1844 г.

January 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Dimitri, Archbishop of Chisinau and Khotyn, with an explanation of the question placed in the lengthy Christian catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Churches: “in what mind is the Blessed Virgin called the Mother of God”? Archbishop Dimitri 104, in a “secret” letter dated December 22, 1843, to Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “While translating into Moldavian the book “Long Christian Catechism Orthodox Catholic Eastern Churches,” published in St. Petersburg, in the synodal printing house, 1829, I found in it an article about the Most Holy Mother of God, on page 47, as follows: "V. In what mind is the Most Holy Virgin called Theotokos? "ABOUT. Although Jesus Christ was born from Her not according to His Divinity, which is eternal, but according to humanity: however, She was worthily called Theotokos because the one born of Her at the very conception and birth from Her was, as he always is, the true God.” I most humbly ask your Eminence to instruct and instruct me how the eternal Word, which did not pass from the Blessed Virgin, be flesh, as it is said in the scriptures, and on what basis in the last part of the period it is said that the one born of Her at the very conception and birth from Her was, as he always is, the true God, when He was born of the Blessed Virgin only according to humanity; while the whole church sings that from now on the flesh has been formed, and God the Word is also flesh to be a hypostasis. In the 3rd voice of the Theotokos, resurrection: Thou didst give birth to a Son without the Father in the flesh, before the ages was born of the Father without a mother. In the 6th tone: For without passing away, the Only Begotten Son rose from the Father, the same from you, pure, having passed indescribably incarnate, by nature God and by nature being man for our sake, not divided into two persons, but into two natures. In Tone 8: The Heavenly King, for his love of mankind, appeared on earth and lived with men. For having received pure flesh from the Virgin, and having passed from it with perception, there is only one Son by nature, but not by hypostasis. And in the verse, he rejoices in You: from her God became incarnate and the child became our God before the ages. And in It is worthy: without corruption of God the Word, who gave birth to the living Mother of God, we magnify You. And in the verse, Isaiah rejoices: a virgin was with child, and gave birth to a son, Immanuel, both God and man.” In all these and other places it is sung, it seems to me, in contrast to the first part of the mentioned period, that the Most Holy Virgin gave birth to Him not according to humanity alone; and in my opinion, in this matter it is not safe to say decisively what was said in the first part of the period; for this, according to the expression of God-wise men, is a height incomprehensible to human thoughts and a depth not perceptible even with angelic eyes. So, at least, I think, and I expect instructions and explanations from your Eminence. Mutually greeting your Eminence in the new summer, I mutually wish you that God the Word, who through his incarnation brought peace to earth, will always fill your heart with peace, according to the Apostle, which surpasses all understanding, guarding our hearts and minds. But I hasten to turn to the subject of your letter, which is especially important. From the Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, edition of 1829 (I believe this is an error; it must be 1839), writing out the question: in what mind was the Blessed Virgin called Theotokos? and the answer to this, you offer me a solution to this answer to the question or objection, in the following terms: “How is it that the eternal Word, which did not pass from the most holy Virgin, be flesh, as it is said in scripture, and on what basis is it said in the last part of the period that He who was born of Her in the very conception and birth from Her was, as He always is, the true God, when He was born of the Most Holy Virgin only according to humanity; Meanwhile, the whole church sings that even though the flesh was formed, the same flesh of God and the Word became hypostasis. “In the 3rd voice of the Mother of God, resurrection: you gave birth without a father to a son in the flesh, born before the age of a father without a mother. Here is an exact extract from your letter. There is no need to write out further; because the following sayings have one force and one interpretation. Now, first of all, I must remind myself that the catechism was issued by the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod. So, does it belong to me, a private individual, to explain or defend the confession of the Holy Synod, besides the duty that lies with me within the flock entrusted to me? And if this lot fell on me; then wouldn’t it be desirable and in accordance with the matter itself, that this should be done under the guidance and decisions of the Holy Synod, which, in the catechism issued by it, pronounced and explained its confession of the Orthodox faith? I hope you will agree that this reflection is not without reason. However, I think that I can talk with you in the simplicity of fraternal communication about the pledge of faith that is precious to us, with the confidence of agreement and unanimity with the Holy Governing Synod, in which we were confirmed by oath at our ordination. Perhaps these preliminaries will seem unnecessary to your Eminence. They seemed necessary to me, by chance. Let's get down to business. You write: “how is it that the eternal Word “has not passed from the most holy Virgin” how?... who said: “not passed from the holy Virgin?” The Catechism did not say this. On the contrary, the catechism says that Jesus Christ was born of Her, and that He was, at the very conception and birth from Her, as He always is, the true God. Consequently, the eternal Word passed from the Most Holy Virgin is confessed here And even higher it is explained in the catechism that the Son of God took on human flesh and became man, without ceasing to be God; that in Jesus Christ there are unmerged and inseparable natures, divine and human; that He is God and man together, in one word, the God-man. God, God, or as you say, the eternal Word. From this, I hope, you will see that according to the catechism, the eternal Word, which passed from the Blessed Virgin, became flesh. And consequently, the catechism does not give reasons for the question of the eternal Word, which supposedly did not pass from the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps it would not be superfluous for you to pay attention to your own expression. Why do you speak about the eternal Word, which came from the Blessed Virgin, and do not speak about the eternal Word, born from the Blessed Virgin? Is it because you are afraid lest you confuse the eternal birth of the eternal Word from God the Father with the temporal birth from the Most Holy Virgin, and lest you present the eternal Word as temporary? And in this fear, isn’t there hidden recognition of the need to more accurately define the word: birth, which is what is done in the catechism? The whole force of the objection is directed against the expression of the catechism: Jesus Christ was born of Her according to humanity. To defend the Orthodoxy of this expression, I do not need to look far for weapons. You yourself give me a weapon, in the extract you offer from the Sunday dogmatist: without the Father, you gave birth to a Son in the flesh, born before the Father without a mother. Let us rearrange these words into a clearer order, without changing the meaning. A Son, previously born from the Father without a mother, you gave birth to in the flesh without a father. What does it mean: you gave birth in the flesh? There is no doubt that the Word: flesh, was borrowed here from the Gospel saying: the word flesh is, and was used according to the reason of this saying. No one, Orthodox, will argue that the word: flesh here means not just one body, but the whole human nature. Consequently, the expression: you gave birth in the flesh means: you gave birth in humanity. Consequently, what the dogmatist says, the catechism also says. You may ask whether the word “in the flesh” also means exactly as it would have been said: according to the flesh? This doubt will be resolved by the prayer laid down according to the akathist to the Lord Jesus: Master Lord Jesus Christ, our God, we worship Your most pure Mother according to the flesh. It seems to me that from this one can also discern what the following question in vain suggests: “On what basis is it said that he who was born of Her at the very conception and birth from Her was, as he always is, the true God, when He was born of the Most Holy Virgin only according to humanity?” If you wish to propose this question, then propose it not only to the catechism, not only to the Holy Synod, but also to the church dogmatist, and to the author of the dogmatism, Saint John of Damascus, and to church prayer, and, consequently, to the Church itself, for they also say that the Lord Jesus Christ, our God, was born of the Most Holy Virgin, in the flesh, according to the flesh, according to humanity. Let us give another saying of the Mother of God verse, 3 voices, on the poem. From the Father without a mother you existed before the ages, but for our sake you were from you without a Father, and you gave birth to the flesh. All the concepts contained in the article of the catechism subjected to research are combined here. “On what basis is it said that he who is born is God?” Based on the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, as you yourself know. “On what basis, when was he born only according to humanity?” Please note that there is no exclusive word for the catechism: only. The Catechism defines birth according to humanity, but does not at all exclude the hypostatic union of the Divine, but on the contrary affirms it with the very expression: according to humanity, which is therefore necessary because the born Jesus Christ is God and man, before the age born of God the Father according to Divinity, in recent times born of the Most Holy Virgin, in the flesh, according to the flesh, according to humanity. Perhaps an example will clarify the matter. If someone told you that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory according to humanity, would you make the following objection: on what basis is Jesus Christ crucified called the Lord of glory when he was crucified according to humanity? Without a doubt, they would not have done it, for you believe that Jesus Christ suffered for humanity, although in the suffering itself there was, as there always is, the true God. Likewise, you have no reason to object on what basis Jesus Christ, born of the Most Holy Virgin, is called true God in the catechism, when He was born of Her according to humanity. The more precious for us is the treasure of purity and unity of faith, of which you and I, according to the destinies of God, are servants, the more desirable it is for me to know your thoughts about these thoughts that you caused from me and which I submit to your mutual testing and discretion, being with true reverence and love for the Lord. January 12, 1844 105 . In a secret letter dated February 9, 1844, Archbishop Dimitri informed Metropolitan Philaret that he was completely reassured by his review. “Your Eminence’s instructions and explanations opened up a way for me to understand that being born according to humanity does not at all exclude the hypostatic union of the Divine, but on the contrary affirms it” 106. April 28. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret that the schismatics of the Transfiguration Cemetery not only follow ancient erroneous opinions about the faith, but are again making up harmful rules and spreading them with an air of formality With the meek and condescending tolerance that the laws of His Imperial Majesty show to those who stray from the truth of the faith, the schismatics, especially those in charge at the Moscow Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, instead of gratefully using the peace that is given to them, act not only to disrupt the peace of the Orthodox Church, but also to violate the laws and civil order and to destroy morality. Information about this is revealed on occasion, partly when some convert from the schism to Orthodoxy. But for the most part they cannot be brought into official form, because those who turn to Orthodoxy do not dare to openly put themselves as witnesses against schismatics, fearing revenge, to which schismatics, with extensive financial resources, find many ways. A list of so-called fatherly wills has come to my attention, which in the original were signed by the senior trustees of the Preobrazhensky Almshouse, Alexei Nikiforov and a friend. At the beginning it says: from the book of the pandect; but this is only a forgery to give respect to the wills. The content of the wills is not to recognize any marriages; so that schismatics who are in a marriage union with persons who do not belong to the schism are separated from the marriage union; not to recognize physical kinship in Christian marriages; that since 1666 the royal power established by God was abolished; that now Christians getting married are the serpent’s nest of Satan, and his demons’ worst yard; that now Satan is working on the multiplication of the human race, and for the conception of a baby the soul is given from the devil. It is not difficult to see that these rules lead to rebellion, debauchery, and infanticide. To confirm the truth of the information that reached me, it happened that soon after this, in the presence of the Moscow civil governor 107, two handwritten books were sent to me, written, apparently, at the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. The first of these books, the announcement of the consent of the monasteries or Manuel, is not a new work, considers it wickedness that the king is called the most pious and prayed for him: here are her words: according to a pious faith, a pious king is also called, but according to an ungodly faith, a wicked king is called. And further: for in this monastery they are wicked, even in the form of prayer they call the wicked faithful and pious and with other titles in piety they call decent. Another book: testimony about the one common Christian narrow path, rejects marriages, and there is a new essay written in 7340, that is, in 1832. Particularly remarkable at the end of this book is the article in which the teaching that one should pray to God for the current royal power is called the Godless tradition, and in which the also harmful teaching is confirmed, which is set out in the so-called fatherly testaments. Here are the exact words of the article: 4) to the conception of such a marriage, the soul is from the devil; 5) do not recognize such marriages as physical kinship; 6) in the present last and bitterly lamentable time and in the kingdom of Antichrist, God does not provide for the multiplication of the human race, but Satan cares. At the end of this article, the following is attributed by the same hand: This tradition of Father Sergius, pretexts and objections to newlywed marriages, were written in Moscow, in the Preobrazhensky house, divided by God, under the chief abbot Semyon Kuzmich and trustee Alexei Nikiforovich, treasurer Andrei Larionovich, in the summer of 7350 (1842), the month of June on the 3rd day of many sins rector E. G. (Egor Gavrilov). From this it is undoubtedly revealed that the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery do not simply follow the old sinful opinions, but again draw up harmful rules and spread them, even with the appearance of a formality, after the signature of their superiors. It is likely that Semyon Kuzmich has a particular influence on the spread of harmful opinions. In one note, written by a person belonging to the Preobrazhensky cemetery, but beginning to realize the absurdities there, it is said: “in the Preobrazhensky almshouse “various unknown strangers appeared, called elders and abbots, and dispersing harmful novelties,” like the chief rector Semyon Kuzmich, from that rebellious previously healthy (sic) crowd, the remaining “member, dispersing harmful teachings, such as disobedience to authorities and the law.” April 26. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the possibility of leaving Archimandrite Philotheus in his position as rector of the Bethany Theological Seminary By a secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 26, 1844, No. 103, Metropolitan Philaret was announced the Highest approved, on March 12 of the same year, resolution of the Synod, dated the same month, in the case of palitographing the incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament. In this definition, by the way, it was depicted: during the research on the said case, carried out by the director of the spiritual educational administration at the Holy Synod, the actual state councilor, A. I. Karasevsky, most of the students of the local theological academy unanimously testified that the lithographing of the translation did not require the permission of the academic authorities, but they also admitted that they did it without any precautions, kept the lithographed sheets in their closets and often brought them to the classroom for the Hebrew language class. This consciousness of the students, as well as the testimony of the current inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Joasaph 109, and other more or less sufficient arguments available in the case, prove that the academic authorities, with proper supervision of the students, the care of those entrusted to him, could have prevented the lithographing of the translation they had undertaken at the very beginning, but without doing this, they accused themselves of obvious negligence about their duty and indifference to the matter so much important; for the ignorance with which the former rectors of the academy, now the Bishop of Tambov Nikolai 110 and the inspector thereof, Archimandrite Filovey 111, allowed themselves to make excuses, does not serve to justify them, but to further accuse them. For these reasons, the Holy Synod decided: for obvious negligence in supervising the students of the academy, who were carried away by this one weakness into an illegal cause, to give a severe reprimand to His Eminence Nicholas and Archimandrite Philotheus, entrusting a further examination of the latter’s conscience and admonishing him for the future to Metropolitan Philaret, so that he would report the consequences to the Holy Synod, with his conclusion as to whether This archimandrite will reliably hold the position of rector. To the Holy Governing Synod. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 26, 1844, No. 103, in the case of the lithographed translation of some sacred books, Archimandrite Philotheus, for obvious negligence in supervision, when he was an inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, was given a severe reprimand by me personally, with a signature, and with due admonition. And since the aforesaid decree also requires me to conclude whether this archimandrite can reliably hold the position of rector, I make it my duty to inform the Holy Synod that, from the time he was appointed rector of the Bethany Seminary, I had due observation of his way of thinking and acting, delving into his teaching through notes and seminar tests (which I attended last year, but only this summer due to my illness I could not attend), having occasions to monitor him acting on the censorship committee, judging by his management of the seminary and supervision of students in the course of business and personal relations, I see him in his teaching as solid and Orthodox, in his behavior as honest and kind, in his management as prudent, in his supervision as attentive, in his relations with his superiors as straightforward, and therefore I am convinced to recognize him as trustworthy for the position of rector. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod 112. July 27. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the case of Hieromonk Vladimir and Monk Abel, who arrived in Tiflis with instructions to supposedly deliver the image of St. Sergius of Radonezh to the chief administrator of the Transcaucasian region 113 By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated the 6th day of this July, No. 6877, I was ordered to deliver the appropriate information on the contents of the response of the Most Reverend Exarch of Georgia 114 to His Excellency, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, that in January of this year Hieromonk Vladimir and Monk Abel arrived in Tiflis of the Trinity Sergius Lavra, with instructions to personally deliver to Mr. to the chief administrator of the Transcaucasian region, the image of St. Sergius of Radonezh and five thousand small cypress crosses for the local army going to war against the highlanders. To this end, I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod that Hieromonk Vladimir and Monk Abel were indeed sent to Tiflis, but not for the reason that is attributed to this in the review of the Right Reverend Exarch of Georgia. To deliver the image, it would not be necessary to send two monastics to such a remote region along a difficult path: the image could be sent by mail if it was a matter of sending the image. The point was as follows. The guards of Lieutenant Vladimir Shelashnikov, who was serving in the Transcaucasian region, his mother and brother, having received vague information that he was either killed or captured, last November turned to me with a verbal request to send one of the monks to ransom, if he is in captivity, and if killed, then to find his body and deliver it to Russia for burial, for which they specifically The highest permission was requested at the same time. The reason why they wanted to use a monk was, among other things, to give the matter the appearance of a casual reconnaissance, and not a formal embassy for the ransom of a prisoner, which would arouse the greed of the mountaineers and increase the price of the ransom to excess. To this request I replied that I do not have the right by authority alone to send a monastic for this purpose and I do not hope that anyone would agree to voluntarily accept this assignment. However, having compassion for the mourners and bringing to mind that Lieutenant Shelashnikov, before leaving for Georgia, partook of the holy mysteries at the Trinity Lavra and with his pious disposition left a good memory in some of the brethren, I decided to suggest if anyone would like to accept the commission of his relatives. Hieromonk Vladimir agreed to this, who became the spiritual father of Lieutenant Shelashpikov in the monastery, and due to the distance and difficulty of the journey, monk Abel agreed to accompany him to help. When sending them, I found it necessary to entrust them to the patronage of the local authorities, and at the very beginning of the letter to the chief administrator of the Transcaucasian region, I stated the reason for their embassy in the following expressions: “a matter governed by the law of Christian love put me in the need to send two of the brethren of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius to the region entrusted to your Excellency.” I wrote in a similar way to the Eminence Exarch of Georgia. Since the commander-in-chief of the Transcaucasian region had previously filled the post of Moscow military governor-general, with reverence for the Orthodox Church, and in other respects left behind a venerable memory, on this occasion I deigned to send him an icon from the Lavra of St. Sergius, accompanying this with decent wishes, and expressing myself about St. Sergius as a prosperous prayer book for the Christ-loving Russian army. The crosses were not written to the chief administrator, nor was Hieromonk Vladimir given any written instructions, but he was given 5,000 small cypress crosses, such as Orthodox Christians wear on their chests on their inner clothing, to be distributed for blessings, according to general custom, and especially according to the custom observed in the Sergius Lavra when military detachments passed by. For soldiers, a prayer service with blessing of water is usually performed at the monastery, and small cypress crosses are offered for blessing, which are dismantled by the soldiers in greater numbers. It was assumed that Hieromonk Vladimir and Monk Abel, for ransom from captivity or to find Shelashnikov’s body, would have to go to the border areas where the troops were located: then the crosses were given to them in significant numbers, in case of distribution to the soldiers. However, this opportunity did not present itself to them, since, having arrived in Tiflis, they received such information about the subject of their journey that they had no need to go further. How they used the crosses is not clear from the proceedings in the established cathedral, and there is no report from them about this. Now I cannot ask the hieromonk, who is now the abbot, Vladimir, about this, because, upon returning from the trip, by decree of the Holy Synod, having been promoted to abbot, he was sent to the Saratov diocese, to manage the monastery assigned to him by the Holy Synod. The monk Abel shows that a thousand crosses were used on the way, especially in Stavropol, and Vladimir presented 4000 to the commander-in-chief, and this was supposed to be sent for distribution to the soldiers. Although the hieromonk, who is now abbot Vladimir, acted in this last case not on direct instructions, but according to his own reasoning, however, in my opinion, there is nothing disapproving in piously zealous Orthodox soldiers, and giving them a sign of God’s blessing from the holy monastery and from the saint of God, and thereby nourishing the pious feeling desired in them, while the holy church, in addition to general prayers for Orthodox Christians, offer special daily prayers for the well-being and strengthening of the Christ-loving army, for the sake of the special importance of their exploits. I don’t think it’s necessary to explain that this on the part of the clergy could only apply simply to Orthodox soldiers, and not specifically to soldiers going to war against the highlanders; because it is impossible to know whether, when, and which detachments of troops will go against the highlanders. The military authorities do not allow premature publicity about this, so that enemies do not take advantage of it 115. No. 355. July 27, 1844. September 5. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret. About the publication of the “Historical Reader of the Slavic and Old Russian Language” compiled by Galakhov The Holy Governing Synod; from a member of this, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, report. In the decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 18, No. 8725, in the case of the publication of Mr. Galakhov’s historical anthology of the Slavic and ancient Russian languages, consent was expressed to include in it excerpts from Church Slavonic translations of books of sacred scripture made at different times, but on the condition that these excerpts were printed similar to the publications themselves approved by spiritual censorship translations, and each passage contained the proper fullness of meaning, so as not to otherwise give rise to misinterpretations in spiritual terms; supervision of this has been entrusted to the Moscow Committee of Spiritual Censorship, under my main leadership. In pursuance of this decree, I demanded from the censorship committee materials with an opinion, by which the committee decided: to return the proof sheet from Galakhov’s anthology to the Moscow censorship committee and inform it that a) excerpts cited from the Ostromir Gospel, also from the Bible published in 1820, and from the Ostroh Bible, can be approved for publication, for the Ostromir Gospel has been published in 1843 with the approval of spiritual censorship; The Bible, published in 1820, was printed with the blessing of the Holy Synod; The Ostrog Bible was reprinted in 1663, with the blessing of the Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops, as can be seen from the very title of the Bible, printed in 1663 in Moscow, by order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; b) Chapter 10 of the book of Job, as translated by Dr. Skaryna, cannot be approved for publication: for although it has already been published in three editions of the history of the Russian state compiled by Karamzin, it is not clear that this was permitted by spiritual censorship, and moreover, the translation of this chapter, made by Scorpio from the Vulgate, and not from the translation of 70 interpreters, contains transcriptions of texts that are dissimilar from the translation Bible, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod, precisely in verses: 2, 3, 8, 13, 15, 20 and 22. I found the opinion of the censorship committee consistent with the decree of the Holy Synod and with the essence of the matter, and therefore I agreed with it, finding it necessary to add the following: 1) On page 1, the expression: the Ostromir Gospel, is disapproving. It should be more correct to say: the Gospel according to Ostromir’s copy, or according to Ostromir’s manuscript. (There is one Gospel; and there is no special Gospel of Ostromir. The Church does not even speak the Gospel of John, but from John, eliminating the thought of appropriating the Divine book even to the evangelist, much less to the posadnik. If an incorrect expression can be tolerated in the form of an abbreviation, at least the correct expression must be used the first time). 2) On page 5, the expression: from the Ostroh Bible, disapproving. It should be said correctly: from the Ostrog edition of the Bible. 3) On page 6, the expression: from the current Bible, disapproving. The Bible is the same both yesterday and now, and its translation is not so new as to call it current. 4) Note on page 1, the expression: does not contain all the Gospels, is disapproving, because it does not agree with the truth. 5) On page 3, the words: sometimes replaced (word: “would”) with the form “formerly”, for example. created beashe, disapproving. The word: be, as the writer himself noted, is the past of an inconclusive form, therefore it expresses: it was and has not ceased to be. In this case, our language unusually happily approaches the dogma of the eternal Word. To replace the word here: be with the word: beashe would mean damaging pure thought. 6) The words: and in the current Bible, referring to the Son of God, are disapproving. This is not the current translation. And its origin is not the same as that which the writer invents. The matter is explained initially more simply, according to the literal nature of the ancient translators. The translator had before his eyes in the Greek text λόγος, ἔτος, in the masculine gender, and translated literally: with or this. 7) On page 7, the words: and the desire to sanctify their disciples are disapproving: because they are not clear, and convey a false idea that only Rome and ours could sanctify the disciples of St. Constantine. It is my duty to most respectfully report this execution of the decree to the Holy Synod. Your Holiness's humble novice Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 402. September 5, 1844 The Holy Synod, by resolution of September 13–20, 1844, decided: to take note of 116. October 15. Metropolitan Philaret's order to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius, to announce, in secret, to some teachers of the academy the decree of the Holy Synod, which took place regarding the lithographed translation of the holy books of the Old Testament discovered at the academy O. to the rector of the academy, Archimandrite Eusebius. By a decree of the Holy Synod, I was ordered, in the case of a lithographed translation of some sacred books of the Old Testament, to instruct the clergy who did not report this translation to their superiors about their duty to block the spread of any non-Orthodox interpretations. The list attached to this decree shows the following persons to whom the execution of it should apply: Archpriest Delitsyn 117, Archpriest Golubinsky 118, Hieromonk (now Archimandrite) Eugene 119, Priest Slavolubov 120, Hieromonk Geronty 121. I instruct you to announce to them the above-mentioned order of the Holy Synod, secretly, personally to each, separately, being, however, confident that their well-intentioned way of thinking will not require me to add strengthened convictions. No. 36. October 15, 1844 122. October 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Bishop Jacob of Saratov 123 about the establishment of secret supervision over Abbot Vladimir, who did not present to his superiors a lithographed translation of some books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament that he had in his possession Most Reverend Bishop, venerable brother in the Lord. In the case of a lithographed, uncorrected 124 translation of some books of the Old Testament, the Lavra hieromonk, now abbot Vladimir 125, testified that the lithographed copy he had was lost, but did not provide evidence for this. Therefore, by decree of the Holy Synod, I was ordered, among other things, to establish secret supervision over the hieromonk (who is now abbot) Vladimir, and if anything contrary to his testimony is subsequently revealed, to subject him to liability according to the laws, and a copy, if found, to present to the Holy Synod. As Hieromonk Vladimir, by decree of the Holy Synod, was promoted to hegumen and entered the diocese entrusted to your Eminence, then the fulfillment of the above-mentioned order of the Holy Synod I assign as a duty to be attributed to your action, according to affiliation. With true reverence and love for the Lord, I abide Your Eminence No. 37. October 17, 1841 126. October 23. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the orders he made for the execution of a secret decree in the case of a lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament Report to the Holy Governing Synod, from Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 20, No. 90, which I received on July 7, ordered me, firstly, to instruct the clergy, who did not show their superiors the copies of the lithographed incorrect translation that reached them, of some Old Testament books, about the duty of clergy to block the spread of all non-Orthodox interpretations; secondly, to pay special attention both to these persons and to the mentors and students of the theological academy involved in the same matter, to their way of thinking, teaching and acting, and to report anything wrong to the Holy Synod. The first, in relation to persons serving in the department of the diocese entrusted to me, is fulfilled 127; and the second is fulfilled, and has to be fulfilled. Two of those named in the statement attached to the decree of the Holy Synod, according to information taken from the academic board, died, namely: Alexey Postnikov, in Torzhok, Tver diocese, and Ivan Kolokolov, in Moscow, in the Mariinsky hospital. As for Anthony of Bethany and Nikolai of Rubkholm, the academic board has no information about these persons who did not study at the academy, and there is no other way to conclude than that these persons do not exist, and that these names are fictitious by people who thought to reduce their guilt by multiplying the number of names of those guilty 128. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Governing Synod. Your Holiness No. 38. October 23, 1844 129 . October 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion and conclusion about the manuscript, under the title: “A guide to the knowledge of God’s law, compiled for rural youth By the resolution of the Holy Synod, May 5–9 of this year, communicated to me regarding the city who was correcting the post of synodal chief prosecutor, dated May 14, No. 4492, I was instructed to revise the manuscript: A Guide to the Knowledge of God’s Law, compiled for rural youth, so that, after revision and correction, as necessary, return it with my conclusion. As a result of this, returning the said manuscript, I have the honor to forward herewith: 1) an explanatory note containing my thoughts and conclusions on this matter, and 2) for these reasons, a textbook compiled under the title: Christian Orthodox teaching adapted to initial teaching and public instruction. I humbly ask you to offer them for the consideration of the Holy Synod, with complete respect and devotion I have the honor to be there. Explanatory note on the Guide to the knowledge of God's law for rural youth. By resolution, May 5-9, this 1884, No. 4492, the Holy Synod was pleased to provide me with a revision of the “Guide to the knowledge of God’s law for rural youth,” so that after revision and correction where necessary, I would return it with my conclusion. When examining the manuscript sent to me, no small difficulties arose in fulfilling what was entrusted to me by the Holy Synod. 1) The plan on which the manual is arranged, although in essence it is ordinary catechetical, is covered with another artificial arrangement and fragmentation of objects, which is not adapted to the concept of children, and needlessly contradicts generally accepted theological terminology. “Part one, about the duties of a Christian in relation to God.” According to generally accepted theological terminology, this title should mean the first part of moral theology. But in the manual under this title there is, firstly, a dogmatic teaching about the creed. This main incongruity necessarily entails other particularities. For example, under the title about duties to God, there are articles: about marriage, about the consecration of oil. The first part of the manual contains the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the first four commandments, and the other six commandments are cut off to make up the second part. In my opinion, this artificial division needlessly confuses the simple division of the catechism, which is given to it by the creed, the Lord's Prayer and the commandments of God. Trying to explain why this happened, I guess whether the compiler of the manual was told to focus less on dogmas and more on positions. If this is so: then he did not satisfy this requirement in fact; because he spoke about dogmas no less than what is usually said in the catechism: but only covered the dogmas with the titles of positions that were not typical. II. There are signs that the manual was compiled in haste. For example, in the explanation of the fifth commandment it is said about respect for superiors and masters, and does not say about respect for the Sovereign. True, this is said elsewhere; but the fifth commandment is the root of this teaching. And it would be strange if this one of all catechisms omitted this important teaching in this place. III. The expression of the teaching used in the manual often seems uncomfortably simple and is not adapted to the concept of children, especially those of the countryside. For example: “Question. In what special feelings and actions should our love for God be expressed? Answer. This can be seen from the four commandments contained on the first tablet of the Decalogue, given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai.” IV. Efforts are also not made everywhere regarding the accuracy of expressions. For example: Question. “II so what are the main responsibilities of a Christian in this life? Answer. True reverence for God and sincere love for people.” Why is the worship of God limited only to this life? Will there no longer be worship of God in the future life? V. The very title of the catechism required reflection. The purpose of the catechism is very specific; for rural youth it gives an idea of ​​how many catechisms will be needed if a special one is compiled for each rank and condition. And if in this case such a variety of presentation is used, which differs the manual from the catechisms approved by the Holy Synod: then there is reason to fear that in less knowledgeable teachers and in students who understand little, this diversity will turn into disagreement. And the intention of the Holy Synod in compiling the catechisms, by the way, was to bring the teaching of doctrine, as far as possible, to unity, and thereby to avert discord. The Orthodox faith is the same for all titles and conditions. The more unity in the presentation of its teachings: the better. If you read the manual with the aim of resolving the question: by what right does it say in the title: for rural youth: then, in my opinion, there will not be a satisfactory answer. For example, isn’t it because of its simplicity of presentation that this work is especially adapted to the concept and language of rural youth? No, as noted above. Is it not in the subjects of teaching that it especially belongs to rural youth? To resolve this, I find in the manual only one question: “how in particular can peasants serve the Sovereign?” Is it right to give an essay a specific title and purpose on just one question, when the entire teaching in it is general? But even to this only question given in the manual, the answer no longer applies to some peasants, but also to other ranks. This refers to the payment of taxes and duties. The land tax, for example, in cities extends to ordinary people of all ranks, and it is necessary to teach everyone about this tax, so that we pay it regularly and faithfully. The private title of the catechism for rural youth also presents the fear that such a title will make it less usable for other ranks for which it may be suitable and needed. This, they will say, is a rural book; and our children are not rural. Thus it was noticed in some educational institutions that the students were not attentive to the catechism, although they did not know it, because they considered it childish teaching; and they received attention already when the same teaching was called theology for them. Such consideration of the manual convinced me that the corrections that, in my opinion, are necessary for it, I am not able to introduce into the text of this work, with the hope of preserving the unity and harmonious appearance of the whole. It seemed to me possible to use this work only as a reminder of some questions that need to be included in the required catechism. However, these difficulties have not diminished my desire to fulfill the instructions of the Holy Synod as much as possible, and, if God pleases, to bring all possible service to a generally beneficial cause. For the sake of the unity of teaching, it seemed to me that I should adhere, as much as possible, to the catechisms already approved by the Holy Synod. Here the question stood on the road: why was not a lengthy catechism approved by the Holy Synod chosen? The answer is simple: because the teaching is presented in it, especially in some parts, adapted to the higher age of children, and to the concepts of people who already have some education. This was necessarily followed by another question: why were not the rudiments of Christian teaching approved by the Holy Synod chosen? My guess is that they were not elected, for short; and because it was desired to have more accommodations for the students. In fact, the short catechism, which constitutes the second part of the rudiments of Christian teaching, sufficient for those students who must move from it to listening to the lengthy catechism, is very short for those who will not move on to listening to the lengthy (catechism). For these purposes, the short catechism needs to be supplemented and more adapted to its present purpose. As for the brief sacred history, which constitutes the first part of the rudiments of Christian teaching, it, in my opinion, must certainly be included in the required educational book. Because the historical form of elementary learning is especially suited to the abilities of children, since memory and imagination are revealed in action before reason. And the very wisdom of God, which, of course, is more accurate than human reason in choosing the method of teaching the truth, in the Holy Scriptures primarily uses the historical method for initial instruction in the faith. But even the brief sacred history approved by the Holy Synod requires some adaptation to the present purpose. It would be an insufficient method of teaching to force only children to memorize historical texts. It is necessary to allow him to answer questions and teach children to give an answer with the concept. Therefore, as I have heard, some teachers force students to write questions and answers to the text of a short sacred story. In this case, it is better to help them by resolving the text for questions and answers in the educational book itself. This is all the more necessary because less knowledgeable teachers do not always successfully extract questions from the text, and thus confuse the matter and the students. Precautions are especially needed against such failures for rural schools, where, especially at the beginning, teachers may become dissatisfied with their work. The following work plan for compiling an educational book was based on these considerations. I. Use the text of the brief sacred history approved by the Holy Synod as it is. II. For each article of the text, attach questions and answers about the content of the same article, with some additions consistent with the concept and needs of the students. III. The Short Catechism, approved by the Holy Synod, should be supplemented and adapted to its present purpose. Particularly in relation to this purpose, when explaining the fifth commandment, the obligations to the Sovereign should be stated in a special article. IV. For the sake of the unity of teaching, in additions, borrow from the lengthy catechism what is simpler in it and what corresponds to the purpose of the educational book being compiled. V. Give the book a title that would correspond to its purpose for rural schools, but that would not remove students and readers of other ranks from it. Therefore, the plan has been drawn up with the following: Christian Orthodox teaching, adapted for use in primary education and for public instruction. Perhaps it is not superfluous to warn the thought that this book may not seem somewhat extensive. In my opinion, this is not a problem. Depending on the age of the students and the space of a given time, the teacher may omit other things in the classical book or postpone them until another time. It is easier for a less than excellent mentor to do this than to add to the book if it were too short. Observation of teachers of the law has more than once given me the opportunity to notice that, thinking of adding to the educational book, they deviate towards extraneous subjects and do not maintain the conformity of the teaching with the concept and needs of the students 130. December 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the notes: 1) introduction to Orthodox theology and 2) Orthodox dogmatics Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in reference dated May 11, 1844, No. 4416, asked Metropolitan Philaret to consider the notes compiled by a special committee for dogmatic, moral and pastoral theology and to deliver his conclusion on them upon returning the notes themselves. In accordance with the attitude of your Excellency, dated May 11, No. 4416, returning at the same time what I considered: 1) a synopsis of an introduction to Orthodox theology and 2) a synopsis of Orthodox dogma, I add the necessary comments on them that appeared during this consideration. From these remarks you will be pleased to see that some parts of the notes do not have such completeness and clarity that one can definitively judge their merit, and in order for them to serve as an undoubted guide for teachers, some noticeably require correction, and some parts are subject to at least further consideration regarding their appearance and placement in the main classroom. Thus, these notes, in my opinion, require further revision, consideration and improvement. The slowdown in this matter was due to the fact that illness repeatedly reduced my strength to the point that it was barely sufficient for the ordinary activities of my diocesan ministry, and was not enough for extraordinary activities, of which, however, I completed a considerable amount of work in reworking the catechism for the village youth and forwarded it to your Excellency, with regard to October 31, No. 493. The notes so far considered constitute the most important subject of concern. However, I will try not to delay you in reviewing the rest. I. Notes on the outline of Orthodox dogma (More correctly: dogmatic theology) I. Dogma is defined in the outline as a rule of faith and activity. The rule of faith has always been called dogma. The rule of action is called a commandment. The summary provides evidence that the truths of faith are called dogmas; and for the truths of activity to be called dogmas, there is no evidence for this. II. Under the name of dogma, the abstract distinguishes two types: 1) every Christian teaching revealed by God Himself, 2) taught by the church. This division does not represent correctness. Logic says that the divided parts should not be contained within each other. And here the second concept lies in the first. For the Christian teaching taught by the church is nothing other than that revealed by God Himself and preserved through Holy Scripture and tradition. If the idea was to distinguish between: 1) the Christian teaching revealed by God and contained in the Holy Scriptures, and 2) preserved by tradition and taught by the church: then it is necessary to point out the union of both teachings. The teaching of Holy Scripture is explained by tradition, that is, by the definitions of councils and the interpretations of the holy fathers; and the teaching of tradition must mutually agree with the Holy Scriptures. This is what the holy councils and holy fathers did. St. Basil the Great 131 in Epistle 186, to Eustathius 132, writes: “if a strong habit serves as proof of right teaching, then of course we can also oppose the contents of the habit. If they reject this, then we certainly need to follow them. “And so let the inspired scripture be tested by us. “Whoever acquires dogmas that agree with the Divine words, the truth must certainly be attributed to them.” In his word on faith, he writes: “It is an obvious defect to fall from faith and pride, if anyone rejects something from what is written, or introduces what is not written in defiance.” In his brief rules, number 95, he writes: “everyone must learn from the inspired scripture what is proper and necessary to eat for the accomplishment of piety, and so as not to become accustomed to human traditions.” III. With the words: Christian teaching revealed by God Himself, the notes indicate the words of the apostle: Eph.2:15. In the indicated place the following is read: abolishing the law of commandments by teachings, etc. It is difficult to guess with what thought this text is indicated here. IV. The division of this science is intended to be done following the example of the fathers and teachers of the Orthodox Church; and at the same time points to Dionysius Petavius ​​133. It would be better to point directly to the Orthodox fathers, and not to send those led to a non-Orthodox theologian. V. Creation and providence are called in the outline the general actions of the Divine, and the economy of salvation is called a special action. The terminology is not satisfactory. The concept of a special action does not quite agree with the concept of universal grace (gratia universalis). VI. An introduction to dogmatic theology is not consistent with a general introduction to the nature of terminologies. There you can see the direction towards replacing foreign words with domestic ones. So, for example, not even the word that came into use was used: religion, but faith was used. Here, on the contrary, one can see the direction towards the multiplication of school and foreign words, for example: church practice. And this is unnecessary and against benefit. Just as students of seminaries are prepared to teach the doctrine of faith to the people, and not to students of the Latin language and school philosophy, so in teaching them the doctrine should, as much as possible, adhere to the generally understandable language, and avoid school and foreign expressions 134. VII. The two doctrines of creation and providence are mixed together in the summary. This is not conducive to order and clarity. Each must be presented separately, as theologians usually do. VIII. In mixing two teachings about creation and providence, a third about angels is interfered with; this also does not favor order and leads to compulsions and incongruities. For example, under the main article: God is the provider of good angels, there are particulars about evil angels, the truth of their existence, their fall, etc. By presenting God as the provider of only good angels, the summary seems to deny that evil angels are also subject to God’s providence. Promising to speak only about the good, then to speak about the evil. Having promised to talk about providence, then talk only about enmity against God, and not about the providence that protects from this enmity. IX. In the notes the article is assigned: the number of created spirits. The purpose is incorrect: for the abstract, without a doubt, does not know the number of created spirits. X. Under the main article: God, as the creator of angels, a special article is assigned: the faithfulness of some, and the infidelity of others, that is, the fall of angels. But this does not apply to creation. XI. After the article: infidelity, that is, the fall of angels, there is again an article: about evil angels - their fall. Two incongruities are revealed here: firstly, one thing is said twice; secondly, after the fall of some angels, from which they became evil, the fall of the evil angels again appears, as if they had fallen from an evil state into some other state. XII. In the article: the participation of angels in the structure of the church, it would be desirable to find more rigor in the use of words. Another is to serve, another to participate. For example, it is another to participate in a meal, and another to serve at a meal. An angel, as a creature, cannot participate with the Creator, both in the creation of the world and in the establishment of the church. XIII. After the teaching about creation, about providence, about our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine about predestination is not placed in the outline in its proper place. Did creation happen without predestination? Does providence operate without predestination? Did the Son of God become incarnate without predestination? Therefore, the exposition of the faith of the Eastern patriarchs offers the doctrine of predestination before the doctrine of creation. In the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila and in the catechism issued by the Holy Synod, predestination is mentioned after creation: but this is for the special reason that the doctrine of predestination, due to its complexity, is not catechetical, and therefore in the catechism a place is sought for it where it could be mentioned with greater simplicity. In theology, predestination should be spoken of either before the doctrine of creation, or at the very beginning of the doctrine of Divine economy. XIV. In the teaching about the accomplishment of our salvation by Jesus Christ, the necessary and important teaching about the Old Testament economy of salvation, or about the preparation of the human race to receive Christ the Savior through promises, prophecies and types, is missing. Here this teaching has a more appropriate place than in the teaching about the church. XV. The Old Testament church, its hierarchy, sacred rites, and government are discussed in the outline almost more than together in a brief dogmatic theology. The concept of these subjects is given in church and biblical history. XVI. The summary indicates one of the most important members of the New Testament teaching - about Christ crucified. There is no less important member - about the Holy Trinity. See Matthew 28:19. XVII. The doctrine of the sacraments makes no mention of the performers of the sacraments. For this reason, for example, if a seminarian, having become a deacon, decides to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist without a priest, then he can justify himself that he was not told in theology about the need for a priest for this sacrament. XVIII. The doctrine of the sacraments deals with the substance and form of the sacrament. This is school terminology, which is forcibly attached to the subject. For example, what is the substance of repentance? What is the substance of the marriage? And to questions about the form of some sacraments, only forced answers are given. We must abandon the inappropriate school terminology and speak in accordance with the essence of the matter. The exposition of the faith of the Eastern patriarchs does not speak about the substance and form of the sacrament, but says that the sacraments are composed of the natural and the supernatural. XIX. Under the article on the sacraments in general there is an article: their necessity. Necessity is not common to all sacraments. XX. Confirmation is attributed in the notes to uniqueness. This is not certain. It is repeated over those who renounce the name of Christ and turn to faith. See Pravoslav. Isp., part I, issue, 105. XXI. The article is promised in the outline: image of communion. According to the meaning of this expression, it is necessary to talk about the communion of the clergy in the altar under two types sequentially, and the laity outside the altar under two types collectively. But there is a subject that requires more dogmatic attention - the communion of all under both types, and not under one. And this is not just an image. XXII. The concept of the government of the New Testament church, the basis of the teaching about it, etc. One must fear that those led will not be sufficiently enlightened by these expressions. XXIII. Under the title of the end of God's economy for private persons, it speaks of death, of private judgment, of the state before the general judgment, of prayers for the deceased. All this is not yet the end for individuals, just as for the human race. A more precise expression is required. XXIV. In the rules for using the synopsis, judgment is pronounced on previous educational books of dogmatic theology. It is fair to say that they cannot be designated as classics because they are not complete, and having been written, more or less according to the examples of foreign books, they do not have the desired perfection, and if they are readable, they require not a careless power of attorney, but research attention. But the summary pronounces a more strict judgment, namely, that they cannot be used due to their proximity to foreign systems, which are all imbued with the spirit of their religion, and some with so-called rationalism. Although this last judgment applies directly to foreign systems; but it casts a very dark shadow over the books discussed here. Is it useful, is it decent, is it fair to publish such a judgment in all theological schools? There are not unimportant reasons to doubt this: 1) The previously used educational books on dogmatic theology are: the theology of Theophan 135, the theology of Irenaeus of Falkovsky 136, the theology of Iakinthos of Karpinsky 137, the theology of Theophylact 138, the theology of Metropolitan Plato 139. The imperfections of these books, of course, are not such that they can be reasonably suspected of rationalism. 2) One of these books was written by Metropolitan Plato; all of them, if not completely approved, however, for many years, without reproof and rejection, were allowed to be used in theological schools by the Holy Synod and the other hierarchy, and, among other things, by the leading members of the Holy Synod, Metropolitans Gabriel 140, Ambrose 141, Michael 142, Seraphim 143. No one can say that these men are disposed to patronize or tolerate books infected with rationalism or unorthodoxy. 3) The judgment of these men and the Holy Synod, without a doubt, should be given more importance and strength than the opinion of the 1837 committee on classical books. 4) If we know and honor the dignity of the church, its invincibility by the gates of hell, especially the infallibility of the teaching church, will the proclamation in all theological schools serve to confirm this important truth in the minds of all theological schools, as if until now the hierarchy and the church have taught and learned dogmas from books that are imbued with the spirit of alien faiths and even rationalism, and that Orthodox teaching is now just beginning? 5) The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila, indicated in the rules of 1838, and in the synopsis of 1844, as a book by which dogmatic teaching should be verified, is also indicated in the synopsis of 1814, as a model of confession 144, which would guide theology. Consequently, the Russian hierarchy and its schools, before as now, adhered to the same pure source of Orthodoxy, and with it they cleared away the particular and occasional shortcomings and errors of educational books written at different times, which were used in anticipation of better ones, and which are more useful to reprove and correct with moderation and condescension, rather than to disturb minds and consciences with exaggerated denunciations and suspicions. You should try to remove the twig from your neighbor's eye, and not stab his eye with the same twig. 6) To explain a little more that a lenient judgment is in place here, let us take as an example Theophilacti 145 doctrina de credendis et agendis. It is fair to recognize in it its closeness to the foreign system of Buddha 146. But Buddha's system is by no means rationalistic. It represents the belief in the inspiration of scripture; in the Holy Trinity, in Jesus Christ the Son of God the Redeemer, in the truth of prophecies and miracles, but he sins with teachings belonging to Protestantism, from which Theophylact was not difficult to guard against. For example, Theophylact could safely remain in close proximity to Buddha, speaking about the consubstantiality and Divinity of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, and Buddha’s Western teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which did not penetrate into the above-mentioned parts of the teaching, had to be refuted and was refuted by the Eastern Orthodox teaching. Theophylact lacks accuracy and completeness in his presentation of Orthodox teaching, when he places the Holy Scripture as the basis of dogmas, without adding tradition, but since from the Holy Scripture he derives the same Orthodox dogmas that are deduced with the help of tradition, and also brings St. fathers, as for example in the teaching about the Holy Spirit cited by Ambrose 147, Chrysostom 148, Gregory the Theologian, John of Damascus 149: then his book does not deviate from Orthodoxy. He mentions tradition after dogmas and recognizes it as important for the explanation of certain passages of Holy Scripture, and for the explanation of dogmas (ad dogmata illustranda). And thus the previous inaccuracy is sufficiently corrected by 150. II. Notes on the outline of an introduction to Orthodox theology. I. About natural faith, the outline suggests two teachings: 1) what is it? and 2) about its insufficiency. Between these it would not be superfluous to put a third: how does natural faith know God? This would better prepare for the doctrine of its insufficiency. It is not pleasant for a believer to hear proof of the existence of God, as if they do not consider this truth safe. However, Saint John of Damascus did not consider it unnecessary to write in the third book of his theology, in the third chapter, a testimony that there is a God, and in the fifth, a testimony that there is one God, and not many, and to use, among other things, evidence from reason. Who can guarantee that the person described in the thirteenth Psalm no longer exists, and that teaching against him is not necessary? Within our fatherland there are still pagans: consequently, there are people for whom testimony is needed: that there is one God, and not many. Previously, some satisfaction of this need was assumed in the teaching of metaphysics; but in the definition of the Holy Synod, from March 9–12, 1840, it is said that a systematic presentation of the main concepts about God can be presented in the teaching of dogmatic theology. The summary must be in accordance with this definition of the Holy Synod. The very expression: natural faith does not fully satisfy the thought, which was previously more correctly meant by the expression: natural knowledge of God, the word of God speaks of faith as a gift of grace. If we allow the expression: natural faith, then the deist will have to be called a believer, whereas Christians usually called him an unbeliever, and quite rightly. II. The synopsis article on the sources of the Christian faith does not present a clear systematic sequence of concepts. After, according to the assumptions of the summary, the Divine importance of these sources, and therefore the Holy Scriptures, has been proven, why and in what sense is it still necessary to prove the reliability of the holy books of the Old and New Testaments? How to present the integrity and integrity of traditions before showing their sources? III. To the evidence of the Divine origin of the Christian faith outlined in the summary, is it not necessary to add evidence from the consideration of the Old Testament revelation? It is true that similar things are promised in the note. But this subject is important and worthy of more than just a subordinate note. For Jesus Christ Himself proved His Divine mission from the books of Old Testament revelation. IV. The teaching about the sources of the Christian faith in the summary is followed by the teaching about the Holy Church as a teacher of faith. Here it is not useless to note that the church consists not only of teachers, but also of disciples of the holy faith. But further in the outline of Orthodox dogma, after the dogmas about God and Christ, it is intended to present the concept of the church in general, the New Testament church, the Divine institution, its properties. A comparison of these parts of the outline reveals a difficulty in the expected course of the teaching. Is it in the order of concepts to first speak of the church as a teacher, and far later present the first and general concept of it? True, the outline and the introduction intend to present the general and specific concept of the church; but in this case the same teaching will be offered twice, in two places. With what force will the doctrine of the church be proposed as a teacher, when the concept of its Divine institution and its properties has not yet been given? And is it possible to thoroughly expound the doctrine of the Divine institution of the Christian Church when the doctrine of Christ is not expounded? Saint Cyril of Jerusalem 151 and Saint John of Damascus 152 did not propose a doctrine of the church before the doctrine of God and Christ, and consequently recognized that the doctrine of God and Christ could be thoroughly expounded before the doctrine of the church. The Ecumenical Creed proposed a doctrine about the church after the doctrine about God and Christ. This order is observed in the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila 153. The ancient and modern teachers of the Eastern Church adhered to this order. The theologians of the Roman Church adhered to it for a long time. Not very long ago, theologians of the Roman Church began to propose a doctrine about the church and about the pope before the doctrine about God and about Christ, noticeably trying to mix their teaching about the church and about the pope together and give their teaching about the church and about the pope the primary importance, as if without it it would have been impossible to begin the dogmas about God and Christ. Therefore, it is proposed for consultation and for prudent consideration in obedience to the ancient holy church, is it necessary for the Orthodox system of theology to imitate this Western innovation? When presenting the doctrine of sacred tradition, it is necessary and enough to say briefly about the church historically, as about its guardian treasure. As long as the sources that contain the sacred tradition are well defined and indicated, which is what is prescribed in the outline, then this is enough to move forward with a firm foot in theological teaching. The documents are ready: Holy Scripture, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the definitions of the councils. State dogmas; Draw arguments from these sources: the dogmatic teaching about the church will come in its place, which the ecumenical creed has assigned to it. V. The introduction defines the doctrine of Orthodoxy of the Greek-Russian Church. Without an exposition of this subject, it is difficult to determine what is heading towards and how this purpose will be fulfilled. Why, for example, is it supposed to talk about the Orthodoxy of the Russian and Greek churches, and not the Eastern Church in general? The name of the Greek church is now more difficult to use well than before: because the church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, the name Greek is not typical in our time; On the contrary, there is a so-called Synod in the Greek kingdom, which does not have the blessing of the universal church. How can the Orthodoxy of the church be proven when Orthodox dogmas have not yet been set forth? VI. Next, the beginning and rules for judging Orthodoxy are assigned. Do all note takers correctly determine which beginning this is, and what are the rules that the note does not say? This remark can also be applied to some other articles of the summary, such as: signs of Divine revelation. VII. Between the symbols, as sources of teaching, the so-called apostolic is assigned. Orthodox theologians use this symbol historically, considering it as a rather ancient document and very common in the West, but not dogmatically as the basis of theological teaching, because it does not have universal dignity. All ecumenical councils recognize and approve the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol; but they don’t talk about the so-called apostolic. It is known how the Nicene-Constantinograd symbol is composed. All expressions in it are taken from the Holy Scriptures. With this determination of the fathers to express themselves about dogmas in literally apostolic words, if the church already had a literally apostolic symbol: is it possible that the fathers of the councils would ignore it and begin to compose a symbol, instead of just adding to the ready-made one, as a defense against newly emerging heretical teachings? The so-called apostolic symbol is found for the first time after the time of the Nicene symbol in the Western writer Rufinus 154. In the Synodal library there is a manuscript entitled: “A brief and well-known testimony, like the call of the apostolic sumvol, is not a syllable of the holy apostles, but alien to the holy church, is similar to the syllable of Marcellus the heretic” 155. In this manuscript, among other things, one reads the following words of the learned theologian Maxim the Greek 156: “For they say, as the Divine Apostles assembled, they expounded the symbol of the Orthodox faith to one of them, and I spoke a certain part of them. What divinely inspired book you delivered, you did not reveal, for fear of reproof from the pious. Nowhere can we find such writing among our faithful believers, below we have seen it written down, not in the book of which it is more Orthodox, below we have heard this from someone else even to this day.” VIII. The summary indicates symbols and definitions regarding the faith of the saints fathers named by the Council of Trulla. It's not complete. The Council of Trula does not name the fathers of the first centuries, for example, St. Ignatius 157, St. Irenaeus 158: but they deliver a lot of important and necessary things in this matter. IX. The name of preparatory sciences is unusually attached to some subjects, instead of the name of auxiliary sciences. Is it really, for example, impossible to begin to study theology otherwise than after preliminary preparation, through the history of the Russian church and the doctrine of antiquities and rituals? X. The summary says that the first part of the essential sciences of theology shows the relationship of God to man, or what God has done, is doing and will do for man. This is dogmatic theology. If it is permissible to pay attention to the correctness of expressions, it would not be necessary to say: essential sciences are divided into two parts. One whole is divided into parts. But what is much more important is that the subject of dogmatic theology is not fully defined. The teaching about the properties of God, the teaching about the Holy Trinity, is not a teaching about the relationship of God to man, or about what God has done for man. And the doctrine of angels is not a doctrine of God’s relationship to man. XI. There is an inconsistency in the name: negative dogmatics. Dogmatics is actually positive theology, representing positive teaching, or dogmas. Consequently, to say: negative dogma means to say: positive negative theology. If negative theology had been said, there would be no contradiction here. XII. It is not typical for the essential sciences of theology to include the doctrine of heresies and schisms in the abstract. This is not essential in theology. The essential science of theology would be intact and perfect if heretical and schismatic teachings did not exist in the world, and therefore not a word would be said about them. Essential in science is what is necessary in it. XIII. It is proposed for consideration: is moral theology sufficiently determined by the fact that it shows man’s relationship to God? Isn't the knowledge of God the relationship of a person to God? And it belongs more to dogmatic than to moral theology 159. Dimitri (Sulima), archbishop. Kishinevsky, died on August 4, 1844. From a copy corrected by the Metropolitan himself, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 35, document. No. 13. This correspondence was published in full in the Proceedings of the Kyiv spirit. Academy, 1882, June, pp. 212–219. However, Metropolitan Philaret’s response to the letter from Archbishop. Demetrius was published even earlier, in Reading. total loves. spiritual education, for 1868, V, 115–149. About his correspondence with the archbishop. Demetrius Filaret at one time informed his close friend, the Most Reverend Gregory, Archbishop. Tver, later Metropolitan of Novgorod. (See his letters to Gregory in the Reading General. Love Spiritual Enlightenment of 1877, Nos. 9 and 10). In 1811 Moscow. citizen lips there was Ivan Grigorievich Senyavin; died June 19, 1862 From an autograph, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 16, doc. No. 1. Joasaph (Pokrovsky), from the rectors of the Tambov seminary; in 1844, on August 24, he was appointed rector of the Podolsk seminary. (History of St. Petersburg spiritual academician, I. A. Chistovich, p. 340.) Nikolai (Dobrokhotov), Bishop of Tambov, from April 27. 1841; retired, April 7 1857; mind. Oct 21 1864 Filovey (Uspensky), from February 15. 1857 Bishop of Tver, and from April 23. 1860 archbishop; passed away 29 Jan 1882 in the rank of Metropolitan of Kyiv. With own black authentic, storage in Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. II, leaf. 18–22. In 1844, command. department. Caucasian Corp., the chief administrator of the Transcaucasian Territory and commander of the military Caspian Fleet was Adjutant General, Infantry General Alexander Ivanovich Neygardt; mind. in 1845. Archbishop Evgeny (Bazhenov), on November 12, 1844, transferred to the Astrakhan See, and from there on April 15. 1856 moved to Pskov, where he died. July 6, 1862. From my own. black authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. IX, sheet. 28–31. Case of the Holy Synod, 1844, No. 2378 and case of the Muscovites. committee for censorship. spirit. books, 1844, No. 12 (17). Delitsyn, Pyotr Spiridonovich, prot., in Moscow. spirit. acad. was a professor of mathematics. science and French language, mind November 30, 1863. See above, page 3, note. 2. Evgeny (Sakharov-Platonov), since 1842 inspector of the academy, since October 6, 1857 bishop of Dmitrov, since October 13, 1858 bishop of Simbirsk. In 1874 he was retired. Slavolubov, Petr Kosmich, Bachelor of Greek. language; in 1844 he left the academy, in 1848 he died. in the rank of priest. Hieromonk Gerontius, graduated. course in 1838 with the title of full student, he was left at the academy in the position of economist. With own black authentic, storage in Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. II, leaf. 11–12. Jacob (Vecherkov), bishop. Saratov, from March 27, 1832; from 13 Jan. 1847 bishop Nizhny Novgorod; mind. May 20, 1850 The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. About Hieromonk Vladimir, see above No. 280. From the property of Chern. authentic, stored in Moscow. Diocesan library, dept. II, leaf. 13. After this, the Metropolitan wrote: “just as it was fictitious, as if the criminal St. Petersburg publication was repeated in Moscow, in 300 copies.” These words have been crossed out in pencil. With own black authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan library, department II, sheet. 14. With black authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. III, leaf. 133–139. Basil the Great, St. archbishop Cappadocian and famous church teacher, b. in October 328, prest. in 379 Eustathius, St. archbishop Antiochian; Prest. OK. 345 Petavius Dionysius, Catholic theologian, †1652 After this, in the original edition, there followed a paragraph with the following content: Wisdom is classified in the outline as a property of the will of God. If the abstract does not want to attribute wisdom to the mind, at least it should not attribute it to the will alone. Wisdom cannot be separated from the mind. But this paragraph was later crossed out in pencil and as a result the subsequent numbering was changed. Feofan (Prokopovich), archbishop. Novgorod; mind. September 8, 1736 About the work. his op. I. A. Chistovich: “Feofan Prokopovich and his time.” SPb. 1868 Irenaeus (Falkovsky), bishop. Chigirin. and coadjutor Kievsk. Metropolitan; from his op. special attention deserves: “Christianae Orthodoxae Dogmatico-Polemicae Theologiae Compendium”, M. 1802, in 2 volumes. Mind. April 20, 1823 [We have corrected the spelling of the first 2 words to a more traditional one. In: Christiannae Orto-doxae. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] Iakinf (Karpinsky), archimandrite. Novospassky mon., mind. in 1798; he owns the essay: Compendium theologiae dogmatico-polemicae, Lipsiae, 1786. Theophylact (Lopatinsky), archbishop. Tverskoy, mind. 1741 Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Moscow, mind. 1812. He owns, among other things, “Theology, or Orthodox Christian teaching, St. Petersburg. 1765" Gabriel (Petrov), Metropolitan. Novgorod. and Olonets, dismissed, December 19, 1800; mind. Jan 26, 1801 Ambrose (Podobedov), Metropolitan. Novgorod, from March 26, 1818; dismissal retired April 6, 1818; mind. May 21, 1818 Mikhail (Desnitsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod. and St. Petersburg, from June 25, 1818; mind. March 24, 1821 Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod, from June 29, 1821; mind. 17 Jan 1843 See the same edition, vol. I, no. 43, p. 125. Theophylact (Gorsky), bishop. Kolomna; mind. 1787 Buddeus, John Francis, German philologist, professor. theologian in Jena, b. in 1667; mind. in 1729 Ambrose, bishop St. Mediolansky, banner. church teacher, in the 4th century; mind. in 397 John Chrysostom, St., Archbishop of Constantinople, Rev. Sep 14, 407 John of Damascus, St., famous. Father of the Church, in the 8th century, Rev. OK. 776 This was followed in the original edition by a paragraph with the following content: Regarding the teaching method, the 1844 notebook refers to the rules of the 1814 notebook, recognizing them as sufficient. If the rules are usable, then it is better to include them in a new outline rather than refer to the previous one. 2) When a new, more complete and satisfactory summary is given, there is no need to distract attention by pointing out the old and incomplete one. 3) It was not difficult for the compilers of the 1844 synopsis to notice from the 1811 synopsis, as well as to know historically, that it was compiled with a lack of experience, with a paucity of aids, with inevitable application to the then paucity of the library and educational books. Why renew in memory the old synopsis, which speaks condescendingly about books on which the 1844 synopsis pronounces a strict judgment? - But this paragraph was crossed out with a pencil. Notes on the summary of Orthodox dogma are printed verbatim in Reading. total love spirit. enlightenment 1869, VII, 75–83. Cyril, St., Bishop of Jerusalem; Prest. 385 See above, p. 135, ex. 5. See above, page 18, ex. 1. Rufinus, nicknamed Toranus or Tyrannius, known. spiritual pisat.; mind. in Sicily, in 410. Markell, list. Ancyrian, 4th century. Maxim Grek, originally from Albania; studied at Italian universities; summoned to Moscow in 1518 to analyze Greek manuscripts in the grand-ducal library and correct liturgical books. Slandered before the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, he was exiled in captivity and died in 1556 in the Sergius Lavra. Ignatius, St., named. God-bearer, manager the Antioch flock; in 107 he was martyred. ended his life in Rome. Irenaeus St., see about him above, p. 85, etc. 2. After this, in the original edition there followed the following paragraph. “The outline is sent to mentors who do not have an approved classical book, and who should be protected from the imperfections of previous books and from the influence of books of different faiths, foreign ones: then it is proposed for consideration whether it is necessary to indicate in the outline some books of the holy fathers, especially close to the subject, such as, for example, the theology of St. John of Damascus. A reference to the Holy Fathers in general, due to its vastness and uncertainty, cannot be sufficiently helpful; cross out this § with ink.” The letter was rewritten from his own. Black The original, and the appendices to it, are from copies corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, located in Moscow. diocesan library, dept. II, dist. 33–34, 39–51; 96–103. Comments on the summary of the introduction to Orthodox theology are printed in the reading. total loves. spiritual enlightenment 1869 VII, 68–4, with some, however, omissions.