1841 г.

March 27. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the catalog of books needed for the Kherson Seminary Fundamental Library Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, dated November 2, 1840, No. 14362, proposed to the Synod a petition from the board of the Kyiv Theological Academy to supply the Kherson seminary fundamental library with the necessary books, physical instruments and maps, with a catalog attached. The Holy Synod, by resolution dated November 18 - December 9 of the same year, decided: “The said catalog should be returned to the spiritual educational administration under the Holy Synod so that it forwards it to the conference of the Kyiv Theological Academy and instructs it to select from this catalog only the most necessary and useful books and tools for the library and then, having compiled a special catalog thereof, presented it for the consideration of His Eminence Philaret Metropolitan of Kyiv, who is to be given, after review and approval of this catalog, to deliver it for further disposal in accordance with the established procedure.” Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, after reviewing the new catalogue, gave the following opinion about it: Let me have my doubts about the catalog of books for the fundamental library, even if I really didn’t want to. Have mercy! Nowadays there are translations of the Bible, especially French and German, which in another time would have been burned along with the translators. It is imperative to say whose translation, and not uselessly add which edition. The catalog of fathers is also insufficient. Apostolic Fathers, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, philosophers, St. Isidore Pilusiot, and other known and necessary ones are omitted. About the collection of exemplary essays. It is necessary to find out if this is not what the former commission of theological schools once subscribed to, but some of the volumes sent by subscription were forced to be burned and not sent to the schools. But the pinnacle of perfection of this catalog appears to be in the following articles: 65. Search for Saint Demetrius. 66. His is about the schismatic Bryn (should read Bryn) faith. You think there are two books. Take the trouble to watch the first one; and I think you will find that the title of one book is cut into two books under two nos. I couldn’t inquire about this: because I don’t have the works of St. Dimitri. As a result of this, the Holy Synod, by resolution of May 5–16 of the same year, decided: to forward this catalog to the conference of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy so that it, having compiled a new catalog of the most necessary and useful books and instruments for the Kherson seminary, would immediately submit it for consideration by the Holy Synod in the established order 39. April 28. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on how to eliminate the difficulties encountered by Jews who want to accept the Christian faith Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a proposal dated April 17, 1841, No. 2579, explained that the manager of the committee’s affairs, Messrs. Ministers informed him that, by the highest command, the most submissive report of the Mogilev civil governor was submitted to the committee with a report on the state of the province entrusted to his administration for 1840, which, on the assumption regarding Jews accepting the Christian faith, was followed by His Imperial Majesty’s own handwritten command: “to understand,” and that therefore the committee at the meeting on April 8, among other things, put: the highest command regarding the Jews, accept the Christian faith, inform the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for execution so that the state of this matter is brought to the attention of the committee. Metropolitan Philaret gave the following opinion on this subject: Despite all the desire of the pious government to facilitate the entry of Jews into Christianity, this matter is not freed from obstacles and difficulties by existing laws. Jewish societies persecute those who are inclined to Christianity, subject them to ruin, slander and danger of life. Jews do not have the legal right to move to the internal provinces to accept Christianity. A Jew who has converted to Christianity, after the destruction of previous ties, is subject to a breakdown in well-being and has difficulty entering a new society. Of the proposed measures, the following seem to be more useful and easier to implement: 1) Grant a baptized Jew the right to freely be assigned to agricultural, petty bourgeois and craft societies, as well as to the merchant class with the legal declaration of capital. 2) Those who join an agricultural, petty-bourgeois or craft society will be given a benefit for several years. 3) Strict inquiry about the previous life of Jews who want to join Christianity, to use as required by special circumstances and in case of doubt; and in ordinary cases be content with passports and information from the local police. 4) Jews who arrived in the internal provinces with passports and expressing a desire to join Christianity are given a delay of one to three months to test their intentions and to instruct them in the faith. But if the spiritual authorities consider any of these to be unreliable towards Christianity, immediately stop the delay and let the authorities of the province to which the Jew belongs know about this. April 28, 1841 40 . Until May 28. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the summary of canon law compiled by Moscow University professor Krylov Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a proposal dated March 26, 1841, explained that the Minister of Public Education informed him that the trustee of the Moscow educational district, having presented him with the inconvenience of teaching canon law at Moscow University by a professor of theology, forwarded a summary of such law, compiled, on his instructions, by the ordinary professor of Moscow University Krylov 41 in the form in which, in his opinion, it should be taught to students Faculty of Law; Therefore, the minister asked to propose the said synopsis for consideration by the Holy Synod and to notify him of the subsequent conclusion on this subject with the return of the synopsis itself. The Holy Synod, by resolution dated April 7 - May 28, 1841, decided: having considered the proposal to teach canon law at the Moscow University, as well as the comments delivered by the Metropolitan of Moscow on this subject, to find these latter quite worthy of respect and therefore believes: to allow the chief prosecutor to notify the Minister of Public Education that since the presentation of canon law must be based on the Holy Scriptures, on the rules of the saints apostles, holy councils, holy fathers and church statutes, then, in the opinion of the Holy Synod, the teaching of this law at the university can be entrusted to no one other than a professor teaching theology. An essay on the essence and nature of canon law says that only one who is familiar with the latter in all its phenomena can see the meaning of canon law and its relationship to the field of jurisprudence. To those who do not have this last advantage, a barrier is placed to enter into judgment and is strengthened by constipation: conditio sine qua non. Consequently, there is nothing to do here. How could there be an opposite necessity to force one to overcome constipation and invade the commanded judgment? In order to assign canon law to the university law department, the essay says that from this law comes sanctification and revitalization to various branches of legal life. Here it is not difficult to distinguish between the influence of dogmatic and moral Christian teaching and canon law itself. For example, sanctification of the marriage union is imparted by dogmatic and moral teachings of Christianity, and not by canon law, which is concerned with the aversion of visible illegalities. So, if the legal sciences include what Christianity sanctifies them with; then both dogmatic and moral Christian teaching should be included in this composition. But if this is inappropriate, if the dogmatic and moral Christian teaching rightly has a special department, then this, and not the other, is more appropriate to include canon law. The essay says that in theological academies it should primarily present the ecclesiastical element of canon law, where it includes, among other things, dogmatics, and in universities primarily the legal element, relating to civil life under the influence of the canon. From this division it would follow that the various details of the rules relating to marriage and divorce should primarily be discussed at the university, and not at the theological academy. But isn't it primarily necessary for a priest to know the details of the rules about the marriages that he must officiate? From this it is clear how the proposed theory does not promise correct application to practice. The essay wants to teach at the university canon law of general content for all Christian denominations. How will this be fulfilled? How, for example, will the general content of the rules on marriage be taught, which only in the Orthodox Church retain their ancient, general, Catholic form, but in the Roman Church they are changed in their own way, and in Protestantism in their own way? How will the general content of the rules on divorce be compiled, which in the Orthodox Church is possible with the fact that the guilty person is deprived of the right to a new marriage, in the Roman Church, however, it is impossible so that there are legal marriages, and at the same time unstable, in Protestantism it is so easy that the guilty person is subject to a ban on a new marriage - for several months? They cannot convey the general content of knowledge of the matter, or, if they impart knowledge of the matter, there will be no general content. And is it fair that few persons of a tolerant religion should be accommodated on an equal basis with the majority of the dominant one? If at the same time they refute the rules of the non-Orthodox, then they will not be satisfied, but insulted; and if they prove it, will they not seduce the Orthodox? The essay says that canon law does not have a separate, independent life, special principles; that the canon is an addition to secular law. Is it complete? For example, the apostolic canon: two or three bishops ordain a bishop, is there really only an addition to secular law? Didn’t he really stand separately, independently, on his own principles, before secular pagan law became Christian, and came to the aid of the canon for its protection? The beginnings of canon law are somewhat older than the beginnings of Roman law: one of the oldest articles of canon law is Lev.18, written when Rome did not yet exist. The essay says that the very sources are almost common to both rights. Let's see. The sources of canon law are: Holy Scripture, the rules of the holy apostles, councils, holy fathers, church statutes. Will secular law say that these sources are almost common to it with canon law? The distinctive basic principle of secular law is the temporary and local implementation of the idea of ​​eternal truth. But isn’t canon law also dominated by the idea of ​​eternal truth, with local and temporal certainties? The character of canon law is considered to be immobility: but at the same time organic movement, which lasted nine centuries, is attributed to it. What kind of people is this essay talking about who don’t have enough strength to organize their lives according to internal spiritual-Christian principles, and not borrow elements from outside? Does it know people who would have so much strength that they would not need to borrow elements from outside? The essay says that from a ten-century movement, a universal dogma was finally formed. Theologians say that the universal dogma has existed since the beginning of Christianity, and was not finally formed. In general, the essay attributes changeability to rituals. This cannot be allowed. There are rituals in the Catholic Church that remain unchanged until the next century. The essay says: if the general beliefs of the people become unequal with the form of the ritual, then a new form is needed for them. This subordination of rituals to some kind of democratic principle is completely unknown to canon law. Further on the same subject it is said: we must look more at the lower strata of the people, and not at the higher ones. Here a very dark shade of thought is overlooked and not eliminated, as if the ritual institutions of religion are suitable and necessary only for the lower class of people, as if the highest are superior to them. “The existence of it (the ritual) does not hamper the conscience.” Here again flashes the unfavorable assumption that every ritual is a thing barely tolerable, barely consistent with conscience. The essay promises not to make a quick judgment about the subjects of canon law that remain unchanged, even though, apparently, they need to be changed. The promise is good, but not reassuring because it immediately threatens with the need for reform. “The difference between the Eastern Church and the Western Church is hidden deep in the initial layers of the new civilization.” In the 9th century it only finally expressed itself in the form of a bifurcation of the church.” Therefore, the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church consists not in pure teaching, not in the faithful apostolic tradition, but in a special layer of civilization? The writer, no doubt, did not think this: but don’t his words prove how dangerous it is to subordinate canon law to secular theories? “The Eastern world – without a classical language.” Isn't Greek a classical language? “The era is conciliar – from the 3rd to the 6th centuries.” There were no ecumenical councils in the third century, and the last ecumenical council was in the eighth century. “The classical Latin element was reflected much more strongly in the west than in the east.” It is a pity that no evidence has been provided for this. What is the Latin classical element of Western canon law? Is it only in the Latin language, which, however, in canon law is no longer classical at all? And if, by misfortune, the Latin classical element turns out to be predominant in Western canon law, will not the jurisprudence of both rights make a determination to recognize the Latin Church as the classical Church? What will such ideal legal views, not strictly adapted to the case itself, serve and where will they lead? The presented project, in which canon law is subordinated to ideal historical-philosophical considerations, and thus positive law is not freed from the arbitrary impulses of legal-philosophical reason, seems to convince us that it is inconvenient to give canon law to a secular department. If secular law feels the need for sanctification and animation by the highest church law, let it come from the mouth of a Christian teacher, not in a pagan, but in a Christian form, which can be done without contradicting the nature of the subject being taught; because Christianity is the highest and purest wisdom, and consequently a sound mind cannot consider Christian ideas of civil law alien to itself, but rather must recognize them as congenial, if it is not blinded by prejudice and pride 42. July 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the case of the publication of the manuscript: “Ostromir Gospel” Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! By letter dated June 17, No. 4050, which I received on the 25th day, your Excellency was pleased to demand my opinion on the matter of the publication of the Ostromir manuscript of the Gospel. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the comments made by the censorship committee 43. Note 1. There is a dissimilarity between the Slovenian text of the Ostromir and the current one. Answer. And it was impossible to expect that the text of the 11th century would be literally similar to the text of the 18th century. There are differences between manuscripts and printed editions, somewhat separated by time. Many such discrepancies were published by the Holy Synod in the preface to the edition of the Slavic Bible. Consequently, it doesn’t matter if such discrepancies appear in the edition of Ostromir’s text. It is impossible not to pay attention to some particular remarks of dissimilarities made by the censorship committee. In the manuscript, sheet 142: silver coin. In the current text: penalty. It is impossible to understand what doubt the censorship committee found here, and what it feared from this discrepancy. The censorship committee noticed that on sheet 240 three verses of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew were missing, namely: 2, 3, 4. This remark does not refer to the prejudice of the manuscript, but to the prejudice of the compiler of the comments, convicting him of ignorance of the order of church readings. Open the church edition of the Gospel. There you will see before verse two: transgress the holy physician. That is: do not read the following verses when you read in memory of the holy free doctors. And after the third verse it says: honor as a physician. Gregory the deacon wrote the Gospel to be read in church on the day of remembrance of the free doctors Cosmas and Damian. Why did he write poetry that, according to the charter, was not ordered to be read that day in church? Let us give an example of a different kind of heteroglossia. On sheet 47 it is written: Glorify me with glory, Father, even before you had peace. This is text corruption. But publishing it in print is not only not harmful, but also useful. The scribe should have written: Glorify me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before the world even existed. Word: you, he missed. What to do? Don't rewrite the whole sheet. He added this word at the end: there shall be no peace with you, and damaged the text, partly even the meaning. But since the origin of the typo is obvious: it is useful to point out such an example to lovers of antiquity, so that they do not indiscriminately consider everything ancient to be infallible, and so that they can understand the need for the former correction of books. Another example. Sheet 54. Not ou be the Holy Spirit tribute. This is the kind of contradiction with the ordinary text that the theologian will gladly encounter in the ancient text: because it defends and explains one of the difficult passages of the Gospel of John. Note 2. The Greek text appended to Ostromir’s does not agree with the text generally accepted among us. Answer. Which Greek text does the commentator recognize as generally accepted? There is such a text in Slavic, exactly the one whose publication, but research, was approved by the Holy Synod. There is no Greek text that has been studied in this way by the Orthodox hierarchy and finally approved for general use. What is required from the publisher? You can only demand from him that he choose a good publication: he did just that. Edition of Pripius from the good ones between the old ones; Scholz's (Roman Catholic) edition of the best among the new ones. What is not very satisfactory is that he followed one thing or another, and sometimes even variations, and did not indicate exactly where he followed what; but his goal was not to publish the best Greek text, but rather to give Ostromir’s text the best European intelligibility through Greek, which is similar to Slavic. The goal for learning is useful and serves to the honor of the Slavs; and the means used for this are tolerant. Note 3. In the church collection or month book, many numbers of months are omitted. Answer. There is no problem, and the reason is clear. Ostromir's scribe did not write complete calendars: he indicated the days of those saints who were entitled to special readings from the Gospel. The remarkable person did not miss that the Ostromir calendar does not mention on October 22 the celebration of the Mother of God in honor of Her Kazan Icon. Marvelous! Should a scribe of the 11th century have prophesied that this holiday would be established in 1613? Note 4. Among the saints of the Ostromir monthbook, some are found on days other than those shown in ordinary monthbooks. Answer. And that's no problem. There is such a difference in other monthly words. S. Demetrius sometimes indicates it in the fourth menaion. Note 5. In the Ostromir calendar there are saints who are not in ordinary calendars. Answer. Not only is this not a problem, but therefore Ostromir’s ancient calendar deserves special attention from researchers of church antiquity. Note 6. In the image of St. Evangelist Luke has an inscription: in this way the Holy Spirit appeared in Lutsa. Answer. The inscription is truly unreasonable. What to do? Should I lower it? As soon as one omission is noticed in the edition, there will be a chance to doubt whether the text of Ostromirs is not damaged in other places of the publication. This would be detrimental to the publication. Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to allow this inscription to be included in the publication: and in the preface, or in the note, it should be mentioned that a reasonable reader will undoubtedly not accept this wisdom of the 11th century icon painter as the teaching of the church; and that it was allowed in this edition only so that the printed book in all parts would agree with the manuscript, and so that the curious could consider here both the bright and foggy side of antiquity. Notes 7. On the image of St. Luke the Evangelist writes: Reading from Luke of the Holy Gospel. Likewise in the image of St. Brand. Answer. This incongruity is harmless; and therefore does not deserve to be persecuted by censorship. For this reason, the demands of the censorship committee must be considered. First requirement. Make comments on all places in the Ostromir Gospel that are dissimilar to the ordinary text. This requirement is impossible to fulfill. This requires a lot of work. In order for this work to be satisfactory, it requires a theologian. G. Vostokov is an archaeologist and writer, but will not take on the duties of a theologian. And what is this requirement based on? And what hope is there in it? Second requirement. Choose the Greek text that is most similar to the world text. The publisher did this according to his own considerations. And in order to give an account of this not only with instructions, but also with comments, this requirement is almost as difficult to fulfill as the first. Third requirement. Differences in the month word should be explained or specified in the notes. This again is a matter that is more convenient for a member of the theological academy to undertake than for a secular scientist. Moreover, there is no need for this, as shown above in the responses to the comments of the censorship committee 3, 4 and 5. 1) Make an addition to the preface, where to show that the publisher presents the ancient monument as it is, and explains it only in relation to language; and leaves it to those who study these subjects to explain it in relation to theology and church history; that he presents the Greek text not as exemplary, but as serving to explain the Slavic text. To this we could add some of the considerations and examples proposed above, but at the same time, of course, present them as a warning to the reader, and not as responses to comments. 2) Under this condition, allow the publication of the manuscript. However, I leave this matter to the further discretion of the Holy Synod. In returning the manuscript and appendices itself, I have the honor to be with true respect and devotion. Your Excellency, gracious sovereign, most humble servant Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 266, July 3 days, 1841 The Holy Synod, by resolution of December 28–31 of the same year, authorized the Chief Prosecutor to notify State Councilor Vostokov that the Holy Synod, finding a useful purpose in its proposed publication of a copy of the copy from the oldest Slavic manuscript of the Ostromir Gospel, allows this undertaking to be carried out so that Mr. Vostokov, according to the instructions of Metropolitan Philaret, makes an addition to the preface and submits this addition for preliminary approval. consideration of the Holy Synod 44. Not earlier than 1841. The opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on whether one of the bishops of the Russian Church acted correctly in refusing Palmer, a former deacon of the Anglican Church, a request to be accepted into the priesthood and communion of the holy mysteries, without joining the Orthodox Church The famous Palmer 45, a former deacon of the Anglican Church, on one of his first visits to St. Petersburg, recognizing the truth of the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the most important points, invited one bishop of the Russian Church to accept him into his priesthood and to receive the Holy Mysteries, without requiring him to separate from the Anglican Church. Palmer thought through this to begin to unite the churches. The bishop answered: “What kind of connection will there be if we commune together, one of the true body of Christ, as the Orthodox Church believes, and the other, without separating from the Anglican Church, and therefore from its teachings, will partake only of a commemorative symbol or sign? The connection will be only for the bodily eyes, but in the spirit there will be separation. II does the union of two churches begin through the joint communion of the holy mysteries between the bishop of one and the deacon of the other? Will not the Anglican Church, or the majority of its members, say on the contrary: this deacon is doubtful because he has entered into communion with a church with which the Anglican Church is not in communion? Will the Russian Church also say: can a bishop remain in our communion who has entered into communion with a member of a church that is outside communion with our Orthodox Church and contains teachings that disagree with it? Thus, instead of the desired union of the two churches, in reality it will only turn out that each of the supposedly united will damage his unity with his church. The unification of divided churches cannot be accomplished correctly and reliably by the private action of some persons. For this, correct considerations and actions of the hierarchy are needed 46. Case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 765, l. 1–4 and 7. Case of the Holy Synod. 1840, No. 1974, l. 45–47. Krylov, Nikita Ivanovich, prof. Roman law in Moscow. univ.; mind. Dec. 26, 1879 Case of the Holy Synod, 1841, No. 1458. “Notes” printed. true to history. magazine Russian Archive, for 1878, book. V, pp. 126–128. Notes from the St. Petersburg censor. committee, on the publication of the manuscript of the Ostromir Gospel, papech. in the jury. Readings in the Society. loves. spirits education, 1884, February. Case of the Holy Synod, 1840, No. 22, l. 37–40, 43. Letter from the Metropolitan. Philaret and definition. Holy Synod printed. verbatim in the magazine. Readings in the Society. loves. spirits education, 1884, February. See above, no. 257. William Palmer, Master of Science and Specialist in Theology, a deacon by ordination, first came to Russia at the end of 1840, for church studies, as stated in the letter of M. J. Root, President of the College of St. Mary Magdalene at Oxford University, with whom Palmer came to St. Petersburg (See the magazine “The Wanderer,” 1883, vol. 1, p. 481 et seq.). With black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 85, doc. No. 44.