1859 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
February 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy with his opinion on the iconographic calendar
Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir.
On behalf of Your Excellency, four books of icon-painting calendars, called the original, were delivered to me, and my opinion is required in a short time whether this original can be approved to such an extent that it can be approved by the authorities and become a mandatory model for icon painters.
To accurately determine the value of more than 130 images does not take a short time, because a review is not enough, but comparisons and references are needed.
It is a pity that the actual original from which these lists are taken and decorated with the name of the original is not indicated. If it is ancient, then this dignity could partly cover the shortcomings of art or historical and archaeological inconsistencies.
Let's look at some images
September 1. Jesus came to Nazareth, etc.
In the Gospel read this day, Christ the Savior is in the congregation (in the synagogue), in the house of prayer, in the assembly of the Jews, in the East of Honor, and in the picture he stands in front of the city gates, surrounded only by the apostles, and does not read the open book, but shows it. The image of the city gate with red drapery, with bars instead of strong shutters, is fantastic. True, there is something similar in the Greek calendar; you can tolerate this; but it would be unfair and unhelpful to turn this into law.
Depicted in a Slavic helmet.
September 5. Holy Prophet Zechariah.
Depicted in high priestly clothing; but on top of it is a mantle, and on her head is a horned miter. In the description of the high priestly clothing in the books of Moses, there is neither a red mantle nor a horned miter, but on the head there is a turban with a bandage and a golden robe. And on the ancient calendar in the Lavra, Saint Zechariah does not have a horned miter; it was unwisely borrowed from Western bishops.
September 8. Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Blessed Virgin, just born, is depicted already sitting on the hand of a nanny or relative. Near the chairs are canopies with drapery or curtains, and right there is the city wall; all this is not in nature.
September 14. Raising the honorable cross.
In the image, the saint holds a small cross on his head. This is inconsistent with history. The whole newly found cross was erected for the people to see, on which our Lord was crucified.
September 25. Repose of St. Sergius.
The Monk Sergius is depicted lying in a coffin, which stands on the ground, near the Trinity Cathedral, presented in the form in which it exists today.
The Monk Sergius died and was laid in a tomb, no doubt in a cell. It is not clear why he would have been laid in a coffin on the ground, where the grave was not visible. The current Trinity Cathedral was built thirty years after the repose of St. Sergius.
There are other images that require correction, both in the drawing of faces and in clothing; but there are also images worth applauding.
These remarks, made during the review of one of the four books, are enough so that they can be seen as a basis for judging the book and the question presented.
It is with regret that we must admit that unlearned icon painters make many mistakes in painting icons, and learned painters make even more mistakes by depicting the faces of spiritual and holy people from a very carnal nature. In the Kazan Cathedral, in St. Petersburg, there is a portrait of a tradesman under the name of the Apostle Paul; and this is not the worst example. So, it would be useful to limit arbitrariness and encourage painters to, when wanting to depict a saint, look, as much as possible, at his true image, depicted by an ancient icon or a verbal description in a book, sacred, paternal, historical, or archaeological.
But if for this purpose we were to legitimize the original about which we are now speaking, then this would mean legitimizing its errors.
But, of course, no one will say that it would be good to force iconographers and painters to write, for example, Aaron and Zechariah in a horned Latin miter, and not in the true high priestly title, as described in the books of Moses.
They will say that such irregularities are tolerated in churches. Is it true. But this can lead to a discussion of whether in this case the weakness of the spiritual authorities is excusable in the face of self-will, and not to turning disorder into law.
If the original now under consideration did not present any important errors; and in this case it would be inconvenient to legitimize it; because in churches and monasteries there are many ancient icons that are incomparably more authentic and more worthy than this new original.
Moreover, to legitimize this original so that the icons were necessarily painted from this would mean killing free artists and leaving only slave copyists.
Let us explain the freedom allowed and not allowed to a church painter using an example.
The Baptism of the Lord in the Orthodox Church is usually depicted like this: Christ the Savior stands in the waters of the Jordan; The Baptist, standing on the edge of the shore, extends his hand to the head of the Savior. If anyone had decided to depict the Baptist pouring water on the Savior from a vessel, this should not have been allowed; because this is inconsistent with the Gospel, and there is a Latin image that seeks justification for the custom of pouring baptism. But if someone had decided to depict the Savior, after immersion, emerging from the water, above him in the open heavens of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, and John, reverently looking at a heavenly phenomenon: there would be no reason to condemn such a freely composed image, without the guidance of the original, as being in accordance with the Gospel; as long as the depiction of faces is not contrary to tradition or inconsistent with the idea of a sacred image.
For all the above considerations, the correct and cautiously well-intentioned action in relation to the original in question would be for it to be submitted to spiritual censorship, and this would examine it in relation to history and tradition, and partly in relation to art, so that there are no images that are obviously unnatural, and that, after the compiler corrects what is not approved, the cleaned original is published and recommended to artists for guidance, without prohibition to follow and other ancient examples of icon painting worthy of imitation.
Invoking God's blessing to you, I have the honor to be with true respect and devotion, and so on.
The books will return the same way they were sent to me 388.
February 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod regarding the article about the French preacher Soyar published in “Spiritual Conversation”
Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and father.
These days, on behalf of the Moscow military governor-general, his governor of affairs came to me with a sheet of “Northern Bee”, in which an article from “Spiritual Conversation” about the French preacher Soyar was reprinted.
Count Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky wanted to draw my attention to this article; found it disapproving, and extracted from it the question of how he should act in such cases: according to the law to which it refers, or according to the example of St. Petersburg?
I replied that if there is a law prohibiting preachers of foreign confessions who have not acquired Russian citizenship from preaching in Russia, then I ask that everything be done according to the law, which is what I hope.
At the same time, I did not hide my opinion: it would be better not to publish this article, or to present its subject in a different form. This opinion turns out to be fair for the very fact that the article presented an example that gives some reason for unfavorable imitation in Moscow.
The article describes the French preacher quite brilliantly, and consequently arouses curiosity, and thereby calls for new listeners to him. Is this supposed to be the purpose of Spiritual Conversation?
The article talks about the newest gifted preachers in France. Is this necessary for Orthodoxy? And is it fair? Ravignan died. Lacordaire was looking for popularity in the church pulpit, and fell silent, probably not because they admired him. Is Ventura’s talent enviable, who last Easter, in the presence of the French Emperor, preached about the resurrection of the dynasty of Napoleon the First? For the court, on Easter, of course, the most distinguished of the preachers of Paris was chosen.
The article publishes the titles of books recently written against Orthodoxy. What is the need for this? And won’t this arouse the curiosity of Orthodox people to read non-Orthodox books? Books written against Orthodoxy should be pointed out only in works written to refute them.
The article cites the opinion of an apostate from Orthodoxy that Latinism can easily be introduced into Russia through foreign preachers: he describes both Soyar and his effect on listeners as if it were a brilliant experience in fulfilling the thought of the apostate. Can you expect any useful impressions from this?
The appeal in the article to the competition of our preachers, will not give the enemies of Orthodoxy a reason to say that we are already afraid of the rivalry of the French preacher?
The inspiration of preachers can be achieved not by an article on a public page, but by the living word of the elders, from face to face, from heart to heart.
Do not be angry with me, but please consider whether it is necessary to arouse the caution of editors and censors so that they skillfully put up a shield of truth against the arrows attacking Orthodoxy.
Asking for your prayers for my weakness, with sincere respect and love in the Lord I am and will be...
There is already a Frenchman in Moscow who is trying to make his way to the church pulpit by talking about religious subjects in French lessons 389 .
March 11. Compiled by Metropolitan Philaret for the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, a draft letter to the head of our mission in Constantinople, Archimandrite Peter, on the resumption of relations between the Holy Synod and the Eastern hierarchy
The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a statement dated February 27, 1859, No. 1040, informed Metropolitan Philaret that “on the most comprehensive report on the department of spiritual affairs of the Orthodox confession, for 1857, the Sovereign Emperor, approving the idea expressed in it about the importance of our relations with the Greek Church, deigned write in your own hand: “This relationship is necessary. Present your considerations: on what basis do you propose to arrange them.” Confirming this Highest will of His, His Majesty was pleased, with his personal most submissive report, to command that the Holy Synod enter into communication with the most holy patriarchs on matters of schism.
Having announced the Highest Command to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg 390 and to all present members of the Holy Synod, Count A.P.
Tolstoy reported this to His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, adding that, in his opinion, it would be in accordance with current circumstances, through Archimandrite Peter, who is at our Constantinople mission, to forward a canonical message to the Eastern Patriarchs, and in this message, it seems, it would be appropriate to outline, briefly, the history of the schism since the time of the council 1667 [at which the Eastern Patriarchs also participated 391], and the Edinoverie (the establishment of which was first thought by the Greek, His Eminence Nicephorus Theotoki 392); then explain what influence the establishment of the Austrian false hierarchy had in Russia, what measures were taken, until recently, by the church and government to weaken the schism, what its current state is, what schismatics reproach the Orthodox Church and Russian archpastors for, what hopes they have, and what prevents their reunification with the church.
Having stated all this, it is necessary to ask the most holy patriarchs so that they solemnly excommunicate the Austrian false hierarchy and publicly announce this excommunication, and write a letter of admonition to our schismatics.
In addition, in a special letter dated the same February 27, Count A.P. Tolstoy, transmitting to Metropolitan Philaret a draft letter to Archimandrite Peter on the subject of relations between the Holy Synod and the most holy patriarchs, asked the Metropolitan to provide feedback on the draft letter.
On the count’s letter, the Metropolitan wrote:
March 11. Answered, with the return of the project and with the addition of a new one.
Draft letter to Archimandrite Peter
You know that the Russian Orthodox Church has always considered unanimity and communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church to be desirable and precious; and in the most important internal affairs of the church she tried to use advice from the Eastern Church, reinforcement of her decisions and the blessing of His Holiness and the Beatitudes of the Patriarchs. This was the case when the patriarchate was established in the Russian church; this was the case when correcting Slovenian liturgical books; this was the case during the trial of those who disobeyed this correction; this was the case at the establishment of the Holy All-Russian Synod.
Then, for a considerable time, such relations were not opened, partly because there were no cases that would urgently require this, partly due to certain circumstances that more or less prevented this.
Now the Holy All-Russian Synod sees the convenience of resuming church relations with the Eastern hierarchy, and wants to take advantage of this convenience to strengthen the union of love between the churches, and to preserve the unanimity between them, which the non-Orthodox are increasingly damaging.
But at the same time, not without care, one should think about the extent to which such relations can be safely undertaken after they have ceased to be ordinary.
To gain confidence in this trustworthiness, preliminary preparatory communication is considered necessary as follows:
I. For the experiment of judgments, a question is assigned that relates to the reconciliation of schismatics with the Orthodox Church, as such a favorable solution would now be timely and not difficult.
II. This question should be proposed in the following form: At the Moscow Council of 1667, in which two Eastern patriarchs took part, the old printed Slovenian liturgical books were recognized as faulty, the corrected ones were approved for use, and those who disobey this decision were subject to excommunication and damnation until they come to their senses. Unfortunately, a significant number of adherents to the uncorrected books remained rebellious, and remain so in large numbers to this day. But at the end of the last and at the beginning of this century, a considerable number of them agreed to enter into obedience to the church, but so that, according to their habit, they would be allowed to perform divine services from uncorrected books.
Plato of blessed memory, Metropolitan of Moscow 393, and then the Holy Synod decided: in respect of the obedience rendered, to accept them into the communion of the Holy Church and from the curse placed on the disobedient, to consider them free and at the same time to show them leniency by allowing them to use uncorrected books, the fault of which lies in the darkness and incorrectness of some expressions, and especially some rituals, but in which there is no deviation from Orthodox dogmas, sacraments and teachings of Christian life. Although confident in the correctness of this decision, the Holy Synod did not then make contact with the Eastern hierarchy on this subject. But, taking into account that the Eastern Patriarchs participated in the condemnation of the disobedient, he finds it useful that his above-mentioned lenient decision should also be supported by the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs.
Is it possible to undoubtedly hope that if the Holy Synod of Russia issues a letter regarding this to the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, then it will receive a letter corresponding to this, in agreement with the reasoning of the Russian Synod, from the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod?
III. This question is secret and confidential. You will propose for the first time to one of the members of the Synod of Constantinople, in which you can more likely assume the correspondence of this power of attorney and a favorable judgment based on experience and love for church unanimity.
IV. If it is necessary to go into some details, it is necessary that they be stated as clearly as possible, so that there is no doubt or misunderstanding of the matter, which could interfere with the desired decision.
V. With what convenience such intercourse will take place, and what hope it will give, you will not hesitate to inform in detail.
VI. Then you will enter into similar relations with some other members of the Patriarchal Synod, whose voice may have a more significant effect; and with the same turn to the patriarchs, depending on convenience and reliability, and provide information about the consequences of each relationship.
VII. To this you will add your considerations and conclusion, from whom can you expect more assistance, whether there may be obstacles encountered, and of what kind, and can one hope for success?
VIII. By the way, pay attention to whether we can expect free, unhindered and favorable action for us by the Greek hierarchy, even with the changes currently taking place in the position of this hierarchy.
IX. But be that as it may, you will not fail to testify that the Russian Church is ready to do everything possible to preserve and strengthen the union of like-mindedness and love with the Eastern Church, to unanimously defend Orthodoxy from the attacks of non-Orthodox 394 .
March 31st. Metropolitan Philaret's review of the charter of the Khalka Theological School
About the charter of the Khalka 395 Theological School.
I. The organization is unenviable. Euphoria (guardianship) manages the household, invites teachers, clergy, appoints a clerk, librarian, housekeeper, and sends students to school with tickets. This makes the scholararch (rector) a person of little importance in the eyes of his students; he may be sent students whom he would not recognize as sufficiently prepared, and with whom he will have difficulty.
II. The good features are that the mentors make up the hostel and can stay for life. One may regret that it is inconvenient for us to imitate this.
III. Students are accepted from 12 to 25 years old. Diversity is difficult for unity in the course of teaching.
IV. Upon entering the school, students are required to sign that they will take priestly rank. How can you demand this from a twelve-year-old?
V. The bishop must guarantee for the student that he will strictly fulfill the required conditions. How can you guarantee, and, moreover, with the obligation to pay 125 rubles for a faulty student? for every year?
VI. Subjects are very fragmented by year. For example, for a whole year, French etymology: how boring it is!
VII. In the second year, therefore for thirteen-year-olds, simple essays, and nothing is visible about the rules for composing.
VIII. There are many Hellenic pagan writers in the teaching program, but few Christian ones. Chrysostom is gone! Of the Latin writers, Caesar, Sallust, and Ovid are included, but Lactantius is not.
IX. Essays are assigned in the third and fourth years, and rhetoric in the fifth year. Consequently, students will write essays for two years, and then they will learn how to write them.
X. In the fifth year, dogmatic theology and the theory of poetry.
XI. Students are examined using tickets. A strange custom based on suspicion of deception. Science is thrown into the air, in disarray, in tattered rags. A bad student who comes across a familiar question seems good; a good student, if the subject is too extensive, is sometimes hampered by the unexpectedness of the question. If the test followed the order of science: it would be more convenient for the student’s mind and memory to follow the movement of the object. And it is not difficult to guard against deception by calling students not at the will of the mentor, but by appointment of the testers, and by asking questions from the testers, which can be addressed not to the memory, but to the mind of the test subjects, and all the better to reveal their dignity. This is said here not only against the Khalkin school, but also against ours.
XII. Determining the success of students by numbers and points is also a strange transformation of the mental into the mechanical. The number does not say whether the student owes good answers to intelligence, or diligence, or a happy memory.
XIII. At the didactor's exam, the scholar asks the examinee to reveal one of the theological lessons, and he is allowed to have a notebook. If a subject is assigned during the exam itself: where will a ready-made notebook on a subject that was not known before the exam come from? And if the subject is given and the notebook is written in advance, what kind of exam is it? You can write someone else’s essay in a notebook and read it during the exam, partly by heart, partly from the notebook.
XIV. It is strange that the diploma of the didactor of theology is signed only by the scholar; and the certificate of someone who has not earned this degree, in addition to the signature of the scholar, is approved by the patriarch.
XV. All daytime services are sung by students. All residents of the establishment must gather for the services shown. Students partake of the holy mysteries 4 times a year, on holidays, at the end of fasting; Blessing of oil is performed before Holy Communion.
XVI. The students listen to the lesson in extreme silence, without whispering, and exclamations, and amazement, and surprise. And Mr. Rachinsky says that the archimandrite has three or four students in his Slavic language class, and only one of them listens attentively.
XVII. Pupils walk under the supervision of a supervisor.
XVIII. Anyone who slows down unnecessarily in Constantinople will be directly expelled from the school.
XIX. You are allowed to enter another person's room only during the day, for a short time and out of need.
XX. Students are prohibited from eating a lot on the sly and smoking a pipe.
XXI. Manuscripts are never released from the library under any circumstances.
XXII. What is the purpose of a treasurer and a housekeeper, and not just one?
XXIII. The charter contains remarkable rules regarding piety, morality, deanery, and housekeeping. Articles on the teaching are scant 396 .
April 19. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the note on the Irvingians 397
I. The Irvingianite says: we do not call ourselves one church, but our purpose is to reunite the scattered members of the body of Christ.
However, they have a special organization, not similar to any hierarchy of existing churches.
II. The starting point of Irvingianism is the idea that all churches have more or less abandoned the ministry entrusted to them.
But from the note it is clear that they know very little about the Eastern Church. How did they become convinced that she, too, had abandoned the ministry entrusted to her?
III. The beginning of Irvingianism is the prayer of several persons of different confessions that the Lord would show the sign of the Holy Comforter of the Spirit.
But Christ the Savior did not approve of seeking signs. The doctrine of life and faith in the Gospel is taught. Follow it. The Lord himself gives signs when necessary.
They will say: the Apostle Paul encouraged us to seek talents. Answer: then the outpouring of spiritual gifts was extensive, as required by circumstances, and, among other things, the gift of tongues for preaching the faith to all nations. Now there is no such need, and the gift of tongues remains an extraordinary sign. You shouldn’t ask for extraordinary signs unnecessarily. And what need do the Irvingians need the miraculous gift of languages in order to speak with Europeans? If they began to preach the Gospel to savage peoples, then it would not be a sin to have the boldness to ask for the gift of tongues.
IV. Irvingians rely on Joel's prophecy about the pouring out of the Spirit of God on all flesh in the last days.
“The Book of the Acts of the Apostles clearly testifies that it has already been fulfilled. The idea that it will come true another time is a guess. It is not reliable to build a system on a guess.
V. From 1829 onwards in Scotland, and then in London, “streams of God’s grace poured out,” but “without a clear and conscious distinction between the various gifts sent down from above.”
What is this? How can one fail to distinguish, for example, the gift of tongues from the gift of prophecy?
VI. Irving found it necessary to “frequently talk about the need for church obedience, ecclesiastical authority, ordination, and finally about the reality of the sacraments of the church and the importance of church unity.”
This means that Irving, an aloof pastor, is planning a new hierarchy. Is this the basis of hierarchies?
VII. As a result of Irving’s admonitions, the gifts of tongues and prophecy began to be understood, “although the first of them still remained unintelligible, both for the speaker and for those listening to him.”
How do you know that the incomprehensible sounds you hear are not empty sounds, but speech in some language?
VIII. Divina vox, "corpus" clamando, flagitabat. “The voice of God demanded, crying out, the body.” Those who prophesied themselves did not understand what this meant. Then, no one knows how, it is shown that the gift of prophecy can be used in no other way than within the church, which is the body of Christ. On this basis, 12 apostles, 7 angels of churches were established in the Irvingite society, with each of them 6 or more elders, deacons, subdeacons, and evangelists.
Thus the Irvingian prophets proclaimed only one word: body, and as a result of this Irving and his associates invented a hierarchy that would be higher than the hierarchies of the existing churches.
IX. In 1832, in a prayer meeting in a private house, a prophetic word was heard, and, at his command, one of those present was named an apostle and endowed with the power to send down the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. He ordained a prophet, and then both angels of the church.
From the Gospel and the book of the Acts of the Apostles we know that the 12 apostles were chosen by Christ the Savior himself, and that then the election of an apostle was only once, to replace the fallen Judas. But when later the number of 12 apostles was again reduced by the martyrdom of the Apostle James, a new apostle was no longer elected to take his place. Consequently, it is clear that the rank of the 12 apostles should have ended with them; and for the highest, after their ecclesiastical service, bishops were installed. By this we can judge how far from the apostolic and ecclesiastical order is that the Irvingites are again ordaining apostles, and ordaining as apostles not only non-apostles, but also completely uninitiated people.
X. 1835, July 14, seven angels of the churches sent apostles to the work of their ministry.
The name of the angel of the church is borrowed from the Apocalypse, where it means the bishops of churches; and some of them are subjected to strong reproofs from the Apostle John. It is obvious that the angels of the churches constituted a lower level of hierarchy in comparison with the apostles.
The Irvingites did not bother to understand the true hierarchical order, and forced their angels of the churches to dispose of the apostles.
XI. In 1838, the apostles walked through all the lands of Europe (12 tribes of Israel), having, among other things, the goal of seeking the truth where it was preserved; and learned that there were great truths in the Greek and Roman churches.
Would they need to seek the truth if they truly had the gift of prophecy? And that there are great truths in the Greek and Roman churches, did you have to go around Europe to find out? Could not the Irvingian apostles have learned this in the London library, and even in their study?
XII. If the Irvingites borrowed some of the rituals from the Orthodox Church, it may be asked whether it was because they were convinced of the antiquity and dignity of these institutions, or because this rapprochement might pave the way to proselytism?
XIII. In 1851, in England and Wallis there were 18,000,000 inhabitants, 14,077 Anglican places of worship, 20,337 other Christian denominations. The Irvingites explain the decline of the dominant confession by the beginning established by the Reformation, that the only rule of faith is the Holy Scripture, and interpretation is arbitrary.
This opinion is worthy of attention.
XIV. He says: “Let them call our whole business self-delusion.”
God grant that the truth does not say to this: you are talking.
XV. The writer of the note seems somewhat troubled by the theory that the world is moving towards perfection.
Going; but on the road he encounters a flood, the fire of Sodom, the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of Christianity, and finally the times of the Antichrist.
In April. Resolution of Metropolitan Philaret on the formation of a committee to analyze and describe manuscripts and books stored in the Synodal Printing Library in Moscow
In April 1859, P. Bessonov, who was filling the position of advisor to the office of the Moscow Synodal Printing House, presented two notes to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod 399:
1) “Certificate from the files of the office of the Moscow Synodal Printing House regarding the analysis of its library” and
2) “Explanation” on the analysis and description of the typographic library.
Along with these notes there was preserved a resolution of Metropolitan Philaret, written by him in his own hand, with the following content:
In order to make, as much as possible, useful use out of manuscripts and books stored unused in the Synodal Printing Library, and at the same time not to burden the Synodal Library with additions that are unnecessary and unusual for it, make the following order.
1) To analyze the manuscripts and books of the Synodal Printing Library, form a committee of the Synodal sacristan, one priest, a master, and one seminary professor 400.
2) This committee should compile a separate register of ancient manuscripts and books of ecclesiastical and spiritual content, with the assumption of transferring them to the synodal library.
3) Compile a separate register of manuscripts related to literature and scholarship (such as the Greek manuscript of Omirova) for transfer to the library of the Moscow Academy.
4) Compile a separate register of handwritten and printed ancient acts of state and political significance (such as, for example, a copy of the letter of Emperor Maximilian to Tsar Vasily Ioannovich about renaming him Tsar of All Russia), with the assumption of transferring them to the storage facilities corresponding to these items.
5) Compile a separate list of printed books in foreign languages, with the assumption of transferring to the library of the Moscow Theological Academy those that are not in it, and others to other libraries of theological schools, at the discretion of the Holy Synod.
6) Printed books, which in the synodal printing house can serve as a sample or for reference, in case of renewed publications in it, should be left in the library of this printing house.
7) Preliminarily submit this to the discretion of the Holy Synod and ask for permission from Decree 401.
May 6. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the letter of Archimandrite A. 402 about the differences between the Greek and Russian churches
I. The establishment of a theological school of fine arts in Athens does not seem convenient, and does not promise significant results.
II. The differences between the Greek and Russian churches in worship do not threaten many consequences. Our fans see them, notice them, and do not judge us when compared with the Greeks; and they are condemned for having less order and decorum, but they also excuse this by the difficult position of the church among Mohammedanism. With the intention of publicizing these differences, would it not mean to arouse doubts that are now dormant or that have not yet been born?
III. The idea that the Orthodox Church, with the unity of dogmas, does not condemn unimportant differences in worship, is not a secret in Russia. It is used in conversations with schismatics and in writings for them. But the spread of this thought does not promise a beneficial effect on the Armenians, who see Orthodox expressions about the dogma of two natures in their writers, and in words they partly agree with us, but in reality they remain in a separate and inflexible immobility. As for the Western Church, it is separated from the Eastern Church not by rituals, but by dogmas.
IV. The proclamation of tolerance does not promise much for the unification of the Eastern and Western churches. The Russian Church has a lot of tolerance; but this does not lead to union, due to the intolerance of the other side, and the essence of disagreement. Doesn't excess tolerance on our part even weaken our firmness against the insistence of the other side?
V. What does it mean to direct church practice towards freer, personal actions that flow from feelings, and not from the missal? Take this thought from the realm of imagination to action, and you will hardly find where or how to apply it. Does a missal hinder spiritual feeling? He is appointed to help this feeling and excite it. By neglecting the service manual for the arbitrary action of feeling, you can rather seduce your own people than attract strangers.
VI. The dissemination of information about the liturgics of the eighteenth centuries among the people is inconvenient, and can lead more to fermentation of minds and to doubts than to unity. We have historical information about Orthodox worship and it is quite widespread.
VII. Will spreading the idea of the changeability of the form of worship lead to good in an age that strives for self-will of actions and arbitrariness of orders?
Look what this thought of the Protestants led to.
VIII. It is fair that the Western Church, or better, the impartial in it, cling to the papacy out of necessity, out of inconvenience to return to the first centuries of Christianity. But they hold on to him stubbornly; and there is no need to rush to predict his fall, and it is too early to prepare orders for this case.
IX. What is required: to recognize different forms of worship as correct, as long as they do not concern dogma? There is in fact recognition of this in the Russian Church, as long as it is necessary and possible. Why, needlessly, proclaim that the Roman liturgy is good and the Armenian liturgy is good? Will the Greek Church listen to Fr. archimandrite to proclaim such a confession?
X. Accusing us of “Old Believer concepts about our form of worship,” if I may say so, is an unintentional slander.
XI. "The deceptively reassuring cloak of imagined unity." Wouldn't it be fairer to say: the cover of diversity that Fr. seems torn to the archimandrite, but which covers true unity?
XII. “To examine in detail and impartially their (Greek, Russian and other churches) dogma and moral teaching, their legislation, their liturgy, their political life, to compare everything observed with the ancient practice of Christianity, with the idea of the Church of God, with the word of God, to reach a general agreement, to establish new rules regarding church practice,” - it is quite bold for an archimandrite to propose to the Orthodox Church no less than a reformation. Is it not from the point to which he points that Luther's reformation began? Where did she come?
XIII. The writer calls the above plan of revision and reformation “the task of the irrevocably present church.” Perhaps he sees deeply and widely, and discovers what others have not noticed. In general, Orthodox Christians believe that the Eastern Catholic Church was created on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, being the cornerstone of Jesus Christ, and is protected by the rules of the holy councils and holy fathers; that these rules must be adhered to in every possible way, and only if there is an urgent need to allow additions to them that are not contrary to them.
XIV. “More than half of the previous barriers do not exist.” That's enough. Are there more obstacles than before?
XV. "The great church 403 is being transformed in a praiseworthy manner." It’s still not clear; Whether it will happen further, time will tell.
XVI. What the writer says about other churches of the Eastern non-Orthodox confession is just guesswork, God knows whether it is feasible. Will the Catholicos in Etchmiadzin, Abuk in Cairo, be included in the views of the Russian archimandrite in Athens?
XVII. "Open living and permanent relations with the separate and independent churches of Orthodoxy." This idea, firstly, is difficult to fulfill; secondly, these new living and constant relations, before they bear any fruit for the church, in Austria and Turkey will strengthen the already ready suspicion of the political types of Pan-Slavism; thirdly, if we open the living relationships desired by the drafter, then the first movement of this life will be that we will be bombarded with requests for various benefits that cannot be satisfied; and from this a cooling may naturally occur, and relations between the churches will become worse than the present ones.
XVIII. Communications are supposed to inform “about changes in the Russian hierarchy.” What will happen from this? Everyone who receives the notice will say: what does this mean? This never happened. And a field of guesses will open before him, which will be favorable for us, it is difficult to foresee. One notice can be agreed with ancient church customs. Just as the newly installed patriarch notified the other patriarchs of his installation, so the newly installed first member of the Holy Synod could notify the Orthodox patriarchs of his installation. But when centuries have passed without this: why start this now? Who will start? If we start, will the patriarchs respond to the Holy Synod in the same way? Think about it before you set foot on this path.
XIX. Further, “congratulatory” relations are assumed; a secular custom, tedious if it is made the responsibility of the leading member of the Holy Synod, but does not promise significant benefit.
XX. “Informative” relations. Can only be for special reasons. You can’t ask whoever and whenever you want: what’s going on with you.
XXI. "Advisory". Such meetings are necessary on some subjects, but require great caution. It may happen that you receive advice not for solving difficulties, but for greater difficulties. For example: if you ask the Patriarch of Constantinople why he recently destroyed the verses of invoking the Holy Spirit in the liturgy before the consecration of gifts, and whether we should do the same, naturally, he will defend his own, and will advise us to do the same; and make it difficult for us; because we have reasons to adhere to the rite of former times, borrowed from the Greek church.
XXII. "Sacred Hymns". It is not clear what sacred hymns the Russian Church can communicate to other churches, and why?
XXIII. “Send out synodal awards,” but not skufia, not kamilavka, not miter, etc. But which ones? And is it right for the Holy Synod to give its awards in a foreign diocese or region?
XXIV. Academic diplomas can sometimes be usefully given to worthy learned members of the clergy of foreign Orthodox churches.
XXV. “To familiarize all of Russia with the church practices of all Orthodox peoples.” And uncomfortable; and will not this discovery of differences in rites and customs only lead to disputes and doubts?
XXVI. “Take care by all means to return the spirit of prayer to Russian worship.” Did you think about what you said? You said that there is no longer the spirit of prayer in Russian worship, and it needs to be returned. Russian, and Eastern worship in general, is filled with the spirit of prayer, and at the same time with the spirit of dogmas, and contemplative and active Christian teaching. And if in some churches it is not fulfilled perfectly, then it cannot be said that the spirit of prayer has been completely lost.
XXVII. The writer is dissatisfied with the “sluggish, monotonous, soulless reading.” If he demands the opposite of these shortcomings, then he demands recitation. But that would be the other extreme. It is true that reading in many churches is hasty, which is why the reader does not sufficiently separate the speech according to its meaning, and the listener does not have time to heed every thought. This requires correction and insistence that the reading be unhurried, separate and intelligible.
XXIX 404. The writer is dissatisfied with court singing and demands monastic singing. It is true that the latter is more conducive to attention and affection; but the first is not unfavorable to prayer if it is performed modestly and reverently. The effort to show skill gives the singing a non-church character and entertains the listener.
XXX. So that one floor stands in the church separately from the other. – This ancient church custom was preserved in Russian churches, except in the capitals, until recently, and is now partially preserved in villages. It is desirable to restore this order.
XXXI. The word fetishism is used indecently when talking about holy icons. The writer is needlessly embittered. We see people who express the most enlightened faith in reverence and, as it were, in attachment to icons. Not long ago, a priest died in Moscow, who did not spend a single day without coming to the chapel to pray before the icon of the Mother of God of Iveron and venerate it; wouldn't you accuse him of fetishism? And he was a man, an enlightened believer, a virtuous, non-covetous and edifying preacher. In the words of the common people about icons, for the most part, the image is confused with the depicted. But if you look closely, it turns out that they are praying not to a board with an image, but to the Savior, the Mother of God, the saint. That the Lord does not condemn the simplicity of unenlightened prayer books, He reveals this through the gifts that He bestows on them through their prayers. Why do so many people flock to some icons? Because many people hear from many people about the benefits of prayer in front of those icons.
XXXII. The writer of the letter also rebels immoderately against the incessant bowing in church with the sign of the cross. - It would be good if there was some order in this; But isn’t there any good in the freedom by which the prayer-book baptizes and bows not only when it is prescribed, but also when an ecclesiastical action or word with special power instills in him a feeling of reverence and zeal for God?
XXXIII. It is surprising that the writer completely wants to banish prostrations from the church “into the gospel cage,” that is, into secret prayer at home. In this case, he wants to be wiser than the godly fathers, who in the church charter prescribed prostrations to the ground at certain times.
XXXIV. The writer says “that scheduled genuflections are contrary to the spirit of the Divine Liturgy.”
How did he not remember that at the presanctified liturgy the rules prescribe scheduled genuflections?
XXXV. The writer considers the reading of special prayers during the Divine Liturgy intolerant. - That's fair.
Roman Catholics have a Latin liturgy that is incomprehensible to the people. So that he would not stand pointlessly during the liturgy, they gave him prayers in a language he understood. In Kyiv, with the proximity of the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, so as not to appear meager in their church benefits, composed their prayers during the liturgy. Father Protopresbyter Pavel Krinitsky, a resident of Kiev and a lover of Kyiv, being a member of the Holy Synod, introduced these prayers into the synodal printing houses - Moscow and St. Petersburg; and they began to spread unreasonably. The Holy Synod will act justly if it stops printing these prayers. Those present at the Liturgy must unite in common prayer with the entire church, and not leave the general divine service aside for their own special book.
XXXVI. The writer of the letter condemns “the distribution of akathists and prayers to the detriment of other church services.” – In the church service, the charter stipulates one akathist to the Mother of God, once a year. Nothing to complain about.
Akathists to the Sweetest Jesus and the Mother of God are used in the rule of preparation for the communion of the holy mysteries, and besides this in monasteries, according to a special rule, and in houses according to zeal. There is no need to complain about all this. These akathists are filled with the spirit of prayer, tenderness and love, and by depicting the sacrament of the incarnation they introduce one into reverent meditation.
Of the other akathists compiled in Russia, some are edifying, and some, out of jealousy, are composed of artistic laudatory expressions, with little strength of spirit. It is true that, not with true benefit, in recent times much freedom has been given to compose new akathists and remake them from Uniate ones. A simple feat would bring more spiritual benefit - to ensure in every possible way that the general church service is performed without haste, without arbitrary shortcuts, with deep attention and reverence.
XXXVII. The writer of the letter wants to abolish “the exclusive rights and obligations of churchmen to cut off those present from live participation in worship.” - In vain.
Parishioners who know and want to read and sing sing in parish churches without any restrictions. But the clergy must retain the right to eliminate those who read and sing poorly. To add random singers to an organized choir means to upset the choir.
It is difficult to restore popular singing when both the habit and knowledge of tunes are lost among the people.
XXXVIII. The writer of the letter rightly rebels against the painting of icons, which often not only deviates from the traditions of antiquity, but also presents the sacred in forms alien to it, in violation of modesty and decency.
XXXIX. The remark against the deacons’ “zeal for the voice” is also fair. Increased attention to the art of reading reveals in the reader weak attention to the essence of what is being read, and also induces entertainment in the listener.
XL. He wants to cancel the “unjustifiable departure of Matins in the evening,” and thinks that “it’s easy to introduce this innovation.”
Matins is not sung in the evening, but the All-Night Vigil, which the charter on some days orders to begin before midnight. Consequently, this is not an innovation, but only a reduction in service, which no longer lasts all night. In monasteries, the all-night vigil lasts three, or four, and sometimes five hours. Few would have been able to continue the service literally all night; but the continuation of the general church service must be consistent with the possibility of the majority. If in parish churches the all-night vigil is shorter than in monasteries: and this is partly done to apply to the flock. Others go from their parish church to another, where the service is shorter.
In the villages, according to the disposition of the people, the all-night vigil is often held in the morning. But it is not easy to bring the urban population to this, according to the custom of the times.
The writer of the letter considers it “disgraceful” that a priest reads morning prayers in the evening. There are not many expressions in the prayers relating to the morning: it is easy for the priest to skip them or change them according to the time of service; and prayer will not lose its beauty and power.
XLI. The writer attributes the following consequences to the early start of the all-night vigil in the priest and in the flock: “teaching him the meaningless performance of a service that does not care about prayer, and the spirit of the shepherd-worker spreads to the entire flock.” - Have mercy! Who teaches this? Why does starting the all-night vigil at 6 or 7 o’clock in the evening teach the meaningless performance of the service, but starting it at 10 o’clock, as the writer suggests, would not teach this? Why does the all-night vigil, which begins at 7 o'clock, have nothing to do with prayer, but the all-night vigil at 10 o'clock has nothing to do with prayer? Why is a priest who begins the all-night vigil at 7 o’clock a worker, while one who begins at 10 o’clock would be free?
You want the all-night vigil to begin at 9 or 10 o'clock. But if it begins at this hour, then the priest will have to read the morning prayer before midnight, therefore in the evening, and consequently, with your new order, you yourself fall into the so-called “disgrace” that you so strongly rebel against.
XLII. The writer says that it is difficult to achieve the origin of five or seven prosphoras. – We invite him to read the book of Metropolitan Gregory: The True Church.
The writer wants, following the example of the Greeks, every peasant to bake prosphora on every holiday, and consequently, that everyone should have a prosphora seal for this; so that everyone brings a prosphora to the altar, and the priest chooses one for the liturgy, and the other fifty or one hundred prosphoras go to feed the priest and the poor. Is it convenient? Is this useful? Will this stop the debate about five or seven prosphoras? Of course, even the one who proposes this will not say: it will stop.
XLIII. The custom, although not prescribed by the charter, of placing a so-called corolla or ribbon on the head of the deceased, with the prayer: Holy God, etc., with the singing of which they see him off, and placing in his hand the prayer of permission that was read over him, has for the future the meaning that the buried person is an Orthodox Christian, and that he died in communion with the church. Why is he subjected to strong criticism?
XLIV. Why are two recipients at baptism “contrary to church rules”? – When an infant or older female person is baptized, there must be a recipient. But look at Rule 53 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: in it you will see a female child and a successor. Consequently, the rule allows two, although one is enough. The Greeks use one recipient in order to avoid spiritual kinship, which can later hinder marriage: let ours do the same; no one is stopping them. And to ban another recipient would be contrary to Rule 53 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. You see, you wanted to expose the whole church for violating church rules, but only your ignorance of church rules was revealed. Let us honor the wisdom of the church, and let us not rely on our wisdom.
XLV. The writer finds the questioning of those marrying about mutual consent “inappropriate” in the rank of service. - In vain. In the psalm sung before this, the blessing of the marriage of those who fear the Lord in general is depicted; and the first action, which actually relates to the upcoming bride and groom, is a question about mutual consent. This questioning is necessary before the church, so that later there can be no notification of coercion.
The Greeks do not do this, probably because they often have parents of young children appointed for marriage, and then eliminate the opportunity to object to this. This is not worthy of emulation.
XLVI. The writer believes that during the sacrament of repentance, the priest’s permission is “contrary to a humble spirit.” - In vain. The priest first pronounces permission in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, then adds: and I permit, but in order not to attribute anything to his personality, he says: by His authority given to me, and also in the spirit of humility to say: I am unworthy.
XLVII. At Holy Communion, “paying for wine and bread” is prohibited by the rules. The authorities must ensure that this does not happen.
XLVIII. It is a good rule that the clergy should not wear colored clothes. Our kings weakened it by granting colored clothes to the clergy. It is desirable that this rule be restored, so that the judgment of God does not come to restore it through sorrows and poverty.
XLIX. “The custom of bishops to decorate themselves with flowers.” What does it mean?
L. “Try to correct the language of liturgical books.” - It’s easy to demand this. Proceed to execution; and you will see how difficult it is. There is not enough time to talk about this now.
We cannot agree that there is a particular need for correction of the typicon. According to this book, it is not the people who pray, but the priests and clergy should learn, and do not find it difficult to find out the order of the service.
To make the prologue more clear would be good. Acta sanctorum for the prologue - on the one hand there is a lot, on the other there is little.
LI. “To encourage the Russian clergy to become personally acquainted with the Greek Church.” – Not many people can do this; and this will be a crop that will not sprout soon and will not bring many ears of grain.
LII. In the notes there are denunciations that are worthy of attention, but there are also vain ones. It would be tiresome to follow everything.
But here’s an example: “priests defrocked. In Greece they know only priests under eternal ban.” The expression: defrocked priests contradicts itself. He who is defrocked is no longer a priest. And what in Greece is known only to priests under eternal ban, if I may say so, is Latin, adopted by those who studied in Western schools. Read the apostolic canon: priest, beat the faithful or the unfaithful, let him erupt. What does it mean: let it erupt? May he be deposed from the priesthood, or, what is the same, may he be deprived of the priesthood, and may there cease to be priests. The rules also say that other priests must be under constant prohibition from serving, but only maintain a place between the priests; This is a different, lesser degree of punishment.
LIII. Also: “at the all-night prosphora.” - No, bread. The first would be meaningless, but the blessing of the loaves is in the charter.
Liv. “Abolition of the expression primal 405 member of the Holy Synod. Return of the name of the chairman." – Why is the latter more Orthodox than the former? And the name of the primacy or first bishop belongs to the rule of the Careagen Council.
LV. The writer is suddenly dissatisfied with both us and the Greeks for the blessing of water on the day of midwife and August 1, and for the frequent blessing of water. What trouble is it that all the clergy and most of the population, on the day of midwife, during the blessing of water on the river, unite in prayer? Is it necessary to rebel against such popular prayers, or to desire them? What trouble is it that at the beginning of each month another householder performs the blessing of water and sprinkling of the house in his house? –
LVI. Of the “many deviations from ancient decrees,” the writer in the notes wants to point out some more important ones; and, by the way, indicates “bishop’s secretaries.” – Not secretaries, but clerks are assigned to bishops. But what would a letter writer want? So, he wrote the letter not with his own hand. Is it possible for a bishop to write everything that he needs to write himself?
LVII. The writer wants to rename the vicars governors. - No; if you like, then already as locums. This is a church name. But will this really be a correction of deviations from ancient decrees, and, moreover, one of those that are more important?
Let us carefully test the purity of our eye when we want to remove the mote from the eye of the church.
May 11. Extracts and comments from Metropolitan Philaret on the note on the state of affairs in the creation of Russian charitable institutions in the East by Actual State Councilor Mansurov 407
“The Jerusalem consulate is now of high importance.”
"I. There are 13 shipping company agencies along the eastern line.”
"II. Instructions and means have been given to agents in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Kayfa, Nazareth, Beirut, Smyrna and Constantinople for the establishment of establishments for worshipers.”
"III. In Jaffa, a room has been set up for 10 admirers of the upper class, to rent a house for at least 10 years, for travelers, from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, his own.”
"IV. In Kaifa, the patriarch is building a hospice establishment: we will supply the establishment with furniture and all the necessary equipment.”
These orders combine the types of shipping society, spiritual mission, and the interests of the patriarch. Contracts were probably concluded with the patriarch.
But how the costs and remuneration of the other two parties will be calculated is not clear. And the lack of a clear account of donations to charitable institutions, of course, will not contribute to the increase of these donations.
"V. The Patriarch finally yielded to our insistence on the need to restore the diocesan see in Nazareth. A monk, a candiot, a graduate of the Athens Academy, Niphon was promoted, recommended by the Russians, against the opinion of the majority of the Jerusalem synod. Almost all the success in this subject is due to the consular agent Averino.”
How sad this course of church affairs is! Does he promise good things ahead?
"VI. The insistence of the Patriarch of Antioch, considerations of the difficult situation of the Orthodox and the journey of the Right Reverend Kirill convinced him and Mr. Mansurov of the need for a department of spiritual mission in Damascus.”
Here is one case in mind of the consultation and consensus of the Reverend Kirill and Mr. Mansurov. But this opinion is not complete.
"VII. All his (Reverend Kirill’s) steps and actions are attributed great significance, as if hostile to all elements fighting in Jerusalem.”
This raises questions: whether the appointment of a bishop in Jerusalem was calculated correctly; Did he understand the instructions correctly? Did he arrange his action correctly? Was it not in vain that he rushed to place himself high and in splendor, when he should have been quieter than water and lower than the grass in order to grow unnoticeably into a hay-leaved and prolific tree?
“The Patriarch of Jerusalem suddenly went to Jerusalem, as he himself publicly stated, to moderate the Russian bishop. And he received the strictest instructions from the vizier not to make concessions to the Russians.”
"VIII. It is proposed in Jerusalem: premises for 500 fans, for 500 female admirers, for a hospital with 100 beds, for a church, for a bishop and a mission that requires an increase in its composition for the consulate.”
Wouldn't it be better to give the enterprise a smaller size? The larger the enterprise, the more likely it is to arouse envy, suspicion and opposition. If God gives success in small things, it will be possible to expand the business. And if there is a huge failure, the harder the fall will be.
To charitable institutions in Palestine until December 20, 1858 (received) 160,865 rubles. (including from Chamberlain Yakovlev 30,000 rubles, from tax farmers 75,000 rubles). The results of church and civil collections are unknown.
"IX. Gift of 4000 rubles. unknown to whom."
If those invited to make donations to charitable institutions in Palestine knew this, they would hardly be inclined to be generous.
X. If 500,000 rubles are built for establishments in Jerusalem, how much will be required for the annual maintenance of them?
Probably the Western ones are not starting so hugely; and with success and methods they increase the establishments. Which course of action is safer?
What if the fear expressed by some who were in Jerusalem more or less comes true that fans will shy away from the out-of-town premises due to lack of security and the inconvenience of communication with the Jerusalem shrine and worship, because the city gates are locked early?
XI. The note expresses the hope that the government, having used 500,000 rubles. “to establish Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem and at holy places” will benefit a hundredfold from increasing its political influence in the East, from the rise of the Orthodox Church and from the weakening of Latin proselytism.
For this amount it is planned to build premises and a hospital for fans with a church and a room for a spiritual mission.
Will this increase Russia's political influence? Will the Orthodox Church rise? Will Latin propaganda weaken? To achieve these goals, what is needed is not large buildings, but capable and zealous people, who do not need to be located only in Jerusalem, but to move and act, often with the distribution of benefits, in different places in the East. This will require costs that are difficult to determine and equally difficult to provide.
XII. The note discusses the best inscription on the collection circle, and recognizes the inscription as inappropriate: on the Holy Sepulcher. But this is an inscription that, more than any other, is capable of arousing zeal: and it cannot be used. By decree of the Holy Synod, March 15, 1858, it was prescribed to use the inscription: to improve the life of the Orthodox in Palestine. This inscription has the same meaning as that proposed in the note: to the establishment of Russian charitable institutions in Jerusalem and at the Holy Places. The Synodal inscription is more capable of gaining the attention of the people, pointing out the needs of our pilgrims, but not very much attention, because they see poor fans here collecting money for the trip and consider them wealthy.
It is necessary to take into account the disposition of the people. In England, for example, the Bible Society opens a subscription; a subject understandable to the people; the people give little and gather a lot; then a report is given, they see the good use of this, and give more. In Russia, this has not entered into the consciousness of the people and into custom. The pocket of the Russian commoner is not as full as the English one. When our collections were undertaken: the reports, for the most part, were not known. That’s why we are more willing to give aid for the construction of churches when they see the construction that has begun, or when they know well those who have undertaken the work.
"XIII. The appointment of Thursdays in Lent for the collection of benefits may have little success on Great Thursday, but on others it can hardly be successful. The same can be said about the day of the Annunciation. And the Thursdays of Advent do not promise anything; because in this fast very few prepare for communion of the holy mysteries.”
XIV. There is hardly any need to worry about maintaining the Athonite monasteries and does not promise any benefit. These monasteries take a lot of money out of Russia through their collectors, not out of true need, and a significant part of this money is deliberately left in the hands of the collectors. Some monasteries use Russian money to make silver-gilded frames for icons, which is not necessary for piety, and in Athos it is not appropriate, because it can attract Turkish greed and robbery.
And the fact that Russians go to Athos, sometimes not for the right reasons (such as, for example, because they can more quickly obtain monasticism and the priesthood) and attract Russian capital there to buy cells and monasteries, and for their maintenance, does not deserve encouragement. These people could find spiritual guidance and salvation in Russia, and some could benefit.
May 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of State Property M. N. Muravyov 409
His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, in relation dated September 21, 1858, No. 415, informed the Minister of State Property that schismatics living in the vicinity of the Guslitsky monastery and showing a disposition towards Orthodoxy do not dare to join the church for fear of persecution from strong schismatics in charge in the villages. To this M.N. Muravyov notified the Metropolitan that from the secret inquiry carried out on this matter, it turned out that the persons on the staff of the Karpov order, which is in charge of the schismatic population in the vicinity of the Guslitsky monastery, all belong to Orthodoxy and that among them there is no one who would prevent the schismatics from joining the Orthodox Church. In response to this notification, Metropolitan Filaret wrote a letter to M. N. Muravyov with the following content:
The information from me that the schismatics, who are disposed to reconcile with the church, fear persecution from the schismatics in charge of the villages, is countered before your Excellency by the information that on the staff of the Karpov order, which is in charge of the schismatic villages close to the Guslitsky 410 monastery, all belong to Orthodoxy, and do not prevent schismatics from joining the church.
It is my duty to explain my information. The Karpov Orthodox head lives 20 versts from the Guslitsky monastery, and the six schismatic villages under his control, close to the Guslitsky monastery, according to the abbot of this monastery, have schismatics who forbid their subordinates to go to the Guslitsky monastery on holidays for church services.
Large, in the vicinity of the Guslitsky monastery, the estates of the landowners Nord, Dubovitsky, Princess Golitsyna, Musin-Pushkin, Posen, filled with schismatics, are controlled by schismatics. Even before the founding of the Guslitsky monastery, I knew from cases and privately that some peasants of this region suffered from schismatic leaders through slander and arbitrary oppression for joining Orthodoxy.
May 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the work of Prince N.B. Golitsyn, under the title: “On the possible unification of the Russian church with the Western one, without changing the rites of Orthodox worship”
Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated November 9, 1858, No. 6392, notified Metropolitan Philaret that in 1858, a book “On the possible unification of the Russian Church with the Western Church, without changing the rites of Orthodox worship” was published in Leipzig, compiled according to the certificate of A.N. Muravyov, Kursk landowner Prince N.B. Golitsyn 412, for which he was prohibited, by the highest order, from leaving the estate; but Prince Golitsyn, in his response to the Holy Synod and in letters to him, the count, and the chief of gendarmes, claims that he did not participate at all in the compilation or publication of that book. Therefore, in order to discover the truth, it seems necessary to ask Prince Golitsyn officially: is he the author of this book, and if he refuses this, then demand that he express in writing his convictions regarding all the opinions expressed in it, which do not agree with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, on dogmatic and church-historical subjects, according to a note compiled in the local theological academy, with a brief statement of the most important ones, incorrectly dogmas interpreted by him. Therefore, Count A.P.
Tolstoy, forwarding the said book and note, asked the Metropolitan to inform him of his opinion on this matter and, together, to deliver to him the correspondence of the prince with the Moscow Academy on the same subject.
On this note, at the top, the metropolitan’s hand wrote in ink: “November 12. 1) Father Rector will give me information as to whether there was correspondence there, and if there was, to submit it. 2) To fulfill this, send him a list of this relationship and this resolution.”
On November 16 of the same year, the rector of the academy, Archimandrite Sergius 413, presented the metropolitan with the original letters of Prince N.B. Golitsyn, explaining that the editorial committee at the academy, from February to May, received several letters from Prince Golitsyn, but none of the committee members answered him in writing; in the 2nd book of edition 414 for 1859, an article was published under the title: “response to the letters of the prince-writer regarding the Latin doctrine of the pope” (pp. 241–268). The committee was prompted to publish this article by the requirement set out in a letter dated February 20 of that year.
Returning to your Excellency the book about the possible unification of the Russian Church with the Western one and the note about the false teaching of this book, I fulfill your Excellency’s demand, dated the 9th day of this November, No. 6392, as follows.
I. From Prince Nikolai Golitsyn, the editorial committee at the Moscow Theological Academy received several letters, to which they did not respond in writing. But, prompted by the demand of the prince himself, in the second book of his publication he published: “a response to the letters of the prince-writer regarding the Latin doctrine of the pope” (pp. 241–268). The prince's letters, numbering 8, with a register of them, are attached. A list of them is also attached; because the prince's handwriting is not clear.
II. Prince Golitsyn, as stated in relation to your Excellency, claims that he did not participate at all in the compilation or publication of the said book. The following words refer to this in the prince’s letters:
“I am just waiting for a response from the city of Leipzig to find out from whom this book was published, and then to demand that Mr. Muravyov be brought to justice for false denunciation. I have already submitted a protest to the Holy Synod.”
No. 3. “What is my reviewer like (Mr. Muravyov)? All his arguments in my book are completely destroyed; he, keeping silent about this, brings them in to refute me, and to appear before the public as a great orator, conquering everyone.”
"Read my book and you will be surprised."
(Here the prince clearly calls his own the book that Mr. Muravyova refutes, and consequently the one about which the present case is going on).
No. 4. “Here is information that did not find a place in the essay attributed to me by the chamberlain - writer; and I cannot recognize this book as my composition until everything stated below is included in its composition. In any case, I refuse publication, because my book had to be given a special direction through the presentation of the manuscript to the Sovereign Emperor.”
(And here Prince Golitsyn calls the book his; but, due to a strange contradiction to himself, he does not want to recognize it as his composition until it is supplemented; and thus he does not recognize the same book as his without addition, and recognizes it as his with addition.)
No. 6. “Indeed, I wrote a book to present to the Emperor, but it is still in manuscript, and has not left my hands, and is incomparably more complete than the one that appeared.”
“His Majesty, condescending to my humble request, deigned to read the book condemned by our clergy.”
“We must not forget that Western propagandists, who printed at their own expense my far from complete manuscript, which accidentally fell into their hands, will certainly monitor its consequences.”
(Previously, Prince Golitsyn recognized only the completed book as his own, and rejected the incomplete one; now he even calls the incomplete manuscript his own; and consequently, it is fully recognized that the book in question was written by him.)
III. Prince Golitsyn also speaks about his non-participation in the publication of the book in letters, but without any signs of authenticity. Last March, he wrote to the editor that he was awaiting an answer about this from Leipzig, and then he would demand Mr. Muravyov to court. After 9 months, neither one nor the other is visible; and this leads to the conclusion that the prince cannot prove his denial of the publication. True, in letter 7 he says that he received a letter from Leipzig, according to which he could demand Mr. Muravyov to court; but he did not send this letter to the editor, but said that he was ending the matter with forgiveness. All this does not in the least prove that he did not participate in the publication. He also says that the book was published by Western propagandists, but does not prove that it was published without his participation or consent.
IV. Based on all of the above, there is no doubt that the author of the book about the possible unification of the Russian church with the Western one is Prince Nikolai Golitsyn. He does not admit that he participated in the publication of this book, but did not prove it; meanwhile, it is incredible that a book, without his knowledge, would fly out of his office and fly to the propagandists. The prince discovered a disposition to evade the revealing truth with a twist when he did not want to recognize the book he had written as his own simply because it had not yet been completed. Therefore, perhaps he does not recognize his participation in the publication only because he did not give the manuscript to the printing house with his own hands; but he does not say that this was done against his wishes. Be that as it may, the book of Prince Golitsyn, published through printing, exposes his open deviation from the teachings of the Orthodox Church; therefore, it is fair and in accordance with the rules and duties of the church to require him to express in writing his convictions regarding the non-Orthodox opinions set forth in the said book.
But it is unlikely that an accusatory note, which is written in fair, but sometimes harsh terms, will meet this goal, and can give rise to avoidance of a direct answer about the essential to disputes about the unimportant. If you look at the matter directly, from the church point of view, then the correct action may be the following:
1) The one who sins (either actively or mentally) should be exposed to reproof and testing in private; but as this moment has already passed, and the matter has gone beyond the limits of personal secrecy, then exposure and testing follows in front of two or three witnesses.
2) For this purpose, the diocesan bishop can call upon Prince Golitsyn, and instruct two or three clergymen of proven enlightenment and edifying way of life to expose before him the unorthodoxy of the opinions set forth in his book, and admonish him to reject them and return to the Orthodox way of thinking.
3) If he accepts this admonition, then, in order to confirm this with the spiritual authorities, offer him in writing the questions set out in the order of acceptance of those coming to the Orthodox faith from the Latin faith, published by the Holy Synod in 1858, 415, on pages 5, 6 and 7, with the addition of the following:
does he deny all the opinions that disagree with Orthodoxy, set out in the book about the possible unification of the Russian church with the Western one?
4) If Prince Golitsyn confirms these denials with his signature, then the Reverend will present this act to the Holy Synod, so that the prince continues to be recognized as a son of the Orthodox Church, not excommunicated from its sacraments.
If he does not do this, then, depending on what kind of feedback he gives, the Eminence will present it to the Holy Synod with his opinion.
June 3. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the unity and features of the liturgical order in the Greek and Russian churches
One of the members of the Russian hierarchy 417, who saw the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople and Jerusalem, unexpectedly responded that the Eastern and Russian churches “diverge on liturgical issues.” Another 418, who saw the Greek church in Athens, expressed the opinion that the Russian church should compare and agree with the Greek liturgical order down to the smallest details.
Such thoughts, while trusting those who discovered them, can arouse doubts and reduce the degree of reverence for the liturgical order of the Russian Church.
Everyone knows that the entire liturgical order of the Russian Church was borrowed from ancient times from the Greek Church, and is preserved. In 1667, the eastern hierarchs 419 verified it in Moscow, on the occasion of the correction of liturgical books damaged by inexperienced copyists, and approved it. In both churches, there is generally the same composition and order of worship, the same prayers, readings, chants, and rituals. There are particular features that arose from special circumstances, for example, in Russia, services to Russian saints were compiled; but they are also compiled in accordance with the charter of the Greek Church.
But, despite the unity of the general composition and essential parts of the service, there are some differences in the execution of the general charter and in some rituals. For example, the creed is read at liturgy in Greek churches, but in Bosnia only in some monasteries it is read, and in most churches it is sung in chorus.
It is necessary to find out whether these differences are so significant that they necessarily require an agreement, and is it necessary that in such an agreement the Russian Church should submit to the current custom of the Greek Church?
By the goodness of God’s providence, the Russian Church has faithfully preserved and is preserving the liturgical order handed down to it by the ancient Greek Church, and can adhere to it with the same confidence in its rightness.
On the contrary, some current features of Greek worship are obviously not justified by antiquity. Such, for example, is the celebration of proskomedia in the middle of Matins, and from unfinished Matins a sudden transition to the liturgy, without reading the hours.
This can be most confirmed by the following testimony of the most prominent features of Greek worship, set forth by an eyewitness clergyman and participant in the service of the Greek bishops, supplemented by notes indicating the missal published under the authority of the great church of Constantinople, and the missal published under the authority of the Synod of Athens.
June 3. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Roman Catholic major seminaries in France
The official of special assignments under the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N. A. Sergievsky 421, in 1858 and 1859, by imperial command, was sent abroad to become familiar with the local religious and educational institutions. In two letters from Paris, dated April 1/13, 1859, he, among other things, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that he was able to inspect the “Seminaire des missions étrangères” in Paris and see the charter of this institution. Then he promised to present in detail in the future everything that he would have to become familiar with.
I. “Under the full and independent rule of the diocesan bishop.”
This can be useful if the bishop is sufficiently enlightened and zealous to guide the head of the seminary and mentors, and supervise the teaching of the doctrine; if you have time to often visit the seminary, and look not with a superficial glance.
Since not all of these conditions are provided, the Catholic Church needs a charter with which the bishop would conform.
II. The subjects of teaching, except philosophy, physics and natural history, are all church. Hebrew is not taught in all seminaries. It's strange that the Greek is not visible.
Here they are not thinking of making a priest, along with a doctor, an agronomist and a land surveyor. Apparently, they remember the rule, so that, as our proverb puts it, do not chase after two birds with one stone, or more.
III. For Scripture two hours a week.
Isn’t this vast and necessary subject too small?
IV. A special subject of the teaching is an explanation of the types of sin against the seventh commandment.
Strange. Why are sins against the seventh commandment given such priority that they constitute the subject of a special science? Why is not the same advantage given to sins against the eighth commandment, or any other?
V. Theology of Bailly for thirty years was Orthodox in the Western Church; and three years before this he was condemned as non-Orthodox for his Gallican direction.
This is the firmness of doctrine that the Romans boast of. When the French bishops sought support in their government: they adhered to Bossuet's Gallicanism, and the pope was silent, and Gallicanism was Orthodox; but when the French bishops found it more necessary to seek support in Rome, Gallicanism became unorthodox, and Gallican theology was condemned.
VI. Half an hour in the morning to prepare for lessons before a two-hour morning lesson: this is understandable. But an hour and 25 minutes to prepare lessons before lunch, and two hours to do the same after lunch, before a two-hour afternoon class, and then only half an hour to review lessons, this order is incomprehensible.
VII. An examination of conscience between preparing for lessons and dinner, and an examination of conscience before going to bed. The latter is more timely. But with this and with cell life, the obligatory attitude to the leader of conscience once a month is not entirely satisfactory.
VIII. The solitary placement of seminarians in cells is beneficial with full supervision and direction.
In Russia this cannot be achieved due to the large number of students; but it would be useful to return from the opposite extreme to which we recently fell - from the crowding of many students in one vast room, which is why they are busy, of course, like in the market.
IX. It is strange to allow a sedentary and tiring game of chess when students need movement.
X. The Jesuits punish the student by reciting the Lord's Prayer with raised hands in the dining room, in the presence of everyone. Is it consistent with the holiness of this prayer to use it to punish a student and shame him in front of his comrades?
XI. A third of the students leave for the two holiday months.
Thus, if a seminary has 30 students and 10 were fired and the eleventh asked to be fired: what is his fault? And why will he be refused?
XII. Parents sometimes pay from 400 to 800 francs for the maintenance of a seminarian. Which parent of Russian seminarians can contribute so much? Who from a non-clerical rank, who has the means to contribute so much, would send his son to the seminary?
XIII. “There are 30 bursas and 25 half-burses assigned to Paris,” that is, 30 students have full support, and 25 incomplete ones. Therefore, we must assume that there are not many more disciples. How convenient this is for management.
About minor (lower) seminaries
XIV. 9 years for a minor seminary and 4 years for a large one. Is not the first generous, and is not the last stingy, in comparison with the first? And the minor seminary is more generously endowed with subjects of teaching.
XV. Much teaching is prescribed by heart. The matter does not seem to be wise, but there is benefit in it, and that should not be neglected.
XVI. In the fifth grade: “for Aesop’s Greek - Fables choisies, Gospel of Luke.”
What a strange convergence!
XVII. In second grade: “Fenelon 422, Bossuet 423, Voltaire 424.”
And the theological school could not do without Voltaire?
XVIII. Only a quarter or less of the students from small seminaries enter large seminaries, and the rest choose a different kind of life.
This is good so that those who are zealous for it are rejected for the clergy.
XIX. The maintenance of poor pupils comes, among other things, “from the required offering for the release of laymen from fasting, from the payment for allowing marriages within close kinship.”
Is it commendable to feed poor seminarians with human sins?
XX. 3 rooms for the abbot, 2 for the director, 1 for the mentor - modest.
XXI. For pupils to drink red wine with two thirds of water.
There are minors among the students. Are babies really moving from milk straight to wine?
June 5. A note by Metropolitan Philaret entitled: “something about the Pochaev Lavra”
When reading what a visitor and attentive observer wrote quite thoroughly about the Pochaev Lavra, it seemed not useless to make some corrections and additions to what was said.
This can serve as an example of the fact that sometimes, even for attentive observers, information collected from local people is inaccurate, and therefore should not unconditionally be accepted.
The observer was told on the spot that the Pochaev Lavra, founded by the Orthodox, with the purpose of always being in the hands of the Orthodox, but captured by the Uniate Basilian monks, was owned by them until the return of the Uniates to Orthodoxy in 1837 and that it was accepted by the Right Reverend Ambrose 426. No, it was returned to the Orthodox department earlier; and, so that the work of providence can be seen in this, the Orthodox Holy Synod and the Orthodox Sovereign Emperor could not do this, but a Protestant did this.
Around 1820, the Holy Synod, on the basis of the founding act of the Pochaev Lavra, presented to Emperor Alexander the First about its return to the Orthodox department, having at that time a special need for it to house the Volyn bishop, whose house was inconveniently located in the landowner city of Ostrog, and, moreover, was destroyed by fire. While the matter was being processed in the Holy Synod, the Uniates learned about this and countered it with requests on their part to the Sovereign Emperor. When the report of the Holy Synod on this matter was presented to him, he replied that he would have satisfied the presentation of the Holy Synod if it had been made soon after the Lavra entered the empire; and now the Uniates are protected by the law of limitations. This is the end of the matter, and, apparently, forever.
In 1830 there was a Polish revolt. Pochaev Uniate monks took part in it, and in their printing house they printed outrageous appeals. The commander of the troops in this region, Count Saken 427 sent to waste the printing house and make it impossible to print, and presented to the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich the need to take the incorrect Pochaev Lavra into the faithful Orthodox department. Then they remembered that this had to be done by the force of the founding act, and the Pochaev Lavra, by the highest command, was accepted into the Orthodox department by His Eminence Innocent 428, Archbishop of Volyn, and the archpriest, who later was the archimandrite and governor of this Lavra, was used under the name of Anthony 429 and, finally, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.
The Uniates, who had long owned the then rich monastery, did not build a fence around it. This was done by the Most Reverend Innocent.
Ambrose came after Innocent 430, partly to continue the work of his predecessors, partly to benefit from their fruits. But, after some time, he was transferred to another diocese.
June 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note attached “on the unity and features of the liturgical rite in the Greek and Russian churches”
At the same time, I present to your Excellency a note: “on the unity and features of the liturgical order in the Greek and Russian churches.”
The note itself will tell you what prompted me to show this subject clearly.
Asking you from the Lord for blessings, peace and health, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, most gracious sovereign, most humble servant,
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
In the Gethsemane monastery. June 7, 1859
Some special features noticed in the worship of the Greek Orthodox Church
In free Orthodox Greece, in parish churches, the clergy, as in the Russian church, consists of four persons: a priest, a deacon and two choristers, or readers. The difference from the Russian church is that there only the priest is determined by the highest authority, that is, the bishop; the deacon 432 and the singers are hired by the parishioners, of whom two or three chosen ones are called epitropes or ktitors, and they are in charge of all the parishes and expenses of the church. Monastics are also assigned to parish churches.
2. Service on ordinary days
There are no specific times for serving Vespers, Matins and Liturgy not only in villages, but also in diocesan cities and in the capital Athens itself; In the summer, on the occasion of hot weather, it often happens to hear the gospel for Vespers at eight o'clock in the afternoon, and in winter for Matins and Liturgy at nine o'clock in the afternoon. Vespers is never combined with Matins, except in some monasteries, and then such a service is called a vigil; on the other hand, Matins is never separated from the liturgy, as will be discussed below. At the end of the gospel (there is no ringing, because, as is known, there are hardly ten or fifteen churches in all of Greece with three or five bells and usually small ones), Vespers begins according to the rules and is often read by one priest in the church. Matins is also read with the help of an anagnost (reader); but when the time for reading the canon approaches, then the parishioners are made aware of this by a secondary message, and the irmos are sung.
The third bell lets you know that it is time to begin the liturgy; In the course of this service, no deviations from the charter, except for hasty reading, were noticed.
3. Vespers on Sundays and other great holidays
The entire clergy comes to Vespers, and if a cathedral service is expected, then the clergy invited for this purpose. The younger ones, the priest and the deacon, having put on their vestments, begin according to their rank. On the Lord I cried, the stichera are sung without fail with the canonarch, whose position is filled mostly by a boy. When the time comes for the exit, all the servants dress up, and, when it is necessary, they go out in order of seniority to the middle of the church, at the deacon’s exclamation: “Wisdom, forgive,” the clergy themselves sing loudly: “Quiet Light,” and, at the end, they enter the holy altar, leaving the next or younger ones to finish the service. “Now you let us go” is always read by the senior reader, and in monasteries it is certainly the abbot himself from his pulpit. "Holy God" and so on. The canonarch finishes in the middle of the church. On special holidays, everyone who is preparing for the service comes out to litia, and in monasteries even those who are not preparing for the liturgy come out. Lesser Compline and Midnight Office are almost always left out.
At Matins, after reading the kathismas, the canon is immediately sung: there was no need to hear magnifications; they are hardly sung anywhere except the holy Mount Athos.
At the beginning of the canon, the clergy vest themselves for the liturgy and begin to perform proskomedia 433. According to the sixth song, after the litany, the royal doors are opened, and the deacon proclaims: “Let us hear, wisdom, prokeimenon,” and the Gospel is read. The priest holds the Gospel in his hands, standing at the gate and turning his face to the people. At the end of it, the prayer: “God save your people, and so on,” and again the canon follows, in the words: “Theotokos and Mother of light in songs - the word “honoring” is added - let us exalt.” At the end of the canon and after the reading of the stichera on the praises, the great doxology begins with special triumph; the bell lets you know that the time for the liturgy has come, and indeed, with the end of the singing of “Holy God”... the deacon comes out and asks for blessings to begin the liturgy. Consequently, the litany of the morning and hours in the Greek church is never read 434.
There is no significant difference in the liturgy. There are some features that are not present in our ministry, namely:
1. With the blessing of the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..., the deacon speaks the litany, without separating the petitions and without dwelling on each of them. On the contrary, the singers say “Lord have mercy” rather slowly, so that during the great litany they will sing “Lord have mercy” no more than three or four times. During the special litany, “Lord have mercy” is not tripled.
2. “Lord save the pious,” the deacon never says, and after continuously saying: “For how holy you are”..., the trisagion is sung.
3. The litanies about the catechumens and the following ones are almost always left, and the singers are made aware of this (instead of exclamation of a special litany) by the exclamation of the priest: “as it is under your power”... 435, and they begin the Cherubic hymn.
4. The Gospel is read (except for ordinary days) not in front of the royal doors, but on a specially constructed elevated place in the middle of the church, in the northern half of it, where one enters by stairs; The analogy for the Gospel in well-appointed churches is a carved eagle with outstretched wings looking south.
5. The singing of the Cherubic song does not stop during the great exit; If, as it happened, we heard and the singers stopped singing, then in words: like the king. After this, the priest commemorates the reigning persons 436 and so on, according to their rank.
6. The Creed and Our Father are never sung, but are read, and more often among the church.
7. The priest, saying the words: “grace of the Lord”; also: “woe are our hearts,” and “we thank the Lord,” he pronounces, turning his face to the people, and, holding air in his hand, blesses those who are present with it, 437 and if the curtain is drawn, then he pushes it aside with his hand; the curtain generally has no specific time for use.
8. To the words of the priest: “We thank the Lord,” the singers only respond: “It is worthy and righteous.” Since the priest’s prayer at this time continues for quite some time, then, as if for lack of anything to sing, the singers randomly sing in a drawn-out manner: “Lord have mercy.”
9 . During the invocation of the Holy Spirit, raising the hands is not allowed, and if this is done, then only elderly priests and, moreover, with the blessing of the hierarch 438.
10. In cathedral services, only the primate has a missal and reads the prayers; the other priests pronounce only exclamations, in order.
11. The sacramental verse is sung very quickly, and, for lack of anything to sing, the psalms 439 sing meaningless syllables with special skill: no, no, nay, nay 440.
12. During the liturgy, boys in white surplices serve: they serve the censer and bring out the candles.
13. At the revelation of the holy gifts, the cry is proclaimed: “come with the fear of God, faith and love.”
14. The Liturgy, one might say, ends for the people with the transfer of gifts to the altar, then no one stands still and no one listens to anything: some go to kiss the local holy icons, others go out. The release is completely invisible.
The bishop listens to Vespers and Matins in his home and very rarely in church; comes to the church, taking into account the time or according to the given news, most usually during the morning canon. At the entrance to the church, sometimes they meet him with candles, dikirii and trikirii, and he stands in a prepared place near the right choir; Some time before the start of the liturgy, he enters the holy altar, and almost always they vest him there. After which, with the opening of the royal doors, he comes out and, having blessed the people, stands in the middle of the church on an elevated place. On only the most solemn occasions, some bishops allow themselves to be vested in the midst of the church, and then there is a certain gap between Matins and the Liturgy. After the great doxology, all the serving deacons go out into the middle of the church, and, having received the blessing from the saint, starting with the eldest in the row, they proclaim: come out, priests.
The emerging priests, having given due veneration to the saint and accepted the blessing, stand in a row, and then, while silently reading prayers, the senior deacon makes vestments; at the end of it and after the overshadowing of the people, the youngest, having accepted the blessing, goes to the holy place. altar, and the liturgy begins and continues as usual. During this service, all the serving deacons according to their rank, turning their faces to the people, at a certain time cry out: “Lord save the pious,” and then the leader concludes with the words “and hear us.” The Trisagion is sung at the altar in a particularly solemn chant. During the Gospel, the bishop stands right at the royal gates, at the western side of the throne, and if there are three serving, then everyone is nearby. After the clergy have received communion at the altar, to let them know that the Last Supper is over, the deacon or priest strikes the paten with an asterisk, and in some places a bell is used, 441 and the rest is performed according to the rites.
During the service of a hierarch, the liturgy is rarely celebrated without a sermon, which is delivered either by himself or by the chosen and only preacher for each bishop. Others from the sacred clergy have no right to preach sermons; but very often it happened to see secular people 442 at the preaching pulpit, and especially at funerals. Every educated relative or acquaintance of the deceased, and sometimes the husband of his deceased wife or the father of a son, has the right, with the blessing of the primate, to honor them with his words of praise.
All sacraments, except the priesthood, are allowed to be performed in homes. Marriage is rarely seen in the church; it is performed not only by many priests together, but also by two or three bishops. Newlyweds usually make their own crowns from artificial flowers and take them into their home; while walking around the lectern, the crowned and the crowned join their hands with each other. Marriages can also be celebrated during fasting periods, except for Holy Pentecost. Not every priest can be a confessor, except in extreme circumstances. For this purpose, experienced and elderly men 443 are appointed by the highest authorities, especially in cities, and anyone who wants to confess their sins is obliged to go to him at any time or invite him to his house. According to confession, the rule for those preparing for communion to read is left to the discretion of everyone, and one might think that it is rare and is only followed by more educated people. There are very few educated clergy in the capital itself, and therefore in this case they do not pay strict attention to their parishioners.
The sacrament of baptism, if the baby is healthy, is postponed for a year or more; but it is done with special attention and precision; At baptism, silver coins on red and blue ribbons are distributed from the baby's parents.
In the Greek Orthodox Church, at the request of those who wish and on solemn royal days, prayer services are held. Their composition is not defined with such clarity as in our Russian church. Royal prayers, for example, are sung as follows: upon the meeting of the Emperor by the bishop himself at the gates of the church with the cross and the Gospel, when he stands on his throne, the servant of God begins: “Blessed is our God”... the singers sing: “Heavenly King” and a psalm, for example: “Lord, in your strength the king will rejoice”... sometimes others, the choice of which depends on the singers; after this, a special litany and great doxology, and finally many years. Private prayer services depend on the will of the priest in their composition. Memorial services also do not have a specific form, and are nothing more than small litias. In general, there is no example of these in print.
The burial of noble people is performed with special pomp. The clergy are required to have white vestments for this, and every priest and deacon, even if not invited, can put on their own robe and accompany them to the grave. Banners, crosses, icons, etc. are taken from churches. Music is almost necessary at the burial of any fairly noble person; and if the person was in the government service, then the troops, artillery, and royal servants come. If the burial takes place in a common cemetery, then all the clothes on the deceased are cut into pieces, not excluding the shoes themselves 444. The poor are buried without coffins. Women say goodbye to the deceased in the house, and do not go either to church or to graves, even if the deceased was the closest relative. At the end of the litia, the priest throws earth onto the coffin four times: from the head of the grave, from the feet, from the right side and from the left, thus forming a cross 445.
June 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count L.P. Tolstoy, about Palestinian affairs and finances
I am happy to begin writing after receiving the news that your health is improving. But it will not be with joy that we must continue on the subjects before us.
The Grand Duke 446 praises the consul and asks the Eminence Kirill to assist him, but does not praise the Eminence Kirill and does not instruct the consul to assist him. And this after the Reverend Kirill in his letter expressed the almost impossibility of getting along with the consul. What can we expect after this?
In this case, it seems that it is necessary to accept the idea of the Grand Duke in order to send someone to Palestine to see what is happening there, and in particular, what is the position and relationship of the Most Reverend Cyril, and, I think, one of the secular persons under your command, such as the testimony of what he sees would have weight. However, the arrival of the Grand Duke, perhaps, will bring clearer information.
For members of the higher clergy, in my opinion, it is both inconvenient and not useful to travel to Palestine: they have a lot to do at home; what to do there is difficult to guess; I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not inclined to encourage such travel.
If it is necessary to send publications of the Holy Synod to Palestine, then where would it be more appropriate, to a spiritual mission, or to a consulate? It seems the answer is not difficult.
I don’t really understand what the Ministry of Finance wants. If the difficulty is due to the disproportion of paper notes with specie: what is the use of the ministry in taking our capital, which is also paper? Wouldn't it be useful to speed up the change to four percent tickets? However, I am only reminding, and not asserting, that I understand little.
In the past century, the government took over immovable church estates, and what happened? The spiritual department was ruined, but the state was not enriched, and did not preserve what it took, as the church would have preserved for itself and for the state. The church picked up the candle stubs and made up the capital. If they take this one, won’t it be worse than before? May the Lord make the government wise, and grant it discernment and caution.
Letter about. Archimandrite Antonin confusedly; and it would take a long time to disassemble it.
Yesterday is written here; I can't continue today.
I invoke God’s blessing on you and Countess Anna Georgievna and send the prosphora for your health, brought now by my unworthiness.
Your Excellency's most humble servant,
In Lavra. June 7, 1859 447
June 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy about the article: “persecution of Jews in Odessa”
The illness, which began on the previous journey, made me so inactive that I could not go to church on Sunday, the 14th day. It is getting better, but slowly.
Yesterday I read “persecution of Jews in Odessa.” I think that this article cannot usefully be subjected to dispute on the part of the ecclesiastical department. The blame for the rebellion is placed on the Greeks, with circumstances making this probable. This is confirmed in the English newspaper. Perhaps the English news does not constitute another witness; but this cannot be revealed, and there is a form of confirmation. The advantage of the Odessa letter is that it shows the small participation of the Russians in the rebellion, and clears them of the guilt of murder. All this speaks so much in favor of the Odessa letter that the praise of the Jews, the talk about boundless tolerance, and the editor’s casual stone thrown at the Greeks for the Bulgarians will seem excusable.
I can't say more. The doctor doesn't tell you to do much.
Calling upon you God's blessing and help in matters of general benefit, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
At Gethsemane Skete, June 10, 1859 448
June 28. “A few thoughts when reading note 449 about Latin propaganda in western Russia”
I. If the Russian government, in order to protect Orthodoxy, does not allow Roman Catholic missions and anniversaries not only in the empire, but also in the kingdom, then why shouldn’t the government act in accordance with this and against the rite of quarante heures, which was customary among some Dominicans, and was performed once a year, on Spiritual Day, and which recently, contrary to the custom of other Roman Catholic countries, was given a large space in places and in time. This ritual, by the way, belongs to anniversaries. Why is it freely allowed when anniversaries are not allowed?
II. The altar with the right of indulgences, confession indiscriminately of religion, are means of seduction that are inconvenient for the government to counter, but which are not difficult for the Orthodox clergy to denounce.
III. So that the wives of Orthodox priests do not become a temptation in the faith for parishioners, bishops must strongly insist against this. Church rules condemn a priest who neglects to establish Orthodoxy in his family.
IV. If Bobola 450, according to reliable news, is an Orthodox priest who received the crown of martyrdom from the champions of the union, then one should try to make this clear and known among the Orthodox of the region where he is appropriated and glorified by the Latin clergy. It would also not be superfluous to secretly inquire about the miracles attributed to him.
V. It would not be useless to compile thorough information about Josaphat Kuntsevich 451, such a persecutor of Orthodoxy that “even the Polish government was forced, in the person of the Chancellor of Lithuania 452, to protest against his furies.”
VI. Temperance society, the spread of sobriety in Russia - these are red words that need to be asked about their good intentions. It is a pity that an industry of government revenue is based on the distribution of an intoxicating drink. It's commendable to be sober. But the true virtue of sobriety is established on the basis of Christianity and morality. But if they find that this is dissatisfied, that a sobriety society is needed, a charter, an oath, a worldly sentence, with the threat of monetary penalties, then there is no virtue here, no voluntary disposition towards sobriety; here cunning and strength make up complicity, and undue caution is needed to carefully observe whether people are hidden behind the widely spread banner of sobriety, whose main goal is to cause disruption in one of the branches of state income.
If the priests, as the observer reveals, for not taking the oath of sobriety, “frighten the people with church punishments, do not baptize infants, do not bury them, do not teach the sick, lead the disobedient through the market, in the lasso, keep them under arrest on bread and water, in church basements, and one woman died in the church basement,” then can the government inactively look at such tyranny of priests, closing your eyes with the word sobriety?
VII. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that in the twenty years since the Polotsk Act of 1839, “many events took place and quite a few mistakes were made,” which Latin propaganda could, and, as an observer finds, took advantage of. The connection between the reunited clergy and its flock, which turned out to be quite satisfactory during the reunification, and should have been strengthened more by time, turns out, on the contrary, to be unsatisfactorily strong. Special attention is required to support this clergy and their connection with the flock.
VIII. What has been said about the Poles must also be said about the Roman Catholic clergy in the western region. “For them, the religious question is a Polish question.” From this the government must derive a rule for its actions there.
IX. “The persecution and punishment of seducers will not strengthen the former Uniates”; however, it cannot be neglected without harm; but, having been used infrequently 453, in case of a particularly obvious violation of existing laws, it should restrain the insolence of those who indulge in seduction.
X. The inconsistency of the concordat, which allowed the Latins to renew the Roman churches without any restrictions, is regrettable and surprising. The tolerant religion is given an extensive right, which is not given to the dominant religion, and it is not noted that in this way the tolerant religion becomes dominant, and the dominant one persecuted.
XI. It is quite true that providing parish priests with houses is an urgent need, the satisfaction of which should save them from serious difficulties and temptations. And this does not apply to just the western region. Peter the Great legalized this; but the law was rarely put into effect. In 1829, the Holy Synod attempted to introduce it into force, but the State Council led it to complete impotence, classifying the construction of houses for priests not as a duty, but as a diligence.
XII. An amazing discovery that up to 2,000,000 rubles were given to the heterodox clergy in St. Petersburg. from the state loan bank for the construction and repair of church houses for income. Latin propaganda knew how to turn the state loan bank to its services.
XIII. Let us be allowed to doubt the idea that “it would be unreasonable to expect a priest to re-educate his wife.” This should be required of him, and can be expected. His education and mutual love and constant closeness should be conducive to this. Why should the good wife of a priest go to a landowner’s house, where her husband is not accepted, and where “she will hear ridicule of everything Russian.”
XIV. The idea of sending priests of proven dignity to the reunited churches to monitor the correct performance of the divine service, to advise on its improvement, to preach, to increase zeal for Orthodoxy in the families of priests is worthy of thoughtful implementation.
XV. The question of transferring St. the relics of St. Euphrosyne from Kyiv to Polotsk can hardly be reliably resolved by human reasoning. It can be truly resolved, through the fervent prayer of faith, by a notice or sign from above. If the transfer of St. relics, and the faith and zeal of the people will be aroused, and grace-filled actions will be revealed, then the consequences, of course, will be beneficial for Orthodoxy. But what human wisdom can foresee and predict this? If the transfer occurs, but special faith is not aroused, and grace-filled actions are not revealed, then the impression on the Orthodox will not be favorable, and opponents of Orthodoxy can draw from this a new weapon against Orthodoxy.
XVI. Where the idea of sisters of mercy is already in the eyes of the people, wouldn’t it be possible for one of the Orthodox bishops to make an experiment and establish something similar to them at a women’s monastery, or in the form of a special community?
XVII. In general, the views are not encouraging. Much is lost because attention is not aroused in time. May God bless the aroused zeal for Orthodoxy and may He grant us to be worthy of the desired success.
September 13. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch of Moses and on the view of Levison, a former professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the Department of Jewish Literature and German Language, on this text
I.G. Levison 455 calls the Samaritan text the most ancient because it is written in the script in which Moses wrote. He adds that this is an indisputable truth recognized by Jews and Christians.
The Samaritan text appeared after the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. It is still far from Moses. Between these limits there is a vast area along which, without seeing the road, it is a matter of luck to walk. Perhaps, if you put ancient fonts side by side, look out for the features of original simplicity and naturalness in them, and distinguish them from successive deviations towards artificiality and arbitrariness, perhaps they would say something different about their antiquities than they usually think. But this cannot be discussed briefly.
Let's separate the clothes from the body, the font from the text. There may be old clothes on a young body, and new clothes on an old body. Let's pay attention to the text itself.
It is not a guess, but an obvious fact (in human terminology: a fact) that in the Samaritan text in the 27th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, instead of the name of Mount Ebal, the name Garizin is put.
There is also no doubt that this is not an accidental mistake of the scribe, but a forgery made with the intention of using the forged text of Moses to sanctify the schismatic Samaritan opinion about the worship of God on Mount Gerizin.
Now let us put ourselves in the times that followed the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. We see, on the one hand, in Jerusalem, the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch of Moses, which was kept first in the tabernacle of the meeting, then in the Temple of Solomon, which was found there by the high priest Hilkiah and presented to King Josiah, and read publicly, which was preserved before and after Babylonian times in such a way that we have no good reason to suspect it of damage; on the other hand, we see among the Samaritans the text of the Pentateuch of Moses, only now written and unintentionally damaged - precisely now, because before this time there was no Samaritan schism, and therefore there was no need to falsely insert the name of Mount Garizin into the text of Moses. Consequently, here we see an ancient Hebrew text, undoubted, and a new Samaritan text, deliberately damaged. Both of these texts have survived to this day. Both texts were rewritten more or less times; the scribes could not make the new one the oldest, and the ancient one the newest.
Nor could the Samaritan text, which was obviously deliberately corrupted, be given equal dignity to the Hebrew.
II. G. Levison notes that the Savior came into the world “not for the purpose of scientific and philological comparison of different texts of Holy Scripture.”
Did Mr. Levison notice that this remark conceals the idea that the Savior could not have used the pure text of Holy Scripture? This cannot be allowed. The Savior is the perfect truth. He tends to use the Old Testament word exactly as it came out of the mouths of inspired men.
III. G. Levison says that the Church of Christ respects the Greek translation of the Bible 70 interpreters “predominantly above all texts of Holy Scripture.”
This is not certain. The Holy Fathers sometimes correct the Greek translation with other translations from the Hebrew; therefore, they do not give the Greek text a decisive “advantage” over the Hebrew.
IV. G. Levison says that in the New Testament books passages from the books of the Old Testament are sometimes cited according to the translation of the seventy.
To this it must be added that there are also passages that are cited from the Hebrew text and clearly expose the incorrectness of the translation of the seventy.
V. G. Levison does not recognize the translation of the seventy “in all respects as the most correct,” and to explain this he uses the Vulgate and Luther’s translation for comparison.
It's a shame. The translation of seventy is far above this comparison.
VI. G. Levison puts the Hebrew, Seventy and Samaritan texts on equal terms, and, in case of their disagreement, orders the doubt about the reading to be resolved by a majority of their votes.
But I think it has been proven above, under number one, that the Samaritan text cannot be trusted on a par with the Hebrew, and also with the text of the seventy.
The Apostle Paul asks: what does a Jew lack? What is the advantage of being a Jew? And he answers: First of all, because they have been entrusted with the word of God. They are entrusted with the custody of the Holy Scriptures. Of course, this was for the Orthodox Jews of their time, who preserved the Hebrew text and made the translation of the Seventy, and not for the schismatic Samaritans, who did not preserve the Holy Scripture in its completeness and purity, and were convicted of forgery.
So, the Samaritan text can sometimes be used, for example, to compare chronology; but incomparably the highest respect and trust must be maintained for the Hebrew and Seventy texts.
Resolving a disagreement between three texts by majority vote is not a reliable rule. This would mean casting lots with closed eyes. It may happen that, if the texts do not agree, one of them will clearly prove its correctness, and the corruption of the other two. Moreover, as proved above, the Samaritan text cannot be given the right to vote equal to the Hebrew and Seventy texts.
At the same time, it may not be superfluous to pay attention to the rules on how to act in the event of discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Seventy texts, proposed in a small essay on the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the text of the Seventy interpreters, printed in the appendices to the edition of the works of the holy fathers 456.
VII. If Mr. Levison intends to compile a complete table of differences for all three texts, then he is undertaking a great deal of work, which may attract the attention of philologists. But will the fruit be as great as the labor? Will not the discrepancies that have any significance, by their multitude, overwhelm the not very large number of differences necessary for consideration for the accuracy and completeness of the text? The pile of materials should increase enormously if we take into account that the Hebrew text in many copies has many different readings, as well as Greek ones.
Shouldn't we limit ourselves to listing only such discrepancies that may have an impact on the accuracy and completeness of the text?
September 14. Thoughts of Metropolitan Philaret while reading Mr. Levison’s note on religious societies and sects in Jerusalem and the surrounding area
I. Mission for the conversion of pagans to Christianity, that is, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Armenians. - It is strange that against this absurdity the Greek clergy does not see any protective measures, and no complaints are even heard. It was necessary for a Russian wanderer to come to discover the meaning of this mission.
II. The means of this mission are political patronage, money, schools. And the Greek clergy is barely beginning to teach the Orthodox, at the insistence of the Russians.
III. It was in vain to ask Protestants why they do not have a place in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ. They do not believe the truth of the holy places. But how sad for Orthodoxy is their answer that “they will soon have a living fence around the Holy Sepulcher of converted Arabs”! And the Greek shepherds, leaning on the solid rod of Orthodoxy, stand and watch as predators drive the lambs from their flock.
What do Russian Orthodox Christians do? The shipping company is undertaking huge, expensive, dead constructions in which a lot of money will be buried, and whether any life will ever enter into them - from the current discordant elements of the bishop and the consul it is difficult to guess with reliability.
IV. The Archbishop of London and the Superintendent of Berlin, no doubt, will not agree to partake of the Holy Mysteries together; but the Prussian king and the English queen shake hands with each other in order to jointly install one bishop in Jerusalem; the bishop is taken from Polish-Russian Jews. What is this? Faith or politics? Union of churches or selfish species?
V. The conversion of many Jews, Russian subjects, to the Protestant religion probably occurred because they did not have political protection from Russia in Jerusalem.
VI. “The mission for the Jews was needed only at the beginning to approve another mission, to cover up its actions.”
So, the conversion of Jews to Christianity is only a guise, and the true goal is the seduction of Christians by Christians!
VII. The Hoffmashty, the self-called “people of God” from Christians, Jews, Mohammedans and pagans, who imagine having their own apostles, prophets and teachers, are remarkable only as a very strange phenomenon and yet not the only one in modern times. However, it would not be superfluous to find out whether they truly have like-minded people in Russia.
VIII. Aminites (from the apocalyptic name of Christ), followers of the Jew Pinus (?), baptized into Protestantism, who venerate all Christian faiths as Babylon, who want to hide from the Antichrist in the lands of Edom and Moab, where, according to their guess, the leader of their sect is now located, having fled from Jerusalem without paying for his maintenance and apartment, can hardly be dangerous for Orthodoxy in East.
IX. If the subbotniks are in Jerusalem only in the person of one American missionary, then we can leave them alone and not deal with them.
H. Mr. Levison's conversation with the Anabaptists is worthy of attention.
XI. Sephardim (Spanish Jews) have many schools, despite the fact that they are in debt.
Although Orthodox Christians would be jealous of them.
XII. Achikenasim (Jews who separated from the Spanish 30 years before) and their divisions:
Hasidim (Chabad Hachma, Bina, Deah),
Warsaw Jews, Anscheid.
Regarding religion, they do not represent important features. But doesn’t it require attention that Russia quietly favors these societies?
Perushim annually receives about 15,000 rubles from Russia. With.
Hasidim Volyn about 5000 rub. With.
Warsaw Jews up to 4000 rub. With.
What need was it for Prince Paskevich 458 8 years before to allow this last gathering in Russia, which had never happened before?
XIII. The Russian consul Basili 459 had a very harmful attitude, who deprived the Russian Jews in Palestine of Russian citizenship and protection, and betrayed them to England and Austria, and subjected the Russian government to censure in Europe.
It’s good that Russian Jews in Jerusalem were expecting the Russian consul with hope. One must think that the Russian government will pay attention to this.
September 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod, with his opinion on the petition of the steward of the Transfiguration almshouse in Moscow, the house and the schismatics awaiting there to buy wax themselves to make candles from it
In relation to Your Eminence, dated April 19, 1858 (No. 1105), it was stated that, when the Preobrazhensky almshouse became part of the department of the council of the imperial philanthropic society in 1854, 1012 pounds of white wax were accepted; that before 1858 it was all converted into candles; that the caretaker of the almshouse asked whether to buy wax on the account of the almshouse; that the council recognized this as inconvenient, because it would have the appearance that the council, in order to acquire funds for the maintenance of an almshouse, was patronizing schismatic rituals, but ordered that schismatics should not be prevented from donating for this;
that later there were no donors;
that the economist imagines allowing schismatics to buy wax, oil and incense for sale themselves, imagining that they promise to contribute 6 rubles per pound of candles, 2 rubles per pound of oil for the benefit of the almshouse. 50 kopecks and 10 kopecks per pound of incense.
Your Eminence was pleased to know my opinion about this.
My opinion about this is completely in agreement with the determination of the council of the imperial philanthropic society, which recognized as inconvenient an order that would appear to be patronizing schismatic rituals in order to acquire the means to maintain an almshouse.
A huge amount of wax, found by the council of the imperial philanthropic society in the Preobrazhensky almshouse, clearly shows what it was. It was a large factory that supplied wax candles to schismatics of the non-priestish persuasion, not only in Moscow, but also in cities where there were such, and was one of the threads connecting them with their Moscow center and an abundant source of income to maintain the split. By now proposing the restoration of this operation, they probably mean to bring it to its previous size and direct it towards its previous goal.
Previously, non-priest schismatics could point to the need for this operation, because they love to buy candles made by their like-minded people. But when, under the supervision of the legal authorities, this operation became more limited, and one of the caretakers of the almshouse decided to direct the sale of local candles to some benefit of the Edinoverie church: then some workers of the Preobrazhensky candle party left here and started a special candle production in non-priestly hands. And consequently, non-priest schismatics, regardless of the almshouse, have the convenience of purchasing candles according to their way of thinking.
The question about a candle factory at an almshouse is the following question: is it typical for an almshouse to have a candle factory? Can the elderly and sick perform this work? The answer is not difficult. Consequently, the candle factory of the almshouse will gather many schismatics, or those seduced into schism, and strengthen them in the schism with the influence of the leading schismatics and selfish interests.
Asking for prayers and merciful forgiveness for the delay in this response, with the perfect, etc.
No. 69. September 22, 1859 461
October 5. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “something for instruction to the priest in relation to schismatics” 462
I. The brilliant image of the schismatic is such that if the instruction is distributed among the priests, and inevitably passes on to the schismatics (because they always know the instructions of the authorities before those who are prescribed, and one cannot expect that a thousand priests will all keep a secret): then the schismatics will read it to their own, as a strong approving testimony from the lips of their very opponents.
Moreover, the brilliant portrayal of the schismatic is one-sided, and only ideal, not true. Behind the outward ritual appearance of schismatics, extreme moral ugliness is often hidden, even converted into customs. For example, the schismatics of the Bogorodsky district have a game called: drive to the buoy, which consists of several men tearing a girl away from a round dance and chasing her into the forest. The schismatics' singing is not touching, but rude. Those who want to sing more skillfully have a hint of village songs. Especially the so-called priestless homovy singing, in which the sung words are mutilated and mixed with syllables that have no meaning, is so strange and unpleasant that the co-religionists of the Transfiguration almshouse, soon after the opening of their church, themselves wanted to replace it with the so-called adverbial singing.
II. To admit “various deviations of the Orthodox people from fulfilling the rules of the Orthodox faith” would be a concession to schismatics, unnecessary and not harmless. Dissenters may point out careless fulfillment or non-fulfillment of certain church rules, rituals and pious customs. This is different; violation of the rules of faith is unorthodoxy.
III. A too vivid, detailed, and idealized description of a schismatic mentor as a seducer is unpleasant for the Orthodox feeling, and seems to be an instruction to a seducer.
IV. The apparent negligence in many priests is a joy to schismatics. They will turn our denunciations to their advantage. Therefore, I think it is better to supplement moderate reproof with strong instruction.
V. If it is truly terrible to say what priests and clergy sometimes do during worship, then it is necessary to correct this with unforgiving justice, according to the word of God: remove the evil from you, samekh. And publishing this in general terms only means giving food to schismatic blasphemies.
VI. There are clergy and clergy who, out of covetousness, try to increase their income; but there are also those in small parishes with large families who borrow what they need for daily food due to a complete lack of money. And parishioners, when performing services, often say: “I will thank you later.” After this, when a parishioner collects money for a wedding, is it surprising that the clergy will be tempted to get a ruble or half that they have not received before? This cannot be justified, but we should not, on a par with the self-seeking people, blame the unfortunate.
VII. If a condemnation of our time is pronounced, and this thought is not directed to the proper conclusion, then the consequence is doubtful. Another will say: what to do when the time is like this? – I can’t be the best.
VIII. If you need to walk with salt, then, of course, you need to have two fingers. But this is not always as condemning as the requirement not to baptize and record. It happens that a priest decides to baptize while walking with salt and two fingers in order to keep the person being baptized and the parents at the church, and prevent them from completely falling away.
IX. Pointing out that a priest who panders to schismatics harms priests who are firm in their duties will not motivate the selfish to selflessness; and therefore is it necessary?
October 9. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret entitled: “something about instructions to the dean missionary” 464
I. It is true that it is more convenient for a missionary to work in foreign parishes if he is a dean. But is the combination of these positions quite convenient? And won’t there be cases when a non-dean turns out to be more capable of missionary work?
II. “Just as schismatics shy away from uniting with the church because they see weaknesses and bad habits in the Orthodox people, then the missionary, in order to avoid temptation, should not have these weaknesses in himself, and try to ensure that they do not exist in the Orthodox people.” This conclusion may be subject to controversy. Later they will say: they are not ordered to have weaknesses and bad skills only because schismatics do not like them; and if they were not afraid of schismatics, then they would not care about weaknesses and bad skills.
III. For a missionary to end each service with a teaching, it is necessary for him to have the ability to speak without preparation, or at least to quickly collect and put on paper the thoughts needed for teaching. Is this ability sufficiently developed in priests? For many, a conversational, edifying conversation at home is more convenient than continuous and concentrated teaching in church.
IV. To strictly demand impeccable behavior from the heads of the clergy families and all members of the families, this is easy to prescribe, but how to implement it? What power can a strict demand for impeccable behavior have when they often see that people of very reproachable behavior, condemned by the diocesan authorities to be excluded from the clergy, are retained by the Holy Synod in the clergy? We need enhanced justice for members of the clergy.
V. “To see that priests in parishes with schismatics are distinguished by exemplary lives.” – But in parishes without schismatics, don’t priests need to be distinguished by their exemplary lives? Should parishes without schismatics be content with some priests? It is necessary in the instruction to eliminate the reason for such questions.
VI. This cannot be required for priests to keep faithful household lists for schismatics. In some villages, priests have difficulty collecting information about the births and deaths of schismatics, so that the register of schismatics in the confession sheets would at least resemble the truth; and in other places the schismatics do not allow anyone from the clergy into their homes, and do not give information. And don’t they have the right to say: what do you care about us? We give information to the police.
VII. But priests also cannot keep special metrical books about schismatics, unless there is a special law or the highest command that schismatics are obliged to give such information to the priests.
VIII. And what would be the result if the dean found a list of schismatics among the priests and signed it? A priest cannot be responsible for the accuracy of a list of people whom he did not baptize, did not marry, did not confess, did not give communion, but about whom he wrote from hearsay from schismatics.
IX. Those added from the schism are written in the register of births and reported to the diocesan authorities with their notes. Do you need another list?
X. When they find out about those who have deviated into schism, they report; but sometimes they cannot find out. How to keep correct lists?
XI. Instruction to the Orthodox in particular, so as not to irritate schismatics with reproach and ridicule, is hardly necessary. The schismatics do this, but the Orthodox do not do this, or only rarely, because they are usually soft-hearted.
XII. “Try to establish a school for schismatics in every parish.” – Shouldn’t parishes without schismatics try to do this?
XIII. The expression: coming with schismatics, and even more clergy with schismatics, is incorrect and unclear.
XIV. Will a missionary be allowed, during a legal investigation into the illegal actions of schismatics, to imagine what the course of the case will require?
XV. Is it not burdensome for a missionary to even convey what truths they offer in their exhortations?
XVI. It is difficult for a missionary to find out for each parish how deeply the schismatics have sunk into their errors.
XVII. What ways will he find to collect complete and accurate information to compile a list of schismatics?
XVIII. And wouldn’t it be more burdensome than useful to compile such statements every six months?
December 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with considerations of who is more convenient to use in the matter of reuniting the Grecounites with the Orthodox Church, Bishop Kirill, or Archimandrite Porfiry
I am now writing to your Excellency in detail about the Grecounites 466; I only did not give an answer to your questions about the Right Reverend Kirill 467 and about Archimandrite Porfiry; because I would like not to judge. But in order to comply with your trust, I will say what is necessary according to the requirements of the case.
I would not consider using the Most Reverend Kirill for this matter for the very reason that he, as a bishop, would be a formal representative of the Russian Church; and I, it seems, have proven that it is inconvenient to use such a representative.
Moreover, please remember that His Eminence Kirill was not successful in placing himself in a good position with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, although he says that it has improved. Remember also his saying that we either lie at our feet in front of the Greeks, or stand before them at full height. Therefore, one cannot help but expect that he will stand before the Constantinople hierarchy at his full height, and will not at all bow his head before it; and this does not promise good consequences in the present case. They say that he promised a lot to the Grecounites, and even said that he would force the Russian Synod to accept them; and this also makes us fear that he will act harshly, incapable of a peaceful resolution of the matter, and of maintaining good relations with the eastern hierarchy.
About Archimandrite Porfiry 468 please write that there is news, the best of the previous ones; consequently, previous information would not have led to its use in the present case. But the new information seems to consist only in the fact that, after failures, he treats the Athonite elders no longer with the same importance, but with meekness and humility. This does not resolve previous information.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant,
December 17. Feedback from Metropolitan Philaret on the charter of the Society for the Restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus 470
The restoration of Orthodoxy is such a holy goal that when you see it, you don’t want to stop at any bewilderment, but want to immediately say: for God’s sake, start acting quickly.
And in the drafting of this charter, people probably took part whose opinions are higher than my judgment.
So, shouldn’t I return the draft charter that has reached me, without any judgment about it? “It would be respectful, but not frank; and perhaps this would mean avoiding the matter in order to protect oneself.
You must decide not to hide your bewilderments and bring them to justice.
I. The first confusion about the name “society for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus.”
If it were proposed to form a society in Russia for the conversion of schismatics, and call it a society for the restoration of Orthodoxy in Russia: this would be unfair and insulting to Russia, as if Orthodoxy no longer exists in it. Likewise, the name of the society for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus is unfair and offensive, as if there is no Orthodoxy there at all.
II. There is another confusion about the same name. The word restoration expresses the intention to return to the Christian Orthodox faith tribes that were Christian, but fell into paganism or Mohammedanism. But if the society being established meets on its way pagans or Mohammedans, whose ancestors were never Christians, and in whom it is necessary not to restore the former Orthodoxy, but to re-found or implant it: then the society, by the force of its name, must say that it is not obliged to preach Christianity to these people. The founders of the society, of course, do not think this. So, is there a need for a name for society that would not limit the scope of its action?
III. The highest direction of action, according to the draft charter, belongs to the Caucasian governor as chairman; and all administrative actions of the council, chaired by the Exarch of Georgia as vice-chairman.
As the subject of society is Orthodoxy, then in its affairs there may be questions on which the opinion of the exarch cannot be subject to the highest direction of the chairman, but must be decisive, or subject to the highest direction of the Holy Synod. So, don’t Articles 4 and 5 of the charter lead to misunderstandings?
Not so long ago, the Caucasian governor was a person of the Protestant confession, and there is no reason to deny that this can happen again. In this case, will the composition of the society of Orthodoxy be structured when its chairman is a person of the Protestant or Roman Catholic confession, and the vice-chairman is an Orthodox archbishop or metropolitan?
By the highest decree of Emperor Alexander the First, the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow was structured in such a way that it was headed by two leading members - the metropolitan and the governor-general. A society formed voluntarily, whose forms tend to be more free, why could not it be headed by two or three leading members, among whom would be the Caucasian governor and the exarch? Or, if the activity should belong to the exarch with the council, and the viceroy to take care of the affairs of the society, then would it not be appropriate for the viceroy to be called the trustee of the society, and the exarch the chairman? 471
IV. Article 12 establishes a special sign of participation for members of the society. From the draft appeal it is clear that it will be a cross. This sign of the first degree is assigned to those who contribute 1000 silver rubles annually, the second degree to those who contribute 500 rubles, the third to those who contribute 300 rubles, and the fourth to those who contribute at least 20 rubles.
Here a question arises that I can only propose, and not resolve: can a society, which in Article 30 of the charter is called private, ask for the right for monetary contributions to distribute insignia similar to the order given by the highest authority for services to the fatherland?
V. Here the thought of the Holy Synod may still present itself to the idea that, just as for the Caucasus, it is necessary to try to organize for Siberia and the borders of China a society auxiliary to the spread of Christianity. If this other society is established, will it also be decorated with insignia? And in this case, will such generosity in differences be useful? If not, won’t one society be humiliated before another and weakened? Will not two societies for the same purpose make it difficult for each other to acquire people and funds? Wouldn't one Russian society better meet the need for the spread of Christianity? This issue should be the first priority in this matter.
VI. According to Article 17, the society's council consists of six members elected by the chairman.
It is likely that the members of the council will for the most part be people who are also busy with other matters, and therefore not all of them will always be free for the affairs of the council. Therefore, aren’t there a few of them? Is it not better to decide that the council should consist of from six to ten members, so that the presence of five, and in case of need three, is sufficient to open the meeting and conduct business?
VII. Will the appointment of council members by the sole will of the chairman be satisfactory? Is it convenient for him to know the capacity for council affairs of all candidates, especially those from the clergy? For a society formed voluntarily, isn’t it more typical, and isn’t it more encouraging for the members, that they should not be too subordinate to one will, but should have more freedom to reveal their activities? Therefore, would it not be useful to have the first five members of the council elected by the chairman, and then the further election of members to take place with the participation of the members already on the council?
VIII. According to Article 19, the council must take care of the construction of churches, the opening of special classes at seminaries, and the election of missionaries. But this belongs to the responsibilities of part of the diocesan authorities, part of the Holy Synod. Shouldn't it be more precise to define what should belong to the council?
IX. According to Article 26, the exarch is appointed by the current member to make decisions on the recording of amounts and things in receipts and expenses, on forcing the delivery of certificates on matters of less importance. Wouldn't it be more useful to save the activities of a bishop, who has quite a lot to do in his service, specifically church service, for more important matters?
X. According to Article 28, the chairman has the power to destroy the determination of the entire council, including the opinion of the exarch, and give the matter a different direction. In such societies it is not seen that the chairman assumes such extensive powers. And is it necessary in a society in which, according to the subject and the sympathy of the members, good agreement should be expected? And could it not result from this that people of strong convictions, who can be useful to society, will not want to join a council in which their convictions and opinions can so easily be turned into nothing?
It should not be denied that the authority set forth in Article 28 may be needed by the Caucasian governor for some special cases.
For this, would not the following provisions be sufficient:
1) The Caucasian governor, as chairman of the society, in the event of different opinions in the council, may elect one of them at his own discretion.
2) He can stop the action of the unanimous opinion of the council if he finds it inconvenient due to the circumstances of the management entrusted to him known to him.
XI. The charter represents the society as a building on a large scale. He assigns 7,700 rubles for the office. ser. How much capital should there be for all his needs? Can we really hope that to make up this capital there will be enough people who will impose on themselves the obligation to contribute 1000 or 500 rubles to society? ser. annually? It is not without concern that one should think: may God help.
XII. Sometimes things like this start in small ways, little by little, quietly. This is, for example, the Altai mission. In this case, do not expect much; and small success is pleasant. From a society built extensively, significant success will be required in order to maintain the zeal of those who will initially show zeal for it. Therefore, when establishing a society, one must also take into account whether it has in mind at least a few people whose activity, encouraged and supported, would promise the beginnings of fruits in a short time.
December 17, 1859, 472.
From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow diocesan librarian Dept. III, pp. 90–95. This letter was published on Thursday. total love d. enlightenment 1869, VIII, pp. 101–109.
From copies, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 107; document No. 5.
Grigory (Postnikov), from October 1, 1856, Metropolitan. novg. and St. Petersburg; † July 17, 1860
Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch.
Nikephoros (Theotoki), Greek, native of the island of Corfu; from August 6, 1779, Slavic Archbishop; from November 28, 1786, Astrakhan; April 16, 1792, discharged; † May 31, 1800
Died November 11, 1812.
From a hand-written draft original, which also contains a copy, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 94; volume 1; document Nos. 7–10.
The Khalkin School was founded on September 15, 1831, Patr. constants Herman the 4th. It is placed in the monastery of St. Trinity, on the island of Halki. The Russian Holy Synod annually allocates 2000 rubles for this school.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 20; document No. 1.
Irving, Edward, known. Scottish preacher; a follower of the "prophets", the teachings of Drumond, i.e., the study of the great science of prophecy; in 1830 Scottish. the church accused him of heresy and deprived him of his priesthood. sana; † in Glasgow, in 1834
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 54; document No. 2.
This committee was established in 1856 and consisted for the first time of: the synodal sacristan Archimandrite Savva, the priest of the Resurrection, on Ostozhenka, church of Grigory Smirnov-Platonov and professor of Moscow. spirit. Seminary of Ilya Belyaev.
From secret papers, storing in the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1859, No. 120; ll. 117–118.
Letter from Archimandrite A., dated February 2, 1859.
That is, the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
And in the original, after 27, there follows not article 28, as it should, but 29. Obviously this is a copyist’s mistake.
The title of "principal member" was established by the state in 1818.
From a copy corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan. A copy is kept in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 59; document No. 5.
Mansurov, B.P., currently active. secrets Sov., member of the state. advice.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 41; document No. 1.
Muravyov, Count M. Nik., subsequently. Vilna Governor General, Member of State. Sov.; † Aug 29, 1866
The Guslitsky Monastery was founded on the orders of Metropolitan Philaret in order to counteract schismatic propaganda. The founder and then abbot of this monastery was the abbot of the Berlyuk hermitage, Parenii, a zealot of piety, the author of “a tale of wandering and travel through Russia, Moldova, Turkey and the Holy Land” (4 books, 2nd ed. M. 1856); † in February 1878 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.
From black Metropolitan papers Philaret, keeping to Moscow diocesan bib. Dept. 1; ll. 169–172.
Golitsyn, book. Nick. Bor., b. 1795; colonel, participated in the wars of 1812 and 1813; during the Crimean War he commanded the Kursk militia near Sevastopol; † on his estate 23 Oct. 1866 Known as a writer and translator of Russian theological works into French. See Gennadi's reference dictionary, page 238.
Now the Archbishop of Chisinau.
Works of the Holy Fathers, in Russian translation, with additions of spiritual content.
See above, No. 437, p. 117, note. 1.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 100; document No. 33.
Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol.
Patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch.
Draft authentic. stores. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 59; document No. 4; copy - confidential. dept. office Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1859, No. 62; ll. 66 and 67.
Metropolitan Filaret in one of his letters to the governor. Trinity laurels, archim. Anthony notes that Sergievsky is going abroad “at the invitation of Count Putyatin, as a mentor to his son. The order for him to study the schools was given by the way” (Part IV, p. 145). The fruit of this commission, by the way, was the publication by Sergievsky of the brochure: “Description of the Minor Seminary of Paris.”
Fenelon (François de Salignac de la Mothe Fénélon), Archbishop. Cambrai; sermons. theological writer, philosopher; † 1715
Bossuet (Jacques Benigne Bossuet), sign. French spiritual speaker, canon. in Metz, then member. state owls and finally the first dispenser of alms to the Duchess of Bourgogne; † in Meaux, 1704
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire); poet, dramatist writer, member Franz. academic; † May 30, 1778
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 66; document No. 2.
Ambrose (Morev); June 17, 1823, Bishop of Orenburg; 1 Dec. 1828, Volyn; 1 Feb. 1832, Nizhny Novgorod; 19 Jan 1835, Penza; † Oct 19 1854
Saken (Osten-Sacken), gr., Fabian Wilhelmovich; general-feld., † in Kiev on April 18, 1837
Innokenty (Selno-Krinov); May 23, 1827 Vic. dmitr; March 31, 1831, bishop. Kursk; 10 Feb 1832 – Volynsk; 28 Jan 1840 – Orlovsk; † Apr 25 1840 on the way to Orel. Innocent did not have the title of archbishop. The Pochaev Lavra was transferred to the Orthodox Church. spirit department 10 Oct. 1831 (See Description of the Lavra, 1865, ed. 2).
Anthony (Rafalsky); 1833 governor Pochaevsk laurel; 8 Jul. 1834, Vic. march.; Oct 5 1840, archbishop. warsh.; 17 Jan 1843 Met. novg. and St. Petersburg; November 4 1848 dismissal. to rest; † November 16, 1848
Comp. above note. on page 425.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 23; document No. 2.
Deacons are made from disciples, and there are up to 150 of them in Athens, a number that exceeds the number of priests, who, according to the number of parishes, are about 20.
Prosphoras are baked at home or ordered from bread sellers, and brought by zealous parishioners. They look like ordinary round loaves weighing two and three pounds, with a round seal depicting a cross of five squares, with the inscription in each:
The middle one is taken out for the Lamb, parts are taken from the rest according to rank order, without cutting the bread itself. Isn’t it clear that this is a forced reduction of five prosphoras, which is not very convenient for the clergy? Is it not in vain that Archimandrite Antonin rebels against the Russian prosphyrans? Isn’t it more decent for the prosphora to be prepared by an honest, elderly widow, or a girl chosen for this purpose, and obliged to maintain purity of soul and body? The bread, if there is a lot of it from those bringing it, is kept under the altar during the liturgy and belongs to the priests. The wine that is used for the most part is the most common recinade, that is, infused with resin to preserve it from spoilage; It comes in both red and white and is used without distinction.
This deviation from the liturgical rite, the reduction and confusion of divine services, is exposed by our own ancient and modern Greek missals, in which the end of Matins is laid out in the same way as in the missals of the Russian Church. Behold ἐυχολόγιον μέγα. Crown. 1850 Athens. 1852 Note. Metropolitan.
One can imagine an excuse for omitting the litany of the catechumens. But why are the litanies of peace, which form the beginning of the liturgy of peace, omitted? Note Metropolitan.
This is not allowed in printed Greek service books. Note Metropolitan Philaret.
The Royal Doors can be low, or they don’t exist at all.
In the Greek service book of the Venetian edition, in the footnote there are prayers: “God cleanse me, a sinner,” and so on. “Lord, like your Most Holy Spirit,” etc., and the troparion and kontakion of Pentecost. The Athos edition only says: “God cleanse me,” etc.
To the question: what does such singing mean? They answered: this is how the Mother of God cradled the baby Jesus. In fact, these are meaningless sounds used by singers where the singing is long and the word is missing: this can be heard in the singing of Russian schismatics. Note from Metropolitan Philaret.
Fine; but is it enough for the multitude of repentants?
As a precaution against kidnappers.
A copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of the Metropolitan, is kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 59; document No. 3, authentic. letter - confidential department. chancellor, chief prosecutor. St. Synod, 1859, No. 62; ll. 50–66.
From an autograph, keeping. in secret stationery papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856 No. 190, pp. 39 and 40.
From an autograph, keeping. in secret stationery papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856, No. 190, no. 38.
Notes on Latin propaganda in western Russia were not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
Bobola, Andrey, Jesuit of the Lithuanian province; lived first in Bobruisk, then for many years he was a missionary in the Pinsk country, where near the town of Yanov he was martyred in 1657 by the Cossacks and the local population; His disfigured body was buried in the Pinsk Jesuit church, which was repeatedly looted and burned, and remained in obscurity until 1701, when the Pinsk Jesuits, based on supposed dreams they had, opened it and began the process of recognizing his body as incorruptible relics, which, however, they failed. After the destruction of the Jesuits in Poland and the subsequent second partition of Poland, under which Pinsk came under Russian rule, the Pinsk Jesuit church and its buildings were converted into an Orthodox monastery; in 1809, the Polotsk Jesuits obtained permission from the Russian government to transfer Boboli’s body from Pinsk to Polotsk, which the Pinsk abbot Innokenty opposed, but had to yield to the demands of the authorities; in 1820, after the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia and the transfer of their church (Sofia Cathedral) to the Orthodox, Boboli's body again ended up in the hands of the Orthodox, in 1830
The Latins again obtained permission to move it to the Dominican church. In all likelihood, both in 1809 and 1830. There were already rumors that the Latins took the relics of an Orthodox priest, once tortured by the Uniates, for the body of Boboli. These rumors naturally resumed later, when in 1852 Pope Pius IX canonized Bobola, when in 1855 the biography of Bobola was published in Lvov, and when, during the Polish rebellion, the Lutsk Latin bishop began to send out services to this new Latin saint throughout his diocese. In 1865, such rumors undoubtedly existed, as can be seen from the article by M. O. Koyalovich, published in No. 3 of the Den newspaper for the mentioned year. It was these rumors that, in all likelihood, gave Metropolitan Philaret a reason to mention Bobol as an Orthodox priest. This note was compiled by Ord. prof. St. Petersburg spirit. acad. M. O. Koyalovich based on the copy he has from the case of Boboli’s canonization and the above-mentioned: Boboli’s biography and an article from the newspaper “Den”.
Josaphat (Kuntsevich), Polotsk Uniate Archbishop, famous fanatic, persecutor of Orthodoxy; killed in Vitebsk, November 13, 1623.
The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith.
From a rough handwritten original, kept. Archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 106; document No. 7.
Levison, Vas. Andr., prof. euro language of St. Petersburg spirit. ac.; † 1869
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 24; document No. 2.
Paskevich, Prince. Iv. Feud., Governor of the Kingdom of Poland, † 1856
Consul General in Beirut Konstantin Mikhailovich Basili: Address-calendar, for 1845, p. 144.
From a handwritten draft original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, Inventory No. 4; document No. 10.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 56; document No. 11.
These remarks probably refer to this Rev. Archang. Anthony the dean and missionary archang. dioceses to Pavlovsk instructions (compare § VI of the comments with p. 784, book II of the collected post. regarding the part of the story, 1860). But another assumption is also possible: in 1858, the Holy Synod received an extract from the secret magazine. committee on affairs of schismatics, which granted the Holy Synod, among other things, “to give a new general dioceses. instructions to the authorities about excitement in missionaries and priests”... (Collected post., p. 83). 24 Sep. of the same year, the Synod circularly ordered all bishops to oblige deans, missionaries and parish priests to be zealous for the preservation of ancient church tunes (§ 1), and for the exact fulfillment of the duties of faith (§ II), as an example to the flock, with continuous abstinence from all worldly customs, etc. (Collected Post., pp. 823–824). Stated notes, communication. deserved hord. prof. St. Petersburg spirit. acad. I. F. Nilsky.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 110. document. No.
Judging by some data, one might think that this paper represents criticism sent in 1858 to the Holy Synod by Rev. archang. Anthony of the instructions he gave to the missionary Pavlovsky, who at the same time was also the dean (si. post. in part, 1860, book 2, pp. 727, 779–785). This instruction stated that he himself must have no weaknesses, and lead a sedate, sober, decent life, and must demand the same from others. The same is said in §§ II, IV, V. In addition, § IV, which requires impeccable behavior “from the heads of the clergy families and all members of the families,” suggests one long-standing shortcoming of the clergy, Arch. diocese, which consisted in the fact that its members became related through marriages with schismatics, and wives taken from the schism sometimes remained unattached to the church (collected post. p. 361). Further, according to the instructions, the missionary was supposed not to use rude and harsh words against schismatics, he was obliged to visit schools and report to the bishop about his interviews “with extracts from the journal of his conversations.”
This is discussed in §§ XI, XII and XV of this paper, and § XIII of the paper makes one think that the instructions of the Rev. Anthony, already “supplemented” by the successor of his collaborators. fast. p. 785), Rev. Alexander. This instruction has been made by the Honorable. hord. prof. St. Petersburg spirit. acad. I. F. Nilsky.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 110; document No. 8.
By Grecounites we mean the Syrian Uniates, who back in 1858, on the occasion of the papal decree on the introduction of the Gregorian calendar and other news of the Roman Church, began to seek reunification with the Orthodox Church. The reunion took place on November 26, 1859, in the presence of the patriarchs: Joachim Constant., Kallinika Alexander., Gerovsia Antioch. and Kirill Jerusalem.
Kirill (Naumov), magician. XVII century St. Petersburg spirit. ac.; from 1855 doctor of theology; from 13 Oct. 1857 bishop. Melitopol, primary spirit. missions in Jerusalem; recalled June 22, 1863; † 10 Feb. 1866
Porfiry (Uspensky), magician. VIII course St. Petersburg. spirit. ac.; from 1847 to 1855 beginning missions in Jerusalem; in 1842, 1845, 1858–1861 there were teams. to the East to collect archaeoli. information; 1865 Bishop of Chigirin, vicar of Kiev; † April 19, 1885, with the rank of member of Moscow. Holy Synod office.
From an autograph, keeping. in secret Candidate's papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856; No. 190, l. 45 and 46.
The charter of the society was approved by the highest on January 29, 1865; amended in some §§ July 16, 1868. Compare this review of the Metropolitan with Art. 511 present volumes
Metropolitan Philaret’s idea was realized after 26 years. In §§ 2 and 3 of the society’s charter, approved on February 10, 1885, it is said: “the society is under the patronage of Her Imperial Highness the Empress Grand Duchess Olga Feodorovna and under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod. The immediate direction of the society's actions is entrusted to the Exarch of Georgia, as its chairman. See Church. Vestn. No. 16."
From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 90, document. No. 10.