1867 г.

January 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in the case of the memorial service for the Kandyan Archimandrite Gabriel, with a copy attached with the relation to the Moscow Governor-General, Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, in the same case 307 January 7, 1867, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, a telegram was sent to Metropolitan Philaret with the following content: “Tomorrow there will be a memorial service in the Greek monastery for the murdered Candiots. Prince Gorchakov, without interfering with this, wants there to be no political demonstrations, for which he finds it necessary to avoid excessive solemnity.” The Metropolitan wrote in response: Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir. In the case of the solemn memorial service for the Kandyan Archimandrite Gabriel and others, announced in the Moscow Gazette, a list of my relationship with the Moscow Governor-General, with this duty, I entrust to forward to your Excellency, in case there is a need for information about the relationship of the Moscow diocesan authorities to this matter. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Attached to the letter is a copy of the attitude of the Metropolitan of Moscow to the Moscow Governor-General, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, dated January 6, 1867, No. 9. In No. 4 of Moskovskie Vedomosti, the editor of the newspaper “Moscow” published an announcement with the following content: “In Moscow, in the Greek monastery, on Nikolskaya Street, in Kitay-Gorod, on Sunday, January 8th, a funeral liturgy and memorial service will be solemnly celebrated for the archimandrite of the Arkadyevsky monastery, on the island of Candia, Father Gabriel and for the Candiots who were killed on the battlefield and in the explosion of the Arkadyevsky monastery.” The editor-in-chief entered into some communication with the archimandrite of the Greek monastery, and published the said announcement without permission and without the knowledge of the diocesan authorities. This enterprise is significantly different from the enterprise to provide assistance to distressed elders, women and orphans of the Cretans. The latter is a matter of Christian love for mankind: political features can be seen in the former. The liturgy and memorial service are supposed to be performed not just in the spirit of prayer for the salvation of the souls of the departed, but solemnly with a nationwide announcement. This could be interpreted as a political demonstration. The main subject of the memorial service, Archimandrite Gabriel, left his spiritual sphere and became a political and military figure in a struggle about the merits of which the Russian government has not yet pronounced its decision. It is my duty to submit these circumstances to your Excellency’s consideration, whether you consider it necessary to suspend the performance of the proposed memorial service, and to seek permission from the highest authority on this subject. I humbly ask you not to leave me in the dark about what follows so that I have time to give the appropriate order to the archimandrite of the Greek monastery 308. January 12. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “Something about the current state of the schism” 309 Some who are zealous for Orthodoxy, hearing that the schism is intensifying, ask: is this true? It is impossible to give a general answer. There are areas that are clean from schism and remain clean. There are areas where Orthodoxy stands firm, despite the proximity of a strong schism. In some areas, schismatics are at a loss and lose heart at the sight of strife and temptations throughout their false hierarchy. The most prudent people express an inclination to join the Orthodox Church, if many could suddenly, but no one dares to start, for fear of revenge from schismatics, of which there have been very regrettable experiences. Recently, in one locality of the Serpukhov district, several Orthodox Christians fell into schism. A priest 310 was sent from Moscow to admonish them. He talked with them for several days, with everyone together. There was no action. When he began to speak to them separately, some were convinced to return to church. But when he finally invited them to do this openly, they refused, saying that through this they would be deprived of food, for they lived by working in a factory for a schismatic owner. Dissenters-manufacturers usually oppress the Orthodox who work for them; and by oppression for Orthodoxy, and on the other hand, by the promise of benefits in a schism, they are seduced into a schism. The widespread belief that they enjoy the protection of the authorities serves as a powerful means for strengthening the schism and seducing them into schism. They can also provide evidence for this. A peasant in priestly vestments was taken; declared himself a priest, and a priestly letter was found in his name, signed by Archbishop Anthony (guild Andrei Shutov), ​​with the episcopal seal attached. The court acquitted this peasant and did not touch upon the false archbishop, saying that there was no evidence of a schism. The Moscow diocesan authorities presented the following consideration in this regard: if a peasant or guild worker called himself a general and issued another peasant a patent for the rank of officer, would he not be condemned by law? Didn't the guild worker Andrei Shutov commit the same crime when he called himself an archbishop and issued a certificate to a peasant for the title of priest? But this consideration is not respected, and the peasant calmly continues to be a false priest, and Shutov continues to be a false bishop. The Belokrinitsky schismatic false metropolitan Kirill came to Moscow; here he acted as a false priest, held false councils - everyone knew this. If all this was not found illegal, at least they could have noticed that he came with a false passport. No attention was paid to this. But when he returned to Austria, he was put on trial there for acting in Russia against Orthodoxy, and, probably, only resounding justifications helped him get rid of lifelong arrest. Russian schismatics know this, and is it surprising if they conclude that the Russian schism is persecuted in Austria, but protected in Russia! Russian schismatics can draw the same conclusion from the fact that their false bishops enjoy in Russia the ecclesiastical right, which Orthodox bishops are deprived of, namely to form councils, which are made public through the press. Not so in Austria. Last year, some of the Russian schismatic false hierarchy attempted to form a council in Belokrinitsa, but the Austrian government ordered their arrest, and they were forced to flee from the Austrian borders. Should the Orthodox Russian Church really be more beholden to a foreign, non-Orthodox government than to its own Orthodox one? 311 January 15. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the project for the transformation of diocesan educational institutions About the project for the transformation of diocesan educational institutions, drawn up by two archimandrites (Filaret 312), rector of the Kyiv Academy, and Mikhail 313, inspector of the Moscow Academy. I. The drafters base the project on the following reasoning: 1) that the committee of 1808 appointed (diocesan educational institutions) for the education of spiritual youth to occupy priestly and ecclesiastical positions and 2) that it did not strictly separate special education from general education, and that these two principles were good at one time, but finally became the reason for the need for transformation. This foundation is not made of solid stones. The children of the clergy are educated primarily by the means of the church, however, with the provision of freedom to transfer to the civil department (Draft of Laws on theological schools, stat. 61), for church service it is as good and fair in 1867 as in 1808. General education in the statute of 1814 is sufficiently separated in the middle and lower departments of the seminary from theological education in the higher department. The reason for the need for transformation was not the above two principles, but, firstly, the damage to the effect of the statute of 1814 by the introduction into seminaries of a different arrangement of educational subjects, and new, alien subjects, fruitlessly entertaining the attention of students; secondly, excessive leniency during transfer tests, which, by transferring to higher degrees the teachings of students who were not sufficiently prepared at lower levels, imperceptibly lowered the level of education, instead of raising it through the severity of tests; thirdly, inaccurate monitoring of the implementation of the rules of the charter, so that the lesson is not only taught, but also accepted; for some seminary instructors read lessons in a university style, not paying enough attention to whether the lesson went over the heads of the listeners, or past their ears. II. The drafters also want to prove the necessity of their project by the fact that a fifteen-year-old boy is not capable of reliably choosing a title for himself. But the statute of 1814 does not require this. And since the drafters themselves believe that a seventeen-year-old, upon entering their three-year seminary, must resolutely undertake to enter the clergy, in accordance with their charter, will this election be much more reliable in comparison with a similar action of a fifteen-year-old? Thus, their objection to the previous charter consists of an objection to their own project. III. The main plan of the project of the two drafters is to cut off the upper half of the current seminary, and form from it a three-year theological school for the education of parish priests; and from the lower half and lower school to form a seven-year general education school, or a secular gymnasium without the name of a gymnasium. The current seminary, and proposed by the charter of the majority of the members of the present committee, represents an organism in which one life develops and rises, and above the branches and leaves of general education rises spiritual fruit. The seminary of two members represents two organisms that do not have and do not promise unity of spirit and direction. Is this better? IV. Two members write: “a seven-year stay among the children of secular society can more or less significantly weaken the hereditary disposition in the children of the clergy for this title.” Isn’t it the same thing to be feared when the children of the clergy are in a secular gymnasium under the spiritual leadership, where they will be afraid that the ecclesiastical element will intensify and change the nature of general education, where the thought will dominate among the students that they are not preparing primarily for the clergy, but for what they want, or they themselves do not know what for. The hereditary inclination towards the clergy will lose its strength; the wandering thought of the student, at the sight of the meager life and difficult service of the clergy, will run over to the wide secular area, where it will meet seductive dreams of benefits and honors; and this will easily lead to the fact that more capable students will rush to the secular rank and theological seminary and church service will only get the yeast of a comprehensive school. V. The compilers of the new project write: “if the clergy morally corresponds to its calling, then worthy candidates for the priesthood will come primarily from clergy families.” It is necessary to remember that the children of the clergy, from under the influence of their parents, early and for a long time pass under the influence of the school. Therefore, the reasoning of the drafters must be continued as follows. If the school, in moral and educational terms, corresponds to the calling of the clergy, then candidates for the priesthood will predominantly come from clergy families. But this, of course, will not happen if the general education school, by its very nature, sets itself the goal of complying with all possible directions. Thus, from the lips of the drafters themselves, it can be judged that the seminary that they propose should be preferred to the general education school that exists, and which is represented in the newly drawn up charter of the majority of members of the existing committee. VI. The drafters of the project, through the secondary school, are concerned to ensure that students do not find it difficult to find employment or service in other departments. - Unnecessary concern. Today's students of the seminary, who have not been to a general education school, find this without difficulty: and from those under whose leadership they come, one hears that they get into the work more firmly than the students of the gymnasium. VII. The drafters of the project say that theological sciences, compared with the general sciences, are “little developed in our country.” - How will they prove this? And what kind of development is required? Are there new dogmas, like in the Western Church? VIII. Theological schools are organized in different types. Will this lead to convenience, or more to constraint and confusion? IX. The moral education of students and guidance in their lives belongs to the pedagogical council. This would require an explanation of how a large teaching council would morally guide children. X. “Theological schools should in no way be institutions subordinate to seminaries.” It would be necessary to explain why this is. But it seems that it is both convenient for the seminary and necessary to participate in the care of the schools that prepare its students. XI. “The authorities of the educational district, having with them a council (academy conference) of general and special education teachers, observe, etc.” What kind of school district authorities are they who are above the conference and have it with them? XII. The seminary's academic subjects include Hebrew, but not Greek. This would be correct if they wanted to form a Jewish rabbi. For the education of a Christian priest, the Hebrew language can be left to its own devices, but Greek is very necessary, as is the language of the Gospel, the Apostle and liturgical books. Especially to understand the Slavic translation of these latter, it is often necessary to turn to the original Greek text. XIII. There is still much in the project that would require research, but it is not quite convenient for consideration. For ease of consideration and use, it would need to be divided into four separate projects. 1) A discussion about why the current organization of diocesan schools is unsatisfactory, and why the one proposed by the drafters would be better. 2) Charter of the secondary school. 3) Charter of the theological seminary. 4) Considerations on ways to reorganize schools. If the initial reasoning had been convincing, then the statutes should have been considered. If these turned out to be consistent with the goal, then we should begin to consider methods of reorganization, and to implement this. Then the charters would go into permanent effect, and the first and last parts of the project, upon execution, would go to the archives. January 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the proposal of the Alexandrian Patriarchate to send a bishop to Moscow to manage the metochion 315 At the same time, I am transmitting a translation of a Greek letter from Alexandria about the impending appointment of a disapproved bishop to the Alexandrian courtyard in Moscow. Bishops are admitted to the Patriarchal metochions in Moscow on an extraordinary, temporary basis, out of special respect, and archimandrites ordinarily rule the metochions. So now in the Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria courtyards in Moscow. The bishop, the owner of the courtyard, is not in harmony with the dignity of his rank. Your Excellency, I hope, will deign to draw attention to the fact that a bishop is not allowed into the Alexandria courtyard in Moscow when there is a fear that the choice will be unhappy. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion I have the honor to be your Lordship's most humble servant. In a letter from Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Prosecutor, Count D.A. Tolstoy wrote: “ask the book. Gorchakov about assistance. January 19" 316. January 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the arguments of the newspaper “Moscow” about the clergy, on the occasion of a memorial service for the murdered Candiots 317 In No. 18 of the newspaper "Moscow" there is a discussion about the warning given to this newspaper for its discussion about the clergy, on the occasion of the Greek memorial service and, by the way, the following is read: “We asked to serve a memorial service, we were told that no obstacles were foreseen, and we announced in our newspaper that there would be a memorial service at that time; then it was announced to us that there was an obstacle and there would be no funeral service; then, a few hours before the mass, it was announced to us that the obstacle had been removed and that there would be a memorial service.” Anyone reading this will think that the diocesan authorities first allowed the memorial service, and then prohibited it, and thus fell into inconsistency and self-contradiction. But this testimony is incorrect. That's how it was. The publisher of the newspaper "Moscow" proposed a memorial service for the archimandrite of the St. Nicholas Greek monastery. The Greek archimandrite agreed, not realizing that the matter could be of significant importance, and without asking my permission. Then it was published in the bulletins that a memorial service would take place, and solemnly at that. Thus, the Christian matter of commemorating the dead took on the form of a demonstration, which could be given political significance, and a question arose, the resolution of which does not belong to the spiritual authorities. Then I addressed this question to the Moscow Governor-General, and told the archimandrite that he should refrain from performing the memorial service unless he received special permission from me. In the evening, before the appointed day of the memorial service, I received a telegram about its unhinderedness, and immediately gave permission to the archimandrite, and at the same time a similar telegram was received by the Moscow Governor-General, I believe that it was announced in good time to the publisher of the newspaper “Moscow”. Without wishing to enter into a newspaper debate, I nevertheless consider it my duty to take precautions so that the Moscow diocesan authorities, in the eyes of the highest authorities, do not remain guilty of orders that are inconsistent and contradictory to one another. Would it please your Excellency to bring this to the attention of the Holy Synod? With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your excellency, dear sir, most humble servant. No. 46. January 20, 1867 318 February 3. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the establishment of Sunday schools in seminaries By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 9, 1866, No. 2267, I was ordered to report to the Holy Synod what order was made regarding the establishment of Sunday schools in seminaries. In pursuance of this, I ordered the seminary boards to submit information about whether the opening of a Sunday school has begun, and if it has not started, then why? According to the certificate from the Moscow seminary board, the following turned out: 1) By the resolution of the Holy Synod of May 11, by the way, it was decided: the opening of Sunday schools at seminaries for the practical familiarization of students with pedagogical techniques should be submitted to the closest discretion of the seminary authorities, so that orders on this subject are not at all slowed down and that all possible measures are taken for the improvement of the said schools and for the successful education of these children. 2) By my resolution, which followed the attitude of the Comrade Synodal Chief Prosecutor, dated June 10, No. 3242, the seminary board was ordered to submit a consideration of whether a Sunday school could be opened at the seminary, and on what basis. 3) The board of the Moscow seminary, when discussing the opening of a pedagogy class in the seminary, by the way, it was decided, and I approved on August 25th: the seminary board should take care of opening a Sunday school at the seminary, which, according to the proper structure of the pedagogy class, should be presented. Taking into account that it is more reliable to begin the actual opening of a Sunday school at the seminary, with the goal of practical familiarization of the seminary students with pedagogical techniques, when the seminary students appointed to be teachers in the Sunday school receive from pedagogy lessons the proper knowledge about the existing various methods of teaching and pedagogical techniques, the seminary board proposed, after sufficient familiarization of the seminary students with the rules of pedagogy, to open a Sunday school in the second half of the school year. school. For this purpose, in November, the seminary board instructed the teacher of pedagogy, priest Alexei Nekrasov, to present his thoughts on educational books and classical things necessary for opening a Sunday school at the seminary, as well as on the subjects, time and order of training in it. In pursuance of this instruction, the teacher of pedagogy presented the following to the seminary board: 1) Since the students, in addition to the general rules of education, only managed to become familiar with various methods of teaching reading and writing, then in the Sunday school, when it begins to open, it is planned to teach only reading and penmanship and the rudiments of Christian teaching: When learning to read, it is expected to use movable letters, and for this you will need: a) several copies of letters, each of which must be glued separately onto cardboard; b) several copies of letters pasted onto cardboard together, in different orders and in different combinations; c) a board with strips pasted on it in the form of rulers on which letters could be written, and d) primers. When learning to write, you will initially need graphic grids on boards and paper, stylus and copybooks, and then paper, ink, quills, penknives and rulers. When telling stories from sacred history, it would be useful for students to have before their eyes pictures depicting the events that will be discussed. As a guide for teachers when telling stories, and so that students can repeat at home what they heard at school, they should purchase several copies of “The First Principles of Christian Doctrine.” To store all educational materials you need to arrange a closet. 2) Sunday school teaching may continue in the morning from 11½ to 2 o'clock. However, it is hardly useful or possible to strictly adhere to the order in the distribution of classes in Sunday school, much less determine it in advance: in many ways this order will depend on the age, degree of development, needs of the students, etc. 3) When a student first attends Sunday school, his name and surname are entered in a book specially kept for this purpose. Those attending Sunday school, depending on age and degree of development, are divided into parties, from 5 to 10 people, and each batch is entrusted to a special teacher, selected from among the students of the seminary by the teacher of pedagogy and approved by the rector of the seminary. Each of the seminary students who will be entrusted with teaching in Sunday school must: a) before each class, tell the teacher of pedagogy what he will do in the class and in what order; b) after class give a report on these lessons; c) have a list of students entrusted to him and note in it their successes, abilities, etc., so that when teaching he is in accordance with the personality of each student. Therefore, the seminary board decided: 1. Accept the pedagogy teacher's suggestions about Sunday school. 2. The opening of the school should be immediately announced through a seal in the Moscow city police reports. 3. The 2nd department of the theological class, located in a separate wing, will be designated as the place of classes. 4. The amount required for the purchase of educational books and classical accessories should be borrowed from 150 rubles allocated by the economic administration according to the estimate for 1867 for petty and extraordinary expenses. 5. Upon opening of the school, please provide further details. I approved this opinion of the seminary board on the 2nd day of this February and instructed to carry it out. Having thus fulfilled the duty of obedience to the determination of the Holy Synod, with all possible concern for the common good, I am convinced not to hide from the Holy Synod some doubt about the beneficial effect of Sunday schools in seminaries and to submit to the discretion of the Holy Synod whether it is absolutely necessary to act to strengthen these institutions, or to first take an accurate observation of the consequences of the first experiments in order to more reliably determine decisive action later? The idea of ​​setting himself up as a teacher is attractive to the ambition of the student, and he will easily indulge in it. In order to act with superior skill and success when teaching children, for this, due to the current variety and artificiality of the method, the student needs a lot of attention and preparation time. And therefore, one can fear that, by stealing work and time from his essential duties in order to develop himself into a good teacher, he will harm himself as a good student. It is a different matter for a student who has completed a seminar course. While engaged in the theory and practice of teaching children, he acquires and spends something, but does not steal anything from himself. And therefore, wouldn’t it be better to conduct the initial education of children in seminaries through students who have completed the course, but have not yet taken places in the service? Your Holiness's humblest novice, The Holy Synod, by resolution of March 20 / April 1, 1867, decided: to take into account the present report of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow 319. February 6/7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, about the impossibility of placing the icons of the celebrated saints donated by the Klintsy schismatics. Church of the 4th of April Saints in the chapel of the Iveron Mother of God Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated November 8/December 19, 1866, No. 6421, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report a conclusion on the all-submissive request of the schismatics of Klintsy Posad, Chernigov province, conveyed by the Sovereign Emperor to the Minister of Internal Affairs, to place in the chapel of the Iveron Mother of God an icon of the saints celebrated on April 4, donated by them in memory deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from the hand of a murderer. Excellent count, dear sir. Regarding Your Lordship, dated November 8/December 19, 1866 (No. 5421), depicts: The Minister of Internal Affairs informed your Excellency that the schismatics of the Chernigov province of Klintsy Posad, having presented to the head of the St. Petersburg province an icon of the saints celebrated on April 4, made at their expense, in memory of the deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from the hand of a murderer, and five hundred rubles for the construction of a silver chasuble for it, in a most loyal letter dated 12 October, handed over by His Majesty to him, the Minister of Internal Affairs, they ask for the acceptance of the said icon and money and for the placement of the icon in the chapel of the Iveron Mother of God, in Moscow. Sending the said icon to me, your Excellency deigned to demand my recall. This matter, when considering all the circumstances connected with it, presents a very complex and difficult appearance. I. The schismatics usually try to unnoticeably direct each of their actions, by which they express their zeal for the Sovereign Emperor and for the Fatherland, towards their schismatic goals. This is what the Klintsy schismatics did in the present case. On the icon, which they presented to the Sovereign Emperor, they depicted the Savior blessing with both hands, and the blessing hands were given the sign of a schismatic custom. On the same icon they depicted St. George with his hand raised to cross himself, and the prayer hand was given a two-fingered fold, in a schismatic manner. And they are trying to place such an icon in an Orthodox church, where the miraculous icon of the Mother of God of Iveron is revered with special reverence. If the Orthodox demanded that an icon painted in the Orthodox character, not in accordance with schismatic custom, be placed in a schismatic chapel, the schismatics would, without a doubt, rebel against this as against oppression. But they were not ashamed to demand that such exact oppression be done to the Orthodox Church in the Iveron Chapel. And if this had succeeded, they would have announced this throughout Russia, as clear evidence that the sovereign honors the schism in the same way as the Orthodox Church; and this would be a temptation very dangerous for the Orthodox common people. II. The icon in question presents yet other irregularities and inconsistencies It depicts the Monks Zosima, Joseph and George. But in this composition, the icon is only a monument to the 4th day of April, and not an event related to the sovereign emperor. In order for it to be a monument in this last sense, it was necessary to include in it the image of the holy noble Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. At the top of the icon, in two marks, there is a meaningless inscription: the fourth of April. Moreover, it is not needed. The time is indicated in the inscription at the bottom of the icon. At the bottom of the icon, in three marks next to each other, in letters of the same size, three inscriptions are written. The first talks about the Emperor, the second about Komissarov, the third about the Klintsy society of Old Believers. The name Old Believers was prohibited by law in the last century, as it implies an unfair censure on the Orthodox, supposedly these are New Believers. The last inscription says that the icon is in a silver robe: but there is no robe on it; The five hundred rubles assigned for this purpose were not sent; and 500 rubles is not enough to arrange a chasuble for an icon that is 28 inches high and 24 inches wide. According to the approximate calculation of those who know, this requires more than 1000 rubles. A list of the icon's inscriptions is attached. Let it not go unnoticed that in ordinary, newly printed and old printed month books and on ancient icons of the calendar, Saints Joseph and George are installed on the 4th day of April, but Zosima is not. Why did the schismatics add Zosima to their icon? - Maybe because his name says Paleos, that is, ancient. In their wisdom, they probably thought through this to say to the Orthodox: here we have an antiquity that you do not have. III. In order for the matter to be examined from all sides, I instructed two of the senior clergy to examine the inside of the Iveron Chapel to see if the icon in question could be placed in it, if it were possible to allow this. They reported that this was impossible. All the walls of the Iveron Chapel are occupied by icons, most of them ancient and revered with special reverence, placed in properly constructed iconostases. There is no need to prove that it is impossible to expel the ancient shrine from the Iveron Chapel and destroy its internal structure in order to make room for a schismatic icon. From all the above circumstances and considerations, the following conclusions arise: 1) The icon of the Klintsovo schismatics cannot be placed in the Iveron Chapel because it would be an insult and to the detriment of Orthodoxy, and because the locality itself does not allow this. 2) But since this icon is presented as an expression of zeal for the Sovereign Emperor, it must be received with the attention that can be given without insulting Orthodoxy and without allowing indecency. 3) For this purpose, the schismatic placing of hands, blessing and prayer, on this icon must be corrected, without touching the integrity of the images of saints. 4) The inscriptions on the icon should also be cleared of irregularities and indecencies. 5) Then the icon can be placed in one of the churches of the Chudov Monastery, in a decent, but not in a preferential place. 6) If the 500 rubles assigned by the schismatics are sent, then make not a robe for the icon, for which this money is not enough, but crowns for the saints, and a silver border around the edges of the icon. (The primary place in the Chudovskaya Church is reserved for the icon, which the Moscow City Society intends to erect as a monument on April 4). It is my indispensable duty to humbly ask your Excellency to bring all of the above to the highest attention of the Sovereign Emperor, and to ask for the highest command protecting Orthodoxy. Feb. 6, 1867. Feb. 7 320. List from the inscription on the icon of the Klintsy schismatics At the top of the icon are the words: At the bottom of the icon are the following three inscriptions: On the 4th day of April 1866, God, through his miraculous providence, saved the Tsar Liberator Alexander II from the sacrilegious hand of a murderer. God, by his wonderful providence, raised his hand to Joseph Ivanov Komisarov of Kostroma, to save the king from death on the day of his angel. In memory of the miraculous event, the Klintsovo Society of Old Believers donates this icon, in a silver robe, to be placed in the chapel of the Iveron Mother of God in Moscow. 1) Venerable Zosima Paleos. 2) St. Joseph the hymn-writer. 3) Reverend George, also in Maley. This saint has a right hand with two fingers. February 15. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod regarding the resolution of His Eminence of Poltava on permission to have St. cross and St. Gospel Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In No. 2 of the Poltava Diocesan Gazette of this year, a letter was published from the chairman of the Novotagamlitsa parish trusteeship, Mr. Dzhunkovsky, who asks from the diocesan bishop 321 permission “to have St. the cross and the Gospel." The resolution of His Eminence, in this letter on December 29, 1866, was as follows: “a reasonable thought and pious desire that parish trustees in their places of deliberative meetings should have a visible “sacred sign of their Christian significance and calling” in the holy cross and the divine Gospel, worthy of “full sympathy and perfect approval and respect. And therefore, not only to the New Tagamlitsa Peter’s “trusteeship,” but also to all other parish trustees of our diocese, which have decent “rooms for their meetings and, moreover, separate from other “places and institutions,” I pastorally bless “to consecrate and beautify these premises by decree “in them in a decent place of St. cross and gospel. Ooh. “The deans and rectors of parish churches will take “this into due consideration, guidance and implementation where the guardians express Christian reverent readiness for this and where the decree of St. the cross and the Gospel in places of trustee meetings can be performed with the decency and reverence appropriate to the shrine. The consistory will make an appropriate order regarding this, and print this letter. For the first time, the holy cross and the Gospel can be borrowed by the guardians from the parish churches to the places of their meetings.” This is a prescription for the entire diocese; and, like many innovations, it can carry over into others. Since ancient times, St. The Gospel and the Holy Cross sanctified the meetings of church councils, which usually took place in the church, with their presence. The Holy Synod also has this sign of consecration in its meeting, for it is also a council. The consistories do not dare to appropriate this, although their subject matter is church affairs. The highest secular government places also did not appropriate this advantage to themselves. Is this advantage appropriate for a meeting of the parish guardianship, and, moreover, under the chairmanship of a secular person? The resolution of the Right Reverend Poltava states that the cross and the Gospel can be borrowed by the trustees to the places of their meetings from parish churches. But, according to church regulations, only clergy have the right to pick up the cross and the Gospel. Therefore, for each meeting, the priest or deacon must carry the cross and the Gospel from the church to place before the nobleman or peasant presiding. Is it convenient? Is it decent? Is it useful to yield to the direction of the age, which wants to shake everything that is holy and sublime and plunge it into the muddy waters of a worried people? Out of duty of reverence for shrines and sacred objects, I accept the boldness to present this to the commanding attention of the Holy Synod. Your Holiness's humblest novice, No. 7, February 15th, 1867 The Holy Synod, by resolution dated March 9/20, 1867, decided: “fully sharing the opinion of the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow regarding the permission given by the Eminence of Poltava and published in the 2nd No. of the local diocesan bulletins to resolve in the places of meetings of parish trustees, for the Poltava diocese, St. cross and the Gospel, with the borrowing of these sacred objects for the said institutions from local parish churches, the Holy Synod determines: to cancel the above-mentioned order of the Eminence, ordering the Eminence to make an order regarding the publication of this cancellation in the nearest number of Poltava diocesan bulletins, about which, for proper execution, to send a decree to the Poltava Eminence, notifying the same, for information, to the Eminence Metropolitan of Moscow" 322. March 6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with an opinion “on the draft organic law on the Orthodox Romanian Church” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated February 27, 1867, No. 964, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “the manager of the consulate general in Bucharest, dated February 3, No. 17, reported to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs information about the latest orders adopted on the organization of church affairs in the united principalities, and together attached a translation of the draft of a new law on the organization of the Romanian Church, which in will soon be proposed for consideration by the legislative chamber. Bearing in mind the importance of the measures taken on this subject and the need to use at the present time all means in our power in order to contribute to the correct end of the disorders that have arisen in the Romanian Church, Comrade Minister of Foreign Affairs, forwarding to me the aforementioned attitude, No. 17, asks to inform the Ministry, as soon as possible, of the conclusion of the Holy Synod on whether the newly drafted resolution on the structure of the Romanian Church is correct and in accordance with the canons and whether it can to contribute to the restoration of the correct relationship of this church to the ecumenical patriarch. Conveying this to your Eminence and enclosing, in the original, the attitude of the Consul General, with the following papers 323 to him, I have the honor to humbly ask you, dear sir and archpastor, with the return of these, to honor with the communication of your obligatory response on the above-explained issue, in a short, if you deign to find it possible, time.” In response to this, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: In relation to your Excellency, dated February 27, (No. 964), the attitude of the manager of the Consulate General in Bucharest forwarded to me to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated February 3 (No. 17), with three appendices about the draft organic law in the Romanian Church, while returning, I add the feedback required from me on this subject in a separate note. On the draft organic law on the Romanian Orthodox Church Stat. 1. “Holy apostolic and synodal canons” (conciliar). The canons or rules of the holy fathers adopted into church legislation by Rule 2 of the VI Ecumenical Council are omitted here. Perhaps this exposes only negligence or unreasonableness, and not the special intention of the person who drafted the project: but this leads to the fact that subsequently part of the church legislation can be challenged as not recognized by the state decree on the church. Stat. 3. A national synod is established. The name of the national synod is not characteristic of its subject. The Synod belongs to the church, not the nation. The church has never been limited by the boundaries of the nation. If private churches are called Greek, Romanian, etc., then separate hierarchical regions are thereby defined, but each of them can accept people from all nations into its flock. He will maintain unity with the Eastern Church in relation to dogmas, through consultations, if necessary, with the universal church in Constantinople. The Romanian Church unfairly limits the universal Church to Constantinople. She could have enlightened herself with the recent example that the oldest church of Constantinople, on the Romanian matter, entered into a conference with the Russian and Athenian churches. On the occasion of this meeting, on the part of the Holy Synod of Russia, canonical and historical considerations proved that from ancient times the unity of the Romanian Church with the Constantinople Church was expressed not only by meetings, if necessary, but also by hierarchical relations, more or less significant, and, at least, by the fact that those elected to the metropolitan were obliged to ask for the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch for their election and service. Contrary to this, Romania - no, not Romania, but only its leaders - another time takes the path of self-rule, tearing the Romanian church away from the hierarchical connection with the Constantinople, and establishing a synod without the blessing of the universal church. A new synod was established in the church of the Greek kingdom, with the blessing of the ecumenical patriarch, and with some signs of hierarchical unity. Obviously, it would be fair for the Romanian Church to follow this example. The Senate and the House of the People cannot give blessings to the synod. An unblessed synod will not bring blessings to the Romanian Church. Stat. 4. No clergy has the right to appeal to any foreign spiritual authority regarding dogmas. This is contrary to both the rules and the great examples of the universal Church, and the security of the Romanian Church itself, and all justice. According to the force of this article, if heresy arose and strengthened in the Romanian Church and constrained Orthodoxy, the Romanian Church could not seek and receive reinforcement from the wisdom and firmness of other Orthodox churches, and would be condemned to fall under the predominance of heresy. 324 Stat. 9. A bishop who is dismissed from office will retain his episcopal title. This is so according to the rules of the church, and the new law takes it upon itself unnecessarily and not according to its belonging. According to Article 13, the election of a metropolitan or bishop is carried out by members of the legislative assembly and senate, with the exception of non-Orthodox members, members of the Romanian General Synod and district archpriests. But according to church rules, the election of a bishop must be carried out by bishops (I Ecumenical Soc. pr. 4), and the election of a bishop by secular leaders is condemned (VII Ecumenical soc. pr. 3). In the current Church of Constantinople, due to the circumstances of the country and time (especially because the patriarch is an ephenarch), the participation of secular persons, respected and zealous for Orthodoxy, is recognized as necessary in the election of the patriarch. A recent decree has arranged this in such a way that respect for church rules is preserved. Mixed from clergy and secular persons, the assembly elects several candidates, and from them one is decisively elected by the bishops. This example is worthy of imitation for Romania if it does not want to have bishops elected in violation of church rules. Such an order is all the more necessary because Romania has no more than 8 bishops, and consequently, in a mixed assembly, the number of church-legal voters would be suppressed by the huge number of voters who do not have church-suffrage rights. According to Article 21, the General Synod is composed of the metropolitan, bishops, deans of the theological faculty, rectors of seminaries, and one clergyman from each district. It is not known why one metropolitan was installed here when there are two. According to church rules, the council must consist of bishops. But in the proposed Romanian Synod, the voices of 8 bishops will be suppressed by the numerous voices of priests, and consequently the priests will dominate the bishops. It would be more correct to form an auxiliary and subordinate assembly of priests to the Synod. Stat. 25. The Synod is convened every two years. Some questions and some things will take a long time to arrive. Wouldn't annual meetings be more useful, in which extraordinary meetings would be less necessary? According to Articles 22 and 26, the General Synod meets in ordinary and extraordinary sessions upon the call of the Minister of Public Education and Spiritual Affairs. It would be fair, in accordance with church rules, and it is necessary to allow the metropolitan, in cases of particular importance, to demand the convening of a Synod. According to Article 34, among the attributions of the General Synod: the appointment of priests to parishes. This is a matter for the bishops. And if soon, after the end of the meeting of the Synod, a priest dies in some parish: should the parish really wait two years for a new meeting of the Synod and the appointment of a priest? – Or will it be necessary to convene an emergency meeting of the Synod for every vacancy of a parish priest? According to Article 34, the General Synod has censorship only of those church books that are introduced in Orthodox churches (that is, liturgical ones), and it is deprived of the right of any order against books talking about spiritual subjects. So, the General Synod cannot approve an Orthodox catechism, cannot pronounce disapproval against a non-Orthodox catechism, cannot protest against secular censorship if it allows a godless book to be published. Thus, the Romanian Church is deprived of the essential right of the Church to publicly testify in favor of the truth and against false and harmful teachings. In Article 30, the Romanian Church is called free: how can it be free if its mouth is stopped from witnessing the truth against harmful lies? Article 31 preaches tolerance: let it be, at least in the name of tolerance, that the Romanian General Synod be allowed to approve the use of the Orthodox catechism, prohibit the use of non-Orthodox catechism in schools, etc. According to Article 35, decisions of the General Synod on legislative subjects will have the force of final laws only when they are approved and promulgated by the executive branch. Given the nature of a free church, it would be more appropriate to limit this article to the legislative decision of the synod on subjects related to the civil department, and on specifically ecclesiastical subjects to give full force to the legislative decisions of the synod, as soon as they took place in the synod. (For example, the synod noticed that Western rites are creeping into some Orthodox churches. Out of duty, and as a precaution against further propaganda, the synod decides: not to use such and such a newly introduced rite, but to adhere to the anciently accepted rites. The executive power, which has as its head a person of the Western confession, may not rush to promulgate this law; and any innovation is more reliable stop first). According to the same Article 35, synodal decisions on administrative subjects will be valid only upon approval by a princely decree. This also does not correspond to the idea of ​​a free church, and does not give it the convenience of protecting its welfare by strict measures. Chapter VI about synods or diocesan consistories. According to church rules, the synod consists of bishops. And in the consistory there is one bishop. It would not be appropriate to bring down the name of the synod here. In Article 40, the metropolitan or bishop is appointed as a member of the consistory, so that he is not given any advantage over other members. According to the rules, one should say the following: A metropolitan or bishop acts personally and independently in hierarchical matters; and in administrative and judicial cases - through a consistory, by which decisions enter into legal force only upon his approval. The Holy Synod, by resolution of July 16/August 31, 1867, decided: “taking into account: 1) that after the order of the Romanian government to dissolve the meetings of the Senate, the debates that took place in this latter on the draft organic law on the Orthodox Romanian Church seem to be devoid of any significance, especially since this project will be subject to a new discussion of the Senate in its future meeting, and 2) that on the content of the above-mentioned project, the Holy Synod has already expressed its opinion, which, by resolution of March 13, 1866, and authorized the synodal chief prosecutor to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Holy Synod determines that the consideration of comments delivered through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the draft organic law on the Orthodox Romanian Church should not be included, about which it is to grant the corrective position of the synodal Chief Prosecutor to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for which purpose to the office of Mr. Chief Prosecutor and submit an extract from this determination” 325. March 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg about teaching members of the censorship committee instructions not to approve the publication of such works in which sacred objects are subject to unreasonable and irreverent use Reverence for sacred objects in the Russian church has been preserved to the highest degree from ancient times to the present day. In modern times, the passion to decorate everything with artistic works exposes sacred objects to unreasonable and irreverent use. At the same time, I present the book: “Saints Cyril and Methodius,” published in St. Petersburg, with the permission of spiritual censorship. In it, before page 15, there is the baptism of the Khozars. Those being baptized stand in the water, St. Kirill lays hands on them. Consequently, this is the very action of baptism, but the baptizing St. Kirill is presented without clerical vestments. On page 18, the cross, Gospel, miter, dikiriy, trikyriy, banners, censer are scattered in disarray to decorate the capital letter V. Before page 27 there is a painting in which St. Cyril, holding the relics of St. Clement, kneeling before the Pope. This humiliation of the shrine before man is characteristic only of the Latin Church, where the cardinal, kneeling, presents the holy gifts to the pope for communion. To the insult and temptation of the Orthodox Church of St. Cyril is presented as idolatrous before the pope. Would you please find it necessary to therefore give the members of the censorship committee an informal, without trouble, useful, protective instruction? I present another example of reckless handling of sacred objects: this is the wrapper for the music book Church singing for parish and public schools. On this wrapper are the prophet David, and the twelve angels, and the tablets of the covenant, and Aaron’s miter thrown to the ground. Will the disciples look at all this with such reverence as at icons? Will not the habit of carelessly using these sacred images on the cover of a music book reduce the reverence in them when looking at the holy icons? Should the prophet and angels serve as decoration for the notes of bars, half bars and quarter notes? 326 April 3. The rite of joining the Orthodox Church of Roman Catholic priests and a letter to A. N. Muravyov with an opinion on the said rite Order as a priest of the Roman Church to be accepted into the communion of the Orthodox Catholic Church 327 1) The joining of such a person to the Orthodox Church is carried out according to the general order laid down for this. 2) The usual recipient for this is chosen especially from the clergy. 3) It is not appropriate to be a recipient. 4) Recognition of the priesthood attached to the order requires the permission of the Holy Synod. 5) Before admitting him to priestly service, his conscience is tested through his spiritual father, in the likeness of those preparing for ordination. 6) When it is determined that nothing prevents him from blessing the performance of the priestly service, then when the bishop enters the church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, he and the other clergy come, in the usual clothes of Orthodox clergy, and receive it. Together with them, a blessing from the bishop, then goes to the diaconium, and stands without vestments, until the Cherubic song. 7) According to the Cherubic song, and after the placing of the holy gifts at the table, he is brought by the subdeacons, not through the royal doors, but inside the altar, to the holy throne and to the bishop, and worships him, in the likeness of those brought to ordination. And the priestly vestments are brought and placed on those acceptable to the communion of the priesthood; the bishop blesses each part of the vestment and the one being vested kisses the bishop’s hand, and the deacon speaks the verses of the priestly vestment, not exclamation, but as if the one being vested can hear. Afterwards, he who is accepted into the communion of the priesthood receives the kiss of peace from the bishop and others, in the likeness of those being ordained, stands with the other priests and participates in the celebration of the liturgy and in the communion of the holy mysteries. And from there he has the power to officiate like an Orthodox priest. On the last day of March, 1867, A. N. Muravyov, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, expressing gratitude “from the bottom of his heart” for the fact that he took the trouble to draw up the rite of accession, among other things, wrote: “this rite should be printed in the general book on the accession of non-believers, which I also wrote about, for this was a big drawback. If now you want to know my opinion about this new order, then it seems to me that the first paragraph may lead to confusion. You write that accession is carried out according to the general order, but any accession after negations consists of communion. So, it may again happen that another priest should be associated first in a secular way, for you say in the 6th paragraph about admission to the priesthood, as if after some time has passed after joining: “whenever it is provided for” and so on. This should have been stated. Moreover, it should be said where to actually pronounce the renunciation and who accepts the convert? – Is it really possible for a priest to be an equal priest and read a prayer of permission over him for his entry into the church, when this is actually a bishop’s matter? Permission to confess is something completely different. It would also seem to me that too important a moment was chosen, after the Cherubic song, for only the attached vestment, when other parts of the vestment, although not so significant, could be given at a small entrance. However, one way or another, just let this vestment be completed with the bishop’s blessing. I ask you not to complain at me for daring to object so much, and even more I ask you to forgive me for resorting to other kinds of justifications for the fact that I, being a layman, care about church things. You find such jealousy strange and barely decided to satisfy the strange (in your opinion) demand of a layman to write an order for the accession of a presbyter, when from the lack of this order, due to the indifference of the spiritual, the very dignity of the priesthood could suffer, as in the present case. But if it were not for this recklessly zealous layman, then the Latin priest would have become the same layman with us, for only my strong accusatory letter to Archpriest Polisadov, who had joined him in a secular way, in the house bishop’s church, with the assurance that later he could again become a priest, gave impetus to the matter, and by opening everyone’s eyes, could force them to redo what had been done absurdly. How could I not bother to complete what I started and ask you for a new order to join the elders, when even the clergy here did not want to understand that a synodal decree alone was not enough for this. So, when the priest and Levite passed by, a simple Samaritan stood up for the one they had abandoned at the crossroads, and, of course, the Savior’s reproach was not addressed to him: and he was a Samaritan! And how many other vital issues for the church, on which its future may depend, are passed over in silence, humility for the sake of spiritual ones, although they are of heartfelt interest to the laity 328 . Are they talking about local councils, about the resettlement of St. Plato, for the sake of Orthodoxy, or about American colonies? what will happen there, after the sale, with the episcopal see and the seminary and the three spiritual missions along the rivers where the pagans flocked for baptism? They looked at the colony only as a merchant company and, it seems, did not remember the church, because no one here reminded about it. - How heavy the answer will be on the guards of Israel! And all the stench and rubbish that is swept away, for the sake of learning, from the synodal archive, will not it serve as a disgrace to Orthodoxy before the West, a denunciation of the times of Petrov and Biron, for there they also find such decrees of 1722, where they separate spouses on the basis of some Carthaginian rules. Nobody cares. But let’s leave this and move on to the endless question of the akathist and the canon to the First-Called. I agree with you that the Greek word ἀκόλουθος expresses only follower, but I do not agree that one can prefer the new Greek, randomly printed, text of the kontakion, where the word follower is thrown out, to the ancient Greek manuscripts of the 13th, 14th and 16th centuries (of which photographic photographs were sent to me from Moscow), where this word exists, as well as in all Slavic and Greek manuscripts. New Greek printers should show from which manuscript they borrowed their new expression for printing: first-called disciple of Spasov, instead of the ancient one, found everywhere: supreme follower of the church. So, this cannot be called strange criticism if we adhere to the ancient text, attested by centuries, instead of the new and unproven one, which is only pleonasm, for it repeats in the kontakion the same thing that is said in the troparion: as the first-called apostles, while the supreme follower of the church expresses a completely different thought, albeit briefly: that the first-called apostle, through his following of Christ, became started as a leader of the church. Forgive me for my long argument with words, with which I tired you, and for what my soul expressed, zeal for the sake of the house of God, despite the deep consciousness of my sinfulness, but perhaps that is why the Lord tolerates my sins because He sees my zeal for His holy Church.” This is what the Metropolitan responded to: Dear Sir, Andrei Nikolaevich. To my and your relief, I accept your rule: write with someone else’s hand 329. I do not complain about an objection that requires either correction or clarification of the matter. I do not recognize the rule of connecting a priest of the Western Church to the Orthodox Church according to the common rite as requiring correction. He is supposed to have received the grace of ordination; but when it is not known whether he received and kept it without violating the rules, then he is accepted as not yet recognized in the priesthood, and consequently equal to a layman, or a priest prohibited from serving in the priesthood. And it may happen that the Holy Synod will leave him outside the clergy, among the laity. Consequently, he should be accepted completely according to the general rank. So it is in the communion of the holy mysteries. A priest who allows a priest who is actually serving in confession can, without a doubt, allow someone who is not yet recognized in the priesthood. It is fitting that the one who joins should humble himself before the true church, so that he may be exalted in time. If the annexation is performed by a bishop, having already had permission from the Holy Synod to recognize the one who is being annexed as a priest, then everything can be accomplished in one priestly service, and he will partake of the holy mysteries as a priest. The time of vestment was chosen to be the one in which the ordained person dresses when receiving the epitrachelion, belt and phelonion. Is it really possible to assign a separate time for other parts of the vestment? The expression: recklessly zealous layman does not belong to me, and was not in my head. It is strange that hierarchical work is not done directly by hierarchical persons, but through a layman; but the zeal of a layman is not reprehensible, but blessed. The course and details of the affairs of the Reverend Plato are definitely not known to me. The letter he published could have been better presented. What will happen to the apostolic labors of the Right Reverend Innocent in America? A bitter question! But what could the guards of Israel do about this? They have no voice in government. Today I read in the reports that this matter began a long time ago; but hardly any of the guards of Israel heard about this. We recently heard that Russian properties in America were being sold: it was difficult to accept this as probable. Suddenly they started saying that the matter was over: could church guards change the state definition? That from the archives of the Holy Synod the unclean rubbish of the past is taken out into the street: this is regrettable and harmful. About this, a zealous layman could nearby say a convincing word to those who exist from the Synod, and to the Metropolitan of Kyiv 330 regarding the works of the Kyiv Academy, and reprimand the Metropolitan of Moscow, who for some (expressions) in the “Orthodox Review”, already after publication, expressed displeasure to the editors, and did not stop them on the way to publication. About the expression: supreme follower of the church, philosophize as you please, but I remain of the opinion that in the composition of the expressions: follower of the church and supreme follower, there is an inconsistency that convincingly indicates that this text is damaged. And the church knows only two supreme ones: Peter and Paul. April 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the recall of the Minister of Internal Affairs regarding the icon donated by the Klintsy schismatics for placing in the chapel of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, in Moscow 332 Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a letter dated March 31, 1867, No. 1577, asked Metropolitan Philaret to inform him of the conclusion on the recall of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who, agreeing with the Metropolitan’s considerations regarding the request of the Klintsy schismatics to place the icon they had donated in the chapel of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, only recognized it as inconvenient to return the icon to them for correction. Regarding your Excellency, dated March 31 (No. 1577), it is depicted that in the case of the icon presented by the Klintsy schismatics to signify the memorable deliverance of the Sovereign Emperor from the threatened danger, the Minister of Internal Affairs fully agreed with my opinion expressed in relation to mine on February 7; but recognizes it as inconvenient to return the icon to the schismatics for correction. It was unexpected for me that the idea of ​​returning the icon to the schismatics arose. This idea was not proposed by me and could not be proposed, since, obviously, one cannot demand from schismatics that they correct anything on the icon that is contrary to their convictions. Without demanding anything from the schismatics, and preserving the integrity of the icon, we can make the most corrections in some of its features and in the inscriptions, so that later, without insulting Orthodoxy, it could be placed in the Orthodox Church and preserved with due respect, as a monument of loyal zeal. April 27. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the appeal printed in the Taurida diocese regarding donations for the construction of a church in Chersonis To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report. In the Tauride diocese, under my name, an appeal was published on August 25, 1862, about offerings for the construction of a church in the ancient city of Chersonesos. A copy thereof is attached herewith 334. If I had actually made such a proclamation outside the boundaries of the diocese entrusted to me, I would have been guilty of violating church rules, according to which the power and official action of the bishop do not extend beyond the boundaries of the diocese entrusted to him. Therefore, I make it my duty to bring justification to the Holy Synod. I did not make the aforementioned appeal, published in the Tauride diocese, and I did not give consent to it to anyone, and therefore I most respectfully ask the Holy Synod to consider me not involved in the said illegal action. Your Holiness, most humble novice, No. 165. April 29, 1867 In view of this report from Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in a secret letter dated May 16, 1867, No. 62, asked the Novorossiysk and Bessarabian governor-general “to make an order to order an investigation to clarify the present circumstance, and to honor the subsequent one” with a “notification, with the return of the enclosure.” About his relationship with the Governor General Count D.A. Tolstoy notified the Metropolitan of Moscow, dated May 25, 1867, No. 2649, and then the diocesan Eminences, with a circular letter, in June 1867, in which he asked the Eminences to take measures to clarify the printing of the appeal and in case it appeared in the dioceses. The printing of the appeal was clarified in a letter from Alexy, Bishop of Tauride, dated July 3, 1867, No. 2783, to Count D.A. Tolstoy. Most Excellent Count Dmitry Andreevich! Due to your Excellency’s attitude, on May 25 of this year, No. 2650, I requested from the committee established for the construction of the Church of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir in the Chersonissian monastery, a detailed explanation regarding the appeal printed by the committee on behalf of the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow about offerings for the construction of the aforementioned church. From the explanation presented by the committee on the 29th day of the past month of June, for No. 322, it turns out that the appeal was not composed, but was borrowed by the committee from the relationship to this committee of the priest of the Moscow diocese, Volokolamsk district, the village of Ivanovsky-Bezobrazov, Znamenskaya Church, Alexander Pavlov Ilyinsky, who dated March 31, 1864, for No. 6, forwarding the donations his parishioners for the Chersonissus church 11 rubles 5 k, and describing all the details of collecting them, he prescribed, as it appears in the copy certified by the committee, the following. “By Decree of the Holy Governing Synod, dated August 11, 1862, No. 2984, it was prescribed that the clergy of the Moscow diocese invite each of its parishioners to donate for the construction of the Church of St. Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir on the ruins of ancient Chersonis in Crimea. On this decree, his Eminence, the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, dated August 25, No. 143, ordered the following: “in the Tauride diocese, on the site of the ancient city of Chersonis, a church is being built in the name of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, over the surviving foundation of the long-destroyed church, in which he received St. baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir. This memory is precious and this place is venerable for all Orthodox Russians, because the baptism of St. Vladimir was the beginning of our baptism and our salvation. We must hope that there will be piously zealous people to help build this church. But who knows whether the benefits will be sufficient for this, and whether they will be collected soon? And how convenient and how decent it would be if millions of Orthodox Christians decided to take part in this matter, if every Orthodox Russian contributed 2 or 3 kopecks to this cause, the required amount of money would soon be collected, and the Church of St. Vladimir, which then could rightly be called an All-Russian church. Let this be known to Orthodox Russians.” Then, the priest describes at length how the parishioners of the Znamenskaya Church are. Among about 500 male souls, all, without exception, temporarily obliged poor peasants gave him the aforementioned 14 rubles. 5 k. and why it’s late to introduce them. After this, two months later, the chairman of the committee, Archimandrite Eugene, due to the special significance of the priest’s appeal to his flock, presented to me with his special report, dated June 9, 1864, No. 187, with the words mentioned so well-meaning on the part of his eminence, and in the report at the same time (June 11, 1864) I noted: “It would be useful to publish the appeal of the most venerable saint of Moscow.” These are all the reasons why the committee, in March of the current 1867, with its funds becoming impoverished, began printing the appeal of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow on August 25, 1862, without the knowledge of his Eminence and without the knowledge of me, although it would not be difficult for each member of the committee to know, on the one hand, that in order to publish the appeal the committee needed to seek permission for this from His Eminence, and on the other hand, it was required that the committee first report its assumptions on how to now begin to put into action the thought expressed by me in a note on the report of Archimandrite Eugene, June 11, 1864, to me, and await permission or instructions; but this was not the case. To this I find it not superfluous to add: 1) that, according to the information I made, the appeal was typed and printed in the Taurida provincial printing house on the 12th and 13th of March, current 1867, among the 3840 copies that were issued to the committee clerk, naval officer Nikitin; 2) for this purpose, a time was chosen in which I was in the remote city of Melitopol, to admonish 9 families seduced into the Molokan heresy, and in remote villages, among other things, to explain to the parishioners of the Bolsheznamen Edinoverie Church that they should not resist the order of the highest spiritual authorities to donate profits from the sale of candles to theological schools; 3) according to the committee’s explanation, to date 230 copies of the appeal have been sent to the editorial offices of all spiritual and secular periodicals, up to 200 copies have been presented to the chief commander of the region and the committee, Adjutant General Kotzebue, with the approval of his Excellency; then, it was not sent to any persons in any copy; 4) 3409 copies of the appeal remain in stock; 5) I ordered the committee to suspend their distribution pending permission, to which order the committee responded that it most respectfully accepts for due execution this warning about suspending the distribution of the appeal, and on this basis considers it necessary to inform Mr. to the Novorossiysk and Bessarabian Governor-General, Adjutant General Pavel Evstafievich Kotzeb, enclosing a certified copy of all the correspondence that arose on this occasion, since his Excellency, wishing success in the construction of the church, and fully sympathizing with the activities of the committee, had in mind to apply to all persons and places of government, with the attachment of this appeal. In conclusion, the committee firmly hopes that when the doubt that has now arisen about the correctness of its actions is clarified, permission to continue distributing the appeal will follow soon, to the consolation of all Orthodox Christians who gratefully and sacredly honor the memory of the blessed enlightener of Russia, as well as reverently before the sacred person of God’s anointed one, the most pious Sovereign Emperor. The Holy Synod, by resolution of August 23/September 6, 1867, among other things, decided: 1) to order the Bishop of Tauride by decree to order that the remaining undistributed copies of the appeal be destroyed; 2) instruct Eminence Alexy to make a remark to the committee for the arbitrary course of action, adding in the decree to the Eminence that these actions cannot but be recognized as a consequence of the resolution he gave on the benefits of promulgating the order of the Metropolitan of Moscow, although this resolution did not give the committee the right to proceed with such promulgation without asking for a positive order, and 3) notify, by decree, the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow about this order, and provide an extract from the ruling 335 to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. April 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore regarding the new charter of seminaries According to probable private information, the Holy Synod is now dealing with a new statute for seminaries. Forgive me if I can’t resist saying words of concern. This is not a concern for me. I can calm myself by leaving my successors to eat the fruits of the tree that you plant. But the zeal of the house of God, I dare not say, consumes me; but woe to me if I am insensitive to her. I wrote more than one note to Count Dimitri Andreevich on this subject. These notes, as far as I know, reached the attention of the committee about the seminary regulations. I don't know if they reached you. Would you take a look at them for your considerations? In the Kazan diocese, for 200 souls there is a mullah, and for 1500 or 2000 there is a priest. The number of priests should be increased: on the contrary, there are quite a few and the existing vacancies are not filled. Why? Due to the normal number of seminary students. According to news from some dioceses (many of which cannot be heard), the clergy are in grief and in fear, having read preliminary information about the future charter of seminaries. The state authorities have proclaimed that the clergy is poor and requires benefits; no benefits given; and at the same time, the clergy sees a reduction in the previous benefits for the education of their children, and the requirement that they, with their support, establish parallel classes at theological schools, or the schools themselves for their children. I point out some items of concern. Your insight will reveal whether there will be more of them? May 8. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, in the case of the conversion to Orthodoxy of the Tulchin schismatic false bishop Justin The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at different times in 1866 and 1867, forwarded for the information of the spiritual authorities several messages from our vice-consul in Tulcea about the situation of the schism abroad and the movement in favor of Orthodoxy that had formed among it. In these messages, by the way, it was brought to the attention of the Russian government that the false bishop Justin, who was living with foreign schismatics in Tulcea, appeared at the vice-consulate and announced his decisive intention and readiness to join the Orthodox Church. At the same time, Justin expressed a desire to have information whether he could hope for the vice-consulate to issue him a passport to travel to Russia, to protect him from persecution by turning to the Orthodox Church, and to have a comfortable life in some monastery, in Moscow, or another city, as a simple monk, in return for his current sufficient and independent position. Taking into account that the acquisition to Orthodoxy of another of the most influential members of the Austrian false hierarchy will serve as a new triumph of our church over the errors of the schism, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod decided to answer the ministry that the church is always ready with love and condescension to accept into its maternal bosom a lost son; his accession can follow on the same rights that were used by the schismatic false bishops who converted to Edinoverie in the past 1865: following their example, Justin, in the form of providing him with the opportunity to live a calm and comfortable life, will be placed in the newly established Edinoverie men's monastery in Moscow, and in case of any difficulties with this - in another monastery, according to the appointment of the spiritual superiors; As for Justin’s request for a passport from the vice-consulate to travel to Russia, there are no obstacles to this on the part of the ecclesiastical department. The explained assumptions of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod received the highest approval on the 17th day of June 1866, and then in April 1867 Justin himself arrived in Russia, regarding whom, just before his arrival, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received from the consul in Tulcea new papers, in which, by the way, it was reported that the false bishop who had previously joined the Orthodox Church from a schism Sergius, with the permission of the Russian government, came to Austria to visit his son, who was languishing in a Chernivtsi prison. But here Sergius expressed his readiness to undergo imprisonment himself in order to free his son, from which he was released only on the guarantee of one landowner for 2000 rubles. Appearing then in Tulcha to Justin, Sergius revealed to the latter that although he had received communion from the hands of the Belokrinitsky priest during his illness, he would immediately return to Russia as soon as he got money to pay off his debts. Out of compassion for Sergius, Justin, who decided to leave for Russia himself, gave Sergius his own miter, worth up to 800 rubles, to cover Sergius’s debts and provide him with the opportunity to return to Russia. In view of this act of Justin, which testified to his readiness to make significant sacrifices for the benefit of his neighbor and for the good of the church, the vice-consul petitioned for the return to Justin of the value of the miter he had given him. All of the above circumstances were reported to Metropolitan Philaret, who, in a letter addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated May 8, 1867, explained the following: Your Excellency's letter of April 29 (No. 2127) requires me to provide information about the orders regarding the false bishop of Tulchin, Justin, who is turning to Orthodoxy, and regarding his reward for the miter, according to the assumption of the vice-consul. Justin arrived in Moscow on one of the last days of Holy Week; but I could not soon enter into intercourse with him due to my illness. At my request, on May 3, he presented me with an explanatory note about his former life, and about what contributed to his conversion from error to the path of truth. Then I spoke to him personally. The degree of his ability and education can be partly evidenced by his note, which I previously demanded that it be written by him himself, without correction by an outside hand. He is significantly inferior to his mentor, the monk Paphnutius (former false bishop of Kolomna). However, one can see in him a well-disposed person with a calm spirit. He says that, recognizing the pan-Orthodox Church and the Edinoverie Church as a single Orthodox Church, he is ready to join, as the authorities decide. For management, this is not an insignificant issue. If Justin simply joins the Orthodox Church, he will have less opportunity and convenience than a fellow believer to enter into useful relations with schismatics and those wavering in the schism, and they will be less inclined to turn to him. It will be more convenient for those wavering in the schism to come to Justin, a fellow believer, to find out what happened to him and why, and they can receive a useful impression. On May 3rd, a well-known researcher, and finally an accuser of the priestless kind, Pavel Prussky 337, presented me with an explanatory note about himself. He is in the same disposition towards the church as Justin, and the same question is asked about him. Regarding this latter, another question arises: shouldn’t we delay his accession for some time in order to write out his disciples who are like-minded with him from Prussia, and shouldn’t he visit like-minded people in some provinces in order to decisively induce them to join Orthodoxy or the same faith? Meanwhile, it is desirable that these people who give good hope quickly establish themselves in the local Edinoverie monastery. I continue to supplement my thoughts on the above-mentioned issues with the information I collect, and when the final conviction for decision and execution is made, I will not fail to bring this to the attention of your Excellency. As for Justin's reward for the miter, I did not ask Justin a question about this, but conducted the conversation in such a way that he himself said what he thought and what he wanted. As he undertook the journey secretly, I asked whether he took his property with him or left it? - He answered that it was impossible to take it, because it could not hide from the schismatics, who would find means to stop him, and that he did not go out for a long time, because it was necessary to give time to the schismatics’ vigilance against him to fall asleep; His property was left in his cell under lock and key, and the key was given to the vice-consul. Among the property, he continued, is a miter; and I gave the other, decorated with pearls, to Sergius in order to free him from the debt that detained him in the hands of schismatics, which gave him the opportunity to return to Russia to the Edinoverie monastery. Then I asked: what? Should the price of this miter be returned to Sergius? “This cannot be hoped for,” said Justin, “but I am pleased that I freed him from the schismatics.” Thus, he did not make a demand, and I did not continue the conversation about this. In my opinion, this question can be left in this sleeping position, waiting to see if it will be aroused, and whether it will need to be aroused. The former false bishop Paphnutius left the more precious miter and other things in the hands of the schismatics, leaving wealth to seek the truth, and putting himself in a helpless position for the truth. His needs are now met by the Moscow bishopric, since he lives in the Chudov Monastery for the convenience of acting as a missionary. No. 24. May 8, 1867. 338 May 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Archbishop Anthony of Kazan about providing patronage to Paul of Prussia, who was going to the village of Poim to interview local schismatics, both natural and newly seduced Your Eminence Bishop. This will be presented to you by Paul, nicknamed Prussian, because in Prussia he ruled a monastery of schismatics who did not accept the priesthood. Having good intentions and prudence, he examined the merits of his own belief, and at first doubted, and then became convinced that this was not the true church, with the concept of church (?), and finally came to the conviction that salvation must be sought in unconditionally uniting with the one Orthodox Church, or on the rules of unity of faith. He tried to lead others along the same path of research that he himself followed, and gained fame and followers. Only he has not yet openly joined the Orthodox Church, because, not yet completely separating himself from the schismatics, it is more convenient to be in contact with them, communicate to them his beliefs, and bring them closer to the Orthodox Church. In the diocese entrusted to you, in the Cheboksary district, there is the village of Poim. There are many natural schismatics there, and quite a few who have been seduced from Orthodoxy. Kirill Zagadaev, who is now in Moscow as a fellow believer deacon, at the time of his joining the Orthodox Church, sincerely repented that he and the false priest had distracted up to 600 souls from the Orthodox Church. Now there is a movement among schismatics towards the Orthodox Church; there are about 40 souls on the same path as Paul indicated, almost near her doors. He is invited there to talk with them, in the hope that many other schismatics will want to know his thoughts, and whether there will be anyone willing to follow his path. But here is the concern, and here is the reason for my present letter: it may happen that schismatics will gather to Paul in large numbers; the police will not understand this and will cause him difficulty. It’s not my business, but the church’s and your diocese’s. Give Paul your protection; let the local clergy know that he is acting sincerely and in favor of Orthodoxy, instruct them to assist him in whatever way they can, and also take measures so that the civil authorities do not become suspicious of him and do not complicate him. There is a missionary there; but he, it seems, did not manage to get close enough to the schismatics. It may be that he prosecuted some of those seduced from Orthodoxy and put schismatics in fear of entering into open relations with him. Would you please instruct him to act primarily by meek patience with their misunderstandings and weaknesses, by communicating with them in simplicity and condescension, and leave the matter of severity and justice to others, in order to open and not block the path to uncommunicative hearts? Hoping that you will accept my present petition in the same spirit of brotherly love and concern for the good of the holy churches and the salvation of souls in which I write, with true reverence and love for the Lord. 339 May 26. The attitude of Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, on the compilation of libraries in churches By letter dated October 20, 1866 (No. 6016), your Excellency demanded from me a list of books assigned for the compilation of church libraries, which had already been given by the Holy Synod, but which was supposed to be replenished. But after taking information from churches about church libraries, which was ordered to be compiled back in 1832, it turned out that the success in this matter was very unsatisfactory, so that the care of the authorities should not be directed to the multiplication of books, but to the speedy acquisition, albeit of a few of the most necessary ones. For this purpose, the register of books was revised and divided into three sections, in order for the first time to more strongly insist on the acquisition in the church of at least a few of the most necessary books placed in the first section of this list, and then gradually demand the replenishment of church libraries with books from the other two sections. The list from the said register and from the order given by me on this subject to the consistory is forwarded at the same time. The following documents are attached to this: I. List of spiritual books for compiling a church library 2) New Testament in Slavic and Russian dialects. 3) Scriptures of St. Basil the Great. 4) Scriptures of St. John Chrysostom on the priesthood. Conversations on the Evangelist Matthew, on the Epistle to the Romans. 5) Conversations of St. Ephraim the Syrian. 6) Conversations of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechumens and secret teachings. 7) Orthodox Catechism. 8) Scriptures of St. Tikhon of Voronezh, at least some. 9) Conversations with the verb Old Believer. 10) Ignatius the God-Bearer, Epistles to believers in Christ. 11) Scriptures of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. 12) Other writings of St. John Chrysostom Fr. 13) St. Macarius of Egypt, words. 14) His, Conversations on Christian Perfection. 15) Writings of Abba Dorotheus. 16) St. John of Damascus, Theology, or a detailed exposition of the Orthodox Christian faith. 17) Evangelist or interpretation of the four evangelists, Theophylact of Bulgaria. 18) Lives of Saints or Menaion-Chetya. 19) Prologue or Synaxarium. 20) Scriptures of St. Dimitri Metropolitan of Rostov. 21) Truly ancient and truly Orthodox Church of Christ, His Grace Metropolitan Gregory. 22) About the positions of parish elders. 23) Outline of church and biblical history. 24) Outline of church history from biblical times. 25) The book of rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers. 26) About the ministry and ordination of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church. 27) Indicating the path to the kingdom of heaven, conversations of His Grace Innocent, Archbishop of Kamchatka. 28) New tablet, Benjamin, Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod. 29) Liturgical canons in Greek with Slavic and Russian translations. 30) An abbreviated history of the Russian church, by His Grace Philaret of Chernigov. 31) Lives of the saints of the Russian Church, A.N. Muravyova. II. Extract from the proposal given by Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow spiritual consistory. 1867, May 25 days. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 15, 1832, it was ordered to establish, if possible, libraries of the most necessary spiritual books in churches, and a list of such books, including 38, was sent. The decree and list were sent to churches for execution. According to the information taken now, after 35 years from the decree, it turns out that not only in the churches of villages and district towns, but also in the churches of Moscow, many of the books listed are missing, so that in some there are only 13, and 25 are missing. The reason for the lack of success in this regard lies partly in the poverty of many churches, partly in the fact that church elders are reluctant to allocate church money for this. But the need for a church library is urgent, both for maintaining and enhancing the education of the parish clergy, and for the edification of the people, and therefore must be satisfied immediately, although for the first time in a very limited amount. Therefore, the previous list of books has been revised and divided into three categories, so that mainly those needed, the few in number, can be purchased in the church as soon as possible, and then gradually others, as far as possible. 1) The list of books assigned to the church library should be distributed among churches, except for brownie and assigned ones, which do not have clergy. 2) Instruct deans to encourage priests to purchase assigned books for the church, first placed in the first category, and then gradually others, and to encourage church elders to do this; Why represent to them that the establishment of a church library is also for the benefit of parishioners, because teachings in the church can be read from paternal books, and some books, for example, the lives of saints, parishioners can read or listen to them read in the houses of clergy members on holidays. 3) The dean should also be instructed that, when reviewing churches at the end of the current year, they should pay attention to the state of church libraries, and report which churches are mostly successful in compiling libraries, and which are the most lagging behind others in this regard, especially given their poor situation. 4) Make it an obligation for priests to select teachings, or short parts of teachings, from the patristic books available in the church, that correspond to the understanding and edification necessary for parishioners: and on holidays, on which they do not pronounce their own teachings, to read them during services, at the appointed time. 5) Advise priests and other members of the clergy to institute the reading of soul-helping books in their homes on holidays, and invite parishioners to listen to them, in which some priests have already experimented with good success. For this purpose, books that exist in Slavic and Russian translations must be purchased in the church, mainly in Russian translation. This relationship, with the following papers, Count D.A. Tolstoy proposed to the Holy Synod, which in its resolution dated December 3, 1867, explained: “the late His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, as a result of the communication made by Mr. Chief Prosecutor with him regarding the compilation of libraries for churches, reported that, having seen from the information collected for the Moscow diocese that success in compiling church libraries, in fulfillment of the circular decree of the Holy Synod, from On February 15, 1832, very unsatisfactory, he recognized that at present it was best to pay attention not so much to the multiplication of books, but to the acquisition, although few, but most necessary; for this purpose, the register of books was revised and divided into three sections, so that for the first time there was a stronger insistence on the acquisition in the church of those books that are placed in the first section of this register, and then gradually demand the replenishment of church libraries with books from the other two sections; according to which His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret gave a special order to the Moscow consistory. The Holy Synod, recognizing the order made by the late His Eminence Metropolitan as being fully consistent with the purpose and taking into account that the measure he adopted can be usefully applied in other dioceses, where success in compiling church libraries will also be insufficient, determines: to let all diocesan Eminences in those forms know about the order of the late Eminence Metropolitan Philaret by a circular decree Is it convenient for them to make a similar order for their dioceses, if the measure adopted for the Moscow diocese turns out to be necessary; why send out, along with the decrees, a list of spiritual books for church libraries, corrected by the late Metropolitan Philaret, as well as, for consideration, the instructions he gave to the Moscow consistory on this matter. December 3 days 1867" 340. May 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, regarding the appeal printed in the Tauride diocese about collecting donations for the construction of a church in Chersonesos 341 Regarding your Excellency, dated May 25, 1867, No. 2649, about the appeal, printed on my behalf in the Taurida diocese, and from there passed on to various periodicals, it is mentioned that an order has been made to investigate this circumstance. This gives me a reason to explain that I reported this to the Holy Synod not with the intention of persecuting those who published this act, but solely for my justification that I did not transgress the legal limits of my action and did not participate in the publication of this act outside the Moscow diocese. The text of the appeal attributed to me is the text of the resolution that I gave for the diocese entrusted to me, by decree of the Holy Synod, on an invitation to donate for the construction of a church in Chersonesos. I wanted to make an experience of petty national collection, which in some foreign countries brings in large sums. I don’t know who copied this resolution, called it an appeal, and published it, and there is no need to know this, because no evil came from it. I repeat that I reported to the Holy Synod, solely justifying myself, and without thinking of blaming anyone. No. 220. May 31, 1867 342 June 4. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on permission for the Moscow district court to accept the cross and Gospel donated by the schismatic society of the Rogozh almshouse Due to the attitude of the head of the Ministry of Justice, the attitude of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy, my opinion was required on permission to accept to the Moscow District Court a silver gilded cross and the Holy Gospel, donated by the schismatics of the Rogozhsky almshouse, and the Holy Gospel, published by Patriarch Joseph, for use during the swearing-in. According to the communication made, the chairman of the Moscow district court notified me that the said items were stored in a specially arranged storage room in the courtroom. Due to the uncertainty of this information, I instructed the cathedral archpriest to make a local review; and he reported the following: 1) In the hall of the district, criminal court, on the court table, placed across the hall, at one end, on the right side, there is an ark with a cross and the Gospel for the oath of the Old Believers, and in it there is a cross and the Gospel for the Orthodox, - at the other end, to the left, of the same size and type - a mirror; the only difference between them is that there is a cross on the top of the ark, and the state emblem on the mirror. 2) The ark is triangular: the two back sides are blank, and the third front side, facing the people, opens with glass. In this arrangement of the cross and the Gospel, the following incongruities appear. 1) The Cross and the Gospel on the meeting table constitute the affiliation and advantage of the Church Council of the Holy Synod, which is also a cathedral. The highest secular offices do not have this advantage; and therefore it is incongruous that this advantage should be given to the lowest secular office. 2) It is inconsistent with the dignity of sacred objects that the cross and the Gospel do not occupy the main place of the presence table, but are placed at the side end of the table, where the younger members of the presence sit. 3) At the left end of the table there is a mirror, and at the right there is a cross and the Gospel, on the same line next to each other, and in containers arranged in the same way; cross over the container of the Gospel. But such equality of these objects is an incongruity. The cross and the Gospel are sacred objects that deserve reverent prayerful worship, which cannot be said about the mirror, although it is an important object in its own way. Therefore, I consider the following to be fair and proper: 1) Keep the cross and the Gospel in a closed ark. 2) This ark should be placed in the meeting room in the place where the holy icon is located. 3) The priest called to administer the oath must open the ark and use it properly for the oath. 4) In this ark, it is allowed to store both the cross and the old printed Gospel presented by the schismatics for the swearing in of schismatics, in accordance with the existing law on this (secret decree of December 13, 1838). It is my duty to submit this to the discretion of the Holy Synod and to ask for permission from the decree. The Holy Synod, by resolution dated July 2/12, 1867, decided: “sharing the opinion fully expressed in the present report of the Metropolitan of Moscow regarding the permission to accept into the Moscow district court the cross and the old printed Gospel presented by the schismatics of the Rogozh almshouse, for the swearing in of the schismatics, as well as regarding the placement and storage in that court of both these sacred objects and the cross and the Gospel for the swearing-in of the Orthodox, - the Holy Synod determines: to give Mr. Synodal Chief Prosecutor to notify the city of this. manager of the Ministry of Justice, for his orders, depending on his orders, and to inform Secretary of State Urusov that the opinions of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow regarding the placement and storage of the cross and the Holy Gospel, as stated in the first three paragraphs of the rule regarding the placement and storage of the cross and the Holy Gospel, according to the conclusion of the Holy Synod, should be applied to all, both existing and those having reopened judicial places, and the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow should be notified about this by decree. To carry out this determination, transfer the original protocol to the office of the Chief Prosecutor, together with the report of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret No. 226.” 343 June 12/13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, with a request to take possible measures to reject the new request of the schismatics to unseal the altars in connection with the villainous attempt on May 25, in Paris Last year, when the Sovereign Emperor, by the providence of God, was saved from the threatening danger, Moscow schismatics of the priestly persuasion (usually, under the guise of patriotism, striving for their schismatic goals), asked permission to open the altars sealed in their chapel of the Rogozh almshouse, and with their bishop, to perform a prayer service in it. By your Excellency’s letter, dated April 12, 1866, No. 2334, I was notified that you have received information from the Minister of Internal Affairs that this petition, by virtue of the highest command, on June 12, 1856, to seal the altars in the Rogozh chapels and prevent false priests from entering these chapels, cannot be satisfied. Nowadays there is a fairly public rumor that the schismatics are resuming the same enterprise on the occasion of the incident on the 25th day of May in Paris; and hope to achieve what they want through the intercession of the nobles, who previously provided active patronage to schismatics of the non-priestly persuasion. It must be hoped that the justice and dignity of the government will require that the previous request not be repeated, but that the reason for the refusal be given. As much as this is true, so much is needed in the present situation of the clerical split. The quarrels of the false bishops divide him and thereby weaken him, and lead his most well-intentioned adherents to bewilderment and confusion. The schismatics begin to visit the Edinoverie Church at the Rogozhsky cemetery and pray with their fellow believers, which had never happened before. In the priestless sense, there also seems to be a movement towards unity of faith, and for this purpose two mentors recently came to Moscow. The priests, of course, would have been harmed if, as expected, the schismatics had succeeded in their enterprise. I considered it a matter of precaution to bring the above to the attention of your Excellency and humbly request that you take possible precautionary measures against the unjust and harmful enterprise of the schismatics. June 12, 1867 June 13,344 August 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore about the transfer of the relics of St. Euphrosyne, Princess of Polotsk, from the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra to the convent of Polotsk Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and father. With the return of the Orthodox Russian Church to its children, the so-called Uniates, who were rejected in times of trouble, the idea arose of transferring the relics of the Venerable Euphrosyne, Princess of Polotsk, resting in the holy Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, to a convent located near Polotsk, which was created by one of her relatives, and in which she labored. Many expressed a desire for this idea to be carried out; but she has not achieved this until now. This is probably because the Holy Synod has a rule, in such cases, to expect special instructions from the providence of God. This rule is very worthy of acceptance. However, the church calendar shows many transfers of holy relics, marked by annual church remembrances, and even specially composed church services, which took place only through the action of pious zeal. A close example of this is the relics of St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow, transferred from the Solovetsky Monastery to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. It is not clear that some extraordinary sign prompted this, but the pious zeal of the king, and the thought that it was fitting for the saint to rest in the place where he served as his sacred superior served. Following this example, it can be considered blessed that the relics of St. Euphrosyne were transferred from Kyiv to Polotsk and that they rested in the monastery in which she labored. The Right Reverend Savva, the current Bishop of Polotsk, also adheres to this thought, because, among other things, he sees in the diocese entrusted to him the scarcity of ancient, especially revered, Orthodox shrines; Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic churches represent, whether faithfully or incorrectly preserved by tradition, a shrine that attracts the attention of not only the Roman Catholic, but also partly the Orthodox people. This view makes me not indifferent, and prompts me to turn to your love of holiness and care for the Orthodox Church in all its areas. May the present question attract your attention, and may the Lord speak to you a word pleasing to Him to promote the good and salvation of souls. Now I am writing the same thing to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev. Committing myself to your prayers, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Eminence’s most humble servant, No. 32. August 22, 1867 345 September 28. Pastoral message of Metropolitan Philaret to the elders of Moscow cathedrals and churches, whom the archpastor thanked for the 25,500 rubles they collected by subscription to establish an emeritus fund for issuing pensions to the clergy of the Moscow diocese The elders of Moscow cathedrals and churches with the most honorable parishioners, welcoming Metropolitan Philaret on the fiftieth anniversary of his service as bishop of the Holy Church, the throne and the fatherland 346, among other things, stated that, in commemoration of this day, they collected by subscription 25,500 rubles of capital, which would serve as the basis of an emerital fund for issuing pensions to the clergy of the Moscow diocese 347. To the Christ-loving church elders of the cathedrals and other churches of Moscow, God's blessing, peace, prosperity and success in every good deed. Blessed be Christ our God and Savior, who has placed us with you, through church service, in such communion that we often have reason to rejoice over you and thank God, seeing your willing readiness to bring your care, labor and zealous gifts from your wealth to the churches of God. It was good for you to commemorate the completed fiftieth anniversary of my service as a bishop not only with benevolent participation, but also with a charitable enterprise, to open a source of benefits to those who have served honestly and for many years and who require help from the clergy of the Moscow diocese. And this is no longer just your thought and desire; but your generosity has already laid the real foundation for this, you intend to draw up rules for this, and you want blessings for this. How can I respond to this if not with sincere gratitude? May the Lord bless this work of your love for the holy church and its sacred service and brotherly love for those who serve it. Each of the servants of the Moscow church, from the oldest to the least, together with me, will call and will call upon you, benefactors, spiritual and temporal blessings from the universal Benefactor God, glorified in the Trinity, forever. No. 451. September 28, 1867 348 September 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret addressed to the rector of Moscow University, S.I. Barshev, by whom he thanked Moscow University for its accepted and specially marked participation in the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of his episcopal service S.I. Barshev, in a statement dated August 4, 1867, No. 1536, notified Metropolitan Philaret, on behalf of the university council, that, according to the most submitted report by the Minister of Public Education, the council’s petition for permission to put a portrait of the metropolitan in the university assembly hall. The Emperor was pleased, on the 12th day of July, to express his permission for this, and at the same time S.I. Barshev presented the address compiled by the council for this occasion. The address, signed by the rector, professor of theology, deans of the historical-philological, legal, medical and physics-mathematical faculties, reads: “Most Reverend Bishop! The entire Russian church now prays to the Lord of hosts for the preservation of the precious life of the archpastor, who worked zealously for its improvement for half a century. “To the general prayer of the church for you, great hierarch, Moscow University also adds its own special fervent prayer: may years be added to you, God-inspired teacher, and for the good of science. “For too half a century, by teaching and example, you illuminated the path to true knowledge for science, and vigilantly protected it from the ulcer of false teachings. May your educational guidance not be taken away from her for a long time to come.” Your Excellency, dear sir. May the old hand, inertly obeying the will that demanded acceleration, not be strictly judged. On the 5th day of last August, Your Excellency and the venerable heads of faculties, I personally expressed my most respectful gratitude to Moscow University and to you for your accepted and specially marked participation in the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of my episcopal service. But even after this, my gratitude still requires me to speak. What could be my relationship with Moscow University that could become an incentive for its real participation in me? I only remember that I repeatedly participated in solemn services on the days of the celebrations of his scientists. But that was my duty: and, fulfilling my duty, I also had a reward in the spiritual consolation that I felt, seeing that science loves to sanctify its triumphs with the triumph of religion. This is how I understand the present case. The venerable devotees of science took part in me because their love for religion wanted this. May the eternal source of truth and wisdom continue to pour out its life-giving and saving light into the minds and hearts of chosen figures in the fields of science, and from those who teach to those who are taught, from the highest to the lowest degrees of teaching, and may it extend to beliefs and rules, to thought and life, the pure light of truth and goodness. With true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency... 349 November 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to His Eminence Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore on the case of the schismatic priest Malyshev who joined the Edinoverie Would you like to demand my opinion on the question: can Ioann Malyshev, who was married to a schismatic false priest, ordained a false priest by a schismatic false bishop, be ordained a priest, and then, having learned the truth of the Orthodox Church, joined it on the rules of the same faith, and sanctified his marriage with a wedding in a church of the same faith? This is a case that arose from the historical circumstances of the Russian Church, and was not provided for in the ancient rules. From this it follows that in this case it is impossible to indicate a direct church rule, but one can only look for something close to it. According to Canon 57 of the Council of Carthage, those who were baptized “in error” by a schismatic Donatist priest and converted to the Orthodox Church are admitted to the clergy, and consequently to ordination to the priesthood. Rule 68 of the same council on the same subject adds: “especially in such difficult circumstances no one will dispute this.” Likewise, someone who was married by a schismatic priest and, after joining the Orthodox Church, sanctified this marriage with a church Orthodox wedding, may be allowed to be ordained as a priest, especially in such circumstances when through this many people are being saved from the schism by the Orthodox Church. The one who says that Malyshev lived with a girl and gave birth to children is a slanderer. Malyshev lived in a marriage that was wrong before the court of the church, but which he, out of ignorance and “delusion,” considered correct in his conscience, albeit a sinful one. Fornication is an act of passion combined with contempt for the law; but Malyshev entered into marriage in a schism, wanted to act and acted according to the law, as he understood it at that time. Consequently, one cannot accuse him of fornication, which does not allow him to enter the priesthood. It seems to me that such a solution to the issue of Malyshev is so blessed that if your Eminence carries it out without submitting it to the Holy Synod, the Holy Synod will not find this an excess of your authority. Woe to the time in which, according to prophecy, people are like a priest. An academy student (expelled, of course, because the worthy ones emerge as masters and candidates), for the purpose of publicity, writes in absurd terms, slandering Malyshev, and boldly touches on the hierarchy. It would be fair to subject him to penance. Your Eminence's most humble servant, In Moscow. November 2, 1867 350 November 17. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the incorrect actions of the Patriarch-Catholicos of the Armenians Kevork during his visit to the Moscow Assumption Cathedral in September The dean of the Moscow Peter and Paul Church, Archpriest Peter Ternovsky, and the Great Assumption Cathedral, the sacellary, Presbyter Peter Sokolsky, provided me with the following information about the actions of the Patriarch-Catholicos of the Armenians Kevork during his stay in Moscow, in September of this 1867. On the 22nd of September, at 12 o’clock in the morning, there was a procession of the Catholicos to the Armenian church, located not far from the Nikolaev church. In the Pillars, churches. The carriage in which he was traveling was preceded by two Armenian priests with banners. Upon arrival at the gates of the Armenian church, the Catholicos was met by two Armenian bishops, other clergy and the most honorable members of the Armenian society. From here he walked to the church under a crimson canopy, also preceded by banners. At the end of the prayers in the church, he, also preceded by banners, returned to the house of the honorary citizen Ananov. On September 24 and 30, the Catholicos also made a procession to the Armenian church for the liturgy and after the liturgy back to Ananov’s house, with the difference, however, that on these last two occasions he was preceded not by priests, but by two clerics on horseback in their vestments, one next to the right, the other next to the left drawbar horses. One of them held in his hands a small cross on a shaft, to which, below the cross, was attached a small scarlet cloth embroidered with small gold stars, and together with the shaft representing the appearance of a small banner; the other clerk had in his hands a staff, bent to one side at the upper end, with the same plate as the cross of the first. Some of those living near Ananov’s house, based on rumors (they could not see it themselves, because they could not be in Ananov’s yard), say that the same horsemen were prepared for the first procession of the Catholicos; but one of them was knocked down by a horse that had risen on its hind legs, and therefore this part of the ceremony was canceled for the first time. On September 21, at one o'clock in the afternoon, the Assumption Cathedral was dedicated by the Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians Kevork with two Armenian bishops. Having arrived at the cast-iron gates, he got out of the carriage and entered the cathedral through the northern doors. At the cathedral he was met by the protopresbyter in stole and other cathedral clergy without vestments. He approached the pulpit, first paid attention to the iconostasis and the wall writings and examined them. For this he expressed a desire to venerate the throne, and was led into the altar by the southern doors. At the same time, as he went into the cathedral with a staff, he approached the holy throne with it and gave it to one of his archpriests when he began to pray. After making several small bows, he kissed the throne three times. From the throne he moved to the high place, and here he examined the altar crosses, icons and wall writings, and asked through the Armenian archpriest what names of the saints were written on the walls in the altar. At this time, the robe of the Lord and the nail of the Lord were presented to him, and he expressed a desire to venerate them. Standing near the altar, he asked the protopresbyter: is the sacrament being performed here too? To this, the protopresbyter told him that the sacrament was only being prepared here, and it was performed on the throne. Approaching the shrine of St. Peter and learning that the relics of Metropolitan Peter rested in it, he venerated the edge of the shrine, but did not venerate the relics themselves, although the relics were open; It was also applied to the shrine of St. Philip. In the sacristy, I looked with particular curiosity at the Gospels, golden vessels, crosses and other sacristy items. Upon leaving the sacristy, he asked about the local icons in the iconostasis and approached the shrine of St. Jonah, but did not kiss it, but only prayed. From here he again approached the pulpit and, turning to the protopresbyter, told him through his archpriest that he wanted to pray for Russia and ascended to the pulpit, read a prayer on it, turning to the western doors and blessed the people three times. The Armenian patriarchs, the predecessors of the current one, did nothing of the kind. Prayer among the church on the pulpit, and the triple blessing of the people, constitute a liturgical and at the same time an authoritative action. Entering the altar to the throne with the bishop's staff is not at all allowed in the Russian church, as incompatible with reverence for the throne of the Lord. The 8th canon of the Third Ecumenical Council states: so that none of the most God-loving bishops would extend power to another diocese. Let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in under the guise of worship. The Holy and Ecumenical Council desires that every diocese preserve it in purity, and without restraint the rights that first belong to it, according to the custom established from ancient times. This and other church rules prohibit a bishop from acting in another diocese or region of the same Orthodox Church. It is obvious that it is incomparably more inconsistent with the rules and with the rights of the Orthodox Church if a bishop who is not in communion with the Orthodox Church and belongs to a religion separate from it acts in a church of the Orthodox Church in a liturgical and administrative capacity. In 1472, the All-Russian Metropolitan Philip 1st was asked the question: should the Pope's legate Anthony be allowed to enter Moscow with the cross being offered? - The Metropolitan answered the Grand Duke: if you allow him to enter like this, he will enter through one gate, and I will leave the city through another. And the legate was ordered to enter Moscow without a cross. To understand the view on the present case, we can take into account the following questions: would the Catholicos of the Armenians in the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople decide to act as he did in Moscow and in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral? And if he did so, what would be the view of the Patriarch of Constantinople on this? If an Orthodox bishop, having come to the Etchmiadzin Cathedral Church, wished to act as the Catholicos of the Armenians did in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, would the Catholicos of the Armenians agree to allow such an action? The Moscow Assumption Cathedral, as it was in former times, is now a patriarchal cathedral, since the Holy All-Russian Synod has recognized the dignity and rights of the patriarch by all churches of the Eastern Catholic confession. And for this reason, the relationship of this council to the Holy Synod, I consider it my duty to report all of the above to the Holy Synod. No. 521. November 17, 1867 The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, in a proposal to the Synod, dated November 28, 1867, No. 6334, reported that His Imperial Majesty, on the 25th day of the same month, was most pleased to order that the contents of Metropolitan Philaret’s report be reported to the Minister of Internal Affairs, in order to inspire the Catholicos to refrain from such incorrect actions in the future. actions 351. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1866, No. 307. This opinion was published in Thu. total love spirit. Prosv., 1881, February, pp. 529–530. The time of its writing dates back to January 12, 1867, but the copy of this opinion, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, has no date. Gaidovsky, Nikolai, priest of the cathedral, former lieutenant colonel. From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to the inventory of the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, No. 110; document number 10. He died in 1882 as Bishop of Riga. He died in March 1887 in the rank of Bishop of Kursk. From a copy of the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept by the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva, ll. 6 and 9. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1866 No. 186. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1866, No. 307. Case of the chancellor. Holy Synod, 1867, No. 2339. The first half is from a copy, corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan, and the remaining half, starting with the words: “from all of the above” and until the end from the handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 30, document. No. 5. It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1867, No. 969 These papers are not included here due to their abundance, and because their main content is clear from the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret. Recently, under Prince Cuza, there was a case when the very government of the Romanian Church was in an anti-canonical position, and therefore it was necessary for private clergy to seek reinforcements in the hierarchy of other Orthodox churches. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1866, No. 262. From a copy of Inventory No. 107; document No. 9. This order was drawn up by Metropolitan Philaret regarding Abbot Maundrel’s supposedly incorrect accession to Orthodoxy. See “Letters of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A. N. M. 1832–1867.” Kyiv, 1869, p. 658; The rank number 443 is also printed here. About his transfer from the Riga see to the Don see, in addition to the Holy Synod. The letter from A.N. Muravyov was probably written under his dictation with clerical errors and was only signed by him. The part and the letter are printed from manuscripts copied by the scribe; Of these, the letter at the end was corrected by the Metropolitan in his own hand. Inventory No. 6, document. Nos. 1–3. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 30, document. No. 6 and 7. A copy of the appeal was not preserved in the file; it was printed in the diocesan bulletins for 1867: Penza No. 9, pp. 290 and 291 and Podolsk No. 9. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1867, No. 102. From the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, kept in the lists of the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva, ll. 23. Now he is an archimandrite and rector of the Moscow Edinoverie monastery. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, June 11, 1866 No. 153. From a handwritten draft original of Inventory No. 110, document. No. 13. The case concerns the Holy Synod, 1867, No. 1198. See above, No. 882, p. 958, Apr. 27, 1867. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1867, No. 202 It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1867, No. 320. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 11, document. No. 6. From the collection. Metropolitan papers Philaret, keeping in the Bible St. Petersburg spiritual academician; sheets 259–260. The solemn celebration of the fiftieth year of service in the rank of bishop in Bose of the late Metropolitan Philaret took place on August 5, 1867; For a detailed description of this celebration, see Orthodox. Review 1867, vols. XXIII and XXIV. The greeting of the elders is printed in full in the Orthodox Church. Review 1867, vol. XXIII. Notes, pp. 160–162. From a copy. Inventory No. 32, document 35. - This answer was published in Orthodox. Review 1867 Note, p. 85. From a copy corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan. Inventory No. 32, document No. 2. This letter was published in Orthodox. Review 1867, vol. XXIV. Notes, page 22. From a copy transcribed by a scribe. Inventory No. 31; document No. 2 and 3. It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1867, No. 365.