Приложения
Machine translation from the original · Show original
1. Letter to T.I. Filippova to K.K. Zederholm 281
Dear Konstantin Karlovich! Here's a task for you! The idea is often repeated that the patronage of secular power does not help the spread of religion, and persecution does not hinder, but rather contributes to its success. This idea, stemming from religious tolerance, is not confirmed by history. Before Constantine the Great the number of Christians was, of course, less than after his baptism of his entire empire. The patronage of the Arians strengthened Arianism, the persecution of the Arians helped the proliferation of the Orthodox confession. The patronage of the kings to the decisions of the councils stopped heresies; patronage of heresies oppressed Christians. Subsequently, Charlemagne converted Saxony with the sword 282. In southern France, the forerunners of the Waldensian reformation were exterminated by fire and sword. The Czechs, who fought for two centuries for freedom of religion, forcibly adopted Latinism after the fall of their kingdom. Protestantism spread only where secular power patronized it; in Spain the Inquisition exterminated it, in France the measures of Louis 14th, i.e.
the destruction of the Edict of Nantes brought matters to such a situation that even after tolerance was reintroduced, the Protestants could not strengthen themselves. I don’t know about Belgium, how and for what reasons it became Catholic. In England, before Canning, Catholicism was dying out; after the granting of rights to it, it began to attract the best people into its bosom 283.
Here! I have calculated for you everything that came to mind about the consequences of tolerance and persecution. Perhaps you know of other similar cases from history. The task is to present a number of these cases in order of time, with a detailed designation of persons, time, circumstances; so that no mistake can creep in, because it may be included in the paper. The count needs this to reflect the false idea that persecution contributes to the spread of the persecuted religion. Persecution gives birth to martyrs, causes miracles of confession, gives rise to the greatest triumphs of the spirit, imprints the power of teaching, but does not multiply adherents, it is morally criminal, but it has achieved and is achieving its goal, even touching the Orthodox faith, for the Orthodox Church is bequeathed only truth, and not success. Once you have compiled these certificates, send them to me. The Count entrusts this to you.
St. Petersburg, December 15, 1857
2. About the schismatics of 1858 284 285
At the committee meetings, the idea was expressed that persecution does not prevent, but, on the contrary, helps the persecuted religion to spread. This idea, based on a misunderstanding, is decisively refuted by history. It has already been pointed out that Protestantism established itself only in those countries in which it was protected by government power, and could not penetrate where vigorous measures were taken against it. And in the Middle Ages, more than one heresy was eradicated by the persecution raised against it. If it is objected that the inquisitorial measures, although they achieved their goal, did not, however, have good consequences and now cannot in any way be approved, then we will notice that they were not spoken of as a justification, but only as proof of the irrefutable truth that the persecution of religions quite achieved its goal. But, of course, the mode of action of the Roman Church cannot be cited to the Orthodox government either for imitation or as a warning.
The history of Christianity in the East not only provides us with even clearer evidence that countering heresies on the part of the government is successful and necessary, but also in the laws of the Byzantine emperors it will find an indication of exactly what measures to this end can be taken by Orthodox sovereigns; and, finally, from the writings of the Holy Fathers and the rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, we can be convinced that such measures are not only not contrary to Christianity, but are even obligatory for Orthodox kings.
Already in the first centuries of Christianity, it spread, obviously, not through persecution, but in spite of persecution, due to the Divine power inherent in it. But even here, Providence sometimes chose as its instruments even some of the pagan emperors, who, with their peaceful disposition towards Christianity, contributed greatly to its successes. On the contrary, although the persecutors could not destroy the faith of Christ, they often and very significantly stopped its spread. Finally, with the triumph of the Church during the reign of Constantine the Great, all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the Church, were turned to protect its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors assisted her by eradicating the remnants of idolatry and deposing heretics. When it happened that heresies found patrons in the kings themselves, then they grew so that, for example, when St.
Gregory the Theologian, in all of Constantinople there was only one Orthodox chapel left, and after that, with the assistance of the Orthodox emperors, the heretics retained one chapel. In general, the assistance of the kings to the decisions of the Councils stopped heresies, and, on the contrary, the patronage of heresies oppressed Christianity. The emperors who patronized the iconoclasts outraged the entire Church, and only then was universal peace established in it again, and the iconoclastic heresy was suppressed when the kings and queens themselves began to vigorously promote this. Didn’t later Latin rule in Constantinople and in the East in general harm Orthodoxy? And did the Mohammedan yoke really contribute to its spread? Now, when opponents of the Church are freely dragging the weak into heresies and schism, isn’t this a direct consequence of the increased relaxation of the schism from the local lower authorities with indifference and lack of patronage of the faith, often from the highest.
Is it possible that our Fatherland will voluntarily put itself in the position into which the East was involuntarily placed by unfortunate circumstances?
It is highly instructive to take a closer look at the laws issued against pagans and heretics by Constantine the Great and his successors Theodosius, Justinian and other pious emperors. When Christianity triumphed, the pagan priests, naturally, could no longer remain with their former advantages, but in addition, all pagans were deprived of access to the highest honorary and court positions, as those that would increase their influence on the people. It was ordered to crush idols, destroy temples, or turn them into Christian churches, or lock them, prohibiting entry into them, under fear of a heavy penalty, sacrifices and pagan rituals in general were strictly prohibited, and those who resumed pagan worship were threatened with punishment. The severity of these measures was caused by the clear consciousness that without it it would have been impossible to save the faithful from constant temptation. Therefore, Blessed Augustine, mentioning the laws that were intended to eradicate pagan rituals, says: “Of course, there is no one among us who would not approve of these laws.”
And in relation to heretics, the emperors remembered that “a mother must have mercy on her children and protect them, and that she would be unmerciful and cruel if, while protecting the wolves, she destroyed the sheep.” In choosing the means to protect the faithful from heresies, the pious emperors took into account the circumstances: they used prudent but firm measures to convince the lost, and in the event of resistance and violence, they did not extend severity to everyone, but only to the main false teachers, and generally did not undertake anything that would not bring benefit, but would only embitter the opponents more. Heretics were subject to the death penalty only when they reached the point of violent resistance to the authorities or a crime against nature itself. In general, pious emperors remembered the saying of the holy fathers that the heretic should not be killed, but corrected. The main laws issued by the emperors to protect Orthodoxy and curb heretics were as follows.
Heretical gatherings were strictly prohibited, and those who violated this prohibition were subject to expulsion or punishment. Heretics were forbidden to build churches, and the houses in which they gathered were confiscated. It was forbidden for heretics to ordain anyone as bishop, priest or deacon. Those who seduced others were treated with particular severity. False priests were subjected to heavy penalties, expulsion or exile. Special laws protected those Christians who had heretics among their relatives. Heretics had no right either to transfer their estates to others by will, or to accept what was bequeathed. Adherents of some sects (for example, Manichaeans) and, in some cases, temporarily all heretics in general were subjected to expulsion or punishment.
Only one emperor, under the pretext that faith does not tolerate coercion, abolished all laws against heretics, returned the exiles and compared them in rights with the Orthodox. It was Julian the Apostate.
With the exception of him, all the emperors were aware of the benefits and necessity of laws protecting the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox. Understanding that laws must not only be issued, but also executed, and, seeing the harm and danger from the lawless and selfish indulgence of some rulers towards heretics, the emperors determined a heavy penalty and deprivation of office for rulers and judges for their deviation from these laws; in their own person they demonstrated an example of zeal for Orthodoxy. The laws prohibited heretics from addressing them personally and bothering them with petitions. At the same time, the emperors protected the purity of public morals, prohibiting spectacles on holidays, etc., realizing, however, that the assistance of the government is, although necessary and essential, but not the only condition for the affirmation of the faith. While the sovereigns tried through various laws to bring those who were alienated to unity with the Church, the shepherds of the Church did not cease to exhort and teach the lost.
“If the heretics,” says Blessed Augustine in a letter to Vincent, “were only afraid of state laws, but were not taught, then this might seem like injustice and violence. And if only they were taught, but at the same time were not frightened by the law, then among them, habits hardened by rigidity would be weakly encouraged to enter the path of salvation. But saving instruction is added to useful fear, so that not only the light of truth drives out the darkness of error, but also the shackles of bad habit are broken by the power of fear. I myself was previously of the opinion that we should not use any external incentives for unity with the Church and that we must act only with words, fight with reasoning alone, and win with evidence, so that we do not have false Orthodox in those very people who were previously open heretics. But this opinion of mine was challenged not by words, but by facts. Many, convinced by the obvious truth, had long wanted to be Orthodox, but, fearing their own, daily put off their conversion.
Many were held back by force of habit or negligence. Many thought that there was no difference whether someone belonged to the Orthodox Church or not, and remained in heresy because they were born into it and no one encouraged them to convert to Orthodoxy. All of these were returned to the bosom of the Church by the laws issued against heretics, and those whom security made negligent, were converted by the care of the Church and the government for them, and now they celebrate their conversion as the brightest holiday. So, let the kings of the earth serve Christ, also making laws in favor of the teachings of Christ.” “It is better,” says the same teacher of the Church in another letter, “better, of course (who doubts?), to lead people to true piety through teaching alone and not to motivate them through fear of punishment. But just because some people are better, one should not neglect those who are not.
Experience has proven that it was useful for many to first be forced by fear, so that later they could either learn or actually carry out what they learned in words. Of course, those who are controlled by love are better, but those who are corrected by fear are more numerous. Not everyone who spares us is our friend, and not everyone who does not spare us is our enemy. Who can love us more than God? However, he does not cease not only to gently teach us, but also to comfort us savingly. Sometimes a thief, sprinkling food, lures them away from the herd, and sometimes a shepherd, hitting with a whip, drives wandering sheep to the herd. If we had neglected and tolerated those who were our fierce enemies and who disturbed our world with all sorts of violence and deceit, if we had not invented anything that could frighten and correct them, then we would really be repaying evil for evil. If someone, seeing his enemy running towards the abyss in a fever and unconsciousness, did not grab and tie him up, but allowed him to escape, would he not repay him with evil for evil?
How many heretics, upon their conversion, cursed their former life and pitiful errors, while they were brought to this saving consciousness by strict laws? These laws did not benefit some, but should medicine be abandoned because the madness of some is incurable?
Those who do not want to see laws against their wickedness say that the apostles did not ask for help from earthly kings. Whoever says this forgets that there was a different time then, and that everything should be done in its own time. For what emperor then believed in Christ and wanted to serve Him by issuing laws in favor of piety against ungodliness? Then another prophetic saying was fulfilled: “The nations reeled, and the people learned in vain. The kings of the earth and the princes were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ" (Ps. 2:1 - 2). Then what is said in the same psalm a little lower was not yet put into effect: “And now the kings understand, be punished by all who judge land. Work for the Lord with fear and rejoice in Him with trembling.” How then do kings serve God with fear, if not by forbidding and punishing with pious severity that which is contrary to the commandments of the Lord? For the king serves God differently as a man, and differently as a king.
As a man, he serves God by living a Christian life; but since he is also a king, he serves God by making laws commanding what is righteous, and prohibiting what is contrary to this with decent severity. This is how Hezekiah served the Lord (2 Kings 18:4), who destroyed oak groves and pagan temples. This is how kings serve the Lord when they do for the glory of God what they can only do as kings. No sane person would dare to tell kings that they do not care whether their subjects are chaste or depraved; Who but a madman can tell them: “Do not worry, no matter what state the Church of the Lord is in your state - whether it enjoys the world or suffers disasters from its enemies, the piety and wickedness of its subjects is not subject to your scrutiny.”
Church shepherds ask for help from Christian emperors, not avenging themselves, but protecting the flocks entrusted to them. If they did not do this, they should be blamed for negligence. For the Apostle Paul did not care about his own life, but about the Church of God, when he learned about the conspiracy drawn up against him, he resorted to the help of a thousand.
Based on all these arguments, St. Augustine says: “It seems to me not useful to tame and correct heretics through the authorities established by God.” And since the apostle says that “there is no authority except from God,” then, without a doubt, when kings provide help to the Church, this help to us is in the name of the Lord, who created heaven and earth. In addition to St. Augustine, one could also cite the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who advised to destroy the gatherings of heretics, St. Joseph of Volotsky and the testimony of many other holy fathers.
Let us turn to the rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils. The Holy Fathers of the Council of Carthage (the rules of which were approved by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils) decided to ask the kings for the good of the eradication of the remnants of idolatry, the destruction of idols, the destruction of temples, the prohibition of pagan feasts and in general about everything that they consider useful against heretics and Hellenes and against their superstitions (rights 69, 71, 95, 120); it is also considered decent to ask the heads of the regions for the assistance of the common mother, the Catholic Church, against heretics (Rule 78). The same Carthage Council by rule 59 and 6 Ecumenical rule 23, Antioch 5 and 11, Constantinople rule 9 decided: “Those who violate the church order should be removed involuntarily from the reigning city; those who create indignation and sedition in the Church and do not want to submit to the meek admonition of church pastors to convert, as rebels, to order by secular authority.”
The one hundred and fourth rule of the Council of Carthage was decided to ask the pious kings Arcadius and Honorius to restore the law of Theodosius the Great on the exaction of 10 pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and ordain, as well as on the prohibition of heretics transferring or receiving anything under a will. “The royal love for mankind,” it is said, “should take care that the Catholic Church, which gave birth to Christ and raised them with the strength of faith, would be protected by their providence. Against the fury of the renegades, we ask you to give us divine help, not extraordinary and not alien to the Holy Scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, defeated the complicity of disorderly people with military help.” All church history is full of examples of saints encouraging emperors to act in favor of the Church 286.
To all the defenders and accomplices of Orthodoxy who labored, the Holy Church of Christ creates an annual remembrance and proclaims eternal memory to the Orthodox Greek kings Theodosius the Younger, Justinian and others, and, solemnly remembering those who labored in piety, presents this to all her Christ-named children for imitation and praises the exploits of these, who are now saving Orthodoxy affirms that by faith and virtue preparing oneself for eternal bliss.
In our fatherland, in which the most pious tsars are the supreme defenders and guardians of orthodoxy and every kind of deanery in the Holy Church (the basic laws of the Russian Empire), how else can their government comply with this fundamental rule that existed from the beginning, if not by acting against the schism by those measures that have always been taken by the Orthodox tsars and which are approved and praised by the Orthodox Church? 287
And let us not be disturbed by the thought that the example of Europe obliges us, in the name of religious tolerance, not to do anything against schismatics. And in European states, religious toleration means that Catholics tolerate Protestants and Protestants tolerate Catholics, and this is not without restrictions: for example, in Italy Protestants, and in Sweden Catholics, as we know, do not enjoy the same rights as the general population. In relation to newer or secret and therefore unrecognized sects, there is not such tolerance as the patrons of the schism wish in any European state, except Moldavia and Wallachia, from which we do not have to take an example 288.
On the issue of translating the Bible into Russian, two opposing opinions were expressed by two metropolitans of the same name - Moscow and Kyiv. It would be useful and bold to present any new considerations about the matter discussed by the two archpastors, whom all of Russia reverently honors as saints of God. But the very disagreement between them calls for discussion. Moreover, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that many of the essential provisions of the Bishop of Kyiv remained without refutation and even without objection.
The passion for the foreign and for novelty has brought Russian society to the point where the Russian language has become, as it were, alien to many, and the church language is almost completely incomprehensible. As a result, many Russians poorly understand both church services and the Holy Scriptures, transmitted to us in Church Slavonic. It is impossible to ignore this sad circumstance. The Bishop of Kyiv offers means that would strike evil at the very root. He pointed to the irrefutable truth that, first of all, to understand the Holy Scripture, in addition to frequent and attentive reading of it, requires diligent attendance at church and attentive listening to the divine service performed in it, that without observing these conditions, even in the Russian language, the word of God will hardly be intelligible, and if they are observed, everyone will understand everything necessary for the edification of the faithful to their eternal salvation, that, finally, for those who want to achieve a greater understanding of the Holy Scripture, the Holy Scriptures are necessary, except great diligence, prayer and questioning of church pastors. And in order for the very language of St.
The Scriptures were not an obstacle to his understanding; the Bishop of Kiev pointed out the urgent need to diligently study the Slavic language in all our spiritual and secular schools. And indeed, when they study foreign languages that serve only for local life and for the vanity of those who want to show off their knowledge, then how can one not teach the language in which the doctrine of eternal salvation is written in our Rus'? And to facilitate this, the Eminence of Kiev proposes, firstly, to publish Slavic-Russian primers, from which Russians from an early age would learn to read Slavic and understand what they read, secondly, for those who do not know the Slavic language, compile and publish Slavic-Russian dictionaries 290, thirdly, with new editions of the Bible, introduce some private corrections of especially obscure passages or explain them with notes under the line, and, finally, compile for the people and publish as brief as possible an interpretation of all Holy Scripture, selected from the Fathers of the Church. All the difficulties that currently exist in understanding worship and the Holy.
The Scriptures would have been set aside by the exact execution of the measures proposed by the Metropolitan of Kyiv; their validity can be all the less doubted since no objection was made to them by the Metropolitan of Moscow, who thus silently recognized their justice 291 . If, given the current direction of society, the majority rejects the advice of the Bishop of Kyiv and the path indicated by him seems inconvenient and difficult, then, by the way, let us remember the words of the Savior: “Keep in mind the narrow gate... that a narrow gate and a strait path lead into the belly, and few of them are found” (Matthew 7: 3-14). In addition, the Russian translation proposed for the convenience of understanding the Holy Scripture is associated with a different kind and great inconveniences and difficulties, which were pointed out by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and which the defenders of the Russian translation do not deny.
1. The incomprehensibility of the Slavic language for many has two main consequences: firstly, misunderstanding of church services, and secondly, misunderstanding of Holy Scripture. The measures of the Metropolitan of Kyiv are directed against both. The Russian translation, while eliminating the second inconvenience, would not only not destroy the first, but would even inevitably increase it. If, as the Moscow Bishop says, the use of the Slavic language in worship really began to encourage the study of the Slavic dialect, then this would make the Russian translation unnecessary. But one cannot help but imagine that if without the Russian translation of the Bible the liturgical use of the Slavic dialect did not prompt society to learn Slavic, then what reason is there to assume that this will happen with the Russian translation, which would, on the contrary, make it possible to do even more without the Slavic language? The validity of this remark is also recognized by the Moscow Metropolitan.
Speaking about the sale of many copies of the New Testament from the Kyiv printing house, he adds: “When there is no Russian, it is necessary to buy the Slavic New Testament so as not to be left completely without holy books.” This means that when there is a Russian translation, then this need will no longer exist, and many who previously read the Holy Scripture in Slavonic will then begin to read it in Russian. “The Russian translation,” says the Moscow Metropolitan, “is appointed so that there is no longer a need to study an unfamiliar dialect, and so that those who cannot be present at divine services every day when the holy book is opened without special training understand its language as usual for them.”
These words of the Moscow Metropolitan force us to assume that he recognizes the validity of the following truth expressed by the Metropolitan of Kyiv: “The Russian translation will displace the Slavic language, which is already not quite familiar to the educated of our compatriots, for whom the Church Slavonic divine service itself, which constitutes the main, surest and most reliable means for all the sons of the Russian Orthodox Church, may finally become incomprehensible. for their edification in faith and piety." Thus, the Russian translation of the Bible will make the Slavic language less necessary, legitimize its ignorance, and the very efforts to facilitate the understanding of the word of God in home reading will make it difficult to understand the same word of God proclaimed in the church. Who would dare to say that home reading is more important than church services? If the Slavic language is incomprehensible and should remain so, then how can one leave worship in an incomprehensible language?
And if the translation of the divine service is associated with insurmountable difficulties, then the beginning of these difficulties will be made by the Russian translation of the Bible. After this translation, either the service will be incomprehensible, or it will have to be translated into Russian. Both are dangerous.
2. Through a new translation of the Bible, the union of our unity with the other Slavic Orthodox Churches, which is maintained precisely by the fact that we have the Bible and worship in the same language, will be broken. The validity of this fear is not offset by the remark that in the future, as now, we will have divine services in the same language with the Slavic Churches. For now we are united with the Slavs by both divine services and the Bible, and, of course, the connection will weaken if we are united by one divine service and if this very divine service becomes more and more incomprehensible to us.
Thus, the new translation threatens us with a twofold rupture and disunity: firstly, a separation between the word of God proclaimed in the church and the word of God read at home, between church worship and home, to which the latter may finally be given priority, which is contrary to the original teaching of the Orthodox Church; and, secondly, separation from the Slavs of the same tribe and of the same faith, from whom we will move away, moving away from the church language that is common to us.
3. There is no doubt that the Russian dialect cannot convey the Holy Scriptures with all the power and fidelity that distinguishes the Slavic translation. It is impossible to agree with the fact that the Russian dialect has an abundance of Slavic and adds its abundance to it. The Russian language, as everyone knows, lacks much that is in the Slavic language and what exactly is required to translate the Holy Scriptures. If in Russian there are some expressions that are lacking in Slavic, then, of course, those that relate not to the Divine truths of faith, but to other areas of human knowledge. We must not forget that not only from foreign words, but even more from the influx of false opinions and perverse teachings, and also from the internal depravity of society speaking Russian, the language itself has deteriorated and, in comparison with Slavic, has become less capable of expressing high truths.
The translation of the liturgical canons published by Metropolitan Nikanor, of blessed memory, to which the Metropolitan of Moscow refers, can only confirm the opinion about the inadequacy of the Russian language and the inconveniences of the Russian translation of St. books. Everyone who read this translation will agree with this, and Metropolitan Nikanor himself agreed, stopping its sale.
4. The Russian translation of the Bible would be an undertaking hitherto unprecedented in the history of the Church, both Old Testament and New Testament. The Hebrew, Greek and Slavic languages have changed significantly over time and moved away from the language in which the Holy Scripture was originally written. It cannot be proven that the Jewish church language is for the Jews, and Greek is for the modern Greeks or other Slavic peoples; the Church Slavonic language is more understandable and close to us than the Slavic language. However, until now the Holy Church, neither for Jews nor for Slavs, has not allowed a second translation into a new, changed, popular dialect. “The holy prophets and apostles wrote sacred books in the natural and common language of those peoples to whom these books were originally supposed to reach.” Certainly. But for the Slavic peoples, therefore, for us too, the Holy Scripture was translated into the Slavic language that is natural to us, hitherto commonly used among us in all church meetings, and it cannot be said that it is incomprehensible to Russians even outside church meetings.
It is a different matter to translate into the language of an entire people of the same tribe, such as Greek, Slavic, Latin, Georgian, etc., which is completely in accordance with the ways of God's Providence and was arranged by Him Himself. But a different matter is translation into the private dialect of a people of the same tribe, a second translation for a people who already have the Holy Scriptures in a language accessible to them, which, we repeat, is unprecedented in church history. It is difficult to object to these remarks, and the Metropolitan of Moscow confirmed their justice with his silence. To the question of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, “if we translate St.
Scripture into the Russian dialect, then why not translate it later into the Little Russian dialect, into the Belarusian dialect, etc.”, the Metropolitan of Moscow answers the following: “Because the Little Russian dialect and the Belarusian dialect are the dialects of a small minority and poorly educated, because many (but not all) Little Russians and Belarusians understand the Russian dialect and can read the Holy Scriptures in it, finally, because for the unity of the church and it is more useful for civilians for one Russian dialect to dominate in Little Russia.” To this one could object the following: if we care about the public accessibility of Holy Scripture, then we should recognize the rights of the poorly educated minority, which includes several million people for whom our Russian language is as incomprehensible as the church language. If we care about church unity, then it is more useful for one Slavic dialect to be used both among the Slavs and among us, in church services and in home reading.
5. That the intended translation of the Bible is an unprecedented undertaking in church history is also proven by the means proposed for its implementation. “The Russian translation,” it is said in a note about this matter, “will be published for the first time in one of the periodicals of the ecclesiastical department, through which it will be easier to discern judgments about it and use them to improve the translation.” “From the translation of the New Testament into the Russian dialect,” it is said there, “as from the first experience of its kind, one could not demand complete perfection.” The Metropolitan of Kiev rightly objected to this that it is indecent and unsafe for the Divine importance of the Sacred to convey for public reading immature experiences of translating it and then to provoke judgments about this from everyone who reads, that this is not how the famous ancient translations were made: the translation of the seventy, our Slavic translation, even the Latin. Indeed, did the ancient translations initially contain the kind of irregularities that can be indicated in the Russian translation of the New Testament?
Did their fidelity to the original and the Orthodox teaching of the Church appear later, as the fruit of “progress”? And is an enterprise safe, based on the controversial idea of progress, in which many believe, but which is very permissible to doubt?
6. The difficulty and inconvenience of the new translation were revealed in practice by its first experience in Russia. The translation of the Holy Scriptures that we had begun was suspended for reasons that, although not officially announced, were undoubtedly important. If the Right Reverend Philaret of Kiev previously judged this matter differently, then it cannot be assumed that he would renounce his previous opinion without good reasons, and, therefore, he can be completely trusted as a person who has known first one side of the matter, then the other.
7. Clearly aware of the difficulty and importance of the planned matter, the Bishop of Kiev finally expressed the idea that it was impossible to begin it without prior consultation and agreement with the Greek Church. Three objections were made to this. First: such communication is not necessary, for just as the writings of the Holy Fathers, according to the needs of the Russian Church, are translated into Russian for home reading without the need for communication with the Greek Church, in the same way the translation of sacred books can be undertaken for the same need, for the same purpose. But is the translation of the writings of St. fathers and the translation of the Bible - a matter of equal importance, significance and ease of execution? The second objection is that the Greek hierarchy does not have the necessary information regarding all the local circumstances that made us need a Russian translation of St. books, that therefore this translation cannot be the subject of her judgment.
But what prevents us from communicating to the Greek Church the necessary information about this matter, which will, of course, be weighed and assessed by it impartially and supplemented by it with its own consideration of what the benefit of the Universal Church requires? The third objection, finally, is that the Patriarch of Constantinople is appointed and replaced at the arbitrariness of an unfaithful government and does not have complete ecclesiastical freedom to act and express its opinion. But does the oppressed position of the Greek Church prevent it from preserving the teachings of the faith in all its purity and vigilantly standing guard over Orthodoxy? Is Turkish rule really a sufficient reason for us to completely cut off all relations with the Greek Church? And when is such communication more timely and necessary, if not regarding such an important matter, which has caused so many difficulties and bewilderments? Thus, all the objections made to relations with the Greek Church regarding the Russian translation of the Bible turn out to be completely insufficient and unfounded.
Much can be said in favor of relations. The first and exclusive qualities of the pastors of the Orthodox Church have always been humility and general advice, attracting the grace of God, visiting and admonishing people. The apostles were the first to set an example of resolving perplexities with a general council, then their successors, pastors and church teachers, conciliarly resolved the disagreements that arose in the Church and, with common consent, determined the necessary rules and regulations, which can be seen from church history; also, the Russian Church always had a relationship with the Greek Church and, as having received enlightenment from it through Holy Baptism, Christian dogmas and other Christian decrees and rituals, maintained a fraternal union with it. As in many other cases, so, for example, on the issue of correcting the sacred books, the Russian Church belonged to the Greek Church. Now it is all the more necessary that the Greek Church not allow any new translation of the Bible for popular use.
It may very well happen that she will not recognize our new translation as Orthodox and, as a result, will denounce our Church, especially with the assistance of enemies who have deviated from Orthodoxy. The consent of all the patriarchs to translate the Bible into Russian can have great weight for those in Russia who are perplexed about this matter. Moreover, such an attitude, firstly, will appear to be humility, which is proper for the Orthodox, and, secondly, through this, the Latins will be deprived of the reason to dispel new rumors in Greece that the Russians have deviated from Orthodoxy. If, due to current circumstances, they find it not entirely decent or inconvenient to treat Greece in the tone in which our former high priests treated it, then, at least, it is necessary to treat, at least in the form of notification of such an intention and enterprise, with a desire to know the opinion of the patriarchs about this. Still, this would be closer to unity and like-mindedness, which are both decent and necessary for the Orthodox.
4. About the Adrianople case 292
The deplorable situation of Orthodox Christians in Turkey arouses active participation in our Church. But her desire to help the distressed Slavic tribe is subordinated to the benefits of the Universal Church, which are paramount for Orthodoxy. From this point of view, the latest incident in Adrianople is in many respects very disappointing.
The situation of the Orthodox Slavs in Turkey is considered especially disastrous, because their highest spiritual positions are occupied exclusively by Greeks and because their services are performed in a Greek language incomprehensible to the people. Therefore, it is very natural and legitimate for the Bulgarians to have bishops from their people and to hear divine services in their native language. But in the resulting clashes between the Greeks and Bulgarians, our sympathy for the latter should never remove us from strict impartiality. We, both within ourselves and, if possible, among our fellow tribes, must suppress any hostile feeling towards the Greeks. We must remember that the Greeks, with all their shortcomings, vigilantly stand guard over the Universal Church and victoriously repel all attempts by its enemies.
They are called to this, and for this they are given special means and strength: they are the children of great fathers, they have ancient and glorious traditions; their excellent talents and minds, the honor of the people, the support of the immaculate confession of faith and sacred antiquity, and finally, the blood of their confessors is still shed to this day. Nowhere are the teachings of the faith and the statutes of the Church observed with such zeal as among the Greeks. These are the features of a people chosen by God's Providence, whose vices are compensated by merits before the Church. The Greeks should be brothers in faith, elder brothers, and not enemies for all Orthodox Christians. Therefore, in the clashes between the Greeks and the Slavs, one should see not the struggle of the “Greek element” with the Slavic nationality, but the internecine strife of brothers of the same faith, in which it is sinful and dangerous to get involved. From the strife between the Greeks and the Bulgarians there could arise a clear danger to the integrity of the Universal Church. By seeking the rights of their nationality, the Bulgarians can create new divisions in the Church.
It would be in vain for anyone to think that the intentions of the Bulgarians are solely towards the introduction of worship in their native language and the establishment of a native hierarchy, thus the communication of faith is not in the least disrupted. Unfortunately, we know from the indications of history and from daily experience that, under the influence of highly excited passions, disputes that are initially unimportant end in great and irreparable disasters. And that the Bulgarians’ hatred of the Greeks has reached the level of intense passion, there is no doubt about it: the Bulgarians themselves do not hide this. Who can guarantee that in their quests they will remain within the limits of strict prudence? An insistent demand for rights, a stubborn desire for separateness can easily lead to a complete break. If ever, then especially now, internecine disputes between peoples of the same faith are inappropriate. Never have the enemies of the Orthodox Church so vigilantly monitored the course of events taking place in it, in order to take advantage of everything possible to weaken it and strengthen their own power in the East.
What better ways to achieve their goal can they imagine if not the separation of Orthodox peoples? This alone should make the Bulgarians understand that the Latin missionaries are promoting their intentions in every possible way. Can they really trust the sincerity of the Latins? When and where did the Latins themselves defend people's rights from the claims of the hierarchy? Is it not the opposite principle that dominates their Church? Is it not clear from this that they approve of the Bulgarian aspirations as useful to them, and therefore harmful to us (when we say “us,” we mean the entire Universal Church)? Consequently, any internecine settlements between the Slavs and the Greeks are especially inappropriate now: now is the time for both to stand together, as children of the one mother of the Holy Church against her enemies. The present moment is such that it must be easier to endure something different from fellow believers, even if it is apparently difficult, than to strenuously demand one’s rights to the joy of those of other faiths at the wrong time. Whatever the reasons for disagreement, it should subside at the sight of a common threatening enemy.
If it were possible to inspire the leaders of the Bulgarian movement to hold their hearts together and wait for some time, in anticipation of the most favorable circumstances, they could peacefully achieve what they are now seeking, although not without right, but with danger for universal unity.
And in clashes between Orthodox tribes of the same faith, but of different tribes, we must be reconcilers, but not participants in their strife. For by pestering one of the warring parties, we will only embitter the other. We must desire their mutual agreement by their good will, and not by the force of a wrested victory; in a word, in church affairs in the East, our main goal should be to pacify the hostility constantly fanned by the enemies of Orthodoxy. It seems that politically Russia cannot have any other goal. With the exception of an insignificant number of people who were educated in the West (and there, for the most part, their fathers lost their faith), all Orthodox Christians, no matter what tribe they belong to, have sympathy for Russia. Therefore, enmity and strife between them can only reduce their strength, which the Russian government can count on in the Turkish possessions in times of need. As for the actual conflict before the last Adrianople conflict, it is sad both politically and ecclesiastically.
In order to judge this matter with complete justice, we must not lose sight of the following:
1. The use of the Greek language in worship in Adrianople is very natural, because in Adrianople the Greek population outnumbers the Bulgarian one.
2. Moreover, we do not see systematic persecution of the Church Slavonic language there, for in the vicinity of Adrianople Slavic worship is allowed everywhere. For the Bulgarians, there was a solid hope that Slavic worship would eventually penetrate into the city churches of Adrianople, especially since the Metropolitan of Adrianople was secretly inclined to introduce it, and if he then hesitated at the moment of decision, he had sufficient reasons for this in the unfavorable beginning of the matter and in its difficulties. He knew that in such a case it was dangerous to go ahead, and his fears were justified by the consequences. In the church, which by its very essence is the most protective of institutions, any innovation, even just, can be difficult, especially one that strikes the ear or catches the eye.
3. The behavior of the Greeks in this matter, especially the thieves of church keys, cannot be justified; from the words of Mr. Stupin it is clear that it was also condemned by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But it is difficult to justify the Bulgarians too. What motives guided them when they expressed a desire to replace both controversial languages - Greek and Church Slavonic - with the Turkish dialect Koramakli? Here the blind passion is already noticeable, the Bulgarians, overwhelmed by it, completely lost sight of their goal and showed that they do not value the Church Slavonic language so much as victory over the Greeks at all costs. If they are ready to abandon their native language in favor of some wild dialect, then why should they not, until the most favorable circumstances, tolerate the sanctified and chosen language of God, in which the holy gospel was first delivered to the world.
If no one disputes the dignity of the original in exemplary works, then how can one deny it in the words of the Divinely inspired? From the time of the apostles to the present day, throughout the East, in Orthodox non-Greek churches, like ours, some prayers and exclamations are pronounced in Greek as a sign of his birthright in the Church of Christ. And should we prefer the Koramakli dialect to this most sacred language?
Based on Mr. Stupin’s report, the following comments can be made:
a) From his letter to the director of the Asian Department dated February 5, it is clear that he, based on the very fair and significant right of unity of faith, which other consuls do not enjoy, did not, however, have it in mind; he did not even slightly mention the consequences of this matter for the Church, but speaks about some kind of geographical spread of Bulgaria: “Winning this case for the Bulgarians, and precisely in Adrianople, would mean winning for all of Bulgaria the recognition of its legal rights to a separate, independent, Slavic nationality, it would mean concluding a moral peace treaty beneficial in consequences and lasting in justice, by virtue of which geographical Bulgaria would double in size, in accordance with its present essential size according to the distribution of this tribe from the Balkans to the archipelago and almost to the border of Hellas.”
b) It is not clear how, in a matter concerning worship, he considered, as he says, a sacred duty to resort to the patronage of the Turkish authorities in order to humble the Christian Synod, contrary to the basic rules of Christianity: “Does anyone dare from you, having a thing for another, to be judged by the unrighteous, and not by the saints? ... to your shame I say... Brother against brother goes to law, and that before unbelievers” (1 Cor. 6:1-6).
c) G. Stupin says that he did not upset the well-meaning Greeks. God grant that this be so, but one can doubt this by reading the following passage in one of the issues of the Greek newspaper Byzantis (January 18), which there is no reason to consider unkind. “The actions of Mr. Stupin,” it says, “seem to us completely inappropriate. As a representative of a power that professes the same faith on both sides and deigns to help all peoples without exception professing the Eastern Orthodox faith, we think that he violates the will of the power to which he belongs and the government on which he depends. We think that he is clearly violating and opposing not only the instructions he must have regarding the maintenance of peace between Christians, but also the Christian principles of equality and mutual love... His duty in the present incidents was, if he were to intervene in them, to take care of the agreement and restoration of mutual love.
All this leads to one general conclusion: for the unity, strength and good of the Universal Church, it is necessary to limit ourselves to only sincere and benevolent advice to the Greek hierarchs, avoiding any overt proceedings between them and the Bulgarians or other tribes of the same faith, and even less involving in these matters the intervention of Muslim authorities to the triumph of other faiths and to the temptation and humiliation of Orthodoxy.
5. About the magazine “People’s Reading” 293
On March 20, 1858, No. 1898, His Excellency Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod proposed to the Holy Synod the attitude of the Minister of Public Education received to His Excellency on March 14, No. 546 regarding permission for Colonel Shcherbachev and the collegiate secretary Obolensky to publish magazines under the title “People's Reading.” Having examined the attached program of this journal, the Holy Synod finds that one cannot but approve of the laudable desire of Mr. Shcherbachev and Obolensky to bring significant benefit to the fatherland by disseminating information among peasants that can improve their moral and material life. For what purpose, in almost all departments of the proposed publication, what is meant is not the idle amusement of readers, but the dissemination of useful knowledge. But in order to prevent the reprehensible and harmful from being combined with the useful in a matter undertaken with such good intentions without the will of the publishers, the Holy Synod considers it necessary to make some changes in the very composition of the proposed publication.
Wanting, as the publishers say, to attract peasants to reading, they considered it necessary to include in their publication poems written in the folk spirit, and will inevitably have to use other means to make their publication pleasant and attractive to a large number of readers.
But in such a publication, along with other articles for easy reading, to offer an interpretation of the Divine Gospel and similar articles of spiritual content, and thus to confuse the secular with the spiritual, would be an unprecedented phenomenon in our country, inconsistent with either the importance of the Holy Scriptures, or with the meaning that books in general have and should have, or with the original, correct view of the Russian people. From ancient times, Scriptures and books were the only instrument of God’s Word and therefore had a high, sacred meaning: they were accompanied by only saving truths, how, by knowing and fulfilling the will of God, one can achieve eternal salvation. Over time, they became an instrument of human teaching and began to contain the works of the human mind. But while, conveying their thoughts and feelings to words and writing, people were guided only by sublime and selfless aspirations, it was the time of exemplary writers.
In subsequent times, works of literature became the subject of selfish calculations and trade turnover, and thus, from an instrument of Divine Truth, books became, first, instruments of human opinions and, finally, a profitable article of despicable industry. In the old days, the entire Russian people, and now the best part of them, had and still have a high concept of the original meaning of the book. By scriptures and books, people primarily mean the Holy Scriptures, divine books. For a simple Russian person, a book is a shrine that protects him from harm. Such correct and lofty concepts should, of course, support and not shake them.
If, unfortunately, despicable works of the book trade penetrate into the people, then by their healthy instinct they will be able to separate them from spiritual and sacred books, for which they still have high respect, but if in the same books the people encountered both the Gospel Words and fables, then this would only lead to temptation and a lowering of concepts, would upset pious people from the peasant class, but would not serve them in any way. benefit and could not serve as teaching, which is more appropriate to look for in the Church and in church books. The very respect for the sacred should prompt us to handle it with special care and not place it along with what is not holy.
Guided by such considerations, the Holy Synod determined: edifying books for the people, as they have been until now, will continue to be published separately, without introducing articles of secular content into them, and Messrs. Shcherbachev and Obolensky should propose that, having excluded the first two sections from their program, they should publish moral and instructive articles in their publication and make special efforts to ensure that their entire publication is strictly consistent with both the teaching and the language of the Orthodox Church.
6. Objections to Katkov’s note regarding articles against the Greek Church 294
Mr. editor of the "Russian Messenger", justifying the publication of Mr. Daskalov's articles, first briefly outlines the state of the Bulgarian people and thereby tries to prove that denouncing the abuses of the Greek hierarchy in our country is both fair and necessary to keep the Bulgarians from going over to the union, then in some places of his justifying note he expresses the idea that works similar to the articles of Mr. D. can be useful to Russian society itself, which they awakens from disastrous indifference to the affairs of the Church, and, finally, asserts that only discussions about theological subjects, and not about the abuses of clergy, should rightly be subject to spiritual censorship.
We regret and are somewhat surprised that in his presentation of Bulgarian affairs, Mr. the editor of the “Russian Messenger” repeats only what Mr. D. said, and does not confirm the validity of what was said. In order to correctly judge the disastrous state of Bulgaria, you need to thoroughly know its causes, and we do not see this in Mr. Katkov. Blaming all the troubles on the Greek clergy, he mentions only in passing the first and main source of all evils, the Turkish yoke, which puts the Greeks themselves in the most embarrassing and difficult position, for which it is ungenerous on our part to reproach them. It is even more surprising that, speaking about the situation of Orthodox Christians in Turkey, the editor of the Russian scientific-political magazine for some reason is silent about the actions of European politics, which constantly inspires in the Turkish government all sorts of measures tending to humiliate Orthodoxy and give more scope to the plans of Europeans.
Whoever takes the affairs of the East to heart knows how the policies of the Meternichs and Redcliffes fall heavily on Orthodox shepherds and flocks and that for them the tiara is now worse than the turban. It is unforgivable, by keeping silent about this, to blame the Greek clergy for the misfortunes of the Bulgarians. Finally, whoever claims that the current movement of the Bulgarians is caused solely by the abuses of the Greek hierarchy loses sight of the main reason for this movement. Is it really a mystery to Mr. Katkov that the machinations and machinations of Latin propaganda, which most of all desires the separation of Orthodox peoples, the secession of Bulgaria from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and therefore everywhere spreads slander against the Great Church and arouses and supports hostile feelings towards it in everyone? The reports we receive from Austria and Turkey reveal the disastrous effects of this propaganda. And it will be enough for Mr. Katkov to point out Mr. Daskalov’s reviews of the actions in Bulgaria of the Latin Bishop Casanova and the Polish immigrants, for whom Mr. Daskalov expresses such lively sympathy.
All this is forgotten or hidden. Thus, in his presentation of Bulgarian affairs, Mr. Katkov discovered only a strange lack of information and short-sightedness or insincerity in the editor. We do not follow his example in this and frankly admit that in addition to the evils we have indicated, abuses also occur on the part of the Greek clergy. But if we do not confuse with them what is to blame for Turkish rule and the ill will of European politics; If we separate from fair accusations the slander and crafty interpretations generated by blind enmity or launched by Latin propaganda and its tools, conscious and unconscious, then they will not appear at all in the form in which Mr. Katkov and Mr. Daskalov present them. Of course, all this requires, in addition to impartiality, knowledge of the matter; but the absence of these conditions in the editor cannot in any way justify the publication of articles in which the actions of the highest spiritual authority are presented in a false form.
The same unfoundedness that Mr. Katkov reveals in his judgment about the Greek clergy is visible in his judgment about the Bulgarians: his sympathy for them turns into an offensive opinion and claims that if we do not show them sympathy by publishing articles like Daskalov’s, then Bulgaria, deceived in its hope for us, will turn to the pope, for which thus responsibility will fall on us. Justice requires that the leaders of the so-called Bulgarian movement, who are guilty of something, be separated from the people, who are innocent and deserving of our sympathy and assistance. Is it possible that Mr. Katkov does not know their plans? Claiming that “no one wants the fall of the Patriarch of Constantinople,” Mr. Katkov probably forgot the endless talk and reasoning of the Bulgarians about their imaginary rights to an autocephalous patriarchy. G.
Katkov forgot that in the articles of the “Constantinople Messenger” and “Bulgarian Books” it is clearly visible, and in frank and even not frank conversations the idea is even more clearly expressed that the Bulgarians have the right to own the Balkan Peninsula and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which should be snatched from the hands of the Greeks. Is it really necessary to spread the word that people with such plans, the consequences of which may be pleasing only to the opponents of the Church, do not deserve trust or cooperation? However, the leaders of the Bulgarian movement are not content with mere assumptions, and according to their suggestions and machinations, some measures are already being carried out that clearly tend to harm Orthodoxy. We are talking about the limitation of power by the patriarchy and the assignment of salaries to Greek bishops: through this the Turks acquired the right to interfere in the church affairs of the Orthodox, the disastrous state of the flock will not be corrected, and the power of the clergy and the Church will be undermined.
Isn’t it regrettable that the French writer Saint-Marc Girardin judges these unfortunate measures more thoroughly and impartially than Mr. Katkov? As for the Bulgarian youth, it is not surprising that in their enthusiasm they themselves do not understand what they are doing and what they want. It is no secret to anyone that she has deviated from the Church both in her way of life and in her concepts, that freethinking has darkened her understanding of the faith and interests of the Church, that some of them call the “Greek faith” cursed, and they express lively sympathy for Protestantism, and that, finally, they consider the union harmless to Orthodoxy. The current Bulgarian movement led to the idea of union; with the same thought it was secretly prepared and strengthened. We are not talking about the fact that among the main leaders of the Bulgarian movement there are people like Alexander the Exarch, with whom no honest person would want to deal.
But the plans, the mode of action, the very concepts of the leaders of this movement are such that neither the Russian Church nor the Orthodox government can wish to give it scope in Russia.
As for the Bulgarian people, from whom we strictly separate the leaders of the people, we sympathize with them with all our hearts and wish to alleviate their needs, but we completely disagree with Mr. Katkov on the measures that need to be taken for this. He believes that we should express sympathy for the Bulgarians by publishing articles offensive to the Great Church, and we believe that to express this sympathy we need not such ambiguous, but more effective means. We must use our political influence to counteract the crafty suggestions of European politics, to ease the heavy burden of Turkish rule weighing on the Greek Church, to assist its clergy in the endless struggle with the papists. As for the abuses caused for the most part by the plight of the Church, the only safe, legal and sure way to their destruction lies in the friendly, confidential suggestions of St.
to the patriarch, which will be accepted by him if he sees in us sincere allies and helpers, and, without a doubt, rejected if we inflict insults on him that do not benefit anyone and only entertain the idle malice of ill-intentioned or blind people.
Equally unfounded is Mr. Katkov’s assumption that our public denunciation of the real and imaginary abuses of the Greek hierarchy will be useful for Russian society itself and will awaken it from its disastrous indifference to the Church and church affairs. Unfortunately, this indifference really exists. But the reasons for it are not those given by Mr. Katkov. It arose from a general weakening of faith, affected partly by the fact that people in general seem to find it easier and more private to follow their whims and not be embarrassed by the teachings of faith, partly by the influence of the West, which has bombarded us with many contradictory opinions, among which we get confused and wander, not being able to properly refute or even put them in order. If, in addition to this, it is allowed to publicly blaspheme and blaspheme the Church, then this will completely confuse many, and deeply upset and offend others, and there will be no benefit from this. G.
Katkov also says that published articles are subject to criticism, that with freedom of opinion, a lie will not hesitate to cause opposition, and the opposition is stronger and more beneficial, the more sharply the lie is expressed. To this we, firstly, ask, is it prudent to offer a person poison or some harmful drink, reassuring him that afterward they will give him an antidote? Such and similar operations leave deep traces in the human body and in society. Secondly, we will point out our very sensitive difficulty in denouncing and refuting prevailing errors in print! Every strong and bold denunciation of them is not only hostilely received by the literary world, but is even delayed by the intrigues of journalists or secular censorship. Thus, regarding the brochure “Modern Ideas and Orthodoxy,” directed against many reprehensible judgments of our journalism, Mr.
the Minister of Public Education, expressing doubts about allowing religious polemics in our country, says the following: “... and in the affairs of the Main Directorate of Censorship there is an example of persecution by the government of works and articles recognized as deliberately harmful; writers were subjected to various penalties, books were removed from use, even the publication of magazines was stopped; but the system of printed refutation of harmful works and articles was constantly avoided and recognized as not achieving its goal.” This is the opinion of Mr. Minister! What will be the position of the Church if, on the one hand, for lies they demand the right to express themselves sharply and freely and to reassure us with indications of the beneficial consequences of counteracting lies, and on the other hand, any such opposition will be constantly avoided or unacceptable?
G. Katkov denies the Church the right to complain about articles like Daskalovsky’s, and claims that not only will it not be harmed, but it will even be useful for the Church to publicly reveal the abuses of the clergy, that is, to freely disclose unfavorable and offensive opinions about it. One could ask Mr. Katkov that if, for example, the scientific class were deprived of the rights granted to them by the patrons of science, if the opinion was spread in society that scientists are restless and ill-intentioned people, that they sow displeasure, do not lead society towards the good, but please it, carried away by mercantile calculations, that literature has become a very honorable profession, then they would not see hostility in such actions and judgments to science itself, although, of course, science is not the same as scientists. In the same way, we know that not only the clergy constitutes the Church, and therefore is not identical with it, but it is more than strange to assert that they are in some kind of reverse relationship, that in order to exalt the Church, it must humiliate its shepherds.
Let us recall that at all times only opponents of the Church, i.e., heretics and schismatics, resorted to such actions. People, truly devoted to her, always left it to the shepherds themselves, through councils and friendly relations, to correct the intruding abuses, and they themselves strictly adhered to the commandments: “Do not reproach the elder, but beg” and “Do not speak evil to the prince of your people” (which applies to the high priests), and respect for the sacred dignity was demonstrated by respect for the persons invested with this dignity. In confirmation of the truly Orthodox feelings of Mr. Daskalov, Mr. Katkov cites a description of the meeting of the Right Reverend Kirill with the Constantinople Bulgarians. In Mr. Katkov’s note, the last lines of this description remain incomprehensible: he did not dare to write out Mr. Daskalov’s note, explaining them and at the same time testifying to the opposite of what Mr. Katkov wanted to prove. G. Daskalov says that, accepting a blessing from the Greek bishops, the Bulgarians quietly swear an oath in their minds: “Let his blessing be with me, and let his deeds fall on his head.”
Contrary to the Gospel commandment to bless those who curse us, the Bulgarians, according to Mr. Daskalov, curse those who bless them. We would very much like Mr. Katkov to frankly explain to us how he judges this new, unusual way of expressing respect for the holy order. Finally, let Mr. Katkov remember what strict legibility and caution the rules of the Ecumenical Councils prescribe to the archpastors themselves in accepting accusations against priests. Having considered and impartially weighed everything we have said, Mr. Katkov will probably agree with us that by means of magazine articles that are offensive to the highest clergy, supposedly counteracting church abuses is a vain, reckless undertaking, harmful to the Church and contrary to its primordial customs.
In conclusion, it remains for us to say the following opinion of Mr. Katkov: “Articles discussing the abuses of the clergy are not subject to spiritual censorship, and it would be regrettable if in the future such articles had to be subjected to it. This would be an innovation, contrary to the spirit of our censorship Charter and extremely embarrassing for our literature. (The latter is quite probable, but the first is hardly a serious opinion of Mr. Katkov.) Only those works that set forth the dogmas of the Orthodox Church are subject to spiritual censorship.” We will object to this. Firstly, reasoning about church affairs cannot be completely separated from reasoning about dogma. Thus, Mr. Daskalov dared in a magazine article to pronounce his judgment that in the Greek Church those who come to it from Latin are accepted through baptism. To the exclamations of Mr.
Katkov about the uniqueness of baptism, we answer that baptism (by sprinkling) is not repeated by the Greeks, but is not recognized as baptism, and most importantly, the question of which baptism should be recognized or not recognized, in which cases the church law should be observed in all its severity, in which leniency should be shown, necessitate cogente et Dea indulgentiam largiente, is a theological question, subject to trial universal shepherds. Having been carried away frivolously into solving it, Mr. Daskalov and Mr. Katkov only proved that discussions about church affairs are closely connected with theological issues and are therefore subject to spiritual censorship. Secondly, not only the purity of dogmas, but also the silence and structure of the Church is protected by the censorship Charter (see Art. 239) and not only theological reasoning is subject to spiritual censorship, but also writings related to church history and church administration (see Art. 199, 257, 259). Of the 8 headings under which the Church Charter (Article 199) lists spiritual works that are subject to spiritual censorship, Mr.
Katkov wants to recognize only one, and for every impartial judge it is obvious that not our demand, but his opinion contradicts the Church Charter and that removing discussions about church affairs from the department of spiritual censorship constitutes an illegal innovation. It has become all the more necessary for spiritual censorship to defend one’s rights in all their strength, since secular censorship, willfully deviating from the Charter, passes through articles that threaten the silence of the church and are offensive to the most holy patriarchs, with whom Russia is hitherto in inextricable peace and for whom both the Russian and the entire Orthodox Church prays with reverence every day.
7. On the importance of living unity with the Greek Church 295
In the old days, the Russian people maintained a spiritual unity with the Greek Church that was not clearly visible, but deeply penetrating. From her he received the light of Christ's faith and then, for many centuries, he accepted both the saints and the books of the fathers, which were universal and beloved and almost his only reading. Thus, he constantly remembered the teachings, traditions and customs of St. Eastern Church, and its concepts, morals and customs were based on them. We see something completely different in most of today’s educated society. We cannot explore here in detail how the change we are talking about was prepared and accomplished. But there is no doubt that now the thought of our society is directed to the West and that in concepts and in life it is not guided by what the Church teaches, but is more concerned about what Europe has to say.
Those who are reluctant to submit to Western education are intimidated by China and are told that only in communication with other peoples can we succeed spiritually, but as soon as we are reminded that our communication with the East is constantly weakening, the crafty defenders of the universal brotherhood of peoples have in stock exclamations about the need for people's independence. Thus, having moved away from Greece, with which we are united by the unity of faith, we unilaterally submitted to European education.
What is the consequence of this? The West broke away from the Universal Church and made important changes both in the teaching about the Holy Trinity and in the teaching about the relationship of the Church to Christians. The distortion of such lofty truths could not remain without influence on the mental and moral concepts of the “Western” peoples; it was reflected in their lives, and in the direction that their arts and sciences took. European writers could not help but introduce more or less their own errors and prejudices not only into theological works, but also into philosophical, moral, historical and political works. From the time of Peter 1, all this education, which had developed according to principles alien to us, began to be transplanted to us. What happened? The new could neither completely supplant the old nor get along with it. In all areas of spiritual life and in external life we see nothing whole and complete, but everywhere there is only discord and contradiction. The sciences have multiplied and grown, but do not form one harmonious whole, consistent with the teachings of the Holy Church.
A lot of different information has spread everywhere, but the idea of their unity has been lost, it has been forgotten where they came from and what they should serve: they do not explain, but rather only obscure those lofty truths about the fate of man that should be accessible to everyone and guide him in the performance of his duties in relation to God and His Holy Church. Many transformations took place in the very life of the people, but how often the good was eradicated along with the bad and the harmful, or at least useless, was intensively introduced. In family upbringing, in public education and even in government, we also see little reasonable, conscious consistency. Having not completed what we started, we begin something else from the end and again abandon it under the influence of new views and different systems that contradict one another and the basic principles of our people's life and represent, as it were, scattered sheets of foreign textbooks.
In a word, our whole life seems to be broken and it is possible to resurrect rational unity and inner strength in it only if we again strictly adhere to the fundamental principles of Orthodox universal Christianity in management, in mental education and in moral education; this is hampered by the influence of the West, which is reflected not only in the violation of church statutes (for example, on fasting, on holidays, on attending church, etc.), but also in the extreme confusion of concepts about faith and in indifference to it. From St. teachings of the Church, we are ready to retreat for the imaginary benefit of the state and according to the crafty demands of false education and public opinion of heterodox Europe, and, finally, often out of an empty whim, for the sake of decency or for everyday conveniences, we sacrifice what constitutes the cherished shrine of our people and its inner strength. The clergy also could not protect themselves from the prevailing confusion of concepts about faith.
Without a doubt, the influence of the West should be attributed to the scholasticism that appeared in our country already in the 18th century, the tendency towards Protestantism and mysticism that was revealed under Alexander 1, the predilection for the Latin Church that now dominates a certain part of our upper class, and finally, those ideas about progress and civilization with which even clergy are seduced without understanding their essence. The extreme of this harmful influence is revealed in those few individuals, fortunately for Russia, whom even the academic fences did not protect from unbelief. No matter how rare and exceptional such phenomena may be, they cannot be considered completely random. The connection between them and the general course of so-called enlightenment in Russia is too obvious.
One of the most important consequences, although little noticed, of a one-sided rapprochement with Europe was that the idea of the Universal Church and the need for living unity with it was somehow lost in our consciousness. The excessive predominance of foreign works in our country and the personal relations of Russians with people of other faiths, both here and even more abroad, gradually instilled in our society and confirmed in it the idea that there is not at all a great difference between Orthodoxy and the people of other faiths, that much of theirs is correct and, perhaps, more correct than ours, that the Latin Church even has some advantages over the Orthodox, etc. What is lost sight of, firstly, is that even if the teaching Latin and Protestant and were as close to Orthodoxy as is supposed, then even then the West would be just as guilty in that, having violated the brotherly love that united it with the Universal Church, it broke away from it and stubbornly remains outside of unity with it.
It is forgotten, secondly, that outside of unity with the Universal Church, outside of the grace given to it, the purity of teaching alone cannot be preserved anywhere in Western confessions, and that therefore there can only be imaginary correctness. Forgetting this, in matters of faith they take into account and consider as a criterion not obedience to the Holy Church and unity with her, but some kind of conditional correctness of services, supposedly possible without unity with the Church and which is no longer judged by the Church itself, but by everyone according to their own reasoning and arbitrariness. In relation to the Russian Church itself, this way of thinking had the consequences that they considered themselves entitled to violate church regulations on fasting, introduce Italian painting instead of icon painting and musical, almost theatrical singing instead of church music, and, finally, in important theological issues and church innovations they consider it unnecessary to deal with the judgment of the ecumenical patriarchs. Many clergy even have contempt for the Greek Church, believing that we are far ahead of them in education, that since the time of Turkish rule, spiritual life has dried up in it.
Little do we pay attention to the fact that in the Greek Church the living faith is observed firmly and in all its purity, that [in the struggle against] the pope and his adherents Greece is responsible for itself and for us, that it had and still has such writers as Economos, Mavrocordato, Kapodistrias, Typald, Kara-Theodori and others. Therefore, our disdain for the Greek Church could be justified by our ignorance of what is happening in it, if this ignorance itself could somehow be justified. Isn't it a sad phenomenon? Some of our secular writers boldly believe that we have long been spiritually separated from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, others brand strict adherence to church teaching and ancient customs as “Byzantinism,” which, therefore, they are trying in every possible way to get rid of from the Greek Church.
But clergy for a long time did not demand the need to become acquainted with the spiritual literature of modern Greeks, and now, when they begin to do this, they see that they have strayed far with their academic German learning and have already lost the opportunity to agree with such writers as Economos, so, on the other hand, the Greek Church could not agree with some opinions that are now very widespread among us. The very idea of the unity of the Churches is almost among those thoughts that still need to be proven; at least, we don’t actually see any real use of it. The love of power of Rome was burdensome and embarrassing to submit to the Ecumenical Church, and it began to autocratically deviate from its decrees and proudly resolve issues that were subject to the judgment of the ecumenical shepherds. Protestants, following the same spirit, have deviated so far that the Church for them has become some kind of cloudy, abstract concept, and with philosophical stretching they try to cover up the lack of living unity.
Will we, carried away by them, forget that the branch is alive as long as it remains on the tree, that the everlasting and exclusive properties of Orthodox shepherds were mutual love and humility, attracting the grace of God, enlightening and admonishing man, that they always followed the infallible path of general advice. Salvation lies in much counsel, but we are afraid to consult with the Greek Church, as if we were afraid of hearing an answer that was incorrect and inconsistent with our convictions. Has our faith in Christ the Savior weakened, who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church and that where two or three confer in His name, He will be in their midst. Or do we want to be wise about ourselves, relying on ourselves alone, as if we never want to give up our opinions or as if we cannot? Has the grace of God, having left the Greek Church, completely taken possession of ours? Just as brothers draw even closer together in times of common danger, so now, when the enemies of the Church of Christ are working hard everywhere, the Russian Church, having drawn closer to the Greek, will be incomparably stronger. Our time is evil.
Orthodox Christians in Russia are in daily danger of turning their opinions either to Latinism or to Protestantism. Will not living unity with the Greek Church protect us from this danger? For all this, we consider close and living rapprochement with the Greek Church to be one of the most important needs of our time and the most important condition for the prosperity of the Russian Church. How can it be realized in practice and what does it oblige us to?
To avoid misunderstandings, let’s first say what it does not oblige us to.
Firstly, no matter how important our relations with the Greek Church are, they, without a doubt, should in no way exclusively rivet the thoughts and attention of those who are entrusted with the management of the Russian Church and the care of church affairs. It would be sad if, in any way, our concern for the numerous spiritual needs of our society was weakened, if, stretching our thoughts to the far East, we became more indifferent to what is happening close to us, and reluctantly inclined our ears to the needs that are crying out from everywhere. But, on the other hand, we must also, of course, remember that one of these needs, although not the only one, consists precisely in our close, living rapprochement with the Greek Church.
Secondly, while we reverence the Greek Church, remembering its high merits, turning to it with humility and brotherly love, we, of course, must in no way despise the Russian Church or disparage the spiritual life of our people. Let love for our brothers of the same faith in the East be a sincere Christian feeling, inspired by the lofty thought of the Universal Church, and not a new type of predilection for foreign things and disdain for our own that prevails among us. Great is the calling of the Greeks, and we too are called to something. Remember that we must not for the sake of pride, but in order not to be condemned for neglecting God's gift. We must respect both the Ecumenical Church, which unites us with Christ, and the Russian Church, which forms part of the Ecumenical Church, unites us with it and represents it as an intermediary link, which we cannot break without falling away from the whole. God deigned to plant his Church in Russia, poured out and pours out his grace on it, and the ecumenical patriarchs confirmed its right of autocratic, independent governance.
Therefore, we must revere the grace of God, poured out in our fatherland, and obey the decrees of our Mother Church. But of course, this should in no way serve as a reason or justification for our cooling in relation to the Greek Church, our more or less obvious separation from it. The Greeks are not the only ones who make up the Universal Church, and we are its members, but should we really, as a result of this, tear ourselves away from it, as if it were all contained in us alone? Isn’t mutual brotherly love the duty of all the Churches that make up the Ecumenical Church, or does it in fact not have to or cannot be expressed in anything? And if it should and can, then what exactly?
Let us cast aside the wrong disdain for our brothers in the East, let us remember their advantages over us and be imbued with the lofty thought of the Universal Church. Then it will naturally become clear to us how to act in both important and unimportant cases. Here we will point out only a few that for the first time seem to be possible and necessary conditions for our living unity with the Greek Church.
Firstly, we must try in every possible way to ensure that, both in teaching and in customs, we no longer diverge from the Greeks, but where we diverge (for example, in icon painting and singing), if possible, get closer to them again. If it is impossible, for example, in the Cathedral Church of the Nevsky Lavra, all Italian paintings can suddenly be replaced with Orthodox icons, then, without a doubt, it is at least possible again not to introduce images alien to Orthodoxy with the inscription: “Sancta Veronica.” And this church, like others, is gradually being given a more Orthodox appearance. In our churches, Italian or German singing predominates (this is how Hayden’s Cherubic is sung under the name of Davydovskaya), wouldn’t it be better to gradually introduce singing according to the Greek melody (arranged in the Rila Monastery into sheet music for Slavic worship) or, at least, ancient Russian. Patriarch Gregory, recently renouncing the throne of Alexandria, mentioned Italian church singing among those innovations due to which he did not want to accept the patriarchate.
Secondly, we need to take care of a closer acquaintance with the spiritual life of modern Greeks. For this purpose, we must strengthen the teaching of the Greek language in seminaries and academies, which must be entrusted to natural Greeks, translate wonderful Greek works into Russian, and Russian works into Greek (isn’t it strange that the Greeks do not know the services of Russian saints), send us to Chalki and Athos, and accept young people from Greece from Greece into our religious institutions, who through personal relations would serve to bring the two churches closer together.
Thirdly, we must be extremely careful not to harm the Great Church by word or deed in the political field and not to violate the centuries-old church statutes in our relations with it. Clergymen who come to us from Turkey without a patriarchal letter cannot be accepted.
Fourthly, it is necessary to enter into relations with the Greek Church regarding important church innovations. It would be good if the patriarchs were informed about the state of our schism and about the measures being taken against it. Such a message would strengthen mutual trust and participation, and perhaps we would hear useful advice from the Church, which has acquired wise experience in the centuries-old victorious struggle against heresies and schisms. If the Greek Nicephorus Theotokius acted more successfully than all our archpastors against our apostate brothers, is it unreasonable to believe that the wise word of Typaldos remained influential on them? It would be useful to communicate with the Greeks on the issue of remembering people of other faiths in church prayers. According to the strictness of the law, even Orthodox Christians who have entered into marriage with people of other faiths cannot be commemorated at proskomedia (see Simeon of Thessalonica). But in our country, living Gentiles are remembered and even in some cases the deceased are buried and escorted, an obvious temptation to schismatics and Orthodox Christians.
If now in such cases leniency is necessary, then it is safer to determine the extent of it not by one’s own arbitrariness, but by consultation with the Great Church. Finally, communication with the ecumenical patriarchs is necessary on the issue of Bible translation. The reason why we still shy away from this is obvious. We are afraid to hear an answer that disagrees with our opinion, which we no longer want to give up. Or has our respect and trust for the Greek Church dried up, which, of course, in this case, as in others, with its characteristic insightful wisdom, would have found to give an answer consistent with the circumstances and with the real needs of our Church? Or are we afraid that Christ will leave His Church and will no longer teach His will, will not enlighten those who follow His commandment to the humble, apostolic, paternal, and only infallible path of general counsel? It is unsafe, combined with partiality with any opinion, to insist on the fulfillment of one’s desire and no longer want to find out the will of God about it according to the order established by the Church.
It is unwise to disagree with the four ecumenical patriarchs on important issues and thereby give the enemies of our Church and our state a terrible weapon against us in the future. Or, blinded by arrogance, do we not see what terrible consequences we are subject to if we continue to disdain the Greek Church? The circumstances of our time are such that we cannot remain at the same point at which we are now: we have to either move further away from the Greek Church, or, having corrected previous mistakes, draw closer to it. Let us calmly weigh what consequences await us in both cases. The more the Russian Church deviates from the Greek, the more our society will deviate from its Church. Anti-Christian customs will take root more and more, crush the last remnants of ancient reverence for church traditions and entangle the very spiritual class in a thin net.
Without hindrance, Western false teachings will penetrate deeper, take possession of all minds, will not hesitate to bear fruit in government orders and will respond in political actions in the East... The Greeks know well how we have departed from them. If we continue to follow the path from which we have not left for 150 years, the cooling between us and the Greeks may intensify, a break may follow, albeit a temporary one... It’s scary to think what state the state will be in then, having been deprived of what constitutes its internal strength... Rather than console ourselves with the thought that this break will not happen, and at the same time prepare for it with our actions, even from afar, isn’t it more prudent to make this break impossible, to take every possible care for rapprochement with Greece Church. We are not saying that this will correct the whole of society; at least, the serene state of our Church will, so to speak, be insured.
Being in a sincere, living, active union with the Greeks, we remain faithful to our Church, to ourselves, to those high principles on the inviolability of which both the internal and external well-being of the Russian people depends. We please Europe by inclining our ears to its crafty suggestions. It's time for us to listen to the voice of the Universal Church. For Europe will thunder and fall silent, and the Universal Church alone has been given the right to decide and bind, its definitions will be echoed by the formidable definitions at the Last Judgment of Christ.
8. About the Greek Society 296
The majority of our educated society knows the life of Latin and Protestant Europe down to the smallest details, and yet the spiritual and literary life of the Orthodox East is almost completely unknown. It’s as if we don’t even care about what wonderful things are happening in modern Greece, that there were and are many gifted writers, both secular and spiritual. We don’t even know this and we can’t know. Our capitals are littered with works of all European peoples, and finding modern Greek books in them is as difficult as finding Persian or Tatar books 297 . How close France is to us and how far Greece is from us!
Meanwhile, a literary rapprochement between Russia and Greece would be especially important and beneficial for both countries. The Greeks, by their internal properties and their external position, seem to be called to the great task of protecting the Church and its teachings inviolate from Western errors. Orthodoxy is a great vital question for all Greeks, a national question and a personal one for each of them in particular. Therefore, in Greece we see a rare phenomenon that secular literature, even journalism, bears the stamp of Orthodoxy, and spiritual literature is imbued with the vital spirit of the people... These brief remarks, of course, are enough to convince us how important it is for Russia to become acquainted with Greece, and precisely now, when the influence of the West has shaken some and may shake the living faith of many... And for the Greeks themselves it is important to introduce Russia to themselves. If, for very natural and legitimate reasons, they want to make themselves known both in Germany and in England, then all the more should they want to be known to us, from whom alone they can hope for complete and sincere sympathy...
298 In a word, communication and rapprochement between peoples of the same faith are important and necessary for both.
To achieve a literary rapprochement with Greece in practice, the following is necessary:
1) To facilitate the acquisition of Greek books from us by appointing a special censor of Greek books in St. Petersburg and also by appointing a bookseller-commission agent who would have constant and regular relations with booksellers in Athens, Constantinople, Venice, Trieste, Munich, Leipzig 299 .
2) Translate wonderful modern Greek books and articles or make extracts from them in Russian and publish these translations and extracts separately or place them in our periodicals, both spiritual and secular.
3) In magazines, publish short news or lengthy articles about remarkable works and writers of modern Greece.
The compilation of such articles can be entrusted to knowledgeable people both here in St. Petersburg, and in Athens, and in Constantinople 300.
9. On the dangers threatening the Orthodox Church in Russia 301
The strongest foundation for state improvement and well-being is the strength of the people's faith and the well-being of the Church. This truth is not doubted even in our time by people who do not personally feel the urgent need to submit to the saving teaching of faith. Therefore, for those who care primarily about the state’s benefit, it is not superfluous to consider the current state of the Orthodox Church in Russia with the previous reign, and if such a comparison leads to a sad conclusion, it is necessary to delve into the reasons for this and correct what is correctable in time.
Justice demands that we admit that in the past many things aroused sadness and fear in people committed to the Church and its teachings. Thus, under Nicholas I, in public life they were more concerned about imitation of Europe than about preserving church rules and regulations, respect for clergy was sometimes violated, the importance of monasticism for maintaining popular piety was forgotten; finally, in private life sometimes one could see that indifference to faith, as a result of which one looks indifferently at Orthodoxy and at confessions of other faiths. But all this cannot be blamed on the previous reign, as it belonged exclusively to him. The sad phenomena we have indicated existed before, they exist in full force now, and, most importantly, under Emperor Nicholas they concerned more private life, and government actions and orders were imbued with a different spirit, more favorable to the Church.
To see this, let us recall some events from the reign of Nicholas 1st. Under him, with the destruction of the union, the entire western region was reunited with the Orthodox Church. An Orthodox diocese was founded in the Baltic regions, consisting of Lutherans who converted to Orthodoxy. The schism was weakened and shaken at its foundation by wise orders that overthrew the plans of people who, due to selfish calculations, both themselves remained and others were kept in schism. Victoriously destroying the machinations of her opponents, putting obstacles to their hostile actions, the Church solemnly returned to its fold more than 2 million from heterodoxy and schism. On the other hand, no one in Russia dared to blaspheme the Holy Church in print or openly preach teachings contrary to Christian morality or Christian doctrine.
The Orthodox Church in Russia was strong with the assistance of its divinely crowned sovereign protector, could truly be called the ruling Church, curbed and humbled its opponents, and it had nothing to fear from their machinations and plans.
Now, unfortunately, we see something different. The activity and hopes of the opponents of the Church are intensified, and to the same extent its concerns and fears increase. Under the successor of the tsar, who ended the union, a new Latin diocese is established within Russia, to which the tsar’s bounty is poured out more abundantly than to the Orthodox see; in the western region the tormentor and persecutor of Orthodoxy is solemnly honored and glorified as a saint; in the hope of the tsar’s complacency, they again seduce those who have recently converted to Orthodoxy into Latinism; a Russian prince, living in Russia, dares to publish a book abroad in which he blasphemes the Holy Church and invites the Russians and the Tsar himself to betray Orthodoxy.
In Livonia, where Orthodoxy has barely been planted, Orthodox peasants are burdened with the obligation to support foreign, non-Christian pastors. The almost suppressed schism is revived again, takes root in stubbornness and self-will and, satisfied with the mere abolition of the strict measures taken against it, extends its daring hopes further, considers the time already close when a recognized, fenced, full-fledged schismatic church will be established in Russia, on an equal basis with the Orthodox, to the detriment of it, and free-thinking, which does not distinguish Orthodoxy from heresy, the Church from a gathering or corporation, sees no reason why these desires of the schismatics should not be fulfilled.
In periodical publications, Christian morality is refuted, in Russia the doctrine of crude materialism, rejected and persecuted in Germany, finds clear defenders; from the admitted, although later suppressed, slander against the Eastern Church and the ecumenical patriarchs, they move on to slander and reproaches against the institutions of the Russian Church; finally, they freely preach that in Russia there has always been and continues to be a harmful influence of the Christian Church - an influence that, for the sake of decency, is called “Byzantine influence” in magazines. Under the cover of this conventional and understandable name, the Church is blasphemed with impunity, although this also unconsciously testifies to the high significance of the Greek Church, which, unfortunately, is forgotten by many.
We repeat: everywhere the bold hopes of the opponents of Orthodox Christianity are being revived, their hostile activity is intensifying, and the Russian Church, which once powerfully destroyed enemy plans, must look around itself with fear. To understand the full force of these fears, let us remember the goal of the opponents of the Church - a goal from which they have recently, alas, not moved away. Without a doubt, the Gentiles not only want to seduce into union again a region that has been poor for several centuries under the yoke of the papists, not only to destroy the beginnings of Orthodoxy in a country where the people from pastors-professors strive to themselves under the protection of the Mother Church, but they strenuously strive to ensure that, having in turn invaded the Orthodox flock, openly spread networks of daring propaganda throughout Russia and finally catch in them our society, which has already lost partly the firmness of his faith in secular vanity, in the exclusive reading of foreign books and ignorance of the books of the fathers, in conversations with abbots, Jesuits, pastors, priests, etc.
The attack on Orthodoxy, openly carried out by the Latin Preacher on Nevsky Prospekt, and the impudent foreign publications of the Russians prove how close, in its own opinion, propaganda is to its goal. Let us note, by the way, one property that is common to both Latin propaganda and the propaganda of atheism and schism. The slightest concession to their crafty demands arouses in them the most intense activity and immoderate hopes. They immediately spread exaggerated rumors everywhere about their triumph, filled, of course, with lies, but this lie, their usual weapon, is harmful to a good cause: it sways weak and cowardly people, carries away those for whom the highest law is success, and, finally, doubles the arrogance, strength and activity of the enemies of the Church, instilling in them desires that they themselves did not allow before. So it is not enough for the schism now that laws protect its lawless existence.
According to the natural order of things, he will not calm down until he is allowed to grow with impunity and ceaselessly to the detriment of the Church and distract the people from it, just as heterodox propaganda distracts high society from it. Who in Russia will finally remain faithful to Orthodoxy?
Should we finally say what goal does freethinking magazines strive for, spreading everywhere indifference to faith, doubt, unbelief, atheism, in various forms and degrees under the guise of various modern teachings? Who doesn’t see that the foundations of the Church and the state are constantly being undermined by this? This is the goal of all our opponents, and we must admit that they have come somewhat closer to this goal recently, and will come even closer if things are allowed to take their current course... Let them think about what the consequences might be... What if the time when the fruit of our lack of faith, our disrespect for the Church of Christ ripens, coincides with some vague political and state circumstances?
Let them think about our relationship to the Eastern Church. Excessively agreeing both in life and in thoughts with the Latins and Lutherans, we no longer consider it necessary to communicate with the ecumenical patriarchs on important church issues and resolve them according to the demands of fashion and public opinion, without providing active assistance to the poor Christians in the East; we blame them for all the sad consequences of their helpless state and our criminal indifference, credulously accepting accusations against the Orthodox, dissolved by our common enemies, we frivolously judge those whom we should support and whom we have no right to judge, being ourselves subject to their church court. With all these actions, are we not offending, are we not irritating those from whom we have received the light of Christ’s faith, are we not moving further and further away from the Universal Church, of which we constitute a fifth part, no more? Are we not preparing, at least in the coming centuries, for a break with it?
Let them think carefully about what will happen to Russia then. They will say that fears are exaggerated, the disasters we point to are still far away. Whether it is far or close, only God knows. But the surest way to ensure that they actually come true is precisely to, reassured by their remoteness, turn our eyes away from the danger that threatens us and thereby approach it. And, on the contrary, the best and only way to reject them, if possible, is to stand vigilantly on guard, to recognize and destroy the machinations of the enemy from afar and, imbued with true Christian feeling, to act for the glory of God and in defense of the Holy Christian Church.
10. Objection to Iskander 302
Who is more worthy of blame, the one who boldly and openly preaches a destructive lie, driving others to complete rejection of the truth, and repelling others with his rude frankness? Or the one who, as if sparing some lofty feelings and convictions, knows how to cunningly conceal his thoughts in time, arming himself against one truth, hypocritically exposes another, also rejected by him, and thereby is sometimes able to shake and confuse right-thinking people?
Let those who read Iskander’s letter to the empress decide this question. It is sad to see some need to object to such a letter, and at the same time we admit that it is difficult to refute it. It is difficult because we do not allow ourselves to resort to the means that Iskander uses with some success. We do not want to use for evil the generosity and sensitivity of those persons to whom our words can reach and amaze their imagination with the indiscriminate boldness of expressions and wit that proves nothing; speaking about the matter, we do not want to touch on persons, no matter how close they may be; Finally, we do not want to proclaim what we ourselves do not believe. It is also difficult to refute Iskander because in people like him, everyone is now ready to condescendingly assume all sorts of good motives, love, sincerity, etc., and therefore trustingly incline their ears to them, and on the contrary, they have somehow become especially demanding and distrustful of the defenders of the holy truth. Such circumstances favor Iskander.
In itself, his letter in the eyes of a Christian is devoid of dignity and inner strength and deserves refutation solely based on its inscription.
There are many funny incongruities in it. Moscow University, happily prospering on state support, is compared with Sevastopol, drenched in martyr's blood and shaking all of Russia in its fall. Iskander seriously advises that the Grand Dukes be renamed to civil ranks, without thinking about what ridicule he would be the first to hear when, for example, the prince was promoted from collegiate assessor to court councilor.
Leaving Iskanderov’s jokes aside, let’s turn to his main thoughts and try to briefly and in an orderly manner state and explain the contents of this letter. Having said something (not unpleasant to human ears) about the high significance of all the actions of the empress, about her free-thinking and love for Russia, Iskander complains indignantly about why the heir to the Russian throne was not being raised at Moscow University, why, having removed from him the people whom Russia looked upon with confidence, they entrusted him to his current educators. He accuses one of being a foreigner, and the other of being a military man.
“After all, it’s not the Hesse-Darmstadt heir you’re entrusting to him, and even that would be a pity. What does this German know about Russia, what does he understand about it, what does he care about it? If he were freely hired, he would have gone to teach the son of the Algerian Dey in the same way. ... Does his heart beat from a Russian song and does it bleed when he hears about recruitment, about the furies of the landowners, about bureaucratic robbery? Is Pushkin’s verse familiar to him and does he understand the life of our peasant? What will this stranger teach your Russian son?..” It is clear that these words could have struck some people deeply. From the first time it seems that there is truth in them, that there is nothing to say about them. It is not surprising that, forgetting for what purpose they were said, what their meaning is and what their dignity is, some accepted them as the perfect truth, and having accepted them, they became confused...
It’s not superfluous to ask yourself whether these words were spoken sincerely? It is known that Iskander and his like-minded people somehow suffer from love for the whole of humanity for their homeland. They replace living reality with dreamy abstraction and thus, under a plausible pretext, try to overthrow everything present and existing, to which they are always hostile in the name of a beautiful future, which always turns out to be worse than the past. How is it that the defender of universal human ideas, who smoothes out (sometimes quite violently) the peculiarities of peoples, suddenly becomes a defender of the “nationality”, and also the Russian nationality, in which he is so annoyed by the resigned patience, which is not consistent with the modern teaching about noble self-love, about the supposedly useful awareness of one’s own merits and the shortcomings of others. For how many truly Russian properties does Iskander have such an arrogant hatred that foreigners hardly have for us.
No! It is not the foreigner who is unpleasant to Iskander in the current upbringing of the heir. He himself says: “German is different from German.” He himself sees nothing wrong with the fact that Alexander 1 was raised by Laharpe...
It is clear that Iskander’s displeasure is aroused by the cautious courtier, and would be aroused by any educator who reveres the law. ...It is not because they are Russian that Iskander feels sorry for Titov and Kavelin... He would not have remembered either the Russian song or the harm threatening the soul of the youth if Grimm had been replaced by Louis Blanc, Victor Hugo, if someone else had only imbued his pupil with revolutionary concepts... It is obvious that all of Iskander’s thoughts and desires are completely opposite to what constitutes the true benefit of Russia. Without a doubt, first of all, the educator of the heir must be a believer, then an Orthodox Christian.
Of course, only the latter can fully love the Russian people, who are akin to Orthodoxy, and instill in his pupil love for the people and unfeigned reverence for the Church, which constitutes the entire internal fortress of Russia; on the contrary, a non-religious educator cannot protect himself or others from a certain contempt for the people, for their humble simplicity, and by his very presence he can instill that indifference to the Church, as a result of which they do not dare to call heresy a heresy, and heretics as heretics, and place them not only on an equal footing with the Orthodox, but also above them.
But if the influence of an educator of a different faith is sometimes not entirely safe, then the influence of educators and mentors who are not believers is not only incomparably more harmful, but even completely harmful. Namely, because Iskander considers Titov and Kavelin to be such, he feels sorry for them. Seemingly indignant at the fact that Grimm is a stranger to Russia, he actually would like to alienate the heir even further from his people, would like to completely tear him away from what constitutes the best asset of his homeland, the firmest foundation of his power.
Speaking about one tutor of the prince, Iskander, as we have seen, pretends to be a champion of the Russian people, speaking about another, he is a hater of the military class. Where does this hatred come from? It is obvious: Iskander’s tender heart is indignant at the mere thought of the horrors of war. About the national disasters associated with it. “It’s time to leave,” he says, “the wild thought of conquests, bloody trophies, cities taken by storm, ruined villages, trampled harvests - what are the dreams of Nimrov and Atila? The time of these scourges of humanity like Charles 12 and Napoleon is over. Everything that Russia demands is based on peace.” Iskander loves peaceful, civilian life so much that he does not even tolerate children's games of war. “This whole game represents the misfortune of battles, that is, mass murder, the triumph of brute force... one thing is missing here - knee-deep blood, the groans of the wounded, piles of corpses and the wild cries of the victors.”
Such a rant about the horrors of war on the occasion of a children's game of toy soldiers, a game known to all peoples of ancient and modern times, in the mouth of any other person would be simply ridiculous and incongruous. But what can we call such sensitivity in a person who, on the title page of his publication with a portrait of murderers, depicts an ax and, explaining the meaning of this image, says in the preface: “And we can handle the police officers and police officers ourselves,” who, ridiculing the words “God is with us!”, exclaims: “The troublemakers are with us!”, “The revolution is with us!” troubles These unrest represent the triumph of brute force. They unbridle all the brutal passions of man and extinguish the last spark of the Divine in him. And on the contrary, who does not know that in war, during campaigns, a person is sobered by the proximity of death. The passions of even vicious people are tamed. Can a champion of bloody revolutions be sincerely indignant at the horrors of war?
No, he exhibits them for the sake of a whim of words, for others, but the real reason for his dislike for the military class is different. “A military uniform, like a monk’s cassock,” says Iskander, “cuts a person off from other people; neither a monk nor a military man are equal to us, that’s why they are marked. Both of them are not complete people, they are people in an exceptional position. One has his hands folded like a dead man's, the other's are always raised, like those of a fighter. Neither death nor murder constitutes the best moment of life.” If death is not the best moment for everyone, it is still quite important... Iskander will probably agree with this. And is it worthy of ridicule who, remembering in advance how much is being decided at this moment, voluntarily and consciously submits to the inevitable. A warrior does not go to kill, but to die for his brothers, just as a monk lays down his soul for eternal life. With such selflessness, which represents the height of Christian love, both the monk and the warrior are models of obedience.
It is precisely this that arouses Iskander’s indignation; needless to say, that as a result of this very thing, in times of general disorder, they are the unshakable pillars of both the Church and the state. The ability to heed and obey the Law, inscribed and sanctified by the Divine Mind, distinguishes man from the beast, which acts solely according to the natural impulses of its animal nature.
Iskander ridicules military education. But it is useless or reprehensible only when the military appearance and divorces from parades become a favorite toy, and an exclusive object, when they wear military dress, and the way of life does not correspond to this at all. Real military education will give the pupil physical and mental strength, and is especially beneficial and even constitutes the only salvation in our pampered times and in court life... Iskander complains about the emptiness of this life. Who doesn't complain about her?
But the children of the Russian Tsar from an early age enrich their minds with useful knowledge, let them, among vain amusements, get used to giving place and time in their hearts and memory and in the very distribution of the day to the Church, its commandments and decrees, let them be brought up and spend their lives in Christian rules that affirm both spiritual peace and people's well-being, let royal labors and concerns for the good of the homeland be replaced by rest and prayer, and let the royal family and court get used to seeing in worship not one of the boring, obligatory ceremonies, but what it should be for an Orthodox Christian, who then would dare to talk about the emptiness of court life. But is this what Iskander wants? No! He wants the great princes not to remain alien to Russian literature and to those modern issues that shake the world, shake the entire human race, and, of course, that for them these issues are resolved the way Iskander and his comrades solve them... That’s what he wants!
He wants revolutionary thoughts to penetrate high, so that in the palace or even in the family of the Russian Tsar there will be assistants or unwitting tools of people shaking the throne and hostile to the Church.
Well? If Iskander’s wish had been fulfilled, at least partially, the emptiness of court life with its unnecessary leisure and aimless bustle would definitely have been replaced not by visible, intense activity for everyone, but by deadly activity, which would have taken the most terrible and shameful page in the history of Russia.
Understanding what Iskander is and what he wants, one cannot help but grieve from the depths of the soul, grieve as the misfortune of Russia, that in his words they look for and find teaching, take them to heart. They will say: why not accept what is useful in them? Indeed, an Orthodox Christian can find useful instructions in the teachings of the Church. She herself is imbued with and revives true believers with such love, before which fashionable philanthropy will pale. In the works of her teachers, she offers a depth of wisdom that cannot be exhausted, that great philosophers do not even think about. Under her leadership, her followers ascend themselves and lead others to freedom, not to that willful freedom in the name of which people, enslaved by passions, plunge nations into endless disasters and place on them the burden of revolutionary despotism, but to true, the only beneficial Christian freedom. Everything that seems true and useful from Iskander and others like him is not new to the Church, not alien, and even borrowed from its teachings.
They do not hide this and love to refer to the Gospel and, referring to it, brazenly distort the Gospel teaching. For them it is only a mask covering up a purely pagan teaching. Isn’t he a pagan and worse than a pagan who boldly reviles the Church, the Mother of God, and Christ Himself, calling Him the son of the crowd and a demagogue, making Him an accomplice of criminals? Isn’t he a pagan who, repeating the cry of 1789 “Long live reason,” wants to overthrow revelation in the name of reason and at the same time does not care at all about true rationality, but, on the contrary, immediately preaches “restoration of the rights of the flesh.” Under the proud banner of “Long live reason,” hides the teaching “And long live the flesh, let everything that hinders human passions be overthrown.” Isn't this a pagan teaching? Is it safe to draw from the source that spews out such teaching, and to despise that saving source from which alone holy truth is drawn? Is it prudent to upset the larger and better part of the people by doing this?
There are two Russias, little similar to each other, one almost completely unknown to the other. The first was brought up according to the teachings and traditions of holy Orthodoxy, the other according to various foreign systems and guidelines of unequal merit. The first one constantly goes to Church, observes fasts, respects the clergy, loves monasteries, reads the Bible in Slavonic, the Chetya Menaion and the works of St. fathers. Another travels abroad, reads foreign books, mainly novels and magazines, attends balls and is very offended if the moral benefits of theaters and concerts are rejected.
The first leads a peaceful and loving life, bows at the feet of her elders without any embarrassment, sees in the king the anointed of God, knows that his heart is in the hands of God, longs to see him on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the church, as the divinely crowned defender of the Orthodox Church, rejoices at the sight of him, does not even understand how to personally disobey his commands, in which she sees the will of God, is ready to kiss his feet and together not at all not to humiliate herself, because she is imbued with a feeling of the high dignity of the king, appointed by God himself, and does not seek honors and rewards for thinking and feeling as God commands.
The second is filled with a grateful consciousness of her merits, with her parents for the most part in very friendly relations, finds meaning in democratic teachings, is internally annoyed at any constraint of her will, sees only words in the Divine origin of royal power, but on occasion is ready to bend before the highest and highest persons, seeing all the benefits from this. She does not understand why the Tsar should go to the Triumph of Orthodoxy, and is even ready to cancel this Triumph.
The first hides in the wilderness of the countryside, in modest bourgeois and merchant houses, in monasteries, and appears in the big world and at court occasionally in the person of a few good-natured eccentrics. Her voice is not heard in literature, and she is kindly forgotten.
The second is everywhere at court: in all kinds of meetings, in literature, and in politics, she raises her voice. Everyone knows her. In official papers she speaks on behalf of the former, but among herself she somewhat disdains her.
The first calls itself Holy Russia. She values more than anything else the fact that she is part of the Holy Ecumenical Orthodox Church, and looks with spiritual regret at those who have left her saving bosom. It is the basis of the present greatness of Russia.
The second calls itself educated Russia, is proud of its European enlightenment and looks, not without contempt, on the illiterate and simply believers. She is now working on various transformations, which will lead to no one knows yet.
In times of national disaster, the first comes forward, with selflessness and prayers she saves the second half of Russia, which in such cases grabs hold of her and extols her as long as necessary. The second one reads Iskander, finds it possible to be surprised by his style and wit and excuse his blasphemies, secretly she is afraid of him and is ready to please him in some way so as not to provoke his anger...
The first one doesn’t read Iskander or anything like that, and when she hears rumors about him, she becomes very indignant and asks with deep sadness: “What will happen in Russia when they listen to such people?”...
11. About the “Orthodox interlocutor” 303
Some articles published in the latest books of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” contain completely inappropriate expressions, incorrect thoughts and such obvious inconsistencies that it would be more pleasant not to see in print, and especially in the publication of the Theological Academy. Thus, in the December book of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for the past year there was an article “Something about the modern relations of the Roman Church to the Orthodox Church.” Claiming that the attempts of Latin propaganda are harmless and safe for Russia, the author of this article rejects any benefit of objecting to the teachings of the Roman Church, exposing its untruths, and in general any bickering with it. And on this occasion he enters into an argument. And not very excusable, with the worthy Orthodox writer Avdiy Vostokov, the author of the book “On the relationship of the Roman Church to other Christian Churches.”
In the January book “P. WITH." for the current year, in the article “The Voice of the Ancient Russian Church on Improving the Life of Unfree People,” St. Zosima of Solovetsky, St. Joseph of Volokolamsk and other holy fathers are called “prophets and transformers of the future freedom of the children of God” (p. 60), which now means the ongoing liberation of the peasants. It goes on to say: “The Church rose to the purest idea of human dignity, humanity, long before artificial civilization reached it through bitter experiences” (p. 63).
In the December book “P. WITH." over the past year, on page 506 it is said: “Now Russia is at the dawn of its revival.” A similar thing is said in the February book: “Apparently, Russia’s hour has come! She strives for rebirth” (p. 236). As if the rebirth of one person or an entire people could be anything other than Holy Baptism, and as if it is permissible for government measures and orders, no matter how important they may be, to be given the same name as St. Baptism. sacrament and the same power with the grace descending in this sacrament. In the same book, on page 227, completely disagreeing with the Orthodox mind of the Holy Church, it speaks of the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos. It’s as if “the ancient world made the last supernatural efforts on itself to extract from its being, to collect from all the best flowers of its life...” in order to produce Her. On page 229 it is said that “humanity (before Christ) was so close to its rebirth that the human mind, in the very course of world events, had already prepared an extraordinary era.” On page
237th, without any meaning, it is said: “You (Russia) can give birth from yourself to life, abnormal, painful, and maybe even dead.”
In all these articles there is an abundance of foreign words: humanity, ideality, progress, civilization, nightmare, paralyzed, harmonize, arena and others, which do not at all correspond to the purpose or dignity of the spiritual publication. Some of these articles were accepted with loud approval and even reprinted in secular periodicals, which in spirit and direction were not at all favorable to the Orthodox Church.
12. Note on transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople 304
Published in 1856, Gatti-Gumayun with the goal of “strengthening and increasing the well-being of all the subjects of the Sultan, equal in his eyes among themselves and equally amiable to him,” among other things, invited Christians of different confessions at a certain time to establish special commissions or meetings in order “with the knowledge and under the supervision of the Porte to consider the rights and advantages granted to them at different times and bring them into harmony with the progress and enlightenment of the age.” In November 1857, a firman was published containing detailed rules on the establishment and activities of these assemblies, which were obliged to submit to the Porte projects on the transformations proposed in Gatti-Gumayun, and in October 1858, the Church-People's Assembly, established as a result of this under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, opened its meetings.
In its works, this Assembly closely adheres to the program outlined in Gatti-Gumayun, and since its direction and further course largely depend on the beginning of any business, then for a correct assessment of modern events in Constantinople it is necessary to remember the true meaning and goal of Gatti-Gumayun, which, obviously, should be revered as the beginning and foundation of all the transformations currently taking place in the Church of Constantinople.
“This deceitful and not very skillfully drafted act,” Mr. Butenev wrote from Constantinople on November 8/20, 1858, “was obviously invented and imposed on the Turks by the Western powers at the time, much more out of hatred of Russia and fear of its political and church influence in the East than out of real concern for the Christian population in the Ottoman state. Those who deceived and were deceived, however, were not slow to feel that, blinded by passions and political envy, they had put themselves in the most difficult and hopeless position, as soon as it was necessary to carry out this act, which the Western powers solemnly presented to Europe as the beneficial fruit of the struggle undertaken against us, and the beginning of the liberation of Christians suffering under the Muslim yoke.
The Porte saw well that this supposed revival was for her political existence a matter of life and death, and, as usual, she wanted to hesitate and postpone, but, prompted by the urgent demands of her advisers, involuntarily forced to support their reforms, solemnly proclaimed, the Porta decided that it would be easier for her to make the first experiment on the reform of the Greek clergy, enslaved and corrupted, unfortunately, through her own fault, than over other parts of its management."
Until now, the Orthodox population in Turkey could not derive any real benefit from Gatti-Gumayun. Everyone knows that even after its publication, Christians in various Turkish regions continued to suffer from brutal Muslim violence and robbery. The admission of Christians into the ranks of the Turkish army seemed to Europeans an important improvement. What did this improvement lead to? To new taxes. First they announced to Christians that they had the right to join the Turkish army; then they were told that they could buy off this right, and then they were ordered to pay for it. The right to be a soldier turned into an obligation to pay off military service.
In addition, upon the promulgation of Gatti-Gumayun, the Porte refused to issue berat to the Greek clergy, which confirmed for him the benefits and advantages granted to him upon the conquest of Constantinople. “This refusal,” says a secret note submitted by the Constantinople embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on November 8/20, 1858, “was based on the rule about the separation of secular from spiritual power - a rule of the greatest importance, decreed for the future in Gatti-Gumayun, which, without a doubt, deals a heavy blow not only to the ancient advantages of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the highest clergy, but also to those rights which were granted to Christians as the only protection and provision under Muslim rule. The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril, never had the courage to present strong objections to this, or even, rather, to sacrifice his rank than to accept the firmans now issued by the Porte instead of the previous berats.
These berats are also denied to other churches: Jerusalem, Antioch and Sinai" (note about transformations in the internal structure of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the highest Greek clergy as a result of Gatti-Gumayun).
1. Convening of the Church-People's Council 305. These were the first consequences of Gatti-Gumayun for the Greek Church. Its hierarchs with particular fears awaited the Church-People's Assembly, which was supposed to “bring the rights and advantages given to the Greeks by various sultans into harmony with the progress and enlightenment of the century,” and tried in vain to deflect the blow that threatened them. In November 1857 the Porte issued detailed regulations concerning the establishment and duties of the Ecclesiastical and People's Assemblies, and then strong differences of opinion arose between the ministers of the Porte and the higher clergy on various points, namely:
1) In Gatti-Gumayun and the rules on the establishment and duties of the Church-People's Assembly, it was stated that patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and rabbis would have to swear allegiance to the Porte upon taking office. The Patriarchate of Constantinople presented strong objections to this, and the obligation of the oath was eliminated, although it was mentioned in Gatti-Gumayun.
2) The Porta demanded that a representative from it be present at the meetings of the Church and People's Assembly. The Patriarchate objected to this that the presence of a deputy from the government would restrict freedom of debate, but the first dragoman of our embassy expressed the opinion that the demands of the Porte could not be ignored, because it was mentioned in Gatti-Gumayun. The Patriarchate's objection was not accepted, and upon the opening of the Church-People's Assembly, Server-effendi, who was the charge d'affaires in St. Petersburg, began to attend it as a deputy from the government.
3) The Porte demanded that one member from each region be present at the Church-People's Assembly (and each region has several dioceses). The Patriarchate offered one member per diocese. This desire was not supported by our embassy and was rejected by the Porte. Later (in a note dated November 8/20), our embassy expressed the opinion that indeed the Patriarchate was absolutely right in this demand, since there are areas in which the Orthodox constitute an extreme minority, and that therefore there was a disproportion between the Orthodox population and its representatives (la nation n’etait pas justement representee). Then (in the “Explanations” submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on February 21, 1859) the Embassy again noted that if representatives of the people were elected one by one from the diocese, then too numerous an Assembly would be formed, and that this would cause too heavy expenses for the Orthodox population. Thus, by September 1858
up to 12 deputies from the most significant regions gathered; many regions were not given the right to send a deputy.
4) Regarding the selection of secular members from the capital, the Porte wanted the Patriarchate to propose twenty persons from the nobles of Constantinople, from which the Porte would choose ten. The Patriarchy objected to this that this method of election would lead to a majority in the Church-People's Assembly devoted to the views of the Turkish government, but the objection of the Patriarchate was not supported and the Porte rejected it. Among the ten metropolitan deputies thus elected, the most remarkable is Stefan Caratheodori, the Sultana's physician, a learned theologian and respected by all for his pious life. In a confidential conversation with G. Butenev on November 1, 1858, Patriarch Kirill assured that in general all members of the Church and People's Assembly were filled with the best intentions. This is not the opinion of the Athonite elders about the laity of Constantinople.
“The interference of worldly people in church affairs,” they wrote from Athos on June 12, 1859, “cannot be called good, especially the residents of Istanbul, who have long been interfering in the election of patriarchs out of greed and thereby multiplying church unrest. It is obvious that even now they are from the same self-interested species and want to positively participate in the election of the patriarch.”
5) Regarding deputies from the clergy, the Porta ordered the election of seven metropolitans as spiritual members of the Church-People's Assembly. According to this, in the General People's Assembly, from among the metropolitans, 6 Geronts were appointed (Ephesus, Irakli, Cyziche, Nicomedia, Chalcedon, Derkos) and the Metropolitan of Didymotykh. This election was approved by the Porte. But in July 1858, an order was suddenly sent to the Patriarchate to expel six metropolitan-geronts from the Assembly and elect others in their places, with the remark that those who elect cannot be elected. In the “Explanations” sent by Prince Lobanov with a dispatch of February 21, the change in the Porte’s decision is explained as follows: “The government took into account that the goal of the People’s Assembly is to alleviate suffering and satisfy the needs of the dioceses, especially those most distant from Constantinople, while the venerable fathers of the Holy Synod, called geronts, are constantly in the capital for some 20, other 30 years and are completely unaware of the current state of affairs in the dioceses.
Then the government preferred that bishops should be convened from different parts of Asia and Europe, who, living among their flocks, knew better their desires and needs. There may be other reasons why the government abandoned its original decision.” The Patriarchate provided its own comments on this, which, however, were completely rejected by the Porte. As a result of this, the following Metropolitans were elected and appointed: Thessaloniki, Adrianople, Amasia, Arta, Meleniki, Sozoagathopolis and Didimotikh. Of these, they were called from the dioceses of Sozoagathopolis (transferred before his arrival to the metropolis of Dimitrias) and Amasia. And the other five, as we know, had already lived in Constantinople for a long time, just like the Geronts.
This is how the present Church-People's Assembly was formed.
“The Church Council has been appointed,” wrote His Eminence the Metropolitan of Moscow on December 11, 1858. 306 How is it constituted? Members are appointed not by dioceses, but by provinces, which is why the choice is not consistent with the subject and is not proportional. Ten secular members in the capital were elected by the Porte from twenty appointed by the patriarchy. Porta, naturally, looks at the matter not from an ecclesiastical, not from a Christian point of view, but from the opposite. Consequently, it probably chose those who do not know church affairs, who are not well disposed towards the Church, but people with qualities that are opposite or less relevant to the cause. Members of the Synod, who primarily have both the right and the ability to judge church affairs, are not allowed into the Council under the pretext that voters cannot be elected; but they do not need to be elected, they are natural members of the Church Council, being members of the Synod. When they were bypassed, then, of course, they elected those who were less knowledgeable, less experienced, less free and strong in speech.
The Council is supposed to have 7 spiritual and 20 secular members, this is already disproportionate and embarrassing for church affairs. If they wanted to balance the inclination of the clergy to strengthen church power and the inclination of the secular to weaken it, an equal number of both members should have been appointed. But in fact, according to another news from Constantinople, it went beyond the original purpose, and the Council contains 7 spiritual and 31 secular members 307. If we had before us a vessel containing four parts copper and one silver, and we were forced to call it a silver vessel, we would, of course, say that it would be more decent to call it copper. Thus, the Council, composed of 7 spiritual and 31 secular members, instead of the name of the Church Council, it is more decent to call it a secular council for the suppression of church elements. This is a revolution when not only junior bishops, but even more laypeople become legislators for the Patriarch and the Synod. And although the Patriarch is in this Assembly, each of the 31 laity is equal to him here. Note (G.
Buteneva dated November 6, 1858) says that the Patriarchate’s claims to the right to elect secular members of the Council without the participation of the Porte turned out to be unfounded, but does not explain why. Is there no basis for the idea that Christians are better able to judge Christian subjects than Mohammedans? Would it not be at least somewhat more satisfactory for the Church and quite satisfactory for the Porte if the following rules were adopted: 1. Ten members of the Church Council are elected by the Patriarch and the Synod. 2. The Porte, for its own reasons, may eliminate some of this number, but not more than half; and in this case, the Patriarchate is obliged to elect new ones instead of those eliminated. Unfortunately, these considerations are now too late. A secular Church Council already exists and makes decisions not about any church objects that are related to the worldly, such as, for example, about church property and the maintenance of the clergy, but about the church itself, such as the election of the patriarch.
The incongruities pointed out by the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, which were allowed during the composition of the Church-People's Assembly, and the danger that could arise from them for the Church and the clergy should have been seen even more clearly by the Greek hierarchs. Especially that the Geronts were not allowed into the Council, they complained as a violation of the rights of the Patriarchal Synod and, foreseeing that the Porte wanted to destroy the Synod of permanent members and deprive the Church of its rights, they persuaded the Patriarch to ask for his resignation. But Porta managed to calm him down, assuring him in writing that the rights of the clergy would not be violated in the least. After that, on questions about the number of deputies in general and also about deputies from the capital and from the clergy, the Synod, through the mediation of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, turned to the Imperial Russian Mission. The imperial mission did not see in all this a violation of church rights, which would make it necessary for it to intervene in this matter.
She limited herself to a remark and advice not to raise persistent objections to issues that do not violate the benefits of the clergy, so that his objections would have more weight when their rights would actually be violated (note by G. Butenev “On transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople dated November 8/20, 1858”).
Then some of the synodal members appealed to the imperial mission, again through the mediation of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, with a request not to resist the removal of the patriarch, whom they portrayed as incapable of presiding over a Council devoted to the Porte and hostile to their interests. G. Butenev spoke of Patriarch Kirill as a weak man and of a rather limited mind and accused him of not having enough courage to present strong objections or even sacrifice his dignity for the good of the Church when the Porte refused to issue berat to the clergy, which confirmed ancient benefits for them, and instead began to issue simple firmans. Also, Prince Lobanov later wrote: “The current patriarch, although a morally impeccable person, meek and well-intentioned, does not have any personal convictions. We must admit that he has neither a high mind nor an unyielding will, which may be necessary under the current difficult circumstances of the Church. His most devoted friends admit this.”
The Geronts, moreover, accused the Patriarch of communicating with the Porte without the knowledge of his Synod and unquestioningly agreeing to carry out her will when, contrary to her first decision, she demanded that instead of the Synodal members, other bishops be appointed to the Church-People's Assembly.
When the Geronts turned to the Russian mission with a request to remove the patriarch, it not only did not agree to this proposal, but even repeatedly and decisively announced that even if all the synodal members unanimously began to ask for the removal of the Patriarch of Constantinople, then even then a representative of the imperial court could not join this, firstly, because of the rule on the irremovability of the patriarch, which our mission has always tried to support, and secondly, because each such a change under the current circumstances seemed to her not only useless, but also harmful. The mission did more: it semi-officially expressed to the Grand Vizier its surprise at the intrigues directed against the patriarch, and the hope that they would remain unsuccessful.
Without denying the reality of these intrigues, Ali Pasha confidentially replied that they did not deserve any attention, that the Patriarch of Constantinople was a man worthily respected by everyone, and that it was untimely to think about any change before the Church Council had completed its work. After this, Metropolitan Dionysius of Nicomedia addressed a private letter to St. Petersburg. “The Church Council,” he wrote on September 6, 1858, “under the pretext of considering the rights and advantages granted to the Church and our humble people, intends to destroy them: proof of this is the method of electing its members. Our Church and our people are in danger if the God-protected emperor does not give us a helping hand through the local envoy, to whom it would not be bad to give an order so that, when communicating with us, he learns the ancient rights of the Church and defends them where appropriate. Otherwise, the Church will be in the very last extreme.” The contents of this letter were reported to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
To this, the Russian Mission in Constantinople objected (in its explanations sent with dispatches of November 8 and 22) that the intentions of the Church-People's Assembly are the best, that the Porte does not interfere in the least in debates about church affairs, and that therefore in the complaints of some Synodal members, and especially in the letter of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, which reached St. Petersburg, one cannot see anything other than prejudices and exaggerations, inspired by the fear of losing the benefits of worldly and various illegal incomes that they had hitherto enjoyed.
2. Actions of the Church-People's Council. After much delay, the Church-People's Assembly, convened in Constantinople since 1857, finally opened meetings on October 3, 1858. The first two sessions of this Assembly were devoted to consultations about its internal structure. In the third, they decided to invite deputies from Syria, Egypt and Cyprus, whose hierarchy is independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Porta expressed its consent to this. Then they moved on to a meeting about the method of electing the Patriarch.
1.) Resolutions on the election of the patriarch. In the seventh article of the rules published by the Porte on the establishment and duties of the Church-People's Assembly it is said: “The appointment of the patriarch depends on the highest will of the Sultan, but since, according to ancient rules, patriarchs are elected by the highest clergy and nobles of the Greek people, this choice will be made according to the church rules and decrees of each people in a direct and legal way, which would ensure both the government and the people.”
Even before the convening of the Church-People's Assembly, the Patriarchate noted this: “Not the appointment of the patriarch, but his approval alone depends on the will of the Sultan. The appointment and election of the patriarch are the primordial rights and benefits belonging to the Synod and the people.” The first dragoman of our embassy, Mr. Argiropoulo, objected to this: “The firman’s expression does not seem to touch the essence of the matter (me parait de pure forme). Since the Sultan must confirm the election of the Patriarch and, therefore, may not accept it, it is said in the firman that his appointment (and his approval should be said) depends on the will of the Sultan.” The Patriarchate's comment was not accepted.
At the third meeting, the Church-People's Assembly appointed a Commission of 3 persons (including Stefan Caratheodori), which was tasked with drawing up draft rules for the election of the Patriarch. This project was presented to the Assembly on November 14 and consisted of the following. Upon the death of the patriarch, the temporary locum tenens elected by the Synod will invite all diocesan bishops to cast their vote in person or in writing in favor of the person who is considered worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne; the three persons who receive the majority of votes will be considered candidates. The Church Council, which is dominated by secularists, nominates one out of three candidates and proposes it to the Sultan for approval.
The bishops sitting in the Assembly pretended that the election of the patriarch, both according to church rules and according to the privileges granted by the Porte, exclusively belonged to the bishops. To this, the secularists said that there is no direct rule about the election of the patriarch, but only about bishops, and that since in ancient times, under Christian emperors, bishops elected three candidates, and the sovereign approved whom he recognized as worthy, now, in the absence of Christian sovereigns, this right belongs to the people. In vain did the bishops try to prove that the method of election proposed by the Commission contradicted church rules, out of respect for which the conqueror Sultan Infidel himself left the election of the patriarch to the bishops; the secular ones, outnumbering the clergy, raised their hands, and with them some of the bishops, and thus decided to accept the Commission’s proposal.
The Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret presented the following comments on this in a note dated December 11, 1858: “According to the 4th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, it is most fitting for all the bishops of the region to appoint a bishop (there is no reason to exclude the Patriarch from this, for whom there is no other rule), according to need, with the consent of others through a letter, and the approval of the election belongs to the metropolitan. The 3rd rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council confirms the above and adds that any election of a bishop made by lay leaders will be invalid. But since the patriarch, from the above-mentioned time, in addition to his church character, received the character of a representative of the Christian people before the Porte, this circumstance was the absolute reason for the participation of secular nobles in his election. Now, when they want to separate secular power from spiritual power and, consequently, leave the patriarch in a purely ecclesiastical character, it would be in accordance with church rules to eliminate secular voters.
If it is necessary to make a concession to the strengthened worldly element, then it would be possible to give in, according to established custom, to join the church voters of the world, with a determination of the number of these latter, which would not suppress the church choice. What is respectfully called the statement of the Sultan has such significance that the Sultan, who has the right to observe the benefits of his empire, recognizes a person who was recognized as a trustworthy actor for the Church as an undoubted actor in relation to the empire. Thus, this circumstance, which arose from the special situation of the Eastern Church, does not provide a valid reason for deviating from church rules in other respects. Consequently, the current Assembly has gone beyond the limits of church rules and existing customs completely unfairly... The established method of election not only does not agree with church rules, but is also incompatible with the most ordinary concepts of church and social order.
Here the hierarchical election of the patriarch constitutes the lowest degree, and the secular election the highest. Here it is not the shepherds who lead the sheep, but the sheep who order the shepherds. It would be a different matter if the lay assembly had selected several candidates in preparation, and the hierarchical assembly had made the final choice from them. This would be closer to church order. The opposite of this is turning church government upside down. It is also worthy of insightful reflection as to what moral consequences might occur if the patriarch were a creature of the laity.”
In agreement with the thoughts of His Eminence, Geront Philaret, and in particular the Metropolitans of Cysis and Nicomedia, saw a violation of church canons in the adopted rules for electing the patriarch and managed to persuade the bishops of the Church-People's Assembly to their thoughts. Therefore, at the meeting on November 28, when the final approval of the rules proposed by the Commission was expected, the spiritual members of the Assembly announced that, for mature reasons, they considered it a duty of conscience to abandon their previous opinions and that at the end of the meeting they again wanted to propose for consideration the question of the manner of electing the patriarch.
The secular members objected to this that they did not agree to discuss any other subject before the question of electing patriarchs was finally resolved, they reproached the ecclesiastical members for inconstancy, and then “a most seductive dispute ensued between the ecclesiastical and secular members, in which neither accusations nor insults were spared on both sides” (Prince Lobanov’s dispatch dated December 6/18, 1858).
Finally, it was decided that a Commission of several spiritual and secular members of the Assembly would find and submit to its discretion a measure that would satisfy all parties. At the meeting on December 5, the Commission presented its report to the Assembly. She made such a change to the draft of the first Commission that the election of 3 candidates will belong to the general Assembly of clergy and secular persons, and the final election of the patriarch from these three candidates will belong to the highest clergy, i.e., members of the Synod. Thus, the Commission finally came to the idea that was expressed almost simultaneously by His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. “For this article,” he wrote in a note dated March 31, 1859, “we must thank God. This is not what was visible in the previous information, but what the note on December 11 suggested. Through the final election of the patriarch from three candidates by the members of the Synod and the metropolitans, with the secular only present as witnesses, the entire matter of election is included in the order of church rules.”
So, in this case, the influence of the Geronts led to such a change in the rules, for which, in the words of the Moscow Metropolitan, we should thank God. However, it was not accepted without difficulty. Along with a useful change, the second Commission proposed rules that legitimized the excessive, in the opinion of the Patriarch, interference of the laity in church affairs. On the other hand, logothete Nikolai Aristarchi demanded that the project of the second Commission be rejected, and argued that it provided the laity with insufficient participation in the election of the Patriarch. Then Stefan Caratheodori stood up and, having refuted, as Prince Lobanov wrote on December 27, 1858, the opinion of the Patriarch with various testimonies from the Fathers of the Church, he also proved the groundlessness of the demand of the logothete and finally convinced the Assembly that the rules proposed by the Second Commission alone could reconcile due respect for the Church with the need to preserve the laity’s right to take part in the election of the Patriarch.
The rules that were thus adopted by the Church-People's Assembly are as follows: when the ecumenical patriarchal throne is orphaned, the Synod of Constantinople, together with the diocesan bishops located in Constantinople, through a secret ballot, will appoint a temporary locum tenens in the presence of Greek nobles who wish to be at this election. “What if there are a lot of them? - the Moscow Metropolitan remarked on this. -What if they don't remain silent? Wouldn't it be difficult for voters? Wouldn’t it be safer to decide that this should be in the presence of nobles invited by the Synod, and to determine their number?”
The temporary locum tenens thus elected invites, by means of a circular, all diocesan bishops to send, within sixty-one days, a written review or vote in favor of whoever is considered worthy to occupy the patriarchal throne. The Moscow Metropolitan noted that the sixty-one-day period is inconvenient due to the remoteness of some regions and that Rule 25 of 4 of the Ecumenical Council in such cases gives three months.
On the sixty-first day, an Assembly is convened, consisting of synodal members and diocesan bishops temporarily located in Constantinople, from representatives of 28 regions invited in advance to this meeting, from representatives of different classes in Constantinople and from members of a permanent mixed Committee that is about to be established; Thus, up to seventeen clergy and seventy laity will gather.
This meeting will consider the reviews sent by the bishops, and to the candidates named therein, each member of the Assembly has the right to add one of his own if a third of the bishops present at the Assembly express their consent to this. From among all these candidates in total, the Assembly will elect three candidates by a majority vote. The Holy Synod with other bishops, in the presence of all members of the Assembly, will elect one of these three candidates to patriarch by majority vote and through closed voting.
One of the Greek hierarchs noted that with this procedure for electing 3 candidates, it will be completely dependent on the arbitrariness of the laity: they have the right to add their own candidates to the candidates named by the diocesan bishops (with the non-burdensome condition that one third of the bishops present in the Assembly will agree to this), they then have the full opportunity to choose their own from the general list of candidates, for they constitute a huge majority, since all secular persons in this electoral Assembly has 70, and there are 12 synodal members and 3 or 4 temporarily present bishops, many 5. Such a clear and decisive predominance of the laity, in the opinion of the Greek hierarch, disagrees with the 4th rule of the First and with the 3rd of the Seventh Ecumenical Councils. In addition, according to the same hierarch, the new rules violate the ancient rights approved for the highest clergy by the conqueror of Constantinople.
“It has been customary since ancient times,” it is said in the berat issued by the Patriarch since the time of Gennady Scholarius, “that in the event of the widowhood of the Patriarchate, the metropolitans closest to the reigning city: Iraklii, Cyzitic, Nicomedia, Nicaea and Chalcedon - with the knowledge and consent of the other metropolitans, the present members of the Synod, elected one of the metropolitans as patriarch and, upon election, reported on seven haute Porte." Now, the participation of secular persons, eliminated by Berat, is legalized, and the Metropolitans mentioned in it, according to the new rules, should no longer be present at the election of the patriarch, unless one of them, due to circumstances, happens to be in Constantinople.
Some of the bishops who were not present in the Church-People's Assembly proposed the following method for electing the patriarch: that the Synod with the bishops present in Constantinople and with secular persons known to you should appoint four candidates and that from among these four the Patriarch should be chosen by lot in the full Assembly of clergy and secular persons, in the Church, “in the majority and minority, as they said, human passions sometimes manifest themselves, and through the lot God Himself indicates shepherd."
“The interference of worldly people in church affairs,” they wrote from Athos on June 12, 1859, “cannot be called good, especially the residents of Istanbul, who have long been interfering in the election of patriarchs out of greed and thereby multiplying church unrest. It is obvious that even now they are from the same self-interested species and want to positively participate in the election of Patriarchs. But if it is true, as they say here, that they allegedly want to establish a rule for the election of the patriarch, that four bishops will be appointed, who will cast lots among themselves, if this is true, then this novelty is praised (by the Athonite elders) as a means of eliminating bribery.” But this assumption was rejected by the Church-People's Assembly.
2) Resolutions on the election of bishops. At the conclusion of the debate on the election of the Patriarch, the Church-People's Assembly moved on to consider the issue of electing diocesan bishops. At previous meetings, demanding the participation of the laity in the election of the patriarch, the secular members agreed that bishops should be elected by members of the Synod without the participation of the secular and that this rule should not only extend to the election of the patriarch. Subsequently, when the rules concerning the election of the patriarch had already been adopted, secularists began to demand participation in the election of bishops. Heated debate began. “In particular, the deputies from the Bulgarians,” wrote Prince Lobanov on December 27, 1858, “in their enthusiasm allowed themselves to make immoderate accusations against the higher clergy.” From the question of the election of bishops they moved on to the question of in what language the services are performed in Bulgaria; the meeting became very noisy, and then some of the bishops read a list of dioceses and churches in which services are performed exclusively in Slavonic.
After reading this list, calm was restored. At the meeting on December 19, the following rules were established: when the need arises to elect a bishop to any department, the Synod will first appoint 3 candidates, then go to the church and there, by a majority vote and through closed voting, appoint one of these three. In case of an equal division of votes, the patriarch's vote decides the choice. But at the same time, it is established that the Synod begins to appoint a diocesan bishop only upon receipt of an official and certified report on the death of his predecessor, so that at the same time the clergy and secular persons of the diocese can indicate the person whom they wish to have as a bishop and who, at their discretion, is worthy of the rank of bishop. This person, indicated by the diocese, is accepted as one of the three candidates, from which in this case one of the candidates previously appointed by the Synod is excluded, and after this the Synod begins to elect one of the three.
“The Most Reverend Metropolitan Philaret (in a note dated March 31, 1859) expressed the idea that this rule usefully extends the circle of those elected, allowing a candidate elected by the clergy and secular persons of the vacant diocese, but at the same time expressed concern whether the useful effect of this rule would be weakened by the restriction included in it “with the approval of the Holy Synod,” if the action of the spirit gerontia will continue in him. And therefore, His Eminence Filaret suggested: wouldn’t it be more consistent with the purpose to determine that the diocesan candidate is accepted among the three candidates for the final selection, unless the Holy Synod sees an important irregularity in the diocesan choice. But subsequently the gerontia was ordered to be destroyed, and the geronts were removed from the capital.
On the other hand, one of the most experienced Greek hierarchs offered the following comments: “According to the new rules of the Great Church, it is impossible to proceed with the election of a diocesan bishop without receiving from the diocese an official and certified report on the death of the predecessor, and at the same time the diocese is given the right to present a candidate for bishop; therefore, if there is no disagreement regarding this in the diocese, then the required report will be sent without delay, but if a disagreement arises, then the report will be delayed, and the diocese will remain widowed until the voters agree among themselves, which in some cases may last and have unfavorable consequences for the diocese. In addition, if the Synod finds it impossible to accept a diocesan candidate as one of the 3 or does not elect him as a bishop, then will this not make the position of the bishop appointed by the Synod extremely difficult and will this not result in various embarrassments in the diocese?
And before, not yet having any special rights, the Christians of the dowager diocese sometimes sought in every possible way, and mostly with success, to have the person they desired appointed as their bishop. Now, having received some right, will they not begin to strive for this even more strongly and will the Synod, both in order to avoid severe embarrassment and due to the impossibility of resisting the predominance of the laity, be forced to involuntarily appoint a diocesan candidate to the position of bishop? And wouldn’t this be a violation of the canons and rights granted to the higher clergy? According to the new rules, each candidate for bishop is required to have previously spent at least five years in the rank of priest or deacon engaged in church or diocesan affairs in the patriarchate or with one of the bishops and have an approving certificate from the person under whom this service took place. Persons who enjoy universal respect and are known for their virtues and experience in church affairs are exempt from this condition.”
His Eminence Filaret noted that it would be better if in general candidates for the bishopric were known without a certificate: asking for a certificate for candidacy for the episcopate means presenting oneself as a seeker; For church election, preference should be given to those who are not seeking, and sometimes even those who are avoiding. The Greek hierarch drew attention to the fact that hitherto, under the leadership of the synodal members, who were engaged in church affairs for life, the most experienced bishops had been formed, and that now, with the destruction of the permanent synodal members, there would no longer be any experienced clergy who were closely familiar with church and political affairs and who would be able to usefully occupy bishop’s positions in the future. In addition, candidates for the bishopric will henceforth be required that they know the dialect of the region to which they are appointed and also that they either complete a course or undergo a proper test at the Khalki Theological School and receive a certificate of approval from there.
Some clergy in Constantinople said that this rule was too restrictive for many who had both administrative abilities and all the required moral qualities. Other rules stipulate that diocesan bishops, as well as the patriarch, remain at the head of their diocese for life and that the movement of bishops from department to department ceases. If the need arises to appoint a proven bishop from a junior diocese to a significant diocese, then the Synod is supposed to ask the three bishops in mind for consent to move to a vacant diocese and then elect one of them; but such a movement cannot in any case entail other movements. To this, the Greek hierarch noted that in some cases, especially if one of the three refuses and needs to turn to the other, asking consent may require a very long time, while experience has proven that leaving a diocese vacant only gives rise to all sorts of confusion and disorder.
In addition, as he noted, movements occurred out of necessity: often the laity, interfering in church affairs, declared unfair claims on the bishop, and in such cases, after exhaustion of other means, there was only one thing left: to pacify the diocese, transfer the bishop to another department. Now, in the event of dissatisfaction between the pastor and the flock, the Church-People's Assembly decided that the Synod, having exhausted all means for reconciliation of the warring parties, if the laity insisted and demanded trial, would call the bishop to trial in Constantinople. If the offenses of which the bishop is accused relate to faith or violation of church regulations, the trial is carried out by the Holy Synod alone; if the case concerns extortion and deception, three secular members of the permanent Council that is about to be formed are present in court.
The convicted person is subject to punishment in accordance with his guilt; if the bishop’s guilt requires his removal from the diocese, then he cannot be appointed to another; otherwise, and if the accused is found innocent, he returns to his diocese and those who unjustly accused him are subject to strict punishment.
The Greek hierarch noted the following in response to this rule: “Bishops, according to church rules, are judged by bishops. If the rule established by the Church-People's Assembly is approved, secular persons will not only be present in court, but will also cast their vote. This, along with other rights, was sought by the laity back in 1844 during the days of the first patriarchate of the late Herman. This solicitation was then supported by strong people, and, despite this, the indisputable rights of the Church remained inviolable at that time due to the patronage provided to the Church in that case by the Russian embassy, where the unforgettable Khandzheri was then located.” In agreement with the thoughts of the Greek hierarch, His Eminence Philaret remarked: “Will not this (the rule established by the Church-People's Assembly) pave the way for secular members to join the Synod? This fear could be eliminated in the following way: if the matter concerns extortion and deception, then the judicial presence is composed of three members of the Holy Synod and three secular members of the Permanent Council.
The court presence will consider the issue of guilt: it will present the person found guilty to the Holy Synod to determine the punishment according to church rules, and to resolve the question of whether the convicted person can remain in the administration of the diocese.” Finally, the Church-People's Assembly decided that henceforth the bishops should govern themselves, and not through suffragan or titular bishops. An exception is allowed in the case of extreme old age, incurable illness, or a bishop being summoned to Constantinople to attend the Holy Synod.
3) Resolutions on the composition of the Synod. After the rules on the election of bishops, the Church-People's Assembly decided the following rules on the composition of the Patriarchal Synod.
All diocesan bishops dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople are divided into 3 classes according to the significance of the dioceses. From each class 4 bishops are elected to the Synod, which thus consists of 12 members. The Synod, chaired by the Patriarch, manages church affairs; a decision of the Synod, not approved by the Patriarch, is powerless, just like a decision made by the Patriarch alone without the Synod. Of the 12 synodal members, 6 are replaced annually by others, two from each class of dioceses, so that each bishop sits in the Synod for no more than two years.
These rules radically change the previous composition of the Synod. Until now, the Synod of Constantinople consisted of 8 permanent life members and all bishops temporarily present in Constantinople. The permanent members, called geronts, made up the entire strength of the Synod. And each of them was an ephor, or patron, of certain diocesan bishops, who, thus, all in the person of the Geronts had their attorneys and intercessors in Constantinople before the patriarch and before the Porte. Now it has been decided to destroy gerontia and euphoria.
The reasons for the destruction of gerontia and euphoria were set out in detail by Dr. Stefan Caratheodori in a speech he gave at the Church-People's Assembly, and by the Right Reverend Sophronius of Art, a member of this Assembly, in a note conveyed by him in confidence to our embassy.
First of all, opponents of gerontia point out that, due to the constant presence of the geronts in the capital, their dioceses are forever deprived of their shepherds. But these dioceses are visited from time to time by geronts, and the rest of the time they are governed by titular vicar bishops, which in exceptional cases is allowed according to the new rules of the Church-People's Assembly. And in fact, concern for the 8 dioceses served only as a plausible pretext for the transformation of the Synod, and the main reasons for this transformation are the following: the Geronts, due to their irremovability and their constant presence in Constantinople, acquired special significance and power. “They constitute a spiritual oligarchy,” wrote G. Butenev on November 22, 1858. “They are a power within a power, a special state within a state,” wrote His Eminence Sophrony, Metropolitan of Art in his note dated March 3, 1859. “The rest of the bishops are controlled by three or four, who enjoy exceptional influence. Their exceptional privileged position is said in G.’s speech.
Caratheodorii, “and the opportunity to have a permanent residence in the capital and manage all affairs at will made their places enviable and gave rise to claims and rivalry.”
“The Geronts use their power solely for their own personal benefits, to which they are ready to sacrifice everything,” wrote the Right Reverend Sophronius. “Each of them cares very little about the common good and thinks only about himself, how to accumulate more wealth. According to selfish calculations, the geronts enter into an alliance with influential Constantinople nobles and completely subordinate the Patriarch to their influence or begin a silent struggle against him, which usually ends either in the temporary removal of some geronts from the capital, or in the overthrow of the patriarch and the election of a new one, while the geronts and other influential persons are divided into different parties, which either unite or again quarrel with each other.”
The Geronts are also accused of distributing dioceses not according to merit, but arbitrarily, to their favorites, at the same time lending them money at high interest rates and for this allowing them to rob and rob the dioceses in every possible way and in any case supporting them, no matter what fair complaints are raised against them. Finally, the frequent transfers of bishops, made according to their merits not in relation to the church, but rather in relation to their ephors, gave rise to grumbling among the people and even to the displeasure of some bishops, who sometimes saw themselves transferred without being asked. Thus, the geronts are also accused of being the main cause of the unsatisfactory condition of the entire lower clergy.
For these reasons, the Church-People's Assembly decided to destroy gerontia, especially since, according to Mr. Stefan Caratheodori, the exclusive rights of geronts are not confirmed by either church canons or Sultan's Decrees. To the Patriarchal Berat, in which, since the time of Mohammed 2, the first five geronts are mentioned by name and about their right to elect a patriarch and ask the Porte for his deposition together with other bishops residing in Constantinople, Mr. Caratheodori gave a special interpretation, completely opposite to the interpretation of the geronts, and does not recognize that this berat granted them any special right.
“The Reverend Sophrony,” says the note of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, dated April 9, 1859, “says that the matter is not about transformation, but about the cessation of arbitrary action. If this were so, then it would only be necessary to point out the rules that are not followed or violated. But when new rules are drawn up, this is more or less a transformation, and therefore caution is needed so as not to shake the rules, as he says, eternal, sealed by the exploits and blood of martyrs.” “A very sad picture,” says the same note, “of the abusive actions of the Geronts and Ephors was painted by the Right Reverend Sophronius... The speech of Doctor Caratheodorius, although more modest, testifies against their abuses, about whose character and zeal for Orthodoxy observers speak with special respect.
That a significant number of the clergy of the patriarchal region, perhaps the majority, do not enjoy the respect of the flock due to their qualities and actions, this, unfortunately, is not heard for the first time, and sometimes with too convincing evidence. So, a fix is needed. Care must be taken to ensure that a violation of church rules is not corrected by another violation... His Eminence Sophrony asks whether the nation made a mistake in trying to take advantage of the opportunity to improve the position of the Church and the nation? Answer: I didn’t make a mistake in the intention, but I really need to take care not to make a mistake in the method of execution.”
“The permanent members of the Holy Synod,” wrote from Athos on June 12, 1859, “were and are the cause of many abuses. But if there is some other means other than removing them to stop the evil, then that would be better.” Also, other completely impartial and respected Greek hierarchs speak very poorly of the Geronts and Euphoria, but they are not very happy about the new order and do not see anything promising anything good in the new composition of the Synod. The Reverend Sophronius asserts that the geronts used their power solely for personal gain, and not for the general benefit. Meanwhile, from his own note it is clear that in certain cases the geronts alone could and did save bishops who were unjustly persecuted. It is also known what strong assistance they provided to the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the issue of holy places and how persistently they opposed the Latins when they sought advantages belonging to the Greek clergy alone.
Dr. Carafeodori also testifies in his speech that the Church and the people should be grateful to the real Geronts for the services they have rendered at different times, and let us note that he is not attacking individuals, but the system itself. One of the Greek hierarchs, on the contrary, noted that individuals, and not the existing order, are to blame for the abuses that occur, and that the perpetrators should be exposed and condemned without changing the charter, which in many ways was very beneficial, while he pointed out how often the Geronts used their influence to counter the unjust claims of the laity, heterodox propaganda and the Porte itself, and how a strong Synod was needed in Turkey to protect Christians and to support itself patriarch.
“Now,” adds the Greek hierarch, “if the patriarch is a daring man and not completely devoted to the Orthodox Church, he, without a doubt, will become a kind of pope; if he is not brave and does not value his honor, then he will be an instrument in the hands either directly of the government itself or in the hands of some Christian strong in the highest power; and the synodal members will become an instrument of the patriarch and other persons, and the state of the Synod into which it will inevitably be plunged, the new charterers believe, is supposedly a return to its ancient purpose! Let anyone who knows the affairs of Constantinople and has a universal human meaning judge this.” Regarding the change in the composition of the Synod, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, outlined the following thoughts in his notes dated December 11, 1858 and March 31, 1859. The note (G. Buteneva dated November 8, 1858) says that members of the Patriarchal Synod fear the formation of a Synod of bishops called from dioceses one by one. If this is for fear of losing influence and benefits, as the note says, then this is bad.
But the same fear may arise from other valid reasons. They say that the Synod of the Greek kingdom is weak and inactive because its members are annually replaced by the government, and the zealous are more likely to be eliminated than others. The Patriarchal Synod may also fear this. According to the new rules, the Synod will never have members experienced in the highest church government. Will he enjoy the full respect of the subordinate clergy and people, consisting of newcomers who are soon to retire? Will it be convenient for passing members to freely and firmly judge those who tomorrow will sit in their places and judge them? The note (presented by Prince Lobanov in a dispatch dated February 21, 1859) counters that if the raised issue is not resolved within two years, it will be the negligence of the members. So be it. But that's not the point. Inexperienced members can resolve many issues in two years; but is it likely that inexperienced people will resolve them as well as experienced ones would?
The note dated February 21 also argues that it is inconvenient for members to remain in Constantinople for a long time due to the high cost. Is the best composition of the Synod going to be the one based on the idea of high cost? Aren't other higher considerations more necessary? Another objection: dioceses would be without shepherds for a long time. Without a doubt, this requires attention. Let us propose a way to eliminate this inconvenience and provide the Synod with at least a few experienced members as a support for the inexperienced. In order to preserve the strength of the Synod and at the same time provide it with the convenience of acquiring new, capable co-conspirators who are opening up and to calm the emerging opinion about its transformation, it could be decided that part of it would be, as now, permanent members, and the other would be called up from the dioceses for two years or more. Let the four dioceses nearest to Constantinople be chosen; let them, with special attention, choose primarily trustworthy bishops to participate in the highest church government; Let weather permitting, two of them will be in the Synod and two in the diocese.
Dioceses will only tolerate a one-year, rather than a two-year, absence of a bishop; Each of these bishops will receive five years of synodal experience in ten years, and so on. Isn’t this more beneficial for both the dioceses and the Synod?
In conclusion of all the varied reviews about geronts and gerontia, it is fitting to repeat the above words of His Eminence Philaret: “Correction is needed. Care must be taken to ensure that a violation of church rules is not corrected by another violation,” and the opinion of the Athonite elders: “The permanent members of the Holy Synod were and are the cause of many abuses. But if there is some other means other than removing them to stop the evil, then that would be better.”
4) Resolutions on the relationship between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch. On the mutual relations between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, the Church-People's Assembly decided the following rules.
All the actions of the Synod are overseen by the Patriarch, who “must honor and respect all members of the Holy Synod, treat everyone indifferently with meekness and brotherly love, not becoming especially attached to any of them and not having private relations with anyone in order to avoid any reason for disorder and distrust.”
“What,” His Eminence Philaret remarked at this, “what a strong expression of distrust of a person to whose rank belongs the highest degree of trust from all Orthodox Christians in matters of faith and conscience. Is it possible to strictly fulfill this prohibition? What an unfortunate position is the patriarch if he does not have the right to privately and secretly consult with one person or two, but, having a need for advice, must consult with twelve suddenly. The Patriarch has, for example, the need to understand certain issues with the rules of the church and with examples of the actions of the holy fathers; but does not have the convenience to engage in this task, which sometimes requires considerable labor; he knows of a particularly knowledgeable member of the Synod, who could soon provide him with the necessary instructions. The Patriarch would like to enter into special communication with him about this - it is impossible, it is forbidden. A member of the Synod faced a difficult question in the diocesan administration; he wants to privately ask for the guidance of the patriarch. The patriarch is obliged to prevent it “to avoid any reason for mistrust.”
Is it useful to prevent necessary and convenient private relations, out of dreamy fear? Meanwhile, there is no visible prohibition for members of the Synod to have private relations with each other. And so they have the freedom to conspire against the opinion of the patriarch; the patriarch alone does not have freedom for well-intentioned private relations, he alone is bound... The note (presented by Prince Lobanov with the dispatch) dated February 21 says that the relations of clergy and secular persons to His Holiness the Patriarch are imbued with the deepest respect. In the article now under consideration, are relations towards the patriarch imbued with the deepest respect visible? Are there not, on the contrary, visible relations imbued with extreme mistrust and a desire to tie the hands of the patriarch? The note of February 21, outlining how the patriarch was bound before and how often he was incorrectly deposed, concludes: “This is what is being done, and how secular persons interfere in the election of the patriarch.” And this, of course, was not an act of deepest respect for the patriarch. But before they bound the patriarch with abuses, now they want to bind him with law” (note dated March 31, 1859).
Further, the Church-People's Assembly decided: all bishops must respect and honor the patriarch as the supreme authority of the church hierarchy and the representative and head of the people (monarch); if any bishop speaks against the patriarch, indecently disgracing his name and shamelessly insulting his high rank, then he will first receive friendly instruction from the patriarch in private, then, if he continues, he will be reprimanded in front of the entire Synod and, finally, if he does not correct himself, he will be punished.
His Eminence Philaret noted: “Firstly, it is a pity that this is assumed to be possible; secondly, this is a very unequal battle - on the part of the bishop, disgracing the patriarch without shame, and on the part of the patriarch, in private, friendly instruction. The patriarch must do this freely, according to a meek pastoral spirit: the guilty one is struck and will be taught by the virtue of the offended one, rather than punishment. But if the patriarch acts this way out of legal captivity, then it will not be his virtue that will appear, but only his impotence. The patriarch must be meek, and the law must be fair” (note dated March 31, 1859).
It was also decided that a bishop cannot stay in Constantinople 1) without the prior permission of the patriarch and 2) without the consent of the Synod. “Isn’t the first enough? – notes His Eminence Filaret. – Do you need the second one? Why not trust the patriarch to prudently allow one and not allow another? Is it necessary to bind the patriarch with twelve bonds in this too” (note March 31, 1859).
Then the Church-People's Assembly discussed what, according to the words of His Eminence Philaret, it would be desirable never to hear in the Orthodox Church - about the dethronement of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The following rules have been established.
If the patriarch shied away from his patriarchal and spiritual duties and, after the two-time respectful representations of the Synod, does not want to correct himself, the Synod will communicate with the members of the Permanent Council and, with common consent, will resume the respectful representation of what the sacred canons and church order require. If the Patriarch persists, the Synod and the Council will jointly write to the Sublime Porte with a request for his removal. Likewise, if the Patriarch retires from his political duties, the Permanent Council, after two representations, will communicate with the Synod and, together with it, submit a petition to the Porte. The deposition of the patriarch can only take place if two-thirds of both united assemblies express their consent to this.
These are the comments on this that His Eminence Filaret offered in his note dated March 31, 1859: “If any other official were to be removed from office without trial after three remarks, there would probably be people who would say that this was wrong. Shouldn't we act more carefully with a person whose fall is in some way offensive to the dignity of the Church? The Patriarch, who has not turned to the legal order in accordance with the three reminders, in accordance with the rules of the Church, must be judged by the Council of the entire Church. We admit that it was unsuccessful to convene 83 bishops. since 12 members of the Synod became accusers of the patriarch, then let at least 12 more impartial bishops be called and all 24 will carry out the trial; and if the patriarch is found guilty to such an extent that, according to the sacred canons, it is impossible for him to remain on the throne, in this case, together with the permanent Council, they will begin to depose him. The Patriarch is also supposed to be deposed for violating “political duties.” Vague expression.
Has it been thought through and reliably recognized as not presenting any danger, that, having received the force of law, it will be applicable to unimportant cases and will also produce frequent depositions of the Patriarchs, as before?
In a letter dated November 22/December 4, 1858, G. Butenev wrote that only to the detriment of the spiritual oligarchy (gerontia) can the elevation of the spiritual power and influence of the Ecumenical Patriarch occur, and that this elevation is ardently desired by the majority or even all members of the Orthodox society - Greeks and others, spiritual and secular. Meanwhile, the rules adopted by the Church-People's Assembly are such that His Eminence Filaret says that now they want to bind the Patriarch by law and call his future situation unfortunate. “It is also worthy of insightful reflection,” he wrote, “what moral consequences may occur if the patriarch is the creation of the laity” (note December 11, 1858).
Further, a rule was established obliging each of the bishops to have a preacher who would travel around the district and preach the Word of God for free. His Eminence Philaret called this rule worthy of imitation.
Finally, the Synod is charged with the responsibility of paying attention to the wishes and complaints of the Bulgarians in relation to worship. “As far as I can judge,” wrote Prince Lobanov on February 7/19, 1859, “from many conversations with spiritual and secular members of the Assembly, they sincerely wish to end the sad misunderstandings between the Slavs and Greeks in Turkey, and I know that the orders of the Church-People’s Assembly (i.e. the above and also regarding the obligation for bishops to know their dialect diocese) contributed a lot to calm the Bulgarians living in Constantinople.”
5) Resolutions on permanent Church-People's Councils. After this, the Church-People's Assembly began drawing up rules for permanent mixed Church-People's Councils. “The movable and immovable property of the Christian clergy,” says the fourth article of Gatti-Gumayun, “will remain completely inviolable; however, the temporary administration of the property of Christian communities will be subject to the supervision of an Assembly of ecclesiastical and secular members.”
In accordance with this 11th and 12th articles of the Rules on the establishment and duties of the Church-People's Assembly, it was decided: with the exception of spiritual issues, the material affairs of the community will be managed by a council of clergy members and laymen, both elected by the people and appointed by the government. Just as everything relating to the supreme administration belongs, without a doubt, to the imperial government, so spiritual matters belong to the highest clergy of each community; then the purely material affairs of the community will be managed by the mentioned councils. “What is meant by material affairs? - the Patriarchal Synod noted even before the convening of the Church-People's Assembly. – Just political affairs or also the management of church property? In the latter case, it should be noted that church canons do not allow laymen to manage church property.
The rules for managing people's affairs must be defined with clarity and precision: the spiritual side, the management of church property and everything that, according to the canons, relates to the Church must exclusively and directly depend on it. As for purely political issues, they can be entrusted to a Council of only laymen.”
To this, the first dragoman of our embassy, Mr. Argiropullo, objected that many abuses occur from the existing order of affairs and that “persons knowledgeable in theology claim that the church canons do not grant the clergy exclusive management of church property.” The Patriarchate's remark was rejected by the Porte. At a meeting on March 13, 1859, the Church-People's Assembly decided and signed the following rules:
Permanent Councils are established in the capital and in the dioceses, consisting of 4 spiritual and 8 secular members. “It is difficult to judge the organization of this Council,” noted His Eminence Filaret. “It is extraordinary because the position of the Church and the people is extraordinary” (note dated May 16, 1859).
Half of the members, i.e. 6, leave each year and are replaced by others. No member may, after the expiration of a two-year term, be elected for another two-year term. Members of the Council receive a salary, as well as the secretaries of the office attached to it 308. Councils in dioceses will, if necessary, make representations through their archbishops to the Patriarch, who will transmit them to the Council, which will be established in the capital. The duties and rights of this Council are defined as follows: The Council, chaired by a synodal member or the Patriarch himself, manages public schools and charitable institutions; it also controls the financial administration of the capital's churches 309 and oversees the management of the income of monasteries dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarch. “Here,” noted His Eminence Philaret, “the opinion of His Holiness the Patriarch can be attributed that this is contrary to canon law, the rules of the holy apostles (namely 34 and 42), traditions and the centuries-old privileges of the Church” (note May 16, 1859).
“The rights of the Permanent Council,” wrote Prince Lobanov on March 21-April 2, “positively defined by the Church-People’s Assembly, should completely dissuade those who unfairly assume that the Ottoman government or the majority of the secular members of the Church-People’s Assembly wanted to take away from the Church the secular power that it has had over the Orthodox since the conquest of Constantinople. It is true that according to the project, according to Gatti-Gumayun, the management of the financial affairs of the community is subordinated to a permanent Council, but the Council itself is dependent on spiritual authority, for, in addition to the fact that half of the members will be appointed by the Synod 310, the Patriarch is given main control over the actions of the Council. During the meetings, some members of the Assembly made attempts to increase the power of the future Council and strengthen the secular element in it by introducing representatives from all areas; but these attempts were unsuccessful.
Even in purely secular matters, such as the financial management of churches and monasteries dependent on the patriarchate, the Assembly made significant concessions to the clergy, because it granted the Permanent Council only the right to oversee this management without any interference from secular persons in the collection and use of church revenues. Thus, instead of encroaching on the rights of the clergy and the property of the Church, the so-called separation of secular power from the spiritual, expressed in the establishment of a permanent Council, on the contrary, turns to the benefit of the Church, because it further affirms the non-interference of the laity in purely spiritual issues.”
So wrote Prince Lobanov on March 21/April 2, 1859, and in a secret note presented by the Constantinople embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on November 8/20, 1858 and signed by G. Butenev, the following is said: “The rule on the separation of secular from spiritual power, extremely important, without a doubt, deals a heavy blow not only to the ancient advantages of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the highest clergy, but also to those rights which were granted to Christians as their only protection and security under Muslim rule."
In his notes dated December 11, 1858 and May 16, 1859, His Eminence Philaret classifies the management of church property among church subjects, to which the worldly only touches, and then offers the following considerations: “How good it would be if the shepherds could say with the apostles: “...we do not want to leave the word of God for us, to serve meals, but for this we need and an apostolic flock who spared nothing for the needy members of the Church... It is said that the Assembly made a concession to the clergy, leaving itself only control and supervision. But, firstly, the rule does not simply say: let the bishop manage the church estate, but adds: let him rule sovereignly. If the last word is used with meaning, then it means: yes, he controls without outside interference, without control. Secondly, what does observation mean? Will the Council just watch what is being done and do nothing? Why bother with such observation?
And if he, having found some orders of the clergy inconsistent with his thoughts, demands different orders, then observation will quietly become the highest management. The Apostolic Rules, while granting the bishop full authority in the management of church estates, did not forbid, however, abuses in this management from being submitted to the judgment of the Council. Therefore, the Church-People’s Assembly would better preserve the inviolability of the apostolic rules if it granted itself” or the permanent Council “the right: 1) based on information and denunciations about the abuse or waste of church estates, enter into consideration of the restoration of legality with the consent of the Synod; 2) to propose to the Synod about possible benefits from church financial resources to educational and charitable institutions necessary for the church.”
6) Assumption about the assignment of salaries to the clergy. At the meeting on March 13th, the Church-People's Assembly, in accordance with the Porte's program, began to consider the important issue of assigning salaries to the Orthodox clergy in Turkey. The idea of this measure was first suggested by the former prince of Samos Vogorides, who proposed it to representatives of the European powers on the occasion of the Gatti-Gumayune conferences. In the 3rd article it is said, and in the Rules on the establishment of Church-People's Assemblies it is repeated, “that the arguments assigned to the clergy by customs or laws will be abolished all without distinction and that they will be replaced by a certain salary for the patriarch and salaries for other servants of the Church, consistent with the degree of their dignity.” Long before the convening of the Church-People's Assembly, during our Jerusalem mission in Constantinople, the Greek hierarchs expressed their fears about such a measure, in confidential conversations with the Right Reverend Kirill of Melitopol and with the actual Privy Councilor Butenev.
Thus, Metropolitan Dionysius of Nicomedia, noting in passing that the Porte’s intention to assign a permanent salary to the clergy is contrary to church law, because those who serve the altar must also eat from the altar, added that this measure could be allowed in the Russian Church, in which the government and the clergy belong to the same confession, but that in Turkey it would have a disastrous effect. Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch explained to His Eminence Kirill and Mr. Actual Privy Councilor Butenev all the danger that, in his opinion, would threaten the Greek Church if the Porte managed to insist on its demand to determine a permanent salary for the bishops, and asked for the intercession of the Russian embassy before the Turkish Government, so that the solution to this issue would be completely rejected and everything would remain as before. G.
Butenev answered His Holiness that such harassment was out of the question, because the question of maintaining the clergy was raised in the Porte on the basis of Gatti-Gumayun, the fulfillment of which constitutes one of the solemn obligations that the Sultan assumed in front of the whole of Europe, that although we did not participate in the drawing up of this act, at the conclusion of peace we recognized its obligatory nature in its main features; that if we take part in the interpretation of some of its articles in favor of the Greek Church, then this will inevitably provoke the mediation of Western powers, which will hardly tend to the benefits of the Greek clergy.
After such an explanation, the Patriarch and the Synod objected weaker and with some evasiveness (in their comments on the “Rules on the Establishment and Duties of Church-People’s Assemblies”) against the appointment of salaries for the Greek clergy, and the first dragoman of our embassy, Mr. Argiropullo, in his objections to these remarks, insisted on the necessity of this measure and argued that it was desired by the majority of impartial people among the laity and even among the clergy. The Russian hierarchs expressed the following thoughts about this subject. “The Turkish government,” wrote His Eminence Filaret on April 3, 1858, “is collecting information about the existing methods of maintaining the Orthodox clergy and wants to replace it with a salary, probably intending to take church property at its disposal” 311.
“The Russian embassy in Constantinople noticeably supports the idea of the Turkish government. When one of the members of the Synod of Constantinople said that bishops on salary would visit their flocks less, the embassy took this as an admission that the flocks were now visited for selfish reasons. Upon careful examination of the case (however, little is known to us in detail), this conclusion may seem hasty. Let us assume that a bishop, traveling around the diocese, takes advantage of the benefits of his flock. There is no need to rush to condemn this. The Apostle wrote: The Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live the gospel (1 Cor 9:14) and also: let him communicate in every good word to those who teach (Gal 6:6). If the flock is zealous according to the apostolic teaching and the shepherd, accepting the surplus of the rich, gives it to the poor, then through this mutual goodwill is expressed and maintained on both sides. But let’s assume that the bishop is on salary.
In all likelihood, it will be enough only to live with need, and will not be enough to cover the costs of traveling around the diocese, and more or less charitable expenses may also be required. Moreover, accepting benefits from the flock will probably already be prohibited, which will also be instilled in the laity. And so, without the bishop’s fault, travel around the diocese will become less frequent, and consequently, supervision over the subordinate clergy and over the flock will become weaker; and the connection between the clergy and the flock may be upset. The taking of church property into state disposal in Christian states cannot be called a happy measure. Selected church property was partly immersed in state property without a trace (and this is even better), partly sold for little value due to a lack of buyers or due to their doubts about the trustworthiness of the purchase, and partly on various occasions passed into private hands. Thus, the state received an insignificant acquisition at a time, and for the Church its own provision for the maintenance of the clergy disappeared forever.
Can we hope that things will be better in Turkey, that the government, having taken church property, will not squander it? 312 That their income will not be swallowed up by the bottomless State Treasury in Turkey, either simply or in the form of a loan for endless times? That salaries will be made promptly and without damage? If in Turkey the army is sometimes not satisfied with its well-deserved pay for a long time, will they take more care of the Christian clergy, to whom zealous Mohammedans are ready from a sincere heart to wish death by starvation? And at a time of meager and unfaithful salaries, will they stop demanding gifts and bribes, which are now ruining the Orthodox clergy and forcing them to appear greedy for money for the necessary satisfaction of other people’s real greed?”
“I completely agree with the opinion of the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow,” wrote the Most Reverend Metropolitan Gregory on April 23, 1858. “As far as is known, there were no complaints about the Greek clergy in the Asian Turkish possessions. For a well-known reason, complaints against the Greek clergy arose in the European Turkish possessions. The Turkish government was very happy about these complaints and took them seriously in order to carry out the measure proposed by them to give a salary to the Orthodox Greek clergy. The Turkish government took this measure so that it could conveniently lead the Greeks into great poverty and deprive them of any opportunity for some kind of uprising; for the salary will be collected from the Greeks by the Turks, and due to their greed for money, much more than what is needed for the salary.
Other powers are very aware of Turkey's intentions, but remain silent; because the salary assigned to the Greek spiritual authorities will, without a doubt, be the most moderate, in which they will not be able to travel to their dioceses and make the necessary suggestions to the Orthodox people, nor will they be able to do anything to strengthen the people in the faith, protect them from being seduced into other confessions and disposition towards themselves. And this is exactly what both the papal and Protestant missions in the East need. The pitiful state of the Greek clergy that is being prepared is very useful for other powers because the more they attract the Orthodox people into their confessions, the weaker the Greeks will be, the less it will be possible to fear their uprising and, most importantly, the less terrible Russia will be for them. Propaganda in the East is extremely intensifying, it seems, undoubtedly, not so much in the form of faith, but in the form of eradicating the Eastern Orthodox confession to weaken Russia.”
“The intention of the Turkish government,” he wrote on December 9, 1858, “to assign salaries to the patriarch, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops is not contrary to the rules of the Church and in its execution can be very beneficent and rightly presented as a great benefit. But the expected salary will be limited. And with such a salary, the bishops will not be able to create any charitable institution in their dioceses; their dioceses will remain without any of their help. They will also not be able to visit their dioceses, and their dioceses will remain without supervision, warning from vices and protection from any seduction from the faith. This measure was probably invented not by the Turkish government, but by the European powers and, obviously, is intended to destroy the Eastern Church."
“The idea of assigning salaries to members of the highest clergy,” wrote His Eminence Filaret on December 11, 1858, “arose before Gatti-Gumayun and among the Greek laymen. Consequently, it is now to be expected that they will strongly insist on this idea. Is it possible to convince them that as much as they weaken the higher clergy, they will weaken their national unity and strength?”
Meanwhile, a change occurred in the opinions of the laymen of Constantinople on this subject. In 1857, G. Argiropullo wrote that the idea of assigning salaries to the clergy is increasingly gaining adherents among impartial people from the laity and clergy. And in a note submitted by the Constantinople mission dated November 8/20, 1858 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is said, among other things: “The assignment of certain salaries to the clergy seems to the higher clergy a measure that cannot be carried out, and is beginning to be contested even by those laity who first proposed and defended it theoretically... One of the significant objections raised by the laity themselves against such a measure is that it would lead to a lack of funds to pay off the national debt and to maintain churches, hospitals and schools, which in the current state of affairs exist solely through voluntary offerings of Christians under the supervision of church pastors.” “Will these objections be resolved satisfactorily? – noted His Eminence Filaret.
“If they don’t allow it, then again the transformation they propose will turn out to be destructive for the Church and for themselves” (note December 11, 1858).
Finally, in a dispatch from Prince Lobanov dated February 4/19, 1859, it was said that “The Assembly unanimously considers it impossible to allow salaries for the clergy and hopes to circumvent this article of the program drawn up by the Porte (in Gatti-Gumayun and the Rules on the establishment and duties of the Church-People’s Assembly).” However, in resisting this measure, the Assembly only wanted to prevent the Porte from interfering in the collection and distribution of salaries to the clergy, but at the same time we see the need to take some measures to stop the various abuses that existed before. Therefore, it intended to determine the amount of income of the patriarch (1 million piastres, i.e. 50,000 rubles) that he could receive from various stauropegic monasteries. Regarding the diocesan bishops, it was believed that with the destruction of ephorias, which required significant costs, the income from the dioceses would be sufficient to support them.
At the same time, it was supposed to assign to the clergy what to take for their needs, and to give benefits to needy bishops from the central treasury, from which schools and charitable institutions would also be maintained. It was believed that this central treasury could be formed from the contributions of the rich monasteries of Athos, Sinai and the Holy Sepulcher, and in order to implement this assumption, they invited the Patriarch of Jerusalem and also the Patriarch of Antioch to participate in the Church-People's Assembly under the pretext that their presence was necessary, since the decisions of the Church-People's Assembly would be binding on all patriarchates. The meeting did not explain, however, whether, upon the entry of the patriarchs, it agreed to reconsider all decisions made before their invitation and without their consent. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch resolutely refused to participate in the Church-People's Assembly, although the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Assembly itself very strongly invited them and placed on them full responsibility for the consequences that could arise from their refusal.
Another subject of concern for the Church-People's Assembly was the debt lying on the patriarchate and extending to 7 or 8 million piastres (about 4,000,000 rubles). It was assumed that it would be possible to cover this debt with a tax of 10 piastres for each Orthodox family in Turkey (there are 7 million Orthodox Christians, making up about 1 million families).
But when the time approached to discuss this in the Church-People's Assembly, the logothete Aristarchus unexpectedly announced that the Sultan, having learned that the debt lying on the Church of Constantinople constituted the main obstacle to the fulfillment of his intentions, decided that this debt should be paid by the Ottoman government. Although no Sultan's decree about this followed, and therefore it could have been expected that the Sultan's assumption would remain unfulfilled, the news conveyed by the logothete aroused general surprise and discontent in the Assembly: partly it did not want to be obliged to the Turkish government for this, partly it foresaw, due to the well-known disorder of Turkish finances, the impossibility of fulfilling this promise, the idea of which was, it seems, inspired by the intrigues of the party wanting to assign a salary to the clergy. When the Assembly finally began to judge this measure at a meeting on March 13, noisy debate arose.
“The majority of the clergy,” wrote Prince Lobanov on March 21, “does not favor the appointment of salaries, and there is disagreement about this subject among the secular members.” The Patriarch invited the latter to express their opinion, intending to pronounce his judgment after everyone else, in order to avoid contradictions in a matter that so closely concerns the Church.
The logothete of Aristarchus began to speak in favor of setting the salary, however, very evasively. This evasiveness was explained by his desire, on the one hand, to please the Porte by supporting the salary project, and on the other, not to antagonize the patriarch and other members of the clergy, who, as he knew, did not agree to this project. He said that the Porta, finding it necessary to change the present church administration in order to satisfy the numerous complaints of the Orthodox population, suggested that in order to achieve this goal, to assign salaries to the highest clergy, that he himself shares the government’s opinion on the importance of this measure, as long as it is not contrary to church decrees, which he cannot judge, leaving the Synod to decide on this.
Then the Patriarch announced on behalf of the bishops sitting in the Assembly that they consider the assignment of salaries to the clergy a measure contrary to canon law, the rules of St. apostle, traditions and centuries-old privileges of the church and the most humiliating for the clergy.
His Holiness's opinion was warmly supported by many influential lay members of the assembly, including Mr. Stephen Carathedori. The debate became general; secular members demanded a ballot. It turned out that only 6 votes were in favor of the salary, namely: the logothete, the Greek Constantinople deputy Adossidi (serving in the Tanzimat and protected by the grand vizier), Photiadi (the representative of the elderly prince Vogorides, who subsequently died) and all three Slavic deputies (2 from Bulgaria and 1 from Bosnia). Especially the latter (Gavro Vutkovic) objected to the clergy so ardently and spoke with such passion in favor of his compatriots, and especially the Slavic priests oppressed by the bishops, that the Assembly, not fully understanding his speech, delivered in Slavic and translated into Greek by the Metropolitan of Adrianople in a softened form, authorized G. Vutkovic to present his protest at the next meeting 313.
The consequences of the ballot were announced to the deputy of the Porte, who was present at the meeting, with a request to inform the government that the appointment of the salary was found by a majority vote to be contrary to canon law and that the Assembly asks permission to find a more decent means of eliminating existing abuses.
Server Efendi replied that, being a Muslim, he could not judge this subject, that, however, the Turkish government published Gatti-Gumayun with all its articles, including the assignment of salaries, by prior agreement with other powers, that, as far as he knew, in Russia and in the Greek Kingdom the Orthodox clergy agreed to receive a salary, which could not have happened if it had been contrary religion, but that, however, if the Assembly insists on its decision, it can elect from among its members a commission that would present to the Porte the reasons why it does not agree to accept the salary, and would propose to the Government a new, more convenient project for resolving the present difficulties. The meeting wanted to appoint this commission at the same meeting, but as the logothete and some other members refused to participate in it, the patriarch closed the meeting, announcing that he would understand all the circumstances within a week.
At the next meeting, March 20, His Eminence Sophrony, Metropolitan of Art, read a note he had compiled on behalf of the Assembly, in which he proved in detail the idea expressed by the patriarch that the assignment of salaries to the clergy is a measure contrary to the canons of the church.
On May 16, 1859, His Eminence Filaret proposed the following objections to the note of Eminence Artsky. The opinion of the Right Reverend Artsky against salaries to the clergy is based on incorrect conclusions. From the fact that the employees of the Church have a heavenly Giver, it does not follow that they should not be given bread or money to buy bread. Comparing salary with rent is unfair. Rent is an assessment of work under a contract; salary does not evaluate the work of a clergyman; he serves not for hire, but for obedience to church election; the salary is given to him as a means of having bread and clothing. From the fact that the apostle says: until this hour we hunger and thirst, it does not follow that we should not provide material or monetary benefits to the ministers of the Church so that they do not hunger and thirst. It is not true that salaries are contrary to the rules of the Church. The Apostle writes: The Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel (1 Cor 9:14).
That is, the Lord commanded the employees of the Church to receive material or monetary benefits for the needs of temporary life from individual believers, or from the community of believers, or from the government. It is unfair that the assignment of a salary to the clergy is the theft of a right from the heavenly Giver. It is unfair that a salary should terrify a Christian when considering the words of Christ the Savior: I am the good shepherd. The fact is that the apostolic rules are not contrary to the assignment of salaries to the clergy from the government, as is done in Russia; and it is contrary to the rules to take church estates into secular disposal, as they want to do in Turkey, in order to extract salaries for the clergy from church estates. In Russia, the government gives salaries to the clergy, but the power to dispose of church estates and income has not been taken away from the bishops, and, consequently, the apostolic rules have not been violated.
These remarks of the Most Reverend Philaret relate, in fact, to the arguments presented by the Eminence Sophrony against the salary; As for this measure itself, the Moscow Metropolitan called it destructive for the Church and for the Greek people and said that if the Greek laity insisted on this measure, they would weaken the higher clergy as much as they would weaken their national unity and strength. And His Eminence Gregory wrote that this measure obviously aims to destroy the Eastern Church. On the other hand, the Eminence Dionysius of Nicomedia, in a confidential conversation with the Eminence Kirill of Melitopol, expressed the idea that salaries to the clergy could be allowed in Russia, in which the government and the clergy belong to the same confession, but that in Turkey it would have a disastrous effect.
From this one could conclude that by calling the assignment of salaries to the clergy an anti-canonical measure, the Greek clergy especially means the fact that in Turkey the government is incorrect, and that it is humiliating for the clergy to receive salaries from such a government, which they cannot freely talk about.
The note of the Right Reverend Sophrony of Art was approved by the Church-People's Assembly almost unanimously. Consequently, on Monday, March 23, a deputation consisting of Dr. Stefan Carafeodori, Adossidi, Philippopolis deputy Stojanovic and some other secular members of the Assembly, went to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and explained to him that the proposal regarding the salary, approved by the government, turned out to be so contrary to the rules and traditions of the Church that the Assembly decided to submit some comments about this to His Excellency. Having attentively listened to the explanations of the deputation, Fuad Pasha responded favorably that the Porte, looking at the bishops as representatives of the people and state dignitaries, intended to assign them a salary in order to ensure their existence and stop popular complaints, but that if this measure turns out to be contrary to religion, the Assembly can find another, more convenient means to achieve the goal proposed by the government.
In finding this remedy, various difficulties arose, which finally led to the sudden removal from Constantinople of all permanent members of the Synod.
7) Removal of permanent synodal members from Constantinople. The higher clergy repeatedly expressed their fears and complaints regarding the proposed transformations, but the Porte always reassured them with verbal and written assurances that the rights of the Church and the clergy remained and would remain unviolated.
“The only serious obstacle to the success of the work undertaken by the Church-People’s Assembly for the benefit of the Church,” wrote Prince Lobanov in his dispatch dated June 13/25, No. 77, “is the resistance of the Geronts, who managed to create an exceptional position for themselves in the Synod.” When, finally, the Geronts managed to win over the Patriarch to their side, then the secular members of the Assembly, encountering an insurmountable obstacle to their undertakings, decided to submit a petition to the Porte to remove the Patriarch from the throne. The Porte, at the request of the Russian mission, did not accept this request, but instead the Grand Vizier proposed that some of the geronts be removed from the capital. The vizier's proposal was fulfilled, but instead of some, everyone was sent away. The circumstances of this case in the dispatches of Prince Lobanov are stated as follows.
“The assumption in favor of which there were most votes for the removal of the salary project was,” wrote Prince Lobanov on June 13/25, 1859, “to abolish the illegal collections of bishops and replace them with correct and definite incomes that would be fairly distributed among the villages that make up the dioceses, and that for his part the bishop would be obliged to collect them personally at the annual pastoral visiting all areas of his diocese. But the members of the Synod, who did not cease from the very beginning of the sessions of the Church-People's Assembly to stop their correct course with their machinations, set everything in motion to sow discord between the secular members of the Assembly and the bishops who form part of it, in order to make any agreement regarding the exact determination of bishop's income impossible.
For this purpose, they first tried to frighten the bishops of the Assembly, accusing them of violating the benefits of the church; when they failed to shake their firmness, they pretended to submit to the wishes of the Assembly on the condition that, as the basis for its work, it would accept lists of bishop's revenues in each diocese, which for this purpose would be demanded in Constantinople. Although, obviously, the Geronts proposed this measure solely with the aim of gaining time, to tire the patience of the Assembly with a prolonged stagnation in activities and thus ensure that it dispersed, the Assembly agreed with the condition that it would begin the audit with the income lists of the most synodal metropolitans, in anticipation of the sending of regional lists at a certain time.
The Geronts, seeing themselves exposed, decisively announced that they would then only submit lists of their income to the discretion of the Church-People's Assembly if it formally undertakes not to touch the issue of their main income and to engage only in auditing secondary and uncertain income, such as contributions for the consecration of churches, the ordination of priests, and the like. On the other hand, the patriarch, whose weakness of character became a proverb, hesitated for some time between the two parties, then was finally attracted to the Geront party by the Metropolitan of Chalcedon, who always had a strong influence on His Holiness, and, since he himself is a Geront, in view of the common danger, finally united with the rest of his comrades, despite his personal hostility to some of them.
Then, driven to the extreme by the hesitation of its chairman, the patriarch, and the machinations of the synodal metropolitans, the Assembly decided to present Fuad Pasha with a petition signed by all secular members, so that the Porte would use energetic measures to protect the success of his future activities. These measures, as the members of the deputation that handed him this petition verbally explained to Fuad Pasha, were supposed to consist in the removal of the patriarch from the presidency of the Assembly and even from the patriarchal throne and in the appointment in his place of a temporary locum tenens, who would be entrusted with the management of church affairs until the election of a new patriarch” 314.
The patriarch himself, being unable to stop the intrigues directed against him, submitted a petition to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his dismissal, and this petition would have been accepted by the Porte if Prince Lobanov had not stopped this.
“I took advantage of one of my last meetings with the Grand Vizier,” he wrote in his dispatch dated June 13/25, 1859, No. 77, “to prevent, if possible, the overthrow of the Patriarch. I remarked to the Grand Vizier that, in my opinion, the request of the Assembly is at least untimely, because, firstly, it is impossible to begin now to elect a new patriarch on the basis of new rules recently established on this subject by the Church-People's Assembly itself, since these rules have not yet been approved by the Porte; secondly, because the overthrow of the patriarch will, without a doubt, humiliate the works of the Assembly in the eyes of the Greek population, which considers the chairmanship of the patriarch in the Assembly as one of the guarantees for the success of the activities of this Assembly.
To my greatest satisfaction, Ali Pasha answered me that he completely shared my opinion on this subject, and, having informed me about the present state of affairs and about the personal composition of the Synod, some observations that struck me as the correctness of his view, he proposed to me a practical means, which, in his opinion, with a greater probability of success could satisfactorily resolve the difficulties. This means was to convince the Patriarch to send 3 or 4 of the most stubborn geronts to their dioceses, as some of his predecessors did in similar circumstances.” The Grand Vizier's proposal was approved by Prince Lobanov, and the Patriarch willingly agreed to take back his petition on the condition, however, that in order to maintain decency the Porte sent him an order to remain in his place. He accepted with lively pleasure the proposal to remove the geronts, about whom he complained bitterly; but he resolutely refused to start this business.
“Under no circumstances,” he said, “will I present such a petition to the Porte: rather, I would agree to be deposed. As for the government, it has received many complaints about the abuses of some synodal fiefs, and therefore it has the right to intervene, let it give me the order to send the geronts to their dioceses, and I will carry it out without hesitating for a single minute.”
After this, the patriarch received from the Porte a buyuruldi (vizier's order) to remain on the patriarchal throne, and after that a letter from Fuad Pasha, in which he was given an order from the government to invite the synodal members, known as geronts, to go to their dioceses for a while.
“Although,” wrote Prince Lobanov on July 11/23, 1859, “the patriarch agreed in advance with the Porte about the expulsion of the Geronts, he considered it his duty to express out loud to the Grand Vizier and the Minister of Foreign Affairs his regret that such a decision was made without first asking his consent.” The Ottoman ministers answered him that, instead of expressing his regrets, he should rather apologize to them for the fact that he was not the first to think about implementing this measure, which the entire people had long desired and which the Porte itself recognized as necessary.
The order of the Porte was communicated by the patriarch to the six geronts sitting in the Synod, who replied that they obeyed the will of the government and would leave immediately after the end of the gathering.
Thus, since, according to the previous rules, the Synod of Constantinople consisted of permanent members and all bishops temporarily present in Constantinople, and the Church-People's Assembly changed this rule and decided that henceforth there would be no permanent members in the Synod, then by removing from the Synod all the permanent members present in the capital, this new rule of the Church-People's Assembly was carried out, although it was not has not yet received any approval, just as new rules for the election of the patriarch have not been approved. In addition, the Holy Synod suddenly lost all its permanent members, not by the decision of the patriarch, not by his proposal, even without his official consent, solely as a result of the orders of the Porte, transmitted to the patriarch in a private letter from Fuad Pasha, and according to existing laws, not a single synodal member can go to his diocese without the permission of the patriarch, without prior notification of the great Church and without a Sultan's decree.
Five of them (all except the Derkos Metropolitan) before their departure presented a protest to the Patriarch, which was subsequently read publicly in the Church and People's Assembly and, by order of the Patriarch, published along with an objection to it and the speech of S. Caratheodori on the destruction of gerontia.
Meanwhile, Prince Lobanov (as can be seen from his dispatch of June 20/July 2 No. 81) explained to the Patriarch that, as a result of the petition of the Russian embassy, the attempt to depose him had failed, and advised His Holiness “as much for his own benefit as for the benefit of the church, to maintain perfect harmony with the Assembly.” To this, the Patriarch thanked the envoy for his intercession and assured him that he would try in every possible way to be in perfect agreement with all members of the Church-People's Assembly. But at the same time, the Patriarch expressed the desire that one of the members of the Assembly, His Eminence Neophytos of Thessalonica, be removed to his diocese, just like the Geronts. Prince Lobanov wrote in the same dispatch that the patriarch’s demand was fair, since His Eminence Neophyte allowed himself the most indecent expressions against His Holiness in the full Assembly.
However, this just demand of the patriarch was not fulfilled, for Fuad Pasha decided that “The Porte does not intend to support some personal hostilities, which could even lead to the partial disintegration of this deliberative Assembly, and that all members of it until the end of their labors will be kept in the place to which they are called by the people’s trust” (dispatch from Prince Lobanov dated June 27 / July 9, 1859 No. 85).
“One can hope,” wrote Prince Lobanov on June 13/28, 1859, “that with the cessation of secret suggestions and influence from those around him, the patriarch will again enjoy freedom in his actions and that the good agreement, momentarily broken, between His Holiness and the members of the Church and People’s Assembly will soon be seen restored.”
From all of the above, it is clear that according to the publication of Gatti-Gumayun in 1856, an Assembly of 20 secular and 7 spiritual members was convened to discuss various transformations affecting the Church and the clergy. Many people serving in the Turkish government were elected among the secular, but permanent members of the Synod were not admitted to the clergy and other bishops were elected instead (note by His Eminence Philaret dated December 11, 1858, L. 98).
Thus, the convened Church-People's Assembly, in the presence of a representative of the Turkish government, and according to the program drawn up in Gatti-Gumayun, decreed new rules regarding the church structure. In the election of the patriarch, it gave the laity even more participation than they had hitherto, namely, the election of three candidates, from whom the Synod would finally elect the patriarch, entrusted the Assembly of 70 laymen and 15 or 17 clergy. The Assembly also granted the laity participation in the election of bishops, legitimizing that upon the death of a bishop, the diocese has the right to indicate a candidate to whom the Synod is to some extent obliged to give preference over one of its candidates, and, in addition, it gave the laity the right to participate in the trial of the bishop. Next, the Assembly changed the composition of the Synod, eliminating the permanent synodal members, and largely limited the power of the patriarch, allowing not only the Synod, but also the permanent People's Council, in case of displeasure with the patriarch, without trial, to ask the Porte to remove him from the throne.
Finally, the Assembly transferred the management of church property to secular disposition, decreeing that a permanent People's Council, which would consist of 8 laymen and 4 clergy, had supreme supervision over the management of church property and over the use of church revenues.
The only serious obstacle to the success of the work undertaken by the Church-People's Assembly was the resistance of the Geronts. When they managed to win over the patriarch to their side, then the secular members of the Assembly decided to submit a petition to the Porte to remove the patriarch from the throne. The Porte accepted this petition, and instead, by order of the Porte, all permanent members of the Synod present in Constantinople were removed from the capital without the official consent of the Patriarch.
Thus, the rule on the destruction of gerontia, newly decreed by the Church-People's Assembly, although not yet approved, has actually been carried out. After the removal of the Geronts, the Patriarch was persuaded to promise to maintain perfect agreement with the People's Assembly, and at the same time, His Holiness's demand to remove from the Assembly one of its members, who allowed himself, in front of the entire Assembly, the most disrespectful and indecent expressions against the Patriarch, was left unattended and unfulfilled. The patriarch's demand was rejected under the pretext that the integrity of the People's Assembly could not be violated until its work was completed.
13. Note from V.M. Zhemchuzhnikov “The Orthodox East and Russia” with comments by K.K. Zederholma 315
1. The state of the Orthodox Church. Catholic and Protestant propaganda 316
The Orthodox Church consists of Russians with some tribes belonging to Russia, Greeks, South Slavs and Arabs. The Armenians and Copts could have been counted among it, if scholastic pickiness had not created a difference in dogma between them and the Orthodox Church, when they differ from it only by another expression of the same dogma, incorrectly accused of Monophysitism, the Armenians and Copts separated into a separate Church 317.
In former times, the Orthodox Church was distinguished by equal respect for the rights of all peoples belonging to it. Thus, during the existence of the Byzantine Empire, when the Greeks predominated in the East, their primacy in church affairs, expressed by adding the title “Ecumenical” to the title of the Byzantine Patriarch and the preference for the Greek language in ceremonial services, did not, however, prevent other Orthodox peoples from having their own independent church government, using their own language in spiritual books and worship, and electing their fellow tribesmen in all degrees of spirituality. titles - from parish priest to patriarch - and send their representatives to the Councils. Each patriarch led his flock independently and obeyed only the definitions of the Councils. With the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the spirit of governance of the Orthodox Church began to gradually change. Having lost their political dominance in the East, the Greek clergy set out to acquire the spiritual.
With the help of humiliation, flattery before the Turks, gifts to them and even catering to the carnal passions of the Turkish nobles, it managed to seize all the highest spiritual ranks in the East and, spreading the network of its church administration, keeps almost all the Orthodox peoples living within the borders of the former Byzantine Empire under the rule of the Greeks 318. This predominance of the Greeks was greatly helped by the fact that, due to their former political significance, they were always, as it were, representatives and defenders of Orthodoxy, therefore their name became a common noun for all Orthodox Christians and the Orthodox confession itself was given the name Greek. In addition, since the most important church buildings in the East were naturally carried out under the patronage of the Greek emperors, although the purpose of these buildings was the Orthodox Church in general, they became the exclusive property of the Greeks. Thus, the Greeks took possession of the most important holy places in the East, the possession of which gives them primary importance over other members of the Orthodox Church 319.
Finally, while the Greeks took over the church administration in the East, in the only part of the Orthodox Church independent of them, namely in Russia, the subordination of church administration to secular administration took place, and as a result of this, Russia seemed to be alienated from the rest of the Orthodox world. By covering all the actions of its church administration with worldly power, Russia destroyed its previous connection with the eastern church administration, destroyed the mutual participation of different parts of the Orthodox Church in each other’s affairs, and thereby provided the Greek clergy with the opportunity to act contrary to the council’s decrees, without fear of resistance from other members of the Church 320.
To strengthen their dominion over the Orthodox East, the Greek clergy, continuing to flatter, bribe, indulge the Turkish authorities and rob their flock, resorted to the following means. It endeavors, first, to keep its flock in spiritual and mental ignorance, by not allowing the establishment of schools independent of the clergy, and not improving those that depend on them; secondly, to restore the Turkish government against the Orthodox peoples subject to it, in order to make itself necessary to keep them in submission, and thirdly, to maintain distrust of Russia in the Turkish government out of fear that its intervention could liberate the Eastern Orthodox peoples from the ecclesiastical oppression that lies upon them. This direction has manifested itself most sharply since the control of all ecclesiastical ranks in the East passed into the hands of the Phanariots 321.
While the Greek clergy turned into a low courtier, the Russian clergy turned, due to the subordination of church administration to civil government, into an official 322. Thus, they are almost equal, but there is a significant difference in the reasons for the fall. The Greek clergy is to blame for its downfall: it itself wanted illegal power over all Eastern Orthodox Christians and therefore created for itself the need to humiliate itself and be mean in order to retain this power. The Russian clergy did not fall on its own—they were dropped. Therefore, indications of the shortcomings of the Russian clergy are given here by no means as a reproach to them; this would be too unfair, but as proof of the unnaturalness and incorrectness of the relations in which it is placed with the government and which forcibly distort and could not help but distort it.
Lacking freedom of action, the Russian clergy became indifferent to their spiritual duties, being under the forcible tutelage of the government, they do not care about themselves; Acting solely on the instructions of worldly power, it became an irresponsible servant of the world and indulged in only material benefits. As a result, there is no other difference between the Russian and Greek clergy except in the degree of guilt: the Russian clergy causes harm without intention, but unintentionally, and although it acts in some cases without shame, it does not act with shamelessness. Otherwise their situation is completely similar. In the East, the spiritual rank, except for the lower degrees, is given to only the Greeks - the Phanariots; and in Russia - only to hereditary priests, as recently the soldier's rank was communicated to the cantonists.
In the East, the Greek clergy deliberately prevents the improvement of their flock; and in Russia the clergy contributes to the same thing unconsciously: it sets the people an example of disrespect for sacred things, drunkenness, covetousness, greed, distortion of the spirit of Christian teaching, etc. 323 But the example of clergy is also preaching; and therefore such actions of the Russian clergy are equal to violent corruption of the people.
The same causes almost always produce the same consequences. So, due to the disorder of church administration in the East and in Russia, here and here the majority of the Orthodox flock is in the grossest ignorance of the most important principles of the Gospel teaching and the first dogmas of the Orthodox confession, here and here there is enmity between the flock and the clergy. If Russians see more in the East than in their own country, then this is explained by the parable of the speck in someone else’s eye.
Such a disorder, corruption 324 of the Orthodox Church could not hide from other Christian confessions, and they, of course, did not want to miss this opportunity to spread their teachings among the Orthodox. The action of heterodox propaganda in Russia is hampered by the government's patronage of Orthodoxy; but in the Turkish possessions they do not find this obstacle, and therefore, leaving Russia alone, they directed their forces towards Turkey. And since in Turkey to this day conversion from Mohammedanism to Christianity is prohibited under penalty of death, these propaganda inevitably had to limit their activities to local Orthodox Christians and Jews.
Protestant teaching cannot be accessible to uneducated peoples, almost not at all mentally developed, such as the Eastern Orthodox; therefore, Protestant missionaries in Turkey find followers almost exclusively among Jews 325. Catholic propaganda, on the contrary, works very successfully among the Orthodox, because its teaching is quite accessible to their lack of education and underdevelopment 326. Moreover, not at all understanding the spirit of Orthodoxy, being oppressed by the Greek clergy, not having the means for education and not finding support in the representatives of Orthodox Russia against the oppression of local authorities, the Eastern Orthodox, with the transition to Catholicism and even with the recognition of only the power of the papal or union (for example, in Bulgaria), acquire the patronage of the Catholic powers, and their national clergy, and the means for moral and mental development. Can one then be surprised at the extraordinary success of Catholic propaganda between them?
The powers that patronize the creeds spread by these propaganda take advantage of their success to assert their influence among Turkish subjects. In this regard, France acts most successfully, supporting Catholic propaganda. Its influence soon threatens to become predominant in the Turkish possessions.
2. Dependence of the benefits of Russia on the benefits of the Orthodox Church of the mission of Archimandrite Porfiry and Bishop Kirill of Melitopol
From the previous one it is clear that, with the success of Catholic propaganda in the East and the strengthening of the influence of France through it, the number of Eastern Orthodox Christians decreases, and as a result, the influence of Russia in the East weakens. Consequently, the benefits of the Orthodox Church and Russia are closely related in this case 327. But the main place in this matter obviously belongs to the Church; the benefits of Russia depend on the benefits of the Church and constitute, as it were, a consequence of them. Therefore, counteraction to Western propaganda should be left to the Church; and Russia should take the same attitude towards the Orthodox Church as France has put itself into towards the Catholic Church. It is she who should assist her in every possible way, be her zealous helper, the protector of those who profess Orthodoxy; but by no means a leader or mistress directing the actions of the Church for her own personal benefits. The very good of Russia requires that this matter not be given a political and national character instead of a purely religious and pan-Orthodox one.
Let's see to what extent the Russian government complied with this condition in its actions.
Looking at itself as the head of the Orthodox Church, the Russian government immediately violated the condition that was now presented as necessary for successful action against Catholic missionary work. It was it that took over all matters (Mr. Mansurov’s note, pp. 42–43) and, not realizing the forces of Russia with its intentions, simply ordered the Holy Synod to “equip a spiritual mission to Jerusalem” 328. Although missionary work cannot be created by order, it is a consequence of the spiritual development of the people 329; however, the mission was equipped, placed under the command of Archimandrite Porfiry and sent in 1847 to Jerusalem with the following instructions: “First, to reform the Greek clergy governing the Eastern Orthodox; secondly, to attract to Orthodoxy and confirm in it local residents who are wavering in the faith by agents of other faiths, and thirdly, to maintain a purely worshipful character and keep all their activities in complete secrecy” (note by Mr. Mansurov, pp. 42–43). The order was serious, and yet nothing was prepared for it.
Moreover, to demand secrecy in such a matter is not the same as simultaneously ordering and prohibiting action? For the secret of such a mission can only exist in the absence of its activity, and success or failure will certainly expose its secret. But as if setting the goal not for failure, but for the secret itself, our government was not content even with demanding it from Porfiry, and was not satisfied with the fact that it did not give him any means for action in the sense in which it itself prescribed, but also constantly rejected all his assumptions, which turned out to be quite reasonable between then and now. Thus, Archimandrite Porfiry was truly placed in the position of a simple admirer, and his missionary work was clothed in such secrecy that even he himself could doubt his missionary purpose. This unfortunate outcome of the mission of 1847 is blamed by some on Porfiry himself and is taken as proof of his inability to be a missionary 330.
Having interrupted its missionary activities during the war, our government, at the end of it, decided to act more harshly than before. Therefore, last year it sent a new mission to Jerusalem, at the head of which it placed not an archimandrite, but a bishop, namely the Right Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol. Consequently, even after the end of the war, our government repeated its previous mistake, that is, it left this religious matter under its direct control. True, clergymen, as before, were elected as conductors of secular government, and even a bishop was placed at their head, but who in the world does not know that our clergy do not act on their own, but at the direction of secular authorities? And therefore, won’t the appointment of a bishop give an even more political character to our spiritual mission?
The new Jerusalem mission was given the following instructions: a) no longer look at the Church in Syria and Palestine through a Greek prism; b) act primarily on the Arab element, oppressed by the Greek; c) take care by all means for the manifestation of Russian worship in Jerusalem in order to exalt it in the East; d) follow the example of the Western Church in relation to benefiting the local flock with charitable institutions, alms and other educational measures; e) extend similar actions even to all of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Damascus, Mountainous Khazbia, Sidon Sea, Sinai and Egypt (Mansurov’s note, pp. 90–92).
Who does not recognize that the nature of this instruction is purely political? In it, even charitable institutions, alms, etc. are prescribed only according to cold political calculation, so that Russia in its benefactions does not lag behind other European powers in the East! 331 Such a calculation has a place in the actions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which could transfer to the disposal of the mission special sums specifically designated for charity. But how can we base on such a calculation the actions of a spiritual mission, the success of which is possible only when it is guided by religious feelings alone, without any admixture of worldly and political views?
Then, in order to avoid, if possible, giving the Russian mission a political character, it would be necessary to already have a political representative of Russia there before arriving in Jerusalem. Then the mere presence of this representative would contribute to our mission acquiring a more spiritual character. But she was sent earlier even by the foundation of the Jerusalem consulate, and as a result she received political significance not only in the eyes of others, but also in her own. The mission itself considers itself something like a political spiritual-secular embassy of Russia, and all others recognize it, depending on the need, either truly independent or hierarchically subordinate to the Greek patriarchy.
So, on the occasion of the departure of the Right Reverend Cyril on the day that belonged to the Catholics, the service on Golgotha, the French consul removed interrogations from him through his secretary as from an inferior person; interrogated the patriarchy, as if the leadership of our mission, the patriarchy gave answers for the Right Reverend Kirill, as if for its subordinate, and the consequence of all these interrogations was the accusation of our mission as if it were an independent, representative person, by whose actions one can judge the types of the Russian government. It is remarkable that throughout this investigation the mission itself did not at all feel that its position was false and still considered itself a completely independent and worthy representative of Russia in Palestine, Syria and almost even in Egypt. However, it would be strange to hope that our spiritual mission will not make mistakes in this political field, which is new to it and unusual for it, since our clergy, due to their position, are for the most part not even familiar with the conditions of ordinary public life.
Finally, by allowing our mission to act completely independently of the local clergy, the government thereby gave it a national character instead of a pan-Orthodox one, thereby completely destroying its religious significance 332 .
Let us now turn our attention to the very structure of this matter and how it is conducted.
Firstly, the mission is sent before the subjects for which it is sent have been sufficiently discussed and before the means for a decent existence and success have been prepared. Therefore, at the same time, the mission is operating, and here they are studying how it should act, and finding means to make the activity itself and its existence possible.
Secondly, the mission is required to act independently and independently from the local clergy; Meanwhile, they do not want it, in the eyes of co-religionists and non-religionists, to have the character of an institution separate from the Eastern Orthodox Church; and in addition, they made her financially dependent on the Jerusalem Patriarchate.
Thirdly, the staff of the mission is so small that it is barely able to fulfill its church duties in Jerusalem, and yet it is entrusted with responsibilities regarding all of Palestine, all of Syria, Damascus, etc., even Sinai and Egypt.
Fourthly, the mission’s funds, determined by the government, are so insignificant that it is unclear how it would have managed to fulfill even a tenth of the duties assigned to it without private donations. It is very strange to rely only on private voluntary donations in such an important matter, because they, of course, cannot be accepted as a true and definitive income on which such a business could be based.
Fifthly, wanting to cover up the political nature of our spiritual mission with something, they spread the belief that it was founded for the sole purpose of taking care of Russian fans in Palestine. In the name of this goal, donations are being collected throughout Russia, which will be used not for fans at all, but for the establishment of various institutions that have nothing to do with Russian worship, such as for example, for hospices, hospitals, schools and nurses in Constantinople, Smyrna and Beirut. Is it really just the assurance that all this is being done for fans that is enough to really convince everyone of the need for such institutions and the very presence of a spiritual mission with a bishop in Jerusalem to improve the situation of Russian Palestinian fans?
Sixth, realizing that the mere founding of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, with a small staff and almost no funds, is not enough to achieve the proposed goals, they place great hopes on the assistance of the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade; and it is not even clear on what grounds, under the pretext of this society’s own needs, they demand from it the following: a) to organize for fans hospice houses, hospitals, house churches in Constantinople, Syria, Beirut, Cairo, Nazareth and Jerusalem; b) have constant concern for the material needs of fans in Jerusalem; c) arrange worship pilgrimages in Palestine; d) manage all proposed Palestinian institutions; e) contribute to the gradual strengthening of the staff of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission; f) establish and maintain a consulate in Jerusalem and purchase a house for it; g) establish a regular consulate in Caifa, and a vice-consulate in Nazareth; finally, strengthen the staff of the Beirut consulate and support people who are completing the study of oriental languages.
The establishment of government consulates by a private company is a phenomenon so strange that it is impossible to understand it. This is almost the same as maintaining the entire internal management of Russia's wine farmers. But no less strange is what relationship was found between the Shipping and Trade Society and Orthodoxy? And who, other than the shareholders of a private company, can force it to do this or that? Can private companies finally exist if they are required to act not for their own benefits, but for religious or whatever government purposes? However, the question of whether the above requirements correspond to the benefits of the Russian Company is subject to decision by the shareholders of this company themselves.
Seventhly, in addition to all of the above, the following is revealed from Mr. Mansurov’s note on this subject and from the actions of the government: a) that Russia’s conviction that the Greek clergy sympathizes with it is considered regrettable (Mansurov’s note, p. 20), therefore, requiring refutation; b) that the inevitability of obvious enmity between the Greek and Russian hierarchies, if our mission acted according to the instructions given to it, is recognized regarding the mission of Archimandrite Porfiry (Mansurov’s note, p. 45), but is not recognized regarding the mission of Bishop Kirill; c) that the enmity of the Eastern Orthodox flock with the Greek clergy is considered “a joyful phenomenon, the dawn of a resurgent national Orthodoxy and a guarantee of the rise of our own Church” (Mansurov’s note, pp. 99–100); d) that the only means of successfully establishing our influence in the East is the trade or industrial route (Mansurov’s note, p.
127–129), and meanwhile Russia’s current actions in the East are given a political-religious character; for although it is intended to entrust the Shipping and Trade Society with a material or pecuniary participation in the actions of the government, this participation obviously does not give these actions a commercial or industrial character, but would rather assign a political character to the Shipping Society itself; finally, that the establishment of Russian sisters of mercy in Palestine, and, moreover, not inferior to those of other faiths, is considered a very easy matter (Mansurov’s note, pp. 184–185) 333.
Eighth, all actions of our government on this subject are carried out with unforgivable premature publicity; and the following actually mixed power is placed at their head: “The political patronage of the fans will be the responsibility of the consul: the care of their morality and religious activity should lie under the direct responsibility of the spiritual mission; finally, caring for the material needs and well-being of fans will be entrusted to the spiritual mission together with the agency of the Steamship Society! Then, in St. Petersburg, the work of managing new Russian Palestinian institutions should combine the above-mentioned threefold nature of the participation of various figures in it, i.e., the Holy Synod, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Shipping and Trade Society.”
Firstly, the Ministry of the Navy is not mentioned here - probably because it would be difficult to explain its relationship to Orthodoxy 334, but in reality this ministry takes a very large part in this matter; and, secondly, about completely strangers, but influential persons, however, acting out of piety and charity. What to expect from such a mixture of powers is easy for anyone to judge. As for the Holy Synod, it was given a place in this remarkably complex amalgam only out of decency, but in fact it constitutes a completely superfluous particle in it, for the spiritual side of the issue, as noted above, is completely subordinated to the secular one, which uses it as an instrument.
After this brief review of the actions of our government regarding the Eastern Orthodox, it is very appropriate to repeat the words of Mr. Mansurov, although he said, of course, not to refute his entire note: “The results of the establishment of a spiritual mission can hardly correspond to our desires and needs; sending a person of the highest spiritual hierarchy to Palestine will only complicate the position of the mission and increase the danger and harmful consequences of probable failure” (p. 24). The validity of this opinion will appear, perhaps, even more palpably from subsequent considerations.
3. The inconsistency of the establishment of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem with the statutes of the Orthodox Church, with its benefits, with the goals of the Russian government and the state of the Russian clergy
In the actions of our government on the Eastern Orthodox issue, as can already be seen from what has been said above, what is especially striking is their inconsistency with the goals for which they were taken and with the circumstances that caused them. This inconsistency is proven by the very establishment of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. In matters of faith and conviction, such as missionary work, success is possible only with the moral and spiritual superiority of those who act over those on whom and against whom they act. Therefore, it is not difficult for Catholic missionaries to distract the Eastern Orthodox from the Greek clergy. In addition, missionary work is born as a result of the development of spiritual forces, from an excess of spiritual life, and therefore it is possible only where freedom is given to spiritual development. But none of these conditions exist in the Russian clergy. By what right and on what basis can it demand from the Greek clergy the elimination of such abuses which, with some modifications, exist in Russia?
And will it find in its midst enough figures who would be suitable for missionary work? Russia can create a temporary and nominal mission, but it is not capable of actual missionary work. Under favorable circumstances, she can, perhaps, elect decent persons, and happiness if these persons do not limit their activities to official representation and preaching through a dragoman or a Cossack, like our missionaries among Siberian foreigners. But the chance opportunity of finding two or three decent people is, of course, not enough to undertake missionary work; in this case, it would depend on the lives of these people, moreover, for missionary work to be successful, it must inspire confidence; trust in missionary work can only exist when its actions assume purely religious and disinterested motives, and no one would assume this regarding the Russian mission, knowing that the Russian clergy is infinitely dependent on worldly power.
Finally, the purpose of any spiritual mission is the affirmation among the people of those beliefs that the mission adheres to, but every clergy has the same purpose in relation to the flock under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the establishment of any spiritual mission is either opposition to the local clergy or an encroachment on their rights. This is how Catholics and Protestants understand the missionary work, which is why they do not send their missions to countries of the same faith, but have established their missionaries among the Orthodox to distract them from Orthodoxy. What meaning can a Russian Orthodox mission have, also established among Orthodox Christians and independent of the local Orthodox clergy? 335 Nothing more than opposition to the local Orthodox clergy and distraction of the Orthodox flock from them. And the more moral, the more worthy our missionaries are, the more they will contribute to the separation of the eastern flock from the local clergy, because the shortcomings of this clergy will be more clearly exposed.
One cannot help but wonder if our government agrees with Mr. Mansurov’s opinion that in the enmity of the Eastern Orthodox with the Greek clergy one should see “a joyful phenomenon, the dawn of a resurgent national (?) Orthodoxy and a guarantee of the rise of our own Church” (see above Chapter 2). In this case, it is strange that the propaganda of other faiths also saw in this enmity a joyful phenomenon, but only for them, and a guarantee of the rise of their churches. Someone is mistaken, but not Catholics and not Protestants, whose churches really rise as a result of the turmoil in the Orthodox world. It is more likely, however, that our government was carried away by the example of other confessions and, not realizing the difference in the relationship between its own and these confessions towards the Orthodox Church, established a mission in Palestine only because these confessions have their missions there. This guess is confirmed by the words of Mr. Mansurov (Mansurov’s note, p. 94): “Our government attaches special importance to the presence of a Russian bishop in Jerusalem, because all other confessions have their bishops there.”
For the same reason, probably, the spiritual interests of Russia in Constantinople and Bulgaria are relegated to the background, although through Constantinople one could have influence on the entire church administration of the Orthodox East, and the loss of Bulgaria for Orthodoxy and Russia is, of course, more important than the loss of the Arabs. Recognizing the need to restore Orthodoxy in the East to its former strength and meaning, Russia, obviously, should be concerned about preserving the unity of the Orthodox Church and restoring peace in it, and not about stirring up discord in it, which is what the enemies of Orthodoxy - Protestants and Catholics - are trying to do even without Russia 336 . There is nothing reconciling in the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, for as long as it is a mission it acts against the local clergy and independently of it; and such actions do not lead to the pacification of the Orthodox Church, but to the strengthening of the enmity within it that already exists between the Eastern Orthodox flock, the Greek clergy and Russia. In addition, according to the statutes of the Orthodox Church, the management of church affairs belongs to the clergy.
It was appointed guardian of church order. On important and dubious issues, it should communicate with each other, and in extreme cases it should convene councils, which, with the participation of the laity in them, issue decrees that are binding on all Orthodox Christians. According to the conciliar decrees, by the way, no part of the Orthodox Church has the right to interfere in the church administration of another part, much less act arbitrarily in it, undermining the local clergy. Since ancient times, the observance of this order of church government has maintained communication, mutual fraternal verification of all parts of the Orthodox Church, and its improvement. If, contrary to conciliar decrees, arbitrary interference of one part of the church in the government of another is allowed, then can we expect anything for Orthodoxy other than discord, strife, intrigues and disunity?
So, by establishing a spiritual mission in Jerusalem, Russia not only harms itself, but also the Orthodox Church, violating its statutes and introducing into its administration the principles of arbitrariness, arbitrariness, discord and disunity. For the rise of the Orthodox Church, it is necessary to balance the rights of all its members, and not to replace the predominance of the Greeks with the predominance of the Russians.
4. About Russian Orthodox fans
Having accepted the intention to act towards the restoration of Orthodoxy in the East and, as if realizing the inappropriateness of its interference in church affairs, the Russian government covered it up with concern for Russian fans in Palestine. Since then, talking about our Palestinian fans and their pitiful state has become a fashionable speech, a pretext for expressing sensitivity, compassion and philanthropy even by those who, it would seem, are completely incapable of such feelings. It is fair to say that the issue of worshipers was raised very successfully, both because it is able to attract attention, and with it donations from society, and because, wanting to counteract heterodox propaganda, of course, it was impossible to ignore the unfortunate Orthodox worshiping population in Jerusalem. But whether this pretext is enough to actually cover our species in the East is another question, partly already resolved above.
Here we have to start assessing the views and actions of our government regarding fans.
The situation of Orthodox worshipers is capable of arousing compassion not only for their material disadvantage, but also for their moral corruption. In this and on the other hand, they differ sharply from all the other worshipers in Jerusalem. This was especially noticeable this year with the flock of fans of all confessions to Jerusalem due to the simultaneous celebration of Easter in all Christian Churches. Comparisons were made involuntarily and always not to the benefit of the Orthodox, but of the Russians among them. There is no need to describe here the material deprivations of Orthodox fans, because they are already described in some detail in Mr. Mansurov’s note. It is also unnecessary to go into details about their moral corruption, because these details would add nothing to what can be said in general terms. But in vain Mr. Mansurov wrote in his note (Mansurov’s note, p.
13) puts Armenians and Greeks below Russians in moral terms; Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, especially the latter, are indeed distinguished by greater coarseness of morals and concepts of Christianity, but the following words spoken by Mr. Mansurov about the Armenians and Greeks themselves can be more fairly applied to Russian fans: “They come to Jerusalem mainly out of habit of jostling around the world and due to the non-existence of any power over them here, self-will, revelry and debauchery between them are phenomena normal, which it is impossible to look at without a deeply sad feeling.” The immoral life of Russians, and not Armenian and Greek admirers, attracts the attention of European travelers and serves as an ordinary subject of conversation and surprise for them.
What kind of impression Russian admirers make on the Mohammedans and, in general, on the eastern inhabitants, can be judged by the fact that the greatest immorality among Russian admirers is women, and the views on women among the eastern peoples are much stricter than the European ones. Without touching on other aspects of the life of Russian fans, it is enough to mention one, as more obvious: some Russian women can be seen drunk in Jerusalem, in taverns and coffee shops! The greatest immorality among Russian admirers is distinguished by the courtyards, the so-called blueberry, and the winged women and novices; with the greatest modesty and decency - admirers and admirers from the peasant and merchant class.
With the establishment of decent premises for fans, with the establishment of a consulate and spiritual supervision in Jerusalem, one can indeed expect greater decency in the behavior of Russian fans there. But these measures alone are not enough to improve our fans to such an extent that their presence in holy places does not undermine respect for the Russian name. The pitiful state of Russian fans is not an exceptional, but a natural phenomenon in the modern Orthodox world. It does not come from the random inattention of the government or the Orthodox clergy to the Palestinian worshipers; but there is a necessary consequence, related to many other consequences of the general disorder of the Orthodox Church. Caring for foreign Russian fans alone cannot correct matters, because all those who come again from Russia will be no better than those who came before. Therefore, with this course of action, the mission's work on the fans will be endless.
The present mission in Jerusalem understands and therefore comes up with various measures to improve the worship composition; for example, she would like, firstly, to be given the right to send to Russia those fans who deserve it, and, secondly, that payment for living in Jerusalem, for all wanderings in Palestine (if a hospice house in Jerusalem and worshipful wanderings are built) and for returning to Russia would be collected from fans in advance, upon their departure from Russia. The right to expel admirers, it would seem, could only be given to the consul, and not to the mission, and, moreover, with the condition that only those who cannot be tolerated in Jerusalem should be expelled. In general, although both of these measures can alleviate the mission’s worries about fans, they are not to the same extent as it seems at first. Collection of payment from fans in advance can eliminate or at least reduce beggary between fans and force them to submit to the order that will be established for them in Palestine.
But neither this measure nor the right of expulsion will in any way reduce the number of such fans who will have to be sent back to Russia. The frequent application of the right of expulsion is all the more undesirable because, in all likelihood, there will be frequent cases when the expelled person does not want to submit to the will of the expeller.
By the way, remember again the parable about the bitch in someone else’s eye. Someone else's is usually more noticeable than one's own. This truth, which fully applies to Russia on the issue of the Eastern Orthodox, is just as correctly applied to it on the issue of worshippers. The pitiful situation of the fans in Jerusalem aroused their sympathy, but the situation of the fans in Russia does not evoke the slightest sympathy in us. Meanwhile, few Russian admirers go to Jerusalem without first visiting Russian holy places; and whatever they learn here, they carry there too. Worshipful wanderings around holy Russian places and stays in them (mostly associated with the absence of any amenities, any care or accommodation) are nothing more than real schools of popular depravity. Those who have not happened to verify this through personal observations can verify this through questioning fans, especially female fans who had the misfortune of undertaking such a journey in their youth.
Can we then expect Russia to give other examples of worship than those she will give at the present time? And shouldn’t care be taken that the number of Russian worshipers in the Holy Land decreases and not increases, as is desired for the benefit of Russia?
5. A method of action possible in the current state of the Orthodox Church to restore its strength and significance in the East
From the previous it is clear that the church government of the Orthodox Church is under the jurisdiction of the Russians and Greeks and that in the hands of both of them it has reached extreme disorder 337; that the establishment of a Russian spiritual mission among the Eastern Orthodox is contrary to the benefits and statutes of the Orthodox Church, contrary to the benefits of Russia and beyond the capabilities of modern Russian society 338; that the restoration of Orthodoxy in its former strength and in its former meaning is the work of the Church, and not of secular power 339; that for the Russian clergy to act successfully for the benefit of the Orthodox Church, it is necessary that they be given independence or freedom, at least in these matters, and that they act in a purely Orthodox spirit, and not some kind of national Orthodox spirit 340.
With the current unconditional subordination of the Russian clergy to worldly power, of course, it will be difficult for him to renounce his position to such an extent as to act with due dignity and strength in the external affairs of the Church 341. His unlimited dependence in internal church affairs on civil government cannot but hinder the development in him of the moral forces so necessary for spiritual activity. But this is not the place to touch on such an important issue as the transformation of church government in Russia; and therefore, taking what has been said as only one of the proofs of the benefit and need to investigate this issue in detail, let us turn to another, namely, how could the Russian Holy Synod act, having received the right to fulfill its duties, at least in the general affairs of the Church?
The danger of deviation from Orthodoxy of the majority of eastern members of the Orthodox Church is generated, as noted above, by the abuses and neglect of the flock of the Greek clergy. Therefore, the Russian Holy Synod obliged, by the right of participation in general church affairs (the right of which the Russian government does not have), to draw the attention of representatives of the Eastern Orthodox clergy to the harmful consequences for Orthodoxy from the actions they allow and commit 342. Such remarks from our Holy Synod not only will not violate the principles of Orthodox church governance, but, on the contrary, can be justified by them and based on them. The spirit of peace and selfless concern for the good of the Church must prevail in the relations of the Holy Synod with the Eastern clergy. But at the same time, it is necessary that the actions of the Synod express a positive determination to carry out this matter with appropriate firmness and steadfastness.
Circumstances will show to what extent persistence should be expressed in the subsequent relations of the Synod with the Greek clergy 343, as well as when it will be necessary to reinforce written communications with oral negotiations and persuasion through attorneys and, finally, when the need arises to convene a council that would decide this matter if it is impossible to resolve it in another way 344. The convening of a council should not arouse the government's fears, for the council serves to maintain the unity of the Church; and for the Orthodox Church this is necessary, because at its head there is no other single authority. Moreover, besides the question of church government in the East, there are many others that can hardly be resolved except by a council.
In addition to all these measures, the Holy Synod could also do the following: 1) introduce its confidants into members of the local Eastern Synods, accepting in return someone from the Eastern clergy as its members 345; 2) establish metochions and monasteries in different places in the East, as the Eastern Orthodox are allowed to establish them in Russia 346; 3) to establish schools, shelters for wanderers and even hospitals at these farmsteads and monasteries 347; 4) do not abandon the ongoing concerns about the fans in Jerusalem, while at the same time caring about the fans in Russia, etc. All these actions must, of course, be fully consistent with the statutes of the Orthodox Church Administration. In caring for Russian fans in Palestine, one should, if possible, act together with the Eastern clergy and in the name of the Orthodox Church in general, and not just Russian or Greek. Such a combined action, contributing to the unification of different Orthodox peoples, would also be beneficial in that it would require less expenses, because the funds would not be fragmented, and therefore the results would be achieved sooner.
To ensure the position of the Russian worshipers themselves, it would be sufficient to specifically separate for them a certain part of the general worship buildings, so that this part would correspond, let’s say, to two-thirds of the amount that would come from Russia for the implementation of all Orthodox worship buildings. Thus, by arranging premises for Russian fans at their own expense and participating in the costs of other buildings, the Russian clergy could negotiate for themselves the right to take exclusively into their care the premises built specifically for Russian fans, and over the rest they would have supervision by church right. The same unity of Orthodoxy should be expressed in actions to form communities of sisters of mercy 348. The formation of these communities is also the work of the Church, and not the government, and the character of these communities should also be pan-Orthodox.
Therefore, the Eastern clergy should be invited to educate them in the East, and admission into them should be made not according to belonging to one or another people, but according to belonging to the Orthodox confession and moral merits, as in monasteries. Of course, all the listed institutions and institutions should not be undertaken before sufficient funds have been collected to carry them out. If one could hope that these funds would be found under the leadership of the government, then it is even more likely that they would be found under the leadership of the Church with the participation of the government. Regardless of this, Russia could, without fees, provide private assistance to the poorest Eastern Orthodox churches from the surplus of its own church wealth, namely: in most of our churches there are so many forgotten, lying without use and use, and often almost never used, various utensils and vestments that the Holy Synod could endow the entire East with them for many years.
It would also be very useful to supply the Eastern churches with icons, because at present, due to the lack of icon painters in the East, it often happens to see there either extremely ugly icons, painted either not in the Orthodox spirit and donated by heterodox missionaries, or, finally, completely rebuilt churches, as, for example, in Hazbey, remaining without service only because there is no opportunity to purchase icons for the iconostasis.
As for the participation of the government in this matter, it should consist in supporting the action of the Church, in patronizing the Orthodox in Turkey, as other powers patronize their co-religionists there, and in assisting the Holy Synod with financial resources. By determining in some cases the purpose of those sums that will be transferred to the disposal of the Synod, the government could sometimes direct its actions in accordance with its political views. Such a course of action, obviously, can more accurately lead to the restoration of Orthodoxy in the East in its former meaning and in its former strength, and, consequently, to the observance of the benefits of Russia. The independent actions of the Holy Synod will keep the Eastern Orthodox question in a religious nature, support and strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Church and at the same time strengthen Russia’s influence in the East. Russia's participation in the Eastern Orthodox Church will no longer be limited to mere words, as it was before, and will not take on a political character, i.e.
selfish, as now, but will receive the properties of purely disinterested, fruitful sympathy, which will necessarily arouse trust and sympathy for Russia from the Eastern Orthodox. The details of these actions can only be determined by the circumstances 349.
14. Review by V.S. Neklyudov on a note from B.P. Mansurov “Orthodox fans in Palestine” 350
I read your note with the greatest attention and, in strict justice, I must confess to the pitiful truth of all the facts with which you reveal our position in the East, everything that we have lost there, everything that we must gain there again, from the moment when we finally understand the real calling of Russia, which was destined for it in world politics. The question is how to help the grief and how to return us to the path that is shown to us by reflections about our true benefits, and by the glorious legends, from which we, unfortunately, have fallen too indifferently behind. This question, especially in the present circumstances, is fraught with such difficulties that it would be foolhardy to even think about finding positive measures to immediately resolve it. As far as I understand it, here we are not talking about any unilateral measures, but about a whole system of action, about a firmly intended goal to which all this action should lead us and which we can only achieve with the help of time, unshakable constancy and reasonable work, by God’s will.
Let's start with that immutable truth, and whoever knows the East only a little will not dispute it with us, that all our influence in the East is based solely on the religious feeling of common faith. Our connection with the East is a spiritual connection and thereby strong and inextricable. From the East we received spiritual life, having fallen under the yoke of the Gentiles; he, in turn, expects us to protect and support his spiritual life. We are his only co-religionists, in us alone he sees independence, strength and strength, in us alone he hopes. But despite all this, the Eastern Church does not forget its traditions, we are its spiritual children, it is glad to see grateful chicks in us, it is even ready to admit that we are ahead of our mentor, and does not refuse to follow our examples, as long as we do not accept forms of dominion; having lost its political independence, it adheres all the more firmly to its spiritual primacy among the churches of the same faith and recognizes our seniority only among its daughters.
From this two-sidedness of our relations with the Eastern Church naturally flows the need for us to behave two-way in our relations with her. Much has been said and much, unfortunately, is true in the reproaches with which the Greek-Eastern clergy are branded. Ignorance of upbringing, selfishness, and greed for money have become proverbs and seriously crush all the religious feelings of a true Christian. Finally, his desire to absorb the nationalities of the same faith, Slavic and Arab, in the center of Hellenism has long been the main goal of our confrontation. But let us turn to the source of all these troubles, and we will soon be convinced that in all these facts there are more objects of regret than of condemnation. For 4 centuries, the only concern of the Eastern clergy should be the preservation of their autonomy, the preservation of the sacred pledge left to them by St. fathers - their divine religion.
What did it constantly defend, how does it preserve it to this day if not incessant ransoms and donations, with which it should lull the hatred and satiate the greed of its hated rulers? It must pay for every step it takes. Both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, as you rightly note, have strong and sufficient incomes, but how much of this income can they devote to the needs of the Church and how much of it passes in the form of all kinds of taxes, fees and banchishes into the hands of the Turkish government? Finally, is it visible anywhere in the East that the Orthodox clergy lived magnificently and luxuriously, even with due splendor? On the contrary, everywhere it lives modestly, for the most part poorly and insufficiently, and does not this serve as clear proof that what it, perhaps, sometimes acquires illegally, is not taken by it for personal self-interest, but passes for the sake of the life and peace of the Church into the predatory hands of the rulers of the infidels?
Our other and significant reproach lies, as I said, in the desire of the Greek clergy to enslave the Slavic element. And this reproach has its own exaggerated side. The Orthodox Church has held out and can hold on amid the yoke that oppresses it only by its dense unity. Between all elements of Orthodoxy in the East there must be an inextricable spiritual connection, a unity of the spiritual principle, this condition is an indispensable guarantee of its existence - strength and support against the Turkish government on the one hand, and on the other - against the temptations of Western propaganda. Not to mention the level of development at which the Slavic and especially the Arab elements stand, the establishment of original national Slavic or Arab Churches would be an establishment in the field of the Church, des Etats daus I "Etat, the Greek hierarchy would weaken both itself and its own and, to the same extent, strengthen its opponents, both native and foreign.
Of course, in this desire to preserve and establish the unity of the Orthodox Church in the East, the Greek clergy perhaps went too far, especially in relation to the Slavic tribes, but counteracting this with Russian religious activity, based on the establishment of Russian independent monasteries, churches and spiritual authorities in Nazareth or in any other places in Palestine, is unlikely to lead us to the goal. The Greek clergy considers this region to be their property, it is there at home, and at the first suspicion of our independent institution there, they will arm themselves against their rival brothers even more powerfully than against their enemies, and we will soon reveal to the Gentiles the temptation so greedily desired by them of strife and disagreement between the sons of the same hated Church. All the action of Western propaganda in these recent times has been directed towards this goal.
The differences are not dogmatic, but external, not having the slightest significance for an educated mind, nevertheless they exist between the rituals and beliefs of the Russian and Greek-Eastern Churches and show some similarities between this latter and our Old Believer schism. The Greek clergy considers our singing, our icon painting and even our vestments, if not disgusting, but somewhat repulsive to the traditions of Orthodoxy; in the burial rite it is also similar to our Old Believers. Finally, and almost dogmatic disagreement separates us in the rite of accepting into the Orthodox Church those of other faiths - Catholics or Protestants - who can convert to it.
The publicity given recently to this disagreement by the Anglican Deacon Palmer, who finally accepted the Roman Catholic religion, does not allow this important issue to be left without special attention, especially since during the last war the British representative in Constantinople based on this fact, as far as we know, his urgent convictions to the Ecumenical Patriarch for the separation of the Greek-Eastern Church from Russian, which turned out to be unfaithful to the traditions of Orthodoxy.
To counteract these plans of the West, to eliminate all existing differences, to introduce, as far as possible, unity in the actions and appearance of the Orthodox Church in the East, to reconcile the Slavic and Arab Orthodox tribes with the Greek clergy and instill in them more tolerance and condescension towards them, these are the same number of tasks, the solution of which we can and must begin, but only by the force of example and with all possible caution in our actions. Edification and instruction from the strong to the weak can too easily cross over into the realm of coercion. And for the success of our business, we must guard against this fear of the Greek clergy more than anything else. Whether the hope of the East comes true or not, despite everything and all our recent failures, it invariably prevails there among our coreligionists, that sooner or later we are called to free them from the yoke of Mohammed.
To liberate, but not to enslave, they are ready to be grateful brothers and friends to us, but not subjects, and this is the monster with which Western politics is trying to deviate from us and undermines the sympathy of the tribes of the East that share our faith.
The spirit of independence is the dominant desire of all these tribes in their spiritual and civil life. Greeks, Moldovans, Serbs, Bulgarians, Arabs want to be and remain what they are, and not at all to move from Turkish citizenship to civil citizenship lower than the spiritual one of Russia. I say all this to mean that the establishment of a diocesan Russian independent and original principle somewhere in Palestine will not only not achieve our intended goal, but will only damage it. The question here is very simple. Whatever the shortcomings of the Greek-Eastern clergy, nevertheless it exists; can we replace its centuries-old rule in those parts with ours and take its place in the East? Without thinking twice, we can decisively say that no. Not now, not ever! Consequently, we must limit our scope of action to the effort to correct and eradicate everything that we recognize as harmful, bad and wrong, and to elevate our faith, in the person of its representatives in the East, to the degree of greatness and primacy that it deserves to occupy in view of the competing Western faiths.
But for this, our first and indispensable collaborator must be the same, the Greek clergy; the entire success of the matter depends on their good disposition. You have clearly proven with numbers that the amount of benefits Russia provides to him does not give us the right to demand anything. Independently of him, to organize an exemplary diocese and show the superiority of his ministry against the Greek in view of the rude and ignorant populations of that region means to become in competition with the Greek clergy, to act towards him as Catholics act, to humiliate the dignity of the Greek hierarchs in the eyes of their flocks and lead to the dissolution forever of the already too weak bonds that hold Orthodoxy in the East in the hostile spirit of the elements that make up it. The meeting of the Russian bishop in the Jerusalem Synod, even if it could take place, would, in my opinion, be a decisive measure, but not towards the elevation of Orthodoxy, but to the complete undermining of any activity possible on our part, both now and in the future.
And we achieve this result just by proposing this measure, because we can affirmatively say that neither the patriarchs, nor the Turkish government, nor especially Western policy will ever allow this. However, even assuming this measure is possible, one should first of all have support in previous data, the conditions for its success, namely, in close and frequent spiritual relations between the Russian and Eastern Synods; such relations exist so little that even the names of Russian saints are unknown to the Eastern Church. On the other hand, and in essence, although the Eastern Synods are independent from the direct leadership of the Turkish government, in reality their range of action embraces not only the spiritual, but also the civil life and political interests of their flocks. The clergy is recognized by the Porte as the legal intercessor and guarantor for its Christian subjects, and the Synods are closely dependent and under the strict supervision of the Turkish government.
In no case will it allow the presence of a representative of Russia among the Synod, composed of its subjects, and would it be consistent with our dignity, even if it were allowed, to subject our hierarch to shameful supervision, to legitimize with his presence often such measures that we should have opposed and which are excused and tolerated by us on the part of the Greek clergy solely in respect of the yoke that oppresses him. But just the assumption of this, I say, would be enough to arm and arouse against us again all the suspicions and all the opposition of both Turkey and the Western powers.
To maintain and exalt the Orthodox faith in the East, we must, as it seems to me, base our activities on sincere brotherhood with the Greek clergy, and not on the discovery of our superiority. We can counter the evil plans of heterodox propaganda, the intrigues of Western politics and the suspicion of the Turkish government not through private, original activities, not by raising the national flag in the Church, but by close unity with all our fellow believers under the sign of the cross of Orthodoxy. We should not appear as the Russian Church in the East, but as members of the united Eastern Orthodox Church. We are rulers at home, but in the East we must be brothers of the rulers there, help them and elevate them in our own eyes, and especially in the eyes of the local populations. Under this condition only, we will force ourselves to listen and love, we will have success in action and proper strength in defense!
In this conviction, I cannot share your opinion either about the need for our spiritual mission to be in Jerusalem at home, and not as a guest of the Greek hierarchy, or even about the existence of the Russian spiritual mission in Palestine. We have seen from experience, and you very judiciously point out the failure of our first spiritual mission, sent in the person of Archimandrite Porfiry. Of course, the funds allocated to him could be insufficient, but even with large and sufficient funds, his position would nevertheless be difficult and false. Neither the Turkish nor the Western governments can understand the meaning of the spiritual mission on our part except as attempts at political propaganda. From this very reason he was charged with the duty not to accept any character other than that of worship. Given the same character, acquiring real estate in Jerusalem, building houses and establishing an entire settled institution was unusual and inexplicable. The Russian government was peeking out from behind Porfiry, and the Catholic clergy was embarrassed, and Patriarch Valerga raised the banner of struggle.
The Jerusalem Patriarchate immediately offered us its services and resolved the problem. She took it upon herself to arrange a house for our mission. Our government undertook to pay her the expenses that the said construction should have cost. “This matter dragged on for two years,” you say, “and the Greek clergy, who did not like it and who did not want to see Russia in Jerusalem as the owner of anything, managed to raise various difficulties for the establishment of Russian property in Palestine, etc.”
Here we could mention a proverb that we understand too well in Russia, so as not to allow others to understand it in our country: “You don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules.” On the other hand, this fact should have convinced us that it is not only difficult for us to act against the will of the Greek clergy, but even impossible, and that we will not deceive his shrewd incredulity either by the mask of worship of Archimandrite Porfiry, or by the commercial pretext of a trading company.
“Thus,” you continue, “Russia was afraid to disturb the Porte by building a modest monastic monastery, when neither France, nor England, nor Austria were afraid at the same time to build vast institutions in Jerusalem.” The Christian population of this region belongs to the Orthodox faith. In other words, in essence, as in the belief of the Turkish government, it is committed to Russia of the same faith and looks at its rulers with hatred. Was it possible to demand from these latter that they, among an element hostile to them, calmly see some Russian institution, and when? Until the last war! When no trade or shipping relations justified otherwise and when, on the other hand, Sevastopol with its powerful fleet stood like a ghost at the gates of the Bosphorus, in the absence of any secular representation, spiritual representation, no matter how modest the name it hid, could not have any other meaning in the eyes of the Turkish government other than political propaganda.
Regardless of financial resources, these are, therefore, the circumstances in which we must look for and see the failure of our first spiritual mission, like any other that we send to Palestine.
But France, England and Austria are building and settling down without fear of the Turkish government, and the Turkish government, fearing their strength, is not afraid of their activities, and that is why they are succeeding. The insignificance of the Catholic population, the absence of the Protestant population does not threaten the Turks with the danger of political propaganda from the spiritual institutions of France, England or Austria; on the contrary, the circle of action of the Catholic powers, being constantly aimed at parasitism not among the infidels, but among the Orthodox, at the fight against the Orthodox clergy, the Turkish government looks with obvious pleasure at these competitions, in which it sees the guarantee of its calm rule among warring parties. Let us also say that the naval forces that France and England have in the Mediterranean Sea and in the archipelago greatly simplify the task of their actions in the East.
Let us finally say that the example of what is being undertaken and established by non-Orthodox Churches in a country where they are considered alien and only a tolerant element cannot serve as a model for us, for we are and must be our own there, but not as a separate and independent party, but as a part of it closely connected with the whole, as firmly holding to the root of the branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
And therefore, everything that we want to undertake now, in order for it to be successful, must bear the stamp not of any particular Russian or Greek Church, but of the one Eastern Orthodox Church, and for this, the external fulfillment of everything we envisage, we must apparently leave room for the owners; help them with our supervision, our intercession, our means, convince them with our advice, thereby forcing them to recognize us as true patrons and friends, in a word, instill in them complete trust in us. This is our true duty, and this is the only way we will succeed in the work we have begun.
The establishment of a consulate in Jerusalem, which has now become possible given the existence of our steamship relations with that region, greatly simplifies the task of our activities, and the establishment at this consulate of a splendid home church with a Russian clergy and under the insistence of an intelligent, learned and pious archimandrite, familiar with the East and, if possible, knowing the Greek language, would successfully replace both the bishop and any spiritual on our part mission. In the archimandrite alone, we already know this from experience, the Jerusalem Synod sees only by rank a person subordinate to itself, whom it can, depending on the circumstances, help and patronize or hinder at its discretion. He will look at the bishop as a rival, and therefore he will try to undermine every action; in the person of only the consul, who is habitually and splendidly arranged and has sufficient funds, the Greek clergy will see a patron and intercessor.
Without fear of interference from a secular person in his purely spiritual interests, he will willingly listen to his advice, follow his directions and under his supervision, especially if the means for this come from him, he will willingly accept and put into action all our proposed improvements; it is not necessary to think that the Greek clergy did not understand all the benefits and all the superiority of the institutions erected by both Catholics and Protestants, but by what means and under whose auspices should they compete, making each expense doubly, i.e. half for the matter, and the other for permission to begin it, this was until now the only possible course of action for him, and the patriarchal budget would not be able to support such an amount of expenses, even if it were twice as large as what it is.
We speak here not a priori, not from inferences alone, but from the experience of what we actually saw in Athens. The clergy of Greece stood, perhaps, at a lower level of rudeness and intolerance in their beliefs, indecency and ignorance in their appearance in comparison with what we see now in the East. The establishment of an embassy church at the imperial mission, the constantly reasonable and successful elections of its abbots, through the sole example and frequent friendly and fraternal exhortations of our pastors, produced a striking effect in all respects for the improvement and improvement of the local clergy. An example, and a successful example, is how we can achieve our good goal. It is better to follow him than to look for new unknown and difficult paths. And not in Jerusalem alone, but, as you rightly note, in all the centers of Eastern Orthodoxy: in Smyrna, Beirut, Alexandria and Ioannina - we should begin to establish house consular churches.
Finally, at home we must direct our activities towards adapting the tools that can act on the proposed goal, to facilitating the means to achieve it. May our Synod be allowed to enter into constant and regular spiritual relations with the patriarchal thrones of the East, with the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem. This connection is necessary for the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern shepherds, in the midst of their eternal struggle with the power that weighs heavily on them, have neither the freedom of time nor the peace of mind to talk about abstract issues, about the internal or external education and exaltation of the Church, but they will never refuse to accept those measures that tend towards this and the constant labors of our spiritual, as well as civil power, achieved by the government, they will never refuse and will even accept them with gratitude, if only they were communicated to them and duly offered.
In our seminaries, a thorough study of the Greek language, not as a dead language in the literary classical sense, but as a spoken and common language, which it is for all the clergy in the East, the same study of the Arabic language - these are the first and main conditions for success, as a way to easy and personal communication with the natives of our clergy among their representatives. At the same time, encouraging our clergy in all ranks to privately visit and worship St. In some places there is also a need for a new direction that we are taking.
Finally, in order to express my opinion in a few words, I will say that by raising the Russian flag over our proposed activities in Palestine, we will arouse the fear and mistrust of the native hosts who are of our sole faith, the Greek clergy, the suspicions of the Turkish government and the opposition of the Western powers, who have in those countries material means and forces that we do not have and cannot have either to protect or maintain our institutions; a commercial pretext will not deceive anyone: neither friend nor foe - and the struggle will begin before even we have time to erect the subject of it.
Our natural collaborator for success in the business we are starting is the Greek clergy; we must make it the executor of our intentions, because without it, and even more so with its resistance, we will not have time to start anything and accomplish anything. To bring and force him to accept this title of performer under our reasonable leadership is the task of the new political role that we are beginning to play in the East. Our goal and intention are pure before God. God will help us and crown our good undertakings with success.
Published for the first time from a complete copy: OR RSL. F. 107. K. 6. D. 28. L. 76 – 77 vol.
Didn’t later Latin rule in Constantinople and in the East in general harm Orthodoxy? And did the Mohammedan yoke spread Christianity? – Note. T. I. Filippova
I.Kh. predicted that persecution in recent times would greatly reduce the number of believers. – Note. T. I. Filippova.
Published for the first time from a complete copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 83–91 vol.; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm. (a shortened copy of the archive of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov): RGIA. F. 831. Op.. 1. D. 92. L. 61–71 vol.). First published by Archbishop Savva (Tikhomirov) from a copy from the archive of Metropolitan Philaret with incorrect attribution (see: Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues: In 5 volumes / Published under the editorship of Rev. Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. T. 4. M., 1886. pp. 462–470).
She was presented to the sovereign and, by his order, given for consideration to the secret committee on schismatics. – Note. K. K. Zederholm
Abbreviated [next two paragraphs]. – Note. K. K. Zedergolma.
From here to the end it was added according to the opinions and wishes of the count. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The end [that is, the last sentence of the paragraph] has been changed. – Note. K-Zederholm.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 48 – 58 vol.; note compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft autograph: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 37. L. 18 – 29).
You definitely need two dictionaries: one shorter, of the darkest words, and the other complete. The first one is not bad to learn in educational institutions. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The proposal to only clarify the Holy Scriptures with private corrections or notes aroused fear on the part of the Moscow Metropolitan that the introduction of new words into the Slavic text would be adding unbleached cloth to an old vestment and would make the text of the Bible motley. This fear is put aside, and was even warned by the demand of the Kyiv Metropolitan that in corrections “strictly adhere to the Slavic warehouse and turn of phrase.” As for the idea that the Russian translation could replace the interpretation (which the Metropolitan of Kiev intends to publish separately), he also noted that the translation would also require interpretation; In addition, the universal and ever-present custom of the Church has deemed it safer not to combine or confuse translation with interpretation. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 10–17 vol.: note compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft autograph: OR RSL. F. 188. K. 11. D. 5. L. 46–55; copy from the archive of the office of the chief prosecutor: RGIA. F. 797. Op. 28. Dept. 2. Art. 2. D. 384. L. 2–12).
Published for the first time based on the draft autograph of K. K. Zederholm: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 59. L. 14–16; On the side there is a note in pencil: “The proposal to the Holy Synod was redone by Rev. Neil."
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 1–9 vol.; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 23–30 rev.; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm (copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 30. L. 8–23).
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 31–32 rev.; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft and white copies with editorial edits: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 30. L. 28–43; copy from the archive of the office of the chief prosecutor with editorial edits: RGIA-F. 797. Op. 28. Dept. 1. Art. 2. D. 207. L. 27–33.
Even such works of modern Greek literature, which are widely known throughout Europe, are unfamiliar to us, the fellow Greek brothers. – Note. K. K. Zedergolma.
Let us not forget that the Greeks living in St. Petersburg, Moscow and the Novorossiysk region, under current circumstances, remain distant from the spiritual life of their brothers and that therefore for the local Greeks themselves, literary rapprochement between Russia and Greece is the most vital, urgent need. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
It will not be difficult to determine which books exactly to subscribe to based on Greek and German magazines, which constantly point to any literary phenomenon that deserves special attention. These are from the Greek - Aeon, Elpis, Pandora Vizontis, Evang. Kiriks, Asklopion Agricultural, etc., and from German - Allgemeine Zeitung, Repertorium (Leipz), Blatter fur literarischen Unterhaltung ausland, etc. - Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The second and third points could most conveniently be achieved by a special society, which would have as its main task the supposed literary rapprochement. In forming such a society, in supplying it with funds and in actively participating in it, the Greeks living here seem to have the best opportunity to get closer to their homeland and thereby actually prove their love for it and, at the same time, gratitude to Russia and mark their stay in it with a great generally useful deed that will be included in the annals of public education.
Finally, it is extremely necessary that the imperial public libraries pay attention to the hardly probable and inexplicable lack of modern Greek books in it, replenish it and henceforth subscribe to books in the department of modern Greek literature, both secular and spiritual, in the same completeness in which they subscribe to books in other departments. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 18–22; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft autograph: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 30. L. 66–72).
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 75–82 vol.; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft autograph: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 59. L. 81–96).
Published for the first time based on the draft autograph of K. K. Zederholm: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 59. L. 28–29 vol.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 26. L. 1 – 38 volumes; the note was compiled by K.K. Zederholm (draft autograph: OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 25. L. 1–47).
Here and below, the subheadings are highlighted by me. In the text of the note, subheadings are placed in the margins of the document. – G B.
Information received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the Constantinople Church-People's Assembly was communicated to the members of the Holy Synod, and the opinions of His Eminence Metropolitans Gregory of Novgorod and Philaret of Moscow on the proposed transformations were delivered on May 10, 1858 and January 11, 1859 to the ministry for transmission to the Constantinople mission. Subsequently, some of the members of the Church-People's Assembly expressed a desire that the very acts of this Assembly be proposed at the discretion of the Holy Synod, and as a result of this, the opinion of the Eminence Philaret on these acts, approved by other members of the Holy Synod, was forwarded to the ministry on June 27, 1859 - Note. K.K. Zederholm.
From other information available in St. Petersburg, it is not clear whether this news is completely true. What is certain, however, is that there are more than 20 secular members in the Council. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The Secretary of the Council will receive 30,000 piastres per year, and the members of the Synod will receive 24,000. - App. K.K. Zederholm.
The “Rules on the Organization of the Permanent Mixed Council” makes no mention at all of the financial administration of churches outside the capital, and therefore it remains unclear whether it will be subject to the control of diocesan councils or not. In the latter case, one might, in the words of His Eminence Philaret, “be surprised that the Church-People’s Assembly confused concepts and fell into contradictions with itself. It leaves the financial administration of churches outside the capital under the full authority of the spiritual authorities, in accordance with the apostolic rules; and puts the financial administration of the capital’s churches under his control” (note dated May 16, 1859). – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
This cannot be seen from the acts of the Church-People's Assembly. On the contrary, from ch. 5 of these acts, from Articles 2 and 3, it is clear that only 4 spiritual members of the Council are appointed by the Synod, and that the secular members, of which there are 8, are elected by the laity of Constantinople. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Subsequently, it turned out that the costs of salaries for the clergy were supposed to be covered by new taxes on the Christian population in Turkey, and church property was to be transferred to the disposal of the Council of clergy and laity. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
What has been said here about the use of church property can equally apply to the use of the proposed new taxes. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The protest was presented and read at the meeting on March 20th. It outlined the reasons for the Bosnians' displeasure against the higher clergy. It turned out that this note, written, according to Prince Lobanov, more with passion than systematically, had only an external connection with the question of salary. The meeting took note of this protest and repeated its promise to take care to stop the abuses. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
However, the Assembly only wanted, as it turned out later, the removal of the Patriarch from the presidency, and only one of the secular members, Adossidi, sought, through the great vizier, who was friendly towards him, the overthrow of the Patriarch from the throne and the appointment as locum tenens of his friend, Metropolitan Neophytos of Thessaloniki, one of the spiritual members of the Church-People's Assembly. – Note. l. L. Zederholm.
Published for the first time according to the clerk's original: RGIA. F. 832. On. 1. D. 113. L. 4–41 (draft autograph of comments by K. K. Zederholm. OR RSL. F. 188. Cart. 11. Item 5. L. 104–155).
Here and below, underlining by K. K. Zederholm.
Note to V.M. Zhemchuzhnikov “The Orthodox East and Russia”, at the direction of Chief Prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy, K.K. Zederholm, the following comments were given: “Scholastic pickiness, all heretics, from Arius to the present day, have called and call that unshakable firmness and accuracy in relation to dogmas, by which the teaching of Christ has been and is being preserved in all its purity, according to the word of the Savior, that not one iota shall pass from the law.” – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The assumption about the actions of the Greek clergy after the fall of Byzantium is arbitrary and completely speculative. It has always enjoyed spiritual predominance in the East, but not at all because of the political significance of the Greeks, but because of their mental advantages and the theological mood with which they took precedence among the entire Christian world, not excluding Rome (which is why they were the first denouncers of its innovations). And in our time, the predominance of the Greeks in the East is a necessary condition for the preservation of the Orthodox Church there, which, among its countless enemies, is held together only by its dense, indissoluble unity. Is it prudent to humiliate or weaken the most zealous and capable defenders of Orthodoxy? – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
There was no reason for church buildings to become the property of the Greek people, when they were originally their property, just as in Moscow the Assumption Church belongs to the Russians, although it serves for all Orthodox Christians. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Unfortunately, our connection with the Eastern Church is, if not destroyed, then indeed weakened. But this did not come from the subordination of the Russian Church to the government, but from our generally preferable acquaintance with the West and our fascination with its education, which did not give us time to study the East. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
All these accusations require proof. Oppressed by the barbaric Turkish yoke, the Greeks were exhausted in the means to save their faith, the preservation of which lay with them alone. And if there were deviations of the unfortunate from the severity of the rules, then there were so many most brilliant feats of unquenchable zeal and martyrdom among the fiery trials allowed by Providence. But the note is silent about this in its one-sided direction. And a non-Orthodox modern writer testifies with amazement that during the Greek uprising in 1821, when cities and churches were destroyed by fire and sword, clergy and laity were tortured, not a single Orthodox Christian redeemed his life by apostasy. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
They say that, having submitted to the government, the Russian Church lost its independence - life and inner strength. No! Our Church, glory to God! – retained her inner life and strength, and this is proven by the following fact. The Russian Church does not live by other people’s means: it alone in the Christian world is supported without government assistance. With its own resources, it erects churches, educates youth, maintains a large bureaucracy... and in times of testing, through faith, it multiplies the moral and material forces of the state. (This fact, although our Western teachers are silent about it when judging the Russian Church, should have more weight than the assumptions of our young tourists who convey the judgments of foreigners in Russian...) “The Church is ruled by civil power.” But let them point out at least one dogma changed by the Church to please the government! No! The Russian Church has remained untouched and unchanged to this day.
Violent attacks on this inviolability caused the appearance of martyrs and bold accusers in the Church, of which we have seen many examples since the time of Peter 1. The Church therefore remains intact, but society and the government have moved far away from the Church: sometimes they showed disrespect, and often indifference to church statutes and clergy, and no longer in the Church, as was the case in the old days, but in European education they are looking for a model for everything and, due to their bias, do not even distinguish good from bad in it. The Church and our educated society, like parallel lines, never converge and even seem to be increasingly losing the ability to understand each other. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
In the draft version of the comments on V. Zhemchuzhnikov’s note, instead of the words: “Violent attempts on this inviolability caused the appearance of martyrs and brave accusers in the Church, of which we see many examples since the time of Peter 1,” it follows: “Violent attempts on this inviolability caused martyrs and brave accusers in the Church, of which we see examples under Biron, under Catherine 2 and even under Alexander 1, on occasion divorce of V.K. Konstantin Pavlovich, and to Metropolitan. Seraphim and Archimandrite Photias, who successfully denounced the Protestantism of the biblical society.” (The words “on the occasion of the divorce of V.K. Konstantin Pavlovich” are crossed out, on top is written: “on the occasion of the marriage of some dignitaries.”) (OR RSL. F. 188. Map. 11. Item. 5. L. 108, 127).
Who is it? All clergy in general? Or most of it? ...How easy it is to move from an unkind or frivolous judgment about the Greek clergy to an unjust condemnation of everything Russian, forgetting the high examples of Christian piety and humility that our shepherds give us! As for the actual abuses, openly confessing one’s sins is a commendable thing, uncalled for to expose the sins of others is unchristian, and choosing the Church as the subject of magazine denunciation and slander means becoming like Ham. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Is it permissible, bearing in mind the abuses that have existed since apostolic times and are inevitable in human society, to express ourselves in this way about the Church of Christ, which the Apostle Paul calls “the Glorious Church, without filth or vice.” Such inaccurate and reprehensible expressions as “corruption of the Church” reveal in the author of the note a confusion of concepts that is strange for an Orthodox Christian. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
There are no new truths in Protestantism that are missing or inaccessible to Orthodoxy. On the contrary, he only rejected, and as a result of this, many truths necessary for salvation, preserved by the Orthodox, became inaccessible to him, which is the truth of obedience to the Church. All Protestantism consists of one Bible, which is not unknown to Orthodoxy, but is explained by Protestants according to their own will, and the endless fragmentation of Protestant interpretations proves where the very word of God leads without the Church. What is the basis for the idea that one needs education and mental development in order to be attracted to Protestants? Do they offer a teaching more sublime and abstract than the Gnostics and Arians victoriously denounced by Orthodox pastors, or the iconoclasts who lived during the times of so-called medieval barbarism, or than our Doukhobors? It is strange to translate foreign opinions into Russian, despite the fact that they are contradicted by the events of centuries and peoples. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The successes of Western propaganda in the East are generally greatly exaggerated. But as happened in former times, so now there is no reason to despair of the ability to resist their pressure. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
This is completely fair. Such a connection between church and political benefits cannot exist anywhere in non-Orthodox states, where church power is not alien to worldly, power-hungry types and therefore causes opposition from government power. We have no need to act following the example of Western powers, for example France (in which the benefits of Rome and Paris very often diverge), while in our country, on the contrary, it is impossible to think of cases where it would be beneficial for the government to act contrary to the Church. In the midst of national disasters and trials, the Orthodox faith gave birth to and gave the government indestructible strength, and has always been and is the first condition for the well-being and internal strength of the state. In the modern history of Russia, we see that the government sometimes forgot this immutable truth: in the East it acted at the suggestion of Europe, contrary to the interests of the Universal Church, and inside Russia, with some orders, it deeply upset the best part of the people and thus wavered what it stood on.
The actions of our sovereigns since the time of Peter 1 can raise doubts as to whether they know what devotion and gratitude for every pious act, for every Christian order, is felt by millions of the smallest brethren, unknown, silent, but constituting the support of the state. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
That’s not the problem, but the fact that due to such circumstances, various departments intervened in Jerusalem affairs, each with its own favorite goal. Why is the matter, clear in itself, confused, and requiring modesty, subjected to the gossip of society, and, perhaps, has already spread to foreign lands; such inappropriate publicity, of course, can harm the mission's cause. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
There is a difference between mission (i.e. embassy) and missionary (i.e. apostolic preaching). – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
If it were not for the war, the real purpose of Archimandrite Porfiry’s stay in Jerusalem and those with him would have been quietly achieved, which served as the beginning of our more faithful acquaintance with the East and the rapprochement of our clergy with the Greek. Speed in this matter could not be expected. Only those can call the outcome unfortunate and blame Archimandrite Porfiry for it, who in their imagination exaggerated his instructions. Meanwhile, both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and all the civil authorities were extremely pleased with him, and only the spiritual authorities later began to doubt the benefits of his continued stay there, and that was only dissatisfied with his strict way of life, which could give an inappropriate idea about our clergy. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
This calculation, common in the Latin Church, does not agree with the spirit of Orthodoxy. We would lose the most precious property of Orthodoxy, which constitutes its inner strength, if we wanted, imitating Europe, to use godly and charitable actions as an instrument of power-hungry species, that is, to desecrate the shrine, covering up worldly calculations with it. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The instructions to Eminence Kirill and the haste of his departure were not without errors, for which the Chief Prosecutor, whose inspection was next, was partly to blame. Firstly, the instructions did not clearly indicate the spirit of communication and love, which unites all Orthodox Churches, and, secondly, due attention was not paid to the canonical church rules, which determine the mutual relations of Churches and hierarchies. One could hope that there was no particular need for clergy to confirm these rules. But as things progress, it is clear that our mission does not always quite clearly understand its, however, very complex responsibilities and relationships. If, deviating from church rules, it interferes in church affairs in other patriarchates and acts separately from the patriarchal thrones, then it can lead not to agreement, but to an increase in enmity between them and their flocks, to increased distrust of us by the eastern hierarchs and then to the most sad results.
On the contrary, the mission will bring great benefit if it counteracts Western propaganda, provides active benefit to the Greek Church, and, in a friendly alliance with the clergy, alleviates the needs of the unfortunate flock and the clergy themselves; and all this constitutes the ardent desire of the Holy Synod, just like the supreme power, and the main purpose of the mission itself. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The comments on Mr. Mansurov’s note are absolutely fair. If Mr. Mansurov’s work had become known in the East and also if his thoughts had gained many adherents in Russia and were carried out, then this could have consequences that were unpleasant for those who believed him, and sad for Russia in general. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Apart from the Holy Synod and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, church affairs in the East should not be subject to anyone's influence. The intervention of the Shipping Society and the Maritime Ministry in them is wrong and extremely harmful: it can further confuse rather tangled relations. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Due to a misunderstanding stemming from foreign terminology, our mission is given the wrong meaning, and the mission of Archimandrite Porfiry to Jerusalem is considered missionary (preaching). Neither the Greeks nor the Russians even thought of converting Orthodox Greeks to Russian Orthodoxy. But it is true that the Russian mission cannot take direct, independent participation in the church affairs of the East in independence, separately from the Greek clergy. They incorrectly give us the example of non-Christian bishops acting completely independently and independently in Jerusalem. This is our advantage, that we come to the East without this hostile separation and independence for the Church, that we can and must act together with the Greek hierarchy and, therefore, in some dependence on it, determined by church laws. – Note. K.K.Zederholm.
Quite fair. After our centuries-long withdrawal from the affairs of the Orthodox East, our Church appears there at a time when, more than ever, the patriarchal thrones are overwhelmed by the enemies of Orthodoxy, who want: 1) to separate the Russian Church from the Eastern ones, 2) the Greek Church from the Slavic and Arab flocks. But the first of these intentions is destroyed by the peaceful stay of our bishop in Jerusalem, and to counteract the second, he must by example and friendly persuasion persuade the Greek clergy to satisfy the legitimate demands of the Slavs and Arabs and to unanimously repel Western intrigues. First of all, we must take care of maintaining our peaceful relations with the Greek Church. By violating them, we will not reconcile the Greeks with the Slavs, and we ourselves will further increase the disorder of church affairs. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
To what extent this is true is stated above. – Note. K-K. Zederholm.
Such a conclusion is itself destroyed when one truly looks at the purpose of this mission, as stated above. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Without a doubt, this is the work of the Church, facilitated by the participation and assistance of secular power, as has been the case since ancient times of all Christian powers. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
To what extent? Is it really before the separation from the government? – Apply. K.K. Zederholm.
We have already proven the injustice of this accusation. - We'll accept it. K.K. Zederholm.
We need to know with the utmost precision what exactly, to what extent and for what reasons is allowed or committed in the East, carefully consider by what means and what exactly can be corrected, and be extremely careful that our admonitions do not contain frivolous accusations that would only prove our lack of understanding of the plight in which the Greek clergy itself finds itself. – Apply. K.K. Zederholm.
Above, Mr. Zhemchuzhnikov himself says: “On what basis can the Russian clergy demand from the Greek the destruction of such abuses that, with some modifications, exist in Russia.” – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The necessity and possibility of convening a Council in our time are subjects that require deep consideration. A council, due to its universal importance, is a matter from which, if successful, one can expect the greatest benefit, but otherwise, the greatest frustration and harm. The Council itself must be indicated by providence; that is, the thought of it must be born and mature in the minds of the shepherds of the Church and the reverent flock. An ecclesiastical matter of primary importance cannot and should not be initiated by people who, having withdrawn in concepts from the Church, live the same life with heterodox Europe and for whom the thought of congresses, committees and rallies is accessible and the sacred importance of the Ecumenical Council is not clear. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
But were there any examples of such mutual introduction of their bishops into members of the Synod of other patriarchates? And is it desirable for the Russian bishop to find himself among the subjects of Turkey, which in this case would be unknown? – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
This can be assumed from existing examples. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Everything we undertake in the Eastern patriarchates must be with their knowledge and consent and with great caution. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
The Latin sisters of mercy arouse in us some kind of competition and a desire to have something similar. But we must not forget that they have a kind of significance and success only because they are everywhere the vanguard of the Jesuits, which in turn are caused by the existence of the pope with worldly lust for power. In a word, communities of sisters of mercy do not exist separately and scatteredly, but constitute a necessary member in a whole system and organization based on the worldly lust for power of church representatives. In our country such a mixture of the spiritual and the worldly is impossible, the Pope is impossible, the Jesuits are impossible. Is it then possible to establish these communities in our country, following the example of Rome, when we do not, cannot and should not have what caused them there and keeps them there? We do not deny the possibility of establishing charitable communities in our country, imbued with love for Christ and our neighbors. But the question of at what time, how and by what means this can be accomplished requires especially careful consideration.
One thing is certain: to establish such a community, a clergyman would be required who, inspired by love and selflessness, would captivate and gather others not by word, but by example. Consequently, it is impossible to do this by order, just as it is impossible to be guided in this by the example of people of other faiths. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
In Mr. Zhemchuzhnikov’s note there is a lot that is fair and sensible and even more erroneous and dreamy. The first comes from his pious and lively mind and from conversations with people who well understand the affairs of the East, and the second - from the fact that, like many of our compatriots, when starting to discuss Russia and Orthodoxy, he did not free himself from Western thoughts and foreign words, because of which he constantly sees unprecedented ghosts that distort or completely obscure the real matter. – Note. K.K. Zederholm.
Published for the first time from a copy: OR RSL. F. 188. K. 11. D. 5. L. 92–103.
You might be interested in: