Chapter 3

Not earlier than 1841. An opinion on whether one of the bishops of the Russian Church acted correctly in refusing Palmer, a former deacon of the Anglican Church, a request for admission to the priesthood and communion of the Holy Mysteries without joining the Orthodox Church: “The famous Palmer, a former deacon of the Anglican Church, on one of his first visits to St. Petersburg, recognizing the truth of the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the most important points, invited one bishop of the Russian Church to accept him into his priesthood and into communion of the Holy Mysteries, without demanding that he separate from the Anglican Church. Palmer thought through this to begin to unite the churches. The bishop answered: what kind of connection will there be if we commune together - one of the true Body of Christ, as the Orthodox Church believes, and the other, without separating from the Anglican Church, and therefore from its teachings, will partake only of a commemorative symbol or sign? (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 47). From the memoirs of Bishop Nicodemus (Kazantsev): “Wilhelm Palmer, Deacon of the English Church, having arrived in St. Petersburg in August, wrote a Latin letter to the Chief Prosecutor, who asked: to allow him to study theology, worship and rituals of the Russian Church and the Russian language. He even asked permission to serve with us in the rank of Deacon. (Protasov instructed me to translate this letter into Russian.) Everyone admired Palmer then, and I was for him. But Metropolitan Philaret, having already seen him and talked with him, today “expressed doubts about the sincerity of Palmer’s desires.” Fair. Palmer rejected Orthodoxy with contempt and became a Catholic. He is now, it seems, in Rome. (They wrote about his transition to Catholicism recently.) This is how Metropolitan Philaret’s view of the people is true” (Kazantsev, pp. 70–71). January 1st. Resolution on the petition of a fellow believer deacon for his dismissal from his post in order to be assigned to a monastery due to widowhood: “We must first learn to behave impeccably in the world in order to be capable of the highest monastic achievements” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 186. No. 9425). Resolution on the consistory decision on the sale of candles in candle shops: “From the wrong closure of the church candle shop by the city Duma, under the pretext that the church elder was selling it not personally, but through another person, there was a long-term loss of candle income, which the church candle shop had previously brought in... After fourteen years of continuation of the business, to which the Consistory also became involved ten years of slowness, the responsibility for it becomes so confused and incomprehensible that the continuation of this matter would lead to difficulties more than to the benefit of the matter. Therefore, it remains to act in the opinion of the Consistory” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 186–187. No. 9426). Resolution on the determination of the committee on the verification of consistory amounts regarding the consequences of verification from the middle of 1823 to 1828: “2629 rubles collected on the occasion of the flood, and 134 rubles. for the Greeks, to leave it to the Consistory to keep in mind whether the need to use them to feed the clergy, poor from crop failure and high prices,” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 187–188. No. 9427). Letter to Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov): “If church custom commands Christians, especially ministers of the faith, to glorify the Nativity of Christ before their brethren, and the idea for this, without a doubt, was taken from the angels who sang the glory of God and proclaimed peace to men in the Nativity of Christ: then, I think, the same custom also inspires us to listen to those who proclaim this to us and accept as the angels of God” (CHOLDPr. 1871. Book 4. P. 44. - Materials). Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “It is clear among your fellow believers that there is little unity with the Church, but, unfortunately, not everyone sees this. However, their improvement can be achieved not so much by the power of power, but by prayer for them and persuasion from love and patience. Is there anything of all kinds that you haven’t used? The current Bishop of Kyiv did not complain about them when he was in Kaluga. How do your clergy feed now? And with us it endures a lot. Last year, we gave out seven thousand rubles for food irrevocably, and we loaned twenty thousand rubles for sowing. Now the Holy Synod has lent us five thousand silver rubles: but I’m afraid that even this will not save us from troubles. Some of our brothers have been eating quinoa for a long time” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. P. 22. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky): “The poverty of your home, however, requires help. But now is not a year in which it is convenient to resort to government generosity. Let us pray that the Lord bless the summer and the fields will be filled with fatness. Under some of your predecessors, they say, the zeal of the people ensured that the department did not feel poverty. Only you blessed Kharkov and said that it was desirable to die there, as you were shown Astrakhan instead of Kharkov. Your complaint about being transferred to a lower diocese has now been satisfied; I don’t know if you will find yourself satisfied in all respects. But I see here a good arrangement of God’s will and royal power, that the administration of the Astrakhan diocese comes into the firm hand that it requires. May the Lord help you, and you be content in trusting in Him” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 12. P. 40. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “In response to the fact that your Consistory, as you say, was launched under the governors, I dare to say: You did not come yesterday; Isn't it time to fix it? And it seems that recently it was noticeable that in your Consistory some things were dragging on for a long time. If you are angry for these words, then punish me by exposing my laziness and encouraging me to act. Your success in increasing candle income is very great: this should be remembered when the opportunity arises. I cannot boast of such things” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 42. No. 29). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “Accept from me, with gratitude, a sincere desire, that the Renewer of our life, in this new summer, will give you new strength, gifts and blessings, to spread His glory and light in the Church. The rules about kinship of the cross are unclear. In the Decree of 1810 they wanted to make them too easy, but they were also afraid of wrangling; This is why they expressed themselves in a dark way and came into conflict with the Council Rules. The conciliar rule prohibits two degrees in this relationship: this, in my opinion, should be adhered to, and at the same time keep in mind that even according to the Helmsman’s Book, kinship of the gods does not apply to lateral degrees” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2, pp. 49–50). January 3. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal on the case of a priest cutting down a church forest and prohibiting him from serving in the priesthood: “How the matter in the Consistory remained unreported for over a month; and then, by the compulsion of the priest who did not appear, the delay was delayed until the summer had passed, the priest was given time to continue cutting down the forest, and the examination of the felled wood became less convenient and clear, then one cannot help but tell the Archimandrite of Znamensky and the secretary of Kazan that those who are called upon to correct them should not spoil things” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 188. No. 9428). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Sergius Lavra on the intention of Hieromonk Seraphim to join the brotherhood of the Novospassky Monastery: “Inform the office of the Holy Synod that it is considered inconvenient to dismiss a hieromonk, because after the death of another he becomes needed for service, and it is not useful either for him or for the Novospassky Monastery to indulge a monk who acts willfully and not straightforwardly, because he asked to go to Kromy, but ended up in Novospassky, where he did not ask for the blessing of his superiors” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 245. No. 9546). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On January 3, 1841, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Metropolitan: “What do you want to tell me?” Me: “Out of cowardice, I can’t resist asking how my service here is being decided?” Metropolitan: “I told Seraphim and Podolsky to leave you in line. They agree. I didn’t speak only with Metropolitan Jonah.” Me: “I’ve been on the line for a year and a half now.” Metropolitan: “What then? You don’t want that either?” Me: “No; I just reminded you. I would like to get a dismissal from Vyatka, but otherwise let the will of the authorities be.” After talking something (not written down) with me, Vladyka finally said: “Be patient and serve! They see that it is not easy for you, sad. They will give you something that will calm and console you for your efforts. They leave you on the line because they don’t want to let you go from here. You can hope that you will get a place here.” Then Vladyka gave me instructions to go to bookstores and look for Goldwitzer Theology or some other. I did not find Goldwitzer; bought Perrone in 5 books of the newest Catholic Theologian for 28 rubles. The Bishop ordered me to give the money. I was bored that not all of Theology (Perrone had not yet published the last volume of his extensive Theology): “I don’t like unfinished works,” he said (Kazantsev, p. 75). January 6. Resolution on the dean’s report about the psalm-reader of the Ascension Monastery: “... it was said: he did not provide information about his behavior. But who provides information about his own behavior? The dean must find out from the priest and convey it” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 188. No. 9429). January 9. Resolution on the petition of the sacellary of the Cathedral of the Archangel to appoint a student of the Moscow Seminary to the diaconate, who agreed to marry his daughter: “Out of respect for the service and the circumstances of the sacellar requiring special care and for the dignity of his chosen Smirnov, who has both a student’s degree and is approved in excellent behavior, the Reverend has to pay special attention to him and, if there are any doubts, it will not turn out, produce it” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 188–189. No. 9430). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Receive, Your Eminence, with brotherly love, the Most Reverend Innocent of Kamchatka-Aleut 97; and, if he wishes to perform a priestly service in Chudov or in the Assumption Cathedral, arrange this for him, as befits The new department, due to special circumstances, was not formed entirely according to the general rank and does not yet have regular salaries from the treasury. In part they helped the Eminence with the necessary things, and in part he had some need. Moscow Christ-lovers, I hope, having learned what he needs, will help” (Letters. 1887. P. 53). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Receive, Father Viceroy, in a fitting manner the Most Reverend Innocent of Kamchatka-Aleutian and bless the image from the monastery. He is authorized to take with him the people he needs and those who want to serve with him. If we find someone willing and pleasing to him, we will not be stingy. And do not stop correspondence with me” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 228. No. 281). January 11. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to appoint a student who graduated from Bethany Seminary to the diaconal place both for good behavior and for agreeing with the widow of the former deacon on the price of the house: “There are those who are most worthy in terms of their degree of teaching. The election of the parishioners apparently came from compassion for the orphaned family; but a voluntary agreement on the price of a house can take place with someone else. Some hundred rubles that a student will give for a house will not amount to an important benefit for orphans; They do not give him an advantage over the most worthy, but represent the unseemly fact that the diaconate is, as it were, purchased for them; and they confuse the price by incorrectly raising it in case of resale of the house, for the seller usually takes into account the price paid” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 189. No. 9431). January 12. Letter to Archimandrite Ioannikiy (Kholuysky), abbot of the Chudov Monastery: “Please forward the image of the venerable Solovetsky miracle workers, Father Vicar, as a blessing to the desert dweller, about whom you know from Count Sergius Pavlovich Potemkin” 98 (Letters. 1888. P. 164). January 13. Resolution at the consistory decision on the request of a dismissed priest to issue him a passport to live in Moscow: “This decision is inconvenient to approve in its present form because the priest does not present a reason why he needs a passport, which none of the others like him requires; and because, having received an indefinite passport, he would be lost from the sight of his superiors, while in order to preserve the dignity of the priesthood, it is accepted as a rule that every priest belongs to a known department of the dean” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 189–190. No. 9432). Resolution on the dean’s report: “Explain to the archpriest that he does not have the right to give testimony about the priest who, along with him, is present in the spiritual Board; and retains the dean’s duty in relation to such only to inform the authorities in the event of an illegal act” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 190. No. 9433). January 14. Resolution on the report of the acting dean about the priest’s priestly service: “The report is either insincere or unreasonable. From the named service numbers it is clear that the Ardyntsevsky priest did not serve from December 6 to December 20, therefore, he missed two Sunday days without serving” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 190. No. 9434). Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal on the case of transferring a sexton to the place of a student of a religious school: “Praskovya Fedorova in two petitions and in a letter is called only the widow of a village sexton, and in the second petition she is shown lying on her deathbed for six months; but this is not written in truth, for it is hidden that she has a prosphora place in Moscow and uses benefits from the Trusteeship, and there is no report about her six-month stay on her deathbed. It is not in order and to the embarrassment that the groom was chosen for a minor, and her older sisters were bypassed. Therefore, the solicitation of the Davydovsky sexton should be left unsatisfied” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 190–191. No. 9435). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Probably, the accident I encountered yesterday will also be unexpected for you, Father Viceroy. Vladyka Novgorod asks me whether hierodeacons Dionysius and Jeremiah can be dismissed from our Lavra to his Lavra. I delayed the answer so as not to answer rashly, but I can hardly resist until I receive an answer from you. The Bishop says that petitions have already been received from them. Those who have gone so far will hardly be reliably reversed. I will say that I am not holding back, although they asked without a blessing. Tell them from me that I will not detain them, and while they are in my department, I fulfill my last duty to them, reminding them that they did not act according to the rules of monasticism and in vain took this on their conscience, because I would not detain them against their will, since I do not detain them even now, although I have the right to refuse precisely because they acted without a blessing” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 228-229. No. 282). January 15. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal about the funds presented to various churches and monasteries for commemoration: “Give a fourth share to the too unequal monastery, against a few people the clergy. And the monastics pray when the priest commemorates the dead. Moreover, the contribution to the commemoration is not like a fee; this is alms and charity to those who pray and those in need” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 191. No. 9436). January 18. Resolution on the parishioners’ petition with their commendable reviews of the priest’s diligent service: “This petition does not lead to the production of a case on it, firstly, because there is no certificate from the dean that would show the validity of the act and the authenticity of the signatures; secondly, because it is not explained why the priest Jacob should be reassured; for if he has been subjected to denunciation, then he himself must be justified according to the law, and petitioners cannot enter into someone else’s business without being asked by order of the authorities for testimony, or for a general search” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 192. No. 9437). Resolution on a consistory certificate about a hieromonk who makes mistakes when pronouncing the names of persons of the reigning House: “The consistory, having summoned hieromonk Barsanuphius, should be sent to the Petrovsky Monastery for a week to examine the correctness of the priesthood and the decency of treatment and actions” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 192. No. 9438). Resolution on the economist’s report on the issuance of salaries: “The issuance of salaries for order in the accounts should always be cleared in its year. To introduce this order from now on, do the following. In the current year's book, make a note that all expenses, as belonging to the previous year, are included in the accounts of this year. Why not introduce it as a result of this year” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 245. No. 9547). Letter from his mother: “The place on the Sands could not go to Porfiry, because it was given to the Master, the Archpriest, at the request of the orphaned family and all the parishioners; for he is the brother of the deceased. You can judge for yourself whether it was proper to show mercy to one, with injustice against others and against orphans. Mercy, which is contrary to justice, does not bring reliable fruit to those who grasp it. By this example, judge how difficult it is in general to satisfy requests, and do not judge me harshly when I cannot do what I want” (Letters. 1882. pp. 354–355. no. 411). January 20. Resolution on an extract from the journal of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy with the presentation of a report on the writings of spiritual books for December 1840: “About Easter, the censorship committee needs to consider whether it has the right to print it without the knowledge of the Holy Synod and not in a spiritual printing house. Details about the abominations of pagan morality, or better, immorality, which had a goal when Christianity still needed to overthrow paganism, what is the need and benefit of making it public now, in an age that is as squeamish as it is prone to temptation” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 249. No. 9557). From the memoirs of W. Palmer: “On January 20 [1841] at seven o’clock in the evening I was with Mr. Muravyov at the Metropolitan of Moscow. He said: "How happy is the church, which has preserved the liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom intact! What is your opinion of them? Your church, with these Thirty-nine Articles, could not fully accept either one or the other." I have already given him the Thirty-Nine Articles in Latin in Welshman's edition, and he is now reading them and disapproving of every point. “I have read the preface in Latin,” he said, “and I believe that it is more orthodox and in accordance with the spirit of the Eastern Church than the articles themselves, which it discusses. They contain many errors that we cannot accept” <...> He also said: “You are an excellent defender of a wrong cause.” And again: “I am amazed that in the West everyone is so absorbed in arguing about their own things that they ignore the most essential question, because of which the division into the Western and Eastern Churches took place - the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. On this score, the testimony of the Fathers of the Church is unequivocal." Mr. Muravyov suggested that I state my request for admission to communion in a letter to the Metropolitan, but he said: "The Church cannot make concessions to a private person. No person is allowed to receive communion except after an unconditional acceptance of all the teachings and rules of the church” (Palmer, p. 111). January 21. Resolution on the consistory ruling on the issuance of money to a peasant for work in the church: “Consideration and judgment on the merits of disputed documents and on the reliability of disputed accounts belongs to the secular court, and according to § 112 of the consistory charter, only cases at the request of secular persons and on inducing clergy to pay undisputed debts belong to the spiritual court. Therefore, let the petitioner prove his right in a secular court, where one part of the claim has already been dealt with” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 193. No. 9439). January 24. Resolution on the dean’s report on the state of the churches of his department for the second half of 1840: “In the statement of the village of Oboldina, where the priest should have been written, an empty space was left. How could the dean not guess that it would be more decent, and more satisfactory for the authorities, to indicate from what time the place was idle and was abolished by death or removal somewhere” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 193. No. 9440). Resolution on the petition of the priest and parishioners for the appointment of the priest’s widow to a prosphora place: “Since it was His Imperial Majesty’s pleasure to order that I should be allowed to arrange the position of the priestly daughter of the maiden Evdokia Smirnova and between the means of arranging her appointment to a prosphora place in Moscow is indicated, the Consistory will appoint her to this place, whether she wishes.” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 193. No. 9441). January 25. Resolution on the report of the Kolomna Spiritual Board on ten unresolved cases: “On the case, judgmental speeches were selected from such persons who live in the vicinity of the Spiritual Board. Slowness is unexcusable: for whether it came from touching the matter, then the person present, in whose part the matter or the spiritual Board itself consists, should have been conveyed to motivate the slow one” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 193–194. No. 9442). Resolution on the dean’s report about incorrect entries in the clergy registers about the amount of church land: “The dean deserved approval for monitoring the integrity of church property and condemnation for his willful communication with the bailiff in this matter without the knowledge of his superiors” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 194. No. 9443). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On January 25 I was with Vladyka. At first I thanked Vladyka for leaving me in St. Petersburg for a period of time, and not sending me to Vyatka. Vladyka was pleased with my gratitude. Then Vladyka himself began to tell me: "The Emperor instructed the Holy Synod to examine the bas-reliefs (convex sculpted images) that will be cast on the gates of St. Isaac's Cathedral. We visited, examined, made several comments. Then we were in the cathedral itself. A dark building and not figured. This is a box: the columns seem to be stuck to the cathedral: take them away, the cathedral will be stand. The columns decorate the church when they are needed, when the building collapses when they are taken away. And why did they call the Synod when everything was already built?” (I’ll tell you my thoughts): a) I haven’t seen the doors of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, therefore, I don’t know their bas-reliefs. But I saw the bas-reliefs on the doors of the Kazan Cathedral: there are dogs there, there are all the scandals of the animal aesthetics of European artists. b) At St. Isaac's Cathedral, bronze cast colossal Angels and Saints were all cast according to Western European drawings, the Angels were given Catholic surplices and oraries. In the cornices, entire stories from the Bible and Church History are cast in bronze (black) in colossal sizes and with that scattered and contorted faces that elegant Europe loves. But I came to the Vladyka for a matter: the Holy Synod entrusted the four of us 1) me, 2) Archimandrite John, Rector of Kharkov, in rotation, 3) Fr. Joasaph, Bachelor S.P.B. Academy and 4) Priest Mikhail Izmailovich Theologian, Bachelor and Teacher of Law at the School of Law, review 17 Notes from 17 Seminaries, in all branches of Theology. The notes were written by theology teachers. We are instructed to consider them on the assumption: either to listen to our approval of one or two of them; or receive from us the best of all of them; or get our own work. The Synod appointed me Chairman of this Committee. In two meetings, I barely had time to read the paper of the Spiritual Educational Administration, in which the Notes were sent to us and in which the determination of the Holy Synod was set out on entrusting us with the consideration of these Notes. Having decided nothing, the Committee forced me to introduce myself to Metropolitan Philaret, asking for various instructions. I had the humility (i.e., stupidity) to obey, and here is my conversation with the Lord: Me: “The Committee considers it necessary, before its work, to have a general overview of all the sciences in the Seminaries, with which we would already be guided in our judgments about the seventeen Abstracts sent for our consideration.” Vladyka: “What is the Committee for? What will it do? We elected you to help us; and you, having done nothing, are returning the whole matter to us again. There is no intelligence or ingenuity here. If the Committee itself bothered to compile such a review and submit it to the discretion of the Synod, it would look like a deed.” Me: “The committee says that there is no direct indication of this in the rules given to us.” Vladyka: “But there is no direct or crooked instruction to shift your business to the Synod; the Synod did not ask you to ask him and give him your requests, to present your demands.” (I said almost the same thing to the Committee - they didn’t listen to me.) Me: “The writers of Notes, pointing to manuals and manuals, do not evaluate what is indicated; wouldn’t it be allowed, for example, for the Committee to do this by taking two writers?” Vladyka: “That would be good.” (My thought.) Vladyka let me go, but he was merciful and allowed me to come to him at 5 o’clock in the evening” (Kazantsev. pp. 76–77). January 26. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal about the good behavior of a banned priest according to the hieromonk’s report: “As a banned priest performs obedience with mediocre diligence, he deserves little. Out of compassion for his long-term difficult situation and in the hope of God’s mercy, the Consistory’s decision to allow him to serve in the priesthood is allowed to be carried out on the day of Holy Easter, having explained it to him through the rector on that day” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 194. No. 9444). Letter to A.N. Olenin: “I am pleased to put my time at Your Excellency’s disposal, today from half past eleven to two o’clock in the afternoon, and if necessary, and beyond; and I will expect you at this hour, earlier or later, as is convenient for you” (PO. 1869. Book 1. No. 3. P. 371). January 27. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I thank your Eminence for the good news. But sometimes you express things that are closer to me to know, for example, about the vacation of Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich, and you are silent about things that are closer to you to know, for example, whether he has any hope of saving the life of his wife 99 . Now I can learn about this from Count Nikolai Alexandrovich, who arrived yesterday, but whom I have not yet seen 100. Tell the consistory that it is time to present the case [about] the house church of Princess Tamara and the hostel with her. What are the Novospassky archimandrite and the synodal office doing? They want to steal monks from the Lavra?.. Wouldn’t it be bad to have a little respect for the Lavra, which, by imperial decree, has the right to take monks from monasteries wherever it wants; and therefore is all the less obliged to yield them to the monasteries that steal from her” (Letters. 1887. P. 54). January 30. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “I visited him on the 30th of January. There were again speeches about our Committee. The Bishop spoke at some length about how he was a Teacher (Greek and Hebrew) in the Lavra of St. Sergius; what kind of communication and friendship they had with each other. He regretted that now there is no such communication between Teachers, “which is why they are awkward, one-sided, stubborn.” He hinted “about affection” on the one hand, and “about immaturity” on the other. I didn’t understand this then, but now I have no doubt that this Vladyka described, among other things, our Committee, not excluding myself. We started talking about our Censorship Committees. I said: “They have a lot to do.” The Bishop picked up: “On the contrary, very little.” Here Vladyka expressed displeasure at the Censorship Committee, which decided to correct and even supplement some article by Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov. The Committee deserves reproach, but what should it do when there is a rule obliging it to do this? I would have thought long ago to throw out this ridiculous rule from the Charter of Censorship. Vladyka read a little of the conversation of St. Gregory of Nisskago, it seems on Epiphany in translation, in the Christian Reading: "A real father is talking with his children. There is no boasting, no pretension: the father is talking with his children. And the situation is instructive: he is speaking from the Bishop's pulpit, which is in the middle of the church, the people are around him. As if he is speaking here in Russia, in our time." There was a speech about St. Chrysostom. The Bishop does not praise him everywhere: “He is long-winded; he drawls his speech; he looks shallowly; he allows vulgarity; he is carried away by benefits to the point of excess.” I did not dare to contradict, but I did not agree. On the contrary, I consider St. Chrysostom to be a teacher among teachers; his views are law for me. I think that this great teacher was dishonored by Russian translators by using vulgar, vulgar language (especially in the S.P.B. Academy). They talked about Catholics, about their Theologies, about the Sacraments, as Catholics understand. The Bishop deeply condemned the Catholics, especially a) for wickedness, b) for mixing their personalities with the sacraments of God, c) for earthly views and in Divine services, d) for violence to consciences and tyranny over them, e) for alienation from the Universal Church, f) for hatred against the Orthodox” (Kazantsev, pp. 78–79). January 31st. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on the dismissal of the Lavra hierodeacon to the monastery for a full-time hierodeaconal vacancy: “Hierodeacon Melchizedek, in accordance with the demand, be dismissed. And since he, contrary to the monastic vow, the paternal rules and the Spiritual Regulations, acted without the blessing of his superiors, on the sly, then his approval in the rules of obedience should be left to the authorities to whom he comes. Report this to the office of the Holy Synod” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 245–246. No. 9548). February 3. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal about the girl’s desire to take a prosphora place at the church of the Vagankovskoye cemetery: “As there is no idle prosphora place at the Vagankovskoye cemetery, and therefore it would be inconvenient to assign a girl there... that she was previously found guilty in a court case of slandering the local priest, then let her choose one of the available prosphora vacancies.” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 195. No. 9445). No later than February 3 101. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “G. H.A. 102 brought from Moscow a good review of the diocesan clergy there” (Letters. 1887. P. 55). February 6. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on permission to dismiss the Lavra monk for three months for the worship of St. The miraculous Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God and St. relics: “Like the Lavra, due to the numerous obediences, requires people who are persistent in their work; and therefore it is inconvenient to dismiss from it for long periods; and since the request for dismissal for a long period hints at a desire to look for another place, then transfer the monk... to the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery and for this purpose report to the consistory this resolution and his service record. Either he will be peaceful there on the spot, or, if he wants to travel from there, it may be more convenient to be dismissed from there” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 246. No. 9549). Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on permission to dismiss the Lavra hieromonk and hierodeacon, according to their vows, on pilgrimage to monasteries: “On one day, three petitions for dismissal for three months are considered. Obviously, such numerous and long vacations are inconvenient for the Lavra. Seraphim, as the eldest, should be given preferential attention and dismissed upon request. And transfer Flavian to the Ugreshsky monastery and report this to the consistory with his service record attached. If anyone wants to travel, it will be more convenient to fire him from there. The movement of wandering lovers is also necessary in order to provide a place for others worthy of attention who wish to join the Lavra, from whom petitions have now begun to be considered” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 246. No. 9550). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “With great consolation, I received the blessing of the Nyamets monastery and thank the mediator Hierodeacon Macarius. Write to me what the Nyametsky Elder 103 says about prayer, and teach me, although it is not too early. I spoke about prayer on the occasion of the scarcity of bread in the Holy Synod, and they demanded a certificate of the order that was made in 1833 or 1834, but the certificate was not provided, and the matter remained until Lent. I am thinking about offering universal prayer before sowing for this year, but I doubt that this and thanksgiving after the harvest will be accepted as a general rule forever. They will object that this did not happen before” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 231. No. 283). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Taking heed to ourselves, we must not without attention look at the many around us who are suffering from poverty and others in the righteous destinies of God’s visitation. They should encourage others to be patient, others to correct, others to do good, and especially to those who have dedicated themselves to God to deepen their prayers for our sins and for people’s ignorance. For this reason, now, especially, brethren, I am convinced to offer to your good zeal what at another time would have been decent and even proper for our monastery - to establish on Sundays a congregational prayer singing to the Most Holy Trinity and our Reverend Father Sergius. If this thought meets with your not only obedience, but also, what is even better, with voluntary zeal, then may this sacrifice be favorable before God, through the prayers of His Pleasant” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 232–233. No. 284). February 8. Resolution on the petition of the priest and the elder for permission to set up a warm chapel and iconostasis in the church refectory: “The drawing I signed is better than the other. But it would be better to put a cross above the iconostasis, albeit in a small form. In general, act with caution in execution so that the arrangement is consistent with decency and convenience. For example, the north door in the picture is narrow; and if it cannot be made wider, then it is better to put an image in its place, and arrange it on the northern side of the aisle” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 195. No. 9446). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “You demand from me an admonition to Novospassky, but you yourself nominated him for an award for the Simonovsky Construction Committee, in which he was little, did nothing and only complicated others with his absence or doubts. Wouldn’t it be better to accept an admonition from someone from whom abundant mercy was shown?” (Letters. 1887. P. 55). February 9. Letter from N.N.: “To your question: why was the so-called nomad established at the eve of the Nativity of Christ? The Church Charter does not provide a specific answer; but your curiosity about useful things can be satisfied by considerations. An example of fasting before the Nativity of Christ is fasting before Easter. The example of Rozhdestvensky’s nomad is Great Saturday. The extended fast of Great Saturday, coupled with the Great Heel, is the exact fulfillment of the words of the Lord: when the bridegroom is taken away from the sons of the bride, then they fast in those days. Moreover, the extended fast of the pre-holiday Day is useful in order to enter into the spiritual triumph of the holiday, in the exaltation of the spirit, and not in the burden of the flesh. For this last reason, the day before the Nativity of Christ is arranged according to the day of the Great Saturday, all the more opportunely because on both days, in ancient times, many were baptized, and diligent prayer and general fasting of the church were beneficial for them; and the Divine service, spread by the sacrament of baptism, filled up the days so much that the time for eating therefore fell in the evening. Our ancestors, in order to continue the fast of the nomad even when the Divine service ended quite early, piously remembered the star, the harbinger of the Nativity of Christ, and uttered the rule: do not eat until the star appears” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 7. P. 136. - Materials). February 10. Resolution on the consistory determination on the duty of parish priests to report on all newly born children from soldiers or soldiers’ daughters: “To answer that the required determination cannot be given, firstly, because other Zemstvo Courts do not find this necessary; secondly, because new duties can be imposed on priests only by order of the highest authorities; thirdly, because when it comes to illegitimate babies, so that they are not in danger of dying without baptism, it is necessary that those who gave birth turn to the priests with a power of attorney, without fear of denunciation and announcement” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 195–196. No. 9447). February 12. Report to the Holy Synod about the women’s hostel at the Odigitrievskaya Trinity Church in the Odigitrievo estate: “Those in the hostel lead a decent life for Christians, for every four fasts a year they begin the holy day. Christ’s Mysteries, and others, more often, and those in the community, respond that God’s providence patronizes their intention, sending means for the fulfillment of this, and in fact there is already a certain capital that ensures the maintenance of the church and its priest and cleric” (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book 5. P. 87. - Materials). Resolution on the consistory ruling on the imposition of penance for fornication: “The case mentions the birth of an illegitimate son, without indicating the time or whether he is in the arms of his mother. Therefore, to fulfill this determination, whether the sinner does not have a young son in her arms, and, moreover, she will be in the monastery for three months; and if there is an obligation to take care of the baby, then correct all penance at the place of residence under the supervision of the spiritual father” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 196. No. 9448). Resolution on the testimony given in the presence of the Consistory by the girl that although the prosphora place at the church at the Vagankovskoye cemetery was occupied, she promised to serve until her death in this church: “Explain to the girl Smirnova the reasons shown in my resolution on the 3rd day of this month why it is impossible to assign her to the Vagankovskoye cemetery As from one petition for a prosphora place to the Gavrilo-Arkhangelsk Church it is clear that she has a church apartment for prosphora, then this circumstance should be announced to the girl Smirnova as giving her the convenience of taking this place, because she will not be obliged to buy a house, as in other places; for even at the Vagankovsky cemetery the prosphora lives in its own house; notify the Synodal Chief Prosecutor about this” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 196. No. 9449). February 13. Resolution on the deacon’s request to transfer him to the place of a priest: “The time of Lent mainly requires that there be available priests in the places, and this encourages us to speed up production in every possible way” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 196–197. No. 9450). Resolution on the petition of a theological seminary student to appoint him to a deacon’s place: “This place is occupied by a teacher. And since a deacon’s place is now being opened at the Preobrazhenskaya Church, which is in Pushkari, the church, then, if the petitioner wishes and there are no obstacles, the Eminence has to ordain him to this place” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 197. No. 9451). Resolution on the dean’s report: “Assumption, that at Mogiltsy, the church priest, clergy confessor, Iakov Belokurov, in respect of honest behavior and the special activity rendered in the past year in church teachings, we bless the use of a legguard in priestly services. The Eminence will lay it down" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 197. No. 9452). Letter 104 to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “The priest of Zagorsk is pitiful; but partly from myself. After sitting idle and without bread for a month, he finally decided to write a private letter to me, instead of reporting on the first day what happened and what he wanted. And he wrote the letter in such a way that it is inconvenient to use it; and in it he did not say what he wanted. But since he got into a difficult situation for obedience, it is necessary to calm him down, whether he will return” (Letters. 1887. P. 56). February 16. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to transfer the priest to a free place in their church: “This petition cannot be granted... because the priest... having been appointed for the past year to give weekly catechetical teachings by decree of the Holy Synod, did not fulfill this duty as he should, and spoke only sixteen teachings instead of fifty; therefore it deserves not encouragement, but punishment” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 197–198. No. 9453). Resolution on the petition of the treasurer of the Novoglutvinsky monastery to transfer him to the brethren of the Spaso-Androniyev Monastery: “The consent of the Novoglutvinsky abbot is not visible. And it does not happen that the abbot asks for a rector’s position in another monastery or the treasurer of the treasury” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 198. No. 9454). February 17. Resolution on the petition of the priest and parishioners of the Edinoverie church for the appointment of a clergyman to the sacristan position in this church: “As in this church a deacon is prohibited from serving in the priesthood: isn’t it more useful to elect him to the deacon, and leave the banned one in the clergy vacancy?” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 198. No. 9455). February 18. Resolution on the consistory ruling that the banned deacon does not help his mother and sister, who live in poverty: “The deacon, for deceit before his superiors and for neglect of his mother, which is indecent for a son, shall be given three hundred bows as a penance in the Verei Cathedral during three services. Encourage him to give his mother sufficient support with support at home or with an allowance at her place of residence, and after six months, what he does, find out from her and convey it” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 198–199. No. 9456). Resolution on a consistory decision with a request to send to the guardians the money given by the priest for the house of his predecessor: “It is regrettable to see the matter remaining in the dark, while those bickering on both sides are priests. Money withheld from a true debt, not out of conscience, but only on an ordered pretext, will not amount to the well-being of orphans; and the deprivation of this money will not reduce their well-being under the protection of the Father of the orphans and the Judge of widows. Whether the controversial 500 rubles will become an unrighteous gain for orphans, it will be poverty for them, and since the cause of the unjust gain (is there such a thing) will be the guardians, then there will be an answer to them before the righteousness of God. On the other hand, did it somehow happen, although there is no evidence of this in the case, that the subscription is not valid and monetary and any information or signs would make this probable: then the priest... It’s better to lose what’s yours than to try to accept something dubious, especially from the hands of orphans. In a word: both sides are advised to sort out the matter and act not only on paper and according to forms, but most of all according to the priestly conscience” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 199–200. No. 9457). February 21. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Thank you, Father Viceroy, for the good news about your first week of Lent; and I thank the brethren for the peaceful acceptance of my proposal for prayer. May the Lord arrange everything for the salvation of us and everyone” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 233. No. 285). February 24. Resolution on a collective petition with sisters’ complaints about insults and oppression from the abbess: “The petitioners acted unlawfully... in that in the case of insults from the abbess, each did not complain about her own insult, but formed a crowd. What was declared to the spiritual father does not justify them; for the spiritual father could only exhort them, but could not inform the authorities, preserving the secret of confession. The Reverend will call the petitioners personally and ask each about her displeasures so that one does not interfere with the displeasures of the other; then he will call the abbess and listen to her explanation; then he will explain it to each person in whom the wrong is found and encourage him to ask for forgiveness, and advise the other party to give forgiveness and thus overcome the disagreement peacefully, with a mutual promise to henceforth protect the general peace with meek and peaceful actions. If the peaceful promise does not achieve the desired success, then the Reverend will submit this petition to the consistory for legal consideration. Meanwhile, even in this last case, he will make a special admonition to both the abbess and the petitioners, so that, leaving this matter to the justice of the authorities, for the sake of the Lord’s commandment, which commands us to love our enemies and forgive everyone, they put aside hostile embarrassment and ask each other for Christian forgiveness, in order to be able to approach the Holy Mysteries without condemnation” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 200–201. No. 9458). February 27. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “...won’t your Eminence be bored listening to the strife of the Alekseevsky Monastery? But what to do? We must use everything possible to avert the need for legal proceedings” (Letters. 1887. P. 57). March 2. Resolution on the priest’s request to transfer him to another church due to complaints from parishioners: “The priest is approved less than others, but there is no election. Therefore it is inconvenient to translate. Through the dean, give him advice so that he can lead parishioners away from superstitions with reasonable and edifying words, and not with complaints and judgment; and gained trust in his word through a pious and exemplary life” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 201–202. No. 9459). Resolution on a nobleman’s petition for a speedy resolution of a divorce case: “A petition for two things: 1) that the petitioner, who, as he writes, has a wife, is allowed to enter into a new marriage, according to the spiritual law, which one is not explained, after five years; what this chronology means is also not explained; 2) so that a case already in progress can be resolved according to the laws. Refuse the first; and according to the second Consistory, satisfy the petitioner immediately” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 202. No. 9460). March 3. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal on the issuance of a copy of decisive determinations: “As in 1880, Article X of Volume of the Code of Laws ordered that copies of decisions on private or reference determinations be given only upon petitions, then, upon receipt of a petition, a copy of a private petition according to a private determination should be issued on January 15; and do not issue copies of the sales list; for there is no legal basis for this” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 202. No. 9461). March 4th. Letter to the Adjutant General Count A. H. Benckendorf 105: “As for my participation in the affairs of the prison trustee society, to which you kindly draw attention, - not being able to attribute any significance to it, I can only say that in the activities of the Moscow branch, while I am in Moscow, I willingly take whatever part I can, which is comforting for me due to the good-natured zeal of the members for the cause of philanthropy. The St. Petersburg committee did not use me for several years, and I only know about its actions what the reports provide. In a matter so consistent with the spirit of Christian love for mankind, continued under the leadership of your lordship, to take part, if possible, as a pleasant duty” (DC. 1879. Part 2. No. 5. P. 124). March 5th. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “...why are we calling for peace? Why does the Lord Himself command to call Him? Without a doubt, either because we have a deficiency in it, or we possess it imperfectly, or we do not have the safety of breaking and losing it, This happens with everyone in time: the unchangeable, inviolable, safe belongs to eternity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the states of the soul change, and sometimes in such a way that it is not difficult to give oneself an account of the reasons for the change that has occurred. Not only natural states pass from one type to another, but also grace-filled ones ascend according to the gift of God and descend according to God’s dispensation, so that man may humble himself” (Letters to Abbess Mary. P. 55. No. 39). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On March 5, I visited Metropolitan Philaret in the evening. I went in to him; he is alone. Cheerful. Metropolitan: “Sit down, and I’ll go.” (Walks). I stood aside. Metropolitan: “Are you healthy?” Me: “Thank God, I’m healthy.” Metropolitan: “What are you doing now?” Me: “I read my own books, whichever ones I have.” Metropolitan: “Which one?” Me: "Rosenmiller's interpretation of the prophet Zechariah. And after St. Jerome the same." Metropolitan: “This, I think, is the same as salty and sweet. Does Rosenmiller believe that the last chapters were written by the same prophet Zechariah?” Afterwards the Metropolitan asked: “Do you read magazines?” Me: “No.” Metropolitan: “Criticize me: I will read to you. Just don’t divulge what you hear.” I took three sheets of mail and started reading. This is a criticism of the writing of one Professor of Moscow University (Krylov?), who is trying to prove that canonical church law should be taught at the University by Professors of Legal Sciences and should constitute only a special branch in the science of general Legal Law. The Metropolitan sharply and decisively denies this need and right; leaves church law to the pulpit of the church teacher. Here the Vladyka strongly touches on the thoughts of the writer himself, who, although apparently wrote with restraint and caution, did not escape the subtle and insightful observation of the Vladyka. Metropolitan: “Well, that’s how they interpret it now. Look, they’ll be angry when they read what I wrote. Peace, peace, but the Church never ceases to be militant.” Then Vladyka called. Clerk Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky enters. The Bishop hands him an envelope. Gives sealing wax and a seal. He ordered it to be printed immediately, and when everything was done, he said: “To the Minister of Education.” (Then there was Uvarov.) A Moscow merchant came. He talked about the famine: in Moscow people were dying of hunger. About bankruptcies in the merchant class: one manufacturer had production worth 5,600,000 rubles and fell; the other for 1,500,000 rubles, and also fell. Then he sadly told how he himself, having 300,000 rubles in circulation, lost 200,000 rubles in eight months, catering to the tears of his mother, the reproaches of his wife, from his dissolute son-in-law and the accidental cessation of the fashion of wearing combs (women's). Then the Jew entered, Professor S.P.B. Academy, Levison. There are many interesting speeches about the Bible and from the Bible: a) About the Prophet Jonah from Moses, b) about the ark hidden by Jeremiah, c) about the weeks of Daniel, d) about the Talmud, e) about German Jews, f) about the Hebrew text of the Bible, g) about the translation of the Seventy, h) About the Prophet Zechariah. The Bishop pointed Levison to Psalm 144 (Heb. 145), written in Hebrew according to the alphabet, and to the lost verse between 12 and 13, which should have begun with the letter nun. Meanwhile, the seventy have this verse: “The Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his deeds.” Levison confessed to the loss of the verse and this is what he said in explanation: “After the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews throughout the world, when everything ceased, including Jewish worship itself, our fathers, as if taking revenge on God or convicting Him of being unfaithful to His promises, erased this verse from the Bible.” So evil and ignorant are the Jewish interpreters of the Bible. Finally, Adjutant General Nikolai Petrovich Novosiltsev arrived. The Lord let me go” (Kazantsev. pp. 81–82). March 7. Resolution on the request of the widow of a priest to provide the priestly place of the deceased to her brother, a seminary student: “According to the existing rules, a priestly place in favor of a student can be vacant for no more than a year, and Skvortsov must study for more than a year, and it is not quite known with what hope” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 202–203. No. 9462). March 8. Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilyovsky): “Did the book about the faith of the Slavs 106, translated from Polish, originally everywhere – eastern, sent as a gift to the Academy by the will of Prince Warsaw, reach the Academy, and did you notify A.I. Karasevsky about the receipt, as I wrote?” (Additions. 1884. Part 33. Book 1. P. 326. No. 21). March 9. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod that the economy hieromonk Innokenty 107 was appointed rector of the second-class Luzhetsky monastery with his elevation to the rank of archimandrite: “Upon announcement and oath, submit for proceedings when appointed” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 254–255. No. 9570). March 10. Resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra on permission for the hierodeacon... and monk... who asked to go on pilgrimage to monasteries for three months to stay in the Lavra: “Leave in the Lavra with the teaching of advice, so that they do not indulge in the false movement of thoughts and learn to approach God with faith, love, hope, humility, patience, putting aside self-indulgence, through which they can find their peace from yourself, without following him far” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 246–247. No. 9551). March 13. Resolution on the priest’s petition to approve the priestly place for the granddaughter of the deceased priest, in accordance with the desire expressed by him during his lifetime: “The priestly place is not property that could be denied to the granddaughter. This frivolous request should be left without respect. Tell the person correcting the position of dean that he should have brought some sense into the petitioner, and not interfere in an illegal matter” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 203. No. 9463). March 15. Resolution on the report of the Consistory with the testimony of the priest’s daughter that she did not agree to take the free prosphora places offered to her, but wanted to have a place at the post office church: “There was a prosphora; when the vacancy opened, several petitioners appeared; one petition was with the approval of the parishioners; The church has a parish in addition to the post office. Consequently, it is clear that there is a place and content for prosphora in the Church of St. Gabriel-Arkhangelsk” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 203. No. 9464). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): Filaret asked me: “How old are you today as a monk?” Me: “Twelve.” “Filaret: “And yesterday I was twenty-two years old, since I am a Member of the Synod.” The Bishop, releasing me, blessed me with two books: “The Rule of Prayer to the Holy Spirit”; “Conversations of Philaret, Metropolitan of Kiev” (Kazantsev. P. 84). March 16. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On March 16, on the 5th Sunday of Lent, I served in the Trinity Metochion. The Metropolitan stood and prayed. Yesterday, after the all-night vigil, when he was told that I wanted to serve tomorrow, Vladyka called me to him and asked: “Why do I want to serve here tomorrow?” I answered: “Because on Sunday I was tonsured a monk at the Trinity Lavra.” Vladyka: “Well, serve with my people, but it seems I can’t.” After mass, Vladyka called to him. The speeches were about His Grace Kamenets-Podolsky, Kirill, who became seriously ill. The Emperor sent His Eminence Kirill a thousand rubles for treatment, and the chief Doctor of the Court, Arendt. His Eminence Kirill retains urine. Metropolitan Philaret, on this occasion, told me about a similar incident with Metropolitan Ambrose of St. Petersburg: "Metropolitan Ambrose was at the girls' exam at the Smolny Institute. He had lunch there. He was tormented by a small need. He comes home; the urine does not come out. The Metropolitan called me (Philaret, who was then the rector of the Academy or still a Bachelor) to himself. I enter. The Bishop, in full ceremonial attire, sits on the sofa. His face is fiery: his eyes are blazing. He says: “O. Filaret: go to the Trinity Cathedral and look there, on the right side at the entrance, the place for my grave.” Filaret: “Lord! Let me invite the Doctor: maybe he will help.” Ambrose agreed. The Doctor was invited. The urine was released: the Metropolitan lived for a long time." Filaret immediately said that he also signed the register of diamond items that were the property of Metropolitan Ambrose. From this it is clear that Philaret was the closest person to Metropolitan Ambrose. Filaret, in my presence, always remembers Metropolitan Ambrose with filial and deepest respect" (Kazantsev. P. 83). From the memoirs of the cell attendant of Archbishop Kirill (Bogoslovsky-Platonov): “To complete the suffering of the deceased... came extreme poverty; there was nothing to buy low-value medicine at the pharmacy. At this time, Metropolitan Philaret visited the sick man and learned that Kirill was deprived of all means to support himself in his illness. The Metropolitan asked: did Kirill leave any things or money in Kamenets? They answered him that, apart from the necessary clothes and books, there was nothing left in Kamenets, and here with the Eminence there were no more than six cassocks and the same number of cassocks, already worn and inexpensive material, several pairs of underwear and one fur coat. This, through Metropolitan Philaret, was brought to the attention of the Highest. Emperor Nicholas I of blessed memory, having learned about Cyril’s illness, according to the report of Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, Count Protasov, ordered the issuance of five thousand banknotes as a benefit to the patient, invited the court doctor Arendt to help him and ordered him to express his regret to the patient, and through the Metropolitan, according to the assurance of his cell, he sent a diamond cross, which the Right Reverend, pressing tightly to his chest, ordered to be hidden” (Belyaev. A. Archbishop of Kamenets-Podolsk and Bratslavsky Kirill. M., 1888. pp. 62–63). March 17. Resolution on the priest's report that above the entrance to the Assumption Church there is an image of the Cyprus Mother of God, which supposedly has healing powers. Having learned about this, residents of neighboring villages come to venerate this icon and ask the clergy to serve prayers: “Instruct the dean to provide me with a detailed description of the icon, what size it is, what kind of writing it is, is it skillful, is it ancient, is anything known about its origin, and how long has it been standing over the church doors. Order the icon to be placed in the church in a decent place. It is not forbidden to perform a prayer before her, but strictly confirm to the local priest and clergy, so that they beware of any unfair disclosures” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 203–204. No. 9465). Resolution on an extract from the journal of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy with the presentation of a report on the writings of spiritual books for January and February 1841: “Manuscript No. 6 contains praise for a schismatic who offended the Orthodox and generated complaints. The Committee should not have approved this speech without the knowledge of the diocesan authorities, especially since it was spoken by a person who, according to church rules, does not have the right to speak in the Moscow diocese, unless with special condescension and permission. “The committee is advised to be more careful and ward off temptations, and not favor them” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 249. No. 9558). March 19. Resolution on the petition of a former professor of the Bethany Theological Seminary asking for a blessing to enter monasticism: “Such a vague petition is allowed only from those in positions in the school service. And since the applicant is not in the service, he can and must apply to become a monk according to the established procedure, indicating the monastery he wishes to enter and with the consent of the abbot” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 204. No. 9466). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I remember I wrote to you, Father Vicar, to tell Hierodeacons Jeremiah and Dionysius that they did not act according to monastic rules by asking to go to another place without a blessing. You did not notify me whether this was said with what consequence, but I needed to know, because the matter is not over and requires further consideration. My proposal about prayer before sowing was cut off and limited only to places where the government announced a crop failure. It’s wonderful that we are afraid to frighten each other through prayer!” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 233, 236. No. 286). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “I visited Metropolitan Philaret on March 19 to ask: “Would he allow him to come here, to the ill Vladyka of Kamenets-Podolsk, his nephew, the Bachelor (now Archbishop of Kostroma)?” Philaret answered: "a) It's too late. His Eminence Kirill is at the last hour; b) it is inconvenient, because there is a muddy road; c) it is unknown whether this will be a consolation for the sick person (he might think that his nephew has come for the inheritance); d) the Eminence Kirill himself does not consider his position dangerous; e) as for the inheritance, it will be preserved. And what does he have when they have nothing to thank the Doctor with?" The Bishop wonders why His Eminence Kirill has so many illnesses, and they are so complex for him: “It seems that he is a completely abstinent person. In his youth, when he studied, he was at least somewhat frail, but also fresh and alive. His life is calm. He has no strong passions. I don’t know any amazing adventures with him” (Kazantsev. P. 84). Martha. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal about the priest’s desire to return to the place of his former ministry: “This matter is filled with circumstances that could not be expected. Priest Zagorsky, having encountered unforeseen circumstances and having the intention of returning to Moscow, has not even yet made an official representation about this to his superiors. Having found in Poltava occupied the place to which he was appointed by the decree of the Holy Synod, and a vacancy at the cathedral after the person who filled the place assigned to the priest of Zagorsk by the Holy Synod, he, as far as is known, did not take advantage of the content either in the place assigned to him by the Holy Synod, or in the vacancy mentioned above, which would have been required by philanthropy alone, if the importance of the decree of the Holy Synod had not required... Announce, so that he, deciding to stay in the Moscow diocese, informs his superiors about himself and his circumstances” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 204–205. No. 9467). Resolution on the consistory decision on the complaint of a collegiate assessor against the priest: “The priest... now note that he acted unreasonably and brought doubt upon himself when he soughtly entered the house and entered into a written transaction with her to the informer, who criticized his behavior and service. Whether he is innocent, he should have calmly awaited the discovery of his innocence in the case. It was a Christian duty not to be hostile to the informer in the heart and not to seek revenge when she was exposed in the case of slander. This latter should have been done simply out of priestly conscience, and not out of a written obligation” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 205–206. No. 9468). Resolution on the petition of the daughter of a deceased priest: “The vow that the petitioner ascribes to herself does not give the authorities the right to innocently deprive the Vagankovskaya prosfirna of his place. If the petitioner finds it difficult to buy the house of Devyatinskaya or Pautinkovskaya prosphyrnya, the same difficulty would be met innocently by Vagankovskaya prosfirnya. Moreover, regarding the imaginary vow, the petitioner herself denounces herself in a lie: because before she said that she made a vow to serve precisely at the Vagankovsky cemetery, and now she writes that if I am appointed somewhere in Moscow as an orphan, I will serve at that church until my grave. In addition to the previous report, I will report to the Holy Synod about this, with a copy of this petition attached” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 206–207. No. 9469). Resolution on a letter from the Chamberlain of the Court of His Imperial Majesty with the donation of three manuscripts to the academic or Lavra library: “The legend of the siege of the Sergius Monastery, as an antiquity that actually relates to the Lavra, should be added to the Lavra library, where it may also be useful in resuming the publication of this book from the Lavra” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 255. No. 9571). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “The complaint of the Orthodox has reached me, Your Eminence, that the schismatic was solemnly praised at the opening of a girls’ school, in the speech of Archimandrite Feofan, published in No. 6 of the Moscow Gazette. Since this temptation happened in our diocese, we must stop the need. And how do you know that in the diocese even an outside bishop cannot preach, the fulfillment of which you see from experience in St. Petersburg, since this is based on the 20th rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council; If, moreover, the archimandrite must obey this rule, if the diocesan authorities will not release him from the force of this rule out of condescension, then I need to know whether you have given permission to the Don Archimandrite to pronounce and print the above-mentioned speech” (Letters. 1887. pp. 57–58). March 21. From the memoirs of W. Palmer: “Today, March 21, before I fell ill, Mr. Muravyov and I visited the Metropolitan of Moscow, and I gave him my letter, which mentioned the message of Dr. Routh, which, as I understood, was presented to the Synod. Since I did not receive an answer to the request for admission to communion contained in it and was now going to the Metropolitan’s diocese, and he, as a member of the Synod, was familiar with Dr. Routh’s message, I considered it necessary to present this request to him personally. The Metropolitan said that he would answer me in writing, but added that the essence of the answer must already be clear to me from our past interviews... which is very worthy of note, that our churches did not openly break off relations, but are silent in each other’s reasoning. However, he added, the accepted rules allow admitting to the sacrament only those who recognize without exception everything that relates to faith, as well as deanery and rituals, for here they act, mindful of the division of churches, and it is not in his power to change anything, so all that remains is to transfer the matter to the Synod” (Palmer, p. 112). March 22. Resolution at the consistory decision on sending a deacon to a monastery for a month with a ban on priestly service for drunkenness and behavior inappropriate to his rank: “It is advisable to have mercy on the deacon. But it is impossible to leave him at the cathedral, because in the leading church of the city, which has a large clergy, it would be shameful to see in the first place among the deacons a man who was seen lying drunk in the mud" (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 207. No. 9470). March 24. Resolution regarding the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov, to satisfy the request of a titular adviser serving in the department of the Ministry of Justice... to issue him a certificate of his father’s death from the Moscow Ecclesiastical Consistory: “As there is no Demidov cemetery in Moscow, and the deceased are registered not according to the cemetery, but according to the parish churches where they died; a conjectural certificate for 300 city and suburban parish churches must necessarily be difficult, and may not be entirely satisfactory, then I will make it my duty to turn to His Lordship, so that he would be pleased to order to announce to the petitioner that he deliver to me or to the consistory the correct information in which parish his parent died” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 255–256. No. 9572). March 25. Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “Transmitted in your letter dated 12 last February, as your offering to the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra and the local Theological Academy, three manuscripts: a) the legend of the siege of the Sergius Monastery, b) the Life of Nikon the Patriarch, and c) the Chronograph, I received with sincere gratitude” (Letters. 1869. P. 92. No. 66). March 26. Opinion on the request of the former Basilian hieromonk for his transfer from the Ryazan diocese to the Berezvetsky monastery: “... when the hierarchy of the so-called Greek Uniate Church, by its own confirmation of the correctness of the Eastern Catholic Church and in vain fencing off from it, conciliarly asked the Holy Synod to accept it with its flocks into the ancient communion and obedience of the Eastern the Catholic Church and when the Holy Synod, at this request, actually accepted her into communion and obedience and gave a conciliar blessing to the entire reunited priesthood, then she was thereby released from all duties incompatible with communion and obedience of the Orthodox Church; and, consequently, he, Lucian, has no reason to ask himself for any new personal permission from duties and relationships that have already ceased, but must, having understood the truth of the matter, establish himself in obedience to the Orthodox Church and prove this by deed itself, as the church rite requires” (Opinions. T. additional p. 79. No. 24). March 27. A proposal to the cathedral established at the Lavra to perform a prayer to the Lord God for sending down blessings on farming, sowing and fruitfulness to obtain good harvests (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 261–262. No. 9586). Opinion about the catalog of books needed for the Kherson seminary fundamental library: “Let me be allowed to doubt about the catalog of books for the fundamental library, even if I really didn’t want to. He demands, for example: Bibles in Latin, German, French. Have mercy! Nowadays there are translations of the Bible, especially French and German, which in another time would have been burned along with the translators. It is absolutely necessary to say whose translation, and it is useful to add which edition” (Opinions. Vol. III. P. 35). March 28. Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “Christ is Risen! Receive from me the kiss of peace, joy and love. May the joy of the Lord be your strength, supporting and renewing your spirit and body to increase your years of life, in health, peace and good deeds. First, you deigned to ask me about the Right Reverend Kirill. Therefore, I will say about him that in his current illness, doctors have more than once assigned him a close limit of life, which, however, by the grace of God, he passes, enduring God’s visitation with meekness and patience” (Letters. 1884. pp. 34–35. No. 35). March 29. Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “We are poor people! We stumble, we see a mistake, we grieve, we repent, we receive forgiveness, and, calming down, instead of strengthening ourselves and being more vigilant, we forget and stumble again in the same place where before. The Lord, who commanded us to forgive seventy times seven, of course forgives innumerably more, but we should not be careless because He is long-suffering and abundantly merciful” (Letters. 1911. p. 211). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On March 29, Holy Saturday, at 5 o’clock in the evening, Metropolitan Philaret came to us at the Synodal Metochion to lay the grave of the late Right Reverend Kirill. We served a memorial service, there were up to 20 of us, two Archimandrites and Kutnevich. The Metropolitan’s top decoration of his staff was carelessly broken: it was topaz or yellow glass” (Kazantsev. P. 85). March 31st. Resolution on the report of the consistory on the provision of reporting information to the consistory within the prescribed time frame: “When the Kolomna Spiritual Board violated a legal obligation by missing the legal deadline, and, moreover, after repeated confirmation, then making a confirmation is considered unsatisfactory by everyone, because a general confirmation would confuse the guilty with the innocent, and in this case the guilty could again, without worry, turn to their former slumber of inactivity, in the expectation that, when necessary, they will wake up with confirmation” (Resolutions T. 4. P. 207–208. No. 9471). April 1st. Resolution on an extract from the report register of the consistory that the hieromonk, due to poor health, refused to appear at the consistory: “Seventy-three years old, perhaps, truly weak. And since the one who corrects the position of the Builder sees Hieromonk Barsanuphius as sober and attributes some of the oddities of his actions to foolishness, then it is possible not to demand him for testing until discretion; but at the same time, entrust the person correcting the position of Builder to have supervision over him” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 208. No. 9472). Resolution on the consistory ruling on the dissolution of the second marriage of a tradesman with a wife of the Roman Catholic faith and leaving him in his first marriage, with a wife of the Orthodox faith: “As at the end of the case, on an unnumbered sheet, a copy is written from the resolution of the Consistory on February 28 of this year, the content is not consistent with either church rules or civil laws, namely: dissolution second marriage to be submitted to the Provincial Board, then this resolution in the report register should be destroyed, and as a result, a copy from it should also be destroyed, in order to avoid confusion and criticism of the consistory, and I should be informed who wrote this resolution, whether it was transferred from the report register to the journal, and if it was transferred, then by whom it was signed in the journal; and the secretary is obliged, as the guardian and remembrance of the laws, to especially inform me why he did not submit to me about this illegal resolution immediately as it was written” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 208–209. No. 9473). April. Letter to Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov): “If the conversation of love and sorrow about the suffering Lord for the disciples of the Lord who had not yet known the resurrection brought the benefit that He Himself approached them, taught them about the resurrection, filled their hearts with the feeling of His presence and, finally, became known to them in the breaking of bread; then for those who have already known the resurrection, how could a conversation of faith, love and joy about the risen Lord and solemnly promised to abide with us until the end of the age not be beneficial? (CHOLDPr. 1871. Book 4. P. 45. - Materials). Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “I was asked to talk to you about the famous hieromonk Leonid. In the Tula diocese there were some of his disciples who were accused of heresy. There is no reason to assume heresy in Leonidas, but there is arbitrariness in him in the desire to teach. Now he promises to be more careful in accepting visitors, especially female ones; and you, having put it in order, will free it from the fear of great punishment or removal from the monastery” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. P. 23. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “I sincerely congratulate Your Eminence on the new sign of the High Royal Grace” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. P. 51). April 2. Resolution on the petition of parishioners for permission to serve in the priesthood to a priest approved by them: “This petition cannot be respected: firstly, because, following a denunciation, an investigation has been ordered against the priest, according to which the truth must be revealed, and with this order the present petition turns out to be out of order... thirdly, because the address is written by the hand of the priest - the defendant, and this confirms the new denunciation that has come in, that it compiled at the request and treat from the defendant” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 209–210. No. 9474). April 3. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On April 3, on Easter Thursday, I visited Metropolitan Fidaret. Vladyka gave me an assignment: to describe the life of the late Right Reverend Kirill “for the newspaper.” On the 7th I brought my manuscript. “Quite large,” said the Lord. It's not printed. There were many speeches about the Most Reverend Kirill, among other things, Vladyka told me: “Well, no mortal stench was found from the late Most Reverend Kirill.” And exactly. No mortal smell could be heard either in the house or in the church, it even evoked some kind of slight fragrance and freshness <...> Some time before this, I imposed myself on Vladyka Philaret with the following speech: “A dead man smells bad because he is a sinner, and not because the body is rotting. There are fat dead people, and they do not smell of mortality at all; on the contrary, there are dry ones dead, and an unbearable stench comes from them.” To prove both, I gave several examples from my personal observation. Vladyka listened carefully, did not resolutely deny, but did not give direct consent, smiling with his characteristic smile, which is sometimes more eloquent than the deepest reasoning. The consequence of this conversation was the exclamation of the Bishop about the non-stench from the body of the late Right Reverend Kirill. Filaret uttered this exclamation with angelic joy. About the sermon by Fr. Nicholas for the funeral Ave. Vladyka Kirill said: “Sewn together from scraps. First he proved that death had been defeated by the resurrection of Christ. And then he began to prove the certainty of our resurrection. It’s the same as after scraping with an ax. Moreover, his tongue has little unctuousness; it’s so dry, hard, chopping and sawing, as if with a terrier.” Here Vladyka complained (gently, impeccably) that Metropolitan Seraphim did not allow visiting Bishops to preach sermons here in St. Petersburg. (Probably, the Moscow Metropolitan himself wanted to pronounce a funeral homily in memory of the late Kirill.) An incident was related from which foreign bishops stopped giving sermons here: “The Most Reverend Theophylact (who died in Georgia) spoke sermons at the Pskov courtyard. There were personalities in the sermons. Once he said: “Here, with us, the young leads the old” (i.e. Philaret, the then rector of the Academy, Metropolitan Ambrose, was upset. In the Synod, the Right Reverend Theophylact pointed out the 20th rule of the Council of Trullo (found, of course, by the young Rector of the Academy): The Right Reverend Theophylact had to be silent. Metropolitan Filaret at this time was especially good-natured and cheerful, the very sight made him happy” (Kazantsev, pp. 86–87). April 5. Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “I hope the revised and Highly approved statute of the Consistories will help the progress of consistory affairs. We tried to do what could be done to make it easier” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 43. No. 30). April 8. Resolution on a consistory determination with a request to assign a nun to another monastery for unworthy behavior: “The decision of the Consistory is fair. However, out of leniency, to act with the nun Julia in the opinion of the dean of the monasteries, in addition, bow to her before the liturgy in front of the sisters of the monastery; and, moreover, to instill in the nun that if she continues to allow herself similar previous actions that are not peaceful, offensive to the sisters and boldly violate the reverence due in the church of God, then the authorities will be forced to remove her from this monastery” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 210. No. 9475). April 9. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov: “Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! By His Highest Imperial Majesty's permission, a gold medal was forwarded to me, in the presence of Your Majesty, dated March 28, No. 1967, in memory of the successfully accomplished reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire in 1839 - a worthy monument to the unforgettable event with which God blessed His reign Imperial Majesty, - I accepted with reverent gratitude to the all-merciful Monarch, of which I inform your Excellency with the most humble gratitude, as the executor of the High Monarch’s wishes” (DC. 1895 Part 1. No. 3. P. 472). April 11. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “For the sake of Him who suffered and was resurrected, I pray that through the saving contemplation of His passion He will lead you into the full joy of His Resurrection” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 58. No. 42). April 15. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod with an order to transfer Abbot Michael to the Moscow diocese: “This decree is to be announced to Abbot Michael in the field office, and, if necessary, give him a certified list from it. To include him, pending discretion, in the brotherhood of the Sergius Lavra, with the appointment of the steward of the Trinity Metochion in Moscow and the archbishop's seat, which position he must assume upon fulfillment of the assignment now entrusted to him by the Holy Synod” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 256. No. 9573). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “May the God of patience and consolation strengthen you in the patience of sorrow obedient to His fate and grant you His gracious consolation. Order me to tell you about your health, because I don’t hope to come and ask you about this now, due to my ongoing weakness” (Letters. 1911. P. 211). April 21. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I do not refuse to write about the Diveevskys to the Eminence 108. But I don't know if it will be useful. There is no benefit to rushing now. Even if the matter came to the Holy Synod in the summer, it would last until the fall. So, remind us of this on the spot” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 236. No. 287). Letter to his mother: “It’s a pity for Porfiry Vasilyevich, but until now it has not been possible to satisfy him. It was impossible not to satisfy the professors who were left without places and had families. Let us wait for help from God, Who visits us with illnesses, grants relief, and improves the external circumstances of life” (Letters. 1882. P. 356. No. 413). Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky): “I advise you, Father Rector, as well as myself, to take advantage of spring for your health. Would you like to take a trip to some seminary 109, so that partly you can do something, partly you can relax?” (Additions. 1884. Part 33. Book 1. pp. 326–327. No. 22). April 22. Letter to Bishop Jeremiah (Soloviev): “Most Reverend Vladyka, venerable brother in the Lord! I hope that I call you by a name that already belongs to you not only by external name, but also by internal imprinting with the grace-filled gift of Eminence. I received the good word on the day of the joy of the Lord from you and your former colleagues at the Academy with love, gratitude, and mutual goodwill” (DC. 1886. Part 1. No. 1.P. 125). Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “Read my notebook as I do yours. This is followed by notebooks of the translation, which is a pity that the translation he is talking about is probably the story of Dositheus” (Letters. 1869. P. 93. No. 67). April 24. Resolution regarding the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov, that the board of the Kyiv Theological Academy was asked to dismiss the regent of the Podolsk bishop's choir from his positions as inspector and teacher at the Podolsk theological school: “Refer from me to the Right Reverend Arseny, Archbishop of Podolsk, or from Consistory to Consistory, about dismissal of teacher Spassky from the diocesan Podolsk department to the Moscow diocese with the delivery of a service record about him” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 256. No. 9574). April 25. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy in the case of resolving the issue of whether students of both the seminary and schools, who receive salaries from the seminary board for their maintenance, should be kept in the hospital for free due to illness: “Let us assume that a student who receives a salary of 70 rub[les] in [signatures] has been sick for a year. What a burden for the hospital!... I would have thought: there should be no deduction from the salary of someone who is in the hospital for less than a month; and for those who are lying down for more than a month, deduct in round for a month, for the maintenance of the hospital, and so on” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 249–250. No. 9559). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On April 25, Nikolai, the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, was named Bishop of Tambov. There was me too, as if I were a successor. There were three Metropolitans: Seraphim, Philaret, Jonah. In the evening, at 6 o’clock, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. First Archpriest Joakim Semenovich Kochetov was here. Vladyka’s speeches with him about the divorce case of some Chelishchevs; then Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov came. I stood up, without saying a word, bowed to the Vladyka to the ground, saying goodbye to the Vladyka (he was going to Moscow). The Bishop said: “Well, forgive me!” But soon: “Yes! See you again; we will serve on Sunday.” I came out” (Kazantsev. P. 89). April 26. Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “The explanation about the priest of the Alexander School is not entirely comforting; because the explanation will not be known, but the solution will be known. However, the will of the Lord be done” (Letters. 1884. P. 36. No. 36). April 27. A speech was delivered to the newly ordained Bishop Nikolai (Dobrokhotov) (Works. T. 4. P. 634). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Indeed, on April 27, Sunday, I served in the Kazan Cathedral with Bishop Philaret. There was the ordination of Fr. Nicholas as Bishop of Tambov. The Lord took precedence. There were two more: Metropolitan Jonah and Benedict Vicar. After the dedication, handing the newly ordained Bishop Nicholas the Bishop’s staff, the Metropolitan gave him an admonition: it’s a pity we didn’t hear, because we were in the altar, and the staff was handed over on the Bishop’s pulpit” (Kazantsev, p. 89). April 28. Opinion on how to eliminate the difficulties encountered by Jews who want to accept the Christian faith: “Give a baptized Jew the right to freely be assigned to agricultural, petty bourgeois, craft societies, as well as to the merchant class with the legal declaration of capital. Those entering agricultural, petty-bourgeois or craft society are given a benefit for several years <...> Jews who arrived in the internal provinces with passports and expressing a desire to join Christianity are given a deferment of one to three months to test their intentions and to instruct them in the faith. But if the spiritual authorities consider any of these to be unreliable towards Christianity, immediately stop the delay and let the authorities of the province to which the Jew belongs know about this” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 36–37). Resolution on the presentation of the Eminence on the request of the priest’s daughter for additional benefits: “In accordance with Smirnova’s desire to provide her with the Trusteeship the allowance she requested at 15 rubles in banknotes per month and to report the latest circumstances of this matter to the Holy Synod” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 210–211. No. 9476). Letter to Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov): “Most Reverend Father Archimandrite! I respect the one who chose you as mediator, as well as his entire family, and I wish to fulfill his desire. But I’m afraid to give decisive hope in execution, because we do not have the power to move arbitrarily, as secular authorities do. If they had told me the reason, they would probably have given me more strength to carry out the task that 110 kind and respected people sincerely wish for” (BV. 1912. Vol. 4. No. 12. P. 686 - 2nd page). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On April 28, however, I again forced myself to be with the Metropolitan. (I saw clouds above me. They began to look at me askance and coldly. The Count, Komovsky, and all that is power.) The Gracious Master accepted. Seeing that I was not starting a speech, Vladyka started talking about my Grammar: “Do you want me to take it to Moscow, and read it there, and not give it to others.” I agreed with a bow. Then, after waiting a minute and seeing that I wasn’t saying anything, he said: “Well, sorry!” I bowed at my feet. The gracious Lord kissed me! I left, shedding tears of emotion. On the 29th, Metropolitan Philaret left St. Petersburg for Moscow at 6 o’clock in the morning” (Kazantsev, p. 89). May 2. Diary entry: “Athanasius the Great. Having left St. Petersburg on the 29th, today we arrived in Moscow. On the third day the wheel rim caught fire from the heat.” May 3. Resolution on the opinion of the Right Reverend on leaving the petitioner in the sexton vacancy: “The certificate says that what kind of marriage the petitioner is married to is not noted in the statement. If such incompleteness of information is left unattended, it may happen that a bigamous man or a man married to a widow will delight in ordination” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 211. No. 9477). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “On May 3, in the house of Archpriest Joachim Semenovich Kochetov, where I was with His Eminence Nicholas, after serving with him at the Peter and Paul Cathedral (in the Fortress), I heard a living teller, Yegor Nikitich (first year student at the St. Petersburg Academy, secular), about the Bishops. About Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow he said: “He does excellent incense; he is handsome in his service, but he is sluggish, as if dead, although he is excellently regular. He takes revenge on those who have offended him by doing good” (a story about the Priest in Pechatniki. I don’t remember either the name of the Priest or the deed)” (Kazantsev. P. 90). May 4. Resolution regarding the Moscow chief of police L.M. Tsinsky that the priest does not agree without special permission to either serve a memorial service or perform the funeral service for the colonel, because the deceased had never been to church: “To respond that although the priest’s bewilderment to proceed with the commemoration and burial of the deceased Prince Kasatkin-Rostovsky had a basis in the fact that the deceased had not previously received Christian instructions sacraments that he had not begun several years before; however, upon investigation of other cases in which the deceased showed reverence for church shrines, I authorize the priest to begin commemoration and burial according to the rites” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 256–257. No. 9575). May 7. Resolution on the consistory decision on the distribution of income from the donated house by the titular councilor for his commemoration: “Give the clergy half of the income from the donated house, and the other to collect for the church for its needs and for the maintenance of the house, so that the clergy can benefit from the charity of the contributor” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 211. No. 9478). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I was greeted in Moscow by the blessing of the monastery of our Venerable Father Sergius and your question about the journey of the Sovereign Emperor. I wrote to you about this from St. Petersburg. I have no official notification or instructions about this, except for the Highest command that during the Highest journey past churches at night there should be no ringing of bells and the clergy should not leave them. You should observe this too, and order it to be observed in the suburbs if the Sovereign Emperor deigned to pass at night” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 237. No. 288). May 9. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Although I believe that your Eminence will be with me today according to custom, I will nevertheless order you that it is advisable for me to have you at my place at six o’clock in the afternoon” (Letters. 1887. P. 58). May 10. Resolution at the consistory decision on sending the priest to the Catherine Hermitage for two months for incorrectly attesting the inscription on a loan letter: “The long-term and always honest service of the priest convinces that he had no bad intentions; and the register of documents drawn up at the time confirmed that to certify the last document is to certify that it is not false, but, moreover, he made an inaccuracy in the month and date of the signature. Taking this into account and the real advanced age of his years, it would be enough, in order to purify his act, to offer him 25 prostrations over the course of 7 days in the cathedral monastery during divine services. But according to the Most Merciful Manifesto, forgive him and oblige him to sign so that in future, even in apparently unimportant circumstances, he strictly adheres to the pure truth, not deviating from it under any circumstances” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 211–212. No. 9479). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Due to the newly received certificate that during the Highest Journey along the Yaroslavl Highway, the Highest Will so that there would be no meetings must be fulfilled in the full force of this expression, I instruct you, Father Viceroy, to carry out the following: 1) If the Highest Journey past the Lavra follows not in the daytime, then neither I will ring, there will be no exit for the clergy. 2) If it is during the day, then there should not be a preliminary announcement, but only the ringing during the passage itself 3) According to the ringing of the Lavra, there should be a ringing in all the churches of the settlement 4) However, in the Lavra, pay attention to whether the Highest command will follow for her from the path, in order in this case to exactly fulfill the Highest will” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 238. No. 289). May 11. Letter to Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky): “I don’t know, Father Rector, what to do with your poems. Between Smirnov’s poems there are some that could stand with the others, and I was tempted to correct them. But I think it’s too late for me to write poetry” (CHOLDPr. 1872. Book 4. P. 81. - Materials). May 12. Resolution on the petition of the banned priest asking for an allowance from government funds to sow the land with rye due to a two-year crop failure: “It is confirmed that the matter of allowances should be brought to an end immediately. “However, the allowance from the Holy Synod is not assigned to those who would assign children to the civil service, and not to those who would have suffered a loss in their maintenance, having been subject to a ban due to their actions” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 254. No. 9567). May 13. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Create a prayer so that the meetings here will take place in peace and joy. My health is bothering me. We can have distinguished guests no earlier than the 19th or 20th day” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 239. No. 290). May 14. Meeting of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich with the newlyweds 111 - the heir to the Tsarevich Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich and the Tsarevich Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna in the Assumption Cathedral, the service of a prayer service. The Emperor was presented with an icon of St. Peter of Moscow (MB. 1841. No. 40. P. 298). Then a speech was made: “The Holy Church rejoices with its characteristic spiritual joy when You, Most Pious Sovereign, in the midst of the joy of Your House, remembering the shrine of this ancient House of God, flows into this sanctuary of the Kings, so that You and Your Children’s joy may be gratefully and prayerfully brought to God, who bestowed it” (Works. Vol. 4. P. 146). May 15. Resolution on the sexton’s petition for permission to seek a position as a cleric in the capital: “The petitioner was appointed as a cleric in order to learn to sing. From this it is very clear that at the end of the term he should have appeared for testing; but he, upon presentation of a certificate, did not appear for nine days. Therefore, there is no reason to change the resolution of the Eminence, which, however, does not prevent the petitioner from asking for a better place with election” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 212. No. 9480). May 16. Letter to the Vicar of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “This will be delivered to you, Father Vicar, Deacon of the Anglican Church 112, who wishes to know the Eastern Church and be accepted into its communion, but with the incompatible condition that he also belong to the Anglican Church. Although it is unreliable that the best thought will win a decisive victory, it is necessary to pay attention to the beginnings of a good thought. He wishes to be in the Lavra on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity and for several days afterwards, to consider the order of the service. Receive him and, if convenient, give him accommodation in the Lavra or in a hotel and introduce him to Fr. Rector of the Academy or with Fr. Archpriest Golubinsky, who will find it more convenient to talk with him. May the Lord arrange that it will be beneficial for him to see the shrine and its servants” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 239. No. 291). May 18. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “This is what became known about the visit of the Lavra by the Sovereign Heir Tsesarevich and Empress Tsesarevna. They chose the 23rd day. They will leave Moscow probably at 9 o'clock in the morning. In the Lavra it is supposed to listen to a prayer service. They deigned to accept the invitation so that we could offer them our monastery meal. After the meal they will return on the same day” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 239. No. 292). May 20. Pronunciation of the Word on the day of the discovery of the relics of St. Alexis: “... it is necessary that you do not remain with the meager childhood beginnings of the teaching of Christ, but gradually acquire new, more abundant successes in it; so that no wisdom, even hidden in secret, is considered alien to you and does not belong to you, but with humility you arrange your mind for Divine contemplation and your heart for heavenly sensations” (Works. Vol. 4, p. 148). From the memoirs of W. Palmer: “Thursday, May 20. I received from Mr. Muravyov a written response from the Metropolitan of Moscow to my letter. The answer was in the sense that anyone who wishes to be admitted by the diocesan bishop to receive communion must fully and fully recognize the dogmas, rules and rituals of the Orthodox (Eastern) Church. The diocesan bishop does not have the right to enter into alliances or go for reconciliation, making even the slightest concessions or relaxations; this is a matter for the Synod” (Palmer, pp. 112–113). May 21. A prayer service was held in the Assumption Cathedral on the namesake day of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna and on the birthday of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna. Bishop Dionysius served the liturgy. The sermon was delivered by the priest of the church, martyr. Tatiana at the University by Peter Ternovsky (MB. 1841. No. 42. P. 315). May 23. Delivering a speech during a visit to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by the heir to the throne Alexander Nikolaevich and his wife: “It will not be for a long time again that you walk this Royal path: Royal, I say, because for several centuries now the Russian Sovereigns and Their Families have been walking from time to time from the Patronal City here - to the humble Inhabitant of the desert. Such is the power of Faith. It makes one who has renounced the world an ascetic of the Fatherland, even more so than one who is in the world, and not only in life, but also after death; and the high bows down to the humble; and with the obsolete earthly age continues living communication” (Works. T. 4. P. 144). Then a prayer service was held in the Trinity Cathedral, the icon was presented as a gift to the royal couple (MV. 1841. No. 43. P. 323). May 24. Diary entry: “Rev. Simeon. I visited the Sovereign Heir with gratitude for visiting the Lavra, and the Prince of Weimar, who visited me before 113.” May 26. Resolution on the housekeeper’s report that on May 25 at 11 o’clock, when the carriage was supposed to be ready for His Eminence, the coachman, who had the key to the carriage house, went to drink tea and thereby slowed down the carriage’s readiness: “The offense is important because he absented himself without permission, and, moreover, on a holiday during the liturgy, therefore, he did not fulfill his Christian duty on the holiday. Moreover, this resulted in slowness in performing the conciliar prayer service and a burdensome wait for the conciliar clergy. Therefore, to prevent such unrest, deduct a silver ruble from the culprit and give it to the one who performed his position at that time; and this act should be noted in the book of conduct of regular servants” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 247. No. 9552). Resolution on the spiritual will of petitioner E. A. Melgunova on the transfer of the iconostasis with utensils and sacristy from her home church to the Novospassky Monastery: “Give an opinion to the consistories” (DC. 1890. Part 2. No. 8. P. 480). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “What to do with the Diveyevoskys? You stopped their envoy here: therefore, you thought that something could be done in their favor. Tell me your thoughts. But the bewilderment that the contents of their letter, attached hereto, presents. Is it easy to collect 10,000 rubles? And if this could happen, in whose name should the land be bought when the society is not established? And what if after this the society does not establish itself? The investors will be, as it were, deceived. It seems to me that prudence demands that we not now dare to do anything for the Diveevskys and wait until the end of the Odigitrievsky case. If this ends well, then it will be safer to move on to something else” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 240. No. 293). Letter to Archbishop Parfeniy (Chertkov): “Some Yuryev citizens ask my advice on what to do if they want to build a stone church in the cemetery instead of a wooden one, which you do not deign to do. I told them that this had nothing to do with me; but meanwhile, partly yielding to their conviction, partly looking at the subject itself, I decide to convey my thoughts to you. Churches near cities in the cemetery are allowed and even encouraged to be built again; how much more in place of the previous ones. This church also has capital. Construction methods are suggested. The desire is noticeable to the entire people. In such circumstances there seems to be no need to argue with pious zeal. While presenting this to your consideration, I do not in the least desire that you look with my eyes at a matter that is in your power and does not concern me” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 43. No. 31). May 27. Resolution on the consistory decision on the issuance of sums intended for the maintenance of the parish house within nine years to the church clergy: “The clergy did not lend money, therefore he has no direct right to demand payment” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 212–213. No. 9481). May 28. Opinion on the summary of canon law 114 compiled by Moscow University professor N.I. Krylov: “The essay says that out of a ten-century movement, a universal dogma was finally formed. Theologians say that the universal dogma has existed since the beginning of Christianity, and was not finally formed. In general, the essay attributes changeability to rituals. This cannot be allowed. There are rituals in the Catholic Church that remain unchanged until the next century. The essay says: if the general beliefs of the people become unequal with the form of the ritual, then a new form is needed for them. This subordination of rituals to some kind of democratic principle is completely unknown to canon law. The presented project, in which canon law is subordinated to ideal historical-philosophical considerations, and thus positive law is not freed from the arbitrary impulses of legal-philosophical reason, seems to convince us that it is inconvenient to give canon law to a secular department. If secular law feels the need to be sanctified and animated by the highest church law, let it come from the mouth of a Christian teacher not in a pagan, but in a Christian form, which can be done without contradicting the nature of the subject being taught; because Christianity is the highest and purest wisdom, and, consequently, the sound Christian mind cannot consider the ideas of civil law alien to itself, but rather must recognize them as congenial, if it is not blinded by prejudice and pride” (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 40–42). Resolution on the opinion of Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) on the transfer of the Peremilov priest to another place: “The landowner desires the Peremilov priest only if one of the relatives of the deceased priest is not identified, and as such the petitioner is Rozhdestvensky, who has the required qualities and is shown to be approximately good in behavior, then this one is appointed” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 213. No. 9482). Letter to Prince A. N. Golitsyn: “So that the second part of the Letters on the offices of the priesthood, op. Alexander Skartalovich Sturdza, quickly passed through the censorship, about which I already took possible care, and during my last stay in the Lavra, where the censorship is located, despite the short and busy time, I had contact with the censor, and he resolved some of his perplexities, and encouraged him to complete the matter as quickly as possible, which was made difficult by the fact that the censor was afraid to approve some perplexing parts of the book, and does not quite dare to make some changes in the text” (CHOIDR. 1880. Book 4. No. 4. P. 1). May 29. Resolution on the consistory ruling on the release of the deacon and priest from trial and investigation: “Priest Mikhailov is guilty of neglecting the shrine, having lost the tabernacle, and of violating the duty of subordination, because he did not allow the dean to take and examine the tabernacle, which he had the right and duty to do” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 213. No. 9483). May 31st. Letter to Count N.A. Protasov on the case of the molestation of a 12-year-old girl brought to the Serpukhov Belopesotsky Monastery, and about precautionary measures when accepting novices and novices into monasteries when they are tonsured into monasticism (Opinions. 1905. P. 73). Letter to A. N. Muravyov: “About the book of Mr. Sturdza, during my stay in the Lavra for 23 days, despite the fatigue of that day, and the need to return to Moscow at night, I discussed quite a bit with the censor in the evening, and I listened to the part of the text in which he encountered doubts, and sentenced me to leave it without change. The work of writing Sacred History, for which reason could be considered unnecessary, for me it is incomprehensible, and an excess of this kind would not be an excess. But we have little books in circulation on this subject that are so insufficient and incorrect that it is highly desirable to displace them from use with good ones” (Letters. 1869. pp. 94–95. No. 68). May. Opinion on strengthening precautionary measures to prevent polygamy: “In general, there are precautions that are possible in this matter, but there are those that are impossible that would make the crime impossible... so that searches and church publications do not occur between those who are unaware of the unknown, there is a rule according to which a priest cannot marry a person who lives in his parish for less than six months. It is difficult to multiply precautions so that, while catching rare criminals, one does not unnecessarily burden many thousands with their claims” (Opinions. Vol. add. pp. 80–81. No. 25). June 1st. Resolution on the consistory report on the dismissal of students of the theological seminary and theological school, as well as a novice of the Moscow Znamensky Monastery and a sexton to the Tomsk diocese to occupy church ministerial positions: “On what is it based that Yablonsky is 16 years old, when in the certificate he is 19? Why is he shown in this report as studying at the Bethany Seminary, when the file contains evidence of his expulsion from the Moscow Seminary? The consistory should review this report, apparently signed without reading, which is especially unsatisfactory on the part of the Archpriest of Arkhangelsk, in whose part the Case consists” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 213–214. No. 9484). June 2. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “It’s not very good that at one time they didn’t tell me about the gift of the Sovereign Tsarevich for a host. This, it seems, should have been mentioned in public news, as it was mentioned in some other places” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 241. No. 294). June 3. Resolution at the consistory decision on permission to renew the warm church of the Moscow Nativity Convent: “The church was built in 1677; and the iconostasis in it was built, by its nature, recent, but due to the dampness of the building, it was dilapidated with wood, which is why it cannot be preserved; the choirs are heavy and beautiful. The icons of the lower tier are older than the iconostasis; and they are supposed to be preserved in the new one” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 214. No. 9485). June 11. A resolution on the journal determination of the consistory with a request to the zemstvo courts to find the lost St. by the priest and church warden on the way from Moscow. antimins and brocade: “Correspondence with zemstvo courts cannot be considered consistent with the purpose. Anyone who found the things could recognize them as church items and, consequently, present them without searching, for which there was plenty of time. But if this did not happen, what will the Zemstvo Judges do? Entire villages will not be searched; and non-search does not promise any consequences other than unfavorable publicity” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 214–215. No. 9486). Resolution on an extract from the report journal presenting the dean’s report on a student of a religious school who was retained in the position of sexton before passing the test: “The student even reads the psalter with errors, and this after several months of service in the church; He is also not working properly in musical notation. Remove him from his place and order him to learn reading and singing so that he can occupy his place with dignity. However, if he convinces the Aniskinsky parishioners to tolerate him in the church, in the hope of studying the position, then the Reverend, with their consent, can again place him in this church, setting a deadline for preparing for the test again” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 215. No. 9487). Resolution on the priest’s petition to provide him with a house purchased from his late predecessor: “Does the petitioner rightly write that he paid 18,000 rubles according to a note written on plain paper, without stopping the matter because the note was on plain paper; and now doubt arises as to whether he paid him 500 rubles based on a note written on plain paper, the authenticity of which the guardians do not deny, then the Consistory should propose to the petitioner and guardians either that both notes be recognized as valid in their essence, despite the quality of the paper, or that both are recognized as invalid, in which case the payment of 18,000 rubles. will cease to be mandatory and the house may be subject to assessment” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 215–216. No. 9488). June 13. Resolution on the consistory decision on the deduction of the third part of the deacon’s income in payment of his debt to the merchant’s widow: “Give an admonition to the deacon in the Consistory so that he corrects his behavior and thereby protects himself from further troubles” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 216. No. 9489). Resolution on the priest's petition to take 5,000 rubles from the Varvarsky Gate. and on the establishment of a special hospital and almshouse under the authority of the police; but nothing is said about the Bogolyubsky image of the Mother of God: “From the copy of the decree it is revealed that the icon was not transferred to the department of the Order of Public Charity; that it is not even mentioned in the decree; that the decree allocated 5,000 rubles for the almshouse and the hospital. one-time, but there is no annual or partial appointment; that the money is not designated as collected at the icon, but as collected at the Varvarsky Gate, from which it must be concluded that this money, collected at the Varvarsky Gate by the disseminators of a false vision and taken into the police department, which is therefore not respected by the church, is as the fruit of a superstitious and selfish invention and as related to a disastrous and bloody event” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 216–217. No. 9490). Letter to Count N.A. Protasov about expediting permission to establish the Trinity Odigitrievsky women's hostel of the Moscow diocese: “Depositors often remind me of this matter; and in order not to cool their zeal, pious and humane, I am convinced to humbly ask Your Excellency for the patronage of this matter in order to achieve the desired end. By this deign to show a benefit to the church and people who are leading a quiet and silent life in piety and purity; and prayer will be gratitude” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 75–76). From the memoirs of W. Palmer: “Metropolitan Philaret... arrived from Trinity to Moscow. Last Sunday... I paid him a farewell visit. At the beginning of the conversation, I reproached the ambiguity of his official response to my request for communion, where he writes about the Orthodox Church, meaning the Eastern Church. We talked about this for a long time, and it seemed to me that he was confusing the part and the whole. Therefore, leaving this object, I asked him about the miracle that happens in Jerusalem every year - about the sacred fire, which, as they say, descends on the Holy Sepulcher on Holy Saturday “I will say one thing,” answered the Metropolitan. “Several years ago, a Russian, a simple and ingenuous man, described to me what he saw during a trip to the holy places and, among other things, said that when the archbishop was in the Chapel of the Sepulcher The Lord and this miracle happened, he saw how two candles outside the Chapel lit up by themselves” (Palmer. pp. 113–114). June 14. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal on preserving land in the ownership of churches when renaming villages and hamlets into cities: “As the clergyman of the provincial city of Voskresensk, it still owns five acres of arable land, and about four acres of the same land have been in the possession of citizens since 1829, and the hay land was taken away by the peasants in 1815; but whether the last two articles came out of church property legally or illegally, whether the clergy reported this at the time and whether measures were taken to protect church property is not visible, then the Consistory is trying to make this clear through the clergy’s demand and through information from the archive, and subsequently carry out a legal review and determination and present it” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 217–218. No. 9491). Resolution on the consistory certificate about the request of a former novice to assign him to an almshouse or hospital: “As it is clear from the certificate that Ivanov is from a peasant background, and as he left the monastery at his own request, then, according to the law, he should not belong either to the clergy or to the department of spiritual guardianship” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 218. No. 9492). Resolution on the landowner’s petition for the preservation of church land given by the priest for the maintenance of the state-owned Losin factory: “The consistory will listen to the case and what will be presented, paying attention to the fact that the priest wrote a lie that the landowner refuses to maintain the land, and that the land given for agriculture and capable of being given for a building is not in accordance with its purpose and is doubtful in relation to the subsequent time.” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 218. No. 9493). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I would like to inform you for your information and fulfillment that the 27th exam at the Academy and, therefore, according to legend from my ancestors, I am having lunch for the learned brethren” (Letters to the Monk Anthony. P. 241. No. 295). June 16. Letter to the Moscow civil governor I.G. Senyavin: “Your Excellency, dear sir! The builder of the Ascension David Hermitage, Hieromonk Afanasy, reported to me the following: “This June 4th at 6 o’clock in the afternoon, an unknown man, tall in stature and strong in body, came to a herd of monastery cows grazing in the field and asked where the builder slept at night, how many cell attendants were with him and what kind of person he was? size and a large ax in his belt” (DC. 1886. Part 3. No. 12. P. 500). June 22. Resolution on an extract from the consistory register about a novice who submitted a report on his transfer to another monastery; The said novice sometimes behaved drunk during his probation in the monastery: “As a novice, he doesn’t want to live in the Ugreshsky monastery; There is no other abbot of the monastery who agrees to accept him; then the Consistory should do the following: give him a month to petition some abbot, outside the capital, for consent to accept him; If there is no one in a month, then, if he has not proven himself trustworthy in the test, he will be expelled from the monastery and from the spiritual department to the rank from which he entered” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 218–219. No. 9494). June 23. Resolution on the petition of the sexton’s widow for the provision of benefits to her: “The petition is not thorough and not righteous. The daughters are not even named, and it is hidden that the youngest receives benefits. Leave without respect. There will be consideration when he writes a truthful petition, without concealing the truth” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 254. No. 9568). June 24. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the birthday of the Emperor and Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolaevna. At the end, the Word was pronounced (MV. 1841. No. 52. P. 390). Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal on the petition of peasants to collect a debt for the right to trade from some parishioners of the local church who come to the bazaar of the Guslitsky churchyard: “This is true; but neglect of this matter can cause harm to the church economy. Try to write my attitude towards the Moscow civil governor, whether it would be possible to induce payment through the bailiff” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 219. No. 9495). Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “I wrote about Leonid, noticing him frightened and humble. But you see him and his deeds closer; and you rightly observe that caution so that the convergence does not turn into weakening and harm” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. P. 23. - Materials). Letter to Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “I spent a month in treatment, but in such a way that partly the treatment interfered with my studies, and partly my studies interfered with my treatment. I don’t notice much fruit: maybe it will turn out that summer is hot here, and thunder and hail are frequent. In some villages, the rye sown on loan was destroyed by hail. For these cases, I saved a little of the sum loaned from the Synod: but not much” (CHOIDR. 1868. Book 2. P. 51). June 28. Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “If you want and have time to be in the Lavra, you are welcome. I need to stay here until the 11th day, if not further” (Letters. 1911. P. 212). June 30. Resolution on the presentation of the plan for public testing to students of the Bethany Seminary: “The schismatics invented for themselves the name Old Believers in order to reproach the Orthodox, as if they were New Believers. And the Orthodox teacher accepted this even without reservation! - We advise you to be more careful. – The question asked: do they rightly call themselves Old Believers? – probably leads to the answer: not fair. Is it unfair, why do you use an unfair name? Is it the business of scientists to call things by unfair names?” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 250. No. 9560). July 2. Resolution on the report of the construction committee at the Volokolamsk Joseph Monastery on permission to make new iron bars on the windows of the monastery church for more reliable preservation of the sacristy: “When they wanted to tie the tower with iron, then iron bars were not required in the church. Why are they required, how soon was the use of iron for the tower abolished? Is the committee not concerned with doing what needs to be done thriftily, but with wasting money for whatever it is?” (Resolutions T. 4. P. 219. No. 9496). July 3. A letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N. A. Protasov, with an opinion on the case of the publication of the manuscript “Ostromir Gospel”: “On sheet 47 it is written: glorify me with Father glory, even though before you had no peace. This is text corruption. But publishing it in print is not only not harmful, but also useful. The scribe should have written: Glorify me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before there was even peace. The word: you - he missed. What to do? Don't rewrite the whole sheet. He added this word at the end: there will be no peace with you - and damaged the text, partly even the meaning. But since the origin of the typo is obvious, it is useful to point out such an example to lovers of antiquity, so that they do not consider everything ancient to be infallible indiscriminately and so that they can understand the need for the former correction of Ostromir’s books. The scribe did not write complete calendars, but indicated the days of those saints who were entitled to special readings from the Gospel. The remarkable person did not miss that the Ostromir calendar does not mention on October 22 the celebration of the Mother of God in honor of her Kazan icon. Marvelous! Should a scribe of the 11th century have prophesied that this holiday would be established in 1613? (Opinions. Vol. III. pp. 43–44). Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov on the marriage case: “1) In this case, the evidence of the crime committed is contained in one letter under No. 5. But since the defendant does not recognize the authenticity of this document, then only suspicion can be based on this disputed document, and not decisive evidence required by law. Other circumstances of the case are no more valid. But since suspicion is not enough to determine such an important decisive action as divorce, the determination of the Consistory is approved” (Reports and letters. 1891. pp. 7–8). July 9. Resolution on the petition of students of the Kaluga Theological Seminary to include them in the number of state-funded students of the Moscow Theological Academy: “I propose to the Academic Conference, unlike others, to pay attention to the special zeal of the petitioners for the teaching, which they overcame difficulties patiently and constantly followed, and, having taken information about them from mentors and testing them, depending on what turns out to be, make a proper determination” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 250–251. No. 9561). July 10. A resolution on the report of the council established at the Lavra with the opinion that Hieromonk Anastassy does not consider the use of simple medicines to be illegal: “Hieromonk Anastassy is doing wrong in many ways. He enjoys full health and serves in the hospital. He entered into treatment outside the monastery without a blessing. He performs the monastic duties of the service less than others, and yet spends time and labor on matters not related to his duties; although he justifies himself by saying that he used simple and harmless medicines, he does not provide anything to prove this; and meanwhile exposes his actions to challenge and thereby complicates his superiors” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 247–248. No. 9553). July 12. Resolution on the report of the acting minister that the deacon during the Divine Liturgy accidentally touched St. chalice from which on St. antimins the Blood of the Lord was poured out: “Send a deacon to the Chudov Monastery for a week with a ban on priestly service, so that he would go to every divine service without fail and, moreover, read an akathist to the Lord Jesus every day and bow down according to his strength; then to be confessed and, whether there is a spiritual father, there will be no doubt, he served and received the Holy Mysteries at the monastery of St. Alexis” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 219–220. No. 9497). July 13. The signing by Russia and the Western powers (England, France, Prussia, Austria) of the Second London Convention, which regulated the shipping regime of the Bosporus and Dardanelles and weakened Russia's security in the Black Sea and its influence in the Ottoman Empire. July 14. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “My journey was completed safely, without rain and without dust, with little fatigue. And I was in churches in the villages, and listened to the liturgy in Bratovshchina. And therefore the order for this journey this time was in accordance with the need” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 242. No. 296). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “May our Lord, who takes away the sins of the world, take away our sins through repentance and blot them out with His forgiving grace: in His mysterious communication, may He grant you new strength to overcome wrong thoughts and grow in pleasing Him” (Letters. 1911. P. 212). July 15. Resolution on the opinion of Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) on the request of a 95-year-old priest to dismiss him from his post and to appoint his nephew, a deacon, to this place: “The priest in vain makes a condition with his cousin, having two sons, one of whom, or maybe not both, is a priest. The provision about bread and money shows that the elderly person intends to live with his son, and receive a quitrent from his nephew for the given place. Therefore, do the following. The elderly man, due to his own admitted infirmity, was dismissed from service. Refuse the deacon. Wait four weeks for the candidate to elect the landowner. Is it not necessary to declare the place worthy” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 220. No. 9498). The resolution on the report of the cathedral established at the Lavra that the steward of the Trinity Metochion, the cell attendant, the hierodeacon and the psalm-reader, who benefit from the Lavra’s income in circles, should be included in the circle income of the St. Petersburg Fontannago Metochion: “This idea has a basis, because both metochions belong to the Lavra and the employees on them belong to it and because on both in the courtyards, house churches were established and clergy were assigned to them for the rector of the Lavra and, consequently, both parts of the clergy constitute one retinue of those serving him” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 248. No. 9554). July 16. Resolution on the petition of a seminary student to grant him a priestly position: “During my testing of the petitioner, at the beginning of the reading, a lack of language was revealed strongly, and in the continuation - insignificantly. But even the temporary discovery of this deficiency in church services may be accompanied by an impression harmful to the attention and reverence of those present. Therefore, it is necessary to renew the previous advice to the petitioner 115. Perhaps he will find a way to make this shortcoming less noticeable; and then he can ask for a deacon’s place with the approval of the parishioners, so as not to be subjected to the embarrassment of a complaint afterward” (Resolutions. Vol. 4, pp. 220–221. No. 9499). Resolution on a consistory certificate about a sexton dismissed from office due to illness, who, on the occasion of his recovery, asks permission to seek a position as a clerk: “There is no certificate from the dean about the applicant; he uses a pension and therefore has no need for a place. Therefore, leave it in its present position until further consideration” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 221. No. 9500). July 17. Resolution at the consistory decision on the request of the peasant Kuznetsov to allow him to marry the bourgeois woman Sergeeva: “To proceed accordingly so that the priest first makes an admonition to Kuznetsov, so that he examines his conscience, whether he is bound by any circumstances incompatible with the dignity of the proposed marriage, and so that he tries to have or acquire a peaceful conscience, so that the blessing of marriage will not be outraged by anyone or violated" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 221. No. 9501). July 19. Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “It seems doubtful to me that it would be more difficult to write Sacred History after the book of Genesis. Materials are becoming more abundant: it is easier to choose from a lot than to guess more from a little. The translation of all the books of Moses, I remember, and the book of Judges, is printed, although not made public. You will not be put into sin if you sometimes cope with them, for you will cope not indiscriminately <...> Use the experienced idea that a person can be peaceful only when fulfilling his duty, use it for your life. That you did not fulfill everything required of you before the death of your parent, it does not seem to me <...> Pray with faith in the world, and bring peace to your soul and the departed one” (Letters. 1869. pp. 96–97. no. 69). July 21. Resolution on the dean’s report on the death of a banned priest: “If before his death he was confessed and awarded Holy Communion by the clergyman: then it is permitted to have a priestly burial and report on what follows” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 221–222. No. 9502). Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Bethany Seminary on the marriage of the teacher Vvedensky with the daughter of Archpriest Lvov with the promotion of Vvedensky to a priestly place instead of Archpriest Lvov: “I do not interfere with the marriage. But the matter of becoming a priest must proceed in its own order. What is not visible here is what first of all needs to be seen from the seminary Board, whether he is resigning from the seminary” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 251. No. 9562). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The threat of a devastating disaster on Elijah’s Day probably came to you, Father Viceroy, from Moscow, where I heard it last Thursday on behalf of Ivan Yakovlevich 116, in vague terms for more than Moscow alone. Here, on the eve of Elijah’s day, there was a wind, noisy, but, as far as I hear, harmless, and yesterday the day was clear, just not warm, and we prayed in the church of the holy prophet Elijah in peace” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 242. No. 297). July 24. Resolution on the housekeeper’s report on permission to draw up a new inventory of the household and sacristy items of the courtyard: “I agree; and with pleasure I see attention to keep things in order” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 248. No. 9555). July 26. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I heard an unpleasant story from Princess Sofia Sergeevna Meshcherskaya 117, how rudely her children were refused in the Lavra hotel and how the Maltsovs who were here helped this trouble 118. This was during my last stay in the Lavra. Pay attention to this” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 243. No. 298). July 29. Resolution on the explanation of the former housekeeper of the Trinity Metochion, Hieromonk Theoktist, about the lost porcelain plate: “If an item disappeared in 1840, then it was necessary to examine it and report it at the same time. Now, a year later, it’s too late to look for the culprit” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 248–249. No. 9556). From the memoirs of priest Ioann Orlov: “I begin my story in 1841. In my homeland, Bronnitsky district, in the village of 3-ve, on July 20, during the service of Matins, a large fire broke out in the village. During the fire, many church documents, metric, confession books, a church seal, and a monstrance used for communion with the sick were burned in the priest’s house. Written documents were in the priest's house, probably because they were needed for information about flights on the occasion of the former recruitment. A week passed, and the clergyman went to Moscow with a petition to the Bishop for permission to give them, from spiritual guardianship, a loan of money for the construction of houses and with a report about the burnt documents. A priest comes to the Trinity courtyard in someone else’s cassock, given to him by a relative from Moscow, and the sexton and sexton wear peasant black threads made of linen and wool. The Lord graciously accepted them. The priest was reprimanded for keeping church documents in the house, and, seeing the priests dressed so black, he asked whether these clothes were their own or someone else’s; They replied that they had taken it from the parishioners, but their own clothes were all burned. The Bishop asked: what did you wear in church at Matins? Answer: they were wearing nankeen frock coats, but when they came running from the church to the fire, they took them off to make it easier to carry their property, and they, along with their property, burned down. The Bishop asked: “Did you have your own clothes like this?” Answer: “It was, and we wear it when doing housework and field work.” The Vladyka said: “And I thought that you always walk around in strings; with a braid on your head and a string, that would not be in order.” Then he went to his rooms and immediately brought out to the priest his woolen cassock, dark brown in color, and said: “Here’s a cassock for you from me, I see you’re wearing someone else’s.” Then he handed the priest 2 white pieces of paper 119, and the clerics each with 1 in 25 rubles [signatures]. “This is for you from me for the construction site, and you will receive it from the trusteeship” - and having said this, he took petitions from them and gave a resolution: “Give each member of the clergy 50 rubles in [signatures], so that they pay half in installments, and accept half as an allowance from the trusteeship.” Having received such a large sum for that time, the clergy began construction at the end of September. But without such merciful attention from the Lord, the clergy could not have been built in 10 years, because from the arrival of money my parent received no more than 100 rubles in assignations, or at the current exchange rate of money 30 rubles in silver per year. The family was 5 people. The arable land is infertile, the mowing is completely bad. A year or two later, Vladyka transferred the priest... to a better place in the village of M-no Kolomna district" (Reverent memory of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (DC. 1898. Part 3. No. 11. P. 560–562). July 31st. Resolution on the consistory certificate confirming Hieromonk Innokenty in the position of treasurer of the monastery: “Since the former Belopesotsky Builder, Hieromonk Afanasy remains without a position... then, in order to give him an opportunity to be useful and deserve approval, as he once deserved before, to appoint him as treasurer of the Luzhetsky Monastery, entrusting him to the attention of the abbot, as he had previously treasury and economic positions with dignity" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 222. No. 9503). August 3. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I don’t argue against the idea of ​​turning the old almshouse into a hotel. It’s good to put a mug in a charity house; You can put it in the Trinity porch for him. But don’t the poor go around with a hand-held mug, and will this be appropriate under the new order?” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 243. No. 299). August 6. Resolution regarding the acting Moscow military governor-general with forwarding an extract from the case of a peasant boy stealing money from the mugs of the Church of the Alekseevsky Nunnery and the Assumption Cathedral: “The testimony of false confession under the contract should be made known to the priest of the prison castle for consideration and use of caution in such cases that may arise. This case shows how strictly it is necessary to maintain the secret of confession in judicial matters; for the wicked counted on the fact that the priest would reveal what was said in confession and that what was said in confession would be accepted as the truth” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 257. No. 9576). Resolution regarding the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Count N.A. Protasov that the Emperor allowed the protopresbyter of the Moscow Great Assumption Cathedral to use a miter during divine services for his excellent zeal: “As the attitude was received on the 5th day and as the Highest commands must be carried out strictly, then on the 6th day, during the solemn performance of the divine service in Stavropegyl Novo-Spassky Monastery, for the sake of the church feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, at the time established during the liturgy, the miter was placed on the protopresbyter” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 257–258. No. 9577). August 7. Resolution on the petition of a tradesman, a former Jew, then a Lutheran, for the accession of his three sons to the Orthodox Church: “This matter requires careful consideration. The father wants to introduce his young children into the Orthodox Church, although he himself belongs to another confession and remains in it, although, as he writes, he is convinced of the holiness of the Orthodox Church. What will ensure the upbringing of children in true adherence to the Orthodox faith? The named priest should delve into this, begin to instruct the children, and then present it for further resolution” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 222. No. 9504). August 8. Resolution on the priest’s report on moving church things to another place: “The priest acted wrongly by not submitting in time for permission to move things belonging to the church to another place, replacing them with others. Instruct the dean to present to the landowner that his parent, having taken the church vessels, provided instead others from the former house church, and thus the latter, instead of the former, became the property of the Kuntsevo church, therefore it would be good to respect both the will of the parent and the right of church property, or if it would not be desirable to follow the will of the parent, then return the vessels belonging to it to the church, so that those given in replacement could be returned" (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 222–223. No. 9505). August 11. Resolution regarding the director of schools of the Moscow province with a request to appoint a priest for the position of teacher of the law at the Kolomna district school: “To respond that, in addition to this priest, two more Kolomna church priests approached me with a request on my part for permission to occupy this position; that of them especially the Ascension priest John Nikolsky, who in years and service is older than priest Solovyov, cannot be left without priority attention” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 258. No. 9578). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “This will be handed to you by the Viceroy Father, Pavel Vladimirovich Apukhtin 120. He strongly desired to enter the monastery; was really in Valaam and clothed in a ryassophore; but he faced temptations and came out. It seems to him that his parents are preventing him from entering the monastery; and yet a strong obstacle seems to be hidden in his will and in the overwhelming thoughts. Accept him and help him through prayer and the sacraments to seek peace for his soul” (Letters to St. Anthony. pp. 243–244. no. 300). August 13. Resolution on an extract from the report register of the consistory regarding the deacon’s complaint about the slow processing of consistory cases: “The deacon should confirm that in petitions he uses precise and correct instructions about the matter. Tell him that he truly knows about the theft of church property, as he mentions in the petition to the saint. The Synod would have reported this specifically with clear evidence, without confusing this with the ongoing matter of approving the church walls as his property” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 223–225. No. 9506). Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Let it be known to you, Father Viceroy, that I spoke about John Tikhonov 121 to the Right Reverend Tambov, who had other petitions for him” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 244. No. 301). August 14. Resolution on the petition of parishioners to remove a banned priest from the church: “The banned priest... should be removed from this place to appoint a worthy one to this place. So that the prohibited person can have maintenance and be under the close supervision of a truly serving priest, assign him to the Moscow district in the village of Bibirevo to the Annunciation Church for a clergy vacancy under the special supervision of the dean and local priest and order him to report on his behavior monthly” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 225. No. 9507). August 16. Resolution on the dean’s report that the priest never harasses any of the parishioners when correcting the needs: “The priest is not unsuspicious in his pretensions, according to the testimony of the parishioners and according to his own testimony. Although he says that he is content with voluntary giving, he adds: what existed before him, and this already shows the purpose of giving, and not arbitrariness. Taking a sick person for communion is contrary to church rules. Therefore, oblige him with the strictest subscription, so that he does not make claims and does not violate church rules” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 225. No. 9508). Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod on the dismissal of a sick schema-monk from the monastery for one year to Moscow for treatment: “When the consistory appears, ask which hospital he wishes to go to, and facilitate placement; supervision should be entrusted to one of the dean monasteries, Petrovsky or Danilovsky, depending on which one is closer” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 258. No. 9579). August 18. Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “It is with special consolation that I learn that the Right Reverend Vasily receives me with the same love with which I receive him. The Cross of St. Euphrosyne has many zealous admirers. I managed to be the first, and, moreover, on the day of the Holy Protomartyr Stephen, part of whose relics are in this cross. For tomorrow I asked the bishop for it for the religious procession and prayers” (Letters. 1869. pp. 99–100. no. 70). August 20. Resolution on the dean’s report on the testimony of the priests that the lid of the ark with the cross was torn off by the people who wanted to venerate the cross during the procession: “The matter is not decent, although it happened due to zeal and accident. That is why assistants were appointed to guard the shrine; and therefore, when difficulty began, it was necessary to immediately close the ark, for the time of the procession is not the time of kissing the cross” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 226. No. 9509). August 21. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the day of the anniversary of the coronation of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in the presence of the military and civil administration of Moscow. At the end, the Word was pronounced (MV. 1841. No. 69. P. 522). August 23. Resolution on the petition of the sexton’s widow to place her in an almshouse due to the poverty of her son, who has a large family: “It is true that the son has a large family. But the statement says that the petitioner lives with her sister, the prosphyr woman of the Pyatnitsky cemetery. In that case, what good does she need the almshouse?” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 254. No. 9569). August 25. Resolution on an extract from the report register of the Consistory with a request from a banned priest to allow him to minister: “Do the following. Allow in the priesthood, with further supervision and testing” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 226. No. 9510). Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “What Π. V.A. 122 and won’t go to the Reverend, it’s very hard. And he expressed his consent to me to pray over him, and with this special thought he turned him to you. See if there is any way to treat him. May the Lord help him, and may our Venerable Father Sergius intercede for him” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 245. No. 302). August 26. Resolution on the presentation of the board of the Moscow Theological Academy in the case of damage to the buildings of the Simbirsk seminary, in which inspector Blagovidov was accused of abusing his position: “To examine the actions of the inspector of the department of the seminary board and form an opinion whether he should be brought to trial, in the Consistory or in another place, according to the range and importance of the guilt. If any of the members of the seminary Board turns out to be either involved in the matter, or for some reason doubtful, replace him with another person from the mentors of the seminary, with the approval of the diocesan Eminence, or allow the Eminence to assign a trustworthy clergyman from the diocesan department to the members of the Seminary Board for this purpose” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 251–252. No. 9563). August 27. Resolution on the priest’s request for permission to redo the floor in the church and restore the icons in the iconostasis: “Instruct the dean to inspect the dilapidations in the altar and find out whether, as the priest says, it is possible to place new relays under the floor, preserving the St. the throne inviolable on the existing platform; and, if this is truly possible, then allow correction in this sense, under the supervision of the dean and under the responsibility of the local priest, so that St. the throne was protected in every possible way from the touch of the unconsecrated” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 226–227. No. 9511). August 30. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the name day of the heir to the throne and on the birthday of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna in the presence of the military and civil administration of Moscow. The sermon was delivered by the inspector of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Hieromonk Alexy (MB. 1841. No. 71. P. 534). August 31st. Resolution on a letter from Lieutenant Krasnopevkov: “Tell, Fr. governor, treasurer, to deliver one hundred rubles in banknotes to Mr. Krasnopevkov from me, and remind him while you were in the Lavra to make further appointments” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 258–259. No. 9580). September 1st. A proposal to the board of the Moscow Theological Academy to give the full content that is due to an academy student - Lieutenant Krasnopevkov, who attends academic lessons (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 252–253. No. 9564). September 3. Resolution on the priest’s request to transfer him to another place: “Almost twenty years of service in the rank of clergy and eighteen years as a teacher of the law at an institution enjoying the Highest patronage, gives this priest a significant advantage over others seeking this place” (Resolutions. vol. 4. P. 227. No. 9512). Resolution on the petition of the church warden and parishioners for the appointment of a deacon to the priestly place: “As to this place, by coincidence of circumstances, it was necessary to appoint a priest with preferential seniority and service - and yet this petitioner deserves attention both by the approval of the parishioners, and by discretion in the teachings of correctness and edification presented to him, superior to other petitioners, at the same time tested - and how he Since he asked for a priestly position at the Kazan Cathedral, which was idle, it is proposed to give it to this last one” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 227–228. No. 9513). September 4. Resolution on the consistory decision on the performance of prayers for the sending of rain: “Due to the ongoing lack of rain for quite a while in a considerable area, although, as is known, prayers are offered, and sometimes in some cities and villages with the rise of St. icons and the procession of the cross; but since in some places this is not carried out with precision... it is recognized that the following guidance must be given to the clergy through the dean. In every daily service, at litanies, according to a certain order, add the petitions for the sending of rain laid down in the sequence of prayer chants, and at the liturgy use the prayers of St. Callista alternately or partly and collectively, until God’s mercy appears in the sending of beneficial rain” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 228–229. No. 9514). Resolution on a sexton’s petition to include him among the novices of a Moscow monastery: “The monastery is not an inn for a sexton” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 229. No. 9515). September 5. Liturgy and prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the name day of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mikhailovna. The word was spoken by the priest of the church of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea by Grigory Vasiliev (MV. 1841. No. 73. P. 547). Resolution on the dean’s report that Prince Trubetskoy, in whose possession there is a house with a house church attached to it, is abroad: “St. Take the antimension from this church and store it in the cathedral sacristy under a seal until it is again required for use under this right” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 229. No. 9516). September 6. Resolution on the request of Staff Captain Rimsky-Korsakov for permission to raise 123 the Cross of the Lord from the Dmitrovsky Assumption Cathedral on his estate: “The Spiritual Board should submit information about the local custom, whether this cross is taken out in religious processions and other places by private invitations and add an opinion. Meanwhile, to the one asking to raise this holy cross, explain through the spiritual father or the parish priest that he will fulfill his pious desire in an equally reverent manner, whether he will take the trouble to come to venerate the holy cross in the cathedral church” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 229–230. No. 9517). September 8. Resolution on the testimony of the banned priest that the peasants, in order to receive their services, had to come for him to the village of Krapivka, where he visited the landowner Mrs. Kuznetsova every day to teach her three children, staying until 9 o’clock in the evening in the winter: “The priest admits that he visits the widow, landowner Kuznetsova, every day until 9 o’clock in the winter evening, to teach the children, but the children’s lessons do not last that long; and in this there is both indecency and inconsistency with the position; for the priest also admits that those who were looking for him did not find a home for their needs and, having found him at Kuznetsova’s, were refused until the morning” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 230–231. No. 9518). Resolution on a peasant woman’s petition to issue her a certificate of divorce from her husband, who has been absent for more than 20 years: “Love of humanity requires that the authorities help the petitioner’s inability to direct the matter on the right path. The consistory will decide whether it is possible to reach the truth through questioning the heirs of the landowner, who, for their own benefit, should reveal the stay of the petitioner’s husband, if it is known, and through a certificate with audit tales before and after the announced time of escape, whether it is shown in the first in cash, and in the last as on the run” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 231. No. 9519). September 9. A prayer service on the birthday of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich in the Assumption Cathedral. The Liturgy was served by Bishop Dionysius, the Word was spoken by the priest of the church, St. Nicholas on the Sands by Lavr Prokhorov (MV. 1841. No. 74. P. 554). Resolution on the testimony of a banned priest against the report of Dean Gerasimov: “A priest who, due to drunkenness, does not serve even during Lent and removes confessors, who cannot wear a paten at the head because his hands tremble from intemperance, who does not write church acts; during the ban, he who dared to put on an epitrachelion and with extreme disorder came out in it without a robe to the polyeleos during the service of another priest on a great holiday - due to such disorder, temptations and self-will, obviously, cannot receive permission without correction, nor remain in the parish where he committed such temptations” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 231. No. 9520). Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I don’t praise that the unsealed letters entrusted to you were given to the novice without a seal. It would also be useful if they were sent along with your reports, so that it would be clear that as much as was sent, so much was received and transferred according to the Affiliation” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 57. No. 40). September 10. Resolution on the report of the Kolomna spiritual board with a petition for an award to priest Sergievsky for his especially active and diligent participation in the affairs of the board: “Return, so that the signatories add an explanation: on what basis are they petitioning for the award of an employee, which by law belongs to the authorities?” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 232. No. 9521). September 11th. Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “The concern that comes to mind is where your description of the Archangel Cathedral will be placed in the book 124 assigned for the redemption of Smirdin. It could easily happen that the Archangel Cathedral will be placed next to a stinking inn, or a shameless disgrace, or a den of robbers and similar decorations of the romantic world. But may the books forgive me. I wish them truth, truth and benefit. Forgive me too for my idle talk” (Letters. 1869. P. 101. No. 71). September 12. Resolution on an extract from the Highly approved Charter of Spiritual Consistories, Articles 83 and 89, on the basis of which a certificate of support for the living of the priestly daughter of the maiden Evdokia Smirnova was drawn up: “The complaint of the maiden Smirnova against the consistory is recognized as unfair, because Smirnova writes that the Consistory allegedly wrote in the certificate that she should be under strict supervision, which is the expression used about people who are under unfavorable remark from their superiors; on the contrary, the certificate contains a simple and ordinary expression: to observe her behavior, and this, as the Consistory explained, was done on the basis of Articles 83 and 89 of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories. How this matter happens by decree of the Holy. Synod, which ordered to show the girl Smirnova leniency, but she, instead of accepting this leniency, is Holy. Synod, with gratitude and meekness, insulted the presence of the Consistory with indecent and unfair reproaches, personally spoken in front of the mirror and written down in her petition, somehow she reproached those present, demanded an answer from them: give all four answers, said that the petition with the resolution was torn, repeatedly said that they had deceived even the Sovereign Emperor... something about this bring it to the Holy Synod for its discretion, with the attachment of a certified list of the petition” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 232–233. No. 9522). September 13. Resolution on the consistory certificate on the parishioners’ complaint about the sexton’s tongue-tiedness: “In the sexton’s reading, there is no such tongue-tiedness that would prevent him from understanding what he reads, but he is not very good at reading, and is not versed in singing” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 233. No. 9523). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “My illness does not require compassion, for the Lord long-sufferingly punishes me, shutting me up in my cell from dispersion, but without depriving me of the opportunity to do what is necessary and useful, if I do not give free rein to laziness. Engaging in earthly things makes my heart cold towards heavenly things. Let us tear our heart away from the world and, if it has not yet been purified in order to rush straight to heaven, let us carry it to Golgotha ​​and lay it at the feet of the Lord who suffers for us; even if it were made of stone, the stone would disintegrate, out of the creature’s compassion for the Creator, who suffers for our sins” (Letters. 1911. P. 213). September 14. Resolution on a letter from a Moscow honorary citizen presenting two tickets from the Treasury: “The tickets should be forwarded to the Odigitrievskoe hostel, so that for safety they will be included in the church inventory and stored in the sacristy; and in taking and using interest, we acted in accordance with the will of the benefactors” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 259. No. 9581). September 18. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “The thought of monastery 125 is very desirable, but requires a lot of thought. - Korbukha was silent with displeasure, although she was fenced off. Bethany would be quieter if not for the Seminary. If the noise of the reeds, as one of the fathers noted, is not conducive to silence, is not much more audible on Korbukh, both from the settlement and from the nearby road, especially when driving along it after bargaining and drinking wine? “I would like to talk about this more personally” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 247. No. 303). September 22. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I don’t want to tell you, Father Viceroy, that yesterday I thought I was recovering, but today I am sick again. And therefore I don’t know whether I can travel to you for a holiday and, if I force myself to be attracted, whether I will be useless. And my traveling carriage is not ready, and yours is less convenient for me. It is true that you should not wait for me, because it is better for the unexpected to come than to make yourself wait in vain. And if I can’t, celebrate in peace and ask the Reverend for forgiveness and blessing of my weakness” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 248. No. 304) Letter to Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov): “Most Reverend Father Archimandrite! I was so preoccupied with the thought that I had not been answering your two entertaining letters for a long time, that just these days, in a dream, someone told me about your arrival, and to the question: where should you stay? – I answered: from me. While this is not in reality, I am pleased with my answer in a dream, which is not without truth in the sense that for this I received your third letter. The idea is to translate the book of Abba Dorotheus into a more commonly used language, may God help you put it into action, with attention to the language being both simple and accurate” (BV. 1912. Vol. 4. No. 12. pp. 686–687 2nd page). September 30. A resolution submitted by the board of the Moscow Theological Academy to allow the Tula Seminary Board, in the event of the death of one of the self-funded students, to bury him on the account of the residual amount, recording it as an expense. From the father of a deceased student, demand the return of the money spent on the burial of his son and register it with the parish: “Two decisions: the first - to consider the matter of collecting money from the sexton for the burial of his son as over, and the second - to demand that money from the sexton in a legal manner, according to the seminary Board - contradict one another, and, consequently, both cannot be executed together. If it is necessary to terminate the case according to the seminary Board, then it is necessary to leave it to the steward to look for his money from the sexton through the diocesan department; for this is a claim about private property” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 253. No. 9565). October 5. Letter to A.N. Muravyov: “Thank you for Pravda 126, of which I received five and one copy, but I still don’t have time to read again” (Letters. 1869. P. 103. No. 72). From A. N. Muravyov’s note to Metropolitan Philaret 127: Question: “Excuse me, Holy Master, for disturbing you again, but here is another disagreement in the 4th book of Kings: for in the 1st chapter. it is said (v. 17) that Joram reigned over Israel in the 2nd year of Joram the King of Judah; and in the 3rd chapter. the same book (v. 7) speaks of the union of the same Joram of Israel with Jehoshaphat. “How can we agree to this?” (Letters. 1869. pp. 103–104). October 7. Pronunciation of the Word upon the consecration of the Church of St. Nicholas in the Perervinsky Monastery: “Preparing us for the glory of the heavenly church, the church of the glory of God on earth still awaits some mediating glory, which, like all true glory, is bestowed by God, but the acquisition of which is left to our faith and our zeal. Just as in the Old Testament church the glory of signs, wonders, and foreshadowings should have led to the glory of the appearance of Jesus Christ, so in the New Testament church the glory of the gracious presence of the Lord in His Word, in the sacraments, in prayers should lead to the glory of the indwelling of Christ by faith in our hearts, as the holy Apostle Paul explains (Eph. 3:17)” (Works. Vol. 4. pp. 160–161). Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky) leaves the post of rector of the MDA. October 8. Proposal of the consistory: “Since one of the members of the Kolomna Spiritual Board has dropped out: and since two of the remaining two attribute the activities of the Board to one member, which should be attributed to their advanced years, then, in order to strengthen the deliberative action of the board, priest John Alekseev, who received this title from teachers and inspectors of schools, will be present in this Epiphany Church” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 233. No. 9524). October 9. Resolution on the landowner’s request for permission to build a chapel in the village for prayer services and the temporary residence of the bodies of the deceased: “The consistory is to be prescribed to the dean, so that, whether what is prescribed is correct and whether there is an important doubt on the part of the parish clergy, he will allow the construction of a wooden building in a decent place with the installation of holy icons in it, which should serve as a prayer house for performing prayers and a place for temporary arrangement of the bodies of the deceased, so that this building, according to the Charter, would be under the jurisdiction of the parish clergy and churchwarden” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 233–234. No. 9525). October 10. Resolution on the testimony of the dean about the drunken behavior of the priest during Holy Week: “The priest’s drunkenness, which reached the point where he could not continue prayers in the parish, and then, while drunk, the priest broke a window, the essence of disorder is so important and intolerable in the priest that hiding them by the dean from his superiors is indulgence in vice and infidelity before his superiors, intolerable in a well-ordered administration.” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 234. No. 9526). October 12. Serving the liturgy and prayer service, accompanying the religious procession around the Kremlin on the day of remembrance of the expulsion of the French from Moscow in 1812 (MB. 1841. No. 83. P. 620). Resolution on the consistory ruling that a monastic novice who lived in Moscow for ten days beyond the prescribed period was not fined: “The main basis for deciding the case should not be whether the novice was fined before, but what he did now. He spent ten days in unauthorized absence with an expired ticket, which subjected those with whom he stayed to a fine; abandoned the monastery horse entrusted to him, which could have been lost if it had not been saved by a tradesman; he showed, without a doubt, a lie about his illness, because if his illness did not prevent him from changing his lodgings every day, it did not prevent him from returning to the monastery, although quietly; by hiding where he lived, he gives himself the suspicion that he spent time in places indecent to his rank; therefore, it cannot be considered fair that no reprehensible actions were discovered” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 235. No. 9527). October 13. Letter to the Viceroy of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Thank you, Father Viceroy, to you and the brethren for your parting prayers for me. With their assistance, I completed my journey safely: and I found the liturgy in Brotherhood at the beginning, although the priest began without waiting for me” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 248. No. 305). October 16. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A. Protasov: “With haste, so that it is not too late, I am writing this, constrained by time, considering it my duty to hasten from Moscow in order to fulfill the highest will” (Opinions. P. 82. No. 26). October 18. A consistory resolution instructing the abbess of the Conception Convent to manage the interest on the capital bequeathed by the late provincial secretary: “Instruct the abbess to give the interest on a thousand rubles to the clergy and supervise the commemoration; the rest should be shared with the sisters of the monastery, especially those undergoing church obedience and those in need, with the inspiration that they also bring prayers for the repose of the soul of the deceased” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 235–236. No. 9528). Resolution on the petition of the widow of a priest to allow her to look for a groom for her adult daughter with his subsequent promotion to a priestly position: “No one is stopping you from looking, but you cannot guarantee for a place; because the opening of a place is not in the will of the authorities. Whether there is someone worthy who will ask for a place to take in an orphan, the Right Reverend will take this last circumstance into consideration” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 236. No. 9529). Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “The consecration of the church will not prevent me from appearing to His Highness 128 tomorrow at the appointed hour” (Letters. 1884. P. 36. No. 37). October 19. The list of the first 16 academicians - full members of the established Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (after the liquidation of the Russian Academy) was approved by the highest order. Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) of Moscow was named first. Letter to Count S.S. Uvarov 129: “The highest confirmation of me in the rank of ordinary academician of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian Language and Literature, announced to me by the attitude of your Excellency, I could only accept with a zealous, loyal desire to follow the sovereign beck of the Sovereign, who, among countless concerns for the good of his people, deigned to pay special attention to improvement in the field of the Russian language and to give new incentives for achievements in this field. Jealousy in this case is aroused not only by love for the Fatherland and the Fatherland's word, but also by love for the Faith and the Church. Yes, I think I missed it when I said: love for the Faith and the Church. For some time now, a kind of anarchy has been spreading in the area of ​​the Russian word, inattention to previously accepted rules, disrespect for previously recognized models, under the guise of nationality, universal intelligibility - a direction not towards a pure, noble, correct nationality, but towards a mixed, low, irregular common people. As one of the harmful consequences of this direction, if it is not possible to correct it, one must fear that the language under the pen of writers, and then in the mouths of the people, will quickly deviate from the Slovenian church dialect, which was its root, focus and measure of purity and correctness; that the people's language will be completely cut off and separated from the church language; that the beautiful, strong, church liturgical language imbued with the spirit of Christian teaching will finally become completely incomprehensible to those present at the service. I have no need to explain to Your Excellency how serious this loss would be; and I hope that you will agree with me that it is not love for the Fatherland and the Fatherland’s word alone, but also love for the Faith and the Church that now requires concern for the Russian language and Literature. If the state rightly takes care that the language of the state prevails over the languages ​​of subjects of different tribes, is it less worthy of care that the language of the Church does not finally become a foreign language through the capricious and unnecessary removal of the vernacular language from it? (Barsukov. T. VI. pp. 244–245). October 20. Letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov: “On the attitude of Your Excellency, dated October 11, No. 11.831, about being the Bishop of Riga, the vicar of the Pskov diocese, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret 130 and so on, - I have the honor to respond that 1) I ordered to accept the rector’s position until the decisive appointment to the inspector of the Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius 131, who even now, in the absence of the rector, is fulfilling it” (Letters. 1888. Part 2. P. 1). October 22. Letter from mother: “It was very painful for me to learn about the unfavorable state of your health and that certain concerns are preventing your improvement. I ask you to consider that the difficulty encountered is of a kind that could neither be foreseen nor avoided. Consequently, this is a visitation from God; and there is nothing left for us to do but humbly surrender to the will of God” (Letters. 1882. P. 357. No. 414). October 28. Resolution on the decree of the Holy Synod with the forwarding of a pectoral cross with a gold chain, granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the manager of the Jerusalem metochion in Moscow, Abbot Athanasius: “The Eminence will hand it over to the recipient, and if he wishes to accept this sacred sign with the bishop’s blessing during the service, as happens with us, then the Eminence can perform this.” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 259–260. No. 9582). Diary entry: “Much. Terentia. We are in St. Petersburg shortly after midnight, leaving M. 23.” October 29. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Having finished my journey to the northern capital yesterday at midnight, with the remembrance of love I turn to the Moscow Church and to you and call upon it and you the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the aversion of any doubt, I inform you that in conversations with the oldest members of the Holy Synod, I found it acknowledged that in the present circumstances, just as before, you should, as the locum tenens of the Moscow the metropolitan, in accordance with the ancient church rules and the existing Highest command, to take the place of the metropolitan in the Synodal office and in all church meetings” (Letters. 1887. P. 58). October 30. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “In a consultation of the elder members of the S. Synod on how to facilitate the most convenient fulfillment by His Eminence Agapit 132 of the duty assigned to him to be present in the Synodal Office, it was recognized that for this purpose it would be useful to move him to live 133 in the Donskoy Monastery, with the rector of which, also a member of the Synodal Office, he can share one crew to attend meetings” (Letters. 1887. pp. 59–60). October 31st. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “My journey was completed without much difficulty. Despite the Grand Duchess traveling at the same time, there were no stops from the post office. Near St. Petersburg we were stopped by the repair of the second carriage, and therefore I arrived at the courtyard after midnight on Monday. Vladyka of Novogorod is becoming more and more ancient. Kyiv is recovering from a cold. The former Bishop of Riga Irinarh 134 was appointed vicar of Voronezh” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 249. No. 306). November 2. Resolution on the dean’s explanation: “Like the consecrated antimensions and St. those anointed with the world cannot be cleansed without violating the consecration - and the dean reports that they have been cleansed and, consequently, their consecration has been violated, then the antimensions are examined in the presence of the Consistory regarding damage and cleansing, then a register is issued, and they are sent to the cathedral sacristy under seal for storage until the case is resolved” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 236–237. No. 9530). November 3. Answer to A.N. Muravyov to the question about the book of Kings: “Joram, of Israel, reigned in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat 2 Kings. III. I. He reigned in the 2nd year of Joram the son of Jehoshaphat 2Kings. 1. 17. Consequently, the 18th year of Jehoshaphat and the 2nd year of his son Joram are the same year here. Consequently, this Joram was enthroned by his father during his lifetime, and, moreover, first in one name, and then with the authority of 2 Kings. VIII. 16. This assumption is the only way to bring different chronological indications into agreement. In the Church-Biblical history this is indicated in a note” (Letters. 1869. P. 104. No. 73). November 5th. A report to the Holy Synod with a review of the manuscripts of the Moscow schismatic: “A terrible accusation is being brought against the Orthodox Church here of an inclination towards harmful equality. What is this accusation based on? - On the fact that at the proskomedia over one prosphora, designated for the commemoration of the living, prayer is offered for the king, and for the clergy, and for other Christians. Is it possible to be malicious more cruelly and shamelessly? <...> Is the writer really accusing St. Sergius of an inclination towards harmful equality? <...> Having, among other things, attempted to outline “measures of disfavor towards the Old Believers of spiritual power,” the notebook says that “they were forced to use military force against them in 1837,” and that “the cavalry was ordered to trample them, and the foot soldiers to beat them with the butts of their guns.” Where did Krugloumov get this from? And if somewhere, as a precaution against rebellious schismatics, military force was called in, is spiritual power to blame for this? Do such stories serve to justify the split? Is it possible to assume any other intention in them than the desire to irritate the minds of the people? (Opinions. T. add. pp. 85–86. No. 27). November 6. Report to the Holy Synod with a review of the manuscripts of the Moscow schismatic (continued): “This second notebook contains justifications for the schism, and objections to Orthodoxy, many times refuted, and evidence that has no force in favor of schismatic opinions” (Opinions. T. additional p. 87. No. 27). Resolution at the consistory decision on the need for St. present the antimension for storage in the Chudovsky sacristy: “The antimension from the St. Nicholas chapel should now be taken to the cathedral sacristy and kept specially under seal until discretion, and priestly services in this chapel should be prohibited” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 237. No. 9531). November 7. Attitude to Prince Π. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov 135: “The highest purpose of language is to be an instrument of God’s truth. Blessed is the lot of the language, whether it is processed in such a way that it becomes more and more capable, pure, obedient, sublime instrument of this truth” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 263. No. 9588). November 9. Resolution on the consistory decision on the dissolution of the marriage of the composer of the Moscow theaters: “Summoning both spouses to the consistory, give them separately and jointly an admonition, so that they are reconciled and turn to legal cohabitation and give a good example to the children” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 237–239. No. 9532). November 10. Letter from M. M. Tuchkova: “I wish your sick good health, and Euphrosyne not to think about her superiors, so that either she may be at peace in obedience, or, if the Lord calls her to rule not out of passion” (Letters to Abbess Maria. P. 58. No. 41). Report to the Holy Synod with a review of the manuscripts of the Moscow schismatic (end): “The author is especially intensifying to disturb and disrupt the Church of the same faith. For this purpose, calculating with exquisite detail the differences in rituals, it is attempted to prove that it is subject to the curse of both the ancient church and the cathedral of 1667; and, as usual, not relying on the strength of his evidence, he thinks to support them with lies and slander, as, for example, in the following words: “all spiritual authorities, some were baptized by pouring, others directly, and others, although indirectly, but through the work of those baptized by pouring, received ordination.” The purpose of this lie is to confirm schismatics who do not tolerate dousing baptism in alienation from the Orthodox hierarchy and to turn away fellow believers from it with the assurance that all bishops and priests are guilty of dousing” (Opinions. T. add. pp. 91–92. No. 27). November 12. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I hear nothing about the future of Riga 136. The former was appointed vicar of Voronezh" (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 250. No. 307). November 17. Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “Tell the Archpriest of Archangel that I ask him to look at the two Gospels in the Annunciation Cathedral, which are attributed to the antiquity of the 11th century, and write to me whether there is anything remarkable in them in relation to the disputed church traditions. Are there any paintings? We need to pay attention to them. About seven years ago, a Moscow citizen from the Pomeranian sect joined the church and wrote a narrative about her conversion, which I may publish 137” (Letters. 1887. pp. 60–61). November 19. Resolution on the consistory certificate about the bachelor of the Moscow Theological Academy who applied for the position of archpriest in the Kolomna Assumption Cathedral: “The Reverend, upon proper completion of the paperwork, whether there is any doubt, has the promotion of Bachelor Cosmin to the priesthood and then to the archpriest” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 239. No. 9533). November 23. Resolution on the presentation from Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev) about the unauthorized installation of windows by the head of the Epiphany Monastery, Hieromonk Gabriel: “The consistory strictly confirms to Hieromonk Gabriel, so that the changes undertaken willfully and against the rules in the buildings of the monastery are stopped and the buildings are brought into the form that they should and can have according to the law, and with the consent of the neighbor, under the description, otherwise [subject to] strict liability" (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 239. No. 9534). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “Through the prayers of St. Catherine, I call upon you God’s blessing to renew your days and continue them in health and prosperity. I said that tomorrow the gospel would ring and the reading of the hours would begin at three quarters of eight, the liturgy itself at nine, or at just a little after” (Letters. 1911 P. 208). November 24. Resolution on the determination of the Consistory about the unseemly actions of the deacon, who on Friday, after drinking a glass of vodka, ate a piece of meat: “The deacon admitted that on Friday he ate meat, which deviation from church rules in an altar server, more than others, is sinful, tempting and intolerable. Oblivion does not justify, but reveals inattention to church rules. For this, send a deacon to the Savvina Monastery for a week in order to purify himself through confession and bear penance, according to the reasoning of the spiritual father” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 240. No. 9535). November 25. Appointment of Archimandrite Eusebius (Orlinsky) to the position of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. December 2. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Now I am sending you part of the article about the sacristy, which I am redoing in my own way. Do you think it's better this way? Believe what I have written and, if necessary, add to it. Is there anything else that belongs to this article? (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 251. No. 308). December 3. Resolution on the report of the Dmitrov spiritual board on the request of the landowner Rimsky-Korsakov to raise the Life-giving Cross of the Lord on his estate: “As an inquiry it is revealed only that this cross is carried out in religious processions and in houses in the city; but for it to be carried outside the city to the villages, it is not open, then to adhere to the previous custom, about which a decree should be sent from the Consistory to the spiritual Board” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 240. No. 9536). Resolution at the consistory ruling on the removal of a priest from his place and the relegation of a priest to a clerical position for beating a peasant: “As a priest, according to the apostolic rule, is subject to deprivation of his dignity and, with the relief of his fate after the Highest Manifesto, requires the cleansing of his conscience by penance, in accordance with his rank and the severity of the sin, it is considered fair that he should be prohibited from serving in the priesthood for six months, with removal from the place where he subjected himself to such an important reproach and with a determination to a clergy place, under the strict supervision of the dean and local priest" (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 240–241. No. 9537). Resolution in a letter from the secretary of the former Imperial Russian Academy D.I. Yazykov with the transmission of a bronze copy of the medal, knocked out on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary: “It is surprising that the late President 138, who had a claim to the character of a zealot of Orthodoxy, did not find a way to express the glory of the Most Pious Sovereigns without resorting to the ideas of non-Christian antiquity.” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 260. No. 9583). December 4. Resolution on the petition of a seminary student for his dismissal from the clergy due to illness: “As this student has been left without a place for more than three years and, due to the great number of similar people seeking a place, the diocesan authorities have no need for him, then submit to the Holy Synod whether it would be appropriate to allow him to be dismissed from the ecclesiastical department in the proper manner” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 241. No. 9538). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “It’s still not winter here. “The future Rizhsky came to me yesterday” (Letters. 1887. P. 62). December 5th. Letter to the Governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I very much regret what happened during the dedication of the hieromonk. I think you are telling the truth that a soul established in God should not waver, no matter what happens outside of it, and especially in its special service to the Lord; however, it is natural to be both offended and embarrassed when the important work of sanctification is subject to inattention and confusion. Knowing my weakness above all, I do not judge you, but I pray to the Lord that your affirmation in Him will make you, like Mount Zion, motionless” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 252. No. 309). December 10. Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Frost began here on the 6th day of this month; and today there is snow, which has not been on the ground before. How are you? Won't the rye get cold in the field? Bless us therefore to listen to God’s services, and then to the Synod” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 253. No. 310). December 11. Resolution in a letter from captain A. B. Kozakov with the forwarding of five thousand rubles bequeathed by his late father for the maintenance of an almshouse and two thousand rubles from the captain’s own funds for the clergy to commemorate the soul of the deceased: “The attached sum of five thousand rubles in banknotes should be put into the Treasury of the Guardian Council for perpetuity so that interest is paid annually to the priest of the church St. Joachim and Anna for use according to the will of the testator for charitable use" (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 260. No. 9584). December 12. Letter to A. B. Kozakov 139: “Dear sir, Alexander Borisovich! As a result of your letter, in which 5,000 rubles in ass[ignations] were sent to me at the will of your parent, and 2,000 rubles in ass[ignations] from you for his commemoration, I am obliged to inform you that I have ordered the Consistory: the amount of 5,000 rubles in ass[ignations] to be deposited in the safe treasury of the Guardian Council for perpetual time so that interest is paid annually to the priest of the church of St. Joachim and Anna for charitable use according to the will of the testator" (CHOLDPr. 1873. Book II. P. 162. - Materials). Letter to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “Please know, Father Viceroy, that I have finished revising the description of the Lavra” (Letters to St. Anthony. P. 253. No. 311). Letter to mother: “I ordered the Lavra to send you rubles in assortments for the needs of you and your family. In addition, you will receive 200 rubles in assignations for the newborn” (Letters. 1882. P. 358. No. 415). December 13th. Letter to Archimandrite Ioannikiy (Kholuysky), abbot of the Chudov Monastery: “With my sympathy, I learn about the painful attacks that happened to you, Father Viceroy. One of our predecessors, who had already departed to the Lord, told me that at some times during his priestly service he had an attack of nervous weakness, from which he was afraid to fall, was he not close to what lean; that the attack was less sensitive when the proximity of the support calmed the infirm, that this lasted about a year. What did you do against this, I asked? He answered: nothing; He endured, tried not to give in to exhaustion and fear, but surrendered to the will of God, maintained peace of mind, strengthened by prayer. In this example, will you find some medical advice for yourself? But in order not to interfere in someone else’s business - in the giving of medical advice, for which there is a special science - I will draw your attention to medicine, which is actually entrusted to us, the use of which is always beneficial and can hardly ever be sinful. I'm talking about the consecration of oil. It is now usually used in serious illnesses and in noticeable proximity to death. But there is no such limitation in Christ’s and Apostolic institution” (Letters. 1888, pp. 164–165). December 14. Resolution on the report of the hieromonk with the presentation in two copies of the personal statements about the abbot, monastics and Balti: “Hierodeacon Iakinthos, who was subjected to the weakness of drunkenness, is to submit to the Builder to be kept from priestly service for two weeks, is there any lesser means of correction that do not have an effect” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 241. No. 9539). Resolution on the report of the temporary audit committee presenting the reports of the Bethany Seminary for 1840 and the journals of this committee with their comments and explanations of the seminary board (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 253–254. No. 9566). December 15. Letter from E.V. Novosiltseva: “Yesterday’s letter reached me this morning. You don’t actually need forgiveness from me; To the Lord I keep peace again. Forgiveness from the Lord in everything in which this is needed for you, both with a reminder and without a reminder, I earnestly appeal to you. Trusting in His mercy, believe in His forgiveness, rejoice in Him with unabashed joy, and with a thirst for love, begin to commune at His Table. His peace be with you” (Letters. 1911. P. 214). December 19. Letter to Prince S. M. Golitsyn: “Now I am being sent to your Excellency as a petitioner according to a note sent to me and attached. In the Trinity Lavra they know that the official Bogolepov, with many children, is poor and truly requires the philanthropic help of his superiors to raise his children; They take part in it because in relations with Lavra he acts disinterestedly and good-naturedly. Deign to provide all possible assistance and do not be angry at the boldness of hope with which I resort to you, remaining with deep respect and complete devotion” (Letters. 1884. pp. 37–38. No. 38). December 20. Letter to Archimandrite Ioannikiy (Kholuysky), abbot of the Chudov Monastery: “You are doing well, Father Viceroy, in resisting attacks with good spirits and activity. This may be partly medical. Eating simple and light food will also be beneficial: but you need to position yourself in such a way as to maintain strength and have sleep” (Letters. 1888. P. 164). December 21st. The consecration of Filaret (Gumilyovsky) as Bishop of Riga, vicar of the Pskov diocese, was completed. From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “At the end of 1841, a rector’s position was opened at the Moscow Theological Academy. Archimandrite Philaret, my friend at the Academy, the rector of this Academy, was promoted to bishop in Riga. I heard rumors that the prosecutor Count Protasov strongly petitioned Metropolitan Philaret for me to accept me as rector of the Moscow Academy. Filaret, however, rejected, did not deign: he elected another, Alexy 140, rector of the Moscow Seminary. It hurt me when this rumor reached me. And I, a man, mourned Filaret. However, I soon came to my senses. And now I completely forgive Filareta for myself. Perhaps, in terms of my scholarship, I could be suitable for the rectorship of the Academy. But I'm not of strong character. Anything and anyone can captivate me to anything. And most of all, the Great God, His Good Providence, looked, of course, not at me alone, but also at the Academy, a large, learned society, important in the Russian Church. I wasn’t worth this place in the state then!!!” (Unpublished article by Bishop Nikodim Kazantsev. pp. 102–103). Resolution on the petition of the priest and parishioners to allow the sexton, who entered into his first marriage with a widow, to wear the surplice: “If the clerk himself is not in a second marriage and only after being initiated into the surplice entered into marriage with the widow, then it may be in the surplice” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 241. No. 9540). Resolution on the deacon’s petition with a complaint against the dean: “Give the deacon, whether there is a reason to denounce his wife or complain about the dean, denounce and complain specifically, as it should” (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 241–242. No. 9541). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “I spoke with members of the Synod about providing the newly created Edinoverie church with 141 ancient icons from the Assumption Cathedral and the Church of the Twelve Apostles, which do not have premises there. They agree. Are there any icons that are not included in the inventory: you can simply give them away. Is it in the inventory? I need to write here which one and how much is supposed to be given. We have an orphan winter here. A little cold and snow. How are you? Aren’t they afraid of harm from prolonged dampness and then snowless frosts?” (Letters. 1887. pp. 62–63). December 23. A note about the Syriac-Jacobite Church and its relationship with the Russian Church: “Returning the Asian papers to Your Excellency, I have the honor to answer that the information that I have on this subject is only that this Patriarch of the Syrian people and this Metropolitan of Jerusalem are not Orthodox, but the so-called Jacobites, according to the disseminator of their heresies, and Monophysites, according to false teaching. That is, those who recognize in our Lord Jesus Christ only one nature, and not two, Divine and human, as the Catholic Church confesses. For them to ever address the All-Russian Imperial Throne or relate to the Russian Hierarchy - I never encountered this during my twenty-two years of service in the Holy Synod. I do not dare to extend my judgment on this subject further” (Opinions. 1905. P. 81). Opinion on the application of the All-Merciful Manifesto of 1841 to cases of seduction from Orthodoxy to Latinism: “If sacrilege - the theft of a soulless thing from the Church - is not forgiven by the All-Merciful Manifesto: how much more is seduction - the theft of an Orthodox soul from the Orthodox Church Seducers and the seduced cannot enjoy forgiveness according to the All-Merciful Manifesto, if the seduction is not ceased, that is, if the seduced did not return to Orthodoxy. If the seduced have returned or are returning to Orthodoxy, then just as they are thereby freed from further responsibility, so the seducers can be freed from it according to the Most Merciful Manifesto, without, however, being freed from church penance if their actions are subject to it” (Opinions. 1905. pp. 78–79). December 25th. Introduction of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories Liturgy and prayer service in the court church of the Winter Palace (MB. 1842. No. 2. P. 9). Letter from E. V. Novosiltseva: “Of course, the best motive for doing good is love for God, but the desire to do good to beloved departed souls is also a good impulse: let this also help diligently, let the first rule. Everything that somehow resembles envy should be rejected at first glance” (Letters. 1911. P. 214). December 30th. Resolution on the report of the abbess of the Moscow Ascension Nunnery Athanasia about the monastics in 1841, and the nuns Minodora and Evgraf were not of very good behavior: “As in this monastery it is especially inconvenient to leave doubtful ones; and the nuns Minodora and Evgraf are not sufficiently approved, and about the first, besides this, unfavorable information reached me as about acting willfully and recklessly, then I should instruct the dean of the monasteries to establish special supervision over them, and if any intolerant actions are seen, report immediately” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. pp. 242–243. No. 9542). The resolution on the consistory report that the petition for an award for a priest for his five-year work cannot be submitted after the expiration of the deadline: “Since the time for submission for awards in the ecclesiastical department has already passed and, according to the procedure adopted in this administration, clergy are presented for new awards no closer than three years after the previous award, then the approval deserved by priest Ternovsky should be taken into account when the next appointment of worthy persons to awards. About this, answer from me or, in my absence, from the Eminence” (Resolutions. T. 4. P. 243. No. 9543). Resolution on an extract from the consistory invoice register about a peasant woman’s sleepy vision, as if the Mother of God commanded her to say that the Orthodox should not sow potatoes: “Instruct the Stromynsky priest and local dean to carefully observe whether there is widespread prejudice against the government-encouraged potato cultivation in the Stromynsky parish and in the surrounding area, and whether there is This will be noted so that they can instill in the prejudiced that, according to the apostolic teaching, every creation of God is good and nothing is notable, consumed with thanksgiving, without violating the rules of abstinence” (Resolutions. Vol. 4. P. 243. No. 9544). December 31st. Resolution on an extract from the consistory journal with the presentation of a note from the case at the request of the former secretary of the consistory Smirnov (Resolutions. T. 4. pp. 243–244. No. 9545). Letter to Bishop Nikolai (Sokolov): “I don’t see why the Optina case should especially confuse you. The general misfortune is that troubles are in the false brethren, and through them disputes about the title are multiplied. See if you need to pay more attention to Paul, already known from previous deeds, so that the just action will be more obvious” (CHOLDPr. 1870. Book 11. p. 24. - Materials). Letter to Bishop Vitaly (Shchepetev): “The Right Reverend of Vladimir asks that we help him with his ordination, which he needs due to the state of his health. Don't renounce. Whenever possible, you will dedicate it, otherwise you will give it to one of the bishops who are in Moscow. In this sense, I will answer him” (Letters. 1887. P. 64). Letter to Archbishop Parthenius (Chertkov): “I am glad to help you in your ordination, and I hope my Right Reverend vicar will not renounce. I wrote to him about this. Please treat him when he can, he will ordain; otherwise he will give it to one of the bishops staying in Moscow” (PO. 1872. Book 2/3. No. 9. P. 44. No. 32). From the memoirs of Bishop Nikodim (Kazantsev): “Synod anecdotes: a) the opinions and assumptions of the Members of the Holy Synod were not always accepted: they were sometimes rejected. Even Metropolitan Seraphim 142 himself suffered failures; on the contrary, the proposals of the Metropolitan of Moscow always remained deeds and law. b) Seraphim, due to poor health, asked the Metropolitan of Moscow to read and sign the journals and protocols of the Synod first: “You are younger than me,” he said, “take the trouble to read and sign what you recognize as fair. And I will sign for you, trusting you, without reading.” Filaret accepted the offer. The office and everything secular was drooping. The self-will has ceased. After a little time, one of those sitting at the prosecutor’s table came to Seraphim and, assuming the appearance of a very humble novice, explained his complaint against Metropolitan Philaret: “You assigned him to be the first to read the journals. But he is ungrateful to you: he cancels your orders.” And as proof I found some forgotten little thing. Seraphim flared up and canceled the concession given to Filaret, telling the official it was important: “Submit the cases to me again first of all.” (I heard this in those years when I lived in St. Petersburg (1838–1841).) c) Metropolitan Philaret himself once told me: “The secularists in the Synod are taking liberties. They even cancel the decisions given by the Synod.” Then he told me something about a church in the Nizhny Novgorod Diocese. The Synod decided it - yes, but the journal says - no. d) I had occasion to sit with the Metropolitan more than once, when suddenly the Prosecutor Count Protasov came. Vladyka immediately put on his cassock and covered himself with the Metropolitan’s hood (he always has them ready in the closet next to the sofa). The Lord immediately released me, blessing me. The blessed Vladyka often talked to me simply in his cassock. Black, wool; a sash of the same material, thick, tied in a knot. On the head there is a black woven mesh or black skufya. Sometimes the bishop wears barefoot shoes and white stockings. It even happened that Vladyka would lie down on the sofa, talking to me, or listening to my speeches, or reading. During these times, I saw Vladyka in old, very worn, completely red boots. e) Protasov did not wait for an invitation to enter the living room, but walked directly behind the cell attendant who was coming to report. Insolent and offensive. The Bishop is not in the front living room (at this time), but in the home one. The prosecutor is not his own; The hours are not legal, for example, 3 o'clock in the afternoon. f) One day Protasov came to Filaret and began to talk to him about something very loudly, almost shouting, as is fashionable among the military and among the Chiefs. The Bishop said: “Even if you speak more quietly, Your Excellency, I will hear.” Since then, Protasov has stopped shouting, at least at Metropolitan Philaret’s. (I heard this from the cell attendant of the Metropolitan)” (Kazantsev. pp. 69–70). An officer of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, he retired in 1817 and settled in Moscow; did charity work. Tatyana Vasilchikova (d. January 28, 1841). Count Protasov was the son-in-law of D.V. Golitsyn. Letter without date of writing, received February 3, 1841. Rev. Paisiy Velichkovsky. Date in a letter without specifying the name of the month, placed between letters dated February 8 and February 27, 1841. President of the Prison Trustee Society. Matseevsky V. A. History of the primitive Christian church among the Slavs. Innocent (Orlov, d. 1870). Bishop Nikolai (Dobrokhotov, d. 1864), from April 27, 1841 Bishop of Tambov and III. The Metropolitan invites the rector to make a trip in the summer to inspect a seminary. Obviously, the author missed the word “delight.” The wedding took place on April 16, 1841 in St. Petersburg. The imperial family visited Moscow in connection with the wedding of the heir. With him, two hereditary dukes of Saxe-Weimar and Hesse, Emilius and Alexander, arrived in Moscow. It is unknown which of them was with the saint. In 1841, the trustee of the Moscow educational district submitted to the Minister of Public Education a representation about the inconveniences of teaching canon law by professors of theology. The minister was offered a summary compiled by N. I. Krylov, an ordinary professor at Moscow University in the Department of Roman Law, which contained the following proposals: 1) read canon law only in law faculties; 2) entrust lectures on church law to professors who have received a legal rather than a theological education; 3) teach at universities church law of general content for all Christian denominations. The project was transferred to the Holy Synod, and they, in turn, to Metropolitan Philaret, who gave his feedback on it. By resolution of April 7 – May 28, 1841, the Holy Synod supported the opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, and the teaching of church law at universities remained as before. Resolution dated February 18, 1841: “Due to a deficiency perceived in the verbal organ, the student is advised to choose a service in which this would not be an obstacle.” Ivan Yakovlevich Koreysha (1783–1861) – Moscow blessed. Sofya Sergeevna Meshcherskaya (nee Vsevolozhskaya, d. 1848) - princess, wife of I. S. Meshchersky. Writer and translator, employee of the Bible Society. Ivan Sergeevich Maltsov (d. 1880) – diplomat, writer, translator, since 1843 member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That is, two banknotes of 25 rubles each. Pavel Vladimirovich Apukhtin (d. 1900). Hegumen Joasaph (Tolstoshev, d. 1884). After the death of St. Seraphim of Sarov declared himself his student and subjugated the Diveyevo communities to his influence, achieving their unification and official approval in 1842. We are probably talking about Pavel Vladimirovich Apukhtin. "One Hundred Russian Writers". We are talking about the Gethsemane skete, which Archimandrite Anthony intended to arrange for the zealots of the silent life. His wish came true in 1844. The book “The Truth of the Universal Church.” Filaret's answer is dated November 3, 1841. To Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich. Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786–1855) – count, minister of public education (1833–1849), president of the Academy of Sciences (1818–1855). Eusebius (Orlinsky, d. 1883) – Archbishop of Mogilev. Agapit (Voznesensky, d. 1854) - Bishop of Tomsk, appointed June 10 '841, member of the Moscow Synodal Office. From the Novospassky Monastery. Irinarch (Popov, d. 1877) – Archbishop of Ryazan. Academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1828), chairman of the Archaeographic Commission for the Russian language and literature (1834–1850). Filaret (Gumilevsky, d. 1866), December 21, 1841, consecrated Bishop of Riga, Vicar of the Pskov Diocese, later Archbishop of Chernigov and Nezhin. Published in 1843 under the title “The Narrative of the Conversion of Bronina from the Pomeranian Sect.” Admiral A. G. Shishkov (1754–1841). Alexander Borisovich Kozakov (d. 1870) – Major General, Privy Councilor. All Saints at the Edinoverie cemetery, behind the Rogozhskaya outpost. The church was built by the Babkins merchants. A Edinoverie convent was subsequently opened at this church.