1835 г.

Metropolitan Philaret’s thoughts and assumptions about means to reduce schisms Instruction in the true teaching of the faith on the part of the Orthodox clergy, without a doubt, is the most appropriate tool for the conversion of those who are erring of all kinds. But this general means of conversion is opposed by an almost equally general obstacle, namely, the rule of schismatics to especially avoid relations with the Orthodox clergy. At the present time, there is no reason to fear that the bishop will not want to talk with a schismatic or address him with inappropriately reproachful or commanding words; but it may happen that the shepherd is not quite looking for the fleeing sheep. Therefore you need: 1) The Holy Synod continues to monitor and remind, at its discretion, that diocesan bishops carefully take advantage of all possible opportunities to enter into relations with those who have deviated from the church and sow among them concepts and feelings that would bring them closer to the church. 2) The civil authorities also take advantage of the opportunities that open up to bring schismatics closer to the Orthodox clergy. For example, the rule that schismatics should take an oath of purification in churches is useful to also apply to the oath of office. If, according to a civil court, a schismatic goes under penance, send him to a monastery, just as the Orthodox are sent, in order to give him an opportunity to admonish him and so that the schismatic is not advantageously independent of the law to which the Orthodox are subject. Since schism is most based on ignorance, schools should be a means against schism. But these means must be carefully adapted to the goal. If schools are in the hands of schismatics, they will naturally be breeding grounds for schism, not Orthodoxy. If the schools of the common people are in the hands of people who have received a secular direction of mind, it may happen (as is observed in England 280) that the spread of literacy will not improve morality, but will damage it, through unfounded suggestions and harmful reading. Teaching reading, the rudiments of the catechism and sacred history, under the guidance of the clergy, in the simplest way and applied to national life and customs, is the safest means of spreading sound concepts among the common people. But it is difficult to make this remedy applicable to schismatics, who, of course, would rather entrust their children to a schismatic than to an Orthodox priest. For this you need: 1) That the clergy be given freedom in teaching children, under the supervision of the diocesan authorities, without claims from the directorates of the Ministry of Education. 2) So that, on the contrary, schismatic teachers are prevented by the force of the latest legislation of the Ministry of Education. It is incomparably more convenient to provide education for children who come to the teacher from their parents’ homes than to establish schools in which children not only study, but also live. Therefore, the former should be adopted with a more general measure, and the latter should be established where there are sufficient means and hope of faithful supervision. The education of children and women is desirable because, as is known from experience, women, who are even more ignorant than men, and equally stubborn in their attachment to the hereditary and customary, keep their husbands in schism and even attract them into it. But women's residential schools are even more difficult than men's schools to organize and provide with decent leadership and supervision. The most convenient way to enter into this matter would be for the wife of a priest or deacon, if capable, to become a craftswoman for teaching girls literacy and handicrafts. It is impossible not to notice that the soil on which schismatic public institutions are planted, strengthened and grow, which then serve to maintain and spread the schism in private individuals, constitutes public schismatic property. As long as it is hidden under the guise of private property, the law has no business with it, and in this case it is less harmful, because it is less likely to cause a split. But when it takes on the form of what really exists, it becomes an open and solid support for schism. But in this case, as much as it is harmful, fortunately, it is incompatible with the spirit of state laws. The church of the dominant religion can acquire real estate only with a special, each time, highest permission. From this, without a doubt, it follows that a schismatic society, which itself is not recognized by law, cannot legally acquire real estate. But it is known that, with the illegal permission of subordinate government officials and superiors, schismatic societies own houses, shops and lands. As much force as the law would be restored on this subject, the schism would lose so much force. In order to restore the force of the law and in order not to be too hampered by deviations from it, one could take the following, or similar to the following, rules: 1) Institutions, although known as schismatic ones, are highly permitted as charitable institutions, for example, almshouses in Moscow, Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky houses, to be left as public charitable institutions in their own locality. 2) But do not recognize real estate property that turns out to belong to them, outside their area, as acquired illegally, as legal, and therefore sell it within a reasonable time, and provide money in favor of the establishments under whose name the illegal property turned out to be. 3) Houses of prayer that existed before 1826 and were left tolerant by the highest command of this year should be left in their original position. 4) But residential buildings assigned to schismatic prayer houses should be converted into private property, either by returning them to the persons from whom they came to the schismatic society, or by selling them in favor of some schismatic almshouse of the same society, if there is one approved by the government, and otherwise - in favor of the order of public charity. 5) These rules, as not a new law, but only an application of existing laws, without any special proclamation, should be implemented gradually, as illegal property is discovered, so that this does not look like a new general measure, but a correction of particular discretionary deviations from the law. Among the general measures of not strengthened, but prudent counteraction to schisms, one can include the rule that people who are strong among schismatics are no longer strengthened by satisfying their ambition. The honor and some power of rich and clever schismatics in their society is an advantage that they are very sorry to part with if they join the church. This advantage increases when they achieve civil distinction. Through this, their ambition is suddenly doubled, both by acquiring significance in the civil circle in general, and at the same time by increasing their honor in the special circle of the sect. A lenient government, adorning schismatics, sometimes more out of benevolence and generosity than out of demand for merit, quietly creates supports for the schism. Therefore you need: 1) So that members of more harmful sects have no right to social distinctions at all, and 2) that members of less harmful sects should not be adorned with honorary titles and distinctions, in those cases where this is not strictly required by excellent merit or generally useful feat. The state of schisms currently requires special attention from the government; but if this attention were equally strongly focused on all types of schisms, with the search and use of decisive taming measures, then a burdensome multitude and variety of affairs and orders could be revealed with which attention could be distracted, and from this it could follow that not all the measures taken would be sustained. But measures taken and not taken are often more harmful than if they had not been taken at all. Therefore, the attention of the government, between different types of schisms and sects, must be divided according to present circumstances as follows: 1) So that we continue to maintain vigilant supervision over schisms that are less harmful, against their strengthening, and to weaken them, with unflagging observation of the rules that have been adopted until now. 2) But so that more effective measures, legislative and administrative, are taken against sects that are more harmful and dangerous to the public good and peace. Regarding the Popovshchinsky split, the main points of observation are: 1) So that any construction and restoration of houses of worship, after the time in which the preceding actions are covered with high-monarchal condescension, is either not allowed, or is subject to the destruction of places marked by disobedience to the law. 2) So that the local civil authorities make it clear to schismatics of this persuasion that, just as any escape is a crime against public order and the law, the escape of a priest from his rightful place cannot but be considered a crime, and that therefore state justice cannot forever allow that leniency towards fugitive schismatic priests, which until now was shown only in the hope of admonition and a return to order. 3) In particular, so that a schismatic priest who has seduced an Orthodox person into schism, or, what is the same, has performed some sacrament on an Orthodox person, should immediately be deprived of the tolerance that he had hitherto enjoyed, and be sent to the court of his legal superiors. 4) So that local authorities do not shy away from implementing existing laws against causing a schism and against assigning leadership positions to schismatics. 5) So that those who seduce the Orthodox into schism, no matter who they are, are not left without responsibility, as violators of public peace and the rights of the dominant religion. 6) So that schismatics are not freer from the laws than Orthodox Christians, such as, for example, so that those who marry while underage, who bury those who died less than three days after death, and who bury those who suddenly died without notification from the police, are not left without responsibility. To those branches of priestlessness in which prayer for the Tsar is accepted and marriage is not completely rejected, the same rules of observation can be applied as are needed in relation to priesthood. Of the more harmful and dangerous sects, the Molokan sect requires special attention, which, due to the spirit of self-will and disrespect for everything revered, over time can threaten public peace if firm barriers are not put in place to its spread. The means of counteracting this harmful sect may consist partly in applying to it with special force existing laws against schisms, partly in new, special measures that would reduce the significance of members of this sect in society and influence on others, and thus take away the methods of initiation and attraction to the sect; somehow: any activity of the Molokan sect should not only be prohibited, but also, if possible, prevented by supervision, and if done, it should be immediately stopped and accompanied by responsibility for violators of the law. Molokan meetings for worship and teaching of the sect, both in prefabricated huts specially built for this purpose and in private houses, are not permissible. Molokan prefabricated huts, as will soon be determined, are subject to demolition, and the material is to be sold in favor of public charity. A meeting of Molokans in a private house of more than ten people, in addition to those belonging to the family of that house, is recognized as a sect and therefore not allowed. The police, having noticed a Molokan meeting, immediately dissolved it for the first time, and explained to the owner of the house and the leader of the meeting that it was impermissible, obliging them by signature not to hold future meetings. Anyone who has received a Molokan assembly into his house or who is in charge of it, after the above-mentioned personal prohibition, is subject to seven-day arrest or being subjected to public work for the same number of days. The person noticed for the third time is subject to a similar penalty with an increase in the period of detention from two to four weeks, depending on the circumstances. Spotted for the fourth time, he is put on trial as a distributor of the Molokan sect. A Molokan who publicly preaches the Molokan teaching to the ears of the Orthodox, for the first action of this kind, is put on trial as a distributor of the sect. A Molokan who has seduced an Orthodox Christian into his sect is put on trial as a distributor of the sect, and the seduced person is sent to the spiritual authorities for admonition and conversion. A Molokan, brought to trial for one of the above actions, is also sent to the spiritual authorities for exhortation to conversion; and if he turns to the church, he receives forgiveness for those sectarian actions for which he was put on trial. The exhortation can take from one to three months, and, depending on the need and for the convenience of the exhortation, the exhorted person can be kept in a monastery during this time. The distributor of Molokanism, exposed and not accepting admonitions to abandon his error, must be removed from the society in which he turned out to be harmful. In order to deprive a sect of those methods of strengthening and spreading that it borrows from social rights and relations, it is necessary to limit these rights and relations. A Molokan should not have the right to enroll in merchant guilds. (To block the entrance even to the philistinism would be inconvenient in relation to those who until now belonged to urban societies). A Molokan belonging to a peasant society should not have the right to move to an urban society, even if he received freedom from the landowner. A Molokan should not have the right to accept Orthodox Christians into permanent dependence, such as having them in service, as apprentices in a craft, or as workers in a factory or other establishment. A member of the Molokan family who belongs to or has newly converted to Orthodoxy must be accepted into the protection of the authorities against oppression by non-Orthodox family members. The unseparated son of a Molokan who converted to Orthodoxy should receive the right of a separated son, and, as an allowance for initial food and establishment, a share of the common property of the family to which he belonged. A temporary benefit from taxes for those converting from Molokanism does not seem at all a convenient means of encouraging conversion. Always Orthodox to pay taxes. How happier is one who has been a Molokan in order to gain temporary freedom from taxes? This can be granted only to those who, when turning to the church, separating from the Molokan families, are not suddenly able to arrange their economic condition and be able to pay taxes. The same can be said about conscription. Encouraging with distinctions and honorary titles those of the Molokans who convert and convert many with them can, in some special cases, be used as the highest mercy; but it is hardly convenient and useful to accept and announce this as a general measure. The measures intended for the Molokans can be applied to the Judaizers, either at the same time, or with some gradualness, after testing them over the Molokans. Regarding the eunuchs. Since the hoarders exterminate the offspring of the hoarders, would it not be useful to declare the action of the hoarders in the law a crime close to murder, not so much in order to increase the severity of the punishment, but in order 281 to show the crime 282 more base and despicable? See log. minister enlightenment 1835, November. Reviewed foreign-language newspapers and magazines in Russia, Art. 3. Pedagogy. Some of these assumptions were highly approved and published in the collection of resolutions regarding the schism, dated February 13, 1837; St. Petersburg 1858 From a handwritten rough original, kept. in Moscow spirit. academic; Conv. No. 3; document No. 6.