In courses of pastoral theology, the question of pastoral vocation is usually given sufficient attention, but not everyone covers this issue in the same way. It is quite clear that the vocation to some kind of service is an important guarantee for its fruitful fulfillment. Love for the work that a person is going to do determines the attitude to this work. To perform service under compulsion and without any attraction to it predetermines this work in advance to fruitlessness and deadness. At his consecration, the priest is given a special gift, or "a pledge, about which he will give an account on the day of the Last Judgment" (Homily after the consecration when the protégé is given a particle of the Holy Lamb).

The Scriptures of both Testaments have much to say about calling in general. The ministry of prophets or apostles is conditioned precisely by a special calling from above. This ministry is not enraptured arbitrarily, but is given by the Heavenly Chief Shepherd for those who are specially called to it, and not for every casual person. In the calling, one hears the voice of special predestination for a given ministry. The emphasis in this matter, however, must be placed on the person or event which can be recognized as a vocation or which does not meet this requirement. Can everything that appears to be a vocation be recognized as such?

In the Old Testament, the Lord predestines His prophet to the prophetic ministry with these words: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you: I made you a prophet to the nations." But the Lord said to me, "Do not say, 'I am young,' for to all to whom I send you will go, and whatever I command you you will say" (Jer. 1:5-7). God also called Abraham and blessed him and multiplied him (Isaiah 51:2). Paul in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11:8. Out of the multitude of people who followed Him, the Lord calls His 12 disciples and 70. The Holy Spirit commands, "Separate Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Diary 13:2). The same Saul, who became Paul, can boldly speak of his holy calling (2 Tim. 13:9) — "not according to our works, but according to the will of God and grace." He also inscribes his epistle: "Paul, called an apostle" (Rom., 1 Corinthians) or even "chosen not by men, nor through man, but by Jesus Christ" (Galatians).

Of particular interest is the reasoning of Ap. In 1 Timothy 3:1, "It is true that if a man desires a bishopric, he desires a good work." In Russian, it is said both times "wishes"; In Slavonic, in the first case, "wants," and in the second, "wants," which in fact sounds almost the same. In the Latin translation the same verb is "desiderat." The French translation makes a distinction, but does not convey the main idea of the original: "si quelqu'un aspire a être eveque, il desir une charge excellante." The English and German verbs also make no distinction, retaining the verb "desire" and "begehren." If anyone desires the episcopacy" — in Greek it sounds oregete — which literally means "has a taste for the episcopacy," "has an appetite for the episcopacy." Before dinner, wishing bon appétit, the host says kalin orexin. In the second case, the Apostle says: epithimi^, which in Slavonic should be translated: "lusts," since the word epithimia signifies not merely desire, but a strong desire, lust. In its negative meaning, this word translates as lust. With this expression, Ap. Paul does not emphasize a simple desire for episcopacy, i.e., priestly ministry, but a sense of taste for this ministry, whereas in the second case he does not speak of a simple desire, but of a strong aspiration, of lust. Here the candidate is supposed to have a special disposition for his ministry, and not just one desire. It can also be interpreted as a sense of calling. That is exactly how Ep. Theophanes (the Recluse) in his commentaries.

In the science of pastoral care, the question of vocation is posed in different ways. Catholics, with their characteristic tendency to rationally refine, divide and classify everything, teach about the inner vocation (vocatio interna) and the external vocation (vocatio externa). Under the first can be recognized a certain inner aspiration, a disposition of the soul, a voice calling a person to a different life than the ordinary worldly one. In all likelihood, an external vocation is a kind of external impulse in the form of an encounter with a clergyman, which turns a person's entire life upside down, or some illness, shock, loss of loved ones, which suddenly changes the entire line of life (examples of St. Anthony the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and many other examples of the history of pastoral care and asceticism).

The Russian scholarship of Pastoral Theology has assessed this question in different ways. Some, such as Ep. Boris treated him thoughtfully, critically, and did not deny the need for a vocation for priestly service. Others simplified the problem, e.g., Archbishop. Anthony (Amfiteatrov) of Kazan saw a vocation in purely external and even accidental facts, such as: a) descent from a clerical rank; (b) education in all the sciences taught in theological schools, and proper encouragement in ability, success, and conduct; c) the inner disposition and love for the priesthood, and even d) the will of the local bishop. (From Pevnitsky's book "The Priest"). It is impossible not to see a strained and formal approach in all this.

Even more definite is the view of Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky. He simply denies the very possibility of vocation and believes that the voice of God felt in the heart of man is "nothing but the fruit of self-deception. Catholic theologians argue that every candidate for the priesthood should hear it, but we think that this voice can only be felt by the candidate who is ordained by the Church. Self-esteem and well-being should have negligible significance" (Sobr. Soch., Vol. 2, p. 184). Therefore, for our eminent pastoralist, "all discourse on the pastoral vocation must be removed from the ground on which it stood and replaced by discourse on pastoral preparation" (ibid., p. 186). A great deal of space is devoted to this preparation in the courses, and it should be dealt with in great detail, but nevertheless it does not replace the very fact of the inner voice, which is felt by some and completely absent in others. Of course, a certain amount of self-deception is always possible, and inner sobriety is especially necessary for the reasoning of "spirits," but here in Met. Anthony's manifestation is different: his complete rejection of all mystical feeling in the spiritual life of man. Mitre. Anthony has an extremely negative attitude towards everything mystical, and even the very word "mysticism," in spite of its frequent use by such writers as the Areopagitics, Maximus the Confessor, and others, was completely rejected by him. He was an extreme rationalist and nominalist in theology.

On the one hand, there is such a denial of the inner mystical voice, and on the other hand, it is impossible not to recognize the extremely vague "predestination of the Church." Origins from the clerical class, as it was in the former Russia? Or the forced admission to seminary of a boy who has no idea yet about the priesthood or anything at all? Or a sad sign of a scholarship in a theological school, which not all schools give? A similar state of affairs took place in the Serbian Church before the upheavals of 1945. In addition, we must not forget the mass exodus from seminaries and academies of students, who got there on the basis of class and then joined the ranks of other departments. Mitre. Anthony called such former seminarians "Rakitina" (according to Dostoevsky), who were just such renegades of their school because they did not have a vocation for it.

What is the question of vocation reduced to in the conditions of our reality? What can be considered a sign of a calling? Is there any such objective evidence at all for judging a person's vocation to the priesthood? If it is necessary to have courage and belligerence for military service, and a sense of beauty, spiritual refinement, etc., for artistic activity, then what are the attributes of one who considers himself called to the ministry of a pastor, and the absence of which is sufficient to judge the unvocation of such a candidate?

Here is an approximation of what should be considered an absolute sign of uncalling:

* Seeking the priesthood for material gain, on the assumption that the priest will never starve to death.

* Political or national calculations, e.g., the acceptance of the priesthood for the sake of "the salvation of Russia, Holy Russia," for the sake of national propaganda, which is more convincing on behalf of the priest. The Church and the priesthood have more important tasks than these national or political instincts.

 Ambition and desire to dominate, to become a bishop, a leader of a people or a certain class.

 * Aesthetic motifs: the beauty of the divine service, the melodies, the magnificent hierarchical ritual, etc. Such infatuations often pass quickly, the fervor cools down, and this kind of "calling" turns out to be just a fleeting infatuation.