A collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. Volume 4

Volume 1 • Volume 2 • Volume 3 • Volume 4 • Volume 5. Part 1 • Volume 5. Part 2 Alphabetical index to the collection of opinions and reviews The fourth volume of “Collected opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues” begins with the significant day in the history of our fatherland on the accession of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, now reposed in God, to the ancestral throne, and ends in the last year before the great transformation of 1861. Thus covering only six years (from February 19, 1855 to December 15, 1860), the present volume contains one hundred and sixty-three articles, occupying thirty-six printed pages. All articles, as in previous volumes, are arranged in strictly chronological order. The accession of Emperor Alexander II to the throne, his visit with his entire august family to the capital of Moscow, preparations for the sacred coronation - all these events left a noticeable mark in the written works of Metropolitan Philaret. Particularly noteworthy is the correspondence of the saint with the minister of the imperial court on questions about changes in the design of the state coat of arms (No. 424) and on the indication of the times in the coronation ceremony and liturgy when Their Imperial Majesties can sit on their thrones (No. 438); with the synodal chief prosecutor - on the need for consultations with diocesan bishops on church issues (No. 438), on changing some details in the rite of the sacred coronation (Nos. 434–436; 441–442), on the translation of holy books into Russian (Nos. 445, 467) and with the Holy Synod on the elevation of church deanery (No. 444). The metropolitan’s correspondence with various government officials and institutions on matters of schism is even more extensive. The Moscow schismatics, before others, felt the “dawn of a new reign.” At a time when all of Moscow, as one person, hurried to the churches to take the oath of loyalty to the Emperor who had ascended the throne, the schismatic priests of the Rogozhsky cemetery resolutely refused to take the oath in Orthodox churches, in the presence of an Orthodox priest, to which they were obliged by the law, which they had previously fulfilled unquestioningly (Nos. 403–405). The Moscow schismatics were followed by schismatics located in the mountains. Armored squads of the state militia (No. 408). This regrettable event, which darkened the bright days of the all-Russian celebration and caused Metropolitan Philaret great grief, both as a Moscow hierarch and as a loyal subject, was only the beginning of those great concerns that the great saint raised during the indicated period of time regarding matters of schism. It was barely possible to “bring the disobedient to order with gentle admonitions,” when from the Minister of Internal Affairs D. G. Bibikov, four all-submissive petitions of Moscow and Bogorodsk schismatics, popovshchinsky and bespopovshchinsky interpretations, and “a note about schismatics calling themselves Old Believers (No. 414) were delivered for the metropolitan’s conclusion. The consideration of these papers could not but concern the Metropolitan, both because the petitions were submitted to the highest view not only with the knowledge, but also with the consent of the Moscow military governor-general, and the note “was written by a business man with an academic education, who, not belonging to the schismatics, was their zealous defender,” and especially because the saint foresaw further complications in the affairs split. And indeed, encouraged by such high attention, the schismatics became bolder in their arbitrariness: they opened a public worship service at the Rogozhsky cemetery, inviting Austrian priests for this purpose. “According to local rumors,” the saint wrote to the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Gregory, “the schismatics’ hope is growing to take advantage of the government’s excessive leniency and tear away priests from the church.” It seems that “schismatics are looked at from the same point of view as those of other faiths; but this is a big misconception. In former times, schism had a predominantly ecclesiastical significance, and in the eyes of Empress Catherine II, schismatics could still seem more ridiculous or pitiful than dangerous. But at the present time the split is important, mainly in civil terms. This is a terrible and constantly spreading state ulcer that requires urgent and serious treatment. The schismatics are divided into many sects; but they all agree on one point, that they do not recognize the Sovereign as God’s anointed and do not consider any legitimate authority; and that is why they evade some civil decrees by various illicit means, while others are carried out by them only for the sake of clarity, fear for the sake of the Jews” (No. 478). Therefore, to give such persons priests independent of the bishops “would mean to shake the very hierarchy and create a chasm in the spiritual building of the church; for from the beginning of the Christian church, holy councils and holy fathers never allowed priests to leave their dependence on their spiritual superiors, and those who were alienated from him were condemned” (Nos. 471, 475). Without a doubt, in connection with this view of the schism there is also article No. 537, in which the Metropolitan, by church decrees, proves the obligation on the part of the civil government to assist the church in the fight against heresies. With the same unflagging zeal, the ever-memorable saint took care of the protection of the Russian Church from Catholic propaganda, which was raising its head as a result of the agreement between the Roman Curia and the Russian government on Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia that took place under Emperor Nicholas I (Nos. 420, 429, 431, 463). It is impossible not to point out the metropolitan’s correspondence on the affairs of the actual spiritual administration in Russia. Articles: “on the improvement of the spiritual part”, “on the composition of the Holy Synod” (No. 461), and objections to the notes: “on the state of the Orthodox Church in Russia” (No. 448), “on the embarrassing situation of the synodal functioning” (Nos. 460, 462), “on the differences between the Greek and Russian churches” (Nos. 518, 522, 525), and “on an extract from the laws on the issue of resignation from the priesthood” (No. 538) deserve not only reading, but also study. Finally, the saint’s letter to Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg regarding the upcoming consecration of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg in 1858 (No. 491) deserves special attention. “The circumambulation of the cathedral according to the rite of consecration,” wrote Filaret, among other things, “should be combined with the circumambulation of the monument to Peter the Great. This requires careful consideration. The circumambulation of the consecrated church, with the cross, the Gospel, icons and holy relics, belongs essentially to the sacred rite of consecrating the church. But the monument does not require consecration, and consecration similar to the consecration of a church does not befit it. Consequently, circumambulation of the monument would be inconsistent with church rites and would upset him. They say that the design of the ceremony involves stopping the church procession in front of the monument and proclaiming the eternal memory of Peter the Great. It is a very extraordinary spectacle to imagine that your Eminence in full vestments, with holy relics on the head, among the clergy, with a cross, the Gospel and icons, standing in front of an equestrian statue and the protodeacon proclaiming and the choir singing eternal memory in front of the equestrian statue. The Lord has appointed Your Eminence as the primary guardian of Orthodoxy and peace of the Orthodox Church in Russia. I have no doubt that your enlightened pious zeal will present this subject to the most pious Sovereign Emperor in the light of truth, if the above-mentioned features of the ceremony are known to you in good time. In case they are true and unknown to you, I make it my sacred duty to openly express to you my thoughts, which I present to your prudent attention. If it pleases the most pious Sovereign Emperor, during the consecration of St. Isaac’s Church, to honor the memory of Emperor Peter I, then this can be done decently and in accordance with church rites, if, after the consecration of the church and after the proclamation of many years of prosperous reign to the Sovereign Emperor, it will be proclaimed: to the most pious Emperor Peter I, eternal memory.” There is no doubt that this volume, due to the abundance of material relating to various aspects of church-state life and theological thought, and as a monument to the great mind, invincible faith, fiery zeal, will meet both among our clergy and among the secular educated society with the same sympathetic reception as the previous volumes. Indexes of personal names and items were compiled by A.V. Gavrilov.