Дополнение

July 29. Reports of Archimandrite Philaret to the commission of theological schools, on his review of district and parish schools in St. Petersburg The Commission of Theological Schools, at meetings on April 19 and 29, 1811, recognizing the need to carry out an audit of district and parish schools before the vacation time, that is, before July 15, among other things, decided: to provide the Archbishop of Ryazan with the preparation of instructions appropriate for the audit and to appoint a bachelor of theological sciences, Hieromonk Philaret, as an auditor, for the audit of parish and district schools in St. Petersburg. In pursuance of the determination of the commission of theological schools, Archimandrite 425 Filaret, in four reports, dated July 29, 1811, presented the following reports to the commission of theological schools. I. About the audit of the Alexandropov School Archimandrite Philaret's most humble report to the Commission of Theological Schools Bachelor of Sciences in Theology. I was engaged in reviewing the theological district school located at the Alexandronevsky Lavra from the 10th to the 15th day of the current month, in the same order as is shown by the attached here, under the letter A, extract from the book of incoming affairs of the said school. In accordance with the instructions given to me, I have the honor to submit the report in this review to the discretion of the Commission of Theological Schools. 1. About production test The testing of the students generally showed that all the subjects of study required by the charter were taught to them sufficiently. Knowledge of the Latin language in the higher department has been brought to the point that the best students make translations from Cicero, Livy and Tacitus. Behind Latin, of necessity, the Greek language had to go in this department; since the students who now make up it were not taught the beginnings of this language in the lower classes. However, when jealousy is aroused in them by the news of the subject, they are sufficiently instructed in word production and Greek word composition, and translate Chrysostom. The teacher of Sacred History not only went through it from the textbook, but, since this last one is short for a two-year teaching period, he made decent additions to it. The teacher of Civil History also successfully tried to correct the tedious dryness of the educational book on this subject with his additions. In the lower department, a particular difficulty lay ahead in teaching Slavic grammar, for which a good textbook had not yet been published. The teacher of this subject, using some experiments made in the last century in seven kinds, and his own reading of Slavic books, compiled a Slavic Grammar, correctly arranged, sufficient and convenient for teaching. This work is justified by the successes of the students, who freely parse the Slavic text according to the rules and translate it into Russian. The school repeatedly showed success in musical singing, simple and partes, in the church itself, where all the students, 137 in number, formed one harmonious choir. By considering in particular the success of each student in all subjects of study: a) successful ones were transferred from a lower department to a higher one – 34 from higher education, 46 were assigned to enter the seminary b) unsuccessful ones are left without promotion in the lower department – 20 c) unsuccessful and over-aged are excluded from the lower division – 18 The number of unsuccessful and over-aged students in the lower department has increased due to the fact that some were accepted into it more out of respect for age than for the necessary preliminary knowledge. This administration in all respects is carefully adapted to the charter of theological district schools, except that, due to the connection of the Aleksandronevsky district school with the seminary, it is under special influence, so that the supervision of the students of the school is partly entrusted to the students of the seminary. From the examination of school writing and the Rector’s explanations, it was revealed: a) That in September of the past 1810, with the consent of the higher authorities, a transfer of 13 students was made from the lower department to the higher one, who, partly due to a long stay at the school, partly due to preliminary education in the homes of their parents, had already shown satisfactory success; and who, in the lower department being far ahead of their comrades, could entertain the attention of the teacher. b) That no one was expelled from the school without the permission of the Commission of Theological Schools. c) That there are no students whom their fathers would remove from school. d) That the school is located in a decent building. e) That simultaneous admission to the lower department of education of the school was allowed for some time because the school was opened on March 1, 1809, then all students admitted within six months from that time still had a full two years of the course prescribed by the charter to study in the lower department. Afterwards, some students from other district schools and seminaries, having been taken into the local bishop's choir, moved to the Alexander Nevsky School, due to local convenience. Nevertheless, this was done according to the definitions of the Seminary Board. f) That internal and external tests were carried out according to the regulations, and g) everything is indicated in the cord book. h) That the teaching began and ended in a legal manner. i) That the classical books assigned by the Commission of Theological Schools are available in the required quantity and are used in accordance with the provisions made by it. The regulations issued about such by the Commission of Theological Schools in the Alexandronevsky district school are carefully carried out. a) Students who are content with the provision of seats for them are in it. – 6 c) Both of them are connected by residence and board with the students of the seminary, and the amount allocated to them is used by order of the Seminary Board. d) Among the students and half-students, children who are truly poor are accepted. f) This leaves 12 poor students in the school, who were previously supported by the amount borrowed from the seminary, and who, in the event of the termination of this extraneous assistance, require another source of assistance. Bursat vacancies open for 7 of them by transfer to the seminary. A detailed statement about the poor students is attached here, under the letter B 426. IV. About the head of the school and teachers Proper evidence of their abilities and serviceability is in the attached list, under the letter C. Finally, it is my duty to testify about the Aleksandronevsky District Theological School in general that it is in very good condition. And how very natural it is to want the existence of such a well-maintained school to continue; and it does not have a single subordinate parochial school from which it could receive students: it is also desirable that the higher authorities would be pleased to assign the Spasosein School to it, since, upon review of this school, some students appointed for transfer have already expressed a desire to be in the Alexandronevsky School; or it would allow the latter to accept without restriction those who wish to do so. Theological Sciences Bachelor Archimandrite Philaret. The following documents are attached to this report: a. Extract from the cord book of incoming cases of the Aleksandronevsky district theological school. The school's management was examined by the auditor, Archimandrite Philaret, in terms of educational and moral matters, and the school's writing was certified. 1) In the morning, from 8 to 12 o’clock, students of the higher department were tested in their knowledge of the Latin language with Russian grammar. 2) From 3 to 7 o’clock in the afternoon, the testing of the same students in the Greek language with Slavic grammar, and in the Catechism continued. 1) In the morning, from 8 to 12 o’clock, students of the higher department were tested in sacred and civil history, and geography. 2) From 2 to 6 o’clock in the afternoon, students of the higher department were tested in arithmetic and the students of the lower department were tested in Latin. 1) From 8 to 12 hours, students of the lower department were tested in Greek, Russian and Slavic grammar. 2) From 2 to 7 hours, students of the lower department were tested in arithmetic, catechism and church regulations, and students of both departments were tested in musical singing. 1) Based on the test, with the teacher’s recommendations contained in the statement delivered from the head of the school to the auditor, and in the previous school records, and with marks in the book established on the basis of the 17th, 18th and 19th paragraphs of the charter of district schools, lists of successful students, worthy of transfer, and unsuccessful students, not deserving of it, were compiled, of which those who The reports turned out to be too old and were assigned to expulsion from the school. 2) The necessary information about poor students has been collected. According to the rank lists, their assignments were announced to the students. These documents were signed by the rector, Archimandrite Methodius 427. High-class teacher F. Alexandrov 428. Teacher Pyotr Vinogradov. Teacher Mikhail Gronsky. July 15, 1811, No. 80. C. List of those occupying the positions of the head and teachers at the Aleksandronevsky district school. Bachelor Archimandrite Philaret 430. II. On the audit of the Petropavlovsk district school Archimandrite Philaret’s most humble report to the Commission of Theological Schools, Bachelor of Theological Sciences. As a result of the instructions of the Commission of Theological Schools, this July 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th days, having reviewed the Peter and Paul District School in the order indicated in the attached extract from the cord book of incoming cases, under the letter A, in accordance with the instructions given to me, I have the honor to convey: 1) About production test The students of the said school in the subjects assigned to the lower department are sufficiently instructed, if we take into account their successes in the continuation of their studies; since the school was opened last 1810, February 22 days. However, the two-year duration of the course has not yet been completed; and of the subjects laid down in paragraph 32 of the charter of district schools, catechism and Slavic grammar are still unfinished. Teaching Slavic grammar was especially difficult because the school on this subject at first did not have any educational book in mind; and now, although it has one, it is one that is written in too old a language, the very rules are filled with Hellenism, and therefore are inconvenient for teaching lessons. Due to these circumstances, as well as because the higher department at the Petropavlovsk District School had not yet been opened, I found myself not in the right to make a transfer there. But, accepting with respect that 1) some of the students have already made satisfactory progress; 2) that among the best students there are those who, as overage, due to points 8 and 9 of the auditor’s instructions, cannot remain in the school any longer in the same category; 3) that the current vacation time, being the limit of the training course in the seminary, should be the same in the district school, so that students can move from this to that in good time; And 4) that the unfinished teaching of the catechism and Slavic grammar in the lower department, without omission in other subjects, can be supplemented by diligent teachers in the higher, one during the hours set aside for repeating the catechism, and the other during the ongoing teaching of the Greek language, in which Slavic can be usefully taken into account; The auditor, together with the school authorities, decided to compile a list of successful students for the composition of the higher department, and submit it to the discretion of the higher authorities. Such a list in the original is attached here, under the letter B 431. The rector of the school cannot provide much formal information about the opening of the said department and the teachers needed for it. Of the 75 students at the school: a) those who studied at the school are intended to form the higher department - 30 studied in the homes of their parents, who came to inspect the school - 2 b) remained in the same category of students studying at the school – 26 c) those studying at the school were excluded – 11 The actions of the Rector regarding the internal and external parts of the school board turned out to be generally as consistent with the rules of the charters as the new structure of the schools allowed. a) In addition to the emergency transfer, for the opening of the Peter and Paul District School, from the parish ones assigned to it, made on February 22 of the past 1810, 5 students from the Spasosennovsky School were transferred to it, after the third test, the former March 28 of the same year, which, in respect of their successes and great age, was done by the Rector, with the approval of the Seminary Board. b) No one is expelled from the school without the permission of the Commission of Theological Schools. c) Some of the students, on the basis of paragraph 39 of the rules, who were dismissed to study in the homes of their parents, did not appear for the required tests at the school, about which a statement is attached, under the letter C 432. d) The school has decent classrooms, both for the existing lower department and for the higher department that is about to open. For accommodation, most of the students supported by their parents were placed with the former Petropavlovsk deacon Pavel Gavrilov, who provided them with an apartment and board, charging from 35 to 75 rubles a year for each, depending on the parents’ condition. Unfortunately, some of these latter, not being able to reconcile their calculations with the needs of this institution, now make one doubt about its continuation, despite the benefits it contains, both in terms of economy and in terms of the convenience of monitoring the diligence and behavior of students. f) At an unusual time, that is, on March 11th of this year, 1811, according to the orders of the Seminary Board, student Pavel Bobrovnitsky was admitted to the school, however, so that he would not be assigned to the current course, but to the next one. f) Instead of a public test before the vaccination period, last year there was an internal one, because the school had previously existed for less than four months. Other tests were carried out in accordance with the regulations; and g) are indicated in the cord book. h) The days and hours of teaching were arranged according to the regulations, except that on short winter days the morning teaching began and ended an hour later than it was supposed to: this, according to the rector’s remark, was necessary so that children living far from the school would not be late in arriving at it due to darkness, and would not be exposed to dangers on the way at an early time. i) Educational books are available in the required quantity, except for Slavic grammar. j) Finally, some irregularity was noticed in the definition of teachers, which arose from the fact that two priests of the Peter and Paul Cathedral, having accepted the position of teachers at the opening of the school, soon abandoned it. In order not to interrupt teaching in any subject, the Rector found himself forced to have four teachers for one department of the school, and moreover, in such a way that the teacher of Greek for this one subject receives the full salary of a district teacher, but on the contrary, the teacher of arithmetic does not receive it at all, being content with the salary that he receives for teaching the highest class in a parish school. The regulations drawn up about such by the Commission of Theological Schools in the Peter and Paul District School are carefully carried out. a) One student uses the provided seat. b) Bursat maintenance hitherto accepted – 3 c) The students share residence and board with the Peter and Paul singers, and are equipped with the necessary clothing. The care of their food was entrusted to the parish teacher Pavel Vasiliev, under the constant supervision of the Rector himself. Half-bursaks live with some relatives, who are given the required money with a receipt. d) All those placed among the students and half-students are poor orphans. e) 8 of the same remain to this day without assistance. A statement about these three categories of poor students is presented under the letter D 433. Both the commander and the teachers at the Petropavlovsk district school were all found capable and serviceable: in particular, each of them is shown in the statement, under the letter E. In general, it is in order and structure, which is due to the trusteeship of the Rector. The following documents are attached to the report: A. Extracting from the cord book of incoming cases at the Petropavlovsk district school. The auditor, together with the head of the school, tested the students' knowledge of the Catechism and the beginning of the Greek language. Students are tested in their knowledge of Latin, Russian and Slavic grammar. He was tested in arithmetic and in singing according to the church rules. Students are divided into categories - successful and unsuccessful. And although the two-year duration of the course had not yet been completed since the opening of the school, and the teaching in some subjects, such as the catechism and Slavic grammar, turned out to be unfinished: however, in order to consider the educational course in the district school with the seminary course, and to respect the great age of some successful students, the auditor, together with the school authorities, decided to appoint successful students to form a higher department in the district school, which had not yet been opened, and report this to the higher authorities. Among those who failed, those who were over-aged were designated as an exception. 2) The internal and external school board with the writing department belonging to it was examined, and the necessary information about the condition of poor students was also collected. The documents were signed by: Rector, Archpriest Stakhy Kolosov. Master Spherin teaching Greek. Arithmetic class teacher Deacon Sergei Ioannov. Teacher of Latin, Russian and Slavic grammar and catechism, Deacon Efemiy Mstislavsky. E. List of those occupying the positions of chief and teachers at the Petropavlovsk District School: III. On the audit of the Peter and Paul Parish School Archimandrite Philaret's most humble report to the Commission of Theological Schools of Bachelor of Theological Sciences. On the 6th and 7th of the current July, I visited the Peter and Paul Parish School. In the extract from the book of incoming cases of this school, attached to this, under the letter A, the order of this review is shown. What happened to him, I have the honor to report. In general, a good state of learning emerged, and especially in the second grade. Of the 38 students belonging to the said school, a) those who were successful from the second grade were assigned to the district school, those who studied continuously in school 10, those who studied in school 6, those who studied in houses 2 were transferred from the first to the second grade; b) those who were unsuccessful were left without promotion to the higher class, those who studied at school 3, those who studied in houses 5, Of those who studied at school, 1 were retained in the lower class; of those who studied in homes, 9; c) unsuccessful and grown ones are excluded 2. II. By school management a) it turned out that from the second class, on February 22nd 1810, all the students were transferred without exception to the Peter and Paul District School that was opening at that time, and as a result of this, a transfer from the first class to the second was made at the same time; b) there were no expelled from the school without the permission of the Commission of Theological Schools; c) among the students there are 7 who, upon admission to the school, on the basis of paragraph 23 of the rules, having been dismissed to study in their parents’ homes, did not appear at all for the tests prescribed in paragraph 37 of the parish school charter, some (as far as this is known in the school) due to illness, and others due to distance of residence. A statement about these is attached, under the letter B 435. d) The school is located in a decent building. f) At an unusual time, that is, March 11th of the current year, according to the instructions of the Seminary Board, to admit to the school student Ivan Sobolev, who had not previously been assigned to any school due to orphanhood and unknown residence. f) The tests required by the regulations have been carried out; and h) The teaching continued in a legal manner. i) The school is supplied with classical books. a) is satisfied with the allocated place – 1 b) there are 2 students present c) The students' residence and board are connected with those of the Petropavlovsk district school; The half-bursak lives in a private house, and the following money is given to him in accordance with paragraph 17 of the regulations on poor students of parish schools. d) Both students and half-students are truly poor orphans. f) In addition to these, there are 11 students in the school (including those assigned to the district school in this number) who require assistance in maintenance, as will be shown by the attached statement, under the letter C 436. IV. About the head of the school and the teachers, who all turned out to be capable and serviceable, a seven-named list is presented, with the necessary certificates about each of them, under the letter D. In general, the Peter and Paul Parish School was found in good condition. Theological Sciences Bachelor A Extract from the corded book of incoming affairs of the Peter and Paul Parish School. The auditor, together with the head of the school, tested the students of both classes in all subjects prescribed by the charter. 1) Rank lists were drawn up, of which the successful ones were first assigned to transfer, and otherwise the unsuccessful ones were left to continue their studies in the same classes, with the exception of older ones. 2) The management of the school and the condition of poor students are considered. Signed by: Rector, Archpriest Stakhy Kolosov. Top class teacher, Deacon Sergius Ioannov. Lower class teacher Pavel Vasiliev. D. List of those occupying the positions of head of the school and teachers at the Peter and Paul Parish School. IV On the audit of the Spasosennovsky parish school To the Commission of Theological Schools of Theological Sciences, Bachelor Archimandrite Philaret, most humble report. According to the assignment of the Commission of Theological Schools, explained in this 1811, May 11th day, from its Member, His Eminence Ambrose, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, the order, in accordance with the instructions attached to it, I inspected the Spasosennovsky parish school of the past June 28th and 30th. The order of my exercises on this subject, which I entered into the incoming book of this school, is presented in the extract from it, under the letter A. Having been continuously engaged in the same review of other schools in the first half of this month, I now have the honor to report on the consequences of this review. I. According to the testing of the students, it turned out that educational subjects in both classes of the Spasosennovsky School were taught in accordance with the regulations of theological parish schools. Of the 36 students belonging to the said school, a) successful students transferred from the first class to the second class – 3 those who studied at home, but arrived at the school at the time of its review - 2 from the second grade, 8 students were assigned to the district school b) those who were unsuccessful were left to continue their studies in the first grade, of those who studied at the school -2 of those studying at home – 4 in the second grade, of those studying at the school - 3 of those studying at home – 7 c) those who were unsuccessful and outgrown were expelled from the school – 4 II. According to the school administration, from reviewing the school archive and the caretaker’s explanation, it turned out: a) that, in addition to the transfer from the first class to the second, made last year 1810, in accordance with paragraph 33 of the charter of parish schools, and in addition to the emergency transfer from the second class to the newly opened Peter and Paul School on February 22 of the same year, on the third test, which was March 28, 5 students of the same class were transferred to this last school, at the discretion of their success by the Rector and Archpriest Stakhii Kolosov, with the approval of the Seminary Board; b) that, without the permission of the Commission of Theological Schools, no one was expelled from the school; c) that some of the children presented at the school, on the basis of paragraph 23 of the rules, at the request of the parents, are released to their homes, and appear only for tests, as prescribed in paragraph 37 of the charter of parish schools, and 5 students do not appear at the school at all. The names of these latter are shown in the attached statement, under the letter B 438; however, they are not excluded from the school department because, judging by their youth, they cannot yet be considered hopeless. Moreover, the students who were and are in the choir of the Kazan Cathedral spent a lot of study time outside the school: why are some of them, including the unsuccessful and over-aged, expelled; and some, based solely on their abilities and desire to learn, were successful. But just as the positions of a student in a school and a singer in a choir, according to experience itself, are not incompatible: it is desirable that Kazan choristers, for singing exercises, be assigned the hours assigned for this in the district and parish schools, and a few more hours free from teaching so that they can go to school without hindrance; d) that the classrooms of the Spasosennovsky School are decent and equipped with the necessary supplies; and students for residence are located in private houses, in compliance with the rules set out in Section 3 of the statute of parochial schools; e) that admission to the school takes place once a year, in accordance with the educational course, which lasts the same year in the first grade of the parish school; f) That internal and external tests were carried out in accordance with the regulations; g) That such tests are not indicated in the book of cords, due to a misunderstanding arising from the fact that the rule requiring this is found only in the statutes of seminaries, but not in the statutes of parochial schools. However, the time and order of these are shown on those reports on the successes of the students, according to which they were made, and which are kept in the affairs of the superintendent; h) That the training, except for vacation and service days, was not interrupted, and i) That the Spasosennovsky school is equipped with classical books, and they are used in accordance with the provisions made for this by the Commission of Theological Schools. III. On the maintenance of poor students, the regulation issued by the Commission of Theological Schools in the Spasosennovsky School is carried out insofar as the sources of assistance designated by this regulation are opened. a) The school does not have students who are content with the provision of places for them. b) Has 3 students and 2 half-students. c) They are placed to live in the houses of ordinary people or relatives, to whom Bursak money is given, in accordance with paragraphs 16 and 17 of the regulations. d) The truly poor children are included among the students and half-students. f) This leaves 7 more students (including those assigned to the district school) who need the same benefit. About them, as well as about students and half-students, a personal statement is attached, under the letter C 439. IV. About the head of the school and the teachers, since they, as before, during tests by the district Rector, were seen as capable and serviceable, and now, when inspecting the school, they turned out to be the same; instead of two lists set out in paragraph 22 of the auditor’s instructions, one is presented, with the proper certificate for each of them, under the letter D. In general, regarding the state of the Spasosenn School, I am convinced that it is fair to testify that, judging by the news of the institution, it is in good order. Bachelor of Theological Sciences Archimandrite Filaret. A. Extract from the corded book of incoming cases of the Spasosennovsky parish school. 1) The inspector, Hieromonk Philaret, tested the highest class students in all subjects related to the parish school. 2) The management of the school in terms of educational and moral aspects is examined, and the school’s writing is evidenced. 1) Pupils of the lower class were tested in subjects required for this class. 2) As a result of the test and in accordance with the testimony of the school authorities, lists of successful and unsuccessful students of both classes were compiled, and the transfer was announced first, and the latter, with the exception of those who graduated, were left to continue their studies in the same class. 3) The economic part of the school board and the condition of poor students are considered. Signed by: Warden of the Spasosennovsky Parish School, Archpriest Alexey Silnitsky. Top class teacher, Deacon John Vishnevsky. Low class teacher sexton Ivan Popov. D. List of those occupying the positions of caretaker and teachers at the Spasosennovsky parish school. The Commission of Theological Schools, after considering the aforementioned reports of the auditor on his review of the Aleksandronevsky, Peter and Paul and Spasosennovsky district and parish schools, prescribed the following to the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, for the 3rd department, dated December 7, 1811, No. 783: 1) How, from all the reports of the auditors, it turned out that the teaching of Slavic grammar, due to the lack of a good educational book for this subject, was not taught in almost all schools, except for Novgorod and Aleksandronevsky, of which in the latter the teacher of this language, Vinogradov, out of jealousy for the position assigned to him, himself compiled such an educational book; and since the teaching of Slavic grammar in theological schools is necessary, then in order to supply them with a book appropriate for this language, it was already ordered from the commission, dated November 3 of this year, No. 692, to the censorship committee, that this committee should take up both the consideration of Vinogradov’s grammar and the book entitled: Abbreviation of Slavic Etymology, collected by the late collegiate adviser Foma Rozanov, and that, after having properly examined both works, present to the commission his opinion on the following subjects: a) which of these two books can be introduced into schools with great benefit? b) if there are shortcomings in both of these works, what are they? and cannot these shortcomings be supplemented by borrowing from one book what is lacking in another? 2) An order was issued to the academic board on the opening of a higher department at the Petropavlovsk District School, dated October 18 of this year, No. 636. 3) Attribute the Spasosennovsky parish school to the Peter and Paul School. III. By Parish Schools Based on the auditor’s opinion on the distribution of teaching hours for Kazan choristers, let the seminary board make the appropriate order. On this basis, the academic board has the right to issue appropriate instructions and orders 441. February 12. Letter from Archimandrite Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, with the appendix of “Conversations about Orthodoxy” and notes about Patriarch Photios and the division of churches Archimandrite Philaret, in a letter to Prince A.N. Golitsyn, dated February 12, 1815, wrote: Most Excellent Prince, Gracious Sovereign! With this, I have the honor to present to Your Lordship the first Conversations on Orthodoxy 442, for delivery to the one for whom they were written. I humbly pray to the One Giver of Truth that He will grant the dead and insignificant word of man His living and effective power. I will deliver the continuation after the end of the next article, which I did not know how to abbreviate. At the same time, I also present a special note about Patriarch Photios and the division of churches 443, part of which is known to Your Excellency. Perhaps, after reading, you will see that there are idle hands, eyes and ears for her. Entrusting myself and myself to your indulgence, with the deepest veneration and complete devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, Gracious Sovereign, my most humble servant. Archimandrite Philaret. With this letter, there was no “Conversations about Orthodoxy”, but there was only an article about Patriarch Photius and the divisions of churches, with the following content: About Patriarch Photios and the division of churches One Catholic Catechism says: Photius sowed the first seeds of division. It is sad to hear such complaints against an innocent man and a martyr. Let us consider the opinion of the Catholic mentor, and seek the protection of Photius and the Eastern Church either from the unsuspicious writers of the ancients, or from the most adherents of the opposing side. In the book: Dictionnaire raisonnè du gouvernement, des lois, des usages, et de la discipline de l’Eglise, par Antoine–Etienne–Nicolas des Odoards Fantin, Yicaire–géneral d’Embrum 444, under the word Constantinople, you can read, word by word, translated by me, the following opinion. “It seems that the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, which was adopted by the Bishops of Constantinople, is the true beginning of the Greek schism, which opened in the ninth century, in the Patriarchate of Photius.” You see that the first seeds of division were sown before Photius 445. The truly first seed of division was the name Ecumenical, which, since the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Emperors, Councils and Clergy began to apply to the names of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. The Council of Constantinople in 536, in whose acts the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch was repeatedly used, was accepted and approved by the Roman Church. But when later the same name was attributed to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople: then Pope Gregory the Great very strongly rebelled against this name, and called it anti-Christian (Er. L. IV; Er. XXXII. XXXIV. L. VI. Ep. IV. XXIV. XXX. XXXVI. XXXVIII). However, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, firstly, until the eighth century did not write themselves as Ecumenical, but only did not forbid others to do this; secondly, they accepted the title of Ecumenical only as an honorary one, just as some in the East were ascribed to the title of Ecumenical Teacher, but did not connect with it the concept of universal power; thirdly, they also attributed the honorary title to the Bishops of Rome. But since 606, this anti-Christian, in the words of Pope Gregory, name, with Pope Boniface III, sat on the Roman throne so firmly that the subsequent Popes, as far as circumstances allowed, tried in every possible way: firstly, to appropriate this name to themselves alone, and secondly, to unite world power with it. The incident that Boniface so exalted was the following. Phocas, who reached the Imperial Throne of Constantinople by murdering the Emperor of Mauritius, also wanted to kill his widow and three daughters. According to ancient custom, they sought safety in the Church. The emperor wanted to take them from there, but Patriarch Kyriakos opposed this. On this occasion, says the Catholic 446 writer (Binius in not. ad vitam Bon. III): “Phocas began to be hostile to Cyriacus and began to favor the Roman Church.” Boniface, having learned about this, took advantage of his hatred of Kiriak. Boniface, says another admirer of the Pope (Baronius ad an. 606), living in Constantinople until the death of Gregory, gained the favor of Phocas and acquired his friendship. For this reason, and also out of hatred for Cyriaco, the Emperor, at the request, again says the Roman writer (Paulus Warnefridi de gestis Longobard. L. IV. C. XXXVII) 447: “Pope Boniface determined that the throne of the Roman and Apostolic Church should be the head of all Churches.” It seemed that in this way the regicide and thief of the throne Phocas wanted to teach Pope Boniface his own spirit of lust for power. The popes did not extinguish this spirit. From time to time they had less respect for the Eastern Church and the Ecumenical Councils themselves; and without respecting the ancient rules, they introduced news after news. The Council of Trullo in many of its rules clearly denounces the Roman Church. For example, Rule 13 of this Council begins like this: “Since we have learned that in the Roman Church it is accepted as a rule that those who are ordained as a deacon or presbyter undertake not to touch their wives any more: then, following the ancient rule of Apostolic consideration and deanery (that is, 51 Apostolic 448), we wish that the legal cohabitation of priestly persons will be firm from now on.” Rule 55 also states: “Since we have learned that those in the city of Rome during the Lent of the Holy Pentecost fast on Saturdays, contrary to the faithful church observance: then the Holy Synod deigns that the rule (64 Apostolic) may be inviolable in the Roman Church, saying: if the cleric turns, fast on the holy day of the Lord or on Saturday, except for one only, let it be erupted: if layman, let him leave. But despite the fact that these rules 449 of the Trullo Council were approved by the five Patriarchs and the ambassadors of the Pope and the Roman Council, the Roman Church did not submit to them and does not submit to this day. And so the seeds of division, sown by Phocas and Boniface, had already languished at the Trullo Council. Now let's see what Photius did, or better, what happened to him 450). He was 451, says the French Bishop I recently cited (in his dictionary, under the word Photins), of high breed and deep knowledge. His dignity was the reason that in 857, 858, being a layman, he was chosen as the successor of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Emperor Michael expelled, but who was not considered rightly deposed. Photius passed through all the ecclesiastical degrees in six days: on the first day he was made a monk, on the second a reader, on the third a subdeacon, on the fourth a deacon, on the fifth a presbyter, and on the sixth he was ordained Patriarch of Constantinople. Soon after ascending to the Patriarchal throne, he presided over the Council at which Ignatius was deposed. Subsequently, the time of the Pope, the ordination of Photius was considered illegal: however, it could be justified by the examples of Nektarios and Tarasius 452, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Saint Ambrose of Milan. It was declared legal in 861, at a Council of more than three hundred Bishops, among whom the ambassadors of Pope Nicholas I took precedence. Ignatius was again deposed. Let us supplement this testimony of the Catholic 453 writer with some circumstances that require special attention. Photius, being one of the first officials of the state (πρωτοασηκρήτης), had no need to seek the Patriarchate of Constantinople: and foreseeing his disasters in this dignity, he wrote to Pope Nicholas I (Ep. III. VI) that he would rather die than the Patriarchate. Ignatius, even before the election of Photius, signed his abdication of the throne. Photius began the conciliar deposition of Ignatius because the latter’s accomplices, having gathered in the church of Irene, wanted to depose the innocent Photius. But even after the first Council, yielding to the accomplices of Ignatius, Photius was ready to shake off the ashes of his persecutors and leave the throne (Er. III. VI. VIII), if he had been allowed to do so. At the Second Council, just as Ignatius, having been brought to Constantinople, was tried and condemned, so Photius was heard and found innocent of anything, and the Roman ambassadors signed this act. This council is called the Ecumenical: Gemnet 454, Bryennius, Balsamon, Zonar, Aristen, Nil of Thessaloniki, Nil Metropolitan of Rhodes, Matthew Blastar, Macarius of Ancyra and others. But Pope Nicholas did not recognize 455 this council 456; and caused Roman writers to complain to this day, some about the oppression of the Papal ambassadors, and others about the eloquence of Photius. (Dict. rais. Photius. Elemens de l’histoire Ecclesiastique par l’Auteur du nouveau dictionnaire des hommes illustres 1782, p.172). Ignatius, by conciliar verdict, dethroned in Constantinople, was mentally elevated to the throne in Rome. Photius, who personally proved his innocence before the Council of Constantinople, was condemned in absentia at the Council of Rome, 863. The very ambassadors of the Pope were subject to his wrath because they signed such a decision on the matter as was revealed from the council's research, and did not throw the Council of Constantinople and the Patriarch at the feet of the Patriarch of another Church. The Emperor denounced this pride of the Pope in a letter, and began to reveal the nakedness of the Roman Church. But the Pope became even more daring 457, and in an insulting letter to the Emperor (Er. VIII) he ordered that Ignatius and Photius be sent to Rome 458. What then was Photius to do? Or, contrary to the 8th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, to enslave the hitherto independent Constantinople, or better to say, the entire Eastern Church, to the unlimited love of power of the Pope, and at the same time subject it to the necessary influence of the opinions and customs of the Roman Church, which from day to day was increasingly deviating from the ancient rules; or contrast insolence with firmness, and, in the impossibility of maintaining peace any longer, expose all the disorders of the Western, hitherto covered by patience, but 460 which have long irritated the Eastern Church. The former, perhaps, would have been chosen by the mercenary, and the shepherd had to decide on the latter. And Photius fulfilled this with a district letter to the Patriarchs, a Council and a book signed by a thousand Eastern Bishops. 461 In 866, Pope Nicholas sent his priests to Bulgaria, attempting to tear it away from the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and subjugate it to himself. It belonged to the Throne of Constantinople, firstly, because it was part of the Eastern Empire, and indeed it was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople according to the law of Theodosius: secondly, because recently the Bulgarian Tsar Michael was baptized by the Greeks; thirdly, because the country inhabited by the Bulgars had Greek priests before their arrival. Photius stood for this right of his throne. And so it was necessary to try to overthrow him, and then divide his Patriarchy. The opportunity for this soon opened up 462. In 867, Emperor Michael was killed by Vasily, who was adopted from him, and this regicide and parricide ascended to the throne. Photius did not admit him to Holy Communion (Sym. Log. in Bas. n. v. Zonar. ann. t. III. Georg. Mon. Georg. Hamart. apud Leon. Allat. de Synodo Photiana c. XII). The Emperor, not wanting to humiliate himself with the repentance demanded by the Patriarch, expelled this witness of the truth; restored Ignatius, who had been deposed by the council, and, in order to decorate this violent matter, asked the Pope to cover it with a Council. At this time, after the death of Nicholas, Adrian II was on the Papal throne; but it was 463 the same Papal spirit in another body. He sent ambassadors to Constantinople and under their chairmanship a Council opened in 869, with 102 bishops alone, which the Roman Church considers the eighth Ecumenical Council. The enmity of the Emperor, the Pope, and the Ignatiev accomplices united at this Council against Photius. He was brought before the council not before the fifth meeting. Having testified against violence, he decided to remain silent, defending this determination by the example of the Savior. At the seventh meeting, Photius was deposed, cursed, and, as the hostile writer Nikita testifies (l. VIII, Conc.), his deposition was signed not with simple ink, but, a terrible thing, with a pen dipped in the very blood of the Savior 464. What this Council was like can be judged, by the way, by its 21 rules, by which even the Ecumenical Council is prohibited from accusing or judging the Holy Pope of the elder Rome, or the Holy Roman Church. What would be done, according to this rule, 465 with Pope Liberius, who, joining the Semi-Arians, signed their confession and condemned Saint Athanasius? According to this rule, Pope Honorius should not have been judged and condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for the Monothelite heresy. The more they gave in to the Popes, the more they demanded. John VIII, deciding, at all costs, to carry out the ecclesiastical conquest of Bulgaria, threatened Ignatius himself with a curse if he did not bring the Greek priests out of it within thirty days (Er. LXXVIII. Bar. ad an. 877). But Ignatius accelerated from the Papal court to the court of God. Then the Emperor, partly irritated by the violent actions of the Pope, partly remembering the virtues and merits of Photius, as testified by Leo Grammarian, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Zonar and others, returned him from cruel imprisonment 466 to the Patriarchal throne. According to the letters of Basil, Photius and other Easterners, John VIII sent his ambassadors to Constantinople, authorizing them to restore Photius, the “Holy Patriarch, brother and co-servant” of the Pope, reconcile the Easterners with the Roman Church, destroy the Council that deposed Photius, and finally the Pope did not forget his main subject, to insist on the concession of Bulgaria to the Roman throne. Thus, in 879, 383 bishops, including ambassadors of Rome and all the Eastern Patriarchs, formed a Council in Constantinople, which many Eastern writers recognize as the eighth Ecumenical Council. This council approved 467 the restoration of Photius; recognized the inviolability of the Pakaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol, under pain of damnation, and thus rejected 468 the addition of the word denounced by Photius: and the Son; He determined by his first rule that those bound by John should be bound by Photius, and those bound by Photius should be bound by John, without any innovation regarding the eldership of the Pope and the Church of Rome. Consequently, he recognized the independence and equality of both thrones and common Churches; and the matter of Bulgaria, as the matter of the borders of the Eastern Empire, was left to the Emperor. We can say that here Photius, together with the Council, trampled and suppressed the already growing thorns of discord. But the Roman throne, having not received two coveted things: the eldership of the universal power and Bulgaria, was moved by new anger, and began to throw curses at the East by the full handful, like sand against the wind. Photius, cursed, according to Binia by twelve, and by Allatius, by nine Popes, through the machinations of 469 Popes, again dethroned from the throne by Emperor Leo, who died in captivity in a monastery, achieved the last of the nine beatitudes counted by the Savior: blessings of course, when they revile you, and destroy you, and say all kinds of evil verb, against you lying to me for my sake (Matthew 5:2). I will conclude this sad story again with the testimony of the French Bishop I cited earlier (in the dictionary under the word Photias): The Pope demanded at the Council that restored Photius that Bulgaria be subordinated to the Patriarchate of Rome. Having not received satisfaction with these demands, but having learned that Photius had installed Metropolitans in this country and sent them a mantle, he could no longer maintain himself within the limits of moderation. He, having expelled the ambassadors who were at the Council of Constantinople, canceled everything that had been done at the Seventh Council, and excommunicated Photius, who, for his part, again separated from the Church of Rome. That's what to say about the division of the Eastern and Western Churches Bishop of the Western Church! Judging by this evidence, was it not love of power alone that forced the Pope to despise the lawful Council, to curse the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had in no way offended the faith, and thus to commit a division of the Churches? I say: commit: since after this there were only times of silence; but the times of unanimity are over 470 . February 17. Letter from Archimandrite Philaret to Prince A.N. Golitsyn, with a review of the manuscript entitled: “Discours sur l’orthodoxie, ou preuves incontestables contre les opinions hétérodoxes de l’église Romaine, et la primauté du Pape” 471. Archimandrite Philaret, dated February 17, 1816, wrote to Prince Golitsyn 472: The only addition to the attached essay, which seemed necessary to me, I wrote in Latin in pencil, against the text. I do not repent of the comments I previously made, not because such a knowledgeable person had the condescension to accept them, but because they were an opportunity for additions, with which the essay acquired several new interesting passages. Your Excellency, Gracious Sovereign, most humble servant. A. Filaret. February 17, 1816 At the same time, a manuscript in French was attached to the letter, under the title: “Discours sur l’orthodone, ou preuves incontestables contre les opinions hétérodoxes de l’église Romame, et la primautè du Pape” 473 . On this article, against the words: “En effet qu’est ce que c’est que le Pape? Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ nous dit. rendez à César ce qui est à César, et à Dieu ce qui est à Dieu: et les Papes se sont appropriès et ce qui est à Dieu et ce qui est à César. Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ nous dit encore: mon royaume – pas de ce monde: et les Papes, qui s’arrogerènt le titre de vicaire de Jesus Christ, établirent leur royaume dans ce monde. Mais il est temps que les Papes se conforment à l’esprit de notre religion, qui n’admet point de gouvernement theocrâtique” 474, Archimandrite Philaret wrote in pencil in Latin: “Non admittit theocratiam, nisi illam cujus unicum verum caput est Aeternus summus sacerdos et rex regum Jesus Christus” 475. Filaret was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite, as was said above (p. 37), in July 1811. The statement about poor students, as not being of particular interest, is not printed. Alexandrov, Theodore, in monasticism Feofan. About him, see above, p. 292, note. 4. In the “certificate” column, notes were made in the personal handwriting of the auditor, bachelor, and Archimandrite Philaret. File of the commission of theological schools, 1811, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, No. 635, pp. 1–11. The list of students of the Peter and Paul School of the lower department, intended for higher education, is not published, as it is not of particular interest. Statement under letters. c is not printed. Statement under lit. d does not fit in this edition. passed away in 1831. For information about him, see historical and statistical. information about the St. Petersburg diocese. St. Petersburg 1869, issue. 1, p. 120. Statement under lit. in is not printed. Vydomost under lit. s doesn't fit. In the “evidence” column, notes are made by the auditor himself. Statement under lit. V. doesn't fit here. The statement under the letter C does not fit here. In the “certificate” column, the marks are made in the auditor’s own handwriting. Cases of the commission of theological schools, 1811, No. 361 and 635. Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church, with the addition of an extract from the district letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Eastern Patriarchal Thrones, are printed. St. Petersburg, 1815 The note on Patriarch Photius, without the title, beginning with the words: “in one Catholic,” and ending with the words: “the following opinion,” is printed verbatim in the above edition, 1815, pp. 88–105, with slight changes in Abbas at the end of the article. Due to the rarity of the 1815 edition of “Conversations” and the importance of the note, this latter is reprinted in this edition. That. an explanatory dictionary of statutes, laws, customs and church deanery, compiled by Anthony-Eugene-Nicholas, vicar of Embrun. This is not the case in the printed period. In print - Roman writer. In print. “as I said before, approved...” In print. “The French writer I recently cited (Dict. rais. Photins) says the following about him.” Words: “speaks recently” and so on. before the word: “Photins” is not in the printed copy. In print. "About Patriarch Photius." In print: “more enterprising.” In print: then the following tirade: “In 866, Pope Nicholas sent his Bishops to Bulgaria, newly enlightened by Christianity, attempting to tear it away from the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and subjugate it to himself. It belonged to the throne of Constantinople, firstly, because it belonged to the regions of the Eastern Empire, and indeed it was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople according to the law of Theodosius and by location itself; secondly, because recently the Bulgarian Tsar Michael was baptized in Constantinople; thirdly, because the country inhabited at that time by the Bulgars had Greek priests before their arrival. To this ancient heritage of the Eastern Church, Western mentors brought with them new power and new teachings, such as: about the origin of the Holy Spirit, about the invalidity of the anointing performed by the priest, about the celibacy of priests.” In print: “in these circumstances.” In print: “at this time, both in the Pope himself and in the Bishops sent from him to Bulgaria, innovations and unjust claims were revealed in the most seductive way.” In print. there are no words: “In 866,” before the words “for this right of his throne.” In print. “What was the Pope to do? It was necessary to overthrow the accuser, and then divide his patriarchy. The opportunity for this soon opened. In print. "the same spirit prevailing in another body." In print. “Besides cruel imprisonment, enmity invented the most severe torment for the sage: he was deprived of his books.” In print. There are no words: “from cruel imprisonment.” In print: “having destroyed the deeds of the previous one.” In printing. "not allowed" In print: “However, thanks to the enlightenment of Eastern Christians in faith and firmness in the ancient rules of the church - they did not look at papal curses the same way as Western peoples did, when the episcopal throne punished the royal thrones with the weapon of curse.” From secret papers stored in the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1818. It is not clear from the papers who wrote this article. The original does not indicate to whom this letter is addressed, but judging by the copy in those papers from the letter of Prince A. N. Golitsyn to the Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, dated January 12, 1812, who wanted to know about the difference between the Greek-Russian and Roman Catholic churches, one can think that this letter was also written Prince Golitsyn. The letter is as follows: “Your Imperial Majesty was pleased to have information about the differences that exist between the Greek-Russian and Roman Catholic churches, both in relation to dogmas and sacraments, and to the rites of each church. In accordance with the will of Your Imperial Majesty, I demanded from the most learned people from among our clergy located here that they provide me, each with their own assurance, and in the spirit of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church, their opinions on this subject, explaining the significant difference between these two confessions. Having outlined, based on the strength of information, the differences between the Greek and Roman Church, 1) according to doctrine or dogmas of faith, 2) according to the sacraments, and 3) according to rituals, I have the good fortune to submit to the discretion of Your Imperial Majesty both this presentation itself and the historical introduction to it that I compiled, in which the true reasons for the division of these two churches and the most important events, which from the second to the The 14th century more or less contributed to the establishment of this division of East from West in opinions related to faith. At the end are shown the works that served as my guide in compiling this historical note, in which I tried to avoid any bias. That is, talk about Orthodoxy, or irrefutable evidence against the heterodox opinions of the Roman Church and the primacy of the Pope. That is, what is the Pope, really? Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us: render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's, but the Popes have appropriated to themselves both that which belongs to God and that which belongs to Caesar. Our Lord Jesus Christ also tells us: My kingdom is not of this world, but the Popes, who appropriate to themselves the title of vicar of Jesus Christ, have established their kingdom in this world. But there is a time when Popes conformed to the spirit of our religion, which does not allow theocratic government. That is, it does not allow theocracy, except that of which the only true head is the eternal Supreme Priest and King of Kings Jesus Christ. Secret from the papers. chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1816 No. 102, l. 9, 95, 127–152; Nos. 9 and 11.