What should a priest be like? Who is a priest.

The priest is almost constantly among the people. Always and everywhere he is in sight, his every word, his manners, habits, actions are discussed by many, and not only in a friendly manner.

The next part of our reflections is devoted to the question of the behavior of shepherds in relations with people. This refers to the behavior of a clergyman outside the temple. The activity of a pastor includes constant communication with a very wide circle of people - these are his flocks, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, strangers, casual interlocutors - interlocutors, etc. A clergyman must always be at the height of his rank, his rank. The manifestation of tact by a priest is especially important when he communicates with people.

Witnessing the faith of Christ is what the life of a clergyman is in this world. The most effective sermon, the most convincing apologetics is a worthy shepherd, who lives by deep faith in God and love for man, with great knowledge and culture, a shepherd who is convinced and principled. Communicating with people is difficult. Serving the salvation of all people is a matter of the greatest difficulty, unthinkable without prayer and God's help, impossible without the Church. The experience of the Church, and above all the grace that acts in the Church, give the pastor great strength if he himself strives to embody in his life and in his ministry the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ and all the institutions of the Church. Obedience to the Church, love for the Church and total devotion to the work of shepherding - this is what makes a pastor always a shepherd, both in the church and outside it.

A clergyman, by the very essence of his ministry, is called to be a spiritually subtle person. A clergyman must combine knowledge of people, human relations, human weaknesses and problems with a clear understanding of the norms of human society.

Communication with clergy brothers, of course, should be of a kind, truly Christian, fraternal character. Not a formal offering of cheeks to each other, bradokatelstvo and soulless kissing of hands at a meeting, but a real friendliness, a frank joy of communication.

A clergyman is obliged to treat the bishop, senior, experienced pastors with special reverence - this is the most important aspect of pastoral life. Respect for one's predecessors in the parish, keeping their good traditions should be the norm for a young novice priest. Relationships with co-workers are a very difficult, but also an essential part of pastoral work. The ability to preserve as a great value good, Christian feelings for each other, to mutually help each other, all clergymen are called.

Politeness adorns every person and, together with modesty and tact, is a necessary quality of a clergyman. It is also important to be able to start a conversation, to lead it, to develop interesting and soulful topics in a conversation. A meaningful conversation always shows the spiritual level of the interlocutor, his knowledge, his interests. Moderate and intelligent humor, without bile and anger, adorns the speech.

At the same time, the desire to be the “soul” of society, a merry fellow, “sprinkle” witticisms and anecdotes (usually not quite fresh and subtle), “washing the bones” of any of the absent gossip, etc. - the rust of the soul - all this should not have a seat with a clergyman.

The dignity and honor of the dignity require great discretion from the clergyman - both in the choice of friends and interlocutors, and in behavior with strangers. Clever, interesting speech can do a lot, but you should always remember the gospel saying about beads and pigs. It is impossible to start disputes, disputes about faith with unknown people and in places that are not at all suitable for this.

Always and everywhere it is stupid to expose your "I", your knowledge, merits, acquaintances. You can’t be shy of people, answer dryly and even rudely to their questions. You should always tell the truth and be sincere and honest with a person. Accuracy, accuracy and the ability to behave in society are very important. The gathered people may be different, but in any society where a clergyman is forced to be, he must be able to be precisely an Orthodox pastor. Not a disguise, but an honest and direct awareness of one's position, one's rank - that's what a shepherd should have. To drop one's own dignity, honor is easy; to earn real respect, authority is not easy.

A priest cannot "play a role", behave differently under different circumstances, everywhere he must be himself. Any feigned oiliness, false tone will sound and be perceived by others with disgust. If you come to the house, respect its owners, their orders, their hospitality. You can not disdain bread - salt, offered from a pure heart. But you must always remember which house you are entering or whom you are bringing into your house. There are many holes and dangers along the way!

A very important indicator of the culture of any person is his speech. Therefore, the culture of speech is absolutely necessary for a clergyman, he must speak clearly, correctly, literary language, without any language "rust". The ability to listen to another person is also a necessary quality for a clergyman. Listening to a person, letting him speak is a very big deal. At the same time, it is necessary to listen without interrupting, without dismissing the arguments of the other person, even if they do not coincide with the personal views of the listener. Interfering in other people's conversations, interrupting interlocutors, making fun of them is rude and uncivilized. You can not talk at the table when the mouth is occupied with food.

Being in a society, one should not strive to ensure that all those present listen only to you, agree only with you. You can’t impose yourself on everyone, teach everyone, criticize, make fun of those present, make rude remarks. Rudeness in general should be absent in the behavior of a clergyman. A sharp cry, a word, a movement, a gesture does not adorn anyone. Any rudeness is a sign of a very low, miserable culture. Anger, irascibility, pettiness, vindictiveness are negative qualities any person, especially a person invested with dignity.

The word of the priest must be truthful, honest, pronouncing the words, the shepherd must always remember that he will give an answer to God for each of them, since misbehavior, the rotten word of a priest can seduce many. You have to be careful with humor. And if the old seminary anecdote is understandable in the circle of fellow priests, then it can sound seductive and even disgusting in another society.

If the purely ecclesiastical, parish topics of conversations are understandable for church people, then they are completely incomprehensible and often not useful for non-church people who are interested in the Church only from a distance. The priest's speech should be smart, tactful, should not offend or embarrass anyone, discourage anyone. Hope for the love of God, for the mercy of God, the words of the shepherd should sound both from the pulpit and in personal conversation.

Not to scare people away, but to call them to rebirth, repentance and salvation, every clergyman is called. Friendliness, cordiality, simplicity, lovingness and accessibility of a pastor are essential positive traits clergyman. Pride, arrogance, self-importance, dignity - are always disgusting. The big misfortune of the clergy is localism and strict accounting of awards.

A very important and valuable human quality is the feeling of gratitude. To thank for the shown sensitivity, for the service - a direct necessity cultured person. It should be remembered, appreciated, respected by people for their attention, for their kind attitude. It is a high moral duty of every person to vividly remember his parents, mentors, benefactors, to speak about them with gratitude, to pray for them. A beautiful Christian word-wish "thank you" - "God save!" - invariably decorates our life.

Questions of external pious everyday life often worry the parishioners of many churches. How to properly address the clergy, how to distinguish them from each other, what to say at a meeting? These seemingly trifles can confuse an unprepared person, make him worry. Let's try to figure out if there is a difference in the concepts of "father", "priest" and "priest"?

Priest - Mr. main protagonist of any worship

What do the names of the ministers of the church mean?

In the church environment, you can hear a variety of appeals to the servants of the temple. The main character of any divine service is the priest. This is a person who is in the altar and performs all the rites of the service.

Important! Only a man who has undergone special training and is ordained can be a priest ruling bishop.

The word "priest" in the liturgical sense corresponds to the synonym "priest". Only ordained priests have the right to perform the Sacraments of the Church, according to a certain order. In the official documents of the Orthodox Church, the word "priest" is also used to refer to one or another priest.

Among the laity and ordinary parishioners of churches, one can often hear the appeal "father" in relation to one or another priest. This is an everyday, simpler meaning, it indicates the attitude towards parishioners as spiritual children.

If you open the Bible, namely the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles, we will see that very often they used the appeal “My children” to the people. Ever since Biblical times, the love of the apostles for their disciples and the believing people was comparable to paternal love. Also now - the parishioners of the temples receive instructions from their priests in the spirit of paternal love, therefore such a word as "father" has come into use.

Batiushka is a common folk appeal to a married priest.

What is the difference between a priest and a priest

As for the concept of "priest", in modern church practice it has some scornful and even offensive connotation. Now it is not customary to call the priesthood priests, and if they do, it is more in a negative way.

Interesting! In the years Soviet power when there were strong harassment of the church, priests called all the clergy in a row. It was then that this word acquired a special negative meaning, comparable to the enemy of the people.

But back in the middle of the 18th century, the term "pop" was in general use and did not have any bad meaning. Priests were called basically only secular priests, and not monastics. This word is attributed to the modern Greek language, where there is the term "papas". Hence the name of the Catholic priest "Pope". The term “popadya” is also a derivative - this is the wife of a worldly priest. Especially often priests are called priests among the Russian brethren on Mount Athos.

In order not to get into an awkward position, it is worth remembering that now the term "pop" has practically disappeared from the vocabulary of believers. When addressing a priest, one can say "Father Vladimir", or simply "Father". It is customary to address the wife of a priest with the prefix "Mother".

For a believer, it does not matter what words he refers to the clergyman. However, the traditions and practice of church life develop certain forms of communication that it is desirable to know.

What should a real priest be like?

What should priests do?

First of all, the priest must serve in the church. That is, literally - to serve the service, and first of all the most important - Divine Liturgy. Moreover, they are not only should to serve, the very meaning of the priesthood lies precisely in the service of the Liturgy. At least every Sunday. Plus Easter (Easter night proper, or Easter Sunday morning), the Twelfth Feasts (these are the twelve great holidays: the Nativity of the Virgin, the Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry into the Temple of the Virgin, Christmas, Baptism, Meeting, the Annunciation, the Transfiguration, the Assumption of the Virgin, the Lord's Entry into Jerusalem, the Ascension , Trinity), Plus feasts of the patronal - the days that mark the events in honor of which the throne (thrones) of the temple in which the priest serves are consecrated.
The only exception is for retired priests. Usually these are either very seriously ill or very old priests. They, as a rule, are not assigned to any temple, and, if possible and able, serve from time to time in one of the nearby churches, of course, in agreement with its rector.

Second - the priest must, as it is called on church language, to send requirements, which include sacraments and rites.
Sacraments- this is Baptism, Chrismation, Repentance (confession), Communion, Consecration of the Sick (Unction), Marriage (wedding). In the Orthodox Church there is another, seventh, sacrament - the Priesthood or Consecration (ascension to the priesthood), but it is always performed conciliarly, with the participation of priests and bishops, and not by one priest.
Rites- these are small prayer services: a prayer service (the purpose can be very different - the consecration of objects, buildings, icons; a general prayer for the weather - a message of rain or vice versa, its cessation, etc.; intensified prayer for the health of a sick person, for someone who is on a difficult journey , about the successful accomplishment of some important matter - study, for example), memorial service (prayer for the repose of the soul of the deceased), funeral service, burial, etc.
Trebs are so called because, unlike regular services, they are performed on demand - whether by one person or a group of people. Accordingly, the need for a request must be explicitly reported (ordered). And it’s better not just to come and ask for the trebs, but to know at least a little in advance when it can be ordered. So, memorial services are not served every day (they are not served, for example, on Bright Week - the week immediately following Easter), it is not always possible to immediately go to consecrate a house or apartment, even the Baptism of infants (and even more so, adults) is not carried out everyday.
However, there are some exceptions - the requirements of "fear for the sake of death." This is Confession, Communion, Unction and Baptism of a seriously ill or dying person. These requests are made, if possible, immediately, immediately after the person asks to send them. The words "if possible" have a literal meaning - if a person came to ask to send such a demand, and there is a free priest in the church, then he immediately goes (or goes) to send it. Postponement - only if the Liturgy is currently taking place, or if there is not a single priest in the church now. Then the priest leaves soon after its completion, or upon arrival at the temple of the first priest. Therefore, if a seriously ill relative or friend asks to bring a priest, do not hesitate. Otherwise, it may turn out sadly - today they forgot, tomorrow there is no time, the day after tomorrow they went to call - and the priest had already left for someone. And while they were waiting for him, the patient died without waiting for what he wanted. In such a case, the one who hesitated takes upon himself a very serious sin.
The priest cannot refuse to send such an urgent request, however - attention! - he can postpone it - for example, if he has already received a similar request. In this case, arguments can be made - for example, it may turn out that the relative of the one who asked earlier is simply seriously ill, and the relative of the one who came a little later is dying. Then the priest will first of all go to the one who is in a more serious condition. However the last word, the decision on where to go earlier remains with the priest, and he is not obliged to motivate you. If you are denied priority, you have a choice. You can rely on the Lord and His Will and wait for the same priest. And you can turn to another priest of the same temple, or even to another temple. Sometimes (for example, if the case takes place in a small village, where there is only one temple and one priest), it remains only to trust in the Lord.
I repeat once again - all other requirements are not urgent, and it is worth agreeing on their departure in advance.

What the priest has no right to do.

A priest has no right to tell anyone what he heard in confession. He has the right, however, to tell, explaining or for the purpose of teaching, some details of the confession of individual people, but then he must certainly "depersonalize" these details - certainly in such a way that none of the people could even guess who exactly they are talking about. . That is, if you heard a priest say to someone: “One person confessed to me of such and such a sin, and there is only such and such a way to overcome this sin!”, and you (only you!) suddenly in “one person "knew yourself - you should not rush at the priest with reproaches. He did not violate anything, and did not reveal your secret of confession.
I note that the priest is legally exempt from disclosing the secret of confession even before the bodies of inquiry, investigation and court. This rule is enshrined in paragraph 4 of part 3 of Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and paragraph 3 of part 3 of Art. 69 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (a clergyman cannot be interrogated as a witness about the circumstances that became known to him from confession).

The priest does not have the right to conduct any sacraments (with the exception of Baptism) and ceremonies regarding an unbaptized person. Not a single priest will give communion, or marry, or bury, or even serve a prayer service for the unbaptized. All church sacraments and rituals are only for the baptized, for members of the church. For everyone else, only Baptism is available - as an Entrance. And no arguments (like “Yes, he really was going to be baptized, but somehow he didn’t have time!”) Do not pass. So for the unbaptized, there is only one way - to accept Baptism (if there is a desire) and not delay with it. Or (if all the same "I was going to and did not have time") - homemade ( cell room) prayer of relatives and friends. It is quite possible.
Another, close, but not identical situation - excommunicated and suicidal.
Excommunication from the church does not mean "baptism" or "cancellation of baptism", but it excommunicates a person from church requirements, excludes the possibility of performing them. Removal of excommunication ( prohibitions) is possible only during the life of a person, through Repentance ( confession). Moreover, it is not necessary that the same priest excommunicate and lift the ban. And a few words about anathema. Contrary to popular belief, an anathema is just a public all-church declaration of the fact of excommunication from the church, and not a "curse", "a wish for evil", etc. The only difference is in the general denunciation, and in the fact that it is precisely widely known people, mainly heresy teachers, who are anathematized, with a simple goal - so that all Orthodox people know for sure that the teaching of this person is false ( heresy). Anathema, like simple excommunication, is also removed only through lifetime Repentance (and, if deemed necessary - penance, church punishment). But the process of both imposing and lifting an anathema is longer, and these questions are usually decided by the Council - precisely because of publicity: it is necessary to exclude both the erroneous imposition and the erroneous removal of the anathema, to bring both to the attention of all priests, etc.
Suicides (who succeeded) are not buried in the church and memorial services are not served for them (you can, of course, "cheat" and not mention suicide, only then a serious sin will fall on the "cheater") for one simple reason - the suicide voluntarily abandoned the most God's great gift is life, thereby rejecting the Giver and excommunicating himself from the Church. Moreover, he loses the possibility of lifetime repentance (unlike the failed suicides - they can repent of a suicide attempt and thereby return to the church). There is one exception - if the suicide was committed impulsively, without long and / or careful thought, in a "clouded mind" - with mental illness, in a state of passion, or in alcohol, toxic or drug intoxication. At the same time, the church recognizes drunkenness or drug addiction as a sin, but at the same time, a special kind of mental illness. Permission for the funeral service (and, consequently, for the subsequent commemoration in the church, the service of memorial services for them) is given by the ruling bishop. There is a hope and a desire to prove suicide in darkness - dear to you to the bishop.

A priest will never perform any rituals on animals. Not because animals are "unworthy", but because church requirements are aimed at saving the one for whom they are performed from sin. And animals, not having free will (freedom of choice - with God or against Him), do not have sin. Therefore, the requirements for them do not make sense. A little apart are sometimes encountered requests "to consecrate a cat (dog, hamster, rabbit, ...)". The point here is that only the fruits of human labor are subject to consecration. A built house, a boat, a car (a chariot - and who can prove that a car is not a chariot?), a cultivated field, etc. An animal, as a creature, originally created by God and further fruitful and multiplying according to the laws established by Him, is not the work of human hands applies. After all, man has not yet managed to create a single living creature "from scratch". Cloning and games with "gene modification" do not count - this is, in fact, a "pirate" use of the possibilities inherent in the cells of a living organism for completely different purposes.

The priest has no right to do business. That is, "a candle factory in Samara and drink some liqueur" is an out of the question. An exception, with the permission of the ruling bishop, is only for two types of "outside" activities - teaching (as a rule, church disciplines) and scientific activity (usually also in the near-church sphere). And permission is given only when this "outside" activity does not interfere with the main activity - Service.
However, I would like to note that it is activities aimed at personal enrichment. But no one will forbid starting the same candle factory and directing profits from it to the needs of the temple, but usually in such enterprises the priest is not the head or owner of the business.

The priest has no right to engage in politics. In no form - to participate in political parties, to be elected to any government body, etc. This demand has always been unspoken, fixed on paper, if I am not mistaken, by the decision of the Local Council of 1917-1918, and now confirmed.
However, this requirement does not exclude the right of a priest (and even a bishop) to make statements about certain political and political events. public life, except for statements that give rise to "distemper", that is, unrest and bloodshed in one form or another. A priest can also participate in a rally or demonstration - but only as an ordinary participant, and not among the organizers. And such participation does not mean that the church supports the goals of the rally, nor condemns it. Such participation is only the personal position of this particular priest.

The priest has no right to violence. Any. Even if he is beaten, he does not have the right to hit back (but must actively embody "If hit on the left cheek, turn the right one!"). Therefore, many priests do not drive themselves - an accident, even an accident, is still violence.

What a priest may or may not do.

A priest, in addition to serving the church, can also engage in public or social service. There are a lot of options - from taking care of the army, helping the sick (including raising money for operations and general treatment), helping large families or orphans, to working with prisoners (I know a former "prisoner", now an electrician in the temple). This activity is optional, but usually it is still carried out in one of the directions, to the best of our ability, capabilities and the availability of the necessary specialists among the parishioners - since it is carried out precisely by the forces of the parish community, and the priest helps, organizes, breaks through, negotiates.

That's probably all. Maybe I missed something - then I will add an update.

“It will soon be 25 years since I am a priest. Over the years, about 15 people, with whom he was familiar at various times, have lost their holy orders. The reason is the same everywhere – the breakup of the family, fornication… A priest who made even one fall dies like a priest. Inevitably. It's like an "injury incompatible with life", - Archpriest Fyodor Borodin reflects on why there is a cooling and people leave the Church.

And the harlot says: “You are a priest! I won't be with you"

– Today, conversations, public confessions of people who have become disillusioned with the Church are not uncommon. How to treat them?

“The lamp for the body is the eye. So if your eye is clean, your whole body will be bright” (Matt. 6:22). The way I perceive the surrounding reality, whether I see dark or light in it, testifies to the purity or impurity of my heart. The church is like a huge multi-storey building, where there are upper floors, from where there is a beautiful view and the sky is nearby, and there are cellars.

And each person chooses where in the Church he will live. If a person seeks in the Church its Master - Christ, seeks prayers, he will meet the priest who will help him along the way, and will meet the same brothers and sisters. And for him the Church will be the real Church of Christ.

And if a person comes to the Church with a dark, evil eye, if he is looking for flaws everywhere, if he does not even think about fighting the sin of condemnation, then he will meet precisely such a reality of the Church. And will consider that this is the Church. He will get angry and annoyed when people say: "No, the Church is not that, the Church is the abode of the Lord, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Unfortunately, there is almost nothing you can do about it. Because if a person aims to condemn and see dirt, he will see it. Sooner or later such a person leaves the Church. After all, he did not meet Christ there.

There is an ancient patristic parable in which an elder tells a young monk about how three people ended up in the central city square at night. And they saw how some man, wrapped in a cloak, sneaks from shadow to shadow past the square, trying to pass it unnoticed. One thought that this was a fornicator who returned after his sin, the second thought that this was a thief who had robbed someone. And the third thought that this was a lover of solitary prayer, who was looking for a place for this and wanted to hide his exploits. The elder told the disciple: "Everyone saw what is akin to his heart."

If you met Christ, loved Him, then no one can separate you from Him.

In the life of the holy righteous Alexy Mechev, it is told that there was such a time, nine years, when the abbot over him, small and unsightly in appearance, mocked him all the time. Shouted at him, scolded, humiliated, beat. If Father Alexy had seen the Church in this, he would have taken off his rank, perhaps he would have written a book called “Confessions of a Former Deacon”… But he did not do that. Because of the sins of man, he did not stop seeing Jesus Christ in the Church. And so he became a great saint.

And what concerns any Christian who leaves the Church or becomes disillusioned with it, this is still the result of either a serious sin in which a person lives, or the result of cooling. Each of us must daily put ourselves before the face of God and restore this connection every day, remember that no external action by itself will restore this connection, without our own effort and desire. If this does not happen for a long time, then the inner fire in a person goes out.

– And when priests publish such “confessions”, how can one not be disappointed by these stories?

– A priest is, unfortunately, just as susceptible to these temptations as any layman. Yes, even, maybe more. Because no one checks the priest. No one watches him pray and confess. The priest must seek confession. Most of the priests I know go to confession all the time, much more often than the obligatory two times a year.

Most priests are well aware that they will simply go out if they do not go to confession often.

When a priest grows cold and at the same time encounters some passions in the Church, primarily his own, then it overwhelms him, captures him, and he loses the ability to see the Lord Jesus Christ in the Church. And he himself says: "I don't understand what I'm doing here."

Unfortunately, the chilling of a priest is often due to his own grave sins including drunkenness and fornication. Still, most of the clergy who lost or renounced their rank, no matter what they declared, faced precisely this. Because the canon is very strict. A priest who commits fornication cannot commit Divine Liturgy.

It will soon be 25 years since I am a priest. Over the years, about 15 people, with whom he was familiar at various times, lost their holy orders. The reason is the same everywhere - the breakup of the family, fornication. Two of them were banned from serving because of a conflict with the clergy, but still a year later ended up with other women.

A priest who makes even one fall dies like a priest. Inevitably. It's like "an injury incompatible with life."

I write this with pain; and most of them are very good people, some are still dear to me, but, apparently, betrayal does not come alone. And betrayal of the priestly oath attracts betrayal to his wife.

I had to take confession from a priest for a certain period of time. He lived in another city. There, for obvious reasons, he did not go to confession, but came to Moscow.

His family fell apart, he fell into fornication and simply rented prostitutes. And in order to have money, he “bombed” at night, moonlighted as a driver on the road. In civilian clothes, very short-haired, handsome, rather young man. And so he says: “Somehow I put a prostitute in my house. We drove off with her, we begin to negotiate. She looks at me and directly shouts: “You are a priest! I won't be with you."

He begins to refuse and say that everything is wrong. But she continues to scream and jumps out of the car almost on the move, it is not clear how she did not crash. That is, a professional harlot felt the grace of God, which gives the priesthood. And he no longer felt it in himself. To my words that I could not read the permissive prayer, that I had to go to the bishop, he did not react.

The most amazing thing is that I saw how the priest gradually dies in him, how he begins to be afraid to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, at the service they stopped coming to him for confession. He simply could no longer perform priestly duties.

The most famous case when a priest refused to serve is the example of Alexander Osipov, the famous fighter against the Church of the Khrushchev era. This is a former teacher and professor at the former Leningrad Theological Academy and Seminary. The reason that he stopped seeing Christ in the Church was his sin, incompatible with the priesthood, the second marriage.

– Further ahead, before a person leaving the Church: a former monk, a novice, a priest, there are two roads. The first way is to remain a lover of Christ, a lover of the Church, and move on through repentance to salvation, for which there is always hope, no matter how deeply a person falls. The second way is self-justification.

Recently, the second way, thanks to the Internet, has become very attractive and easy, because you can always lay out your vision of the situation, find people like you, who have settled in the same way, who have the same view of the Church, and be in their eyes. justified. Then the criticism of everything in the Church begins, a distorted view of the Church, full of hostility, hatred, when a person does not see good in anything, but only sins.

It is better not to read such texts, since they are obviously, according to the purpose of writing, almost always biased. You will spoil your soul, and you will not know the truth. "Anonymous" or "former" will assure that everything, absolutely everything is bad. But this is a view distorted by the sin of apostasy.

I heard the story of a banned priest about how he was banned by a "tyrant"-metropolitan on the slander of a dean - "monster". Terrified, I call my friend who serves in the same diocese, in the same deanery. He, the rector of a beautiful large parish, which he built from scratch, is extremely surprised. He says it's not like that at all. When he finds out where I got the information from, he says: “You should have seen how this former priest behaved at any meeting. I have never seen such rudeness." It turns out, as in a joke: “Maryivanna, why did you throw the doormat into the pot with borscht again?” Answer: "You are evil, I will leave you."

No one, no circumstances, no misbehaving bishop or dean, or anyone else, can deprive a priest of faith, except for himself.

Because the priest himself once decided to take holy orders, it was he who accepted the Pledge in his hands at the consecration, it was he who was told that “you will answer on the day of the Last Judgment.”

The Apostle Paul, anticipating the end of his earthly life, says very important words: “I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). Even he had to struggle to keep his faith.

Priests and laity plowed, exhausted from fatigue

– Now people often talk about the opportunities missed by the Church in the 1990s and 2000s. Don't you think that it was necessary to deal with people more, to communicate openly with them?

– I do not think that the Church has missed any huge number of opportunities.

Let's just remember how the late Patriarch Alexy answered these questions. He said that it is difficult to demand from a person who has recently been beaten for a very long time that he get up, straighten up and work well. The church approached the nineties in a completely tormented state. It’s not that normal preaching was banned until recently – there were times when any sermon, even delivered in a temple, had to be coordinated in advance with the Commissioner for Religious Affairs.

And his representative stood with a typewritten copy in the temple and checked. If the priest deviated from the agreed text, he could suffer greatly for it. It was impossible for him to openly preach to people, and it was forbidden to talk with the young.

My future wife, still a schoolgirl, if she wanted to approach the confessor in the church and ask some question, she had to do it, hiding behind a column, so that the elder standing on the kliros would not see.

That is, the Church did not and could not have the skill of wide open communication with people.

There was no literature. My mother, in order to let people read the Gospel, rewrote it by hand about fifteen times.

Traditional families of priests were almost unique. So there was almost no one to learn from. When a wave of completely unprepared people who became priests poured into the Church, it turned out that there were still very few of them. That is, so little that in the nineties any priest served simply for wear and tear.

Both priests and laity - church workers - in the nineties and zero years plowed as best they could, exhausted from fatigue. Many clergy have sacrificed their fellowship with their wives, fellowship with children, almost always their health, to church building. I remember one summer with only two days off. I'm not talking about holidays.

At the age of 23, I became the rector of the temple, which had to be restored - it's like appointing a graduate of the medical institute as the head physician of the hospital. And there were the majority like me, because the churches were given away, but there were no priests.

Once I had to serve in the winter in the temple in the name of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. And the temple was in such a state that, in order not to freeze at all, everyone stood up in turn to the only fan heater that was in the temple - on the kliros. The Holy Gifts froze in the Chalice, but how in a new way we then felt the feat of the saints freezing in the Sebastian Lake!

Now it's a shame to hear the widespread reproach that we were engaged in bricks, and not souls. Because it's not like that at all. In those conditions, we, first of all, were engaged in worship and people, preaching and confession. We preached wherever we could, including going to schools and colleges. At the same time, they were engaged in the restoration of temples.

I taught for 17 years in public schools for free on my days off. I traveled fifty kilometers, because I live in the suburbs. And it was hard, but happy.

In other schools, institutes, where only the opportunity was given, where they only called, one-time or systematically, he was immediately sent without hesitation.

- But in the end, not everyone heard and accepted the sermon - what are the reasons?

- If we talk about the fact that we did not do something, then the main reason is not that we were hindered by a bad organization or something like that. Sin hinders preaching. The main source of the failure of our preaching is, on the one hand, the fact that we do not show Christ, on the other hand, the fact that people do not want to hear about Him.

It must be understood that if a person wants to hear about Christ, he will hear about Him. AT Soviet time The so-called "funny Bible" of a Czech cartoonist was printed, where there were parodies of the stories about the days of creation from the Book of Genesis. And people bought this book in order to take from it at least those quotes that the author criticized. So they searched for God.

The fact that a society has not become completely Christian is a matter of the totality of the choices of the people who make up this society. Because over the past 25 years, anyone could take the gospel into their hands, everyone in our country heard about Christ.

As for the intelligentsia constantly criticizing the Church, I recall the words of Christ: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang songs of sorrow to you, and you did not weep” (Matthew 11:17).

Too many people who are far from the Church know exactly what it should be, what and how it should do. When the Church begins to do something wrong and something else, as those "experts" decided, they begin to get annoyed and scold her. So it was with Christ Himself. Only those who did not impose their vision on Him, but were ready to learn and listen, remained disciples. After the resurrection, He appeared to about 500 people - that's all the disciples in the three years of His preaching. And this is with Christ Himself!

Therefore, one should not be embarrassed by the fact that a small number of people have deeply entered the church life. And the rest, having hung around at the entrance for twenty years, decide to disidentify themselves from the Church. It had to happen sometime.

Either a person turns around and leaves, or a person grows into the Church and begins to understand that the main thing they do here is the salvation of the soul, and the rest is secondary or alien.

And let's not forget about one eternal vice of our intelligentsia - to always be against any system, if you have entered it. I remember how in the early 1990s a fine church worker was ordained a deacon. After the consecration, he could no longer call the Patriarch Patriarch. Only by last name. I could no longer confess to the rector either. He went into open conflict and lost his dignity. Critics call the Church abusively - "the system", but after all, without the earthly system, a multimillion-strong community cannot exist.

Even if there are about a dozen holy ascetics, they are looking for an igumen. They understand that they need it. Even on Makovets, at the request of the disciples of Abba Sergius, a system arises. Not for him, for them.

When you meet an intelligent well-read person who read everything except the Gospel, you understand that he is simply not interested in it and you can preach to such a person from morning to evening for at least a whole year - to no avail. He just doesn't want to, he doesn't care what is written there. And it doesn’t matter because he knows perfectly well that he will have to change. After all, it is the choice of the people themselves.

“I understood why I don’t go to church: there are priests in a Mercedes”

- Believers today remember that back then, in the nineties, when they prayed in dilapidated churches, where the wind was blowing, everything was different, brighter, sharper than now, in decorated and warm churches. Is it really?

“People tend to feel nostalgic for their youth. And according to our church youth, too. Of course, those were great years. I myself well remember how breathtaking it was from the news that this monastery was also given away, here tomorrow there will be the first liturgy.

We, who entered the seminary in 1988, believed that now the pressure on the Church would be eased a little more, and then anything could happen. I remember how my fellow student at the seminary, who had applied for ordination, walked around and said to himself: “Lord, at least serve one liturgy. If only one liturgy could be performed, then life would be filled with meaning.” And the other, who had already entered the seminary, could not approach the house in the week remaining until September 1 in his hometown: a police squad and a military patrol were waiting for him in turn. In order to either imprison him for 15 days, or send him to a two-month military training camp and force him to refuse to study at the seminary. And by the end of our training in the seminary, churches began to open. This joy cannot be described in words.

Yes, the church revival was indeed like the sunrise after a long night, like spring after winter. Then the time came when the general neophyteism had to end, and for everyone the time of enormous work on oneself began. It was necessary, according to the words of the Apostle Paul, to take off the old man from oneself and grow up in oneself a new man in the image of Christ. And this is a daily work, for many decades. It is very difficult and not at all as beautiful as coming and taking out years of rubbish from the temple. Everything is clear here, but when you take care of your soul, it is difficult and not so outwardly obvious, very long and difficult.

– Now there is much more negativity towards the Church than twenty years ago. Why?

- A person’s gaze snatches out of a variety of objects what he is looking for. If he wants to see a priest in a Mercedes, he will only see him. And those who live on the verge or beyond the brink of poverty will not be seen.

It is enough to read any interview with Father John Okhlobystin and see his answer to the question why he stopped serving - he could not feed his six children. This is a priest, very a famous person who served in the center of Moscow. And what happens to others on the periphery?

Often criticism of the Church is very much simply from self-justification. I had to hear literally this: “I have not gone to the temple for all these years, and today I understood why - when I saw the priest in a Mercedes.” They, rejecting the Church, reject not us, “fat priests”, but Christ, they do not come to us, but to Him.

Yes, we have a huge responsibility, and we must be impeccable. Every priest and every layman must remember that in the eyes of those around him he constitutes the Church.

A priest should never be drunk, never, not once in his life. Because if they see him at least once, if he seduces at least one person, it’s hard for him to answer for this.

Yes, you can not drive expensive cars. Of course, you have to be polite, you can't be rude. Yes, you need to read, you need to constantly educate yourself.

Our mistakes are our mistakes. But, through any mistakes of any clergy, if a person has loved Christ, he will come to His Church. Because this is His Church, and not the church of "fat priests in Mercedes." And such a person will not care at all how the priest sins. He will think of his joy in meeting Christ and of his sins.

The person who loves the Church should criticize the Church

– Who can criticize the Church?

– I think that only a person who loves her and treats her like a mother can criticize the Church constructively. Only such criticism will benefit, and we ourselves, the members of the Church. Although it is useful to humble us. Me personally useful because I am a proud person.

Although I have never driven a Mercedes, and even if they give it to me, I will not go. But yes, unwarranted criticism keeps me on my toes.

I remember the time of my faith - high school. 1982-1985, when I internally learned to resist the state ideology of atheism. In this sense, it’s easier for me: there is something to remember and just restore the skill.

The Lord allows criticism so that we do not relax. And criticism is also useful for us believers to train our intellect so that we can defend our faith.

But something can be changed in the Church only through criticism of inner pain, through criticism from someone who loves, who has been in the Church for twenty, thirty years...

And when it comes from outside, it sounds strange. For example, they say: “Here the Church receives money from the state.” And no one remembers that the Church has been restoring property that is not its own for 25 years at its own expense. There is a society, and the society has architectural monuments, and the whole society is responsible for these monuments. Even the unbelieving people of this society are responsible for ensuring that the monuments are preserved. It is not for them to decide that most of these monuments are temples. This is what our ancestors decided.

But society in the early nineties easily threw the problem of preserving its monuments, its heritage onto the Church. And all this time we have been working hard, maintaining and restoring what does not belong to us. Now some temples began to be transferred to the ownership of the Church.

Why, then, when the Church receives some crumbs of money to restore state property, does swearing begin?

– Why does the Church not always give an appropriate assessment to those who speak on its behalf and do unacceptable things, because this negatively affects its reputation?

– The Church has a practice developed over many centuries not to do anything hastily. Because if you act hastily, you cannot get out of the context and look at the situation from the outside. It seems to me that the Church should not work in the rhythm of presenting news on the Internet, when it happened half an hour ago, and a comment an hour later.

But it is clear that the dialogue on behalf of the Church should be conducted by people who have an appropriate cultural level, preferably with the first higher secular education. The wisdom of the leadership is to put just such people in the press services and send them to negotiations.

Unfortunately, any small occasion, any inadequate statement can be blown up into all-Russian news. We live in this new reality. We must get used to being fully responsible for our words, get used to the fact that we live as if under a glass cap, where spotlights are directed at us from all sides, and any act can be blown up to the point of discussion throughout the country. So the clergyman, before saying something, needs to think carefully.

People have become more cynical, but they are looking for depth

—You can hear from priests today that the Church has more formal work, is that true?

“Unfortunately, this is partly true. Simply, if you start some new business in Russia (for example, catechesis, which should be carried out in every parish, or missionary service), you cannot complete a business or make any changes to it without systematic reporting, since this is the most accessible image of the reverse connections.

Another thing is if reporting becomes an end in itself. Then she kills the real deal. If, for example, they demand that there be a youth leader in the parish, but there is no youth leader. And so, for example, I call a person and say: “Listen, be a youth leader, because they demand from me. Go to meetings." In this situation, he will simply lose confidence in me, because youth is usually uncompromising, and here I am forced to suggest that he be fake.

So such things are very dangerous when reporting can begin to live by its own logic and kill life. I remember the story of one priest, who said that he had a huge number of young people in the parish, his bishop blessed to formalize the youth movement. And when he began to formalize it, everything was empty.

For example, it is difficult for me to find someone responsible for youth work, because we have a lot of young people and children in the parish, but they are all included in the common life. I cannot formalize them into a separate movement and I think that this is wrong in the situation of our particular parish.

With any reporting, it seems to me that we must be very careful and reverent about the fact that all situations are different.

—Is there something in the Church that today obscures Christ from us?

– If I am looking for Christ, no one can shield Him from me. There are only reasons around me, the reasons for the loss of Christ will always be inside me. This is the axiom of asceticism. The cause of any sin is inside me, sin is born in my freedom. No one can lose touch with Christ for me, no one can lose faith for me. The outside can only offer an excuse.

As for trials, let us remember the words of the Apostle Paul: “To those who love God, they will all make haste for good” (Rom. 8:28). And if God sends difficulties to his servants, it means that he considers them necessary.

– Where does the arrogance of believers, including priests, come from towards the “baptized, but not enlightened” people, and is it necessary to fight it?

– We must learn to accept people and turn every opportunity into an occasion for preaching. If a person came to the temple in order to light a candle for someone, one must understand that he did not come to me, to the priest, but came in search of God. The fact that I know much more about God (as it seems to me self-confidently) is not a reason for me to rise above this person.

In general, the temple is the meeting place of Christ with man. And the priest is the person who serves this meeting.

This means that this movement, if it is directed towards the Lord, maybe not yet formalized or misunderstood, or maybe even a little stupid, some kind of ridiculous, is needed to be picked up, supported and moved a little further towards Christ. Say something good, smile, give a book, tell something.

Quite a bit is needed for a person to understand at all that a priest is someone with whom one can talk. He will come next time, ask deeper questions.

Our temple is located on Maroseyka Street, and excursions come to us. Without asking permission, people can take pictures and make noise. It would seem that what can be done? Strictly say: “Who blessed you to take pictures here? Who blessed you to preach in this temple? Come on, get out of here!” But it will be a missed opportunity. Therefore, I cling to her, come up and politely offer: “Let me tell you about this temple, I am the rector here.” Even an anti-church-minded tour guide cannot refuse.

And you start: “Come here, please. And here is such and such an icon, its history. And here are some people. Dostoevsky often, when he was in Moscow, visited our church. The Botkins were our elders…” People suddenly discover all this for themselves and flourish.

I repeat, one must use any step a person takes towards God in order to pick it up and direct it further. Remember how the apostle Paul praised the Athenians for being godly people? Although from the point of view of both the faithful Jew and the Christian, it was an unholy pagan city. But the apostle first saw the good in them, and then began to preach.

– Are people who came to faith in the nineties different from those who come now?

– Remarkable people came and come to God. Christ is the same yesterday and today. And the soul, if it longs to touch Him, like a deer to a source of water, is still the same as it was a thousand years ago, that one and a half. These are the souls of God's beloved sons and daughters, tormented and mutilated by sin.

But there are still differences. On the one hand, people have become more cynical. On the other hand, many people are looking for in the Church not the external and ritual, but answers to the most pressing questions about salvation, they are looking for conversations about how the Church lives in its depths.

How have you changed over the years?

– Any person, including me, the Lord leads through life and teaches humility. Strength has diminished with age. In my youth, it seemed that, now, I would move mountains. Now I understand that I can do very little.

My task is to catch the moment of my cooling down and return myself again to that, maybe inexperienced, but sincere burning, which was at the beginning. Ask yourself: “Fedya, where is that boy, that aspiring priest?” And try to get back to him. To serve the liturgy again in the same way, with the fear of God.

There is an opinion that it does not suit the father to have good car, technique, beautiful things, he also should not dress modern. From it it should be clear that the life of the priest is not easy, and if everything is otherwise, it is already indecent.

Should a priest be poor?

“There is an opinion that it doesn’t suit a priest to have a good car, equipment, beautiful things, he shouldn’t dress modern either. From it it should be clear that the life of the priest is not easy, and if everything is otherwise, it is already indecent. After all, his parishioners are feeding him, which means that he “shows off” with their money. And people are ready to condemn such a father "for the love of money." What is the reason for such an idea of ​​the "poor priest" among the people? What is good in it, and what is false?

Archpriest Konstantin OSTROVSKY, rector of the Assumption Church in the city of Krasnogorsk, Moscow Region, dean of the churches of the Krasnogorsk district of the Moscow diocese, answers.

- - I'm riding in a crowded bus, in a shabby cassock, with a cross on my chest, a heavy briefcase, and no one will give me a seat, although they see that I'm in years and a father. And through the window I see a foreign car and in it a young priest with a short cropped beard. And I am offended both for our young clergy and for our youth, who neither respect the old, nor have shame and conscience, driving foreign cars among the poor people. And it’s a shame to me because I envy the rich, because I myself would like to drive a foreign car, but, firstly, no one gives it to me, and secondly, I’m afraid of people’s gossip. And my spiritual dispensation is very bad. And if I rode a bus, or a new Mercedes, or a donkey, or walked, praying to God in my heart, that would be very good. Before God, it doesn't matter what we wear, how we comb our hair, what we ride, and how much money we have in the bank. But the priest also has a pastoral duty. I don't care, I'm not attached to earthly goods (is it not attached?). But I am surrounded by weak people, they are believers, kind, but weak. There is also sacrifice in them - and envy, and love - and hatred, and the desire for good - and subordination to evil. Everything is like mine. And judging by myself, I think that it is hard for them to see how their father builds a cottage for himself and drives an expensive car. They are tempted - they are not right. But the apostle Paul wrote: “If food offends my brother, I will never eat meat, lest I offend my brother” (1 Cor. 8:13). Therefore, if I have the opportunity to choose, then perhaps it is better not to have expensive things. (By the way, the late Patriarch Alexy II spoke about this more than once at Diocesan meetings in Moscow, reproaching priests for expensive foreign cars, even advising them to sell them in favor of their parishes.) And if we cannot do without expensive things, then we will use them, not caring about the temptations of people, but reproaching himself. Woe to us, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that we clean the outside of the cup and dish, while inside they are full of theft and unrighteousness (paraphrase from Matt. 23, 25). Neither luxury without mercy nor poverty without humility will save us, so let us forgive each other.

Priests mean saints?

For most people, a priest is a person not of this world. They are called by many - "holy father". Some people are very surprised when they find out that the priest went on vacation, is building a dacha, and loves beer. Are priests really holier than ordinary people?

Archpriest Boris LEVSHENKO, cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznetsy, head of the Department of Dogmatic Theology at PSTGU, answers:

- The word "holy" has several meanings. The first is the allocation for a special religious use or service: prosphora, holy water, holy work. The second meaning is the fight against sin and victory over it, fidelity in one's actions to the moral law, hatred of evil and love only of good. We understand human holiness as closeness to God. Every person is called to such holiness, and not just a priest, but in reality few achieve it during their lifetime. And even when it is obvious that they achieve, as it was obvious when meeting with Father John (Krestyankin), Father Cyril (Pavlov), we do not call them saints. The Church recognizes people as saints after death, sometimes soon, and sometimes after many centuries.

Nevertheless, there is some truth in the traditional Catholic address "holy father" (although I don't like being addressed that way). The truth is that the priest is really isolated from the people, just as prosphora is isolated from bread, from which particles are taken out on the proskomedia. We consume prosphora after the liturgy or at home on an empty stomach, with prayer and drink holy water. This prosphora remains bread, retains all its physical properties, but we still call it holy. So the priest is singled out from the people, because through him God's grace is given to other people. God cares about the salvation of each person and through one of the people sends admonitions, instructions and help to all mankind. But for the one whom He chooses, such an election can also be uncomfortable. For example, the prophet Ezekiel lay on one side for more than a year, bearing the iniquity of the house of Israel. (“You lie down on your left side and lay on it the iniquity of the house of Israel: according to the number of days that you lie on it, you will bear their iniquity.” Ezekiel 4:1). What's so convenient? And the prophet Jonah, in order not to fulfill God's order to save Nineveh, rushed in the opposite direction and almost drowned. So the priesthood is given for the salvation of mankind, but the priest himself remains a man, and for him, as a man, the priesthood can become too high a responsibility, to destroy him. Because it is written in the prophet Jeremiah: “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord negligently” (Jer. 48, 10). But this is a matter of personal salvation of a particular person, and the grace of God is given to people through each priest. Of course, that is why he must live and behave in such a way that people look up to him: it is better to pray, to give all of himself to people. In particular, when he is completely uncomfortable, and he is called for a request, he must go. And he owes much more - he has a debt of love. But, I repeat, he remains a man even in dignity.

But do people always do what they should? Ideal on earth is unattainable. Therefore, one should not think that every priest is a saint. Whether it is useful to think like this, I don’t know (only God knows about it), but according to the laws of spiritual life, it’s right to think like this: everyone will be saved, but I won’t. This is general rule for all people. And to single out an estate (even a priestly one) as a saint is worthless - by doing this you, as it were, relieve yourself of responsibility: we, they say, are sinners, and these should be saints. Not "these", but all should be saints - God calls us to this.

Regarding dachas, vacations, and everyday habits: I am not a monk, so I will not talk about monks. They are bound by strict vows, including the renunciation of all property. But a married priest, like any man, must take care of his family. Love for other people at the expense of relatives is no longer love. And in the dacha, the priest’s love for his family is expressed - his children, regardless of whether they have money for a ticket or not, during the holidays they have the opportunity to live on fresh air. Like the priest himself - and he also needs this to improve his health. For example, the famous Moscow priest - St. righteous Alexy Mechev went away for a whole summer to his dacha and returned to Moscow only in the fall. We go on vacation with exactly this wording - to improve our health. But the vacation does not free the priest from prayer - he prays there too, and often serves in local churches.

Can priests play football?

“I heard that it is indecent for a priest to go to the beach, swim, play football with parishioners. Is it really forbidden by the canons?

Archpriest Fyodor BORODIN, rector of the church of St. unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian on Maroseyka (Moscow):

- - Swimming in the sea is not forbidden to anyone, unless, of course, you are a monk or a pilgrim on Athos. A clergyman often has to go to the beach if he is relaxing at a resort with his family - after all, it’s not the same mother who looks after several children at once! But the problem is this: in canon law Orthodox Church there is a provision according to which a priest cannot go to public baths. This canon was formulated in ancient church when baths - Greek terms - were a place where people not only washed, but also communicated, read books and could spend the whole day - the terms looked more like a hygienic and entertainment complex, as they would say now. People in baths were not naked to the point of complete nudity, but walked in sheets, but both men and women could be there at the same time, so the clergyman was forbidden to visit the baths. The modern beach is not a Roman bath, but the fragments of clothes that are now worn on the beach are hardly more chaste than Roman sheets.

AT Holy Scripture there are such words: “… Do not reveal the nakedness of your father” (Lev. 18:7). Therefore, when it comes to the priest, spiritual father I think you can follow this rule.

There is no ban on bathing for a priest, but it is better to do it when none of your flock sees you. I remember how, as a child, I saw a priest known to me only from divine services in “civilian” clothes - in simple trousers and a shirt with rolled up sleeves, when he worked in the workshop. I, then a weak, only churching person, was just in shock. Therefore, it seems to me - this is my personal opinion - a clergyman should be guided not even by what is allowed to him, but by what is useful to the flock. If a priest goes, for example, on a pilgrimage with his flock, I think he should not bathe in the river or sunbathe in front of everyone. This can confuse someone and even become an obstacle to confession. Here is manifested what is called the hierarchy of relationships, correctly built relationships that exclude familiarity between the spiritual father and the spiritual son. There must be some line, a boundary beyond which one cannot go. And this distance helps not only in relations with the priest, but also through him as a shepherd - in relations with God: there are many cases when difficulties arose if this distance was violated. In general, a familiar and impudent attitude towards people always goes hand in hand with the loss of the fear of God.

We often go on kayak trips with our Sunday school. These hikes are led by a priest who always bathes separately.

And if a layman suddenly ran into his confessor on the beach and feels embarrassed, he can simply leave the beach for a while or suffer without judging anyone.

I don’t see any sedition in playing football with the priest; I myself play football with children from Sunday school. It's just that here, too, you need to see the boundaries, frames and not use the situation of a sports game with a priest to create familiarity.