1866 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Draft message from the Holy Synod to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Sophrony, compiled by Metropolitan Philaret
To His Holiness Sophronius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch in Christ the Lord, a fraternal kiss.
From the message of your Holiness, dated July 1, 1865, 240, we learned with deep sorrow about events that were regrettable for everyone in the universal Orthodoxy of the united churches, which shook the improvement and prosperity of the Vlach-Moldavian church.
If compassionate thought has stopped on the path to word and action, then partly due to the lack of a certain clarity in some of the circumstances of these events, partly in the hope that the Orthodox spirit of the ministers of the Vlach-Moldavian church will be aroused, will firmly guard the ancient detached church order, will raise a convincing voice to the Orthodox authorities and people that they will take the voice of the mother of the church to heart and with general diligence it will be protected from innovations that are not consistent with sacred rules.
To our new sorrow, this hope in the further movement of this matter was little justified, and more met the opposite, few of the clergy of the Vlach-Moldavian church uttered, not without suffering, a word of truth and reproof: - may their sacrifice be acceptable to the Divine head of the holy church, Christ our God! “The Vlaho-Moldavian prince did not deign to comply with your peaceful disposition, His Holiness, to the message and reasoning of the council that exists with you, but decided, in his own expression, to “fight against him with the invincible weapon of laws and canons.”
In these circumstances, out of the duty of general and mutual protection of peace and unanimity of churches, we find ourselves obliged to testify that the undertaken mental battle was not victorious, and that the right of the secular ruler to the innovations undertaken in the legislation and administration of the Vlach-Moldavian church remains unproven. A detailed presentation of this is attached in a special discussion on this subject.
We recognize that the establishment of a new synod, which has legislative and governmental power, exceeds the measure of secular power, and requires the judgment and approval of the highest council in the church, and especially the patriarch, to whose region the church establishing the new synod belongs. Close examples of this are the All-Russian and Athens synods.
We recognize the provision that “the Romanian metropolitan presides over the synod in the name of the sovereign” as anti-canonical and anti-evangelical (Luke 10:16; Matt. 18:20). The Metropolitan and other members of the synod are present in it in the name of Christ and the apostles.
We recognize the appointment of bishops by secular authority alone, without ecclesiastical election, as anti-canonical. Those who have accepted such an appointment must put themselves before the thirtieth rule of the holy apostles, and think with fear whether they will receive true sanctification and extend it to the flock.
We limit ourselves to indicating the most important deviations from the sacred rules. If from these the grace of God grants a return to the true church path, this will indicate the correction of other innovations.
Without a doubt, His Holiness, your fatherly love for the Vlach-Moldovan Church and for its children has not been exhausted. Is there still a way to encourage, with the words of this love and conviction, those who are firm in the truth of the Church, those who are hesitant to establish it, to lead the matter onto the path of peaceful consultations, and to protect the immutability of the essential with some leniency towards what is permissible?
We are confident that, in order to advance this, our most pious Sovereign Emperor will command, or has already commanded, his ministry to give good and peaceful advice to the Vlach-Moldovan government.
We pray to our Lord Jesus Christ that by his all-pervading grace he will direct the actions of you and the council that exists with you towards the pacification of the Vlach-Moldavian church and the preservation of this member of the spiritual body of Christ in healthy unity with the great body of the Orthodox universal church.
We remain with a sincere desire for your Holiness of all good and salvation and with brotherly love for Christ 241.
January 10. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the selection of deans
In Russia, the ability and inclination to adopt what is foreign has been strengthened. They see something alien, something new for themselves, and are seduced; do not stop to think whether this is suitable for us, and how it can be done more reliably; they hastily get to work, and produce only a ghost without content, without strength, and without fruit.
For some time now, publicity and elective principles have been loudly preached and actually spread. The clergy sees and says: we also need publicity and elections.
The Eminences give instructions on the application of the elective principle to deans; priests write and print, in the diocesan bulletins, instructions on how to do this; portend unsuccessful first experiments; they promise better things later; talk about law and the counting of votes; they appoint a candidate, not hoping to openly receive a straightforward word; draw up a law on meetings of deans; The diocesan authorities establish a special official seal for the dean, not paying attention to the fact that this belongs to the highest authority.
But some of the Eminences have already become disillusioned with experiments of this kind; some remain perplexed. Consequently, the question of choosing deans needs research.
How were deans chosen before? The bishop tried to personally recognize mostly capable and trustworthy priests, seeing them in his office on business, and during the review of the diocese; on occasion, he acquired information about such from deans and honorable parishioners, and thus had, although not always, ready candidates in case of vacancies for the dean, in addition, he took into consideration the opinion of the consistory. In this way, deans were elected, often those who provided leadership for many years from the work of the new election, and, with increasing experience, had a strong influence on the improvement of their subordinates in discipline, morality and zeal for service matters.
Can such influence be expected from deans who are created by their subordinates through election, and whose life as a dean is limited to three or five years?
One bishop asked a straightforward and frank priest: will deans elected by subordinates be better than the previous ones? He answered: it’s better for us, but worse for you. What does it mean? That we will preferentially choose not those who are zealous and strict in the truth, but those who are lenient and weak, who would cover up our shortcomings and not inform you of our disorders.
Another bishop appointed an experiment for the election of a dean in two districts, and sent a trusted person, an archpriest, to supervise them. Upon completion, the bishop asked his confidant: did the elections take place correctly? This one answered: in one of the two districts, a priest, far inferior to the others in dignity, but searching, through various suggestions, promises, treats, prepared such a strong majority of votes in his favor that it would hardly have been possible to resist this if an unexpected chance had not come to the rescue. By the day appointed for the election, this priest became so ill that he could not be present at the election meeting. The Right Reverend's confidant, taking advantage of his absence, broke his complicity and made the right choice.
In another district, similar preparations were being made, but not with such force, and the Reverend’s trustee had less difficulty in inducing voters to make an impartial choice.
Someone from the highest civil service, with deep knowledge in the subjects of government and a love of freedom, told one of the bishops that in order to put the diocesan administration in a more satisfactory position, it would be useful to apply the elective principle to some positions. The bishop replied that some are making experiments in applying this principle to the position of dean. To this the interlocutor said: I meant the positions of a member of the consistory, the spiritual board, a deputy, and not a dean. The dean is the confidant of the bishop. It would be strange for a boss to have as his confidant not the one he trusts, but the one whom others trust. The dean is the bishop's eye in supervision. Is it natural for outsiders to come and poke the boss in the eye?
This is the dark side of the elective principle as applied to deans. Will not those who have tried to discover it with insightful reasoning and experience, and have not been carried away by the flickering brilliance of modern opinions, show the light? 242
January 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to an unknown person about the return, according to his ownership, of the manuscript about religious educational institutions, with the addition of the opinion that they are not as bad as the author of that manuscript portrays them
Return the manuscript about theological and educational institutions to the venerable defender of the poor Orthodox Russian clergy and the spiritual and educational class. We are grateful to his truthful trial.
But may we be allowed to tell the truth as we see it. The shadow of censure cast on theological schools is very dark and wide. I can say without hesitation about the schools of the Moscow diocese that they do not retain their “bad” students in the teaching field; but if such a person turns up somewhere and does not accept correction, they eliminate him like an infection, not allowing him to complete the course of study. I also cannot admit that “young men have neither respect nor trust for their mentors and teachers, do not receive smart advice or warnings from them”; and as if “the ideas of nihilism and socialism are already quite widespread among the students of our seminaries.”
I know an example where a capable and successful student was not allowed into the teaching field simply because there was some doubt about the purity of his way of thinking; but later it turned out that he cleared himself of doubt, and served with dignity in the clergy. I also know an example where someone who received an academic education while serving in a distant seminary turned out to be ill-intentioned; but this happened because he, being of average success, did not soon receive an appointment, and in the meantime he lived with a socialite in St. Petersburg, and there he was exposed to mental infection. The Kazan Academy was infected by the university there; but, after the removal of Shchapov and three or four similar students, it was cleared. Of the seminaries remote from the academies, and from their governing influence, in recent years, two or three have turned out to be mentally and morally unclean; I do not know to what extent the correction has been achieved.
Is it fair to censure all academies and seminaries for the former sin of one academy, and for the sins of three seminaries?
January 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the schismatic Vasily Nosov, who wanted to join Orthodoxy
Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir.
The Perm provincial prosecutor forwarded to me a petition from prisoner Vasily Mikhailov Nosov, who is being held in the Verkhoturye prison castle, to join the Orthodox Church and to be placed in the Resurrection Edinoverie Monastery, Ufa diocese.
The request is not addressed to me, however, I do not dare to ignore it, since it concerns the benefit of the Orthodox Church.
This prisoner, according to his story in the petition, is the son of a peasant in the Nizhny Novgorod province, Balakhninsky district, and the village of Gorodets. Born of an Orthodox father, he was seduced into the schism by his schismatic stepmother at a young age. At the age of twenty, with a ticket, but secretly from his father, he left his parental home, lived in a monastery, near the Zlatoust plant, was tonsured there as a false monk, with the name Vincent, and after the destruction of the monastery by his superiors, in 1859, he continued to live in a forest cell until 1862.
At this time, having read in the Gospel: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,” he came into doubt about the correctness of his life, because he did not fulfill the first part of this commandment; and as a result, he returned to his homeland, took a passport, traveled to monasteries, entered into relations with the schismatic false hierarchy in Moscow, and at the end of this year was promoted to false hierodeacon; in 1863 he was a representative of the false bishop Constantine in Moscow at a false council; on the way from Moscow, he took leave from his peasant society to join the merchant class; then he was promoted to false archimandrite by the false bishop Constantine, on the recommendation of the false bishops of the Moscow cathedral. In March 1864, immediately after serving the liturgy with the false bishop Konstantin, he was arrested, but did not admit either to this service or to belonging to the false hierarchy, which was confirmed by letters from Moscow.
Later, when he learned about Onuphrius, Paphnutius, and others joining the Orthodox Church, he decided to join the Orthodox Church, making a full confession about himself, and sent a petition to the Perm bishop 244 about joining, the consequences of which he does not know. By the way, he mentions that he wrote to the false archbishop Anthony, exhorting him to abandon errors, a letter, which he presented to the archpriest of the Verkhoturye Cathedral, for presentation to the Right Reverend of Perm. He explains that he does not believe there is a difference between the rites of the Orthodox and Edinoverie churches, but wants to join the Edinoverie Church, thinking thereby to increase the number of those joining.
For a better understanding of the person and the matter, I am enclosing herewith, in the original, the petition of the false Archimandrite Vincent, in which letters from the false Archbishop Anthony are partly written to him. Vincent is a man of considerable ability and reputation in the schism. Remaining in schism, he could do a lot of harm to Orthodoxy by seducing the ignorant. Consequently, joining him to the same faith is the suppression of harm, and more or less the hope of benefit.
The fellow religious monk Paphnutius (former false bishop) testifies that Vincent, even before his departure from Moscow, began to doubt the correctness of the schism, and wanted to return to Moscow for further discussions about this; but did not return because he fell into the hands of justice. Therefore, Paphnutius recognizes his appeal to the Orthodox Church as sincere. The attached list from Vincent’s letter, in which he expresses his joy at the joining of significant schismatics to the same faith, also supports this opinion.
Everything stated here prompts me to humbly ask your Excellency to use supportive measures so that Vincent is accepted into Edinoverie monasticism and installed in the Edinoverie Resurrection Monastery indicated by him.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
This letter, along with the attachments, was presented by Count D.A. Tolstoy at the discretion of the Holy Synod, which, by resolution of (January 23/February 15) 1866, No. 193, decided the following: bearing in mind: 1) that the schismatic Vasily Nosov, who was tried in the case of conducting worship according to a schismatic rite and was held in the Verkhoturye prison castle, was sent by him to the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow the petition petitions for his annexation to the Orthodox Church, on the rules of Edinoverie, and for his placement in the Resurrection Edinoverie Monastery, Orenburg diocese; 2) that on the basis of Art. 587 and 590. mouth about the court. on cases about the previous and pres. Prest. 11 hours XV vol. St. 1857, the proceedings on the offenses of schismatics against Orthodoxy must be immediately terminated if the defendants turn to St.
Church, the Holy Synod determines to order the Eminence of Perm, having immediately made an order for the schismatic Nosov to join Orthodoxy, on the terms of Edinoverie, to enter into communication with the head of the province regarding the termination of the case being carried out about this prisoner and his release from prison to enter the Resurrection Edinoverie Monastery, Orenburg Diocese; about which to send a decree to the Most Reverend Neophyte, with an order to inform the Holy Synod about what follows; 3) by decree, let the bishop of Orenburg know about this 245, instruct him, upon arrival in the diocese of Nosov entrusted to him, to make an order to place him for residence in the mentioned monastery 246.
January 18. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the “new routine” compiled by Poznyshev
Report to the Holy Governing Synod, its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna.
Sent by decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 23, 1864, No. 6296, the manuscript of the first part of the teaching of church singing, compiled by the caretaker of the Smolensk religious school, candidate Poznyshev, was forwarded to the previously formed committee in Moscow to consider the musical notes of church chants, so that the committee would present its opinion about it.
Presenting to this Holy Synod the opinion of the said committee, I agree with the committee that the new routine is drawn up unsatisfactorily and does not correspond to the purpose. It is prescribed: 1) for general use and 2) for schools. But these two goals are different, and each requires a special adaptation: the daily life for churches must be complete so that the entire circle of church singing can be performed correctly. For schools, a more concise use is needed, adapted to the beginning and given time of study, and not burdensome in price, because it will be needed in large numbers of copies for poor people. What do students need No. 9 of the Cherubim song? What is 6 No. Worthy to eat? Is it so that they taught a lot and could not finish teaching, and sang what was not taught correctly? Even for churches, it is better that a few numbers of the Cherubic song and other things are chosen, more perfect in church character and less difficult to perform, so that they are studied to perfection and performed correctly.
A faithful edition of the Kyiv liturgy would be desirable; but, probably, it would require considerable considerations if its current execution was compared with the manuscript of the 1720s available in the Kyiv Lavra. With this, I return the manuscript of the new use.
Your Holiness's humblest novice,
This report is accompanied by an analysis of Op. Poznyshev, made by Rev. Assumption Church at Mogiltsy by Ippolit Bogoslovsky-Platonov, with the following content:
Proposed by Mr. Poznyshev, “Note use or a guide to church singing for theological schools and church clergy,” in terms of the breadth of its purpose and the importance of the subject, must satisfy many and strict requirements. These requirements are revealed mainly from consideration of the shortcomings of existing guidelines for church singing. The author points out these shortcomings in the preface to his work, namely: he points out the inconvenience of the “circle of church singing”, which is set out in Italian notes, unfamiliar to most of our clergy, and the incompleteness of other church music books, in which the absence of the so-called simple or commonly used melody is especially noticeable; and especially on the incompleteness of the “abbreviated church usage” used in schools.
One could and should point out quite a few important shortcomings that abound in our church music books, and which call for the compilation of a new, more satisfactory guide to church singing; These shortcomings are: the uncertainty of the church scale in relation to the generally used musical scale, the absence of signs indicating semitones where they are required by the melody, the lack of a strict selection of tunes suitable for general use, and finally, errors, even after repeated corrections of music books, remaining in them and making it difficult to understand the melody. It would be fair to wish that in the new “guidance” all these shortcomings would, if possible, be eliminated while preserving the ancient church tunes in all their rigor. But the everyday life compiled by Mr. Poznyshev very little satisfies this legitimate desire.
As for the volume, judging by the first part of the daily routine examined by the committee, the proposed manual can be called almost satisfactory: it makes a very necessary addition to the previous routine for schools, introducing from “church singing” the commonly used melody of the all-night vigil, as well as the entire liturgy of Bortnyansky, and in addition many of the ancient church chantings, for example. for the cherubic song "9" tunes. But there is not enough rigor in the choice of these tunes. There are tunes not taken from ancient music books, but of completely unknown origin, and, moreover, do not have a melody worthy of church use and do not correspond to the meaning of the chants themselves. These are the essence: a) Quiet Light, No. 3, in which no melody can be found, but there is only recitative, interrupted, and, moreover, very inappropriately, by singing, which has nothing in common with it; eg
the words: Quiet Light make up a special phrase, and then, after a completely unnecessary break, it is read in recitative: saints of glory, etc.; also after the words: You are worthy at all times, the finale and rest are placed in half a beat, while in meaning they are inseparable from the subsequent ones. b) Triple Lord have mercy (for some unknown reason inserted between artistic songs), a strange chant and indecent for the church. c) For the antiphon of the 4th tone: From my youth, three tunes have been proposed, of which the 3rd is similar (although not completely) to the everyday one, the 2nd is with the one indicated in the circle of church singing, and the 1st is taken from nowhere, and has nothing in it that is either pleasant to the ear or original, and in places fits first one or the other of the mentioned tunes. d) The same should be said about the Cherubim song, No. 7: it is not in everyday life, nor is it among the recognized works of sacred music; probably this is the composition of some little-known singer, which is used locally; Meanwhile, the melody does not at all correspond to the solemn and at the same time touching character of the chant.
e) In the sacramental verse: Create angels, No. 2, a tune unknown and without any melody. If the melody is known, but does not deserve approval, such as, for example, the author’s chanting: Lord have mercy during the liturgy (weeping and suitable for song), then even then it would be unfair to elevate such chanting to the level of commonly used ones and make them obligatory, when we have many worthy, both ancient and new church melodies.
This is to say about the “liturgy sung in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra,” which the author placed in everyday life, of course, in order to introduce it into general use. The committee does not have the original notes of this liturgy to judge the fidelity of the melody proposed in everyday life; but as far as the overall merit of this melody is concerned, it does not have the calmness and measuredness befitting church singing: the melody is often interrupted by patter; Moreover, the same word is repeated many times, with which the same musical phrase is repeated without any need. So, in the Cherubim song, the word: cherubim is repeated 5 times, also the Trisagion 5 times, every now 6 times. Sometimes the chant is drawn out through the monotonous repetition of the same notes over one syllable, which unnecessarily delays both the melody and the sacred act itself, for example. in "Praise Thee, Lord". Sometimes the melody takes on a kind of lively (bravura) character, completely alien to the tenderness aroused by the saint. words and St. minutes, e.g. in the left face.
The well-known and everywhere used tunes are set out in the everyday life in question only in a few places better than the previous everyday life (see “Bless, my soul, the Lord” of the Kyiv chant, precisely in the words: Lord my God, you are greatly exalted; God is with us, Znamenny chant, abbreviated, for the better, also the prokeimenon the Lord reigned; in the Cherubim song, No. 6, and especially, No. 7, repetition of identical phrases is omitted thoroughly); in other places, not only the errors of the previous music books were not corrected, but also many new errors were made through unnecessary deviations from the original. The exceptions are that:
a) notes change in number, for example. in the prokemena the Lord will hear me, above the syllables: ti, mi, quarters are placed, instead of half-beats; in Cherub, No. 3, above the word secretly there are eighths, instead of quarters, the same above the word: three and above the syllables: ko-e, angelic, in the Grace of the world, above the syllable mi, half a beat and a quarter, instead of a whole, and then in the left face above the syllables hom, tvo, quarters instead of a half beat; over a word in half a beat instead of a quarter; in You we sing over the syllable Te whole instead of half; above the syllables there are quarters instead of half beats; the same under the syllables lim-ti-sya; There are especially many such incorrect changes in “It is worthy to eat as truly,” No. 1, where a half-beat is placed over the syllable Bo instead of a quarter, and vice versa: a quarter instead of a half-beat over the syllables: ti, cha, sno, bla-nuyu, Bo-ga, na-she and further to the end, the notes are reduced by half, which is why the size (tempo) is mixed; in the prokeimenon of the 4th voice “For having become exalted,” half a beat is placed above mu, which produces a difficult stop in the recitative; the same is true in the prokeimenon for the Annunciation.
b) There are unsuccessful substitutions of some notes for others, for example. in Psalm 102 in the words do not forget, the crowning one will be renewed, in my belly, on the last one, in addition, the necessary stop has not been made; in Cherubim, No. 3, the third secretly begins with fa immediately after fa#, which will make it difficult even for a sensible singer, and in general the whole phrase is changed unsuccessfully; which the author corrected in the appropriate places in the last three-holy song, from-lo-zhim; in Cherubim, No. 4, in the word everyday, the last three notes re, mi, fa, are placed instead of ut# and re, in Worthy is No. 6 after the cherub above and ut is placed, instead of fa, and in the words of God the Word, mi is placed over the syllables ha, word, instead of re; in the tribute for the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, in the word virginity, ut# is placed above the last words, but a simple ut is needed; also in the words: childbirth, settling down; on the Exaltation in the word of Christ, above the last syllable, in addition to the proper re, several more notes (fioritura) are placed, which disrupts the melody and then ut# instead of simple ut; the same mistake in the word tree.
c) Often such incorrect changes to the original concern not one, but several notes that make up an entire musical phrase, which disrupts the correct flow of the melody, and sometimes the entire character of the melody is distorted.
Examples can be seen: in Praise the Name of the Lord, No. 4, where all the verses, and especially alleluia, are distorted; in the immaculate, No. 2, in the words: mail, tears; in the Chosen Voivode, No. 2, especially in the word evil; in Cherubim, No. 4, the second phrase: like the cherubim is lowered against the original by a third, the same in the corresponding phrases: and life-giving, everything is now; in Cherubim, No. 8, the ends, needlessly, are placed in the third; under the word: The phrase was composed to the Trinity; in Cherubim, No. 9, (known as the ruined one), the ends are changed against the well-known melody, so that the melody seems to suddenly end; in the left face, under the word Hosts - a phrase composed in a tearful tone; in It Is Worthy, No. 3, the beginning is not similar to the original and, moreover, worse; in the tribute for the Nativity of the Mother of God, the words: on Thee and Thee are sung better in the original; in the tribute for the Nativity of Christ, the chant is completely changed, especially in the words: and the most glorious of the hosts on high, the Most Pure Virgin; the very verse: to love slaughter is unnecessarily raised by a quart; in the prokemnas: my soul magnifies, and the Lord, the author of my enlightenment, departed from the accepted melody; The tune he indicated is both difficult and unpleasant to the ear.
d) Arbitrary deviations from the original also include breaks or pauses, which the author often puts unnecessarily, and even contrary to the flow of the tune or the meaning of the words. Such stops are especially strange in simple singing, when one singer sings. Eg. in praise the name of the Lord, No. 2, after the word: Lord there is a pause in ¾, and immediately after alleluia in ¾, the same in the corresponding verses; These stops are not at all required by the previous singing, which is short-lived; the author needed them only in order to withstand the division of notes into measures, which are not at all necessary in church singing. In the troparion: Risen from the grave, after the word: sermon, a two-quarter pause makes a strange break in the melody. In the left face of a simple chant, breaks after the words are inappropriate: righteously there is, consubstantial; Also in It is worthy to eat without need, too long pauses are indicated after the words: cherub, seraphim.
In Worthy, No. 2, after our word there is a pause of ¾, which, together with the previous whole note, constitutes too long a gap in the singing; the same after the word: Mother of God, where the finale and pause are placed in ¾; and even above the next word, the finale again, all this slows down the singing unnecessarily, and the silence of half a beat, indicated after the words: without decay, deprives it of meaning; A similar remark should be made about the pauses indicated in It is Worthy No. 6, after the words: in truth most immaculate.
e) Also arbitrarily and unnecessarily, and sometimes to the detriment of the melody, the author either omits or inserts notes, deviating from the original. Such omissions can be seen in Cherubim, No. 3, in the word: let's put it aside; in It is worthy in the words and the Mother of God is omitted, mi, etc. Extra notes are inserted in the prokeme: My help, above the word heaven; in You we sing, a simple tune, small notes for decoration (foreshlags) in the words: bless, ours; in Cherubim, No. 3, a whole phrase is inserted through the repetition of the word: angelic; in the prokeme: having laid me down, the words are repeated unnecessarily: the canopy of death.
The preface to the newly compiled routine promises an indication of the tone for each chant, the semitones where they should occur, and, finally, the division of the chants into measures (meter). But this promise has been very poorly fulfilled. Examples of incorrect tone indications are numerous: for example, with Light Quiet, No. 3, the tone G-mol is indicated instead of D-mol; the Cherubic Bulgarian chant is written in re, but in the original it is placed in ut, which is why it goes from a hard tone to a soft one, and ends, as it should, in ut; the hymn: Elitsa was baptized into Christ is set in a completely different melody than in the circle of church singing, which occurred from the change in a soft tone to a hard one; after the Our Father, the amen needlessly rises a tone; in Praise the Lord, No. 3, the key is falsely placed flat on si, it is sung in C major; This also includes all those places of use in which the third is indicated instead of the main tone, which can confuse the singer; see in You we sing (everyday) word: we give thanks (second); in It is worthy, No. 6, word: most honest; in the sanctuary on the Exaltation is uncultivated, and everyone is involved No. 1.
One cannot but approve of the intention to indicate the third and bass at the main note so that not only one, but, if found, two or three voices can sing from the same book; but this is executed in the everyday life in question very unsatisfactorily: the third of the main note is indicated in a few places and not with small, as it should be, but with ordinary signs, the bass is indicated even less often. Examples of faulty halftone indications and inconsistent note separation can be seen on each page.
In general, it must be said that in addition to the indicated errors against art, the book is also replete with errors in writing, especially in the signing of words under the corresponding notes, which could not be expected from a work that has such an important purpose - to be a guide for many thousands of clergy and students of theological schools.
Based on all the comments made above, the considered use of church singing cannot be approved, either as a guide for clergy, or as a teaching aid for students of theological schools.
Member of the Committee of the Assumption Church at the Graves, Archpriest Ippolit Bogoslovsky-Platonov.
The Holy Synod, by resolution of May 11/23, 1866
for No. 940, decided the following: “Having considered the opinion presented by the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow of the committee existing in Moscow for the consideration of notated church hymns on the first part of the handwritten use, compiled by the caretaker of the Smolensk theological school, candidate Poznyshev, and bearing in mind that the aforesaid work of Poznyshev, although undertaken by him with the good purpose of delivering the necessary book to the parish church clerks for execution liturgical chants, and theological schools an improved educational manual on church singing, but in the opinion of this committee, as well as in the opinion of the Eminence Metropolitan of Moscow, it turns out to be unsatisfactory, the Holy Synod determines: to let the Eminence of Smolensk know that the first part of the manuscript cannot be approved for printing for the use intended by the author; which manuscript, with the written review of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow about it and with the attachment, in a copy, of the opinion of the committee established in Moscow for the consideration of church musical works, should be forwarded by decree to him, the Right Reverend.”
247
January 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with the appendix of an opinion entitled: “On notated church singing in primary public schools and on the rights of the court singing choir in relation to it”
Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, as chairman of the committee on the introduction of church singing into public schools and on the rights of the court singing chapel, demanded my opinion on this subject; and I presented it to His Imperial Highness.
I think that by this I have not sinned against the decree of the Holy Synod on the 10th day of the current month and year, but I also believe that it is in accordance with the force of this decree that the list of my opinion should be brought to the attention of your Excellency, which I am now executing.
Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most humble servant,
The following opinion was attached to this letter:
On notated church singing in primary public schools and on the rights of the court singing choir in relation to it
There are three questions to be considered: 1) who can be a teacher and by what right? 2) what should the singing be like? 3) who owns the ownership of this singing?
To resolve the first question, the director of the court chapel bases it on the highest command: the right to teach singing in churches, simple chanting, notated music, and to compose new music, can only be given to those who have passed the exam in the chapel and received the highest approved certificate of the court chapel.
If we separate from this saying what actually relates to the present subject: then we get the following: the right to teach singing in churches, simple chanting, and notated music can only be given to those who have received a certificate from the court chapel.
The report of the Minister of Public Education proves that this is impossible when applied to primary public schools. According to this rule, for thousands of schools, thousands of poor seekers of teaching positions, including, for example, from Siberia, from Astrakhan, would have to go to the court chapel to receive a certificate, if they are worthy, and if they do not turn out to be worthy, then for training.
It is also impossible to apply the said rule to the spiritual department. According to this rule, without a certificate from the court chapel, the clerics would not have the right to teach their children the simple chant: Lord, have mercy, etc.
By the grace of God, things are much simpler in churches. The clergyman who is more knowledgeable in singing, in addition to the children, invites hunters from literate parishioners to the choir, and if there is a school established by a priest at the church, invites capable students, shows them the tune, sings with them, then sings in the church; the priest observes that there is no deviation from tradition and decency; and – the parishioners are happy; the fathers of singing children rejoice; is it useful to restrict this freedom, and especially on free days?
A rural teacher of church music music does not require great musical learning. It is enough if he has a basic understanding of singing, knows how to sing harmoniously according to notes and skill, and can pass on this skill to others, especially if a training manual is given.
This leads to the conclusions that have already been made in the report of the Minister:
1) All clergy and clergy who have completed a course in theological seminaries or teachers’ seminaries have the right to teach church singing.
2) Other persons with the right to such training receive a certificate from the theological seminary.
For greater convenience, it is not superfluous to add.
3) For schools in counties, the diocesan bishop can grant the right to give the said certificate to knowledgeable members of the ecclesiastical boards or deans.
Finally, here we involuntarily encounter a question related to the present matter - while tests in knowledge are carried out, and the corresponding rights are given, in all educational institutions, at a collegial meeting, for example, in universities, faculty, is it appropriate that a test in the knowledge of church singing is carried out and a certificate is given, according to the reasoning of one person, one in the whole of Russia, and, moreover, a secular one, naturally possessing knowledge and taste, more secular than church singing?
That the director of the court chapel found it necessary to declare the practice of musical church singing the property of the chapel, this can only be explained by the fear that this property will be used by an outside agency, that is, that the practice will be taken into use by elementary public schools. But it is inconvenient for students of these schools to study two volumes of music; and the price of these volumes would be burdensome for them.
1) a short instructional guide to musical notation, and
2) an abbreviated routine, containing the most necessary and most commonly used chants from the all-night vigil, liturgy, and some necessary church chants for special occasions.
This small everyday life can be compiled, extracted from the large everyday life of the court chapel; and she, of course, will agree to make this small sacrifice for the common good, all the more conveniently since it will not harm her greater well-being.
Court singing has its recognized dignity and its glory. However, someone who loves and knows ancient church singing can dare to say that some parts of court singing have retained closeness to the spirit and character of ancient church singing, and some have suffered changes from the translators, not for the better. The Orthodox people, by tradition and instinct, sympathize with ancient church singing, which directly disposes to reverence and tenderness, and does not entertain with the pleasantness of cunning art; and he goes to seek such impressions in monasteries. Therefore, when compiling an abbreviated routine for primary public schools, it would be useful to adhere to the ancient spirit of church singing, which can be followed in synodal music books, and sometimes in locally preserved tunes of former times.
Against this, the court chapel says that its everyday life cannot be changed by anyone. But such a prohibition is not visible either in the laws or in the decrees of the Holy Synod. The word: by no one would mean that the Holy Synod cannot change the way of life of the court chapel, that is, any part of its melody. It must be hoped that she will not insist on assigning herself such a height of authority.
However, children in primary public schools should be taught what is sung in church by hearsay. It is more necessary, more common, easier; this is more capable of arousing in children a free love for church singing than musical notation; finally, it does not require money, and is safe from disputes about inviolable and unchangeable property.
But the question of the ownership of everyday life has already been raised. It must not pass away in silence.
As proof of ownership, the director of the court chapel presents the fact that on a copy of the everyday life approved for publication, this everyday life was signed by the former minister of the imperial court, Prince Volkhonsky, with the words added on it: property of the chapel. This inscription, in all likelihood, has the meaning that none of the workers should have a claim to this everyday life, compiled in the court chapel as part of their service, as personal property. But upon closer examination of this property, one can see that it belongs to more than one chapel. As a translated book, it contains two properties: 1) the original, the property of the author and 2) the translation, the property of the translator: thus, the used language in question contains two properties: 1) the original, the ancient church melody, belonging to the church under the main authority of the Holy Synod, and 2) the translation, the arrangement of the church chanting into four voices, with abbreviation and changes in some parts.
If the court chapel freely uses the original melodies belonging to the Holy Synod, then it will not be unfair for the Holy Synod to use part of the property of the chapel, that is, to extract from everyday life some articles for use in elementary public schools, if this turns out to be necessary.
There is another opposite opinion about church usage and church chanting, that this is the property of the entire Orthodox Russian people, like, for example, the prayer: Our Father. This opinion cannot be considered correct.
Comparing church singing with the Lord's Prayer is not accurate. The Lord's Prayer is the property of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He gave to the world for use, but not simply, but under the protective supervision of the ministers of the church: and if everyone, according to an imaginary right, at will, began to print the Lord's Prayer, and used the excess copies for the wrappings of things sold, the Holy Synod would ask the highest authority to prohibit this insult to the sacred in accordance with the word of the Lord: do not throw beads in front of pigs.
Property is constituted by one's own labor or by taking it from another by right or by assignment. The Russian people did not produce church singing through their labor, and did not receive rights or concessions for it from anyone.
The first church and the Greek church of subsequent centuries produced church singing through their labor; the Russian church borrowed it from the Greek, in addition to which, through its own labor, it formed some tunes; to protect the ancient singing, she enclosed it in notes, first in hooks, and then in clearer linear signs, and to teach the people the use and preservation of this singing. Is more necessary to recognize her ownership of this singing?
If this right were taken away from her, and church singing was given to the completely arbitrary use of the people (since anyone can dispose of property at will), then it could easily happen that the worldly taste of singing would invade the churches, prevail in them and introduce tunes unworthy of sacred things. We already see this in the Western Church, where theatrical music is used in churches during divine services, as if church stewards took upon themselves the position of tempters, so that the thoughts of those who came to pray would be drawn away from the church to the theater.
However, let there be no doubt that the pious and faithful authorities will not cease to protect the protective rights of the Orthodox Church.
An opinion was expressed on the protective supervision of church musical compositions and proposals: to establish a special commission within the department of the Holy Synod of persons known for their knowledge, which would resolve issues collectively, and the director of the chapel could be a member of this commission.
Perhaps the present considerations would not be complete if we did not touch upon this assumption.
Is the proposed commission, one for all of Russia, convenient and sufficient?
Will St. Petersburg, new in church life, present enough people with knowledge, experience and taste in more ancient church music?
Is it not with greater hope that we can look for such people in the more ancient dioceses, in which the attachment to the ancient church has been more preserved, and in which the new taste has not so decisively prevailed?
From these thoughts the following assumptions can be deduced:
1) Establish oversight commissions over church singing and censorship commissions in St. Petersburg under the Holy Synod, in Moscow and Kiev under the diocesan bishops.
2) The composition of these commissions may include, together with clergy, secular persons knowledgeable in music in general and especially inclined to church music.
3) Translations of hymns from the church octoech and everyday life for two, three and four voices, each of the commissions can approve for use, with the approval of the diocesan bishop.
4) Original church musical works can be submitted to all commissions, but the Moscow and Kiev works worthy of approval are not nominated for use themselves, but are submitted for consideration to the St. Petersburg commission, in which the director of the court singing chapel is present, and for the final decision of the Holy Synod.
5) If the diocesan authorities see the use of a church musical composition or arrangement not approved, then it will subject it to consideration by the commission, stopping the use.
6) But phrases and melodies that have long been used locally with public approval are not subject to such revision. This is, for example, the singing of Kiev; These are the translations of the irmos of Epiphany and the Presentation of the Lord used in Moscow, which in the past century were in church use with the approval of Metropolitan Plato, of blessed memory.
In January. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the relief of the illness of the Governor-General of Adrianople Aarif Pasha, by placing a crucifix on his chest, at his request, and after reading the Holy Gospel by an Orthodox priest, in vestments, which lasted about an hour
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with respect, dated January 20, 1866, No. 315, forwarded, at the discretion of Metropolitan Philaret, a translation of the report of the Russian consul in Adrianople, dated December 15/27, 1865, No. 271, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the relief of the shortness of breath of the Adrianople Governor-General Aarif Pasha after an hour-long reading by an Orthodox priest in the vestments of the Holy Gospel, when, at his request, a crucifix was placed on his chest.
Healing of the Adrianople Pasha
The following was written from Adrianople in mid-December last year:
During the last week public opinion has been intensely occupied by an extraordinary event:
The Governor-General, suffering from shortness of breath, did not leave his bed for more than a month. Having stopped using medications that did not give him any relief, he decided to ask the Orthodox Metropolitan to send him some venerable priest with the Gospel and the cross.
This latter was invited to put on church clothes, place a crucifix on Aarif Pasha’s chest and begin reading the Gospel, which lasted more than an hour and was listened to by the Pasha with special attention. From the next day, the Governor-General began to feel much better, he wanted to take a walk in a stroller, and only according to the doctors, he reluctantly abandoned this intention.
While the Muslims were unpleasantly surprised by this event, the Christians rejoiced at it and began to send up prayers for the recovery of the pasha, whose last act seemed to them a reliable guarantee of his tolerance and impartiality.
Aarif Pasha is a Turk of the old school, which does not prevent him from being quite educated.
If anyone asked: how to understand this incident, he could be pointed out in the book of Acts of Father Popliev, who was sick with watery disease. - It was a Roman pagan; but the Apostle Paul, having prayed and laid his hands on him, healed him. 249 (Acts 28:8).
February 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with the transmission of a note entitled: “On the arguments in the response letter of the Moldavian-Vlachian prince to the Holy Patriarch”
At the same time, I forward the promised appendix 250 to the draft synodal message to the patriarch: “On the arguments in the response letter of the Moldavian-Vlachian prince to the Holy Patriarch.”
I thought about making an abbreviated extract from the previous note about this; but this turned out to be inconvenient, because it was necessary to reconsider all the arguments collected in the prince’s letter. For if any of his arguments were passed in silence and not refuted, then at this point in his battle he would consider himself a winner.
By partially changing the wording of the previous note, I, by the way, mean, as much as possible, without weakening the truth, to soften the challenging expressions in order, as much as possible, to win over the “fighter” to the world with a peaceful word.
I repeat here what is said at the end of the attached note: this consideration is recognized.
February 9, 1866 Feb. 10.
The following note is attached to the letter.
On the arguments in the response letter of the Moldavian-Vlachian prince to His Holiness the Patriarch
At the sight of disagreement between churches, the church that is not involved in this, in order to preserve common peace and unity, has the duty to bring a word of reconciliation, touching as little as possible on the controversy, while maintaining its peaceful position.
But when the Moldavian-Vlachian prince declares that he “rejects the diagnosis of the Council of Constantinople” and undertakes to “fight against it with the strong and invincible weapon of laws and canons,” then the path of reconciliation can be paved only through consideration of the arguments with which the prince advocates.
I. It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that the prince “rejects the diagnosis on behalf of the clergy and the people”
The clergy, with the possible exception of a few, and the people did not read the diagnosis, and did not express their opinion about it. If on civil and state issues the prince can pronounce a decision in the name of the people only after having learned their opinion through their legal bodies: then all the more in matters of faith and the church he has no reason to pronounce his personal or ministerial opinion on behalf of the clergy and the people, without their knowledge.
II. The prince recognizes Apostolic Canon 34 as the beginning of the independence of all popular Orthodox churches.
This rule says that the bishops of every nation should know the first in them and recognize him as the head. This goes without saying about the metropolitan of the region, in which the administration of churches and diocesan bishops was concentrated. But the prince, without reason, cuts off this rule from the church rules that follow it, which, at the request of the circumstances of the universal church, the administration of regional churches and metropolitans indicate the highest centers in the exarchs and patriarchs, as shown by the very rules that the prince indicated, but which he refused to consider (IV Ecumenical Prop. 9 and 28).
III. The continuation of the prince's letter involuntarily reveals the instability of his opinion about the independence of all churches, based on the 34th apostolic canon. If this opinion were undeniable, then the independence of the Moldavian-Vlachian Church would be proven, and there would be no need to continue the proof. But the prince further searches for historical evidence, and thereby discovers that his supposed canonical beginning does not prove what he thought to prove.
IV. The prince's letter says that, on the basis of the 34th Apostolic Canon, the Transdanubian Romanians and Bulgarians established the Patriarchate of Tern in ancient times so that bishops would no longer be sent to them from Constantinople.
Here we must take into account, firstly, that this was not in ancient times, and secondly, that the apostolic canon did not give the right to found a patriarchate; thirdly, that, in the letter’s own words, this was preceded by dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople; fourthly, that if, despite the 34th apostolic canon, this dependence existed, then in order to emerge from it it was necessary to acquire a new special right by legal order, which the letter does not prove. So, the example of the Ternovsky patriarchy does not prove the independence of the Romanian metropolitanate.
V. The prince’s letter further states that, on the basis of the 34th apostolic canon, Grand Duke Vasily, in 1447, did not want to accept metropolitans from Constantinople, established a metropolis, and accepted the appointment of metropolitan.
None of this is true. Grand Duke Vasily did not establish a metropolitanate in Moscow: it existed before him. The reason for the rejection of the Metropolitan from Constantinople was not the 34th Apostolic Rule, but the Union of Florence, by which the infected Metropolitan Isidore was not accepted in Moscow, and by which the throne of Constantinople was darkened. In these circumstances, necessity gave the Russian Church the right to elect and ordain a metropolitan, regardless of Constantinople, overshadowed by the union. The testimony that the prince accepted the appointment of the metropolitan is not based on anything: the Grand Duke did not issue such a law as has now been issued in Moldova-Wallachia. In Russia, church election has been preserved, with the consent and approval of the Sovereign. So, the example of Grand Duke Vasily does not prove the independence of the Moldavian-Vlachian church, and does not justify the new laws.
VI. The prince's letter further states that, on the basis of the 34th Apostolic Rule, Grand Duke Theodore Ioannovich established, in 1589, the patriarchal throne in Moscow.
But the patriarchate in Russia was established not by the simple arbitrariness of the Grand Duke, and not by civil law, as the Moldavian-Vlachian government acts in relation to the hierarchy, but was established by church order, with the blessing of the eastern hierarchy. Thus, the example of Tsar Theodore does not at all prove the independence of the Moldavian-Vlachian church and the actions of the Moldavian-Vlachian government can serve not as justification, but as an indication of the legal order of the church, in the event of new decrees regarding the hierarchy of any private church.
VII. The prince's letter says that, on the basis of the 34th apostolic canon, Peter the Great, in 1721, replaced the patriarchate with a Synod under his own chairmanship.
No act says, and cannot say, that the All-Russian Synod was established on the basis of the specified rule. This rule speaks about the regional metropolitan, and not about the synod. The All-Russian Synod was established with the blessing of the Eastern Patriarchs. If the Moldovan-Vlachian government wanted to imitate this example, then it should have turned to the Ecumenical Patriarch and asked for his guidance and blessing to establish rules relating to the improvement of the Moldovan-Vlachian hierarchy.
As for chairmanship or primacy (primauté), the title of chairman or primate belongs in the Russian Synod to the oldest of its members. The decree of 1721, which published the establishment of the Synod in the state, said that the Synod should “ask for extreme spiritual matters, decisions and decisions”; and Peter the Great modestly expressed himself about the Synod’s addition of its charter with new rules: “to do this not without our permission.”
VIII. The prince's letter further says that in our time the Greeks followed the example of Russia.
And this example is not in favor of the actions of the current Moldovan-Vlach government. The Greek kingdom, for special reasons, found it necessary for its church to be independent, or as least dependent as possible, on the ecumenical patriarch; and therefore, although not suddenly, the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the consent of the All-Russian Synod were sought for the formation of a special synod of this church; and thus the synod of the church of the Greek kingdom received legal ecclesiastical existence. The current Moldavian-Vlachian church does not have the same reasons as the Greek one for its separateness, and did not use such correct means for this.
IX. The prince cites 131 stories of Justinian, in which the bishops subordinate to Constantinople are named, and concludes: “the absence of Dacia of Troy or Transalpine (present-day Romania) does not clearly prove that since that time this region has remained independent?” – It’s not very clear why it happened and what the omission of one name means. But it is necessary to note the words: from that time. They show that until now Romania depended on the Patriarch of Constantinople for ecclesiastical law. Is the omission of her name in a civil act enough to destroy this right? – As for the letter of the Patriarch of Ohrid to Stefan, Prince of Moldova, in 1456, no matter what this letter contains, it cannot be a sufficient basis for the decision of the present case.
X. As proof of the independence of the Moldavian-Vlachian church, the prince’s letter also cites the resolution of the Council of Constantinople, mentioned in the resolutions of the Moldavian Council, January 1, 1752, which recognized and approved the independence of the Moldavian metropolitan by imperial command, as a result of the promise given to Prince Alexander the Good by the imperial son.
The conclusion is dark. The matter is attributed either to the resolution of the Council of Constantinople, which is not meant, or to the command of the emperor; and the basis of the case was the request of the imperial son; Moldavian Cathedral, 1752, the witness is late and it is not clear what exactly he is saying.
XI. The prince on the independence of the Moldavian metropolis refers to the history of Prince Cantemir, published in 1711.
What is she saying? – Moscow edition of 1789, on page 363 and further: “the consecration of the Moldavian metropolitans from the very establishment of this throne until the time of the Council of Florence took place by the hand of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And then, as a metropolitan, being a wayward man and knowing little about the Holy Scriptures, for the honor of the seventh chair promised to him and other honors offered by the pope, against the will of the ambassador sent with him from Alexander the Good, Prince of Moldova, he signed all the false and deceptive conclusions of the council, and after the council had left for Moldavia, he did not dare to return. Then Marco, Bishop of Ephesus, gave his archdeacon, a Bulgarian by birth, out of his humility and orthodoxy, a very glorious man, to Moldavia as metropolitan; and as the Patriarch of Constantinople stuck to the opposing side, he ordered him to take confirmation of this from the Patriarch of Ohrid. From that time, the metropolitans of Moldova until the beginning of the last century had to take their consecration from the Patriarch of Ohrid.”
Thus, after the Council of Florence, the Metropolitan of Moldova did not accept consecration not by right of his independence, but out of necessity, because the patriarch was non-Orthodox; and Mark of Ephesus did not recognize the Metropolitan of Moldova as independent, but made him dependent out of need to the Patriarch of Ohrid.
Afterwards, the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius reminded the Moldavian prince Vasily of the right of his throne; and “Basily, bowed by such writings of the patriarch and the council, determined that, from that time on, the Metropolitan of Moldova should not accept initiation from anyone other than the Patriarch of Constantinople; and this determination soon, then, in a local council, which under the same prince, in Iasi, was assembled against the iconoclasts and other heretics of that time, was confirmed through the consent and signature of all the patriarchs and Ohrid himself.”
Further on page 367, Cantemir, contradicting the above-mentioned conciliar definition, says, on unknown grounds, about the Metropolitan of Moldova: “although he does not bear the name of the patriarch, he is not subordinate to any of them.” And further: “three Moldovan bishops perform the ordination” of the metropolitan. In order to reconcile the historian’s self-contradiction, it remains to assume that his last testimony depicts a position arbitrarily adopted by the metropolitan, contrary to ancient law and conciliar definition.
XII. The letter refers to Aristen's nomocanon, published in 1652, but it does not say who in this publication asserts the independence of the Moldavian-Vlachian church, and on what basis, and therefore this testimony has no force.
XIII. Refers to Abdul Hamid's firman, 1783.
It is regrettable to see that they want to base the hierarchical independence of the church on the firman of the Mohammedan sovereign.
XIV. The prince writes: “in the legislative codes of both principalities the ancient custom of our country is recognized to elect metropolitans and bishops at meetings of the clergy and people’s representatives.”
Let this remain without controversy. In this case, the prince, if he wants to agree with himself, must repeal the law on the election of bishops as ministers, and return it to the clergy and representatives of the people.
XV. The prince thinks to find new evidence of the autocephaly of the Moldavian-Vlachian church in a special incident during the persecution of the Transylvanian church. Monk Athanasius could not receive ordination as a bishop. The Patriarch of Jerusalem advised him to submit to the Hungarian-Wallachian exarch, i.e., the Metropolitan of Bucharest.
But an exceptional case is not a law; the patriarch gave not a command, by right, but advice, by necessity. Moreover, the patriarch did not assign the Bucharest metropolitan the right of final resolution of issues, and on the most important issues he advised contacting the Patriarch of Constantinople.
XVI. The prince's letter asks: when and how was the primacy of the Church of Constantinople over the Moldavian-Vlach Church expressed?
The answer to this primarily belongs to His Holiness the Patriarch. But in this letter itself you can find an answer to this, based on the comments made above.
XVII. In order to justify the admission of laity to the synod, the prince’s letter says: “St. Cyprian did not like to do anything without consulting the people.” Amazing conclusion! Saint Cyprian loved to confer with the people, therefore, the admission of the people to the synod is church law and right!
XVIII. Another argument for the same thing: Patriarch Niphon, expelled from Constantinople, in order to stop the church unrest in Wallachia, advised convening a council, at which both the prince and the boyars were present. Niphon taught the doctrine of faith at the meetings.
But an exceptional case does not prove the general law; and the presence of the prince and boyars at the council to hear the teachings of the faith does not make them members of the council.
XIX. Contrary to the patriarch’s opinion that the prince does not have the right to convene a council, the prince says that Constantine the Great convened the first ecumenical council and presided over it.
At the same time, one could judge that Emperor Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles, great, stands above equality with the Moldavian-Vlachian prince. Constantine the Great presided honorably, like a king, and the leadership of the actual conciliar actions belonged to the eldest bishop.
XX. The letter indicates novellas 137 and 6, showing the power of the Greek emperor in relation to the church.
But the example of the former empire is far from comparable with what is happening in the current Moldavian-Vlachian principality. The novelties constitute a practical application of existing church rules, and not an innovation in higher church government.
XXI. To prove the prince's right to convene a council, the prince in his letter points to the example of Prince Vasily, in 1642, who convened a council, which, at the prince's request, Patriarch Porfiry of Constantinople arrived to preside over.
If this example proves that the patriarch did not condemn the convening of the council by the prince, then it is even more proven that the prince and the council recognized their dependence on the patriarch. But the letter is mistaken in calling Porfiry a patriarch; he was the Metropolitan of Nicea, sent from the Synod of Constantinople to the Council of Iasi.
XXII. The prince's letter wants to justify the advisory voice of the Minister of Religions in the debates of the synod
But what requires more justification is that, according to the new law, the ministers, without consulting the synod, elect a bishop and present it to the prince for approval. What does it justify? An indication of the structure of the Greek and Russian Synod.
In St. Petersburg, he says, members of the Synod are appointed by the government.
But this is not at all the same as the voice of ministers in the synod. Moreover, the prince is talking here about something that he cannot quite know. The calling of bishops to the Russian Synod is announced by order of the emperor; but at the same time, without official forms, the opinion of the leading member and other elders is taken into account, and therefore the matter takes place with the participation and consent of the church. But it would be more useful for the Moldovan-Vlachian government to pay attention to what is better known, namely, that the election of bishops is carried out in the meeting of the Russian Synod, after preliminary prayer. This is what the Moldovan-Vlachian government could borrow from the Russian Synod.
In Athens, he says, bishops are summoned to the synod one by one, by command of the king.
And this is not like the voice of a minister in the synod and the election of a bishop by ministers. Bishops who already actually have this rank are called from their dioceses to Athens to be present at the synod, and, moreover, one by one; in this action the king is only a formality, and not power over hierarchical actions.
The prince's letter says that Justinian and Peter the Great issued church laws approved by the church.
But this is the difference between these actions and the Moldavian-Vlachian affairs, that the first were approved by the church. Peter the Great sought the blessing of the patriarchs, but the Moldavian-Vlachian government did not turn to the ecumenical patriarch for this.
XXIII. The prince's letter says that "the Dacian church never followed literally the 1st apostolic canon."
So much the worse for her if this is true; but what is more accurate is that she followed this rule, that is, she performed the ordination of bishops by three or two bishops. For this is precisely what the 1st Apostolic Canon speaks of.
XXIV. The prince says that in the near future their legislation (when? how?) has granted “the right of election (to bishops) to extraordinary assemblies composed of bishops and noble citizens, chaired by the metropolitan.”
With these words, the prince himself condemns his new laws, which left the election of bishops to ministers, and not to a council presided over by the metropolitan.
XXV. The prince points to the stories of 123, 137 and 564, about the election of bishops by the clergy and noble citizens.
The significance of the short stories in relation to the church and the principality is discussed above, under number XX. Moreover, these short stories provide the main action to the clergy.
XXVI. Indicates the 6th rule of the Sardician Council and the interpretation of the 3rd rule of the VII Ecumenical Council and the 61st Apostolic Council.
The Sardician rule says: “if the crowd of people gathered asks, the bishop they demand will be installed,” and so on. This is an indication for the occasion, and not an expression of a permanent rule. The 3rd rule of the VII Ecumenical Council condemns the election of bishops through secular leaders and demands the election of bishops. No interpretations can turn this in favor of the new Moldavian-Vlachian laws. The indication of 61 apostolic canons is erroneous.
XXVII. The prince is thinking of relying on the example of Emperor Joseph II, who, in 1786, appointed the bishop of Chernivtsi.
Unhappy support! The Orthodox prince wants to assert his right on what the non-Orthodox sovereign did without the right.
XXVIII. The subjection of bishops, for criminal offenses, to secular justice should not be based on the innovations of the late Greek empire, but on the common law of state power. Here it is especially necessary to distinguish between misdemeanors and crimes, so that bishops are not dragged from their pulpits to prison for petty denunciations and slander.
XXIX. From this examination it is revealed that the arguments collected in the prince’s response letter in favor of the new decrees of the Moldavian-Vlach government are for the most part not accurate, do not have sufficient strength, and some even turn against him.
XXX. This consideration is considered necessary, both in general in order to give evidence of the truth, and, among other things, in order to restore the truth regarding the Russian hierarchy and its history, which are presented in a false light and in a distorted form in the prince’s letter.
Feb. 9, 1866 Feb. 10,251.
February 9. Note from Metropolitan Filaret regarding the statute of the Moldavian-Vlachian Synod
The report of the consul in Iasi and the analysis of the statute of the Moldavian-Vlachian Synod by Philaret Scriban, Bishop of Stavropol, communicated to me (dated February 6, No. 688), are being returned.
We still did not have in mind some of the articles of this statute cited by His Eminence Philaret, and therefore could not talk about them.
Article 6 is very strange: any meeting regarding the tenets of religion is prohibited. This amounts to the following: the synod is prohibited from acting in the substantive capacity of a synod. I’m not saying: was Orthodoxy present in this? But we must ask: how was common sense present in this?
However, the information now received should not change the draft synodal message to the patriarch. Whatever the Holy Synod knows from the Patriarch, that is what it answers.
February 22. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret, about the manuscript: “Holy Week according to the set of Gospel stories,” with notes and an outline of previous events, op. I.I. Belustina
A report to the Most Holy Governing Synod from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
By decree of the Holy Synod, dated the 3rd day of July, 1865, No. 1118, a manuscript was sent to me under the title: “Holy Week, according to the set of Gospel stories, with notes and an outline of previous events,” for entrusting its consideration to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Savva of Mozhaisk 253, and for presentation, with the return of the manuscript, opinions on whether it can be approved for publication.
In pursuance of this decree of the Holy Synod, I present the said manuscript, examined by His Eminence of Mozhaisk, and his opinion on its disapproval for publication to this Holy Synod.
Agreeing with the conclusion of the Eminence that the work of the priest Belustin, under the title: Holy Week, should not be approved for publication, in order to more clearly show my conviction in this, I long to add the following.
It is well known that Renan's book: The Life of Jesus was written with the aim of presenting his life as a chain of adventures arising from natural causes, and to eliminate the ideas of Divinity, revelation, miracles, the economy of the redemption of the human race from sins, guilty of eternal condemnation. It is regrettable and surprising that even such fame did not arouse insight and caution in the educated priest, so as not to mark his work with the features of Renan.
The essay is called: Holy Week; but out of 73 sheets, 25, that is, a third of the work, contain something that does not belong to Passion Week, and Renan is called upon to help increase this extraneous part of the work.
Sheet. 3. “The first sermon of Jesus in this city (Nazareth) aroused the rage of his listeners against him.” - “On this occasion he moved to Capernaum.” – Whether this is copied from Renan or not, only here is the spirit of Renan heard, who wants to present Jesus as a seeker of influence on the people, who made the experience of speaking to the people in his native city, but did not have success, lost the hope of success here, and therefore moved to another city in order to seek success there. But this is not the true form of the gospel event. The sermon of Jesus in Nazareth was not his first sermon: before this sermon, the news went out throughout the whole country about Him; and He who taught in their congregations, we glorify them all (Luke 4:14–15). When Jesus preached in Nazareth, everyone marveled at the words of grace coming out of His mouth (Luke 4:22); but Renan or the priest Belustin, skips this, and only says that the sermon aroused rage. After finishing the Nazareth sermon, the evangelist does not say that Jesus moved to Capernaum on this occasion, but simply says: and went down to Capernaum (31).
Even before this, Jesus had been in Capernaum, as can be seen from His Nazareth sermon itself: “Whatever was heard in Capernaum, do it also here in your own country” (23).
Sheet. 5. “Antipas did not pursue Him” (Jesus). This is not true. The Pharisees said to Jesus: get out of here, because Herod wants to kill you (Luke 13:31).
Galilee is supposed to be the “center of activity” of Jesus. And this is not true. The center of his activities is Jerusalem.
Herod wanted to see Jesus: “but Jesus refused him this.” And this is not true. Jesus never uttered such a refusal.
Why are these three infidelities allowed on one page? – In order to convey the crafty idea that Jesus primarily chose Galilee for action, and acted more successfully in it, that He was not hindered by political power.
Sheet. 6 ff. “What impressions should Jesus have taken from there (Jerusalem)? “Firstly, in common with all the Galileans.” For this reason, the reasons for the hatred of the Galileans towards Jerusalem are explained at length, even to the point that “the very environs of Jerusalem could not help but make sad and unpleasant impressions on the Galileo.” What is all this for? Is it not to attribute to Jesus the tribal Galilean hatred of Jerusalem, and to explain his strict attitude towards Jerusalem with this, and not with Divine views?
Sheet. 73. “In the course of events, I must agree with Mark.” - This means that the testimony of the Evangelist Luke is unfair. How could one not have guessed that such a judgment was not in accordance with the Orthodox concept of the dignity of evangelists?
What can we say about the inappropriate and unsuccessful attempt to place the blame for the suffering and death of Christ the Savior solely on the bishops, and shield the priests from it? These are not the views one should have when engaging in a most sacred subject.
I am limiting myself to a few examples, because I do not have time to consider the entire essay.
A., the Holy Synod, having examined the manuscript of the priest Belustin, under the title: “Holy Week according to the set of Gospel tales,” with notes and an outline of previous events, and taking into account that the said manuscript, according to the review of the Right Reverend Savva, who examined it: 254: 1) is a work, for the most part, or almost entirely, borrowed from the works of the French, and, moreover, extremely ill-intentioned, writer Renan, and 2) in those places that, apparently, belong to the author himself, are not always distinguished by their thoroughness and good direction, and convinced of the justice of this review by the excerpts presented by the Right Reverend Savva from the manuscript “Holy Week” and the work “The Life of Jesus,” as well as the examples indicated by the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, June 27, 1867 g., determined: I. The said manuscript should not be allowed to be printed, and all ecclesiastical censorship committees should be informed about this by decrees, for the purpose specified in Art. 265. mouth censored
goals, and to forward to the committees in copies the review of the Right Reverend Savva about the work of the priest Belustin and the report of the Metropolitan of Moscow. II. The manuscript under the title: “Holy Week according to the set of Gospel tales,” with also copies of the above-mentioned review and report attached, should be forwarded by decree to the Eminence of Tver 255, for the return of the manuscript and the issuance of these copies to the author of the said work, priest Belustin, instructing the Eminence: 1) to impress upon the priest Belustin that such a work is, for the most part, parts, or almost entirely, borrowed from a work that has become famous for its ill-intention and written with the aim of eliminating the ideas of the Divinity of the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, revelation, miracles and the economy of the redemption of the human race and shaking the very first foundations of Christianity is unworthy of an Orthodox priest, and 2) to pay special archpastoral attention to the way of thinking and direction of the priest Belustin.
B.
For this, the Holy Synod, having considered the petitions on the present case of the priest Belustin and taking into account that Belustin is ready to correct his essay: “Holy Week” and has the opportunity to supplement it with newly collected information on this subject, in a condescending expectation of the obedience of this priest - to the instructions of his superiors, on September 18, 1868, determined: 1) to entrust the Eminence of Tver announce to priest Belustin that he is allowed to submit his essay: “Holy Week”, for consideration by the proper ecclesiastical censorship committee, but not before correcting his manuscript, in accordance with the instructions attached to the synodal decree of August 14, 1867, and 2) notify the bishop of Tver that the Holy Synod, for its part, does not encounter any obstacles to satisfying the priest’s request Belustin about allowing him leave to St. Petersburg, but the permission of this request is left to the archpastoral discretion of the Right Reverend; about which the Eminence was given to know, on October 19, 1868, by decree, by which decree it was given to all spiritual censorship committees to know about the present order regarding Belustin’s manuscript, under the title: “Holy Week”.
March 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on improving the life of the clergy of the Moscow diocese, with the application of rules
In relation to the Most Reverend Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, dated May 23, last 1865, under No. 64, an extract was sent to me, for information, from the journal of presence on the affairs of the Orthodox clergy, dated March 27, the highest approved, on the 18th day of May, 1865. The said journal was compiled based on the consideration of the case, based on assumptions about the material improvement of the life of the clergy of the Tula diocese. The subject about which, by the way, the Tula presence was discussing, and which required the attention of the Moscow presence, is the purchase of houses on church land, namely: in the Tula diocese regarding the purchase of these houses there is such a procedure that those houses or buildings that orphan families received from their fathers must be bought by newly arriving clergy or clergymen, at an elevated price; what procedure for buying houses the Tula presence decided not to stop until time.
But the highest authority established for the affairs of the Orthodox clergy found that the compulsory purchase of houses from orphaned families, and at an elevated price, cannot but be constraining for newly admitted clergy and clergy and makes them dependent on the arbitrariness of the orphaned families. Therefore, even if it is impossible, at the present time, to abolish the forced purchase of houses of orphan families, then it would be desirable that this acquisition be, at the very least possible, conditions that are not burdensome for the obligated persons, but such that, on the contrary, would facilitate the fulfillment of their obligations in relation to orphans, such as, for example, the valuation of houses on the basis of special determinative rules, installment payments of the purchase price for a long period, etc.
Finding, for our part, that the Tula assumption of buying houses for the benefit of orphans at an elevated price is rightly condemned: this would mean imposing an arbitrary, uncertain tax on a new priest or clergyman who has nothing; that, in relation to this subject, attention is required by the fact that the retired member of the clergy, or his heirs, excessively raise the price, and thereby slow down the sale of the house in order to enjoy it and sometimes, some benefits from it, while the newly appointed one must pay money for an apartment, which in other areas, especially in villages, it is impossible to have a comfortable one - I suggested to the Moscow provincial presence, would it not be useful to convert into a general law the existing laws in this case? Moscow diocese rules regarding the valuation of houses.
The Moscow provincial presence, after considering these rules, found that turning them into a general law is considered truly useful and asked me to communicate with your Excellency about this.
Informing your Excellency about this and enclosing the mentioned rules, I humbly ask you to make the necessary order on your part so that these rules are turned into a general law, and to notify me about the subsequent ones.
With perfect respect and the same devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
Rules on the transfer of sacred and ecclesiastical houses on church land from retired to newly designated ones
I. Every clergyman assigned to a well-known church has the right and obligation to immediately acquire the house of his predecessor, located on church land, by mutual agreement on the price, and, if necessary, on the valuation.
II. A period of two to four weeks is given for a voluntary agreement on sale and purchase, depending on the circumstances.
III. If a voluntary agreement does not follow, then at the request of one of the two parties or by order of the diocesan authorities, a mediation assessment is appointed.
IV. The seller and the buyer, at their own discretion, each appoint two valuation intermediaries, so that they necessarily recognize for themselves the price that the intermediaries will set.
V. The diocesan authorities may exclude a mediator whose behavior is disapproved or who is known to be prone to litigation, and require the appointor to appoint another in his place.
VI. The mediation assessment must be completed within a month.
VII. Intermediaries who cause delay in a case may be subject to liability.
VIII. If the mediators of the two parties do not agree on the price, and each of the two parties announces its own price, then the consistory appoints one or two mediators, who, after consideration, will confirm one of the appointed ones or appoint their average and the matter goes to the resolution of the diocesan authorities.
XIX. If the seller or buyer evades the appointment of intermediaries and delays the matter, then it must be resolved through a civil assessment.
X. If the house being sold belongs to minor orphans, the responsibility of the seller is performed by the guardians 257.
March 25. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on the draft charter of theological seminaries drawn up by the St. Petersburg committee on the transformation of theological educational institutions
Under the decrees of the Holy Synod, dated February 18 and 20, 1863, No. 395 and 446, 6 printed copies of the works of the committee on the transformation of theological educational institutions were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, namely: a) the charter of theological seminaries, b) the journal of the committee on the transformation of theological schools, c) the report to the Holy Synod of the Right Reverend Kherson 258, d) a special opinion of the editor-member of the said committee T. I. Filippov, e) the opinion of the actual state councilor I. S. Gaevsky, f) a schedule of educational subjects, g) a draft instruction for the room warden, and h) a brief overview of the sciences taught in theological seminaries. Moreover, it was ordered that the Right Reverend, having examined the provisions of the committee set out in these articles, himself and through persons known to him for their pedagogical experience, should present the following to the Holy Synod.
And with the second decree, 1 copy was forwarded: a) the special considerations of the committee, b) the special considerations of the Right Reverend of Kherson and c) the opinion of the special considerations of the committee of editor-member Filippov on the transformation of religious educational institutions, for direct consideration, without transfer to subordinate places and persons, on the delivery of an opinion on these articles to the Holy Synod.
To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report.
In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 18, 1863, No. 395, on the consideration of the draft charter of theological seminaries, for this purpose a committee was drawn up under the chairmanship of the Right Reverend Savva 259, Bishop of Mozhaisk, in which:
Rector of the Moscow Seminary, Archimandrite Ignatius.
Predtechevskaya, near Bor, Church of Archpriest John of the Rozhdestvensky.
Nikitskaya, in the Basmanny Church, Archpriest Platon Kapustin.
Nikolaevskaya, on Studenets, the church is priest Stefan Zernov.
Assumption, on Mogiltsy, church priest Ippolit Bogoslovsky-Platonov.
Andrianovskaya Church priest Nikolai Dobrov. All of them are masters.
On March 1, 1865, this committee presented comments on the charter of theological seminaries and its opinions.
Some of the committee's opinions may be fully accepted, some may not be fully accepted, and some may not be accepted. The shortest way to report on all of them may be to point out especially the last ones.
I. The condemnation of the lack of moral education and proper supervision of students in seminaries, which the committee considers recognized, in justice, should not strike all seminaries, at least not all to a strong degree. Those who enter the priesthood from seminaries, and soon find themselves well-behaved and zealous for service, and some, to the highest degree, reverent and zealous for Orthodoxy and the salvation of parishioners, thus show that they enjoyed good leadership in the seminaries.
II. The committee says that it has become a custom to appoint departments more according to the numbering of rank lists than according to the specialty of knowledge. The Committee did not have data to make such a general conclusion about all academies at any time. From my participation in this matter, I know that the main attention is paid to the strength and specialty of knowledge. But this rule cannot always be strictly adhered to. For example, you need a tutor for a Greek language class; but since those who are more successful in this are assigned to the most important subjects: in this case, it is necessary to appoint from the average ones, based on the consideration that in this subject of knowledge it is not difficult to improve through self-study.
III. The Committee wishes, on the basis of love for the Lord Jesus, to develop a sense of moral respect for human dignity,
Is this the true order of moral education, although nowadays they like to preach human dignity? An inexperienced young man most likely applies a brilliant but vague thought about human dignity to himself, and stands on the path of pride and disobedience. Isn’t it more reliable to arouse the consciousness of human dignity spoiled by sin, and thereby encourage self-correction and humility?
IV. The committee approves one-year seminary courses. The matter is dubious. To do this, we need to double the number of mentors and the number of training rooms. Is it convenient?
Since the beginning of the establishment of seminaries, the lower courses have been annual, which is in accordance with children's teaching, and the higher ones, which are part of the current seminaries, have always been two-year, which is in accordance with the more systematic teaching.
The influence of a mentor, who changes annually, on a student cannot be as deep and strong as the influence of one mentor, which continues continuously for two years.
With one-year courses, science crumbles into pieces; with biennials they retain more systematic integrity.
V. The Committee approves teaching councils.
And this is not free from doubt. In some secular schools it has been observed that the influence of the pedagogical council paralyzes the head of the school.
The pedagogical council can be useful if its members are carefully elected, few in number, and governed in their actions by precise rules.
VI. The Committee finds the power of the bishop burdensome for seminary corporations, according to § 7 of the new charter.
But the following articles of the charter represent its power the same as in the previous charter.
VII. The Committee finds it burdensome for the bishop to directly manage the affairs of seminaries.
But the seminary charter entrusts the direct management of all affairs to the seminary board. Consequently, the bishop is required to act directly only in special cases, according to a special need.
VIII. The Committee disapproves that the new charter treats seminaries as institutions within the diocesan department, rather than as a special corporation with rights vested in it.
It is not clear what the committee wanted in this regard. Should the seminaries be separated from the diocesan department? Is it that they should be under the direct authority of the Holy Synod? or under the exclusive control of the academy? Should they be independent corporations from anyone, like German universities? Is it so that the bishop has less convenience to closely and constantly observe the education and preparation of future candidates for the priesthood, and that he is only allowed to lay his hands on the heads that the seminary corporation will present to him?
IX. The committee provides complete subordination to the bishop in economic matters.
This means that he is not inclined to allow complete subordination in matters of doctrine and morality. It is unfortunate if it has come to the need to put things in a way that is not in the order of the Gospel. According to the evangelical order, such subordination is due to a bishop first in matters of religion, education, morality, and then in economic matters.
X. The Committee thinks that the younger members of the seminary board’s relationship with the rector deprives them of freedom of judgment.
This is so if they are cowardly and people-pleasing: honest and firm people will not hesitate to freely cast their vote.
During the continuation of the existence of the previous charter, there were no complaints from junior members of the seminary boards about restrictions on their freedom.
XI. The committee says that the board of the seminary constitutes, according to § 23, only the office of the rector.
The immoderate denunciation of § 23 of the new charter is a word for word rewrite of § 47 of the previous charter. Until now, no one has said that according to the previous charter, the seminary board is the rector’s office. The meaning of this article is that the rector, if he receives a verbal or written complaint, does not immediately begin clerical work, but tries to verbally accomplish it through domestic court or reconciliation, and, if this measure is unsuccessful, appoints formal paper work. But this does not give him the right to completely prevent the complaint from being considered by the seminary board.
XII. The committee proposes: to the three members of the seminary board, add two or three external ones from the diocesan white clergy.
With this opinion, the committee committed itself to one-sidedness and partiality. Since most of the committee members were from the white clergy, they proposed an external member to the seminary board, certainly from the white clergy. But if in a diocesan city there are archimandrites or abbots who do not belong to the seminary, who are educated, have an academic degree, and who are well-intentioned, then why is it not left to the local discretion to elect or not to elect them, but they are first rejected as incapable? Is it because they don’t know family life? But among the monastics there are former spouses and fathers of families. It remains to conclude that the idea of monasticism was disgraced by the committee.
This example gives reason to fear that if three members from the white clergy with such a one-sided disposition were included in the seminary board, then with their votes they could weaken the power and importance of the rector, especially the monastic one. Three outside members on the seminary board can overwhelm the rector's influence. One outside member, carefully chosen, can profitably be added to the seminary board.
XIII. The committee fears that the rector's public approval may place the subordinate in an unfavorable relationship with his colleagues.
It is necessary to imagine very bad colleagues so that they would hate a comrade for praising him.
An outsider, having listened to a lecture from a mentor, can at the same time openly respond to him in expressions tantamount to approval. Is it possible, on the contrary, to say to the rector: “Don’t you dare approve publicly?”
XIV. The committee, in accordance with the charter, entrusts the election of the inspector to the pedagogical council; and on his own behalf he proposes to elect the inspector not from the seminary mentors, but from the archpriests and priests outside the seminary.
What is the basis for the idea that in all seminaries, out of ten or more mentors in each, not one is suitable to be an inspector and for this purpose it is necessary to look for someone capable outside the seminary?
In a seminary that has 400, or at least 200 students, of which up to 100 or more live in the seminary house, and the rest are scattered in apartments, can a priest who is busy with church service, parish, family, household and, perhaps, another special position in the diocese, constantly hold the position of inspector, as happens with the most worthy? It is not enough for an inspector to look at students through the eyes of their elders; he must recognize them and their qualities directly in order to have a truly moral influence on them; and for this he needs to be in the seminary almost continuously.
According to the charter, the pedagogical council is organized in the same way as the seminary board, and it is not stated in what relation it is to the seminary board. Thus, does not the leadership of the seminary become two-headed?
According to the charter, the pedagogical council tests candidates for the position of mentor, awards the title of senior mentor, reviews lesson notes, judges students' essays, determines the order of tests, and even the time of tests, in a word, it is given all the most important administrative actions in the seminary. What significance will the rector and the seminary board have after this if neither one nor the other dares to set a day for the six-month test of students, but must ask permission from the pedagogical council for this?
If there should be unity in the administration of the seminary, if the seminary board should not be a false word, but a real board, then the pedagogical council should not be separated from it and elevated above it.
Therefore, the pedagogical council can be organized on the following principles:
1) For the highest leadership judgment on the subjects and affairs of the educational unit, a pedagogical council is formed under the seminary board.
2) The pedagogical council is formed through the addition of senior mentors of the seminary and two or three external members from the diocesan clergy to the members of the seminary board.
3) It is convened by the rector at the request of the cases to be considered.
4) The clerical work of the pedagogical council is carried out in the seminary board, with the inscription on the journals: according to the pedagogical council.
5) Pedagogical matters are included in the seminary board with the inscription: according to the pedagogical council, and come from the seminary board, with the same inscription.
XV. The committee thinks that during the election of the seminary inspector, the leadership of the seminary is concentrated in one rector.
No, during a vacancy of an inspector, one of the mentors is invited to join the seminary board in his place; In addition, an external member is supposed to be on the seminary board.
XVI. The committee believes that the inspector can be a mentor.
It must be said more: the rector and the inspector should be mentors, with the exception of any special circumstances. The student, submitting his mind to the mentor in the classroom, the more conveniently submits to him and his orders outside the classroom. The rector and the inspector, not being mentors, will appear to the students as something similar to police officials.
XVII. The committee is extending the vacation over two months.
Doubtful. The loss of two weeks of training is not unimportant. The longer the vacation continues, the more the previously accepted teaching becomes eclipsed in the students. The longer a student gets used to vacation freedom, the more he needs to force himself to get down to school work.
XVIII. The Committee rightly argues against the way liturgics is presented in the program of the statute; but in vain he argues against the saying that participation in worship is as important and necessary for a Christian as right faith and good life. This is really necessary; but it does not follow from this that it is necessary to intensively elevate and expand liturgy as a science. Many who have not studied liturgics at all participate in divine services more worthily and fruitfully than those who have studied.
XIX. The Committee condemns the teaching of so-called basic theology in the form of a brief introduction to dogmatic theology. That's fair; but it is also true that it should not be very extensive in the seminar course.
XX. The Committee objects to the schedule of academic subjects by year, but the changes it proposes are also subject to objection.
The schedule was drawn up for 12 years, as if they all belonged to the seminary. But the committee did not find it convenient, and indeed not convenient, to connect the lower schools with the seminary.
In the fourth academic year, penmanship in the classroom is still ongoing. Is it too long? The 12th year, which comprises the course, is assigned sciences that are much less significant than the 11th year. Therefore, the last impressions on the student will not be deep and strong.
Much more will need to be discussed about the program and schedule of subjects and time.
A lecture of an hour and a quarter is short, especially if it begins with the reading of the Holy Scriptures and questions about the previous lesson.
XXI. The committee determines that students' essays and teachings are read in class with analysis. If you do this to everyone, there will be no time left for lectures. This must be done, for the most part, outside of classes.
XXII. The Committee does not find it necessary to entrust the rector with the teaching of any science.
A rector without a department loses an important share of authority and influence on mentors and students, as stated above.
XXIII. The committee does not want six-month trials.
Doubtful, especially for the lower classes. It is more convenient for the student to figure out how to give a report for six months; and having been prepared for the semi-annual report, it facilitates the preparation for the annual report.
XXIV. The charter allows children of all classes to attend religious schools; The committee allows it with a fee.
There is a difficulty here. Theological schools are burdened with children of clergy rank. If more people from the secular ranks join, leadership and supervision, and teaching itself, will become extremely difficult. A mentor can hardly review the essays of 50 students, and for 150 students he does not have enough energy and time. With meager church funds, multiplying the costs of parallel classes for secular students is inconvenient and unfair.
It is necessary to leave it to the discretion of the seminary authorities to accept only some children of secular rank, according to convenience and reliability.
XXV. The Committee, believing that no more than a candle sum should be separated from other church funds, proposes to collect a tax from all church sums in favor of religious schools, in an unusual amount, namely, a third of all income, and proves that this will not be a violation of church property rights.
The taking of candle money into the department of the authorities violated even less the right of church property, because it was the fruit of economic turnover. The ten-kopeck candle burns, and the pilgrim’s sacrifice is made, and meanwhile, from ten kopecks, one or two are separated in favor of theological schools. On the contrary, cup and purse money are sacrifices offered to God and the shrine, and therefore not only constitute, in the strict sense, the property of the church, but even in some way sacred property. So, if the taking of the candle money was and is not without the grumbling of the church warden and parishioners and gave the elders a reason to bend their conscience and put part of the candle money into purse money, then shouldn’t we expect more grumbling when taking part of the church warden and purse money itself? And won’t the church elders say that now with a calmer conscience one can conceal things when they have touched the money sacrificed to God and the shrine? And under the elders it is impossible to place a daily and hourly guard to monitor the movement of hryvnias and kopecks in their hands.
The unpleasant impression on parishioners from taking candle money from the church was partly smoothed over by time. The new impression of taking a third of all income from the church will be incomparably stronger. Evidence that the money raised for schools is taken for the benefit of the church, few will know, few will understand; and the very taking of this money will not be viewed with pleasure by everyone from the first to the last. And could it happen that the most significant of the depositors will say to the priest and church warden: “We don’t want a third of our deposits to leave the church; Let’s not put a mug in our wallet; “Tell us what you need, and we will bring it.” If three pounds of incense are brought, a pound of it will not be taken away from the church.
In some dioceses they are beginning to take part of the church money in the form of donations: this is easier. A noble feeling, pride or vanity, and the shame of refusing are all inciting people to donate. Therefore, they would be more willing to give a ruble as a donation than to give half a ruble under duress, like a tax. But it is heard that church money is openly given as a donation, but secretly they grumble.
The more unpleasant and difficult the position of church elders becomes (who, according to the committee’s assumption, are required, by the way, to be more diligent in their reporting on the operation of whisks and prayers of permission), the more difficult it will be to find those willing to accept this position. In Moscow itself, small-parish churches have a need for philanthropic elders, who are sometimes sought out in other parishes, and such can only be found if they are given complete freedom of action. In villages and in the present situation, church elders are sometimes elected, not without difficulty, and not the best; when changing the situation to a more unpleasant and difficult one, one should expect incomparably greater difficulties. The determination of church elders through compulsory measures is inconvenient to implement and would be harmful; it would produce a cooling effect on the church.
XXVI. The committee, to provide for the churches, when taking the third part of the income, indicates a special type of amount brought in for the decoration of the churches.
But only a few churches have such amounts. Only in 5 dioceses of this kind the amount rises above 100,000 rubles, and in many it falls below 25,000 rubles. This last amount is sufficient to build the church alone. Being broken up into little things among the churches, it is far from achieving its purpose, and even less can it serve as an aid for other needs of the churches.
XXVII. The part of the calculation that assumes that, after a third of the income is taken away, each church will have 108 rubles left for repairs is also not correct. This would be the case if the income in all churches were equal; but it is very diverse. Instead of listing the ideal ones, here is an example of the real numbers of the amounts of cups, purses and candles shown in the parish in 1865:
The largest of these amounts for the village of Dydyldin is 83 rubles. 89 kopecks After the third part is taken away, 55 rubles will remain in the church. 93 kopecks This is what, according to the committee’s assumptions, it is necessary to repair the church during the year, supply it with prosphora, church wine, incense, heating, renewal of local candles, etc.
It is clear that the committee’s calculations are incorrect and its draft is unworkable.
XXVIII. It is better to try to improve what exists than to venture into something new that does not promise, but threatens. Would the Holy Synod please to give a new order on the collection of candles, in which the following considerations and requirements would be stated in a generally understandable manner?
The candle income is allocated for the maintenance of theological schools, and for the education in them of worthy clergy for the churches. Consequently, this money is not taken away from the churches, but is used for the true and important needs of the churches and parishes.
This money, by the highest command and state law, was assigned to theological schools, and thus constitutes their legal property. Consequently, if someone does not present part of this money for its intended purpose, but withholds it, he is stealing someone else’s property, and this is a sin. And if the withheld part of this money is given to the church, then what is stolen is given to the church, which does not correspond to its holiness.
But it is known, and has already been indisputably announced in the press, that in some churches, and in all likelihood, very many, either due to negligence, mixing up amounts that have different purposes, or deliberately, part of the candle money is kept in the churches. Therefore, the Holy Synod, in concern for the faithful execution of the law, and for the protection of the actions of clergy and churchwardens in moral dignity, finds it necessary to order diocesan eminences that they, through pastoral conviction and measures of vigilant supervision, try to induce parish clergy and churchwardens to count and deduct candle money with accuracy and without damage.
If some poor churches, in special cases, such as when building a church, or renovating a dilapidated one, have an urgent need to withhold candle money: in this case, priests and church elders can legally ask for this permission for a certain time.
In return for the damage that will result from this to school funds, the Reverends can offer to the priests and elders of over-resourced churches to help support the poor students with voluntary donations from church funds.
XXIX. The committee demands the abolition of the rule according to which consistories, seeing a decline in candle income, ask about the reason.
It seems that this should not be a burden or insult. What decent owner, having noticed a decline in his income, does not take the trouble to find out why it happened, and whether there is a way to eliminate it?
XXX. The committee wants to distribute rank lists of students throughout the diocese.
There is no expected meaning or fruit from this.
In presenting these comments to the comments of the committee, I am obliged to add that many of the considerations and conclusions of the committee, which I did not mention (because I did not find it necessary to propose any changes to them), are very worthy of attention in further discussions about the statutes of seminaries 261.
April 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the establishment of a committee for teaching church singing in public schools
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a proposal dated March 21, 1866, No. 1528, wrote: by the highest command, which followed, on the 22nd day of December, 1865, to consider the proposals of the Minister of Public Education 262 regarding the teaching of church singing in primary public schools, a special commission was established, chaired by His Imperial Highness the Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, from the following persons: His Imperial Highness Prince Peter Georgievich of Oldenburg, ministers: the imperial court 263 and public education, senator Prince Odoevsky 264, Secretary of State Prince Obolensky 265 and me, with the invitation of the director of the court singing chapel 266.
This commission, after discussing all issues related to the teaching of church singing in public schools, set out the conclusions it adopted on this subject in its journal, dated March 10th.
The Sovereign Emperor, having deigned to consider this journal on March 18, deigned to give the highest command: to carry it out according to the conclusion of the commission. At the same time, the Sovereign Emperor was pleased to express the desire for the Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich to assume the chairmanship of the special committee being established and to grant His Imperial Highness the appointment of members to this committee in addition to the persons who will be appointed by the Holy Synod.
He, the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, proposed this highest will, announced by Secretary of State Golovnin, to the Holy Synod, enclosing a copy from the mentioned journal of the commission.
On the original one it is written: “It was ordered by the Highness to fulfill, according to the conclusion of the commission, and it was pleasing to the Sovereign Emperor: to express the desire that the Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich take over the chairmanship of the special committee being established and to grant His Highness the appointment of members to this committee in addition to the persons who will be appointed by the Holy Synod.” March 18, 1866 State Secretary Golovnin.
Journal of the Commission on the Case of Church Singing in Public Schools, March 10, 1866.
Presided: His Imperial Highness the Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich.
Present: Minister of the Imperial Court Adjutant General Count Adlerberg I, Minister of Public Education State Secretary Golovnin, Chamberlain, Senator Prince Odoevsky, State Secretary Prince Obolensky, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count Tolstoy, Director of the Court Singing Chapel, Acting State Councilor Bakhmetev.
His Imperial Highness, the Grand Duke Chairman, deigned to propose to the commission for discussion the following misunderstandings encountered by the Ministry of Public Education when considering measures to introduce the teaching of church singing in public schools:
I. The rules for public schools in the north-western provinces (§ 12) approved by the highest, on March 23, 1863, and the regulations on primary public schools (Article 3), approved by the highest, on July 14, 1864, it was decided to teach church singing in the mentioned schools and colleges, but it is not said which of the persons named in Art. 16th of the same provision, has the right to engage in such training and what conditions are required from a teacher of church singing. Meanwhile, from the response to the Minister of Public Education from the director of the singing chapel, dated December 10, 1865, it is clear that, on the basis of the highest order announced by the Minister of the Imperial Court, March 5, 1847, No. 726, “the right to teach singing in churches, simple chanting, and notated music can only be given to those who have passed the exam in the chapel and received the highest approved certificate of the court chapel.”
Therefore, the Minister of Public Education explained that the application of this rule to singing teachers in public schools would make it completely impossible to introduce teaching of church singing into these, for there is no possibility that the aforementioned persons, who receive the most insignificant salary and, on the basis of Art. 16th regulations, consisting mostly of clergy and clergy of local parish churches came from all provinces to St. Petersburg to take an exam in the court chapel and receive certificates from it. The commission, having discussed this subject, unanimously believed that the above-mentioned rule about the examination and certificate from the court chapel applies only to the regents of diocesan and regimental choirs and properly educated choirs of military educational institutions and women's institutes, and not at all to teachers of public schools. Regarding these latter, the commission, agreeing with the opinion of the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, set out in a note submitted by him to His Imperial Highness the Sovereign Grand Duke Chairman, believed:
1. All clergy and clergy who have completed a course in theological seminaries or teachers’ seminaries and have received certificates from these institutions have the right to teach church singing.
2. Other persons for the right to such training receive a certificate in the same way from a theological seminary or a teacher’s seminary.
3. The diocesan bishop may, in addition, grant the right to give the said testimony to knowledgeable members of the spiritual boards or deans.
II. The second difficulty encountered by the Ministry of Public Education concerns the textbook of church singing and the actual notes or transcriptions published by the Holy Synod, everyday life, irmology, octoech and other books printed by the Holy Synod with church notes in one voice, located in every parish church and obligatory for performance in it. Regarding the textbook, it must be said that now used in theological schools and placed at the beginning of the Synod's abbreviated use, under the title: The ABC of the elementary teaching of simple musical singing, contained on the tsefaut key, is already outdated and requires improvement in a purely pedagogical sense. Therefore, it would be necessary to draw up new guidelines. As for the transcription from the books published by the Synod in one voice, it would be desirable that such a transcription be completely correct, approved by the Holy Synod and affordable for public schools.
To achieve these goals, which cannot be achieved through the efforts of one person, the commission considered it useful to establish a special special committee on the following main grounds:
1. That the chairman and several members be appointed by special order of the highest.
2. That the Holy Synod appoint from itself three members from clergy or secular persons, at its discretion.
3. That the director of the court singing chapel be an indispensable member of this committee.
4. To this committee, provide the compilation in its chosen way of a textbook of church singing for public schools and the necessary transcriptions published by the Holy Synod of everyday life, octoechos, irmology and holidays.
5. At the same time, allow the committee to invite persons to participate in its studies, as well as in its meetings, who, although not members of it, can be useful to it with their knowledge.
In conclusion, the commission decided to seek the highest permission to submit the above opinions through the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for consideration by the Holy Synod and then, with the considerations of the Synod, submit them for the highest approval of His Imperial Majesty.
Signed. Konstantin, Count V. Adlerberg, Alexander Golovnin, Prince V. Odoevsky, Prince D. Obolensky, Count Dmitry Tolstoy, N. Bakhmetev. Stapled it. manager of the commission's affairs, actual state councilor I. Girt 267.
To your Excellency’s question, dated March 27, No. 1637, who from the ecclesiastical department could be appointed to the committee for compiling a textbook of church singing, I answer:
Among the Moscow clergy, those especially knowledgeable in ancient church singing are:
Georgievskaya, on Vspolye, church, priest Dimitry Razumovsky, and Trinity, on Arbat, archpriest Ippolit Bogoslovsky.
The information of the first on this subject is more extensive and varied 268. And which of them is more likely to be successful in the upcoming task of church singing, I cannot determine, due to lack of experience.
I have no information of this kind about anyone from the St. Petersburg clergy.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant,
The Holy Synod, by resolution on April 18/22, 1866, decided: bearing in mind that the Ministry of Public Education has already made all the necessary executive orders on the highest approved journal of the former commission on the matter of teaching church singing in public schools and regarding the establishment, under the chairmanship of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, of a special committee for the compilation of a textbook of church singing and musical notation transcriptions for public schools, the Holy Synod, in accordance with these orders and its resolution of April 8, determines: 1) about the above circumstances of the case, to inform by decrees the Eminence Metropolitans of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore and Moscow Philaret, for those depending on their part, orders to announce to Archpriest Hippolytus the Theologian and Priest Demetrius Razumovsky, as well as the regent of the St. Petersburg bishop's choir Lvovsky, on the appointment of these persons to the special committee on the present case; 2) about the time of the opening of this committee and the call from Moscow of Archpriest Bogoslovsky and Priest Razumovsky to allow the synodal chief prosecutor to enter into communication with the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret in due time.
To fulfill paragraph 2 of this determination, submit an extract from it to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod 269.
April 5. The most submissive letter of Metropolitan Philaret to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, expressing feelings of gratitude to the Lord for delivering His Majesty from the threatening danger
Most Pious Sovereign.
Blessed is God, faithful in his words, who, by the unslumbering power of his Providence, has now fulfilled his ancient word: do not touch my anointed!
Just as much criminal, just as much insane insolence has raised its hand against you; but it was invisibly reflected by an angel (although, apparently, through a person), and your life and health were preserved; and crime is allowed to do only that by which it has exposed itself and brought shame and justice to justice.
Blessed be God, who has given you, Most Pious Sovereign, His ancient word: do not touch my anointed.
The horror of the loyal subjects, and the sorrow that such a person was found in Russia, is softened only by the liveliest joy for your preservation and prayer of gratitude to the Lord.
So, after the conciliar thanksgiving service in the church of St. Alexis, the people who could not fit in the church, but filled the Kremlin, asked that this prayer be performed a second time among him, and it was performed a second time by the same cathedral, with general tenderness and joy.
Together with me, all the Moscow clergy entrusted to me, and I do not hesitate to say, the entire Moscow church and its people, all sincerely greet Your Imperial Majesty with the bright sign of God's Providence protecting you, without ceasing to cry to God: Lord, save the Tsar.
Saint Alexy, who in his church, near his holy relics, blessed your entry into the Orthodox Church, through his image consecrated on his relics, may he give you God’s protecting blessing for the coming times of your dearest life.
The image of St. Alexy and the all-submissive letter were sent to St. Petersburg with the abbot of the Trinity Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony, who was accompanied by the Moscow Peter and Paul Church, on Malaya Basmannaya, priest P. M. Ternovsky. See letters of Metropolitan Philaret to Archimandrite Anthony, dated April 6, 1866, No. 1622.
April 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the proposal of Moscow citizens to build again on the site of the chapel of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God a chapel, in a more spacious and majestic form, in memory of April 4, 1866
Sorry that I often burden you. Circumstances require.
It is heard that the society of Moscow citizens, in memory of the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from danger, intends to place in the cathedral church of the Chudov Monastery an icon of the Holy Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, with an unquenchable lamp. Good deed. But some citizens want a monument that is more open to everyone, and have the following idea.
1. The chapel of the Iveron Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God (which chapel and I had already thought of rebuilding and improving) should be built in a new, more convenient, spacious and majestic form and an inscription should be placed at the height of the building, readable for those passing by: built in memory of the Tsar’s deliverance from danger on the 4th day of April 1866.
2. For this purpose, the building to which the chapel is now attached is to be removed and in its place the proposed chapel is to be built so that the passage gates on the sides are arranged as they are now, or with even greater convenience.
It would be a monument worthy of the object, clear for future generations, conveniently preserved in strength and integrity.
Since the re-creation of the chapel is a matter for the spiritual department, the entrepreneurs are now writing a petition to me so that I set out the matter in a most submissive letter, which two deputies from the entrepreneurs would be honored to present to His Imperial Majesty.
Please let me know if I can conduct the matter along the lines outlined here.
I will explain it to the Governor General first, and I foresee no doubts, but I already have information from the civil governor that the archive located in the building in question here has already been appointed to be moved to another place, and that the building can be disposed of according to the project.
It is now impossible to draw up a plan quickly; it will be drawn up if the Sovereign Emperor deigns to approve the idea, and will be submitted to the highest discretion.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency, most humble servant.
In this letter, Count D.A. Tolstoy wrote: “The Emperor deigned to give the highest command: not to send deputies, but to ask the Metropolitan to deliver in advance a plan and historical information about the time of construction of the chapel. In St. Petersburg, April 14, 1866 Count D. Tolstoy.”
In the spirit of the highest command, a letter from Count D.A. was again sent to Metropolitan Philaret. Tolstoy, April 16, 1866, for No. 2177. The Metropolitan responded to him, after collecting the necessary information, with a letter dated June 1. See page 888 below.
April 11. Feedback from Metropolitan Philaret regarding an article that appeared in a Constantinople Armenian newspaper about the Greek Metropolitan’s visit to the Armenian church in the city of Konya, in Asia Minor
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, having forwarded, on January 2, 1866, to the discretion of the spiritual authorities, an article about the Greek Metropolitan’s visit to the Armenian church in the city of Konya, and a draft article on Armenian affairs, published in the Armenian newspaper “Varafa and Havadis” published in Constantinople, and a draft article on Armenian affairs, asked for feedback on whether this authority encountered any obstacles to the publication of these articles in our newspapers. An article published in the above-mentioned newspaper reads as follows: “they write to us from Konya 271 that the Greek Metropolitan, His Eminence Bishop Sophronius, upon his arrival in this city, went straight to the church, and when, after reading the appropriate prayers in it, he left the church of God to go to the house assigned to him, - according to the praiseworthy order of the manufacturer Sarkis Effendi and other persons - he was met at the porch of the Greek church by the Armenian clergy in all their vestments.
The Most Reverend Metropolitan, aware of the duty of a true Christian and putting aside religious intolerance, arrived at the Armenian church with a solemn church procession, ascended to the throne, read prayers and then uttered many edifying words, imbued with enlightened complacency that the Greeks and Armenians, being children of the same church, should live in brotherly love, not considering any difference between themselves. These words filled the hearts of all those present with feelings of true joy and gratitude. Since such an example was the first of its kind in those places, we cannot fail to express our full gratitude towards the mentioned archpastor for giving it. How desirable it would be that the eminence metropolitans, showing the same highly Christian and good examples to their flocks everywhere, would oblige us to express our grateful feelings towards them.”
Metropolitan Philaret, with whom communication was made on this subject, in a response addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated April 11, 1866, explained:
By reference, dated January 8, 1866, No. 79, about an article from the Constantinople Armenian newspaper, and about a draft article on Armenian affairs, my opinion was required.
Rule 45 of the Holy Apostles says: a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who prayed with heretics, let him be excommunicated.
Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea says: it is not proper to pray with a heretic and renegade.
Although the Armenian Church shows itself to be peace-loving in relation to the Orthodox Church; however, he does not abandon the doctrine of the one nature in Christ, condemned by the universal church.
Consequently, the Metropolitan of Iconium, when he prayed in the Armenian church with its members, allowed himself this violation of the apostolic and conciliar rules.
Consequently, an article in the Armenian newspaper of Constantinople, which praises the said act of the Orthodox Metropolitan, can, not without reason, be accused of indifferentism in relation to Orthodox and non-Orthodox teachings. Hatred and ill-will towards members of the Armenian Church are contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and they should be treated peacefully and kindly, and, if possible, conducive to achieving communion of churches; but for this purpose the Orthodox should not neglect church rules.
Therefore, it is fair that the article in question should not be allowed to be published.
If there are reasons that require leniency, then it can be allowed to be published, with the exception of some words, as shown in the attached copy of this article.
As for the draft Russian newspaper article, its compiler is doing a disservice to his fellow believers. He filled his article with severe condemnations of the Armenian authorities in Turkey, as well as the Orthodox, without presenting any definite evidence. Out of respect for the Armenian church and its members, this article, in my opinion, should not be published.
According to the instructions made by Metropolitan Philaret, in the above article of the Armenian newspaper, when printing it, the following places were subject to exclusion: “conscious of the duty of a true Christian”, “religious”, “without believing any difference between themselves” and the end of the article, starting with the words: “as if it were desirable...” 272
April 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a request to appear before the Tsar, so that the schismatics’ request to unseal the altars in the chapels of the Rogozh almshouse would be left without respect
This April 10th day, Sunday, fellow believers, after their conciliar prayer of thanks for the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from danger, came to me concerned and brought me the following information.
On the 9th day, the schismatics of the priesthood came to the Governor General and asked (supposedly having permission from St. Petersburg for this) permission to open the altars of the chapels in the chapels of the Rogozh almshouse in order to perform the liturgy and prayer of thanks for the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor. He turned them to the Chief of Police; and finally, the private bailiff who was correcting the position announced to the schismatics who had already gathered in large numbers that just as the altars were sealed by the highest command, they could not be opened without a new highest command.
Then the schismatics, although they could have performed a prayer of thanksgiving in the middle of the chapel with the altar closed, as they performed divine services every day except for the liturgy, they did not perform the prayer, wanting to use this opportunity to reinforce their desire to open the altars.
Fellow believers fear that the schismatics will present this to the government in some false form and achieve success in their harassment.
The law prohibits evidence of schism, including the prohibition of building altars in chapels and placing domes and crosses over chapels. But both, contrary to the law, exist in the Rogozh almshouse. Only part of the illegality was stopped by the highest command: the altars were sealed, and consequently the thrones were left inactive. The schismatics, however, have a secret church in the same area. What a huge proof of the schism it would be if, after the opening of the altar, False Archbishop Anthony came to one of these huge chapels with thousands of schismatics and performed a service!
At the same time, disorder and confusion may still occur (which has already happened) because the schismatic false bishops were divided and reconciled (?) among themselves. When Anthony the Elder, with a false council, demanded repentance from Anthony the Younger, threatening him with condemnation, Anthony the Younger did not give an answer within the appointed time, considering Anthony the Elder a heretic.
Let discerning attention be paid to the spirit and direction of the schismatics.
If they are driven by zeal for the king, then why don’t they perform a prayer of thanksgiving? But they stop the work of loyal zeal in order to turn this incident into a means to achieve their schismatic goal.
If the force of law weakens before illegality, should it not be supported by examples?
The French government arose from revolution and unbelief, but it also tames harmful sects. It closed the meetings of the Saint-Simonists, and the sect dispersed. It closed the services of the so-called “French Church”, and the sect dispersed.
The Irish are not schismatics, but members of the ancient church, to which the English, now Protestant, church formerly belonged, but for the benefit of this national church in England, they are subject to the so-called church tax in favor of the English clergy, and the papists have repeatedly defended this law against demands for its abolition.
In view of the above-mentioned harassment of the schismatics, I consider it the duty of my ministry to humbly ask your Excellency to intercede before the most pious Sovereign Emperor, so that the law against schismatic chapels, which has already been violated in many ways in the Rogozh almshouse, retains its force in that part that has not yet been violated, that is, so that the altars remain sealed and so that there is no solemn false bishop service 273.
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated April 22, 1866, notified Metropolitan Philaret that State Secretary P.A. Valuev, with whom he entered into communication on this matter, informed him that the request of the Moscow schismatics to unseal the altars in the churches of the Rogozhsky cemetery and to allow them to perform a prayer of thanksgiving with their clergy inside for the deliverance of His Majesty from danger, cannot be satisfied, by the force of the highest command of June 12, 1856.
April 18. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Bishop Leonid of Dmitrov with instructions to propose to the Moscow provincial school council for consideration his opinion that the schismatic school existing in Riga cannot serve as a model for similar ones throughout Russia
His Eminence Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov.
It became known to me that the former city minister of education, 274, pointing to the charter of the Grebenshchikov school in Riga for schismatic children, confidentially asked for an invitation to schismatics living in the Moscow province to enter with requests for the establishment of similar educational institutions for their children. Moreover, the former city minister proposed to do this not through official explanations or circulars, but more privately orally.
First of all, what involuntarily arouses attention here is that the former city minister, so to speak, demands that he not act openly at all. Of course, he finds the matter dubious or not harmless if it is carried out openly. But can a matter that is doubtful or not harmless turn into something doubtful and useful if it is carried out secretly?
The charter of the Grebenshchikov School is unknown to me, but the subject itself arouses attention and requires protective reflection.
The establishment of a schismatic school in Riga has special local reasons. The Riga schismatics, by nature of the sect, do not have strong family ties: many children, abandoned by their parents, are abandoned from day to day to increasing prostitution. One can hope that the schismatics will take them into their school and turn them into people fit for something. Riga schismatics adopted many customs that were contrary to the rules of the schism; but they remain schismatics, stubbornly alienating the Orthodox, and they adopt education from the Protestant Germans, enter into marriage alliances with them, but are imbued with an alien spirit and therefore lose their national character.
Therefore, it was necessary to find means to give them a Russian education in order to protect the national spirit in them and protect them from degeneration into Germans. Thus, the establishment of a schismatic school in Riga is explained by the exceptional situation of the schismatics there and does not lead to the conclusion that, following this example, schismatic schools should be established throughout Russia.
The question of establishing schismatic schools in general requires not Riga, but completely different considerations.
Your Eminence, take the trouble to propose the considerations outlined here for consideration by the Moscow provincial school council.
April 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the celebration throughout Russia of the April 4 event
There is a rumor that the Holy Synod believes that the event of the 4th day of this April will be immortalized in the memory of the people with an annual solemn divine service throughout Russia, with a procession of the cross.
The Russian people must remember April 4, with thanksgiving to God for the preservation of the Tsar, with prayer for his future preservation, with undying zeal for the protection of their Tsar and for the eventual extermination of sedition.
But the supposed image of the everlasting church memory of this day arouses bewilderment.
Church historical religious processions themselves indicate their subject, direction and limit. For example, on the day of Epiphany, a procession goes to the river, in memory of the Jordan; On the day of the prophet Elijah, in memory of his forty-day journey to the vision of God in Horeb, a procession of the cross goes to the church of the prophet Elijah. According to this image, the procession of the cross on April 4 in St. Petersburg can go to the chapel of the summer garden. Where will this procession go in other cities, and especially in villages? There is no reason to answer.
If we assume a solemn service without a procession of the cross, there are still perplexities about this.
April 4 will often occur during Lent and Holy Week, from which the church charter eliminates all extraneous celebrations, except for the only feast of the Annunciation.
April 4th will bring with it two memories.
First, a recollection of the miraculous preservation of the life of the Most Pious Monarch. Preserving this in the living memory of the people is both desirable and useful.
Secondly, a terrible and bitter memory that there was cruel sedition on Russian soil, which raised a daring hand against the monarch. Is it necessary to solemnly strike the Russian heart with this memory? Is it necessary to solemnly remind the people every year that an uprising against the tsar is possible, which they previously considered impossible?
These questions are significantly answered by the high example in Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. For his special providence of God's preservation, on December 14, he annually performed a thanksgiving service in his court church; but did not institute a nationwide church celebration for this event.
My strong zeal that the pure devotion of the Orthodox Russians to the Most Pious Autocrat should not suffer any damage from vague impressions prompts me to humbly ask your Excellency to submit the above thoughts to the consideration of the members of the Holy Synod, and, if necessary, to bring them to the highest attention of His Imperial Majesty.
April 28. Feedback from Metropolitan Filaret regarding the assumption of the Turkish government authorities to print liturgical books for local Orthodox churches in the Turkish-Serbian printing house opened in the city of Sarajevo
On April 12, 1866, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a report from the Russian consul in Bosnia to our extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister to the Ottoman Porte, dated March 22, 1866, was forwarded to the synodal chief prosecutor for reading, in which, among other things, it was reported that the governor-general of the Bosnian vilayet, Osman Pasha, had decided to publish in the newly opened in the city Sarajevo Turkish-Serbian printing house not only educational books for schools, but also liturgical books for churches. For this purpose, Osman Pasha addressed notes to the Orthodox metropolitans: Sarajevo, Mostar and Zvornik, asking them to tell him what books were needed by the churches and schools located in their dioceses, promising to print them in the mentioned printing house and even distribute several copies of educational books free of charge.
To a similar request from Osman Pasha, His Eminence Metropolitan Ignatius of Bosnia replied that he could not allow the printing of liturgical books in Sarajevo without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch and that he would write to His Holiness in Constantinople on this subject. For his part, our consul found that allowing the printing of liturgical Orthodox books in Sarajevo could lead to the following consequences: firstly, when printing liturgical books here, it will not be at all possible to vouch for the accuracy and correctness of their text, and therefore, due to possible, perhaps unintentional, distortions, a disagreement may occur between the books printed in Russia and here, and through this it is easy to give birth to doubts among the Orthodox residents Bosnia in the justice and truth of some of them; secondly, through the printing of liturgical books here, we will be completely deprived of that spiritual communication that so strongly brings our fellow believers in Bosnia closer to Russia by sending them these books, and through this our influence on them can easily weaken.
In view of these consequences, the Bosnian consul asked our envoy to the Ottoman Porte to use his influence with the Ecumenical Patriarch so that His Holiness would under no circumstances authorize the printing of liturgical books in Sarajevo.
Metropolitan Philaret, for whose conclusion the aforementioned report of the Bosnian consul was forwarded in copy to our extraordinary envoy to the Ottoman Porte, gave the following review to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod:
When communicating to me (dated April 15, No. 2178) a copy of the report of the Bosnian consul, your Excellency deigned to note that Osman Pasha’s proposal to print liturgical books for the Orthodox churches in Sarajevo in a Turkish-Serbian printing house is most worthy of attention.
Truly so. The printing of liturgical books in Mohammedan hands is both offensive and can be harmful to Orthodoxy.
But here is another circumstance that requires attention.
Since ancient times, the Orthodox Church, according to the apostolic commandment, praying for the king, also prays for his victory, without naming his enemies and without pronouncing reproaches against them, in order to fulfill his duty to the king and not utter a word that would seem inconsistent with the commandment of love for enemies. But in the Middle Ages, national love for the king and the fatherland went beyond this limit, and we read, for example, in the liturgical book: “Children of Hagaryan, You, O Young Lady, subdue our Emperor with Your prayers.” (Octoechus, tone 4, canon 5, song 9).
For a long time the Turks did not know that there were such places in our liturgical books; but, finally, these ill-intentioned people pointed out to the government of Constantinople.
This, in my opinion, requires attention in the present circumstances. Shouldn’t it be left to the patriarch and local zealots of Orthodoxy to print our liturgical books and fight against the Turkish enterprise? and the leaders of the Russian government should not openly enter into this struggle.
Whether it is necessary or not, let your Excellency know this thought.
No. 47. April 28, 1866 277
In April. Metropolitan Philaret’s most humble response to the letter of His Majesty the Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich regarding the event that took place on April 4, 1866.
In the features of your hand I look both comfortingly and edifyingly at the features of your spirit. May the Lord continue to overshadow your faith and inspire love. Strengthen your trust and devotion to His holy will. We are still under the strong influence of the 4th day of April. Moscow continues to pray for the Sovereign, in different places, in the open air, in large gatherings of people.
You would rightly argue that the April 4 event was unleashed on us because of the impoverishment of faith and the relaxation of morals. But, by the grace of God, this is not punishment, but admonition. Providence told us through the event: you are worthy of terrible punishment, and it was one hair away from you; be aroused by correction and corrected by mercy. Will we obey? This is a difficult question to ask. Your Majesty’s caring thought that your sister does not belong to the Orthodox Church is characteristic of love for Orthodoxy and for her soul. May your soul bring this in peaceful prayer to the Savior of all and may it rest in silence before His wisdom and mercy, without experiencing His judgment. He is rich in mercy and means of salvation for believers. Perhaps it is not untimely to now bring to your attention an event that I know quite accurately. Recently there lived in Moscow a sick woman who was sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy, and from time to time some of the deceased saw her and prayed with her, strengthening her patience, while others asked for prayers for themselves.
One day, between them, she saw a Protestant pastor, whom she had previously known in one of the southern cities of Russia, who was very favorable towards Orthodoxy, but remained not attached to the Orthodox Church. The seer asked him: “Why are you here? You are not ours." He answered: “No, yours. In the dying hours of my life, St. Sergius appeared to me and anointed me with holy myrrh.”
Can we say that this is true? But, on the contrary, is it possible to prove that this is a dream?
In devotion, may the Lord accept your suffering and illness as a sacrifice pleasing to Him and all-saving.
I humbly invoke the relief of sorrows, true consolation and the abiding blessing of God to you and your high family.
My poor health will not provide strength to Your Majesty, as you demand information from me, then I convey that it is very unsatisfactory for my duties? But thank God for everything. 278
May 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, for permission to the President of the Moscow Evangelical Lutheran Consistory, Dr. Von Blumenthal 279, to publish the Orthodox Catechism in German
The President of the Moscow Evangelical Lutheran Consistory, Dr. Von Blumenthal, translated a lengthy Orthodox catechism into German, with the goal of giving people of his religion a better and higher understanding of the teachings of the Orthodox Church than they already have, and, based on experiments made with the manuscript, seeing success, he wants to publish his translation for the same purpose.
Having left the academic conference and the censorship committee to consider the translation regarding its accuracy and approval for publication, I encounter another question that requires special consideration and resolution.
G. Blumenthal, having written his translation of the Orthodox catechism mainly for the western region, finds that for some readers it is useful and necessary to print the Russian original next to the German translation, and has already entered into communication with the printer.
According to the generally accepted procedure, the catechism is printed only in the synodal printing house. But the presenting case gives reason to ask for an exceptional order.
The benefit of the Orthodox Church requires that the knowledge of its pure teaching be spread beyond its borders, so that it opens the way for strangers into its saving fence. The Orthodox clergy were to publish a German translation of the Orthodox catechism, and if necessary, together with the Russian text. The Orthodox clergy did not do this, perhaps not foreseeing success. But the president of the Protestant consistory wants to do this and sees hope of success. But shouldn't everything possible help this?
Therefore, it is my duty to humbly ask your Excellency to propose to the Holy Synod whether it would deign, as a temporary exception to the general rule, to allow Mr. Blumenthal to publish the Orthodox Catechism in German and Russian not in the Synodal printing house, but in another.
The Holy Synod, by definition, dated May 30/August 1, 1866, decided: according to the Moscow considerations set forth by the Metropolitan of Moscow, recognizing as useful the publication of the Orthodox catechism undertaken by Dr. Von Blumenthal in translation into German and especially with a comparison of the Russian text, the Holy Synod finds it possible to authorize Blumenthal the said edition, with the right to print it not in synodal, and in some other printing house, upon approval by the spiritual censor of the German translation of the catechism; about which the Synodal Chief Prosecutor should be instructed to notify the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, by handing over the original protocol to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The true definition signed by the Holy Synod for execution was passed on August 1, 1866 280
May 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore regarding the appointment of a female person to the council of the missionary society
Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor.
The Chairman of Council 281, which is under the highest patronage of Her Imperial Majesty's Missionary Society, dated March 20 of this year, No. 35, asked me to publish the statement of this council in the Moscow diocesan gazette. To this I replied that diocesan bulletins are not published in Moscow.
But in the statement sent to me, I came across a circumstance that I owe it to you to bring to the attention of your Eminence.
The Society Council is composed of six males and one female.
This last person is known as sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy and disposed to serve every good deed with pure zeal. But what is subject to doubt and reasoning here is not the dignity of the person, but the composition of the council.
Perhaps the example of the highest patron of society opened the way for imitation and provided an opportunity to introduce a female person to the council.
But the example of a married person who patronizes the affairs of Christianity is beyond ordinary imitation. The Church gratefully recognizes such a character, for example, in Equal-to-the-Apostles Helen and Empress Irene. This powerful patronage gathered and supported the seventh ecumenical council; but she allowed him to act in the forms established since ancient times, inviolably and not in a new way.
One of the duties of the council of a missionary society, according to its charter, is to instigate, maintain and develop sympathy for missionary work among the members of the Russian Church. The preacher of the society says to the council: you are beginning the work of God, primarily the work of Christ. The goal of our society is to promote the Christian faith. Comfort, strengthen in moral ways. So, this council in its highest direction is a church, spiritual, teaching meeting. But Saint Paul says: I do not command women to teach: let women in churches (and in meetings of a church nature) remain silent. Therefore, would he allow a female person into this meeting as a member?
Christianity elevated the female sex; but at the same time, it actively guarded the precious properties of this sex - modesty and a meek and silent spirit, which is of great value before God (1 Pet. 3:4). The female sex not only did not mix with the male sex in official meetings, but also occupied separate places during prayer in churches. In our country, partly the inconvenience of the buildings, partly inattention, upset this custom.
And in civil official meetings, the female sex does not mix with the male. The prison society is a freely constituted institution: it has members of both sexes, but there is a separate committee for men, and a separate committee for women. Is it necessary for the disruption of this age-old order to begin with church affairs?
Isn’t it necessary to beware of this especially at a time when the same people recognize that Christianity has liberated the female sex, and at the same time strive for some new freedom for it, to which they do not set any limits?
It is my duty to present the considerations outlined here to the attention of your Eminence, since your primary concern is that everything in the church is in good order and in order, and in general the Christian Orthodox society is protected from innovations unfavorable to this goodness and order.
With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence's most humble servant,
No. 229. May 22, 1866 282
May 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the false hierodeacon of the Austrian hierarchy Theodosius, who expressed a desire to join the Orthodox Church on the rules of unity of faith
Monk Theodosius (Nizhny Tagil factory worker Filat Konev), who held the rank of hierodeacon under the schismatic false bishop Savvatiya, came to me with the following petition: having a sincere desire to leave the schism to which he had hitherto belonged and accept Orthodoxy, he asks to make an order to join the Orthodox Church, following the example of the monks who previously joined and on the same rights as them. When petitioning, he attached: 1) an explanatory note about his life in schism and about the reasons that prompted him to seek unity with the Orthodox Church; 2) a certified copy, issued to him from the Yekaterinburg City Duma in 1864, from the certificate of his dismissal from the peasant society, given to him in the same year in the Nizhny Tagil factory from the volost government.
He adds that in the same year he submitted a petition to the Yekaterinburg Duma to include him in the bourgeois society, but what decision followed is still unknown to him.
Since the end of October last year, he has been on probation, living with a fellow monk, a former member of the schismatic false hierarchy, and turns out to be trustworthy both in relation to Orthodoxy and in relation to monasticism. Onuphrius and Paphnutius, former false bishops who knew him personally, gave good testimony about him and interceded.
Attaching with this an explanatory note from Theodosius-Filat Konev and wishing for the benefit of Orthodoxy, I humbly ask your Excellency to present to the most merciful attention of the Sovereign Emperor and to petition for the highest permission of Theodosius Konev, along with joining the Orthodox Church on the rules of the same faith, to be accepted into monasticism.
No. 57. May 31, 1866 283
Subsequently, this year, Comrade Chief Prosecutor Yu. V. Tolstoy, in a statement dated July 22 of the same 1866, No. 3812, notified Metropolitan Philaret for further instructions that the Sovereign Emperor, according to the most submissive report of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, has most deigned to allow the reception of the former schismatic, false hierodeacon Theodosius, along with joining the Orthodox Church on the rules of common faith, into monasticism.
In relation to this, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “July 27, to the Eminence Dmitrov for execution.”
June 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the chapel of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God
By resolution, dated the 16th day of last April (No. 2177), the highest order was announced to me, at the request of Moscow citizens, to build the Iveron Chapel as a monument to the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from danger, to present a plan for the proposed construction and historical information about the time of the existing chapel.
As a result of this, I present herewith:
1) Plan and facade of the proposed chapel.
2) The facade of the existing chapel and the Resurrection Gate.
4) Historical information about the existing Iveron chapel.
5) I also attach the original act of Moscow citizens, with their signatures, in the form of a petition addressed to me.
The following document was attached to this letter; There were no other applications in the case.
Historical information about the Iveron Chapel
The miraculous Iveron Icon of the Mother of God was transferred from Athos to Moscow in 1648 and was solemnly greeted by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Patriarch Joseph and other clergy at the Resurrection Gate.
It was placed first in the St. Nicholas Monastery, and in 1649 at the Resurrection Gate, probably in reference to the fact that in the Athonite Iveron Monastery the Mother of God with a special sign assigned her icon a place above the gate, depicting her patronage by placing her icon in the place of the gate guard.
In what form, at the initial installation of the Iveron Icon at the Resurrection Gate, a place was arranged for it, no definite information has been preserved.
From the consistory file of 1745 it is clear that from ancient times at the Resurrection Gate there was a chapel with an icon of the Most Holy Theotokos of Iveron and a wooden extension attached to it.
In fact, it turns out that the chapel here is not a separate building, but a recess in the wall between two gates, in which the icon stood and still stands.
The wooden extension was taken away on the occasion of the conversion of the Resurrection Gate into a triumphal one, for the ceremonial entry of Empress Anna Ioannovna. And then the icon, remaining in the recess of the wall, was exposed to rain and snow. Therefore, permission from the authorities was sought to again make a stone extension, but in reality there is still a wooden one, which makes up the front part of the current chapel.
There is information (Resurrection Gate, p. 7) that this chapel was rebuilt during the reign of Catherine II and decorated under Alexander I, but the details are unknown. The archives were damaged in 1812.
The external nature of the building of the currently existing Iverskaya chapel does not allow the beginning of this structure to be dated further than the second half of the last century.
From this information it is clear that the building of the Iveron chapel does not constitute antiquity and monument, which would require its preservation in its original form.
Addition about the Resurrection Gate
The gates, called Resurrection gates (from the image of the Resurrection of Christ that was above them) and non-clay gates (from the river flowing in front of them), began construction, together with the wall of the city of China, by order of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, in 1534. The character of the building was adapted to military purposes. There were no towers above them (Resurrection gate. countries. 2).
Due to dilapidation, they were rebuilt during the reign of Feodor Alekseevich in 1680.
In 1727 it is shown with two passages and above them chambers with two towers.
After the fire of 1737, it was resumed with some changes.
In 1702, the building above the Resurrection Gate, so close to the miraculous icon, was insulted by the indecent celebration of the wedding of a much-consoled jester and laugh-maker, in the presence of Peter I, and the participants in the celebration ironically imagined the faces of the Tsar, Tsarina and Patriarch. The building this was in deserves to be destroyed.
The city wall on both sides of this building has already been destroyed, and its place is partly occupied by new buildings, and partly remains open.
The letter is written by Count D.A. Tolstoy: “necessary. Compose a comprehensive report. June 2."
The report was approved by the highest on June 17, 1866, with the following resolution written on it by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “The highest is permitted, but so that a preliminary communication with the civil authorities is made about the building of the Resurrection Gate. In the village of Ilyinskoye, June 17, 1866. Count D. Tolstoy" 284.
June 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow Governor-General, Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, about granting the priests and churchwardens of the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church at the Rogozhskoe cemetery to accept fellow believers into the Edinoverie almshouse at their discretion
Most illustrious prince, gracious sir.
The church elder of the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church, which is at the Rogozhsky cemetery, the Moscow 1st guild merchant Nikandr Matveev Alasin came to me with a petition with the following content:
As a result of his request, to have at the said church, separately from the schismatic office, philistine books, for inclusion in these of those temporarily arriving and leaving the almshouse at that church, joining the unified faith, following the example of the Orthodox churches, submitted to the former Moscow military governor-general Pavel Alekseevich Tuchkov, May 21, 1863, under no. 350, permission followed and the books were issued; but after this permission and to the present day, there is an obstacle to admitting into the almshouse those who are passing from the schism to the same faith, as well as fellow believers. The former caretaker of the schismatic office, Colonel Sechinsky, in response to the petition of the above-mentioned church warden regarding the peasant Antonova and the tradesman Lubkov and his wife, as co-religionists, regarding their placement in the Rogozhsky almshouse, responded that the said Edinoverie almshouse was determined to accept only schismatics who were being treated in the Rogozhsky almshouse and were converting to the same faith.
Such a restrictive order, which does not allow schismatics who do not belong to the schismatic almshouse to join the Edinoverie almshouse, has the character of making it difficult for those who turn to the holy, conciliar, apostolic church to join.
Due to these circumstances, the headman of the Edinoverie Church of St. Nicholas asks that it be allowed to freely accept from the schism into the Edinoverie St. Nicholas Church and place those who wish to the Edinoverie almshouse attached to it, from wherever the schismatic joins, without limiting the Edinoverie Church by the order of the former caretaker Colonel Sechinsky dated June 15, 1864 No. 1937, but that it be allowed to be guided by the exact permission of the Moscow military governor-general Tuchkov, dated May 21, 1863, for No. 350.
At the same time, the church warden presented the passport and certificate of Matrona Akimova, a peasant woman from the Moscow district, Ozeretsk volost, village of Kuzyaev, who, having joined, again joined the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church from the schism on May 8th of this year, 1866, who, having joined, wants to be placed in the almshouse of the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church.
1) That although the Edinoverie almshouse at the St. Nicholas Church has its first purpose to receive those turning to Edinoverie from the schismatic almshouse, this does not prevent it from accepting other poor fellow believers into it,
2) That special rules of supervision and precautions against abuse are prescribed for schismatic almshouses, but these exceptional rules do not apply to fellow believers,
3) That the churches of the same faith enjoy free rights equal to the general Orthodox churches, which accept into their almshouses whoever they wish,
4) That the former superintendent of the almshouse had no right to limit and restrict the permission given by the former governor-general,
I consider it fair to most humbly ask your Excellency that the priests and churchwarden of the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church be allowed to accept fellow believers into the Edinoverie almshouse, at their discretion, without being subjected either to the influence of the schismatic office, or to the special rules established for schismatics.
With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, etc.
June 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna with a notification that he cannot appoint Mitrofania as the abbess of the Serpukhov Metropolitan Monastery as head of the Pokrovsk community of sisters of mercy in St. Petersburg
Thank God that the participation of Abbess Mitrofaniya in the improvement of the Pokrovskaya community of sisters of mercy created and patronized by Your Imperial Highness has brought benefit to the community and pleasure to Your Imperial Highness to such an extent that the sisters of the community ask Mitrofaniya to be their boss, and this request has received not only your approval, but also your petition.
No matter how desirable it is for me to promote the benefit of a charitable institution and fulfill the beneficent will of your imperial highness, the request of the sisters of the community encounters an obstacle that does not allow it to be fully satisfied.
According to church rules, I cannot appoint the head of any institution outside the boundaries of the diocese entrusted to me.
However, whatever I found possible to do without violating the rules, I did it. I believe that advice and instructions are allowed to go beyond the limits of management when they are called upon.
With this, I present a list of the definitions I gave to the Moscow consistory.
May the Lord, the supreme lover of mankind, continue to bless your work, blessed empress, with success and good fruits, Christian love for mankind, and for your good deeds, may he reward the poor and helpless humanity with an abundance of his generosity to you and to your faithful spouse and to your faithful children.
I boldly appeal to him about this, consoled by your faith, striving to bear the fruits of good deeds.
Gethsemane skete. June 25, 1866 286
July 30. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, according to a letter from Patriarch Nikanor of Alexandria 287, on the management of the patriarchal metochion in Moscow
Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Yu. V. Tolstoy, in a proposal to the Holy Synod, dated August 11, 1866, No. 4664, reported: “by the determination of the Holy Synod on November 30, 1864, No. 2274, the management of the Alexandria Patriarchal Metochion, located in Moscow, is recognized, by the very essence of the matter, incompatible with the dignity of the episcopal rank, and according to economic calculations it was found more profitable to entrust this matter to a trusted person, at the discretion of the patriarch, from among the archimandrites or hieromonks of the patriarchate.” The late Alexandrian Patriarch Jacob also agreed with this view of the Holy Synod; and for this, upon bringing the above to the attention of the Sovereign Emperor, on the 28th day of August 1865, the highest permission was asked to send to Russia, for the stated purpose, Archimandrite Daniel, elected patriarch, who arrived here in November of the same year.
Meanwhile, the real Patriarch of Alexandria Nicanor has now turned to the synodal chief prosecutor with a letter containing a petition for permission to send to Moscow, to manage the local Alexandrian courtyard, one of the bishops subordinate to his beatitude, in place of Archimandrite Daniel.
I have the honor to offer this letter for the consideration of the Holy Synod in Russian translation.”
The file contains a letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count D.A. Tolstoy, on this case, with the following content:
There is news about the new Patriarch of Alexandria that is difficult to believe, but which, unfortunately, is confirmed by his official source.
Savvina in the Alexandria monastery, Archimandrite Meletius, who did not enjoy a good opinion in his behavior, with the help of the party he formed, secretly persuaded the Patriarch of Alexandria to sign a letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so that he would ordain Meletius as a bishop, due to the illness of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The vicar, Bishop Amphilochius, opened a copy of the said document in the patriarch’s bed, and when he and the Russian and Greek consuls showed this document to the patriarch and asked whether he had signed it, he answered in the negative. But after this, two members of the community who arrived at the patriarch confirmed the signing of the letter, and the patriarch immediately admitted that he had signed it. Measures were taken to prevent the ordination of Meletius, but they were too late. It has happened.
The news mentions the ill health of the patriarch, and this is the most likely explanation of his action. In Moscow, he always acted honestly and straightforwardly.
Now they expect that the disapproved Meletius will take the place of vicar under the patriarch, and the current trustworthy vicar Amphilochius will be sent to Russia to collect benefits. This is in some way already confirmed by the letter received from the patriarch in my name, in which he, pointing to the careless and disorderly management of his predecessors Callinicus and Jacob, expresses his intention to send a bishop to Moscow.
Under all these circumstances, two thoughts seem to require consideration:
1) Shouldn’t it be possible to use the Russian consulate so that the current well-intentioned vicar of Alexandria, Amphilochius, is supported in his place and Meletius is not allowed to take this place?
2) Should the sending of a bishop from the Patriarch of Alexandria to Russia to collect benefits be allowed again? During the present century there was one bishop envoy from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, one from Antioch, one from Alexandria, and they received large sums from Russia, especially the first and last. If another bishop is soon admitted as an envoy from Alexandria, the other patriarchs will also wish the same, and this will lead to the fact that three or four patriarchs will continuously harass the Orthodox Russians and collect taxes from them. The Patriarch of Alexandria can say, as he hinted in his letter to me, that the money he collected in Russia has been stolen; but that is why we should not allow a new collection, which, instead of the church, could go to the kidnappers. The Alexandrian community vouched for the former collection, that it would be used for the lasting benefit of the church; but it turned out to be the opposite.
I believe that your Excellency will find these thoughts requiring the attention of the Holy Synod and yours.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, your most humble servant,
In a letter from Metropolitan Philaret, Count D.A. Tolstoy wrote: “I ask Yuri Vasilyevich to propose to the Holy Synod. Probably, the Synod will agree with the view, as it seems correct, of the Metropolitan. This matter needs to be expedited. August 2."
According to the decisions of the Holy Synod on August 17/September 8 and August 23/October 19, 1866, the papers in this case were decided to be taken into account 288.
August 2. Proposal of Metropolitan Philaret of the Moscow Holy Synod Office on orders on the occasion of the appointment of Archimandrite Ignatius as second vicar of the Moscow diocese
Moscow Holy Synod office proposal.
By the attitude of the Comrade of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, dated July 26, No. 4331, with this attached, I was notified that the Sovereign Emperor has most deigned to approve the report of the Holy Synod on being the second vicar of the Moscow diocese to the rector of the Moscow seminary, Archimandrite Ignatius, with his naming and dedication in Moscow.
Circumstances require that the ordination be carried out immediately.
Therefore, without stopping at the failure to receive the decree of the Holy Synod, which should follow these days, I find it necessary to offer the following to the office of the Holy Synod:
1. The naming of Archimandrite Ignatius as bishop is scheduled on the 5th day of this August, Friday, at 11 o’clock in the morning, in the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius.
2. Ordination 7 days, Sunday, in the Lavra Dormition Cathedral.
3. The members of the synodal office and the city prosecutor are pleased to arrive at the Lavra at the above-mentioned times.
4. To this end, may the bishops of Polotsk 289 and Dmitrov 290 be invited.
5. Father Protopresbyter will appoint a capable deacon from the Assumption Cathedral to serve at naming and ordination.
6. A synodal deacon must also be sent with equipment 291 for the rite of ordination.
7. I propose to make proper arrangements regarding this.
No. 319. August 2, 1866 292
August 24. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the program of monthly publication of generally understandable works of religious and moral content
A program for the monthly publication of generally understandable works of religious and moral content has been drawn up.
If this is the title of the publication, it is not convenient. Or has the name not been invented yet?
Much has been written about worship and rituals to the point of satiety, but not attractively. Do you need more? And will it be entertaining and edifying?
Nowadays, many biographies of saints are also published.
Is it convenient to arouse attention thus dulled by the art of composition?
And more than once it has been written with sophistication about the Moscow shrine. Will there be anything new, entertaining or edifying?
It is offensive to throw the exposition of the sayings of Holy Scripture and reflection on them into the mix.
Too many teachings are published in periodical publications and diocesan bulletins, and almost for the most part they are reluctant to be read. Is there a way to write teachings on the present time, on people, to the heart? Oh, if only it were found and used!
It is intended to indicate the books published for the reading of the people. There are a lot of them. Give decent directions. If you criticize them, then you need to write a lot, and anger the publishers, with hardly any hope of warning the readers.
Finally, the name of the publication was found: Son of the Church. It seems very large for a publication that costs a ruble. From 3 to 4 sheets per month, therefore, from 36 to 48 sheets per year, can it be printed and sent out for a ruble?
Articles such as: about knowing God from His creations may attract the attention of readers.
But what can we say about articles in which the writers, without noticing what they are doing, carry out such thoughts that David did not pray that the Lord would not deprive him of his spiritual strength, that David was jealous of the birds, that birds build nests on the altars of the Lord, that zeal for the church should increase in prosperity, and, therefore, can be reduced in case of misfortune, that in the Old Testament it was permissible to have less for the church of the Lord zeal than in Christianity, etc. If they said this while writing in freedom, without rushing, then will they be more careful when they need to hurry and hurry, so as not to be late with the release of the monthly notebook?
And the venerable poet, who translates irmos and troparia into poetry, without getting angry, will judge if he is offered the opinion that this work, by its nature, with all the ability and diligence of the worker, can rarely be satisfactory, and therefore rarely pleasant to the reader, and hardly ever useful. The soul and ear desire in the irmos and troparia those words and sounds from which the church is accustomed to receiving spiritual pleasure. Duty and time strongly require not just a word that amuses, but one that instructs, excites, and protects from visible and foreseeable dangers.
The proposed publication is of the same kind as the existing publication: Soulful Reading. Is it necessary and convenient for two publications of the same type to be so close to one another? Due to their homogeneity, in all likelihood, not many will subscribe to receive both, but the majority will be divided between them, and thereby weaken the economic means of both. Isn’t it better to support one publication with works that are more mature and entertaining, more likely to ensure success and benefit, and freeing publishers from the need to fill a thin book with tales of gross vices and ugly actions of uneducated people, presented in equally crude and ugly language. They say: it's popular; Yes, it is popular if, instead of progress from ignorance to education, they want to lead the people with an understandable movement from education to ignorance.
This anti-progress began to appear even in the church pulpit in one of the dioceses, and, to offend not only taste, but also moral and pious feelings, in a printed sermon one could read the following, and something similar to the following: if you need to baptize a baby, you need to go to the priest with wine. Thanks to the authorities that such teachings were not announced in churches for long, and soon ceased to appear in print. You can speak clearly for the simplest people while maintaining pure and correct language, without offending grammar and logic. When a writer or teacher speaks to the common people in correct and sedate language, they feel inferior to him, and are disposed to attention and respect. And when he imitates their coarse, broken dialect, then they see him as inferior to themselves, because the imitator is naturally inferior to the imitated, and what appears to their attention is not the sublime idea of a mentor, but the vulgar appearance of an actor representing their everyday life.
There was a case when a small essay with religious and moral content sold 10,000 copies or more. What is better and more useful, to publish non-urgent works of this kind from time to time, with the hope of at least half success, or to publish a monthly magazine that will acquire, perhaps, no more than 1000 subscribers? In Moscow there is a society for the publication of useful books, which, having started its business with small capital, in a few years expanded it and increased its capital tenfold. And spiritual magazines (except, perhaps, the Wanderer) barely acquire enough to continue business with the need, and not reach the point of having to stop publishing. Are the hopes of those undertaking a new spiritual journal well founded? Will the proposed publication be provided with a satisfactory edition? One editor is not enough. Some obstacles will slow down his activities, the publication of books will slow down, and this is an almost fatal disease of publishing.
A lot of caution and forethought is required from the editor.
For example, will the reader say: is it necessary to talk a lot about the unity of God where there are no polytheists?
Is it good to place side by side, as if equal, the greatness of the world and the greatness of God?
Is it true that clouds give dew when everyone sees dew in a cloudless sky?
Is it true that every thing is necessary for everyone?
Is it necessary to talk to people about air balloons?
Does the article, which contains the most apologia for the veneration of saints, condemns division according to teachers and separation from the church, correspond to the title: On the unity of God?
When the reader reads the following words: “until man lives in this mortal body until he reaches the clear understanding of angels and the vision of the saints, until with the help of Christ he gains the glory of eternal bliss”: will the reader not ask what the vision of the saints is? Does this mean the vision of spiritual things that the saints had? Or a vision of the personalities of saints? But be that as it may, why can this vision be achieved only in eternal glory, but not on earth? The saints of ancient centuries had spiritual visions in their earthly lives; the saints of subsequent centuries also had spiritual visions, and in their visions they saw the ancient saints. When did this stop and the opportunity to have such visions was lost? And why was it taken away when Jesus Christ was yesterday and today. The same forever?
It is said: give wine to the wise, and he will be the wisest. It was written according to this advice, that is, to give entrepreneurs an opportunity to more accurately discuss what is acceptable, and not to impose on them some kind of solution to the matter.
September 13. Metropolitan Philaret's secret order to the abbot of the Cathedral Miracle Monastery, Archimandrite Veniamin, that the Edinoverie monk Paphnutius stop his conversations with schismatics on the Kremlin square until his discretion
of the Cathedral Chudov Monastery to the governor, Archimandrite Veniamin 294.
Yesterday, from a trustworthy secular person, I received information about a conversation that took place on the 11th day of this month on Kremlin Square by the Edinoverie monk Paphnutius 295, in which the defense of Edinoverie extended to opinions disrespectful to general Orthodoxy, and to insulting comments about some Orthodox individuals, and caused an unseemly dispute.
The duty of seeing that holy works of faith are carried out in the world obliges me to entrust you with the following:
1) Announce to the monk Paphnutius that he should stop his conversations on the Kremlin square pending discretion.
2) Request from him written information about this conversation, what was the subject of this conversation, what his judgments were, whether they gave rise to objections, and if they did, what answers he gave to them.
3) Attach this information to this and present it.
4) Explain to him that this order is considered necessary as a precaution against harm from exaggerated rumors about what happened, and against unpleasant clashes that he could encounter if he appeared in the square soon after the displeasure had already been aroused against him by the previous conversation.
No. 88. September 13, 1866 296
September 16. The attitude of Metropolitan Philaret to the main trustee of the imperial philanthropic society, with his opinion on the requests of: a) schismatic parishioners of the Moscow Transfiguration Almshouse and b) the economic committee of the same house, for the release of 40,000 rubles. for various extensions and amendments, and on the exemption of the almshouse from the costs of maintaining the Edinoverie almshouse, clergy and school
Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, forwarding to the Metropolitan of Moscow, in regard to January 26, 1866, No. 138, requests from: 1) schismatic parishioners of the Transfiguration almshouse and 2) the economic committee of the same house, wrote: “Mr. The Minister of Internal Affairs, by December 30, 1865, No. 2854, informed me of a request sent to him from schismatic parishioners of the Transfiguration Almshouse, who, on the occasion of the transfer of the men's yard of this almshouse to fellow believers for the establishment of a monastery and the transfer from this yard to the women's yard of schismatic men, are petitioning for permission to make various necessary buildings in this last yard, using up to 40,000 rubles, as well as the exemption of the Preobrazhensky almshouse from the costs of heating and maintaining members of the same faith in the church, almshouse, school and clergy that moved away from it.
Following this, the council of the imperial philanthropic society received a proposal for the same from the economic committee of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, dated January 11th, No. 9.
Recognizing the need for the contents of these papers to have a preliminary conclusion from your Eminence, I make it my duty to humbly ask that you honor me, with the return of the papers, with your review, gracious archpastor.”
List of the relationship of the Metropolitan of Moscow, dated September 16, 1866, to His Eminence Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod, chief trustee of the imperial philanthropic society
By your Eminence, dated January 26, this year, 1866, No. 138, I am required to give my opinion on the request of the schismatics of the non-priest consent:
1) for permission to construct the necessary, in their opinion, constructions in the women’s courtyard of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, using up to 40,000 rubles for this, and
2) on the exemption of the said house from the costs of heating and maintenance of members of the same faith: churches, almshouses, schools and clergy and clergy.
In order to give a thorough and legitimate opinion on this matter, it is necessary, when considering it, to constantly keep in mind the highest command of December 21, 1853, as the main basis for the situation in which the Transfiguration almshouse should now be located.
I. The schismatics ask permission to separate with stone walls the buildings occupied by male prisoners from the buildings occupied by female prisoners.
But first of all, this is not necessary. The residence of the elderly and sick males, as well as the elderly and sick females, in the same courtyard in different buildings does not pose any moral doubt.
Secondly, to this day the caretaker of the almshouse and the watchman live in the women’s yard, among whom, of course, there are some who are not elderly; and until now the schismatics have not found this questionable or indecent. Moreover, there is no need to separate the elderly and sick with a stone wall.
Thirdly, it is in vain that dividing walls should be built with long curved lines, when the wall can be drawn straighter and shorter. It is as if they are trying to deplete the capital available under the authority of the council of the imperial philanthropic society.
Fourthly, this unnecessary division of one area into two, requested by the schismatics, can only be explained by the desire of the former two nearby schismatic monasteries, male and female, to be restored again, dividing the women's courtyard into two, into male and female monasteries. But this is directly opposite to the above-mentioned highest command, the first paragraph of which ordered the Preobrazhensky almshouse to be limited to the value of a charitable and, moreover, temporary institution, until the death, retirement or displacement of those in need.
II. The schismatics ask permission to correct and put in order the chapel located in the middle of the courtyard.
But, firstly, this chapel has been closed for many years, as if unnecessary; and it is also not needed now, because, besides it, there are several chapels, and when the male prisoners were moved to the women's courtyard, the internal structure of the chapel was transferred for them from the men's courtyard, which is now a monastery of the same faith.
Secondly, the lack of requirement until now, and the restoration of the chapel located in the middle of the courtyard that is now required, and encircling it with dividing walls so that, being separated from various residential buildings, it would show off more prominently and honorably, can have no other purpose than that this chapel should be a public chapel and the cathedral of the restored schismatic monastery. And this is clearly contrary to the above highest command. Dissenters of the non-priestly persuasion, in order to satisfy their religious needs, have quite a few prayer houses in different places, not so open: but in their current enterprises one can see the desire to restore the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery to its former strength, which extended its influence on people of this persuasion throughout Russia.
Thirdly, the restoration of the chapel (in the middle of the monastery) is contrary to points 3 and 6 of the highest command of December 21, 1853, which says: those who are expected to be content with the prayer houses located in all the houses in which they live, and those belonging to the priestless sect are allowed to come to the prayer houses mentioned above.
III. The schismatics are asking permission to build a two-story building to house a kitchen, kvass room and dining room, and for this they are asking for 14,500 rubles.
But, as far as I know, all this can be placed in the finished Ilyinsky chamber, shown on the plan under No. 7. In general, the incongruity is visible in the fact that in the women’s courtyard previously lived from 1000 to 2000 souls, and now about 300 women and 25 men live, and with all that there seems to be a lack of buildings, it is planned to build new buildings. Therefore, justice and prudence require not to place unaccountable trust in the economic committee demanding such constructions, whose report was signed by four schismatics, and, unfortunately, the overseer appointed from the council of the imperial philanthropic society was also signed by agreeing to the demands of the schismatics, which were unnecessary, made with a schismatic purpose, and contrary to the basic law on the almshouse. It is necessary to conduct an inquiry into this matter not by a committee in which one official vote is subordinated to four schismatic votes.
IV. The schismatics, in a petition to Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, ask from the council of the imperial philanthropic society 40,000 rubles for reconstruction and construction in the Preobrazhensky almshouse.
But, firstly, this almshouse and its capital were given by the highest command to the disposal of the imperial philanthropic society, and schismatics were not given anything in it. If any corrections are needed in it, they should occur at the discretion of the council of the imperial philanthropic society, and not at the request of schismatics, for the highest command limited this house to the significance of a charitable institution, and consequently removed from it the influence of schismatics, except that they were allowed to come here for prayer, for burial and for memorial services.
Secondly, from the above it is clear that the requirement of 40,000 rubles is exaggerated. Laxative concessions to such demands could bring the capital of the almshouse to depletion, and in this the schismatics would find a reason to strive to completely take possession of the almshouse, taking it for their maintenance, and thus turn it again into a schismatic institution. Therefore, if any amount is allocated for corrections in the Preobrazhensky almshouse, it should not be given to the schismatics, but used by order of the council of the imperial philanthropic society through persons subordinate to it.
V. The schismatics wrote in a petition to Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs that “the Edinoverie church, the almshouse and the school were supported from the income of their almshouse,” and they asked to stop this.
Here, firstly, it should be noted with sad surprise how carelessly the schismatics treat the highest command. The imperial power orders the Preobrazhensky almshouse to be limited to the significance of a charitable institution. But the schismatics even after this call it their schismatic almshouse.
Secondly, the highest command limited the almshouse to the significance of a charitable institution: therefore, in the ways of this house, both the expected schismatics and the expected co-religionists must be supported.
Thirdly, the school at the almshouse was established for both schismatics and co-religionists: therefore, in fairness, it can also use the funds of the almshouse.
Fourthly, the capital of the almshouse was made up of donations from ancestors and schismatics and co-religionists, with the participation of current co-religionists when they were in schism: consequently, this capital belongs to the schismatics and co-religionists together. But at the same time, schismatics do not have the right to dispose of this capital by force of the highest command of December 21, 1853.
VI. The schismatics are asking for instructions on how to manage almshouses.
But by the highest order on December 21, 1853, management was entrusted not to them, but to the council of the imperial philanthropic society; and in this highest command the main rules of action in this administration are clearly stated.
VII. All the above considerations lead to the following conclusions:
1) It is not necessary and should not be allowed to build a dividing wall, because it is not needed for the almshouse, but is needed only to convert the almshouse into two schismatic monasteries, male and female.
2) The chapel in the middle of the monastery should be left closed in its present position, pending the determination of what purpose may be required for it by further circumstances that may arise.
3) What corrections are really needed in the almshouse, specifically for those in need, may the council of the imperial philanthropic society deign to make a definite and accurate inquiry through trusted and knowledgeable persons, without exposing this inquiry to the influence of schismatics, directed towards schismatic goals, as allowed by the existing economic committee.
4) The very administration of the almshouse must be arranged in such a way that one Orthodox voice is not suppressed by four schismatic voices; and that it be arranged in accordance with the highest command of December 21, 1853.
5) Repairs and money that will be allocated for the necessary corrections should not be at the disposal of schismatics, but should be at the disposal of the council of the imperial philanthropic society, through persons subordinate to it, free from prejudice in favor of schismatic views.
6) Suspected co-religionists, along with contemplated schismatics, must benefit from the benefits of the almshouse, as well as the school.
7) Whether the Edinoverie Nikolaev monastery, which does not have any means of subsistence of its own, can refuse benefits from the almshouse, this requires consideration, separately from the present case, as well as the question of the apartments of the Edinoverie clergy.
September 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Yu.V. Tolstoy, with a conclusion regarding the intention of several Ansari villages to convert to Orthodoxy
Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Yu. V. Tolstoy, in relation dated September 9, 1866, No. 5222, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret in copies: 1) the report of the Russian Consul General in Beirut, dated May 11 of that year, No. 57, about the intention of several Ansari villages to convert to Orthodoxy and 2) the attitude of the Russian envoy in Constantinople, for No. 214, with his conclusion on the same subject, - asked the Metropolitan to provide feedback on these papers.
The Consul General wrote in a report that Meletius, newly appointed Bishop of Latakia, notified him of the appearance of several sheikhs from the Ansari tribe living in villages near Latakia, with a request to accept them with their families and villagers dependent on them into the fold of Orthodoxy, since they, living in the neighborhood of the Orthodox, have long been familiar with Orthodoxy and therefore understand everything its advantage over their errors - asked the consul for patronage and assistance in this matter and, if possible, a vizieral letter, so that local authorities and Muslims could not interfere with this conversion, and that, upon conversion, they would enjoy all the rights of Christians. To this Meletius added that he was convinced that this desire was completely disinterested and voluntary.
The Russian envoy in Constantinople responded to this report as follows: although the desire of the Ansari, both in moral and political terms, cannot but meet with the sympathy of the Russian government. for all that, such a recent example of the Melkites forces us to exercise extreme caution in such cases and inspires little confidence in the firmness and constancy of the spiritual convictions of the heterogeneous populations of Syria. The very demands of the Ansaris, who want to receive now through our mediation a vizierial letter from the Porte, providing them with various benefits, will, without a doubt, meet stubborn resistance from the Turkish government and clearly indicate the selfish goal of converting them to Christianity. However, if the Ansarii do not demand monetary benefits from us and a written commitment from the Porte, then, if they convert to Christianity, they may well rely on the vigilant patronage of the Russian government, along with the other Orthodox population of the East.
In relation, dated September 9, 1866, No. 5222, forwarding to me, in copies: 1) the report of our Consul General in Beirut, dated 11 last May, No. 57, about the intention of several Ansari villages to convert to Orthodoxy and 2) the attitude of our envoy in Constantinople, No. 214, with his conclusion on the same subject, Your Excellency you require a review from me.
The matter is in its essence desirable; but it is surrounded by doubts and difficulties. Those who first wished to join Christianity demanded the civil rights of Christians, namely freedom from conscription; this casts doubt on the purity of the Ansaris' intentions. If the intention is impure, its firmness is also doubtful. It may be shaken by difficulties on the part of the Turkish population and government, whose complete aversion it is difficult to vouch for. And since the number of those disposed towards Christianity this time is not large, difficulties may arise from their semi-wild fellow tribesmen.
I share the reasoning and conclusion of Mr. Envoy.
In order to achieve a completely pure and solid cause, it would be useful to first use figures who, by giving hope to those seeking Christianity, would try to elevate in them the idea of Christianity and strengthen their inner zeal for it, and at the same time increase the number of those disposed towards Christianity.
September 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with the opinion of the need to promote the cause of Orthodoxy against the claims of schism
The so-called Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, the central place of the non-priest schism, which extended its influence not only to Moscow, but also to other provinces, by the way, through the assignment of false teachers to schismatic societies with letters from their mentors and trustees - due to perceived abuses, the highest command was limited to the value of a charitable institution, and under the name of the Preobrazhensky almshouse, it was subordinated to the council of the imperial philanthropic society. Taking advantage of the condescension of the council of the imperial philanthropic society, the schismatics, not content with what was granted to them by the highest command, (try) to increase their influence on the Preobrazhensky almshouse, noticeably moving towards giving it its former schismatic significance. They already have a committee in the Preobrazhensky almshouse, in which four schismatics and one Orthodox sit.
Taking advantage of the conversion of the men's section of the almshouse (the former men's schismatic monastery) into a Edinoverie monastery, and the transfer to the women's courtyard (the women's former schismatic monastery), they undertake to divide the women's courtyard into two parts with a stone wall, through which the appearance of two schismatic monasteries will again appear. They want to restore and open the chapel located in the courtyard, closed for many years, through which it will receive the appearance of a cathedral in the monastery; it is proposed to erect new buildings, while the existing ones should be in abundance, because the number of those in need has decreased several times compared to the previous one; and for all this they ask from the council of the imperial philanthropic society 40,000 rubles.
Relation on this matter (sent) to the Most Reverend Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod, as the main trustee of the imperial philanthropic society 299, and at the same time transmitting a list of this matter, I humbly submit my duty to ask your Excellency to provide fair assistance to the cause of Orthodoxy against the claims of schism.
No. 94. September 20, 1866 300
September 5. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the Edinoverie monk Paphnutius
Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated October 27, 1866, No. 155, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, at his discretion, an extract he personally received from Count P. A. Shuvalov, about the Edinoverie monk Paphnutius, with the following content:
“Extract from information received from Moscow.
“It’s good that they didn’t publish the schismatic discussions in Paraskeva’s church. The priest published the book “Theodorite’s Word on Two-Fingers” and stirred up a whole storm among schismatics and co-religionists. The Kremlin Square was filled with censures from Paphnutius, a schismatic renegade and currently a fellow believer. His Eminence Philaret himself converted him, and now he allows himself to lecture schismatics in the square, and on occasion, of course, slyly scold the Orthodox, at least in the person of the priest Ivan. Experts in the matter speak well of the book “The Word of Theodorite”, schismatics with anger. The praise read in the magazine for his dinners would now be very welcome, but it would increase the discord.”
Metropolitan Philaret wrote in response to Count D.A. Tolstoy:
With regard to your Excellency, on October 27, an extract from the Moscow Gazette was forwarded to me about the “storm among schismatics and co-religionists”, on the occasion of the book of the Paraskevi priest.
It is my duty to provide detailed information about this.
For a long time, some schismatics had the custom of coming to the Kremlin on holidays and starting disputes about faith.
The monk Paphnutius (former false bishop), upon joining the Edinoverie church, began to go out to these meetings, having sufficient knowledge and skill in the word, to expose schismatic false teachings. He was successful, and some schismatics, whose schismatic convictions were shaken by him in the square, began to come to his cell, with the desire to learn more about the true teaching.
In the past month of August, a newly printed book by the Paraskevi priest 301 came to light, under the title: Theodorite's word on double-fingered. In this book about the origin of the rites used by both schismatics and co-religionists, there are opinions that are unfounded, incorrect, excessively derogatory, and partly, due to the lack of skill of the writer, they turn in favor of the schismatics, and therefore are not only offensive to co-religionists, but also come into conflict with the judgments of the Holy Synod, which blessed the use of the so-called old rites for the co-religionist church.
The Paraskevi priest acted with good intentions, but erroneously, and with excessive confidence in his work. He presented me with his book in manuscript. Not having time to read it all and correct it, I read several sheets, noticed errors in these sheets, advised him to review the entire book, and ask the censor to judge his book fairly, and not leniently. When he submitted it to the Moscow spiritual censorship, it refused him permission to publish and demanded that it be corrected. But he turned to the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship and received permission to print it, and I learned about this already when it was printed and published.
On September 11, a dispute about this book took place on the Kremlin square, in which the monk Paphnutius also responded with immoderate censure about the book and the priest. This was reported to me, and I immediately forbade Paphnutius to go into the square on the following holidays, as a precaution against further strife 302.
In fact, on the next holiday, more people than usual gathered in the Kremlin, and as Paphnutius did not appear, some came to the Chudov Monastery to summon him, but he, obeying the orders of his superiors, remained in his cell.
And to this day he has not been given permission to enter the square to compete.
Meanwhile, the extraordinary academy professor Subbotin wrote comments on the book of the Paraskevi priest, according to which its errors are corrected, and a condescending and conciliatory judgment is restored about the so-called old rituals, corresponding to the judgments of the Holy Synod, reassuring for fellow believers. These remarks, stated in moderate terms, can be published not to excite, but to calm the “storm”.
No. 108. November 5, 1866 303
December 21st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about opening a subscription to collect donations in favor of the victims of Candiots
I was presented with a question that was difficult to resolve because, among other things, I did not have the necessary information. I appeal to your good will, if you find it possible to help me resolve this.
They offer me to open a subscription in favor of the Candiots. In terms of humanity, this is desirable.
But do I have the right to start? True, I did this for the benefit of the suffering Syrians; but it almost happened by itself. And that case is not similar to the current one.
The question must be divided into two: 1) about benefits for the rebel Candiots and 2) about benefits for their affected families.
The first is doubtful because these are rebels against a legal, albeit non-Christian, government. To what extent the government is guilty against them, and to what extent it has lost the right to their obedience, it is difficult to know.
The second question is not doubtful in itself. Charity to the needy is a Christian thing, but is there a reliable way for the benefits to reach their destination and be correctly used for the benefit of the needy?
Perhaps it is inconvenient for the government to begin this matter of philanthropy on its own, because European politics would not fail to give it a different meaning; and therefore, perhaps, it would be in accordance with the circumstances for this work to be started and continued by private subscription. But is this guess correct?
Deign to help me on the right path to a good goal, and not on the path of doubt and stumbling.
Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant,
Following communication between the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, subscription to the collection of donations among the clergy of the Moscow diocese was granted the highest permission, but with the condition that the donated amounts be sent, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to our envoy in Athens, who will be entrusted with delivering timely information about the distribution of these amounts.
December 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, D.A. Tolstoy, with the attachment of two notes entitled: a) “Some doubts when reading the draft charter of theological seminaries” and b) “Something about the draft charter of theological schools”
As a result of your Excellency’s attitude from No. 304, I listened to the draft statutes of theological seminaries and the statutes of theological schools.
Some of the considerations presented by me were conveyed verbally to State Councilor Sergievsky 305; and what required a more specific presentation, with an explanation, is set out in the two notes attached to this:
I. Some doubts when reading the draft charter of theological seminaries.
II. Something to the draft charter of theological schools, No. 470. December 21, 1866
I. Some doubts when reading the draft charter of theological seminaries
I. The seminary is supposed to accept children of the Orthodox confession from all classes.
Children of the clergy have the advantage that from an early age they follow their fathers to church when they participate in divine services, and gradually enter into this service, starting from preparing the censer, taking out the candle and reading, thus from an early age they are imbued with the church spirit, and receive a predisposition to church service, and some familiarity with it. Children of other classes will come to seminaries, of course, without such favorable predispositions; but one can still fear that some, especially from the middle and lower classes, especially in the current state of public morality, will come to seminaries with skills unfavorable for the clergy.
If not a complete solution, at least a weakening of this doubt, it would be useful to add the following note to the above rule:
In case of equal merit according to the test, children of clergy rank are preferred.
II. Instead of the previous three two-year divisions, the seminaries are divided into six annual classes.
Under the previous structure of seminaries (until it was upset by the multiplication of academic subjects and the introduction of alien ones), the student was under the predominant influence of two years from a teacher of literature, two years from a teacher of philosophy, and finally, two years from a teacher of theology.
Such an influence - more concentrated, continuous, long-lasting - was profound and gave a strong direction not only to the mental, but also to the general activity of the students. The sciences appeared to the student more intact over a two-year period. The final examination of the upper division was not as distant from the examination of the lower division as the final examination of the sixth class would be from the examination of the first class. This is not without significance for the student.
In a six-form seminary, would the influences of the instructors—less concentrated, more fragmented, more frequently changing—be quite favorable to the unity and firmness of direction of the students?
This question should not be hidden, but without insistence. Experience will give the answer. The decision made has its reasons.
III. The draft charter does not provide for the rector to teach, except for Sunday conversations about the day's Gospel.
These conversations can have a beneficial effect on students, but, by their nature, they are hardly as deep as systematic lessons in theology. If the academic importance of the rector, in the same subject of study, turns out to be less than that of another subordinate teacher, this is unfavorable for the rector and his actions.
The teaching of theology, as a subject of incomparable importance, requires the highest person in the institution. This is the rector.
Attention and diligence to the most important subject of teaching find significant reinforcement in respect for the teacher, the head of the institution, and his instructions, through the area of the mind, extend to the area of the heart and throughout moral life.
On the other hand, in students who are imbued with the spiritual teachings of the rector of the teacher, respect for him as a boss becomes more internal, strong and firm, and they more conveniently acquire the disposition to obey him, not only according to the instructions of the letter of the charter, but also in spirit and conscience.
A rector who does not teach science, but only supervises, orders, and makes comments, can appear in the eyes of students only as a guardian of external order, but can this place the rector in the minds of students above teachers of science?
So, shouldn't the rector be a teacher of dogmatic theology?
This will not deprive him of time for his other responsibilities. On guard of every class every day, he cannot be in any case. And suddenly he can visit two, or three, or four classes a week, and during his lessons, and this is enough to follow the progress of the teaching and stimulate the activity of the mentors.
If rectors are not teachers because they have no time, then they will necessarily be less knowledgeable than others. How will they then become bishops and oversee the scientific state of the seminary?
IV. The draft charter does not give the department and inspector
To support this, we can say that this is all the more necessary if they take lessons from the rector part of the time.
But the question is: will the inspector study science at home, and nourish and increase his learning? If so, then there will not be a great loss of time if he devotes an hour and a quarter to the department two or three times a week.
But if the inspector, who should be a person of priority after the rector, devotes himself so much to caring for students day and night that he does not engage in science: this will kill the future rector and the future bishop in him. Can a rector with little knowledge lead science in a seminary with dignity and success? Can a bishop with little knowledge have a fairly strong and useful influence on the course of science in the seminary?
It is necessary that students not only behave well under supervision, but that they learn to behave this way after leaving supervision, according to their own conviction and skill. For this, there must be a time of supervision and guidance, and there must be a time of trust in those being supervised, during which the inspector can turn to other activities necessary for him, and after which he will return again to supervision and to observing how they took advantage of the trust.
V. According to the draft charter, the general meeting of the seminary board consists of the rector, inspector and all mentors, with a fifth of their number from the diocesan clergy. Therefore, for example, the Moscow seminary board should not consist of 25 members.
Will it not be difficult for the 25 members because of the multitude of affairs entrusted to them, and will it not be difficult for the affairs of so many workers in each matter?
What will the 25 members do when accepting students into the seminary?
Will 25 members be able to regularly attend long examination sessions over several days? Or, appearing perhaps in half the number, will they present to the students an example of malfunction and disrespect for the regulations? In the selection of positions, will not the more thorough and experienced judgment of the elders be overwhelmed by the numerous voices of the younger and less experienced?
The more crowded, the less convenient it is to achieve unanimity. From here, won't hunters arise to form parties?
Wouldn't the following be more convenient and reliable?
The general meeting of the seminary board consists of: the rector, the inspector, seven professors, or teachers, senior in service, and two members of the diocesan clergy. Other mentors may be admitted to meetings with the right to an advisory vote, and with the right to demand that a special opinion of one of them be included in the journal.
This applies to all seminaries, despite their varying numbers of teachers.
VI. According to the draft charter, the annual budget is approved by the Holy Synod.
In order not to start the year without an approved estimate, it is necessary to submit it two months before the start of the year (because the estimates will come to the Holy Synod in large numbers and cannot be considered soon): but at this time the prices of the items that must be purchased in the winter have not yet been established: and the precaution is to force the estimate to be expanded. If the estimate is submitted during the time of established prices, which is the time of the best purchase, then while waiting for the estimate to be approved, the time of cheap prices may be missed, and it will be impossible to stay within the estimate.
Isn’t it better, as before, based on the approximate knowledge of prices, to assign a certain salary for each seminary, with instructions to adhere to the estimate in every possible way, with the authority of the diocesan bishop to approve the estimate, and only in case of extreme need to submit an additional estimate to the Holy Synod?
Moreover, you must not be late in delivering the required salary to the seminaries, because faithful and prompt payment of money acquires reliable contractors and favorable prices.
VII. The draft regulations assign lectures at one and a quarter hours for all classes.
It is necessary that there be no delay and only a few minutes, so that the lecture is not too short, and this is only for the highest classes; and for the lower grades, in which repetitions or a report on the previous lesson are more needed, a lecture of one and a half hours is needed.
II. Something to the draft charter of religious schools
I. According to the project, no other positions are connected with the position of caretaker.
But the caretaker archpriest or priest, according to church rules, must be attached to the church, and therefore have a different position.
And due to the limited salary assigned to the caretaker, it will be necessary to sometimes provide him with an allowance from another service, so that those most reliable for the position of caretaker do not shy away from another, more secure service.
Therefore, one could say in the charter:
The superintendent of the school, if possible, should be free from other positions, and if he is an archpriest or priest, then he should be a member either of the school’s church, if there is one, or of a church that has more than one priest and is predominantly non-parish.
II. In small schools there is no assistant superintendent, out of frugality. Thrift is needed, but an assistant caretaker is also needed.
Both can be reconciled as follows:
For each school superintendent, an assistant superintendent is appointed, chosen from among the senior teachers, without any special salary for this.
But in crowded schools with parallel classes and student dormitories, depending on the significant increase in work, an additional salary is assigned to him.
III. In schools there is an exam once a year, and in seminaries twice. It would be more fair to do the opposite, because the considerations of a student of an older age are broader and can extend further than the considerations of a student of a younger age.
The school needs to give two exams a year.
IV. On the board of the school there must be a caretaker, an assistant, one more senior teacher and two members from the diocesan clergy 306.
The Patriarch's Message, in Russian translation, was published in Orthodox. Review, 1866, XIX, notes, pp. 61–63.
From a copy corrected by the Metropolitan himself. Philaret, keeping in the Moscow library. spirits acad., No. 35. This message was published in the same XIX volume. Orthodox. Reviews, pp. 63–65.
From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 39; document No. 3. This note was printed in Reading. total love spirit. education, 1868, V, 168–170.
From a handwritten draft original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 113, document. No. 20,
Neophytos († July 5, 1868).
Varlaam (Denisov), May 11, 1866, was retired, and on November 9 of the same year was appointed to the Chernigov department.
Case of the Holy Synod, 1864, No. 3225, pp. 33–35, 53 and 54.
Case of the Holy Synod, 1864, No. 3001.
This opinion was published in notes about the life of Filaret N.V. Sushkov, appendix. XXVIII, pp. 61 et seq. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1865, no. A copy of this opinion is available in the Metropolitan’s papers. Philaret, kept by the archbishop. Tver and Kashin Savva.
From a copy added by the Metropolitan himself with the words: “If anyone”... Inventory No. 95, vol. IV, doc. No. 199.
From the original letter and a copy of the note, corrected by the Metropolitan in his own hand. Philaret, keeping in libraries. Moscow spirits Academ., Nos. 32 and 33. The note was published in Orthodox. Review 1866, vol. XIX. Notes, pp. 65–73.
From an autograph, keeping. in the Moscow library. Spiritual Academician, No. 34.
Now the Archbishop of Tver.
Now the archbishop. Tver and Kashinsky.
Archbishop Philotheus, later Metropolitan of Kiev († 1882).
Case of the chancellor. Holy Synod, 1865, No. 1929.
The matter is high. establishment will be present for Orthodox Affairs spirits 1863, No. 30.
Archbishop Demetrius, deceased. November 14, 1883
From the consistory certificate, Metropolitan Philaret crossed out the churches with a pencil:
a) Ilyinskaya, in the village of Cherkizovo - 862 rubles. 18 k., 50 rub. 35 k.;
b) Nativity of the Virgin Mary, in the village of Myachkovo - 706 rubles. 75 k., 42 rub.;
c) Nativity of Christ, in the village of Vishnyakovo - 163 rubles. 69 k., 5 rub. 40 k.;
d) Voskresenskaya, in the village of Cochin - 985 rubles. 63 k., 47 rub. 80 k.
From a copy corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. II, leaf. 216–228. This list has been verified with the original, starting with paragraph IV of the notes, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 113, document. No. 12.
Golovnin, Alexander Vasilievich, secrets. Sov., senior secretary, minister of people. enlightenment, mind November 3, 1886
Adlerberg, Count Vladimir Fedorovich, Adjutant General, Infant General, Imperial Chancellor. and royal orders, minister of the court and appanages; mind. March 8, 1884
Odoevsky, Prince Vladimir Fedorovich, Senate, Chamberlain; mind. 27 Feb 1869
Obolensky, Prince Mikhail Andreevich, chamberlain, manager. Moscow main archive. min. foreign business
Bakhmetev, Nikolai Ivanovich, acting. Art. sov., former direct adv. singer chapels.
Girt, Ignatius Osipovich, acting. Art. Sov., vice-director. depar. people. enlightenment
The work of St. D. Razumovsky: Church singing in Russia. M., 1867
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, dated March 31, 1868 No. 1222.
From a rough original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 91; document No. 24. This letter was published in Orthodox. Review 1866 Notes, p. 155.
Ancient Iconium, in the Karaman vilayet, Asia Minor. Ave. transl.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, January 4, 1866, No. 3.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 11, document. Nos. 4 and 5.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 5, document. No. 1.
This letter, as you know, turned out to be untimely: on April 14, the highest permission followed to establish an annual universal procession on the 4th day of April to the city squares, to bring a prayer of thanks to the Lord God with kneeling and all-day ringing. From a copy, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 104, doc. No. 18.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, April 13, 1866, No. 83.
From an autograph stored in the archives of the Holy Synod Inventory No. 91, doc. No. 25.
Blumenthal, von, Heinrich Ivanovich, doctor of science, acting. Art. Sov., president Moscow Evangelical Lutheran General Consistory.
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1866, No. 1938.
Archbishop Vasily (formerly of Polotsk), who resigned this title in 1868.
From the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, ll. 241–242.
The beginning of this letter is taken from the petition of the false hierodeacon Theodosius submitted to Metropolitan Philaret, with its correction by the metropolitan, and the end of the letter, with the words “he complements”, constitutes the autograph of the metropolitan himself. IV, sheet. 109–110.
Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1866, No. 88.
From a copy. Inventory No. 56, document. No. 2 and 3. Dept. II.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, Inventory No. 91, document. No. 28.
Nikanor, since 1866 Patriarch of Alexandria; 2nd Jan. 1870 died.
It's a matter of office. Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, 1866, No. 186.
Rite of ordination and large eagle. Note Metropolitan Philareta.
The case of the Muscovites. Office of the Holy Synod, 1866, No. 110, l. 1.
From a copy of the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept by the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva, ll. 11–14.
Now the abbot of the Moscow VysokoPetrovsky monastery.
About him, see above, Nos. 789, 797, 798 and below, No. 867.
From a copy corrected by the Metropolitan, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Inventory No. 98; document No. 7.
From a copy on which the abbreviated title was written in pencil by Metropolitan Philaret in his own hand. Inventory No. 16; document Nos. 28 and 29.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 63; document Nos. 10 and 11.
See attitude, September 16, 1866, No. 864, p. 904.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 16; document No. 30.
See above the order to the Chudov governor, dated September 13, No. 863.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1866, No. 248. – The archives of the Holy Synod contain a handwritten original, according to inventory No. 98, document. No. 10.
This relationship was not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
N. A. Sergievsky Director of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Since 1869, trustee of the Vilna educational district.
The attitude and note about schools are from handwritten draft originals, and the note about seminaries is from a copy kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 113, document. No. 13, to 13/a and to 13/b.