Therefore, the work of salvation and teaching is not limited to mere psychologism and moralizing about the bad things that have been done, but the creation of something positive that does not perish in the Kingdom of Heaven. And Met. St. Anthony, who taught about the pastoral influence of one conscience on the conscience of another and about the assimilation of another's personality, up to the dissolution of this "I" in the conciliar "we" of pastoral love, did not think of limiting himself only to the negative moment of repentance, as indicated above. He only obscured to a considerable extent the purely mystical element, which was quite in keeping with his realism and psychologism.

How, then, was the Apostle's words about this structure of mysteries to be revealed? What is the atmosphere in which the pastoral activity of a priest should take place? What can compensate for the one-sidedness and exclusively psychological aspect of the influence of conscience on conscience? In the most important Christian sacrament, we reply, in the Eucharistic life, in communion with the Eucharistic body and the mystical body of the Church. The Eucharistic life is and must be the main spiritual aspiration of the priest.

A priest is first and foremost a theurgist. The priesthood is primarily the Liturgy, the Eucharist, the mystical union with Christ in the sacrament of the Body and Blood. The unity of both the pastor and his flock. The spiritual life of a priest must take place first and foremost in this Eucharistic sanctification of life, of oneself and of others. The Eucharistic character of the church must embrace the priest most of all. The impossibility of the Eucharist outside the Church and the existence of the Church outside the Eucharist. The Fathers of the Church did not write treatises on the Church, but lived in it and by it, just as they did not write scholastic treatises on the Holy Spirit in the classical period of theology, but lived in the Spirit. The construction of mysteries is the path commanded by Ap. Paul.

The fullness of the priest's ministry includes many responsibilities. He must meet all the requirements of his rank. He is expected to teach, nourish souls, do missionary work, worship, serve the sick, prisoners, the sorrowful, and many other things, so as not to speak of the priest's modern hobbies (in the West) with social, sports, and other activities.

But a priest, like any other mere mortal, may or may not be given certain talents by God. He may turn out to be a bad orator or an incapable administrator of his parish, a boring teacher of the Law of God, he may even be an insensitive and too demanding spiritual father, he may be deprived of the pathos of social service; but all this will be forgiven him and will not erase his spiritual activity, if only he possesses a sense of the Eucharist, if his main task is the "building of mysteries" and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy for the mystical communion of both himself and his flock with the Body of Christ, for the sake of their communion with the Divine nature, according to the words of Ap. (2 Peter 1:4). There is no greater power and no greater mystical means given to the priest than this service to the mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. This should be the priest's life's work. If the same Met. St. Anthony so remarkably called upon pastors "to build up in oneself the element of prayer by means of a long-term struggle," as the ability to ascend to heaven, then nowhere and in no way are this element and this ability fulfilled in the priest, as in the sacrament of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

But what does this Eucharistic mood mean? Let us answer clearly and definitively: an insatiable thirst to celebrate the Liturgy as often as possible. The priesthood consists precisely in this independent service of the Divine Liturgy by the priest himself, and not in the concelebration of others, be they rectors, archpriests, archimandrites, or even bishops. Concelebration, although it has a conciliar nature, is a deprivation of the servant to perform this sacrament himself, to build the mystical body of Christ himself. In concelebration there is often more solemnity, pomp, ritual aesthetics. But the Holy Fathers, who wrote about prayer, always spoke of its purity, sobriety, self-discipline, of mental prayer, i.e., of the highest degree of spirituality, of boldness, etc., but never did a single holy father or ascetic of the Church write about the solemnity of prayer.

The very notion of solemnity and pomp stands at odds with the spirit of Eucharistic impoverishment, with the mood of the Bethlehem and Golgotha kenosis. The pomp of conciliar services may correspond to the ritual of Byzantine or Vatican royal entrances and ceremonies, but it is not appropriate for the Chalice of Eucharistic Blood shed for the life of the world. In conciliar services, one can speak of the communion of those standing in a circle from the same Chalice and from one priest or bishop, but one cannot speak of concelebration, so here only the Primate serves, he alone symbolizes Christ, and the rest of the priests must present themselves as co-present apostles, waiting for the moment of communion at the hand of a single servant. This is taught to us by the history of the early Church and the writings of its teachers, the history of the liturgy, to which the later pompous ritual was alien and incomprehensible.

For this reason, the priest must yearn to celebrate the Eucharistic service himself and not be content with standing in a cathedral surrounded by the supreme primates. A priest must have this thirst to celebrate the Eucharist himself, which does not detract from his thirst to receive Communion at the hands of another brother. But the mystical feeling, incomprehensible to the laity, to offer the Sacrifice by oneself and to transform it by the power of the Holy Spirit. The gifts of the Spirit into the Body and Blood are quite different from the experience of communion in the liturgy celebrated by another. This desire to serve oneself can be measured by the strength of the Eucharistic character of a given priest. The most spiritual pastors have always felt this joy of theurgic service and prayer.

Fr. Sergius Bulgakov wrote remarkably in his Autobiographical Notes: "I went to the priesthood solely for the sake of serving, i.e. primarily to celebrate the Liturgy. At the same time, due to my inexperience, I could not distinguish any details of the priest's position in the temple. Very soon I realized that in order to serve, one must have a temple, or at least a throne. As a result, during the quarter century of my priesthood, I never had a church of my own, but always either concelebrated with bishops or rectors, or had occasional services" (pp. 53-54). These lines, as well as other pages of this book, speak precisely of this longing and thirst for one's own service, for the independent performance of the sacrament. It is not the feeling of "humility" that they like to reproach speaks here, but simply the great, fiery love of the clergyman to actively and himself perform the service, and not to be a passive, present concelebrant of his brother, even if he is older and very deserved.

Высказанное здесь мнение о самостоятельном совершении таинодействия (с которым, вероятно, согласится немалое число священников) является нашим личным и не претендует на непогрешимость понимания священнического богослужения литургии. Мы не отрицаем принятого Церковью принципа соборных служений, имеющих свою бесспорную давность. Мы только хотели оттенить в самостоятельном служении возможность для иерея непосредственнее и ближе переживать евхаристическое жертвоприношение, чем в сослужениях.

Подводя итог сказанному о пастырском даре, надо сделать вывод такого рода. Пастырю дается в рукоположении особый дар, мирянам недоступный: благодатного возрождения душ для Царствия Божия. Это возрождение может быть проводимо и путем нравственного воздействия на личность пасомых, путем сострадательной любви к грешным, путем усвоения себе их личностей, но, главным образом, путем евхаристического служения и через него приобщения верных таинственному Телу Церкви. Нравственно воздействовать на ближних может и не священник, сострадать может и мать, и воспитатель, усвоять чужую личность может также и близкий друг, но служение Евхаристии дано только священнику. Божественная литургия есть самое мощное средство пастырского служения. Ни молебны, ни панихиды, ни акафисты не могут заменить собою святейшую службу Евхаристии. Священник должен всегда помнить, что он призван быть строителем тайн Божиих, что служение Литургии и приобщение верных есть самое мощное средство пастырского воздействия, через которое и будет совершаться нравственное и мистическое возрождение человека.

Приготовление к священству

.Вопрос о подготовлении будущего пастыря к его деятельности во все времена истории христианской стоял в центре внимания богословов и учителей аскетов. Этот вопрос должен быть для большей ясности разделен на несколько более специальных проблем. В главном он распадается на два: 1) нужна ли подготовка к высокому священническому служению, или все дело должно быть возложено на благодать Божию, которая все восполняет и все врачует, 2) в чем эта подготовка должна состоять, будь она признана необходимой. В этом последнем случае встанет ряд особых тем: подготовка духовная, интеллектуальная, внешняя и пр.

При общем взгляде на этот вопрос можно встретить два противоположных мнения. Согласно одному, никакая человеческая наука, специализация или искусство не могут, да и не должны ничего делать там, где призывается благодать Св. Духа, которая всесильна, а потому и достаточна. По другому мнению, как раз обратно: подготовка нужна и притом самая тщательная, разработанная, самая широкая. Если, по нашему взгляду, священник должен удовлетворять только необходимым и простейшим требованиям литургического обихода и примитивно понятого благочестия, которое (по мнению востоковеда еп. Порфирия Успенского) ограничивалось бы только кадилом и кропилом, а большего не следует требовать (как думают многие: ради смирения); то, по другому взгляду, подготовка будущего иерея понимается очень широко и ему вменяется в обязанность понимать и сельское хозяйство, и медицину, и разные практические дисциплины (устав наших духовных школ 1839 г.) и умение руководить лагерями молодежи, а теперь и вопросы социальные.