1860 г.

The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, “on the decrees of the church on the subject of the assistance of Christian governments against heresies” Christianity in the first centuries spread, obviously, not through persecution, but despite persecution, due to its inherent divine power. But even here, fishery sometimes chose as its instruments even some of the pagan emperors, who, with their peaceful disposition towards Christianity, contributed greatly to its successes. On the contrary, although the persecutors could not destroy the faith of Christ, they often and very significantly stopped its spread. Finally, with the triumph of the church during the reign of Constantine the Great, 473 all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the church, were turned to protecting its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors assisted her by eradicating the remnants of idolatry and deposing heretics. When it happened that heresies found patrons in the kings themselves, then they grew so that, for example, when St. Gregory the Theologian, in all of Constantinople there was only one Orthodox chapel left, and then, with the assistance of the Orthodox emperors, the heretics retained only one chapel. In general, the assistance of the kings to the decisions of the councils stopped heresies, and, conversely, the patronage of heresies oppressed Christianity. The emperors who patronized the iconoclasts outraged the entire church, and only then was universal peace established again in it, and the iconoclast heresy was suppressed when the kings and queens themselves began to vigorously promote it. Later, did not Latin rule in Constantinople and in the East in general harm Orthodoxy? And did the Mohammedan yoke really contribute to its spread? Now, when opponents of the church are freely dragging the weak into heresies and schism, isn’t this a direct consequence of the increased relaxation of the schism from the local lower authorities, with indifference and lack of patronage of the faith, often on the part of the higher ones. Is it possible that our Fatherland will voluntarily put itself in the position into which the East was involuntarily placed by unfortunate circumstances? It is highly instructive to take a closer look at the laws issued against pagans and heretics by Constantine the Great and his successors Theodosius 474, Justinian 475 and other pious emperors. When Christianity triumphed, the pagan priests very naturally could no longer remain with their former advantages, but in addition, all pagans were deprived of access to the highest honorary and court positions, as those that would increase their influence over the people - it was ordered to crush idols, destroy temples, or turn them into Christian churches, or lock them, prohibiting entry into them, under fear of heavy penalties, sacrifices and pagan rites in general were strictly prohibited, and those who resumed pagan worship were threatened with punishment. The severity of these measures was caused by the clear consciousness that without it it would have been impossible to save the faithful from constant temptation. Therefore, Blessed Augustine 476, mentioning the laws that were intended to eradicate pagan rituals, says: “of course, there is no one among us who would not approve of these laws.” And in relation to heretics, the emperors remembered that “a mother must have mercy on her children and protect them, and that she would be unmerciful and cruel if, while protecting the wolves, she destroyed the sheep.” In choosing the means to protect the faithful from heresies, the pious emperors took into account the circumstances, used prudent but firm measures to convince the lost, and in the event of resistance and violence, they did not extend severity to everyone, but only to the main false teachers, and generally did not undertake anything that would not bring benefit, but would only embitter the opponents more. Heretics were subject to the death penalty only when they reached the point of violent resistance to the authorities or crimes against nature itself. In general, pious emperors remembered the saying of the holy fathers that a heretic should not be killed, but corrected. The main laws issued by the emperors to protect Orthodoxy and curb heretics were as follows: Heretical gatherings were strictly prohibited, and those who violated this prohibition were subject to expulsion or punishment. Heretics were forbidden to build churches, and the houses in which they gathered were confiscated. It was forbidden for heretics to ordain anyone as bishop, priest or deacon. We dealt with those who seduced others with particular severity. False priests were subjected to heavy penalties, expulsion or exile. Special laws protected those Christians who had heretics among their relatives. Heretics had no right either to transfer their estates to others by will, or to accept what was bequeathed. Adherents of some sects (for example, the Manichaeans) and in some cases, temporarily all heretics in general were subject to expulsion or punishment. Only one emperor, under the pretext that faith does not tolerate coercion, abolished all laws against heretics, returned the exiles and compared them in rights with the Orthodox. It was Julian the Apostate 477. With the exception of him, all the emperors were aware of the benefits and necessity of laws protecting orthodoxy and the faithful. Realizing that laws must not only be issued, but also executed, and seeing the harm and danger from the lawless and selfish indulgence of some rulers towards heretics, the emperors determined a heavy penalty and deprivation of office for rulers and judges for their deviation from these laws; in their own person they demonstrated an example of zeal for Orthodoxy. The laws prohibited heretics from addressing them personally and bothering them with petitions. At the same time, the emperors protected the purity of public morals, prohibiting spectacles on holidays, etc., realizing, however, that the assistance of the government is, although necessary and essential, but not the only condition for the establishment of faith. While the sovereigns tried through various laws to bring those who had rejected themselves to unity with the church, the shepherds of the church did not cease to exhort and teach the lost. “If heretics (says Blessed Augustine in a letter to Vincent) were only frightened (by state laws), but were not taught, then this could seem like injustice and violence.” And if only they were taught, but at the same time were not frightened by the law, then among them, habits hardened by rigidity would be weakly encouraged to enter the path of salvation. But saving instruction is added to useful fear, so that not only the light of truth drives out the darkness of error, but also the shackles of bad habit are broken by the power of fear. I myself was previously of the opinion that we should not use any external incentives for unity with the church and that we must act only with words, fight with reasoning alone, and win with evidence, so that we do not have false Orthodox in those very people who were previously open heretics. But this opinion of mine was challenged not by words, but by facts. Many, convinced by the obvious truth, had long wanted to be Orthodox, but fearing their own people, they daily put off their conversion. Many were held back by force of habit or negligence. Many thought that there was no difference whether someone belonged to the Orthodox community or not, and remained in heresy only because they were born into it and that no one encouraged them to convert to Orthodoxy. All of these were returned to the bosom of the church by the laws (issued against heretics) and those whom security made negligent, were converted by the care of the church and the government for them, and now they celebrate their conversion as the brightest holiday. So, let the kings of the earth serve Christ, also making laws in favor of the teachings of Christ.” “It is better,” says the same church teacher in another letter: “it is better, of course (who doubts?) to lead people to true piety by teaching alone, and not to motivate them through fear of punishment. But just because some people are better, those who are worse should not be left without care.” “Experience has proven that it was useful for many to first be forced by fear, so that later they could either learn or actually carry out what they learned in words. Of course, those who are controlled by love are better, but those who are corrected by fear are more numerous. Not everyone who spares us is our friend, and not everyone who does not spare us is our enemy. Who can love us more than God? However, he does not cease not only to gently teach us, but also to frighten us with salvation. Sometimes a thief, sprinkling food, lures them away from the herd, and sometimes a shepherd, hitting with a whip, drives wandering sheep to the herd. If someone, seeing his enemy in a fever and unconsciousness running towards the abyss, did not grab and tie him up, but allowed him to escape, would he not repay him with evil for evil? How many heretics, upon their conversion, cursed their former life and pitiful errors, while they were brought to this saving consciousness by strict laws? These laws did not benefit some, but should they give up medicine because the madness of some cannot be cured? “Those who do not want to see laws against their wickedness say that the apostles did not ask for help from earthly kings. Whoever says this forgets that there was a different time then, and that everything should be done in its own time.” For what emperor then believed in Christ and wanted to serve Him by issuing laws in favor of piety against ungodliness? Then another prophetic saying was fulfilled: “The nations are reeling, and people have learned in vain. The kings of the earth and the princes were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ” (Ps. 2:1-2). At that time, what is said in the same psalm a little lower was not yet put into effect: “And now, kings, understand, punish all those who judge the earth. Work for the Lord with fear and rejoice in Him with trembling.” How then do kings serve God with fear, if not by forbidding and punishing with pious severity that which is contrary to the commandments of the Lord? For the king serves God differently as a man, and differently as a king. As a man, he serves God by living a Christian life; but since he is also a king, he serves God by making laws commanding what is righteous, and prohibiting what is contrary to this with decent severity. This is how Hezekiah served the Lord (2 Kings 18:4), who destroyed oak groves and pagan temples. This is how kings serve the Lord, since they are kings, when they do for the glory of God what only kings can do.” “No sane person would dare to tell kings that they do not care whether their subjects are chaste or depraved; and who, except a madman, can tell them: do not worry, no matter what condition the Church of the Lord is in your state, whether it enjoys the world or suffers disasters from its enemies; the piety and wickedness of your subjects are not subject to your scrutiny”? “Church shepherds ask for help from Christian emperors, not avenging themselves, but protecting the flocks entrusted to them. If they did not do this, they should be blamed for negligence. For the Apostle Paul did not care about his own life, but about the Church of God, when, having learned about the conspiracy drawn up against him, he resorted to the help of a thousand.” Based on all these arguments, Blessed Augustine says: “It seems to me not useless to tame and correct heretics through the authorities established by God. And since the apostle says: “There is no authority except from God,” then, without a doubt, when kings provide help to the church, this help to us is in the name of the Lord, who created heaven and earth.” In addition to Blessed Augustine, one could also cite the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who advised destroying gatherings of heretics, and the testimony of many other holy fathers. Let us turn to the rules of ecumenical and local councils. The Holy Fathers of the Council of Carthage (the rules of which were approved by the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils) deigned to ask the kings to eradicate the remnants of idolatry, to destroy idols, to destroy temples, to prohibit pagan feasts, and in general about everything that they deem useful against heretics and Hellenes and against their superstitions (rights 69, 71, 95, 120); it is also considered decent to ask the heads of the regions for the assistance of the common mother, the Catholic Church, against heretics (Rule 78). The same Carthaginian Council by Rule 59 and the VI Ecumenical Council by Rule 23, Antioch by Rule 5 and 11, and Rule 9 of Constantinople decided: “Those who violate the church structure should be removed involuntarily from the reigning city; those who create disturbances and sedition in the church and do not want to submit to the meek exhortation of church pastors to convert as rebels; to order by secular power." The one hundred and fourth rule of the Council of Carthage decided to ask the pious kings, Arcadius 478 and Honorius 479, to restore the law of Theodosius B. on the exaction of 10 pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and those being ordained, as well as on the prohibition of heretics from transferring or receiving anything under a will. “The royal love for mankind (it was said at the same time) must take care that the Catholic Church, which gave birth to Christ and raised them with the strength of faith, would be protected by their providence. Against the fury of the renegades, we ask you to give us divine help, not extraordinary and not alien to the holy scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, defeated the complicity of disorderly people with military help.” All church history is full of examples of saints encouraging emperors to act in favor of the church. In our fatherland, in which the most pious tsars are the supreme defenders and guardians of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the church (the fundamental laws of the Russian empire), how else can their government comply with this fundamental rule that has existed from the beginning, if not by acting against the schism by those measures that have always been taken by the Orthodox tsars and which are approved by the universal church? And let us not be disturbed by the thought that the example of Europe obliges us, in the name of religious tolerance, not to do anything against schismatics. And in European countries, religious tolerance has limits. In France itself, only recognized religions are allowed, and recognition requires positive knowledge of what exactly the teaching of this confession consists of and that it does not threaten public order. In Sweden, a Protestant land, no one except Protestants has the right to public office. And to allow the free existence of societies similar to our schism, hiding their secret actions from the government, demanding tolerance when they themselves have no tolerance, constantly shaking the people’s concept of the legitimacy of the supreme authorities - this cannot be found in any European land, except perhaps Moldavia and Wallachia, where the absence of any order now prevails and all destructive elements act under the pretext of religious tolerance, under the suggestions of alien influence 480 481. January 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Hierotheos, Patriarch of Antioch, about the manuscript: “the moral philosophy of K. M. Kum translated into Arabic” Most blessed Bishop, venerable saint and father! Moved by the comforting feeling of unity in the holy Orthodox faith, I decree it a pleasant duty to greet your blessedness with the beginning of the summer renewed by the Nativity of Christ, with my heartfelt desire and prayer that the holy grace abundantly poured into you will continue for many years to act for the good governance and protection of your spiritual flocks, for the establishment and dissemination in them of the holy truths of faith and holy rules of life. At the same time, I received your favorable memory of me with deep consolation and gratitude. At the same time, I have a special object in mind, which I consider it my duty to present to the attention of your blessedness. The prothonotary of your beatitude, John Papadopoulo, wrote the following in a letter sent to me from Damascus: “Presenting herewith the manuscript of the moral philosophy of the ever-memorable glorious teacher K.M. Kuma, which is an abbreviation of his large ifika, was translated from Greek into Arabic several years earlier, for the benefit of the studying Arab youth and in general all the inhabitants of Syria, he undertook to print it in an Arabic printing house in Jerusalem. But out of envy, those who hastily translated this book there issued their own translation, which, having been compared with the real one and found partly incomprehensible, partly insufficient and partly dissimilar, was rejected and remains unused as useless. Meanwhile, teachers and students everywhere, copying and using the real translation, do not cease to encourage him to print it as more understandable, in order to get rid of the labor of copying; but, due to the lack of another printing house other than the Jerusalem one, this task turned out to be difficult, and even more difficult due to the lack of funds. Having before their eyes the catechism printed in Russia, they finally convinced him to send there the real translation, so that this too would be printed in Arabic in the printing house there. In conclusion, he, Papadopoulo, presenting this translation, approved by the head of the teachers of the Arabic language, the venerable economist Priest Joseph Muchena-Khaddar, accompanied by the Greek original for comparison, asked me to look not at the smallness of the book, but at the great benefit from it, a clear proof of which is the repeated printing of the Greek original. Therefore, the said manuscript, together with the Greek original, was forwarded by me to the Moscow Spiritual Censorship Committee, which, after examination, presented me with its opinion that, on the basis of the statute, it did not find it convenient to approve it for publication. Having examined the reasons on which the opinion of the censorship committee is based, I cannot reject it, and, for example, together with the committee, I do not think that the teaching that the duties of parents and children derives not from the law of God, printed in the very nature, but from a dreamy agreement between parents on the one hand, and between the child being born on the other hand, will serve as the basis for good morality. In these circumstances, I decide to present a Greek book, an Arabic manuscript and a list of the opinions of the censorship committee to you, Most Blessed Bishop, would you please find it necessary to improve the moral teaching offered to youth and make it more consistent with Christian teaching; since natural sound reason does not contradict divine revelation, and therefore, from ancient times, moral philosophy should not contradict Christian moral teaching. Asking your holy prayers, with perfect reverence and, even in the Lord, with love, I abide, your blessedness... No. 3. January 5, 1860 482. January 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on the issue of resigning from the priesthood The more accurately I know in you a person who is sincerely devoted to the Orthodox faith, and who is zealous with selflessness for the good of the Orthodox Church, and the more comforting it is for me, therefore, to be in sincere communication with you, the more bitterly I grieve when I see, or foresee, in some particular matters, a lack of unity of my thought with your thought, and, in my best understanding, I do not see a way to avert this, without fear of becoming guilty before the truth. Clothe yourself with Christian generosity and patience, and read with a peaceful eye the note hereby presented. By the will of your Excellency, Prince S.N. 483 handed me a copy or draft of the attitude to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod 484, and a special extract from the decrees or laws regarding the issue of those asking for the removal of the clergy, no doubt, assigned to the Holy Synod, to forward the case on the said subject. I could not yet express my opinion on this very subject, due to the lack of a new, overly lenient opinion of some members of the Holy Synod, which, as I foresee, will require a careful refutation. The prince promised me that this opinion would be delivered to me. Meanwhile, a strong fear arose in me that the above-mentioned extract would not be included in the Holy Synod and its acts in the form in which it was communicated to me; and therefore I hasten, returning it, to present my opinion about it in a special note. I convey my note solely to your Excellency. If you do not reject my opinion, then forgive me. If my view does not agree with yours, and you would like to offer my note to the discretion of the Bishop of Novgorod: I will submit with obedience, not wanting anything more than for the dignity of the Holy Synod to be protected. On an extract from the laws on the issue of resigning from the priesthood An extract from laws is an ordinary need in the proceedings. It is compiled in the office, and contains the literally written out text of laws and appendices to the case. Discussion about the reason of the law belongs to the members of the public office and chief prosecutors or prosecutors. The extract from the laws compiled on the issue of resignation from the priesthood establishes itself above this right. It begins with the following judgment: “The charter of spiritual consistories and the code of laws included some legalizations that disagree with the canonical decrees, which constitute the essential basis of church government and court.” Further, according to some articles of the charter and code, it is said: “These decrees are contrary to the following basic canonical rules of the Holy Church of Christ.” Whoever compiled this extract, which condemns the decisions of the Holy Synod, could not stop and ask himself the following questions: Is his wisdom truly superior to the wisdom of the Holy Synod? Is his Orthodoxy truly more fundamental and firm than the Orthodoxy of the Holy Synod? Is there any right and propriety for a private person, in the presence of the Holy Synod (for an extract is being prepared for proposal to the Holy Synod), to pronounce a decisive condemnation of the conciliar decision of the Holy Synod, approved by the most pious Sovereign Emperor, and adopted into the code of state laws? 7 rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, condemning clergy and monks entering military service or the secular rank, and 3 rule of St. Cyril of Alexandria 485 about Peter, who involuntarily signed a renunciation of the administration of the diocese, in order to judge him and others like him, or justify, or condemn - these two rules given in the extract, do they truly “constitute the most essential basis for church government and court”? Isn't this the essence of resolving special cases, not of the highest importance? And therefore, even if something was allowed that was inconsistent with these two rules, then in this case the accusation of violating the most essential basis of church government and court would not be an exaggeration and injustice? Now, with compassion and fear, we look at the extraordinary position of the Church of Constantinople, seeing in it a weakening of church power, and the increased influence of the secular element in church affairs, however, carried out in the church-people's assembly, chaired by the ecumenical patriarch, with the complicity of seven bishops 486. Let us transfer the same way of thinking to our own mother, the Russian Church. Should we consider it an ordinary thing that the compiler of an extract from the laws appears before the Holy Synod and says: Your Holiness has drawn up some laws that “disagree with the canonical decrees, which constitute the most essential basis for administration and justice”? By the grace of God, having belonged to the Holy Synod for forty years, I have never seen anything like this until now. Let's take a closer look at the rules that the Holy Synod is accused of violating. Who does Rule 7 of the IV Ecumenical Council condemn? - Clergy and monks who dared to enter military service or a secular rank, and did not return with repentance, or, as the 83rd Apostolic Canon expresses on the same subject, practicing in military affairs and wanting to retain both, that is, both the Roman authorities and the priestly office. Interpreter Balsamon 487 says that the apostolic rule condemns those who engage in military service in priestly clothing; and the cathedral rule condemns those who have put aside their priestly robes and become militants out of attachment to the worldly rank. So, the rules condemn clergymen who, without resigning their rank, willfully entered into civil and military ranks, and who, when they are told that these services are incompatible with church services, and when they demand a return from secular service to spiritual ones, do not obey this requirement. Are these the kind of people who appear in a defrocking case? - No. Here are presented the clergy who did not willfully enter the secular and military ranks, and do not strive to maintain the clergy and the secular rank together, but who confess to their superiors their weakness and fear of falling in a celibate life; and therefore, for their safety from sin, which is especially grave for a clergyman and incompatible with the priesthood, they wish, without much guilt, to undergo what others are subjected to for guilt, that is, defrocking. From this it is clear that the subject of Rule 7 of the IV Ecumenical Council is not identical with the subject of the case on the removal of the priesthood; and, consequently, this rule cannot be applied to this matter with full force. Who and what does the 3rd rule of St. say? Kirill? - About Peter the Bishop, who, due to some kind of information or suspicion against him, was forced to sign a renunciation of the administration of the diocese, who was called the most God-loving bishop, as worthy, and at the same time was deprived of the diocese as unworthy, and who complained about this. About those removed from service without trial, and asking to remain in service, St. Kirill says that they should be tried and acquitted or convicted in court. It is not difficult to see that this rule does not apply to those who voluntarily ask to be defrocked due to moral weakness. The extract further cites the 123rd novella of Justinian, according to which those who resigned their clergy were deprived of all the rights of the state into which they passed, and the 7th and 8th novellas of Leo the Wise 488, according to which such persons were converted to the ecclesiastical department, with the deprivation of all church degrees. Without having in mind the original text of these laws, I cannot judge whether they are given correctly. But one cannot help but notice the ambiguity of the expression: “they were deprived of all the rights of the rank to which they transferred.” What does it mean to be transferred to a title, for example, a merchant, and at the same time deprived of all the rights of this title? Isn't being deprived of all the rights of this title the same as being excluded from this title? What remains after this? But be that as it may, it must be said about the legalizations of the Greek emperors that they had legal force in the Greek empire, but in the Russian empire, and before the Holy Synod of Russia, they do not have legal force; and therefore there is no reason to accuse the Holy Synod of violating these laws. The Holy Synod can only, if it pleases, take them into account as an example of Greek legislation that deserves to be taken into account for Russian legislation. Finally, the extract indicates the saying of St. Apostle Paul: (1 Cor. 4:2) everything else is sought in the builders, that he may be faithful, that is, it is required of the builders of the mysteries that they be faithful. This is a spiritual and moral thought, and not a rule of governance and judgment; and is not directly related to Article 91 of the statute of spiritual consistories. From all of the above, it is clear that the grave accusation against the Holy Synod, expressed at the beginning of the excerpt from the laws under consideration, has no basis; and therefore it is highly desirable that this extract should not be offered to the Holy Synod in this form, for this would be a vain insult to the dignity of the Holy Synod. January 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note about the indelible character of the priesthood In the copy, or draft, of the attitude towards the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod on the issue of removing the priestly rank, I came across the saying that “in the Roman Church the priesthood is considered indelebile.” Acceptance of this teaching would lead to the fact that no one should be deprived of the priesthood for anything; and this would be contrary to the numerous rules of the holy apostles, councils and holy fathers. This prompted me to compose a brief consideration of the teaching de charactere indelebili, and the relationship of this teaching to the church court, which I present here in a special note. From the note you can see that this is not my opinion. I outline from documents the state of teaching in the Orthodox Church. Take this not as a dispute, but as a desire to eliminate disputes. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be... A look at the question of the indelible character of the priesthood, and its relation to the church trial of clergy In Orthodox society one can often encounter two one-sidednesses that are not conducive to the establishment of minds in the truth and sway them with doubts: insufficient acquaintance with Orthodox teaching, and a hasty infatuation with casual acquaintance with Western teachings, without an accurate study of them. This is the position of some in regard to the question of the indelible character of the priesthood. We will show the state of this issue and provide a conclusion to impartiality. The expression: indelible character, character indelebilis, signum indelebile, in relation to the sacraments, is not found either in the Holy Scriptures, or in the apostolic and conciliar canons, or in the writings of the ancient holy fathers. Originating from medieval scholasticism, it received the right of citizenship in the dogmatic field in the West in the 16th century, at the Council of Trent, and went through strong disputes exposing the lack of common conviction. The Roman Jesuit Perrone, whose theological lessons are respected even outside Italy, tries to evade the force of this remark by saying that strong debates prove a thorough study of the issue. This Western theologian, wanting to prove this teaching from the Holy Scriptures, cites the following sayings: God, who anointed us, also gave us the betrothal (pledge) of the spirit into our hearts (2 Cor. 1:22). You are marked by the holy spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13). But firstly, it is not explained here whether this seal is indestructible or crushable; whether this pledge can be taken away or not; This sign is indelible, or can be erased. Consequently, here the doctrine of indelible character is neither affirmed nor denied. A secret that one tries to reveal remains a secret. Secondly, the above expressions in Holy Scripture refer to the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, and not to the priesthood. The same theologian seeks evidence of this teaching from St. Basil 490 the Great in his word of exhortation for baptism. Here are his words: how can an angel intercede for you? How will he take you away from your enemies when he doesn’t see the seal? And further, he calls baptism an inviolable seal. But this is said about baptism, not about the priesthood. Similar expressions can be found in other saints. fathers, but still about baptism, or about confirmation, and not about the priesthood. In questions and answers about the faith of St. Demetrius 491, it is said about the sacrament of baptism: can this mystery be repeated? Not at all; From now on, this character is indelible on the soul. The Saint did not speak about the sacrament of the priesthood like this. The newest Latin theologians about the three sacraments, baptism, confirmation and priesthood, equally say that these sacraments place an indelible character on the soul, and therefore are unique. But there are errors in this opinion about the identity of these three sacraments. Anointing is not unrepeatable; but for those who are baptized and anointed, then fall into heresy and come to the church with repentance, anointing is repeated (II Ecumenical Secular, right 7; III Ecumenical Secular, right 95). And Saint Demetrius, in questions and answers about faith, says that the secret of second confirmation is given by the king to those who have departed from the Orthodox faith. The sacrament of baptism is not repeated and does not cease in its action. After baptism, one who has fallen into heresy, or who has renounced Christ, and turns to repentance, is accepted by the church as baptized, and, upon fulfillment of repentance, can enjoy all the rights of the baptized. But the sacrament of the priesthood is not repeated; or it may stop in its action. A priest who has fallen into heresy, or renounced Christ, and turns to repentance, is deprived of the priesthood, and is accepted by the church as a layman (Apostle 62. Peter. Alex. 10.). In the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila there is no teaching about the indelible character of the priesthood. In the statement of faith of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1723, it is said about holy baptism that it “lays an indelible seal.” But there is no such teaching here about the priesthood. From all of the above it is clear that the doctrine of the indelible character of the priesthood has not been introduced into the dogmas of the Orthodox Catholic Church. And when it is not introduced into dogma, then it should not be accepted as the basis of any other teaching, or rule for church court. And no matter how anyone talks about the mysterious nature of the priesthood hidden in the soul: this should not have any influence on the judgment on the deprivation and removal of the priesthood. For defrocking is determined by very many rules of the holy apostles, councils and holy fathers (See Apostolic Rights 5.). The pidalion, published by order of the ecumenical patriarch, in the interpretation of this rule is expressed as follows: completely ejected from the priesthood. In January. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the issue of the annexation of the Grekouniate-Melchites to the Orthodox Church The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in his “very Confidential” letter dated December 6, 1859, informed Metropolitan Philaret that the Alexandrian Patriarch Kallinikos 493 expressed a desire that at the meetings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the accession of the Greek Uniates to Orthodoxy, a Russian representative, namely, an expert on this matter, the Reverend Melitopol Kirill, head of the Russian Jerusalem mission. Finding such participation unprecedented for the Russian Church, and also finding it difficult, for various reasons, to admit the above-mentioned person as a representative of the Russian Church, and, finally, bearing in mind that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would certainly want to know the opinion of the Holy Synod on this matter, Count Tolstoy asked the Right Reverend Metropolitan to express his opinion on this matter and resolve the above-mentioned perplexities. Attached to this letter are: a copy of the relationship of Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky 494 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs 495, dated November 7, 1859, No. 362, and two copies of reports from the Russian Consul General in Egypt Lagovsky 496, dated September 25, and October 15/27, 1859. From this correspondence it is clear that The Melchites, after their complete break with the Western Church, seeking to create a special independent church, turned to the Russian embassy in Constantinople with a request to accept them under the protection of Russia and to obtain from the Porte the right to elect an independent patriarch for themselves. At the same time, they expressed that what kept them from merging with the Greeks was the fear that this would entail the union of their national element, and that they would have to sacrifice their churches and clergy for the benefit of the Greeks. Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky found this view and fears of the Melchites not unfounded, since the Patriarch of Antioch 497 expressed very little sympathy and fraternal condescension towards the Greek Uniates, and the Greek clergy declared their ill will and envy towards the Greek Uniate clergy. But at the same time, Prince Lobanov reported that the Patriarch of Alexandria has a completely different view on this matter, who, while providing the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the final decision on the issue of joining the Greek Uniates, expressed his personal opinion that if the Melchites abandon the idea of ​​an independent church, then the Eastern Church, having examined the degree of deviation of the Greek Uniates from the dogmas and basic statutes of Orthodoxy, will be ready to provide them with significant benefits in joining Orthodoxy and relief in church customs and rituals not related to the essence of Orthodoxy, although upon accession they will have to observe all the customs of the Orthodox Church and have equal rights with their priests and bishops and Greek ones, whose ordination can equally be performed by both Greek and national bishops. By your Excellency’s letter of the 6th day of this December, received by me on the 9th day, my opinion is required: should the Russian hierarchy avoid participating in the meetings of the Eastern Church about the Grecounites, or take advantage of this opportunity for immediate relations with the Greek Church, and in this latter case, who would be more useful to entrust with the representation of the Russian Church? Not without bewilderment, I enter into a question that is difficult in itself and further complicated by the incompleteness of information, which Hieromonk Leonid, who was pointed out to me and had recently returned from the East, could not complete 498 . I. Regarding the envoy, dated November 7, it is said that the Syrian Grecounites expressed their intention not to proceed with the election of a patriarch in place of Clement, whom they had rejected, but to entrust the administration of the church to four bishops of their confession, and meanwhile to seek from the Porte an independent representation of their church and people before the government. Then Gabriel Jibara, the Grecounite vicar in Egypt, wrote a letter asking for the assistance of the embassy in order to obtain permission from the Porte to elect a patriarch independent of the pope and the eastern patriarchs. Here it is clear that the dominant thought of this movement is the desire for independence, and not for union with the Orthodox Church. The Russian embassy is directing the matter towards this latter goal, having rejected the advances of the patriarchate. II. Already as a result of this direction, Vicar Gabriel announced the unanimous desire of the Syrian and Egyptian Melchites to form an independent church, under the auspices of Russia. This immediately reveals the dark side of the matter: 1) For this it is necessary to agree on the opinions of the patriarchs of the Ecumenical, Antioch and Alexandria, and perhaps also the Jerusalem, which can hardly be easily achieved. From the attitude of November 7, it is clear that the Syrian Melchites did not meet with encouraging sympathy from the Patriarch of Antioch, and even became the subject of ill will and envy of the clergy under his command. 2) It is difficult to determine what the patronage of Russia may consist of and how it may be structured in relation to the church, which is supposed to be independent, and which is located within the boundaries of another non-Christian power? III. Vicar Gabriel says that the Grekounites are kept from uniting with the Greek-Eastern Church by the fear of constraining their national elements in church government; Unfortunately, this fear cannot be considered dreamy. They can point to events, one of which is now before our eyes, in the Thessalonica region, where a complaint against a Greek bishop, found by the regional metropolitan to be fair, but not respected, had the consequence of falling away from Orthodoxy; and at this very time, when it was necessary to hasten to snatch the sheep from the jaws of the wolf, in Constantinople, not without difficulty, they agreed to appoint a worthy husband as a bishop from among her fellow tribesmen to the distressed flock; and this legal election was almost overthrown by the Metropolitan of Thessalonica. Thus, fears of oppression of nationality become in the present case the basis from which conclusions about leniency towards the Melchites should be drawn in order to unite them with the Orthodox Church. Is it convenient for representatives of the Russian church to come and lay this heavy foundation before the Greek hierarchy; and can one hope for peaceful reasoning and conclusions from this? IV. They see a ray of hope for the present matter in the verbal mediation of the Patriarch of Alexandria, who expressed his readiness to grant the Uniates all concessions consistent with the dignity of the church and the inviolability of its dogma. But this promise is uncertain; and it is impossible to correctly predict what this and other patriarchs recognize as compatible and what is incompatible with the dignity of the church. For example, giving the Melchites a special patriarch will probably be considered incompatible, and one can agree with this. But to give them a metropolitan who would be αὐτοκέφαλος, and would have the right to elect and ordain bishops in his area, without relating to any patriarch, like the Cypriot, on the basis of the 8th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, the Russian Church can recognize as joint, having at some time had the metropolis itself in a similar position; and whether the patriarchs will agree with such a judgment cannot be predicted 499. V. Regarding November 7, it is said that the Patriarch of Alexandria, not without success, interceded with the French consul on behalf of the Melchites to stop the violent measures taken by Western agents against them. If this is now, when the Melchites are still wavering, shouldn’t we be afraid of greater confrontation on the part of the Westerners, when they decisively abandon the Roman Church? Is it convenient for Russian patronage to reach Egypt and Syria to repel such attacks? VI. The Patriarch of Alexandria demands that the Melchites abandon the idea of ​​​​the independence of the church. But this is difficult to expect from them, both because their late patriarch already enjoyed almost complete independence, recognizing the pope as their head only for their own protection, and because they find dependence on the Greek hierarchy dangerous for themselves, as already said above. Is it easy to find a middle ground between the dependence they fear and do not want, and the independence they are denied? VII. The Patriarch of Alexandria demands consideration of the extent to which the Uniates have deviated from the dogmas and basic statutes of the Orthodox Church. But why didn’t he find out about this, in the neighborhood, and on the occasion of the beginning of the case? - Until then, this is unknown: it is impossible to determine the reliability of the case. VIII. The Patriarch demands that the Uniates, upon joining the Orthodox Church, “can no longer have claims to maintain their differences from other children of the universal church.” It's very strict. And how can this be reconciled with the patriarch’s own promise “to grant the Uniates, upon their reunification, significant benefits and relief in church customs and rituals not related to the essence of Orthodoxy”? IX. The Patriarch demands that, upon reunification, the ordination of priests should be carried out, “without distinction, by an Arab or Greek bishop.” This is somewhat offensive. If this rule is accepted as mandatory, will it not lead to the Greek bishops beginning to intensively introduce the Greek element into their national clergy? And why impose Greek bishops on them when they have their own? And just as, according to church rules, a bishop can ordain only in his own diocese, obliging the Arabs to accept ordination from a Greek bishop means making it diocesan among them. Has His Beatitude the Patriarch noticed that he is now proposing some restrictions on the Arab nationality? H. Patriarch says that “if any differences have crept into the rite of holy baptism among the Uniates with the prevailing custom in the Orthodox Church, then in the future all children newly born in their society will have to receive holy baptism without any difference in rites from other Orthodox Christians.” - Here again one can complain, why did he not study the matter about which he should discuss. From the first Arab you met you could find out how he and his children were baptized. Then the question would be clarified and would lead to a different solution. Here's the question: weren't the Arabs baptized by dousing? To this, the most blessed patriarch would have had the opportunity to clearly answer whether he would recognize such baptism in those who join, and would he not demand baptism from them again? And if he recognizes them as baptized, will it be that the great church will judge them in the same way? A representative of the Russian church can recognize them as baptized; and demand only that henceforth they have immersion baptism. But since it is known that the great church of the baptized is baptized again 500 times, what will he say to the Russian representative in response to his opinion? – What if, instead of reconciling the Uniates, a dispute arises between the Greek and Russian churches? XI. Such are the ambiguities and difficulties of the task ahead. One more difficulty should hardly be added to them. The Right Reverend of Melitopol entered into contact with the Syrian Uniates on the spot. Instead of acting modestly and, if possible, hidden, according to information worthy of trust, he tried to give his actions publicity and even solemnity; and on the one hand, he aroused exaggerated hopes in the Uniates, and on the other, in the Western agents there, spiritual and secular, he aroused intense opposition against these Uniates. Now it is difficult for Russia to enter into their cause: and if it does not enter, this may make an unfavorable impression for it in the East among the Orthodox. XII. Let's see what way out of this dark forest could be found. Probably, in the East, things will tend to ensure that the Syrian Uniates submit to the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Egyptian Uniates to the Patriarch of Alexandria. Let us assume that they will adopt a rule protected by the patronage of Russia, so that they have a national clergy and a bishop of their choice, and the patriarch would only have the right to ordain bishops. An example of this can be seen in the Sinai monastery, which itself has the right to choose its own bishop, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem has the right to ordain the chosen one. But what if, due to time, due to some plausible occasion, or under the guise of need, the said rule is violated, and those reunited complain? What will the Russian Synod do? He will write and advise you to return to the rule: they will not obey, or they will make a promise for the future, but the deed and example they have done will remain. What will Russia do? Will it work on the patriarch through Porto? The path is both strange for church work and unreliable. XIII. Perhaps the Melchites will wish to join the Russian Church, without entering into the subordination of the patriarchs, with some special rights for their metropolitan. Is this convenient? Unfortunately, it is inconvenient for the following reasons: 1) Although the patriarchs do not have the right to the Melchite Church, now independent from them, and although it has freedom both to join the universal Orthodox Church and to choose a private church to join: however, the patriarchs, in all likelihood, will not approve of its joining the Russian church, bypassing them. And if they disagree, it is inconvenient for the Russian church to accept the Melchites into communion, because this would be detrimental to the unanimity and agreement of the Russian church with the Greek. In this case, the loss would be greater than the gain. 2) The Porte, of course, will not be pleased that the Melchite Church, bypassing the spiritual authorities located within the Ottoman Empire, finds itself a firm alliance and support, outside of that Empire, in the Russian Church. And, in all likelihood, the Western powers will not fail to present this to the Porte as politically unfavorable. XIV. So, there does not seem to be a favorable outcome of the matter, except for that which is briefly indicated above, and which may consist of the following: 1) Melchites, as soon recognized by all dogmas, conciliar decrees and essential sacramental rites of the Orthodox Church, should be accepted into the communion of the Orthodox universal Church. 2) Preserve the indivisibility of their private church in Syria and Egypt, under the leadership of the metropolitan. 3) May this Metropolitan be recognized as αὐτοκέφαλος, in accordance with the 8th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council. 4) To provide their church with the internal election and ordination of bishops and the metropolitan himself, who, by his ordination, would be obliged to send his confession of faith and message of church communion to the Holy and Beatitude Patriarchs and the All-Russian Synod. 5) The act of this resolution, for the sake of steadfastness, must be signed by all the patriarchs, with the Synod of Constantinople, and, if those being reunified ask, then also by the leading member of the All-Russian Synod. 6) The government of the most pious Sovereign Emperor of All Russia will probably be pleased to promise those being reunited and their rights moral protection, just like other Orthodox Christians. 7) If the patriarchs find the concessions proposed in points 3 and 4 too great, then it can be proposed, for greater connection between those being reunited with the universal church, that their ordained metropolitan be the universal patriarch, and that they receive holy chrism from him, just like the church of the Greek kingdom. At the same time, it is necessary to bring to the attention of the patriarchs that the matter is either to gain Melchites for the Orthodox Church through condescension and concessions, or to lose them to the Orthodox Church through intransigence, perhaps forever. XV. As for appointing a formal representative of the Russian Church to this matter, this does not seem convenient for the following reasons: 1) This would be an act hitherto unprecedented on the part of the Russian church, and therefore it is difficult to predict whether it would be favorably received in the East. 2) In this matter, special difficult questions may arise, of which an example is shown above, in Article X. If it happens that a formal representative of the Russian church expresses an opinion that disagrees with the opinion of the Eastern ones, then this will represent a certain type of difference of opinion not only between individuals, but also between churches; but this should not be allowed even in appearance. XVI. since the matter deserves the brotherly care of the Russian Church, then a gentle measure can be used, which, however, can be valid and, moreover, safe. 1) Archimandrite Antoninus 501, who, as far as we know, is an expert in the matter and whose character can correspond to the present need, is moved from Athens to Constantinople, in the place of Archimandrite Peter 502. 2) Give him secret instructions from the Holy Synod, in accordance with the above considerations. 3) He will enter into confidential communication with the Uniate vicar Gabriel, who has arrived or is about to arrive in Constantinople, in order to learn in detail the dispositions and demands of the Melchites, and try to teach them such thoughts that would lead to an unhindered union with the Orthodox Church. 4) On the other hand, he will enter into contact, if possible, with members of the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy in order to present to them conciliatory thoughts for those seeking union with the Orthodox Church. 5) He will present the information and his thoughts thus obtained to the envoy, who, without a doubt, will offer, for his part, assistance to the cause that has already begun. 6) At the same time, he must submit a report on the same to the first member of the Holy Synod and the synodal chief prosecutor, as a result of which he can receive further instructions. In such a modest way of action, one can achieve no less than what could be achieved through a formal representative of the Russian church, without any danger of becoming in a controversial position with the Eastern hierarchy, which firmly holds some thoughts, not prescribed by the severity of dogmas, and firmly stands for its height and advantages 503. February 8. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on Brafman's project of a missionary society for converting Jews to Christianity Sad chari punishment seducers with which Mr. Brafman 504, a direct eyewitness, describes the religious and moral state of the Jews in Russia and their relationship to the government. “Of all the prayers, this people recognizes as the only one “and holy” the one that consists of the most false and “disastrous thoughts about the overthrow of the existing order on the earth and about the enslavement of all nations and the restoration of the scepter of David, which is even mentioned in the prayer composed for the prosperity of the king.” Here it is difficult to decide what should be more surprising: the impudence of the Jews, or the extreme inattention of the Russian authorities? It is no less difficult to understand how a Jew can be a faithful subject, who in the same prayer prays for the prosperity of the Russian Tsar and for the destruction of his kingdom and for the enslavement of the Russian people to the dreamily expected Messiah? Since 1835, Jews have had rabbis, in Brafman’s words, “official”, that is, determined or approved by the government, and, probably, on the government’s salary. But they constitute only a guise presented to the government. There are other true rabbis who are chosen by the kahal and the people, and to whom they turn in matters of faith. State rabbis do not provide the government with true information. Brafman believes that in addition to the 2,000,000 Jews declared to the government, there are 3,000,000 capital ones. If we assume that this number is exaggerated threefold, then in this case, with two million people, leaving a million in capitals is a deception, unusually blatant, harmful to the state and humiliating to the government. In the unsuccessful identification of government rabbis, with whom the government itself hid the true state of the Jews, Brafman also sees a religious temptation. The Jews interpret this in their favor, as a matter of the special protection of Providence, blinding the infidels. It cannot be denied that a reliable institution for the conversion of Jews to Christianity, as desirable for Christian love, is just as necessary in relation to the benefits of the state. But the very author of the project for such an institution can be seen to be aware of the difficulty of this matter, because he not only demands the establishment of missionaries, but also proposes various measures in which not only the spiritual, but also the civil authorities and even the legislative branch should take part. Thus, a difficult solution is proposed for a difficult question. The proposed composition of the missionary society, under the chairmanship of the diocesan bishop, from clergy who know the Hebrew language, and from educated Jews who have converted to Christianity, corresponds to the subject and purpose. "The weakening influence of the rabbis on the Jews." By what means can a missionary society achieve this? “Translate the books of the New Testament into simple Jewish-German language.” Is this mixed and uneducated language capable of presenting the translation of the New Testament with dignity? The drafter said that before his conversion he read the German translation of the Gospel to laugh; and, already reading the Hebrew translation, I felt a beneficial change in myself. The drafter proposes that the New Testament and morally dogmatic Christian books “be used in large numbers among the Jews.” How can this be achieved when, according to the drafter’s own testimony, “the kahal persecutes with impunity those who dare to read criticism of the Talmud”? For reading Christian books, of course, they will be persecuted just as severely. “Open Orthodox services in the Hebrew language in Orthodox churches” is a measure worthy of attention. But it can be started only when there is already a certain number of Jewish Christians who could perform divine services. Of the Russian clergy, even if there were those who were sufficiently knowledgeable in the Hebrew language, a pronunciation unusual for today’s Jews would hinder a good impression on the Jews. “To appoint melameds (Jewish teachers or scribes) and outside rabbis as priests who convert to Christianity” is a measure that promises benefits. But it is necessary that these are people who are also thoroughly instructed in Christian teaching. “To provide for the management and disposal of missionaries areas of state-owned western lands where Jewish Christians could settle” is a measure that one cannot help but think about. Can this be reconciled with the civil system? And will the missionaries cope with this matter? “Carry out criminal and civil cases regarding newly baptized people and those wishing to be baptized under missionary deputies” is an unfounded, but broad demand. Should the legislature allow this? Shouldn't this burden the missionaries? To establish a seminary for melameds and a printing house with it, is it convenient to find people and ways, especially when the Holy Synod is establishing a general missionary institution, and a special missionary society for the Caucasus is almost likely to be established? “Grant the missionary the right to publish articles in the periodical journals of the empire, at its discretion, in the form of supplements in the Jewish and Jewish languages.” Can this be imposed on magazine publishers? How will these articles reach the Jews and have an effect on them? The compiler of the project explains it this way: a Christian will receive a Jewish article, call on a Jew to translate it; and thus the Jew learns its contents. In addition, these sheets must contain industrial and commercial information and articles, for the sake of which the Jews themselves will look for these sheets. Not a direct and reliable path to the goal. Concede to the rabbis the ownership of all kahal incomes that are not under the control of the government, i.e. kahal baths, cemeteries, places acquired by purchase, etc., allotted to them free of charge, plots, vegetable gardens and lands; to grant them the rights of citizenship, and their children the right to enter gymnasiums, without dismissal from society in order to destroy their ties with Jewish society - all this represents a dark and indirect path to the missionary goal. The proposal to merge Jewish and Christian society in places of residence, to appoint only Christians as tax collectors and deputies, to appoint Jewish officials instead of government rabbis, to impose taxes on Jews according to the number of windows, doors and gates - is subject to consideration by the legislative branch. In general, to discuss this project, it would be useful to have a meeting with people who closely know the spirit and being of Jews. For what purpose and benefit has Professor Levison 505 been wandering in the East for so long? Wouldn't it be useful to call him and put him in conference with Mr. Brafman? February 9. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the removal of the priesthood, according to petition 507 Reasoning about this subject is made difficult by the fact that there are no church rules about this actual subject. But many church rules define defrocking for actions incompatible with the dignity of the priesthood. And from this we can at least conclude that if it is possible to be defrocked for guilt, as a punishment, then it is also possible to be defrocked for good reasons and, by the way, as a precaution against the harmful consequences of involuntary abandonment in the priesthood. 83 The apostolic canon, which condemns clergy who practice military affairs and want to retain both, that is, both the Roman authorities and the priestly office, does not directly relate to the present subject. However, it does not retain one in the priesthood, but casts one out of it. Nor does the 7th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, which speaks of clergymen who willfully, without defrocking, enter into military service or secular rank, directly relate to the present subject. From such it demands that they return to church office with repentance. And for two crimes: 1) for willful entry into military or secular service, and 2) for resistance to a meek decision to return to a church position, he is anathematized. One who asks to be defrocked, out of awareness of his weakness, cannot be compared with one who, having disobeyed his superiors without being defrocked, enters the secular rank. And if one who asks to be removed from the rank due to weakness, having been admonished to retain it, does not obey the admonition, citing the same weakness, he is guilty before the priesthood, but not as seriously as the one who, without leaving the spiritual rank, entered the worldly rank, and persists in remaining in two incompatible positions due to ambition. St. Cyril of Alexandria, in rule 3 (which is not a directly definitive rule, but part of a letter to Domnus the Patriarch of Antioch 508), filled with various reasoning) says that “it is not in accordance with church decrees that certain clergymen present a handwritten renunciation.” It is necessary to accurately determine the meaning of this saying. The very word renunciation shows that this is not about removal of rank, but about renunciation of correction of a position in any specific place of service. This is also confirmed by the fact that St. Kirill said this on the occasion of a complaint from Bishop Peter, who complained that he was forcibly forced to sign a renunciation of the administration of the diocese. Further, in the 3rd rule of St. Cyril says: “let them be removed from service not by renunciation, but rather by “condemnation according to their deeds.” From this it is clearly clear that the rule does not simply speak about those who renounce their place of service, but about those who are accused of something and are thereby encouraged to renounce. So, the exact meaning of the rule of St. Cyril is the following: if a bishop or a clergyman is accused of something, and thereby encourages him to renounce his place of ministry, then this is not in accordance with church decrees, but he must be judged according to the accusation brought against him; and if he turns out to be innocent, leave him in place, and if he is guilty, then remove him from service not by renunciation, but by condemnation based on his deeds. With this understanding of this rule, its justice is obvious; and if we understand him as denying service without guilt or suspicion, then why should we judge him? This understanding of the rule is confirmed by church history; for many bishops refused to govern dioceses, and were not tried and condemned for this. Thus, it is revealed that the 3rd rule of St. Cyril is even less applicable to clergy asking for defrocking than Rule 7 of the IV Ecumenical Council. If some imagine that in the Greek Church there is no arbitrary appointment of rank, and from this they believe to draw the conclusion that this should not be allowed, then the duty of justice obliges us to present the following against this: 1) This is said without proof. 2) Perhaps in the Greek Church there are no cases in the memory of clergy asking to be removed from office; but it does not follow from this that this never happened and should not exist. 3) The Greek Church is governed by the same apostolic, conciliar and paternal rules as the Russian one. But these rules do not prohibit this. 4) When the persons mentioned in Rule 7 of the IV Ecumenical Council, whom it wanted to return to church positions, but who “do not return with repentance to “what they first chose for God,” reveal through this their inflexible arbitrariness to renounce their dignity and title, the rule does not tell them: there is no arbitrary removal of your dignity; remain in your rank and title. 5) Suppose that a widowed clergyman reveals to his superiors that he does not recognize the gift of living chastely without marriage, and therefore asks to take the priesthood from him. It is revealed that he is in temptation; that his conscience was shaken; that he, having begun in spirit, will end in flesh; regrets that he prefers sensual pleasure or the good things of worldly life to the grace of the priesthood. If he receives a refusal of what he asks, shouldn’t he be afraid that his temptation will intensify, that the tempter will by this refusal excuse in his eyes the possible fall from grace, that the evil of the fall may be followed by the evil of temptation, and, finally, he will be deprived of the priesthood with a great burden on his conscience, with a great temptation, a reproach to his title. This fear and precaution against this can justify the decision to take the priesthood from him earlier, at his request. So, opportunity and need, in some cases; the removal of the priesthood can be considered proven. But it must be determined in what sense this can and should be done and under what conditions? The expression resignation implies injustice. The clergyman did not confer the rank on himself, nor can he lay it down on his own. The expression defrocking is a relieving expression of defrocking, invented out of condescension towards those who are defrocked not for proven guilt, but only by admitting their weakness. In the church rules, which should be the basis for resolving this subject, there is no defrocking, but there is defrocking, or defrocking. If it is objected that defrocking or defrocking is a punishment for guilt, it will be fair to answer that those who ask to be defrocked also have guilt, although not as grave as those who are defrocked for an actual vice or crime. The evidence for this is as follows: 1) The priesthood is given for life, with the oath of the recipient to faithfully observe his duties. Consequently, the person asking to be defrocked is guilty of violating the law of the priesthood and his oath. 2) The law orders that such a clergyman be admonished to refrain from this guilt. If he does not follow the admonition, then he is guilty of resisting his superiors. 3) Here, although not literally, but in part close, the 83 apostolic rule may have an application, which exhorts a clergyman, who has willfully entered the secular rank, to leave this and return to the church position with repentance; and if he does not accept this admonition and stubbornly remains in his intention, he orders that he be deprived of his dignity as a guilty person. From what has been said, in fairness, it must be concluded that those from whom the priesthood is removed should not enjoy equal rights with people who are completely innocent. And from this, in fairness, it must be concluded that the existing law on this subject, as fair, does not require change. One circumstance is not provided for in this law, when it is said that those from whom defrocking are removed return to their previous ranks. And therefore, those who come from a spiritual calling are converted to a spiritual calling. So, the law requires the addition that those born in the clergy, if the priesthood is removed from them, at the same time enter from the ecclesiastical department into the secular. February 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about proposed public lectures at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Completely confidential. Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. The thought of proposed public lectures at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy does not make me happy, but worries me. To allow outsiders, and even women, to attend ordinary lectures, this, in my opinion, is indecent for a theological academy, and can be harmful, because it will more or less entertain both mentors and students. Academic regulations require mentors to be careful not only that the lecture is given, but also that it is accepted. This is inconvenient to pay attention to in front of a crowd of strangers. And extraordinary public lectures would steal the time and attention of teachers and students, to the detriment of essential duties, and would involve them in secular distraction, from which not everyone would comfortably return to spiritual reflection. The matter at the very beginning would not seem respectful, because it would appear to be an imitation. The university and passage broadcasters will say: “Now they’ve woken up! So we woke them up!” And they will come to an academic lecture not with impartial attention, but with a smile and a critical face, just to look for weaknesses or errors in it, and, perhaps, to object in the following secular lectures. It is not easy to overcome this with the superiority of lectures. Unbelievers cannot be satisfied by the mere testimony of the Holy Scriptures, which they have rejected. Their speculations must be opposed by the strongest speculations; evidence of false teaching borrowed from nature must be refuted by more thorough knowledge of nature. But for the opponents, knowledge of nature is the main subject, for which they used all their strength, while for the mentors of the academy this is only a private, random subject. Will the public, which is frivolously carried away by news and the impudence of false teachings, have a sufficiently sound taste for strict truth, which will not seem new, because it is eternal? So, is it possible to resolutely hope for success? Doubtful. For example, in the “Spiritual Conversation” the polemical articles, except for the letters of Archpriest Yakhontov 510, were not very victorious 511. If it does not happen that the public is very busy and completely satisfied with academic lectures, then the opponents will take this as their victory. Of course, it is not advisable to start lectures for such an end. And why should we move someone else’s pulpit to ourselves when we have our own – in the church? Let the sowers of good seed come where the tares are sown. In the university church, on every Sunday and feast day, let one or more preachers, in turn, preach sermons against those false doctrines which are propagated by secular lectures. Here we are in our own field. Even if strong attention is not aroused, it will not be a fall; because here is a feasible performance of duty, and not direct competition, as would be the case at public academic lectures. But if God grants those who preach a strong word, people will come here, and they will listen to the truth more reverently than in an academic hall. Here, I think, Archpriest Yakhontov would be useful. And maybe we should regret that he is not in St. Petersburg. Take care of the academy. Take care of the pearls of holy truth so that they are not carelessly dropped under the feet of pigs. May the Lord instill in the members of the Holy Synod and you, that which is truly trustworthy for spiritual benefit. If you decide to show this letter to the Bishop of Novgorod 512 or other members of the Holy Synod: I do not shy away from this. What is the government looking at? And in states where more than us they boast of freedom of thought, they do not allow publicly insulting religion. March 9. Notes of Metropolitan Philaret “on the minor Parisian seminary” 514 Teaching the catechism on Sunday afternoons, and to those preparing for first communion twice a week, in the evenings. French Grammar is taught through the year grades: Elementary, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3. Latin goes from 8th grade to 2nd grade, and even to rhetoric. They require that the student write purely in Latin, even poetry. Greek from grade 7 to grade 2, and up to rhetoric. It doesn’t appear that anyone is forced to write in Greek. The sacred, universal, French histories form one line that runs through all classes. In this way, only children learn sacred history. Geography from elementary to 5. Arithmetic from elementary to 3. In the 2nd, geometry. It is good that for the philosophy class, among other things, the treatises of Bossuet 515 “on the knowledge of God” and Fenelon 516 “on the existence of God” are assigned. Educational book compendium philosophiae, par Manieu prétre. The ability to speak English and German is not required. Handwriting from elementary to 5. There are 10 teaching hours per day; 6 for preparing lessons and tasks; 4 in classes. French poetry was expelled from the seminary as infectious. During recreation, “it is not forbidden to walk when you are tired of playing; but for special reasons it is strictly forbidden to remain in one place.” The head of the class gives a cross to the first student in each class. A student who has been first three times in a row is allowed to sit at the boss’s table for the whole day, and in addition to this, wear a gold badge for the entire week. Literary Academy of students. The student-director of the academy and academicians wear a gold cross with enamel, on a cord of different colors, according to rank. Candidates and applicants wear a ribbon in their buttonhole. A student who does not show the book at the request of the mentor is expelled. Also excluded for moving away from friends during a walk. The full fee for the student is 1000 francs. “When accepting, you need to pay attention to the honesty and religion of the parents. If the father and especially the mother are bad Christians, then there is nothing to hope for.” Care must be taken that children hear the language only as a chosen, pure, and always worthy one. When young people refuse their clergy, whether in a small seminary or a large one, the superior should not leave them without care. If the superior is not given the choice of persons and distribution of positions, it will not be possible for him to manage society. It is the duty of the superior to take care of the future of the mentors. Mentors are required to stay for at least 5 years. Prefect of Sciences, Prefect of Religion, Prefect of Discipline. Change of linen and scarves on Saturdays and Tuesdays. Class president, recreation president, hospital president. In recreation, “the rule nunquam duo must be constantly reminded.” March 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with his opinion “on the prayer book proposed for publication” Having offered my thoughts to Bishop Novgorod regarding prayer books, I offer them to you as well. The matter, in my opinion, is worth attention. 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, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow About the prayer book proposed for publication The Kyiv edition of the prayer book was chosen as a sample of the proposed publication. The Kyiv prayer books were compiled and published according to local orders, without the approval of the Holy Synod. The compilers allowed themselves to deviate from the Greek and Synodal models, sometimes without apparent need, with an excess of arbitrariness. For example, in the book entitled: Akathists and Canons, they transferred the prayer of St. John Chrysostom about the hours of the day and night from evening prayers to morning ones. During the akathist to the Sweetest Jesus, they included the prayer of Philotheus, Archbishop 518 of Constantinople, which, in the great Trebnik, is placed in the plague of the pestilence; and, moreover, they not only changed some of the expressions in it against the Breviary, but also added so much to it that the addition constitutes its second half, larger than the first; and consequently a prayer was attributed to Philotheus, the second half of which does not belong to him. From the canon to the incorporeal and the canon to the guardian angel, they compiled one canon, choosing verses from the canons, according to their own reasoning, and adding some verses of their own composition. These examples are enough to judge the Kyiv editions of prayer books. But the Holy Synod, in its publications of church and prayer books, has a rule of firmly adhering to Greek models. And it cannot be denied that this rule is worthy of observance, both due to the dignity of ancient models, and for the sake of harmony with the Greek Church. And for some time the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, it seems, paid attention to this rule, and in its publications it began to partially approach the synodal ones. So, in the canon for Holy Communion, in every song, in the old editions, there was an extra self-composed verse; but in the newest editions it is no longer there, and three verses are printed in each song, as in the synodal editions. From all of the above, the correct conclusion is that the following rules arise: 1) it is necessary for the Holy Synod to continue to agree with itself in publishing prayer books, that is, to adhere to the Greek and its previous models. 2) The publications of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, as having received local authority, should be allowed to continue according to local orders, without introducing them for consideration by the Holy Synod, which would require changes in them. For example, how could the Holy Synod approve, according to the Kiev edition, the prayer of Philotheus, when half of it does not belong to Philotheus? Not contrary to these rules, the Holy Synod chose the Kyiv edition for printing the prayer book, because this prayer book is closest to the synodal publications. It is an extract from the Psalter with prayer, and contains a book of hours without interhours, morning and evening prayers, akathists, canons and services for the days of the week, a canon and hours for Holy Easter, the succession of Holy Communion, troparia; months with troparia and paschalia. This composition of the prayer book is also close to the composition of the Greek book: ὡρολόγιον μέγα, great book of hours. But in the Kiev prayer book there are three local Kyiv additions: 1) prayers during the Divine Liturgy, 2) stichera and the canon of the Dormition of the Mother of God, 3) rules of the monk of Pechersk. The Holy Synod decided to exclude the first and third of these articles from the prayer book, in accordance with the above rules, but did not adhere to these rules regarding the second article. If the above rules are true, then the stichera and canon of the Dormition of the Mother of God should not be included in the prayer book assigned for publication by the Holy Synod, because: 1) this service is not in the synodal edition of the Psalter with recitation; 2) this service is not in the synodal edition of the canon; 3) this service in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra was included in the prayer book not for general church reasons, but for local reasons, out of special reverence for the cathedral church and the miraculous icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God. It behooves the Holy Synod to be guided by church-wide, and not local, considerations. 4) If the Holy Synod includes the service of the Dormition of the Mother of God in the prayer book, then one can object, why are the great holidays, for example, bypassed: the Nativity of Christ, Epiphany, the Most Holy Trinity, and their stichera and canons are not included in the prayer book? There will be no blessed answer to this. In the proposed edition, the following doxology is supposed to be corrected in the 8th prayer for Holy Communion: for thine is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The reason is that the prayer is addressed not to the Most Holy Trinity, and not to God the Father, but to the Son of God. The following doubts arise against this: 1) If the conclusion of the prayer is subject to correction, because the address to the Son of God is unclear in it: why is the beginning of the prayer, equally unclear and unadapted to the face of the Son of God, not subject to correction: God weaken, forsake, forgive, etc.? 2) In the Greek prayer book, the doxology in this prayer is set out exactly as in the existing Slavic editions of the Synodal, Kyiv and old printed editions. 3) The prayer of proposal at the beginning of the liturgy is addressed to God the Father; but concluded with the usual doxology to all the persons of the Holy Trinity. It must be thought that the fathers did not find it necessary to change the usual doxology, because it can have a meaning consistent with the dogma: for yours is the kingdom of the Father (as well as) and (your) Son and the Holy Spirit. Is it not possible to give the doxology of the 8th prayer a meaning consistent with the dogma: for yours is the kingdom of (as your) Father (as well as yours) Son and Holy Spirit? Therefore, it is not superfluous to re-examine the question: is it necessary to correct the 8th prayer for Holy Communion? But don’t some passages in the prayer book more urgently require correction? In the first stichera, before the akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos, it is said: Is it useful to print the birth and destruction of the moon when the ancient testimony about this has ceased to be accurate? March 21. Metropolitan Philaret's conclusion from the report on the state of the Moscow diocese, for 1859 After reviewing the state of the diocese, it would be possible to move on from the past year to the present with good hope, if the schism did not arouse strong fears. False priests of Austrian origin are multiplying and roaming freely through cities and villages, disseminating false teachings among the common people, and, not content with schismatics, they are intensifying to seduce the Orthodox. From many places, especially from the Bogorodsk district, not only priests, but also some laymen, zealots of Orthodoxy, come to me with verbal announcements about false priests; but they do not dare to write and sign them, not hoping that the Orthodox who reported this information would decide to confirm them during an official inquiry, for fear of vengeance from schismatics. But even open false priests are not subject to any punishment; and this naturally encourages them to be more insolent. So open the peasant Fedotov, who was taken in priestly vestments, and called himself a priest; A false bishop's letter was found with him, testifying that he was ordained by the false archbishop Anthony in Moscow, at the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, on February 8, 1857, to the Church of St. Sergius, Pavlovsky Posad, in Bogorodsky District. Isn't this a solemn sign of schism? But Fedotov was considered by the civil authorities, and he received his freedom. I reported this secretly to the Holy Synod, dated the 19th day of last January, No. 5,523. Supported and protected by rich schismatics, false priests walk around safely and sow tares, while trying to avoid meeting with Orthodox priests, so as not to be exposed to their exposure. Thus, the common people become a more open field for sowing tares than wheat. The schismatics are taught not to allow Orthodox priests to approach them, and they instill the same in those who have been shaken in Orthodoxy. We must pray that the Divine Chief Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, by His grace, will lead strong workers to the spiritual field, and may the wisdom and zeal of his most pious anointed one move him to effective success in their work. A sad spectacle is presented, and even more saddening fears are inspired, by denigrating and blasphemous literature, just as, if not more, unbridled and widespread as in a famous European state of the last century, where it turned out to be destructive. Titles, positions, persons - everything is subjected to cruel censure and is depicted in an outrageous, incredibly exaggerated and full of slander. There is no need to point out many examples: they are used in time-based publications. It is enough to point to the book published at the end of last year in Moscow, with the approval of the censor Naumov, by the schismatic Soldatenkov: Russian folk legends, in which the names of the Savior and some saints are accompanied by tales that offend pious feelings, morality and decency. The book begins with Christ and the two apostles asking for a place to stay for the night: “and they had a chance to spend the night under a bench.” To our great regret, the same literature has already managed to damage the taste of the people; and he, with greedy curiosity, rushes to read what he should have rejected out of a sense of piety, morality and decency. May the Lord direct the wisdom of the Holy Synod and the Orthodox government to find medical and protective means 524. March 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the petition of the citizens of the city of Kashin, for the resumption of prayer singing at the shrine of Grand Duchess Anna 525, resting in the Kashin Cathedral Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated March 24, 1860, No. 1606, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “The citizens of Kashin, in their most humble petition, petition for the resumption of prayer singing at the shrine of Grand Duchess Anna, who rests in the Kashin Resurrection Cathedral. Having seen from this petition that in 1677 a ruling was made by Patriarch Joachim 526 that was unfavorable to the wishes of the people of Kashin, I make it my duty to humbly ask your Eminence to deliver to me the said ruling, if it is kept in the Moscow Synodal Library, and at the same time inform me of your, gracious sir and archpastor, conclusion on the present case.” In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret gave the following resolution: 1) Responsible, with the forwarding of the 1677 definition of Patriarch Joachim, requested from the synodal library. 2) since, together with this determination, the determination of the Moscow Council of 1695 on the removal from office of Smolensk Metropolitan Simeon 527 was kept under the same seal, then I offer this under my seal to the office of the Holy Synod, for return to the synodal library. 3) I also propose that the present file be kept with the files of the synodal office. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Then Metropolitan Filaret, in response to the attitude of Count A.P. Tolstoy, No. 1606, wrote the following to him: On the occasion of the most submissive petition of the citizens of the city of Kashin for the resumption of prayer singing at the shrine of Grand Duchess Anna, who rests in the Kashin Cathedral, your Excellency, dated March 24, this 1860, No. 1606, demanded the authentic definition of Patriarch Joachim on this subject in 1677, and my conclusion. The said conciliar determination of His Holiness Patriarch Joachim, with six other bishops and one archimandrite, signed by all of them with his own hand, with the addition of documentary articles, was requested by me from the synodal library and is hereby forwarded. From this definition it is clear that in the information presented to this council about the blessed Princess Anna, much turned out to be incorrect. In her life it is said in three places that her “relics had nothing to do with corruption”; and upon examination of them by two bishops, the archimandrite and the archpriest, “the relics in different places have decayed and collapsed.” Also unfair was the testimony of priest Vasily that her right hand was “bent, as if blessing.” And it is incredible that the pious old woman would take upon herself the image of a priestly blessing. In the life, in two places, it is said that her vestments “were not involved in decay.” But according to the examination, “the vestments and schema have decayed.” The testimony of a certain Nicephorus, that the life of the blessed Anna in the Solovetsky monastery was copied from a sedate book, was recognized in the definition as “Nicephorus’s fable.” In an appearance to the sexton Gerasim, she herself called herself Anna. But in monasticism she was called Sophia, and in the cathedral definition it was noted that “you cannot forget your monastic name.” Consequently, the sexton’s vision is not reliable. Further in the definition it is noted: “in the same way, in the miracles that were found, a certain disagreement and indecency are written.” From this information and inquiries, the Patriarchal Council resolution drew the following cautious conclusion: “I have judged the life of the Grand Duchess and the description of the miracles, leaving them as unreliable, and I will abolish them until the time of the great council of all bishops and until the real notification, when God will announce and confirm them in the future.” “Don’t create celebrations for her.” “Do not paint an image of her and do not sing prayers to her, and now sing only pannikhidas for her.” “In the church of Grand Duchess Anna, without a certain test of consecration, there are no divine services to be corrected.” In support of this definition, the most holy patriarch in the cathedral refers to the decree of the council 7175 (1667), under the patriarchs Paisius of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and Joasaph of Moscow. The determination of His Holiness Patriarch Joachim with the small council cannot but be considered fair, when compared with the information and inquiries that were then in mind. At the same time, it has the character of modesty and caution, because it leaves the matter waiting to see if God will show signs in the future that He will deign to glorify the blessed Anna, but even in the case of such signs, it refers the matter to a new council of all bishops of the Russian Church. If such expected signs, after the definition of Patriarch Joachim with the council, did not appear for 180 years: this definition, in my opinion, still retains binding force for the Russian Church. No. 148. March 30, 1860 528 April 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note: “widowhood of the clergy” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with Confidential treatment, dated March 17, 1860, No. 1443, with the highest permission, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret for conclusion a note sent from the Sovereign Emperor by an unknown person about the unhindered permission for widowed priests to resign from the priesthood, which was followed by the highest resolution: “I wish to know the opinion of His Holiness on this Synod". – In this regard, the hand of the Metropolitan is marked: “Apr. 10. responsible, with an opinion.” In your Excellency's Confidential Address, dated March 17, No. 1443, a note was forwarded to me under the title: widowhood of the clergy, and my opinion about it was requested. In order not only to express my opinion, but also to show the grounds for it, and to eliminate any objections that may arise against it, I found it necessary to draw up a detailed examination of the said note, which I present herewith. As for the draft ruling on those asking to be removed from the priesthood, although my opinion on this part is already known to your Excellency from my note dated February 3, I will soon try to explain more fully in relation to the content of the draft protocol. The special burden of the church and the unsatisfactory state of my health do not allow me to be quite hasty 529. Consideration of the note entitled: “Widowhood of Priests” I. The note, entitled: The widowhood of priests, has the appearance of a strong representation of the subject; but this is because it depicts the subject one-sidedly and in exaggerated terms. II. She begins by defining the proportion of widowed priests to those who have wives as 4 to 10; and says that this is “without the slightest exaggeration.” To put it more simply: this means that the number of wives who have wives is two times and a half more than widows, and the number of widows is two times and a half less. It is unknown on what this is based. A verification of this calculation was made, through clergy records, for haste, only for the city of Moscow and for the Moscow district: it turned out that in Moscow the diocesan department of archpriests and priests with 234 wives, and 59 widows; Consequently, there are four times fewer widows than those who have wives. In the Moscow district there are 99 priests with wives, and 20 widows; consequently, there are five times fewer widows than those who have wives. So the number that the note showed, and in which it rejects even the slightest exaggeration, according to the documents, turned out to be exaggerated by almost twice the true number. If, from the 79 widowed priests of Moscow and its district, we exclude 48 who are over 50 years old, then only 31 out of 412 remain threatened by the temptation mentioned in the note. III. The note depicts the helplessness of the widow's priest with the same exaggeration. Two circles of kinship, his and his deceased wife, present him with considerable convenience, either to take someone from the kinship into his home, or to give young children to be raised by one of his relatives. He can also take for the children a stranger who is about fifty years old, which years remove doubts and do not yet deprive him of strength for household chores. IV. There is a strong exaggeration in the following words of the note: “they are stealing everything they can from his house; children are dying without a caretaker, and the whole house is empty.” If a widowed or single secular person is not robbed of everything he can from his house, why should a widowed priest be considered subject to this continuous robbery? In fact, we see that widowed priests keep their household in order, raise their children honestly, and marry off their daughters with a dowry. V. The note says, and even without limitation, that “with the loss of a wife comes debauchery.” Upon an impartial examination of this opinion, expressed in such a general form, let it be allowed to say that it combines with a small share of truth a many times greater amount of (of course, deliberate) slander. In continuation of my thirty-eight years of observation of the clergy of the capital of Moscow, not one of the widowed priests was convicted of debauchery; only one was subjected to private criticism from some people for his frequent visits to a secular house, however honest, and when, as a precaution, he was transferred to another city, the criticism was not renewed there. In general, widowed archpriests and priests in Moscow enjoy a good opinion, and some even deep respect for their moral dignity. VI. The unjustly natural inclination of a person towards the other sex is presented in the note as invincible, with the exception of perhaps one person out of a thousand, and tormenting a person “every hour, every minute.” To think this way means to imagine the bestial nature in a person as predominant, and the spiritual nature as meaningless: an opinion contrary to the dignity of human nature and offensive to its Creator. In human nature, damaged by sin, there is a war of flesh against spirit; but against it the Christian faith provides completely victorious help. And experience represents many people, partly by vow or obligation, partly without obligation, leading a pure life in complete celibacy or in widowhood. VII. The exaggeration reaches its extreme when the note says that suppressing carnal movements is a feat “above martyrdom.” There is not even a shadow of truth in this expression, but there is only an offensive humiliation of the shrine of martyrdom. VIII. The same kind of expression in the note is that the carnal movements inherent in human nature “constitute its essence.” So, a person’s desire for truth, for goodness, for the heavenly, for the divine is all insignificant, but the essence of man is the desire for a woman! This is the extreme to which an immoderate effort to prove the desired idea at any cost can lead. IX. The note presents an objection to itself that carnal movements can be overcome by fasting and prayer. And to refute this objection, he writes down the words of Blessed Jerome 530 that in the desert he “imagined the pleasures of Rome,” and that “voluptuous impulses were still seething in his cold body.” From this the note draws the following conclusion: “What should be the position of a priest who has lost his wife?” A strange image of inference! One of many, who lived 1400 years before this, admitted that he felt carnal movements: consequently, all people of all times, and especially widowed priests, have invincible carnal movements. What logic allows one to conclude from one person to everyone? Moreover, Jerome did not run away from the desert and did not marry, but piously died as a monk; Consequently, through fasting and prayer he conquered the movements of the flesh; Consequently, his example does not refute the objection given in the note, but confirms it; consequently, the widowed priests, if any of them were subjected to the struggle of the flesh, like Jerome, could win the victory, like Jerome. X. In a note to the spiritual authorities regarding widowed priests, the following rule is attributed: “do not allow yourself to act too obviously and harshly, such that you could expose them, and become a priest.” By the grace of God, I am quite familiar with many Russian bishops, of whom I am absolutely sure that not one of them will allow himself to be guided by a hypocritical rule about them, and as a result of this, of necessity, I must admit that attributing this hypocritical rule to the spiritual authorities involves slander. If, by misfortune, someone knows a bishop who allows himself to act according to this hypocritical, condemnatory and harmful rule, he, out of a sense of justice and out of zeal for the purity of the clergy, should inform the Holy Synod to take active measures against immorality and temptation, and not slander everyone for one. XI. The note calls the church wise for allowing the second and third marriage. This is an incorrect view of church law. The wisdom of the church on this subject especially lies in the fact that it recognizes one marriage as perfect not only for priests, but also for all Christians, because Christian marriage, according to the Apostle, is an image of the union of Christ with the church; Christ is the one groom of the one bride, the Orthodox Church. She allows the second marriage out of condescension towards human weakness, but she allows the third marriage reluctantly, with penance, as not free from sin, averting with this imperfect deed a greater evil, fornication outside marriage. Therefore, the church quite rightly demands that the marriage of a priest be predominantly perfect. and not such as is recognized by the laity as imperfection. XII. After an exaggerated depiction of the widowed priest’s passionate state, the note asks the question: “what should he do when he feels powerless to fight the passion that burns him?” To this, in fairness, one could answer: one must do what Blessed Jerome, cited in the note, did, that is, not leave one’s place, tame and conquer passion by the power of reason and the moral law, the fear of God, decent deeds and calling on God’s gracious help with faith. But the note, passing by all this, as if of no importance, directs the proposed question to give the widowed priest the greatest convenience, leave the priesthood, and enter into marriage, and for this purpose ignore church decrees and change the existing law. It is necessary to think with prudence about the consequences if, in fact, the unbridled passion of the widowed priest were recognized as a good reason for changing the law. Following the widowed priest, a layman who remained a widow after a third marriage at the age of thirty or thirty-five (which cases were in mind) can appear and say: for the good reason that I cannot overcome carnal movements, abolish the rule and law prohibiting the fourth marriage. Sailors from ships may appear and say: for the good reason that, in long journeys across the seas, we cannot overcome carnal movements, repeal the law that forbids us to have wives on ships. Low-wage employees who do not have wives may appear and say: for the good reason that we cannot overcome carnal movements, change the law on small salaries, and give us double or triple the salary so that we can take and feed wives. Especially if they did not allow the solicitation of a triple-wedded lay widower to change the law: the solicitation of a widowed priest is no better than that. XIII. The note contains a law that prescribes admonishing a priest who wants to resign from the priesthood so that he does not deviate from the title he has assumed, and this extract is accompanied by the following objection: “why are these tests and admonitions”? Let one be allowed to be surprised at this attack on the law. The priest wants to overthrow the shrine of the priesthood in order to have the convenience of satisfying carnal lusts: how can one not admonish him, before he has yet taken an irreversible step, so that he comes to his senses and thinks about what he is overthrowing and what he is looking for? Shouldn't I leave myself with a reproach in my conscience for the rest of my life that, having begun by the spirit, I died in the flesh? The note believes that he will accept the admonition only hypocritically, and, remaining in the priesthood, will live viciously. But this suspicion is without basis. If a widowed priest asks to be defrocked, fearing sin against the seventh commandment: why, after spiritual exhortation, will he cease to fear this sin? Why not think that he who has unsuccessfully struggled with carnal thoughts, having heard the voice of the spirit, will actually be aroused in spirit and become firm in his struggle against sin? In addition, when drawing up the note, it was, of course, forgotten that priests can ask to be defrocked for other reasons besides widowhood. I can imagine a case (and, if necessary, I can prove it with a genuine deed) that a priest, having an unsuppressed streak of ambition in his character, sentenced to prohibition of priestly service and removal from office for guilt against his office, came to the bishop with a petition in order to either save him from this intolerable punishment, or remove his rank from him. But when the bishop gave him the necessary admonition, and invited him, before God and his conscience, to think more carefully about the word that escaped him in impatience: a few days later he asked for forgiveness in impatience, obeyed the ruling of the court; and, having suffered penance, now continues his ministry with the approval of the parishioners. Is it possible in this case to say: “what are these admonitions for?” XIV. Discussions about a widowed priest admonished not to leave the priesthood are concluded in the note with the question: “Who will bear the blame for his fall?” Answer: of course on himself; because admonition does not force him, but only admonishes him; and even if he remains cowardly in relation to the struggle against the flesh, even with admonition, he may not accept the admonition and will not be retained in the priesthood. If he obeys the admonition and is not faithful, he himself will be guilty of his own unfaithfulness. XV. Further, the note contains the text of the law stating that a former widowed priest, after being defrocked, is prohibited from entering public service before the age of ten; and then objections follow against this law: “Who, having knowledge and abilities, will condemn himself to ten years of inaction”? His abilities will fade away. He answers: there is no need for him to condemn himself to inaction; he is not prohibited from private activities, for example, undertaking and performing scientific and literary works, and acquiring significant compensation through them, or performing other private assignments, according to his knowledge and abilities. XVI. Continuing to object to the above-mentioned law, the note takes on an ironic tone, as if “so says the law,” equating it to his sexton, his peasant parishioner, and so on. The law is an important subject; and, if you need to object to it because of its true imperfection, then, of course, it is better not in an ironic tone. The irony here seems especially bitter and heavy when we remember that the above law, against which the objection is set in an ironic tone, is the handwritten resolution in Bose of the late Emperor Nicholas I, given on the 28th day of February, 1839. XVII. In Bose, the deceased Emperor seemed to have foreseen that people would appear who would want to base the law on widowed priests not on religious and moral principles, but on a concession to untamed passions; and in his resolution he deigned to write the following words justifying it: “I believe that the priestly title is so important that just as one should be picky and careful when awarding it, just as much should make it difficult to resign it voluntarily.” “I believe that it is absolutely impossible to allow a person who bears this high title to be directly devoted to another service, whatever it may be, without obvious temptation, and as if to prove that worldly duties are more important than spiritual ones.” Was it not a lofty religious and moral feeling that uttered these words? Is it possible to read or hear them except with deep reverence? And the note in question is mocking because its view does not rise to higher principles, and pursues only types of personal gain and gratification of carnal lusts. XVIII. As above, under number I, it is said that in the note under consideration the subject is presented one-sidedly, then for the completeness of his remarks it is necessary to open here that most important aspect of the matter, to which the note does not pay attention. According to the church decree, the priesthood is given for life: therefore, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating the church decree. He who enters the priesthood makes a vow or oath to inviolably preserve the rules and laws of the priesthood: therefore, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating the vow or oath. In the sacrament of the priesthood, grace is taught: consequently, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating grace. The priest is appointed to serve for the worldly people as a leader and example of moral and spiritual life: consequently, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood to please the desires of the flesh is guilty of causing temptation to those whom he was supposed to edify. Rule 7 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council prohibits priests from entering military service or a secular rank: “otherwise those who dare to do this and do not return with repentance to what they first chose for God will be anathematized.” This rule condemns those priests who, completely willfully, while remaining priests, enter into secular service: the guilt of a priest who turns to his superiors with a request to remove his rank is not so great. But when, under admonition, he does not show “repentance”, and does not agree to postpone his intention, and “return to what he first chose for God”: his guilt comes close to what is condemned by the rule, and, according to the severity of the rule, he is close to being anathematized. From what has been said here, it is clear how the reasonings in Bose of the late Emperor Nicholas I, cited above, under the number XVII, agree with the church decrees, and how fair it is that a priest who arbitrarily resigns from the priesthood, as guilty, should be released only with a restriction of rights. XIX. But the note in question does not know these sacred considerations and ends with the following shameful conclusion: “for the sake of the true honor of the Orthodox Church, it is necessary that the majority of widowed priests leave their rank,” that is, she suspects, or even accuses the majority of widowed priests, of non-observance of chastity. No. If this were true, it would serve not to true honor, but to great dishonor of the Orthodox Church. But here it is necessary to say, not for the first time, that this is unfounded slander. XX. And to what conclusion does the examination of the note now made, under the title: “widowhood of priests”? It leads to the following conclusions. 1) If there is a question whether it is necessary to revise the law on the removal of the priesthood: this note cannot be taken into account, as it does not contain true grounds for judging this subject, but is filled with one-sidedness, exaggerations and slander. 2) It only produces the very sad impression that it has so unfairly and so cruelly offended, as if enslaved to carnal knowledge, the entire class of widowed archpriests and priests, the vast majority of whom are honest, of whom only a few have sometimes been questioned, and many throughout their lives deserve deep respect, and among whom two archpriests, with full dignity corresponding to their high service, take precedence, occupying places in the Holy Synod. April 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a note on the issue of defrocking clergy, at the request of Due to your Excellency’s Confidential attitude, dated March 17, No. 1443, having forwarded to you, dated the 10th day of this April, the consideration of the note entitled: widowhood of the clergy, I now convey my opinion on the issue: the removal of the clergy on petitions. When compiling my note on this same subject, dated February 3, I needed information about the considerations and reasoning that were about this in the Holy Synod; but then I didn’t have them. Having received the list from the draft resolution of the Holy Synod, I saw in it circumstances that necessarily predisposed me to a new view of the matter. Previously it seemed to me possible to maintain the existing law in full force; and just explain that those born into the clergy, upon removal from the rank, should be immediately expelled from the clergy. But when, in the presentation of the synodal resolution, I saw that in 1832, the Department of Laws decided on the issue of removing the dignity based on petitions in an overly easing manner, and the State Council, having praised its opinion, barely restrained itself from approving it, and turned the matter to the Holy Synod: then I could not help but deduce from this strong fear that, under the current circumstances, the Department of Laws would not raise its previous opinion, already approved by the State Council, and that the State Council would not introduce it into the code of laws, especially in case of disagreement in the Holy Synod. Therefore, I found it necessary in the present statement of my opinion, firstly, to show the reasoning of the legislative department in 1832, which was not undertaken and was not based on solid principles; secondly (in order, if possible, to take away weapons from those who cried out against the severity of the existing law), partly to reinforce it with considerations, partly to soften it so that in this softening there is still no relaxation. Therefore, it is in my opinion that a former clergyman, after being defrocked, should not live in the diocese of his previous service for 7 years, should not enter public service for 3 years (instead of 10), and should not retain the honors of the order. The issue of defrocking archpriests, priests and deacons was resolved by law, which was drawn up partly from the resolution of the Holy Synod, partly from the highest resolution in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, and which was included in the code of state laws. But if this question is now to be examined again, then for this it is necessary, on the merits of the matter, and according to the considerations contained in the synodal record keeping, to take into consideration the following: 1) In 1832, the Department of Laws attempted to resolve this issue in the most easing way; but the State Council referred this issue to the consideration of the Holy Synod; and very fair. If the resolution of civil legislative issues is assigned to the state council, then it is no less fair, and even more necessary, that the resolution of legislative issues on spiritual government belongs to the Holy Synod; because here we need hierarchical and canonical considerations, which are thoroughly done and correctly applied to the matter, of course, more characteristic of the Holy Synod than of people who come from a different circle of knowledge and experience. 2) This actually turned out to be an attempt made by the Department of Laws to try to resolve the issue of defrocking. He based his decision on the fact that some clergy become widows at a young age. But if this circumstance were taken as the basis for a legislative conclusion, it would lead to absurdity. On this basis, secular people who were widowed at a young age by a third marriage could demand a law allowing a fourth marriage. If this is unacceptable, then it is clear that the idea of ​​early widowhood does not lead to any solid legislative conclusion. The Legislative Department, in the same reasoning, believed that the prohibition of resigning could have harmful consequences in a moral sense: but this shows that the issue is not understood. The question is not about the prohibition to resign, which was not the intention of the Holy Synod; but the question is under what conditions should defrocking be allowed, in compliance with justice, and with precautions against temptation. 3) According to church decree, the priesthood is given for life: therefore, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating the church decree. 4) He who enters the priesthood makes a vow or oath to inviolably preserve the rules and laws of the priesthood: therefore, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating the vow or oath. 5) In the sacrament of the priesthood, grace is taught: consequently, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood is guilty of violating grace. 6) The priest is appointed to serve for the worldly people as a leader and example of moral and spiritual life: consequently, arbitrarily, he who leaves the priesthood to please the desires of the flesh is guilty of causing temptation to those whom he was supposed to edify. 7) A special kind of temptation opens up when a priest, in the position of confessor, who knows many of the secrets of the conscience of many people, whose secrets the inviolability of is ensured in him by the strictness of church law, resigns his priesthood, and appears among the same people, with his tongue no longer as tightly bound as before. There are secrets of conscience, the discovery of which can cause disruption in families and be the cause of great misfortunes. The law would be unjust and harmful if it did not use possible precautions against this, out of relief for a person who allowed himself not to remain faithful to the grace of the priesthood. 8) Rule 7 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council prohibits priests from entering military service or secular rank; “Otherwise, those who dare to do this and do not return with repentance to what they previously chose for God will be anathematized.” This rule condemns those priests who, completely willfully, while remaining priests, enter into secular service; The guilt of a priest who turns to his superiors with a request to remove his rank is not so great. But when he, as admonished, does not show “repentance,” and does not agree to postpone his intention, and “return to what he first chose for God,” his guilt comes close to what is condemned by the rule, and, according to the severity of the rule, he is close to being anathematized. 9) It is impossible not to remember how in agreement with these church considerations the view on the subject now being considered in the God of the late Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I was. In his highest handwritten resolution, on February 28, 1839, it is said: “I believe that the priestly title is so important that just as one should be picky and careful when awarding it, just as much should make it difficult to resign it voluntarily.” And further: 10) From all the above considerations, it is clear that the law of 1839 on defrocking was founded on solid foundations; and if, during an excited review, it requires a change, then in relation to clarity, completeness and moderation of rigor, without allowing extreme relaxation. 11) The ambiguity of the law of 1839 is seen in the fact that it prescribes that former clergy, upon removal of their rank, each return to their primitive state. This is conveniently applicable to those who, in the clergy, by birth, enjoyed the rights of the nobility, or were admitted to the clergy from other states; but it is not clear how this rule can be applied to those who were born into a spiritual rank, since, according to the literal meaning of the law, they should return from a spiritual rank to the primitive spiritual rank. But by defrocking, it is no longer typical for those who are decidedly separated from the church clergy to remain in the spiritual department, and it is inconvenient for the spiritual authorities to have supervision over them. Having taken all of the above into account, the newly considered question of defrocking can, in my opinion, receive the following resolution: I. A clergyman asking to be removed from office is admonished, by order of the diocesan authorities, for three months not to betray the law of the priesthood and not to deviate from what he had previously chosen for God. II. Those who do not accept the admonition are deprived of their rank, as determined by the diocesan authorities, with the approval of the Holy Synod; and at the same time he is excluded from the spiritual department, which is what the provincial government is made aware of. III. But if the person asking for defrocking is on trial, then the decision on defrocking is postponed until the court case is resolved. IV. A former archpriest or priest, after being defrocked, has no right to live in the diocese in which he served as an archpriest or priest for seven years, and a former deacon for three years. The basis for this is shown above, under the number 7. V. Former clergy, after being defrocked, do not have the right to enter public service before three years, while enjoying the rights that they have by birth. VI. They retain it if they have a master's degree, a candidate's degree, or a student's degree, but they cannot retain a doctorate of theology degree. VII. Those who held military or civil ranks before entering the clergy position, after removal from them, these ranks are not returned. VIII. If they enter the public service, their service records show only the time they spent in the spiritual service, and actions in this service, awards and distinctions, are not shown. IX. According to this, they do not retain any order distinctions, if they had any in spiritual service. If a secular official had decided to resign his ranks, then, of course, it would not have been allowed for him to retain the distinctions of the order. It would be strange for someone who has relinquished his priestly rank, thereby exposing himself to the just unfavorable opinion of pious people, and not having any rank, to be seen retaining the distinctions of the order. May 17. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the issue of the charter of a missionary institution The Holy Synod, by decree of January 15, 1859, No. 192, announced to Metropolitan Philaret the approval by the Sovereign Emperor of the Synod’s determination regarding the establishment of a special theological school for the preparation of missionaries, as well as the communication made by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod with the Minister of State Property on the subject of the transfer to the spiritual department of state-owned buildings in the village of Gruzine, for the proposed placement in of the said school, ordered that a candidate be selected from among the subordinate clergy to occupy the post of rector of the missionary institute, and instruct the chosen one to draw up a draft charter for the said institution, which would be presented, as quickly as possible, to the Holy Synod, for consideration and approval of whichever project turns out to be the best. By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated January 15, 1859, No. 192, I was ordered to elect a candidate for the post of rector of the missionary institute, and to instruct him to draw up a draft charter for this institution. While hastily thinking about this extraordinary subject, I was presented with difficulties in fulfilling the instructions of the Holy Synod. Of the oldest in service in theological schools in the Moscow diocese, three, within a few years, entered the episcopal ministry; and their successors are needed in their places, while the service is preparing these successors. I do not have the opportunity to spot the most capable of the employees in other dioceses, having remained within the diocese entrusted to me for many years. Moreover, the problem is presented in a difficult form. In any case, it is difficult to expect perfection from the first experience; Therefore, it is difficult to succeed sufficiently in the new education of missionaries and in a small number, even more so in the number of 200. It is difficult to organize in the missionary institution itself the teaching of various non-Christian languages, some of which have not yet received educational treatment, and do not represent capable teachers. Without a doubt, it would be inconvenient to place this institution in a noisy city; but there will also be inconveniences from a too empty place, where there are neither teaching aids nor the company of learned and educated people in the vicinity, while in missionaries what should be created is not shy loneliness, but a free presence of mind to deal with people, even in unusual encounters. However, in order to fulfill the order of the Holy Synod to the extent that it is possible for me under the above circumstances, I decided to set forth not the charter, but only the initial features and foundations of the charter of the missionary institution, which I present at the discretion of the Holy Synod. Some Thoughts on an Educational and Preparatory Institution for the Propagation of the Christian Orthodox Faith I. What institution is needed for the formation of disseminators of the Christian Orthodox faith? Missionary seminary? Others will say: it is very simple. Institute? Academy? These names give the idea of ​​enhanced learning; but this is not what determines the need for a disseminator of the faith, who will go to preach, in all likelihood, not to philosophers, but to the poorly educated or uneducated. And all three names, according to the usual view of them, convey the idea most about teaching; but this is not what determines the need for a disseminator of faith. A disseminator of faith needs: firstly, knowledge with which he could sow the word of truth into the ignorant; secondly, zeal and animation, which would make him capable of deepening the word of truth in hearts, and imparting to them inner light and warmth, in which it would vegetate and grow; thirdly, a disposition to self-sacrifice and to endure difficulties and hardships. III. What institution would be more convenient to facilitate such education? It seems to be a religious monastery. For this purpose, one of the existing monasteries could be designated, not meager in its maintenance methods, not subject to a large influx of people. The rector of this monastery should be appointed a chosen man who is also capable of being the head of a religious preaching institution. Part of the brethren, in a ready-made structure, would perform church service and economic duties, the other part would be mentors and leaders of disciples of religious preaching. These would live under a discipline similar to that of a monastery, and would have the convenience of accepting instructions appropriate to their purpose, at the same time continuously enjoying divine services, and clerically participating in it, and studying it so that after they actually entered the rank of religious preachers, they would already know sufficiently the church work assigned to them. But the thought of such a monastery, now, of course, one must say: yes, it’s passing by; because the place chosen for the establishment is not a monastery. IV. In a place where there is no ready-made monastic element, to set up a preaching monastery would mean multiplying one work with another. Moreover, it is inconvenient to make monasticism mandatory for all religious preachers. Such an obligation would bar entry into religious preaching service for some who are capable of this, but who do not feel a calling to monastic vows. It is necessary to think about an institution of a special kind, which would be closely adapted to the education of religious preachers. V. Is it possible to establish a religious preaching brotherhood, or a fraternal religious preaching society? VI. The brotherhood, under the command of an archimandrite or protopresbyter, would be composed of clergy and clergy, numbering from 12 to 20, according to need and convenience. The chief, or rector, and the clergy would have decided to remain celibate all their lives, in accordance with the 26th rule of St. apostles and 26 sixth ecumenical council. Clerics must be celibate, at least for the time they belong to the brotherhood. VII. Members of the fraternity, elders and deacons, would be obliged to perform divine services in the church of the society, and those formed would join the clergy in teaching the religion. VIII. The senior leader of the brotherhood would be an observer (inspector), a guardian of morality and order (discipline). He is the chief's assistant, and if necessary, takes his place. IX. Members of the fraternity, distributed according to ability, knowledge and experience, fill the positions of: confessor, mentor (professor), leader (tutor), housekeeper, clerk. X. The founder of the brotherhood and its actual trustee is the first member of the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan of Novgorod. XI. There may be honorary trustees from clergy and secular persons. XII. The abbot of the brotherhood governs it in a fatherly, empowered and at the same time brotherly loving manner. For the correct conduct of affairs, an observer, confessor, or one of the mentors joins him, and constitutes the management of the society. XIII. The rector, observer, confessor and all mentors form a council to discuss everything that can serve to strengthen and elevate the spiritual, moral, educational and material improvement of society and the religious school. XIV. The abbot should try to ensure that council meetings are frequent and that these are not only official meetings in which those present offer their opinions and vote on issues proposed by the authorities, but also fraternal meetings based on sincere mutual and especially to the boss, meetings to consider issues and difficulties encountered by someone in the course of their studies and the performance of their position. XV. The number of people trained for religious preaching for the first time can be from 25 to 40. In any new matter, in which it is difficult to foresee complete success, it is more reliable and safer to make the first experiment on a small scale. Both the boss and the mentors will have no little concern to firmly and faithfully establish their new action; and therefore they should not be entertained by caring for many of those being instructed. Those being instructed, and few, with the news of the institution, without having in mind the example of their predecessors, all the more require supervision and leadership that would completely embrace them. XVI. For religious education, upon desire and testing, the following may be accepted: 1) Priests and deacons who have received a seminary education and are not bound by marriage. 3) Seminary students are not lower than the secondary department, and are not younger than 18 years old. 4) Applicants from a secular rank who have received an education of at least high school and are not younger than 18 years of age. XVII. The fixed-term period of religious education (course) can be set at four years. Some may stay longer, for greater improvement, or to reach greater maturity. XVIII. Those entering for education are called listeners of religious preaching, and having completed part of the field, and having achieved a certain measure of success, with proven moral dignity, they receive the name candidates of religious preaching. Of these, some, after taking into consideration their dignity and age, can be promoted to deacons while continuing their education. XIX. Of those who have completed the field of education, after taking into account their dignity and age, some are promoted to priests and enter the ministry of religious preachers, while others, in the degree of deacon, are assigned to be assistants to religious preachers, to complete their education, under the guidance of experience. XX. Subjects of religious teaching. 1. Reading of the Holy Scriptures, with brief interpretation and edifying applications. 2. Orthodox catechism and Orthodox theology, taught thoroughly, without great breadth, with application to the needs of the preacher. 3. The teaching about non-Orthodox Christian denominations, brief, in order to give more accuracy to Orthodox knowledge, and in case of different encounters. 4. The teaching about non-Christian religions, with a direction on how to convince those who are mistaken that they are really mistaken, and to arouse in them the desire for true knowledge of God. 5. Sacred and ecclesiastical history, with attention to the history of religious preaching, in order to present guiding and stimulating examples to the educated. 6. The teaching of literature, especially aimed at ensuring that those being educated can compose conversations and teachings on subjects of faith and morality in writing, and acquire the skill of pronouncing them without preparing writing. 7. Languages, Greek and Latin, and, for those who wish, Hebrew, and if possible, some languages ​​of the peoples for whom religious preachers should act. It may not be superfluous to speak French in case of meeting educated foreigners among uneducated people. 8. To ease the mind from more difficult tasks, and for the benefit of future service, some concepts from the knowledge of nature are not superfluous, for example, about the power and action of certain plants and minerals in relation to human diseases and health. XXI. In accordance with the purpose of the institution, the exercises of religion must be especially strong in it: the day, the teaching, etc., everything begins and ends with common prayer. Both teachers and students listen to the early liturgy every day, and if necessary, at least on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday; on Sundays and holidays - a full church service. On a day on which they do not listen to the liturgy, they listen to Matins, complete, or, if necessary, to kathisma (similar to those in monasteries in work positions). After proper preparation, they confess and partake of the holy mysteries at the beginning and at the end of the Great Pentecost and the Nativity Fast, once on other fasts, and, except for fasts, on great holidays, after a short preparation. Spiritual relations with a confessor should be encouraged beyond confession. For this purpose, other priests may be appointed to assist the general confessor, depending on their superior ability and experience. Reading the Holy Scriptures should be one of the daily duties of the educated. Between exercises in essays, you can sometimes assign the composition of prayers. During the table, those dining and dining silently accept the spiritual food of edifying readings, performed as directed or in turn. XXII. It is an important and difficult task to choose, especially initially, a boss and mentors for a new institution. It is necessary that the abilities, education and moral direction of those nominated for election be sufficiently known. XXIII. The idea of ​​appointing a bishop as the head of this institution is inconvenient. A protected bishopric here would only be a decoration. The Holy Church, according to its fundamental rules, uses it as a feat for a more or less extensive flock. To think that a bishop would be more empowered and less subject to outside influences than an archimandrite or protopresbyter does not represent strong convictions. One or the other must equally be in the closest relationship to the leading member of the Holy Synod and to the synodal chief prosecutor. If a bishop were to be appointed without a decent retinue, and given to perform sacred services in the likeness of a priest, this would present an unusual spectacle. Forming a fairly complete retinue for him would be both inconvenient in terms of location and economically burdensome 534 . May 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the book published by the bachelor of the Kazan Academy Shapov, entitled: “Russian schism of the Old Believers” Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a secret letter dated July 31, 1859, notified Metropolitan Philaret that very unfavorable reviews were reaching him from various quarters about the book by the bachelor of the Kazan Academy Shchapov, entitled: “The Russian Schism of the Old Believers.” They say that this book, written with some knowledge and skill, in its direction, can produce a lot of evil, since it depicts some of the dark sides of our ancient church life and leads some to such a false and dangerous conclusion that the church itself gave rise to a schism. If this is so, then there is a danger of leaving this work without refutation; otherwise it can shake sound concepts and faith even in people with good dispositions, but without sufficient knowledge. It is even more dangerous to leave our society with the thought that the opinions expressed by Mr. Shapov are shared or approved by the entire Russian Church. Therefore, the count considered it necessary to entrust a knowledgeable and well-intentioned person to write a refutation of Mr. Shapov, which could eradicate the errors it has sown, and 2) ban the book itself, and subject the censor who missed it to responsibility, or make another similar order, so that everyone knows that Mr. Shapov’s way of thinking is not at all approved and not tolerated by our highest clergy and representatives of the Russian church. Not being entirely confident either in the truth of the rumors that had reached him, or in the complete correctness of his thoughts and assumptions, Count Tolstoy asked the Metropolitan for advice and guidance: what should be done in order to either completely destroy the temptation and harm caused by Mr. Shchapov’s book, or, if possible, stop it. At the top of this relationship, the hand of Metropolitan Philaret notes: “May 17, responded, with the transmission of the comments of Professor Priest Gorsky 535 and with an extract from the “Wanderer” about the errors of the book.” Due to your Excellency’s attitude, on July 31, 1859, I instructed the academy professor, Priest Gorsky, to review the book: “The Russian Schism of the Old Believers.” His comments on this book are attached herewith. These remarks are modest; but even so, the book reveals one-sided thoughts and general exaggerated conclusions drawn from individual cases that are unfavorable for Orthodoxy, and therefore favorable for schism. A freer opinion about this book is presented in the March book “The Wanderer”. On page 82. “G. When composing his work, Shchapov used the works of schismatics. Anyone who has examined their manuscripts knows that two thoughts moved their minds and pens: to slander the Orthodox Church, and to exalt the schism in all its institutions. Contrary to the conscientiousness of the people writing, schismatics in favor of the schism deliberately invented the most incongruous, even impossible, things against the Holy Church. The use of such sources requires the strictest historical criticism from the researcher. What is Mr. Shchapov doing in this regard? To resolve serious issues, with childlike confidence, he takes evidence from schismatic writings, repeats them and, with the help of his imagination, colors them with his own descriptions. Here is an example: “To the great glory of the newly consecrated (Pokrovskaya on Vetka) church,” writes Ivan Alekseev in the story about Vetka, “all the people from all countries were filled with joy, people came from everywhere, left their homes and took up their labors on such a journey. The Lord's honesty neglected the buildings, and the honest lady sought to live there, the virgins departed from their parents. From where the Vetkovo residence was filled with countless peoples and like a great city appeared in the residence of those (pp. 273–274).” On Vyatka, as a safe place, there were many schismatics; but still, Alekseev’s story is exaggerated, as the very expressions show: “you are people, from all countries, lords and mistresses, countless peoples.” Of course, it was not the Pokrovsk Church, but the security of residence that drew the schismatics to Vyatka. Meanwhile, Mr. Shchapov, on the basis of this testimony, painted a lofty picture of worship in schismatic monasteries and presents it as the reason that attracted the Orthodox to the schism. For such a description, it would be necessary to provide more precise evidence, without allowing any arbitrariness. And what is this reason for the spread of the schism? Didn’t our Orthodox churches have the same iconostases? Does our charter reject such deanery in the church? Didn’t the service in our Orthodox monasteries last for 4, 5 or more hours? Wasn’t decorum observed in them exactly according to the rules? And where else could the schismatics borrow such deanery? And if in Orthodox monasteries church decorum was strictly observed, then how could schismatics with their deanery act to seduce the Orthodox? In general, Mr. Shchapov’s work suffers from a lack of historical criticism, and in this regard is not characterized by the features of a scientist’s work.” On page 83. “In many places, Mr. Shchapov has a noticeable lack of facts; and hence there are two evils: firstly, the same fact is cited in support of different thoughts; secondly, on the basis of a few facts, general apodictic conclusions are drawn. Wouldn’t it be better in such cases to adhere to the ancient rule: what you don’t know, don’t assert or dispute, but rather, ask questions and investigate? So, for example, speaking about the lack of theological schools and spiritual education in the first half of the 18th century, Mr. Shchapov, based on information about the Kazan seminary, argues that only a few, very few, of the diocesan archpastors of that time were unforgettable for their concern for the establishment of theological schools, for finding ways to train spiritual youth, and that, on the other hand, the majority of archpastors slowed down the establishment of seminaries and schools, did not even sympathize with their establishment and dismissed the students gathered by their predecessors to their homes (pp. 436–437)! We have reason to assert the opposite. There were very few bishops who did not sympathize with the movement of spiritual enlightenment in the first half of the 18th century - and these were shepherds who themselves did not receive a classical education in academies and came from the school of monastic asceticism. But the Holy Synod and the overwhelming majority of bishops actively, with donations of their own funds, started and supported schools. Otherwise, how can we explain the fact that from 1721 to 1764, in an illiterate land, about 28 seminaries were formed, with at least philosophical classes, in addition to lower schools, of which there were up to 12 in one Novgorod diocese? Some seminaries and schools, for example, those in Nizhny Novgorod, were founded by bishops, and with a special purpose - to prepare people who, having received the priesthood, would help the bishops convert schismatics to the Orthodox Church. But our schools progressed slowly for other reasons, especially the lack of material resources for their proper organization.” On page 84. “The most important, so to speak, student’s shortcoming of Mr. Shchapov’s book lies in the extremeness of his view. Having set himself the task of finding the reasons for the origin and spread of the schism, he everywhere looks for them in the shortcomings of the church and society; so, according to his book, the schism is right, and everything with which it was surrounded is to blame. In particular, the blame falls, besides Nikon, on the clergy and society. G. Shchapov does not want to know what measures the clergy took against the schism, does not want to delve into how historically the clergy is to blame, and which particular clergy is to blame for the separation and strengthening of it: he insists on one thing, that the clergy is to blame. And to what extremes his positions sometimes reach! Let's take at least one example to prove it. “Not to mention the cruel civil executions,” writes Mr. Shchapov, “to which the schismatics were subjected, and which only further irritated, embittered, embittered them, and even more strengthened the opposition to the schism - the very exile of the schismatics contributed greatly to its spread. At the very beginning, as soon as the schism opened, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent many schismatics into homesteading and into prison. Many of these exiled, under Alexei Mikhailovich, in places of exile and imprisonment, as is known, were the first schism teachers. Many schismatics were exiled and imprisoned in monasteries: and here they, as stated in the acts, were lured out by pretense and crafty tricks and, leaving the monasteries for other places, committed a revolt worse than the first (p. 546).” Punishments sharpened the split and strengthened the opposition. Who is to blame: the punishment that the schismatics deserved, or the moral stubbornness of the schismatics? In places of exile, schismatics became schismatic teachers. Who is to blame again: the exile, or the schismatics who did not want to correct themselves even in exile? This means that it would be better to leave the schismatics to live and act according to their will. This means that the prison is to blame for the fact that the villains chained in it infect less criminal people with their villainy. The schismatics, fleeing from the monasteries, committed a revolt worse than the first. So, they shouldn’t have been sent to monasteries!... This is the logic of Mr. Shchapov, who was carried away thoughtlessly to the extreme of his views!” Therefore, it would be fair to conclude: 1) that the censor, who approved this book for publication, did not fulfill his duty without demanding the correction of unjust and harmful thoughts. 2) that it is necessary to preempt the censorship of spiritual committees of books, so that, in the event of submitting this book for a new edition, they will not allow it to be printed again without correction, and that after correction it will be allowed to be published only after considering the opinion of the censorship committee at an academic conference. July 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, with an opinion on the issue of measures to improve the Altai spiritual mission Prince S.N. Urusov, in a letter dated June 11, 1860, asked Metropolitan Philaret to deliver for a report to the Empress the conclusion on which of the assumptions of Hieromonk John 537 and to what extent could be implemented with benefit for the Altai mission, since Her Majesty, to whom this hieromonk was represented, wanted his assumptions to be presented at the discretion of the Metropolitan Philareta. Metropolitan Philaret responded to Prince S. N. Urusov with the following letter: Most illustrious prince, gracious sir. By the will of Her Imperial Majesty, dated June 11, Your Excellency demanded from me an opinion on which of the proposals of the Altai mission of Hieromonk John and to what extent could be implemented for the benefit of the mission. Hieromonk John, at my suggestion, wrote briefly his assumptions, refusing detailed explanations. These assumptions have been examined by me, and this consideration is set out in the note forwarded herewith. It was unpleasant for me to decide to write the last article of this note; but I found it necessary to decide on this so that, as a result of silence, no harmful consequences would occur. The attempt by Hieromonk John to depose the Sarov abbot and put himself in his place is known from a letter from this abbot and from another reliable source. And what is said very modestly about his behavior during the mission in my note, you can see from two authentic letters from the head of the mission, Archpriest Landyshev, to the Moscow priest Nikolai Lavrov, who has been in contact with the mission for about twenty years, collecting benefits for it, and carrying out its instructions. These letters, I think, will lead you to a more decisive conclusion than in my note, namely, that it is necessary to completely remove Hieromonk John from the mission. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant, About the assumptions of the missionary Hieromonk John I. To determine the validity of Hieromonk John’s assumptions, and to prevent any misunderstanding, he was asked to write them. He wrote that the assumptions he made, “serving for the improvement of the Altai mission were as follows: 1) that a courtyard or chapel be built in St. Petersburg, in a convenient and decent place, in honor of the Queen of Heaven Hodegetria and 2) 2 or 3 deaconesses or sisters of mercy were sent to co-serve the mission.” II. What is a metochion in the spiritual department? The bishops of some dioceses and the archimandrites of some monasteries had the need to live in the capitals, first under the patriarch, then under the Synod and the synodal office, and for this they had metochions in the capitals, mostly with house churches. Some farmsteads have retained this purpose to this day, and some, due to the needs of dioceses and monasteries, have been converted into income-generating houses. How can this be applied to the Altai mission? Is there a place for this in St. Petersburg that is not far from the middle of the city, because on the edge it would be useless? Will there be ways to buy or build a house? Who will manage and maintain the farmstead? There are no visible ways to resolve these issues satisfactorily and reliably. III. What are chapels? Church buildings in which liturgies cannot be celebrated, but only the hours and prayers can be sung. From this it is clear that both the beginning and purpose of these buildings should be sacred, and not economic. So, in Moscow there were built: the Iverskaya Chapel, in honor of the miraculous icons, the Krestovskaya Chapel, in commemoration of the place of the meeting of the relics of St. Philip. Such chapels naturally acquire the reverence of the people, so that offerings for the decoration of the shrine, for candles, for incense are abundant, and can be used for other church and charitable purposes. The matter would be closer to the church concept if someone, out of pious motives, built a chapel, and at the same time assigned the excess offerings that might be in it to the charitable work of the Altai mission. But Hieromonk John does not indicate anything like this. But to build a chapel directly and solely in order to deliver money through it would not be in the spirit of the church. Moreover, here too the same intractable questions arise that were proposed in the previous article. IV. What is a deaconess? In ancient times, this was a church official, ordained, in part, like a deacon, with the purpose of helping persons of the same sex during catechumens and baptisms, overseeing their deanery in churches, and visiting the poor and needy during persecution. Due to changed circumstances, the rank of deaconesses has not been seen in the Orthodox Church for a long time. It is doubtful whether the Holy Synod will find it convenient to renew this rite in the church, at the request of Hieromonk John. Sisters of mercy, without being ordained deaconesses, could, at the Altai mission, do the same thing that deaconesses would do. V. Why is it necessary to send two or three sisters of mercy to the Altai mission? – This question was proposed to Hieromonk John; and he replied that during cholera they brought sick women to him and it was inconvenient for him to help them. But a simultaneous and transient case does not provide a solid foundation for a permanent institution. VI. However, for sisters of mercy at any time there would be activities useful for the mission. But Hieromonk John did not present anything regarding the possibility of adapting them to the mission. To influence foreigners, you need to somehow know their language: and this is more difficult in relation to an uneducated language than to an educated one. Will the mission find ways to provide the sisters of mercy with premises and maintenance? The mission has several camps located over long distances, having a church or building for setting up a camp church and premises for the missionary, hieromonk or priest, and serving under him. If here, following the example presented by Hieromonk John, a sister of mercy is needed: where should she be placed? The hieromonk’s home is uncomfortable, inconsistent with the rules, and unseemly; It’s inconvenient to send her to a foreigner’s yurt. Hieromonk John was asked whether he made his assumptions with the consent of the head of the mission, Archpriest Landyshev; he did not confirm this. So, if we take his assumption into account, then we need to ask the head of the mission whether sisters of mercy are really needed, and how they can be adapted to the mission. VII. It is known that the wife of Archpriest Landyshev held the position of deaconess or sister of mercy with respectable zeal and prudence. Having studied the Tatar language, she guides persons of her sex preparing for baptism, teaches children, and cares for the sick and poor. If there was a sister of mercy who would offer herself to guide and help the archpriest’s wife: this would be a simple and at the same time real assistance to the mission. However, I must repeat here: you need to ask the head of the mission. VIII. Father John also said that it was planned to build a monastery for the mission. This gave reason to ask him: is it convenient for the head of the mission, the archpriest, to manage the missionary monastery? And on the contrary, is it convenient and useful for a new archimandrite, unfamiliar with the work of the mission, to take over the management of the mission and Archpriest Landyshev, who has more than twenty years of experience in the matter, and has earned respect from everyone who knows him and his affairs 538? O. John did not resolve these issues. IX At the same time, concern is involuntarily aroused so that the mode of action of Hieromonk John and his ability to invent assumptions, but not methods for fulfilling them, do not serve, instead of benefit, to complicate the Altai mission. And this concern forces us to say a word of caution about something that it would be desirable to pass by in silence. Hieromonk John, having served at the mission for several years, was by his character a burden to the head of the mission, and he himself became upset in spirit and fell into despondency. Therefore, he asked permission to rest in the Sarov desert in order to improve his health; but, having come to this monastery, he fell into the temptation of making the assumption that the brethren who had an abbot would elect John as their abbot, and he assured them that there would be strong patronage for this cause. However, the assumption opened and fell. Having been dismissed to the Sarov desert, he, in all likelihood, without the permission of his superiors, went to St. Petersburg, where he acted in favor of the mission, but without the consent of its chief. Now, having acquired by his action greater significance than before, will he not bring greater difficulties to the mission to which he is returning, and even more so if he happens to be the abbot of a proposed missionary monastery? It would not be an unnecessary precaution to say a quiet word to the diocesan bishop, so that he would calmly but vigilantly observe whether Hieromonk John will act in peace and harmony with the head and other members of the Altai mission. Prince S.N. Urusov, in a letter dated August 22, 1860, No. 5726, on behalf of the Empress, notified Metropolitan Philaret that Her Majesty fully agreed with his thoughts reported to her regarding the assumptions of Hieromonk John regarding the Altai mission. July 20. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the accession of the Melchites to the Orthodox Church I. The progress of the case regarding the annexation of the Melchites to the Orthodox Church, as described in the dispatch dated June 21, 1860, gives good hope. Those acting on the part of the Orthodox Church conducted it in such a way that, under existing circumstances, it would hardly be possible to demand more from them. Melchites recognize Orthodox dogmas and seven ecumenical councils; accept the Orthodox Catechism of the Holy Synod; in this way everything that the Orthodox Church teaches and demands is recognized. If they wish to maintain the independence of their church, then they have some right to do so; because they have it; moreover, to express their union with the Orthodox Church, they agree to remember the local Orthodox patriarch in worship. So, the matter, by the act of May 12, was put on a good path. It is necessary to lead him to the goal with caution, meekness and condescension. At the slightest carelessness, it will break out of your hands, or fall into the abyss, from where it will be very difficult or completely impossible to lift it. II. One may fear that the Greek hierarchs will wish for greater subordination of the Melchites. To this you can say to them: before this, you did not take advantage of either the unity or the subordination of the Melchites; if now it is impossible to achieve both, take advantage of at least one of these benefits, that is, the unity desired for the holy church, without insisting too much on what would be pleasing to your power. III. Under better circumstances, it could be proposed that the metropolitan of the Melchites joining the Orthodox Church, freely elected by them themselves, should be ordained by the ecumenical patriarch; but in the present circumstances it is not reliable. The Melchites are aware of the irregularities in the installation of bishops, which caused the creation of new rules about this: whether it will be better under the new rules, there is no experience yet. Unfortunately, at this very time there is an example in the eyes of what difficulties the ordination of the Archbishop of Sinai, 540, freely elected by the Sinai society, was subjected to. The Patriarch of Jerusalem published all the acts of this unseemly deed, to the joy of the enemies of the Orthodox Church. IV. The Patriarch of Alexandria proposes that the Melchites send their representatives to Constantinople to negotiate annexation. This could hurt things. The Melchites will find it difficult to expose themselves so openly, while the demand for negotiations expresses the dubious state of affairs. And the Greek clergy will probably increase their demands, enter into disputes about unimportant subjects, and the Melchite commissioners will find it difficult to answer what their principals did not discuss. Thus it may happen that the matter becomes confused and prolonged, time is given to opposition, and through increased demands everything is lost. It would be safer to offer the Greek hierarchs, for preliminary consideration, the terms of union set out in the letter of May 12; and if they are considered satisfactory, then let the Melchites know that they can, with full hope, write a request in the same sense to the Holy Patriarch and to the great church, with perhaps a large number of signatures, and with it send authorized representatives to Constantinople to complete the matter. V. The dark side of the matter is that the Melchites demand help and funds to build churches, fearing that the churches will be taken away from them by the Roman Catholics. Let us assume that the priests and the entire parish, or, with the exception of a few, decided to join the Orthodox Church. How can Roman Catholics take the church away from them? They can take away the church if the majority of the parishioners remain on the Roman side and only a minority are brought into the Orthodox Church. But if they want to build an independent church out of such debris, then this matter is not very reliable and requires careful consideration. It is necessary to carefully find out, through the consuls, whether complete annexation is expected, or at least in a strong majority; and in this only case can the proposed conditions be reliably accepted. It is also necessary to conduct preliminary, if possible, inquiry and consideration of the demand for benefits for the construction of churches. Western Christians can more easily accept such demands, given the abundance of private voluntary benefits. But in the present case, the demand for benefits will likely fall on the Russian government. The burden may not be light. And won’t Western politics speak the language of suspicion? Let those who are given the ability to see more closely and more insightfully what is unchristian in the policies of the Christian Western powers judge this. September 10. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the Greek Uniate or Melchite case It is sad to see that the shining ray of good hope for Orthodoxy is enveloped in the darkness of uncertainty, obstacles and difficulties. In my opinion, one cannot complain much about the fact that the locum tenens of the ecumenical patriarchal throne with the synod gave an answer of no importance to the request of the Melchite priest Hannah. It is not unreasonable to be careful not to fall into conflict with the future patriarch, and even more so since the request of those seeking Orthodox communion with the church declares very little to Orthodoxy in relation to unity, but demands a lot of complete independence and recognition of it by state power, which depends on state power, and not on the patriarch and the synod. Previously, the Melchite confidants constantly promised a form of unity with the Orthodox Church, at least in that they promised to remember the local patriarch during the service. This is not in the request of priest Hannah. A more significant, but not threatening to the freedom of the Melchites, expression of unity with the Orthodox Church would be if they chose their metropolitan themselves, and the ecumenical patriarch ordained him, just as the Sinai brethren elect an archbishop for themselves, and the patriarch of Jerusalem ordains him. If the two now indicated expressions of unity had been proposed in the request of the priest Hannah: the locum tenens and the synod would have had more reason to respond to him with an expression of hope of success. The Great Church desires more daughters than sisters. Now there is hardly anything that can be done in relation to the success of this matter other than to wish for the speedy election of an ecumenical patriarch and, if possible, to promote this. September 21. Note by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the complaints and demands of the Moldavian clergy” 543 I. The note of Metropolitan Sophrony says that the department in charge of church estates, obliged to act with the consent of the metropolitan and the clergy, on the contrary, disposed of the property of the church, without giving an account to anyone since 1846, and from this many wastes and harm occurred. If this is so, then it was necessary to complain and ask for protection in the coming 1846. Then it was more convenient to provide assistance; and with quick help further losses, now irreversible, would be prevented. II. Taking away theological schools from the metropolitan and mixing them with secular ones is both an unfair measure and harmful to the church. The government, probably not finding ways to start its own schools, stole the religious schools with their methods. Therefore, it is hardly possible to achieve, moreover, that the metropolitan is given fairly authoritative supervision over the schools in religious and moral terms. III. It seems that arrangements can be made for filling two episcopal vacancies in such a way that the metropolitan, according to church rules, elects candidates, and a petition is used on the part of Russia so that the government does not interfere with the ordination. It will be difficult for the Moldovan government to come up with a plausible reason for refusal. IV. The orders regarding the monastic property and the very authorities of the monasteries are such that even the Turks would not have made. But since the national assembly also recognized them as illegal, it seems that, not without hope, one can demand the return of ancient rights to the monasteries. V. What does the commission mean for the transformation of the clergy and church charter? These words cannot be used to judge a matter, and especially not in a good way. VI. In order to preserve the language still used in the Moldavian church, it is necessary for the clergy to firmly unite with the people. In general, circumstances require that the clergy and the people devoted to Orthodoxy be disposed to behave as they did during the bloody persecutions - to hold on to Orthodoxy and to each other with all their strength, and to stand unwaveringly in the devotion of their fathers, with readiness for any self-sacrifice. A large, dense mass of clergy and people can bewilder the few false murderers and paralyze their plans. VII. What a shameless and shameless reinterpretation of the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 14) on behalf of the north, evil will flare up, as if they refer to Russia! Who does not know that the prophet said this about the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem? Read from the same prophet (Jer. 6:1): evil comes from the north and great destruction occurs and your height, daughters of Zion, that is, Jerusalem, will be taken away. Who overthrew Jerusalem: the Russians or the Babylonians? The words of Joel have the same meaning (Joel 2:20). How brazenly wickedness mocks both the sacred word of God, turning its truth into a lie, and over unfortunate ignorance, weaving a net for it from coarse lies. VIII. If Kogalnichan, who in the Moldavian newspaper “Star of the Danube” (February 18, 1856, No. 17) clearly renounced Christianity and blasphemed it, now serves as the Minister of Internal and Spiritual Affairs, then what is Moldavia now more like, a Christian principality, or a project of a small kingdom of the Antichrist? It is difficult to defend Christian causes in such a state. IX. Arranging a timely publication in favor of religion, morality and nationality, which would also concern some sciences for a variety of entertainment, could be useful if for this purpose there are people with knowledge, energy and the art of attracting the attention of the people. Weak defense against arrogant attackers can be of little use. X. To insist that the income from the Bessarabian estates of the Moldavian clergy does not go into the hands of the local government, but is managed here by the proposed administration, and used in accordance with its original purpose, it seems that Russia has every right. XI. It is possible to demand an account of the income taken by the Moldovan government from these estates so far in order to incriminate and support the highest legal order. But, of course, nothing can be returned. XII. In order to generally strengthen the spiritual power in Moldova, and protect against innovations, this can probably be petitioned for; but it is difficult to accomplish much in this, because it is connected with the organization of the local government, which is more capable of showing itself to be stubborn than flexible. XIII. The proposal to establish a school for Moldovans, Serbs and Bulgarians in Bessarabia is worthy of full attention. XIV. It is better for a timely publication to be in Moldova than outside its borders. September 30. Feedback from Metropolitan Philaret regarding the order of the Caucasus Committee on allowing heterodox missionaries to convert pagans living in the Caucasus to their faith At all times, among all dominant peoples, the state religion was, is and will be the bond, connection, cement, so to speak, of the elements of the people: language, law, morals, rights, customs. Where the unity of religion was violated, the elements of the nationality decomposed, fragmented, and disappeared. With them governments fell, peoples were separated. Thus, with Lutheranism, the Latin Church (which fell away from the universal) lost its internal strength, was held on to this day by external supports, the temporal power of the popes, the Inquisition, Jesuitism, indulgences, curses from the Vatican, etc., lost millions of its sons, carried away by the stormy flow of the Reformation, and began to be forced, with all its intolerance, to endure schisms to such an extent that it agreed to recognize the Gallican Church in its depths, and even invented the Unite Church, in dishonest forms and criminal hopes, which, due to the unblessing of God, did not come true. Protestant governments do their best to support their dominant religions. The Anglican Church, for example, only took root through the persistent patronage of the government. Great Britain, no less than the Jesuits, loves conversions, and the spirit of proselytism in it is as indomitable as in the Roman clergy, even though its missionaries strive for goals, preferably commercial and political. For these purposes, in our Caucasus, during the time of General Ermolov 545, England tried to get closer, through its missionaries, with preaching and money, both to those hostile to us and to peaceful or conquered tribes. But Ermolov stopped and destroyed their aspirations with all the means and orders that depended on him. Otherwise, we would subsequently wage war not with savages, but partly with educated, and, therefore, with the most dangerous enemies. And now, a few years later, with the recent announcement of the disastrous idea of ​​the Caucasian Committee (which should not decide, bypassing the Synod, spiritual issues), a wide path has been opened for the agents of the Pope and England. Let this idea not be new; if I am not mistaken, it was stated back in 1832; but this in no way justifies the error of those who supported it then and now, just as nothing justifies the needless and even harmful proliferation of Latin dioceses in the Orthodox Church since the fifties and the continuous movement of priests and pastors among the regiments of Russian troops. Hitherto, regimental traditions, service camaraderie, the Russian language destroyed religious differences in the concepts of the lower ranks, and those alien to us in faith and language did not care at all about pastors or priests, the Rusli under a common banner, merged into one whole with us, joined the dominant confession in the state. Our church, the one true, apostolic church, recognizes all other Christian and philosophical beliefs as schism and heresies. Freedom from now on to convert non-Christian tribes in Russia to one religion or another, to destroy the basic teaching of the Orthodox, Greek-Russian, Eastern, true Church of Christ: this measure, I will not say tolerance, but unbelief and upheaval of state and spiritual laws, rights and customs, will strengthen, strengthen and give rise again to schisms. Tolerance does not mean consent to universal conversions, not the recognition of heresies, but only the absence of persecution, allowing those of other faiths to remain in their natural religion, to remain stuck in errors until the light of grace illuminates them, whether it is a Quaker or a Jew, a Geriguter or a Muslim, a pagan or a pagan. The Jesuits, having penetrated us, under the name of one or another Roman order, expanded corruption among our schismatics and even among the Orthodox; and the missionaries of England, with their patience, with their firmness, and especially with their money, in a few years will convert our non-Christians to Christianity not only in the Caucasus, but also in Siberia and throughout Russia: Tatars, Kalmyks, Kirghiz, etc. will all become English, having mastered with preaching the language, concepts, science, and morals of the English... In less than 20–30 years, and from The Caucasus to the Crimea, from the Amur and Caspian Sea to the borders of China, Khiva, Bukhara, etc. - England will be formed in Russia, and the richest, best in all respects, regions will be torn away from it, without war, without political upheavals, by the natural force of invincible circumstances. Now it is still possible to prevent such a sad future: one has only to instruct the Holy Governing Synod to discuss and present in an all-submissive report its considerations and canonical refutations of the suicidal measure taken without its knowledge and contrary to its rights and state laws. There is no doubt that not only the Holy Governing Synod, but also the entire clergy will not refute the historical indications and conclusions of this note and will unanimously conspire against the orders of 1832 and 1860, if we take away the opinions of the diocesan leaders, or even better, the local diocesan councils on the burning question: “to be or not to be Orthodoxy in Russia, and Russia itself?” Until the final resolution of such an important, formidable matter, in terms of the consequences, it is necessary to declare the new proposal “on conversions to Christianity” suspended, until it is positively discussed, on the basis of fundamental legalities, spiritual and state, by local spiritual councils and the Holy Governing Synod. Moscow. September 30, 1860 546 October 7–8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov, with an opinion on the proposal of Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, so that the primates of the Orthodox Church turn to the pope with a brotherly admonition to renounce secular power Prince N.S. Urusov, with reference dated October 3, 1860, for No. 6618, forwarding “for the discretion” of Metropolitan Philaret a list from a letter from the rector of the Russian church in Paris 547, in which he invited the primates of the Orthodox Church to turn to the pope with a brotherly admonition to renounce secular power, humbly asked him, upon returning the said list, to honor him with a message of opinion on the main subject letters, as well as about whether it is convenient to fulfill Fr.’s desire. archpriest, regarding the German magazine article he mentioned, which describes in some detail the external and internal appearance of the Russian church in Paris, and in the introductory lines of the article several general remarks were made about the dignity and historical significance of the Eastern Orthodox Church. On this regard above, the Metropolitan wrote: “Oct. 7. Answer negatively on the first subject and return the letter.” With regard to your Excellency, dated October 3, 1860, No. 6618, I hereby return the list sent to me from Archpriest Vasiliev’s letter. The proposal “to the primates of the Orthodox Church to turn to the pope with a brotherly exhortation to renounce secular power,” in my opinion, is unfeasible. If the position and ministry of the hierarch, who is in communion with the Orthodox Church, were seen as difficult and confused by secular circumstances: the brotherly advice of the heads of other Orthodox churches, so that he free himself from these bonds and stay in the purely spiritual sphere, it would be appropriate and convenient. Not so between the leaders of churches that are not in communion. If it is fitting for the primates of the Orthodox Church to take care to present useful thoughts today, then, of course, mainly in relation to the purity of the highest dogmas. But if you suggest this to Fr. The archpriest did not find it convenient, then it is even less convenient to pass by the primary subject and take care of the secondary. Can we hope that the pope will accept the admonition? Of course not. Why undertake a movement, if you are sure that you cannot achieve your goal? The Pope already has the supposed admonition, even from some people in his church. Did he accept it in peace? He armed himself with curses, and many members of his church sympathize with this. Is it likely that he will recognize strangers as more sincere and more trustworthy advisers than his own? What is the likely consequence of the proposed exhortation? More or less noise and controversy. What is the use of muddying already muddy waters? The inconvenience is that now the papal possessions are attacked, contrary to legal right, only by the right of the strong. At other times, for example, after 1812, it was more convenient to say to the pope: give your possessions to a good trustee from among the sovereigns, place yourself in a purer ecclesiastical character, free yourself from worldly worries, conflicts and dangers. Then it would be prudent to accept this advice; and there would be no plausible objection to it. Now dad can say: do you approve of those who illegally take away from me a property that has been recognized for centuries? It is better to contact them with your admonitions. Why Fr. does the archpriest think that his proposal can be more conveniently fulfilled by the eastern patriarchs than by the Holy Synod of Russia? Doesn't matter. And is there such a thing now for the eastern hierarchy, amid the difficult internal crisis and the disasters that have befallen and threaten? I am keeping the sheets of Leipzig illustration for a while in order to consult with the publishers of our magazines. No. 92, October 7–8, 1860 548 In October. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the Khalkin school I. The management of the Khalkin school is not very worthy of emulation. Under the patriarch there are three annual ephors, members of the synod, a treasurer, and a member of the synod, then a scholar, metropolitan, mentor, steward, subordinate to the scholar and in daily communication with the treasurer, four parts of the seal in four hands, 25,000 rubles. With. content - what is all this for? – for 60 students. II. The scholarch cannot determine the scribe, but the ephors. III. Why is the blessing of oil before communion, for those who are not sick? IV. A cigarette, 200 steps from the school, in the mouth of a senior student does not prove good compliance with the regulations prohibiting this in the school. V. At 6 o'clock in the morning the students get up and listen to the Midnight Office, Matins and the Hours until 8. This can be seen from the position of the clock; but how is this accomplished? VI. What is the need for two hieromonks when the liturgy is only on Sundays and holidays? VII. The modern Greek language is changing, becoming clearer and closer to the ancient one. Reasonable. It was similar in Russia. And now, under the guise of nationality, they are moving further and further from the Slovenian dialect to the village illiterate dialect, or vernacular linguistics. VIII. It is strange that among Christian writers only Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Synesius are read; and they don’t even read Chrysostom. IX. If “the Khalkin students show very little inclination to choose the monastic life itself,” then isn’t this a sign that the charter of this school is being implemented more superficially than internally? X. And the infection of ticket testing entered the Khalkin school. It is based on the fact that both mentors and students are suspected of deception. But this method deceives itself. The most capable student gets a simple subject; – and the examiner does not have the opportunity to discover the student’s merit. A weak student is given a difficult question: and the examiner finds it difficult to decide whether the answer is unsatisfactory because the question is difficult, or because the student is ignorant. The truth can be better revealed when the tester comes out of enslavement to tickets. XI. Nor can this transformation of reasonable evidence of the students’ intelligent actions into meaningless numbers, which decide the student’s fate by addition and subtraction, be considered satisfactory. XII. A Khalka teacher receives a salary of 600 rubles. With. per year. In other Constantinople schools there are more. Moreover, the Khalkinsky has a home and a table. It is useful to compare this with the salaries of teachers of theological schools in Russia. In October. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Empress Maria Alexandrovna on the occasion of the death of the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna I am not only deeply touched, but also surprised by the condescension of Your Imperial Majesty, according to which my humble expression of zeal was not left unanswered at a time when Your Majesty’s health especially required protective peace, and when a sad event in your august family occupied your thoughts and feelings. I can’t remain silent about this. The great deprivation suffered by the august family is a deprivation for the entire family of Russians, and especially for those who had the good fortune to get to know better the soul filled with kindness and meekness in the Bose of the late Empress, among whom I dare to count myself. But who determined this deprivation? Who else if not the All-Good Heavenly Father? So, let love feel the quiet sadness characteristic of pure love; but reverence for the destinies of God may temper sadness and turn it into a prayer of devotion, which would not be complete if it did not say: Thy will be done, Heavenly Father! We all remember how long ago the tender health of the late Empress gave rise to fears: we acknowledge the mercy of the Lord that he preserved it for quite some time to console and strengthen the unity of the august family. More than once she went away to seek health far from her fatherland, and fears followed her. We recognize the merciful dispensation of the Lord in the fact that she was given the opportunity to spend her last days among her beloved and loving family, that, despite the distant absence of the Sovereign Emperor, he arrived in good time to, together with you and your children and the whole family, accept her last blessing - the most precious of inheritances: for the blessing of the Father establishes the homes of the children. Having calmly and heartily accepted the consolations of faith, and showing Christian love for everyone, she carried blessed hope into eternity. I pray to God that such reflections will dissolve your and your august husband’s sadness and sweeten it with spiritual consolation, may the peace of your souls and your health, priceless for Russia, be preserved 550. November 29. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion “on the responsibilities of the parish clergy during the upcoming change in the relations of peasants to landowners” In relation to November 24, this year 1860, the question is to what extent it would be useful, with the upcoming change in the relations of the peasants to the landowners, to assign certain special responsibilities to parish priests. We need to add the question: to what extent is it convenient? “Inspire the peasants to continue to constantly fulfill their duties in relation to the sovereign.” To give an order in this form would mean to hint that obedience to the sovereign, hitherto unquestionable, will henceforth become doubtful. Such a hint is largely unhelpful. “To have the most vigilant observation, so that clergy do not spread any false rumors regarding the meaning of the issued decrees.” Such an order would express suspicion of a whole class of clergy, in a case that had not yet been opened, and, therefore, could not give rise to suspicion of false interpretation. It would be unhelpful to announce suspicion to an entire class of people without reason. It is inconvenient to demand from clergy, that is, from sextons and sextons, that they “explain the provisions according to their literal content and in the spirit of the instructions given by their superiors.” In order to clearly and correctly interpret the law, this requires a higher education than what many clergy have. Therefore, if the clerks were placed as intermediaries between the authorities and the peasants in explaining and understanding the law, then one would expect more confusion than resolution of difficulties. However, if, when introducing an important state measure, the feasible action of the clergy can have some assistance in this regard, then, without a doubt, its activity, according to the need, should be aroused and directed, but in such a way that the clergy acts in its own character, and does not interfere with civil activity, from which unpleasant misunderstandings and interpretations could arise, as happened with the clergy of some dioceses during the introduction of inventories, and regarding false rumors about government orders allegedly hidden by the clergy. An instruction to the clergy could be given with the following, or similar to the following, content. I. When introducing new regulations concerning entire classes in the state, it often happens that they are not accepted by everyone with the proper disposition, which can sometimes be caused by misunderstandings, sometimes incorrect suggestions from people governed by their particular species, sometimes some real difficulties combined with the news of the case before they have adapted to it. Similar cases may occur with the introduction of a new resolution on the attitude of peasants to landowners. Every loyal subject, especially those who have reached certain degrees of education, when encountering a case of this kind, is obliged, as far as possible, to help end the misunderstanding, weaken the wrong suggestion, reduce and overcome difficulties. In the fulfillment of this general duty, without a doubt, rural parish priests, who by their very service, should take part, as far as possible, in close relations with the peasants. II. The constant duty of priests is, among other things, to teach parishioners so that they observe loyalty to the sovereign and obedience to the authorities appointed by him, so that they steadily and conscientiously fulfill legal duties and pay certain taxes and imposed or agreed dues; so that, if they find themselves unduly burdened by someone or something, they seek protection and relief, each according to his own need, in a legal way, without spreading anxiety in society, and patiently await correctional orders and actions of justice from the authorities. Rural parish priests should act with such instructions in the present circumstances, both in church teachings and in home interviews, when cases arise. III. There is no need and should not give this action the appearance that priests were especially appointed by the government to act in the present circumstances. They must fulfill their ordinary duty - to teach parishioners both piety and good deeds, both morally and civilly: but the general teaching must be applied, as prudence requires, and always to special emerging cases and circumstances. IV. It must be explained to the peasants that the new decree concerning them is the fruit of the paternal care of the Sovereign Emperor, who wants to increase their well-being, and his trust in their prudence, that they will use the work, which from now on more than before will depend on their own good will, judiciously and indolently for their own and the general benefit. Therefore, they must enter into their new position with gratitude, and with a zealous desire to justify the care and hope of the Sovereign. V. A poorly understood idea of ​​freedom and unreasonably exaggerated hopes may have the consequence that some peasants will find their new situation not as satisfactory as they expected. It must be explained to such that freedom does not consist in acting according to unlimited arbitrariness, in which no society could stand, but in choosing and doing good and useful deeds within the limits established by the law, by which the sovereign himself limits his affairs. When the Tsar wanted to grant the peasants new rights and benefits: then, heeding the law of justice and his fatherly love for all loyal subjects, he could not help but take care that the welfare of the landowners was protected. VI. Due to the nature of things, it is difficult to imagine that, during the transition of peasants from their previous position to a new one, more or less important difficulties would not be felt in the application of rights and duties to societies, to families, to individuals and in the distribution of full and partial property. Those who complain about this should be admonished and disposed to patiently endure difficulties, with the idea that no prudence, no insight is sufficient to bring a new, extensive, complex, varied plan into action, without allowing even a hair's breadth of inaccuracy; that the difficulties arising from the news of the matter should be reduced and stopped by patient and careful adaptation to it; and the difficulties connected with the very structure of the matter will attract the attention of the guardian government, and will be eliminated by further additional decisions. VII. When necessary, the priest should offer such admonitions and explanations to parishioners as his reflections and advice, which are prompted by his goodwill towards them and concern for their well-being and peace. VIII. The priests should be given a double admonition to the clerics: firstly, so that when they hear discussions about new regulations for peasants, they do not interfere with them by expressing their opinions; since, due to insufficient understanding of the matter, they can adhere to the false opinions of others, or communicate their erroneous opinions to others, from which harmful consequences can occur; secondly, so that if they hear rumors between the peasants that are unfavorable to the cause and the general peace, they immediately and correctly bring this to the attention of the priest. IX. If information of this kind reaches the priest, then he, while protecting his peaceful relations with the parishioners, which are essential for his ministry, should modestly and friendlyly turn with advice to the most reasonable of the peasants, and those who have influence on others, so that they try to stop the spread of rumors that could disturb the peace of society and subject it to the repression of the legitimate authority. But if he sees people who, with obvious ill-intention, are trying to stir up unrest in minds, in this case he is obliged to immediately let the dean of the diocesan bishop know about this, or, depending on the convenience of the messages, directly inform the diocesan bishop; and this one will not hesitate to report the information received to the appropriate civilian authorities. X. Deans must supervise the fulfillment of the above rules by the parish clergy; and, if it happened to notice the actions of any of the clergy that were inconsistent with these rules, they should correct them with their instructions and orders, and report to the diocesan bishop what they saw and what orders they made. XI. All the actions of deans and parish clergy indicated here should take place with quietness and modesty, and with the elimination of unnecessary extraneous publicity, as much as possible. December 9. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on information from the East on the issue of removal from the priesthood Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in secret, dated November 7, 1860, No. 7468, having forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, requested: 1) from the head of the spiritual Russian mission in Jerusalem, Bishop Kirill, 2) the former rector of the embassy Russian church in Athens, Archimandrite Antonin and 3) who was at In the East, Archimandrite Porfiry’s comments on the issue of those voluntarily resigning from the priesthood asked Metropolitan Philaret for his conclusion. On information from the east on the issue of removal from the priesthood I. According to the legend of the Eminence of Melitopol, there are no examples of this in the Antioch and Jerusalem patriarchates, and the thought of this seems wild. This idea is also recognized in Russia; but what to do when some accept it and strive to fulfill it? But even there they tell the example of a priest who wanted to fulfill this wild thought. It is good that he was touched by the songs about Judas; and if this remedy had not been successful, then, of course, they would have been forced to remove their rank, as a precaution so as not to have an adulterous priest. II. I don’t know why the Right Reverend of Melitopol says in the same letter about another subject that in the East there are no celibate clergy, except for a small number of persons in the patriarchates. But on this very day I heard from Count Evfimy Vasilyevich Putyatin that in Greece half of the parish clergy are celibate. I don’t think the count said this without proper inquiry. III. If, as Archimandrite Antoninus writes, in Greece there are people who left the priesthood without permission, entered military service, remain in it, and sometimes entered into a second marriage, not caring about the judgment of the spiritual authorities: is this not worse than defrocking upon request? Will the rank be improved if its members can voluntarily, without paying attention to their superiors, quit their service and move to another rank? Should Russia really imitate Greece in this? IV. If, as Archimandrite Antoninus writes, in Greece ejection from the priesthood is not recognized, the grace of the priesthood is recognized as inalienable, and by the name of eruption they mean prohibition: then let it be allowed to say that this is a teaching imprudently transferred from Latin schools. My note, January 22, this year, 1860, shows that in the Eastern Church there is no teaching about the indelible character of the priesthood. That defrocking is not only a prohibition of the priesthood: Archimandrite Antoninus could prove this to his Greek interlocutors with the book Pidalion (The Helmsman), published with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch, which, in the interpretation of the 5th Apostolic Canon about dethronement, says: completely deposed from the priesthood. He could also point to the 36th canon of the apostles, in which it is said about a bishop or presbyter who has been ordained, but does not accept the ministry entrusted to him: let him be excommunicated until he accepts it. You see, the prohibition of priestly service differs in a special way from complete defrocking. Here is another expression of the prohibition of priestly service, in contrast to a complete eruption: the short Nomocanon in canon 188 about the priest who shed the holy, it is said: six months shall be idle; that is, for six months he is prohibited from performing sacred acts. So, obviously the church rules distinguish between prohibition and eruption; and by prohibiting interpreting the eruption means giving this word a meaning that the holy fathers did not give it. V. They say that defrocking must be a punishment for a crime, and therefore cannot be allowed before the crime. From this this is what follows: the priest, tempted by widowhood, says to his superiors: “Take rank from me; for I am afraid lest I become an adulterer.” The authorities respond: “We cannot remove you from office before committing a crime; Go first and become an adulterer; we want to see the priest as an adulterer; and then we’ll defrock him. Would such an order be good? VI. Removal of the rank “will give reasons for crimes.” - Which ones? How? On the contrary, it can prevent the crime of adultery. If you make exit from the priesthood too free and unpunished, then it may happen that those who could be strengthened will be carried away by convenience; Moreover, it would be unfair to leave an insult to the dignity of the priesthood without punishment. But against this there are and must be preserved rules that limit the rights of those deferred and constitute some kind of punishment. VII. Archimandrite Porfiry writes that in the East, clergy do not leave their title because there are no secular positions; and who would want to exchange honor for shame and contentment for poverty? This means: they do not leave the title not because it is impossible, but because it is unprofitable. VIII. Then Archimandrite Porfiry says that in the East there is no clergy caste that has hereditary vices. This means that the Russian clergy is a caste. How did the archimandrite not notice that he was only targeting his own person with this unpleasant name; for the Russian clergy does not recognize itself as a caste. A caste is a closed, uncommunicative division of the people, bound by absurd rules, not touched by another caste as unclean, or despised by another caste as unclean. There is nothing like this in the Russian clergy. It includes members from other ranks; and from it they go to other ranks. There are bishops and archimandrites and priests who were not born into the clergy; There are secular officials, of higher and lower degrees, born into the clergy. This is not relevant to the present case; but there is no need to submit to the archimandrite, who brands his title with a stigmatizing stigma. IX. Finally, Archimandrite Porfiry admits that there are also in the East those who transfer from the priesthood to the secular rank; only he was pleased to present this information in strange expressions from the lips of the archimandrite: “some Pope Costa did not give the censer and cassock, and dressed in “military armor, or some Holy Mountain priest, in whom young blood played, left the monastery, and got married.” He adds that this is “without asking the spiritual authorities.” This means that with a bad deed, another bad thing is connected - contempt for power and its powerlessness is revealed. It is difficult to understand why the archimandrite adds: “besides the Muslim authorities.” Should one contact the Mohammedan authorities about defrocking? Does it have every right? X. Thus, from examining the letters of one bishop and two archimandrites, one must draw the following conclusion: they are trying to prove the non-existence of the removal or deprivation of the priesthood in the East, but they inevitably admit that there is something even worse there, namely, the willful abandonment of the priesthood, with contempt for church authority. December 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the presentation of candidates for the position of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, dated January 7, 1861, No. 18, proposed to the Synod the following attitude he received from the Metropolitan of Moscow: On the 4th day of this December, your Excellency informed me that 3 days ago the report of the Holy Synod on the elevation of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Sergius 553, to the bishop of Kursk was most highly approved. After this I remained awaiting the decree of the Holy Synod, but to this day it has not been received. Meanwhile, a rumor reached the academy about a new appointment of its rector. The inter-rule always produces a thrill of anticipation; and therefore its continuation is not without inconvenience. Therefore, without waiting any longer for the decree, I make it my duty to enter into considerations about filling the opening vacancy. The eldest of the academy's mentors, Archpriest Pyotr Delitsyn, 554, despite his undoubted dignity and experience, having been constantly engaged in teaching metametic sciences for a long time, naturally did not particularly adapt himself to teaching theological sciences, which is usually entrusted to the rector. It is noticeable, however, that his strength is not strong enough for new intensive activities. Following him, in seniority of service, is Archpriest Alexander Gorsky 555. Despite his undoubted dignity in general, he possesses ecclesiastical information on history and antiquities, which added him to the number of famous scientists. But just as from the beginning of his service at the academy, out of pure love for science, he adopted the intention of sticking to one place and one occupation, which is why he did not enter the clergy for a long time, and now he remains in the same disposition. And it is impossible not to take into account that now the long-term knowledge acquired by him is directly, freely, completely, going to use and benefit; and if he transferred to a new department, they would be less common and would require new, intensive work for the new subject. For this there are three candidates in mind, peers, masters, archimandrites, rectors of the Moscow and Bethany seminaries and an inspector of the academy. The rector of the Moscow seminary, Archimandrite Savva 556, has been a priest since 1842, a monk since 1848, and a rector since 1858. During the correction of the position of synodal sacristan, he became famous for his active and thorough archaeological studies. Strong character in management is combined with thorough knowledge. The rector of the Bethany Seminary, Archimandrite Ignatius 557, has been a monk since 1850, rector since 1858. He is sufficient in knowledge and prudent in management. The inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Porfiry, has been a monk since 1850, an inspector since 1857. He has thorough knowledge. In the position of inspector, he is attentive with condescension, but is so weak in health that he recently expressed to me a desire to leave the school service, which, however, I hope he can continue with benefit in a position that would not require too much effort. Having observed the Academy for many years, I now notice in its state some new features that are not unpleasant and do not concern me much, but require attention, prudent for the future. Everyday, incessant not so much reasoning as rash and vague proclamations about freedom had such an influence on students in secular schools that the students arrogate to themselves the right to be freer than their mentors and more empowered than their superiors; and this has been revealed more than once and in more than one place in actions that would be unpleasant, but there is no need to talk about them, because, unfortunately, they are very well known. The newest literature, which condemns everything, including schools, and teachers, and educational books, and statutes, and orders, and stewards, and bosses, and judges, has become so widespread that it penetrates everywhere, if not through doors, then through barriers and through cracks. Such examples, such thoughts constitute a temptation for students in theological schools, and can, under plausible motives, lead others beyond their proper limits. When, last summer, contemporary literature filled every ear, sometimes with encouraging, sometimes laudatory speeches about Sunday schools, an assumption and agreement arose between some students of the Moscow Theological Academy to open a Sunday school for the bourgeois children of Sergiev Posad (although there is a public school in the Lavra and Posad): only before it came to the fulfillment of this assumption, I explained to them that there was no urgent need for students; that parish priests and deacons can do this; that the student, zealous for his essential duty, has plenty to do for his time; that, instead of teaching children the Russian alphabet, some of them have a greater need to use their free time to strengthen their knowledge of Latin and Greek literature. Therefore, I believe that at present, more than ever, it is required that the rector of the academy have a character of firmness in management. For all these reasons, with the dignity of persons and with the benefit of the service, in my opinion, the following would be consistent: 1) Appoint the rector of the Moscow seminary, Archimandrite Savva, as rector of the academy and professor of theological sciences. 2) To replace the rector of the Moscow seminary, transfer the rector of the Bethany seminary, Archimandrite Ignatius, who already knows the Moscow seminary, because he served as an inspector there. 3) Appoint the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Porfiry, as rector and professor of theological sciences at Bethany Seminary. The fields and forest surrounding this seminary will provide him with clean air, favorable for his fragile health. Attaching the service records of the three archimandrites, I humbly ask your Excellency to propose this for the consideration of the Holy Synod. Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. No. 503. December 15, 1860 The Holy Synod, by resolution of January 7/10, 1861, made a decree in agreement with the petition of Metropolitan Philaret 558. In December. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on clergy who, due to widowhood, want to remove themselves from the priesthood 559 Having read the case about clergymen who, due to their widowhood, want to remove themselves from the priesthood, I do not find a satisfactory reason to change the highest decree made about them in 1839. For church law does not allow them the resignation they desire (see the 7th rights of the 4 Ecumenical Councils and the 3rd rights of Cyril of Alexandria), and they cannot present any valid reason for satisfying their desire. The most plausible reason that they often present is that, after the death of their wife, they are left with young or even infant children. But the reason in relation to young children was removed by church law, even in apostolic times, by allowing such clergy to take into their home: a mother, sister, and aunt, and if they are not there, a prudent and sedate man (see 3rd rights of the 1st Ecumenical Council and St. Basil the Great 88th). They can give the infant to a stranger for milking, as some people usually do. Another reason is given as an irresistible impulse of the flesh. But such a reason should not be taken into account, because by the law of Christ we are all obliged to crucify our flesh with its passions and lusts (Gal. 5:24). And for success in this, the holy fathers usually recommend fervent prayer and fasting. The Lord himself said about prayer: ask and it will be given to you. Everyone who asks receives it (Matthew 7:7–8). For the Holy Synod to allow clergy to freely remove themselves from the priesthood is very scary; because we must look at everything that happens to us in life no other way than either the direct action of God, or God’s permission, which always has the goal of our salvation. Therefore, we should look at the widowhood of clergy in this way. By their widowhood, the Lord God, out of His love for them, wants to either punish them for any of their previous sins, so that they come into themselves, repent, cleanse themselves and receive salvation; or He, in His omniscience, foresees that widowed clergy without widowhood would be forgotten, become unfaithful in their divine office and would destroy themselves and many others. Therefore, if the Holy Synod gave permission to widowed clergy to resign from their ranks at their request, then it, instead of all-powerfully disposing and encouraging them to act according to the purpose of God; He himself would contribute to action against the purpose of God, and would sin very gravely in his very first duty. True, some widowed clergy, due to the impossibility of having another wife, fall into various serious vices; but this is by no means an incentive for the Holy Synod to give widowed clergy the freedom to relinquish their rank, but is only proof that widowed clergy falling into grave vices do not want to follow the punishment of God, and fall into a state in which it is said about the criminal inhabitants of Jerusalem: you beat them, and no more, you crushed them, and not wanting to accept punishment (Jer. 5:3). - Why is that? Because the wicked, when he comes to the depths of evil, is negligent (Proverbs 18:23). In addition, it is indecent for the Holy Synod to allow clergy to arbitrarily remove themselves from the priesthood with the privileges assumed in the protocol, because the supposed most lenient resolution for clergy wishing to remove themselves from the priesthood, due to a very shameful discrepancy in the Holy Synod in its own case, was left to the decision of His Majesty, of blessed memory, Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, and His The Majesty, on the basis of a high opinion of the clergy, rejected even the decision that exists today, the decision according to which anyone who arbitrarily resigns from the holy rank, a deacon not earlier than 6 years old, and a priest 10 years old, is not allowed to enter into any rank, but remain in his clergy title without any work or content. The Holy Synod cannot say a word against this decision: 1) because it, unable to solve its own matter, itself called His Majesty to this decision, and therefore must accept it as a decision of God, 2) because the decision given by His Majesty, on the one hand, is very beneficial, and on the other, very fair. It is beneficial because their free exit from the divine spiritual calling is blocked, and this is very necessary; for if clergy are given the freedom to resign from their holy orders, then many will enter into this divine title frivolously, act in it carelessly, incorrectly, selfishly and willfully, and in the event of an incentive to correct action, and especially punishment from their superiors for incorrect actions, immediately abandoning their divine title with contempt. This is fair because the holy church is by no means obligated to provide support to everyone who leaves its service. Equally, civil society is not obliged to immediately accept into any of its states people who corrupt public morality; for one of the most important duties of the civil authorities is to protect the people's morality. Clergymen who arbitrarily resign from the priesthood are very harmful to popular morality; because by arbitrarily resigning their rank, they show the people a clear disrespect for their rank, and thereby give them the idea that the entire service of the clergy is not respectful and the moral suggestions they make are not worth paying attention to 560. Constantine the Great, Roman Emperor; † May 22, 337 Theodosius the Great, emperor who ruled the entire Roman Empire; † in 395 Justinian the Great, emperor. eastern roman imperial, kingdom from 527 to 565 Augustine, blessed, bishop of Hippo, banner. teaches. church; † in 403. Julian, nicknamed the Apostate by Christians, emperor. Byzantine; † July 27, 363 T. IV. Arcadius, ruled the eastern empire, son of Theodosius the Great, who laid the foundations of the Byzantine or Greek empire; † in 408 Honorius, ruled the western empire, son of Theodosius the Great; † in 423 This obviously refers to the ill-intentioned actions of the Romanian prince Alexander Cuza, who in 1859 deprived the German Lavra and other Orthodox monasteries of real estate. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 110, document. No. 11. The case of the Muscovites. committee for censorship. spirit. books, 1860, No. 59. Urusov, Prince Sergei Nikolaevich. Kirill, s., archbishop. Alexandrian, deceased in 444 Balsamon, Theodore, Patr. Antiochene, Greek church writer who lived in the 13th century. Leo VI the Wise, philosopher, Byzantine emperor, reigned from 886 to 912; promulgator of a code of laws under the name "Basilica". From copies stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 88; document No. 2. Basil the Great, St. archbishop, Cappadocian, banner. teaches. church, late in 379 Demetrius (Tuptalo), St. Metropolitan, Rostov. and glorified, passed away Oct 28, 1709 From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88, document. Nos. 3 and 3 b. Kallinik, Patr. Alexander. since 1856; in 1861 he renounced the throne and received from the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim 2nd consent to occupy his former metropolitan position. Thessaloniki department. See letter from Archimandrite. Antonina, dated June 12, 1861, in the papers of Metropolitan. Moscow Philaret, church, in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 94, vol. II; doc. 98. Lobanov-Rostovsky, Prince A.B., former envoy to Constantinople; now ambassador in Vienna. Gorchakov, book. Alexander Mikh. Lagovsky, Alexander Evfim. Hierotheus, from the archbishop. Favorsk Patr. from 1851; † in March, 1885 Now he is an archimandrite and governor of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. For information about the reunification of the Melchites with the Orthodox Church, see the Chronicle of the Church. events, archim. Arsenia. St. Petersburg 1880, pp. 821–822. Based on the definition of the Council of Constantinople in 1756 Peter (Troitsky), magician. VII course Kiev. academic; from May 29, 1869, bishop. Akkerm., vicar of the Chisinau diocese; † 1873 The time of writing the opinion is not indicated on it; but, judging by the letter from Count A.P. Tolstoy, it was probably written in January 1860. From a handwritten rough original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 74, document. Nos. 1–3. Brafman, Yakov Alexandrovich, baptized. Jew, writer; † Dec 16, 1879 Levenson (Levison), doctor, from German. Jews, professional Jewish language of St. Petersburg spirits acad. and Roman Catholic spirits academic; † in 1869 From a handwritten draft original, kept. to the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 90; document No. 11. He ascended the throne in 272, and died peacefully the following year 273. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 4. Yakhontov, John Konstantinovich, Archpriest of the Sea Epiphany, Nikolaev, personal, in St. Petersburg. I remember that there are strong articles there under the title: “a candle in the darkness”; but I don’t think anyone can reconcile with the private titles of these articles. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. Grigory (Postnikov), Metropolitan. Novgorod. and St. Petersburg, see above From a copy, storing in the archives of St. Sinol, according to inventory No. 109, document No. 1. This opinion of Metropolitan Philaret was written regarding the letters he received from N.A. Sergievsky, from Paris dated April 4/13 and November 6/18, 1859, sent to inspect Catholic seminaries located in Paris. For the opinion on the first letter, see No. 523. Bossuet (Jacques Beniqye Bossuet) French. speaker, bishop Moscow; † in Meaux, in 1704 Fenelon (François de Salignae de la Mothe Fénslon) Archbishop. Mr. Cambrai, famous, philosopher; † in 1715 From a hand-written draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 66; document No. 4. Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, from 1362; in 1365 he left the patriarchal throne and disappeared into solitude; After the death of Patriarch Callistus, in 1369, he again returned to the flock and ruled it until 1375. This replacement of dilapidated and incomprehensible words with understandable ones was used in former times before printing. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. Here, the one who honors or hears with contrition remembers his special sins. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. There is information that a similar correction has been made in new editions of the Greek prayer book; but such a publication was not intended. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 104; document No. 14; copies of this opinion are kept. in collection papers Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping to the library St. Petersburg spirits acad., ll. 103–109; in secrecy. calcium papers Chief Prosecutor, 1836, No. 154. ml. 59–66; stores it here. and an original letter from Metropolitan. to Count A.P. Tolstoy, l. 58; see also farm business. manager at the Holy Synod, 1859, No. 3058, Report to the Holy Synod by Metropolitan. Philaret, dated January 19, 1860, for No. 5, “about the false priest, peasant Fyodor Fedotov,” is in the case of 1860, No. 1608; This report was only signed by the Metropolitan and drawn up in the Moscow consistory. From the file of the Holy Synod, 1860, No. 1300. Anna, the wife of the leader. book Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver, daughter of Dimitri Borisovich, Prince. Rostovsky, deceased in 1338 in the Kashin Resurrection Monastery. Joachim (Savelov), Patr. All-Russian, since 1674; † March 17, 1690 Simeon (Milyukov), Metropolitan. Smolensk and Dorogobuzhsky from September 1. 1681 to 10 September 1686, and then sent to the Trinity-Sergius committee, where he died. 4 Jan 1704 From rough. authentic, storage in the Moscow case. St. Synod Office, 1859, No. 52; ll. 7–11. A certificate from the clergy registers of Moscow churches also took time (quite a bit). Note from Metropolitan Philaret. Jerome, the blessed, most learned and prolific writer of the ancient church; his translation of the Old Testament served as the basis for the translation of the Vulgate; His comments gave a new study of the Holy Scriptures; † in 419 or 420 From a copy of item 9, and the rest from a handwritten draft original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 8. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 9. From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 10, keeps a copy of this opinion. to the collection Metropolitan's opinions Philaret to the library. St. Petersburg spiritual acad., ll. 80–86. From a handwritten draft original, kept. from the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 51, document. No. 2. Gorsky, A.V., prot., see about him III volume of this edition, No. 367, p. 468, note. 1. From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 100; document No. 20. Bishop of Paresny Tomsk, in a letter dated October 14, 1860 to Prince S.N. Urusov, spoke about Hieromonk John in the following terms: “Since his admission, in 1850, from the hieromonks, first of the Kilova Hermitage, and then of the Moscow Znamensky Monastery, to serve the Altai spiritual mission, Hieromonk John with heartfelt love devoted himself to various services at the mission. Having chosen, by agreement with the head of the mission, as the main point for his action a small valley near the Chemali River, which flows into the river. Katun, while preaching the Gospel to foreigners migrating to the surrounding areas, he was also involved in setting up a prayer house for the permanent location of a camp church in the Chemal camp, as well as setting up the economic institutions of the camp. In a short time, he managed to settle 8–10 newly baptized families in Chemal, who for the first time settled in yurts, near the missionary institution. But since the circle of missionary service chosen by Hieromonk John was difficult, due to the special savagery of the foreigners of the local region, even due to the unfavorability of the area itself, where there had long been a den for idolaters in the service of unclean spirits, evidence of which remained, even after Hieromonk John arrived at Chemal,” a huge stone idol, at the foot of which, over a considerable space, bones were scattered in the ground and on top of the ground animals sacrificed to idols: the health of Hieromonk John, already fragile, weakened to the point that in 1854 he asked for leave from serving the mission to enter the Tomsk Alekseevsky Monastery. But the memory of his beloved service, of the newly baptized foreigners, to whom Hieromonk John was attached with fatherly love, forced him again, in 1855, to enter missionary service at the same Chemal camp, but again not for long. His newly deteriorated health forced him to again ask the Holy Synod for a quieter shelter than in the Alekseevsky monastery - in the Sarov desert; but even here the thought of the mission did not leave him. Prompted by the search for ways to heal his disordered health, Hieromonk John asked permission to go first to Moscow and then to St. Petersburg. Here he attracted the attention of his superiors with his zeal for the mission and received permission to collect voluntary donations in favor of the poor newly baptized Altaians. His labors were crowned with success, and in August he again entered the service of the mission, to his previous place of service in Chemal. As for the general personality of Hieromonk John, he ruled honestly, was well disposed in the spirit of monastic life and had a heartfelt attraction to it; truthful and tell the truth without partiality, unstoppable to the point of being ready to share the last piece of bread with the newly baptized; very useful and experienced for missionary service; familiar with medical aids, which is especially beneficial in missionary service; but his poor health instilled in him a spirit of suspiciousness, from which he sometimes became very ill.” Further information about Hieromonk John is clear from the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret. Evidence of this from an outside observer can be seen in a letter from Tomsk, from the March book of the timely edition “Soulful Reading”. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 90, document. No. 4. Genuine boom., on this case are kept in the office file. Chief Prosecutor. St. Synod, 1860, No. 11. From a handwritten draft of the original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 74, document No. 8. From a handwritten draft stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 74; document No. 11. Representatives: German hieromonk Theophanes and court councilor Dabieka. Note Metropolitan Philaret. From a rough handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 84; document No. 1. Ermolov, Alexey Petrovich, general-from-infant., member. sovereign sov., commander-in-chief. in the Caucasus; † Apr 11 1861 From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 106; document No. 8. Vasiliev, Joseph Vasilievich, prot, ambassador. village in Paris, then at the Holy Synod, and chairman of spiritual studies. committee; † Dec 26, 1881 Art. handwritten draft original, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod; according to inventory No. 106, document. Nos. 9 and 10. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 20; document No. 2. From a hand-written draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 91; document No. 13. From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79; document No. 3. The authentic opinion is stored in the files of the office of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1860, No. 278, l. 10–15. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 12. Sergius (Lyapidevsky), bishop. Kursk from January 1, 1861. Now archbishop. Chisinau See about him Volume III of this edition, No. 282, p. 118, note. 1. Gorsky, see about him III volume of this edition., No. 367, p. 468, note. 1. Now the archbishop. Tverskoy and Kashinsky, editor of this publication. Ignatius (Rozhdestvensky), from August 7, 1866 vicar. Mozhaisk, then Bishop of Kostroma; † June 7, 1883 Case of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 4361, pp. 1–5. See Nos. 518, 538, 542, 548 above. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 88; document No. 18.