Saint Philaret of Moscow as canonist

The personality of Saint Philaret (Drozdov), whose 240th birthday is celebrated today, is attractive because he was multi-talented. In addition to being a profound theologian and academic scholar, he was also a remarkable administrator. It must be said that in life it is very rare to meet deep scientists who would also be good administrators. Scientists are usually burdened by management activities. But Saint Philaret was not like that. He cared about everything that concerned his diocese and church affairs in general. Studying his administrative activities, you involuntarily ask the question: how did he manage to do all this... Nevertheless, he did it, and he did it perfectly. The main sources from which we draw information about his daily administrative work are a collection of his resolutions and letters to various addressees. For the preparation of this report, the pre-revolutionary monograph by Dmitry Grigorievich Naumov “Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as a canonist” turned out to be very useful. Saint Philaret tried to base the solution to certain issues of diocesan life on the canons of the Orthodox Church. Strange as it may seem, in this regard the saint is unique for his era. When he began his episcopal service, there was no intelligible collection of the “Book of Rules” yet. There was “The Helmsman” in the Slavic language, where, as you know, church canons were mixed with ancient imperial laws on church affairs. That’s why we find in “The Helmsman,” for example, the following law: insulting a father or mother is punishable by death. That is, it was not so easy to be guided by the “Helmsman” in everyday church life. Other bishops, in their daily diocesan concerns, preferred to use the instructions of the “Spiritual Regulations”, all kinds of instructions and decisions of the Holy Synod. “The Helmsman,” of course, was revered by everyone, but few delved into it. But this was not the case with Saint Philaret, who searched everywhere for the root cause and foundation. Even before his bishopric, as rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and member of the Commission of Theological Schools (corresponding to the current Educational Committee), Saint Philaret introduced the teaching of canon law into theological schools and wrote the first program and brief lecture notes for this subject. It is interesting that canon law in this program was called Theologia Rectrix - Governmental Theology, that is, canon law for Metropolitan Philaret was undoubtedly included in the circle of theological sciences. The saint constantly studies the “Helmsman” and understands perfectly well that the canons and laws contained in it are not of equal value. Inclined to systematize and put everything in order, the saint builds a certain hierarchy out of many canons: he places the rules of the Ecumenical Councils, naturally, above the rules of the Local Councils, and the rules of the Holy Fathers - below the rules of the Local Councils. According to this hierarchy, the Holy Synod, in the opinion of the saint, as a private council, does not have the power to change the rules of the Ecumenical Council. “To change church laws, Metropolitan Philaret solemnly declares, based on the Word of God and on the rules of holy councils, does not depend on the current church authorities” 2. In this regard, Saint Philaret did not agree with all the decisions of the Synod. For example, he did not allow godparents of one child to marry, whereas the Synod of 1810 allowed such marriages. The dissatisfied complained to the Synod. The Synod ordered the Metropolitan to explain himself, but he always simply referred to the authority of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which, with its 53rd rule, prohibited marriages in spiritual kinship up to the second degree inclusive. By the way, at the last Council of Bishops in 2017, when discussing the document “Canonical Aspects of Church Marriage,” the opinion of St. Philaret was mentioned regarding the marriage between the recipients of one baptized person. And as a result, they made a decision that is more consistent with the rule of the Ecumenical Council than with the decision of the Synod of 1810. The saint built a hierarchy of canons not only according to the status of the source of the rule, but also according to the meaning of the rule itself. From the entire huge canonical code, he singled out the so-called. "indigenous church decrees." Saint Philaret reasoned: “The fundamental church decrees are those without which the Church would not be true, the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, insurmountable by the gates of hell, with the violation of which it would lose the character of Orthodoxy, or the sanctifying power of the sacraments, or the purity and firmness of the hierarchy, with its continuity from the descent of the Holy Spirit and the apostles to each other an acceptable succession of sacramental grace, or, finally, would lose the character of moral holiness, through the adoption of rules of life that are contrary to the teachings of Christ" 3 . What church canons did St. Philaret call “indigenous”? For example, rules on the church election of bishops, monogamy of clergy, rules on the prohibition of marriages up to the fourth degree of kinship. Saint Philaret figuratively called such unchangeable rules “sacred bonds that cannot be broken.” But with all this, Saint Philaret understood that church life was developing, and not all ancient canons were applicable to the church life of his day. He wrote: “The essence of the ancient rules is preserved in the Church unchanged, despite the fact that some of their features are applied to special circumstances of time and place.” That is, the saint distinguished in each rule an “unchangeable and inviolable principle,” and found it possible to apply some features of the rule to temporary, local needs and conditions of church life. The essence of this approach is, for example, when reading the rule that prescribes 15 years of excommunication for an adulterer from church communion, to see in this rule the “unchangeable and inviolable principle” of care and paternal severity towards the fallen, and not the number of years of excommunication. This universal approach elevated Saint Philaret to the foundations and spirit of church law and made him capable of actively applying ancient church legislation in practice. All biographers will agree that Metropolitan Philaret was a very zealous servant of the Church and demanded the same from the clergy subordinate to him. That is why he acquired a reputation as a strict and, according to some contemporaries (historians Solovyov and Golubinsky), even a tough and dry administrator. But we don't think it came from a hard heart. The reason for Bishop Philaret’s strict decisions was precisely his jealousy for the purity of morals of the clergy. And it must be said that the moral and intellectual level of the clergy of the Moscow diocese grew significantly under the reign of Metropolitan Philaret. Let us give examples when Saint Philaret acted strictly according to the canons of the Holy Church, so to speak, “according to akrivia.” The journal “Soulful Readings” 4 brings to us a case when Metropolitan Philaret defrocked a priest because he, while drunk, baptized a child, immersed him not three times, but four times. Such a strict decision is based on the 50th canon of the holy apostles, which prescribes the defrocking of a priest who baptized with more than three immersions. The Metropolitan declared the Sacrament invalid and ordered the child to be baptized again on the basis of the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council. It must be said that this decision is indeed very strict. The apostolic canon speaks of deliberate wrong practice, and the canon of the Second Ecumenical Council speaks of the single immersion in baptism of heretics: Eunomians, Montanists and Sabelians. It is unlikely that the offender would be able to clearly explain the essence of these ancient heresies. We can only assume that this is not the priest’s only offense and that he is deservedly subjected to such severe punishment. For exposed theft, the saint does not punish priests as severely as the 25th rule of the holy apostles commands. He is not defrocked, but he is banned for two years and demoted to a clerical position 5 . Saint Philaret strengthens the 14th rule of Timothy of Alexandria about the impermissibility of commemorating intentional suicide in relation to those who died from drunkenness and, moreover, without repentance 6. A noteworthy case is when Saint Philaret seeks help from church canons where the matter could have been resolved without them. The Metropolitan was once informed that the Archimandrite of the Jerusalem Metochion in Moscow, Arseny, was pronouncing “indecent teachings.” One could simply prohibit the archimandrite from preaching. However, the Metropolitan found grounds for this ban in the canons. The saint justifies his ban on preaching to the archimandrite by the 20th rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Rule, according to which “a bishop in another city that does not belong to him is not allowed to teach publicly” 7 . Based on the strictness of the 44th Apostolic Canon, Metropolitan Philaret forbade the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra from buying shares of the Trinity Road, since he believed that this was giving away money on interest, which is prohibited not only by the rules of the Holy Apostles and the First Ecumenical Council 8. It is interesting to note that in penitential discipline for adultery and involuntary murder, the saint approached the practice of the ancient Church, only shortening the terms. In the practice of the Synodal era, such crimes were punishable by imprisonment in a monastery for some time. But the saint wanted to change this custom, bringing penance closer to the ancient custom. In 1835, he imposed the following resolution: “In the first six months of penance, in accordance with the rules of the church and in return for confinement in the monastery, those under penance should go to any divine service, except for extreme necessity; for not being present at the service, assign prayers to him at home; in church he should not be allowed to approach the altar, but should stand at the meal near the entrance to the church; during the removal of the Holy Gifts, he should not dare, as someone excommunicated from the sacraments, to look at them, but kneel and bow to the ground or leave the church. As long as he repents and humbles himself, it is easy to allow him to stand in church with the faithful.” 9 Or in another resolution: “Fulfill the order of the consistory so that a peasant who has inflicted beatings on his brother from which he died, in the first three months of penance, will not have permission to be in the parish church during the celebration of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, but will leave it upon the cry: “Clarification, go out,” and remain outside the doors until the time of distribution of the antidoron, and in the second three months allow him to listen to the Divine Liturgy in the church, but not to stand in the real church, but at the meal at the entrance” 10. The first source of canons is, of course, Divine Revelation - Holy Scripture. The saint repeatedly deduced the grounds for church repression from the words of Holy Scripture itself. And these decisions are also strict. Thus, Metropolitan Philaret calls one priest’s avoidance of confession from the diocesan confessor “a lack of reconciliation.” And since “the Word of Christ, which does not allow one who has not been reconciled with his brother to make a sacrifice even to a layman, must be applied all the more strongly to the priest, therefore the unreconciled priest must be subject to the prohibition of sacred rites and the communion of the Holy Mysteries” 11 . Another resolution is based on the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “He who neglects his friends is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). The saint threatens the deacon's son with a ban if he does not help his mother 12. But still, Saint Philaret was not a slave of the letter. It must be said that most of his decisions on this or that offense of the clergy were based on the principle of “oikonomia,” that is, on leniency. Let's give a few examples. As is known, the canons of our Church regulate the age no earlier than which one can be elevated to one or another church degree (Trul. 14, 15; Neoc. 11). For a deacon – 25 years, for a presbyter – 30 years. In the pre-Synodal period, this age limit was, as a rule, observed. But with the advent of theological seminaries, those promoted to the priesthood became significantly younger. Saint Philaret justified such deviation from the rules with “valid reasons”, for which it was allowed in the ancient Church. The saint himself explained this deviation by the fact that the “Spiritual Regulations” strictly prescribed to prefer learned candidates to the priesthood over unlearned ones. On the one hand, learned 23-year-old seminary graduates began to surpass the knowledge of unlearned 30-year-olds; on the other hand, the ten-year stay in theological schools of candidates for the priesthood in full view of the clergy made them famous and, so to speak, more reliable than those candidates little known to the authorities who were sent from parishioners from villages. The saint wrote: “A good school certificate is no less reliable guarantee for the behavior expected of them than the thirty-year age of those who have not passed this school test” 13. But if someone sought the priesthood from the uneducated or half-educated, then the saint certainly demanded 30 years of age. The saint ordained deacons no earlier than 20 years of age, although 18-year-olds often also applied. The spiritual friend of St. Philaret Nikolai Andreevich Muravyov in one of his letters regretted that the ancient canons regarding the age of proteges were no longer respected. The Metropolitan agreed with this, but at the same time found it inconvenient to immediately correct the deviation. He wrote: “If you decide not to produce educated 23-year-olds as priests, it will be necessary to produce 30-year-old uneducated ones. Will it be better? Is it convenient to pass a law so that those who have been educated in cadet corps and have been graduated as officers from now on will now enter the rank and file for several years... It is necessary to refer to the rule, but gradually” 14. The following incident testifies that Saint Philaret could change his views on this or that subject of church life over the years. The Metropolitan of Moscow did not tolerate the custom of standing with plates for money at the end of the service. He saw this as a violation of the 23rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, according to which a priest is ejected if he demands money for communion. In 1846, the Metropolitan wrote to his friend and spiritual father, Archimandrite Anthony: “Is it possible to give a thought to the clergy that can come and be given without me, that if I learn about the standing clergy with plates for money from the communicants, then I will have to act according to the 23rd rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council” 15. The metropolitan sent deacons who had income from reading the rules for Communion for illiterate peasants to a monastery for a week 16. However, after 20 years, the severity of this rule was softened by the saint due to the appeal of many parishioners of Moscow churches to the dean. The parishioners asked “to preserve their freedom to follow the long-established custom, according to which, at the end of the Liturgy, at which they partook of the Holy Mysteries, and after kissing the cross, they offer feasible offerings to the clergy.” As an argument that the 23rd rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council was not violated, the parishioners put forward the fact that the clergy himself did not demand money. This is done solely by the good will of the parishioners. The saint softens the previous severity and determines: “Since such reviews eliminate doubt or criticism of the violation of the above-mentioned rule, then it is recognized as consistent with the circumstances to provide parishioners with the freedom to follow the custom that has been established for a long time; and the clergy are not forbidden in this case to accept offerings from their zeal” 17. I think it would be appropriate to mention St. Philaret’s attitude towards liturgical awards and orders. As is known, there is nothing in the canons about awards, but still the Metropolitan called the custom of giving them to priests “a departure from the ancient order” 18 . He called awards “badges of vanity” 19. But on the other hand, the saint found some meaning and even benefit in this custom. This is what he wrote: “In the old years, of course, it happened,” the bishop wrote to his vicar, the Right Reverend Innocent, “that when the tsar said a kind word to the bishop or sent a gift, then the boyars would rather look at the bishop and listen to him attentively: now the kind word is a rescript, and the gift is a ribbon. And now you can accept this in the spirit of love, and before you could accept it in the spirit of ambition. And I say this not for protection, but for tolerance” 20. The next case concerns the issue of the possibility of a clergyman voluntarily resigning his rank. The canons do not allow this. Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes in his third canon: “It is incongruous with church decrees that certain clergy present a handwritten renunciation. After all, if they are worthy to serve, let them continue in this, and if they are unworthy, let them withdraw from service, not by renunciation, but rather by condemnation based on their deeds.” However, Saint Philaret considered it possible to voluntarily resign his priesthood, but only for very compelling reasons. He wrote: “The priest, tempted by widowhood, says to his superiors: take the rank from me, for I am afraid lest I become an adulterer. The authorities answer: we cannot remove your rank from you before committing a crime; Go first and become an adulterer; we want to see the priest as an adulterer, and then we will defrock him. Would such an order be good? 21. At the same time, the saint was a strict opponent of the practice of free defrocking, without any difficulties or compelling reasons. The Metropolitan wrote: “The blocking of free exit from the divine spiritual calling is very necessary; for if clergy are given the freedom to resign from their holy orders, then many will enter into this divine title frivolously, act in it carelessly, incorrectly, selfishly and willfully, but in the event of an incentive to correct action, and especially punishment from their superiors for incorrect actions, they will immediately abandon their divine title with contempt” 22 . All of the above decisions by Saint Philaret of certain canonical situations, of course, do not exhaust the entire activity of the Moscow saint as a practicing canonist. But the examples given, it seems to us, characterize him quite well as a person who deeply knows canon law and, most importantly, penetrates into its very essence. This allowed the saint, on the one hand, to build his administrative activities, and on the other hand, with the help of skillful interpretation, to apply ancient rules to the realities of modern life. Dmitry Naumov calls Metropolitan Philaret “a perfect master of the law,” 23 comparing him with the interpreter of the canons Theodore Balsamon. But after more than a hundred years, we can safely say that Saint Philaret surpassed Theodore Balsamon. The saint in his holy life, wisdom and activity is quite comparable to such a great father and lawmaker as Basil the Great. And if so, then Saint Philaret of Moscow himself becomes one of the sources of canon law. Bible, books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, synodal translation. M., 1995. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. M., 1884. Complete collection of resolutions of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow: with a portrait attached. In 5 volumes. T. 4. M., 1914. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. St. Petersburg, 1899. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 3. M., 1876. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 1. M., 1882. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 1. M., 1886. Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation - M.: Publishing house. Moscow Theological Academy. Part 24. 1871. Naumov D. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as canonist. Ed. Society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. M., 1893. Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book 2. M., 1877. Naumov D.G. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as canonist. M., 1893. P. 34. Complete collection of resolutions of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow: with a portrait attached. In 5 volumes. T. 4. M., 1914. P. 291. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. St. Petersburg, 1899. pp. 70–71. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 3. M., 1876. P. 252. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 1. M., 1882. P. 136. Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book 2. M., 1877. P. 17. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. M., 1884. pp. 234–235. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret // Soulful Reading. Part 1. M., 1882. P. 392. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. Part 3. P. 384. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. P. 161. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. P. 141. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. P. 407. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. Part 2. P. 116. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. Part 1. pp. 378–379. Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. M., Part 24. 1871. P. 435. Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. M., S. 571. Naumov D.G. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as canonist. P. 177.