1851 г.

February 25. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the matter of improving the Synodal singing choir in Moscow According to the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated April 1, 1850, No. 200, in relation to the director of the court singing chapel, Major General A.F. Lvov 406, with the draft rules for improving the synodal singing choir in the artificial part, by decree of the Holy Synod, dated April 19, 1850, No. 3941, Metropolitan Philaret was entrusted take full care on your part to assist in the fulfillment of the highest will - the improvement of the synodal singing choir and at this end provide the director, Major General Lvov, or a person sent by him, with all possible means and benefits, and when improvement is achieved, then, after communicating with Major General Lvov about this, report to the Holy Synod with your conclusion and a petition for remuneration of the persons who they will be busy with this matter. In pursuance of this decree, Metropolitan Philaret, dated February 25, 1851, No. 93, reported to the Holy Synod. By the Decree of the Holy Synod, dated April 19, 1850, No. 3941, I was ordered to take every possible care on my part to assist in the fulfillment of the highest will to improve the synodal choir, and to this end to provide Mr. Major General Lvov, or the person sent by him, with all possible means and benefits, and when improvement is achieved, then, after communicating with Mr. Major General Lvov, report to the Holy Synod with his conclusion on the remuneration of persons who will be involved in this matter. Subsequently, the official Mr. Ribasov came to me and announced verbally that he had an order from Major General Lvov to take care of the synodal singing choir to improve it. I requested that the choir for this purpose be placed at his complete disposal; and if he has any demands on this subject, the fulfillment of which I could contribute to, then he should contact me and find me ready for possible satisfaction. According to the regent, Mr. Ribasov studied the choir for more than a month; he did not contact me with any demands that would require my assistance to be fulfilled. After which, in September, Major General Lvov had a verbal conversation with me regarding the improvement of the synodal choir, renewing his previous assumption about the establishment of an inspector from the court chapel over the synodal and other choirs in Moscow, and about other things. I answered that I could not join this with my consent, both because the Holy Synod had already decided on this, and for other reasons. Major General Lvov’s assumptions required large costs, which I could not consider quite secure: because the main source of maintenance of the synodal choir, income from singing houses, previously raised by increased bargaining, became doubtful due to the insolvency of the hirer and the lack of other hirers in mind, despite repeated calls. It seemed incomprehensible to me how the choir would become the best when the regent lost power and importance under the above-mentioned inspector, and the inspector would be entertained by overseeing all the choirs in Moscow. Major General Lvov commented that the official temporarily appointed by him could correct the choir only for a month or for several months, and not bring a lasting improvement. And this seemed incomprehensible to me: because, if we accept this judgment as correct, then it would follow that the choir directors of diocesan choirs, who are temporarily summoned to the court chapel, can form and form their own choirs only for a few months; and in this case this measure would not have achieved its goal. But if the regent who was educated in the court chapel is able to improve the diocesan choir, then the regent of the synodal choir, who was educated in the court chapel, should be able to improve the synodal choir. And therefore, I do not understand why the current regent, who was educated in the court chapel and has a certificate from its director, would not be capable of improving the synodal choir, even with the temporary assistance and guidance of an official of the court chapel. If for some reason it happens that the current regent does not justify his certificate, then it should be used as soon as possible, and meanwhile a new one should be formed in his place in the court chapel, on the basis of the highest command. This limited my personal meetings with Major General Lvov regarding the improvement of the synodal choir. From the attitude of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Adjutant General, Count N.A. Protasov, dated January 8, this year, No. 103, it became known to me that he received from the director of the court singing chapel a notice that he had entered into communication with me regarding the improvement of the synodal choir, and had no response from me. According to the certificate, it turned out that I did not have any official relationship on this subject from the director of the court chapel; but received a private letter, dated October 12, and with it a note signed by no one under the title: “measures necessary to improve the synodal singing choir in Moscow, in the artificial part.” The main basis for this note is the same as in the previous assumptions of the director, namely, that to manage the synodal choir, one of the court singers, who is in Moscow under the direct supervision of the director residing in St. Petersburg, is appointed director of the court chapel. Since this relationship was unofficial, and my thoughts on this subject had already been communicated to the director personally, I, constrained by other official duties, hesitated in answering, believing, meanwhile, that my very silence was already an expression of the fact that I remained with my previous thoughts. In reporting this to the Holy Synod, I would like to add my opinion regarding the circumstances of the present case: 1) To satisfy the ability of the synodal choir to sing regularly, especially in the presence of the highest presence in Moscow, ask the director to again send one of the court singers to improve the synodal choir, at least according to his theory, for several months. 2) Ask him for feedback on whether he recognizes the current regent of the synodal choir as trustworthy to manage it; and if the review is negative, then elect and send to the director of the court singing chapel someone capable of becoming a regent of the synodal choir. No. 93, February 25, 1851 407 April 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on improving Moscow diocesan monasteries Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! In fulfillment of His Highest Imperial Majesty's command to consider the personnel of Moscow monasteries, in addition to my attitude, dated December 27, 1850, No. 602 408, I am obliged to add considerations and conclusions drawn from the consideration of the personnel of Moscow monasteries by the diocesan department. I. The dean of the Moscow diocesan monasteries, Andronievsky Archimandrite Platon 409, with a strict lifestyle of monastic life, straightforwardness of character and zeal for service, is trustworthy for the continuation of the dean's position. II. Archimandrites of the monasteries of Vysokopetrovsky (Rector of the Moscow Seminary) Evgeniy 410, Epiphany Ioannikiy 411, Greek Daniel 412, Znamensky (Rector of the Bethany Seminary) Leonid 413, Danilov Parmen 414, Pokrovsky Ambrose 415, Sretensky Abbot Jonathan 416, with a good monastic life, as before they were constantly seen to be caring for the improvement of the monasteries entrusted to them, and attentive in supervising the brotherhoods, so they will continue to be seen as trustworthy for this. The recently appointed Archimandrite of the Chrysostom Monastery, Eustathius 417, is less experienced than others, however, he is known as pursuing a correct monastic life, and during the management of the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery before this, he showed himself to be protective of the improvement of the monastery and brotherhood, and therefore should also be recognized as trustworthy for the management of the monastery in Moscow. III. Regarding ordinary monks and novices, I make it my duty to first explain that since my entry into the administration of the Moscow diocese entrusted to me by the highest authority, the following rules have been accepted and observed by me: 1) Since a disorderly monk, noticed in a monastery located in the capital, produces a greater temptation, in comparison with other places, and since the correction of one prone to absent-mindedness is less convenient in a crowded city, the first degree of correction of monks of Moscow monasteries is transfer to other monasteries, outside the capital, and especially to more secluded ones. 2) But since people who are disposed to a strict, solitary monastic life, themselves choose for themselves mainly country monasteries, and therefore Moscow monasteries are displeasedly rich in serviceable people, and require precautions against a lack of people to correct positions; then, due to these circumstances, monks who are noticed only in difficult dispositions or other small shortcomings that do not produce temptation and are covered by significant good qualities are tolerated in Moscow monasteries, in the hope of perfect correction under special supervision. As a result of observing these rules, after removing unreliable people from Moscow monasteries, every time such people were opened, at the present time, according to the personnel of these monasteries, only once a number of such people have been discovered who, on the one hand, are not completely trustworthy, but on the other, according to the above-mentioned second rule, are tolerant until further discretion. About these, a statement is presented, containing 8 monks, 1 white priest, 1 novice, 1 nun and 2 novices. Attached to this letter is a statement with the following content: Information about monastics and novices seen as not entirely trustworthy in Moscow diocesan monasteries. Miracle Monastery monk Jonah, 55 years old, from the soldiers. Modest. Obedient. I am zealous for the position. Sometimes he is seen to be not strictly sober. In respect of good qualities, leave him in the same monastery, under supervision, in the hope that weakness will completely overcome. VysokoPetrovsky Monastery novice Nikolai Nikolaev, 23 years old, from the bourgeoisie. According to the abbot, his behavior is quite good; quite reliable. Leave him in the monastery for a year, under special supervision, and if he does not deserve full approval, transfer him to another monastery outside the capital. Znamensky Monastery, hieromonk Innokenty, 56 years old, from the burghers. According to his previous service as rector of the Tomsk diocese, Turukhansky monastery, he was subject to a reprimand for oppressing the brethren. Sober, but not obedient in everything. Not entirely reliable. Leave him in the same monastery under supervision for a year, so that, if he does not turn out to be completely healthy, he will be transferred to a country monastery. Hieromonk Feofan, 41 years old, from the bourgeoisie. Sober, but stubborn. Not entirely reliable. White priest Timofey Dmitriev, 58 years old, from the clergy. Humble, obedient, diligent to the church. Sometimes not strictly sober; quite trustworthy. In attention to good qualities, leave him in the same monastery under supervision, in the hope that he will completely refrain from weakness. Danilov Monastery Hierodeacon Theodorit, 33 years old, from the clergy, good behavior; Only sometimes it is noticed that he is not strict in sobriety. Trustworthy. Leave him in the same monastery under supervision, so that if he is found drunk, he will be reported for transfer to a country monastery, under the strictest supervision. Chrysostom Monastery Hieromonk Filaret, 55 years old, from the burghers. Sober but strange behavior. He does not perform clergy duties. He rarely goes to church. According to the rector, his reliability is doubtful. His actions cannot be explained otherwise than by some disorder of mental abilities. Therefore, in relation to him, every possible meek way of acting is observed, so that severity does not produce irritation, which could complete the disorder of the mind. There are no evil deeds seen in it. Recently I was led by conviction to start going to church and preparing for confession and communion of the holy mysteries. For the stated reason, continue the accepted course of action; but if there are actions that cause temptation, in this case they should be taken out of the Moscow monastery. Intercession Monastery Hieromonk Pavel, 49 years old, from the clergy. Quiet character. Caught secretly drinking wine. But when reminded, he repents and wants to improve. Leave him under supervision for a year, and if he does not provide perfect correction, take him to a country monastery. Hieromonk Arseny, 50 years old, from the clergy. We notice that he was drunk, but he repents with tears and gives hope for correction. Leave him for a year under supervision, and if he does not provide perfect correction, transfer him to a country monastery. Hierodeacon Adrian, 42 years old, from the clergy. Pretty good behavior. He has a difficult disposition. Not hopeless. Leave him under supervision for a year, in the hope of correcting his character with admonitions. Rozhdestvensky, nun Julia, 56 years old, one of the freedmen. In 1841, she was subject to penance for insulting her sisters. And now he does not have the approval of the abbess. To be left under special supervision, so that in case of dishonorable acts the abbess will report immediately to be transferred to another monastery outside the capital. Zachateisky, novice Tatiana Avksentieva, 76 years old, freed. Unruly disposition. In 1819 she was expelled from the monastery; but out of leniency it was again accepted in 1823; and again, for frequent absences and accepting strangers without the permission of the abbess, she was assigned to be transferred to another monastery outside the capital, but left under supervision, for the reason that following another novice was paralyzed, and this one stubbornly refused to accept another novice instead. Out of philanthropy, continue the indicated leniency. Novice Feodosia Ivanova, 77 years old, one of the freedmen. In 1839, she was convicted of obstinacy and transferred from a second-class monastery to a third-class one. Now she is meek in disposition, weak, and laments over her sins. Leave in the present position as providing correction. April 25. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on church hymns Report to His Holiness Governing Sunod, from member of the Onago Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Governing Sunod, dated July 22, 1850, No. 7480, two music books of transcriptions by Major General Lvov were sent with him: Irmolog and Antiphons of the Greek chant, and the manuscript that served as the original for them, were forwarded by me to the committee formed on this subject, with instructions: 1) listen to the irmos and so on contained in the books and consider whether the new musical arrangement turns out to be similar to the tune of the manuscript that served as the original; 2) at the same time, it is not useless for the committee to understand what antiquity the manuscript itself is (which the letter of antiquity does not represent), and whether the melodies contained in it agree with church printed music books or with ancient manuscripts that may be known here. The Committee, upon fulfilling the instructions given to it, presented the following: 1) the manuscript that served as the original for the transcriptions, which, according to the proposer, is ancient and most precious, and is perhaps the only remnant in which Greek melodies are preserved so carefully and accurately, the committee: a) find it not ancient at all, because it was written on paper in the years 1784 and 1786, indicated on the paper itself; b) this manuscript was written carelessly, as can be seen from the many errors in the text, often very gross, found on almost every page 420; and therefore we can conclude that there are also errors in the notes. This is partly clear from the incorrect combination of sounds, and is also evident from comparison with another manuscript of a similar tune, much older, the merits of which will be discussed below. 2) The melody of the manuscript, called Greek by the translator (although this is not indicated in the manuscript itself), is retained in the transcription, sometimes in all accuracy, sometimes not quite strictly from the difference in notes (either through sensation, or through addition, or through a decrease or increase in content, or rearrangement of them), sometimes the very change in the nature of the main melody is noticeable, for example, in Sunday irmos 4 voices, where the reception of the tone is at the beginning each verse is very difficult, and in the irmos 1 of the creator on the Introduction of the Virgin Mary. 3) The melody of the irmos of the manuscript is strikingly different from the melody set out in church music books, both published since 1772 by the Moscow Synodal Printing House, and with the first printed irmolog, published in 1700, by the monk Joseph Gorodetsky in the Lvov St. George printing house 421. This excludes Sunday irmos of the 6th tone (except for the 4th canto) and irmos for the Ascension of the Lord, which are quite similar to the printed church irmolog, published by the Moscow Synodal Printing House. 4) The melody of the same manuscript is not similar to the melody of the most ancient manuscripts. The Committee had before its eyes the musical five-line manuscripts of the Irmologist of the 1st half of the 18th century, even not only of the 2nd, but also of the 1st half of the 17th century. All of them are different from the manuscript that served as the original for Mr. Lvov’s transcriptions. However, the committee had in its hands a musical manuscript of complete services for the twelfth feasts of the Greek Concord, as indicated in that manuscript itself; This manuscript, written very carefully, dates back to the end of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century. Although the nature of the melody of this manuscript agrees with the nature of the melody of the manuscript that served as the original for Mr. Lvov’s transcriptions, the difference in notes in them is not small. In the first, the melody is depicted more fully. No other manuscript with Sunday irmos in Greek melody has been found. 5) Both in the original and in the transcription there are errors against the stress of words, for example, voice 1 canto 3, church, the stress is on the last syllable; voice of the 7th, song 7, on page 55, in the word otratsy, you can hear the emphasis on rho; on Epiphany we will expand the song 3.2 of the creator, the emphasis is heard on the 2nd syllable from the end. 6) There are divisions and combinations of words that are incorrect, for example, the Sunday Irmos of the 1st tone, the 4th hymn, “take Israel out of you”; for the Dormition, the 1st hymn of the Creator and Thy tympanums - these sayings are connected incorrectly. Tone 2, canto 9, Beginning is the parent Son; for Candlemas hymn 1, I exist a deep-parent (earth the sun) invasion - the speeches are divided incorrectly. 7) There are omissions, such as: in all eight voices of the Sunday Irmos, the 2nd song is not found. The voice of the 7th, the song of the 8th, in the cave the youths imitated, no. There is also no creator for the transformation of irmos 2, while these irmos are in the printed music irmolog. 8) In the new transcription there are quite a few errors in the text (except for four, about which Mr. Lvov reported to the Holy Synod and located on pages 15, 16, 200 and 213), namely: Page 24 piety instead of godliness Page 33 Lord - Lords Page 36 church – church Page 46 refuge - refuge Page 88 ignitable – ignitable Page 112 honest – purest Page 198 shake off instead of shake off Page 222 Page 240 Bogorodichno - Bogorodich. Translated page 3 light up instead of light up Translated page 5 about rectich - about those who have decided Translated p. 22 To you - to you Translated page 27 Trinity – Trinity Translated page 33 soars – soars Translated page 41 womb - womb Translated p. 51 To you - to you Translated page 46 haters – haters Translated page 51 stinking - crying Translated page 51 to mother - to mother. 9) As for the melody of these antiphons, it is not entirely pleasant, and for ears accustomed to the solemn banner chanting of these antiphons, it seems strange, with the exception of the antiphons of the 6th tone. Adding to the committee’s consideration my own inquiry by listening to the performance of the arrangement under consideration, and partly by comparing it with the proposed manuscript, I found the following: 1) the manuscript and the translation represent in Sunday irmos for the most part the melody that is usually used in monasteries and churches by hearsay by those who know church singing well. 2) In the irmos of the 6th tone, this melody is especially well preserved in the manuscript, and the translation is in agreement with the manuscript; so this voice can be presented as a model for others. And as the committee found that the melody of the irmos of this voice is similar to the printed everyday life published in the synodal printing house, then this is the true melody, which did not suffer from the arbitrariness of the scribes and proposers of the previous time. 3) Irmos of the 5th tone are close to the value of the 6th tone. 4) In the irmos of the manuscript of the 4th tone, the same melody is heard, which was mentioned above; but the adaptation is so distant from the original that the original tune is almost unrecognizable in it. 5) The melody of the Irmos in 2 voices in the manuscript is not similar to that mentioned above, and seems to have suffered from the arbitrariness of the previous time, and the translation is not quite similar to the manuscript. Thus, combining, if possible, my own inquiry with the research of the committee, and finding no reason to disagree with the judgments of the committee, I am necessarily led to the conclusion that the music manuscript does not have the dignity of antiquity that is attributed to it, that due to the shortcomings discovered in it, it does not represent a satisfactory model in all parts, that the translation is also not satisfactory in all parts, that the benefit of the church would have been achieved if the best original had been discovered, and the translation was made according to model, which is presented in the Sunday irmos of the 6th tone. Which, with the return of two music books and a manuscript, I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod. Your Holiness's most humble novice Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 172. April 25, 1851 422 . October 12. Report to the Holy Synod by Metropolitan Philaret, with his opinion on the project for converting schismatics to Orthodoxy Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated April 5, 1851, No. 2414, proposed to the Holy Synod a project he had received regarding the conversion of schismatics into the bowels of the Orthodox Church. This project, according to the journal decree of the Holy Synod, dated May 25/June 13, 1851, was sent, by decree of June 13, No. 236, to Metropolitan Philaret in order to present his opinion to the Holy Synod on the content of it, while returning the project itself. In pursuance of the said decree, Metropolitan Philaret reported to the Holy Synod, dated October 12, 1851, No. 66, the following: Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 13, 1851, No. 236, I was ordered to consider the draft regarding the appeal of the schismatics so that an opinion on its content would be presented to the Holy Synod with the return of the project itself. When considering the project, it turns out that the following appears to make a judgment about the possibility of putting it into action: 1) Thoughts about the reasons for schismatics to fall into error are fair. However, what is said about marriages does not apply to all schismatics. 2) The establishment of education for schismatic children, inseparably from the Orthodox, as a means against the ignorance of schismatics, was already prescribed by the Holy Synod, by decree of October 29, 1836, only not through secular teachers, but through the clergy. The effect of this measure in relation to the Orthodox was, in some places, beneficial, but in relation to schismatics, as far as is known, for the most part it was insignificant. The schismatics understood the purpose of the order, and either did not allow children into church schools, or, while letting them in, at the same time persecuted them with special force with schismatic suggestions, and, fearing a rapprochement with Orthodoxy, rushed to take them out of the schools. 3) Teaching the children of schismatics and Orthodox Christians through secular mentors who studied in gymnasiums does not seem to be a reliable measure. In addition to the fact that one should expect alienation from schismatics from these mentors, mentors of secular education will impart the same education to children; and therefore one must be afraid that they will cool their attention to schismatic teachings, but will not inspire them with zeal for the teachings of the Orthodox Church, and this can lead to the loss of faith and morality. 4) Raskolnikov, students under 18 years of age should be exempted from taxes, a measure that is inconvenient to implement, and an excessive advantage when the children of Orthodox Christians are not exempted from the duties of the state because they study. 5) The transfer of schismatic children to higher educational institutions, to government support, is also an inconvenient measure, and for the most part inappropriate, because it would take them out of their condition by birth. 6) Giving schismatic fathers certificates of commendation for the fact that their children study well is a measure that is not encouraging in that it will lead to the goal, but only capable of humiliating the dignity of certificates of commendation. 7) To give successful children of schismatic peasants the right of burghers, philistine children the right of merchants, merchant children the right of honorary citizens - this would be an immoderate generosity, unequal for the Orthodox, confusing the legal rights of fortunes and inconvenient to implement. To obtain the rights of a merchant, you need to declare capital, and not present a school certificate. 8) If all these rights are extended to the Orthodox, then the treasury must suffer great confusion and important losses in collecting taxes. 9) As a measure against the ignorance of schismatic mentors, the draft proposes that the mentor be examined at the gymnasium in his knowledge of the old printed catechism, etc. The consequence of this may be that schismatics, without disturbing their schismatic conscience, will appear for the test, and with the help of leniency and means known to them that strongly favor leniency, they will pass the test, and thus privileged and authorized schismatic mentors will appear. 10) A measure against the willfulness of schismatic mentors in the draft is that they be determined with the permission of the civil authorities. This would mean recognizing and affirming a schismatic hierarchy. This is what the schismatics want. The civil authorities can weaken and destroy the actions of a schismatic mentor with measures of police severity, and prosecute his violation of laws; and this would be enough if what the highest authority prescribes justly and with moderation were faithfully and carefully carried out locally. 11) Giving schismatic mentors the right to take a fine in their favor for violating morality would mean further empowering these mentors. 12) To assign trustees to schismatics who would be obliged to help schismatic mentors would mean giving even stronger support to schismatics. 13) In order to bring schismatics closer to the Orthodox clergy, the project proposes to oblige their mentors to submit metric records not to the police, but to the parish priests. One could decide to try this measure if there were not many schismatics, if everywhere one could rely on the prudent and cautious action of the parish priests in this extraordinary relationship; if only this could always happen quite close under the eyes of the diocesan bishop, so that he could, as circumstances dictate, give direction to the actions of the priests. But outside of these conditions, the consequences of this measure, if used, could cause difficulties for both the government and diocesan authorities. If a schismatic mentor says that he is of the old faith, and does not want to come to a priest of his faith, what will the authorities do? If you give in to this, then all schismatic mentors will follow this example; the enterprise collapses, and an example of disobedience that is offensive to the authorities and harmful will appear. And the spirit of meekness and tolerance of the Russian government will hardly allow us to take strict measures against this. 14) The project requires allowing priests to perform services for schismatics using old printed books. To accept this as a rule would mean to confuse schism with Orthodoxy. This would give schismatics a new reason to seduce the Orthodox with the assurance of the superiority of early printed books, as if recognized by the Orthodox clergy. It is possible, and not useless, to give diocesan bishops the right to allow general Orthodox priests, where there are no close believers of the same faith, to join schismatics to the Orthodox Church and perform services for them, according to old printed books, in special cases, when, due to circumstances, one can hope that this leniency will attract those who have fallen away and will not seduce the Orthodox. 15) The draft proposes to instruct diocesan bishops to allow the existence, and even the re-construction, of schismatic prayer houses. It is not clear how this measure could be proposed and for what purpose. What is the benefit to Orthodoxy if schismatic prayer houses multiply, and if it is possible to build them more freely than churches? And with what conscience will an Orthodox bishop say: “I allow you to build a schismatic house of prayer?” 16) The draft proposes objections to the unconditional prohibition of schismatics from having prayer houses. There is no prohibition as such: then objections can be left without consideration. 17) The draft requires the restoration of the law of Peter the Great, which prohibits the appointment of schismatics to public positions. But this law is in action, although with restrictions, sometimes inevitable, and although it is not strictly implemented everywhere. This last one really needs to be taken care of. 18) The time of double taxes from schismatics has passed. And the time for double conscription duty on them can hardly come. State power can talk about this; but it is not the duty of the church to propose this measure. 19) The draft proposes that all schismatics, especially harmful sects, be prohibited from living in capitals and visiting them. The reason for this measure, stated in the second note, is valid. But it would be difficult to issue a law about this and suddenly extend its effect to everyone. Moreover, it must be taken into account that a schismatic who is forbidden to live in the capital can settle two miles from it, and act stronger than before, without being embarrassed by the supervision of the capital police. Perhaps it would be fair and useful to adopt the following rule: schismatics of harmful sects, discovered as such in ongoing cases, and schismatics in the production of cases, convicted of seducing Orthodox Christians, are prohibited from permanent and temporary residence in the capital and its district. 20) The draft stipulates that children born to schismatics who were not married to the church should be deprived of the right to inheritance, and give it to Orthodox relatives, and, in the event of a shortage, treat the inheritance as if it were escheated. This idea, which has a basis and can be in action even in the current state of legislation, if of two inheritance seekers one proves his legal birth and relationship with church documents, and the other does not have legal documents; but this can rarely happen: and it does not seem quite convenient to form a new law from this thought, strong against schism. Such a law could cause quite a bit of trouble between schismatics; but would hardly have much effect. since the schismatics’ property is mostly acquired, or one whose inheritance is difficult to prove; and the law gives unlimited rights to those who have acquired property: then schismatics can easily transfer their property to their children, although the government does not recognize them as natural heirs. 21) The draft proposes that a schismatic who has joined the church be exempted from recruitment into the next recruitment. It is unbelievable that this could be accepted by the state authorities, and it would easily lead to injustice against the permanently Orthodox. Instead of a converted schismatic who has been released from recruitment, it may be necessary to recruit an extra Orthodox Christian. Such a study of the main ideas of the project leads to the conclusion that only the measure shown above, number 19, can be considered reliable for implementation. With the return of the project, I most respectfully report this to the Holy Synod. No. 66, October 19, 1851 The Journal of the Holy Synod, dated December 21–31, 1851, stated: the said project and the report of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow should be taken into account 423. October 28. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on the “Code of the most important decrees from the apostolic, conciliar and patristic rules” compiled by Archimandrite John 424 By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 13, 1851, No. 7, three and a half proof-printed sheets were forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for his opinion, submitted by the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Censorship Committee, containing: “A set of the most important decrees from the rules of the apostolic, conciliar and patristic”, compiled by the inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite John, for inclusion in the second issue of his essay: “An experience of a course in church jurisprudence,” since the compilation of such a code is a subject that requires special attention, a maturely thought-out system and decent, where appropriate, explanations, so that those decrees that are no longer obligatory do not lead the reader to the conclusion about the instability of church law, and that, moreover, the work of Archimandrite John is our first experience of this kind. On this decree, the Metropolitan wrote: October 23. Report to the Holy Synod with consideration of a significant number of articles, and with the conclusion that the code requires revision and improvement, although it represents no small and significant work.” Then, the Metropolitan, in pursuance of the said decree, reported the following to the Holy Synod on October 28, 1851. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 13, No. 7, an opinion was required from me on the essay: “A set of the most important decrees from the rules of the apostles, conciliar and patristic rules.” In pursuance of this, it is my duty to present the following Indication of some articles that require testing attention in the essay: Code of the most important regulations. and so on. Article 2. “The Church has its foundation and head in Christ.” Christ is the head of the church, and the head of the church is not in him. Art. 3. “In the church there must be unchanged everything accepted from the Divine Scriptures and apostolic traditions.” How is it that the apostolic tradition about the council twice a year (Apostolic Pr. 37) was changed by the 8th rule of the ecumenical council; and then went out of use? And this is not the only example. And so, either the church is not in a legal position, or the article of the Code in question is not presented with satisfactory accuracy. There are unchangeable traditions, and there are details and particulars of traditions, as required by circumstances, subject to change, however, by church authority, and not arbitrariness. And the cited rule of the Gangra (and not Gangria) Council is not explained so decisively: we wish, yes there are, and so on. Art. 4. “The God-speaking teaching of the holy fathers contains tradition.” The dogma says: following the Divine teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church. Here the teachings of the fathers and traditions are presented as two connected objects, and the latter is not contained in the former.” Art. 4, 6, 7, 8 and especially 7 and 9 contain almost the same thing in different expressions, such as 7, store not new, 9 do not introduce news. Art. 11. And here almost the same is repeated as what is said in articles 2, 6, 7, 8. Art. 12. This is not in the rules that are indicated under this article: and this is not a Code, but a conclusion of the general from particular cases. Art. 15. “On affairs common to the church and state,” etc. This is also not a set of rules: but a theory being created now. The rule of the Council of Carthage, indicated under this article 70, suggests that the king should be asked not to require clergy who tried the case in the ecclesiastical court to testify in the secular court. Similarly, in rules 73, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108 of the same council, it is necessary to ask the king to provide protection to the church in various matters. Rule 115 requires asking that a royal law be issued against arbitrarily separating spouses. From this it is clear how the article of the Code derived from them is not close to the content of these rules. Moreover, it does not have the proper certainty. The rules speak of the most pious kings; and the article simply talks about royal power. Is it really true, for example, that the present-day Church of Constantinople should be in exactly the same relationship to a non-Christian king as it was before to a Christian one? Art. 16. All this is not in the 3rd rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council, which is indicated under this article. The rule only says: “Our most pious king” proposed to this holy and ecumenical council about the marriages of clergy, and then the orders of the council itself follow. Art. 22. “No one is allowed to pronounce or compose or write another faith,” etc. Art. 23. “Therefore the creed”, etc. Here one article is derived from the other, as if they were two provisions on two subjects. But the word faith, in the 7th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, means precisely the symbol of faith, therefore, in vain two articles were made from one provision. Art. 26. This article can be presented as an example of the fact that it is sometimes inconvenient to compile a Code of church rules in the form of short articles, without adding research and explanations. The article says that there are 22 books of the Old Testament. But which ones? If you look at the Slavic Bible, you will find more of them. The article does not classify Esther as a canonical book. But in Apostolic Canon 85 it is canonical. And that Athanasius the Great does not include Esseir among the canonical books, this must be explained in such a way as not to contradict the apostolic canon, but to be consistent with it. The apostolic rule looked at the book of Esseir, as it is in the Hebrew Bible, and established it among the canonical; and St. Athanasius looked at its Greek translation with additions that are not in the Hebrew text, and based on these additions, he did not place it among the Jewish canonical ones, and classified it in the second category. Art. 41. This article says more than the rules from which it is taken. She speaks of all dissenters, and the rules are given for a special case; in relation to the Donatists, addressing the Donatists meekly and peacefully is a general moral obligation and without a special church rule: regarding evil heretics, the apostles give the faithful a rule not to communicate with them at all. Art. 43. “The sacraments of the church are all truths,” etc. Not exactly taken from the rule: it says: The Sacraments of the Trinity. And this is not a church decree or rule, but an axiom mentioned in passing. Art. 46. ​​“The sacred rites incorrectly performed by heretics, under the guise of sacraments, are not sacraments and do not have grace-filled power. Why does the seventh rule of the Ecumenical Council command that Aryan heretics should not be rebaptized, but only anointed with chrism; therefore, Arian baptism is recognized as a valid sacrament? Consequently, this article does not contain an exact set of rules, but is taken from some rules and vaguely expresses an idea that, with the help of other rules, could and should have been expressed more definitely and more accurately. Art. 52. About crossing. This is also not as precise as indicated in Article 46. Art. 58. This refers to the “lowest rank of catechumens”; but it is not said what the catechumens are and what their ranks are. Consequently, the article has a fragmentary and vague appearance. Art. 64. This article is vague and incomplete. Expression: “those who do not have the correct baptism.” Not sufficient to determine who should be received into the church by baptism. The expression “with confirmation” is also not enough. Some are accepted into the church without confirmation, if they have had it, just like baptism. Look at the 1st Ecumenical Council, rule 8, which is indicated under this article. “Without repeating baptism” is an incorrect expression. Baptism is not repeated. Heretics are baptized not because they want to repeat their baptism, but because their previous baptism is not recognized as a valid baptism. Art. 69. “Holy Anointing.” the world is the imprinting of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the believer.” The expression is dubious. It gives the idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are already in the believer before confirmation, and this only seals them, just as a seal seals a letter that already exists before it. Art. 72. “For those who repent of serious sins, a time of repentance (with excommunication from the church or from a shrine) is appointed by the bishop’s court. Here the word: grave, was added against the rule, probably so that the article would be less contradictory to what is seen from experience, but even with this, the reader of the Code may ask how all the priests daily receive penitents and impose penances, without resorting to the episcopal court; and the Code does not give permission for this. And books are written, of course, not to arouse doubts, but to resolve them. Thus, this article also serves as an example of the fact that it is not always convenient to compile a Code of church rules in short articles, without research and explanation. Art. 122. The words: “At least after ordination” obscure the meaning of this article. Moreover, in the 9th rule of the Neo-Caesarean Council there is an exemption for the sake of other virtues. Art. 123. This article speaks of non-admission to the clergy; and 25 is the apostolic rule, under which it is indicated about the eruption from the clergy. The article talks about exclusion from the clergy; and the apostolic canon 80 about not being suddenly made a bishop. Rule 10 of the First Ecumenical Council under this article is completely irrelevant. There may be a typo in the number. Art. 126. Here is what has already been said in other articles: ordination is discussed in Article 117. The sanctification of the world is discussed in Article 67. Art. 128. “The sacred dignity removed from someone unjustly can be restored again.” The expression of the true rule is more appropriate to the subject: those who have been removed from their dignity without guilt may be restored to the dignity of a bishop. Art. 143. From this article it would follow that a marriage entered into without the consent of the parents or masters, for this one reason, can be dissolved. And this shows that the article requires limitations, after due consideration of the rules from which it is extracted. Art. 164. "Holy angels, Blessed Virgin Mary." The name of the Blessed Virgin must be placed before the name of the angels, as it is in dogma. Art. 192. “On Saturdays it is commanded to perform Divine services.” Is it prohibited on other days of the week? Art. 244. Here, regarding church property, it is incorrectly said that from the bishop “a report on the management of this property must be submitted to the regional council.” Is it possible for the cathedral to consider all the economic reports of the diocese? The rule speaks about a special case when abuses are discovered, if the denunciation is against the bishop. One of the main rules of church management is missing here, so that the bishop does not dispose of church property himself silently, but has a steward for this. See the 4th Ecumenical Council, rule 26. Art. 259. “To be hired in houses to perform Divine services.” This expression is not in the rules. And it is indecent. Art. 326. There is a repetition of Article 172. With this in mind, I would like to explain that I did not have enough time to strictly verify all the articles of the Code under consideration with the rules indicated with them, and even less to go through all the church rules, and notice that the necessary things were omitted from the Code. However, the examples presented above, in my opinion, are sufficient to conclude that the Code requires revision and improvement, although, however, most of its articles are extracted from the rules with thoroughness and legibility, and represent considerable and significant work. And if the Code had not yet been compiled, and the question was whether to compile it in the form in which it now appears: then I would find it difficult to answer in the affirmative, for the following reasons: I. The title says Code of Important Resolutions. But who will determine which decisions are the most important? Reasoning or arbitrariness of the writer? It's unreliable and unconvincing. For example, he recognized it as important and introduced a rule into the Code that in the event of a complaint about the bishop’s economic orders, a report should be given to the council; but he recognized it as unimportant and did not introduce a rule into the Code so that the bishop should not dispose of the church estate himself silently, but for this purpose would have a steward who was obliged to keep continuous economic records that could always be inspected. But to others, the last fundamental rule in church economic management may seem more important than the first random rule, without which it would be difficult to obtain a report. II. The code presents a type of church legislation in the first and middle centuries of Christianity, which in quite a number of cases seems dissimilar to the present position thereof, unless it is explained how the essence of the ancient rules is preserved in the church unchanged, despite the fact that some of their features are applied to the special circumstances of time and place. But the Code does not provide such explanations. Therefore, someone who has read the Code and is unfamiliar with the matter may enter into doubt about the correctness of the present provision of church legislation, which cannot be resolved by the Code. III. If, in the continuation of the course of church jurisprudence, there will be a complete systematic presentation of it, in which each article of the current law will either be directly taken from the ancient rules, or deduced from them, indicating time-by-time legal modifications that connect and agree with the ancient rules, then the present incomplete Code of the so-called most important decrees will remain redundant. And if there is no complete systematic presentation of church jurisprudence, then the present Code, as incomplete, will remain unsatisfactory. With the return of the printed copy of the Code, I most respectfully report this to the Holy Synod. October 28, 1851 425 . See above, p. 282, note. 1. From my own original, storage. to Moscow diocesan bib., department, VII, l. 14, 15, 18–20. See above, no. 352, pp. 375–381. Transferred to the Spaso-Andronievsky Monastery from the Moscow Danilov Monastery in 1848; passed away 28 Jan 1863. Evgeny (Sakharov-Platonov), August 31. 1853 appointed rector of Moscow. spirit. academies; 1857 Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow; 1858 Bishop of Simbirsk; in 1874 he was retired. From the Epiphany Monastery he was transferred on August 10, 1859, to Vysokopetrovsky, from here on March 2, 1861 to Zaikonospassky. In 1860, he returned to Athos. Since August 1853, rector of Moscow. spirit. seminary and from January 22. 1854 abbot of the Zaikonospassky Monastery; 1859 Bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow; from May 1876, Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov; 15 December died the same year passed away June 15, 1855. passed away May 11, 1853. Since May 24, 1853, rector of the Intercession Monastery, since 1855, archimandrite; in 1859 he was dismissed due to illness and died. From the synodal sacristan, rector of the Vysotsky monastery in Serpukhov from August 29. 1850; On March 8, 1851 he was transferred to the Moscow Chrysostom Monastery; from 22 Feb. 1866 abbot of the stauropegial Simonov Monastery; in 1881 he was retired. That is, from July 3, 1821. Case of the Holy Synod, 1850, No. 2845, pp. 249–251. These are the examples on the first ten pages: Page 2 Working miracles - instead of working miracles Page 2 Most Divine – Most Divine. Page 4 wills – instead of in willˆP. 5 wearing – wearingˆPage. 6 bowls – thicketsˆPage. 6 God – and GodˆP. 7 vide – having seen Page 8 Radiance – RadianceˆPage. 10 serving – servingˆPage. 10 softer - according to it. About Irmology and about the monk Joseph Gorodetsky, see Ross's experience. Bibliographer, V. Sopikova, part I, pp. 102–103, St. Petersburg. 1813 Case of St. Synol, 1850, No. 3424, pp. 16–20. With own vile, storing in the Moscow spirit. acad., layout No. 3, doc. No. 48, without beginning. Case of the Holy Synod, 1851, No. 2810. John (Sokolov), from January 17, 1861, bishop. Vyborg; from November 9, 1866 – Smolensk; died March 17, 1869. With his own hand. authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. III, 3 pp. 1–37.