Opinion of Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride on the catechisms of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov)

(Collection published by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, on the occasion of the centenary anniversary of the birth of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Volume II. Moscow 1883) In “Christian Reading” for 1881 (No. 11–12), we published four critical articles by unknown authors devoted to an analysis of the works of Metropolitan Philaret, including his two catechisms, small and large, which we extracted from the papers of the Yuryev Archimandrite Photius. At the same time, we made several assumptions about the author of these articles unfavorable to the great saint. In the publication, the title of which we wrote down, there is an article by Mr. Korsunsky about the catechisms of Filaret, in which the author, while analyzing objections to the catechisms, by the way, does not agree with our assumptions regarding their author. The remarks he made on this subject do not leave the realm of assumptions, like our preface, and the question of the author of the critical articles on Philaret’s catechisms remains open. However, we consider it useful to make a few additional comments to what we and Mr. Korsunsky have said, in the hope that these comments will constitute a further step towards clarifying this controversial issue. We allow ourselves to focus our attention on the following new data to resolve this issue, which was in mind neither by us, when publishing the above-mentioned reviews, nor by Mr. Korsunsky when he wrote an article about Philaret’s catechisms in the 2nd volume of the anniversary edition. 1) Among the letters of Philaret to Innocent that we recently published (Christ. Read., 1884, book 1) there is one (3rd), in which the Moscow saint clarifies the misunderstandings that arose between him and Innocent. At the same time, he twice mentions Innocent’s article on Philaret’s catechisms. “Would someone say about your “article” on the catechism that I biasedly support you: the consequence would be in accordance with the cause... “The article on the catechism, which you fully recognize as yours, especially seemed to be a guarantee that the lessons are yours (we are talking about the lectures given by Innocent at the St. Petersburg Academy and entailed secret inquiry about his way of thinking), imagine Our (i.e., the Holy Synod’s) bewilderment when you say not that you didn’t give written lessons, but gave verbal ones, which could not always be written down correctly, but they absolutely did not give!” 1. From these extracts from the letter it is clear that there was an “article” about Philaret’s catechism under the name of Innocent, which Innocent recognized as his own, that it gave Philaret reason to consider Innocent the author of the lectures attributed to him, which, however, Innocent did not recognize as his own. Consequently, this “article” was not part of the lectures, was not contained in Innocent’s lectures, which, however, must have had its own special speech about the catechism, similar in thought to the article, which gave Philaret reason to consider the author of the article the author of the lectures. This “article” of Innocent about Philaret’s catechism, separate from his lectures, is not the second article we published in “Christ. Readings" for 1881 and criticized by Mr. Korsunsky? But how, in this case, can we explain the fact that Filaret was pleased with the “article” he mentions (“if anyone said about your article that I support you biasedly, the effect would be in accordance with the reason,” he says), while the article we published in “Christ. Read.” contains an indication of only the shortcomings of the catechism? 2) Among the materials we have collected for the biography of Innocent, we have at hand two lists of Innocent’s lectures on his so-called “general theology”: one from the library of manuscripts of P. I. Savvaitov, the other from the library of manuscripts of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. These are two significantly different editions: based on considerations that we will discuss below, we think that the first list contains lectures by Innocent, given at the St. Petersburg Academy, approximately in 1824; the second is the lectures he gave already in Kyiv. We took the trouble to study both of these very extensive manuscripts, and found that the author in both of them makes a review of Philaret’s catechism, a treatise on the sources of Orthodox dogma. In both cases, these sources are divided into: 1) common to the Orthodox Church with other Christian denominations, 2) common to the Russian Church with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and 3) belonging to our church proper, which include a) catechisms published since the establishment of the Holy Church. Synod, under Peter I, Elizaveta Petrovna and Catherine II, and b) “the newest catechism.” The first list of lectures talks about it briefly, namely only the following: “b) - a new catechism, replacing the old one, which is an abbreviation of our entire religious teaching. This catechism is of great importance, for it was published by order of the Holy Synod, with the authority of the Emperor, and is intended for use in all ranks and classes.” And that's all. 2 Obviously, this small remark is by no means the “article” that Rev. Filaret in his letter. Judging by this edition of the review of Philaret’s catechism, it must be assumed that these lectures date back to the Kyiv period of Innocent’s professorship: such a brief review of the book of the Moscow saint could have been made only at a time when all the shortcomings in it pointed out by various persons had been corrected and the catechism already existed in its final, current edition, when all the turmoil because of it had subsided, and all the misunderstandings between the two hierarchs stopped. We find something completely different in the second copy of the same “general theology”, owned by P. I. Savvaitov. Here the article “about the sources of religion that the Russian church has within itself” takes on a more extensive form. 0 catechisms, in particular about the catechism of Philaret, we find here the following judgment: “The first place here (i.e., among the sources of the doctrine of the Russian Church proper) is occupied by catechisms; We have many catechisms, but there are four in general use: two old ones - large and small, and two new ones - large and small. Their content is known, because they are taught in schools. What importance should the catechism have in the church? It is of great importance, for it is the reduction of the opinions of the church for a certain time. It usually sets out all the main teachings of religion, both dogmatic and moral, and the doctrine of the church. Why a good catechism should serve as the basis of theological systems and the basis of private teaching of the law of God. We have such a catechism recently published. Let us say something about its composition and spirit. The composition of this catechism is the same as that of Peter Mogila, that is, it is divided into three parts, of which the first discusses faith, the second about love, the third about hope: the basis is good, although it will not stand up to strict criticism, but for that it is biblical, for common sense and popular use (where it is not logic in mind, but practical benefit) that is the best. Of course, the location of the system has an advantage, but it is not suitable for the catechism. The catechism, for example, is required to introduce the people to the creed, but how can this requirement be fulfilled when presenting subjects systematically? It's hardly possible. Thus, in its composition, the newest catechism is similar to the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila, but in spirit it is very different. In the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila, scientific subjects are encountered, questions that solely belong to the school are resolved. In the newest catechism all this is avoided. Here the tone of the whole people is not visible, belonging exclusively to the school; they are found in places of some kind of speculation, but all of them are dissolved in the spirit of the Bible and are proposed in a generally understandable way, for example, the question: why the death of Jesus Christ is necessary for atonement is resolved in a few words and very clearly. Everything in it is presented briefly, biblically, so that in this respect it can be called brief biblical theology, that is, every thought in it in the dogmatic part is confirmed in it either by the text or by the closest consequence from any text. There are few texts, but they are all true and classic. Add to this the rigor of logic, firmness of judgment, purity of language, a correct, biblical view: this book will even occupy an excellent place among foreigners in this type of writings. But can it replace all other forms of religion? It can't! With it, you need to keep in mind others, not excluding the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila, for, in the first place, it is short, and therefore does not embrace many, however necessary, needs, in the second place, as in a human work, there is something unsaid in it, or overlooked, for example. the sources of religion are poorly indicated, only Scripture is indicated, and not a word about tradition. At the Tomb this is placed along with Scripture, why not mention it here too? This is not a detail, but the root of the matter. The traditions are damaged, it is true, but they are all needed. The same deficiency was present in almost all Latin theologies. But our theologians began to teach this way a hundred years ago, when, having forgotten their Greek and Russian dogmas, they became carried away by Protestant systems, from which they usually copied their systems. Another example of inaccuracy. It is said: there are two types of knowledge of God – natural knowledge of God and revealed knowledge of God. Then the question is asked: which is better? Answer: Christian! The question is easy, and the answer is even easier. How would some saint answer this question? father? He would say that the Christian religion is the only saving religion. And that it is better than natural, that’s what the deist will say. There are hermeneutic errors, for example, the dogma about the descent of Jesus Christ into hell is stated. Here it would be necessary to limit ourselves to the Bible alone, for this dogma is not at all known to reason. The Bible says that Jesus Christ went to hell - why? preach - to whom? the spirits who in the days of Noah resisted the long-suffering of God that awaited them. Why only them and not others? The fortune-telling that reason can do here already belongs to the school, and has no place in the catechism. But the newest catechism says: Jesus Christ went to hell to preach to the souls who were awaiting His coming with faith. This is not the case in the Bible, it says exactly: the souls “resisted” and not “those who believed,” but these words are not agreed upon in the text cited. The thought is, of course, right, and our church, as can be seen from many stichera, believes that Jesus Christ preached with faith to those awaiting his coming, but violence has been done to hermeneutics. Another example of a logical inaccuracy: the church is defined as “a united multitude of believers.” The definition is incomplete and confusing, but it would be necessary to distinguish which believers? Imagine, for example, on some remote island there are 100 Christians without a Bible and without a hierarchy: will they constitute a church? Is it in an unusual sense? However, such inaccuracies in a short essay are almost inevitable.” Obviously, this edition of Innocent's review of Philaret's catechism belongs to the earliest time of Innocent's professorial activity: its first edition (1823) is criticized here, which is evident from the indication of the omission in the catechism of the teaching about St. tradition, as the source of the doctrine, which omission has already been corrected in subsequent editions. We like to think that this is a course in general theology given in 1824. What is important for us in this review at this time is that among the reproaches made in it to the catechism, there is one that was repeated in the article we published in Christ. The reading of 1881 is a reproach for incorrectly posing the question of which knowledge of God is better, and not giving an accurate answer to it. Another reproach - for the incorrect interpretation of the word hell - was repeated in 1826 by Metropolitan. Kyiv Evgeniy 3. Here it is appropriate to recall the notorious comparison of the catechisms of Mogila and Philaret, with the preference for the first, which was made by Archim. Photius in his letter to Pavlov, published by us in “Russian Antiquity” (1882, August, p. 287), is completely similar, although expressed in a rough form, with Innocent’s review. Thus, we see that the remarks about Philaret's catechism made by Innocent in his lectures in 1824 served as an arsenal of objections for all subsequent objectors to the catechism. Perhaps these comments were the reason for the corrections made in subsequent editions; Probably they also caused Philaret to raise a question in the Synod about a secret inquiry into Innocent’s way of thinking. This, of course, does not yet resolve the question of whether Innocent himself was the author of the review of Philaret’s Great Catechism that we published and was being examined by Mr. Korsunsky; but for us it is enough that this review has a genetic relation to the judgment about the catechism expressed by Innocent in his lectures, which served as the primary source for all other critical attacks on the catechism. The omission in the review we printed to indicate the lack of teaching about tradition in the catechism only indicates that this article was compiled after the first correction of the catechism. Then we do not stand for our opinion about the attribution of the article to Pavsky, who, however, we cannot help but notice once again, stood closest to Shishkov of all the learned white clergy both in his open affiliation with his party, and in his rank as a member of the commission of public schools, on behalf of which, or at least for which the article was written - who, in addition, being personally hostile to Philaret, had an incentive to criticize him as the author of his textbook or, at least, the program of the law of God for secular schools, compiled on behalf of Uvarov and Runich. That he himself was a participant in the translation of the Bible into Russian, like Filaret, in the present case does not matter, since in the article on the Greater Catechism there is no mention of this subject, and the article on the Lesser Catechism could have belonged to another person. But, in any case, we energetically deny Mr. Korsunsky’s opinion that Kochetov should be recognized as the author of these articles. Professor of the Academy and teacher of law at the Lyceum, I. S. Kochetov had too little time for literary work, being so busy with lessons that he was seen at home, as those close to him told us, only for dinner and night sleep. He had nothing to do with Shishkov and the commission of public schools. In order to agree with the opinion of Philaret of Chernigov regarding his essay: “Features of the active teaching of faith”, it is necessary to compare it with the “notes of the rector”, i.e. Philaret, if any. For our part, we think about this completely differently than Filaret and, behind him, Mr. Korsunsky. We will say our word in a short time, both in general about the significance of Kochetov in the history of church events of his time, and in particular about his relationship with Philaret, in the form of a preface to his letters to Innocent, found in Innocent’s papers. “Christ. Thu." 1884 No. 1, p. 197. See the manuscript from St. Petersburg. spirit. Academy No. 1, p. 287 See Korsunsky's article p. 731 You might be interested in: