№ 1. Мнение Преосвященного Филарета о бумагах доктора философии Ясской Эллинской школы Димитрия Годеля, представленных Государю Александру Павловичу

26 Dec 1841 d.t.s. book Alexander Golitsyn, by order of the Highest, forwarded to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, kept by him at the will of the late Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, the papers of the doctor of philosophy of the Iasi Hellenic School, Dimitri Godel. 1) Letter from Godel to the Holy Synod dated June 1, 1821 2) Prayer for the successful march of the Christ-loving army to Hagaryan. 3) An interpretation of the symphony of the Old and New Testaments about a future event, about the end of this age, and about the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, set forth by some unlearned Eastern Orthodox unworthy Christian in favor of the Orthodox people of God and all humanity when they repent. Proclaimed and dedicated to the faithful Orthodox King Zerubbabel, from the tribe of Judah, Autocrat and Protector of Philadelphia, Monarch V.R.A.P. In the summer of redemption, 1817 November 8. In Christianopolis. The interpretation is divided into 7 chapters, and based on the texts of the Apocalypse and Holy Scripture, it proves that the kingdom of Russia is the kingdom of David from the tribe of Judah or the kingdom of Christ, that it is destined to destroy the Antichrist-Mohammed, free the Greeks of the same faith, defeat the Western peoples, convert the Jews and other non-Christians to Christianity - then the coming of Jesus Christ, which is intended in 1988 year. In his dedication to the Sovereign, the author asks that it be printed secretly and sent to the leading pastors of the Church to instruct the faithful to pray for a speedy end to the terrible days and for the unification of the Churches. In his letter to the Holy Synod, Godel explains that this interpretation was compiled by a holy man living on Mount Athos, who handed over the manuscript to one person for presentation to Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, and from this person the manuscript was received by Godel and sent by him to the Holy Synod with a request to submit it to His Majesty upon consideration. These papers were sent to His Eminence Philaret, who gave the following opinion about them: Opinion about the essay: Interpretation of the symphony of V. and N. Testament about a future event, etc. If we were to enter into a detailed examination of this work, it would produce lengthy work, but one for which no special need calls for, and which does not promise any special benefit. The question that needs to be answered here seems to be the following: to what extent should we give faith to what is contained in this work? In order to pave the way to the resolution of this question, it will suffice to note some features of this work. 1) One of the main keys with which the treasures of the Apocalypse must be unlocked is the number 666. The Seer Himself calls upon those who are able to take this key and unlock what it contains. Here is wisdom: let those who have intelligence respect the number of beasts; There is a number for man, and his number is 666 (Apoc. 13:18). Let's see how the author of the interpretation uses this key. Moametis, Olosmanes, Otmanes, Lateinos, Venediktos, these are the names in which he finds the number 666. It is truly in them: but nothing can be proven or explained with this. No one says or writes: Moametis, Olosmanes, Otmanes, Lateinos. And if you write, as they usually say and write: Magomed or Moamef Osman, Ottoman, Lationos or Latinus, then the number 666 will not appear in these names. The name Venediktos is written exactly like this in Greek: but who is Benediktos, whom the interpreter understands? Neither he himself explains this, nor can he explain it by guesswork, and there is probably no way to explain it. It is known that this has long been applied to Pope Benedict IX. But there is no way to agree on this either with the Apocalypse or with the explanations of our interpreter. 2) The interpreter says: You, O King, are the key of David; you open, and no one will close; you close, and no one will open (Apoc. 3:7). Firstly, it is seen here that the interpreter rejected part of the Apocalyptic saying with damage to its meaning: for in the Apocalypse the words: opening the shutter do not refer to the key, but to the one who has the key. Secondly, it is not difficult for the attentive reader of the Apocalypse to see that the True Holy One, having the key of David, opens, and no one will shut, he who shuts, and no one will open, who knows the affairs of the Angel of the Philadelphia Church is not the person to whom our interpreter attached these words, but Jesus Christ Himself. 3) The interpreter says: he (i.e., the Ottoman) is the he-goat who broke both horns of the ram, the Greek Kingdom (Daniel 8:7). This interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy is clearly contrary to the interpretation found in the Prophet Daniel himself. Aries, you who had horns saw him, the King of Lida and Persia (and not the Greek). And the he-goat is the King of the Greeks (and not the Ottoman. Daniel 8:20–21). What are these examples: there are many such places in the interpretation of the unknown. That is, many of its interpretations are either clearly contrary to the evidence of Holy Scripture, in which it itself explains its secrets, or are arbitrary and do not provide any grounds on which these interpretations could be recognized as true. The writer of the Apocalypse himself gave us a rule of caution in relation to people who have the image of prophets: do not believe every spirit, but tempt the spirits if they are from God (John 4:1). The Spirit, who spoke clearly contrary to the testimony of Divine Scripture, did not stand the test, and should not be believed in this regard. A spirit that says something new, although not refuted by the testimony of Divine Scripture, but also not confirmed by reliable signs of truth, requires further testing whether it is from God. If what has been said so far is true, then the following from that conclusion will also be true: 1) The content of the proposed interpretation should not be believed in part; 2) Part of it should be left until further testing and until the discovery of reliable signs of truth through events, or instructions from Providence; 3) Consequently, this work should not be published in print, even if it was not for everyone, but it should be left in complete secret until further discretion; 4) Finally, the Church and the Russian State are not obliged, on the basis of this work, to any extraordinary enterprise, but are obliged to act carefully and faithfully according to the general obligations of common faith, love of humanity and justice; for if these everlasting duties are fulfilled carefully and faithfully, then in humility, but also with boldness, we must hope that our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Chief Shepherd, will send His light and His truth for undoubted instruction and in what is especially required of whom to serve His Holy, righteous and good destinies. To further explain this opinion, it is not superfluous to add that this does not condemn the entire work presented, and even less the author. Through the darkness and dim flicker in this work, some sparks of light flash, which, however, do not illuminate anything with a clear and definite light. If it is permissible to explain this phenomenon with a guess; The explanation for this can most likely be the following: the writer must be a reverent man, practicing in reading the Holy Scriptures and observing the signs of the times, which is why he received some suggestions and premonitions that aroused him. If we assume that to these suggestions and premonitions he added an amateurish and impatient desire to bring them into clarity, not being strong in the gift of discernment, then it will be explained why he, collecting sayings of the Holy Scripture from everywhere, uses them so confusingly, arbitrarily, and sometimes completely in the wrong sense. If we finally assume that his love for the fatherland was not yet quite purified and dispassionate, but partial and too partial, then it will also be explained why he attributes to the Greek Church and the Greek people some sayings of the Holy Scriptures that obviously do not relate to them, why he forcibly drags some heavenly Apocalyptic phenomena to earth, and turns the Divine into the political. However, the undersigned, pronouncing this opinion out of obedience and understanding, is ready to renounce it immediately, as soon as he learns another, more consistent with the truth testified by the Word of God. You might be interested in: