1840 г.

January 7. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the case of failure to perform a thanksgiving service in the Sekis Edinoverie church, in the Biysk district, Tomsk province, on the occasion of the marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna with Duke Maximilian of Leuchtenberg Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated November 2, 1840, for No. 7021, proposed to the Holy Synod the attitude of the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 1 that in the Edinoverie Sekis church, in the Biysk district, Tomsk province, a prayer of thanks was not served for the marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna with Duke Maximilian of Leuchtenberg, and there was no three-day ringing; that the local archpriest Vavilov explained that such a prayer service did not take place due to the lack of a book printed before Nikon, and that the deacon peasant Khudyakov did not allow this, and that co-religionists everywhere forbid calling the Sovereign - Emperor and most pious, the Empress - Empress and most pious, and the great princes and princesses pious. The consistory concluded: the actions of the peasant Khudyakov and Sekis’ co-religionists should be submitted to the consideration of the civil authorities, and upon receiving information from him, the actions of Archpriest Vavilov should be considered. Metropolitan Philaret gave the following opinion on this: Would it not please the Holy Synod to order: When considering the circumstances of this case, the action of both the archpriest of the same faith and the diocesan authorities themselves turns out to be unsatisfactory. 1) The archpriest, inconsistent with his rank, unaccountably obeyed the orders of the peasant Khudyakov and other fellow believers and, in derogation from his duties, followed their ignorance, instead of trying to resolve their misunderstanding in a decent manner. He had to explain to them that the duty to pray for the king and his august house is an urgent duty; and due to the lack of an old printed prayer song, he could invite them to perform a prayer song according to an old printed book to the Savior, or the Mother of God, a church holiday, or a daily saint, with the litanies prescribed in the old printed books about the health of the most pious Sovereign and his august house, and with many years to him at the end of the prayer service, by which the loyal duty would be fulfilled, and the custom of the Edinoverie Church has been observed. He could imagine to them that if, at the betrothal and marriage of their children, they perform prayer singing in church or in their homes, then it is even more proper and proper that prayer and thanksgiving singing be performed throughout the entire state on the occasion of the betrothal of the blessed daughter of the most pious Sovereign. He had to point out to them that even the old printed books call our Orthodox Sovereigns the most pious and their children the most pious. If such admonitions were not accepted, or if he was at a loss as to what to do, the archpriest was obliged, without the slightest delay, to ask for instruction and guidance from the diocesan bishop. 2) since the co-religionists did not fulfill what was due, no doubt, not out of a spirit of rebellion, but out of misunderstanding and sinful fear, so as not to violate old customs, then the Right Reverend 2, having received an explanation about this from the archpriest, on the one hand, was obliged to immediately report the omission to the Holy Synod, on the other hand, he should not hasten to bring them to trial, but was obliged to use the above-mentioned admonitions archpriest, and through him to fellow believers, in order by gentle measures to convert them to duty and, if possible, protect them from judicial responsibility, which pastoral condescension and care could serve to further strengthen them in obedience to the Holy Church. And therefore 1) bring the above-mentioned irregularities and omissions of the diocesan authorities to his attention, with confirmation to beware of similar ones in the future. 2) Instruct the Eminence to immediately make the above admonitions to the co-religionist archpriest and priest, and through them to the co-religionists, and to consider and present the following to the Holy Synod with an opinion. 3) Meanwhile, until such consideration, through proper communication, suspend the trial of fellow believers. If this had been read before me in the Holy Synod, then I would have presented some parts of this project, for what reason what was said. The Holy Synod 3 fully agreed with this opinion. January 30. Metropolitan Philaret's review of the manuscript: “Letters on the offices of the holy orders” compiled by A. S. Sturdza A member of the Moscow committee for the censorship of spiritual books, professor of philosophy, Archpriest Theodore Golubinsky 4, having examined the manuscript received by the committee on August 4, 1839 (No. 153), from Chamberlain Andrei Muravyov 5 by A. Sturdza 6, under the title: “Letters on the positions of the holy orders,” presented the following opinion about it to the committee: This manuscript contains correspondence between one bachelor of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Alexander, who was preparing to accept the priesthood, and then ordained as a presbyter, with his spiritual father, a hieromonk, who gives him advice regarding the performance of the duties of a presbyter. The publisher of this correspondence divided it into seven books: I, on preparation for the priesthood; II, about sacred rites; III, about confession; IV, about preaching the word of God; V, on teaching the law; VI, about the presbyter’s treatment of people; VII, about the title of evangelist (missionary). Books I, II and III constitute the first volume submitted to the censorship committee. Book 1 offers advice and reflections on: 1) how to recognize, in relation to oneself, God’s calling to the priesthood (items I–III, pp. 1–16); 2) where and how to collect the knowledge needed for a priest (items IV and V, pp. 16–34); 3) what feelings and skills to accustom your heart and will in preparation for accepting the priesthood (section VI, pp. 34–38); 4) what Christian virtues should a person preparing for the priesthood accustom his wife to (items VII and VIII, pp. 38–46); 5) about the reverent church service of a deacon (item IX, pp. 46–50); 6) appendices to the third letter from the second word of John Chrysostom 7, on the priesthood, and from the book of Dionysius the Areopagite 8, on the church hierarchy (pp. 53–55). In the letters that make up the 1st book, written after Alexander’s dedication to the priesthood, the essence of the position of a priest is explained, and its main principle is love for one’s neighbor and zeal for God (item I, pp. 57–62); and the feelings of the newly ordained priest and the elder’s instructions related to the attentive reverent rites and readings in church and to the performance of the sacraments: baptism, confirmation, marriage and consecration of oil are depicted (items II–VI, pp. 62–85). Book III contains advice and notes on: 1) how a priest can prepare himself for the confession of others (item I, pp. 97–102); 2) how to act during confession on the careless, on those who are too suspicious and of little faith, and on those close to despair (items II–V, pp. 102–120); 3) how to convince and admonish unbelievers and those deceived by Catholics and Protestants (items VI–IX, pp. 120–141); 4) how to confess the youths (item X, pp. 141–145); 5) how to give instructions to the sick and dying (item XI, pp. 145–158); 6) what advice to give to those who reveal in confession that they have visions (item XII, pp. 159–164). These letters cannot replace the classic book of pastoral theology and do not have such completeness, firmness and systematic accuracy as we see in the book published, with the blessing of the Holy Synod: on the positions of parish elders; however, it contains a lot of edifying advice and comments applied to the needs of our time regarding what feelings a priest should be filled with, and how he can act more faithfully and successfully in those entrusted to his care; this is especially noticeable in the VI letter of Book I and almost all of Book III. Both in the elder’s instructions and in the dispositions of his spiritual son, reverence for God, for the word of God and the sacraments, devotion to the Orthodox Church and Christian love for neighbors are everywhere expressed. The style of the letters is animated by heartfelt conviction, free and often strong. Some incorrect expressions and thoughts have been partly corrected and partly excluded by me, with the consent of the publisher. Then there remain four more passages in the manuscript, the approval or disapproval of which the censorship committee, on its own, without the permission of the Holy Synod, cannot decide. Exactly. On pages 25 and 26 it is said: I will say one more thing in passing: teaching languages ​​in our academies to some selected students: Turkish, Moldavian and Georgian would be saving for Orthodoxy. For you know that in Asia Minor and Syria Christians speak Turkish, and in churches they listen to the word of God in the common Turkish dialect. But the Moldovans, Volokhs, Georgians, our brothers, firmly hold the grudge with us, which is fought from everywhere, the banner of the apostolic faith, and they look at the Russian Church as a support given to them from above. This remark can hardly be accepted, because: 1) those who complete the course at the academies are not sent to Moldova, Asia Minor and Syria; 2) as for the Georgian language, the study of it is necessary for students in the Tiflis seminary, as well as the study of Zyrian, Tatar, Cheremis and Buryat in those seminaries from which students enter parishes in which these languages ​​are used. In academies, not a single student can know that, upon completion of the course, he will be sent to Tiflis, where mentoring vacancies do not often open; and therefore has no motivation to learn the Georgian language. On page 26 it is written: “the Jewish language, although it is taught here on an equal basis with the classical ones; however, a deep study of it is especially important for those clergy who have devoted themselves to scientific research for the benefit and edification of the churches. On the contrary, all who are called to struggle and fight at the crossroads of the world, in a constant struggle with temptations, vices and the vanity of life, should not seem to distract their mental powers with excessive curiosity, let them not become more philosophic than they should be, but let them philosophize to achieve chastity, purity and holiness in themselves and the Christian souls entrusted to them.” This remark can be countered by the following valid reasons. 1) the Hebrew language is the sacred language. scriptures; 2) in Russia it is more common to meet and talk about religion with Jews than with Turks and Moldovans; 3) the text cited in support of this comment (Rom. 12:3) does not apply to the study of the Hebrew language; 4) if this letter falls into the hands of seminary students, then the remark given here will weaken their zeal and diligence in studying such a subject, which is prescribed to be studied in the statutes of theological schools. Since the purpose of the languages ​​that students of academies and seminaries should learn depends on the highest school authorities, the censorship committee cannot by itself give a decisive judgment on these two remarks. On page 37, the elder writes: “I am being sent to the Trans-Volga monastery, so that there too I can help plant and establish the holy faith in the surrounding Mordovian and Cheremis villages,” etc. Further, the same appointment is mentioned on pages 38, 41 and 42. The censorship committee does not know whether any one was actually sent in 1830 hieromonk from the Kyiv or adjacent dioceses to plant the Christian faith in the Mordovian and Cheremis villages. If this did not happen, then it is impossible to approve for publication a fictitious news about an event that relates not only to a private person, but to the history of the Russian church. On pp. 159–164. The elder offers advice on how to distinguish supernatural visions sent from God from natural visions and those sent from the spirit of flattery. Several correct distinguishing features of these and other visions are shown here, but there is no complete and satisfactory calculation and explanation of them, so that based on the indicated features it is impossible, in any case, to correctly distinguish one vision from others. Therefore, the advice offered here can hardly serve as a useful and sufficient guide for the priest in those rare cases when those confessing to him tell him about their visions. Everything else contained in the letters about positions of holy orders is beyond doubt. For the reasons stated above, I consider it my duty to conclude that this manuscript, as containing a lot of edifying advice and comments, is worthy of approval for publication. The censorship committee, recognizing the opinion of Archpriest Golubinsky as fair, concluded to approve the manuscript: “Letters on the positions of the priesthood” for publication, on the basis of 202 stat. statute on censorship. But since this manuscript contains four passages, shown in the opinion of a member of the committee, about which the censorship committee, without the permission of the Holy Synod, cannot give a decisive judgment, and the entire manuscript belongs to the number of such works, which contain a statement of the rules of Christian activity, and which, on the basis of Art. 229. of the statute on censorship, the censorship committee should not allow it to be published until after the consideration and permission of the Holy Synod: then, without implementing its conclusion, the censorship committee, September 15, 1839, No. 169, submitted it, as well as the manuscript itself, for the consideration and permission of the Holy Governing Synod. The Holy Synod, by decision on the 25th of September, forwarded the said manuscript, in 8 notebooks, together with the original report of the censorship committee, for the consideration of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, who, as a result, in his report dated January 30, 1840, wrote: In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 7, 1839, No. 13553, I read the manuscript: “Letters on the offices of the holy order,” and while reading it, some comments appeared that especially required the attention of the Holy Synod. The first book. Letter 4 says that teaching Turkish, Moldavian and Georgian languages ​​in our academies would be salutary for Orthodoxy. The Censorship Committee submits this part of the book for permission from the Holy Synod. I considered it necessary to exclude this passage as not belonging to the subject of the book. The subject of the book is to give instructions to those preparing for the priesthood and priests, and not to give advice on the organization of academic departments. Whoever has the zeal to do this last thing can offer his thoughts to his superiors. It is not useful to spread the opinion among subordinates with a book that the authorities have not arranged the departments in the academies as they should, and as would be salutary for Orthodoxy. In the same letter, the Hebrew language is mentioned in such a way that its importance and benefits are recognized, but, moreover, for some it is considered a subject of excessive curiosity. Here I recognized the need to replace some expressions with others closest to the subject, without canceling the idea that it is inconvenient for this subject of knowledge to be common to all priests. The third book, the letter talks about deists and theists. It is unpleasant to see the holy name of God given as a name to a sect of unbelievers, and it is even strange to see under the names of deists and theists two different meanings, although Deus and Θεός equally mean: God. If theism is the opposite of atheism or naturalism, then it must have a broader meaning than that given to it by the author. To reduce confusion, it seemed necessary to me to eliminate at least the name of theists. Of the same book, in letter 9, the Western councils, which existed after the apostasy of the Roman Church, are rejected as unnecessary, because the previous councils resolved all the perplexities. The writer did not notice that this reason is weak against Western councils, and yet, if accepted, it would also reject the Eastern ones, which existed after the fall of the Western Church. I corrected this place because I could correct it without redoing it. Letter 11 instructs the insensible patient to say a prayer resolving sins conditionally and in doubt. Not seeing the church rules for this, I excluded this. In the same letter, the patient, blaming himself for serious crimes, is assigned as penance to say certain prayers, Psalm 50, etc. It is impossible not to notice that in this case the instruction of the experienced could have been more complete. It is immediately advised to encourage the same patient to sacrificially lift up the suffering he endures to God. Such advice is more appropriate for a sick person, not a criminal; and it is fairer and more useful to advise the criminal that he endure his suffering as a righteous punishment, and, moreover, thank God for cleansing him with temporary suffering in order to save him from eternal suffering. I cite this as an example of the fact that although the elder writing letters often refers to his experience, his instructions, sometimes incomplete and not precisely adapted to the subject, do not hide the fact that this experience is only ideally imaginary. The same letter says: keep the indestructible seal of the sacrament. This saying is incomprehensible; and therefore I could not draw a conclusion whether it contained the correct thought. Letter 12, on visions especially, shows no sign of experiential instruction. However, with the censorship of a few questionable passages, it can give some idea of ​​the subject and presents useful comments, although not a complete guide. For this, as the decree of the Holy Synod requires my opinion, firstly, on the merits of the work, and secondly, on the benefits of publishing it, then, regarding the first question, there seems to be no reason not to agree with the opinion of the censor, that although this work cannot replace the classic book of pastoral theology and does not have the completeness, firmness and systematic accuracy that the book on offices published, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, has parish presbyters, however, it contains a lot of edifying advice and comments regarding what feelings a priest should be filled with and how more successfully he can act, of which advice the censor rightly points out a particularly noteworthy example in the 6th letter of the first book. The merit of these letters is not that they could sufficiently educate a priest; but they have the dignity that to someone preparing for the priesthood or newly entering it, they can provide and arouse or support useful reminders and in him a pure feeling of zeal for sacred service. By resolving the first question, the second question, about the benefits of the publication, is almost resolved; but I hesitate to say: it is completely permitted. For a student of theology and for a young priest, reading this work will be more useful than other light reading; but what impression will the reading of especially the instructions relating to confession make in the secular reader? Will this not give rise to a temptation for him to look at the actions of his spiritual father as calculated techniques of art, and to notice how they are used, instead of listening to the minister of the sacraments with reverence and simplicity? In my opinion, the desire for benefit would be combined with undue caution if priests and students of theological schools could receive this printed work through consistories and ecclesiastical school boards, without declaring a public sale of it. Having reported this to the Holy Synod, I return the manuscript of the work and the report of the censorship committee. No. 46, January 30, 1840 9. After hearing this review, the Holy Synod, by definition on February 12/March 7, 1840, decided: the manuscript “Letters on the Offices of the Holy Order” submitted by the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books should be allowed to be allowed by the committee to be printed as corrected 10. After February. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI 11 regarding the goodwill of the Holy Church expressed by him upon leaving the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople Holy Bishop! Mutual communications between Orthodox churches and their clergy in modern times are not as open and free as in ancient times. Therefore, I have never found myself in the right to extend my humble word to your Holiness. But having heard with reverence the word spoken by you upon leaving the ecumenical patriarchal throne of Constantinople, I cannot help but give freedom to my thoughts and feelings to open up before you. Those who are sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy will feel in your word the continuity of the spirit that breathed in the word of Saint Gregory the Theologian when he left the throne of Constantinople - the spirit of zeal for the good of the church, love of peace, patience. May the Lord grant your prayers the power to proclaim and replenish the good that you would bring to the Orthodox Church through your leadership. May He enlighten the hierarchy and the people so that they can place a burning and shining lamp on the candlestick of the Church of Constantinople, and so that no hand comes close to moving it from its place until the Father of lights takes it to the highest mansions of lights. It is also worthy of your prayers that the people, who have long remained in obedience to the throne of Constantinople, and are now agitated, struggling, tempted, be pacified and protected in Orthodoxy by providing them with the contented freedom to have pastors and teachers who can be understood, to listen to divine services in an understandable language, and to teach children in a natural language. Do not deprive me of remembrance in your prayers to Christ our Savior God. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 12 April 29. Instructions 13 compiled by Metropolitan Philaret for the teacher of the law, Archpriest Meglitsky, appointed to explain the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to the highest person 14, a foreign ruling house, and to prepare her for entry into this church Instructions to a teacher of the law appointed to explain the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church to a high person of a foreign ruling house and to prepare her for entry into this church. The complete character of a true mentor in faith and piety, according to the word of Christ the Savior, should consist of two main features, which are also two ways of spiritual edification: to create and to teach. Therefore, in the present case, the appointed teacher of the law needs correct rules to govern his personal actions and teaching. A. About the actions of the appointed teacher of the law. The basis of his conduct must be his own piety, living and active. From the abundance of the heart, animated by faith, his lips will speak spontaneously and convincingly. By frequently invoking the spirit of truth, he will gain strength to proclaim the truth of God. He must have the zeal of God in his service, but the zeal of reason. He will make it his duty to present the truth with dignity, and not to quarrel unnecessarily about opinions. Therefore, he will avoid competing with those who differ in their views, adhering to the apostolic admonition: deny competition, knowing that it gives birth to quarrels: but it is not fitting for the servant of the Lord to become angry, but to be quiet towards everyone, a teacher, and not to be angry. B. About the teaching of the appointed teacher of the law. An event that is taking place will be an introduction to discussions with a high person about faith. The Providence of God calls her into a high sacred union, in the blessed family of the most pious Emperor of All Russia, and through this very thing calls her to the consideration and election of the religion dominant in that people, to whom, together with her sovereign home, she will also represent examples of piety. A teacher of the law can present the concept of the Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church and its confession in two forms: historically and dogmatically. In the historical presentation of the state of the Eastern Catholic Church, special attention should be paid to the symbol of faith contained by this church, which is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan council, solemnly confessed at the ecumenical councils: the Council of Nicea, which took place in 325, and the Council of Constantinople, which took place in 381 after the Nativity of Christ. It is undeniable that at that time it was the universal creed of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church. It is no less certain that it has been preserved from that time until now in the Eastern Church, without any change; as well as the fact that no change was required in it, for St. Scripture, from which just as the fathers of the councils drew the doctrine of faith, so we are obliged to draw. Therefore, everyone who reads the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol can say: “This is how they professed the Christian faith in the first four centuries of Christianity, and those who professed it this way unquestioningly belonged to the true Orthodox Catholic Church: it is obvious that I can confess it this way even now, without the slightest fear of error, and with full confidence that in this case I also belong to the same true church.” Further, since it is known that even with the recognition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, universal and forever unchangeable by the confession of the Holy Church, from time to time the questions that arose about certain objects of faith were resolved, and the laws of church deanery, as required by circumstances, were supplemented by councils, then in the historical review of the doctrine the question is necessarily presented: how should we reason about these councils and their regulations? In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we find that the apostles resolved the modern church issue through church councils and depicted the authority of their determination in these words: it pleased the Holy Spirit and us. Church councils will follow this unquestioningly sacred and divine model, and from it they will borrow the dignity and importance of their definition, since they serve as a faithful expression of the will of the universal church, always in agreement with the words of God and based on it. In this mind, the Eastern Catholic Church accepts seven ecumenical councils and several local councils approved by them. After the times of the seven ecumenical councils, the Western Church, led by the Roman Church, with innovations in dogmas and rules, and contrary to the original church decrees, the desire for universal dominance in spiritual and secular affairs, gradually separated in spirit and in external relations from the Eastern Catholic Church; and although at the Councils of Lyon and Florentine she attempted to restore union with her, she did not achieve this, because the Eastern Catholic Church, remaining faithful to the original dogmas and ancient rules and traditions, did not agree to approve the innovations of the Western Church. From this it is again clear that to join the Eastern Catholic Church today means to join the universal church of the first centuries of Christianity. For this, we must touch upon the relationship between the Eastern Catholic and Protestant religions. Some of its own members, respected by it, testified against the irregularities and abuses that multiplied in the Roman Church in the Middle Ages, of which Bernhard 15 and even some entire councils testified; finally, the denunciation turned into impatient excitement and the obvious separation from the Roman throne of entire regions, under the name of Protestants, that is, testifying against the damage to the Roman Church. Thus, a special religion was opened, which, having set itself the goal of elevating itself to the ancient purity of belief, in the heat of debate against abuses and innovations, did not always separate the abused from the abused, although what was used for evil can be good in itself if the abuse is eliminated; and from a just distrust of new and unclean legends imperceptibly passed to distrust and pure ancient traditions. Meanwhile, the Eastern Catholic Church remained and remains to this day what it was before Protestantism and before Latinism, containing an invariably pure apostolic tradition, and an unbreakable continuity of hierarchical ordination, offering daily prayer for the unification of churches. Without a doubt, these advantages of the Eastern Catholic Church attracted many theologians who separated from the Roman Church, denominations, when they actively sought union with it, as can be seen from the relations of the Tübingen theologians with Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the English bishops with the Eastern patriarchs 16. In a dogmatic presentation of the teaching, the teacher of the law will first of all have to show that the Eastern Catholic Church recognizes, firstly, the word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures as the basis for its doctrine, rules of life and church order; secondly, apostolic and patristic tradition. Regarding this latter, in order to avert any confusion, it must be added that it does not give new dogmas, but those that are drawn from the Holy Scriptures, it expounds with accuracy, and carries them through all centuries without any change, and gives the rules of the hierarchy, sacred rites and church deanery. The rigor with which this church strives to be faithful to the word of God, the teacher of the law can show especially in the teaching about the origin of the Holy Spirit. The words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol about this divine sacrament: which proceeds from the Father, are the own words of our Lord Jesus Christ: the spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father. Over time, the Western Church began to say: from the Father and the Son, and this, without special consideration, passed into the Protestant confession. They try to justify this addition by guesses and conclusions drawn from certain sayings of the Holy Scriptures; but the Eastern Church, believing that in an incomprehensible mystery, no matter how reliable it is to rely on inferences and guesses, it is just as safe to express oneself in the exact words of Christ the Savior, it invariably contains the ancient saying of the symbol, thus remaining faithful at the same time to both the Holy Scriptures and the sacred tradition. Some Protestant theologians also give justice to this fidelity 17 . When explaining the dogma about the justification of man through faith in the God-man Redeemer, acting in love, or otherwise about the achievement of eternal salvation through faith and good works, it must be shown that in this teaching justification is attributed to the power of the merits of Christ the Savior, acceptable by faith; but at the same time, good deeds are also required, because they are the inseparable fruit of true faith; and because without works faith would not be true and living faith. In the teaching about the sacraments, it is necessary, among other things, to justify the sevenfold number of them, recognized by the Eastern Catholic Church. Protestant theologians recognize baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments; but they do not agree to extend this name to five others. Holy Scripture testifies against their use of words, when marriage is given the name sacrament (μυστήριον, Eph. 5:30, 32). In the teaching about the church, a special explanation is required by the fact that it, as the spiritual body of Christ, has an indestructible union of faith and love between all its members: so before God, the church of all times and places on earth, the militant and triumphant church, the church of the living and the church of those who have died - there is a completely united church. From this, the communion of prayers recognized by the Catholic Eastern Church between these different areas of this one church becomes clear. If the Apostle Paul, in the hope of real prayer help, speaks from Rome to the Jews living in Asia: pray for us: for we trust that the imams have a good conscience, desiring to live in all good things; then with no less hope of spiritual help can those living on earth say to the previously living righteous man: pray for us; and even more incomparably with greater hope, for if, according to the saying of another apostle: the prayer of a righteous man who is still laboring in the body on the path to perfection can do much, then even more is the prayer of a righteous man who has become perfect, who has put aside earthly infirmities, and with his departure from the world has come closer to the heavenly throne of grace. And he who departs to the church of the invisible world can also with hope bequeath to those who remain in the church of the visible world: pray for me; for I think to have a good conscience, trying to lead a good life, and therefore I go away, as I lived, in the communion of faith and hope in the one common Savior? Thus, the doctrine of the calling of saints and the remembrance of the dead will seem acceptable. To justify the church custom of honoring icons, one can use the example of the Old Testament church, which in the tabernacle and church honored icons, that is, sensory images of what was shown to Moses on the mountain; and this was introduced at the very time when a special commandment was proclaimed to her to protect her from the idolatry that prevailed in those days. To explain the ascent of the honor given to the icon to its prototype, one can imagine that if they give honor to the image of the Sovereign, without fear of idolatry, unless it is doubtful, it is proper and proper to give deep reverence to the images of the incarnate Son of God, His Most Pure Mother and the Saints in whom His grace dwells. Images of the works of God and the saints serve in the church not only for reverent remembrance of them, but also for the spread of knowledge. He who knows how to read sacred history reads it in books, and he who does not, reads it in icons. However, what cannot be covered by a preliminary brief instruction, then, as circumstances require, the teacher of the law, with the help of God, will draw from the pure sources of the word of God and the writings of the holy fathers, having at the same time for guidance the Orthodox confession of Metropolitan Peter Mogila 18, and the lengthy catechism published by the Holy Synod. If necessary, he can point to the theology of the Right Reverend Plato 19 as a Russian work, also known in foreign translation. Finally, he must bear in mind that the survey of subjects presented here should serve to guide his thoughts, and not to turn them into literal lessons. He will not burden his young age with the difficulties of dogmatic research beyond necessity, but with a simple and clear presentation of essential truths he will act most importantly: with the meekness of conviction and the strength of a living sense of piety. May the Lord give the verb to the one who preaches the gospel, the verb of faith and love, the verb of peace and salvation, so that the chosen daughter may be called into the Orthodox Church, following in the footsteps of those who preceded her, who consoled and console the Holy Church and Russia with their Orthodoxy and virtues. On this draft, the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich deigned to write in his own hand: “Very good, to add something similar only that you need to act with meekness of conviction more than with dogmatism, which is difficult to understand at a young age” 20. July 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, on the issue of persons of Roman law divorced by the court of the Orthodox Church Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a letter dated July 3, 1840, No. 3778, asked Metropolitan Philaret to report his conclusion on the issue of persons of Roman law divorced by the court of the Orthodox Church. In response to this, the Metropolitan wrote: By reference, dated July 3, No. 3778, your Excellency demanded my opinion on the issue of persons of Roman law divorced by the court of the Orthodox Church. This question is presented from the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical board, in the following form: can the Roman Catholic spiritual authority from persons divorced by the Holy Governing Synod of the Roman Catholic confession, who were married to Orthodox Christians, accept into consideration their petitions for divorce according to the Roman Catholic law, if in these petitions the grounds are presented, accepted in respect by the Roman Catholic Church for the divorce of the previous marriage, with admission to join the new one. In this question, the expression: about divorce and according to Roman Catholic law, clearly shows that the college has in mind two divorces of marriages presented in the question: one according to the Orthodox confession and the other according to Roman Catholic law. But in Article 2143, Volume X of the Code of Laws, which the board itself writes out in its report, there is one dissolution of marriage by the court of the Orthodox Church, and in order to prevent any misunderstanding, it is added that this decision must be firmly applied to both persons. If the decision of the Orthodox court is firm, then the divorce is decisively made for the person of Roman law; and if it is done, then how can a petition for divorce be accepted according to Roman law, as if it had not yet been done? Why does the board want to accept petitions for divorce under Roman Catholic law? If in order to certainly recognize the decision of the Orthodox court as firm, as commanded in the Code of Laws, then what is the petition for? What's the use of new office work? The decision is already firm under the existing law. And if, in order for the board to have the right to grant or not grant a divorce under Roman Catholic law, then it also asks for the right to ensure that the decision of the Orthodox court is not firm, therefore, it wants to destroy the article of the Code of Laws. For clarity of reasoning, let us assume that the board achieved what it wanted; that by decree of the Governing Senate it is allowed to accept petitions for divorce under Roman Catholic law. In this case, the person of the Roman Catholic law, after the dissolution of the marriage by the Orthodox court, according to the Code of Laws, will be a person who is decisively divorced, but according to the decree of the Senate, not a divorced person, for only a non-divorced person should ask for a divorce. Thus, to please the Roman Catholic spiritual power, state power would be placed in contradiction with itself; and due to the controversial position of a person, recognized in part as divorced and in part not divorced, new, very intractable questions would undoubtedly arise about the rights of this person. The difficulty should increase even more: if any person divorced by an Orthodox court is decisively refused by the Roman Catholic college to grant a divorce according to Roman law. From such consideration of the proposed issue, in view of the law and the possible consequences, in my opinion, the following conclusion must be drawn: 1) The Roman Catholic College should be denied the right to accept - from persons divorced by the Orthodox court of Roman Catholic law - petitions for divorce under Roman law; for this would be contrary to the Code of Laws. 2) But in the event that such persons wish to enter into a new marriage, and for this they will need permission from the spiritual authorities of their religion; It is not forbidden for the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical board to accept and consider petitions from such persons for permission to enter into a new marriage, and in support of their request they can prescribe all the reasons and grounds related to this subject, accepted in respect by the Roman Church. Returning at the same time the attitude of the manager of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 21, for No. 1485, with two appendices thereto, with true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be 22. July 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with a conclusion on the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk for permission to one of the parish priests to correct the services for them in the local Old Believer chapel, without joining Orthodoxy At the request of the Old Believers of the city of Spassk, for permission to one of the parish priests to correct services for them in the local Old Believer chapel, without, however, joining the Orthodox Church, to the request of your Excellency (dated July 31, No. 4346), I have the honor to respond: Satisfying the essential spiritual needs of those who do not exist in the church yard would be less difficult on the spot, with a closer investigation of the circumstances, with less formality of relations. This is how it seems to me from previous experience in 1820 in Rzhev 23. The fugitive priests of the local schismatics were detained by the police and transported to their diocesan superiors. Those schismatics who had less strong prejudices against the church and who maintained the schism more out of habit and connections, without hesitating for long, turned to the Orthodox priests with demands; These, according to this instruction, did not stop doing them, without distant conditions on both sides. The matter was done without petitions, relations or reports, to the governor, to the bishop, to the Holy Synod. If in one of these cases leniency was extended far, one could hope that God’s judgment would cover the good intention with leniency; and it was inconvenient for the enemies of the church to extract reproach against it from private actions, or to base their right on them. Unfortunately, the success of this business was stopped by the fact that the fugitive priest, caught and sent away, soon fled again and, returning to Rzhev, was supported by the obdurate and rich of the schismatics. Now things are going on formally, even to the point of excessiveness, because the Right Reverend 24 demands formal permission to perform Divine services in front of ancient icons, although such an analysis has never been and cannot be entered into. And if it were so permissible for Orthodox priests to perform all the services of schismatics, in the chapel, precisely without joining the church, then: 1) this would be inconsistent with the rules and dignity of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments; 2) would give the schismatics a new weapon against the church. They would look at this not as condescension, but as recognition of their rightness; 3) due to the rapid communication between schismatics everywhere, this would have been announced in other places and, probably, many on the path to unity of faith would have stopped, seeing a way to satisfy themselves without joining the church, or otherwise, while maintaining their independence and republican arbitrariness in church affairs, which is the main charm of the schism. Given this difficult state of affairs, it seems to me that only the following is possible: 1) give the Right Reverend for guidance the rule adopted by the Holy Synod regarding the baptism of schismatic children, in order to baptize those represented without hindrance. 2) Give him also a secret order regarding marriages, which was given before this Eminence of Perm 25. 3) Grant him permission to give, to whomever he needs, permission to perform prayers and services from old printed books, since this is permitted in churches of the same faith. Having fulfilled, if possible, what was required, and returning the lists of presentation and petition sent to me 26. August 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the question raised by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs: should the Lutheran ecclesiastical authorities enter into the consideration of cases of divorce of marriages concluded between persons of Lutheran law, of which one subsequently joined the Orthodox Church On the question: should the Lutheran ecclesiastical authorities enter into the consideration of cases of divorce of marriages concluded between persons of Lutheran law, one of whom subsequently joined the Orthodox Church? – to your Excellency’s request, dated August 3, No. 4452, from my opinion, I have the honor to respond. In my opinion, cases of this kind, like all divorce cases in which one person is Orthodox, should be considered by an Orthodox consistory. The following considerations lead to this opinion: 1) The Evangelical Lutheran General Consistory itself pointed in this kind of case to the highest approval of the opinion of the State Council on the 24th day of April, 1832: consequently, it recognized this law, as it literally says, to extend to cases of this kind, without which there would have been no question. The expression of the law: in any case, almost eliminates the question of a special case encountered. 2) It is likely that when this law was drawn up, there was no discussion about marriages outside the Orthodox Church before one person joined Orthodoxy. But the law, without a doubt, had in its subject matter the marriages of an Orthodox person with an Evangelical Lutheran, committed for some reason not in the Orthodox Church, as sometimes happens on campaigns and abroad. But if these last cases are subject to the judgment of the Orthodox consistory, then there is no reason to take the first ones away from it. In both cases, the Orthodox court is faced with the same need to reason about the consequences of what happened under the authority of the clergy of another confession. 3) If the law has provided such protection to the dominant religion in the state that, without the knowledge of the Orthodox spiritual authority, the spiritual authority of other confessions cannot shake the marriage of a person, by birth or by long-standing affiliation, - Orthodox: in the same spirit of the law it will be that such protection is provided to a person who has recently joined Orthodoxy. This resolution of the issue does not seem doubtful to me, but it is a pity that the unseemly case of the mechanic Stehr 27 brought the issue to light. There are some oversights in its production: 1) The priest who joined Stehr was obliged to first test him to see if he wanted to join Orthodoxy out of some need, and in general to test the purity of his intentions, and for this purpose pay attention to his behavior. So it was not difficult to get to the police case between Ster and his wife; and in such a case, as doubtful, one should not have decided to join without special consideration from the authorities. 2) When Shter submitted a petition for divorce to the Right Reverend Riga 28: this petition should not have been sent to the secular authorities; because divorce cases belong to the spiritual authorities, one or the other. This, perhaps, the act of the Right Reverend was the reason that the Evangelical Lutheran Consistory, although it wrote out a law according to which the divorce case of Stehr did not belong to it, nevertheless raised the question whether it truly belonged to it, which the Orthodox bishop refused. 3) If the Eminence drew attention in Stehr’s petition to his monetary transaction with his wife, then it would be more careful to first demand information about this, in order to better determine whether to treat this with the secular authorities, and what exactly to demand. These oversights confused the matter and presented in a difficult form a question that perhaps would not have arisen otherwise. Stehr already had a dispute with his wife in the Evangelical Lutheran Consistory, which handed it over to the police, without a definitive decision, when he joined Orthodoxy. Hence, not a general, but a specific question regarding this case arises: should Stehr’s case be considered in the Orthodox consistory, to which he is subordinated, as having joined Orthodoxy, or in the Evangelical Lutheran, where the matter about him began before he joined Orthodoxy? The spiritual Orthodox authorities have a duty to protect Orthodoxy, and not to patronize the dubious matter in which Stehr got himself entangled before joining Orthodoxy. Stehr seems doubtful in the case because he was long ago sentenced to pay his wife money and obeyed this decision. Therefore, the private question now proposed, namely, in the Stehr case, can, in my opinion, be resolved as follows: one’s own judgment, in relation to one’s wife, in the Evangelical Lutheran Consistory; Because before joining Orthodoxy, I did not reveal this to the Orthodox spiritual authorities: then 1) to provide the Evangelical Lutheran Consistory on the occasion of the newly submitted petition, to finally consider the matter that began in 1835 between Stehr and his wife; 2) If the consequence of this consideration is a verdict of divorce, then, since one of the persons has already joined Orthodoxy, without carrying out such a decision, report it to the Orthodox consistory, for presentation, and with its opinion to the Holy Synod. Returning to your Excellency the attitude of the Governor of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 29 and the representation of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Pskov 30, with true respect and devotion I have the honor to be... 31. October 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Archbishop Arkady of Perm 32 asking him to maintain close proximity and unity with his vicar in his actions to manage the diocese Most Reverend Bishop! The Holy Synod, having listened to the report of Your Eminence, dated August 11, 1839, No. 664, with information according to the decree of the Holy Synod, dated November 30, 1838, about those living in the Orenburg province, Tastubinsk volost, near the Urezen river, in the monasteries built there, the peasant Vasily Gordeev, and the retired soldier Anthony Gorbatenko, as well as about the peasant of the landowner Volkov, Evfimiy Belyaev, who was in the Krasnoyarsk monastery, joined from the schism to the Edinoverie, and drawing attention, among other things, to the fact that Belyaev was accepted without any kind of appearance when his own confession showed that he was a runaway landowner peasant and, by birth, belongs to the Orthodox Church, he concluded in his determination, among other things, and instructed me, through a confidential relations, inform your Eminence the following: 1) to confirm that in orders regarding those joining the church, it should be done with unremitting caution, so as not to allow anything inconsistent with the laws. 2) The Holy Synod cannot ignore the fact that when, by its decree, it was necessary to verify the content of the resolution of the Most Reverend Evlampius 33 on the petition of Gordeev and to issue him a written form on this resolution, and therefore the actual action of Bishop Evlampius was subject to consideration; then your Eminence, instead of directly demanding from your vicar the resolution given to him, and, if necessary, the real matter, and an explanation of the reason for this resolution, made this demand through subordinate places: consistory and spiritual government, and also demanded an explanation from the missionary, Archpriest Dyakonov, and thus the responsibility of the vicar was announced to his subordinates more than necessary, and Archpriest Dyakonov gave an explanation about the action of the vicar. Therefore, for the benefit of governance, the Holy Synod recognizes the need to draw the attention of your Eminence to this, so that in your actions to manage the diocese, you maintain in every possible way close proximity and unity with your vicar, and so that you do not communicate with your vicar through subordinate places and persons, but through the vicar act on subordinate places and persons. At the same time, I consider it not superfluous to show your Eminence the position of one of the old vicariates, what it is like in Moscow. Here the consistory presents its determinations to the local bishop, except in special cases, through the vicar, who, having expressed consent to the opinion of the consistory, or putting his opinion, presents the case to the local bishop; the vicar’s opinions are accepted or rejected by the local bishop, without being subject to the objections of the consistory. In your country, due to the remote residence of the vicar, it would be inconvenient to generally conduct determinations of the consistory through him, but at least for those matters that are entrusted to the vicar, it would be in accordance with the hierarchical order that the vicar revise the opinions of the consistory and give his conclusions about them, and not vice versa. Having fulfilled the instructions of the Holy Synod, I remain your Eminence, most humble servant, with true reverence and love for the Lord. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 23. October 9. 1840 34 November 18. Metropolitan Philaret's report to the Holy Synod on the spiritual edification of criminals exiled to Siberia Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Governing Synod, dated September 21, 1840, No. 12479, which, as a result of the highest approved opinion of the State Council, ordered, having accurately considered the proposals contained in the highest approved opinion of the State Council on the spiritual edification of criminals exiled to Siberia with local circumstances, to submit to the Holy Synod, as quickly as possible, a conclusion on the following points: a) in which of the scheduled points of the department of the Moscow diocese can priests be appointed for the intended edification; b) do the diocesan authorities have in mind such priests with sufficient abilities to perform this important duty and who exactly? c) what instructions, in my opinion, these priests can be provided with; and d) what prayers should precede the edification of criminals, also in what buildings, at what time and with what rituals can all this be performed? After taking local information from the ecclesiastical boards: Klin, Mozhaisk and Serpukhov, and after considering them by the consistory, I am duty-bound to submit the conclusion drawn up to the discretion of the Holy Synod. I. To correct prayers and edify criminals, assign the following stages from the points indicated in the schedule: along the road from St. Petersburg to the Tobolsk border - the cities of Klin, Moscow and Bogorodsk; along the highway from Bialystok to Moscow: Mozhaisk and Moscow; along the highway from Moscow to Aksayskaya station: Moscow and Serpukhov. II. To fulfill this duty, appoint: to Klin, the local cathedral priest Alexei Vinogradsky; in Bogorodsk, the local archpriest Nestor Arkhangelsky; in Mozhaisk, the local Trinity Church of the priest Jonah Donskoy; in Serpukhov, the local crucifixion church of priest Ivan Znamensky; and in Moscow, the parish Trinity on Sparrow Hills priest Afanasy Skvortsov, and a member of the prison committee, Nikoloyamsk priest Vasily Blagoveshchensky, visiting the transit castle. III. Prescribe the following to the appointed archpriest and priests: 1) visit transferred criminals in those places where they stay as assigned by their superiors. 2) For this purpose, choose a time convenient for those visiting, based on the duties of the service, and for those visited, in order to have freedom to enter into communication with them. 3) Begin relationships with humane and compassionate conversation, and through this open the way to edification. 4) Converse with Christian love, simplicity and condescension; and beware of anything that disparages or insults. The crime is low, and the person is worthy of pity. 5) Dispose to admit guilt before God and before the authority assigned by Him, and to sincere submission to the will of the legal authority and the destinies of God’s providence. 6) Explain the need for justice and the beneficence of power, which does not completely reject those convicted by law, but wants to see them reformed and make them useful to themselves and to society in another part of the state. 7) In the difficulties of the present situation, those exiled should be consoled and encouraged by the fact that if they endure it with patience, repentance and correction, then with temporary punishment they will acquire deliverance from the eternal torment prepared for sinners according to the justice of God. 8) In faith and prayer, indicate the source of internal and inalienable consolation, reinforcement and all help from God, the grace of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for the salvation of us sinners. 9) As the listeners pay attention, turn the conversation into a lesson, or accompany it by reading appropriate passages from the Holy Scriptures or the writings of the holy fathers, and invite them to common prayer. 10) Start general prayer when at least some people give hope that they will take part in it. Do not force those who are inattentive, but only convince them so that they do not interfere with others. We must hope that the sincerity of the prayers of those praying will soften the bitterness of others. 11) Prayer books should be chosen depending on the time and other circumstances. For example, if a priest visits deportees in the morning while they spend the night, he can read for them morning prayers, or the first hour, and hallelujah, troparia and poems should be said with singing, to greatly arouse attention. If visiting on a holiday: it is proper to perform a prayer service for that holiday. More often than other prayers, prayer singing with the canon of repentance and the canon to the Most Holy Theotokos, sung in all sorrows and circumstances, can be used. 12) For prayers, the priest should have with him an epitrachelion and a phelonion, or one stole, depending on the convenience and the requirement of the intended prayer, and a holy cross for kissing at the end of the prayer. Your Holiness's most humble novice Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 423. November 18, 1840 In 1842, on May 22, a circular decree of the Holy Synod was issued with rules for the spiritual edification of exiles; the rules were drawn up on the basis of a report from Metropolitan Philaret 35. November 30. Conclusion of Metropolitan Philaret on the request of the parishioners of Bagrinovsky, Balashovsky district, on the provision of a deacon's place for the granddaughter of the deceased deacon, maiden Anna At the request of the Balashovsky district, Bagrinovsky parishioners, to provide a deacon's place for the granddaughter of the deceased deacon, the maiden Anna, the following is presented for consideration: 1) It is indecent and incongruous with priestly dignity to grant a deacon’s place to a maiden. 2) If sometimes diocesan bishops, not by rule, but by condescension, leave a clergy position unoccupied for a short time, in anticipation of a candidate in whom the matter of philanthropy would be combined with personal dignity, taking into marriage the orphan of his predecessor, the justification for such an order is orphanhood; but this is not the case in the present case; for the girl Anna has a father, a sexton. 3) Explanations from diocesan authorities must be demanded in cases in which deviations from the law can be assumed; and where there is no law, and, consequently, no violation of the law, allowing an appeal can lead to difficulties for the Holy Synod and for the authorities subordinate to it. That's the real deal. 4) This nepotism, according to which the daughter or grandson of an elderly or dying clergyman gives a position as a clergyman to a student who entered due to the poverty of the clergy, even now makes it much more difficult for the diocesan authorities to observe justice and the benefit of the church when assigning clergy positions. It is often difficult to challenge them from the excessively widespread nepotism in order to achieve dignity and merit. And if the authorities, carried away by the plausible motive of providing for the orphans and the poor, do not strive for the rights of dignity and merit, then the worthy are often bypassed, left without places for a long time, and as a result, sometimes the best students of theological schools reach a secular rank, and the places that they did not get are taken by the worst, through brides. From a distance, it is especially difficult in matters of this kind to distinguish true need from addiction and abuse. Therefore, allowing these matters to be transferred to the Holy Synod would be difficult for him and could not but be accompanied by the fear that nepotism would consider itself legalized and would intensify even more, and quite a bit of encouragement would be taken away from dignity. It is necessary for the student to seek wisdom and virtue, hoping with it to improve his temporary life, and not count on the fact that he just needs to find a bride, and with her the priesthood or diaconate will surely come. 5) If we take into account that in the secular department it is not considered possible to make a formal request to the authorities that the position of a deceased official be given to his daughter or grandson, then one cannot carelessly look at the fact that in the ecclesiastical department not only such requests are submitted, but also complaints are made about their dissatisfaction. Spiritual places, of course, no less than secular ones, require that they be determined by true ability and dignity, and not by external respect. 6) 76 apostolic canon prohibits appointing a bishop based on kinship and gives a reason for this: for it is not righteous to create heirs to the episcopate, and to give God’s property as a gift to human passion. The strength of this reasoning is such that there is no reason to exclude from it both the presbyteral and deaconal degrees of the priesthood. Therefore, I believe that the request of the Bagrinov parishioners, as having no legal basis, should be left unsatisfied. December 19. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion about the alleged A.Kh. Vostokov 37th edition of the Ostromir Gospel Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a proposal to the Holy Synod, dated November 22, 1840, No. 6880, explained that the state councilor Vostokov approached him with a request for permission from the Holy Synod to print for publication a list he compiled from the oldest Slavic manuscript stored in the local Imperial Public Library: the Ostromir Gospels, written in 1056, Vostokov adds that to the said list he attached the Greek text of the Gospels and grammatical explanations, and that the purpose of this publication is scientific, related to the study of the ancient Slavic language and to satisfy the desires of lovers of antiquities. Metropolitan Filaret, to whom A. Kh. Vostokov’s request was forwarded, wrote the following opinion: Although the prepared edition of the Ostromir Gospel is adapted not to theology, but to linguistics: but this also has its own need and benefit, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with this. The dictionary is compiled luxuriously and wastefully, without great need, but this is not our business. The book must be censored both to maintain order and for necessity. Grammatical and philological guesses can be erroneous and lead to hermeneutic errors. There is also something in the pictures in the book that requires censorship. Even when authorizing this publication, it is necessary to take care and precaution so that the exclusive right of the Holy Synod to print holy books is not shaken. Prepared for publication by A.Kh. Vostokov Ostromir's Gospel, the Holy Synod, according to the journal on November 27 of the same year, was forwarded to the St. Petersburg committee for censorship of spiritual books so that, after careful consideration of this manuscript, it would present its conclusion to the Holy Synod, with the return of the manuscript itself 38 . From 1839 to 1843 the minister ruled. internal del Strogonov, gr. Alexander Grigorievich, adjutant general. Agapit, since 1834 Bishop of Tomsk; in 1841 he was retired, with an appointment as a member of the Moscow Synodal Office, d. 1st Jan 1851 Case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 1316, pp. 1–5. Golubinsky, Feodor Alexandrovich, prot., prof. Moscow spirit. academic; mind. in 1854 Muravyov, Andrei Nikolaevich, in 1840 served as chief prosecutor. table of the Holy Synod, in the rank of coll. Sov.; mind. Aug. 8, 1874 See month. and general staff, for 1840, part I, page 16. Sturdza, Alexander Skarlatovich, sov., diplomat., writer; mind. 1854 John Chrysostom, St., Constantine. archbishop; mind. Sep 14, 407 Dionysius the Areopagite, St., Bishop. Athenian; memory commit it Oct 3 Own black reported stores. to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. III, doc. Nos. 1–4. Case of the Holy Synod, 1839 No. 678. The letters were published in 2 parts, in Odessa, 1841–43. Patriarch Gregory VI, at the insistence of the English ambassador, was imposed by the Turkish government, and on February 29, 1840, he was succeeded by Anonymous IV, from the metropolitans of Nicomedia. See chronicle. church event., St. Petersburg, 1880, pp. 791 and 795. From the cat, storing at the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva. Printed verbatim in the publication “Notes on the life and times of the saint.” Philareta, Metropolitan. Moskovsky, comp. N.V. Sushkov, M., 1808, p. 131, approx. 36. This letter is dated January 26, 1866, which is not correct. On the 1st page of the draft of this instruction, at the top, in the hand of Metropolitan Philaret it is written: Read and accepted, in the Holy Synod, April. 29. 1840. This instruction was compiled for the leadership of Archpriest Gabriel Ivanovich Meglitsky, who was appointed to prepare the highly named bride of the Heir Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich for confirmation. Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Their marriage took place on April 16, 1811. O. Meglitsky, master of the III course. (1819), St. Petersburg spirit. acad. admission in Ak., in 1815 from students of the secondary department, Tver sem. by appointment auditor, rector St. Petersburg spirit. academician, archim. Philaret (Sl. delo Tversk, sem., 1815, book 2, folio 49). In 1828, Fr. Meglitz, being a saint. at the Russian, embassy church in Vienna, elected to be honorary. member of the Moscow conference, spirit. acad. (See Historian, Moscow academician S. Smirnova, M., 1879, p. 412). Rich and rare library, Fr. Meglitsky was purchased after his death in 1814, St. Petersburg. spirit. academician, for 4000 rubles. (See History of the S.-Pegerb. Spiritual Academician, N. A. Chistovich. St. Petersburg 1857, p. 325). Berigard of Clairvaux, his most important op. "De consideratione libri V", ed. to Paris, 1667-1690, in 6 volumes; mind. in 1153 The Tübingen theologians, Martin Kreutza (aka Crusius), Jacob Agireev and Oriander, through Gerlach, an official of the Austrian embassy, in March 1574, sent the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II the Augustana Confessio, submitted by the Protestants at the Diet, in Ausburg, 1530, in a Greek translation, and asked for feedback on it. Patriarch Jeremiah's answer came only in June 1576. In this, the patriarch, although he praises the Tübingen people for recognizing the 7 ecumenical councils, but in the end denounces the Protestants and talks about the abuses of the Roman Church. See chronicle. church event., 1880, pp. 608 and 609. See Michael. Walteri dissertatio de fidei nicaenae, antiquitate, veritate et necessitate. Vitemb. 1687. Io. Fechtii innocentia concilii et symboli nicaeni. Rostoch. 1711. Georgii Bulli defensio fidei nicaenae. Oxon. 1687. Amstelod. 1688. Also. Schiesner's Catechism. Note Metropolitan Philareta. Peter (Mogila), Metropolitan. Kyiv.; mind. Dec 31, 1646 Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Moscow; mind. November 11, 1812 From a copy, corrected. by the hand of the Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 46, doc. Nos. 1 and 2. With black original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, doc. No. 13. Strogonov, gr. Alex. Grig., see above, No. 217, p. 1. See Tversk. diocesan Ved., 1882, No. 22, p. 577 et seq. Arseny (Moskvin), bishop. Tambovsky, later Metropolitan Kyiv, mind. 28 Apr 1876 Arkady (Fedorov), since August 8. 1831, see Perm; mind. retired, in schema, May 8, 1870 From copies, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 99, doc. No. 12; case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 888. The Riga tradesman, Ivan Shter, was joined by the priest of the Riga Annunciation Church, Sergius Svetlov. See the case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 1646. Irinarh (Popov), from September 15. 1836, vicar. Riga; after archbishop Ryazansky, retired, August 29. 1867 Nathanael (Pavlovsky), bishop. Pskov, from May 12, 1834, deceased. in Aug. 1849 With black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, doc. No. 15. See about him above, No. 252, p. 23. Evlampy (Pyatnitsky), vicar of Yekaterinburg, from February 11, 1834 to June 27, 1840; mind. March 12, 1862 at rest in the Sviyazhsk Mother of God Monastery, Kazan diocese. From the papers of the archbishop. Olonetsky Arkady, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod. Case of the Holy Synod 1840, No. 1277, pp. 39–41. With black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 102, doc. No. 18. Vostokov (Ostenek Alexander Voldemar), Alexander Khristovorovich, philologist, member. Russian acad. and academician sciences; mind. 8 Feb 1864 Case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 22, pp. 1–3. On the issue of publishing the Ostromir Gospel, P.I. Savvantov compiled a special note, which was printed. in the February book of the magazine. Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1884; but it does not contain the cited opinion of Metropolitan Philaret. See also #261 below.