1824 г.

February 29. The opinion of Archbishop Philaret of Moscow on the issue of closing the Minsk Theological Seminary, located in the district city of Slutsk On the occasion of the transformation of the schools of the Kyiv spiritual educational district that began in 1816, Bishop Anatoly of Minsk 100, in a presentation to the commission of theological schools, explained that the buildings of the Minsk seminary, located in the city of Slutsk, were very cramped and required correction, according to the plan and estimate in the amount of 21,050 rubles. 46 kopecks The commission in the journal, dated March 19, 1821, by the way, decided (Article 3): “the amount requested for the said item, according to its moderation, should be released from the construction capital, having previously sought the highest permission for this. Meanwhile, on June 18, the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, Prince Golitsyn, in the proposal of the commission, No. 1605, explained: 1) that the Minsk bishop asked him to intercede for the Minsk seminary started by the Roman Catholic Bishop Dederko in Forstadt. Minsk, but the building he unfinished for the Mariinsky hospital; 2) that the local philanthropic society, which took this building into its jurisdiction, cannot finish it, both because many of its members died, and because the prepared materials were stolen by the enemy in 1812, and 3) that, according to the most comprehensive report about this, the Sovereign Emperor ordered the said building to be transferred to the ecclesiastical school department. When this latter began to fulfill this highest command, the philanthropic society demanded compensation not only for those expenses that were made initially, at the foundation of the building, but also for the spontaneous expenses incurred by it in going to the infirmary of the bath, after the highest order to hand over the hospital building to the ecclesiastical department, and, moreover, raised the question of from what sources the debts to the society would be paid and the claims of those who made donations to the hospital in money and land. On May 10, 1823, His Eminence Anatoly reported to the Holy Synod that the building materials intended for sale in order to satisfy the debt claims of the society had been taken away, the beams placed on the walls had been removed, the iron bars in the cellar windows had been broken, the wood harvested for scaffolding for the building had been plundered, the roof itself was broken and the building was damaged by rain and due to bad weather it comes to destruction, so now it is unprofitable to accept this building into the spiritual department, with the return of the money spent on it by the society. After hearing this case in the commission of theological schools, Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod stated that, due to the small number of Orthodox churches in the provincial city of Minsk, there is no need or benefit to establish a seminary there, and judging by the distance of some district towns from Minsk 101, it would be more useful and convenient for parents to take their children to the seminaries of border dioceses: Chernigov and Mogilev, who are much closer. For this reason, as well as for the small number of Greek-Russian clergy in the entire diocese of Minsk, there is no need even for the very existence of a local diocesan seminary, unless it is left to exist, pending discretion, in departments, following the example of the army seminary. However, in the city of Slutsk there will remain lower or preparatory schools, for which the current seminary building will suffice, if properly repaired. Out of respect for the poverty of the clergy, it would be better, at the expense of the remainder of the amount allocated for the maintenance of the Minsk seminary, to increase the number of government-funded students belonging to the Minsk diocese, both studying in lower schools and entering, to continue higher sciences, in the nearest seminaries of the two border dioceses. To such a statement by Metropolitan Seraphim, Archbishop Philaret personally expressed his opinion as follows: While maintaining due respect for the opinions of others about the Minsk Seminary, I submit to their judgment what seems fair and necessary to me in this matter. The bishop's charter obliges us to take utmost care of the schools. If only a diocese was founded from paganism, care would have to be taken about this immediately. District schools, where they teach grammar and arithmetic, cannot serve as the limit of episcopal care for the schools; This limit is a school where one prepares to be worthy servants of the altar and teachers of the people in the faith, that is, a seminary. So, if there was no seminary in the diocese, they should have tried to start one. If there is a weak and sparsely populated one, it should strengthen, not destroy. The existence of a seminary in departments, following the example of the army, cannot fulfill the needs of the diocese. And army seminary students, as we know from experience, are looking for ways to stay in the dioceses where they study. The same will happen with the students of the Minsk seminary scattered throughout the dioceses. But, for various reasons, people join the army clergy from all over Russia, and in all likelihood they will not join the Minsk clergy from any diocese voluntarily. There is no compelling law; and if it were done, then it would be possible to drive almost only the unfit into this diocese; for every diocese will keep those who are fit, according to their and her wishes. So, the destruction of the Minsk seminary will lead to the destruction of the barely existing Minsk clergy. Before the transformation of theological schools, it was put together somehow, and its children scattered again; Since the transformation, there has been more order in the seminaries, more students and more hope for filling spiritual places with those prepared. In my opinion, if you destroy it, then both the seminary and the diocese together; If you save one, then save the other. Due to the many strong people of different faiths and the contempt shown to the Orthodox by the rich and powerful, most of whom do not belong to this confession, it is especially necessary in the Minsk diocese to support the teaching, and consequently the seminary. If you were to ask the Westerners, who somehow dominate those places, what would they want - so that they could further strengthen and destroy the Orthodox confession? - they would probably first of all demand the destruction of the seminary. What, under the pretext of a gift, they want to burden with debts and costs and find a means of turning the highest mercy into disadvantage, confusion and ruin of the Minsk Seminary, this cannot serve as a basis for its destruction, but must bring to the Sovereign the truth of the matter, and present the reasons why the seminary cannot take advantage of his mercy. This is all the more convenient since the house has not yet been accepted. This must also be done in the event that it is decided to close the seminary. So, to put it briefly, you need: 1) Refuse the building assigned for the seminary due to inconvenience. 2) Consider (in a manner appropriate to the subject) whether the Minsk See should remain where it is now, but where there are very few Orthodox, or be moved to those parts of the diocese where there are more Orthodox. 3) Where the existence of the department is firmly recognized, a seminary should be established there in an economic way, for which the cost should be, given its small population, much less than similar costs in other populous dioceses. On March 18 of the same year, the commission of theological schools, among other things, decided (Article 26): a) in order to avoid the inconveniences and difficulties encountered, to leave the building of the Mariinsky Hospital in its former department, and b) to inform the Right Reverend Minsky about Metropolitan Seraphim’s proposal regarding the closure of the Minsk Seminary, for the immediate consideration of the circumstances and delivery of an opinion on this subject 102. December 8th. Letter from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow to Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod and St. Petersburg regarding the expected ban on printing and selling the catechism compiled by Philaret 103 Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and benefactor! I am sad about what I should write to your Eminence now, but I think I must write. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the message, He is blessed forever, for I am not lying that I am approaching this letter without speaking at all 104 . From the constant feelings in me, by the grace of God, of filial respect and love for you, father and 105 my ordainer and mentor. But I must be no less devoted to the church than you are. It became known to me that by decree of the Holy Synod the printing office was ordered to stop printing and selling the catechism, which was considered in the past 107 and approved by the Holy Synod and published by His Imperial Majesty's highest command. I don’t know what the matter is about, but 109 there seems to be no other guess than 110 that it is about Orthodoxy. Having assumed this, in the name of Orthodoxy I ask your Eminence to recall the history of this catechism to this day. The Holy Synod commissioned me to write the catechism, at the suggestion of your Eminence. Not daring to contradict, but not 111 daring to bask in success in this matter, which was quite difficult, I asked the Holy Synod not to write down this assignment in the journal, before presenting and considering my experience, so that it would be all the easier to abandon it without any paperwork, if it turns out to be inconsistent with the intention of the Holy Synod, and transfer the assignment to another. Having started to compile the catechism, I read the first part to your Eminence, in the presence of the Most Reverend Gregory, Bishop of Revel, and received confirmation in the main things, and corrected some details, based on the comments made. Then the entire catechism was examined 112 by your Eminence for a considerable time, and 113 every word or expression that was subject to your remark was corrected only with your approval. For this reason 114 this catechism 115 was submitted to the Holy Synod, which, having approved it, asked for the highest command for its publication. In your Eminence’s handwritten letter that I have, on the occasion of the second edition of the catechism, the following is written: “in it, with the word natural birth, it was left as it was 116 in the previous edition, and not thrown out. As for the question of being a virgin, he did not escape persecution. The missing word in the symbol with plum has been added" 117. From this I learned that, with the second edition, the Catechism was revised again by the Holy Synod; that at the same time the presentation of the main truths was not subject to any doubt, that one particular question and one expression, which were subject to dispute, were not found necessary to be changed, and that only the omission of one word in the Russian translation of the Creed, which I indicated in the letter to your Eminence, was corrected. Thus, the Catechism, in the composition of which I was an instrument, first in my presence, and then 119 again in my absence, was confirmed by your Eminence and the Holy Synod, not only in all parts of the teaching contained in it, but also in all words and expressions; and this perfect statement was announced before the church not only by the decrees of the Holy Synod and many editions of the catechism, but also by the highest charter given in my name, on the 2nd day of June 1823, in which, in accordance with the synodal approval, it is said that it was written in the spirit of the Orthodox Eastern Church and in the mind of the Gospel truth 120. It is not clear by whom, how and why a matter has now been cast into doubt, so purely and completely established by everything that is sacred on earth. It would be little concern if this doubt threatened only the personality of the person who was the instrument of this matter; but doesn’t it threaten the hierarchy, doesn’t it threaten the church? If the orthodoxy of the catechism, so solemnly approved by the Holy Synod, is doubtful, then will not the orthodoxy of the Holy Synod itself be doubtful? Will not admitting this doubt shake the hierarchy to its foundations? Will the peace of the church be disturbed? Will it not produce a grave church temptation? The judgment that one priest 121 will pronounce on the act of the Holy Synod (if it is true that one priest is entrusted with giving an opinion on the catechism approved by the synod), will it assure the entire church, and will it not expose 122 only the destruction of the hierarchical order through the admission of such a trial? There is no need to tell your Eminence that over the act of the Holy Synod regarding the teaching of the faith, the correct and worthy judgment 123, according to the rules of the holy, catholic and apostolic church, can be none other than the court of an extraordinary full council, local or ecumenical, under the patronage of the most pious GOVERNMENT EMPEROR. In the name of God, I ask you, Your Eminence Bishop, to consider all of the above before the eyes of God, and, turning your primal attention to the emerging matter of the synodally approved catechism, to give this matter a direction consistent with the truth, with the order and dignity of the hierarchy, with peace and freedom from temptation, the Orthodox Churches. And give me special instructions on how to act for the benefit of the flock entrusted to me in these special circumstances, directed 124 to the weakening of trust 125 and mutual trustworthiness between those who rule and those who are ruled by the word 126 of truth. Let me hope that this letter will be received with your Eminence’s usual condescension, and that you will indeed receive the necessary instructions from you, to which, as well as to your high priestly patronage and prayers, I still commit myself with hope. Your Eminence, gracious archpastor and benefactor 127, most humble novice. Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow It seems to me that there is no special highest decree on catechisms 128; for if it had existed, it would have been given to the Holy Synod, according to its belonging. And if the prohibition of catechisms 129 was derived from the published highest decree on the 17th day of November 130, then this was not deduced by the force of this decree, and in opposition to the highest decree, which approves precisely the catechism approved by the Holy Synod. Now it has become known to me that in relation to Mr. Minister of Public Education 131, which is stated in the decree 132 of the Holy Synod of the Printing Office, the creed is called not a symbol, or a confession of faith, but a prayer. I don’t know to whom the confused concept of church affairs discovered here should be attributed. And with such a concept, unknown actors will bring judgment 133 on the Holy Synod? Confirmation for those who hope for You! Lord strengthen the church 134. December 14. Letter from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow to Metropolitan Seraphim of Novgorod and St. Petersburg regarding the expected ban on Philaret’s sermon on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary 135 The unfulfilled rumor about the catechism, which however came true, makes the rumor that is now coming true about my sermon on the day of the Annunciation that it will be prohibited. Not having the audacity to trust the integrity of my own work, I might have become preoccupied with this case; but not without providence, I think, God arranged it so that the peace of my conscience in this case is reinforced and confirmed by the double testimony of your Eminence. Firstly, I have preserved the manuscript of this sermon, on which your Eminence corrected one expression with your own hand, and no more; The printing was carried out in accordance with this manuscript and with your correction. Secondly, I have preserved your handwritten letter, in which the review you made about this sermon is so favorable that in another case I would not have dared to discover it, fearing vanity, but now I am forced to write it out. You write: “I read your sermon on the Annunciation; it, in my opinion, is the best of all your sermons.” After this, it is not my unimportant matter, but the important testimony of your Eminence that I must defend, if 137 it is only necessary to defend in a matter of this kind the judgment of the leading member of the Synod against the objection of one secular person who, by his own arbitrariness, made himself not only a theologian, but also a judge of the faith and the church. I do not name him, 138 because I speak for the truth of the matter, 139 and not against a person, no matter how he may be against my cause and against me, but he is known to your Eminence and named in one of your letters to me, with a fair remark about the source of his jealousy. And even if it were necessary to defend such a judgment against such an objection, it would not be difficult. The objection is that in my sermon to Joseph, before the appearance of the angel, ignorance of the secret of the Bride of God is attributed. But if I should be condemned for the fact that I, not on my own, but according to the explanation of the words of the Gospel, attribute ignorance to Joseph in this case, then Saint Chrysostom should be condemned much more, who in this same case, in his words cited by me, attributes to Joseph not only ignorance, but also contempt. Much more than my sermon, what should be condemned is the akathist of the Theotokos, in which Joseph is attributed not only ignorance, but also doubt, which is expressed in the fourth kontakion with the following sharp 140 features: having a storm inside with doubtful thoughts, the chaste Joseph is swept away, to you in vain the unmarried one, and thinking about the theft, the immaculate one. If Saint Chrysostom is right, if the akathist is sacred, then the sermon 141 that agrees with them, approved by your Eminence, is approved in perfect accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church 142. I will repeat what I already wrote to Your Eminence, on the occasion of the catechism. If through business they want to hurt 143 a person, let them; But should we allow the firmness and trust of the church government to be undermined and the peace of the church to be disturbed? The cause of truth, and commending myself to the mercy of your Eminence, with deep reverence and devotion, I deign to remain your Eminence, gracious archpastor and benefactor, as your most humble servant. Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow 144 Anatoly (Maksimovich), from February 10. 1832 Bishop of Simbirsk; 1842, Aug. 7 days, retired to the Syzran Ascension Monastery, where he soon died. The city of Pinsk is 242 ver. away from Minsk. The city of Desna is 235 miles away from Minsk. The city of Rechitsa is 289 miles away from Minsk. The city of Mozyr is 336 miles away from Minsk. The city of Bobruisk is 176 miles away from Minsk. The city of Slutsk is 164 miles away from Minsk. The city of Igumen is 63 ver. away from Minsk. The city of Borisov and Vileiki is 71 miles away from Minsk. Case comm. spirit. taught, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1817, No. 596, vol. I, pp. 125–127. This letter was published in the magazine min. folk enlightenment 1868 Jan, pp. 22–25; in Sushkov's notes. M. 1868. Appendix, pp. 49–51 and in the journal. Russian Star., June, 1885, pp. 584–586. Sushkov reads “without letting go.” In the journal Russian Star. the word "and" is omitted. In the journal Russian Star. printed, instead of “how”, “than”. Ibid. instead of “past”, napech, “past”. Ibul. there is the word “repeatedly”, which is not in our list and in Sushkov’s, but, instead of this, in the journal. Russian Star. there are no words “and approved.” In Sushkov, the word “but” is omitted. In the journal Russian Old, after the word “how”, there is the word “that”. Ibid. “We were considering.” Ibid. reads like this: “every mistake.” Ibid reads "before the first edition." Further in the same letter it is said: “Mr. The chief secretary promised to send to you this week 50 copies of this corrected catechism, from which they will begin to print without hindrance in the Moscow Synodal Printing House.” This note is from Archbishop Philaret. Note this in the journal. Russian Star. placed in the text after the word “introduced”. The words “which” in the journal. Russian Star. No. In the journal Russian Star. further reads: “in my absence it is established.” Next in the journal. Russian Star. the text of the letter differs both from that posted here and from that placed in the journal. min. folk enlightenment and in Sushkov’s notes by the arrangement of paragraphs and individual expressions. According to some, it was Pavsky, and according to others, it was Konetovsky. (Collection, on the occasion of the centenary anniversary of Philaret, Metropolitan Moscow, vol. II, p. 722, note 1. Moscow, 1883) In the journal Russian Old, “not to be detected.” In the journal Russian Star. "directed". Ibid. It reads like this: “I am the most humble.” A. S. Shishkova His relationship to Metropolitan. Seraphim, dated November 21, 1821, in the notes of P.V. Sushkov. M. 1868 Appendix. pp. 48–49. In the journal Russian Star. "in decrees." Ibid. added “by itself.” With commission Inventory No. 75; document No. 1. This sermon was published in volume 2 of the works of Metropolitan Philaret, 1874, pp. 148–156, and this letter was placed in the journal. min. people. education 1868, January, pp. 26–28; in Sushkov's notes. App., p. 51, and in the journal. Russian Star., June 1885 pp. 587–588. In the journal Russian Star. "forced" In the journal Russian Star. the word “by name” is inserted. Ibid. followed by the words “Your Eminence, approved by you.” Ibid. the word "Christ's" was added. From a copy. Inventory No. 75; document No. 2.