1865 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
January 7. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the unceremonious disposal of the state bank with church and civil holidays
To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report.
A murmur among the people pointed me to No. 282 of the Moscow Gazette and in it to an extract from the Trade Collection, word by word as follows:
“It seems strange to many why the state bank so unceremoniously disposed of our church and civil holidays, appointing for contributions, for example: January 2 and 3, February 2 (Candlemas), April 1, 2 and 3 (Thursday, Friday and Saturday of Holy Week), etc. He thereby arbitrarily deprives bank employees and the public of the days of rest that legally belong to them, and prevents them from fulfilling their Christian duties, especially in days dedicated to the remembrance of the sufferings of the Savior.”
So many of the people complain about this order, which suddenly violates the commandment of God, and church rules and state law. Even the Trade Collection is zealous against this. After this, it was obviously inconsistent with the duties of an Orthodox bishop to look at this coldly and indifferently.
Therefore, I give it my duty to the Holy Synod, the highest guardian of the dignity of Orthodoxy and the religion-based morality of the people in the Russian Orthodox Church, to report this matter for consideration.
Your Holiness's humblest novice,
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
January 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with the opinion “on the release from arrest of persons of the false hierarchy”
The Minister of Internal Affairs, dated December 31, 1864, No. 2768, wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod:
By the highest order of the Sovereign Emperor, Adjutant General Prince Dolgorukov 117 conveyed to me, for a report to His Majesty, with my conclusion, the most submissive request of the Old Believers living in Moscow and the districts of the Moscow province, petitioning for the release from arrest of persons of an unrecognized spiritual hierarchy: Konon, Arkady, Gennady, Anania and Zinovia with others, taken over the last ten years and kept in fortresses and forts.
The Sovereign Emperor, in accordance with my most submissive preliminary report of the said request, has most deigned to allow me to communicate on this subject with Your Excellency before presenting the final conclusion on this.
Fulfilling this highest will, I have the honor to humbly ask Your Excellency to honor me with a response to the above petition of the Moscow Old Believers.”
A certificate was then drawn up for the office of the Holy Synod, with the following content:
False Archbishop Arkady was captured in Turkish possessions in 1854, and by the highest order, he was imprisoned in the Suzdal Spaso-Evimiyev Monastery.
Arkady, originally from the village of Kunichnoye, in the Bessarabian region, went abroad in his youth; lived in various schismatic settlements beyond the Prut and Danube; Greek Metropolitan Ambrose ordained him bishop of the village of Slava, near Babadakh, in the schismatic Belokrinitsky monastery.
Together with him, the false bishop Olympius and the false priest Semyonov were taken and imprisoned in the same monastery. The first died in 1859, and the last, being released from the monastery, disappeared from Suzdal at the beginning of 1863.
Arkady is still in the monastery and remains adamant in his delusions.
False bishop Gennady was captured by the Yekaterinburg police chief in the house of the merchant Chuvakov on the night of December 6, 1862, and by the highest order, taken to the Savior Efmiev Monastery in July of the following year.
Comes from serf peasants of the Lysvensky plant gr. Butera, nicknamed Grigory Vasiliev Belyaev, left his parental home 20 years ago to go on pilgrimage in the forests, wandered to different places, and in 1853, became friends with the schismatic Bishop Ananasy, from whom he received tonsure and the rank of hierodeacon; in 1856, by the same Ananasy, he was first appointed presbyter, and then archimandrite; at the beginning of the next 1857 he was sent to Moscow to Archbishop Anthony, who, in the town of Gusintsy, ordained him a bishop through two other schismatic bishops. During his wanderings, he was twice captured and placed in a prison company; Both times I managed to escape.
The false bishop Konon was caught in the Skvirsky district, Kiev province, at the beginning of 1859, and by the highest command, he was placed in the same Spaso-Efmiev monastery, for exhortation to join Orthodoxy.
Although he had recently heeded some admonitions, he refused to join Orthodoxy and behaved meekly.
The false archimandrite Zinovy was appointed to this rank by Gennady. According to the latter’s testimony, Zinovy was captured and kept in Troitsk.
There was no case against him in the office of the Chief Prosecutor.
False Ananias. All that is known about him is that he was tonsured a monk by Gennady. Where he is is unknown.
A false hierarch, a peasant of the village of Gorodets, in the Balakhninsky district, Vasily Nosov was caught by the police in a Nizhny Tagil factory in March 1864, while performing a divine service in a church built in an outbuilding at the house of the Moscow merchant Cheusov living there.
Nosov is being held in the Perm prison castle and the case about him, according to the review of the Minister of Internal Affairs, should be subject to consideration by a court.”
Both this certificate and the attitude of the Minister of Internal Affairs were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, who wrote in response:
Your Excellency, dear sir.
At the same time, you will receive consideration of the issue of the arrested false hierarchy. It seems clear to a fair decision.
But if it happened that the opposite view would be strong; then I would dare to wish that the presented presentation of the case would reach the highest level of information, so that the Sovereign Emperor, with an eye clear of prejudice, could see where the truth and benefit lie.
I pray from the Lord and call for prosperity to you, Your Excellency, submissive servant,
Attached to this letter is the following opinion:
On the release from arrest of persons of the false hierarchy
I. According to the information that could be collected in Moscow, Konon, the false bishop of the Baltic in the Kamenets-Podolsk province, was promoted to this title abroad. Consequently, for Moscow schismatics it is alien, and they petition for it not out of their own religious need, but only in order to show their like-minded people their power to change government orders, and thereby encourage and strengthen the schism.
II. Arkady, the false archbishop of the foreign Slavic monastery, did not act in Russia as a diocesan one. Consequently, there is also something alien to the Moscow schismatics; and they intercede for him without any right or need, just to show their strength.
III. Gennady, false bishop of Simbirsk, from a fugitive soldier, appointed false bishop by false archbishop Anthony, in Moscow, in the house of the merchant Botneva. And this one is alien and not needed by the Moscow schismatics, who have their own false archbishop Anthony. And it is too daring to demand that the government grant the fugitive soldier not only impunity, but also the honorary position of bishop.
IV. Ananias and Zinovy are Siberian priests who have a strong influence on the Ekaterinburg schismatics to maintain them in superstition, in the spirit of a tightly united congregation, and in opposition to the views of the Orthodox government. And these Moscow schismatics want to free them not for their own religious needs, but so that they can have strong weapons in them in favor of the schism in general.
V. If the government found Conon, Arkady, Gennady, Anania and Zinovy to be harmful to society, and considered it necessary to separate them from it, then to give them freedom would mean contradicting itself, which, of course, would not be consistent with the dignity of the government; this would mean making them more harmful than they were before; because they will come out with greater bitterness than before, with a feeling of victory, and therefore with new audacity. This would give the schismatics an opportunity to proclaim their victory both in Russia and abroad.
VI. That the Moscow schismatics intercede for the above-mentioned persons not out of necessity, but only to show their strength and glory, is clear from the fact that they have not only the false Archbishop Anthony, but also other false bishops, and false priests in abundance.
In the Exchange Gazette, No. 139, May 20, 1864, the act of the schismatic false council was printed, which begins with the following words:
“There was an ecumenical council in the reigning city of Moscow. "Summer 1861. In the house of the merchant Anisimov."
This is followed by 10 names of false archbishops and false bishops, and the eleventh name of Anthony, who was accused by the council and easily punished.
Of these eleven, only two are under arrest. So the Moscow schismatics, not content with nine false bishops, are trying to wrest the remaining two from the government. It is difficult to resist reproaching him, if not for insolence, then for insatiability.
VII. Here the question may arise: is there any inconsistency in the fact that two false bishops are detained, while nine remain (and perhaps more) at large? Without a doubt, this should be explained by the fact that two were seen as especially harmful to Orthodoxy, and were convicted of this before the government; and others are not open, although rumor speaks of them and their deeds. If two counterfeit coin makers were detained, and rumors said that there were still others like them in society: this, of course, would not lead to the release of those detained, but to trying to block the path of lawlessness and harm to others.
January 9. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the book “The Beginnings of Christian Teaching”
Some teachers and observers of teaching in schools imagined to me that it would be useful to supplement the educational book: “The Elements of Christian Teaching,” which contains sacred history and a short catechism, with a resolution of the text for questions and answers, which could serve as a facilitating aid in teaching, since without this, some teachers find it necessary to write questions, which increases the work of students.
The proposed addition to a printed educational book may still correspond to the needs of the present time, when many primary schools are being established in villages, also requiring facilitative guidance, while in timely publications there are attempts to satisfy this need, which do not facilitate, but confuse the matter, with arbitrarily invented methods, and the composition and presentation of the teaching not adapted to the purpose.
Therefore, I did the following:
1) The text of the Elements of Christian Orthodox Teaching has been preserved and expanded in some places.
2) Each chapter of the text is accompanied by questions and answers that exhaust its entire content, partly in the same expressions, to accustom students to the accuracy of answers, partly in modified ones, to accustom them to free answers.
In this form, this book was examined by the censorship committee and declared acceptable before publication, without hindrance, but only on the basis of Article 257 of the censorship charter, with the permission of the Holy Synod.
I present this manuscript to the Holy Synod for the consideration of whether it will be decided to print it for general use, or at least allow me to print it for the diocese entrusted to me.
The Holy Synod, by definition, dated January 18/February 3, 1865, decided: recognizing the additions made by the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow in the book “The Beginnings of Christian Teaching” as allowing the text to answer questions and answers, corresponding to the modern needs of primary public schools in need of facilitating guidance in the study of sacred history and the short catechism by children, and therefore finding that the said educational book is in its present form form with greater benefit can be published for general use, the Holy Synod determines: to instruct the economic administration at the Holy Cr-node to make an order to print the “Rudiments of Christian Teaching” in a new edition, based on the manuscript now presented by the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, examined and approved by the censor, and to submit the release of this book for sale to the Holy Synod according to the established procedure; In order to fulfill this definition, transfer to the economic department an extract with the manuscript attached, and notify the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow about this order of the Holy Synod by decree.
119
January 21. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the participation of the clergy in zemstvo institutions
Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, member of it, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna.
G. the head of the Moscow province, in relation, dated January 9, No. 109, explained that the temporary provincial committee, on putting into effect the regulations on zemstvo institutions, at its meeting on January 8, considered the proposals delivered to it by the district temporary commissions of the province on the appointment of places and dates for electoral congresses, and having made, on the basis of Art. 26 rules, about now. adv. in action pos. about earth establishment his positive conclusion regarding the congresses of different classes of the zemstvo, did not assume the right to speak out on this issue regarding the persons of the clergy and decided to ask me: 1) to take on the work of appointing the places and dates of the meetings of clergy, 2) to indicate who will preside at these congresses and 3) to report orders on these issues to the temporary provincial committee for immediate notification of all county temporary commissions of the province. By this Mr.
the head of the province added that in its resolution the provincial committee was guided, among other things, by the following considerations: 1) that inviting all clergy to a simultaneous congress at one point in the district could be very embarrassing, both for them (due to the remoteness of the place of residence of many of them from the point appointed by the commission) and for the parishioners (for within two or three days there would be no one to fulfill the requirements); 2) that the county temporary commissions could, when assigning places and dates for the said congresses, lose sight of any other practical inconveniences due to the lack of deputies from the ecclesiastical department among the commission. In view of these considerations, the provincial committee, having decided to turn to my assistance to resolve this issue, at the same time decided to ask Mr.
Minister of Internal Affairs, to allow the Moscow temporary provincial committee, upon receipt of a message from me about the appointment of places and dates for congresses of clergy, to make an immediate order to carry this out, without waiting on this issue alone for instructions from the Minister of Internal Affairs, as prescribed by Art. 26 rules about order. adv. in action pos. about earth institutions. Under this city, the head of the province attached the proposals of the county temporary commissions, especially approved by the committee, about the timing of congresses of county landowners, since on the basis of Art. 23 of the highest approved regulations on zemstvo institutions. Representatives from the clergy, elected at their preliminary congresses, should also participate in these congresses.
Having accepted the consideration, 1) that the removal of clergy suddenly from many churches for a congress in a remote place, as the provincial committee on zemstvo institutions also notes, would necessarily be accompanied by a difficult stop for the conscience of the Orthodox people regarding the fulfillment of church requirements that cannot be delayed, 2) that the regulation on zemstvo institutions by decree of the Holy Synod, following the example of other legislation, has not yet been announced to the diocesan authorities; and from the received demand for private congresses of the clergy to the start of the district congresses there were only 20 days left, it turned out that in this matter it was necessary: 1) to eliminate inconveniences, 2) to use expeditious measures to prevent delay. Therefore, I have ordered the following to be done: 1) each dean of rural churches will convene a private congress of clergy from his department. 2) The congress must be appointed either at the dean’s place of residence, or at another church that has the most central position in the dean’s district.
3) In case of emergency, one or two priests from the deanery district may remain at their churches during the congress, each entrusting their votes to the other, but not two to one. 4) Having set as close a date as possible for the congress, the dean meanwhile makes an extract from the clergy registers about the amount of land owned by each clergy, and deduces the total complexity. 5) The clergy who gathered at the appointed time, having taken into consideration the deduced complexity of the land, unanimously or by majority vote, appoint from among themselves representatives to the district congress, assigning one for every 200 dessiatinas. 6) If the amount of land left behind is less than 200 dessiatines, it is not accepted for consideration, so that by communicating with another deanery district to supplement it, one does not miss the deadline appointed for the district congress. 7) An act is then drawn up regarding the appointed commissioners in the following form: 1865, January day, the undersigned clergymen….deanery district, village…. in their assembly, having taken into consideration….
tithes of land owned by the clergy of this district, according to the number of two hundred tithe plots, were assigned.... authorized to the district congress, namely…. sat down... priest... (and so on) and entrusted them with legal actions at the district congress. 8) Such an act is drawn up in two copies, signed by all those present, and one copy, through the authorized representatives, is presented to the county commission by the appointed date, and the other is presented to me, without delay. 9) The authorized representatives must study those articles of the regulations on zemstvo institutions that determine their operation, and follow them with precision, keeping in mind the common good, without falling into arbitrariness, and protecting themselves from being carried away by private views. About this from the consistory on January 14th and was prescribed by the department, with a note attached on the dates of district congresses.
Regarding the above-stated demand of the civil authorities regarding the participation of the clergy in zemstvo institutions, and about the orders made according to this, reporting to the Holy Synod, I am duty-bound to explain the reasons for the action, whereas there was no decree of the Holy Synod on this subject, as is the case with any new legal provision.
Zemstvo institutions are based on the idea of self-government. Land owners must fulfill zemstvo duties and pay land taxes; Therefore, they are called upon to consider what needs to be done and what needs to be paid for this. If priests, owning church land free from taxes, come to zemstvo assemblies, then they will act not according to the law of self-government, but according to the law of foreign government. But if, in accordance with the idea of self-government, we assume the imposition of a tax on church lands, then it is incredibly incongruous that at the very time when the state power recognizes the clergy as needy and is seeking means to help them, again impose land taxes on those in need and requiring benefits.
Church rules prohibit the clergy from taking charge of worldly affairs (IV ecumenical society pr. 10), taking upon themselves worldly and everyday cares, holding a worldly position (VII ecumenical society pr. 10), accepting worldly positions of authority or care (double society pr. 11).
All this could arouse doubt and be unfavorable to the determination of action.
But on the other hand, deciding on the application of the above church rules, positive or negative, to a new case and, moreover, a state one, is above the rights of the diocesan administration.
State law demanded obedience.
Among the objects of action of zemstvo institutions, it was decided, among other things, to ensure the construction of churches and participation in the care of public education - objects inherent in the participation of the clergy.
With respect, the request of the civilian authorities was accepted for execution, and orders that were possible under the circumstances were made.
The Holy Synod, by resolution of February 1/13, 1865, decided: seeing from the present report of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow that in relation to him the head of the Moscow province, regarding the convening of preliminary meetings of the clergy for the appointment of representatives to electoral sessions, the diocesan authorities have already made the appropriate order, and finding that for this in the special order of His Holiness The Synod on the said report will no longer be necessary, - it determines: having taken this report into account, notify the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret about this by decree 120.
January 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Adjutant General A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion on the proposal of the Russian vice-consul in Tulcea, to open a Russian school there to educate Molokan children, in order to counteract American Methodist propaganda, which opened its school for them in Tulcea
Adjutant General A.P. Akhmatov, in a secret letter dated January 26, 1865, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, at his discretion, an extract from the secret report of the Russian vice-consul in Tulcha to the director of the Asian department, dated December 13, 1864, No. 343, in which, among other things, he said that between The Molokans inhabiting the Dobrudzhan district have recently begun to develop the propaganda of Methodism, introduced by the Americans. About 4 years ago, an Odessa native, Flocken, arrived from America from America, the son of a local doctor, a German, a Bavarian citizen, who was brought up first in an Odessa gymnasium, and then sent by his father to New York. Here he became acquainted with the Methodists, entered their society and became a priest. As he knew Russian, he was sent to Shumla to convert the Bulgarians, and from there, moving to Tulcha, he opened an American missionary school there for free education of children of both sexes, for the maintenance of which he was sent several thousand dollars a year.
The teachers there were first Hugo, who completed a course at the St. Petersburg 2nd gymnasium, then Eberman, a Nizhny Novgorod high school student who fled from Russia, and finally Vasily Kelsiev, together with Krasnopevtsev, a Russian emigrant. In this school, children study in Russian, French, German and some in English and, in addition, geography, arithmetic and the Law of God, from Methodist textbooks translated into Russian. With the majority of Molokan children, this school is attended by the children of German colonists and Orthodox Christians: Bulgarians, Little Russians and Moldovans. The students of this school, called “American missionary”, have in mind a free trip to America to complete their education at a Methodist university, so that upon returning from there they will become missionaries and spread Methodism in Russia.
From his close acquaintance with the Tulchin Molokans, Russian by origin and language, the Russian vice-consul came to the conclusion that they still had a feeling of attachment to Russia, and therefore expresses regret that the American missionaries, spreading their teachings among them, act to the detriment of their nationality; the Molokans, for their part, express an ardent desire to learn. Therefore, titular councilor Kudryavtsev believes that the establishment of a Russian school in Tulcea would be very useful at this time to counteract the propaganda of the Methodists. Moreover, this school, in which teachers should be assigned who are not infected with revolutionary ideas, and students should accept for free the children of Lipovans, Molokans, Bespopovtsy and other Dobrudzhinsky sectarians, could also bring benefit for them that under its influence the hostile attitude towards Russia that is being spread by revolutionary agitators among the local Russian population would begin to weaken.
The information received from Your Excellency (January 26, No. 18) about the attraction of Russian Molokans to the Methodist school in Tulcea would not be very concerning if pure Methodists acted and emigrant revolutionaries were not mixed in. Pure Methodists were supposed to improve the opinion of the Molokans and, among other things, instill in them obligations to legitimate authority, which the Molokans do not recognize, obeying the authorities only because they do not have enough strength against it. Thus, Methodist Molokans would be better than Molokans without Methodism.
But the bad thing is that emigrant revolutionaries are active in the school. Is there a way to eliminate them?
As for the establishment of a Russian school in Tulcea to counteract Methodism, there is little hope of accomplishing this, and of accomplishing it successfully. Methodists have no need to worry themselves and the government; they have money; it is convenient to multiply them; money finds capable people and gets things done. The Russian people are not quite rich in comparison with others, and the mood is not yet widespread enough to understand and patriotically support a Russian school abroad, built on a political idea. It is also not easy to find capable people who would have enough self-sacrifice to serve in such a school, and enough art and energy to counteract the art of their rivals. Sad opinion! May those who have the best and trustworthy to be fulfilled be found.
However, if the establishment of a school is undertaken, would you like to notify me about this so that I can (send) several available books for a while (?).
I add that this can only be useful if it is intended to have an effect not only on the academic education, but also on the religious state of Molokan children. Otherwise, educated Molokans will be more harmful than ignorant ones.
January 30, 1865 January 31 121
February 24–26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the founding of the Orthodox Russian Church in America
When American clergy expressed a desire to have an Orthodox Church in America, it seemed necessary for California, and not for New York. Now a new view of this is opening up.
Agapius, who had previously been a deacon at the Russian mission in Athens, had suffered some kind of trouble there, and as a result transferred to Greek citizenship, now a priest, who had received the holy antimension and holy chrism from the great church in Constantinople, arrived in America, and on the day of the Nativity of Christ he performed the first Orthodox liturgy there since the discovery of America, and then baptized 8 Slavs and 2 Russians. He writes that he found there 7,000 Slavs, 3,000 Greeks and 3,000 Russians, without a shepherd.
If this is true: then here is a strong reason to have a Russian Orthodox Church in America.
Based on the attached copy of a letter from Agapius Goncharenko, written to the editor of the Orthodox Review 122, would you please make an inquiry in order to determine whether anything should be done.
February 24, 1865 February 26 123
February 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov on the sale of strong drinks in hotels at the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius
Near the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, this Lavra has built two hotels for pilgrims, in which they use the premises, with equipment prepared from the Lavra, and a table, at the inconvenience of the Lavra’s own disposal, through tenants. Just as some pilgrims also drink drinks at the table, patents for the right to use this have until now been issued to tenants by the excise department. The same patents were issued to tenants of Rensky cellars in buildings belonging to the Lavra.
The cathedral now established at the Lavra of St. Sergius informed me that the assistant excise inspector Shipovalov announced that for 1865 he could not issue patents to these tenants for the sale of drinks, because patents should not be issued for the sale of drinks in establishments and shops maintained on church and monastery lands.
The law (IX vol. Holy Law, Art. 316) prohibits the establishment of drinking and tavern establishments on church lands, no doubt because in these establishments, and at them, excessive consumption of strong drinks, gambling, and frequently occurring actions that violate decency and good morals are allowed.
Therefore, the established council rightly believes that this law, neither in letter nor in spirit, extends to the above-mentioned institutions at the Lavra of St. Sergius. The consumption of drinks in Lavra hotels is allowed only in the same way as at any home table, in accordance with health requirements.
Agreeing with the opinion of the established council, I consider it fair to humbly ask Your Excellency to communicate with whomever should be so that the above-mentioned establishments at the Lavra of St. Sergius are not brought under the law on taverns and drinking houses.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
No. 108. February 26, 1865
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in relation, dated May 25, 1865, No. 2648, write to Metropolitan Philaret: “Last year, the Ministry of Finance raised the question of what kind of establishments, in which the sale of drinks is allowed according to the statute on drinking fees, cannot be opened on monastery lands and at what distance from the monastery fences.
At the same time, the Ministry of Finance received requests for permission to continue the sale of drinks from establishments existing on monastic and church lands under contracts whose terms had not yet expired.
Meanwhile, by order of the ministry, a special commission was established under the department of non-salary collections to revise the rules on trade in strong drinks contained in the statute on drinking collection, with the participation of a deputy from the ecclesiastical department in this commission.
In view of this, the Minister of Finance, by prior agreement with the ecclesiastical department, recognized the possibility of extending the validity of the contracts previously concluded by private individuals for the maintenance of drinking establishments then permitted by law on monastic and church lands in the established force until the end of the said commission’s work, about which an order has already been made by the excise department.
According to the decision of the Holy Synod, I have the honor to inform your Eminence about this order of the Ministry of Finance for information and appropriate guidance in necessary cases” 124.
March 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philareti to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the proposal to build a chapel in Moscow in memory of the Battle of Borodino
The Minister of Internal Affairs, in relation, dated January 31, 1865, No. 265, to the Chief Prosecutor wrote: “member of the Imperial Russian Society for the Acclimatization of Animals and Plants, active. Art. owls Maslov 125 turned to the august patron of the society, Sovereign Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder, with the most devoted request to give the highest consideration to the proposal to build a chapel in Moscow in memory of the Borodino battle, on the grounds set out in the note presented to him 126, asking the most merciful Sovereign Emperor for this construction permission.
The representative of the society under the august patron in St. Petersburg, State Councilor Isakov, informing me of the above, explained that the Sovereign Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder, sympathizing with the patriotic feelings of Stepan Alekseevich Maslov, who gained fame through his work with the rank of permanent secretary of the Imperial Moscow Society of Agriculture, and approving the assumptions, set out in his aforementioned note, deigned to order that the note from D.S. be forwarded to me. With. Maslov with the following article from the Moscow Gazette, written and printed by him separately 127, with a request to present this assumption, which does not require any expenses from the government, at the highest discretion of His Imperial Majesty.
In advance of my most humble report on this matter to the Sovereign Emperor, I have the honor to write the above note to D.S. With. Maslov, with the following article, to be forwarded to Your Excellency, humbly asking, with the return of the attachments, to honor me with a review on this subject.”
A.P. Akhmatov forwarded the attitude of the Minister of Internal Affairs, with attachments, to Metropolitan Philaret, February 3, 1865, for No. 11, and asked him to “honor him with a conclusion on this case, with the return of the papers.”
Metropolitan Philaret, in a special note attached to his letter dated March 8, explained the matter:
In regard to Your Excellency, dated February 3, (No. 11), the Minister of Internal Affairs sent to me the statement regarding the proposed chapel in Moscow in memory of the Battle of Borodino, with attachments, and returning, I present herewith the conclusion required from me, in a special note.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
About the project of the Borodino monument in Moscow
I. This project presents Russia in a sad way, as if for 50 years it did not care enough to honor the great year of 1812 with a completely satisfactory monument; and that, finally, a person was found who understood the need, and decided to awaken the patriotic feeling, dormant under the incessant historical thunder of the Battle of Borodino, in order to build in Moscow, on Red Square, near the Kremlin wall, a monument, with a chapel inside, to commemorate those killed in battle. Fortunately, and to the inviolability of the dignity and honor of the fatherland, this is not so. There is a state monument on the field of the Borodino battle, erected by the most pious Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, and opened with triumph, church and military. There is also a religious monument there - the Savior-Borodinsky Monastery, with a magnificent church, created with the assistance of benefactors from the highest persons and donations from private individuals of different classes.
There is also in Moscow the most important monument, religious and at the same time royal, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, undertaken by the Sovereign Emperor Alexander I, erected by the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, and already, under the safely reigning Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, the internal structure is being prepared for consecration. Finally, there is also in Moscow a sacred and majestic living monument, revered by the Orthodox people with unfailing pious zeal - this is a religious procession on the day of the expulsion of the French from Moscow, performed with all the predominantly revered shrines of ancient churches, the entire cathedral of the clergy of the capital, with a solemn service and a circumambulation of the entire Kremlin. After this, it cannot be said that something is missing and something else is needed. And of course, it is not necessary and not the right time to compete with the royal church, which has already been created, with the new enterprise of the chapel, which in any case has very little significance in comparison with the church.
II. The project was drawn up in other respects without sufficient inquiry and consideration of the circumstances of the case being undertaken. The project assumes that the monument-chapel will attract people to commemorate those killed in battle. This is not true. It is not by patriotic feeling, but by grace and faith that people are attracted to the chapels, seeing examples that those who pray in them before the holy icons receive healings and other blessings of God. Of the many chapels in Moscow, only three or four especially attract people, precisely because of the miraculous icons. How can one not hope that special acts of grace will be performed in the intended chapel; So one cannot hope that it will attract people to itself.
As for the commemoration of the dead, according to church tradition and custom, it is not performed in chapels, but in the churches in which those commemorated are buried, or in parish churches; because the most important part of the commemoration belongs to the liturgy, which cannot be performed in chapels. In particular, for those who laid down their lives in battle for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, an annual established church commemoration is performed on the day of the Beheading of the Head of the Forerunner, August 29.
III. The monument-chapel is intended for the benefit of the Spaso-Borodinsky Monastery. It is inconvenient for a convent to have a chapel, especially in Moscow. It is indecent for a nun, in view of those passing by and trading, to sit on the steps of the chapel, guard it and wait for visitors and depositors.
IV. The project calls for pannikhidas to be served in the chapel by the monastics of the Luzhetsky Monastery. And it is indecent for both monks and nuns to be together at the chapel. The Luzhetsky Monastery, due to its staff and the poverty of its contents, with a meager number of brethren, has difficulty separating hieromonks to serve liturgies in the Spaso-Borodinsky Monastery; and cannot go to Moscow to the chapel to serve pannihidas, which would require at least three or four people from the brethren. For those serving in the chapel, cells are needed with it, which would be inappropriate on Red Square.
V. There are already two chapels on Red Square, at the Spassky Gate. Placing a third not far from them would represent a discordant excess.
VI. It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that time is not favorable to this enterprise. During the liberation of the peasants, not one late voice, but many timely voices rose up, expressing a desire in memory of this event, through voluntary offerings, to erect a new church in Moscow as a monument. This desire was awarded the highest favor: but the collection of offerings, having reached not far above 10,000 rubles, became weaker and slower. There will no doubt be much less sympathy for the proposed monument. And the attention of the people should not be diverted from the important task undertaken to another less important one, especially since there are already quite a few monuments of 1812; and a patriotic feeling still awaits a monument to the great cause of liberation of the peasants.
VII. All the above considerations lead to the conclusion that the project of the Borodino monument-chapel in Moscow, given the existence of the most important royal monument here, that is, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, is unnecessary and in many other respects inconvenient to implement.
Filaret Metropolitan of Moscow
On one of the subsequent papers there is a note from Count D.A. Tolstoy: “To answer directly to the Minister of Internal Affairs that since Mr. Maslov explained that he intends to erect not a chapel, but a monument, then his project is not subject to consideration by the ecclesiastical department. November 4" 128 .
March 19. Metropolitan Philaret's general view of the state of the Moscow diocese, for 1864
And now, as before, among the calming phenomena in the life of the flock, we encounter others that are very sad and inspire worries and fears. False teachings continue their invasion of society, people's morality continues to decline; The clergy, especially the rural ones, who are supposed to fight all this evil, are delayed by the struggle with the poverty that weighs on them and obstacles from different sides.
The schism considers itself to be protected; and although in the sense of the false priesthood, he disgraces himself with the strife and divisions of the false hierarchy, however, the false priests walk and act in mind, setting up tents in houses, which they call the church; and Orthodox Christians in Moscow and in some villages point out with bitter surprise the houses in which false bishops serve. In the Bogorodsky district, some inhabitants of schismatic villages secretly open up to the Orthodox clergy, condemning their lawless false hierarchy, and expressing their desire to join the Orthodox Church, if this could be done suddenly in large numbers, but they do not dare to separate, fearing revenge for this from the prevailing schismatics.
May the Lord, in an abundance of grace, send His light and His truth to the Holy Synod, may they instruct him in finding the most effective means for preserving the Orthodox faith and morality among the people, and may his zeal be moved to intercede about this before the most pious Sovereign Emperor, defender of the Orthodox Church.
March 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. P. Akhmatov, regarding the letter of Agapius Goncharenko, who was a hierodeacon at the Russian mission in Athens, to the editor of the Orthodox Review, Archpriest N. A. Sergievsky
Here is another letter from Agapius. What he writes about, the Americans have published at length. He is accepted as a representative of the Orthodox Russian hierarchy: but is he in a legal position? Isn't the defendant a fugitive? Is it not that, contrary to the church rules, the Greek hierarchy ordained a deacon of the Russian Church, without the consent of its hierarchy, as a presbyter, for which the rules are subject to the overthrow of both the ordained and the ordained? It will hardly be possible for us to remain silent about Agapia: therefore, we need to know what we should say. For this purpose, I would again ask you to order an extract to be made from the matter concerning him regarding the Holy Synod and the ministry.
At the same time, I take a long time to correct the incorrect testimony that I was very sorry that the priests of the Russian fleet refused to perform the liturgy in the American church. On the contrary, I found and still find this correct and cautious. Probably, my three translators 131 during the conversation with Jung 132 amounted to less than one, and mistranslated my words, which was what I suspected at the same time; because what I stated, of necessity, in many words, they conveyed in a few 133.
The following document is attached to this letter:
No. *) The Smyrna newspaper was delivered by our envoy to Constantinople with the information that Agapius, upon returning from London, lived for some time on Athos, was expelled from there for bad behavior, then, having accepted the Roman confession, wandered through the Latin monasteries of Syria, then went to Alexandria, where he kept a tavern, and finally, returning to Greece, lived in one of the monasteries near Athens.
April 10. Metropolitan Philaret's order to the Moscow consistory to make an order regarding a nationwide prayer service, to free the heir to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich from illness
Although in all the churches of the capital daily prayers are offered to the Lord God for the restoration of the health of the sovereign, the heir to the crown prince; but in order to provide a new convenience for the hearts of the faithful to unite in national prayer, tomorrow, on the 11th day, after the liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral, which is scheduled to begin at half past ten in the morning with the bishop's service, there will be a procession of the cross from the Assumption Cathedral to the Kremlin Square with miraculous icons and other shrines; and here a nationwide prayer will be made to the Lord God and the Mother of God for the healing of the sovereign’s heir, the crown prince, from the illness.
For this purpose, the icon of the Mother of God of Iveron, and others worn in religious processions, will be brought to the liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral.
All archimandrites, archpriests of the cathedrals and one archpriest or priest from each deanery district will gather for the procession.
The consistory will carry this out.
May 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the priest of Lascarones
Metropolitan Philaret was sent two notes about the priest of the Chernigov diocese of Lascarones; Of these, the last one is placed as the more concise and clear.
From the case of the priest of Lascaronsky it is clear that he was 35 years old, completed his seminary education with a student's degree, was ordained as a priest in 1852, was moved: to the village of Kovchino in 1855, to the cathedral in 1857, and from there again to the village of Kovchino in 1859. He was certified as having good behavior and was not on trial before the case arose about him. The family has a wife and two children.
The case of Lascaronsky arose at his requests to the Holy Synod, in which he complained about the transfer first from the cathedral to the village. Kovchino and from here to the city of Nezhin, regarding the complaints of the Kovchin parishioners against him and his non-dismissal to Zadonsk and St. Petersburg.
In their complaints, the Kovchin parishioners - nobles, Cossacks and state peasants, among 128 people, in 1859 to the diocesan authorities and twice, first among 152 people, and then among 42, to the Holy Synod - asked for the removal of Lascaronsky from them, explaining that he has a restless character, causes insults to the nobles and treats rudely with the common people, when inviting him to correction, he, out of greed, takes a burdensome fee for the services, and is so careless in the performance of his duties that he repeatedly allowed the sick to die without a farewell message, and left the dead for a long time without a funeral service.
As a result of the investigation, the complaints of the parishioners, drawn up at the instigation of certain persons, were not confirmed, but the diocesan authorities, in order to reassure the parishioners, on January 20, 1862, concluded, ending the case, to transfer Lascaronsky to another parish.
Then, Laskaronsky was appointed to the priestly position at the Epiphany Church in Nizhyn. Due to the illness of his wife, he remained in Kovchin and this forced him to warn him that this place would be transferred to another if he did not appear as intended.
After considering the actual case, the Holy Synod, on October 29, 1864, in view of the repeated petitions of a significant number of parishioners for the removal of Lascaronsky, found that the diocesan authorities acted in accordance with Art. 202. mouth spirit. cons. and therefore, leaving his decree in force, he let the diocesan bishop know that Lascaronsky’s transfer, after the termination of the investigative case, was considered to have taken place administratively and that he would be given a parish corresponding to Kovchinsky, if the place in Nizhyn was occupied by someone else, and also that the present case should not serve as an obstacle to Lascaronsky’s requested leave.
From the information delivered by the secretary of the consistory, it is clear that this decision was announced to Laskaronsky, but he did not ask for another parish and did not refuse the place assigned to him in Nizhyn, and that, on December 8, 1864, he was issued a passport to travel to Zadonsk and St. Petersburg for four months.
The petition addressed to the Sovereign, now transferred from the III Department of His Majesty’s own chancellery and written in harsh terms, contains: a) complaints about the slow resolution of the above-stated case in the Synod and about the leaving without consideration of the most respectful petition submitted in March 1864, in which Lascaronsky, asking for protection in his case, reported on the abuses of the Chernigov Eminence; b) a petition to satisfy him for his several years of innocent suffering and ruin and c) an accusation of Archbishop Philaret of taking bribes from the clergy under his command.
The most submissive request of Lascarones was presented to the Holy Synod, June 13, 1864, No. 3902; it is not mentioned in the subsequent decision in the Laskaronsky case.
Laskaronsky's petition contains the following. harsh expressions:
“Being forced by severe constraints, I brought a complaint about the slowness of the Holy Synod in resolving my case. The Eminence of Chernigov 135 deprived me of honor, ruined me in the end, precisely because I, due to my poverty, could not, at the desire of his Eminence, satisfy his passionate love of money, could not give him a certain ransom for myself. I did not dare to think that the petition was hidden from you, or was withheld by someone in the Holy Synod, but the actions of the Holy Synod without any consequences on that petition make me think so. In the petition, in addition to complaining about grave injustice, I wrote about abuses for which I should either be executed or Eminence Philaret be deprived of his bishopric. The bishop accused of such actions must be subject to investigation and trial.
But the request was left without examination, and the Right Reverend Philaret was left to continue selling the Holy Spirit, trading in the sacrament of the priesthood, without any compunction, so that every deacon who presented one hundred or two hundred rubles received a deaconry, and a deacon who presented two hundred or three hundred rubles received the priesthood, even if he was not at all learned and of the worst morals. For the justice of both this and other abuses of the Right Reverend Philaret of Chernigov, which I undertake to show with facts during the examination, I answer not with honor, but with my life, as having given a priestly oath. I am also fully aware of all the danger that this means I must be in from the defenders of the Right Reverend, but it is better to die than, while serving as a priest under such an archpastor, to be a participant in mortal sin.”
Metropolitan Philaret wrote to the Chief Prosecutor:
Having read the two petitions of the Chernigov priest, I do not put off answering them until I forget what I read, so as not to have the need to read it again.
It is impossible to think that the resolutions of the Eminence were spelled out incorrectly. And if true, then the matter requires attention.
An acquitted priest could be removed from the church only at the request of the majority of the parishioners, for the peace of the parish, with a harmless appointment to another place. This state of affairs is not clear from the resolution. The priest is supposed to be taken to another parish; but no arrival has been scheduled; and he remains without a place for two years.
The priest is not defamed. The consistory determines to dismiss him to Zadonsk and St. Petersburg, at his request. The Eminence writes that it is forbidden to fire unreliable people and does not fire them. This decision is directly contrary to the essence of the matter.
The priest asks another time: the Eminence, of course, seeing no reason to refuse, keeps the matter to himself without a decision. In addition to being harassing, it is also unreasonable. Did the bishop really think that the Chernigov diocese was a prison from which one could neither leave nor send petitions? Does he really want to prepare material for complaints about himself with such an action?
When there is a complaint that is proven by action, it is inconvenient to ignore an unsubstantiated denunciation of bribery.
It is not clear what has been done in the Holy Synod. Justice is needed, and moreover, we need justice that, if possible, is not late.
It seems to me that we need to pay active attention to the priest’s complaint; and in response to his denunciations, demand evidence from him.
Based on the well-known merits of the Eminence, it is incredible that the denunciation was fair. But he has his own unique views, which he stubbornly follows. He had a housekeeper in Kharkov who was advised to be eliminated. Perhaps the housekeeper's dark shadow is falling on the Eminence.
They also say that the Reverend, mainly loving academic affairs, sets aside little time for diocesan affairs; and because of this, these matters can fall into the wrong hands.
It is advisable that the matter happen, if possible, without much publicity.
Regarding the unfortunate Agapius, it would not be superfluous to instruct Archimandrite Antonin and the archimandrite, who is at the Altai mission, to privately look for information about who ordained him as a hieromonk, and whether he really received the antimension and chrism.
From the Lord I pray for your health and prosperity. Your Excellency's most humble servant,
May 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the desire of some members of the imaginary Belokrinitsa Metropolis to join Orthodoxy
Members of the schismatic imaginary hierarchy:
1) Onuphry, Bishop of Brailovsky, Vicar of the Belokrinitsa Metropolis,
2) Paphnutius, Bishop of Kolomna 137,
3) hieromonk of the Belokrinitsky monastery Joasaph and
4) Archdeacon of the Belokrinitsa Metropolis Filaret,
turned to me, first by letter, then in person, expressing, in their own words, a sincere and unfeigned desire to break all the ties connecting them with the imaginary Old Believers, and to enter into the saving fence of the Holy Orthodox Church, asking our Lord Jesus Christ, may He not reject them, His lost sheep, and count them among His chosen flock 138 . They are ready to do everything that is found beneficial for their joining the Holy Orthodox Church, without offering any conditions on their part.
My repeated communications with them each time presented signs of the sincerity and purity of their intentions. This is also confirmed by the explanatory notes they wrote, at my suggestion, about their former position in the schism, and how they came to the conviction that the schism was wrong and that the Russian Church was right. One of these notes, the so-called Bishop Paphnutius, a man with significant abilities and knowledge, is attached to this list 139. Signs of their sincere conversion to Orthodoxy are also visible in the fact that they leave an honorable and advantageous position with schismatics, and that they do not ask for the preservation of the bishopric or priesthood, but only wish that they be recognized as monastics or tonsured into monasticism, and so that they can serve in the conversion of other erring ones.
In relation to the civil order, Onufriy, by monasticism, according to the written form given from the St. Petersburg, military governor-general 140, is Andrei Fadeev, a merchant, a Moldavian subject from Galati, by birth in the Yaroslavl district, the village of Tarasov, a peasant who retired abroad in 1839, for schismatic reasons.
Paphnutius by monasticism, on a ticket from the St. Petersburg military governor-general, is Pavel Petrov, merchant, Moldovan subject, from Cahul, by birth in the Chernigov diocese, Starodub district, Voronki settlement, merchant son of Ovchinnikov, who in 1854 retired abroad for schismatic reasons.
Joasaph by monasticism, by birth is in the Moscow province, Bronnitsy district, village of Kuznetsov, the peasant son of Ivan Timofeev Vavaev, who retired abroad in 1857, for schismatic reasons. His ticket was not presented to me due to his absence from Moscow.
Filaret by monasticism, on a ticket from the Moscow military governor-general, Austrian subject Fyodor Petrov, born of the Duchy of Bukovina, Betsirk of Saret, in the village of Klimoutsakh.
This matter is connected with such circumstances that it goes beyond the ordinary circle of affairs and requires a special direction. The above-mentioned four significant persons of the schismatic false hierarchy, deciding to join the Orthodox Church, out of fear of acts of schismatic hatred, found themselves in the need to hide not only their intentions, but also themselves, until they were provided with the protection of the legitimate government. Meanwhile, their intention, revealed only in secret, by special proxy, is already finding imitators, and I have in my hands a written expression of the desire to join the Orthodox Church from another person from the schismatic false hierarchy, which was not added to this because I did not make an inquiry. Therefore, we can expect a significant movement in favor of Orthodoxy in the schism, when the above-mentioned four persons are attached to Orthodoxy, and receive the opportunity to act in favor of it under the auspices of legitimate authority.
Such circumstances inspire boldness to strive to ensure that this matter receives the most merciful attention and patronage of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, defender of the Orthodox Church. It would be ensured, if His Imperial Majesty were pleased, the first three of the above-named persons, temporary by force of religious errors and sinful conscience, infatuation from the fatherland, would be all-mercifully forgiven, and all four, upon joining the Orthodox Church unconditionally, or on the rules of the same faith, would be allowed to be ranked among the clergy, and tonsured into monasticism, or recognized monastics, as, according to the closest inquiry, justice will require, in accordance with church rules.
Their further testing, guidance and use of their ability and experience to reconcile other erring people with the Orthodox Church should be the subject of careful care of the diocesan authorities.
I humbly ask Your Excellency to submit the above to the most gracious discretion of His Imperial Majesty and to ask for the highest command.
I most humbly and most submissively pray to the most pious Sovereign to look upon this matter with the eye of the most merciful condescension.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant of the Lord,
An explanatory note by 141 former bishop of Kolomna Paphnutius was attached to the letter with the following content:
“I was born in 1827, Chernigov province, Starodub district, in the Voronka settlement. My parent was a merchant of the 3rd guild, Peter Ovchinnikov. He adhered to the schism of the fugitive priest sect: the fugitive priest Euthymius baptized me, and in baptism I was given the name Polycarp.
From the twelfth to the nineteenth year I was engaged in trading affairs, but the inclination towards religious thoughts that formed in me from a young age prompted me to abandon trading and all other everyday concerns. In 1846, I asked my parents for permission to leave all my studies and devote myself to a solitary life. In the garden of our house, a small cell was built for an old man who had deviated from Orthodoxy, which I liked for its secluded position and complete silence: here, with the consent of my parents, I entered into complete solitude, in which I spent four years, engaged mainly in reading books respected by the Old Believers and thinking about issues closely related to the Old Believers.
The fruit of these solitary reflections was my complete alienation from the fugitive priesthood: I fully understood and understood for myself all the illegality and criminality of the actions of the priest in self-estrangement from his bishop, who, moreover, according to my conviction at that time, could not receive from his bishop, as being in heresy, the real grace of the priesthood, and even the very absence in the fugitive priesthood of one of the necessary ranks of the established hierarchy, the rank episcopal, served for me as clear evidence of insufficiency and falsity. Having internally severed all ties with fussiness, I naturally drew attention to the lack of priesthood, which captivated me with its decisive and consistently formed denial of grace in the Great Russian Church; But what kept me from completely reconciling myself with priestlessness and from drifting into this sect was my firm conviction in the necessity of a divinely established priesthood, without which the Church of Christ cannot exist, and which the priestlessness so decisively rejected.
So, having internally renounced fugitive priesthood, I did not find reconciliation for myself in the non-priestly sect, but I could not even think about the Orthodox Church, due to the hostility towards it rooted in my youth, without disgust 142. The struggle of my young soul, which sought and did not find a solution to the doubts that arose in me regarding the Old Believers, was truly painful.
At this very time the establishment of the so-called Austrian hierarchy followed. In it, it seemed to me, I could find a solution to my grave doubts and I decided to go to Belaya Krinitsa in order to find out the whole truth about it there, at the very site of the establishment of the new hierarchy. In 1851 I received a passport and crossed the border through the Skulyansk customs. But before he arrived in Bukovina, he spent at least a year in Moldova, visiting the schismatic monasteries located there. In Iasi, through the Lipovan Archpriest Nikifor, I first became acquainted with the writings of the monk Paul, whose fame, as the main figure in the establishment of the Belokrinitsa Metropolis, then thundered throughout the entire Old Believer world. His writings made a strong impression on me, and it seemed to me that this was the person from whom I could get a solution to the last perplexities that I still had regarding the newly established hierarchy.
This hierarchy captivated me with its completeness and seeming satisfaction of the canonical requirements regarding the structure of the legal hierarchy; but I could not in any way connect in my mind this newly established hierarchy with that legitimate and only Orthodox hierarchy, which existed in continuous succession from the apostles until the time of Nikon's patriarchate and ceased 200 years before the establishment of our new hierarchy - in no way and with anything could I fill this void that separates both hierarchies for such a long period of time. From sacred and church books I knew that the divinely established hierarchy must exist continuously until the end of the world, just as the church itself is irresistible and through the gates of hell: how could it stop for 200 years and then arise again? This was the question that occupied me most at that time; he constituted for me the last obstacle to the full recognition of the new schismatic hierarchy, and it was his solution that I hoped to find from the famous monk Paul.
From Moldavia, I actually sent to him and Bishop Onuphrius, his collaborator in the establishment of the hierarchy, to resolve the following question: is it possible to prove from the Holy Scriptures that the church can ever fall, that the Divinely established hierarchy can cease, and after a certain time (as with us, for example, after 200 years) rise and begin again? Pavel invited me to come to Belaya Krinitsa to get a solution to this question.
Here, in frequent and lengthy conversations about the question I proposed, Paul based his solution mainly on the example of the Old Testament church, which was a prototype of the New Testament church of Christ.
Just as the Old Testament church during the Babylonian captivity was in a state of fall and at the end of the captivity rose again: so the Church of Christ, according to the inscrutable destinies of God, in accordance with this prototype, fell during the time of Nikon’s patriarchate and after 200 years, under Metropolitan Ambrose, returned to its first, holy state; how in the Old Testament church the fire burned unquenchably on the altar of the Lord and was a prototype of that Divine fire, which in the form of tongues descended on the apostles and gave them the grace of ordination - how this sacrificial fire, at the onset of the Babylonian captivity, was hidden in a waterless well and turned into the opposite element of fat water, at the end of the captivity from this element hostile to fire flared up again: so the grace of ordination, given to the apostles in the form of tongues of fire and continuously preserved in the Church of Christ until the very years of Patriarch Nikon, with this latter “was enclosed in a well of heresy and there transformed into another nasty element, that is, into a graceless heretical ordination,” and then, after two hundred years, “from a soulless stone, this is from heretical ordination, through the appeal of Metropolitan Ambrose, the great source of the Orthodox priesthood was kindled again and came into being.”
This was the essence of the proof Paul offered to resolve my question regarding the newly established schismatic hierarchy. At that time, I did not have such clarity of mind and information in sacred history and the dogmas of the Orthodox faith to understand all the lies and all the wickedness of the evidence proposed by Paul; on the contrary, I was completely carried away by its news and the soundness that seemed to me. It dispelled all my doubts regarding the new hierarchy, completely reconciled me with it, and from that time on I devoted myself entirely to serving the schism, in which I thought to see, thus, the true church with the legitimate God-established hierarchy.
Soon after this, I sealed my readiness to fully serve the schism by entering into monasticism and accepting the first sacred degree. The rite of tonsure was performed on me by the then Belokrinitsky Archimandrite Arkady (now Archbishop of Vaslui). In 1853, Metropolitan Kirill ordained him a deacon and in the same year, on October 28, he was elevated to the rank of archdeacon. I fulfilled this position under Kirill until 1855, when the unrest that arose after the death of Father Paul in the Belokrinitsky monastery prompted me to retire again into silence. At the beginning of 1856, having asked for dismissal from the Belokrinitsky monastery, I went across the Danube and then chose the Tisky monastery in Moldova to stay, where I lived in silence until 1857. At the end of this year, as a result of a triple invitation from Archbishop Anthony, with the blessing of Cyril, Onufry and other Belokrinitsky brethren, he went to Moscow in order to promote the spread and establishment of the schism in Russia.
Soon after arriving in Moscow, Anthony was ordained a priest and received from him the management of all hierarchical affairs in Russia, the management of which was entrusted to him; and on September 20, 1858, Anthony, with the complicity of Bishop Paphnutius of Kazan, appointed him a bishop to the Kolomna see, and all the church affairs of the Russian Old Believers remained in my charge, as before. Here, however, out of a duty of justice, I consider it not superfluous to explain that I decided to accept the bishopric after many and difficult hesitations; I shed many bitter tears the night before the dedication and after the dedication itself, during which one significant circumstance shook me to the depths of my soul: in the Gospel, opened on my head, bowed for ordination, the following words were read from the Savior’s parable about the prodigal son: “And he went and clung to the only inhabitant of that country: and he sent a swine to his village to feed.” (Luke 15:15) These words even then echoed in my heart, like the voice of God’s righteous judgment about the true meaning of the ministry to which I set out.
They struck me so strongly that I decided not to embark on any episcopal actions, even to abandon all participation in spiritual affairs, and only the strong and persistent requests of my ordainers, who advised me to leave the circumstances that troubled me to the fate of God, kept me, to my misfortune, from this good intention.
With the acceptance of the episcopate, I considered myself obliged to intensify my activities in favor of the schism, and with extreme regret and contrition of heart I must say that during the two years of my pseudo-bishop's service I caused much more harm to the Church of God than any of the schismatic bishops. When I performed them, not only schismatics, but even Orthodox Christians willingly gathered for church services, and I did not leave a single service without a sermon. Not limiting myself to Moscow, I spread my preaching to other places in Russia, partly through messages, partly by taking deliberate trips; the main place of my preaching was Guslitsa, which was given by Anthony to my exclusive charge. Here, for the most part, the success of my preaching was great.
As some consolation to myself, I can at least say that my service, so harmful to the Church of God, as a schismatic bishop, was short-lived. In 1860, embarrassed by various arbitrary actions of Anthony, from which no measures I used could restrain him, and on the other hand, feeling the multiplication of my own sins, of which my conscience loudly reminded me, I decided to leave my department, and since then, I can say with special consolation, I have never performed imaginary sacred rites. However, my service to the schism did not stop with this; it has only now taken on a slightly different form.
Personally, I no longer appeared to the people with my sermon; but in the company of several friends, like me, zealots of the schism, I made the most extensive plans for its spread and strengthening: we proposed to found schools for the education of schismatic youth, to found schismatic societies and churches in various foreign cities, to compose works in favor of the schism and distribute them in the largest possible number of copies, through the foreign press. For all these enterprises there were ready means, and relations with the necessary persons were already open, when the merciful and wondrous Lord in His destinies was finally pleased to restrain my daring hand from these new sacrilegious attacks on His holy church, sending down the first ray of His grace into the dark depths of my soul darkened by schism.
This saving betrayal of the right hand of the Almighty was revealed to me initially in 1862. It was then that we were occupied with the enterprise of publishing books to maintain the schism. One of the zealots earnestly asked me that for this purpose I would process with all care and set out in the proper order that teaching about the temporary cessation of hierarchy in the Church of Christ, according to the educational example of the Old Testament Church, which was conveyed to us by our respected teacher (Paul), which constantly served as the main subject of my own preaching and really constitutes the main basis for the current schismatic hierarchy. I did not refuse to fulfill his request, and in order to give my work the possible completeness and thoroughness, I began a thorough study of sacred history according to the guidance of the Bible itself and the outline of biblical history compiled by your Eminence.
Step by step I traced the history of the Old Testament church from the legislation of Sinai to the appearance of Christ the Savior in the world and, to my great amazement, I did not find in it any traces of that cessation of the church and the divinely established priesthood, which our teacher Paul and I followed with such zeal preached; This sermon of ours revealed so many historical, chronological and dogmatic inconsistencies that it necessarily had to lose all its meaning and all its significance. With an unbearable heartache, I noticed that the very foundation on which we dreamed of establishing our church and hierarchy was crumbling into dust.
Isolated from everything around me, I spent many days and months in intense reflection about my previous doubts and perplexities that arose with new strength and, with the help of the saving right hand of the Heavenly Father, I finally got the opportunity to say with a clear consciousness and sincere conviction of my heart that hitherto we had contained the truth in untruth, that the true Church of Christ was not preserved in schism with its false hierarchy, that we must seek it and can only find it in the fence of Orthodoxy.
Thus, the same teaching about the two-century cessation of the sacred hierarchy according to the educational example of the Old Testament Church, which once, in the time of my youth, finally confirmed me in the schism and made me its most ardent supporter and most zealous preacher, it also, in the more mature years of my life, led to the conviction that it is necessary to break all ties with the schism and seek salvation in the only guardian of the truth - the holy Orthodox Church of Christ. From now on, I could, with complete impartiality and clarity of thought accessible to me, consider all those essentially important questions regarding the Old Believers that occupied me in the past and which are inherent in every Old Believers who have not completely lost their conscience and sense of truth - what are the questions: about the use of simple oil in the sacrament of anointing, about the celebration of the Eucharist on unconsecrated antimensions, and so on.
Now I fully appreciated the ungodly thought of our teacher Paul, supposedly the power of the sacrament of anointing lies not in the consecrated world, but in the position of the seal of the sacrament - in the mark of the cross, whether it will be filled with myrrh, or water, or another substance. Having thus subjected to a thorough analysis the teachings of the famous founder of the new schismatic hierarchy, I then decided to carefully consider the charter of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis, compiled by him in 1841, at the request of the Austrian government, or the presentation of the teachings of the Lipovansk faith, on which the hierarchy itself is based, with the approval of the government. It is so respected by the Old Believers and we have acquired such an important meaning for it that we intended to publish it in many copies for use in those schools that we intended to found. But in this charter, which I had read many times and with great reverence, now, to my extreme surprise, I found many thoughts that were impious and, in all fairness, I must say, heretical.
A careful analysis of Pavlov’s “rules,” to which I devoted a lot of time and which I am still engaged in, put the last decisive barrier between me and the schism, between my present and my past. Internally, I severed all ties with the schism and, without hesitation, spoke about this to my former collaborators and participants in plans to spread the Old Believers; I submitted to their own judgment everything that I had come to through the difficult and long process of an impartial search for truth in the dark abysses of schism, and if, in their opinion, I had fallen into error, I sincerely asked them to convince me of this with clear evidence. Some of them left me with grief and not without anger; others, without interrupting relations with me, are still nourished by the hope of finding in me over time the former fighter for the interests of the schism; but to my consolation, there were also some of my brethren who reacted with sincere sympathy to my convictions, finding in them a solution to their own serious and long-standing perplexities.
The time when the inner change I described took place in me was, in fairness, I must say, a significant era in the modern history of the schism: it was the time of the publication of the district message, which I recognize as the weapon that cut through the two-century stinking scab of the schism. It brought to the surface so many outrageous and varied phenomena lurking in the depths of the so-called Old Believers that many of its most devoted admirers are ready to turn away from it indignantly. Looking carefully at these ugly phenomena in the schism, which literature itself exposed to the whole world, I found in them new food for the questions that occupied me at that time, regarding the Old Believers, and a new justification for the solution to these questions that I came to - they even more confirmed me in the thought that not in the schism, but in Orthodoxy and only in it alone is the true Church of Christ found.
On the other hand, the publishers and defenders of the district message in my research found support and clarification of those thoughts that, although not entirely decisively and unconditionally, were expressed in the message. We thus formed a small society of people who were looking for a way out of the suffocating environment of schism that had become unbearable for us: to this society, besides me, belonged Bishop. Onuphry Brailovsky - vicar of the Belokrinitsky Metropolitan, bishop. Khustin of Tulchin, Hieromonk Joasaph of the Belokrinitsky Monastery, Archdeacon of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis Filaret, Protodeacon of Archbishop Anthony Kirill Semenov and some others. After frequent and frank consultations, we finally adopted a decisive and indispensable intention, completely abandoning the schism, to seek complete and complete union with the Holy Orthodox Church, without offering any conditions on our part for this, which we already had the good fortune to declare in writing and orally to Your Eminence.
With complete frankness and in observance of the strictest truth, having laid out before us, gracious archpastor and father, the consistent course of my upbringing, confirmation and stay in schism, as well as the internal rebirth that took place in me by the grace of God, I dare to once again turn to your Eminence with a filial request to accept me into the fold of the Orthodox Church of Christ. Bringing to mind the significant event that struck me during my illegal elevation to the episcopacy, I dare to cry out to you, the great saint of the true Church of Christ, in the words of the repentant prodigal son: “Father, those who have sinned in heaven and before you, and your son is no longer worthy to be called, make me as one of your hired servants” (Luke 15:18-19 )".
Right. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
The pardon of these persons was reported to Emperor Alexander II, who wrote the following significant resolution about them on May 20, 1865: “God grant that their appeal be sincere. If they really join Orthodoxy, then I authorize not to subject them to any punishment for their previous false and even criminal actions. “May this serve as an example for the other lost sheep of our Orthodox Church.” 143
May 21. Telegram from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, on the question of whether Anglican clergy should be allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries without joining them to Orthodoxy
A.P. Akhmatov, in a telegram dated May 20, 1865, No. 3487, asked Metropolitan Philaret: what to answer and whether from himself or from the Synod to the telegram of the Belgrade consul, who asked: is it possible for an Anglican priest who accepted the creed, but does not leave his church, to be allowed to receive communion on the day of the Holy Trinity at his request, and if so, then as a layman, or as a priest, since the Metropolitan 144 refused this without asking the advice of the Synod.
The refusal is fair. It is impossible for a priest or a layman to be in unity with two churches that are not in unity. This is announced in a note recently sent about Palmer. The answer is from you after a conference with the bishops.
May 21, 1865 6 a.m. 145 .
May 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Serene Highness Prince A.A. Suvorov, with feedback on the issue of enacting the proposed regulations for the management of the Moscow Preobrazhensky almshouse
Prince A. A. Suvorov, in a letter dated August 25, 1864, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that he, as a full member of the council of the imperial philanthropic society, taking part in the fate of the Moscow Transfiguration almshouse, presented to the council of the society “about some very important, and arousing fair complaints from the Moscow Old Believers, disorder of the said almshouse.” Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore, as the main trustee of the society, paying protective attention to the instructions of Prince A. A. Suvorov, eliminated the said disorders and ordered, in accordance with the highest will, to draw up a special position for the management of the Preobrazhensk Old Believer almshouse. Knowing that the resolution of this matter could not take place without the consideration and approval of Metropolitan Philaret, the prince, forwarding to him “the regulation on the management of the Moscow Transfiguration Almshouse,” asked for his consent to put the proposed regulation into effect.
Having not received a response from Metropolitan Philaret, Prince A. A. Suvorov, in a letter dated January 4, 1865, again asked the Moscow archpastor to inform him of the “requested notification.”
On the first letter from Prince A.A. Suvorov, Metropolitan Filaret noted: “1865. May 19. 1) Write to the chief trustee with the forwarding of the journal and petitions of the schismatics. 2) To His Serene Highness Prince A.A. A letter has been sent to Suvorov."
Your Serene Highness, Dear Sir.
First of all, I must ask your Lordship for forgiveness for delaying the response to your most respectful letter, dated August 25, 1864, about the affairs of the Preobrazhensky almshouse. This was due to the fact that the state of my health and strength is far from meeting the demands of business, and, perhaps, partly because it is not easy to decide to express opinions that disagree with the opinions of deeply respected persons.
But I found myself in the unfortunate necessity of deciding on this, and presenting my thoughts not only to your lordship, but also to your Eminence, the chief trustee of the imperial philanthropic society. I present them to you in this list from my relationship with the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod, dated the 19th day of this May, No. 47 146.
Invoking you the blessing of God, with perfect 147
May 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, on Moldovan church affairs
Transmitted to me on May 22 (No. 2566), two letters from the Ecumenical Patriarch show the sad state of church affairs in Moldova, and the attitude of the great Church of Constantinople towards them is also disappointing.
His Holiness the Patriarch speaks to Prince Kuza 148 in the spirit of power, and not of meek advice and persuasion. If the prince does not listen to advice: this is regrettable; however, you can still continue intercourse and still look for means and aids to convince. But if he disobeys the authorities, then the authorities are offended, and must either admit their powerlessness, or proceed to church condemnation and punishment; but one can hardly expect any other consequence from this than an increase in discord, confusion and division.
Moreover, from the letter to the prince it is not clear what he wants: he points to a reasoning that is in the hands of Archimandrite Eustathius Cleovulus, and the content of which is unknown.
The Patriarch begs "the prince to know that the apostolic word: against the pricks of the enemy, can actually mean war against the rules of the church." It was not relevant, not clear, not gentle and offensive.
What need and benefit was it for the patriarch to confuse hierarchy with the constitution, and dogmatize about “the combined power of the prince, hierarchs, ministers and chambers.”
“Where the ticket and the cathedral broadcast: what does one transferred point of one metropolitan mean, the voice of a minister, a deputy or the prince himself.” If His Holiness the Patriarch had the power to defend this judgment with deeds, then it would be better to express himself with greater modesty.
The editor of his message did a bad service to the patriarch.
If the patriarch, in modest but convincing terms, had asked the prince to refrain from approving the draft law on the Moldovan-Vlachian hierarchy, and, for the sake of preserving peace and church unity, had arranged a meeting about this matter with the great church to agree on it with church rules: such a demand could have been supported by the Russian envoy to the Porte: and, perhaps, the prince would have taken the path of religious prudence and caution.
But that moment flew away. The patriarch's harsh letter is more capable of irritating than of bringing reason to the prince (which was revealed by the expulsion of the patriarch's messenger from the prince's possessions); and, probably, this makes it difficult for the messenger to promote the good end of the church matter.
One may ask: how should the Russian Church look at this? Now with silence only, because no one calls forth words, and not much benefit is foreseen.
May 29. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the appointment of one supernumerary priest to the Assumption Cathedral
I have an extract from the journal of the secret committee on matters of schism, January 15, 1832, signed by Secretary of State Taneyev 150 and marked by the hand of Metropolitan Seraphim of blessed memory 151 as follows:
A note was submitted, by order of the highest order, which, among other things, proposes:
“For each diocesan bishop, to appoint, at his choice, for special assignments, 2 archimandrites or archpriests, who can be used by missionaries to schismatics, by deputies during investigations, as well as for inspecting churches and religious schools and monitoring the clergy.”
The committee, taking into account the example of the Greek church, in which there were periodeuts, that is, visitators, or missionaries, and the highest command personally handwritten by the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I, March 14, 1829: “one should try to increase the number of missionaries, preparing them in advance,” decided to allow the spiritual members to draw up rules for bringing it, albeit gradually, into execution.
The Emperor deigned to write in his own hand on this journal: “I agree.”
The implementation of this was made difficult by the fact that for a reliable experiment, it was necessary to find a person with the primary ability and zeal to influence schismatics, arrange for him to be, and make it somewhat less inconvenient, with obvious inconvenience sometimes associated with the short-term wandering of the clergyman through villages.
Now the opportunity opens up to make a private experiment in this, rather free from difficulties, with the hope of benefit, and, moreover, with the goal of more accurately determining from experience to what extent the long-presumed institution can be useful, and by what rules it should be limited.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Nikolai Maksimovich Gaidovsky-Potapovich 152, more than 60 years old from birth, but strong in strength, without a family, came to me with a petition in which he writes that from his childhood he saw examples of piety in the lives of his parents, and upon entering a military school he was engaged in reading the Word of God, and used the guidance and advice of the teacher of the law, Hieromonk Photius 153. Currently, after long-term self-examination, with the help of God, he has a sincere desire to devote himself to serving the Orthodox Church in the spiritual rank. To this, he adds that having a well-deserved pension, he has the opportunity to support himself without any material assistance from his spiritual superiors.
From a pleasant conversation with him, I saw in him the qualities required for church service, and especially a zealous desire to instill the truth of Orthodoxy and the pure rules of Christian life to those who are misled by the faith and unsettled in life. And therefore I believe: accept him into the clergy, ordain him to the priesthood, with inclusion in the clergy of the cathedral, occupy him first with the performance and sufficient understanding of church services, and then entrust him with:
1) Missionary action in those places where schism is widespread or is beginning to spread.
2) The exhortation of the Orthodox who do not fulfill the duty of confession and communion of the holy mysteries, where there are many of them, and the exhortations of the local clergy do not achieve their goal.
3) Inquiry into certain denunciations and complaints concerning churches and clergy, in some emergency cases.
To carry out such assignments, as needed, provide him with benefits from the unpaid sums of the Moscow department.
Since this is being undertaken not as a permanent institution, but as a private temporary experience, I do not consider this matter to require legislative regulation: but I find it necessary only to ask the permission of the Holy Synod to add one priest to the clergy of the cathedral, and to use him for the above-mentioned assignments.
Which I most respectfully ask for permission from the decree.
The Holy Synod, by a resolution dated June 2, 1865, decided: having allowed the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow to appoint one priest to the clergy of the Moscow Cathedral in excess of the set required by the staff of the cathedral, to let the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow know by decree, adding that to the assignment to this priest of the assignments proposed by him, the Eminence, depending, according to 17, 21, 67, 167 and 168 art. mouth spirit. consistory at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, the Holy Synod finds no obstacles 154.
June 4–11. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with his opinion on the letter from the archpriest of the embassy church in London, E.I. Popov, which contains information about the then situation of the question raised in the Anglo-American Church about union with the Orthodox
A. P. Akhmatov, forwarding, in relation, dated May 17, 1865, No. 2458, to Metropolitan Philaret a letter from the archpriest of the embassy church in London, E. I. Popov, dated April 15 of that year, with information about the then situation of the issue raised in the Anglo-American Church about unification with the Orthodox, asked for feedback on this subject.
To this the Metropolitan answered:
In a letter to Fr. Archpriest Popov, dated April 15, 1865, especially the following testimony attracts attention:
I. According to the stories, the question of the unity of churches arose among the Americans, not as a result of a deeply recognized need, but more as a result of a momentary passion.
II. The public is not prepared.
III. Something of a reaction began.
IV. The number of Orthodox Christians there is determined not by hundreds, but by dozens, except in California.
V. In the church magazine (No. 634) four questions are proposed, of which the first is as follows:
“What is higher, the power of the ecumenical council, or the power of the national church?”
To this it is impossible not to notice that with a person who proposes this question, and, therefore, considers it possible to answer on either side, it is hardly possible to talk about the unity of churches. This is as if someone asked: what is higher, state power, or the power of one of the private areas of the state? Such questions can only arise in the United States, from the spirit of the regulations there. – And what is a national church? The Kingdom of Christ is of this world. In one nationality, in one kingdom, there is more than one separate or private church; and one church can be in several nationalities, in many kingdoms. The Ecumenical Council is the expression of the universal Church. Is it necessary to ask: is the private church not higher than the universal one?
VI. Here is the fourth question: “Do the laity and the clergy have the power to release from the Nicene symbol: filioque, without even waiting for the decision of the general convention”?
And to this it is impossible not to notice that the question is posed in such a way that it is as if they are looking not for means, but for obstacles to the unity of churches. The original intact Nicene symbol does not contain the word: filioque; therefore, there is nothing to release. The Filioque is an addition to the Nicene universal symbol, made much later than its composition by some people and some private churches. The latest, non-ecumenical, private addition to the universal symbol has the power not to accept, or to postpone, anyone who wants to adhere to the universe, and especially the private church. What is the need to raise a question that resolves itself to an ecumenical council?
It is a pity that the American answers to four questions remained unknown.
VII. The American preacher finds the advantage of his church in its independence from the state. We, he says, can “make such concessions as cannot be allowed to the English Church.”
Others argue that the church, without union with the state, will soon fragment.
From the remark of the American preacher it follows that the rapprochement of the Orthodox Church with the American and English is not equally convenient.
VIII. The American magazine admits that the filioque cannot be proven by anything, neither by Scripture nor by the ancient fathers of the church."
IX. In England, religious-unionist movements disagree and contradict each other.
X. Dr. Fraser proposes a project of confession of faith, through which he wants to enter into unity with the Eastern Church, without separating from his own.
Having recognized the Nicene symbol in its original form, he adds: “I do not anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.”
Under the guise of a meek view of Western dogma, he reserves the idea in his favor not to deny it. This means: I recognize the Eastern dogma, and do not deny the Western one. Where is the unity here?
He further says: “I anathematize those who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent to us from the Son.”
Who is he cursing? Which Christian, of any denomination, denies that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and is sent to us from the Son? Nobody. It seems that the compiler of the conciliatory confession of faith thought to satisfy the severity of the Eastern Church by uttering a curse; but he pronounced a curse not on heresy, but on the air.
He accepts six ecumenical councils, “does not allow the worship of icons - this is idolatry”; but allows “reverence in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils.”
The word: idolatry, he inserted here, seems to be more to satisfy his side than out of real need. The dogma of the Seventh Ecumenical Council recognizes the honoring of icons as “respectful worship” and denies “worship of God” to them, that is, idolatry.
The compiler of the confession allows for the veneration of icons in accordance with the definitions of the councils. But the seventh ecumenical council speaks about this, which it does not recognize: how can we understand it?
XI. How desirable is the union of churches! But how difficult it is for the movement towards it to soar with a pure desire for truth, completely free from attachment to pre-occupied opinions.
June 4, 1865 June 11,155
June 8, July 10. Note by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “about the canonical “diagnome” of 28,156 bishops, in Constantinople, in April 1865, and about the subsequent incidents and acts”
(1865, June 8, July 10)
I. It is difficult to make a definitive judgment about the canonical “diagnome” when before your eyes there is only an extract from it and an incomplete text of it. Perhaps the brevity of the extract gives him, or increases, an appearance of uncertainty, unsteadiness, and indirect attitude to the matter.
II. The diagnosis begins: secular power issues changeable laws, and spiritual power makes unchangeable laws. There is truth here; and there is a degree of arbitrariness. And secular power has unchangeable laws, such as the law to be faithful and obey the supreme power. And the church has some decisions that can be changed, such as, for example, the decision on an independent synod of the church of the Greek kingdom is a change in the previous position of this part of the Orthodox hierarchy. Such inaccuracy in the presentation of the beginning can give weapons to opponents. If the great church deigns to add to its judgment the consonant judgment of other Orthodox churches, then they will be placed in a difficulty between the desire to maintain unanimity with it and between the fear of harm if they confirm the principle unsatisfactorily established. Wouldn’t it be more consistent with the goal not to present inaccurate theories at all, but to directly establish ourselves on the Word of God and the rules of the church?
III. Diagnome rebels against the appointment of the metropolitan as chairman of the political assembly. Was it necessary to include this in the dispute? Is it necessary to exhaust strength in the struggle for an object of dubious and not of the highest importance, while strength is needed for incomparably most important ones? – The Metropolitan, the chairman of the political assembly, if he had retained the way of thinking and acting characteristic of his rank, could he not here reinforce the Orthodox against the Westerners?
IV. Diagnome expresses surprise that the people, ministers, deputies and senators gave the prince the power to appoint and dismiss priests (it seems that the law does not mention priests) and bishops.
Will wonder have the power to change the prince's way of thinking for the better? Wouldn't it be more reliable to rely directly on church rules, so as to act to convince, without insult and irritation?
The first apostolic canon commands that a bishop should be appointed 157 by two or three bishops. The Moldavian-Vlachian government, as an Orthodox one, will, without a doubt, recognize this rule as mandatory for itself and, of course, will not pass a law so that instead of two or three bishops, two or three ministers will appoint a bishop. But the same government, because of the same character of the Orthodox government, must equally recognize for itself the fourth rule of the first ecumenical council, which commands that a bishop be elected and appointed to all bishops of the region, and, if necessary, to three, gathered in one place, with the consent of others through letters. (The reference to letters makes it clear that we are talking about election).
Therefore, it cannot be denied that the law regarding the election of bishops as ministers and not as bishops does not agree with the ecumenical rule. So, the Orthodox character with which the Moldovan government is adorned should prompt it to revise the law and harmonize the election of bishops with church rules. This should also be prompted by the character of a freedom-loving person, who does not tend to violate freedom of conscience: and it would be seriously violated if the metropolitan were forced to ordain as bishops people elected in violation of church rules.
With such reasoning, close to the point, to appeal to the prudence and conscience of the prince and the people, it seems, it would be more reliable than with surprise and a theoretical beginning.
V. To continue to consider the extraction of the diagnosis would be a lot of work and little benefit, due to the vague expression of objects in it and the lack of precise indications of church rules.
VI. That the action of Archimandrite Kleovul was not skillful, this has already been said and one cannot but agree with this.
VII. Metropolitan Nifont's letter does not give hope to the great church. He ascribes to the Romanian Church an ancient and complete independence. On the contrary, the diagnosis says that this church is subordinate to the great church, and that this has been established for centuries. But neither side takes the trouble to prove what they say. How will other intermediate churches sort out their dispute if the great church demands it?
VIII. If she wishes to add to her judgment the voices of other Orthodox churches, then it is desirable and necessary that her judgments be definite and precisely based on the Word of God and church rules; that they may be pacified and softened with meekness, patience and love. If strict judgments are pronounced and are not met with obedience: will there be any benefit? Isn't this an insult to the Orthodox Church? Is it not joy and encouragement for her opponents? Is this a new opportunity to excommunicate her children? Time forces the Orthodox Church to speak to the prophet: many will howl against me. May those who strive for her be skillful in defending her. Let them protect the integrity of the church of God with all their might. Let them not put barriers to her peace, fighting through force for external, private, human rights.
June 8, 1865 July 10,158.
June 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about Hieromonk Agapit
Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir.
By your Excellency’s predecessor, dated March 17 of this year, No. 1195, it was required from me, in order to propose to the Holy Synod, information: 1) does the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius recognize Hieromonk Agapit as capable of holding the position of caretaker of the Orsha theological school and rector of the Orsha monastery, 2) do I agree to move him from the Lavra of St. Sergius?
1) Hieromonk Agapit is considered capable of the position of rector; although in the monastery he was under supervision and guidance mainly in relation to monastic life, however, based on the degree of his education, one can notice in him the ability to manage the school 159.
2) Of the monastics of the St. Sergius Lavra, over the course of 30 years, 24 people were taken partly into rectorships, partly into missionary positions, and a significant part of those who would be useful for the most important ministries within the monastery. Thus, the Lavra carried out the work of educating them and preparing them for useful activities, and the benefits went to others. In addition, frequent examples of this kind could introduce the temptation of covetousness into the brethren of the Lavra.
However, since the idea of leadership has already been submitted to Hieromonk Agapit, I do not pose any obstacles to his removal from the Lavra, and express my consent to this.
With true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
No. 299. June 16, 1865 160
June 20. Resolution of Metropolitan Philaret on the case of some members of the Austrian false hierarchy joining Orthodoxy
1) The Holy Church looks with meek compassion at those who, not differing from her in the essential dogmas of the faith, or only obscuring their pure understanding through ignorance, alienate her for names and rituals, and deprive themselves of sanctification from the descent of the Holy Spirit and from the Apostles successively abiding in her. And therefore, she joyfully accepts those who turn to her, both those who absolutely unconditionally join her, and those who at the same time want to preserve the use of rituals, according to the special well-known rules of the same faith. The reasons why these petitioners choose the latter are worthy of attention. May the Divine Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, lead after them into his saving fence others who are deprived of true sanctification, unity and protection.
2) So, let the holy churches be accepted into communion, on the rules of common faith.
3) Their joining must be carried out according to the established order.
4) Three of them, who were not anointed with holy chrism in the Orthodox Church (since those baptized outside of it could not have true chrismation), will be honored with holy chrismation, and it will be performed according to the ancient printed book.
5) At the same time, they will receive monastic clothing with a blessing and thereby be established in the monastic rite.
6) Due to the poverty of my strength, His Eminence Bishop of Dmitrov, will accept the labor of accomplishing this.
7) Since there is currently no Edinoverie monastery in the Moscow diocese, the foundation of such a monastery, or at least a monastery, will be discussed in the future.
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 161
June 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the accession of some members of the false hierarchy to Orthodoxy
According to the highest permission of His Imperial Majesty, announced to me by the secret attitude of the former Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, from the 31st day of last May (No. 33), members of the schismatic false hierarchy, the so-called bishops, Onuphrius and Paphnutius, Hieromonk Joasaph and Archdeacon Philaret, after satisfactory testing, instruction and preparation, this June 23 days in the Trinity Edinoverie Church, before the liturgy, by the Right Reverend Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, according to the rites, they were annexed to the Orthodox Church, on the rules of Edinoverie, and were confirmed in the monastic rank only, and those of them, over whom true anointing was not performed in the Orthodox Church at one time, were honored with this sacrament 162.
During this time of testing, Hierodeacon Melchizedek came to me with a request, also to join the Orthodox Church, the so-called White-Krinitsa Metropolis. And this one, after testing, and after the certification of Onuphrius and Paphnutius, together with them was added to the Orthodox Church, according to the rules of the same faith, and was confirmed in the monastic rank only.
This event, not preceded by any announcement, nevertheless attracted a multitude of people to the Trinity Church, among whom were schismatics, and one member of the false hierarchy, who with tears revealed the impression made by the blessed and gracious priesthood on his soul.
24 days, in the same church the newly joined ones received the Holy Mysteries. Before this, one of them, namely Paphnutius, convincingly asked that his spiritual father be the Most Reverend Leonidas, who, on my advice, took it upon himself.
There is no doubt that the schism in these people has lost a significant part of its false hierarchy. They conscientiously adhered to the schism, out of ignorance and sinful conviction, and zealously acted in its favor, especially Paphnutius, distinguished by natural abilities and curiosity 163; but when, in the strife, unrest, and temptations of the schismatic false hierarchy, they clearly saw the inconsistency of the schism both in the teaching and in the church structure, and through their own research they completed their disillusionment with it: then they just as conscientiously and sincerely turned to unity with the true Orthodox Church, leaving the honors and benefits of their position in the schism.
The event is comforting and connected with good hope for the Orthodox Church; but at the same time imposing an important concern on the Moscow diocesan authorities.
It is desirable that those who know the truth of Orthodoxy try to open its light to others, and especially to those whom their non-Orthodox service has removed from it, and with whom they can enter into relations more conveniently than with others elsewhere, on the occasion of previous relations. So they need to be in Moscow, or near Moscow. But there is no Edinoverie monastery in the Moscow diocese. They are now cramped in the cathedral miracle monastery 164, and do not have, in the vicinity, a church of the same faith, which is needed both for them and for their activities. We need a male Edinoverie monastery, or at least a monastery, near Moscow.
How to do this? - I am carefully seeking a solution to this issue in order to submit something definitive for the permission of the Holy Synod, with the boldness of hope for the highest patronage of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, patron of the Orthodox Church.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
No. 58. In the Gethsemane monastery. June 28, 1865
The attitude of Metropolitan Philaret was reported to the Sovereign Emperor on July 6, 1865, in Peterhof, and the subsequent highest command was communicated on the same date to the Eminence of Moscow 165.
The opening of a male Edinoverie monastery at the Transfiguration Cemetery in Moscow followed on May 16, 1866 (Dushep. Cht. 1866 11, Izvestia and Notes, p. 44).
June 30. Instruction to a priest in relation to the marriage of an Orthodox bride with a person of a different Christian faith, without a written obligation to raise the children of this marriage in Orthodoxy
Rule 72 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says that it is not worthy for an Orthodox husband to have intercourse with a heretical wife, nor for an Orthodox wife to have intercourse with a heretic husband.
It can be assumed that the severity of this rule is directed primarily at such heretics whose heresy is combined with blasphemy against the Divine, such as the Arians and Doukhobors.
Canon 10 of the Council of Laodicea somewhat moderates its severity when it says: Church members must not, indiscriminately, copulate their children in marriage with heretics.
Consequently, an exception to the rule may be allowed due to a special analysis of the circumstances.
Rule 14 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council does not reject marriages that have already taken place with non-believers, but only demands that the children of the latter be brought into Orthodoxy, and allows marriage with non-believers when the person marrying an Orthodox person promises to convert to the Orthodox faith, as a result of which, as a matter of course, the children must be baptized and raised in Orthodoxy.
While fulfilling with due obedience the leniency required of you by the highest authority, you must at the same time protect yourself from disobedience to church rules.
Therefore, you must, in good time, before the marriage, on the basis of the above rules, explain to the Orthodox bride that the duty of her conscience will be a good example of piety and a meek word to dispose the spouse she has chosen to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church or, at least, to ensure that the children are baptized and raised in Orthodoxy.
July 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the upcoming relations of the great church with the government of the united principalities, regarding the publication of new church laws by Prince Kuza
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in response, dated July 17, 1865, No. 3417, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the dispatch of the Russian envoy in Turkey, dated June 8/20, No. 152, with attachments, asked the Metropolitan to inform him of his opinion on the contents of the sent papers.
A copy of the dispatch of the Russian envoy to Constantinople, dated 8/20 of last June, No. 152, with attachments regarding the relations of the great church with the government of the united principalities, regarding the publication by Prince Kuza of new church laws, forwarded to me, dated 1 day of this July (No. 3417), with this I return, except for the translation of the diagnome, which I retain as it may be necessary, and as not the one you need, with the French original returned.
No. 60. Gethsemane monastery. July 10, 1865
Neither the opinion nor the annexes were preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret 167.
July 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the disposal of income from estates belonging to the German Lavra in Moldova in favor of the Novonyametsky monastery, in Bessarabia
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated July 15, 1865, No. 3689, asked Metropolitan Philaret to provide feedback on the contents received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: a) letters from the manager of the Novonyametsky monastery, in Bessarabia, Hieromonk Theophan, dated June 12, 1865 and b) two relations of the Right Reverend of Chisinau 168, No. 1434 and 3947, with petitions from the same Fr. Theophan and four monks who left Moldova for Bessarabia, about the protection and preservation of the Romanian Church from suppression by secular power.
Transmitted to me, in the presence of your Excellency, dated July 15, 1865, No. 3689, a letter from the manager of the Novonyamets monastery, in Bessarabia, Hieromonk Theophan, dated June 12, 1865, and two letters from the Bishop of Chisinau, Nos. 1434 and 3947, with petitions from the same Fr. Feofan and four monks who left Moldova for Bessarabia, about the protection and preservation of the Romanian Church from suppression by secular power, I return this.
1) that the existence of the Novonyametsky monastery is highly approved;
2) that the petition of the trustees of the cathedral of the Nyama Lavra, although not given a more complete form, does not, however, give reason to doubt that it expresses the will of the cathedral;
3) that the government of the principalities, which took the income of the monastery at its own, even arbitrary, disposal, cannot challenge the rights of the Russian government, approve the desire of the petitioners regarding the purpose of the income of the Novonyametsky monastery;
In my opinion, the Holy Synod can submit to its highest discretion:
1) that, in accordance with the request, the income of the Novonyamets monastery, for special purposes made for some of them, be used in favor of the Novonyamets monastery, pending the discovery of circumstances that may require changes in this order, as well as the amount of savings from previous years;
2) that Hieromonk Theophanes be confirmed as the abbot of the Novonyametsky monastery;
3) so that his elevation to the rank of archimandrite should be made dependent on the consideration of his dignity and the continuation and success of his service 169.
July 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on permission for Academician Timm to remove drawings from institutions subordinate to the Holy Synod
Count D.A. Tolstoy, when proposed, dated June 24, 1865, No. 3286, presented to the Holy Synod: “A list from the vice-president of the Imperial Academy of Arts 170 about permission for Academician Timm, who is engaged in collecting materials for compiling drawings and paintings from Russian history, to make drawings in some institutions subordinate to the Holy Synod.
Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir,
Regarding your Excellency, dated June 10, No. 3054, it is stated that Academician Timm, who publishes the magazine “Art Sheet”, intending to start collecting materials for compiling drawings and paintings from Russian history of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, is petitioning for permission to study in some Moscow churches, in the patriarchal sacristy, in monasteries in the outskirts of Moscow, in Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra and in new Jerusalem.
As a result of this, Mr. Vice-President of the Academy of Arts asks to make an order to allow this artist to examine and draw from life everything that he considers necessary for himself in all places under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod.
A conclusion is required from me on this subject.
The conclusion must be reached through some considerations.
The law prohibits the depiction of sacred objects on household utensils. This particular rule is based on the general rule: do not mix sacred objects with secular ones, so as not to offend pious feelings, and so as not to weaken reverence for the sacred (as, for example, now, at the Moscow exhibition, there is a chased robe on the throne, and a samovar is placed on it, and a shell with cupids is placed next to the chalice).
If Mr. Academician Timm, having copied ancient sacred images, allowed a similar mixture of objects in his Artistic Sheet as indicated here, then this would not be good.
In sacristies, due to special circumstances, sometimes objects are stored that if published through drawings would not bring any benefit, but rather harm. Such, for example, in the synodal sacristy, the image of the Holy Trinity, removed from use and imitation (as the compiler thought), representing three closed faces with four eyes.
For these reasons, the petition of Mr. Academician Timm may receive the following decision:
1) Allow the synodal office and diocesan eminences to allow Academician Timm to copy in churches and monasteries such objects, the publication of which may be useful or harmless.
2) In cases of doubt, the abbots of churches and monasteries must ask, on special subjects, special permission from the diocesan bishop.
3) G. Academician Timm will undertake the obligation, in the event of publication of the drawings taken according to this, not to allow the publication to mix sacred objects with mundane and low ones.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, your most humble servant,
The Holy Synod, by definition dated July 14/August 11, 1863, decided: based on the considerations set out in the review of the Metropolitan of Moscow, the Holy Synod determines: 1) to allow him, the Right Reverend, and the Moscow Synodal Office to allow Academician Timm to examine and remove ancient drawings in Moscow churches, the patriarchal sacristy and the library, in the monasteries of the outskirts of Moscow, the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius and the new Jerusalem, so that: a) for his studies he chose such subjects, the publication of which through drawings could be useful or at least harmless; b) in cases of doubt, the abbots of the designated churches and monasteries asked, on special subjects, for special permission from their superiors; 2) give Academician Timm an obligation, in the event of publication of the removed drawings in the “Art Sheet”, not to allow the mixing of sacred objects with secular ones; about what permission to inform the Moscow synodal office and the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret by decrees, for those depending on their orders, and to allow the synodal chief prosecutor to notify Mr.
Vice President of the Academy of Arts; why should this definition be transferred to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod in the original 172.
July 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a review of the papers forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret about the false hieromonk Agapia
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in reference, dated July 15, 1865, No. 3694, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for his discretion, the attitude of our envoy in Greece received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated June 12 of the same year, No. 114, with a copy attached from Mr. Brail’s note to Count Bludov, dated the 10th of that month, about serving at the Russian mission church in Athens, former hierodeacon Agapia.
The letter, dated July 15, 1865, No. 3694, requires me to respond to the papers sent with him about the false hieromonk Agapia.
From the information collected about the false hieromonk Agapia, it was revealed that
1) that he served as a hierodeacon at the Russian mission in Athens, for reprehensible acts and for escaping responsibility before his superiors, according to the definition of the Holy Synod, he was expelled from the deacon and monastic order;
2) that later, on Athos, he received the priesthood from a certain Dorimedont;
3) but that the Athonite brethren did not allow him to serve in the priesthood, of course, due to the incorrectness of the ordination he received;
4) further, the bishop of Smyrna showed him patronage and provided him with an antimension, holy myrrh and church utensils.
Therefore, it would be fair and in accordance with church rules if the Holy Synod, directly or through the intermediary of its leading member, addressed the ecumenical patriarch: would not His Holiness consider it fair and consistent with the mutual protection of the churches from false brethren to do the following:
1) recognize Agapius as expelled from the priesthood and clergy.
2) To restrain the bishops staying on Athos from ordinations that are not protected by the correct examination of dignity and from violating the rules of the apostolic and church (Apostle 12, kar. 17).
3) Teach the bishop of Smyrna instructions to protect himself and his church from false brethren.
At the same time, it will be possible to mention the cases that have been repeatedly noticed before, that persons belonging to the region of the Holy Synod, on Athos, received both monasticism and priesthood and then came to Russia in the above-mentioned position and allowed themselves to commit illegal acts.
As for the American Church, the Russian Church has no obligation to inform it of the unpleasant news that it has accepted a false coin for a true one, unless further circumstances may require it.
The acts sent to me with an inventory are returned.
July 20, 1865 July 22,173.
July 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the former Roman Catholic pastor in Westphalia, Overbeck, who wanted to join Orthodoxy, maintaining the priesthood, despite his marriage, prohibited by Catholicism
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, dated July 17, 1865, reported: “Archpriest Popov 174,” sending me a translation of the first chapters of the work recently published in Halle, in German: “The Orthodox Catholic View of the Papacy, Jesuitism and Protestantism,” written by the famous Overbeck, a Roman Catholic, former once a pastor in Westphalia, writes to me that Overbeck intends to appeal to the Holy Synod with a request to accept him into communion with the Orthodox Church, without obliging him to conform to Eastern customs, so that he can found an Orthodox Catholic Church in the West. In addition, he is thinking of asking the Holy Synod to grant him permission to officiate as a priest, although he got married after his ordination.
“In informing me about this, Archpriest Popov asks for the leadership of the Holy Synod, according to which he could, with greater safety, determine his relationship with Mr. Overbeck.
“In the present state of this matter, considering it untimely to propose this to the Holy Synod, I have the honor to inform the discretion of your Eminence, asking for your archpastoral instructions regarding such a course of action regarding Mr. Overbeck, which, without in any way violating the holy foundations of our church, would not alienate from us this wonderful foreign theologian, clearly aware of the truth of our faith, but delayed by the ingrained delusion regarding its external manifestation in rituals. At the same time, I ask Mr. Popov to keep Overbeck from taking any official step on this subject for now.”
In response to this, the Metropolitan wrote:
The question is being asked: Mr. Overbeck’s desire to be accepted into communion with the Orthodox Church and the conditions that he connects with this desire.
He wishes that the Holy Synod would accept him into communion, “without obliging him to conform to Eastern customs.” This is such a vague requirement that there is no basis for giving a definite answer. An affirmative answer would be especially unsafe.
He wishes that the Holy Synod “grant him permission to officiate as a priest, although he entered into marriage after his ordination.”
Rules: Apostolic 26 and VI Ecumenical Council 6, allow those who have entered the clergy to marry before being ordained to the priesthood; but those who have been ordained are forbidden, and the last thing he adds: if he dares to do this, let him be cast out. So the Holy Synod cannot grant Mr. Overbeck the right to perform sacred acts out of obedience to the apostolic and ecumenical rules.
These rules are applied with greater force to Mr. Overbeck because he received the priesthood from the Roman Church, which teaches it with the indispensable condition of lifelong celibacy, and then violated this condition. According to general reasoning, violation of a condition damages the right acquired with that condition.
Nor does the rule of prudence allow one to show leniency to one person and, through that deviation from the rules, cause temptation to the Orthodox people and other Orthodox churches 175.
During this consideration of the issue, the works of Mr. Overbeck were not taken into account, due to lack of them in mind.
Of course, it would be comforting to accept into the communion of the Orthodox Church a theologian who, by the power of impartial research and determination, extricates himself from skillfully woven networks, and it would be a pity if he, having reached its doors, does not enter it. She will pray for the grace of God to complete her work with him and thereby fulfill her duty of love for church unity. The Orthodox Church owes its firmness and fidelity in preserving it from the beginning to the fact that those who did not want to know her before finally want to know her, begin to honor her and desire her communion.
Father Archpriest Popov could have warned Mr. Overbeck that his appeal to the Holy Synod does not promise success under the conditions he proposes, explaining this with the reasons stated above.
July 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the accession of the schismatic Bishop Sergius to Orthodoxy
In my regard to your Excellency, dated the 23rd day of last June (No. 58), it was mentioned that during the joining of the former schismatic two false bishops, one hieromonk and two hierodeacons, to the Edinoverie Church, there was someone from the false hierarchy in the church, and with tears he discovered the impression made on him by the blessed sacred rite 177 . It turned out that this was Sergius, the so-called Bishop of Tula among the schismatics. After several days of reflection, he turned to me with a request to join the Orthodox Church, based on the rules of unity of faith. And on this July 21st day he was annexed by His Grace Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, and, just like the previous ones, he was confirmed only in the monastic rank.
At the same time, the schismatic protodeacon Kirill Zagadaev, who, as a non-monastic, was retained in a lay rank, who also converted from the schism, was added, awaiting the opportunity to be ranked among the clergy of the same faith, according to his ability.
Bringing this to the attention of your Excellency, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, most humble sir, your most humble servant.
The letter from Metropolitan Philaret was reported by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to the Sovereign Emperor, July 31, 1865, and on it His Majesty wrote: “Very glad” 178.
July 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a response to the letters of the Moldavian Bishop Philaret Scriban of Stavropol, who asked for the intercession of the Russian government of the Romanian Church, in its difficult situation
Count D.A. Tolstoy, with respect, dated July 15, 1865, for No. 3693, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, in copies: a) reports of the Russian consul in Iasi, dated June 21 and 28, for Nos. 107 and 110 and b) letters from Bishop Philaret Scriban of Stavropol, dated June 19 and 27, addressed to the consul, in which the bishop asked the Russian government for intercession of the Romanian Church, in its difficult situation, in which it was placed by the new church laws of Prince Cuza. According to the forwarded papers, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod asked the Moscow saint to “honor” him with a recall. On the relation, at the top, it is marked by the Metropolitan: “July 27. Replies with a note.”
With respect to your Excellency, dated July 15, 1865, No. 3693, two letters from the Bishop of Moldova Philaret Scriban of Stavropol were forwarded to me, in copies, in which he asks the Russian government for the intercession of the Romanian Church in its difficult situation, and a response is required from me.
Accordingly, I am forwarding herewith a note on the requirements.
Let me note in passing that this zealot expresses (?) shades of the West. He calls the Ecumenical Patriarchate a “spiritual power,” and says that “the Ecumenical Patriarchate concentrates in itself the highest authority of the entire Orthodox Church.”
This means putting the idea of the patriarch into the idea of papists.
On the demands of His Grace Philaret, Bishop of Stavropol, for the maintenance of the Orthodox Church in the Danube principalities
I. His Eminence of Stavropol, through a letter to the consul, strongly appeals to the Holy Russian 179 Synod, to the Russian government, to immediately take decisive measures to maintain the Orthodox Church in the Danube principalities. He considers this a duty for Russia, a calling from God’s Providence.
II. Before indicating the required measures, he says that he and his brother contributed a lot and prepared the union of the Danube principalities. Then he says that the people of the principalities “recoiled from the path intended for them”; that “it is the fault of Prince Kuza, the mortal enemy of the Eastern Church”; that the prince in the laws he publishes places articles “towards the gradual destruction of Christian feeling among the people”; and “to the humiliation of the clergy”; that his government "charmed and blinded" the bishops, and they became "lawbreakers."
At the same time, he might have thought that, laying the beginning for the union of the principalities, he thereby laid, of course, without knowing, the beginning of the regrettable consequences that resulted from it, which he now describes; and that the principalities, remaining ununited, would probably have had rulers who would have acted in the spirit of Orthodoxy and nationality, and would have left the Eminence of Stavropol and those similar to him in degree to peacefully strive for the improvement of their people in religious, moral and mental respects, which would be a sure preparation for a better future. After this, he could still ponder whether it is truly possible for Russia to consider it a calling of Providence and a duty to correct the disorder that began with his improvident action.
III. What are the decisive measures that the Eminence of Stavropol demands? To appear before the Ecumenical Patriarch so that he defrocks the bishops of the united principalities, and to decisively demand from the guaranteeing powers the overthrow of Prince Cuza; if the guaranteeing powers do not agree to this, Russia must expel the prince with the Cossacks. Anyone who reads or hears this can judge how moderate these demands are, how easy to fulfill, how characteristic of a bishop.
IV. If these demands are brought to the All-Russian Synod, then the question of defrocking the bishops of the united principalities will be brought to its attention.
The Bishop of Stavropol, and the bishops accused by him, belong to the region of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Therefore, the bishop must present their guilt to the patriarch, and ask him for justice. Why does he choose the surrounding road through the Russian cathedral to the Ecumenical Patriarch?
The guilt of the bishops is not precisely determined. Therefore, the Russian Synod cannot pronounce a definitive judgment on them.
The Russian Synod can enter into a judgment about the bishops of the patriarchal region only when the patriarch proposes this to it at a meeting, or when extreme circumstances require it.
According to church rules, bishops can be condemned only when they are called, heard, found truly guilty, or when three summonses fail to appear to justify themselves against the accusation. Everything must be produced in the area to which they belong, and not in an outside one.
If it were possible to enter into a meeting about this with His Holiness the Patriarch, justice would have to be combined with prudence. This can be explained by the example of the Bulgarian bishops: Hilarion and Auxentius.
The Ecumenical Patriarch deprived them of their dignity: and what happened? On one Sunday, in one church in Constantinople, the patriarchal letter about defrocking them is read, and on another Hilarion officiates as a bishop. Consequently, justice turned out to be ineffective, and the dignity of the patriarch was insulted, and a disastrous example of contempt for the highest church authority was presented. If the patriarch had acted more moderately, without depriving Hilarion of his rank, but only excommunicating him and prohibiting him from serving in the priesthood: in this case, disobedience would have been less tempting, for he would not have been deprived of his rank. and there would have remained the opportunity to forgive him and accept him back into fellowship, and this would not have embittered the Bulgarians and would not have closed the door to reconciliation.
However, it is necessary to clarify the matter so that the correct judgment can be pronounced.
In another letter, the bishop of Stavropol 180 writes: “his beatitude (of course, the ecumenical patriarch), taking advantage of the power granted to him, can excommunicate the culprit of evil, Prince Kuza, from the church and put him under damnation. As soon as the people find out about this, all their plans and enterprises will fall by themselves and their further harmful actions will be paralyzed.”
A curse is not a weapon that can be played with, and for some people and times, it is not a weapon that can be used to win. These weapons are intended to protect the church and repel those who attack it, irreconcilable enemies and destroyers, and not to paralyze anyone’s political power.
Will the curse disarm Prince Kuza, or will it enrage him and turn him more decisively away from the east and rush to the west?
Can the Bishop of Stavropol answer this with the foresight with which they worked to unite the Danube principalities 181?
July 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the aspirations of the Orthodox communities of Syria to have Arab bishops
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in reference, dated July 24, 1865, No. 3833, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for his discretion, a copy received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the report of the Russian Consul General in Beirut, dated May 19 of that year, No. 65, regarding the aspirations of the Orthodox communities of Syria to have Arab bishops.
In this report, the Consul General, among other things, wrote that the Patriarch of Antioch, in place of the deceased Metropolitan Perovey, appointed the Arcadian Bishop Joseph, who was universally disliked not only by the Arabs, but also by the Greeks of Beirut, as the Metropolitan of Beirut. Meanwhile, the elders of the local Orthodox community turned to the patriarch with a request to cancel this order and appoint one of the three Arab candidates presented to them as metropolitan. The Patriarch, although he refused their request under various pretexts, but through the Russian consul general, temporarily entrusted the management of the Beirut metropolitanate to three bishops: Archimandrite Parenius, priest Gerasim (from the Arabs) and the chief of the secular elders, Boulos Trad; and subsequently, at the request of the people, he added Archimandrite Dzhibara to them.
Bearing in mind that the question of appointing a metropolitan to Beirut would be raised again in a few months, the consul general, asking the envoy in Constantinople for instructions, presented his views on this matter. The Arab population of Beirut, as the most educated in Syria, as a result of incessant relations with Europeans, begins to clearly understand the significance of its nationality. Meanwhile, the Greek clergy in Syria always tried to suppress the Arab element and strengthen the Greek and, caring for their own personal benefits, neglected the interests of their flock and treated them arrogantly and even with contempt. For all that, until now, the patriarch and Greek bishops had great influence on the religious and social affairs of the Syrian Orthodox Arabs. Given the dissatisfaction of the Arabs with the Greek clergy and the absence in it of persons worthy of holding a high position in the hierarchy, it is necessary to clearly define the modus operandi of Russian agents, because both the patriarch and the Arabs will demand Russia’s assistance.
By supporting the patriarch, they will positively alienate the majority of the community and force it to look for other paths to liberation. If, on the other hand, we take the side of the Arabs, then we will act against the power of the patriarch and in general against the entire Greek clergy, which must be admitted, has always been the main support of Orthodoxy in the East. Finally, the third course of action is to mediate between both parties. But this method is of little effect and, stopping the collision for a while, does not lead to any positive results. Meanwhile, the issue is maturing and requires a possible resolution as quickly as possible, and the patriarch himself considers the state of affairs very difficult.
In response to a letter from Count D.A. Metropolitan Tolstoy wrote:
With regard to your Excellency, dated July 24, 1865, No. 3833, a copy was forwarded to me from the report of our Consul General in Beirut, dated May 19, No. 65, regarding the replacement of the Beirut metropolitan see and the aspirations of the Orthodox communities of Syria to have Arab bishops.
It weighs three ways for Russian agents to act: 1) support the side of the patriarch, 2) support the side of the Arabs, 3) mediate. It is rightly noted that the first method would increase the displeasure and rebellion of the Arabs, and that the second would arouse the displeasure of not only the patriarch, but also the entire Greek clergy, and, therefore, would be unfavorable to the church world. But the third is also not approved, as it is ineffective and does not lead to positive results. What after this? Do nothing? That is, not to take any measures to avert a destructive collision? - This fourth is no better than three. It seems that it is necessary to use the third method, subordinating the first two to it. That is, it is necessary to mediate and admonish the patriarch about the danger of neglecting the desires of the Arabs, and to incline towards the fair satisfaction of their desires, and to convince the Arabs to try to achieve what they want with patience, in a peaceful and legal way.
July 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, with an opinion on the letter of the American Pastor Jung regarding the false hieromonk Agapius Goncharenko, received in a letter from the Archpriest of the Embassy Church in London Popov
I am returning the letter from Fr. Archpriest Popov, and appendix.
G. Jung tries to justify the trust he unfortunately placed in the unfortunate Agapius. But the very thing he cites to justify trust should have inspired mistrust. Could the letter from the prior of the monastery of Mount Pentelina serve as proof that Agapius is a priest? How did this letter come with the signature of the Metropolitan of Athens? Is it okay for the metropolitan to put under the prior’s letter the seal of the Greek synod, which is attached only to synodal acts? How can one not recognize a forgery here?
And praise to Agapius on behalf of the Metropolitan in tense and randomly sketched expressions: “I have great respect for him; - a respectable person in all respects of the word, distinguished by his impeccable behavior: - besides, etc. Doesn’t it make you ask: is this the Metropolitan’s voice authentic? But here is the true voice, not of just the metropolitan, but of the entire Greek synod, on the question of whether Agapius can conduct divine services.
“The Holy Synod does not have accurate information about the behavior of Agapius Goncharenko; but since his ordination to the archdeacon, performed on Mount Athos, is not sufficiently verified and is not in accordance with canonical rules, and since he has not acquired the rights belonging to a native of Greece, he cannot be given permission to perform divine services.”
This information was received officially from the Greek Ministry.
The Greek synod knew Agapius only as an archdeacon, and even then an incorrectly promoted one. Whether he was ordained a hieromonk, and by whom, remains unexplained. But this unknown is no longer very important now that he has been completely exposed and condemned himself to work in a mechanical establishment.
I don’t think there was any need to respond to those who accepted him in America. It’s unpleasant for us to say and for them to hear. 183
August 4th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on whether Vicar Kallinik Miklesko, appointed by the government of Prince Cuza as Metropolitan of Moldavia and diocesan leaders, should be recognized in their ranks
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in relation, dated July 21, 1865, No. 3247, asked Metropolitan Philaret to inform him of his opinion on the question raised by the Russian consul in Iasi: whether he should recognize the metropolitan and bishops appointed by the government of Prince Cuza.
Regarding your Excellency, dated July 21, 1865, No. 3247, it is stated that on the occasion of the appointment, on the basis of a new law, of the former vicar Kallinikos Miklesko as Metropolitan of Moldavia and the intention of Prince Cuza to also appoint diocesan leaders, the consul in Iasi presented the question: should he recognize the said metropolitan and bishops in these ranks?
I am required to give my opinion on the subject in question.
The question is inconvenient to resolve.
Not to recognize Callinicus in the episcopal rank is a matter of spiritual authority; and it is not convenient for the consul to pronounce this non-recognition when there is no definition of spiritual power in mind.
On the other hand, if the consul recognizes Kallinikos as a metropolitan, the conclusion can be drawn from this that Russia recognizes the metropolitan elected under the new law, and this will be turned into reinforcement of the illegal action of the secular power of the Danube principalities.
If possible, in my opinion, it would be good for the consul to refrain from such communications and expressions that would imply recognition of the metropolitan.
If it is not possible to do this, then, by allowing the name of metropolitan, he could at the same time make it clear that he recognizes him only de facto, pending whether the Orthodox Eastern Church recognizes him de jure.
August 3/7. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the application to the spiritual department of judicial statutes, approved by the highest, November 20, 1864.
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in relation to his, dated June 30, 1865, No. 3395, explained to the Metropolitan that the Governing Senate, having promulgated the judicial statutes approved by the highest authority on November 20, 1864, at the same time communicated them to the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod considered it necessary, in order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise in practice in spiritual institutions, to draw up special instructions for them, which would contain an explanation of both the rules included in the new legal provisions that in any way relate to the department of the Orthodox confession, and the manner and procedure of action on the part of spiritual institutions in those cases when they are granted by these legal provisions, but also to some subjects of administration and court, any rights or assigned to them in these subjects any responsibilities.
As a result, before drawing up this instruction, the former synodal chief prosecutor 185 instructed the legal adviser, Privy Councilor Polner 186, to present, in a special memorandum, considerations on the basis of which the said instruction should be drawn up.
At the same time, former chief prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov, taking into account that with the introduction of the judicial statutes, approved by the highest, on November 20, 1864, there will be a need to change some of the laws in force in the department of Orthodox confession that determine the jurisdiction of cases, the procedure for their proceedings and the limits of the power of spiritual and secular institutions of this department, he instructed legal adviser Polner to present considerations on this subject in the said report.
Having prepared a memorandum, the legal adviser submitted it to the discretion of the Chief Prosecutor, Count D.A. Tolstoy.
Having read this note and found that in terms of the general importance of the subjects included in its composition, and in particular, in the essence of the principles underlying some of the proposed transformations in the existing order of the spiritual court, in order to acquire greater independence for it, for which, by the way, it is even pointed out that it is necessary to limit the power of the chief prosecutor's supervision in judicial cases of the Holy Synod, I found it very necessary and useful for myself, before the proposal of this note for consideration by the Holy Synod and further then, in accordance with his instructions, the direction of this matter, keep in mind the advice and personal views and comments of Metropolitan Philaret, at least on the most significant subjects contained in the legal adviser’s note.
In view of the fact that A.P. was entrusted with the legal counsel. Akhmatov and Prince Urusov preliminary consideration of all projects, judicial statutes drawn up by a special commission, as well as the work on them of the state chancellery and the united departments of the state council, in which these projects and works related to the department of Orthodox confession, he was sent to the disposal of the metropolitan, both for the report and for the presentation of those explanations on it that he would like to require from him.
To the indicated attitude of Count D.A. Tolstoy, the Metropolitan answered:
In accordance with your Excellency’s attitude, dated June 30, No. 3395, I made some considerations regarding the application of the judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 to the ecclesiastical department, which are forwarded to this.
In the note communicated to me, no doubt, there are other items that would require some considerations, but besides the fact that illness prevented me from fully tracing it, its consideration was made difficult by the lack of the text of the judicial statutes that caused it. It would be more convenient to understand the matter and discuss it if we already had in mind the draft of the decisions that are supposed to be made.
August 3, 1865 August 7.
Some considerations regarding the application of the judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 to the ecclesiastical department
I. In order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise in spiritual institutions when using judicial statutes on November 20, 1864, it is proposed to draw up a special instruction that would contain an explanation of both the rules included in the new legal provisions that in any way relate to the department of the Orthodox confession, and the manner and procedure for actions on the part of spiritual institutions in cases where these legal provisions are granted to them, in some subjects, administration and court, any rights, or any responsibilities are assigned to them in these subjects.
From whom and to whom should instructions be given? – Usually instructions are given from higher authorities to a subordinate person or office. But the rules that should be included in the proposed instructions will not apply to the execution not only of consistories and the places and persons subordinate to them, but also of diocesan bishops and the Holy Synod itself? And thus, will it not happen that the Holy Synod will give instructions to itself?
Since these rules should touch the spiritual department on one side, and the secular department on the other, could it not happen that these rules will be included in the state council, and the matter will appear in such a form, as if the state council gave instructions to the spiritual department? – This would be inconsistent with the dignity and independence of church government.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be better to replace the name of the instruction with the following: resolutions regarding the application of judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 to church administration and court.
II. The first article of such resolutions could be the following, or similar to the following:
Just as according to the Spiritual Regulations of spiritual governance, the basis is the law of God, proposed in the Holy Scriptures, also the canons or rules of the councils of the holy fathers, and civil statutes, in agreement with the word of God; and how new judicial statutes, based on new principles, have now been published and come into force in the civil department; then, so that the application of these new laws to the affairs of the spiritual department occurs correctly, in accordance with other foundations of church government, that is, with the law of God and church rules, and in order to prevent and eliminate misunderstandings that may arise, for this purpose the following decisions regarding the application of judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 to church government and court should serve as a guide.
III. In the note that brought the case to the present considerations, there is a provision: “the theory of legal evidence is canceled.”
For someone who has not studied jurisprudence, it is methodically unclear what is meant here by the word: theory. For example, what was confirmed by two witnesses must be recognized as fair in the case, but the testimony of one witness is not enough for this: - what is this? theory, or a practical rule containing its own theory? Has it been cancelled?
The Law of God, given through Moses, says: Let not one witness stand as a witness against man for every injury, and for every crime, and for every sin, if he sins, in the mouth of two witnesses, and in the mouth of three witnesses, that every word may stand (Deut. 19:15). Can this be undone?
This law is recognized and confirmed by Christ the Savior as proof of His Divine Embassy. And it is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true (John 8:17). Can this also be considered cancelled?
Wouldn't the truth be expressed more clearly and more accurately if we were to say: - the so-called legal evidence should not be held slavishly, too literally, solely, exclusively, but together with them should be taken into consideration all the circumstances that are revealed in the case and that can base a conviction in the truth?
This, or similar, careful definiteness in expressions is especially necessary in decrees on the spiritual department, so that they do not seem to contradict Holy Scripture.
IV. In the same note, it appears to be a legal rule: “judge by inner conviction.”
If the theory of behind-the-scenes evidence is deprived of credibility and canceled, which naturally follows a weakening of trust in legal evidence: then how to judge by inner conviction? Is it really completely unconscious, as if by inspiration? - Let it be so for the jury, who have only two words at their disposal: guilty, not guilty.
But if the court, out of inner conviction, unconsciously says: “guilty”; and the prosecutor, also, according to inner conviction, unconsciously, will say “not guilty,” or vice versa, which of the two inspirations will the cassation court prefer? From this it is clear that one must judge by inner conviction not simply, but with consideration, and with an indication of the evidence and circumstances of the case on which the inner conviction is based.
And from this it follows that the rule in the law is judged by inner conviction and requires a more definite and precise expression.
V. The note states: “that the rules on the strength of judicial evidence serve, if necessary, only as a guide in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendants.”
If these expressions were adopted into the law, then it would be said that the law of Deuteronomy (XIX, 15) has lost the force of law, and can only serve as instruction, if necessary. This would be inconsistent with the dignity of the law, which is of Divine origin, and which Christ the Savior himself recognized as a valid law that can serve as the basis for resolving an important issue.
Therefore, here, more careful expressions are required, such as:
The rules and strength of judicial evidence must in part serve as a guide and aid in judging cases, and in part have the full force of the law, but do not exclude or weaken the force of other circumstances of the case that can establish an internal conviction about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
VI. The note on Article 252 of the statute of spiritual consistories and others says that “they can henceforth serve only as a guiding instruction, and not as a mandatory, indispensable and immutable basis.”
The first subject of Article 252 is the rule of two witnesses. Above, under numbers III and V, it is explained why the law of two witnesses should not be turned into a simple instruction. And is it necessary to stipulate the consistory charter in this case? Article 252 specifies the testimony of two or three witnesses as one of the main evidence, and then “other evidence”; and regarding these latter it is said that they can have their force in two cases: 1) “when they are connected with one of the main evidence; or 2) in their entirety they discover a crime.” In the first case, the main evidence does not exclude others, but accepts them as a guide; in the second, even regardless of the main ones, other evidence has its force if taken together they reveal a crime. Who will decide that they are discovering a crime? - Of course, none other than the inner conviction of those judging. Consequently, under this article, without amending it, the case should be resolved in the same way as under the new law, armed against formal evidence.
The consistory statute does not contradict the judicial statutes of November 20, 1864.
As for other articles of the consistory charter, which talk about the trial of persons of clergy, they do not mention at all about the so-called legal evidence. Therefore, there is also no need to make any comments to the consistory charter, which does not prevent the application of new laws to matters of this kind, on the basis of the initial rule of the Spiritual Regulations, which commands, in addition to and aid to church rules, to adopt civil charters.
VII. The note shows that the new law does not allow for “remaining in suspicion.”
It cannot be denied that among the defendants there are those who are not clearly convicted of a crime or misdemeanor, but about whom the record keeping shows important signs that they have committed a crime or misdemeanor, and whom public opinion leaves in suspicion, no matter what the law and the court say about them. So the law closes its eyes when it determines: not to leave anyone in suspicion; and when, according to this rule, he releases from court in equal dignity the person slandered innocently, and the guilty person who managed to obscure the truth of the accusation. Let an experiment be made in the secular field to see whether such action will serve to purify or pollute society. But for the spiritual department such an action is inconvenient.
Let us assume that the clerk is being tried for actions contrary to good behavior, that he is not found decisively guilty, but that in the circumstances of the case there are signs of his guilt, and that not a small number of honest parishioners responded disapprovingly of his behavior. If this, according to the law of not leaving one under suspicion, is left unattended and forgotten, then he can then sneak into the priesthood in an unworthy manner and to the detriment of the service, against which, of course, caution must be taken. Caution should consist in ensuring that what is revealed in the case is noticed and goes into the clearing record for reference.
Such action is required by the apostolic rules regarding the clergy: it is fitting for him to have a good testimony from outsiders (1 Tim. 3:7), that is, to enjoy a good opinion in society. Consequently, if an unkind opinion in society is discovered about a member of a clergy of a lower degree, then this should be noticed, so that he is not admitted to the priesthood until he clears himself of the remark, having earned a good opinion in society.
VIII. The note contains the expression: “excommunication from the church, otherwise called anathema.”
Excommunication and anathema are not always identical. There are cases in which excommunication is determined, but anathema is not pronounced, according to the extreme importance of the crime, and according to the hope of repentance.
Therefore, if the word “excommunication” is left in the text of the law, it is better to leave it without interpretation, so as not to raise a question that would require quite a bit of investigation. In practice, in applying the law to a case, the case itself will help determine its meaning.
August 3, 1865 August 7,187.
August 13. The attitude of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about applying for the highest permission to establish, at the Transfiguration, in Moscow, an almshouse, a Edinoverie monastery
Newly joined to the Orthodox Church, on the rules of the same faith, monastics, Onuphrius, Paphnutius, Sergius, Joasaph, Philaret, Melchizedek (the three bishops who were among the schismatics, a hieromonk, an archdeacon and a hierodeacon) have a need for a solid place of residence, and, if God blesses, for missionary action on the schismatics: and therefore they are needed in Moscow or near Moscow, Edinoverie men's monastery. This idea has already received the highest approval (rep. July 6, No. 3493).
This was not announced to the society of Moscow co-religionists, but the same thought arose in it by itself. When they learned that I already had this idea, and was having difficulty finding a convenient place: then the parishioners of all Edinoverie churches in Moscow, having gathered, unanimously decided: to ask that the Edinoverie men's monastery be founded at the Rogozhsky cemetery, which is now the Rogozhsky almshouse, or at the Preobrazhensky cemetery, which is now the Preobrazhensky almshouse; and to petition for this, they elected three deputies from among themselves: the co-religion church elders Alyasin and Zaitsev, and the former first church elder Sorokin.
These deputies turned to me with a detailed request on this subject; and at the same time they asked for my intercession, so that their most humble request on this subject would be submitted to the sacred feet of His Imperial Majesty.
Many co-religionists preferably want the proposed monastery to be founded on the Rogozhsky cemetery of the priestly persuasion, because the newly affiliated monastics belonged to this cause, and because here it is closer for them to enter into relations with schismatics of the same persuasion in order to admonish them. At the same time, they find it necessary that one of the two chapels be converted into a Edinoverie church, and that some buildings that are the property of the almshouse, but are now occupied by schismatics, be given to the monastery.
But we must admit that doing this would be fraught with inconvenience; and the locality of the Rogozh almshouse is such that it is difficult to delineate the boundaries of the monastery and give it its characteristic separation from the worldly.
The Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, or otherwise the Preobrazhenskoe almshouse, by its very origin is adapted to the monastic structure. In the last century, during the plague in Moscow, the dissenter Ilya Kavylin, having asked permission to build a hospital and cemetery for the plague victims (from which the name of the cemetery remained with the schismatic institution); under this guise he founded the central place of his own kind, for which, according to the sense that does not recognize marriage, he needed two monasteries, male and female. He arranged them in two separate fences, with a small distance between them, the male one in a smaller one, and the female one in a larger one 188 .
During the reign of the late Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I in Bose, in order to suppress the abuses of a harmful sect, this institution, which covered itself with the guise of charity, was taken with all its property under the jurisdiction of the legal authorities, with the goal of gradually freeing it from its schismatic character, and making it a purely almshouse, and, finally, entrusted to the supervision of the council of the imperial philanthropic society. When a significant number of schismatics of the said kind wished to join the church on the rules of unity of faith; then the main chapel in the men's department is turned into the Edinoverie Dormition Church with the chapel of St. Nicholas, and the other chapel, above the gate, into the Edinoverie warm church, which was made by significant donations from fellow believers. There are currently about 25 people in this men's section of the almshouse who are awaiting schismatics, occupying the eastern building with the house prayer 189.
If these 25 people are transferred to a large women's department, in which there are chapels and residential buildings, which could form a separate area for male schismatics; then in the area of the men’s department, with two existing Edinoverie churches, it would be convenient to establish a men’s Edinoverie monastery. This is exactly what the co-religionists want if it is found inconvenient to establish a monastery in the Rogozhsky cemetery.
Moreover, they want the proposed Edinoverie monastery to be named Nicholas, in eternal remembrance of the fact that Edinoverie churches in both cemeteries: Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky were established by the permission of the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in God, and both were visited by the newly deceased Tsarevich, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich, and it is supposed to establish in this monastery daily prayerful commemoration of Their blessed repose.
In order to protect the requested conversion of the male department of the Transfiguration Almshouse to a Edinoverie monastery from doubts and objections that may arise, I am obliged to present the following:
1) this proposed order is in strict accordance with the highest order of December 21, 1853, of which the third paragraph says: “as the number of those expected decreases, concentrate them according to convenience and “gradually, so that after the buildings are cleared, close them or give them another purpose”;
2) just as the main buildings of the men’s department of the Transfiguration almshouse, two chapels, were provided by the government to fellow believers, and converted into co-religionist churches: then, following this example, with equal right and consistency, other buildings of this department can be provided.
3) If the question were to arise: is it convenient to place male prisoners in the same courtyard for the female department? The answer is undoubtedly that it is convenient. The yard is extensive; there are enough buildings; You can use a fence to separate the buildings in which male prisoners will be housed. You can even do without this: because, according to the law, the elderly and the sick and paralytic are cared for here: in this case, it is enough that the men are cared for separately, because they are in a special building.
4) If co-religionists (which, of course, is not doubtful) are worthy of patronage primarily over schismatics: then from this side, the proposed removal of schismatics from the same courtyard with co-religionists corresponds to the need. The entrance to the schismatic house is located opposite the altar of the main Edinoverie church, and schismatics who come and come, naturally, do not treat the altar with reverence. Fellow believers noticed, especially in winter, that schismatics deliberately committed indecency and uncleanness against the altar.
Having outlined the matter, I mentally prostrate myself before the throne of His Imperial Majesty, humbly calling upon it the most merciful gaze of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, who, as condescendingly looking at those who err in the faith, is equally benevolently patronizing Orthodoxy.
Humbly asking your Excellency to intercede in this regard before His Imperial Majesty, I present herewith the most submissive request of the co-religionists, and the verdict according to which the deputies act on behalf of all Moscow co-religionists.
I am attaching two plans: A, both sections of the almshouse, and B, the men's section.
I must ask forgiveness for not returning my most humble request in order to exclude from it words relating to me that should not have been in it. I did this in order to present the most submissive request without alien change, as it poured out from the hearts of my fellow believers; for they did not ask the writer to write it: but one of the deputies composed and rewrote it.
With authenticity it is true: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
August 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore, about inducing his fellow members in the imperial humane society to agree to the opening, at the Transfiguration, in Moscow, of an almshouse, of a Edinoverie monastery
Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor.
In Moscow there are now six monks of the same faith, descended from the schismatic three bishops, a hieromonk, an archdeacon and a hierodeacon. This is the best that was in the schismatic false hierarchy, in relation to prudence and good intentions. The society of Moscow co-religionists realized that such people must be used to influence schismatics; and for this purpose, to establish a men's Edinoverie monastery, with two Edinoverie churches already existing in the men's department of the Transfiguration almshouse, with the provision of this monastery with the entire area of this men's department.
The Sovereign Emperor, at the most humble request brought by the co-religionists, awarded this idea with all-merciful approval, and deigned to see the deputies of the co-religionists and the above-mentioned co-religionist monks.
However, the Sovereign Emperor deigned to order the opinion of the council of the imperial philanthropic society on this subject.
Please find a complete statement of this case in the attached list from my relationship with the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, dated August 13, No. 79 191.
It became known to me that recently the schismatics built a new building in the men’s section of the Preobrazhensky almshouse. Without entering into a discussion about the legality of this action, which does not agree with the highest approved rules regarding this institution, I believe that the costs of this construction can be returned to the schismatics from their fellow believers, when the department becomes completely dependent on the proposed monastery.
In the name of the inviolability of the highest commands, in the name of truth, in the name of the good of the Orthodox Church, I urge Your Eminence and your venerable co-workers to promote the enterprise of fellow believers, and to give fellow religious monks a firm place to stand for reunifying action on those wandering outside the saving fence of the holy churches.
With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence's most humble servant,
No. 84. August 19, 1865 192
August 26. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret, about the tradesman Shtapakov, who calls himself a schismatic priest, and the guild Shutov, who calls himself a schismatic archbishop
A report to the Holy Governing Synod from its member, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna.
Chernigov province, Klintsov Posad, a tradesman and a priest, Vasily Konstantinov Shtapakov, sent me a petition in which he writes that, at the request of the residents of the said posad, in Moscow, Archbishop Anthony made him a priest, for which a letter was given to him. He further writes that he is under arrest and asks to be released; and presents his assigned certificate upon request.
Isn’t it a clear indication of a schism that a tradesman in a formal petition declares himself a schismatic priest, indicates the ordained false bishop Anthony, and presents as indisputable proof a formal act - a charter signed by the false bishop Anthony, who calls himself the archbishop not only of Vladimir, but of all Russia.
The law prohibits schism.
Therefore, it is my duty to submit the above-mentioned petition and letter to the Holy Synod, in order to take measures so that the guild Andrei Shutov, who unlawfully arrogates to himself the title of Archbishop of Vladimir and All Russia that does not belong to him, is subjected to legal liability.
The Holy Synod, by definition, dated September 27, 1865, decided: taking into account that the Klintsy tradesman Shtapakov, in a petition submitted by him to the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, openly declares himself a schismatic priest and, as evidence of his imaginary rank, presents a charter signed by the false bishop Anthony, who calls himself an archbishop Vladimir and all of Russia, and recognizing such actions of the schismatics as a clear indication of a schism, which is strictly prohibited by laws (St. Law of 1857 on the prevention and suppression of crimes, Article 77,) provide Mr. Synodal Chief Prosecutor with the aforesaid request of Shtapakov and his written letter to forward to the Minister of Internal Affairs 193 and ask him orders to bring to trial and legal responsibility the guild Andrei Shutov, who illegally arrogated to himself the title of Archbishop of Vladimir and All Russia that does not belong to him; about the subsequent notification 194.
September 4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with the opinion: “On the resettlement of Dobrudzhan schismatics to Russia”
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in relation, dated July 30, 1865, No. 3935, forwarded “for the discretion” of Metropolitan Philaret, in a copy, received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the attitude of our envoy in Constantinople, dated July 13, No. 287, on the issue of the resettlement of the Dobrudzhan schismatics (Nekrasovites) to Russia,” and asked for his feedback on this subject.
At the top, on the relation, the Metropolitan is marked: “Av. 15. God! »
Attached to the letter was a copy of the relationship with the following content:
In addition to the previous correspondence on the raised issue of the resettlement of Dobrudzhan schismatics (Nekrasovites and Vilkovites) to Russia, I consider it necessary now to draw your Excellency’s attention to the latest reports on this subject from our agent in Izmail and the vice-consul in Tulcea, to whom I found it necessary to address positive requests regarding the conditions under which the Dobrudzhan schismatics would like to return to the fatherland abandoned by their ancestors. Like count. Ass. Kudryavtsev, and count. Ass. Romanenko, both now confirm, which I have already expressed more than once, the opinion that if the Dobrudzhan schismatics petition for permission to resettle in Russia, then in any case they do not agree to resettle except under the condition that our government recognizes their separate church hierarchy, regardless of the Holy Synod, and in general they do not deviate in the least from the demands they made in the past.
I could be convinced of the same thing from conversations with the ataman of the Nekrasovites Goncharov and with the Vilkovo foreman Ivan Semenov, who, regarding the resettlement of their co-religionists to Russia, expressed to me the same demands and conditions that were stated in the notes presented by them to Messrs. Kudryavtsev and Romanenko.
In this form, the question of the resettlement of the Dobrudzhan schismatics to Russia can hardly be raised before the general question of the situation of the Old Believer clergy in Russia is resolved. The validity of this opinion, it seems to me, is also evident from the fact that our agent in Izmail and the vice-consul in Tulcea completely agree with each other regarding the influence that the center of the Russian schismatic world, Moscow, has on schismatics abroad. Consequently, one cannot expect serious aspirations for rapprochement with Orthodoxy on the part of foreign schismatics until such aspirations are revealed on the part of the masses of our internal schismatics, which in turn cannot happen before the time when our Old Believers are imbued with true education and the spirit of mental progress.
In another respect, dated August 25, 1865, No. 4311, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret the copies of papers delivered to him by Prince Gorchakov, wrote: “when the vice-chancellor presented to the highest view an extract from the report of our consul in Galati and from a note from the vice-consul in Tulcea, about Dobrudzhan schismatics and their bishops, His Imperial Majesty was pleased to command: to discuss the matter of resettlement of Old Believers within our borders in a special meeting of the Ministers of Foreign and Internal Affairs and me, and to present our conclusion to the highest view.
Realizing the full importance of the assignment entrusted to me by the will of the Sovereign Emperor and, in fulfilling it, wishing to take advantage of the wise instructions and advice of your Eminence, I allow myself to turn to you, most gracious archpastor, with the most humble request for the obligatory communication of your opinion on the issue to be discussed.”
At the top of the relationship of Count D.A. Tolstoy, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “St. 3. Responsible for the return of the papers and with the opinion in a special note.”
The release from Metropolitan Philaret’s letter was not preserved in his papers; Also, no copies of the papers delivered to him by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on August 25 have survived.
On the resettlement of Dobrudzhan schismatics to Russia
I. From the report of the consul in Galati, dated July 12, 1865, it is clear that when the Dobrudzhan schismatics resettled in Russia, their clergy “demanded recognition of a separate” Old Believer hierarchy, without the intervention of the diocesan “authorities.”
In the own words of the so-called Bishop Arkady, “the Old Believers’ firm idea is to be under the authority of the civil authorities.”
II. But from the same above-mentioned report it is clear that out of 200 people, 35 “expressed an unconditional readiness” to “move into our borders without the clergy, and upon arrival “to obey the rules to which the Old Believers in Russia are subject.” And they accepted this determination with such firmness that they broke off contact with their clergy, who were complicating the matter with arrogant claims.
III. In relation to SIM 35, the matter is simple. Nothing prevents them from being allowed to resettle in Russia. And perhaps it would not be useless to announce this to them immediately, so that their example and success could attract others to the same direction.
IV. Probably, the question of accepting or not accepting the conditions proposed by the schismatic clergy will not be so easy to resolve. But upon careful consideration of the essence and circumstances of the case, one cannot help but come to the conviction that the Russian government cannot resolve this issue affirmatively, without contradicting itself and its own interests.
V. There are 3,000,000 priestly schismatics living in Russia, according to a recent count by the Belokrinitsky schismatics themselves. In recent years, this number has increased significantly, thanks to the efforts of the false hierarchy and an excess of tolerance. The government does not recognize their hierarchy. So, would it be consistent with the decency, firmness and dignity of the government to give in to the demand of 165 (with the exception of 35) foreign schismatics and for them to break the rule that is observed in Russia in relation to 3,000,000, or 3,500,000 schismatics?
VI. False Bishop Arkady, having allowed himself to admonish the Russian government that “Old Believer affairs are done unlike others,” points out that, in 1833, the Nekrasovites who moved to Russia were allowed to have 2 churches, 2 priests and one deacon. Let us add, if you like, that in addition to this, in some places some priests who had run away from the schismatics were tolerated by the government under certain special conditions. But against this it should be noted that this was not an open legal recognition, but only a secret, exclusive private admission, so to speak, on the sly from the law. Moreover, this was tolerance in relation to priests who, not having bishops, themselves served as a denunciation of the schism, representing only a fragment of the hierarchy, and not the whole church. It is a completely different matter to recognize schismatic bishops. This would be a strange attempt on the part of the government to elevate a schism or sect to the dignity of the church.
VII. If Arkady had been allowed to join the schismatics moving to Russia with the name and rights of a bishop, then the Russian schismatics for their false bishops, of the same origin and dignity as Arkady, would not have failed to demand the same rights. What would the government do then? To deny three million people what is given to 165 would be incongruous, unfair, and offensive. To recognize the schismatic false hierarchy would mean to split the integrity of the Russian people, to damage not only church unity, but also state unity. The arbitrariness prevailing among the schismatics would have multiplied beyond measure the number of false bishops and false priests. The schismatic propaganda would be broad and easy. For an illiterate peasant, two words are enough: old faith, to seduce him from the church path. Refuting these words is necessarily not so simple, and therefore not so easy to make an impression.
And just as the priestly sense is now still subject to internal division, for some adhere to Kirill of Belokrinitsky, others to Anthony of Vladimir, and others only to priests running away from the Russian church, then all this should lead to such a fragmentation of beliefs that in one village, in addition to Orthodoxy, there will be several rumors. And the destruction of unanimity and unanimity of the church will entail the disorder and destruction of the unity of the national spirit in relation to civil and patriotic matters. This must be feared especially in Russia, where faith has been the center of the people’s spirit since ancient times: “for the faith and for the Orthodox Tsar!” »
VIII. Especially at the present time, when the schismatic false hierarchy in Russia is shaken by the separation from it of its most significant members, who have joined the Orthodox Church, on the rules of the same faith, and by internal strife, and the same faith has received new hope, to allow Arkady into Russia as a bishop would mean to arouse the hopes of the Russian false hierarchy, and thereby strengthen it, and deal a blow to the same faith.
IX. Currently, for many, new euphonious words: freedom of belief, drown out the old strict thought: protection of belief. But if in a state the widest freedom is necessarily limited by laws protecting the integrity of the state and the safety of its peaceful members: is it less necessary that freedom of religion should be limited by laws protecting the integrity of the church and the safety of its peaceful members? England is a state that knows how to use freedom better than others. It has several millions, not schismatics who have betrayed the established church, but Roman Catholics belonging to a church that is older than the Anglican, and from which the Anglican descended. But how does she deal with them? For example, they still pay church taxes in favor of the dominant Anglican Church in the state. Lovers of religious freedom have repeatedly proposed in parliament to abolish this tax. But the guardians of the church did not allow this abolition.
This is what Israel says in his appeal to the electors: “The preservation of a national church involves the question: Should the principle of religion be an element of our political constitution, should the state be sanctified, and, with the destruction of sanctification, which appeals to the highest feelings of man, will not our system of government become a mere police system? In all this I see only one thing - the corruption of nations and the fall of kingdoms. I trust that the Constitution will be upheld in its provisions concerning church and state." 195
Isn't England more obliged than Russia to take protective measures in favor of the dominant Orthodox Church against schism? The point here is not that schismatics pay taxes in favor of the Orthodox Church, but only that they do not plunder its spiritual heritage.
X. All of the above leads to the following opinion:
Announce to Arkady and the schismatics who sympathize with him that the government of His Imperial Majesty is well disposed to provide them with every convenience for resettlement and population; but that it would be unfair for them to demand, and for the government to give them more rights than those enjoyed by the so-called Old Believers in Russia.
When you think about what should happen if, according to this rule of tolerance, it comes to recognizing the independence of schisms: it is difficult to understand how it will be possible to get out of the difficulties that present themselves. The schismatics of the Belokrinitsky branch will come before the government and say: recognize our bishops and the priests they supply. The New Russian schismatics will come after them and say: we have abandoned the Belokrinitsky bishops; We think that the government does not like them either: recognize our Anthony, Archbishop of Vladimir, about ten other existing and many future bishops, and the priests they supply. Then the old priests will come and say: we understand that the Austrian bishops and priests appointed by them are illegal; and therefore we wish to have Russian fugitive priests as of old; recognize fugitive priests as legitimate. Then the priestless people of various persuasions will appear and say: recognize our Bolshaks, present and tomorrow, since perhaps tomorrow we will replace the current ones and install others.
For this, the runners may come and say: recognize our leaders, the fugitive peasants, and the fugitive soldiers. When such freedom of schisms and sects is glorified, will not the eunuchs and whips decide to come and say: recognize both our leader, whom we call Christ, and his helper, whom we call the Mother of God.
It is difficult to find an end to this series of sects demanding rights for themselves. What will happen in the villages? An Austrian false priest, a Russian false priest, a runaway Russian priest, a priestless priest will come to the village, and they will plunder with impunity and divide one village into several parishes of different faiths. It will be difficult for one lawful shepherd to overcome many wolves. And there will be a lot of them. The Austrian and Russian false bishops will multiply without measure, as they are already multiplying; and without measure they will turn peasants and townsfolk into false priests. Where will the church unity of Russians be then? But can such a great loss of church unity be harmless for the unanimity of the people in the state?
September 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a note attached: on the diagnosis 197 of the Holy and Great Council in Constantinople, in April 1865.
With this, you would like to receive a note entitled: “On the diagnosis of the holy and great council in Constantinople, in April 1865.”
I dare to recognize it as necessary for your Excellency to communicate this to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod, whether he would consider offering it to the Holy Synod, for hearing in secret.
Although this is only a private memorandum, and a preparatory work for the judgment of the Holy Synod, which does not have an official character, caution requires that it not come to the attention of those who may find it unpleasant.
It is strange that the patriarch asserts the dependence of the Moldovan-Vlachian Church on him, without precise evidence; The Moldovan-Vlachian Metropolitan rejects without any evidence; and Prince Cuza takes upon himself to prove her independence in his response to the patriarch. Prince Kuza refutes the diagnosis. Therefore, to judge the diagnosis, it is not superfluous to consider the prince’s letter. If it pleases (?), then such consideration may be presented after this.
Attached to this letter was a note with the following content:
On the diagnosis of the holy and great council in Constantinople, in April 1865.
I. In the note, July 10, an extract from this conciliar act was examined, and comments were made. These remarks do not lose their meaning now that we have the full text in mind.
II. Διαγνώμη is translated by the word: definition. This is not certain: both the Greek word and the content of the act show that this is not a decisive determination, but a reasoning or consideration. A decisive definition would include, firstly, a statement of the three draft laws against which the council was drawn up, what church rules they are contrary to, and to what extent those who drafted and approved the anti-canonical laws are guilty; secondly, a decisive determination of how to proceed in relation to the projects, and what kind of church punishment the perpetrators actually face. The council performed only the first half. He refrained from delivering a decisive blow, of course, as a precaution so as not to harden or increase divisions; and allowed the perpetrators to draw the conclusion from the proposed reasoning and consideration that they were subject to excommunication from church communion and, perhaps, even anathema, in order to, by the threat of punishment, induce them to turn to obedience before the ecumenical patriarch.
III. But the council seems to have trusted the editor too much of its reasoning; and this one rendered the council a not very happy service, by inaccuracy in the presentation of the case and judgments, and in the application of church rules.
IV. The diagnosis does not precisely define what is anti-canonical in the draft laws. For example, the diagnom says: “the prince was appointed chairman of the apostolic and heavenly body of the country’s hierarchical Synod.” But whether the draft law really allows the prince to preside over a church council is not clear.
V. In the diagnom’s saying that in the church “everything is unchangeable and eternal,” there is an inaccuracy that gives rise to opponents’ objections. When the church was transformed from the Old Testament to the New Testament, many things changed. And in the New Testament Orthodox Church, from time to time, unimportant things change. For example, according to the rules and regulations, previously there were regional councils twice a year, then once, and now the Patriarch of Constantinople has a continuous council or synod.
VI. Diagnome says that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit speaks “through Divine councils to the moral and dogmatic progress and improvement of the entire body of the church.” Again inaccuracy. What does it mean that the dogmatic progress and improvement of the entire body of the church continues through councils? This may have the meaning of the papal opinion that even after 1860 years of existence the Christian Church can be improved by drawing up new dogmas.
VII. Diagnome says that “the ministers of His (God’s) servants are recognized, according to His promise, as God-taught and God-enlightened when they act in a conciliar manner.” And here there is an inaccuracy. The Moldovan bishops who have abandoned the patriarch can say this to the Council of Constantinople; and we are ministers of God and Christ; and we act collectively, therefore, according to your own saying, and we are God-enlightened, and therefore our definitions do not require your correction.
VIII. The diagnosis says that the ministers, senate and chambers “allowed Joshua to be turned almost into Aaron.” It is regrettable to see this written in the name of the Orthodox Council. Irony, and especially irony, is heavy, discordant, incompatible with the importance inherent in a conciliar word. Who is Joshua? Prince Kuza? Did he conquer the promised land? The council seems to be complaining that it is enslaving the promised land, which Joshua did not do. What does it mean that Joshua turns almost into Aaron? Let us remain silent, in reverence before the holy cathedral.
IX. Diagnome recognizes, among other things, that it is worthy of condemnation if state power “arbitrarily gives them (the canonical councils) the right to judge, gives them legislative power and independence.” But if state power gives church councils independence, then what more can one demand, and is there anything to complain about? Is it possible that independence in particular from the ecumenical patriarch is meant here? In this case, it was necessary to be more specific in order to prevent misunderstanding.
X. The diagnosis recognizes the “arbitrary proclamation of the Dacian Church as independent” as a contradiction to the spirit of the Gospel. How this contradicts the spirit of the Gospel is not explained. Against the arbitrary declaration of the Dacian church as independent, the Dacian metropolitan says that it has always been independent; but neither side provides evidence. For a thorough and impartial judgment about this, it would be necessary to listen to evidence of its rights from the lips of each side.
XI. Diagnome says: “there is no doubt that centralization and canonical union achieve justice and firmness.” The word centralization is not only redundant here, but also inappropriate. Perfect ecclesiastical centralization is the papacy.
XII. According to the diagnome, “history testifies to the union of the Constantinople Church with the Dacian Church, and the letter and spirit of the cathedral canons attest to the same.” With this diagnosis, he orders to read the Second Ecumenical Council, 2nd rule; but does not explain what conclusion should be from this rule. The rule says that the bishop of a region should not transgress the boundaries of his region, and therefore the Bishop of Constantinople. But this does not allow anything in the present case. At the end of this rule it is said that the management of churches of foreign peoples is still the custom; but this is vague, and not clear, in relation to the present case. The relations between the churches of foreign peoples changed from time to time.
XIII. Also, in relation to the union of the Church of Constantinople with the Dacian Diagnoma, he orders us to read the IV Ecumenical Council, canon 6. But this rule speaks of a dispute between diocesan bishops over the border parishes between their dioceses and of the trial of such matters by the regional council, the exarch and, finally, the patriarch of Constantinople; Moreover, the distribution of some parishes is left to the civil and zemstvo order. It is obvious how close this is to the real matter. The diagnosis specifies many other rules, without exact application to the present case.
XIV. Diagnome pronounces the general position: “the true church has never been and will not be (if such a one is truly Orthodox) completely independent of any other church of the same faith.” But what follows from this provision in relation to the present case? Nothing more than that the Dacian church is dependent on the Constantinople and the Constantinople is dependent on the Dacian. Is this just what the patriarch and the council want to prove?
XV. Diagnome says: “What does an earthly prince, or his servants, have in common with the Holy Spirit, the guide of the church, and with Christ?” Again inaccuracy. There is no commonality, according to the apostle, between Christ and Belial; and between Christ and his servant, the Orthodox sovereign, between the church and the state, there is common ground, namely faith, piety, the creation and preservation of the good of Christians and people. The Church preaches piety; a pious sovereign protects the piety and peace of the church through wise and beneficent governance; In this mind, we are commanded to pray for the king, so that we may live a quiet and silent life in all piety and purity.
XVI. The diagnom cites the words of Hosea, Bishop of Corduba: “God has entrusted the kingdom to you, and entrusted us to the church,” in such a composition of speech as if they were spoken to Constantine the Great. But that's not true. They are found in a letter from Hosea to Emperor Constantius, defender of the Arians and persecutor of Orthodox bishops. Moreover, the above words are preceded in the letter by the following, limiting the meaning of them: “do not intervene in matters that are essentially ecclesiastical (that is, dogmatic), and do not give orders about them; but rather, accept the teaching (that is, Orthodox, dogmatic) from us.” Creation St. Apost., vol. 2, p. 119.
XVII. Diagnome says: “Divine and human law has established that human courts should be completely independent of their chairman.” What law established this? Here doubt arises whether the translation from Greek is correct.
XVIII. Following this, he says to the diagnoma: “how can conciliar and divinely enlightened courts, the law of which is eternal and true, exist depending on different sovereigns at different times and, perhaps, of different minds.” What is the force in this reasoning? Can courts, therefore, exist depending on the patriarchs, since these were and are different, at different times, and sometimes have different opinions?
XIX. Regarding the ecclesiastical election of a bishop, with exact application to the case, the following rules are indicated: I Ecumenical. 4. Antiochus. 16. Apostle 30. VII Universe. 3. Apostle. 76. I Universe. 6; IV Universe. 28. Antioch. 19. Sard. 6. Laod. 12 and 13. But in this case it was necessary to foresee the objections of opponents and to judge whether these rules should be adhered to exclusively, or if they are observed, it is possible and necessary to allow some participation of state power in the election of bishops, which can rely on its duty to ensure that a person who is hostile to the state to a threatening extent is not elected as bishop. In fact, the latter exists in the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself, where the elders of the people and even the non-Christian government take some part in the election of the patriarch.
XX. The Holy Council, wishing to protect the dignity of bishops so that they would not be dragged into secular courts on a par with people who are clearly vicious and despised in society, indicates the following rules about the conciliar trial of bishops over a bishop: Apostle. 74, 75. II Universe. 6. IV Universe. 9. Antiochus. 14 and 15; Karf. 12, 28. But these rules do not mention serious crimes. Only Apostolic Canon 25 mentions serious crimes as being subject to spiritual judgment; but this is also necessary if they were subject to a secular court; for a criminal bishop must be defrocked. Thus, it is impossible to draw the conclusion from church rules that bishops who are subject to ecclesiastical judgment can no longer be subject to secular judgment. An Orthodox state must honor and protect the Orthodox Church, but the state, as a state, is not subordinate to the church, and therefore the state power can, at its own discretion, draw up a judicial law and subordinate all its subjects to it, not excluding bishops.
Therefore, it was necessary to consider the question: is it safe to argue against the Moldovan Judgment Law, or is it only necessary to petition for correction, so that a falsely accused bishop does not need to move from see to prison and from prison to see?
XXI. Diagnome says: “if those laws, the publication of which the all-bright and pious ministers of Dacia claim as their merit, found approval in freedom of conscience and the Gospel: how would our sacrifices and offerings then differ from the sacrifices of Cain, given such profanation.” Not clear.
XXII. The alienation of monasteries and their property is strongly opposed by what is indicated in the diagnosis of VII Ecumenical. sob., pr. 13. But it actually speaks against those who plunder monasteries and turn them into ordinary dwellings. The question of execution is difficult here. It is true that the secular government will not return what has been taken away, and then the consequence of excommunication from the church will be repentance or, on the contrary, bitterness and dissolution of the union between church and state?
XXIII. The diagnosis rightly protests against the article of the new law, which it calls its conclusion: “all laws and regulations that disagree with the provisions of this law are and remain invalid.” Some rules of the holy apostles and ecumenical councils do not agree with this law: the Orthodox government does not tend to declare them invalid.
XXIV. But in support of this protest, the diagnosis cites III Omni. sob., 8 rule, which does not apply to this. It forbids bishops to extend power to dioceses that were not previously subordinate to them, and orders them to consider them invalid if anyone suggests anything contrary to this.
XXV. The diagnosis is based, among other things, on the laws of the Greek emperors. In response to this, the Moldovan government can say that these laws were valid only for the former Greek empire, which was decreed by the government.
XXVI. The consideration of the conciliar diagnome presented here seemed necessary because the Most Holy Patriarch, in his message to the Holy Synod, points to the diagnome as an act from which one can obtain accurate and true information about the circumstances of the case, and which, consequently, calls on the Holy Synod to come to an agreement with the patriarch and the council. Thus, when discussing the answer, the patriarch must resolve the question: is it possible to agree with all the judgments and details of the diagnosis?
From the consideration the following opinion emerges:
1) It would be both unfair and useful to express unlimited agreement with all the judgments and details of the diagnosis.
2) In the response of the Holy Synod, it is necessary to definitely express agreement with those judgments of the diagnosis that are firmly based on church rules.
3) In order to preserve precious unanimity with the most holy patriarch and his council, it is advisable to either pass over in silence what one cannot agree with, or touch upon it carefully and peacefully.
4) The Holy Synod has the difficult task of reconciling the duty of respect for the patriarch and the council with the duty of free, fair judgment, and severity against violators of church rules with protective patience and condescension.
September 17. A note from Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the issuance of a new law against the cruelty of husbands to their wives”
I. Legislative provisions are made against husbands who abuse their wives, and an opinion is required on this subject.
II. The idea of giving the wives of such husbands written permission to live separately is inconvenient, does not promise any benefit and threatens harm.
Marriage is a sacrament and a union blessed by the church for life; and if, for exceptional reasons, it is necessary to dissolve it, then this belongs to the authority that blessed it - the church, according to its rules. But the supposed permission of wives to live separately from their husbands would be the destruction of the marriage union de facto, while the civil authorities cannot do this de jure.
Thus separated, the spouses would have a reason to violate the 7th commandment, reassuring themselves with the excuse that they were deprived of legal married life.
With the increasing deterioration of morals, especially since some time, one cannot help but fear that quite a number of spouses, out of desire for lawless freedom, or for selfish reasons, will seek such a civil divorce through a feigned quarrel, when they cannot obtain a dissolution of the marriage according to church rules.
ΙΙΙ. The proposal to place cruel and violent men in monasteries is also inconvenient and threatens harm.
Monasteries are already burdened with people of the ecclesiastical department, sent to them for correction, and people of various ranks, sent to them by judicial rulings, for failure to attend confession, for adultery, for involuntary murder, who cause temptation to the brethren, and whom, especially secular ones, there are no sufficient means to keep in order. Monastic abbots often beg their superiors if it is possible to rid them of such people.
With widespread drunkenness, which entails rioting and disorderly conduct, there may be many violent men, and, moreover, to keep them in order, it would be necessary to have specially adapted premises and strong guards in the monastery. But monasteries do not have this.
Moscow, for example, is rich in monasteries; but it often happens that in order to accommodate one of the foreign monastics, it is necessary to crowd the living in order to clear the cell for the guest. Is it necessary to bring monasteries to the point of crowding several monastics into one cell and depriving them of the convenience of solitary prayer in order to open the premises to violent husbands?
First of all, it is not too much to think about whether it is really necessary and useful to issue a new, stricter law against cruel husbands?
In Russia they find the law against a cruel husband insufficiently strict, but in England there is an ancient strange law that protects a cruel husband, giving him the right to sell his wife on the market; and this law, although occasionally, is still in effect. The English government is not barbaric or reckless. Why is it in no hurry to remove this stain from its legislation? Is it because he fears by proclaiming a law against the power of husbands to upset the charm of the power of the head of the family? Isn't the same concern necessary in Russia? – It is common for a family to be governed by natural law, the commandments of God, and the natural feelings of mutual love and affection of its members. The more strongly civil law invades the family, the weaker the internal laws of the family, and its unity and connection, will become before it. The head of the family must be autocratic in the family. But what will happen to his power if, when he threatens his guilty wife with his hand, she answers him that she will put him in a monastery or prison, and leaves him with a separate passport?
There are not only violent husbands, but also willful, insolent wives who torment their husbands: why does the supposed law want to please only the wife, and not care impartially about both?
This reflection leads to the following opinion:
1) To bring order to husbands who abuse their wives, correctly and accurately use the measures prescribed in existing laws.
For example, such a husband, having spent several days under true arrest, the effects of shame and an unpleasant situation, will receive significant instruction for his future. And if he spends time under arrest drinking, gambling, or living in luxury, then, of course, what he will get out of him is not edification, but ridicule of the law and its enforcers.
2) Let a priest, a member of the prison guardianship committee, or a parish priest know about such a prisoner, in order to visit him for edification.
3) If a husband’s cruel treatment of his wife extends to injury, then the general law existing for this must be applied; and even if life is in danger, in this case the wife has the right to ask the spiritual authorities for a divorce.
September 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a response to the message about the emerging desire among foreign schismatics for rapprochement with the Orthodox Church
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in reference dated September 19, 1865, No. 4750, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret “a copy of the report received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of our consul in Iasi, No. 135, about the desire manifested among foreign schismatics for rapprochement with the Orthodox Church,” with the following content.
“In addition to my report, dated the 27th of last August, No. 131, I have the honor to bring to the attention of your Excellency that last night one of the smart Iasi Old Believers, Pavel Popov, visited me and explained to me that he is in constant communication with those Moscow Old Believers who have recently converted to coreligionists, and that their common goal is the gradual weakening and, finally, the complete destruction of the Belokrinitsky metropolis, after which all Old Believers will join the Edinoverie. According to him, the transition of the Old Believer bishops to the Edinoverie is not, as some of the local Lipovans claim, a matter of interest, but is completely sincere and was done both out of conviction and with the aim of serving as an example for other Old Believers. Popov even showed me letters from Moscow Old Believers who had joined Edinoverie, from which it is clear that in Moscow they are very concerned about the gradual destruction of the Old Believers.
The Bishop of Tula, who was recently in Iasi, did not go to Moscow, but went to his place in Tulcha to finish the construction of the church. The Izmail archbishop also remained in Izmail, since he was busy establishing a monastery in the vicinity of the city, for which he had already received permission from the local government.
Both of these bishops sent their credentials to the Moscow council, where only two people went from Moldova: Alimpy Miloradov and Archimandrite Tissovo Efrosin Popov, whom the local Lipovans want to install in the place of Kirill, Metropolitan of Belokrinitsky.
From the words of Pavel Popov it is clear that the complete merger of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church is greatly hampered by the so-called London (now Swiss) propagandists and, finally, some of the Old Believer bishops, but that he hopes for complete success and for the complete destruction, after a while, of the Old Believers.”
In addition to the above-mentioned documents, the metropolitan’s papers on this issue contain “an extract from a letter from Pavel Alekseevich Popov, from Iasi, 1865, September 5, with the following content: On September 3, the brochures you sent were received, all of which were sent out yesterday.
In response to all the clauses and reproaches that you (and...) endure, although in absentia here in Iasi, I would like to hear that God has already helped you to take away their (schismatic) Jerusalem 200.
Archbishop Arvadiy 201, Archimandrite Euphrosynus, and Father Alimpy Miloradov came to Iasi to visit the Church of the Assumption. I issued Evfrosin and Alimpiy, from the Austrian agency, passports to travel to Russia, with a merchant rank, in their own name, that is: Alimpiy Miloradov and Evfrosin Petrov, each special, for 11 months.
The final refusal of his gesheft 202 came to Metropolitan Kirill from the ministry in Chernivtsi before the president, but the president announced this refusal only to Alimpiy so that he would hasten to appoint a governor in accordance with their statute 203 (which does not exist). This is why Alimpius drags Euphrosyne to Mother Moscow; he is in a hurry, as he himself confessed to me, to the council, in order to unanimously elect Father Euphrosynus to Belokrinitsa, as a very God-fearing man, who is no longer a match for Kirill, taking 1000 rubles for consecration; This one will be respected more cheaply, and, perhaps, whoever it may be, will be ordained by Christ for saving him. The Moldovans and Germans all agree on it, just so as not to leave the Church of God and the holy place (student of the abyss) 204 to widowers. And you, my friends, on your part, make the effort to advise him (Father Euphrosynus) to settle in Chudov better.
The guests mentioned here are:
1) Father Alimpiy is a famous deputy and founder of the Belokrinitsky metropolis, originally from Krylov (probably the Kherson province) - not far from Kremenchug, named Afanasy Zverev.
2) Archimandrite Euphrosynus of the Tis monastery, in Moldova. He was the first to be ordained as a hieromonk by Metropolitan Ambrose and to this day he is listed as an Austrian subject. Originally from the Vladimir province, Shuya district, the village of Pavlova - or Ivanova, there was a son of the Orthodox Church, named Evfim.
“From the dispatch from Iasi, dated September 19, No. 4750, enclosed with your Excellency, it is clear that 205” Hieromonk Alimpy Miloradov and Archimandrite Euphrosynus, whom they want to put in place of Kirill, were sent to Moscow by Metropolitan of Belokrinitsky:
At the same time, I received, not officially, but undoubted information that the false Metropolitan Kirill was subjected to responsibility before the Austrian government, and was deprived of his rights for the fact that, contrary to the obligation given to him, he traveled to Russia, which was revealed by the investigation, and which, after denials, he finally admitted. So Kirill in Austria is punished for acting to the detriment of Russia; and in Moscow he acted to the detriment of Russia with impunity?
For this reason they want to install Evrosin as Metropolitan of Belokrinitsky, and for this he is going to Moscow, and has already arrived. Will Russia now allow this new root of evil to vegetate unimpeded and unpunished?”
Evrosin arrived in Moscow with a passport under the name of the merchant Evrosin Petrov. And he comes from the Vladimir province, Shuya district, the village of Pavlov, or Ivanovo, named Evfim, who was formerly the son of the Orthodox Church.
Alimpy, one of the two founders of the Belokrinitsa false metropolis, is Afanasy Zverev, originally from Krylov (I think, Kherson province), not far from Kremenchug.
From this information it is clear that both of them are subject to Russian justice.
By the duty of serving the world and the good of the Holy Church, I am prompted to bring the above to the attention of your Excellency, in order to take measures so that the dying Belokrinitsa false metropolis does not revive in greater strength Eurosyn, who is not as restless as Kirill, and therefore more capable than Kirill of propagating the schismatic false hierarchy.
September 27–29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a note attached: “Additional comments to the note on the response of Prince Cuza of Romania to the Ecumenical Patriarch on some places in the prince’s letter concerning the history of the Moldavian Church.”
(1865, September 27–29)
When transmitting to your Excellency a note about the diagnosis (dated September 13, No. 98), I mentioned that in order to judge the diagnosis, it is not superfluous to consider the prince’s response letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch. As a result of this, I am forwarding herewith a note about the response of the Moldavian-Vlachian prince to the message of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Not having enough time to engage in critical research on the documents, I instructed the rector of the academy to make some additional information, and from this, additional comments were also sent to the note on the response of the Romanian prince to the ecumenical patriarch, on some places in the letter of Prince Cuza concerning the history of the Moldovan church.
At the end of the note, about the prince’s response, it is said that it would be useful to find out what refutation of the prince’s letter was made in the Patriarchal Synod. To add to the difficulties, there is already information that the Synod of Constantinople has not met, and that the Patriarch intends to wait for a response from the Russian and Athens Synods. Under such circumstances, for the Holy Synod to remain for a long time in an indecisive and wait-and-see position would be unpleasant for the patriarch and the Greek Church, unfavorable for the cause and dissatisfied in accordance with the dignity of the Holy Synod. Therefore, would not the Holy Synod deign to soon send out the acts of the patriarch and the prince and the comments made by them, and determine the content of the required response to the patriarchal message, in the spirit of moderation, caution and peacemaking.
In this case, the first thing is caution, bearing in mind the literal text of the Romanian new laws, at least as they are known from periodical literature. This is necessary for accurate reading, whereas the patriarch and the prince do not represent the same matter in the same way.
September 27, 29, 1865.
Attached to this letter is the following document:
Additional to the note on the response of the Romanian prince to the ecumenical patriarch, comments on some places in the letter of Prince Cuza concerning the history of the Moldovan church
To § V. Prince Kuza writes: “on the basis of this sacred. rules (34 apostles), the Transdanubian Romanians and Bulgarians established in ancient times the independent Tarnovo Patriarchate.”
The Romanian prince wants to prove that not only Bulgarians, but also Romanians took part in the establishment of the Ternov Patriarchate, even if not those whom he controls, but those from Transdanubia. But there is nothing to prove this. The Greek chronicles present the origin of the Patriarchate of Thorn in this form: after the Latins captured Constantinople (1203), two sovereigns hostile to the Latin empire in the east, namely the Nicaean emperor Ducas Vatatzes and the Bulgarian king John Asen, united (around 1235) to drive the Latins out of Constantinople with their combined forces. They sealed their union by concluding marriage terms between their young children: the son of Vatatz and the daughter of Asen, Elena. At the same time, says a modern Greek chronicler, “the bishop of Ternov (Ternov was then the capital of the Bulgarian kingdom), subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, is honored with the right of autonomy; By royal and cathedral decree, he was awarded the title of Patriarch, to the pleasure of the Bulgarian Prince Asen, for the sake of his kinship and friendship.” Georgi Acropol. With. XXXI, XXXIII.
In the same way, some Bulgarians are awarded the establishment of the Patriarchate of Ternovo and an entry in the Bulgarian Synodik, recently published in the “Vremennik of the Historical Society” in Moscow (book 21. 1855). It tells here how Asen communicated on this subject with the Greek Emperor and Patriarch Herman, and how to achieve what he wanted; but not a word is said about the participation of the Romanians in this matter.
What happened to the Patriarchate of Ternivsky subsequently? – Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, in his “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem,” referring to the logothete Hierax (1572), writes: “after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, there was a council in Constantinople, at which they reasoned that it was not good that some dioceses, at the request of the emperors, were created by co-leading archbishoprics, but since then the church could not resist the will of the emperors, then at least now is the time to subordinate Ahrida, Ternov and Pek (the throne of the Serbian patriarch) to the throne of Constantinople. Thus, metropolitans were placed on these archiepiscopal thrones - and Ternovsky remained in subordination, and the other two, having promised to pay special taxes to the Sultan, - with the assistance of external force, remained in their previous form" (Book XI, Chapter 3, § 1, p. 1153).
Meanwhile, the Romanian Church, even before the fall of Constantinople to the power of the Turks, came under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It seems that this was due to the devastation of Ternov by the Turks (at the end of the 14th century), and the fall of Serbian and Bulgarian rule. Proof of the dependence of the Romanian Church on the Patriarch of Constantinople, at the end of the 14th century, is: a) a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthony, in 1394, by which he entrusts the Metropolitan of Moldovalachia with the management of the Terniv Church, in the following words: “our humility yields (ἐκχωρεῖ) and gives permission to your shrine, so that you, with God's help, having arrived at the most holy church of Ternov, have the right to perform everything related to the sacred rite there without prohibition, without hindrance, except for sitting on the sacred co-throne (δίχα μόνης τῆς τῷ ἱερῷ συνθρόνῳ ἐγκαθιδρύσεως )" Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop., No. 472, T. II, p.223, ed.1863. Vindobon.
b) Order of Patriarch Matthew of Constantinople, dated 1401, following the request of the Moldavian governor Alexander, he sent his apocrisiaries to Moldavia to investigate the case of Metropolitan Joseph of Moldova, whom the previous Patriarch Anthony had deposed, appointing another in his place. Acta Patriarchate. Constantinop. No. 667, T. II, p.528–530.
c) The attitude of the Romanian hierarchy towards the Patriarch of Constantinople is expressed even more clearly by the words of Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, at the Council of Florence, towards the Moldova and Ternovo bishops, when they did not agree to vote in favor of his opinion. “Having called to himself,” writes Sgiropul, “Ternovsky, Amasian and Moldovlakhian, he reproached them and said to them: you did well! Are you not mine? (οὐκ ἐστὲ ἰδικοί μου;) Was it not I who elevated you and placed you at this degree? Is it not from me that you have? Are you not from my cell and my household? – Sgyropul. Histor. Sect. IX, p.8.
§VI. Cuza’s words: “the great prince (of Moscow) accepted the appointment of metropolitan” are also not true in the sense that St. Jonah was elected metropolitan and sent to Constantinople for installation - even before Isidore arrived in Moscow. And the Patriarch of Constantinople did not approve this election only because Isidore had already been ordained to Moscow. But St. It was said to Jonah: “And whatever God’s will provides for Sidor, you, Jonah, are ready and blessed for that great throne.”
§ X. Prince Cuza writes: “in the 131st novella, which defines the limits of the spiritual power of the Archbishop of Constantinople, it is said that the bishops of Mediterranean Dacia and Coastal Dacia are subordinate to it,” but the name of Dacia of Troy is not mentioned. This novella defines the limits not of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but of the district of Justiniana the First, later called Ohrid. Here are the original words of the novella: Beatissimus hoc tempore Archiepiscopus primae iustinianae, patriae nostrae, semper sub jurisdictione sua Episcopos provinciarum Daciae Mediterraneae et Daciae Ripensis, Triballiae, Dardaniae et Mysiae superioris et Pannoniae habeat, iique ab illo creentur. So, the omission of the name of Dacia of Troy does not prove anything against the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Prince Cuza continues: “Indeed, they were only in a dogmatic union with the throne of Constantinople, as is proven by many monuments and, among other things, by the letter of the Patriarch of Ohrid to Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldova, in 1456.” -What letter? Scientists know the letter of Dorotheus, Archbishop of the first Justiniana, or Ohrid, in response to the request of Stefan, Prince of Moldova, in 1456; but it does not speak at all about the dogmatic union of the Dacian church with the throne of Constantinople. The Archbishop of Ohrid writes only to the prince that he cannot come himself to consecrate the Metropolitan of Moldova, but allows him to be consecrated, according to the rules of St. fathers, local bishops, with the complicity of the Metropolitan of Ugrovlah. (Vremennik society istorich., book 5. 1850. Mixture, p. 35.)
§ XI. “The independence of our church is based on other rights: 1, the resolution of the Council of Constantinople, during the reign of Emperor Palaiologos, mentioned in the resolutions of the Moldavian Council, January 1, 1752, by which (in meaning it should be: which, i.e., resolution), according to the promise given to Prince Alexander the Good, the son of the said emperor, during his passage through Moldavia, was recognized and the independence of the Moldavian metropolitan was confirmed by imperial command from Byzantium.” It is not said here which emperor is meant by the name of Palaiologos - while there were many of them. According to the indication of Prince Alexander the Good, a contemporary of the Florence Cathedral, this should be Palaiologos John; but he had no son, and his successor was his brother, the last emperor Constantine. If there is historical truth hidden in this circumstance, then this should be the same declaration of the Moldovan church as independent, which Cantemir speaks about below in § XII.
Only it was not, according to him, either a conciliar recognition or an imperial command, but a natural consequence of the fact that in Constantinople the union was favored, and in Moldavia they were alienated from it. This is how it was with us after the expulsion of Isidore.
§ XVII. Cuza's question is already answered in the additions to § V and in what is said in § XII. At the end of the 14th and in the first half of the 15th century, the Moldovan church was seen depending on the Patriarch of Constantinople.
§ XIX. From the life of Niphon, Patriarch of Constantinople, placed in the “Athos Patericon”, part 2, p. 1 et seq., it is clear that he occupied the throne of Constantinople twice. Having lost it for the last time, at the invitation of the Volosh ruler Radul, he expressed a desire not only to visit Wallachia, but “and to be its archpastor.”
In this capacity, “after occupying the see, he convened a local council, chaired by the ruler himself and his highest dignitaries (the translation is questionable!), and set out at it the rules of Christian morality and the dogmas of the church... he opened two new dioceses, ordained bishops and gave them rules to guide them on how to worthily rule the flock entrusted to him. In conclusion, turning to the ruler, he asked him, as a ruler, to punish the disorderly,” page 23. So, the establishment of the council, without relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, can be explained by the special rights that belonged to Niphon, still his rank.
§ XXI. To prove his right to convene councils, Prince Cuza points to the 137th novella of Emperor Justinian. The novella speaks: a) about councils on the occasion of the election of new bishops and b) about annual councils. In both cases, the emperor refers to church rules and does not at all undertake to convene them, nor does he express a desire to interfere in their affairs. Moreover, it is noteworthy that regarding the election of bishops, he decreed that the clergy and most distinguished citizens of the city where a bishop is needed should present three candidates, of whom the ordainer selects and consecrates one (Sequentes ea, quae a sacris canonibus definita sunt, – scribemus, quotes episcopus creandus est, clericos et primores urbis convenire et de tribus personis decreta facere... Ex tribus ita definitis personis praestantior creetur electione et tudicio creantis). As for the annual councils, the emperor, instead of two, decided to have one every year, and in conclusion ordered the regional commanders to monitor the implementation of this legislation. It is obvious that this law does not speak of the special right of the powers that be to establish councils and reason together with bishops about the affairs of the church, but was established only for the implementation of existing church rules.
Prince Cuza also points to the 6th novella, as proof that the head of state has the right to issue laws on church affairs. The novella really says, quomodo episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi, masculi et feminae, creandi sint, et qua poena in eos, qui huius constitutionis formam transgrediuntur, statuta sit.
§XXII. Unfairly, Prince Cuza says that Patriarch Porfiry arrived at the Iasi Council in 1642. It was not the patriarch, but the Metropolitan of Nicea.
The Moldavian Lord Vasily actually took an active part in the establishment of this cathedral, but not alone. This was not just a matter for the Moldavian church, but for the entire eastern one. At this council, heretical chapters published under the name of the confession of the Eastern Church on behalf of the patriarchs were rejected. Kirill Lukar. At this council, the Orthodox confession presented by the Kyiv Metropolitan was read, reviewed and corrected. Peter Mogila. Thus, not only Moldavian bishops took part in this council, but also representatives of the Church of Constantinople and the Little Russian Church. The city of Iasi, in terms of the importance and power of the ruler, was more convenient for such a council than Constantinople. Moreover, at this time, as Cantemir testifies (§ XII), Moldavia again came under the control of the throne of Constantinople. This is how this council was compiled, which has special significance in the history of Orthodoxy! And his actions ended in Constantinople.
Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem († 1674), in a charter preceding the publication of the Orthodox confession, writes about this council: “having compiled a book and giving it the title: “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (Peter Mogila and his collaborators) asked the great Church of Constantinople to send attorneys from the synod (of Constantinople) and patriarchal exarchs to Moldova, where they promised to send people for their part. As a result of this, the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Nicaea Porfiry and Meletius Sirig, teacher of the great church, were sent from the Holy Synod... They also arrived from the Russians: Isaiah Trofimov, Kononovich, Joseph, and Ksenovich, Ignatius... After many studies... they successfully completed this book... From here they soon forwarded it to the four patriarchs, who approved it "207
October 3–4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the Jassy Old Believer Pavel Popov: a) who volunteered to act in favor of the joining of Russian schismatics abroad to the Orthodox Church through false bishops and schismatic leaders living in different places, and b) who asked for allowances for traveling on this subject
Count D.A. Tolstoy, dated September 23, 1865, No. 120, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report a conclusion on the contents of those forwarded to him, in copies of: a) the attitude of the Russian consul in Iasi, dated the 10th of that month, No. 138, and b) letters from the Old Believer P. Popov, dated 3 of the same September. The consul, in relation to the director of the Asian department, reported that the Old Believer P. Popov explained in a letter that in order to achieve his intended goal, he needed to see the bishops: Arkady of Slavia and Justin of Tulchin, as well as Kelsiev, Goncharov, and some Nekrasovites and Kagul schismatics. To meet with them, he will have to go to Tulcha, Izmail and Cahul, for which he will need one hundred ducats. Wanting to know in detail the purpose of Popov’s trip and what benefits can be expected from it for Russia, the consul demanded that he write about it in more detail. Having received the requested information and presenting the Mr. Director with a copy of Popov’s letter, the consul asked him to notify him if he would find it possible to communicate with Mr.
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for the expulsion, from the funds available to him, of the amount requested by Popov, since his trip, in the opinion of the consul, could really contribute to the joining of the said schismatics to Orthodoxy. Popov wrote in a letter: “The benefit of Russia requires the unity of its elements. One of the main obstacles to unity is the schismatics who have long separated as a result of mere spiritual intrigues. To achieve the goal of their reunification, it is necessary to start with the leaders of the natives of the Danube principalities and Turkey, of whom the latter are called Nekrasovites.”
“Their leaders are their spiritual dignitaries, such as: Bishops of Slavsk Arkady and Tulchin Justin. On a proposed trip, I mean try to do the following:
“1) The Nekrasovites, who have long been evicted from Russia, only because of their religion, will be resettled back to Russia, on the basis of the same faith, which will have a great influence on the Don Cossacks, who also belong to a schismatic sect.”
“2) Destroy the Belokrinitsa schismatic metropolis, which is very harmful for Russia. As far as I know from the mood and propaganda of Belokrinitsky Metropolitan Kirill and his party, made up of aristocrats who currently control millions of schismatic funds, they harbor harmful plans against Russia, and regret that they did not accept, during the Polish movement, the proposal made to them by the revolutionary party.”
“3) The need for a trip as soon as possible is justified by the 7 boxes of manuscripts still stored in Kagul, at Kozinov’s, which form part of the Belokrinitsky archive, of which I have already transferred much into the hands of the Eminence Metropolitan Philaret. Almost all the importance lies in the said manuscripts, and it is necessary for both the Orthodox clergy and the new party to join them, in order to undermine the foundations of those institutions on which the schism rests its teaching.”
“4) Through a meeting with Kelsiev and Goncharov, I hope to learn about the correspondence they are conducting with London agitators on the subject of the split; In this case, I hope to collect information about the distribution of counterfeit tickets.”
Your Excellency's letter, dated September 23, No. 120, requires my opinion on the contents of the vice-consul's dispatch in Iasi about the Old Believer Pavel Popov, who wishes to receive an allowance for travel in order to incite foreign schismatics to return to Russia, with the adoption of the same faith. To what extent this enterprise is trustworthy is difficult to determine here: this requires close knowledge of people and circumstances. However, it is known that the joining of Onuphrius, Paphnutius, and Joasaph to the same-faith church made a strong impression on foreign schismatics, who knew these people as well-intentioned and zealous in the schism. The false bishops tried to weaken this impression by spreading the rumor that the annexation did not take place out of pure motives; but this slander did not achieve its goal.
As for Pavel Popov personally: he is in relations with the local monks who are fellow believers, and is known to them as a capable and honest person, who sympathizes with them and, of course, helps them in whatever way he can. Some of the Belokrinitsky manuscripts mentioned in his letter, significant in content, were actually delivered not to me, but to the extraordinary professor Subbotin 208, and he did this with skill, with difficulty and not without danger from the schismatics.
I am not making any judgment about the matter of delivering these manuscripts to Russia. It was made before Onuphrius and others joined the same faith, without my knowledge.
Based on all of the above, I believe that Pavel Popov’s assumption deserves attention and appropriate orders for its implementation.
October 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, about sexton Lev Smirnov
In the Moscow consistory, a case of misconduct was carried out in the village of Konstantinov, sexton Smirnov. The diocesan authorities recognized him for drunkenness, riotousness, resistance and indecency, during the investigation, deserving of exclusion from the clergy; but, out of leniency, he was given four months to see if they would agree to accept him as a clergy somewhere.
Due to Smirnov’s dissatisfaction with this decision, the Holy Synod, canceling the decision of the diocesan authorities, imposed a three-year deprivation of his place as punishment on Smirnov, while upon inquiry it turned out that he served as a hired servant at the St. Nicholas Church in Moscow, and was at that time in a better position than in the clergy place in the village.
The Decree on this of the Holy Synod, dated February 24, 1865, No. 157, out of obedience, was carried out.
But the concern for the dignity of spiritual administration and the welfare of the clergy, which is obligatory for each member of the hierarchy, does not allow me to ignore the following information and considerations.
I am copying from the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod: “the sexton, having torn his shirt and nun, and taking small scissors, swung at himself; then, throwing away the scissors, he lay down. This act of the sexton in his house was confirmed under oath by the peasants Vasily Shishlov and Ivan Arkharov.”
The Holy Synod recognized Smirnov's dissatisfied review as unfounded; and the decree states that Smirnov’s arguments “do not destroy the reality of his reprehensible actions, such as drunkenness, offending the priest and the stubbornness shown to the investigators.”
From the attached list from the determination of the consistory, April 18, 1862, it is clear with what obvious lies Smirnov tried to shake the correctness of the investigation and decision; and with what indecency he acted during the investigation.
The Holy Synod based its easing decision on the gradualness of punishments: but, firstly, the gradualism is not completely broken, for Smirnov was sent to a monastery for extreme inattention to the protection of church property: secondly, the gradualness of punishments is established for offenses of lesser importance, and not for serious ones and raising the fear of a shameful or even criminal case, such as the act of Smirnov, who tore his clothes and threatened to pierce yourself with scissors.
For an unfair appeal, justice and the law impose special punishment. But the Holy Synod found the appeal unfair; and reduced the punishment.
Such a gain, acquired in the case by the defendant and the guilty, humiliates and weakens the diocesan authority, and encourages those inclined to disobedience.
With the increasing self-will of the people today, and with the increasing spread of drunkenness, clergy, by the consciousness of the dignity of their rank, are protected from temptation, but even then not always; and the class of clerks is significantly damaged in comparison with previous times, and therefore has a need for justice, and not for relief; it is necessary to cleanse the clergy, and not accumulate unclean elements in them.
I present to your Eminence the above-stated information and considerations for the good of the holy church and the dignity of church government, and remain in the hope that conclusions will be drawn from them that are consistent with your love of truth and impartiality.
With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence's most humble servant.
No. 114. October 9, 1865 210
October 9–10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the protest of Romanian bishops against new Romanian laws that violate the rights of the church
I am responding to your Excellency’s relations, dated September 30, No. 4924, and October 2, No. 4925, regarding the annexes thereto.
The protest of the Romanian bishops, more clearly than the patriarchal diagnom, denounces the new Romanian laws that violate the rights of the church, indicating their articles. However, it would not be superfluous to keep in mind the original text of the laws, if it were possible.
The same protest serves as an accusation against Prince Kuza’s letter, in that, in order to more conveniently defend his laws, he hides their true meaning.
Gratitude to Patriarch Gregory for his advice in the Synod of Constantinople, and expect a response from other Orthodox churches, and, meanwhile, do not remain silent before the arguments of the ruler.
A message refuting these arguments will be useful to the Holy Synod for its decision.
Meanwhile, it is not useless to draw up a draft of this decision now, so that upon receiving the opinion of Constantinople, an immediate response can be given.
If possible, one should not give in to delay, so that something unexpected does not occur that could further complicate the matter.
October 9, 1865 October 10 211
October 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on increasing the means of maintaining religious educational institutions of the Astrakhan diocese, through increasing the price of church candles
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a circular message dated July 30, 1865, No. 4076, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for information and considerations on the diocese entrusted to him, “a note from the case on increasing the methods of maintaining spiritual educational institutions of the Astrakhan diocese, through increasing the price of church candles,” with the following content: “The Reverend of Astrakhan, concerned finding funds to improve the life of the religious and educational institutions of the diocese entrusted to him, he instructed a special commission, composed of members of the consistory, the rector and inspector of the seminary and all the deans of the diocese, to discuss to what extent it would be possible to increase those funds by raising the price of church candles in their retail sale. The commission, aware of the urgent need to increase the means of maintaining religious educational institutions, found that prices for church candles could be increased: for simple ones without gilding from 1 rub. up to 1 rub. 40 k. and with gilding from 1 rub. 20 k. to 1 rub. 60 k.
per pound, and that the clergy will not find any difficulty in raising the price of candles by such an amount, without in any way reducing the number of candles hitherto being consumed, since the proposed price (1 ruble 40 k. and 1 ruble 60 kopeck per pound) has already existed in the Astrakhan Cathedral for several years. The Right Reverend, having presented to the Holy Synod an estimate of the costs of maintaining the religious educational institutions of the diocese entrusted to him, drawn up by the Astrakhan seminary board, in the amount of 22,500 rubles, and bearing in mind that the total amount for the maintenance of the said institutions is now 14,242 rubles, petitioned for permission to increase the prices for church candles in the Astrakhan diocese in the indicated amount, so that: a) all the candle income for the Astrakhan diocese was used to support only the spiritual and educational institutions of that diocese, and the remainder, if any, was spent at the discretion of the diocesan authorities and b) for more correct management of the economic affairs, they were elected by all archpriests and full-time priests in the city.
Astrakhan, for presence on the board of the seminary, with the right to full vote, at least two white clergy. The Holy Synod, after hearing such a petition from the Eminence of Astrakhan, determined: to allow the Eminence Athanasius 212 to carry out his proposal, in the form of an experiment, for three years, on the grounds he set out, but with the following: a) so that in raising the price of church candles the clergy act with extreme caution, so as not to cool the people’s zeal, b) so that the salaries of teachers are increased and the allowance for the students in the amount suggested by the Eminence was made in the form of a supernumerary increase to the state salaries.”
In response to the above attitude, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Count D.A. Tolstoy:
Your Excellency, dear sir.
Regarding your Excellency, dated July 30, this year, No. 4076, in which a note was forwarded from the case being carried out in the Holy Synod on increasing the methods of maintaining theological educational institutions of the Astrakhan diocese, through increasing the price of church candles, the Moscow committee for considering the charter of theological seminaries presented me with its opinion, from which I am enclosing the list.
Agreeing with the opinion of the committee, I am convinced to add: 1) Moscow churches, a significant number of which have little income, and therefore need personal benefits from church elders, have difficulty finding them, and must carefully take care of them. The more they are constrained in their service, the more difficult it will be to find them. 2) Orthodox churches are no longer burdened with the fact that they serve various monetary collections, albeit for public items. And in what has been done so far in the candle business, that is, that by law a certain kind of trading candle trade has been introduced into the church, may God help the church authorities, by apologizing for extreme poverty and need, to give a shameless answer before the Judge, who expelled those who sell and buy from the church.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
Attached to this letter was a list with the opinion of the Moscow committee for considering the statutes of theological seminaries with the following content:
In pursuance of the resolution of His Eminence, dated August 8, this year, No. 295, which followed on the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated July 30, members of the Moscow committee to consider the charter of theological seminaries, on the 17th of the same August, at 6 o’clock in the evening, in a general meeting, chaired by His Eminence, Savva 213, Bishop of Mozhaisk, listened to: 1) the attitude of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to His Eminence, in which it is explained that he, the Chief Prosecutor, is forwarding to His Eminence, for information and considerations on the diocese entrusted to him, a note from the case being carried out in the Holy Synod on increasing the methods of maintaining theological educational institutions of the Astrakhan diocese by raising the price of church candles. 2) The resolution of His Eminence: “The Eminence of Mozhaisk will read what is included in the drafted committee about the seminary charter and what the reasoning will be, will compile a journal.”
3) A note from a case on increasing the means of maintaining religious educational institutions of the Astrakhan diocese through increasing the price of church candles.
After discussing the said papers, the committee decided: taking into account that 1) a possible increase in profits from the sale of candles in Moscow has already taken place as a result of the invitation to this by His Eminence of the rectors of Moscow churches and church elders in 1864; 2) the new, mandatory increase in the selling price of candles, given the current fairly high price, will constrain church elders in selling and parishioners in buying candles and will not lead to an increase in candle profits because: a) if, in order to increase candle profits, we only raise the fee for candles spent in churches, without reducing their size (i.e. assign 3 kopecks for a two-kopeck candle, etc.), then people the poor, who make up the majority in all parishes, in Moscow, will buy candles in shops, at a price more commensurate with their means, and bring them to church, which often happens now, and in the districts of Moscow, they will put fewer candles, replacing, to satisfy pious zeal, an expensive candle with a feasible donation to their wallet.
b) If, without raising the price of candles, you reduce the size of the candles themselves, for example. from a pound of wax, two-kopeck candles are made, instead of 50–60, at 75, and three-kopeck candles, instead of 35, at 50, then small candles will burn out during the service without a trace (for even now a two-kopeck candle burns out during the liturgy without a trace, and if the size of the candles decreases, a three-kopeck candle will also burn out without a trace), and such candles are predominantly consumed in all churches. Thus, one benefit (from an increase in price) will be destroyed by the disadvantage of another (from a decrease in the sale of candles in the church and the number of cinders).
3) From an excessive and, moreover, artificial increase in price for items of religious need, one can fear an irrevocable cooling of zeal among many for that type of honoring of the Lord and Saints, which is now expressed by placing and lighting candles in front of their icons, which fear is expressed in the definition of the Holy Synod, held on this subject: for all these reasons: firstly, to leave in the Moscow diocese the sale of candles in churches without the mandatory introduction a certain price, leaving it to the prudence of the church elders to raise the price when it is possible without embarrassment to them and the parishioners; secondly, about this, in pursuance of the resolution of His Eminence, having compiled a journal, when reporting it, present it to His Eminence 214.
October 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to A.S. Norov, with an opinion regarding his request for permission to reprint the great Chetya-Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius
The chairman of the archaeographic commission, A. S. Norov († 1869), in a letter dated February 2, 1865, asked Metropolitan Philaret for permission to reprint the great Chetyi-Minaion of Metropolitan Macarius, in order to preserve this monument from loss and, if desired, to make it more accessible for scientific research.
To this letter, Metropolitan Philaret, dated October 6, 1865, No. 443, responded as follows:
To the question proposed a long time ago about the publication of the Makarievskaya great Chetya-Menaia, please accept my late answer.
I addressed this question to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy 215, who, while describing the synodal library, had the opportunity to become closely acquainted with Makariev’s Menaion.
I hereby present its consideration 216, without declaring a dispute against it in anything.
Printing a lot twice in different volumes of one publication, and making it even larger, would not be economical and would be uselessly burdensome for both the publishers of the publication and the purchasers. From this the inevitable conclusion is that not everything can be printed.
If we refuse to publish everything without exception, and allow exceptions, then it will be blessed, and in addition to repeating articles, we will miss some others, the publication of which would be without benefit and partly not without harm.
Would you like to order that one month of Minea Makarieva be critically examined, with a conclusion about what should be printed and what should not be printed, and why. Given such experience, it seems that it would be more reliable to give a definitive decision about the entire publication.
However, my opinion, I submit to the court of your Excellency 217.
October 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on Romanian affairs
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated October 20, No. 5321, wrote: “To familiarize the members of the Holy Synod with the spiritual transformations in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, a special note was compiled from dispatches from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and printed. Although all these dispatches, having been promptly reported to your Eminence, are fully known to you, nevertheless, in case there may be a need for information on the Moldavian-Wallachian matter, I have the honor to forward here, for you, the Most Reverend Bishop, a copy of such a printed note.”
On the count’s letter, Metropolitan Philaret wrote, between the lines, the following answer:
Thank you for the printed note on Romanian innovations (dated October 20, No. 5321). It is easier to cope with it than with separate notebooks.
The book by Mr. Rosseti is remarkable. It’s strange that the Ecumenical Patriarch, the cathedral diagnom, Prince Cuza, the bishops, Mr. Rosseti are talking about the Romanian case, and still don’t say enough.
G. Rosseti points to the concordat of 1427 (concordat in the 15th century! In the east! Between whom and whom?), drawn up during the reign of Alexander I the Good, considered at the Council of Constantinople, which equated the Moldavian church with the Cypriot and Ohrid. But he doesn’t say where this concordat is? Is it printed? Or in the archive? In Constantinople or Moldavian? Meanwhile, this act, if it exists, is important in relation to the question of the independence of the Romanian Church.
November 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on the subject of teaching theology at universities
I read the report at former meetings of university professors of theology, and took into consideration the doubts to which he could present the case.
Their opinions are aimed at strengthening theological teaching at the university, giving it direction in accordance with the needs, and protecting the departments of church history and jurisprudence from enslavement to the influence of secular sciences. And, in my opinion, there is no deliberately or unknowingly given reason in these opinions to achieve the aspirations that the “Voice” proclaims, seeking to kidnap and devour. Some assumptions are refined, such as the assumption: about meetings of professors; but even here the intention is clear.
My views on the report are set out in more detail in the accompanying note.
Attached to this letter is a note about a report in former meetings of university professors of theology.
I. A report by a professor of theology at Moscow University 219 on meetings with professors of theology at other universities, setting out assumptions about the content and direction of theological readings in universities, and about the external conditions for success, is worthy of the attention of the authorities.
II. By the order of Emperor Alexander I, of blessed memory, in 1811, that examinations in secular educational institutions take place in the presence of senior clergy, the way was opened for observations on the state of the theological departments in universities. For quite some time, ongoing observations of the St. Petersburg and Moscow universities, from time to time, have revealed through testing that this department is not fully enjoying the desired attention and success. Only a few, especially capable and zealous teachers, managed to strongly and actively capture the attention of their listeners. That this department has not yet brought fully mature and lasting fruit can be seen in the significant experience of the present time, when the Ministry of Public Education wished to have separate departments of church history and church jurisprudence at universities.
Of the several thousand people who received and are receiving education at several universities, it did not meet a single one who had a significant theological and ecclesiastical direction and would wish to enter into preparation for occupying one of these departments, and with the demand for those capable of this, it turned to theological academies, due to the paucity of methods, having only one hundred students each - a number insufficient to meet the own needs of the spiritual and ecclesiastical school service.
III. What reasons can we assume that the theological departments at universities are not quite fruitful? The following reasons can and should be assumed:
1) Little time was allocated for the theological department from the days of the week and from the years of the entire university course.
2) Theology teachers were burdened with combining into one department theology, church history, church jurisprudence, and in some years even some philosophical sciences.
3) Under the influence of many mentors and many educational subjects, more or less connected with each other, but not aware of their relationship to theology, arousing the jealousy of listeners with the nearest types of life, benefits, honors, it was difficult for a single theology mentor to achieve a strong influence on listeners (from which remark it is possible, however, to make a pleasant exception at the present time in favor of the Moscow University and the theological department therein).
4) Encouragement for success in the sciences, which consists of tests and preparation for academic degrees, has little regard for theology, which is not remembered in the production of university academic degrees.
5) Due to the brevity of the given time, the necessary brevity of theological teaching and its dissatisfied application to the needs of the time and to the reflection of opinions contrary to true Christianity, especially, for some time, strongly disseminated in society, did not sufficiently arouse the curiosity of the listeners, and the spiritual need of Christian truth was not sufficiently felt and not sufficiently satisfied.
IV. If the considerations presented here are true, then they justify the assumptions set out in the report of Archpriest Sergievsky 220, namely:
1) give the teaching of theology an apologetic character;
2) introduce the teaching of sacred bibliology, that is, the teaching of the Holy Scriptures;
3) extend the teaching of theology to two courses, or years, with the assignment of sacred bibliology for the first;
4) for this purpose, give the professor an assistant;
5) by the new charter, those designated for the opening of the department of church history and church jurisprudence, as essentially belonging to the circle of theological sciences, should be placed in close mutual relations and communication with the department of theology, and for this purpose, a committee should be formed from teachers of theological sciences.
V. This last point requires special explanation.
The charter approved by the Supreme on July 18, 1863 established three departments at universities: 1) theology, 2) church history and 3) church jurisprudence.
These departments, by the very essence of the matter, all three belong to the circle of theological sciences; and this is the situation in foreign Roman Catholic and Protestant universities.
But the above-mentioned charter separates the last two departments from the first, and joins church history to the historical and philological faculty, and church jurisprudence to the legal department.
Thus, the theological department, as before, remains lonely, which is not favorable for its strength and influence; and church history and church jurisprudence, torn away from theology and immersed in the circle of secular sciences, may undergo a change in their true Orthodox character, given the now widespread false critical and negative direction in the study of Christianity and its history and antiquities.
An example of this is already shown in the first part of the comments on the draft general university charter on page 142, where it is said: “ecclesiastical law is a systematic teaching about those positive laws emanating from the supreme state power, which determine the rights and obligations of citizens as members of one or another church, one or another confession allowed in the state.”
Now, according to the new secular science of church law, church laws do not flow from the Word of God, not from the decrees of ecumenical and local councils, not from the rules of the holy fathers, but from the supreme power of the state, and, therefore, the church laws of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople must flow from the Mohammedan state power of the Sultan.
However, one can abandon the precaution against such a direction, since the Ministry of Public Education, demanding from the ecclesiastical department people to prepare for occupying the chairs of church history and church jurisprudence, does not express a desire that they be trained at theological academies where these sciences are taught, but wants them to be trained at universities, where these sciences have not had special departments until now.
The assumption of soon sending these people, who are not sufficiently established in knowledge and experience, abroad to strengthen their education also requires a cautious outlook. Their journey to the east (decree of the Holy Synod on August 27, 1863, No. 2751) does not promise anything: the only university there, Athens, has not yet grown so high that it could give lessons and present examples to Russian universities. In the West, the history of the Eastern Church and Eastern church law is known either little or crookedly, and only those who are established in knowledge and experience, armed with cautious and strict criticism, can be sent there.
It is not without concern and not without surprise that one can look at the fact that the Ministry of Public Education proposes that those prepared to teach church history and church jurisprudence be subjected to the final test not in theological academies, where these sciences are taught, but in universities, where these sciences have not had special departments until now.
These troubling aspects require special attention and care from the spiritual authorities to ensure that preparation for the departments of church history and church jurisprudence at universities occurs in a reliable manner, and that these departments are not torn away from the department of theology, but on the contrary, they are placed in mutual proximity and connection between all three, so that the Orthodox theological spirit is all the more reliably protected, and so that it spreads its influence.
VI. At the same time, the question may also arise, requiring foresight and precaution, whether this will not become a reason for the establishment of a theological faculty in universities, independent of the hierarchy, which, of course, is not in accordance with the structure of the Orthodox Church and could open the way to the disruption of Orthodox dogma.
Against this fear, one can notice reassuring signs in the very statutes of the university. He does not bring the three departments of theological sciences closer together, but scatters them among different faculties. From this it is clear that he wants to leave the theological department itself, as before, alone; does not want to spread its powers and actions and, therefore, does not think about the theological faculty.
If, according to the new assumption, the three departments of theological sciences will be brought together, we can stand firmly on this, and not allow the advance to the claim of greater rights belonging to theological academies, in complete dependence on the hierarchy protecting Orthodoxy.
VII. A voice is heard expressing a claim not to the theological faculty, but to the union of all theological schools with the schools of the department of the Ministry of Public Education (“Voice”, 1865, No. 283). This requires the vigilance of the spiritual authorities over their property; but this does not prevent, but encourages us not to ignore the revealed claims of the ministry to arbitrarily dispose of theological departments, scatter them among different faculties, and thereby weaken them.
VIII. In the report of Archpriest Sergievsky there is also an assumption about the travel of university teachers of theological sciences abroad for academic purposes. Such travel for those who are not well-versed in knowledge and experience is not useful, not even safe. But for those who are armed with solid and solid knowledge against false teachings, it is not useless sometimes to see foreign learning not only in the dead letter of books, but also in the living movement of universities and learned societies. As witnesses to this, archpriests serving abroad can be cited: Vasiliev 221, Popov 222 and Yanyshev 223, who significantly strengthened their domestic education through contact with the spheres of foreign scholarship. It has long been recognized that going around countries will increase cunning. Sir.34:10. A lot of tares are now being sown in the fields of Western Europe; but some of the wheat and some medicinal herbs vegetate. But the idea of scientific travel is not a law, but only a thought for some cases.
IX. More meetings of university theology professors are planned. This is also not a law, but an idea, more convenient to implement than the previous one, but promising a lot.
X. In order not to ignore the opinions of other university professors of theology 224, let it be noted that Archpriest Pavlovsky 225 Socinus delivers among the false teachers of the first centuries; that he considers our religious and moral literature only “not very poor.” He would have responded more favorably to it if he had remembered the religious and moral literature of the holy fathers, which has passed into our literature in abundance, especially through new translations.
November 8 days, 1865 226
November 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a biography of the false bishop Savvaty of Tobolsk
“Now, from the hands of fellow believers, the biography of the false bishop of Tobolsk Savvaty has reached my hands, accompanied by this. In the Tobolsk and Tomsk provinces, he gathered about 10,000 souls into his department, more than half of whom were seduced from the Orthodox Church. Now he is going to the Trans-Baikal region to install a schismatic bishop there and form a diocese. The biography shows his path, signs and means to detain him.
The Orthodox government does not persecute those of different views; but can he, without exposing himself to account before God, allow a moral wolf to unhinderedly plunder the flock of Christ? Shouldn't we pay attention to put a barrier in front of him?
With these thoughts, I consider myself obliged to forward the said biography to your Excellency, in the hope of its use in accordance with the protection of Orthodox souls from false teachers.”
Biography of the false bishop Savvaty of Tobolsk
Savvaty, known in the world as Stefan Vasiliev Levshin (also known as Kulakov), comes from the Perm province, Verkhoturye district, from the Chernoistochensky plant. Demidov, a natural schismatic, priestly sect. From the age of fifteen, he retired to schismatic monasteries located in the Ural Mountains, where he lived for 15 years. Then, with the advent of the Austrian hierarchy, of which he also became a follower, he was elevated to the rank of hieromonk, in which he remained for about 8 years. During this time, despite his ignorance, he had great success in converting from Orthodoxy to schism.
After this, he was promoted to bishop by the false bishop Paphnutius of Kazan; It was then that he especially began, with tireless activity, to take measures to seduce the Orthodox into schism, and from then to the present, he has been incessantly engaged in such action, unfortunately acquiring a considerable number of Orthodox Christians who accept his preaching, so that over the course of five years in the Tobolsk and Tomsk provinces, where he visits annually, in winter, about 10,000 souls were formed through his preaching clerical consent, of which the greater half are those seduced from Orthodoxy.
When seducing the Orthodox, he is guided solely by Orthodox polemical books, and partly by the fact that during divine services he uses the most brilliant vestments, which, however, he himself loves passionately, so that he spends all his monetary spoils on the acquisition of luxurious sacred vestments.
Moreover, the priests assigned to him also help him in seducing him. 227 At the present time, Savvaty intended to urgently go to the Trans-Baikal region in order to spread his preaching there, and if it was accepted, then to appoint a bishop from among the seduced. For this purpose, he, Savvaty, received a special right from old Anthony and has already left Moscow. He must travel from Perm to Yekaterinburg in the months of November or December of the current year.
If it is possible to consider it useful to stop his activities, which can only be done by arresting himself, then vigilant surveillance must be undertaken in the Perm province, in the district cities, in Yekaterinburg and Shadrinsk, and especially on the Perm-Ekaterinburg highway, at post stations, at which, if passing people demand post horses, passports would certainly be required from all travelers, no matter how many there are, indiscriminately. But not in the way that is usually done, because according to the established general procedure, although a passport is required from those passing through, it is only from the one who, upon leaving the carriage, requires horses.
Savvaty was issued a passport as a result of his transfer from the Troitsk City Duma, Orenburg province, under the name of Stepan Vasilyev Levshin (aka Kulakov), 2nd guild merchant. And he can, without a doubt, be detained, if only the proper order is made from there, where it should be, which, in any case, can still prevent Savvatiev’s arrival in Perm, because he will have stops along the way to Perm in some places to correct the needs; awaiting his arrival. Finally, if it were impossible to achieve the goal through the mentioned measures, then it would be much easier to detain him in the city of Troitsk, in the city duma, during the change of passport.
Signs of Savvaty: he is about 40 years old, of average height, the hair on his head and beard is dark brown and sparse, on the first, they are trimmed according to custom, his eyes are large and protruding; wide nose. Special signs: on his hands, since he was a carpenter, in many places there are visible marks resulting from cutting, some of which were covered with soot, with which they grew. Then, in conversations he often uses in the form of a saying: “indeed.” 228
November 17. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the correction of certain passages in the Lenten Triodion
In the Lenten Triodion, after the service on the week of the Publican and the Pharisee, it is said:
Here you can see in the Greek text, instead of the words of the previous edition: τρισκατάρατοι ἀρμένιοι, curses of the Armenian, in the new edition the word is added: ἑτεροφρόνοι, those who are different or have different thoughts. Thus, it is revealed that the Greek Orthodox Church has chosen to replace the old harsh expression with a meek word.
Also, instead of the words: βδελυρὰν νηστείαν, vile post, in the new edition only the word is put: νηστείαν, post.
Let your meekness be reasonable to all men, commands the holy Apostle (Phil.4:5). So, it is blessed that the Russian church follows the example of the Greek church in meekness of speech.
And therefore, in the Lenten Triodion, the above words can be changed as follows:
It is appropriate to know that in this week, those who are wise (or in other words: those who are alien to the Orthodox Church) are fasting, which is said by the Arciburians.
And not only the Lenten Triodion needs such a correction. Not only a similar, but also a greater correction requires what is printed in the educational psalter: a brief statement about the sign of the cross, as well as the ancient legend about the sign of the cross, printed in the book of hours.
In a brief statement the following words are read: damned Armen, inequality about the Holy Trinity of those who think.
Here, in addition to the reproachful word, the Armenians are accused of allegedly teaching about the inequality of the persons of the Holy Trinity. But the non-Orthodox teaching of the Armenians is that in the person of Jesus Christ, after the union of two natures, Divine and human, they recognize one nature, and not two; but they do not say that the three persons of the Godhead are not equal. So, anyone reading the above words of the statement in the synodal edition of the psalter can attribute to the Russian church either untruth or ignorance. Both are offensive to her dignity, and therefore correction of the above words is absolutely and urgently necessary.
In the same statement, in the interpretation of the formation of the finger for the sign of the cross, the following words are read: below we merge all three fingers into one finger. As if it were possible to merge three fingers into one! Such an interpretation can produce in those who have different opinions not a conviction, but only disrespect for the dignity of the interpretation.
Further, in the statement: to heal the foolishness of schismatics, that is, to refute the two-fingered sign of the cross, the books are pointed out: the Tablet, the Rod of Government, the Spiritual Testament, and so on.
If, according to these instructions, we turn, for example, to the Tablet, we will find that those who for the sign of the cross do not make up the first three, but a great one with two small ones, and extend the middle and index ones, are accused of Arianism and Nestorianism in the answerable word of Patriarch Nikon. And in the response of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, and others with him, condemnations are pronounced in the following expressions: there is a heretic and imitator Armenon, and for this reason his imams were excommunicated from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; be damned; Yes, the oath of the holy 318 God-bearing fathers gathered in Nicaea and other holy councils.
The grave accusations brought by schismatics against the Orthodox Church caused its defenders to take strict views on the errors of the schism. Thus, from the addition of three fingers, the great and two small, obviously not equal to each other, the accusation or suspicion of Arianism is derived. But two hundred years of experience have shown that the schismatics do not adhere to false teachings, Arian and Nestorian: consequently, now the accusation of Arianism and Nestorianism, which is leveled against them by pointing to the Tablet, is not consistent with the present state of affairs; and serves only to irritate schismatics, and feeds their distrust of the Orthodox Church, which accuses them of something for which they are not guilty.
This incongruity has been especially sharp since the time when the churches of the same faith were established, and the co-religionists, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, use the sign of the cross, which the articles printed to this day with the psalter and book of hours, under the title: statement and tradition, recognize as Arian, Nestorian, damned.
Especially at the present time, schismatics are taking advantage of this incongruity in a way that is deplorable for Orthodoxy.
When the most significant members of their false hierarchy joined the Orthodox Church, on the rules of unity of faith, and their example began to arouse excitement and movement towards unity of faith in the schismatics, then their false archbishop Anthony, having made an extract of the above-mentioned accusations and curses from the Tablet and similar books, vigorously began to spread among the schismatics, instilling in them distrust and disrespect for the Orthodox church authority, representing it as one and the same a time that blesses and curses the rites of the same faith.
For the same purpose, schismatics abroad published abroad the rite of how to receive schismatics, from the 1720 edition, a copy of which, for the sake of appearance, is attached herewith. This action reveals not only the cunning of the schismatics, but also cunning; for it is unlikely that they did not know that the rite of 1720 is not used by the Orthodox Church, but a rite marked by the spirit of meekness and condescension is used.
I believe that under such circumstances the Orthodox spiritual authority should not remain inactive and leave the matter in such an unfavorable position.
The books written by denouncers of the schism a century or two earlier are the fruit of the views of those times, partly personal, partly more general. Their severity belongs to their time and history. But it should not bind the current Orthodox church authorities, which, seeing the schism as neither Arian nor Nestorian, sees co-religionists who are in obedience to the Orthodox hierarchy. The Psalter and Book of Hours, now published by the Holy Synod, should not contain condemnation of what the Holy Synod condescends to and blesses.
Consequently, the article before the psalter is a statement, etc. and the article before the book of hours, legend, etc. must be fixed.
I present the draft of the revised article to this Holy Synod for consideration, under the same title, statement, etc. with its purpose for both the psalter and the book of hours.
In this article, the presentation and interpretation of the finger composition is kept as before, with only some expressions being brought into greater precision and clarity.
References to cursing books are omitted. The schismatics’ references to Meletius, Theodoret and Maximus the Greek, discussed in the previous article, were retained in the revised article, showing their lack of evidence, in moderate terms. Then the condescension towards fellow believers is stated and concluded with the conviction of the pan-Orthodox to firmly maintain the sign of the cross, the most ancient and universal of the Church.
If the Holy Synod had recognized this corrected article as being appropriate for its purpose, then, in order to immediately counteract the cunning of the schismatics, it would have been possible not to postpone the psalter and book of hours until new editions, but to the existing printed, not yet bound copies of the psalter and book of hours, after taking away the previous articles, print it, in a proportionate format, corrected, and immediately put it into use.
In case of need, would the Holy Synod also be willing to give me permission to publish this article separately, as having its own integrity, and not necessarily tied to the psalter and book of hours.
November 19/20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the confirmation of spiritual censorship, so that when authorizing the printing of books and information relating to the Armenian-Georgian church, it should be consistent with the highest command of 1841
Count D.A. Tolstoy, dated June 28, 1865, reported to Metropolitan Philaret that the Minister of Internal Affairs, at the request of the trustee of the St. Petersburg and Moscow Armenian-Gregorian churches, Privy Councilor Lazarev, asked for an order to confirm spiritual censorship, so that when authorizing the printing of books and general information about this church, it would be strictly guided by what happened on this subject, in 1841, by the highest command. For the closest consideration of the circumstances of the case, Count D.A. Tolstoy, transmitting copies of: a) from the attitude of the Minister of Internal Affairs, b) from the most submissive note, with the highest command of 1841, and c) from two notes of opinions 230 on this issue, asked Metropolitan Philaret to inform him of his opinion, before submitting this issue to the Holy Synod.
G. Privy Councilor Lazarev expresses displeasure that the book of hours published by the synodal printing house contains “unfair and offensive information regarding members of the Armenian-Gregorian Church”; and demands their correction through confirmation of spiritual censorship.
I believe that the Holy Synod will not without surprise accept this unexpected demand if it comes to its attention.
If we delve into the essence of this demand, it turns out that the matter is not about spiritual censorship, which has no influence on the publication of church books, but the demand relates to the Holy Synod, and it is required that it make corrections in the church and church-educational books.
The principle that the Armenian Church has the right to make corrections in the church and church-educational book of the Orthodox Church cannot be recognized. If this principle were allowed, then with the same right of confession, the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, etc. could attack the church books of the Orthodox Church and count them by sheets and by lines.
It is even less possible to admit that a lay person of the Armenian Church has the right to demand corrections in the church and church-educational book of the Orthodox Church.
By the power of this principle, thousands of correctors and rulers could approach the Holy Synod with various demands. The expression: τρισκατάρατοι Ἀρμένιοι is really harsh; and the Holy Synod is disposed to use mild expressions, as can be seen from the instructions to its censorship committee in 1841. But the said expression was literally transferred into the church books of the Russian church 231 from the Greek church books, and in this one it was taken from the definitions of the ecumenical councils that pronounced a curse on the Monophysites, whose teaching was also visible in the Armenian church.
If the members of this church arouse careful attention to the stern word lying in the Slavic church books, then, in fairness, more careful attention should be aroused by the source of this word in the church books of the Greek Church and in the definitions of the ecumenical councils, and the surest means of peace for the Armenian-Gregorian Church, and at the same time to joy for the Russian Church, would be a clear certification that the Armenian-Gregorian Church , as His Beatitude Joachim, Patriarch of the Armenians, put it in 1839, “follows the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils as the foundations of the purity of faith,” and consequently eliminates from itself the teaching of the Monophysites, and with it the condemnation pronounced by the councils on this teaching. The Holy Synod quite a long time ago expressed a desire to receive this certificate from His Beatitude the Patriarch; and there is no doubt what awaits him as a precious acquisition for the longed-for world of churches.
If the principles that are proposed as the basis for the petition of Mr. Privy Councilor Lazarev cannot be recognized, and these petitions are not consistent with the rights of the Holy Synod in its internal church action, then I believe that the dignity of the Holy Synod to protect its rights requires that the said petition should not be proposed to the Holy Synod.
The papers reported to me and counted above are being returned.
November 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the intention of the Tulchin Orthodox community to gather priests and entrust them with the ordination of the number of priests and deacons required for the local flock
Count D.A. Tolstoy, dated November 11, 1865, No. 5721, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report an opinion on the contents of the report of the Russian vice-consul in Tulcha, dated September 22, that year, No. 268.
In the said report, the vice-consul, among other things, wrote: “The Bulgarian church in that region needs nine priests. The ordination of Bulgarians to holy orders by the Greek Metropolitan is not recognized as legal, and not a single member of this people is allowed to do so. Initiation outside the Turkish Empire is not permitted by the government of that power. Meanwhile, recently some of the Bulgarian priests have died, others have become outdated, their places have become empty, and the Bulgarians do not have the means to replace them legally.
Due to such difficult and sad circumstances, they decide to gather a council of priests from all their churches located in that region, and entrust it with the ordination of the required number of priests and deacons. Bulgarians hope that God's mercy will overshadow their intentions, which are carried out in order to continue Orthodox service in the Church of Christ.
Reconciliation between the Bulgarian local society and the Tulchin Metropolitan Dionysius is impossible. Neither promises, nor threats, nor requests, nor force can return the Bulgarian people to the throne of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his representative in Tulcea, who is distinguished by ignorance and love of money.” The impending schism in the Orthodox Bulgarian people, according to the vice-consul, could have been prevented if the Turkish government had allowed the ordination of Bulgarians to the priesthood in Russia, Serbia or Austria.
In response to the attitude of Count D.A. Tolstoy, the Metropolitan wrote:
On the 11th day of this November, No. 5721, your Excellency forwarded to me a report from our vice-consul in Tulcha, dated September 22, this year, No. 268, about the intention of the Tulchin Orthodox community to assemble a council of priests and entrust it with the ordination of the number of priests and deacons required for the local flock, and demanded my conclusion.
The enterprise of the Tulchin Bulgarians to ordain priests as priests is extremely contrary to hierarchical regulations, and if successful, it could further spread the anti-hierarchical movement.
The idea of bringing priests from Russia, Serbia or Austria to the Bulgarians is unfeasible, because it would be a violation of the rights of the throne of Constantinople.
There are many obstacles to getting out of a difficult and unsafe situation, but the path is not visible. The Bulgarians stubbornly shun the Greek hierarchy; The Greek Metropolitan acts in a way that can only strengthen this alienation. His Holiness the Patriarch 233 does not seem to pay much attention to maintaining the power and benefits of the Greek hierarchy. If the Holy Synod decided to turn to him with benevolent advice, the consequence could be displeasure instead of favorable attention.
Perhaps it would not be useless to privately present to the Most Holy Patriarch that there have been examples in the church of the removal of a bishop who was not acceptable to the flock in order to restore peace, and that if, instead of Tulchin’s Metropolitan Dionysius, a worthy and desirable Bulgarian was installed, then perhaps this part of Bulgaria would have been pacified and this would have become the path to a further movement of reconciliation.
November 20, 1865. 234
December 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion regarding the solicitations of the Moldavian Metropolitan Kallinikos for recognition by Russia in his present rank
The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, in relation to December 9, 1865, No. 6270, forwarded the following papers to Metropolitan Philaret: a) translation of an article published in the official organ of the government of the United Principalities on the subject of convening the Romanian Synod and b) a confidential letter from our consul in Iasi, dated November 19, about the harassment of the Moldavian Metropolitan Kallinikos, to be recognized by us in this title.
At the same time, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod added that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers “the arguments presented by the Most Reverend Kallinikos to the consul to be nothing but a ruse, under which other goals are hidden, and that therefore it cannot share the opinion expressed by the consul in his letter.”
At the top of the attitude of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Philaret noted: “Dec. 13. Recognition is answered negatively.”
In the official “Monitere”, No. 248, on the subject of convening the Romanian synod, 11 points were published that were supposed to be proposed for discussion by the synod.
In a secret letter, the Russian consul in Iasi Lex, dated November 19, wrote: “I am writing to you in a completely confidential manner on one very important issue, which interests you just as much as it interests me and, finally, every Orthodox Christian.”
The Metropolitan of Moldavia, His Eminence Kallinikos, visited me these days and in an intimate conversation expressed to me the danger to which Orthodoxy is currently exposed in the principalities. According to his Eminence, the intrigues of France and the Catholic world in general are beginning to have success in Bucharest, since, unfortunately for the country, in the capital of the principalities there is an ultra-Latinist party (to which the prince himself belongs); This party, in order to implement its idea, that is, the formation of a separate independent Romania, has one goal - to become Latins, for which these persons are ready, if not to completely abandon the faith of their fathers, then at least to submit to the pope and recognize the union. This tendency has long been noticed by the Eminence Callinicus, but now he sees it even more clearly from the questions that the ministry sent to him for preliminary discussion and which will be proposed to the Holy Synod, which is to be assembled next December.
Between these questions, the Metropolitan mentioned to me the following: 1) the introduction of the Gregorian calendar into church and general use; 2) translation of the Bible, Gospel and other church books into ordinary spoken language, which for some time now has been half mixed with French words; and finally, 3) the introduction of organs in all churches.
To save Orthodoxy in the principalities, according to his Eminence, the support of Russia is necessary, namely: recognition on its part, only this time, of the Metropolitan and all the diocesan bishops appointed by Kuza, since, at the present time, they are not in a position to make any opposition to the prince and therefore will probably be forced to sign everything that his lordship’s government offers them. If Russia recognizes them, then, feeling the support of the first Orthodox power, and then the people, for whom Russia’s recognition of its diocesan bishops is very important, the members of the synod will act more independently and will not allow the government of Prince Cuza to introduce various Catholic institutions in the country.
Recognition by Russia of the real Moldovan-Vlach bishops should follow, if possible, even before the meeting of the Holy Synod and in any case conditionally, that is, this time only and so that subsequently the appointment of diocesan bishops would depend, as in Russia, on the Holy Synod.
In informing Your Excellency about my conversation with the Metropolitan, I am at a loss as to what opinion to give on the subject of our recognition of the Moldovan-Wallach bishops appointed by Cuza.
If we recognize the real metropolitan and bishops, who all, according to the assurance of the Right Reverend Kallinikos, have complete devotion to Russia and do not for a moment forget the benefits that it has constantly provided to the Moldovan-Vlach Church, then we will arouse the displeasure of some of the clergy and boyars, who are offended that they were deprived of the right to elect their diocesan bishops, but we will gain influence on the members synod, which with energetic opposition can still save the country from Catholic innovations.
If we remain in our present relations with the Romanian bishops, then they, not having enough civic courage, will very likely, albeit against their will, still sign everything that is proposed to them by the government of Prince Cuza.
In order for us not to quarrel with either the boyars, or the clergy, or the diocesan bishops, and, taking into account that these latter will, in any case, be recognized by us over time (as I could notice from one order to me from General Ignatiev), it would not be bad to force the. Patriarch to now recognize the Moldovan-Wallachian diocesan bishops appointed by Cuza - after which, of course, their recognition should follow from Russia.
You, dear Pyotr Nikolaevich, of course know better than me how we need to act in order not to weaken Orthodoxy in the principalities, but I still considered it my duty to express to you my opinion regarding the recognition of bishops and at the same time I have the honor to add that I, in order to gain time, am writing today about the same thing to General Ignatiev and Baron Offenberg, both in my own hand, since the Most Reverend Kalinik asked me to keep his political confession as secret as possible, fearing that its publicity would not harm its real goal, that is, the preservation of Orthodoxy in Moldo-Wallachia, under the high patronage of Russia, its fellow believer.”
The question is proposed (December 9, 1865, No. 6270): should not, and moreover without delay, recognize the Romanian bishops appointed by the ruler without church election? It seems impossible to answer otherwise than in the negative for the following reasons:
1) The lack of church election is a significant shortcoming. They say: recognize for special circumstances, this one time: and then for future cases demand church election. But the rule, which is always obligatory, should not be violated even one day, moreover, if this is allowed now, then tomorrow they will say: what you recognized as permissible yesterday is permissible now; and thus breaking the rule will be authorized.
2) The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Council do not recognize the election of Romanian bishops. So, to recognize them would mean to be in disagreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod and to disrupt the peace of the Orthodox Church. Offer the patriarch to recognize them? - and this would hardly lead to success, but rather to disagreement.
3) The desire for this recognition, expressed by one bishop to a secular person, does not matter before the Holy Synod. Why would he recognize the Romanian bishops? It would be strange to force this recognition on them.
5) They say: the recognition of the Romanian bishops should strengthen them so that in the assembly, the so-called Romanian synod, they resist government measures tending towards Western union; and therefore must be done before the opening of the meeting of the said synod. But this time seems to have already passed. It is expected that there will be those dissatisfied with the supposed recognition of the bishops. Of these very bishops, some are strongly inclined towards the west. Others, who, as they say, do not have civic courage, will they suddenly receive an encouraging word from a distant country, and will they have enough strength and prudence to stand unshakably for the government, against innovations, before the government’s power weighing on them? 235
Shouldn't we be afraid that those who have recognized will turn away from those who have recognized, and, willingly or unwillingly, will turn their faces to the West? And this would be such a nuisance that we need to guard against it in every possible way 236 .
December 30th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the acting synodal chief prosecutor V.A. Lavrov, with an opinion on the proposal of Bishop Anthony of Smolensk 237 on replacing the names in church acts: deacon and sexton with the word cleric
G., acting as synodal chief prosecutor, V. A. Lavrov, having forwarded, dated December 24, 1865, No. 6652, a copy of the report to the Holy Synod of the Bishop of Smolensk, dated the 3rd of that month, No. 8920, about replacing the names: sexton and sexton with the word cleric, to Metropolitan Philaret, asked his conclusion on this subject.
In this report, the Right Reverend Anthony explained that the names sexton and sexton, which were not borrowed either from the Holy Scriptures or from the church canons and have no meaning, were so profaned and became so humiliating that those who completed the course at the seminary did not willingly agree to accept these positions because of their names, and therefore asked the Holy Synod to replace them with the words: senior and junior clerk.
On this occasion, Metropolitan Philaret wrote:
I am required (December 24, 1865, No. 6652), an opinion, according to the proposal of His Eminence of Smolensk, on the exclusion from use of the names sexton and sexton.
The Right Reverend writes: “it is difficult to explain how these names came into use, which were not borrowed either from the Holy Scriptures or from church canons, and in themselves have no meaning when applied to the subjects they have learned.”
It is my duty to remove the criticism from the church authorities that they have allowed names that have no meaning into official and church use. From the word: deacon, a truncated word became: clerk. Having passed into the realm of secular ranks, it once had a high significance; for example: Duma clerk - an official at the State Duma. From the word deacon came a diminutive word: deacon, that is, a small deacon, a lesser deacon, an official person at the church. Sexton is a contraction of the word: paramonary, παραμονάριος, permanent guardian of the church. From this it is clear that these names are not without meaning in relation to their objects.
The Eminence writes, further, that the titles of sexton and sexton have become almost humiliating and reproachful. This judgment seems to be somewhat exaggerated. These names in public opinion are no lower than the positions they designate.
The Reverend writes that those who have completed the seminary course are very embarrassed by these names. In this case, you may regret your way of thinking. In Moscow, students serve in sexton and sexton places, and their complaints about the embarrassment of these names are not heard.
The Eminence proposes, instead of the names of sexton and sexton, to introduce the names of senior and junior clerk. The word cleric is a translation of the word κληρικός, cleric. The name κληρικός extends not only to the reader and singer, but also to the highest degrees of clergy. The title clergy includes both priest and deacon. Therefore, the usage of words will definitely be dissatisfied if the name of cleric or cleric is limited to reader and singer.
Humility can get along with the names sexton and sexton; and personal dignity can elevate them, of which there are examples. But if it is necessary to show indulgence to a little ambition, then the names of senior and junior clerk can be introduced into official use.
However, the titles of sexton and sexton will become more humiliating when they cease to be official; and the people will not soon lag behind them.
Isn’t it enough, and isn’t it better for only those who have completed the seminary course, the first two categories, to be given the title of senior clerk, no matter what position they occupy as deacon or sexton? Through this, they will be more visible to their superiors and distinguished from uneducated sextons and sextons.
In December. The draft report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod regarding the request by the Ministry of Public Education to indicate the persons of the ecclesiastical department capable of occupying the newly opened departments of church history and church jurisprudence at universities
The Holy Synod is concerned about instructing the Ministry of Public Education to persons from the ecclesiastical department who are capable of occupying the departments of church history and church jurisprudence established by the new charter at universities.
This concern is not unimportant, both due to the number of persons required, especially capable and reliable, and due to the special circumstances of the time, which present the spiritual authorities with difficulty in meeting their own needs of the ecclesiastical school service. Therefore, before specifying the required persons, it is necessary to accurately determine:
I. Which persons can be recognized as capable and reliable to occupy the departments of church history and church jurisprudence at universities?
II. Where can such persons be obtained from?
In theological academies, the best of the academy students who have just completed their course of study are usually recognized as capable and reliable for occupying one or another department. Placed here in the circle of experienced mentors, sometimes under their closest guidance, mainly under the guidance of a strong tradition regarding the scope and direction of academic teaching, as well as provided with the good opinion of the academy, which was formed and established during their upbringing there, young mentors, without any particular inconvenience and with satisfied success, teach the subjects assigned to them, and by teaching themselves they learn, continue and improve their education to the required degree of maturity of knowledge and experience.
Universities cannot provide such favorable conditions for possibly useful activities for young mentors from theological academies. Here, future teachers of the newly established departments of church history and church jurisprudence are drawn into the circle of experienced professors, but professors of other specialties, alien to theology; here the future time will have to form a solid, good tradition regarding the scope and direction of the named subjects of teaching, which should be subjects of special independent departments, and not appendages, as was before, to the department of theology; here young teachers can still expect not an opinion in their favor, but a prejudice against their education; that partly it will not be unfair to people who have just left school.
True, the Ministry of Education proposes that the students of theological academies elected to the rank of professor be sent abroad to strengthen their education; but I have already had the opportunity to report to the Holy Synod about how cautious a view such an assumption requires. A journey to the East promises nothing, and it is fair to receive no sympathy from the universities; the journey to the west, sympathetic to scientists and truly useful for those who are established in knowledge and experience, armed with careful and strict criticism, is dangerous for people who are not established in knowledge and experience.
Such considerations lead to the obvious conclusion that in order to occupy the departments of church history and church jurisprudence at universities, it is necessary to select persons not from among the students who have just completed an academic course of study, even the best, but from among the masters of the academy, who have already acquired and demonstrated some experience in teaching, in the ecclesiastical school service, and also the best.
This last circumstance requires special attention, and its consideration more decisively confirms the validity of the stated conclusion.
The matter of teaching church history and church jurisprudence at universities cannot be alien to the actual spiritual and scientific interests, and especially to the moral and religious goals of the Orthodox Russian Church. The fruits of this or that teaching of the above-mentioned subjects, at one Moscow university, will appear every year, directly in the minds of almost four hundred young people studying in the two faculties for whom the above-mentioned departments are intended. Taking into account also that, according to the established custom in universities, the limits of one faculty are not limits insurmountable for students of other faculties, the total number of students in one Moscow University, at present, exceeds two thousand people: we can agree that the vastness of the influence of university teaching, outside the boundaries of the university itself, is even difficult to foresee and determine, although approximately.
The new university statute, as is well known to the Holy Synod, separates the named departments from the department of theology itself and immerses them in the circle of secular sciences, of course, not without a special purpose.
And the Ministry of Education, in its assumptions about preparing the necessary mentors for these departments, is also taking measures that require their careful rejection on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities - this, by the way, is the proposed measure to subject candidates for professorship to the test not in academies, but in universities.
All this confirms the idea that students who have just completed an academic course of study should not be appointed to occupy newly established theological departments at universities, but it is necessary to indicate experienced people and, moreover, the best of them, who would be reliable in terms of a kind and firm influence on a huge number of university students - who would be strong in protecting the Orthodox theological spirit of the sciences they teach, involved in a circle alien to them - who, finally, with their undoubted scientific and teaching merits, they could conveniently reject the pretentious assumption that dreams, through testing them in universities, to put them outside the influence of the spiritual government.
Where can such persons be obtained from?
If the above considerations are true, then it is necessary to find ways to indicate the required persons from the best mentors of theological academies, no matter how difficult such a search may be for the spiritual authorities, due to the circumstances of the time. This necessity is cruel: for the four theological academies will have to allocate ten teachers from among their best professors for five universities - for two, in each of them, newly established theological departments.
However, the apparent difficulty of taking such a measure, in the essence of the matter, is conveniently simplified by accepting the following assumptions.
There is no doubt that church jurisprudence is a science belonging to the circle of theological sciences; but the opinion is not unfounded that some of the secular legal sciences are auxiliary sciences for church jurisprudence: these are primarily Roman and Byzantine law and partly state law. Consequently, a professor at a theological academy elected to the university department of ecclesiastical jurisprudence will probably have to work, at home and abroad, to acquire the necessary information on the above-mentioned secular sciences. Due to this circumstance, conditioned by the dual, theological and legal nature of science, there may not be an absolute necessity for a university professor of church jurisprudence to belong to the clergy.
As for the department of church history, there is not a single circumstance for which, with visible grounds, a secular title would be required from a professor of this department. On the contrary, the same reasons for which a professor of theology in our universities is always elected from among the clergy are the same generally accepted reasons that require the same title for a professor of church history: this science is, of course, strictly theological. And our universities, of course, should not be suspected of any secret reluctance to admit a new clergyman to their professorship, other than a professor of theology.
Based on these assumptions, the ecclesiastical authorities can indicate the required persons, partly from the current mentors of the academy for the department of church jurisprudence, partly from former academic teachers, now diocesan priests, and these for the department of church history. It goes without saying that from among the priests who were in the academic academic service, it is necessary to point out those who did not leave academic studies with the abandonment of the ecclesiastical school service, but continue them either by the rank of teachers of the law in secular educational institutions, or out of free curiosity - which is not unknown to the ecclesiastical authorities and local universities about some of them.
According to all the explanations given here, the following persons can be listed as capable and reliable for Moscow University: 239
Case of the chancellor. St. Synod, 1865, No. 1887 and from a copy reported by Archbishop. Tver and Katsiya Savva.
Book You. Andr. Dolgorukov, chief of gendarmes; mind. 1867
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1865, No. 4. Copy from the opinion of the meter. Philaret “On liberation. from under the arrest of persons of false priests,” the archbishop has. Tversk and Kashinsky Savva.
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod 1865, No. 1888.
Case of the chancellor. Holy Synod, 1865, No. 2020.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 95, vol. IV, document. Nos. 177 and 178.
Archpriest N.A. Sergievsky.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 82, document. No. 2.
Case of the National Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1863, No. 197, pp. 106 and 107, 128 and 129.
Art. Alekseevich Maslova died in Moscow on April 21, 1879, with the rank of Privy Councilor. His obituary was placed in the Russian Archive 1879, No. 6. For a list of his works, see Reference. Dictionary of Russian Writers, Gr. Gennadi, vol. 1, pp. 296 l 427.
Maslov's note was not found in the file.
The title of the brochure is as follows: “Memories of the Battle of Borodino in 1864 and the Borodino monument in Moscow.” Moscow, 1864
Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1865 No. 34.
Case of the chancellor. St. Synod, 1865 No. 1890, pp. 71 and 72.
Ep. Leonid, Count Bobrinsky in Sukhotin. See in Volume V of this publication, Nos. 741, 743, 746.
John Fr. Jung, deceased in 1885 as bishop of Florida,
With a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 82, document. No. 3 and 4.
* No. 247. The description of the Orthodox liturgy in America says: “all pious souls were touched by the harmony of our voices in the Trisagion.” Note from Metropolitan Philaret.
Case Moscow. Office of the Holy Synod, 1865, No. 62, l.4.
Filaret (Gumilevsky), deceased. 9th Aug. 1866
Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1864, No. 12, pp. 37–45.
These two are known in the press of contemporary literature. They are mentioned among those present at the lodge council in Moscow in 1861. Exchange Ved. 1864, No. 139. Modern. Sheet. No. 21.
The first culprit in attracting the said schismatic priests to the Orthodox Church was Professor Mask. spirit. acad. N. I. Subbotin. See his speech delivered at a ceremonial meeting in Moscow. spirit. Academy, April 18, 1874 and published in the “Brotherly Word” 1886, pp. 603–619, under the title: “On sources for the history of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.”
Light book Italian, Count A.A. Suvorov-Rymniksky.
This note, written, according to Paphnutius, by professor of Moscow. N.I. Subbotin, published in the magazine “Brotherly Word” in 1884, pp. 165–176.
The following circumstance can serve as evidence of the enmity towards the Orthodox Church that my heart was infected with at that time. In the fourth year of my solitary life, I entered into relations with a fairly well-known schismatic false teacher at that time, the fugitive Cossack Kozma Trofimov, who was hiding in an earthen cave in the Luzhki settlement. (This Kozma - later Konon, Bishop of Novozybkovsk was taken by the government and is kept in the Suzdal Spassky Monastery) He told me a notebook of his own composition, which contained an unholy interpretation of Chapters 11 and 12. 3 books of Ezra (about the vision of the horde) in relation to the fate of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state: this work was completely to my heart, so I rewrote it several times with my own hand and had the misfortune of distributing it in many copies, which I bitterly regretted later and still regret.
Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1865, No. 130.
Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 85; document No. 43.
See below, the attitude of the Metropolitan, dated September 16, 1866.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 16, document. Nos. 23, 26 and 27.
See about him in a separate volume “Collected opinions and reviews of N. Philaret”, p. 362, approx. 1.
From an autograph, keeping. in the Moss library. spirits acad., no. 1.
Taneev, Alexander Sergvevich, manager of the 1st department. own E.I.V. office.
Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod, deceased January 17, 1843
N.M. Gaidovsky-Potapovich, having received holy orders, did not fulfill the duties assigned to him as a missionary for long. First, his own illness, and then the death (November 19, 1867) of Saint Philaret, who called him to missionary service, were the reason for his removal from Moscow. Leaving the capital, he settled on the estate of the widow of a senator he knew, Secrets. owls Sofia Ivanovna Eristova (nee Princess Putyatina), near the Bologoye station, on the Nikolaev railway, for service in the house church. He is still there, but in a serious painful condition.
Subsequently, archimandrite, famous abbot of the Novgorod St. George's Monastery († 1838).
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1865, No. 959.
From a copy corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 85; document No. 41.
The full text of the diagnosis was signed by 23 bishops and 4 archimandrites. Note Metropolitan Philaret, written by him with his own hand.
ordained, dedicated.
From a copy corrected by Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping to the library Moscow spiritual acad., no. 5.
The name of Hieromonk Agapit is known in spiritual literature. He compiled and published: a) Life of St. John Chrysostom, M. 1860; 6) Life of Rev. Anthony the Great, St. Petersburg. 1865, and c) Life of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Petersburg. 1870 – About Hieromonk Agapit, see the letter to Metropolitan. Philaret to Archimandrite. Anthony, dated March 22, 1865, No. 1578, p. 460.
The matter is spiritual and educational. management at the Holy Synod, 1864, No. 930.
From a copy of the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept by the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva, l. 10.
See Dushen. Thurs. 1865, 11. News and notes, pp. 84–86.
Paphnutius, to his shame and spiritual destruction, did not remain faithful to Orthodoxy until the end of his life. In 1882, he returned to the schism and went to the schismatics abroad, to the Manuilov monastery, where he remains to this day.
The Metropolitan wrote to the vicar of the Trinity Lavra, Archimandrite, about the temporary placement of members of the Austrian false hierarchy who had joined Orthodoxy in the Gethsemane monastery. Anthony, dated May 24th. See letter in Part IV, No. 1587, p. 467.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory 350; document No. 26.
From a rough original, written in pencil on the reference of Count D.A. Tolstoy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 84; document No. 13.
Antony Shokotov, † March 13, 1871
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 45; document No. 3.
Chamberlain, Prince. Gr. Gr. Gagarin.
Timm, Vas., academician of battle painting.
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, No. 1943.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of St. Suvod, according to inventory No. 82; document No. 6.
Evgeniy Iv., rector of the embassy church in London.
For a more detailed and thorough discussion of the Metropolitan on this subject, see his “Letters to A. N. Muravyov,” pp. 641–644.
Metropolitan Philaret's answer was printed from a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 10; document Nos. 1 and 2. About Overbeck, see Orthodox. Review 1869 and 1870
See Soulep. Thu., 1865, part 11. News and notes, pp. 84–86.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1865 No. 130.
At the end of the page the metropolitan notes: “July 27. 1865.”
At the end of the 7th sheet it is marked by the Metropolitan: “July 28, 1865.”
The Metropolitan's letter was written in pencil and pen; the attitude of the chief prosecutor, and the opinion is written in a special notebook, on ¼ sheet. Stored. document in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 84; document Nos. 15 and 16.
From a handwritten draft original, verified with the attached copy, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 63; documents No. 7, 8 and 9.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 82; document No. 9.
From a rough handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 84; document Nos. 11 and 12.
Adjutant General A.P. Akhmatov.
Nowadays D. T. Sov. and senator.
With his own hand. draft original, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 79; document Nos. 22 and 23. Brewed copy of this document. stores. in the Bible St. Petersburg, spirits acad., ll. 2–9.
The plan under the letter A, but this plan was not in the case or in the collection.
The plan is letter B, but it is not in the file or in the collection.
From a copy, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, contained in a collection of them, stored in the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, pp. 245–250.
From a copy, from the opinions of Metropolitan Philaret, contained in a collection stored in the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, zl. 251 and 252.
Secretary of State, secret. owls II. A. Baluev.
It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1865, No. 2223.
St. Petersburg Led. 1865, May 16, No. 121. Note Metropolitan Philaret.
From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 114; document Nos. 1–4.
In Greek it is pronounced "diagnomi". Note Metropolitan Philareta.
The letter is copied from an autograph, and the note from a copy; both keep documents. in the Moscow library. spirits acad. Nos. 13 and 14.
From a copy corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, and kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document No. 25.
i.e. Rogozhskoe cemetery.
Gesheft there refers to the benefit acquired from any free industry or position.
This refers to the charter on which the Belokrinitsa Metropolis is based.
This is what we call Belaya Krinitsa - based on the 9th chapter of the Apocalypse.
Placed in the signs “” in the rough original, crossed out in pencil, i.e. everything that became known to the Metropolitan from P. A. Popov’s letter.
From a rough handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 114; document Nos. 6 and 7.
The letter is copied from an autograph, and the note from a copy; both documents stored in libraries. Moscow spiritual acad., nos. 12, 13 and 14.
Professor Moscow d. acad. N.I. Subbotin mentions the documents and papers delivered to him, which were in the archives of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis, in his speech delivered at a ceremonial meeting in Moscow. d. acad., April 18, 1874, before defending his doctoral dissertation, entitled: “History of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.” (See Bratsk Slovo, 1886, No. 8, p. 616).
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 49, document. Nos. 4 and 5.
It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 1940, l. 72–73. A letter of the same content was sent, on October 10, 1865, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy.
From an autograph, keeping. in Moscow spirits acad. No. 19.
Afanasy (Drozdov), retired in 1870; 7th Dec. Died in 1876.
Now the Archbishop of Tver.
Matter of spirit.-educational. ex. at the Holy Synod, 1864, No. 1747, pp. 21–26.
The “consideration” of the rector of the academy mentioned by the metropolitan in the Moscow case. synod. there was no office.
From the black original, storing. in the Moscow case. Office of the Holy Synod, 1865, No. 182, pp. 4 and 5.
From an autograph, keeping. in Moscow spirits acad., nos. 24 and 25.
Report of a professor of theology in Moscow. university. prot. N. A. Sergievsky, published in Orthodox. Review, 1865, vol. XVIII, pp. 187–200.
Archpriest N.A. Sergievsky, master of the XVIII course in St. Petersburg. academy. Nowadays he is the protopresbyter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral.
Vasiliev Ios. Vas., rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Paris, † Dec. 1882
Popov Evg. Iv., rector of the Russian Embassy Church in London, † 1875
Yanyshev Ioann Leontievich, rector of the Russian church in Wiesbaden. Now the confessor of Their Imperial Majesties.
These opinions were published in the same XVIII volume. Orthodox. Review, pp. 200–216.
Pavlovsky, M., professor of Novorossiysk University.
Case of the chancellor. Holy Synod, 1865, No. 1978.
Of these priests, although most of them are even illiterate, they are good for the Old Believers, because they do not drink tea, vodka, or forks at the table for food, for this seems to be the greatest sin for many of the Old Believers there. Even Savvaty himself imitates this superstition, of course, to further spread the schism and for his own self-interest.
From the case min. internal affairs, storing in his archive, 1865, No. 42, l. 24–27.
Case of the chancellors of the Holy Synod, 1865, No. 888.
These opinions were not found in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
"On the Lenten Triodion and Typikon." Note Metropolitan Philaret, written in pencil.
From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 4; document No. 12.
From a handwritten draft original, not written in the name of Count Tolstoy and kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 95, vol. IV, doc. No. 193.
At the end of this page the Metropolitan notes: “Dec. 14. 1865."
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 84; document No. 20 and 21.
Subsequently, Archbishop of Kazan († November 8, 1879).
From a copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 102; document No. 17.
This ends the list of the project, in duplicate, stored. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 33, document. Nos. 11 and 12.