1843 г.

February 14. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the manuscript: “The Legend of the Miracle-Working Iveron Icon of the Mother of God” The doctor, Count Mikhail Tolstoy, in March 1842, asked the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books to allow him to print a manuscript under the title: “The Tale of the Miraculous Iveron Icon of the Mother of God.” A member of the committee, Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky, who was tasked with reviewing the manuscript, gave the following opinion about it: “All the historical information contained in this manuscript was drawn from reliable sources, namely from the book of Stefan Svyatogorets: Mental Paradise, from the journey of Vasily Barsky and from the history of the Russian hierarchy, and are arranged in an orderly order. The syllable is clean. Why do I conclude that this manuscript can be approved for publication? Regarding the same manuscript, Metropolitan Philaret wrote, on a special sheet, the following opinion: The legend of the miraculous Iveron Icon of the Mother of God. Sheet. 5. Can the lot about preaching to the pagans be attributed to the time preceding the descent of the Holy Spirit, when even after the descent of the Holy Spirit the mystery of the reception of the pagans into the church was not revealed and comprehended for a long time? Look at the history of Cornelius's conversion. Sheet. 27. The procession of the icon past the cemetery was not allowed by its prudent servant and guardian. I find nothing more necessary to say about this manuscript and leave it to the censorship committee to make a decision about it according to the rules given to it. March 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the conditions under which Ekaterinburg schismatics agree to accept priests from the diocesan authorities Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, asked Metropolitan Philaret to provide an opinion on the content of the request of the Yekaterinburg merchant Akim Ryazanov and the letter of the local schismatics about the conditions under which they agree to accept priests from the diocesan authorities. Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! The copy sent to me from your Excellency from a letter from the Ekaterinburg honorary citizen Ryazanov, a schismatic, with ten others, to the merchant Ryazanov, with the conditions for accepting priests from the diocesan authorities, in my opinion, is not quite convenient for office work because there is a copy. Both decency and authenticity require that private individuals submit authentic acts to their superiors. The original in private hands can easily be lost, and those whom the copy declares to be signatories can renounce their alleged participation in the matter: then on what will the matter be based? However, in order to judge the conditions, you need to delve into them separately. 1) To accept priests from all dioceses upon the election of schismatics would be an advantage that the Orthodox do not enjoy, but which would give the so-called Old Believers too much power and independence, especially with another proposed condition that the diocesan authorities would not have the right to move such priests without the consent of those Old Believers. Under these conditions, if the schismatics had chosen in a foreign diocese a priest unknown to the local bishop, who would establish them in a schismatic distance from the church, and not bring them closer to it, the local bishop would have no means left to heal evil. 2) The condition that priests should not be forced to perform divine services that contradict the literal meaning of early printed books is unclear. If what is hidden here is not to perform prayers on highly solemn days, since there is no literal indication of this in the old printed books: then this condition is inconvenient, both in the church and in the state sense. And so that priests on highly solemn days do not go to general meetings of the Orthodox clergy and pray in their churches: this is written in vain. Priests of the same faith everywhere perform such prayers in their churches of the same faith. Finally, the demand that priests not unite for prayer with those of the same faith cannot have any other meaning than that which they want for priests who are decidedly schismatic. 3) The requirement that the bishops have Old Believer priests “not as affiliated” can also have no other meaning than that these priests must be schismatic. Not joining the church and being a schismatic are the same thing. Not forcing priests and Old Believers to accept a blessing from the bishop, leaving it to their conscience, is also an expression of schism, strange and mutual. If conscience does not allow an Old Believer to accept a blessing from an Orthodox bishop, then his conscience is schismatic. Consequently, to give according to one’s conscience, to accept or not to accept a blessing would mean to give according to one’s conscience, to be or not to be a schismatic. Can this be allowed, and even in a priest? 4) The requirement that “it be allowed to use the ancient holy myrrh that the Old Believers have, without any explanation about it,” is again schismatic, for the compilers of these conditions have no reason not to agree to use the holy myrrh, consecrated in the Orthodox Church, if they recognize this sacrament as having been performed Orthodoxy and legally. If they do not admit this, they cannot themselves be considered Orthodox, nor be in communion with the Orthodox, whom they alienate. The requirement that there be no explanation about the ancient holy world is noteworthy. It is a kind of confession that it cannot bear explanation. Truly, when it is known that the holy myrrh was always prepared in quantities sufficient only for three or four years: how is it possible that the schismatics still had the original ancient holy myrrh after one hundred and eighty years or more? 5) The requirement that the compilers of these conditions leave the name Old Believers cannot be allowed because this name was invented by schismatics solely to decorate the schismatics with it, and therefore, by the decree of 1745, May 13, it is prohibited, as containing hidden blasphemy against the Orthodox Church. For if these are truly Old Believers, then the Orthodox will be New Believers: whereas true, both dogmatic and ritual antiquity belongs to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Orthodox, expressing themselves cautiously, if in the spirit of peace do not want to call schismatics schismatics, then they use the expressions: the verb Old Believers, the so-called Old Believers, that is, those who call themselves that, and not really such in truth. The expression attached to the name of the Old Believers: “subordinate to the diocesan department” does not correct the matter. What does this subordination mean when they do not want to be considered annexed, nor accept blessings from the bishop, and do not grant him the power given to him by church rules? This is the same subordination to the diocesan authorities that these people previously offered to the mountain chief: therefore, it is not a church union. 6) Submission of registry books directly to the consistory does not require an agreement: this is done by itself. 7) The requirement that the priest subjected to penance correct it in the church of the so-called Old Believers can be partially fulfilled, and, if possible, this is fulfilled in existing churches of the same faith. But if penance should be imposed because the priest, at the request of these Old Believers, strays too far from the church towards schism: can he perform penance in their church, and who will guarantee for its fulfillment? Or if, according to information reaching the diocesan bishop, the priest will be subject to a test of behavior: how can we manage without taking him to the bishop’s house? 8) The right that the drafters of the conditions want to give themselves to a priest they dislike “for whatever reason” from serving in their church and to send him to the bishop with a bonus of half his salary would mean unprecedented autocracy among parishioners, and for priests unprecedented enslavement. The slightest step by a priest towards rapprochement with the church would expose him to this right. The bishop would only be a supplier of priests to the imaginary Old Believers, and an involuntary recipient of defective priests from them. And where would he put them? To the Orthodox? Are these constant children of the holy churches of less imaginary Old Believers worthy of care in order to give them priests whom they recognized as unfit? 9) There is no need to compete much with the Orthodox authorities about the position of church elders. But what do the imaginary Old Believers want? Does arbitrariness in the church economy belong to the tenets of what they call the old faith? Obviously not. Consequently, they want self-will; they want to unaccountably have church money in their hands. By chance, it is known that the schismatics of the Chernigov province have about 100,000 rubles. Ass. per year of candle money. Perm, maybe more. This is what they agree on, not about the Orthodox faith. So, there would be no reason to write this article of conditions? Because even where there have long been churches of the same faith, the diocesan authorities, sparing their thoughts, leave the coreligionists complete freedom in the church economy 97 . 10) It is noteworthy that they are asking for permission to build churches and to renew existing houses of worship: and here there is not a word about bishop’s consideration. Everything shows that the compilers of these conditions wove a net into which they could catch the priests and draw them to themselves, and did not at all think of getting closer to the church. They want to preserve the schism by giving it the honorable name that the law took from them. Under the name of the Old Believers, they want to strengthen and legitimize the ugliest news - a schismatic republic within the Orthodox Church. It is not clear what the mediator is looking for and hoping for. In his eyes, the unity of the Ekaterinburg Church with many feats and patience of the priesthood and hierarchy is preserved in the form of three divisions: 1) Orthodox, 2) old co-religionists and 3) Ryazanov’s co-religionists, who do not communicate with the old co-religionists. Does he want another fourth section? Or does he want to further remove his new co-religionists from the church and turn them into newly invented Old Believers? It remains for me to conclude briefly that the proposed conditions, in my opinion, are unacceptable and dangerous. Returning the petition and application to Your Excellency... May 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion in the case of allowing a member of the Moscow prison committee, Chamberlain Lvov, to publish books of spiritual and moral content for reading by commoners Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, by reference dated April 23, 1843, No. 2879, asked Metropolitan Philaret to deliver a conclusion on the contents of Messrs. who joined the committee. ministers of the presentation of the chairman of the society guardianship of prisons, about permission for a member of the Moscow prison committee, Chamberlain Lvov 99, to publish books of spiritual and moral content for reading by common people, and transferred to the Minister of Internal Affairs 100, for communicating the conclusion on this subject, in relations with the spiritual and secular censorship authorities. To your Excellency’s attitude, dated April 23, No. 2876, received by me on the 29th day, which requires my opinion on a note from a member of the Moscow prison committee, Chamberlain Lvov, on the publication of books of spiritual and moral content for reading by common people, I have the honor to respond. The note’s author’s remark that the growing literacy of the people has a need for reading that can nourish the soul and heart is fair and worthy of attention. The literacy of common people, directed towards reading that is not religious, not moral, not domestic, can become worse than illiteracy. It is also true that the works of foreign missionaries translated into Russian cannot bring true benefit to the people, presenting a description of foreign morals and customs, and presenting religious concepts in a one-sided and non-Orthodox form, since they usually say nothing about the sacraments, about the hierarchy, about church rites and decrees, about the holy fathers, and about examples from the lives of saints. Intentionally or unintentionally, these writings have such a direction as to form a Christian in a world without a church, that is, a sailor at sea, without a ship. Therefore, the publication for the people of short edifying, intelligible works, adapted to their concepts and needs, is necessary, and may be useful. But it is necessary that this be agreed with the legal order and protected by precautions, since the best intentions can be subject to erroneous execution. The printing of the lives of saints collected in the Chetii-Minea always belonged exclusively to the Holy Synod. The printing of these, each one separately, can be provided to the compiler of the note only if the Holy Synod allows this. Otherwise, they can be printed for him in the synodal printing house, with the costs refunded, without any increase in price. The author of the note can be allowed to print selected passages from the Prologue of the works of Saint Demetrius 101, Eminence Tikhon 102 and other works approved by the church, with relief from dealing with the censorship, but not entirely without supervision. For even from an approved work, an excerpt taken from an approved work that is not successfully separated from the previous and subsequent ones may be subject to unfavorable and incorrect application. Therefore, both with caution and with convenience, it would be appropriate for the city of Lvov to print such selected places with the consultation and consent of a member of the Moscow Prison Committee from the clergy. Among the members of this committee there are those who are capable of justifying trust. As for the publication of new works and translations, which the compiler of the note himself intends to submit for consideration by the censor; this does not require special judgment. At the same time, returning to Your Excellency the papers sent to me, I have the honor to be Your Excellency with complete respect and devotion. No. 190. May 1, 1843 103 The case of the Muscovites. committee for qualification spiritual books, 1842, No. 32. After this, the Metropolitan wrote: “for example, the Edinoverie churches of the Moscow diocese not so long ago began to correctly keep income books and submit them for revision directly to the bishop, being led to this not by the insistence of their superiors, but by their own conviction of the need for this order to protect against confusion.” These words have been crossed out in pencil. From a handwritten draft original, stored in Moscow. diocesan library, dept. II, leaf. 10–13 incl. According to “Address-calendar, or general. Russian state Emperor for 1843,” Lvov, Alexander Nikolaevich, with the rank of stake. Sov., consisted of honorary view Ranburg. district, studied and served in the office of Moscow. military Governor General (Part 1, p. 4). Perovsky, gr. Lev Alekseevich. Demetrius (Tuptalo), St., Metropolitan. Rostov and Yaroslavl, ceased. October 28, 1709. Tikhon (Sokolov), bishop, bishop of Voronezh and Yelets, reposed. August 13, 1783 From my own. black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 89, document. No. 4.