A look at the life and work of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret

(On the occasion of the centenary of his birth). This article was written at the invitation of the Slavic Benevolent Society for a ceremonial meeting on January 23 of this year. Due to lack of time, it was only partially read in this collection. With the name of Metropolitan Philaret, a majestic image of a hierarch rises before us, surrounded by an aura of holiness, highest moral purity, spiritual authority unattainable for ordinary people and irresistible moral charm. Not only Moscow, but all of Rus', the entire Orthodox world reverently honored this lofty personality, and for half a century they listened with love to his pastoral word of instruction and guiding advice. It is understandable to want to become more familiar with this lofty personality, with his moral character, with the details of his life and work. But the present time will not be able to describe in detail the almost hundred-year history of Philaret’s life; Yes, the time has not yet come for such a story; the materials necessary for this have not yet been collected. We have so far only a brief curriculum of his life (in Ponomarev’s articles published in the “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy” for 1868), several separate, detailed episodes from it (in the book of N.V. Sushkov: “Notes on the life and times of M. Philaret”, 1868), a huge mass of his writings, an even larger mass of his letters, resolutions on the subjects of his diocesan practice, opinions on general church issues, mainly canonical, church-historical and dogmatic. But only a fifth of his letters have been collected so far; resolutions, the collection of which the venerable Fr. Archimandrite Gregory, only a small portion has also been printed; His opinions on dogmatic and canonical issues are partly scattered in the hitherto editions of his printed works, but for the most part they are still in the archives of St. Synod, where the reports on the management of the Moscow diocese that they presented since 1847 are located. This time I want, mm. gg., to bring to your attention only my experience of judging the personality of Metropolitan Philaret as a hierarch, church pastor and teacher, and a person. To make such an experiment for my part at the present time, I consider it useful because in the press one can already hear judgments about him, with which hardly anyone who has closely studied the life and works of the great Moscow hierarch would agree, which prejudge the judgment of the church about him in a sense that is hardly desirable for the sons of Orthodoxy. As a person, as a personality, Filaret stands at a height unattainable for ordinary people. He was a strict and sincere ascetic, who from a very young age did not seek or desire so-called personal happiness in any form, who lived all the time exclusively for God and for his flock. He renounced life without having yet experienced it; from the harsh work of school self-education, which left no room for any, even innocent childish, joys, he moved directly to monastic objects and to even greater, quite serious works in the field of science and the education of spiritual youth, which immediately seduced him with the degree of moral dignity and immediately filled his entire existence and absorbed all his energy. Having firmly established himself on the rock of the faith of Christ, he stood like an unattainable and indestructible rock in the sea of ​​life that was agitating around him. His private life, just like his public activities, was completely open to everyone, everyone saw and knew it, and it never occurred to anyone to doubt even for a minute the purity and holiness of this life. Everyone saw and knew that he had no other desires and aspirations other than the spiritual good of people, no other activities or pastimes other than fulfilling his pastoral duties. All his time - this was known to everyone - was divided between prayer, private and public - liturgical, and the work of pastoral service, truly tireless and vigilant. What is sometimes condemned in his activities 1 is not his personal sin (if only what is sometimes condemned in Philaret can be considered a sin), because it does not stem from his bad will, it is not the fruit of personal passion, but as a manifestation of the system and principles he has adopted. One can argue about the merits of this system and these principles, but it cannot be held personally responsible for any of its representatives. The dispute with Pavsky 2 took place within the limits of literary polemics: it was not Philaret’s fault that, out of respect for his authority, they “guessed” to remove Pavsky from the court for differences of opinion with him. In his review of Innocent’s sermon, which begins with the words: “to one pious hermit”..., they see motives of envy of a talent equivalent to his. It seems to us more fair to see here, too, only a simple disagreement in views on the theory of preaching. They reproach him for his allegedly despotic relations with the subordinate clergy. I don't think it's fair to call this relationship that way. Filaret held high the banner of hierarchical authority and that’s all. In all his actions, he affirmed the church canons, never deviated from them and did not go further than them. We absolutely do not know a single fact of his exceeding his rights, even in small things. But there are quite a few facts proving that he treated the clergy in a truly fatherly manner. The Moscow clergy still bless his memory for the organization of parish church houses and for his constant concern for the clergy to acquire permanent houses as their own and not live in free apartments. Without going beyond the limits of his rights and powers, he never renounced them, because to act on the right is tantamount to renouncing it. But from the outside, the episcopal authority given to him was most happily justified in him by his moral authority: after all, Filaret was completely naked above everything that surrounded him, and that even stood far from him. This combination of external authority, a wave of dignity he possessed, with enormous moral authority created the great moral force that Filaret represented. Yes, Filaret truly was a lamp placed on the candlestick, let it shine for the world. Look: not only Moscow, and not only all of Russia, but the entire Eastern Orthodox Church reverently honors him and lovingly listens to his word and advice. He was not only an archpastor for the shepherds of the Moscow diocese, but was a shepherd for the archpastors themselves of the entire Orthodox Church. Truly he was the father of fathers, as the second ecumenical council put it about Gregory of Nyssa. Over the course of fifty years, from the treasury of his mind, the archpastors of the Russian Church drew directly or indirectly guiding principles for their activities, tried to imitate him, learned from him church teaching and church administration - one might say, they lived by his pastoral wisdom. He was a man of advice and strength, reason and piety. It was the true bearer and exponent of the ideas and moral strength of the Orthodox Church among its representatives, that is, the hierarchy. But this light shone not only for the Orthodox Church, but for its entire space, but for the entire Christian world, for the non-Orthodox churches. Look: distant America sends its representative, Pastor Jung, to him to negotiate a rapprochement between the Episcopal Church and the Eastern Church. England sends Palmer, Puzey and Stanley to him; representatives of all Western confessions, starting with Pius IX and ending with the German Reformed, inquire about his opinions and teachings. His sermons, equal in merit to the works of the best speakers of the universal church, are translated into all major foreign languages ​​and occupy a place in Western preaching literature along with the works of Bossuet, Bourdalou, Massillon and Fletier. His catechism is translated into almost all European languages, and wherever they know Orthodoxy at all, they know Philaret, because they know him from Philaret’s lips. Filaret is reproached for his supposedly exorbitant conservatism in church affairs. But what else can and should be the shepherd of the church, if not the guardian of the truth of divine teaching? Yes, indeed it was a great protective power not only of church dogmas, but of the entire Russian people and state in their basic, fundamental principles of social, civil, and state life. He was a vigilant and tireless guardian of the religious and moral principles of life in all its directions. But Filaret was not only a guardian, but also a founder of our church. With his scholarly, theological and preaching works, and his pastoral practice for sixty years, he advanced our theology and our church legislation so far that for a long time to come his works will be an inexhaustible source of church wisdom. His writings are the cornerstone of modern Orthodox theology. As a professor at the academy, he created a type of higher theological course for the theological academy, which was maintained in our academies until their transformation in 1869. He, however, according to the plans of others, created our first higher theological school (St. Petersburg Theological Academy). He nurtured the Moscow Academy as his favorite child. He spiritually gave birth to Golubinsky and Gorsky, two luminaries of this academy, whose names are famous throughout the scientific world. And a number of general church institutions, of which he re-created some, drew up statutes for others (statutes of guardianship for the poor of the clergy, on the division of spiritual administration in Russia into districts, on the preservation of church antiquities, rules for the storage of property in monasteries, canonical “messages” and instructions for the clergy of the Moscow diocese, rules of monastic brotherhoods, etc.)! And the translation of the Bible into the popular Russian language, one of the greatest undertakings of the past reign, was the concern of a lifetime! He was concerned about the establishment of brotherhoods and parish trustees in Russia. But it is difficult to count all the creative undertakings of Mr. Philaret. The fact is that, filling Russian church life with his protective and constructive activities for half a century, Filaret did not establish himself on the random laws and customs of the church. That is why his innovations were not of a transitory and random nature, but were firmly embedded in the practices of this life, and became organic, ever-present in the church. They say that Filaret behaved too highly towards his flock and knew only noble people. This is not true. For his flock, as well as for everyone who had any need for him, he was available like no one else. He created a special kind of pastoral activity: oral, at home, and written interviews about perplexing subjects of the private and general Christian life and activities of believers. Everyone had free access to him for such interviews. And who didn’t come to him for these interviews! How many and what questions did he have to listen to and resolve with his pastoral advice, ranging from the naive and idle to the immeasurably important canonical and dogmatic ones. We absolutely do not know that any of these interlocutors ever left him restless and dissatisfied! An interesting example of this type of relationship between Filaret is his well-known story with Pushkin. When the great poet published his famous skeptical poem: “An instant gift, a random gift, life, why were you given to me?” a serious and strict thinker-theologian turned himself into a poet and wrote his famous poem (“It is not in vain, it is not by chance that life was given to me from God”), which had such a calming effect on the confused mind of the poet. And his letters? How many people are there for whom the church, hitherto alien to them, has become a shrine, thanks to the gentle attention of the great hierarch to them, who in their family archives, like some kind of relics, keep some five or six lines with his signature! But what especially evokes our reverent respect for this man is his scientific and literary activity. There are numbers that speak louder than words. These are the results of Filaret’s scientific and literary activities. This activity continues continuously for 62 years (1806 - 1867). It is still difficult to establish the exact number of all Filaret’s works. So far there are about 500 titles of his individual works, not counting several large volumes of his letters that have already been published, and God knows how many volumes of his unpublished letters, resolutions on diocesan affairs, notes and opinions presented in St. The Synod, for the most part, was carefully and thoroughly motivated. Filaret's letters constitute a very special type in the mass of works of his pen, highly original and brilliant. There is so much serious efficiency and intelligence in them, just as much artistic charm of speech, the brilliance of the most elegant, refined wit. Letters, resolutions, opinions and projects of Philaret, together with his other works, constitute a real encyclopedia of theological knowledge, dogmatic, moral, canonical, church-historical... His printed works, all without exception, belong to the category of those that are usually called classic. There is absolutely not a single area of ​​theological knowledge in which Filaret would not make more or less valuable contributions. From Philaret's sermons and his treatises one can compose a complete system of dogmatics, the peculiarity of which is the imprint of brilliant originality and originality, both in the formulation and concept of theological issues, and in their solution. His “Rudiments” had 252 editions in one Russian language, “Large Arch. Catechism,” the symbolic book of our church, 91 editions, Biblical history – 11, etc. These are the numbers of editions of one Moscow synodal printing house, from which more than 2½ million were published. volumes of his works under 360 titles. It should also be noted that in this mass of works there are no insignificant or weak ones, that they are all imprinted with one common, strictly consistent character and direction. Filaret wrote, they say, surprisingly easily. His bright, sober thought easily found the appropriate expression in words and he did not need, following the advice of Quintilian, saepe stylum divertere. The brilliance of extraordinary wit and thoughtfulness is reflected in every line of his writings. Here, by the way, it will be noted that since the time of his bishopric, Filaret has not taken a fee for his writings: he donated all his scientific and literary work to the church. The works of his pen include such acts of national importance as manifestos on the appointment of heir to the throne. K. Nikolai Pavlovich and the liberation of the peasants. He composed many services performed by the Orthodox Church: prayer songs for the millennium of Russia and the eight hundredth anniversary of Moscow, on the day of celebrating the liberation of Russia from the invasion of the Gauls and with them the twenty tongues, the akathist to the Most Holy. Theotokos and the canon of Equal to the Apostles. Cyril and Methodius. Finally, among these works is his following significant speech, which he said on May 17, 1867, shortly before his death, when he was visited by Slavic deputies who had gathered for an ethnographic exhibition in Moscow in order to exchange greetings with representatives of the Russian Slavs: “Blessed be our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who has visited and is visiting miserably divided humanity and directing it to a single salvation and salutary unity. Slavs and Slavic-Russians are one race. But its beginning is obscured by time. The movement of human affairs is divided into its branches. This division was unfavorable to the unity of his language. God raised up two holy brothers in the flesh and in the spirit, who became our fathers in the spirit, giving birth to us with the gospel of Christ, and renewed and exalted our natural brotherhood with spiritual brotherhood. There is no doubt that kindred love is improved and strengthened by Christian love. The unity of spirit and language is protected by the fact that the Slavic language has become the language of faith and church. We Russians have inherited this gift of God from our oldest brothers in Christianity, and we never cease to be grateful. Let us sympathize with sorrows, rejoice in the hopes of our brothers, and through divisions we see towards unity. And now an unexpected incident from distant countries raises up the zealots of Slavic brotherhood and unites them in the center of Russian unity, in order to directly, from heart to heart, pour out brotherly feeling and, despite external divisions, find themselves in living inner unity. Having seen the signs of Providence in our past, let us dare to see a sign for good in the present. In the spirit of Christianity, may our common unity grow, and in such unity there is a force capable of victoriously creating and spreading common and private good. We greet you with sincere love and good hope, based on faith in the all-good Providence of God!” This was the last, swan song of the great Slav. Isn't that significant, mm? gg., that Filaret ended his great, all-Russian half-century of service with precisely this greeting to the Slavs? Let us remember, let us never forget this covenant of the great elder: let our common unity grow in the spirit of Christianity. In such unity there is a force capable of victoriously creating public and private good. Let us sympathize with the sorrows, rejoice in the hopes of our Slavic brothers and, through division, mature towards unity!.. Here we mean mainly the articles of “New Time” Nos. 2466, 2567, 2468 for 1883. We set out the details of this dispute in Pavsky’s biography. See “Russian Antiquity” 1880, vol. XXVII, pp. 705–730. You might be interested in: