All-Russian Congress of Learned Monasticism: [Separate opinion of Archimandrite Hilarion and Hieromonk Bartholomew on the transfer of the Moscow Theological Academy to the brotherhood of learned monks]

From July 7 to July 14, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, a congress of learned monasticism took place within the walls of our Academy. The timing of the congress, the deep summer holidays, had an unfavorable effect on the number of participants. About 70 people gathered, but not many were there. At the congress, the position of educated (monks with completed secondary, spiritual and secular education is also included under the inaccurate name of scientists) monastics in educational and non-educational service. It was decided to create a union - a brotherhood of learned monks with broad tasks; the need for this brotherhood to have its own monasteries and educational institutions was affirmed. The issue of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra has been developed. Finally, the program of the congress of representatives of monastic monasticism is considered at some points, in accordance with the definition of the Holy Synod. A positive solution to the question of the need for a brotherhood to have its own educational institutions primarily means the Academy. It was natural to expect a desire to create a new academy and make it homogeneous in monastic composition and in the composition of its teachers. But the majority (30 against 19, with a few abstentions) turned out to have a different view on this subject - they adopted the following resolution: “The Congress of Learned Monasticism considers it necessary that the Church Council, in order to protect the purity of Orthodox theological science from the danger that threatens it with the reform of the Academies on the basis of autonomy, leave at least one of the existing Academies unaffected by this reform, reorganizing it on strictly ecclesiastical principles in the sense of the rules, discipline and way of life, and providing it with professors from persons of the holy order (mainly monastics), as well as laity of a strictly ecclesiastical mood, and making it an organ for the manifestation of the activities of the brotherhood.” Of those who voted against this resolution, professors of the Moscow Theological Academy Archimandrite Hilarion and Hieromonk Bartholomew stated the following separate opinion: “Considering it desirable for the church authorities to organize one theological academy with a special charter defining its management and to be on strictly ecclesiastical principles, we do not, however, find any possibility of agreeing with the resolution adopted by the congress. The resolution proposes a special academy “to protect the purity of Orthodox theological science from the danger that threatens it during the reform of the Academies on the basis of autonomy.” These words of the resolution express condemnation of the existing academies, which is completely undeserved by them, because there are no sufficient grounds to consider the professors of the academies as enemies of the Orthodox faith. The history of academic science in general makes it necessary to be very cautious in accusing professors of academies of unorthodoxy, since the facts are well known when the provisions of scientific works, hastily declared harmful to Orthodoxy, soon became generally accepted truths. The academic autonomy being introduced does not pose any particular danger to Orthodox theological science, because academic figures remain the same and autonomy will not make them enemies of the Church, as they were not before. If it is impossible to expect the establishment of a strictly ecclesiastical life in an autonomous academy, then it is hardly possible to confidently predict that scientific work in it will certainly take an anti-church direction. In addition, academic autonomy was established by the highest church authorities, which, one must think, did not want to create thereby any special danger for Orthodox theological science. While recognizing that the establishment of a special church academy is not useless, we cannot, however, wish that this academy be made an organ for the manifestation of the activities of the monastic brotherhood. Recently, the church authorities have prevented the formation of learned monasticism in the strict sense of the word, usually directing academic monks along the path of church-practical activity and not giving monks the opportunity to remain in academic professorial chairs for a long time. Therefore, one cannot help but recognize the fact that scientific monasticism at the present time, in general, is not close to theological science, and often, unfortunately, treats it without due respect. The program of activities that is proposed for the monastic brotherhood being formed is primarily practical in nature. And therefore we cannot consider this brotherhood authoritative enough in the eyes of the wider church community to have, among many others, a higher theological school as its organ. We are very afraid that the brotherhood, in the very first stages of its existence, having taken on an impossible task, would not bring joy to its ill-wishers.” About the impression of what the bishop’s next idea is. Theodore, who went bankrupt in the high post of rector of the academy, impressed society, as can be judged by the following review in the Vs.Ts.O.V. No. 73. “The congress of “learned monks” has just ended. The colleague of the de jure chairman, and the de facto chairman of the Congress, was Bishop Theodore, who turned the Moscow Theological Academy into a “Volokolamsk fiefdom”. And it was here that it was decided to finally destroy this legacy of the Gorskys and Golubinskys. At the congress, it was decided to petition for the conversion of the said academy into a purely monastic one and exclusively for monastics, as well as for persons of a similar spirit, direction and mood. Each baron has his own fantasy - why not have such an academy? History here would once again act as a teacher of very, very much, starting at least with a lesson on the topic regarding the degree of stability, especially in our country now, the idea of ​​independent theological academies. Perhaps the desire of the Trinity Lavra, as such, to free itself from being an academy within its walls, would have its basis, suggested by experience, as well as history. But, under such circumstances, the question itself should have been raised by the Lavra, and, to resolve it, the most suitable place would have been the All-Russian Congress of Representatives of Monasteries. The monasteries would be obliged, at their own expense, and not at the general church expense, and on their own to create something grandiose in the vacated buildings for the enlightenment of the people. However, between the last thought, even if it came from the bowels of the Academy, and the idea of ​​​​the metamorphosis of the Gorsky and Golubinsky Academy into a “monastic” one, there is a huge distance, and therefore the corresponding encroachment must be most decisively removed. The best principle by which all this should be done is in the well-known words: actio est reactio. Therefore, rise up, as one person, the spiritual heritage of the Gorskys and Golubinskys and defend with your breasts every inch of the very ground on which these, in the words of Metropolitan Anthony, walked, ascetics of science. Let even the walls where the spirit hovered and the voice of these heroes of thought and inspired prophets be heard remain in the hands of their legacy, clean, especially from blood.” This note is inscribed with tragic words: The Moscow Theological Academy is in danger. It seems to us that the bishop's idea is Theodore, who together with the monastic brethren makes an attempt on the Moscow Theological Academy, is more humorous than tragic; it reminds us of a little crow from Krylov’s fable, clinging to a ram that he could not lift. The monastic brotherhood does not have the strength to serve the academy with professors. Among the “learned” monks there are also legitimate, authorized professors, but they are like archimandrites. Hilarion, Hierom. Barsanuphius and those who joined them are precisely against the monastic academy; they want to work in an autonomous academy. On the contrary, Bishop Theodore and his supporters are not exactly men of science. They can only slow down science, not advance it. The monastic academy will not have students either. In recent months, a crazy streak of unauthorized seizures of all other people's property has taken place across Russia! The bishop also takes the same path of seizing “other people’s” property. Theodore. But Russia has already become sober. Circumstances will sober up the unscrupulous former rector of the academy.