1839 г.

January 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion regarding the application of the laws on metrics to schismatics In order to reach a solution to the question: how to apply the laws on metrics to schismatics, we can take into account the following: 1) Metric records are a necessity for the government to resolve various matters. Consequently, every subject is obliged to submit himself to the general rules adopted in the state in order to satisfy this need, which is also his own, in case of various matters. 2) The general rule for Christian subjects is that metrics are kept in churches through priests. 3) This order is all the more necessary because the introduction of general civil metrics would be very burdensome and inconvenient to implement, and it would be especially difficult to bring civil metrics to the accuracy to which church metrics are much more conveniently achieved. 4) Since schismatics do not have a legal priesthood, they cannot have legal church metrics. 5) Since schismatics are not recognized in the state as a special legal class, it is not possible to create a special institution for schismatic metrics; for such an institution would be recognition of them as a special class in the state. 6) In former times, schismatics recorded their dead and born in the church records of the parish in which they live. Taking advantage of the far-reaching tolerance, they had the audacity to gradually stop this legal custom, and the secret rules of 1822 gave their self-will the appearance of legality. 7) To restore this custom means to restore the general rule in the state. 8) Dissenters cannot consider the restoration of a custom that existed for them and in which there is nothing contrary to their beliefs as oppression; for it is simply a record, only made by the hand of a priest or clerk, and not by a clerical servant. 9) Orthodoxy can derive the benefit from the restoration of this custom that parish priests will have the opportunity to communicate with schismatics for an edifying interview. 10) Those schismatics who doubt the correctness of their leaders, but are prevented from communicating with the priests by their prohibitions and curses, would receive an opportunity for communication with them, which they now desire, but do not dare to seek. These considerations lead to the following assumptions: 1) For schismatics, do not introduce any special metrics. 2) Instruct the parish priests to register those born and dying among schismatics, upon their announcement, in the parish registers separately from the Orthodox. 3) At the same time, strictly confirm that this is done completely free of charge and that schismatics are treated with the meekness, love and edification due to a priest. 4) To declare to the schismatics that since it is impossible for them to weaken the power of the general laws and order established in the state, then, subject to this order, they must, for their own benefit, announce to the priests of the parishes in which they live, the births and deaths, and if they do not announce, then they will have no one else to blame but themselves if through this omission they are deprived of legal documents on their affairs. 5) The form of the metrical record about schismatics can be as follows: “after the announcement of such and such, he had a son such and such.” 6) When making such announcements, priests should not enter into a judgment about the legality of the marriage of those giving birth, but register the person born according to the announcement. 7) It is all the more convenient to include such articles in church registers because baptism, even performed by schismatics in the name of the Holy Trinity, has its force in the Orthodox Church; Since the church does not recognize schismatic marriages, Orthodox priests should not accept announcements of schismatic marriages for inclusion in the metric register. 8) Meanwhile, in the code of laws, destroy the article on the metrics of schismatic priests 334. October 23. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on the manuscript, under the title: “Admonishing message to the Pomorians and re-baptized people” The Most Reverend Vladimir, Bishop of Kostroma, “during a review in 1839 of the diocese entrusted to him, he saw that among the schismatics filling the diocese in places, there was not a single sect as harmful and stubborn as the Pomorians and re-baptized; and since they try to avoid any meeting with him, he considered it his duty to write an admonishing message to them, and sent it to the places where they nest. Along with this, the Eminence turned to the Holy Synod with a request for permission to print the message he compiled, at least in the amount of 300 copies.” The Holy Synod deemed it necessary to “transmit the admonishing message presented by the Right Reverend Vladimir to the Pomeranians and Re-Baptists to Metropolitan Philaret for preliminary consideration, so that he would deliver his conclusion on the merits of this work and whether it could be allowed to be printed, returning the manuscript itself.” In fulfillment of this, Metropolitan Philaret reported to the Holy Synod: In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 10, No. 13873, having examined the essay: “Admonishing Epistle to the Pomeranians,” and returning it, I am duty-bound to convey that both in the content and in the presentation of this essay there is a lot of things that are inconvenient to allow it to be published. For example: 1) The Epistle itself admits that expressing the absurd principles of Pomeranian teaching is offensive and intolerable to a pious spirit and ear. But it suddenly, on one page, states that the Pomeranians consider churches to be stables, priests to be wolves, baptism to be desecration, communion to be service to the Antichrist, marriage to be fornication, and those born from marriage to be noodles of the Antichrist. Pomeranians may be happy to see this printed, and without a satisfactory answer. 2) The message is to blame the Pomeranians for the fact that, although they pray for the health of their sovereigns, they do not call them emperors, since this name is not Russian. The point is not at all that Pomeranians do not like a foreign name. 3) The writer of the message says: I know that you will not read it. So, is it really necessary to write and print in order not to be read? And since the work is full of reproaches rather than arguments, then, in fairness, one can fear that either they will not read it, or that it will produce irritation rather than edification. 4) The Epistle denounces the Pomeranians, by the way, this way: you do not know what Jesus and Ivan mean and from what dialects they come. 5) And one more thing: the body of the church seems to you to be evil. 6) The message says that the Pomeranians are in vain in blaming the church, and, by the way, they prove this by the fact that three academies with seminaries belong to it. 7) The message says: your entire Pomeranian class is a herd of wolves. And further: you, spiritual shepherds, call us wolves: where is your love? Reading the message will reveal other passages that are inconvenient for printing 335. No. 355. October 23, 1839 December 8th. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on three abstracts of theological and historical teaching about the Church Fathers presented by the conferences of theological academies: St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kyiv (1839, December 8) By decree of the Holy Synod, dated November 24, 1839, No. 17008, Metropolitan Philaret was ordered to present an opinion on three notes, forwarded to him for conclusion, compiled by conferences of theological academies: St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev, for teaching in theological seminaries the historical and theological teaching about the fathers of the church. On December 8, 1839, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to the Holy Synod: In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated November 24, 1839, No. 17008, I read three abstracts of theological and historical teaching about the fathers of the church, and the following was observed. I. In the abstract presented from the conference of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, it is necessary, in addition to lessons on this subject, to compile and give to students special notes containing the explanation of the holy fathers of the dogmas of faith. There is no apparent reason why special notes, separate from lessons, are supposed, and one task is divided into two. This summary says that the Church of Christ, after three centuries, in the next five had a need both for the full disclosure of its teachings and for a detailed arrangement of order and decorum in its worship. Did it really not have this need in the first three centuries? And what would this need be for if it was possible to live for three centuries without it? Didn’t the apostle command that everything in the church should be in order and in order? Have these three centuries not been fulfilled? It could have been expressed more carefully and more in agreement with the Orthodox teaching about the apostolic tradition, which, for example, the teaching about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was not closed, but revealed in the first three centuries, so that in subsequent centuries the need was not for a new disclosure of this teaching, but for protection and protection from new heretical false teachings. Saint Basil the Great did not re-arrange the rite of the liturgy, but entered it into the book, arranged and handed down from the apostles, and not in more detail than before, but in an abbreviated form, as Saint Proclus says, with the special help of the Spirit of the Lord, so that the word of the sacred service would be full of the pure light of dogmas and the power of prayer. There is no doubt that the writer of the summary did not have thoughts alien to Orthodoxy, but, probably, from reading new books, without strict caution, he borrowed a word expression invented by lovers of reforms, who wanted dogmas and worship to be established in the Middle Ages, so that in the new centuries they would have the right to establish both in their own way, that is, to destroy. This summary mentions the sad division of the Church of Christ into Eastern and Western. The expression is again inaccurate and not strictly consistent with the teaching of the unity of the Orthodox Catholic Church. This summary suggests using 20 minutes of classical reading per week to read the best passages from the Church Fathers on Christian and Sunday Reading. How much can you get done in 20 minutes a week? Classical time is expensive, but students can read the timed edition at home, at the direction of the mentor, if desired. As sources of information about the fathers of the church in this summary, a large number of books are named, most of them huge, so that reading them would take several years, but it is not indicated which of them should be primarily used and how, therefore it is impossible to make guesses what will be developed from these materials. Before compiling an educational book, in this summary it is intended to read articles about church writers from the church history of the Right Reverend Innocent. If this were enough, then why would some pages be allocated from one educational book for another mentor and for another department? It is not indicated in this summary which church writers will be included in the proposed teaching; therefore, it is not clear whether the proposed course will have the proper composition and completeness. II. The outline of the teaching about the church fathers, presented from the conference of the Kyiv Theological Academy, is brief; but in it the composition of the teaching is quite definite, and it is shown what attention should be paid to in each father, how to divide the whole teaching into periods, and what the character of each period is, although, to tell the truth, the centuries do not always readily obey our desire to characterize. For example, the first three centuries are attributed to the polemical-apologetic direction of writings. But does this characteristic include the writings of St. Ignatius? In this regard, it was considered unnecessary to count all the church fathers and teachers who should be included in the circle of the proposed teaching. However, this would not be superfluous in order to see that the course will not have shortcomings and burdensome excesses. Instead, attached to the plan, as examples of the proposed teaching, are two articles about St. Clemente and St. Irenaeus, which contains quite a bit of information, supported by indications of its sources. There is, however, a lot to be desired in places. For example: In an article about St. Clemente is told that he labored with the Apostle Peter in establishing the church in Rome. Where is the evidence for this? Decrees of St. the apostles are called either doubtful, sometimes forged, sometimes damaged, and, finally, an important monument. How can a fake book be important? How can a counterfeit book be approved in the apostolic canons? It was necessary to examine the matter more carefully and get out of the contradictions. Its content, the article says, is set out in the table of contents. If patrolology is written according to this model, then it will also be necessary to say about every father that the content of his writings is stated in the titles. The method is easy for the mentor, but unedifying for the mentees. Clementina is incorrectly translated with the words: the works of Clement. There are creations of Clement that are not included under the title “Clementina”, and on the contrary, under this title there is a creation that is not Clement. Morally speaking, about St. Clemente noted that he “condemns the vice of envy, exhorts to repentance, putting aside envy, submission and obedience to the will of God,” etc. If we describe the books of St. with such features. fathers, then the descriptions will be long, uniform, unsatisfactory for indicating the character of the writer, and inconvenient for retention in memory. It is necessary to speak briefly about the content of each paternal writing, and then indicate especially important passages and special thoughts of the writer, and it is better to cite his exact sayings rather than retell them in your own words. In an article about St. Irenaeus says: “describes a thousand-year reign.” From this the question inevitably arises: is St. Was Irenaeus a chiliast? It was necessary to explain it in such a way as not to cause confusion. A lengthy note on the lost writings of St. Irenaeus is good for curiosity, but for a textbook it is more burdensome than useful. III. In the abstract presented from the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy, the concept of the church fathers as the writers of the saints is strictly defined, but it is rightly suggested that there be an addition about some church writers who are close to the character of the fathers, or who require attention in connection with the history of the fathers. Here are the fathers of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. are presented as not revealing the doctrine of the persons of the Holy Trinity, previously closed, but “defending the betrayed truth.” All the writers who should have a place in the teaching about the church fathers are named here, and the most important features of their history and their writings are indicated, to which attention should be paid in this teaching. Thus, this is not only a plan, but also, as it were, a model for a future book. There seems to be no need for special comments on this summary, perhaps of minor importance. For example, it is unpleasant to come across the expression: “a three-fold exposition of Athanasius. It would be better to express it in such a way that it would be immediately clear that heretics cannot depose a saint. The series of fathers ends here with St. Demetrius. I would advise adding St. Tikhon of Voronezh. A comparison of the three notes leads to the opinion that the first of them, less than the other two, confirms the desired merit of the book that will be written based on it, and the third gives hope about this with superior clarity. However, I most respectfully submit this opinion for the further discretion of the Holy Synod 336. From a handwritten rough original. Inventory No. 99; document No. 2. From the drafts. authentic, storing to Moscow sparh. librarian Dept. 1, pp. 80 and 81. Reported. this is published in “Soulful. Readings,” for 1882, February, pp. 261 and 262, but with significant cuts. From a handwritten draft original stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. II; l. 2–4.