1848 г.

January 18. Metropolitan Philaret's remarks on the report of the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books On January 16, 1848, No. 3, the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy presented to Metropolitan Philaret a report from the censorship committee on the works it examined for December 1847. The report, by the way, showed a manuscript approved for publication, entitled: “The Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord Jesus Christ” 240 . Having examined the report, Metropolitan Philaret gave the following resolution: Jan. 18. The article on the baptism of the Lord was subject to unfavorable judgments. And it really wasn’t passed through with much caution. For example, Jesus Christ did not appear to the world until he was 30 years old, because it was not allowed, etc. As if he was subject to ordinary permission or non-permission. On the day following the last embassy of the Jews to John, Jesus appeared for baptism. What is this based on? The combination of two holidays is made due to ignorance of the day of one and the other event. In vain the time of the last event is covered with uncertainty; Moreover, ignorance of the time of two events does not lead to their connection. The leaders of the church considered it a duty, as it were, to speak teachings on the day of Epiphany. The phrase is empty and serves no purpose. Grace is invoked on the waters, which would make them not only fit for consumption, etc. Are they really consecrating water that would otherwise not be fit for consumption? Why, in a Moscow newspaper about the feast of Epiphany, do Latin poems and Latin rituals, stupidly told? Three boys go to the altar. Yes, in the Latin church there is no altar; there is an open throne. And a lot more awkward things. We need to look more carefully 241. January 29. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow Synodal office, with comments on the newly compiled catalog of unprinted and handwritten books stored in the Synodal library The prosecutor of the Moscow synodal office, V. M. Mikhailov 242, in a proposal dated February 5, 1836, No. 43, explained that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev, in his order to him, dated January 31, explaining that the presented catalog of handwritten books kept by the patriarch the sacristy, written uncleanly, on low-grade paper and not with sufficient detail, he instructed the office to propose to the office the compilation, through the newly appointed caretaker of the patriarchal sacristy, of a new catalog of those books, in better form and with more detail, and together with a report to him, with the first mail, whether in the library of the patriarchal sacristy, except for handwritten and some printed books, and if there is, then present them with a detailed inventory The office, after hearing this proposal, as determined on February 5 of the same year, decided: to entrust the synodal sacristan Hieromonk Anastasius 243 so that, in accordance with the order of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, he would begin compiling a new catalog of handwritten books stored in the patriarchal library, and, once compiled, would order it to be rewritten, on better paper, to the best scribe, and then would present the catalog to the office of the Holy Synod. In pursuance of this order, the mentioned catalog was compiled initially by Hieromonk Anastasius, and then by the sacristan, the cathedral Hieromonk Eustathius 244, and verified with cash by a member of the office, Archimandrite Theophan 245, and then presented to Metropolitan Philaret, who, dated January 29, 1848, for No. 49, made a proposal office the following notes: Moscow Holy Synod office, proposal. When it was reported to the office of the Holy Synod that the catalog of the Synodal library had been finally compiled and, after examination, approved, due to the importance of the subject, I made it my duty, as far as other activities allowed, to make sure of its satisfactoryness by personal review. Having started this, I found the following: In the article: Greek manuscripts, sheet, No. 3, shows Antiochus' letter to Eustathius, on 312 sheets. Without looking at the manuscript, one can assume that Antiochus' letter does not extend to 312 leaves. Under No. 4. Apostolic Acts and Epistles for Church Use. This last expression does not represent the correct meaning. Are there other acts of the apostles for civil or any other use? One can guess that this is a manuscript written not continuously, according to the order of the apostolic text, but arranged in the order of the church daily readings. But we must speak correctly. Under No. 5. Apostolic Acts and Epistles with many edifying conversations, sayings and words. What need does the director of the catalog need to praise conversations that they are edifying? What meaning can be found in the words: apostolic epistles with sayings and words? Under No. 9. Biography of Arseny V. and some other saints. And there is no correct wording here. If there are many saints, then biographies, not biographies. Under No. 10. Parables and apothegases (vm. apothegmas). This shows that the catalog was left to the mercy of a senseless scribe; and there was no concern to believe him. Under number 11. Askitikon or Patericon. If askitikon is the exact title of the Greek manuscript, then it should have been written in Greek. This remark should not apply to this book alone. And if there is no title on the manuscript, then why did the descriptor not be content with the familiar word Paterik? Under No. 13. Greek-Eastern Church. Wrong, I must say eastern: for the eastern church is not limited to Greece. Why was the All-Russian Church excluded from the Eastern Church? Under No. 15. The collection containing the lives of various saints begins with a conversation by Vasily V. What conversation? And if there is a conversation here, then why is it said above that this collection contains only the lives of saints. At number 17. Vasily Vel. the words are the same, with the addition of one more, i.e., counting 4. This is not a feature of a neat catalogue. At number 20. Vasily Vel. words by number. It was said before: the same words as above. This is not said here. This leads to the false conclusion that these are completely different words that are not in previous manuscripts. At number 22. Vasily Vel. conversations numbering 56. Unsatisfactory, without indicating which conversations, after, under No. 18, the conversations on the Sixth Day are shown. And if the number is shown here, then why is the number not shown at number 18? These comments, taken from only the first three pages of the catalog, are sufficient, in my opinion, to confirm that the proposed catalog is far from the desired perfection and would not correspond to the dignity of the place before those who know the matter. And by this dignity of the place I am prompted to offer the above-mentioned remarks and this matter to the careful consideration of the office of the Holy Synod. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 49. January 29, 1848 246 February 25. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the issue raised by the Evangelical Lutheran General Consistory regarding the baptism of infants conceived in a Protestant marriage before their fathers joined Orthodoxy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated January 21, 1848, No. 361, wrote: “The Evangelical Lutheran General Consistory, under the current circumstances of the East-Zeya region, raised the issue regarding the baptism of infants conceived in a Protestant marriage, before their fathers joined Orthodoxy. Since the resolution of the mentioned issue requires special caution, then, wishing to keep in mind the opinion of your Eminence on this, I consider it my duty to transmit at your discretion, dear sir and archpastor, an extract from the report on this subject to the Minister of the Interior 247 of the Lutheran General Consistory and humbly request that your conclusion be communicated to me on this matter.” Attached to the letter was an extract from the report to the Minister of the Interior of the Evangelical Lutheran General Consistory, dated July 3, 1847, No. 747, with the following content. “As a result of your Excellency’s proposal of last May 8, the General Consistory considers it its duty to convey: 1) In the case when such persons enter into marriage, one of whom professes the Orthodox faith and the other the Protestant faith, the marriage must be blessed according to the rites of the Orthodox Church, and a subscription must be taken from the person professing the Protestant faith that the children who are to come from this marriage will be baptized and raised in the rules of the Orthodox faith; which is fulfilled as a result of this subscription, according to Article 71, X Vol. St. Zak. (ed. 1842). 2) If the parents (father and mother) converted to Orthodoxy, then their subsequent children must be baptized and raised in the rules of Orthodoxy for the sole reason that this is required of the converted parents by the faith they have accepted. 3) For the third case, i.e. when a child was conceived by parents who did not convert to Orthodoxy, but in a purely Protestant marriage, before the father joined the Orthodox faith, who then died immediately after joining, without expressing a desire for the expected child to be baptized according to the rite of the Orthodox Church; and when this child is born to a mother who has not changed her Protestant faith and has not given a signature that the child born to her should be baptized according to the above-mentioned rite, there is no law depriving a Protestant mother of the right to baptize her baby according to the rite of the Protestant Church, as the General Consistory explained on the issue of the Livonian Consistory. Accordingly, as in article 71, X t. Holy Law. nothing is said at all about the baptism of children conceived, and therefore receiving their existence, in a Protestant marriage, from a Protestant parent who converted to Orthodoxy later in time and immediately then died, then the general consistory, bearing in mind that 65 art., I vol. St. Zak. no interpretation of the law is allowed, without the highest permission, I humbly ask your Excellency, according to Article 51, 1 volume of the Holy Order, to intercede a law that would cover the 3rd of the above cases.” Metropolitan Philaret, dated February 25, 1848, wrote to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod: Your Excellency was pleased to demand my opinion on the question of the Lutheran General Consistory: in what religion should a baby be baptized, 1) whose parents married in Protestantism, 2) who was conceived by a Protestant father, 3) whose father, upon the conception of the baby, joined the Orthodox Church, and finally, 4) died before the birth of the baby. The question is complicated by such circumstances that the question involuntarily arises: was there such an unusual case, or if it was, then it is likely that it will not be encountered again, so that there would be a reason to draw up a law; and is it not just that one is looking to establish, at least mentally, a case in which the son of an Orthodox Christian could enter Protestantism, so that this case would be the end of the thread for attracting others? The time of conception of a baby is sacred: and if the law is tied to this time, then questions should arise that are even less convenient to resolve than the present one. According to this, the laws of the Russian state determine the rights of a person born by the time of birth, and not by the time of conception, and those born in marriage are given the rights of birth without entering into the search for the time of conception. In accordance with the general spirit of laws, the principle, that is, that the law should be based on the obvious, and not on the hidden, doubtful and incapable of clarity, can be applied to the present case. One born of an Orthodox father belongs to the same religion of the father 248. March 29. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the question: is it possible to give schismatics priests who would be under the authority only of the civil authorities? It is supposed to demand that schismatics accept priests, without demanding that they renounce the church and without performing a ritual on them, the so-called correction. Without negotiations, you can know that the schismatics will either evade this with some cunning answer, or promise this, but will not fulfill it. There is undoubtedly, although unofficially, a well-known example in the Saratov diocese of those who insincerely joined Edinoverie, secretly used a rite of correction on their priest. One cannot expect better from schismatics. Religious and moral truth are rays of the same light: where the former is mixed with error, the latter cannot be pure. The sect thinks that its not quite free position excuses the use of guile in its defense; and a priest who perjures himself before the church will easily calm the conscience of a layman who has betrayed his word of honor before the government with permission. If the basis for relations with schismatics about the admission of priests independent of the hierarchy to them, or, what is the same, about allowing priests to change churches and fall away from legal authority, is based on the principle that in matters of faith and conscience all compulsion must be eliminated: to this justice requires saying, firstly, that this very principle is subject to exceptions when it concerns a sinful conscience, as for example, the Christian Greek emperors, of course, did not sin when they ordered the destruction of pagan temples and strictly prohibited sacrifices, without consulting with the pagans about matters concerning pagan faith and conscience; secondly, that the above beginning does not lead to the intended conclusion. The schismatics have their own wrong faith and sinful conscience, but the government with the entire church and Russia has its own right faith and conscience. Therefore, it is necessary to spare, if possible, the wrong conscience of schismatics; but incomparably higher is the duty not to outrage the conscience of the entire Orthodox Church and Russia by allowing priests to change churches and fall away from legitimate authority. The schismatics more than once proposed, as if it were an innocent matter, that the spiritual authorities should give them priests at their disposal, and receive them back when they prove worthy of condemnation. If it were a question of a necessary thing, wouldn’t someone who doesn’t have it be ashamed to offer it to a stranger who has it: give me this thing for my independent use so that you can take it back when you need to repair it, or throw it away completely? But schismatics make such a proposal not about a thing, but about a priest, with his faith, conscience and moral life. But let there be no pleasure in the fact that this is offensive to the church hierarchy. She must be patient. Let us pay attention to how this could be accomplished. 39 of the Apostolic Canon says: Without the will of their bishop, let presbyters or deacons do nothing, for they are the Lord’s people. So, to release a presbyter to the schismatics for church action, independently of the bishop, means to act contrary to the apostolic rule; means introducing the Lutheran element into the Orthodox Church. The 10th apostolic rule says: pray with those who are excommunicated, so that you yourself may be excommunicated. The schismatics, obviously, are both those who excommunicate themselves and those who are excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. So the hierarchy, by releasing the priest to pray with them, would have made both him and themselves guilty of the apostolic rule. At the basis of these rules lie thoughts not just about order and subordination, although, however, these thoughts are worthy of respect, but most of all thoughts about the essence of church affairs, and about the preservation of faith and morality. For example, according to church rules, a priest has the right to perform the sacrament of marriage, but the power to terminate this sacrament, that is, to dissolve a marriage, belongs to the highest hierarchical level of the bishop. Let us assume that the Raskolniks have been given a priest independent from the bishop, and that a parishioner comes to him, for a legitimate reason, to ask for a divorce. What will the priest do? This question is insoluble. It would be incongruous to give a schismatic priest episcopal and even more episcopal power; because the bishop will not decide on the dissolution of the marriage on his own, but asks for synodal permission. Let us also assume that a priest independent of the bishop lives and serves with schismatics for several years, without instruction, without supervision, in excess, with a weak conscience, because selfishness alone can motivate one to accept this wrong position. There are many reasons for damaging morality: and if it is damaged, will not the spiritual authority give an answer to God for this, which would agree to put the priest in a position, no matter how wrong, just as dangerous? Let us assume that the schismatics return the priest they once had to the diocesan authorities, declaring him unfit. How will the diocesan authorities judge him? Without research, relying on the accusatory report of the schismatics would be illegal; and the research that, according to the law, must be carried out by the spiritual authorities, is not possible in a circle of schismatics inaccessible to them. It may happen that schismatics, for the sake of suggestions inclining towards Orthodoxy, will form a crowd to slander and accuse the priest, and will make the diocesan authorities an instrument of their revenge. The above considerations lead to the conclusion that the Orthodox spiritual authorities cannot, in good conscience and without violating church rules, allow the establishment of schismatic priests independent of bishops, and that this establishment would require a new legal provision on the church-schismatic structure and administration, in any case irreconcilable, both with church rules and with the Code of Laws. If, therefore, a subject in which concessions cannot be made on the part of the spiritual and ecclesiastical principles is considered from the political side: can this consideration correctly and reliably lead to a conclusion different from the above? Would a policy be sound, would it be useful, which would demand that which cannot be allowed in good conscience, which cannot be allowed without violating church rules, which would produce confusion and contradictions in legislation and government? If the royal love for Orthodoxy, and in accordance with this state policy, gave the Orthodox Church in Russia the advantage of the dominant religion over other recognized faiths; Would it be consistent with this to give the schism the right to recruit priests from the Orthodox, and make Orthodox bishops not leaders, but only suppliers of priests to schismatics, and then executors of punishments over priests whom schismatics recognize as worthy of condemnation? Already, the schismatics have already formed into a special sphere in the state, in which the democratic principle dominates over the hierarchical one. Usually, several arbitrarily chosen or self-appointed trustees or elders manage the priests, income and affairs of the schismatic society, depending on the need, collect money from it, and, contrary to the laws, sometimes en masse draw up petitions to the government from many thousands of souls. Is it consistent with monarchical policy to strengthen this democratic trend by formally forming schismatic parishes, with priests subordinate to schismatic elders and laity? The word apostolic sometimes explains the state of Christianity through likening it to the army. Now, by the way, I will use this method of explanation for the subject under consideration. If a military leader, seeing a part of the army that was disobedient, and at the same time in need of officers, and hearing the desire of the disobedient to borrow officers from those in a legal position, with their removal from their legal superiors except in the event that the disobedient returned them as unfit, agreed to this partly in the hope that the officers who had fallen out of power would bring the disobedient under power, partly in the calculation that unworthy officers would upset society recalcitrant: what would such a policy be? Would she be consistent with the dignity of her legal authorities, thorough and reliable? Wouldn't it be reprehensible to discipline an army in a legal position? But this would definitely be a policy that would give schismatics from the spiritual authorities of the priests, at their disposal, independent of the spiritual authorities. The policy used in relation to schismatics since 1826 seems to some to be embarrassing, because they look only at its relationship to schismatics; and if you look at her relationship to the laws, then she should be considered lenient. For example, a fugitive priest is prohibited from moving from province to province and from district to district. There is no oppression here, because even the legal priest’s action is limited, even within narrower limits; and even this is more than lenient, because, according to the law, a fugitive priest, like any other fugitive, should be immediately caught and sent to trial, but he is left calm in the wide field of the whole district. It cannot be said that this policy did not have the desired consequences. She gained the unity of the church a large number of fellow believers. If, for the invention and foundation of a new policy in relation to schismatics, an example is sought in the fact that the government, through the eyes of politics, looks at the transition of entire societies to Orthodoxy by such people who, even after their conversion, remain, as before, ill-informed or ignorant in the Gospel teaching: then in this case, very dissimilar objects are compared, which therefore the comparison does not promise reliable conclusions. Moreover, if we carefully consider the political view of the government, for example, on the reunification of the former Uniates with the Orthodox Church, this view turns out to be pure and direct; This policy does not contradict either church rules or other grounds for legal action. When the highest, and almost all the subordinate Uniate clergy, after their internal meetings and preparations, which lasted several years, after preparing their flocks for reunification, introduced in their churches, according to ancient Orthodox custom, altars, and the service of the liturgy, according to the order and books published from the Holy Synod, finally, in their assembly, they drew up an act of their determination to reunification with the Orthodox Church and presented it to the government; The government policy, of course, was pleased with the matter so favorable to state unity, but it was also pleased with the fact that this matter happened with such ecclesiastical correctness as had ever been observed in such a case. If the fact that at the same time the villagers remained, as before, ignorant of Christian teaching, was considered a reproachable concession of truth to politics, then similar blame should have been placed on the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, who baptized the Kievites, and on the Apostle Peter himself, who, after one speech to the Jews about the faith of Christ, immediately baptized three thousand of his listeners, establishing themselves, of course, not on their sufficient understanding of dogmas, but on simple obedience to faith. No such concession, and a completely different policy, is required for the proposed delivery of priests to the schismatics. If, as one of the researchers of this subject explained, neither decency nor hierarchical dignity allows the spiritual authorities to enter into relations with schismatics and appoint priests to them, then what kind of policy can accomplish this, perhaps a policy that does not pay attention to decency and hierarchical dignity, which would, without legality, take priests from the spiritual authorities and give them to the schismatics? There is no doubt that such a policy is not in the spirit of the pious Russian government. Thus, renewed research again leads to the conclusion I proposed earlier that it does not seem either correct, convenient, or useful to give schismatics priests independent of their spiritual superiors 249 . April 1st. Instruction from Metropolitan Philaret to the clergy of the Moscow diocese on the protection of bell towers in Moscow 1848, April 1st day. In some cases, it has been noticed that bell towers in Moscow are not strictly guarded. And as a result, there may be incidents that are unfavorable for public peace. An example of this is the act of the Catherine Hermitage by the mentally damaged hierodeacon Seraphim, who on November 8, 1847, at night, rang the bell in the Catherine bell tower. Therefore, and for similar considerations, it is considered necessary to prescribe the following for observation: 1) Bell towers should never be left unlocked. 2) Keep the keys to the bell towers to the priests, and trust the clerics only when necessary, and when confident of prudence and caution. 3) Do not have ropes from the bells lowered to the ground. 4) Special supervision over the protection of bell towers during times of idle crowds, such as on holidays and festivities. 5) The deans announce this to the priests verbally and secretly, so that caution is used and so that unnecessary curiosity is not aroused. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 250 May 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion about the bigamy of the soldier Larina The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, in relation, dated March 31, 1848, for No. 2265, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “The Most Reverend Iliodor 251, Archbishop of Kursk, presented to the Holy Synod for consideration the case of the soldier Vera Larina, who, being legally married to a private of the settled battalion of His Majesty the King’s Prussian Grenadier Regiment Emelyan Larin, married, around 1820, a peasant noblewoman of Khitrovo, Pyotr Bannikov, based on the fact that, according to rumors that had reached her, her first husband had died.” The Eminence of Kursk, taking into account that the event of the marriage of the soldier Larina with the peasant Bannikov has been proven and that her first marriage with the soldier Larin was destroyed subsequently by the death of this latter, believes that the marriage of the soldier Larina with the peasant Bannikov should be recognized as valid from the time of the death of the soldier Larin, which followed in 1823, and the children she, Larina, and Bannikov had after that, should be considered legitimate. Although the Holy Synod has in mind similar decisions on some cases of this kind, but, taking into account that these cases, as separate ones, cannot serve as a basis for resolving similar cases in general, then, wishing to keep in mind the opinion of your Eminence on this subject, I make it my duty to transmit to your discretion, gracious sir and archpastor, a note from the mentioned case of the soldier Larina and humbly request oblige me with your favorable review on the upcoming occasion.” To the attitude of Count N.A. Protasov Metropolitan Philaret answered in his own hand: Your Excellency, dated March 9 (No. 2265), demanded my opinion in the case of the soldier Larina, who, during her husband’s life, married the peasant Bannikov, from whom she passed to her first husband, and after his death she again passed to her second. This matter, consisting of a complex combination of random circumstances, is therefore inconvenient to bring literally under church rules. If the second marriage had begun during the life of the first husband, it would, without a doubt, be subject to dissolution. The matter was not made any less illegal by the fact that the first husband died. However, the crime is reduced if the second marriage is due to false information about the death of the first husband, and in this case, if the crime was discovered after the death of the first husband, this can be taken as an indication of Providence to judge the matter leniently; and in this way one can decide to cleanse the sin with penance, and leave the second marriage existing. But the circumstances of the present case do not favor a lenient judgment about it. The soldier says that she married her second husband due to outside rumors about the death of the first; but this is unproven, and the very uncertainty of the testimony exposes its groundlessness. The soldier does not say from whom and how she received information about her husband’s death. The old law, which, as less perfect than the Christian one, judged marriage matters more leniently, nevertheless strongly condemns that cohabitation when a wife, having passed from one husband to another, again returns to the first. The first husband, who let her go, will not be able to return her to his wife, after she has been defiled, for it is abominable before the Lord your God (Deut. 24:4). But Larina was twice in such return cohabitation; after marriage to her second husband, she moved into cohabitation with her first husband for the second time; and after a second cohabitation with the first, she returned to a secondary cohabitation with the second; and she and her second husband did this willfully, without submitting their confused situation to the permission of the spiritual authorities, as befits conscientious Christians. Therefore, I believe that this matter should be resolved, not by leniency, but by justice, that is, by recognizing Larina’s marriage with Bannikov and its consequences as insignificant, with the imposition of penances on both. The extract from the case is returned. July 4th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Archbishop Innocent of Kherson 253, with an opinion about the akathists printed in the Uniate Pochaev printing house Your Eminence, Bishop, beloved brother in the Lord. Your Eminence communicated to me, in manuscript, an akathist to the Life-Giving Sepulcher and the Resurrection of the Lord, I read, according to my disposition, for my edification, and at your request, in order to tell you my thoughts on this subject. I said, and, upon reflection, I am not convinced to abandon what was said, that the Spirit of God, through our God-wise fathers, in the hymns of the Great Saturday and the Great Day of Easter, gave us treasures of contemplation, prayer, tenderness, joy, which do not need supplementing from our poverty; that one can decide to compose new church prayers, at the request of special circumstances and as directed by the providence of God, for example, in honor of a saint newly glorified by God; but that it is not so convenient, arbitrarily, to again decide to compose an akathist to a sacred subject, before which the universal church from its beginning through many centuries revered, not judging the need to compose an akathist; that in our time, which is not very rich in zeal for extended prayer, the zeal of the monastery requires not an arbitrary multiplication of lengthy prayers, but the maintenance of an accurate, without sensations and inattentive haste, fulfillment of the anciently faithful general prayers of the Orthodox Church. You contrast what I have now said with the fact that the Akathist to the Sepulcher and Resurrection of the Lord, printed in the former Uniate Pochaev printing house, represents signs of antiquity. I don't think so. In the Pochaev edition, the akathists are not arranged in order of subjects (in this case, the akathist to the Most Holy Trinity should have been placed first), but, apparently, the younger ones are placed after the elders by origin, and thus the placement of the akathist to the Sepulcher and the Resurrection of the Lord after the akathist to the Dormition of the Mother of God and St. Nicholas is a sign of its news, and not of antiquity. It is worthy of note that the church-wide akathist to the Mother of God in the book itself has an ordinary title, but in the table of contents there is something not found in ancient Orthodox publications, namely: akathist to the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos. It is obvious that with this new title the compiler of the book wanted to justify the addition of new akathists of various subjects, then following, such as, for example, the Holy Sepulcher, the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and so on. A sign that the work is not ancient is also the lack of art of the writer in Orthodox Church considerations. In the canon of the tomb and resurrection of the Lord, he did not put irmos on either the Great Saturday or the great day of Easter, but put the often used irmos of the Theotokos: I will open my mouth. You saw this inconsistency and found it necessary to change not only the irmos, but also the canon. That the akathist does not represent either respectful antiquity or respectful dignity, you yourself are evidence of this by the fact that you found it necessary to re-compile it in many parts. You indicate the sign of antiquity of the akathist in the inscription of the prayer placed with it: the creation of Cyril the monk. And here it seems different to me. This prayer does not belong to the compiler of the akathist; for if he had compiled it, then, without a doubt, he would have applied its content to the content of the akathist, but this is not in it. All this prayer is repentant, in the expressions characteristic of this content, and about the resurrection of the Lord there is only one expression at the beginning of it: Thou hast vouchsafed me to see the glorious day from the tomb of Thy resurrection, which, perhaps, provided the opportunity to use it for the akathist. So, let there be the ancient Cyril the monk and his prayer; That’s why the author of the akathist included his name in the inscription of the prayer, because he took it to the akathist that already existed before. Consequently, the prayer of Cyril the monk proves the news, and not the antiquity of the akathist. It seems to me that I agree with you, at least in that the prayer does not belong to the akathist, for you did not include it with the akathist you rearranged. Let me note in passing that this prayer has the dignity of edification; but it is impossible to attribute ecclesiastical dignity to it, due to the dogmatic inconsistency admitted in it. At its beginning and continuation it is addressed to the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at the end it is said: for Thou art our God, Father, and Son, and Holy Soul. Returning to the akathist, I admit with pleasure that by your correction it has been cleared of important inaccuracies and its dignity has been elevated; But whether you overcame all the difficulties in re-creating an incorrectly constructed building, I admit to my doubts. For example. In Ikos 9, it is said: You entered through the closed door to Your disciple; by eating from the bread and the honeycomb, you assured their true teacher and Lord to be; with the same words I say with unspeakable joy: Rejoice, life-giving tomb. The apostles see the risen Lord; they are convinced of the truth of His appearance, and, leaving the present Lord, they turn with praise to His absent tomb. The representation is imaginative, unnatural, forced and inconsistent with the essence of objects. This remark, to some extent, can be applied to some other icos. In Kontakion 3, it is said: You who are most iniquitous, raised up everyone’s praises to you: Alleluia. The most lawless could not prevent the praise of the Risen One; but it was not they who raised the praise. In Kontakion 4. Rejoice, in him grace apparently rests. Visible or not visible? In Ikos 7. You were reviled by them. It seems to me that in the words of Luke and Cleopas: Are you the only stranger, that is, is there really one stranger in Jerusalem who does not yet know what has happened in it in these days: why are you such a stranger? There is no vilification. In Kontakion 8. Your view of us according to the flesh. The look of grace was accomplished not only by the flesh, but also by the Divinity of Christ. The flesh suffered in the performance of this vision, but the Divinity also acted in the person of the God-Man. In ikos 8. To Your very tomb we call with gratitude. It is better to take gratitude to the Lord than to the grave. If I were at a loss as to what conclusion I would draw from all of the above, I am saved from this difficulty by the fact that I have in mind a conclusion that is already ready-made. Regarding the Greek akathist to the Holy Sepulcher, which is similar to yours in that in it the laudatory and prayerful appeal is constantly addressed not to the face of the Lord, but to the Holy Sepulcher, or, as it is said in your first kontakion, to the place of His burial, I presented my opinion to the Holy Synod, and the Holy Synod approved it by its decree. A list from my submission and from the decree of the Holy Synod is attached 254. It is, without a doubt, consistent with the dignity of the Holy Synod that the decision given yesterday not to say anything contrary about the same subject today; and it is consistent with your dignity to honor the dignity of the Holy Synod and protect the immutability of its church decisions. If my thoughts do not gain your approval, and you blame me for them; then take part of this guilt of mine upon yourself, because you caused them from me, alleviate part of it by putting my sincerity on the weight, and for the rest of the guilt, punish me with similar sincerity, and I will remain grateful. It is also useful for you to know what I know from reliable people in Moscow, or from the late His Eminence Innocent 255, Archbishop of Volyn, namely, that His Eminence Eugene 256, Metropolitan of Kiev, presented to the Holy Synod about not printing any more Pochaev akathists, because the people, without further reasoning, were attracted by the new and unusual, clings to the use of these akathists, with a cooling to the ancient church general rite of Divine services; and that the Holy Synod approved this idea. So the judgment of the Holy Synod was previously in agreement with what he said in 1848, as a result of my presentation. 257 August 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with a conclusion regarding the wording of the draft resolutions on marriages and their consequences Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, asked the Metropolitan in two respects: first, dated May 21, 1848, for No. 3400, to deliver a conclusion on the recall of the chief administrator of the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery on the Metropolitan’s 258 considerations communicated to Count Bludov regarding the edition of the draft decrees on marriages and the consequences thereof, received in relation to the Metropolitan, from August 5, 1846, for No. 18,259, and the second, dated July 28, 1848, for No. 4946, about accelerating the response to this relationship. On May 21 (No. 3400), your Excellency requested my opinion regarding the proposed additions to the regulations on the consequences of illegal marriages. At the thought of some delay in my answer, I hope your Excellency will take into account, among other things, a painful time in Moscow and throughout the diocese entrusted to me, which required intensive management training, and during which medical precautions required not to prolong training to the point of extreme exhaustion. The first of these assumptions is expressed as follows: “In the article on cases in which a marriage should be considered invalid, mention is also made of the invalidity of marriages of persons who, by a court verdict, are deprived of all rights of state, until their marriage is dissolved at the request of their innocent spouses.” I find myself in the need to admit that it is not clear to me what it means to recognize a marriage as invalid until it is dissolved, as if, upon dissolution, it will cease to be invalid. If by the name of the invalidity of a marriage is meant something between its validity and complete destruction, and, consequently, this is not tantamount to the dissolution of the marriage, then the purpose of the proposed law, to avert bigamy among exiles, will not be achieved. If the invalidity of a marriage is given a meaning equivalent to dissolution, then the civil law, defining this, would go beyond its inherent limits. Just as the hierarchical authority, according to church rules and order, performs the sacrament of marriage, so it can only terminate the effect of the sacrament. The civil law, without touching the limits of the spiritual department, could eliminate the doubt about bigamy with the following provision: If, deprived of all the rights of his estate and exiled to Siberia for life, he had a wife at his previous place of residence, but she did not want to follow him; and if he then entered into a new marriage at a new place of residence: in this case he is not subject to liability before the law on bigamy, and is not subject to criminal court. To the remark that the law allows exiles to marry while traveling to Siberia, justice requires the remark that this permission is given only to celibates; and misunderstanding must be averted so that it does not extend to those who are married. There was a case where an exile with a wife sought to marry before being sent into exile, and at the same time tried to present himself as incapable of being sent into exile. Then there would be a great absurdity that a husband could sit next to two wives, the old and the new; and a non-exile could say, why am I not allowed what is allowed to a criminal and an exile? The second assumption concerns some details of the law regarding child marriage. The proposed additions, in accordance with church law, could be allowed in the following form: A person who entered into marriage while a minor in the Church has the right to ask for a dissolution of the marriage on the grounds that the expression of good will required by the Church in a minor does not have full force, due to the immaturity of reason and will. But if such a person, from the time of marriage until the time of civil majority, did not ask for a divorce, then this very thing is accepted as confirmation of good will; and upon reaching civil adulthood, the right to ask for divorce ceases. This right also ends with the birth of children or pregnancy, except in the case where it is proven that the marriage and its consequences occurred due to violence. It goes without saying that an adult who has entered into marriage with a minor does not have the right to renounce this right, 260 to which he expressed his good will when committing it. As for children from marriage with a minor: what is the beginning, such are the consequences; what is the marriage, so are the children. If the marriage is approved, then the children are legitimate. If the marriage is dissolved, then the children from a marriage that is not recognized as legal and not approved are not legitimate. The third assumption: should it not be possible to allow marriages to take place in chapels and in houses, if there is no church within a distance of 500 miles? Until now there have been no problems due to the fact that this permission was not available. And if you introduce it into the law, you can fear great difficulties. The importance of church rule will be shocked. If a marriage in a private house is legal and sacred when the church is 500 miles away, why will it be illegal and unsacred when the church is 50 or 5 miles away? The matter does not become more or less holy as the number of miles goes by. The schismatics will say: why not respect our marriage in a chapel or in a house? Those who want secret marriages more boldly than the present one will attempt to perform them in homes and new difficulties will arise both in research and in solution. It is impossible to include all particular and unforeseen cases into laws; and introducing them into laws creates new cases of tampering with the law. For civil law it is enough that marriage is correct before civil law when it is correct before the church. If the civil authority doubts the legality of the marriage, it questions the spiritual authorities and confirms its decision. And the spiritual authorities, of course, will not condemn an ​​Aleut marriage performed by a priest not in a church, but in a house of worship, or even in the open air. We know that one hieromartyr 261 in prison celebrated the Divine Eucharist on his forearms: the church looks at this with reverence; but nevertheless, he maintains the general rule that the Divine Liturgy must be celebrated in a consecrated church, and does not write a new rule that, if necessary, it can be performed on the chest of a clergyman. August 22, 1848 262 . September 19. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the manuscript “Image of the Most Holy Theotokos, Helper of Sinners” The editor of the Moscow police newspaper Nikolai Ushakov submitted to the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books a manuscript entitled: “Image of the Most Holy Theotokos, Helper of Sinners.” The censorship committee entrusted the consideration of this manuscript to a member, professor of philosophy, Archpriest Theodore Golubinsky, who presented the committee with the following opinion about this manuscript: “The judgments contained in this manuscript about the sacred origin and dignity of icon painting and about images of the Most Holy Theotokos in general, both historical and symbolic, are thorough. The news about the icon of the Mother of God, the Helper of sinners, and the explanation of the thoughts contained in the signature around this true icon do not contain any mention of miracles and healings.” The Moscow Committee for the Censorship of Spiritual Books, finding the opinion of a member, professor of philosophy, Archpriest Theodore Golubinsky, fair, decided: the manuscript “Image of the Most Holy Theotokos, Helper of Sinners,” in accordance with Articles 206 and 207 of the statute on censorship, should be approved for publication, but since the Moscow parish church, in which the image of the Most Holy Mother of God described in the manuscript is located Mother of God, is under the main direction of Metropolitan Philaret, then, without putting his opinion into practice, submit it and the manuscript itself for the discretion and permission of his Eminence. Metropolitan Philaret, at the presentation of the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books, dated September 19, 1848, wrote: Sep. 19. Thoughts about symbolic icons are not accurate. The face of the Mother of God is always historical and not symbolic. There is still an unresolved case about the icon of the Mother of God brought into the St. Nicholas Church in Khamovniki, and therefore it is untimely to spread information about it, especially since some verbal and written disclosures were made on behalf of (omission), which turned out to be false. Therefore, I cannot express my consent to the publication of Article 263 presented herein. November 10. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the manuscript: “The Legend of the Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God, called Vladimir” Mikhail Bogolyubsky, a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, who completed the course of study, submitted to the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books a manuscript entitled: “The Tale of the Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God, called Vladimir.” The censorship committee entrusted the examination of this manuscript to a member of the academy, inspector, Hieromonk Sergius, who returned the manuscript to the committee with the following opinion: “the main guide to this “legend” was Karamzin’s “history of the Russian state.” The author used both this manual and other reliable sources correctly. The tale is arranged in a sequential, chronological order and presented in a language that is generally understandable. Since the collection of information about the icon, reverently revered throughout Russia, can bring spiritual benefit to readers, and in the manuscript in question there is nothing contrary to the rules of spiritual censorship, then I believe that this manuscript can be approved for publication.” The Censorship Committee, finding the said opinion of a member of the academy inspector, Hieromonk Sergius, fair, decided to approve the manuscript “The Tale of the Miraculous Icon of the Mother of God, called Vladimir”, based on Article 206 of the charter on censorship; but, since the person who submitted the manuscript for consideration by the committee is a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, and his manuscript contains the history of the miraculous icon located in Moscow, then first submit the said manuscript with an opinion on its approval, for the discretion and permission of your Eminence.” On the presentation of the committee for censorship of spiritual books, dated November 1, 1848, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: November 10. I do not oppose the publication of this manuscript, however, leaving it to the attention and responsibility of the committee to consider the details. Is it Metropolitan Constantine’s job to order his tongue to be cut out? Is it consistent with the combination of circumstances that the people of Vladimir swore an oath to Yaropolk and Mstislav before the icon of the Mother of God, and defended Michael against Yaropolk under Her protection? Does it relate to the blessings and miracles of the Mother of God that Her icon was brought to Novodevichy when Godunov was called to the throne 265? Not earlier than 1848. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the charter of the Holy Trinity Community of Sisters of Mercy 266, and the draft of new rules for the community Some thoughts about the structure of the Holy Trinity Community of Sisters of Mercy I. The existing charter of the community is drawn up and arranged in such a way that those who follow it must encounter difficulties. II. For example. It stipulates that it should be read to the sisters every Saturday. But is it necessary for them to hear articles every Saturday, which is 15: “for the production of written affairs, drawing up determinations, annual reports, disposing of the economic part, the trustee determines the head of community affairs, whose position is assigned VI class and the uniform of the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.” It would be necessary to decisively separate the articles following the guidance of the sisters and assign them to reading. III. § 67. “Sisters of mercy have lunch and dinner at certain times.” Why not say exactly what time? IV. § 95. “The subjects are on duty at lunch.” But what are they doing here? V. § 102. “Subjects may request leave on vacation.” Vacations are allowed quite generously in the charter. This can keep them entertained, especially the younger ones. VI. § 129. “To study the Latin names of drugs, the nurse at the pharmacy invites other sisters and subjects to the pharmacy every day in the afternoon.” What will the pharmacist sister do when 20 or 30 nurses come to her pharmacy? If there are only 10 sisters in the community; Will she really get bored of going to the pharmacy every day? Obviously, this article requires a different, more tailored presentation. VII. “The sisters get coffee in the morning.” And it seems that if it is on Wednesday and Friday, and then they go to the liturgy. The order would have been better if they had listened to the early liturgy and then went to have coffee from it. VIII. The statute shows many of the duties of the abbess; but her rights in relation to the community are not visible. People go to monasteries decisively for the sake of God; but even there offenses occur, for the correction of which the abbot has the right to use certain corrective measures. The Sisters of Charity are probably not without sin. IX. The sisters drink coffee in the morning and tea in the evening. Do they have morning and evening prayers? X. After lunch they go to the pharmacy. What do they do before lunch, besides those on duty? XI. There is no rule in the charter that would allow persons who do not belong to the Orthodox confession into the community. It's good if that's true. The difference of religions prevents the community from being harmonized into spiritual and moral unity, animated by one common spirit and given internal strength. XII. The separation of penitents is very inconvenient within this community. If the sisters of mercy shun them, this is natural and this is an approving trait. It is another thing not to condemn a fallen neighbor; but it’s another thing to shun it. The first is duty, the last is caution. Among the sisters of mercy, of course, there are also young, inexperienced, unestablished ones; they must be protected from every sight and word reminiscent of vice. For those who repent, it is necessary to establish a department that would be led by people who combine spiritual intelligence with love for humanity and the power of victory over the flesh and the world. XIII. For the community to have true spirit and strength, it is necessary that each one entering it should have and try to establish in his soul the desire to please the Lord by serving his lesser brethren, in the hope of hearing the blessed word: you were sick and visit Me. XIV. The composition of society can be represented as follows: XV. The abbess is also a sister to others in love and humility, a mother in love and care, a boss in duties and rights for the benefit of the other sisters and the whole community. XVI. The abbess does not officially accept newcomers for six months or a year, only with legal written permission, and can also not officially remove them if it does not turn out to be reliable. XVII. The subject is officially assigned for three years. XVIII. A sister of mercy takes a lifelong vow. XIX. The abbess, for her own convenience and if necessary, can use one of the older sisters as an assistant. XX. The abbess entrusts new entrants and probationers to the older, most reliable sisters for guidance in business and for moral and spiritual advice, to the extent they are capable. XXI. On days when there is a liturgy, the sisters perform morning prayer in their rooms, and go to church for the liturgy. On days when there is no liturgy, they listen to morning prayers together in church. XXII. In the evening, a general prayer rule is performed in the dining room, more complete, or abbreviated, according to the judgment of the abbess, depending on the activities of the day. XXIII. Lunch and dinner are preceded and accompanied by a prayer said by the eldest or next sister. XXIV. During the table, edifying reading is offered from the writings of the holy fathers, or from the lives of saints. XXV. The community must have an enlightened and experienced confessor. XXVI. The abbess, if she wishes, can take monastic tonsure, according to the reasoning of the diocesan bishop, and at his discretion, some sisters who are more disposed towards spiritual life can be introduced to this. XXVII. It is inconvenient for the sisters’ clothes to be black, so that they do not seem funereal to the sick; but it should be simple and close to monastic, dark gray or dark brown in color. XXVIII. With regard to serving the sick, the sisters should be especially instructed, so that spiritual healing through repentance and communion of the Holy Mysteries is offered to them in good time. XXIX. Special rules must be drawn up for the categories of members of society and for the subjects of their studies. XXX. In addition to visiting their hospital, the sisters should serve mainly the poor patients, and the rich should be allowed into the house only by special respect, the most experienced and mature in years 267. The essay was presented to the committee by the editors of the Moscow City Police Gazette and accepted for publication by the professor, Archpriest Pyotr Delitsyn. Rep. conference, Moscow. spirit. Acad., No. 3, Jan. 16, 1848 Jerome. Anastasy from the inspectors of the Ryazan seminar; in 1838 he was dismissed from the post of synodal sacristan. Cathedral Hieromonk Eustathius of the caretakers of the Nikolo-Perervinsky spirit. school, in 1850 he was dismissed from the post of sacristan, with elevation to the rank of archimandrite and appointment to the post of rector of the Vysotsky Serpukhov Monastery. Now he is retired in Moscow's Simonov Monastery. Feofan, archimandrite of the Donskoy Monastery. About him, see vol. 1, p. 292, approx. 4. The case of the Muscovites. synod. offices, 1836, No. 49, sheet. 1–3, 143 and 144. Gr. Lev Alekseevich Perovsky, see above, p. 91, note. 1. With his own hand. authentic, storage in Moscow diocesan libr., dept. XIII, pp. 1–4. This opinion was presented to the St. Petersburg Secret Committee in 1848, and in 1849 it was corrected and significantly expanded. Both the opinion of 1848, and another about the same 1849, are stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 87, document No. 3. From the drafts. papers, storing in Moscow epar. bibliography, dept. IV, pp. 1 and 2. Iliodor (Chistyakov), si, Kursk, from March 13, 1832; from March 14, 1844 – archbishop; 5 Nov 1860, dismissed. to rest; mind. Feb 2 1861 From draft papers stored in the Moscow sparkh. library, dept. VI, sheet. 7–9. File of the archives of the Holy Synod, 1848, No. 752. Innokenty (Borisov), bishop of Kharkov. from Jan. 12, 1842; from April 14, 1845 - archbishop: from March 1, 1848 - Kherson; mind. May 26, 1857 Lists, from the presentation and decree of the Holy Synod in the papers of Metropolitan. Philaret has not survived. Innocent (Selno-Krinov), from February 10, 1832 bishop. Volyn; from January 28, 1840 - Orlov; mind. April 25, 1840 Evgeny (Bolkhovitinov), Metropolitan. Kyiv, from January 30, 1822; mind. Feb. 23, 1837 From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow diocesan library, dept. III, pp. 23–27. This letter was published in Christian Reading, January 1884. – Feb., pp. 211–215. See above, p. 197, note. 2. In the papers left behind by the Metropolitan, neither his relation to No. 18 nor the considerations that followed him were found. Of course Lucian, whose memory is celebrated. October 15. With his own hand. black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, document No. 18. The case of the Muscovites. committee for qualifications, spirit. books, 1848, No. 26. Now a Moscow archpriest and member of the committee for censorship of spiritual books. The case of the Muscovites. committee for qualification spirit. books, 1848, No. 32. The Holy Trinity Community of Sisters of Mercy, in St. Petersburg, was founded in 1848. With handwritten black. authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 23, doc. No. 5.