A collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. Volume 3

Volume 1 • Volume 2 • Volume 3 • Volume 4 • Volume 5. Part 1 • Volume 5. Part 2 Alphabetical index to the collection of opinions and reviews The third volume of the publication: “Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on educational and church-state issues” included papers written by the Moscow saint during the period from January 7, 1840 to December 31, 1854. One hundred and fifty-three articles, from No. 247 to No. 400, arranged according to the accepted system in chronological order, contain explanations of many issues in the history of the Orthodox Church, which are very important for church practice. Most of the articles included in this volume were written by Metropolitan Philaret during the specified period of time, either directly, as part of his ministry duties, or on behalf of the Holy Synod, or at the request of the Chief Prosecutor, Count N.A. Protasova. Unity of faith and schism were the subject of special concern of the blessed saint: a whole series of articles (Nos. 252, 267, 273, 275, 293, 302, 303, 311, 323, 325, 342, 357, 383, 386, etc.) testify that the saint vigilantly he followed all the tricks of the schismatics, especially the Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries, and worked a lot to promote unity of faith in the very nest of the schism, at the Preobrazhensky cemetery. At the same time, the great saint did not abandon his attention to theological educational institutions, a monument of which is the notes he corrected on moral (No. 288), pastoral (No. 289) and dogmatic (No. 290) theologies; and the analysis of spiritual and moral books, various contents of manuscripts and canonical works (Nos. 270, 272, 285, 301, 353, 358, etc.) testifies to the saint’s caring care to protect church teaching from arbitrary interpretations. Finally, issues of marriage law (No. 251, 253, 267, 294, 295, 310, 315, 319, 384), the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and church singing found the best explainer and interpreter in the person of Metropolitan Philaret. Regarding church singing, Metropolitan Philaret, although he admitted that the theory of the art of singing was unknown to him, nevertheless wrote to the Holy Synod in 1849: “... about sixty years ago, taught to sing according to the octoechus, and then according to everyday life, by an ancient priest, knowledgeable in church sweet singing, who was taught by example not only to choose notes, but also to feel the spirit of church singing, and with Since then, constantly familiar with this singing, I think I can allow myself some judgment on this subject.” Metropolitan Philaret’s judgments about church singing date back to the time when, by imperial command, the director of the court singing chapel, A.F., was sent to Moscow. Lvov, to correct the synodal choir and transcribe into sheet music the tunes of the Donskoy and Simonov monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral, and in general for the ordering and uniformity of church singing. A series of reports to the Holy Synod and letters from Filaret to A.F. Lvov about church singing, which has an irresistible power on those praying in Orthodox churches, is indicated with what zeal the saint defended the ancient tunes (Nos. 322, 327, 330, 336, 338, 339, 341, 354, 356, 364, 369, 370). It is also impossible not to point out here the relations between Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Dimitri of Chisinau to clarify the question: “in what mind was the Most Holy Virgin called the Mother of God” (No. 277); with Baron A.K. Bode about decorating the hall of the Kremlin palace (No. 292) and with Count A.A. Zakrevsky, Moscow military governor-general, for the preservation and decoration of ancient Moscow churches, and with many other persons who needed the advice of the wise saint. It must be borne in mind that every question that the saint had to discuss directly or at the invitation of others was resolved by him accurately and with remarkable thoroughness. We can say with full conviction that the published third volume will make a rich new contribution to the history of not only the Russian, but also the entire Orthodox Church. Indexes of personal names and items for this volume were compiled by N.I. Grigorovich.