Poison by the "legal" principle

Before me is the petition of a city dweller who is not an intelligent man (and there are, to my deep regret, many such intellectuals and even the highest circle). In this petition he tells us that on the day of Communion of the Holy Mysteries he came to the monastery church for the Liturgy and asked permission to read the rule for Holy Communion himself. The serving hieromonk refused, and from here came the whole story. The priest argued, threw out the phrase: "Perhaps I am not worthy to read the rule as well?" to which the hieromonk replied with a monosyllabic "yes," and then the communant said: "It means that I am not worthy to hear," and left the church to go to communion in another church. But, remembering that he would not be given communion without a confession note, he returned to the church, approached the north door of the altar and "loudly", as he himself writes, began to ask for "notes"... It is clear that the hieromonk refused his request, for at that time he was already performing a proskomedia. And so this priest gave me a petition that I "authorize him to help the psalmist" in his service, but "with another hieromonk." At the same time, he says that it is already 5 o'clock in the morning of the next day, and he cannot calm down...

Forgive me, my readers, for drawing your attention to this petition, it is very characteristic. It shows some kind of ugly legal view of such relations, where there is not the slightest place for "legal" relations... And yet this view permeates almost all of our intelligentsia, not only those who have broken away from the Church, but also imagine themselves to dwell in the bosom of the Church, of course, with the exception of a few sons faithful to the Church. Our ancestors left us a wise proverb: "Do not meddle in someone else's monastery with your rule," but now it is the opposite: everyone wants to be the master and administrator of the church. A person has fasted, confessed, prepares for communion of the Divine Mysteries of Christ: it would seem that he should be humble, imbued with a sense of repentance, should keep peace within himself, peace with everyone, and for the sake of this peace humble himself, not demand what is not in his power, yield in everything, not confuse his repentant soul... But now, they did not fulfill his request, and he started a scandal, complained to the bishop... Tell me for God's sake: where is his Christianity? Is this a disciple of Christ? It becomes frightening for such people who imagine themselves to be faithful sons of the Church. I do not justify the hieromonk, but as a pastor I cannot take this legal point of view of a layman who, in anger at a servant of the Church, wants to approach the Divine Mysteries and does not notice such a terrible vice behind him... In order to bring him to his senses, I put down the following resolution: "The conciliar archpriest will explain to the petitioner that the bishop himself would not have allowed him to receive the Holy Mysteries in such an unpeaceful mood as he was, for Holy Communion would have been a condemnation to him. The Apostle Paul says that such unworthy communicants even died suddenly for this. But the hieromonk, who apparently treated the petitioner rudely, is not right: as a monk, he must be the first to set an example of humility. Oh, the archpriest will explain to both that mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, especially for the sake of the radiant feast of Christ, will bring happiness and joy to both warring parties"...

I don't know if I'm right in this case. But really, it hurts to read such petitions! And such complaints come to the bishop not only from the laity, but sometimes from the clergy as well. Christ's teaching about forgiveness, about peace with all, is forgotten; as if on a bill of exchange they demand retribution - for every offensive word, for any, sometimes unintentional, harshness... If the case is not worth considering, then you simply forbid the clergy to serve until reconciliation and the case is extinguished. But what to do with the laity? To forbid the communion of the Holy Mysteries? But they don't fast for years. The clergy have not yet eradicated in themselves the consciousness of Christian duty and the concept of the bishop as a conciliator and representative of Christ, and recognize his right to write such conciliatory resolutions: well, the laity are ready to complain higher for such an attempt to touch their conscience, to bring them to reason with the teaching of Christ. For them, the bishop is no more than a justice of the peace in such cases: he must satisfy them. This is what the above-mentioned petitioner writes: "Here is my finale, and I will be satisfied for the insult inflicted on me by the hieromonk..." And it turns out that only a shell of true Christianity remains, and the spirit flies away... It hurts to be a direct witness to all this! Speak to such people about the commandments of God: they will answer you: "We know the commandments without you, and you are the bishop, you are the boss: we complain to you, and you do your job - punish the guilty. And wait to teach us." And often it is necessary to "give progress to the case", appoint an inquiry, and then an investigation, and the guilty must be punished. Recently there was an incident that outraged me to the depths of my soul: a priest served in the same place for 41 years; At the instigation of one kulak, a case was brought against him, exactly 25 charges were brought against him, some of which were 35 years old, and by virtue of the existing law, in view of the proof of the charges (and he was accused, for example, of being late to give communion to a dying person, that he demanded 5 rubles instead of 2 rubles for the marriage, and the newlyweds had already managed to marry their children since then), He had to be dismissed to the outside staff, mitigating the punishment by considering him dismissed at his request, and replacing the "exclusion from the staff" with monastic obedience for two weeks.

When you think that such phenomena are becoming more and more frequent from year to year, coarser and uglier, you involuntarily think: where are we finally going? After all, before our eyes an obvious substitution of the moral worldview is taking place: the ideal of the former Russian man was the feat of humility, obedience to the precepts of the Church, the fulfillment of Christ's commandments in the perfection possible for man, the penetration of them by the spirit... The fulfillment of duty, the dictates of conscience – this is what the former Russian man strove for, if he had not yet extinguished the spark of God in himself, if he had not stifled the voice of God within himself. He went to the enemy with the cherished cry: "God is with us!" but he also knew how to forgive personal enemies from the heart with the words "God is with you!"

Is it the same now?! Not to mention the intellectuals: they have broken away from the body of the people, have gone in the direction of the West, think in the West, are incapable of understanding the people's world outlook and the ideals of the people (I mean, of course, the majority, knowing that there are still gratifying exceptions). I am speaking of the masses of the people: they are poisoned by some poison of self-esteem, infected with self-conceit, everywhere they seek their own rights, they are ready to demand fulfillment; of his worldly sentences, even in that sphere where he does not have the slightest trace of such rights... Did it ever happen in the old days that the peasants without exception signed a sentence: to replace two priests, a deacon and a psalmist, and sent such an audacious sentence to the bishop simply - for execution? And now it has become possible. And so the bishop has to admonish such flocks that "sheep do not judge their shepherds," that such a sentence cannot be accepted not only for execution, but also for consideration as lawless, and so on. Yesterday they confessed to their priest, today they sentence him to expulsion without even explaining his guilt, they are ready to boycott him, they are ready to sue the bishop himself... Why, this is a distortion of the Russian people's soul! This is the beginning of the disintegration not only of the church, but of the religious life of the people in general! Even if there are still few such ugly phenomena, what exists is already a terrible sign of the times.

A little more, and we, the bishops, will receive sentences with threats that if we refuse to carry out such sentences to the parishioners, they will not think of betraying the Orthodox faith, they will go over to schism or shtunda, to any heresy: for it is impossible not to admit that the mass of the people is still too ignorant, and if they adhere to the faith of their ancestors, it is unconsciously, not being able to give an account of its hope to those who ask. being unable to rebuff false teachers, sectarians and schismatics, and these wolves are now prowling all over the face of our native land... The people love the Orthodox faith, as long as they do not leave the grace-filled influence of their native Mother Church, but this influence, for various reasons, is becoming weaker and weaker in our days: the enemies of the Church are trying to weaken it in every possible way, both through the press, and through liberal laws, and through the preaching of socialism, legal principles, and through schools, and through infection with the grossest vices... We are living through a terrible time, even more terrible times are coming: pastors of the Church! Get ready to repel wolves! You have a feat ahead of you - perhaps to the shedding of blood! Take heart! Purify yourselves by podvig! Stock up on grace-filled strength! The enemy is at the door of your fence... he is already invading this fence! Woe to us who sleep, if he begins his disastrous work of seducing and plundering our sheep..

Freedom of conscience has its limits

(This diary was distributed to the members of the State Council before the consideration of the bill on "Old Believer communities".)

A special commission of the City Council worked for the whole winter on the draft law on Old Believer communities, devoted 30 meetings to this matter, and finally presented its work to the general meeting of the City Council. The Duma bill, which last year so confused the conscience of the faithful children of the Church with its anti-church character, has undergone a radical revision and has become, it seems, acceptable.

We live in an amazing time: a time of menacing phrases and vague, vague concepts. That is why we often deceive ourselves. The fact is that the wider a known concept is, the more abstract it is, the easier it is to substitute attributes in it. And this is done all the more quickly because now we have lost the habit of thinking strictly about what we read, what we write and say. After all, we live in an age of newspaper frivolity: how many of the intellectuals today read strictly scientific, maturely thought out books? And when a newspaper scribbler lets out some fashionable word, they pick it up, and run around with it, as with the last word of science and human thought. Our ancestors loved to think deeply about every word, treating the printed word especially honestly, and remembered the strict testament of our Savior: "Every idle word, whatsoever men speak, they shall render a word about it on the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36). A monument to such an honest attitude to the word is our native language: what precision of the features of the concept in each word! We do not know how to find our own word in our native language to denote a new concept, and we often borrow ready-made words from foreign languages, and we have so full of these borrowings in the printed word that an ordinary person without a dictionary sometimes cannot read our writings. And our ancestors created the language in a truly creative way: every word is a pure diamond! That is why it is a real pleasure to study the roots of native words. Take, for example, the words: "man", "book", "nightingale", "baptism"... How many of us know the roots of these words? And yet in these roots are indicated the most essential features of the concepts denoted by them. We imagine that our ancestors were complete ignoramuses, but in fact it is not they, but we who are truly such ignorant in comparison with them. We rattle with our tongues the words they have left us as a treasure as a treasure, but we often do not suspect their meaning, their true meaning. We imagine ourselves to be so clever, so advanced people, that our ancestors are not far from us! You can't reach it with your hand. And if our ancestors had risen from their graves and given us an exam in our native language, you see, and we, such "educated" descendants, would be ashamed. And this frivolity, this - excuse me - our ignorance is used by those who benefit from muddying the waters in order to catch a fish in troubled waters, as the proverb says. They will let some catchphrase walk among us, so broad in its meaning that you can substitute any signs for it, and we will catch it and run around with it... Recently, a lot of such words have been released not only in newspapers, but also in bills. The latter is already a considerable danger, because, having penetrated into the laws, imprecise, insufficiently defined, and elastic concepts can muddy life. Such, for example, is the word: "freedom of conscience." What is conscience? This is the law placed by God in the spiritual nature of man for the moral and religious life of a rational being. And what is freedom? In itself, this word represents some kind of emptiness that needs to be filled. In fact, it means simply - the absence of restrictions on activity, and nothing more. What kind of activity - nothing can be seen from this word. Meanwhile, the conscience, darkened by the fall of the first-created man, is not at all the same among people. The conscience of an Orthodox Christian demands that we wish good even to our enemies, that we do not attract dissidents even to our holy, saving faith by violence and persecution, that we treat everyone with love and benevolence. The conscience of the Talmudist, on the contrary, considers it a virtue to kill the "goy", allows him to be calmly robbed, to inflict all kinds of evil on him. The conscience of the confessor of the Koran demands the extermination of the "giaurs", the spread of the false teaching of Mohammed with fire and sword. The conscience of the pagan kings demanded severe measures of struggle against Christianity. And Christians do not always and not all have the same conscience: the Jesuit's conscience recognizes the rule that the end justifies the means, the Roman Catholic conscience does not prevent the persecution of Lutherans and Orthodox; The same is admitted, although not as openly as among the Roman Catholics, by the conscience of the Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, Molokian: at least deception, the so-called "pious deception," is often practiced among them. But our Orthodox conscience is not the same for everyone: there is a scrupulous, scrupulous conscience, there is a burned conscience, etc. Now, if we are to speak of the law, which requires special precision of expression, of freedom of conscience, then it is permissible to ask: what kind of conscience? Religious? But I have already said above that sometimes, according to our Christian concepts, it demands from the Talmudists and Mohammedans precisely what is inadmissible by the most elementary laws of human coexistence and common sense. Thus, the concept of "freedom of conscience" has to be limited. It is impossible to allow a Talmudist and a Mohammedan in the name of their religious convictions to exterminate the "giaur" and "goyim", in other words, us, Christians. Let them believe, as they know, we will not persecute them for their inner convictions, but if they begin to put their convictions into practice, if they touch upon our Christian freedom, let them excuse us: we cannot allow this, even if their "free conscience" demands it. We must deprive them of freedom, tie their hands. We should not follow Tolstoy's theory of non-resistance to evil.

But it is not only the body that can be touched: the dissident can also touch the cherished shrines of the human heart, can insult them, can steal these shrines from the heart not only by violence, but also by propaganda of false teachings. We are told: "The profession of faith is naturally expressed not only in the clear and tangible manifestation of one's religious convictions, but also in the desire to lead others along the path of salvation of the soul which the believer finds to be the only right one." This is true. If I believe that my faith alone is holy and saving, then, of course, I must spread it by all the measures that my conscience prescribes to me. But that's the point: what kind of conscience? The conscience of a schismatic belonging to a wandering sect enjoins him to preach that the Antichrist now reigns; the conscience of the priestless commands him to preach that there is no priesthood, there are no sacraments, and, consequently, it is possible to live in fornication; the conscience of every schismatic demands that he blaspheme our holy Mother Orthodox Church: after all, the entire preaching of schismatic false teachers consists precisely in revealing the Church and her sacraments, her ministers, in every possible way: well, in the name of the liberal principle of freedom of conscience, should such preaching be allowed? - The most dangerous deception is deception through truth. We are told that the schismatics have a desire to lead us along the same path of salvation in which they themselves imagine themselves to be saved. This is natural, this is true. But who knows what they want and will want in the name of such truth and freedom of their conscience? They will want to demand that all our historical shrines be given to them: for example, the Kremlin cathedrals; they will, and, of course, give them such freedom to want - they would already like our Sovereign to go over to their consent; After all, their conscience demands it, and she is free... But who will say that their desire, their demand, should be satisfied? So it is with regard to freedom of preaching: they would like to make all Orthodox Christians schismatics like themselves: so should they be given the freedom to draw all Orthodox Rus' into schism? Thank God: the fundamental laws grant this right exclusively to the Orthodox Church. Thank God: our state has not yet separated from its native Church, it still values its life-giving activity, it still knows how to distinguish truth from falsehood in its laws, it does not put schismatic wisdom on the same level with church teaching. Thank God: our government, as a benevolent father, will not allow its children, loyal subjects of the Orthodox Tsar Autocrat, to be corrupted by heresies and false teachings. It would be insane to allow all this in the name of some falsely understood freedom of conscience of the schismatics. It is necessary to preserve and preserve the freedom of our Orthodox simpletons, who are unable to distinguish the right hand from the left in matters of faith – falsehood from truth, pernicious deception from salvific teaching. We are told that our "multi-million people are convinced that for the triumph of the Orthodox Church there is no need for any restrictions on the religious freedom of people of other faiths." Perhaps this is partly true, but the question is, how and what is meant by this religious freedom? If we understand that "let each one pray to God in his own way," then this is hardly the complete truth: there is no doubt that the Orthodox would like not only schismatics, but all Mohammedans, Jews and pagans to convert to the Orthodox faith: after all, the logic of the heart, the logic of convictions is the same for everyone; If the schismatic "strives to lead the Orthodox to the path of his salvation," then does not the Orthodox wish the same for all schismatics? Why do they want to have two brands here? This is the first thing. And secondly, our Orthodox people, complacently admitting that each one should pray to God in his own way, is not at all so indifferent to the fact that they begin to seduce their brothers into another, even "old" faith. He is deeply indignant when he hears blasphemy against his native Church; not being able to verbally defend his beliefs, dear to him, he often uses physical pressure against seducers. Can the Orthodox government be indifferent to the seduction of its Orthodox subjects in schism, not to mention sects and heterodox? Is it possible to protect them from all kinds of seducers? And why would it remove itself from such a fence? In the name of what would he give an open leaf to every false teacher to blaspheme the Church and seduce the Orthodox? In the name of freedom? But for God's sake, consider: for the question is not whether unlimited freedom of preaching is possible or not - there seems to be no doubt that boundaries are necessary - the question is only where to draw these boundaries? After all, the government will not allow it to preach that the Tsar is the Antichrist, that one should not pay taxes to the Antichrist and give him soldiers, that church marriage is fornication, and fornication is a venial sin: "Give birth seven times, but do not marry," and so on. Absurdities. It means that there is a border. They say that this border is a danger to the state and public morality. But - first: the state is in union with the Church, isn't the danger for the Church a danger for the state as well? Are church troubles useful for the state? Blasphemy against the Church, desecration of Orthodox shrines - does it not dishonor the state? Do not think that schismatics are such meek lambs: they are capable not only of mocking the Church and its ministers, but of every Orthodox Christian, if only they feel their freedom. And will all this correspond to the goal that the legislator has set for the laws on freedom of confession: "the exaltation of the Orthodox Church?" Secondly, the freedom to disseminate schismatic false teachings will undoubtedly undermine general morality. Remember that every false teaching, including schism, is infected with terrible pride: we, the ministers of the Church, ask you to take this at our word - their entire religious life in its manifestation, in its deeds, is based on unconscious hypocrisy; "Incapable like other men"... Is this substitution of moral ideals really useful for the state? And in the name of what? In the name of some abstract principle: give freedom to lies and do not hinder their propaganda! Is this really such a sacred principle that it cannot be abandoned? Is it possible to wish that its preachers would experience the sweetness of its fruits on their children? If their children were to be seduced into schism and began to blaspheme the Holy Church, began to blaspheme them, their parents, for not following in their footsteps, what would they say about such freedom? - And in this question the concepts of supporters of freedom of proverb or propaganda are substituted: instead of the frank word "dissemination of false teachings" they say - exposition and explanation of the teaching. But that is the point: listen, if you do not believe the missionaries, what is all this "exposition and explanation"? - In nothing but blasphemy against church teaching. We are told that such freedom of preaching has long been allowed at "interviews." Again, a substitution of concepts: an interview and the preaching of a false teaching with the aim of spreading it are not at all the same thing. During the interview, the blasphemies of the schismatic teachers are immediately exposed, and their effect on the Orthodox listeners is immediately paralyzed. The word "preaching" can be called the same substitution of concepts. What do they want to understand by this word? We are told that it simply means the exposition and exposition of doctrine. But from what can this be seen? Why can't a schismatic understand what he wants? He will say: "The law gives us the right to preach, and to preach means to spread our teaching." And he will be right, because he cannot understand this word otherwise than in its broadest sense. And the law does not limit this value.

In order to give more scope to the propaganda of schism under the cover of freedom of preaching, the defenders of this freedom want to allow it everywhere on the basis of the general law on freedom of assembly and speech. A schismatic teacher will come to the village, tell the police that he wants to arrange a meeting, get permission, gather the simpletons and begin to scold the Church and its ministers. I have already said that the entire sermon of schismatic preachers boils down to this topic. And this will be done, according to the meaning of the law, allegedly "for the greater exaltation of the Orthodox Church"! Such preaching will resonate with pain in the souls of simple people - Orthodox listeners; some of them will hesitate, not knowing how to repel the attack of the false teacher on the Church, others, on the contrary, may rush at him in indignation, and then what should a representative of the police, some sergeant, or simply a village headman do? Of course, he will have to protect the preacher from violence, but thereby put these simpletons in deep bewilderment, who are defending their faith from a blasphemer-schismatic...