Приложение

March 23. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with comments on the book: “Circle of Church Singing,” used in court churches The Minister of the Imperial Court informed the Synodal Chief Prosecutor that, according to the highest order, which followed in November 1830, 500 copies of the music book of simple singing and the dirge belonging to it, used in the court churches, were printed, and that the Sovereign Emperor, wanting church singing everywhere to be consistent with the court melody, His Majesty commanded and deigned to propose to the Holy Synod an order for diocesan bishops to supply the dioceses entrusted to them with these music books. Having announced this highest will to the Holy Synod, the Chief Prosecutor added that the said books of church singing and requiem services, upon notification of the Minister, are sold in the court singing chapel. The Holy Synod, by decrees of February 28, having made known about this highest command of the Moscow and Georgian-Imereti Holy Synod to the offices, synodal members and other eminent diocesan bishops, also stauropegial laurels and monasteries and the chief priest of the army and navies for proper execution, provided them with an extract of the mentioned music books from the court singing chapel. Regarding this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to the Synod. This March 10th day I received a decree of His Imperial Majesty from the Holy Synod, dated February 28, No. 1272, on the books of simple church singing and the requiem service belonging to it, used in court churches, which contains the highest command: to propose to the Holy Synod an order to provide diocesan bishops with these books dioceses entrusted to them. When, in fulfillment of this highest command, it was proposed for consideration by the Holy Synod, then, as far as I know, the Holy Synod did not have in mind the very book in question. Now, as I begin to carry out the decree of the Holy Synod, I consider it necessary to take into account the book itself, and when examining it it turned out: 1) This book in the title is called a circle of church singing, which, according to the use of this expression, means the complete composition of church singing. But in this book much is reduced, or completely omitted, for example: the troparions sung at Matins after the verse: God is the Lord are not there at all. Of the antiphons of the eight voices (octavotes) sung before the Gospel, only one antiphon of the fourth voice is placed. There are not a single irmos of the Sunday canons of eight voices, but instead of them there are irmos of the Theotokos canon: I will open my mouth. There is only one canon of the Nativity of Christ in this book, but there is no canon of the second creator. The same was done with the canons of other great holidays. The Irmos of some great holidays, for example, the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, are completely missed. In the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts the hymn is missing: Now are the powers of heaven. 2) In the chants, many abbreviations are used in this book, such as: instead of singing the Sunday evening prokene: The Lord reigns, there is a choir reading; The same was done with the verse: God is the Lord, instead of singing in eight voices. The so-called dogmatists, important in content, touching in the ancient church melody and known to everyone, are supposed to sing the stichera in a quick chant in this book. In the liturgy of St. Basil the Great in the verses: Thy secret supper, Let all flesh be silent, Rejoice in thee, a simple chant of the sixth voice is used, instead of the ancient special chants that touch the ears of the people. If such a book is distributed among cathedral, monastic and parish churches without special instruction, then the consequences may be as follows: 1) Some omissions will be accepted as permitted abbreviations and violations of the church charter will follow. 2) Ancient church singing, already in actual use in various parts by innovations, changed not for the better, will become more and more damaged and fall into oblivion. 3) Lovers of antiquity will have an unfavorable impression from this. 4) The schismatics will be given a new opportunity to slander the church by changing church customs and the church charter itself. In order to prevent these unfavorable consequences, it is necessary, in my opinion, regarding the manner of implementing the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod, monasteries, cathedral and parish churches should be given the following instruction: 1) The model of singing presented in the above-mentioned music books should be followed primarily in the singing of the liturgies of St. Chrysostom, requiem masses and those of other articles that more closely follow the ancient church singing depicted in the books published by the Holy Synod. 2) Abbreviations and omissions made in newly published books should not be accepted as a rule for changing the church charter, but these regulations should continue to be followed. 3) Preserve and support, especially in monastic and cathedral churches, ancient church singing in its order and completeness; and especially beware of such innovations in church singing, which, retreating both from ancient everyday and now published court singing, also retreat from the importance and simplicity inherent in divine singing, combined with tenderness. But since this matter concerns more than one diocese entrusted to me: then, before teaching this instruction, I consider it appropriate to present this to the Holy Synod, with the attachment of the most complete book, and ask for permission from the decree. Having heard the above, the Holy Synod, according to the definition of 1833, No. 128, decided: according to the importance of the many deviations from the ancient touching church tunes and even omissions of entire parts of singing necessary in the divine service, noted by the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow and the Holy Synod itself, now seen in the book The Circle of Church Singing Used in Court Churches differences in the days celebrated by the Church, the Holy Synod finds that, when introducing this book into use by the churches in general, it is necessary, in order to prevent those unpleasant consequences, which are envisaged by the member of the Synod, the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, to give the diocesan bishops, stauropegial monasteries and chief priests of the army and navy and the guards corps some instructions, and namely: to prescribe to them, as it believes His Eminence, Metropolitan of Moscow, 1) to comply with the model of singing presented in the above-mentioned music books, mainly in the singing of the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the requiem and those of other articles that more closely follow the ancient church singing depicted in the books published by the Holy Synod. 2) Abbreviations and omissions made in newly published books should not be taken as a rule for changing the church charter, but these regulations should be followed as before. 3) Preserve and support, especially in monastic and cathedral churches, ancient church singing in its order and completeness; and especially beware of such innovations in church singing, which depart from both ancient everyday and now published court singing, and at the same time retreat from the importance and simplicity inherent in liturgical singing, combined with tenderness. This very instruction should be given to the synodal member, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to teach, according to his assumption, to whomever should be given in the diocese entrusted to him 353. December 16. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled “On the capital of the Synodal Printing House” The question of attributing the capital of the synodal printing house to state sums, as far as one can know or conclude, is too hastily approached to resolution without being carried out through research, and even without asking the department in which this capital is located. Therefore, one could expect that such an action would lead to a decision incompatible with the essence of the subject. The highest concern for the truth and good of the Orthodox Church allows us to stop and examine the grounds for the decision being prepared. I. They imagine that in 1653, as stated in the preface of the printed Apostle, the printing house was set up “from the royal treasury,” and that Deacon Ivan Fedorov and his comrades were given “from the royal treasures” for their maintenance and printing work, and from this the conclusion is drawn that printing capital should belong to the treasury. Here is another conclusion, identical to the previous one: the Moscow Assumption Cathedral was built and decorated in the past centuries, and those who worked in this were supported by the grand ducal and royal treasury and treasures. Consequently, the income of the Assumption Cathedral should belong to the treasury. If no one accepts this last conclusion, then the first should not be accepted. II. Of course, not a ruble from the royal treasury, used for the printing house, is part of the property of the synodal printing house, and perhaps there are only a few old bricks. Its entire capital came from book printing under the authority of the Holy Synod. After 1812, her house was rebuilt: and this not only depleted the previously collected capital, but she was also burdened with a debt of more than 100,000 rubles according to the then account. This debt was also paid in subsequent years through printing, with difficulty and at a disadvantage for book buyers; then, with successful efforts and improvement of the printing house, the capital now available began to be compiled, also through book printing. So, it is obvious that it is the acquired property of the Holy Synod and the Orthodox Church. And if the law and state power protect the inviolability of the property of a private person, does the property of the Holy Synod and the Orthodox Church have less right to inviolability? III. It is necessary, so to speak, to open to the bottom the source of typographic capital in order to judge it correctly. The Gospel, the Apostle, the Psalter, the Book of Hours, the Bible, liturgical and all church books are printed; and are bought mainly in the church, with church money. It would be necessary to selflessly serve the word of God, and promote the dissemination of sacred and prayer books among the people, and therefore sell these books at the same price as they cost the printing house itself. But the Holy Synod has urgent church needs, which it does not have the means to satisfy: and, out of necessity, and in order to get at its disposal certain sums for special, often sudden and requiring urgent satisfaction of needs, it imposes a hryvnia, or more or less, on the price of each copy of the Gospel, the Apostle, the Psalter, the Bible, and so on, and thus the capital is formed. Now you can see what it means to take this capital into the state treasury: it means to take into the state treasury a tax from every copy of the Gospel that lies and will continue to be placed in the church, on the throne, from every copy of the Bible that a pious Christian wants to read, from every copy of the Psalter from which a pious peasant wants to teach his son. Will this please the most pious Sovereign Emperor? Wouldn't the Ministry of Finance be ashamed to propose this? IV. But how does the Holy Synod allow itself to take this tax? - Extremity forces. How does he use it? – Uses church for church. For example, when the former Uniate bishops were preparing the reunification of their church with the Orthodox, and determined that in their former college the liturgical books damaged by the Latins should be replaced with Orthodox ones: they suddenly demanded from the Holy Synod several hundred copies of the Gospel, decorated according to the church, the Service Book and some other books. The matter required urgent assistance. The Holy Synod immediately took from its reserves the required number of books and the Gospel, with printing sums decorated according to the church, and delivered them free of charge upon request; and having free capital, he could easily replenish his book stocks with new publications. – The Holy Synod learned that the Bulgarian Orthodox churches lack liturgical books: it also supplied them free of charge, which will probably be needed in the next time. The Holy Synod also supplied the churches reunited with Russia with liturgical books, in large numbers, free of charge. Let us imagine what would happen if printing capital were in the department of the state treasury, and the Holy Synod could dispose of only that share of it that was assigned for a certain year. With an unexpected, gratuitous demand for a sudden large number of liturgical books for churches, he would be forced, suddenly, beyond expectation, to deplete his book reserves; and to receive money for an extraordinary increase in printing it would be necessary to wait for the future budget and next year. During this slowness, it could happen that some churches would have to be left without services due to a lack of liturgical books. V. Found in the decree of Peter II, 1727, Oct. 4 that the synodal printing house was maintained at its own expense. What follows from this? - Nothing more than that even now her sums are her own. VI. In the same decree they find that the remainder of the printing sums was taken to the ecclesiastical department, and sometimes to the treasury. since, only sometimes, it is obvious that they were taken into the spiritual department by right, and into the treasury only on some exceptional occasion. Peter was the first to take bells from churches for state reasons: does it follow from this that all church bells should belong to the Ministry of Finance? VII. But what happened from 1727 to 1859? – The Holy Synod had the authority to dispose of printing sums, with the only exception being that in the most important cases it sought the permission of the Sovereign Emperor, the patron of the Orthodox Church. The most pious Sovereign certainly desires perfect legality. Let the Holy Synod and the State Treasury stand before the law and before the court. What should follow? – The righteous court must say: since ten years of limitation are sufficient to protect property, then thirteen ten years of limitation are, of course, sufficient to protect the property of the Holy Synod. VIII. And what is the Ministry of Finance asking for? Should a jug of water be used to replenish a lake in which a decrease in water has been noticed? – This is the relationship of printing capital to the state treasury. IX. In the present case, it would be useful for statesmen to recall and take into account the former seizure of church real estate into the treasury. Unbiased members of the clergy will not complain about their being taken into government administration. If they had been given proper management, if the income from these estates had been used for the ecclesiastical department, according to needs, and the remainder had been saved for emergencies: then the ecclesiastical department would still be able to generously satisfy its needs without bothering the state treasury; and savings from the income from his estates could be turned into donations to the state for emergency needs. But this is not how things are done. At the very beginning, only a third of the income from church estates was assigned to the spiritual department, then a significant part of the estates themselves passed into private ownership, and traces of church property were lost. Is it not for this sin that they then thought to enrich the state treasury with church property, now this latter turns out to be poor? Shouldn't we be careful not to repeat the previous sin, even if in a small form, and not to take a sore from the one from whom the robe was taken? From missionary activities in Izmail district In the past year, the missionaries of the Izmail district - priests Hilarion Sofronovich and Theodosius Volovey - for the first time began public conversations about objects of faith with the verb Old Believers and had several conversations in Vilkovo and in Kiliya. Such interviews in Izmail district are a completely new thing; therefore, when rumors spread about the conversations that were to take place, to which the Old Believers were also invited, various unfounded rumors arose both among the Orthodox and among the Old Believers, which at first the missionaries had to take into account. The Orthodox, among other things, said that the end had already come for the Lipovans (Old Believers), they should be forced to go to our church and accept our faith. In the same sense, the Old Believers themselves accepted the invitation to conversations and complaints began to be heard among them that they were being oppressed, and some of them expressed the idea that if they were really forced to go to the “Khokhlatsky” church, then it would be better to go abroad. Such misconceptions about the conversations mainly seem to have led to the fact that none of the Old Believers were present at the first conversation in Vilkovo, and very few appeared at the second in the city of Kiliya. There was a need at the beginning of the conversation to first give a correct understanding of the interviews being opened and to refute misconceptions about them - which the missionaries did in Vilkovo and Kiliya. They pointed out that such conversations with us are a new and unfamiliar matter, but in other countries they have been going on for a long time, and the Old Believers willingly attend these conversations and take part in the debate; They also pointed out that the purpose of the conversations is to give an account of their hope (1 Pet. 3:15) - therefore they invite the Old Believers to appear, but they do not think of forcing anyone to come to the conversations. Whether these explanations had any influence, or whether something else contributed, many Old Believers appeared only at the third conversation in Kilia, and some of them took an active part in the debate. Nevertheless, false rumors about the conversations continue, and the best proof of this is the following circumstance. Resident of the city Kiliya Vikul Smirnov, who took part in the debate, appeared in the village after the conversation. Galilesti to about. Theodosius Volovey, expressed a desire to talk orally and in writing about objects of faith, but with the indispensable condition that he be given a signature that he will not be held accountable if he expresses anything sharply; He admitted that during the conversation he was very afraid that he would not be put on trial for having decided to object to them. To calm him down and involve him in conversations, Fr. Theodosius signed the document with the following content: “Mutual peace-loving condition. 1890, May 26 days. I, the undersigned, the parish priest of the village of Galileshti of the 3rd district of the Izmail district, Theodosius Volovy, conclude this condition with a resident of the city of Kiliya, an Old Believer of the Austrian consent, Vikul Iosifovich Smirnov, that we wish to conduct interviews between ourselves about objects of faith on paper and orally, but only so that, in the event that I, Smirnov, for any reason I will write down my misunderstanding on paper, or I will say verbally that the meaningless is not malicious, - do not hold me accountable, either civil or spiritual, but I, priest Theodosius Volovey, undertake to fulfill Smirnov’s wishes exactly, which is what we sign.” Reassured by this document, Smirnov took from Fr. Theodosius 10 questions to the verb Old Believers, published in the “Brotherly Word” and in the Chisinau Diocesan Gazette for this year, and after some time presented the missionaries with a voluminous manuscript containing the answer to those questions. The missionaries did not remain in debt and dismantled, as far as time and resources allowed them, the schismatic views of the Old Believer Vikul Smirnov. Both Smirnov’s answer and his analysis were submitted to us by the Editorial Board for publication. We will print 355 only the missionaries’ analysis of Mr. Smirnov’s answer, since from here the content of the latter will be clearly visible. 1. The work of missionaries is compilative; when compiling it, the main aids were: a) “The One True Church” by Metropolitan Gregory; b) “Extracts” by Ozersky; c) “Acts of Moscow Councils” and d) articles from “Brotherly Word”. But this compilation of the work does not detract from its dignity, because the missionaries here had in mind not so much their authorship as the benefit that they could bring with their work to the Orthodox and schismatics, who do not have at their disposal any books on the schism and therefore remain in the dark about each other. In the same work, almost all the main controversial issues in the polemic with the split are analyzed. 2. The publication of this analysis is necessary, because before this correspondence, Smirnov was known among his own as a lecturer, but now, after the correspondence, he has become an irrefutable apologist of the schism in the eyes of the schismatics. He became this way because he began to spread the idea between his own people and the Orthodox that the missionaries could not answer his requests. This was believed by the entire schismatic mass and many of the Orthodox Christians who knew Smirnov as a lecturer. The only thing that can dissuade people and show them the complete inconsistency of Smirnov’s views is the printing and dissemination of this analysis in brochures. 3. Smirnov, having received an analysis of his manuscript from the missionaries, may deliberately not show it to his like-minded people and even the Orthodox, spreading the fact that they did not answer him, that they are silent before him, and thus can humiliate their authority both in the eyes of schismatics and before the Orthodox - in which, unfortunately, he has already succeeded a little. The only way to restore and maintain the authority of missionaries among schismatics and Orthodox Christians is by printing and distributing their analysis in brochures, which will enable intelligent Old Believers to recognize Smirnov’s priestless thoughts and his heresy. This report was published in the journal. "Soulful Reading," August, 1887, pp. 481-483. Book prot. St. Synod, May, 1833, No. 128, pp. 528–531. The handwritten original of the opinion “On the capital of the Synodal Printing House” was communicated to the editor by the comrade of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, N.P. Smirnov.