Criticism of the works of Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow in the 30s

Contents From the author I. Brief notes on the book “Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church” II. Excerpts from Notes on the Book of Genesis with the addition of comments showing the spirit of the author of these notes Words of the author Page. 2. “The limit from which the existence of the world begins is signified by the word at the beginning. Solomon in describing wisdom (Prov. 8:22) and John in describing God the Word use the same word, no doubt pointing to Moses." 6. The origin of the sixfold or sevenfold number of these (days of creation) Page. 17. But 70 interpreters, more consistent with both the sign and use of the word כּתוֺךְ, and with the ancient concept of heaven, constantly translate στερέωμα - firmament Page. 18. One might think that the writer of everyday life here calls water what he previously called an abyss, with the difference that this unstructured substance, after the creation of light, partly became transparent. 21. But since we do not know in detail their present (dark celestial bodies) state, it would be inappropriate to talk about their beginning. 25. According to the adaptation of Moses to the customs of the Jews. 32. Man is a small world, a reduction and, as it were, the purest extraction of all the natures of the visible world. 35. The soul in the body, like God in nature, being invisible, is present in everything, acts in it, animates it, rules it and preserves it. 36. In a body (one can seek the image of God) consistent with the body of glory of the God-man Page. 37. The foundation of the image of God is deeply laid in the soul (by the way) and in order for fallen man to find out what he was and what he should be. 56. Spawn of Heaven Page. 66. And mature to a painless transformation from the soul to the spiritual body Page. 75. The creation of a wife could not give man a higher perfection than in which he was created before her. 75. Wanting to show the case that gave a person the idea of ​​​​an assistant similar to him, he explains the property of this assistant through comparison with the creatures that serve man. Moses describes the first man's observation of animals and the naming of them. 76. It can be assumed that the original language existed before the creation of the wife... that man received it along with being Page. 78. At least God is justified in creating a dangerous helper by the fact that man himself invented it. 78. Some imagine this dream (Adam) as the effect of some inclination towards the sensual from the spiritual Page. 85. The state of the second Adam after his death is, in excess, the returned state of Adam before his sleep in paradise. 131. That Abel was a shepherd of sheep, and Cain a farmer, Moses says this in order to show the origin of the various sacrifices they made. 150. Abel brings to God a sacrifice without comparison more pleasant than Cain. Jesus Christ offers the sacrifice of the cross, the only one worthy of God and which abolishes all ritual sacrifices. 155. Thus, the first city is created by the first exile of the earth, and by the one who did not expect a city that has an unshakable foundation, whose architect and founder is God. 202. The beginning of the flood should be believed to be in the last half of autumn, which is usually a rainy time in many countries III. Comments on the catechisms of Metropolitan Philaret A. First B. Second Modern Orthodox society, accustomed to treating pastoral wisdom, comprehensive theological scholarship and the entire life and work of the ever-memorable Moscow Saint Philaret with nothing other than deep respect, close to reverence, is not so easy to imagine that his best, more remarkable works, which brought him fame and universal honor, at their very first appearance met with harsh and merciless criticism 1, – all the more so to imagine that this criticism contained many solid and fair comments. Meanwhile, in reality this was exactly the case. Each of his more remarkable creations of the first period of his scientific and literary activity: “Conversation between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Greek-Russian Church” (1st ed. 1815), “Notes on the Book of Genesis” (1st ed. 1816) “Short Christian Catechism” (had two hundred and fifty-two editions!), “Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Church” (1st edition - in 1828, there were ninety-one editions in total!), soon after publication they met bold and, as it seems to us, in places not unfounded, although not entirely impartial, criticism. Following this, we publish all four critical articles, hitherto, as far as we know, not published anywhere, not being able, however, to say either when exactly they were written or who their author was. Regarding the latter, only some assumptions can be made. Firstly, as can be seen from the beginning of the review of the Shorter Catechism, these reviews had, if not official, then official origin - they were written for the main board of schools (of which Filaret himself, from 1817, was a member), perhaps on his behalf, the board. All four reviews, as far as can be judged by the similarity of style, were written by the same person, a specialist and a good connoisseur of theology in general, hermeneutics, Greek and Hebrew languages ​​in particular - who cannot be denied either thoroughness, profundity, or skillful dialectics: by all indications, he was an opponent worthy of Philaret. All four articles were written either by Shishkov’s ministry or, in any case, by a person from his party. This is confirmed by the fact that in the review of the catechism the reproach is repeated for the translation in the catechism into Russian of the creed, the Lord's prayer and the commandments - a reproach that was made in the “relation” of Shishkov to Metropolitan Seraphim on November 21, 1824 (see Sushkova - Notes on the life and times of Metropolitan Philaret, appendix, p. 48) and entailed a temporary prohibition and then correction of the catechism. The author of the reviews does not limit himself to reproaching the translation of the symbol, the Lord’s Prayer and the commandments into Russian, but also points out other shortcomings in the catechisms: from this we can conclude that they were written after Shishkov’s “relationship” with M. Seraphim, which served, so to speak, as the topic for the reviews. So, who could be the author of these reviews? Some indication for resolving this issue can be provided by Philaret’s remark in a letter to M. Seraphim dated December 8, 1824 (Sushkov, appendices, p. 50). Having spoken about the approval that the catechism received from St. Synod and from the sovereign himself (who, in a letter dated June 2, 1820, expressed that the catechism was “written in the spirit of the Orthodox Eastern Church and in the mind of the Gospel truth”), Philaret continues: “if the orthodoxy of the catechism, so solemnly approved by St. Synod, then it is not doubtful whether the Orthodoxy of St. Synod? A judgment that one priest will pronounce on the act of the Synod, if it is true that one priest is entrusted with giving an opinion on the catechism approved by the synod, will it convince the whole church?” etc. So, Filaret’s critic is a priest. Going through all the names of learned St. Petersburg priests of that time known to us, we cannot help but dwell preferably on G.P. Pavsk. From his biography, compiled by us (see “Russian Antiquity” of 1880), it is known that from 1814, from the time he completed his course at the academy, Pavsky began to have displeasures with the Reverend. Filaret. He was dissatisfied with the fact that Filaret gave him, the first master of the first graduating class of the academy, the department of dogmatics, the first and main subject for which he (as Pavsky himself puts it in his autobiography) was “more capable” of teaching, and the Jewish language. What irritated him even more against Filaret was the latter’s repeated attempts to persuade Pavsky to enter monasticism. Then, having become famous outside the academy, Pavsky was especially warmly received by people from the party hostile to Prince A.N. Golitsyn (next., and Filaret); First of all, Runich treated him kindly, then Uvarov, and finally, Arakcheev himself instructed him to compile a manual on the law of God for cantonists of the highest rank - in the form of “Instructions for teachers of the law regarding the subjects of teaching, methods and aids.” This instruction, compiled by Pavsky, although in a completely Orthodox direction, but without any genetic relationship to the previously existing manuals and catechisms of Orthodox theologians, according to Dreseke’s method (actually according to his book: Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung), pleased the Ministry of Public Education (actually the main board of schools) so much that Runich introduced the program of the law of God, compiled by Pavsky in accordance with this instruction, in the “gymnasium” of his district, the “noble university boarding school” and the “higher school”, instructing Pavsky to draw up the very schedule of lessons of the law of God in these institutions. So, since dissatisfaction with Philaret’s catechism arose in Shishkov, and in the persons of his party there was a desire to prove the inconsistency of this work of a supporter of Golitsyn, to whom else could the main board of schools entrust this matter, if not Pavsky, who, in addition to having a long-standing unfriendly relationship with Philaret, turned out to be the most competent person to criticize the catechism, as he himself was involved in drawing up a manual on the law of God and was personally interested in so that the new textbook on the law of God, compiled by Philaret, would not turn out to be his best guide? So, we come to the conclusion that the author of the reviews of Philaret’s catechisms was none other than Pavsky. This, perhaps, should explain the fact that later Rev. Filaret, for his part, considered it his duty to criticize “Christian Teaching in a Brief System” and “Outline of Church History” - notes from Pavsky’s lessons to the Sovereign Heir Tsesarevich (Sovereign Emperor Alexander II) 2, which served as the reason for Pavsky’s removal from teaching the law. If so, if the compiler of reviews of Philaret’s catechisms was Pavsky: then he was also the author of the other two articles - about “Conversations between the examiner and the confident in the Orthodox Russian Church” and about “Notes on the Book of Genesis.” This is confirmed both by the similarity of style and critical techniques in both articles, and even more so by the erudition in the field of biblical history found in the review of the Notes, which could only belong to our famous bibliologist and Hebraist. The comments on “Conversations” are relatively weaker, precisely because Pavsky was not a specialist in accusatory theology. Be that as it may, all four reviews did not remain without influence on Rev. Philareta. Not only were the catechisms subjected to alterations in subsequent editions (see Sushkova, pp. 117–118), but also the “Notes” were published again in a revised edition in 1819. As for the “Conversations”, Filaret had to defend this work of his in 1825 against a review of it in a French book, with a special article entitled: “Responses to several objections to the Orthodox Church, made in a French book on a conversation between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church” 3. I. Brief notes on the book “Conversations between the testing and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church” Judging by the table of contents of this book, any sensible reader, of course, should expect that from the very first pages it speaks of the Orthodoxy of our holy church and briefly sets out the indisputable arguments for this, in order to later reveal them in more detail. The writer, on the contrary, getting down to business, as if on purpose, changes the table of contents and talks about some kind of vague Christian Orthodoxy. Then he condemns the curiosity of the examiner and contrasts it with the gratitude that he owes to the church to which he belongs for uniting with it by receiving the sacraments (p. 2), and the obligation given to it at baptism in confessing its teachings. Further, touching upon the grace bestowed by this sacrament and noting that it is always correct if only performed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (p. 21), he thus reproaches it: you have received a treasure; lost it, I must look for it. And you begin to test whether it was given to you with the right hand. Who will not see here an obvious defense of all heretical churches in general? The writer, as if out of fear, speaks here only about the Greek-Russian church, but the essence of his explanations does not also apply to the Roman, Lutheran and Protestant? Will not the reformers, methodists, schismatics and all heresies in general who recognize only the Holy Trinity and do not reject baptism find equal protection in these words? The question arises: is this how it should be explained, not to mention one of the main church pastors, but simply a Christian and a Russian, and in such a book that is intended to confirm in Orthodoxy the wavering sons of the Greco-Russian Church? (see warning). Confident, not approving of the zeal of the examiner (p. 10), who wants to make sure of the unorthodoxy of all other churches except the Greco-Russian one, asks him: so, do you want me to judge some churches? And, as if struck by the audacity of such a desire, he follows this with passages of Holy Scripture: Judge not, lest ye be judged. (Matthew 7:1). Do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord comes, who will bring the hidden darknesses into light and reveal the counsels of the heart (1 Cor. 4:5). In addition to the fact that these sayings, as the writer himself immediately mentions, refer to: the church to those who condemn in general, and the second to those who condemn teachers of the faith and, therefore, do not apply to the judgment of churches, he was in vain to think that such a trial was expected and demanded of him. The condemnation of heretical churches belongs not to a private believer or even a church teacher, but to the holy councils, which preceded the author of conversations between the testing and the confident. He, with the title of a Christian teacher, if he sincerely wanted to establish his readers in Orthodoxy, should have pointed only to this judgment on all heresies, pronounced and hitherto pronounced by our holy church. That this omission was not made without intention can be seen from the following: when the examiner wanted to know the difference between the Eastern and Western churches (p. 14), then the confident one again reproaches with these words: accept where you place yourself - where the spirit of the two great churches borders on the Spirit of God. Whether the spirit of the Roman Church borders on the Spirit of God and where exactly, of necessity, must be left to the permission of the author himself, for such a mystical saying is completely incomprehensible to us, brought up in the faith of our fathers. As for our Holy and Orthodox Church, it is in vain that he places it along with the Roman Church: it cannot have another Spirit other than the Spirit of God, and, therefore, its spirit cannot border on the Spirit of God. It is impossible not to notice that the writer speaks about the spirit of churches in the spirit of Stilling, and it would be in vain to look for such an expression in the writings of the holy fathers. The one who is confident answers the urgent questions of the examiner (p. 28): know that I do not dare call any church that believes that Jesus is the Christ false. Not everyone who is at least somewhat skilled at reasoning logically will agree that there cannot be a middle ground between lies and truth; therefore, the church is not false and cannot be otherwise than true. Therefore, all churches in general that recognize Jesus as the Christ are true. This is the conclusion that one of the main Greek-Russian Church teachers of the 19th century leads to! Is this how the ecumenical councils and holy fathers, these pillars of our church, defended Orthodoxy? In vain does the writer subsequently try to cover up the injustice of his expression and its inconsistency with the teachings of our Holy Church with a cunning but forced combination of words, arguing that every Christian church can only be either purely true or impurely true (pp. 28–29). since he himself explains about this latter that it mixes with the true and saving faith of Christ the teachings of false and harmful human opinions, that is, with the heavenly light from above, hellish from the abyss of flickering, then it cannot be other than completely false. Some communication between light and darkness. (2 Cor. 6:14). The limits of these remarks do not allow us to cite some other passages of this book as proof of its non-Orthodoxy; It will be enough to conclude everything by saying what exactly the essence of its content is. It is as follows: the Greek-Russian Church is Orthodox; however, if you belonged from birth to any other Christian church, then, as a grateful son, do not think of leaving your mother. And what would this serve for: not a single Christian church is false. II. Excerpts from Notes on the Book of Genesis with the addition of notes showing the spirit of the author of these notes Page 2. “The limit from which the existence of the world begins is signified by the word at the beginning. Solomon in describing wisdom (Prov. 8:22) and John in describing God the Word use the same word, no doubt pointing to Moses.” Note: On the contrary, it is completely incredible that Solomon and John used the word: in the beginning to indicate Moses. With this latter, as the author himself admits (p. 2), the word at the beginning means the limit of time and makes it clear that the world is not co-eternal with God, but with the first, the word at the beginning excludes all time and makes it clear that the Wisdom of God or the Word is completely co-eternal with God. (John 1:1). So, is it possible that Solomon and John, using the word at the beginning in a completely different, opposite sense than in which it was used by Moses, used it to indicate Moses? To assert this, as the writer does, means to assert that Solomon and John in the passages shown teach that the Son of God is also not co-eternal with God, just as the world, according to the legend of Moses, is not co-eternal with its Creator, i.e., it means to be an Arian. And indeed, most of the newest interpreters, who in the passages shown in Solomon and John think to find an indication of Moses, secretly or clearly favor Arianism (for example, Kvinol. in Comm. ad Ioh.). According to the principles of sound hermeneutics, there is no relationship between the passages shown in Solomon and John with the beginning of the Mosaic account of life, except for the so-called verbal parallelism (verbalis parallelismus); but on the basis of this parallelism to assert that Solomon and John used the word in the beginning pointing to Moses, as the author says, is as unfounded as if someone, based on the fact that the book of Acts says that God created the Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), began to assert that the writer of the book of Acts, speaking about Jesus Christ, used the word created to point to Moses, who says: in the beginning God created the heavens and land. Page 6. The origin of the sixfold or sevenfold number of these (days of creation) Note: Does this mean that the church has been mistaken until now, accepting that the world was created in six and not seven days? But if the author does not respect the opinions of the church, then he should at least respect the voice of Moses, who in the book of Exodus (Ex. 20:11) clearly and definitely says that in six days the Lord created heaven and earth and the sea and everything that is in them. The author may in this case resort to the defense of philology and say that in the original the word “performed” apparently requires that the seventh day be included among the days of creation. But, without going into a philological analysis of this word (which is not necessary), it is enough to ask who can better know the meaning of the word - Moses himself, who used it, who nevertheless says that he created the world in six and not seven days, or the newest philologists, on whom the author is based, and who determine the meaning of words, thousands of years after it was written? What is more important – the voice of philology, or the voice of the church? Page 17. But 70 interpreters, more consistent with both the sign and use of the word כּתוֺךְ, and with the ancient concept of heaven, constantly translate στερέωμα - firmament Note: So, the author preferred the translation of 70 interpreters of the word to the translation of the newest interpreters, firstly because it is more consistent with the use of this word - a solid reason, and secondly because it is more consistent with the ancient concept of heaven. What is this reason? What hermeneutics teaches that the true meaning of the words used by Moses to express the concept of heaven revealed to him by God himself is precisely that which is more similar to the astronomical nonsense about the sky of the ancient peoples? And what is this opinion of the ancients about heaven, which seemed so important to the author that he decided to define and believe the meaning of the word (heaven) used by Moses, or better, by God himself? The Chaldeans, he says in a note (p. 17), believed that the earth was in the middle of the world and was held together by the power of the heavens that were everywhere. Was it possible to value, as the author does, the similarity of the opinion of Moses about heaven with this opinion of the Chaldeans about him, in which there are almost as many errors as there are words? It is clear from everything that the overlay of the Chaldean heavens on the mind of the author hid from his sight the One who, according to the apostle, bears all things, both the heavens and the earth that is over the heavens, by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). The reason, which in this case seemed too important to the author, is indeed considered such in modern times. But by whom? free-thinking, not to say godless, exponents of St. Scriptures. Rejecting the inspiration of the sacred writers, and believing that Moses in his life-writing set forth only a reduction of the fabulous opinions of the ancient peoples about the origin of the world and man, they therefore consider the knowledge of Egyptian and Phoenician mythology to be the best tool for understanding the legend of Moses. Chaldean and others (vid. Rosenmiller Schol. ad Genes.). Therefore, the author, who compiled his notes on the basis of other interpreters, should have been more diligent in distinguishing the spirits breathing in them, even if they are from God. Page 18. One might think that the writer of everyday life here calls water what he previously called the abyss, with the difference that this unstructured substance, after the creation of light, partly became transparent According to this concept, in order to imagine the division of the waters in accordance with the description of Moses, let the viewer of the universe imagine himself on the forming earth at the moment of God’s command about the existence of the firmament. Previously, light through the unstructured substance located between it and the earth passed as if through water: now, when the pure firmament should appear, the coarsest parts of this water-like substance, partly strive towards the earth and, connecting with it, reveal its outline: partly, by the same action, ascend upward, that is, to other opaque bodies located in celestial space. Note: Reading this theory of the origin of the earth and the celestial bodies, you involuntarily think that you are reading a theory about the same subject by Leucippus, or Lucretius, or some other materialist: the same particles - some coarser, others finer; the same tendency of particles, some up, others down. The author this time, apparently, completely forgot that the creation of the world is a mystery, which, according to the Apostle (Heb. 11:3), we must understand by faith and not by imagination. He himself said above (p. 7) that Moses describes the six-day creation not as a natural theology for the wise alone, but as a theology for the wise and simple together. Moreover, the interpreter of Moses should have steadfastly adhered to this rule. But here he completely departed from it. For who did he have in mind here when he expounded this theory? wise? but for them, many theories have been invented, or better yet, they have invented, about the origin of the world, which far surpass the author’s theory in terms of plausibility and are much more similar (as we will see below) to the legend of Moses. Simple ones? But for them such theories are very tempting: to many of them it may conveniently seem that the author, writing his notes, received a much greater revelation than that of Moses; for he speaks, apparently, much more and more definitely about the origin of the world than how much and how it was said by Moses. Unfortunately, the writer, having allowed his imagination to fly too boldly and seductively, did not want or was not able to observe even the correctness of its logical. In order to discover this irregularity, let us follow him with our imagination. Understanding by water what was previously called by Moses the abyss, i.e., according to his own explanation (p. 9), in general the substance of the visible world is of poor quality in a positive way, the writer advises the viewer of the universe, for a better understanding of the legend of Moses, to imagine himself on the forming earth at the moment of God’s command about the existence of the firmament. We believe the author’s advice and imagine ourselves wherever he pleases. Previously, he says, light passed through the unstructured substance located between him and the earth, as if through water: that light passed through the disordered substance as if through water, this is understandable, for the substance was water-like. But how could this substance be between him and the earth when there was no earth yet? The author will say that it is assumed to exist in our imagination: on his advice, we agree for the time being to see below - is it only in our imagination that the author assumes it to exist? Now, he continues, when the pure firmament should appear, the coarsest particles of this water-like substance tend to the earth and, connecting with it, reveal its outline. The will of the author, but we cannot in any way agree that they are allowed here to have the existence of the earth only in one’s imagination. For is it possible to assume that particles would tend to an imaginary earth, much less unite with it, and that from the union of what actually exists (particles) with the imaginary (earth) the outline of the imaginary (earth) could be revealed? Where has such a connection and such a consequence of such a connection been seen? Isn’t it obvious that the author, having advised the reader to imagine himself on the earth that is about to form, himself completely forgot to imagine that it exists only in the reader’s imagination: while he, due to this oblivion, assumes it already exists in reality? Partly, the author continues, by the same action by which the word of God, or one’s own specific gravity, as Lucretius and others allowed, ascend upward, that is, to other opaque bodies located in heavenly space; and here is the same mistake: the existence of opaque celestial bodies is allowed before their formation. To propose such rash theories in such an important work is like blatantly mixing the chaff of one’s own wisdom into the pure wheat of the Word of God. Page 21. But since we do not know in detail their present (dark celestial bodies) state, it would be inappropriate to talk about their beginning Note: And if the present state of the heavenly bodies were known in detail, would it be appropriate to tell about their beginning without indicating the Word of God? Judging by this, the author should consider the absurd narratives of the latest physicists about the origin of the earth and man, based on mere knowledge of the state of the earth without the guidance of frank teaching, to be very appropriate? In this case, has the author not, contrary to what he cited above (p. 19) and the approved opinion of Augustine, extended the limits of human understanding beyond the reliability of Holy Scripture? Page 25. According to the adaptation of Moses to the customs of the Jews Note: As if Moses, writing by inspiration the history of the origin of the heavenly powers, had the weakness to adapt to the customs of the Jews. This expression involuntarily makes one doubt whether the author in another place (p. 45) denies such an adaptation of Moses to the customs of the Jews from the heart. Involuntarily makes one suspect whether the author, along with some neologists, believes that the entire account of Moses’ everyday life is nothing more than an adaptation of ancient mythology to the customs of the Jews. Page 32. Man is a small world, a reduction and, as it were, the purest extraction of all the natures of the visible world Note: That man is a small world, no one will argue with the author about this. But for man to be a reduction of the natures of only one visible world, not only all Christians, but all pagans will and must rebel against this. This is how only materialists define a person, and by such a definition a person is completely excluded from the circle of spiritual and immortal beings. The visible world is a sensory world, and therefore the extraction from it, no matter how pure, cannot represent anything other than the sensory. If a person is nothing more than an extraction of such a property, then where is the soul, where is immortality? No one, not even the most free-thinking neologists, dared to define a person as the author defines; and who defines it here like that? Page 35. The soul in the body, like God in nature, being invisible, is present in everything, acts in it, animates it, rules it and preserves it. Note: The soul in the body is like God in nature - a very seductive expression! It can lead to very impure ideas about the relationship of God to nature, which ideas, as is known from the history of philosophical systems, were actually held by those peoples and philosophers who imagined God as the soul of the world. Page 36. In a body (one can seek the image of God) consistent with the body of glory of the God-man But the apostle does not attribute this feature to the image of God when he posits it in the spirit of the mind (Eph. 4:23) and when he uses the concept of the image of God as proof of the incorporeality of the Divine (Acts 17:29). Note: Why does the author refer when the apostle does not and when, by his own admission, the apostle has something that does not allow him to refer? Is it really in order to show his passion for wisdom, more than the gospel of the apostle (Gal. 1:11). And what the author, more or less, really refers to is clearly from the fact that, in his opinion, one can look for the image of God in the body; for without a doubt he represents possibilities that are not logical, but real. Otherwise, to exhaust the realm of the possible, he would have to look for the image of God in the beard and mustache, as the schismatics do. Page 37. The foundation of the image of God is deeply laid in the soul (by the way) and in order for fallen man to find out what he was and what he should be Note: Under the seductive cover of this apparently pious thought, the possibility is allowed for fallen man to find out through his own efforts what he was and what he should be, that is, the basic position of naturalists who reject the need for revelation is allowed. No, the experiences of all times and all pagan peoples say completely the opposite. Page 56. Spawn of Heaven Note: The word generation is used by the author-translator instead of “origin,” or image of origin. But such a meaning is imposed on this word completely contrary to its fundamental property. Generation does not mean the image of origin, but what happens, for example, the generation of vipers. Page 66. And mature towards a painless transformation from the soul to the spiritual body Note: The writer here affirmatively believes that even in an innocent state, a transformation awaited a person, similar to the one that death produces today, only painless. But on what is this position based, which is assumed by the author with the importance of a dogma, however, completely unproven? Moses has not a word to support it, nor do other sacred writers. Yes, the writer did not consider it necessary to find evidence for this new dogma, as if readers were obliged to believe his innovations without any evidence. The fact that the apostle distinguishes the spiritual body from the spiritual does not in the least serve to confirm the author’s thoughts, although he, apparently, has a lot of hopes for this. The apostle contrasts the spiritual body of man in the kingdom of glory with the body of fallen man: but such a contrast does not in the least affect, according to the intention of the apostle, the body of man who was in an innocent state. Page 75. The creation of a wife could not give man a higher perfection than in which he was created before her Note: How? But didn’t God himself say that it is not good for man to be alone? If it was not good to be alone, then after the creation of the wife, it obviously became better. To reject this means to create a lie about God, whose words are she and amen. And didn’t the author himself say above (p. 74) that God’s advice on the creation of a woman is a complement to the advice on the creation of man? What is not complete is imperfect; what is complemented receives the perfection it did not have. To assert that the creation of the wife did not bring new perfections to the human race was prompted by the author, noticeably, to fear that otherwise it would be impossible to defend the perfection of the celibate state: a completely unfounded fear! That the existence of the female sex is necessary for the perfection of the human race in general, it does not follow from this that every person is obliged to enter into marriage. Page 75. Wanting to show the case that gave a person the idea of ​​​​an assistant similar to him, he explains the property of this assistant through comparison with the creatures that serve man. Moses describes the first man's observation of animals and the naming of them. Note: It would be desirable to know by what right the author imposes on the divinely inspired writer such an absurd intention, supposedly he wanted to explain to Adam the properties of his wife by comparing her with service animals (may readers forgive the rude expression necessary to expose a hundred times the rudest thoughts), with horses, dogs, pigs, etc.? Below, on page 77, the author himself renounces his insolence: for he says, following Chrysostom, that God’s intention in Adam’s observation and naming of animals was to show the wisdom of the common Father of men. Why shouldn’t the author, in the place shown above, be content with this reason, rather than invent new ones, clearly tending to dishonor the entire half of the human race and to its complete humiliation before the other. Page 76. It can be assumed that the original language existed before the creation of the woman... that man received it along with being Note: If it is possible to believe, then, therefore, it is possible not to believe. What follows if we do not assume that the original language existed before the creation of the woman? The fact that Adam did not name the animals, and that Moses, in asserting this about Adam, is telling a complete lie. Next, it will be necessary to agree to the image of the origin of the human word that Rousseau and others like him accept. Is such tempting indiscretion excusable? The author should have said in the place shown: one cannot believe, but one must certainly believe. Page 78. At least God is justified in creating a dangerous helper by the fact that man himself invented it Note: So, the existence of the female sex, according to the author, is evil and the greatest evil. He even gives up any effort to argue against this (exclusively his) opinion. All his care is limited to ensuring that, at least, the glory of the Creator does not suffer from the fact that in His creation, which He found very good, suddenly, contrary to His intentions, such a monster appears, which, in the author’s opinion, is a wife. And he, on this side, from which there is not the slightest fear, is reassured by the fact that it was not God himself who considered it necessary to create a wife, but man himself who invented her. Are these grains from the breaking of spiritual bread? On the contrary, does this mean: instead of bread, give a stone to those who require spiritual food, and instead of a fish, a snake? To speculate in this way about the origin of the female sex does not mean sacrificing to mystical nonsense the importance of the Divinely inspired Word, the peace of families, the well-being of the entire human race? For if a wife is such an evil, in the origin of which God had to be justified, then how should the female sex think about itself? With what eyes should a man look at him? In our fatherland, as is known from church history, there was once a sect of the Magi, which, considering the female sex to be the source of all evil, tried by all means to exterminate women. Who can guarantee that among the readers of the Notes on the Book of Genesis, someone who has been imbued with their spirit will not have the desire to restore this sect? Man himself invented it. So, a wife in an ideal sense is a creation of man, not of God. In this regard, she must yield honor before herself even to the devil... This is where the desire to shine with wit can lead!.. Page 78. Some imagine this dream (Adam) as the effect of some inclination towards the sensual from the spiritual Note: By this turn of phrase, the writer apparently makes it clear that he himself does not accept this thought of some as true, but only presents it as remarkable. Meanwhile, 5 pages below we find that he clearly accepts it in an even ruder form. For him, Adam’s dream in paradise is the beginning of the illnesses of all mankind (p. 83) From what revelation did he draw this dogma? True, it is a favorite toy of the imagination of mystical writers: but is it proper for a pastor and teacher of the church to engage in and occupy others with this toy, whose words, especially scriptures, should be dissolved with salt? Page 85. The state of the second Adam after his death is, in excess, the returned state of Adam before his sleep in paradise Note: Again the same mystical dream! Why is it not simply said: before the fall, as all the church fathers said and wrote. Why imagine a dream as the beginning of a fall - a person sins not in a dream, but in reality. Jesus Christ, the second Adam, never fell, but meanwhile, like other people, he slept. All who are justified by faith in Him must participate in the state of the second Adam after his death. If it is the returned state of Adam before his sleep in paradise, then how can the female sex, which was created after sleep in paradise, participate in it? After this, one can ask: does the author believe in the immortality of the female sex? Page 131. That Abel was a shepherd of sheep, and Cain a farmer, Moses says this in order to show the origin of the various sacrifices they made But since the internal disposition of a person has an influence on the free choice of the kind of life, and mutually, the chosen kind of life on the internal state: then the two different kinds of life chosen by the children of Adam can also be considered in relation to their personal qualities. Agriculture requires more bodily strength, cattle breeding, being in the care of living creatures, provides some exercise of heartfelt goodness. ( Proverbs 12:10 ) and ( Proverbs 27:26 ). Agriculture ties you to the land, the life of a shepherd, according to the custom of the ancients, is a nomadic and wandering life and therefore dear to those who recognize themselves as strangers and strangers on earth (Heb. 11: 9, 10, 13 and 14). Note. This entire passage, besides being unfounded, is very inconsistent with the principles of citizenship. The author, believing that the lifestyle chosen by Cain (agricultural) had a harmful influence on his character, on this occasion compares farming with shepherding, and completely inappropriately humiliates the moral dignity of the former, contrary to revelation and experience. Contrary to revelation: for God himself appointed agricultural work to man; since in the punishment of God due to man, as the author himself admits (p. 114), there is as much mercy as severity, it cannot be that God determined for fallen man one of the states that especially has a harmful effect on the morals of the people in it. Judging by this, God would certainly, out of mercy towards his fallen man, put him in a shepherd’s state. Contrary to experience: centuries-old observations constantly testify in favor of the agricultural state, not only in terms of civil, but also moral. Peoples engaged in agriculture are generally more moral than nomadic peoples. Farming requires more strength. What is bad for agriculture? It really exercises human activity more than shepherding; but this quality of his does him honor, for it leaves less room for idleness, which is the source of all vices. Cattle breeding, taking care of animals, provides some exercise of heartfelt goodness. True: but in place of some exercise of heartfelt goodness, how much does it give exercise of heartfelt cruelty, which feeds on the killing of animals for food. Experience shows that the habit of killing animals can easily turn into the habit of killing people. Agriculture binds you to the earth. In the civil sense it is true; in the moral sense it is very doubtful. Can agriculture be tied to the land, which, instead of fruits, in the hope of which it is drenched in the sweat of the farmer, often produces thorns and thistles? If anyone can quickly remember the crime of the first man, which brought a curse on the whole earth, then the farmer; and if anyone can quickly wish for the creation to be freed from the vanity to which it is enslaved by the crime of Adam, it is the farmer. All other conditions are less open to this case. From this it is clear that the author completely in vain humiliated the moral dignity of the agricultural state, which has always been recognized, is recognized and will be recognized as one of the most useful and respectable states, as the basis and support of citizenship. Sound policy will never tolerate such humiliation as may lead simple-minded farmers to the dangerous opinion that their condition is an obstacle to salvation. Page 150. Abel brings to God a sacrifice without comparison more pleasant than Cain. Jesus Christ offers the sacrifice of the cross, the only one worthy of God and which abolishes all ritual sacrifices Note: Due to the author’s unforgivable oversight, the ritual sacrifices here, which were established by God himself and which were offered by Joshua and David, stand in parallel with the sacrifice of Cain. What can such parallels lead simple-minded readers to? Page 155. Thus, the first city is created by the first exile of the earth, and by the one who did not expect a city having an unshakable foundation, whose architect and founder is God Note: What does the author want to say through this remark? Is it possible to humiliate the origin of civil life by presenting it as an invention of one of the descendants of fallen man and, moreover, such as Cain? But man, without a doubt, would have invented civil life if he had remained in an innocent state, for he was created for community life. Would the author really wish better, together with Rousseau and other enemies of citizenship, to see people like animals wandering through the deserts? Instead of casting suspicion on the dignity of civil life by pointing out the immorality of its inventor, would it not have been better and more consistent with the intention of Moses and even the author himself (p. 153) in the invention of the city by Cain to discover traces of the remains of the blessing of God preserved in him and his posterity (as the author himself said above (p. 153)) and of certain rays of light, by which some of his posterity became inventors of useful arts. Page 202. The beginning of the flood should be believed to be in the last half of autumn, a time usually rainy in many countries Note: How carelessly this remark was made. The flood happened at a time that is usually very rainy. Why introduce this idea into the story of the reality of the flood, which can conveniently lead to doubt about its direct origin from the omnipotence of God? As if it was not the author himself, when explaining the fall of Eve (p. 92), who noticed how dangerous distant doubts in faith are. If remote doubts about faith are dangerous, then remote reasons for doubting faith should be no less dangerous. III. Comments on the catechisms of Metropolitan Philaret In the instructions for the leadership of the scientific committee established under the main board of the schools, it was established that, when considering spiritual works that are part of public education, he should keep in mind: “pure concepts of the majesty of God, of His power, wisdom and infinite goodness; the purity of the teaching about the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord and God Jesus Christ and the feat of universal redemption.” “The exact and literal conformity of what is taught to Orthodox youth with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, in everything that concerns the Divinity and our holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” “The literal integrity of the doctrine of the seven holy sacraments; Orthodox teaching about all the commandments of God and the rules of the church without any arbitrary interpretation, not found in books approved by the church.” On this basis, the Shorter Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic Eastern Greek-Russian Church, recently published in St. Petersburg, has been preliminary examined. At first glance at the catechism, this zealot of Orthodoxy cannot help but be struck by a very important innovation. Instead of preserving the literal integrity of the symbol of faith, the Lord's Prayer and the commandments of God, they are disfigured by translation into the common language and, in this form, printed in church letters, are placed not along with the text for better understanding, but separately and without any text at all. And this teaching is in a book intended for general use, in a book that will sell tens of thousands annually among the people, and of which about 20 thousand copies have already been printed for the first time. This circumstance is so important that it is necessary to consider the consequences that, naturally, can arise from this. 1. A new and different presentation of the symbol of faith, the Lord’s Prayer and the commandments of God, which serve as the basis for the teaching of faith, which we are so often accustomed to listen to from the mouth of the church in its sacred language and read it ourselves; which we force our children to memorize from their youngest fingernails - won’t it produce various rumors to tempt many, and especially the common people, who learn the faith of their fathers for the most part from listening to the readings and songs pronounced by the church during worship? Who will assure them, for example, that in relation to the church, their little-known word is the same as the word conciliar, to which their ears have become accustomed? 2. Supposing the introduction of teaching this catechism in parish and public schools, will it not happen that in the same house, in the same family, the creed, the Lord's Prayer and the commandments of God will be read in different ways? And will not this disagreement and mutual distrust in Orthodoxy between father and son, between mother and daughter, some of whom have been taught according to this new catechism? and others according to old times or by word of mouth from their parents? 3. To the children themselves, who have learned the symbol of faith in the Lord's Prayer in a common language, will not chanting in the liturgy in the Slavic language and frequent reading at almost all services seem strange? And because they will not be able to glorify the name of God with one mouth with the church, will there not be a cooling in them towards the church itself, the consequences of which are always so disastrous? 4. When performing certain sacraments, the faithful who enter into them are required to pronounce the symbol of faith as proof of their Orthodoxy, of course, in no other language than the language of the church. Consequently, it must be placed in the same language in the catechism. 5. All these circumstances, taken together, won’t they give the schisms new weapons against our Orthodox Church, and won’t they be strengthened by new like-minded people? It is known that in the time of Nikon the only thing that happened was the replacement of some Slavic words with Slavic ones in our sacred books. These remarks lead to the consideration: what is the real need for translating the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Commandments into the common language? If someone were to say that they are much more intelligible in this language, then, not to mention the fact that incessant, daily use for many centuries and passing from mouth to mouth made them intelligible to every commoner, it can be shown by examples how little this translation contributes to a clearer understanding of the meaning. But in addition, significant irregularities crept into it. The first commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no gods other than Me, is translated as follows: I am the Lord thy God. May you have no other gods before Me. The difference is important and can be a reason for controversy. In the transcription of the tenth commandment, not a village of it is missing, but it is in the Greek text. One cannot help but regret that the educational book of the law of God is in no small part full of vague expressions, lacks the precision of the concepts it proposes, and gives room for ambiguities and misinterpretations. Let's try to show this in reality. – Question (page 3). What happens if a person does not honor God? - Answer. The person will perish forever. The question is: what should we mean by this? Is it that a person who does not honor God will suffer eternal torment, or that he will pass away forever into oblivion and insignificance? - Question. How should we accept the teaching that is taken from the Holy Scriptures (p. 6)? But by whom it is taken is not explained. Is every Christian or a heretic? And in response it is said that one must believe and obey it, as if it came from God. – And God created (p. 16) the body of the first man Adam from the earth, and breathed into him the breath of life. But that this breath of life is a spiritual being and an immortal soul, in which the image of God and likeness are imprinted, not a word is said about that; whereas in the text, after the words: and I will breathe into him the breath of life, it says precisely: and man became a living soul. – Speaking about the Most Holy Theotokos (p. 22), it is not mentioned that even after the birth of the Savior she remained a Virgin. This omission cannot be unimportant, for the Church anathematizes those who reject this dogma of the Orthodox faith. – It is said about the Son of God that He came down from heaven for us men and for our salvation, and further that He suffered for us. But the great mystery of redemption, that the Son of God took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and, through His suffering and death, satisfied the justice of God for sinners, is left without explanation. And the very word “redemption” is not found in the entire catechism. – The Church (p. 26) is defined as follows: a united multitude of believers. To make sure how indefinite this definition is, it is enough to say that demons also believe. You believe, for there is only one God: you do good, and demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). To the question what is the name of the service in which the sacrament of communion is performed, the answer is (p. 30): liturgy. Almost all heresies originating from the Latin Church do not celebrate the sacrament of communion, but do not have a liturgy; consequently, the concept conveyed about this ministry by the catechism is not sufficient. Liturgy is not only a nationwide worship service, combined with the sacred rite of the body and blood of Christ, but also a mysterious, bloodless sacrifice, in its essence one and the same with the actual bloody one offered on the cross for the cleansing of the sins of the world. (See explanation of the liturgy, page 5). And this is exactly what distinguishes our Orthodox Church in this respect from Lutheran, Protestant and other heresies that do not have a liturgy. – The seventh request of the Lord’s Prayer – but deliver us from the evil one, thus (p. 40) is explained: we ask for deliverance from all evil that can befall us in the world. There is no doubt that in the above words of the prayer there is meant not only physical, but even more so moral evil, that is, cases of sin, and for all that, in the catechism we are considering under the name of the evil one, in accordance with the interpretation of St. father, not of course the devil, who constantly roars like a lion, looking for someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8). – The seventh commandment, according to the Catechism, commands not to harm the purity of the morals of one’s neighbors. Since this commandment generally means adultery, fornication and all carnal impurity, can all this be encompassed by just one expression: harm to the purity of morals? Is it really possible that the destruction of family peace, the filling of homes with children of adultery and the theft of the property of legitimate children is nothing more than harm to the purity of morals? – To the question, what is an icon? answers: this is what the church calls images of the works of God and St. His. Our Orthodox Church not only calls images of the works of God and His saints icons, but also individual images of the faces of the Savior, the Mother of God and saints. – Page 10. To the question, “What is the best teaching about piety?” Answer: Christian teaching. Before embarking on a discussion about this article, it seems necessary to recognize that the catechism, as a doctrine of faith, in all its parts must be clear and completely definitive so that its content cannot at all give rise to ambiguity and false interpretations, not only due to misunderstandings, but even malicious. But if I say that the best teaching about piety is Christian, doesn’t this presuppose that there are other good teachings about piety, and that only the best of them is Christian? Moreover, will not everyone agree that when we choose something better, then for the most part, comparing many similar things of the same kind with each other, we give advantage to one. Now let’s see what the author puts alongside the Christian teaching in a broad sense, considering it to be the best. Of course, with the teachings of the Jews and pagans, with the teachings of Confucius, Mohammed and other false prophets and impostor apostles. Attributing this, in the spirit of Christian love, to imprudence alone, one cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that such imprudence may be a stumbling block not established in the faith. – Page 84. The Kingdom of Christ is, firstly, the whole world; secondly, all believers. on earth, thirdly, all are blessed in heaven. The first is called the kingdom of nature, the second - the kingdom of grace, the third - the kingdom of glory. That all believers on earth and all the blessed in heaven constitute the kingdom of Christ, there is no doubt about that. As for the fact that the whole world, or the kingdom of nature, is also the kingdom of Christ, then this teaching is new. Jesus Christ says: My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) and calls the devil the prince of this world (John 14:30). And the writer himself, later interpreting the passage of the Lord’s prayer, Thy kingdom come, speaks (p. 138) only about the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. Therefore, it is not without reason that he remains silent about the kingdom of nature. – Page 132. Having divided prayer into internal, that is, offered by the mind and heart, and external, or pronounced in words and accompanied by other signs of reverence, the writer says that external prayer alone without internal prayer angers God. Despite such a decisive conclusion, let us see whether outward prayer alone can always anger God, and whether, on the contrary, it is not one of the strongest motivations for inner prayer and, therefore, a means of pleasing God. There is no doubt that a person in a state of fall, although renewed by grace, but still bound by the shackles of the flesh, very rarely is honored to feel such strong impulses of love and gratitude to the All-Good and All-Highest Being that would suddenly delight him in inner prayer. Despite the fact that he cannot help but comprehend, both with his mind and with faith, how much gratitude he owes to God, both for his creation from nothing and the creation of all creatures for him, and especially for redemption. So what? Should he remain in this position without any action and, expecting tenderness, give a weapon against himself to the enemy of his salvation, who fears nothing so much as fasting and prayer? Of course, no one will answer this in the affirmative. So, what does a pious Christian do in this case, who is not careless about his salvation? He enters his cage and, having closed the door, separates himself from all objects that could, through external action, instill in him vain thoughts; he is protected by the signs of the cross, kneels down, venerates the holy icons, prostrates himself before them and reads publicly the supplications and prayers established by the holy church. Sometimes he continues this feat for a long time and, apparently, unsuccessfully, until his heart is pierced by love and the arrows of the evil one are driven away from him. Until that very moment, what did he do but remain in outward prayer? But who would dare to say that such a prayer angers God and would refer to it the passage of Holy Scripture: these people draw near to Me with their lips and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart is far from Me? (Matthew 15:8) However, the author did this, speaking about external prayer in general and without any exception. It is impossible not to notice that this saying of the Savior is related to prayer contrary to the truth. The Lord, both in the conversation that preceded it and in the words that followed: “But they honor Me in vain, teaching by teaching, the commandment of men,” clearly speaks about teaching, and not about prayer. Page 147–148). The seventh petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “but deliver us from evil,” is how the author interprets it: we ask for deliverance from all evil that can befall us in the world, which, since the time of the first sin, has been entirely in evil (1 John 5:19). Why such an abstract explanation, which itself requires another explanation? There is no doubt that in the above words of the Lord’s Prayer, it is understood not physical, but moral evil, that is, cases of sin, or better to say, attacks on us by the enemy of God, who incessantly, like a lion, roars, walks, looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). Page 170. The question is, doesn’t the second commandment prohibit icons? This question in the mouth of a teacher would not only be completely out of place, but also contrary to the goal that he should have in this case, namely to show that the use of icons in our holy church is useful and saving, because at the very beginning of this, instead of affirming the student, it instills in him distrust and doubt. On the other hand, although a student might someday ask such a question, it is, of course, not in our Orthodox faith, in which children from their very youth become accustomed to venerating holy icons and venerating them. And therefore, in both cases, it is not only not edifying and useless, but, in some respects, not even harmless. Answer. The second commandment forbids the idolization of icons, but does not prohibit having them to remember the deeds of God and His saints, for in this case icons are books written instead of letters by persons and things. Page 171. Further, the writer says that when looking at icons, while worshiping them, one should look with the mind at God and the saints who are depicted on them. That's all that is said about icons in a lengthy catechism, over two hundred pages. Let's see what concepts the student should extract from this. – Firstly, since the second commandment does not command to have icons, but only does not prohibit their historical use, then you can have or not have them at will. – Secondly, if the very use is arbitrary, then the worship of them cannot be otherwise. Lutherans and Protestants, of course, have the least to say about icons in their own catechisms, and some of their church teachers said even more. To prove that this is not given here without agreement, here are the exact words of the Protestant Bishop Montague: icons can move the souls of pious people by presenting to them the deeds of Jesus Christ and his saints; in which respect it is impossible to recklessly take away from them all reverence. And in another place: it is not entirely illegal to use them (i.e., icons) in the rites of worship (See An Essay for Catholic Communion reprented. 1812. London). It is impossible not to notice in this case that the Protestant writer, when explaining about icons, calls them holy (Holy imager), while it would be in vain to look for such an expression in the catechism of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church we are considering. But let us move from the darkness of error to the light of truth. “Icons, according to the Council of Nicaea, representing the history of Jesus Christ, patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs, from the first times of Christianity were depicted on sacred vessels, clothes and boards, decorated the walls of churches and constituted that need without which it was not allowed to perform the sacraments. In addition to churches, icons were supplied to private homes, on roads and in marketplaces. The veneration of icons in general consisted of lighting lamps and incense before them, worshiping and kissing them” (see Outline of Church History from Biblical Times to the 18th Century, section 1, pp. 632 and 633). And this is exactly what our Orthodox Church observes regarding holy icons even until now, without any change. After this, the question naturally arises: is it enough to say in the catechism that icons are only not prohibited when, according to the teaching of the holy council, they constitute a need without which the sacraments are not allowed to be performed? In conclusion of these notes, one cannot help but regret that the book, intended for general use in the study of the rules of faith, is not a small part full of vague expressions, lacks in the accuracy of the concepts it proposes, and even in some places deviates from the teachings of our church, as can be seen from this brief review. Sushkov, the author of Notes on the Life and Times of M. Philaret, was the first to report the text of A.S.’s attitude. Shishkov to Mme Seraphim about the inappropriateness of translating the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the commandments into Russian. The fact that there were literary, albeit official, reviews of Filaret’s works was not known until now. These notes by Filaret were published in the Readings of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities for 1870. We do not know where these articles were published, or in which French book the objections were made. These articles are silently mentioned in the report of the 2nd department. Imp. Ak. Sciences for 1865. You might be interested in: