Select Sermons.

by Philaret of Moscow

Elibron Classics. Replica of 1873 edition by Joseph Masters, London.Metropolitan Philaret (secular name Vasily Mikhaylovich Drozdov, 26 December 1782 – 1 December 1867) was Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna and most influential figure in the Russian Orthodox Church for more than 40 years, from 1821 to 1867.He was canonized on 13 October 1994 and his feast day is celebrated on November 19. The book was translated from Russian contains 32 sermons of almost evry espect of human life.

296 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 29, 2013

About the author

Saint Philaret of Moscow, Metropolitan Philaret. His secular name was Vasily Mikhaylovich Drozdov or Василий Михайлович Дроздов.

Reviews

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

The sermons of Metropolitan Philaret carry an authority, “…almost equal to that of the Fathers;” (p. xi). Why is this? Philaret began his ecclesiastical career serving as professor of Greek and Hebrew at the Seminary of Troitza. He adopted the name “Philaret” when he took monastic vows in 1808. By 1812, Philaret was a member of the committee for the reform of religious schools. His many literary accomplishments include translating the Gospel of John from Greek into Russian and writing a Catechism for the instruction of the Russian youth. He became notable for his sermons early in his career, doubtless due in part to the influence of the Greek Fathers which he studied extensively in their original language. He was ordained bishop in 1817 and served in several Sees before being appointed to the See of Moscow in 1821. In 1826, he was elevated from the rank of Archbishop to that of Metropolitan of Moscow, the highest rank that exists in the Russian Church. As Metropolitan, Philaret ordained a great number of Bishops, “who now [1872] occupy the greater part of the Sees of Russia” (p. xii). His reputation was such that in 1867, the entire Russian nation unanimously celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of Philaret’s episcopal ordination. He received at this time deputies from the Patriarchs of the East, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan of Serbia, the monasteries of Mount Athos, all the Russian Sees, the various scholarly societies of which he was member, the Russian nobility, and the city of Moscow. “Twelve Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops, were present at the solemnity, as well as many Archimandrites of celebrated monasteries, and the most distinguished priests of the so called white clergy [married parish priests].” (p. xiv). He died the same year.

Philaret’s description of sin and redemption are remarkably “Western”:

God is with us in Jesus, through redemption: for without Jesus sin was with us, which we had inherited from Adam, and ourselves unceasingly committed; and “whoever commits sin is the servant of sin;” [St. John 8:34] the devil was with us, for “he that commits sin is of the devil;” [St. John 3:8] but Jesus having come upon earth, fulfilled in His life the law of God, which we had transgressed; by His suffering He has made atonement for the sin which we had committed; by His Death He has overcome death, to which we were condemned for our sin; by His descent into hell He delivered us from the dark power of the devil; by His Resurrection He obtained for us anew “the life of God,” [Ephes. 4:18] from which we “were alienated” by sin. (“On the Prophecy of Isaiah and the Names Emmanuel and Jesus”, p. 8)

Orthodox in America often express the opinion that Original Sin is not "Orthodox", but notice that Philaret both affirms we have sin "inherited from Adam" in addition to the sins we commit in our own lifetime.

Philaret is perhaps even clearer on this point in his sermon, “On the Causes and Uses of Affliction”:

”Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” [Psalm 51:5] confesses David, not afraid by this declaration to transgress the law of honour to parents. What does this mean? This, that all men had already sinned in Adam, who as he begot children after having sinned, could not transmit to them, without a miracle, that which he no more possessed, - innocence and incorruptibility; but did naturally transmit unto them what he had himself, - sin and corruption. (p. 359-60)

I suspect many Orthodox who reject original sin do so because they are converts trying to differentiate their new Orthodox faith from their old Protestant or Catholic one. Philaret, however, confirms that Original Sin is Orthodox.

Philaret’s sermon “On the Causes and Uses of Affliction” also introduces the principle that our attachments to people and things around us are a primary cause of suffering:

Their children, husband or wife, honour, glory, or property, were the idols of their heart. What remained then unto Him, Who knoweth the heart and loveth the soul, but to take from us our idol, to tear out, be it ever so painful, the undue love for the creature from the soul which He desires to fill with His Divine love? He loves pities, purifies, cures, and prepares unto bliss; while we look on and say, How heavily he visits! … Christians! Who among us does not more or less often meet in the path of this temporal life with manifold misfortunes? Vainly should we endeavor to avoid all such encounters; some of them at east are inevitable. Consequently, we must in time habituate ourselves to meet them in a becoming way. Let our present meditation incite us to encounter misfortune not as an enemy and a tormenter, but as the just punishment of sin; as the physician of moral disease, as the messenger of God, as the herald of grace. “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.” [Heb. 12:6] (p. 363, 366)

Notice that “punishment of sin” holds primacy in the list of the causes for our afflictions, something many preachers seem bashful to admit for some reason.

Philaret’s sermons are often filled with an irresistible poetic beauty:

The spirit of prayer, uniting itself with the Spirit of God, filled the soul of Jesus with light; the superabundance of that light, which could not longer be contained within His soul, diffused itself throughout His body, shone forth in His countenance, and not finding space sufficient to contain it there, illuminated and transfigured even His very raiment; extending itself still farther, it overspread the souls of the Apostles, being reflected in the exclamation of Peter: “Master, it is good for us to be here!” It penetrated into the domain of the invisible world, and drew thence Moses and Elias, reached unto the very bosom of the Heavenly Father, and moved His love to a solemn testimony of His beloved: “This is My beloved Son!” O miracle of prayer, embracing in one act heaven, earth, and divinity itself! … Pray, Christian, fervently and with the whole might of thy soul, pray diligently and perseveringly, pray rightly and purely; and if thou art not thyself equal to it, then pray for prayer itself, and by prayer thou wilt first obtain true and effectual prayer, and then this prayer shall overcome all things with thee and obtain all things for thee: it will guide thee unto Mount Tabor or create a Tabor within thee: it will call down heaven into they soul, and raise they soul to heaven. Amen. (“The Power and Efficacy of Prayer”, p. 37, 39

Prayer is a recurring focus of attention in Philaret's sermons, a focus that reflects the distinctly Orthodox character of his mind.

Philaret’s emphasis on the Resurrection is also very Orthodox and is manifest by the fact that no less than four sermons are entitled "Christ is risen!". The first reason for such emphasis Philaret describes here: “…nothing leads us so directly to the perception and faith and conviction in the divinity of Jesus Christ, as does His resurrection. ("Sermon VIII. Christ is Risen!", p. 98)” There is a second significance to the Resurrection which Philaret mentions in Sermon 10, however:

The resurrection and ascension of Christ began not from His grave only, but even from hell: for after His death on the Cross, He was as our Church confesses: “in the tomb bodily, in Hades spiritually, as God; He descended even into hell and there destroyed reigning darkness.” Until then, although the patriarchs, prophets, and just men of the Old Testament were not plunged in deep darkness, wherein sink the unbelieving and the unjust; yet they emerged not from the shadow of death and enjoyed not perfect light. … And therefore the Saviour of the world, after He had been crucified and died to this visible world, descended into the invisible world, even unto hell, illumined there the souls of the faithful, led them out of the Shadow of death, opened unto them the door of paradise and heaven, and then again in this visible world He “showed the light of His resurrection.” (“Christ is Risen!”, p. 115)

The phrases “showed the light of His resurrection” and “in the tomb bodily…” are most likely from the Paschal liturgy, though I haven’t confirmed that and they aren’t cited in the text. In any case, the Resurrection has historical significance as that day on which Jesus Christ liberated the Old Testament righteous from hell.

Philaret frequently summons us to act:

…we are Christians, because we believe in Christ. Granted. But if thou believest in Christ, then certainly thou also believest in His word; for Christ and His word are one. If thou believest in the word of Christ, thou must also act according to this word; for to believe in a word, and not to act in accordance with it is perilous boldness, and folly. (“On Self-renunciation and taking up the Cross.” P. 207-8)

This obedience to the word of God is accompanied by Philaret’s insistence that we cleanse and strengthen ourselves by suffering like Christ:

If Christ, Who was without sin and omnipotent, “ought to have suffered,” that He might “enter into His glory,” then how can we, defiled and weakened by sin, attain unto this glory, without being purified by trials and strengthened by sufferings? (“On Self-Renunciation and taking up the Cross”, p. 214)

Considerations like this put one in mind of books like The Imitation of Christ.

In “On Holy Virginity”, Philaret advocates “seeing without perceiving”:

As the Lord teaches us, that the eye is a medium for adultery, therefore must we train our eye to serve virginity; that is, avert our glance from every tempting object, and look on that which unavoidably presents itself, without a desire, without a thought, seeing without perceiving, and as soon as possible putting an end to the dangerous sight. And this is what it meant by mortifying the sight, as the Lord hath commanded us to do: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” Therefore originates the veiling of the face, solitary life and seclusion. (p. 232-3)

The practice of looking on things without desire and without thought bears unmistakable resemblance to Buddhist teachings on achieving happiness through the cessation of our desires (The Dhammapada, Chapter XXV. The Bhikshu [Mendicant]) and emptying the mind of thoughts. Philaret is speaking here in the context of guarding chastity, yet looking on things without desire, thought, or perception applies to all objects of desire, whether they be other people, food, wealth, fame, or fortune.

Philaret affirms a very Catholic understanding of the Mother of God in, “The Secret Grace of the Blessed Virgin”:

If there could have been found a virtue higher than her own, then it would have been unfitting that she should be selected above all to become the tabernacle, the throne, the Mother of God the Word. But in the decrees and works of God there can be nothing inconsistent. Consequently, as certainly as Mary is blessed among women, that is, blessed with the highest blessing above all other women, even so certainly was her virtue the highest, the purest, the most perfect, albeit she is pure and perfect through this same Christ, Who became the reward of her purity and excellence. (p. 331)

Philaret notices the obscurity which Mary holds in Scripture relative to the attention she has received in subsequent generations:

What means it then? It means this, that S. Luke writes in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles in the same spirit as that in which the blessed Virgin conducted herself in their midst; and, although she, by the height of grace, presides invisibly and in spirit over the assembly of the Apostles, - by lowliness of heart, in the body, she suffered not herself to be visibly the object of any glory, accepted no pre-eminence, and placed herself on the same rank with the other women, teaching them by her example, the same that the Apostle Paul taught them afterwards by his word: “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” [1 Cor. 14:34] “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach.” [1 Tim. 2:11,12] (p. 336)

Modern agitation to give women greater preeminence in the church should be calmed by these considerations.

My favorite sermon is, “On Silence”:

Of the silence in which the holy Virgin was brought up, I shall not speak, because this is hidden by the silence of the holy Evangelists. … What then does this wonderful silence signify? It is that Mary is a perfect vessel of grace. For as a material vessel is worthless when it leaks, even so is a spiritual vessel worthless if it preserves not the grace poured in to it in inviolable meek silence, but on the contrary allows it to filter and evaporate, needlessly and uselessly, in words either idle or wanton, impatient or vain. (p. 267, 273)

Anyone who has spent several many days in succession without speaking can understand what Philaret is describing here, but true silence is not simply the absence of words: it is a state of interior calm:

Whosoever will have sufficiently constant attention to follow Mary throughout the whole course of her life, will constantly observe in her this same character of profound silentness, of perfect calm, of deep inward concentration, which nothing could disturb, in short, a life hidden in God. Neither the highest joy, nor the deepest woe could alter this chief characteristic of her spirit. (p. 274-5)

The few occasions on which Mary speaks in the Gospels are nearly all in response to some inquiry, but the eloquence of her silence is often more notable: “What might be expected from the Mother of the Crucified One standing by the cross? Weepings, lamentations, wailing, and heart-rending? But we neither see nor hear anything of the kind: an eye-witness does not tell us even of a single word from her.” (p. 276) This silence of the Mother of God in response to suffering is perhaps her greatest lesson to us:

May the grace of the highly favored Mary be with every Christian soul in its involuntary trouble, and help it to appease this trouble by silence, and thoroughly to overcome it by reflection and prayer, that the angel of peace may speak freely to our hearts, and sow therein the “fruit of righteousness,” which “is sown in peace of them that make peace.” [St. James 3:18]

The next time we are troubled by something, go to silence rather than music, movies, gossip, or food, and you may find a kingdom of stillness inside of you that you never knew was there!