of the students of theological academies and seminaries who were then studying medicine, those who entered the clergy did not become doctors, and not many who received an inclination for medical science did not remain in the clergy. And therefore, with the most zealous desire to comply with the beneficial views of the government on this subject, only the following seems possible for the spiritual authorities: 1) Just as before, a simple folk medicine book was distributed among the rural clergy, so in the future, if the best guide in this regard is published again, it will be distributed among the rural clergy and among theological schools for home reading. 2) Encourage, as far as possible, students and rural clergy to acquire medical knowledge from books of this kind, verify and supplement it through consultation with doctors on occasion, and use it for the benefit of parishioners. 3) In particular, to use clerics for smallpox vaccination, and for this purpose, at the end of each academic year, for students dismissed from seminaries to clergy positions, and partly for the clerics to open a short course on smallpox vaccination at the seminary. II. Concerning the doctrine of agriculture, the Holy Synod took into account: 1) That the extensive teaching of this teaching according to the program drawn up by Prince Odoevsky, as recognized by the scientific committee of the Ministry of State Property, does not seem necessary, useful, or even possible for theological schools. 2) That there is no textbook yet for the abbreviated teaching of this teaching according to Mr. Usov’s program. 323 3) That, if a short and intelligible manual on this subject is compiled, it will be possible to make an experience of teaching it in seminaries, without much fear of hampering other subjects of teaching. 1) Expect the compilation of a short educational book on agriculture. 2) When it is compiled, then introduce its reading in seminaries under the guidance of one of the professors, with instructions to him to strengthen his knowledge in this subject by reading other works on it and through relations with knowledgeable and experienced people 324. November 24. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the issue of a tax for the maintenance of the rural clergy and about benefits for this from the land The Ministry of State Property proposes, in return for the payment of demands, to collect from 19,571,666 souls belonging to rural parishes a tax of 30 kopecks each. The note says that this number probably does not include schismatics, but they too must pay. This subject has many sides and touches that are not easy to observe and even more difficult to free from inconvenience. 1) If the government decides to assign an annual salary to a village priest, then it is necessary that this salary significantly provide his daily bread, so that he is not too afraid of the scarcity of other, uncertain and incorrect benefits for his maintenance, and, without being exposed to extremes, can maintain the character of unselfishness. But if the above-mentioned collection from the above-mentioned number of souls is divided into 25,000 rural church clergy, then the salary of a whole clergy will extend to 234 rubles, and consequently the annual salary of a priest will be 117 rubles, a deacon 58 rubles, a clergyman 29 rubles. 2) A note about the likelihood that schismatics were not included in the count of souls leads to the conclusion that the number 19571666 souls was borrowed from church documents. But in these documents, for example, in confessional books, schismatics are mostly taken into account. Therefore, there is no likelihood that the number of paying souls will increase significantly. 3) But if 19571666 is the number of rural parishioners in general, then there is no doubt that this number includes some who do not pay taxes, for example, landowners, and some who do not belong to peasant societies, for example, merchants and burghers living in rural parishes. This should lead to many questions and confusion. Should the landowner also pay a tax to maintain the clergy, or why will he use the clergy’s service for free, having the same need for it as the peasants? Should a merchant living in a village pay a tax for the maintenance of a clergy, when a merchant living in a city does not pay this tax? Since many peasants live in cities or in suburban villages, and belong to urban parishes, will these also pay taxes for the rural clergy, who do not serve them, and meanwhile, as was still the custom, the urban clergy of their parish were supported by donations for services, and therefore performed one duty twice? 4) In the ministry’s assumptions, based on approximate calculations, it is concluded that the annual salary of a clergyman, the fee for a position in a rural school and the income from church land amount to more than 700 rubles per year per clergyman. If we accept this calculation as correct, then the priest receives more than 350 rubles to support himself and his family. per year, deacon more than 150 rubles, clergyman more than 75 rubles. per year. The income from prayer services should be added to this a little, especially in parishes of the poor and sparsely populated, and especially when the generosity of giving for prayer services will be reduced in the peasant by the thought that he pays a tax for the priest and that the priest has an annual salary. And this calculation does not fully convince that the rural clergy will be provided with decent maintenance. 5) But 300 rubles taken into account in this calculation. fees for a position in a rural school cannot be considered a permanent item in this calculation. In another parish there will be no school; therefore, there will be no school salary. Another priest, due to old age or other reasons, will not be a village teacher; therefore, he will not receive a teacher’s salary. 6) Income from land in some places can be very significant and form the main basis for maintaining a clergy. But there are not many such places. On the contrary, there are quite a few places where the income from land is very insignificant, partly because the land is not allocated to the church in full legal quantity, or is inconvenient, or partly it is in the possession of others, partly because many priests do not cultivate the land themselves, but give it away for a small annual fee. A way to give the rural clergy a reliable allowance for maintenance without much difficulty for the authorities would be: a) that the Ministry of State Property take decisive and urgent measures to satisfy the church with a legal amount of land of legal quality; b) so that it takes this entire land, or only the priestly and deacon’s share, under its jurisdiction and adds it to public arable land; c) so that, instead of the products of public plowing, he assigns to the members of the clergy who gave their land such an amount of provisions and fodder that would correspond to the products of the land taken from them and the need to support them with their families. Metropolitan Philaret’s thoughts on the spiritual authorities’ own methods of supporting rural priests In the assumptions of the Ministry of State Property, in order to provide the rural clergy with sufficient maintenance, it agrees with the essence of this need to turn to the own methods of the spiritual authorities, especially since for this purpose the ecclesiastical department has been granted the right to sell church candles. When reviewing this subject, the following is presented to your attention: 1) The exclusive right to sell church candles was granted to the spiritual authorities for two needs: firstly, for the maintenance of theological schools, which is why the income from this right is highly entrusted to the order of the commission of theological schools; secondly, for the maintenance of the parish clergy, and not just rural clergy and those serving in state-owned villages, but all city and rural clergy in general. 2) According to calculations made in 1808, it was necessary to have an annual income of over 6,000,000 rubles to satisfy these two needs; at the present time, even this income would be far from enough, and yet against this income, contrary to calculation, it does not amount to 1,000,000 rubles of candle income, and 2,000,000 rubles, which were supposed to be released from the treasury. It is obvious that the methods of the commission of theological schools are insufficient to meet the volume of needs; and just as the parish clergy can, albeit with difficulty, exist without benefits, or only with some private benefits from the commission of theological schools, and theological schools could not exist at all, it is also clear why the commission of theological schools supports all theological schools in general in the ways entrusted to it, and only partly helps the maintenance of the clergy, issuing class salaries to members of the white clergy who have academic degrees, auxiliary salaries to some poor clergy, 150,000 annually for widows and orphans of clergy, up to 50,000 rubles. annually as an allowance to the white clergy, on the occasion of devastation from fires, and at different times and in different amounts, releasing sums for the construction of houses for religious schools, for the construction of churches and the construction or purchase of houses for clergy and clergy, for passing money and benefits for the clergy transferred to dioceses in need of people, and so on. 3) The commission of theological schools has 50,000,000 capital. Not only are all of his percentages already allocated without reserve to the annual indispensable expenses of her department, but about 1,400,000 rubles are still missing each year; Consequently, this capital has already been used, and the income from it, as already allocated for essential needs, does not exist for any new orders 4) The commission of theological schools has about 2,000,000 rubles. annual income from candles. From this income in the past year, expenses included a balance that amounted to 844,376 rubles; but in the current year 1838 there can hardly be more than 160,000 rubles left. 5) Due to the scarcity of the previous school buildings of the religious department, due to the increasing number of students, and partly to open new schools, the commission of theological schools will need to spend huge amounts of money on school buildings alone for many years. It has already been proposed, to the extent possible, to begin constructing buildings for seminaries: in Moscow, Minsk, Tver, Vladimir, Pskov, Irkutsk, Kharkov, Ekaterinoslavl, Kursk, Odessa, Simbirsk, Penza. For some of these constructions, the highest orders have already been issued, the fulfillment of which will require up to 1,500,000 rubles next year. 6) Although the salaries of officials at theological schools have not been elevated for a long time, from a comparison of these salaries with the salaries of secular schools it is not difficult to see that this need of theological schools is not fully satisfied. As for the salaries for the maintenance of students, how they remain at the same position in 1820, and how, meanwhile, the number of students in general, and among them the poor, requiring benefits, is constantly increasing and therefore theological seminaries and lower schools necessarily present a type of poverty and a lack of correct uniformity in economic matters related to the maintenance, clothing and housing of students: then this subject strongly calls for the attention of the authorities, and therefore only help in this It turns out little by little and slowly that the need exceeds the methods of the commission of theological schools. 7) From this it is not difficult to see that the own methods of the ecclesiastical department not only do not represent a new, possible source for the maintenance of rural priests in state-owned villages, but that one should not be surprised if they do not provide funds for the opening in theological schools of new departments of some secular sciences, for special types of the Ministry of State Property. 8) A significant increase in candle income cannot be expected in the future because, through the careful supervision and encouragement of the commission of theological schools, it has already been significantly strengthened compared to the previous one. If we can guess that in some churches some of the candle money remains, then it is impossible to pursue this to the last extreme, along the way. The petty and indefinite circulation of candle money occurs in the hands of the church warden at times when the clergy is busy with their duties in the church, and therefore they cannot save every mite, although they are disposed to act in accordance with the views of the authorities, knowing that the collection of this money is used in favor of the clergy themselves and their children. It may even not be a detriment to the candle operation that the elder of another poor church will buy incense or red wine with candle money; for otherwise, due to poverty, there would be fewer services and, consequently, there would be less candle turnover. If anything could be done to provide further assistance to this turnover, it would be through strict persecution of the retail sale of candles in shops, and in schismatic chapels and houses, but this is not in the power of the clergy 326. In the note of the Minister of State Property, in an article containing new assumptions regarding the maintenance of the rural clergy, the following methods are explained from which amounts can be borrowed for the salaries of clergy: 1) The assignment of a certain amount from the spiritual department’s own sources, with 50 m. rubles belonging to the commission of theological schools indicated, and 2 m. rubles. candle income coming annually to her disposal. 2) Payment for the appointment of teachers in parish schools, estimated at 300 rubles. per year for each. 3) Income from lands allocated to churches, which are estimated at 825,000 dessiatines. 4) Monetary collection, in lieu of payment for services, based on the first time from 19571666 souls belonging to rural parishes, 30 k. from each soul. Amounts from these four sources are supposed to be used to support 25 thousand clergy and, according to approximate calculations, an income of more than 700 rubles is derived. per year per approx. A closer look at these assumptions reveals: 1) The capital of about 50 million rubles at the disposal of the commission of theological schools, on which the interest has a specific purpose, mainly for the maintenance of theological schools, should be considered inviolable capital; because this percentage (up to 2,765,000 rubles) is far from sufficient to cover the intended costs. This deficiency extends annually to 1,400,000 rubles, and the commission makes up for it from candle income. Although there are residuals from this last income every year, and the note from the Minister of State Property indicates 844,376 rubles. 16 k., included in capital for 1838, however, such significant balances should not be assumed in advance, due to many expenses already earmarked. Thus, in the current year 1838, the balance will hardly extend to more than 160 thousand rubles. In the future, 1839, there will be a need to spend a certain part of the reserve capital on the construction, according to the highest orders, of buildings for seminaries: St. Petersburg, Moscow and Minsk, for which up to 1,500,000 rubles will be required, after the funds already made for the local seminary. Regardless of this, it is planned to begin, as far as possible, the construction of buildings: in Tver, Vladimir, Pskov, Irkutsk, Kharkov, Ekaterinoslavl, Kursk, Odessa, Simbirsk, Penza and many other places, which will require at least 10 million rubles. The need for such a huge sum for buildings alone proves the complete impossibility of allocating any part of the commission’s capital to the maintenance of parishes, in accordance with the assumption of the Ministry of State Property. To this it must be added that the commission has in mind, in addition to the above, many other needs for the ecclesiastical school administration, the satisfaction of which will require significant sums, such as, for example, the rise of school staff, and therefore it will soon be faced with the need to apply to the account of the state treasury for certain expenses allocated to its capital, such as: for the construction of churches, for the care of the poor of the clergy, for benefits for the ruined, for the occasion fires, for clergy runs, for auxiliary salaries, etc. Such expenses can reach up to 500 thousand rubles. per year. 2) The second method for maintaining the clergy, that is, a salary of 300 rubles. per year, for teachers in parish schools, in the present case can hardly be taken into account, because it is necessary first to determine from what sources the amount required for this salary is supposed to be borrowed, which will be very significant if schools are established in the majority of rural parishes. Consequently, the above assumption is not a means of acquiring money for a salary, but only a subject of new expenses. 3) Considering the 3rd method for maintaining clergy, i.e. income from lands allocated to churches, first of all it is necessary to resolve the question: what part should this income replace in the estimated salary of 700 rubles. for every clergy? For this, a lot of information is needed, the most important of which are: a detailed description of all church lands, an assessment of field and other works, and information about at least five years of income. Since it will take a lot of time to obtain this information, then, with the general consideration of improving the maintenance of the rural clergy, income from church lands, of necessity, should be excluded from the number of methods intended for this. If, in addition, we take into account that the expected content of 700 rubles. for each clergy not only does not represent an excess, but can hardly serve as a means of satisfying the most necessary needs in the life of the clergy, burdened, for the most part, with a large family, then, in fairness, all lands should be left for the benefit of the clergy without any offset of the income received, in the form of a general benefit from a caring government, both due to the actual need and the inconvenience of bringing these incomes to light in 25,000 plots of land. 4) For this reason, the proposed collection of 30 kopecks from 19,571,666 souls belonging to rural parishes alone can be considered a positive way to maintain the clergy. But how can an amount of 5,871,499 rubles be acquired annually through this tax? 80 kopecks, from which 25 thousand clichés will amount to up to 234 rubles. per year, from other sources indicated by the Ministry of State Property, for the reasons stated above, one cannot expect benefits: then for the preparation of salaries for the clergy of 700 rubles. it is necessary either to triple the above-mentioned tax, or to resort to finding other methods 327. Metropolitan Philaret’s thoughts on the method of supporting the clergy through donations from parishioners when correcting church needs Among the assumptions about the structure of the rural clergy is this: “Free the clergy from the need to take payment for services at birth, baptism, confession, weddings and burials; for it cannot be denied that the payment for sacred rites in these cases is incompatible with the relations that connect the clergy with the people and that the destruction of it should elevate it in the opinion of the people, and thereby strengthen its moral influence in matters of religion.” The system of supporting the clergy through donations from parishioners, especially during church services, seems outdated for our century, like many other things. In this case, fair caution suggests the idea of ​​examining, especially at the base, a building that appears to be dilapidated, in order to make sure whether it is so dilapidated that it is inevitably subject to destruction and must be replaced by something else; for building a new one can hardly be easier than correcting the old; correction will be possible. The tithe of Saint Vladimir Equal to the Apostles, in time, seems to be the basis of the system now under consideration in Russia; but this is not its first foundation in the church. The word tithe points to a deeper foundation, in deeper antiquity. When reviewing this system, it would be useful to pay attention to the following points: 1) When the priest Melchizedek blessed Abraham with the Most High God, then Abraham gave him a tithe, that is, a tenth share of the spoils of war. This is the first, according to history, donation to a priest for church needs. The patriarchal simplicity of his view of the subject did not allow Abraham to think that he was degrading the dignity of the priest and the priestly blessing by giving materially. Melchizedek also did not think that he was humiliating both by accepting tithes. Eschol, Abnan and Mamri, the companions of Abraham, who did not belong to the Abrahamic faith, did not object to the separation of such a large portion of the undivided spoils, and therefore from their share, by the priest. It is obvious that they, too, looked upon Abraham's tithe with respect as a matter of piety. 2) There is a system for maintaining the clergy, determined by divine legislation, which cannot be blamed for the inconsistency of institutions with their highest goals. In the laws given by God, through Moses, the Levitical clergy were assigned, firstly, giving, adapted to time, and the products of nature, such as: tithes, firstfruits, the first fruit of a clean animal in kind, for the first fruit of an unclean animal money by assessment; secondly, donations when correcting church requirements, that is, during sacrifices, a certain portion of what was brought to the altar, and during a burnt offering, in which an animal was burned, everything without a trace, the skin of the burnt animal was turned into a donation to the priest. 3) If you think about how to present these institutions as worthy of divine legislative wisdom, then you can discover in them speculation that is worthy of attention when considering the structure of the non-Jewish clergy. A special category of people is needed to serve religion, to sanctify the people through public prayer and sacred rites, to spread and continuously maintain among the people the teachings of religion and the rules of life consistent with it. In order for this category to be more fully and unimpededly devoted to its purpose, it must be provided for the needs of life. No one is obliged and cannot provide him with this, except the people or state for whose benefit he devotes his entire life to the service of religion. To provide the maintenance of the clergy with a tax on the people would mean to put a dead, unpleasantly felt yoke on the people, and to give the clergy a right that, not being closely related to their duty, would not encourage them to fulfill this duty. It must also be done in a living way, with free conviction, with feeling. For this purpose, it was established that the priest receives his maintenance not according to state law, but according to church law; so that the layman together brings a sacrifice to God and a gift to the priest, so that he brings this latter with pious feeling and love, and not with a feeling of cold necessity; so that the priest receives his food from the hands of a pious prayer book, through the church, so that he naturally receives it with love for the pious giver and with reverence for God, and thus is constantly encouraged by both reverence and gratitude to diligently fulfill his duties in relation to God and the people; so that every handful of flour, every grain of wheat brought to the altar and together to the priest contains a blessing from the prayer book to God and the priest, and from the grateful priest to God and the prayer book. This is the spirit of the laws regarding the maintenance of the Levitical clergy. And he is not humiliated by the fact that Hophni and Phinehas did not want to comprehend and feel him. 4. When the Christian Church was formed, the Old Testament demands or sacrifices ceased, and in them all the decrees about the Levitical clergy lost their former support; then a new resolution was needed on the maintenance of the Christian clergy. This decree is contained in the following words of the Apostle Paul: “Do you not know that he who makes holy things eats from the sanctuary, and those who serve the altar share with the altar? Thus the Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:13-14). since here the maintenance of the Christian clergy is established on a basis similar to the decrees of the Old Testament, it is clear where and how the custom came into the Christian Church to give the clergy sometimes and definitely tithes, and more often indefinitely, the first-fruits of the products of agriculture and cattle breeding, and arbitrary donations when performing church duties. 5) From the 3rd and 4th canons of the apostles it is clear that in the Christian Church, from its very beginning, there was a custom of bringing firstfruits of various kinds to the altar and the clergy, and these rules do not abolish this custom, but only put it in order, ordering that what is inappropriate for the Christian altar should not be brought to it, but sent to the houses of bishops and presbyters, for sharing with others clerks. 6) Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his homily for holy baptism, refuting the excuses of those who are slow to be baptized, presents this question: “Where will I get the gift offered for baptism?” It is clear that custom made this an obligation for the person being baptized, and Saint Gregory does not condemn this custom, but only assures that the lack of a gift will not hinder baptism. 7) The Sixth Ecumenical Council, by canon 23, forbade bishops, presbyters and deacons from demanding money or anything else when administering the Most Pure Communion. It is difficult to imagine that the audacity of abuse would touch this shrine if the custom of giving donations for other church needs, an example shown above from Gregory the Theologian, had not paved the way in some way to this path. But the council did not extend its severity to all cases of this custom. 8) Protestants called themselves by this name because they protested against abuses in church affairs; but they did not reject it as an abuse, but accepted into their canon law “pittitum baptismalem”, “baptismal money”, and teach that it is the duty of the recipients to present this donation. (Schild. instit. fur. Can. L. 11., tit. 11., § 24). Despite the fact that they rebelled against confession as a sacrament, they also accepted “pittitum confessionarium,” “confessional money,” and teach that it is taken legally, proving this by the fact that Saul gave the fourth part of a shekel of silver to Samuel for a prophetic work (ibid., tit. IV., § 17). Examples from Protestant law are obviously of no importance to the Orthodox Church; but they can serve as a consideration, giving, of necessity, the following form to the question now being considered: should the Orthodox Church decisively condemn and reject a custom that existed, exists and is recognized as legal in all Christian denominations? 9) There is no doubt that the demand by priests to give for church services is a humiliating abuse for the priesthood and the celebrant; There is no doubt that this abuse must be persecuted and destroyed: but this unquestioning truth does not yet contain the solution to another question: whether the custom from which the abuse is made should also be destroyed. 10) The Holy Apostle Paul calls the aid sent to him by the Philippians, as a minister of the Gospel, a sacrifice “acceptable, acceptable to God” (Phil. 4:18). In this sense, pious Christians give gifts to the priest, encouraging him, at the same time, to pray for them. Will the suppression of this simple pious communication in people of sensual education produce a higher kind of pious feeling, or will it only cool the one they had? 11) If you cancel the donations of parishioners to the clergy during public services, you need to replace them with something; for the clergy needs maintenance. Whatever turn is made for this purpose, of necessity, voluntary giving will be replaced by involuntary giving. But it is known that it is easier to pay a lot of things willingly than to pay a little bit of things involuntarily. They say that when one foreign sovereign asked: why not establish a special tax in Russia for the maintenance of the clergy? He was told that a special tax of this kind could harm peace and the free, mutual zeal of the clergy and the people. From all of the above, one can see that the question of abolishing the maintenance of the clergy, through donations during church services, is not an easy issue to resolve, and that if, on the one hand, it requires civil considerations, because it concerns the needs and conveniences of the people, then, on the other hand, the provisions that could be drawn up to resolve it will also require ecclesiastical considerations in the Holy Synod, since the matter concerns an ancient church custom, for which there are church rules 328 . Note from Metropolitan Philaret “on improving the condition of the clergy” By the highest command, when resuming discussions about improving the condition of the clergy, the following comments were made on the opinions of the Metropolitan of Moscow, set out in the note presented to His Imperial Majesty 329: I. The first refers to the custom of so-called donations for the correction of spiritual needs. If the need is recognized not to change this custom, at least for a few more years, then would it be more inconvenient not to rush to raise the price now set for spiritual needs and donations? In order to avoid new reasons for abuse and inseparable displeasures and complaints, is it not necessary, before resolving this issue, to carefully consider it again, and perhaps collect some additional information about the procedure for correcting demands and making donations, and about what the peasants actually pay for them? The Metropolitan of Moscow provided the following explanation for this remark: Collecting local information again does not seem necessary because the information needed to draw up a new regulation on this subject is available to those present at the Synod based on the experience of synodal and diocesan administration and their entire service, which some served in several dioceses each. It is now impossible not to touch on this subject because complaints about the harassment of income are becoming quite common; There is no law defined for this crime, and it is inconvenient to prosecute the crime of harassment when the income status defined by law is too meager. To prosecute and eradicate crime, it is necessary to establish a firm law; in order to justify the severity of the law, the crime must take away the excuse that it finds in the poverty of the existing income situation. The new provision does not provide an opportunity for new abuses, but aims to suppress them through the proposed penalties. There is no reason to fear displeasure from the parishioners, firstly, because the donations prescribed by the new situation are moderate in comparison with what poor, only well-intentioned villagers now give voluntarily; secondly, because the rules instruct the clergy to accept smaller donations, against the new situation, without grumbling. II. Elsewhere, the Metropolitan, calculating the shortcomings of the previous, completely scholastic system of teaching in our theological academies and seminaries, proposes that in theological classes teaching be exclusively in Russian, while leaving the use of Latin only in eloquence and philosophy classes. This opinion is completely sound in relation to practical theology and church history; but the teaching of dogmatic theology and hermeneutics would perhaps be better left, as before, in Latin, so that by publishing new Russian books on the subjects of higher theology, drawing the attention of less-enlightened people to them, there would be no opportunity for unfounded interpretations and guesses, which often lead to harmful misconceptions in opinions about the most important truths of religion. The following explanation is given for this remark 330. Thoughts and advice from Metropolitan Philaret for Orthodox bishops whose flocks border with those who differ in the faith and have deviated from Orthodoxy 1) The bishops of those flocks that are associated with those who differ in the faith and have deviated from Orthodoxy, in addition to the common responsibilities with other duties - to edify the flock entrusted to them in faith and virtue, have two special duties: to protect the Orthodox from seduction, and, as far as possible, to reconcile and reunite those who have separated from the Orthodox Church. 2) For the successful fulfillment of these two duties, and especially the last one, the methods must be determined with legibility, with insight, with foresight. These must be considered, firstly, with the spirit of Christianity itself; secondly, with the spirit and types of government that patronizes Orthodoxy; thirdly, with the concepts, dispositions and various circumstances and relationships of those whom we wish to reunite with the Orthodox Church. 3) As conveniently as difference of opinion gives rise to reproach, and reproach to enmity, so carefully in dealing with those of different minds one must avoid reproaches and actions that have a hostile appearance, as well as being contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and the spirit of government, and the goal of reunification. To reproach means to irritate, and to irritate means to reduce the ability to accept the truth. Therefore, the treatment of those who differ in their views and the very denunciation of errors should be as peaceful as this can be done, without insulting the truth and without tempting the Orthodox. This rule applies to official relations, to sermons, to conversations and to circulation in society. 4) The rule of peace must be applied with special force to those who are separated from the Orthodox Church more by force of circumstances than by differences of faith, which are the essence of the Uniates. It is more appropriate for them to point out the legal similarity of their beliefs and worship with ours, from the symbol of faith recognized in the beginning of Uniateism to the slightest ritual, rather than to blame them for the differences that either crept in or were forcibly squeezed into it. 5) However, the rule of peace must be limited by the rule of firmness and caution, both in any case, and especially in relations with the clergy of the Roman confession, whose foreign direction and inclination to offensive action, the peaceful compliance of the Orthodox could turn to the detriment of Orthodoxy. We must be vigilant to ensure that the clergy of the Roman confession does not intrude not only into the boundaries of Orthodoxy, but also into the boundaries of Uniateism, and to put up all sorts of barriers against this alien influence. 6) To avoid difficult meetings and useless strife, the Orthodox clergy must be careful to enter into direct relations with the clergy of other confessions only in those cases where it is possible to foresee a peaceful agreement and fair satisfaction of demands; and about cases in which confrontation is revealed or foreseen, Orthodox priests must first report to their bishop, and this, depending on the nature and importance of the case, should be secretly reported to the Holy Synod, or referred to the synodal chief prosecutor, for communication with the administration of foreign confessions. 7) In Orthodox parishes adjacent to non-Orthodox ones, special attention should be given to priests who would combine zeal with an understanding of the truth, and especially with edifying life, meekness and selflessness. The door of the word is opened temporarily: the good life of the minister of the word preaches the truth day and night. 8) The predominant proximity to the Orthodox Church of the Uniates, both in their religious and national position, should inspire the Orthodox bishop with both primary hope and primary concern for their return from an accidental, unnatural, imaginary union with the “West” to the original, natural, true unity with the “East”. 9) It is more difficult to reunite the Uniate clergy than the laity; but on the other hand, a complete reunification of the clergy and the laity would be more decisive, because it would make the guardians of unity those who, remaining outside the reunification, have every incentive to sway and distract those reunited. Therefore, we should not neglect private affiliations with the Orthodox Church, but we should also think about general reunification with prayer and trust in God. 10) Individuals, families, villages, Uniate parishes that turn out to be ripe for joining the Orthodox Church, and who give hope of being firm against attempts at their new rejection, should be joined immediately, so that delay, having the appearance of coldness and lack of zeal, does not turn into temptation and temptation for them. 11) On the contrary, one should not rush to join when the disposition to join is not quite mature and capable of withstanding opposition. 12) It is better not to rush into opening an accession when a quiet action promises an increase in the number of those disposed to join, without strong opposition, which would be aroused by an early private accession. 13) One must pay attention to well-meaning members of the Uniate clergy and gradually establish and approve relations with them based on mutual trust. 14) If someone from the subordinate Uniate clergy, at a distance from his bishop or due to other circumstances, in any case asks for instruction or permission from an Orthodox bishop, then this one should not expel the one coming, but with love give fair instruction or permission, in the form of advice, indicating the basis for it in the word of God or in the rules of the church. The threads related to the union of love should not be neglected: from the threads a rope and a cloth can be made. 15) It is desirable that the relations of the Orthodox and Uniate bishops adjacent to their flocks reach that degree of mutual trust, so that sometimes a place subordinate to the latter, but remote from his eyes and located in the eyes of the former, could be dedicated and supervised by the Orthodox bishop, with information about this being delivered to the Uniate, so that he would not accept this as anything other than well-intentioned help, and his subordinates they would see in this the good agreement of both authorities and receive an inconspicuous direction towards unity. 16) In order to remove minor stumbling blocks for Uniate priests from the path of reunification, the Orthodox bishop can give those of them who are inclined to join, depending on the need, the following thoughts: that their previous benefits will remain with them undisturbed even after joining, and in their needs they will find new help and protection both in the Orthodox spiritual authorities and in the beneficial government, and that the Orthodox spiritual the authorities, recognizing and respecting the character of the priesthood in them, will not reduce this respect for certain features of appearance that are common to them, such as a special type of clothing and barber shaving, and will not forcibly demand a change in habits that are not contrary to morality, although, however, for the newly initiated upon joining, the rule of uniformity with the prevailing custom will probably be preferred. 17) No less important than all the previous ones, the rule is to act modestly, without noise and premature publicity. The more important the goal, the worse the untimely and inappropriate announcement of it, useful only for its opponents 331. December 16. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the reunification of the Greek Unite Church in Russia with the Eastern Catholic Russian Church The direction of the Greek-Unite Church in Russia towards reunification with its true mother, the Eastern Catholic, and especially the Russian Church, which for several years has been the subject of special, highest attention, has reached a point at which the question must arise: is it not time to move from preparatory measures to decisive ones? For 1) all the Greek-Unite bishops, most of the leaders of the monasteries and two-thirds of the parish priests, after internal meetings between them, expressed their consent in writing to the reunification; the sum of consent, which not only gives the right, but in some way imposes the obligation to act, so that justice is done to a cause that is undoubtedly worthy of patronage, and so that the aroused good disposition, when assistance is slowed down, is not subject to the temptation of cooling. 2) To the extent that the direction towards reunification becomes noticeable to people who are disgusted by it, these people are excited to find ways to prevent it; and to hesitate is to give them time to think and prepare their plans. 3) The most zealous of the Greek-Unite clergy, some of the Orthodox bishops adjacent to the Greek-Unites, and secular authorities in the provinces inhabited by the Greek-Unites, according to local observations, convey the idea that the time has come and it is necessary to act decisively. For these considerations and evidence, one cannot help but admit that it is highly probable that delay would be unfavorable to the matter, and that action is needed, which in the present state of affairs can be nothing other than a transition from preparatory measures to decisive ones. How to arrange this transition? A reliable answer to this question should be based on the following provisions: 1) The method of reunification must be carefully consistent with the rules of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church, so that God’s work is accomplished with God’s blessing, and so that a change of controversy is not sown when they want to plant peace. 2) The reunion must be arranged in such a way that the Greek-Unite flock, calmly following their shepherds and not upset by prejudices against Orthodoxy, will not be disturbed by a strong accident, which the unwise could use to upset it. 3) The reunification should be carried out as quietly as possible, so that people who, due to their special views, would not want it, wake up late to counteract, or, at least, do not suddenly wake up to agree to counteract. 4) Some customs of the Greek Unites, not accepted in the Orthodox Church, not relating to dogmas and sacraments, must be met with lenient tolerance, so that time may heal what has been damaged by time. The example of the Council of Carthage justifies measures of this kind. On these grounds, the following assumptions about reunification measures are affirmed: 1) The Greek-Unite bishops, with their senior clergy, will draw up a church conciliar act, in which, after stating the reasons, they conclude that, after mature reasoning, calling on the grace of God for help, they believe: to recognize again their original unity with the Eastern Catholic Orthodox Church, from which in difficult times they were rejected by political rejection, from which they were removed by outside influence, and to which they now have complete freedom to return; to remain from now on, as from ancient times, in unanimity of faith with the Orthodox Eastern Patriarchs, and in obedience to the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod; and to bring this reunification into effect, seek the protection of the most pious Sovereign Emperor. 2) This act will be signed by those present when it was drawn up, and reviews from other clergy will be attached to it, expressing consent to the reunification. 3) A special note may be attached to this act, in which tolerance will be requested for certain customs, such as barbering and special clothing currently used by the Greek-Unite clergy. 4) The act, reviews and note will be presented to His Imperial Majesty, upon the most humble request. 5) Meanwhile, in order not to waste time, and in order to move towards the goal with easy gradualness, perhaps the most pious Sovereign will deign to give the highest decree on the subordination of the Greek-Unite College to the Holy Synod. 6) When the most submissive petition and act prove worthy of the highest patronage, then, without a doubt, the Sovereign Emperor will deign to entrust the consideration of this matter to the Holy Synod. 7) If the act and note of leniency towards certain customs are drawn up satisfactorily, then the determination of the Holy Synod may follow: by grace, gift and power given from the Head of the Church and Supreme Shepherd of our Lord Jesus Christ and from the All-Holy and All-Sanctifying Spirit, so called to this day, the Greek-Unite Church into the original and true unity of the holy, catholic and accept the Apostolic and Eastern Catholic Churches; to impart her blessing and peace to the hierarchy, the priesthood, the clergy and the people; the worship of this church, which has recently been returned to the ancient rite with special care, is to be entrusted to the bishops to carefully preserve in its characteristic purity, and especially to ensure that the symbol of the holy faith is constantly and invariably used in Nicene-Constantinopolitan; grant the requested leniency to some local customs that do not relate to dogmas and sacraments; finally, to instruct both the Ancient Orthodox bishops joining and those adjacent to them, in agreement and brotherly care and mutual assistance, with love, meekness and patience to heal the souls of those who are weak in the faith, and gradually erase the traces of the former division 332. 8) Such a determination must be presented to the Sovereign Emperor in the most submissive report of the Synod. 9) By the highest permission for this, the Holy Synod will give an executive decree to the annexed and ancient Orthodox bishops, adjacent. In this decree it will be necessary to instruct those who have joined: to declare him first as having signed the act, and then to the others who have given subscriptions for reunification; to dispose of those who have not yet given subscriptions to this end, and, upon acceptance of the subscriptions, to announce this decree on reunification; in worship, stop the remembrance of the Roman bishop and introduce the remembrance of the Holy Synod, first in the episcopal service, and then in the priestly service; in general, to complete the work of reunification with due attention to local circumstances, as far as convincing it is favorable, with observation, however, that those who have made this vow observe it sacredly and inviolably. 10) When, with the gradual implementation of the decree on reunification, the name of the Greek-Unite college loses its meaning, then replace it with the name of the synodal college. In this way, the course of the matter could be established, which, according to the circumstances, seems necessary, possible and desirable. When this was accomplished successfully, then it would be free to take further measures that would complete the matter and strengthen it. But, when looking for a reliable path to a task that is obviously not free from difficulties and obstacles, precaution requires turning a prudent glance to these very difficulties and obstacles that may be encountered closer or further away. This is where speculation and questions arise, the resolution of which requires multilateral considerations. 1) Four hundred Greek-Unite priests, who have not yet volunteered with the desire for reunification, but who, in all likelihood, know about the challenge to others and guess the desires of the government, lagging behind the majority and from the authorities in such an awkward way for themselves, give cause for fear that an opposing party will not form from them. We should know more clearly what their silence means: bewilderment and expectation, or decisive persistence? A consequence of your own way of thinking, or extraneous suggestions? Personal arrangement or mutual agreement? Are these the only people who are silent, or are they making suggestions to the parishioners that are contrary to the envisaged views of the authorities? What effect do these suggestions have? 2) If some of these priests, in different places, do not accept good suggestions, it is likely that the authorities will not find it difficult to replace them with trustworthy ones. But if, for example, a stubborn dean manages to put the priests of the district under his control in the same position, will it be convenient to suddenly change many priests in neighboring parishes? Can this happen without significant unrest in the parishes? Where can disobedient priests be removed if there are a significant number of them? 3) Those who are stubborn among the abbots of monasteries and among the monastics can especially cause difficulties to the cause and the authorities, being, due to their education, capable of acting on others and communicating to them their way of thinking, and, due to their rank, less family people value their external life. 4) May God grant that this does not happen! But if there is unrest in the parish, extending to inattention to admonitions and disobedience, the action of spiritual authority here, of necessity, ceases. To restore silence, a measure must be considered that the secular authorities would use. But if, both while maintaining silence among the people, and while protecting the clergy by secular power, Orthodox suggestions are not accepted, then in this case a difficult question must be asked: how can a disobedient parish with a disobedient priest remain in the old Greek-Unite position, when the Greek-Unite bishops become Orthodox? 5) In case the intervention of the clergy of the Roman confession in the affairs of the Greek-Unite turns out to be contrary to peace measures, it is necessary to come up with a measure that would strictly stop the first harmful example, so that it does not encourage the followers. 6) A measure of this kind must be taken in case of opposition from landowners of the Roman confession. 7) This question is also subject to preliminary consideration: is it more useful to notify the Roman court about the ongoing reunification, so that it knows that the Greek-Unites no longer belong to its area, and therefore does not bother to awaken Vatican thunder against them, or to remain silent longer, so that it is less convenient to enter into any controversy about what is officially unknown to it? On these subjects, conferences are needed in which issues that have arisen and may still arise during the conferences will be considered. Some administrative issues do not require such care: for example, how long should two bishops stay in Polotsk, and who should be transferred and where. The point is to calmly look at the speedy or slow, this or that resolution of this issue. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 87; document No. 2 Printed in the collection of resolutions regarding expenses, under the 10th of March, 1838 St. Petersburg. 1858 Arseny (from 1832 to 1841); and †1876, in the rank of Metropolitan of Kiev. Seraphim (†Jan. 17, 1843) See in the collection of resolutions regarding the schism, under 30 hours of April, 1838 St. Petersburg. 1858 From a handwritten draft of the original. Inventory No. 99; document No. 3. Archimandrite Agapit (Vvedensky). Vladimirsky, since 1836 a full member of the academic conference. Filaret (Gumilevsky), since 1830, bachelor of Moscow. ac.; from 1833 inspector, and from 1835 archimandrite and rector of the same academy, from 1841 bishop. Riga; from 1848 – Kharkiv; since 1857 archbishop; from 1859 – Chernigov; since 1860 doc. theology; †Aug 9 1866 from cholera. Gideon (Vinogradov); completed a course in St. Petersburg. spirit. ak. in 1829 and in 1831 he was appointed inspector of the Mogilev seminary; in 1834 he was appointed rector of the Olonets seminary; in April 1836, he was appointed inspector of the Moscow Academy, and in May 1838 he was transferred to the position of abbot of the Pozhai monastery, where he died in 1839. Filovey (Uspensky), 8th year master of the Moscow Academy of Sciences. and since 1832 bachelor thereof; since 1838 inspection; since 1839 archim.; 1842–1849 rect. family Kharkov, Vivo and Moscow; from December 18, 1849, Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of the Moscow diocese; from 1853 bishop of Kostroma, from 1857 - bishop of Tver; from 1861 archbishop, and from May 15, 1876 metropolitan. Kyiv; †Jan 29, 1882 Platon (Fiveysky), 9th year master of the Moscow Academy of Sciences. and since 1839 bacc. there; in 1841–1843 rect. family Kazan and Oryol; from 1847–1856 rect. family Tambov and Vlad.; from May 29, 1856, Bishop of Old Russian, Vic. novg. dioceses; from 1857 list. bonfire; since 1868 archbishop; †May 12, 1877 Gorsky, A.V., M.Sc. 8th year Moscow ac.; from 1832 Rev. Moscow family, and since 1833 bacc. Moscow ac.; since 1839 horde. prof.; from 1860 archpriest; since 1862 direct. ac.; erected in 1864 at the station doc. theologian; †Oct 11, 1875 Agafangel (Soloviev), magician. 10th course Moscow ak. and since 1836 bacc. there; since 1842 inspection. ac., and from Sept. the same year rect. Kharkiv family; since 1845 rect. bonfire family; since 1854 rect. Kazan ac.; since 1857 bishop. revelsk., vik. St. Petersburg dioceses; since 1860 bishop. Vyatsk; from 1866 - Volynsk; since 1868 archbishop; †8 March 1876 Golubinsky, F.. A., mag. 1st year Moscow ac.; from 1818–1822 bacc. ac.; since 1822 extraord. prof.; since 1824 horde. prof.; from 1828 priest, and from 1829 prot. Moscow, Voznesensk m-rya; in 1852, due to illness, he was dismissed from service with the academy, and on August 22. passed away in Kostroma. Protopopov, S. T., since 1833 bacc. Moscow ac.; since 1838 priest. Church of Sofia, on Lubyanka, deceased. in the rank of archpriest of the Resurrection Church, in barash. Kazmin, I. Shlar., Mag. Kievsk ac.; since 1835 bacc. Moscow ac.; in 1841 personal. prot. Kolomna and rect. there spirit. learned.; † in 1854 Slavolubov, P. Kozm., bacc. Moscow ak. from 1834; from 1844 ost. ac.; died in 1848. in the rank of priest black churches miracle Sokolov, V. Serg., from 1834–1842 bacc. ac.; † in 1862, in the rank of priest. Martin Confessional Church Rudnev, N. Andr., bacc. Moscow ac., since 1840 priest. Church of St. George, in Georgians; † in 1876, in the rank of prot. Smelovsky, A. Iv., bacc. Moscow ac., in 1838 extra-ord. prof.; † in 1860 due auditor novg. Kaz. chambers. Zagorsky, I. O., bacc. Moscow ac., since 1838 priest; passed away in 1877, in the rank of prot. Kirioiann. Church, on Solyanka. Case com. spirit. taught, 1838; No. 5599; l. 3–6, 14, 15 and 19. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 113; document No. 1; copy of storage in secret. papers chancellor Ober-prok., 1836, No. 154; ll. 18–21. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 113; document No. 2, keeps a copy. in secret. dept. office chief proc. St. Synod, 1836, No. 154; ll. 16 and 17. In 1854, an essay by S. M. Usov was published under the title: “On arable farming systems.” From a handwritten rough original. Inventory No. 113; document No. 3. From a handwritten original. Inventory No. 102; document No. 7; a copy is kept confidential. papers office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1836, No. 154; ll. 48–51. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 102; document No. 5; keeps a copy. in secret. papers chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1836, No. 154; ll. 35–39. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 102; document No. 8. From a handwritten draft of the original. Inventory No. 102; document No. 8; a copy is kept in the secret papers of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1836; No. 154; ll. 40–51. This explanation was not found in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. From a handwritten rough original. Inventory No. 102; document No. 6. From a copy, storing in St. Petersburg spirit. acad., ll. 217–222. Isn’t this the draft synodal resolution that is discussed on page 126 of the 1st volume of the notes of Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania? St. Petersburg 1883 From a handwritten original, kept. in secret. department. chancellor Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod. In the case of 1836, No. 11; ll. 24–33.