Orthodoxy and intimate relationships - about sexual life in an Orthodox family

Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman was originally intended to fill the earth with people. This was and is the order of God. The intimate relationship between husband and wife is a love that the Lord has blessed. The secret of intercourse occurs only between two partners in solitude. This is a secret action that does not require prying eyes.

Theology of intimate relationships

Orthodoxy welcomes sexual intercourse between a married couple as an act of God's blessing. Intimate relationships in an Orthodox family are a God-blessed act that provides not only for the birth of children, but also for the strengthening of love, intimacy and trust between spouses.

About the family in Orthodoxy:

God created man and woman in His image, He created a wonderful creation - man. The Almighty Creator Himself provided for intimate relationships between a man and a woman. In God's creation everything was perfect, God created man naked, beautiful. So why is humanity so hypocritical about nudity at the present time?

Adam and Eve

The Hermitage exhibits magnificent sculptures that demonstrate the beauty of the human body.

The Creator left to people (Gen. 1:28) His instruction:

be fruitful;
multiply;
fill the earth.

For reference! There was no shame in paradise, this feeling appeared in the first people after committing a sin.

Orthodoxy and intimate relationships

Delving deeper into the New Testament, one can see with what indignation and contempt Jesus treated the hypocrites. Why is sex life relegated to the background and third place in Orthodoxy?

Before the coming of Jesus Christ, there was polygamy on earth, but these were not casual relationships. King David, a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), sinned with someone else's wife, then married her after her husband's death, but God's chosen one also had to suffer punishment. The child born to the beautiful Bathsheba died.

Having many wives, concubines, kings and ordinary people could not even think that another man could touch their woman. Entering into a love affair with a woman, a man was obliged to bind himself with family ties according to the laws of the church. Marriage was then blessed by the priests, sanctified by God. Children born from a legal marriage became heirs.

Important! The Orthodox Church stands for the beauty of real close family ties.

Intimate relationship or sex

There is no concept of sex in the Bible, but Holy Scripture pays a lot of attention to the intimate life of believers. The connection between a man and a woman has been a subject of desire and an open door for temptation since time immemorial.

Sex has always been associated with depravity, which has been known since the beginning of time. For depraved actions, homosexuality and perversion, God burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire, not finding the righteous in them. The concept of sex is associated with oral and anal intercourse, which Orthodoxy refers to perversions according to the Bible.

In order to protect believers from the sin of fornication, God in the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus from the Old Testament outlined the points with whom one can have sexual intercourse.

Imagine, the Great Creator Himself pays great attention to close, sexual relationships, blessing the intimate life in marriage.

Wedding of the spouses

Sex before marriage

Why does the Orthodox Church warn young people to abstain from intimate relationships before marriage and remain celibate?

In the Old Testament, several cases are described when fornicators were stoned for adultery. What is the reason for such cruelty?

The film The Ten Commandments shows a horrific scene of stone-slaughtering sinners. Adulterers were tied by the hands and feet to stakes so that they could not hide, defend themselves, and all the people threw sharp, huge stones at them.

This action had two meanings:

the first - for intimidation and edification;
the second - children born from such a connection carried a curse to the family, deprived it of God's protection.

A family that is not crowned by God cannot be under His protection.

Unrepentant sinners excommunicate themselves from the Sacrament of Confession and Communion, living of their own free will under the attacks of the devil.

How to combine chastity and sex

The Christian family is a small church founded on love. . Purity and chastity - the main canons of Orthodox relations, are most revealed in the sexual relationship of married spouses.

The Church in no way excludes sexual relations between partners, for this is an act created by the Creator Himself to fill the earth with His children. Church laws clearly regulate the life of Orthodox believers, including spiritual, mental and physical life.

To be immersed in God's grace, all Orthodox must grow spiritually:

read the Word of God;
pray;
stay in posts;
attend temple services;
participate in the sacraments of the church.

Even the monks living in sketes are not devoid of emotional experiences, but what about ordinary Christians who are in a sinful world?

Every day every person needs food, communication, love, acceptance and sexual life, as a natural part of human existence. The Orthodox Church, according to the Word of God, blesses the sexual life of a married couple, limiting it for a certain time, this also applies to food, fasting, entertainment and various types of work.

Family Prayers:

Relationship between husband and wife

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 7, the Apostle Paul literally, according to the words, described the behavior of marriage partners during seclusion: refused and directed to sin, and the one who could not resist and fell into fornication.

Attention! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the only reason for marital intimacy is the birth of a child. When touching on an intimate issue, it does not talk about children at all, but only about love, pleasure and close relationships that strengthen the family.

Church opinion

Not all families are blessed with the birth of a child, so why don't they make love anymore? God classified gluttony as a sin, and promiscuous sex, excessive sexual activity is not approved by the church.

Everything should happen in love, by mutual agreement, in purity and respect.
A wife cannot manipulate her husband by refusing intimate caresses, because her body belongs to him.
The husband is obliged to win over his wife, like Jesus the Church, take care of her, respect and love.
It is not permissible to make love during prayer and fasting; it is not for nothing that they say that during fasting the bed is empty. If Christians find the strength in themselves to accomplish the feat of fasting, then God strengthens close marital relationships in limiting the time.
The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that touching, and therefore having sex with, a woman during her menstrual period is a sin.

Children born from the pure, chaste love of two married partners are initially covered by God's grace and love.

The Orthodox Church considers the intimate relationship of the Christian family as the crown of love, which is multifaceted in God's presentation.

Archpriest Vladimir Golovin: about intimate relations between husband and wife

Dear readers, on this page of our site you can ask any question related to the life of the Zakamsky deanery and Orthodoxy. Your questions are answered by the clergy of the Holy Ascension Cathedral in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny. We draw your attention to the fact that it is better, of course, to resolve issues of a personal spiritual nature in live communication with a priest or with your confessor.

As soon as the answer is prepared, your question and answer will be published on the site. Questions may take up to seven days to process. Please remember the date of submission of your letter for the convenience of subsequent retrieval. If your question is urgent, mark it as "URGENT", we will try to answer it as quickly as possible.

Date: 06/22/2015 10:54:44 AM

What is the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards Freemasonry?

answers Zheleznyak Sergey Evgenievich, religious scholar, assistant dean for missionary work

Good day! How does the Orthodox Church treat Freemasonry, taking into account that upon entering the Masonic society, and in the future, each Freemason continues to profess the religious views with which he came to the lodge, and his great attention to his religion is welcomed? Thank you in advance for your response!

Hello!

There is no single conciliar definition regarding Freemasonry in Orthodoxy, but there are statements definitely against Freemasonry both in our Russian Orthodox Church and in others, for example, in Greece.

Before I give these statements, I would like to point out how Freemasonry positions itself in relation to religion and, in particular, to Christianity. The connection with religion in Freemasonry is indicated by all (or almost all) Masonic ritual and Masonic tradition. And here we can note a more noticeable connection with Judaism and Kabbalism than with Christianity. Initially, Freemasonry was a religious and political association. But in the last century and a half, this movement has more and more severed its ties with traditional religion (and sometimes with religion in general).

Freemasonry is not a completely rigid, monolithic structure. Masonic lodges scattered across different countries of Europe and America often hold quite different views on religion, while at the same time general Masonic views and positions remain the same.

You are partly right that Freemasonry does not prohibit the professing of religious views. But in such a position there is a fair amount of outright slyness. The declared religious tolerance in modern Freemasonry is more of a PR and a way to lull vigilance. Scientologists also preach religious tolerance, but when a person begins to profess their views, the adherent's attitude to religion changes noticeably. Likewise in Freemasonry.

Well, now Masonic judgments about religion.

“If in the old days masons were obliged to adhere in every country to the religion of this land or this people, then it is now recognized as more appropriate to oblige them to have the only religion in which all people agree - leaving them, however, to have their own special (religious) opinions - that is, to be good, conscientious people, full of sincerity and honest rules ”(Book of Charters, James Anderson (XVII-XVIII centuries) James Adams is the founder of symbolic Freemasonry, interestingly, he is a priest of the Scottish Presbyterian Church.

I.V. Lopukhin (XVIII-XIX centuries), the author of the “Instructive Catechism of True Freemasons”, writes: “What is the Purpose of the Order of True Freemasons?— Its main Purpose is the same as the Purpose of True Christianity. What should be the main Exercise (work) of true Freemasons? “Following Jesus Christ.”

Russian Freemasons for quite a long time remained connected with Christianity (at least nominally), were baptized, sincerely believed in God, did not break with Orthodoxy. In Russia in the 17th and early 18th centuries, there were virtually no attacks and demarches against Orthodoxy and religion in general, which cannot be said about Western Europe. In the West, Freemasonry begins to rebel against religion quite early. For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church takes, in particular, the following steps to protect its flock. In 1738, Pope Clement XII announced the excommunication of Roman Catholics from the Church if they entered the Masonic lodge. In the 20th century, this excommunication was officially repeated.

Here are the statements of Western Freemasons of far from the lowest degree (degree of initiation):

In 1863, at a congress of students in Liege, the Freemason Lafargue defined the goal of Freemasonry "as the triumph of man over God": "War to God, hatred of God! All progress in this! It is necessary to pierce the sky like a paper vault!”

The Belgian Freemason Kok declared at the International Masonic Congress in Paris "that we need to destroy religion", and further - "through propaganda and even through administrative acts we will achieve that we can crush religion."

The Spanish revolutionary Freemason Ferrero, in his catechism for elementary schools, writes: "God is but a childish concept inspired by fear."

“Down with the Crucified: You, who for 18 centuries have kept the world hunched under Your yoke, Your kingdom is over. You don't need God!" says Freemason Fleury.

Some might say that this is only the private judgment of individual Freemasons. But here are the definitions no longer of individuals, but of entire Masonic lodges:

“Let us not forget that we are anti-church, we will make every effort in our lodges to destroy religious influence in all forms in which it manifests” (Congress at Belfort in 1911)

"People's education must first of all be freed from every spirit of churchmen and dogmatists." (Great Orient Convention, 1909)

“Let us vigorously support freedom of conscience in everyone, but we will not hesitate to declare war on all religions, for they are the true enemies of mankind. Throughout the ages, they have contributed only to discord between individuals and nations. Let us work, let us weave with our quick and dexterous fingers a shroud that will one day cover all religions; in this way we shall achieve throughout the world the destruction of the clergy and the prejudices inspired by them” (Convention of the Grand Lodge of France, 1922)

"We can no longer recognize God as the goal of life, we have created an ideal, which is not God, but humanity." (Great East Convention, 1913)

"We need to develop a morality that can compete with religious morality." (Convention of the Great Orient, 1913, Ray of Light magazine, v. 6, p. 48).

In the end, there are also purely satanic self-confessions: “We are Freemasons,” says the alto master Brocklin of the Lessing lodge, “we belong to the genus of Lucifer.” The journal of the Great Orient of Italy contains a hymn to Satan, which reveals the true essence of the order of Freemasons (brothers of freemasons): “I appeal to you, Satan, the king of feasts! Down with the priest, down with your holy water and your prayers! And you, Satan, do not step back! In matter that never rests, you, the living sun, the king of natural phenomena ... Satan, you defeated God, the priests!

Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev says the following about Freemasonry: “Masonry, first of all, has an anti-church and anti-Christian character (...). Now anti-Christian humanism predominates in Masonic ideology.”

In conclusion, I bring to your attention the judgments of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church.

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky): “Under the banner of the Masonic star, all dark forces are working, destroying national Christian states. The Masonic hand took part in the destruction of Russia.

In 1932, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia anathematized Freemasonry.

The Council of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church in 1933 gave the following definition of its attitude towards Freemasonry: “Unanimously and unanimously, we, all the bishops of the Greek Church, declare that Freemasonry is completely incompatible with Christianity, and therefore the faithful children of the Church should avoid Freemasonry. For we unshakably believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace, which He has given us in abundance in all wisdom and understanding” (Ephesians 1:7-8), we possess Him open and the apostles preached the truth “not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and Power” (1 Corinthians 2:4), and we partake of the Divine sacraments, by which we are sanctified and saved for eternal life, and therefore we should not fall away from the grace of Christ by becoming partakers of alien sacraments. It is not at all befitting for any of those who belong to Christ to seek outside of His deliverance and moral perfection. Therefore, true and authentic Christianity is incompatible with Freemasonry.

Our real Patriarch Kirill, while still a metropolitan, also spoke negatively about Freemasonry as a secret organization that preaches exclusive subordination to its leaders, a conscious refusal to disclose the essence of the organization’s activities to the Church Hierarchy and even at confession. "The Church cannot approve the participation in such societies of Orthodox laity, and even more so of clergy."

I believe that this answer, in our limited framework, is sufficient. Trust in the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, do not look for any new "revelation" - everything necessary for our salvation, as well as for the peaceful good living of all people on earth, was already given and revealed 2 thousand years ago. Do not be offended: “then many will be offended, and they will betray one another, and hate one another; and many false prophets will rise up and deceive many; and because of the increase of iniquity, the love of many will grow cold; but he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mat. 24:10-13).

October 22, 2013 at the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, in continuation of the special course "History of Christian Thought", a lecture on traditional religions and their relationship with Orthodoxy, head, chairman, rector, professor and head of the department of theology of MEPhI.

Today I would like to say a few words about the relationship between the Orthodox and representatives of world religions, of which three are represented in our country as traditional; we call these religions traditional because they have historically existed with us for centuries. These are Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. I will not talk in detail about each of these religions, but I will try to highlight in general terms their differences from Orthodox Christianity and talk about how we build relationships with them today.

Orthodoxy and Judaism

First of all, I would like to say a few words about Judaism. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people: it is impossible to belong to it without being of Jewish origin. Judaism thinks of itself not as a world, but as a national religion. Currently, it is practiced by about 17 million people who live both in Israel and in many other countries of the world.

Historically, it was Judaism that was the base on which Christianity began to develop. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and all His activities took place within the then Jewish state, which, however, did not have political independence, but was under the rule of the Romans. Jesus spoke Aramaic, that is, one of the dialects of the Hebrew language, performed the customs of the Jewish religion. For some time, Christianity remained somewhat dependent on Judaism. In science, there is even a term “Judeo-Christianity”, which refers to the first decades of the development of the Christian faith, when it was still associated with the Jerusalem temple (we know from the Acts of the Apostles that the apostles attended services in the temple) and the influence of Jewish theology and Jewish ritual on the Christian community.

The turning point for the history of Judaism was the 70th year, when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. From that moment begins the history of the dispersion of the Jewish people, which continues to this day. After the capture of Jerusalem, Israel ceased to exist not only as a state, but even as a national community tied to a certain territory.

In addition, Judaism, represented by its religious leaders, reacted very negatively to the emergence and spread of Christianity. We find the origins of this conflict already in the controversy of Jesus Christ with the Jews and their religious leaders - the Pharisees, whom He severely criticized and who treated Him with an extreme degree of hostility. It was the religious leaders of the people of Israel who secured the condemnation of the Savior to death on the cross.

The relationship between Christianity and Judaism for many centuries developed in the spirit of controversy and complete mutual rejection. In rabbinic Judaism, the attitude towards Christianity was purely negative.

Meanwhile, among Jews and Christians, a significant part of the Holy Scriptures is common. All that we call the Old Testament, with the exception of some of the later books, is also Holy Scripture for the Jewish tradition. In this sense, Christians and Jews retain a certain unified doctrinal basis, on the basis of which theology was built in both religious traditions. But the development of Jewish theology was associated with the appearance of new books - these are the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, the Mishnah, the Halakha. All these books, more precisely, collections of books, were interpretive in nature. They are based on the Holy Scripture, which is common to Christians and Jews, but they interpreted it differently from those interpretations that have developed in the Christian environment. If for Christians the Old Testament is an important, but not the primary part of the Holy Scripture, which is the New Testament, which speaks of Christ as God and man, then the Jewish tradition of Christ as the God-man rejected, and the Old Testament remains the main holy book.

The attitude towards the New Testament and towards the Christian Church in general among the Jews was sharply negative. In the Christian environment, the attitude towards the Jews was also negative. If we turn to the writings of the 4th century Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom, we can find very harsh statements about the Jews: by today's standards, these statements could be qualified as anti-Semitic. But it is important to remember that they were dictated, of course, not by some kind of interethnic hatred, but by the controversy that has been going on for centuries between representatives of the two religions. The essence of the disagreement lay in the attitude towards Jesus Christ, because if Christians recognize Him as the Incarnate God and the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One about whom the prophets foretold and Whom the Israeli people expected, then the Israeli people themselves, for the most part, did not accept Christ as the Messiah and continue to expect the coming of another messiah. Moreover, this messiah is conceived not so much as a spiritual leader as a political leader who will be able to restore the might of the Israeli people, the territorial integrity of the Israeli state.

It was this attitude that was already characteristic of the Jews of the 1st century, so many of them sincerely did not accept Christ - they were sure that the messiah would be a man who, first of all, would come and liberate the people of Israel from the power of the Romans.

The Talmud contains many insulting and even blasphemous statements about Jesus Christ, about the Most Holy Theotokos. In addition, Judaism is an iconoclastic religion - there are no sacred images in it: neither God nor people. This, of course, is connected with the tradition dating back to the Old Testament times, which generally forbade any images of the Deity, saints. Therefore, if you enter a Christian temple, you will see a lot of images, but if you visit a synagogue, you will see nothing but ornaments and symbols. This is due to a special theological approach to spiritual realities. If Christianity is the religion of God Incarnate, then Judaism is the religion of the Invisible God, Who revealed Himself in the history of the Israeli people in a mysterious way and was perceived as the God of the Israeli people first of all, and only in the second place - as the Creator of the whole world and the Creator of all people.

Reading the books of the Old Testament, we will see that the people of Israel perceived God as their own God, in contrast to the gods of other peoples: if they worshiped pagan deities, then the people of Israel worshiped the True God and considered this their rightful privilege. Ancient Israel did not have at all, just as there is still no in the Jewish religion, any missionary calling to preach among other peoples, because Judaism is thought, I repeat, as the religion of one - Israeli - people.

In Christianity, the doctrine of God's chosen people of Israel was refracted in different epochs in different ways. Even the apostle Paul said that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26). He believed that all the people of Israel would sooner or later come to believe in Christ. On the other hand, already in the theology of the Church Fathers of the 4th century, which, as we remember, was the time of the formation of so many historiosophical concepts within Christian theology, there was an understanding according to which the God-chosen people of Israel ended after they rejected Christ, and moved on to " new Israel, the Church.

In modern theology, this approach has been called "substitutionary theology." We are talking about the fact that the new Israel, as it were, replaced the ancient Israel in the sense that everything said in the Old Testament in relation to the Israeli people already applies to the new Israel, that is, the Christian Church as a multinational God-chosen people, as a new reality, the prototype of which was the old one. Israel.

In the second half of the 20th century, another understanding developed in Western theology, which was associated with the development of interaction between Christians and Jews, with the development of the Christian-Jewish dialogue. This new understanding practically did not affect the Orthodox Church, but found a fairly wide recognition in the Catholic and Protestant environment. According to him, the people of Israel continue to be God's chosen people, because if God chooses someone, then He does not change His attitude towards a person, towards several people, or towards a particular people. Consequently, God's chosenness remains a kind of seal that the people of Israel continue to bear on themselves. The realization of this God's chosenness, from the point of view of Christian theologians adhering to this point of view, lies precisely in the fact that the representatives of the Israeli people turn to faith in Christ, become Christians. It is known that among people who are Jews by ethnic origin, there are many who believed in Christ - they belong to different faiths and live in different countries. In Israel itself, there is a movement "Jews for Christ", which was born in a Protestant environment and is aimed at converting Jews to Christianity.

The hostile attitude of Jews towards Christians and Christians towards Jews has existed for centuries in different countries and has also reached the everyday level. It took a variety of, sometimes monstrous forms, right up to the Holocaust in the 20th century, right up to the Jewish pogroms.

Here it must be said that in the past, until quite recently, in fact, until the 20th century, as we see from history, contradictions in the religious sphere very often resulted in wars, civil confrontation, and murders. But the tragic fate of the Israeli people, including in the 20th century, when it underwent mass repressions, extermination, first of all, from the Nazi regime, a regime that we cannot in any way consider connected with Christianity, because in its ideology it was anti-Christian, - prompted the world community at the political level to rethink the relationship with Judaism, including in a religious context, and to establish a dialogue with the Jewish religion. Dialogue now exists at the official level, for example, there is a theological commission for dialogue between Christianity and Islam (just a few weeks ago, another session of such a dialogue was held with the participation of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church).

In addition to this official dialogue, which, of course, is not aimed at rapprochement of positions, because they are still very different, there are other ways and forms of interaction between Christians and Jews. In particular, on the territory of Russia, Christians and Jews lived in peace and harmony for centuries, despite all the contradictions and conflicts that arose at the everyday level. At present, the interaction between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Jewish community of the Russian Federation is quite close. This interaction concerns, first of all, social, as well as moral issues. Here between Christians and Jews, as well as representatives of other traditional faiths, there is a very high degree of agreement.

Well, and the most important thing that, probably, should be said: despite the quite obvious differences in the field of dogma, despite the cardinal difference in the approach to the personality of Jesus Christ, between Jews and Christians, what is the basis of all monotheistic religions remains: the belief in that God is one, that God is the Creator of the world, that He participates in the history of the world and the life of every person.

In this regard, we are talking about a certain doctrinal similarity of all monotheistic religions, of which three are called Abrahamic, because they all go back genetically to Abraham as the father of the Israelite people. There are three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (I list them in order of appearance). And for Christianity, Abraham is a righteous man, and for Christianity, the history of the Israelite people is a sacred history.

If you get acquainted with the texts that are heard at Orthodox services, you will see that they are all filled with stories from the history of the Israeli people and their symbolic interpretations. Of course, in the Christian tradition, these stories and stories are refracted through the experience of the Christian Church. Most of them are perceived as prototypes of the realities associated with the coming of Jesus Christ into the world, while for the Israeli people they are of independent value. For example, if in the Jewish tradition Easter is celebrated as a holiday associated with the memory of the passage of the Israeli people through the Red Sea and deliverance from Egyptian slavery, then for Christians this story is a prototype of the liberation of man from sin, the victory of Christ over death, and Easter is already thought of as feast of the Resurrection of Christ. There is a certain genetic connection between the two Easters - Jewish and Christian - but the semantic content of these two holidays is completely different.

The common basis that exists between the two religions helps them to interact, conduct a dialogue and work together for the benefit of people even today.

Orthodoxy and Islam

The relationship between Christianity and Islam in history has been no less complex and no less tragic than the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

Islam appeared at the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, its ancestor is Muhammad (Mohammed), who in the Muslim tradition is perceived as a prophet. The book that plays the role of Holy Scripture in the Muslim tradition is called the Quran, and Muslims believe that it is dictated by God himself, that every word of it is true, and that the Quran pre-existed with God before it was written down. Muslims consider Mohammed's role to be prophetic in the sense that the words he brought to earth are divine revelation.

Christianity and Islam have a lot in common in terms of doctrine. Just like Judaism, like Christianity, Islam is a monotheistic religion, that is, Muslims believe in the One God, whom they call the Arabic word "Allah" (God, the Most High). They believe that, in addition to God, there are angels, that after the death of people, an afterlife reward awaits. They believe in the immortality of the human soul, in the Last Judgment. There are quite a few other Muslim dogmas that are largely similar to Christian ones. Moreover, both Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are mentioned in the Qur'an, and they are mentioned repeatedly and quite respectfully. Christians are called in the Qur'an "People of the Book" and followers of Islam are encouraged to treat them with respect.

The Islamic ritual rests on several pillars. First of all, this is the statement that "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." It is obligatory for all Muslims to pray five times a day. In addition, just like Christians, Muslims have a fast, but Christians and Muslims fast in different ways: Christians abstain from certain types of food on certain days, while for Muslims, fasting is a certain time period called Ramadan, when they do not eat food or even drink water from sunrise to sunset. For Muslims, almsgiving is obligatory - zakat, that is, an annual tax that each of the Muslims with a certain income must pay in favor of his poorer brothers. Finally, it is believed that a faithful Muslim, in the presence of physical and material capabilities, at least once in his life must make a pilgrimage to Mecca, which is called the Hajj.

In Islam and Christianity, as I said, there are many similar elements, but it should be noted that just as Christianity today is divided into different confessions, Islam is a heterogeneous phenomenon. There is Sunni Islam, to which, according to various estimates, from 80 to 90 percent of all Muslims in the world belong. There is Shiite Islam, which is quite widespread, but mainly in the countries of the Middle East. There are a number of Islamic sects, such as the Alawites, who live in Syria. In addition, in recent times, the radical wing of the Islamic world, Salafism (or, as it is often called now, Wahhabism), has been playing an increasingly important role, including in world politics, which the leaders of official Islam deny as a perversion of Islam, because Wahhabism calls for hatred, aims to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate, where either there will be no place at all for representatives of other religions, or they will become second-class people who will have to pay tribute only for the fact that they are not Muslims.

Speaking about the differences between Christianity and Islam in general, we must understand one very important thing. Christianity is a religion of free choice of this or that person, and this choice is made regardless of where the person was born, what nation he belongs to, what language he speaks, what color of skin he has, who his parents were, and so on. In Christianity there is not and cannot be any coercion to faith. And besides, Christianity is precisely a religious system, not a political one. Christianity has not developed any specific forms of state existence, does not recommend one or another preferred state system, does not have its own system of secular law, although, of course, Christian moral values had a very significant impact on the formation of legal norms in European states and in a number of other states. continents (North and South America, Australia).

Islam, on the contrary, is not only a religious, but also a political and legal system. Mohammed was not only a religious, but also a political leader, the creator of the world's first Islamic state, a legislator and a military leader. In this sense, religious elements in Islam are very closely intertwined with legal and political elements. It is no coincidence, for example, that religious leaders are in power in a number of Islamic states, and, unlike Christian ones, they are not perceived as clergymen. Only at the everyday level is it customary to talk about “Muslim clergy” - in fact, the spiritual leaders of Islam are, in our understanding, laymen: they do not perform any sacred rites or sacraments, but only lead prayer meetings and have the right to teach the people.

Very often in Islam, spiritual power is combined with secular power. We see this in a number of states, such as Iran, where spiritual leaders are in power.

Turning to the topic of dialogue between Islam and Christianity, the relationship between them, it must be said that with all the bitter experience of the coexistence of these religions in different conditions, including the history of the suffering of Christians under the Islamic yoke, there is also a positive experience of living together. Here again we must turn to the example of our country, where for centuries Christians and Muslims have lived and continue to live together. In the history of Russia there were no interreligious wars. We had interethnic conflicts — this explosive potential still persists, which we observe even in Moscow, when in one of the microdistricts of the city one group of people suddenly rebels against another group — against people of a different ethnic origin. However, these conflicts are not of a religious nature and are not religiously motivated. Such incidents can be characterized as manifestations of hatred at the household level, with signs of interethnic conflicts. On the whole, the experience of coexistence of Christians and Muslims in our state for centuries can be characterized as positive.

Today in our Fatherland there are such bodies of interaction between Christians, Muslims and Jews as the Interreligious Council of Russia, chaired by the Patriarch. This council includes leaders of Russian Islam and Judaism. It meets regularly to discuss various socially significant issues related to people's daily lives. Within this council, a very high degree of interaction has been achieved, in addition, religious leaders jointly carry out contacts with the state.

There is also a Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation, which meets quite regularly and in the face of state power represents the common agreed position of the main traditional confessions on many issues.

The Russian experience of interaction between Christians and Muslims shows that coexistence is quite possible. We share our experience with our foreign partners.

Today it is especially in demand precisely because in the countries of the Middle East, in North Africa, in some Asian states, the Wahhabi movement is growing, which is aimed at the complete eradication of Christianity and whose victims today are Christians in many parts of the world. We know what is happening now in Egypt, where until recently the radical Islamic party "Muslim Brotherhood" was in power, which smashed Christian churches, set them on fire, killed Christian clergy, because of which we are now witnessing a mass exodus of Coptic Christians from Egypt . We know what is happening in Iraq, where ten years ago there were one and a half million Christians, and now there are about 150 thousand of them left. We know what is happening in those areas of Syria where the Wahhabis are in power. There is an almost complete extermination of Christians, mass desecration of Christian shrines.

The tension that is growing in the Middle East and a number of other regions requires political decisions and the efforts of religious leaders. It is no longer enough to simply state that Islam is a peaceful religion, that terrorism has no nationality or confessional affiliation, because we are increasingly seeing the rise of radical Islamism. And therefore, in our dialogue with Islamic leaders, we are increasingly telling them about the need to influence their flock in order to prevent cases of hostility and hatred, to exclude the policy of eradicating Christianity, which is being implemented in the Middle East today.

Orthodoxy and Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion that is also represented in our Fatherland. Buddhism is practiced by a considerable number of people, while this religion, in terms of its doctrinal foundations, is much further from Christianity than Judaism or Islam. Some scholars do not even agree to call Buddhism a religion, since there is no idea of God in it. The Dalai Lama calls himself an atheist because he does not recognize the existence of God as a Supreme Being.

However, Buddhism and Christianity have some similarities. For example, in Buddhism there are monasteries, in Buddhist temples and monasteries people pray, kneel down. However, the quality of the Buddhist and Christian experience of prayer is quite different.

As a student, I happened to visit Tibet and communicate with Tibetan monks. We talked, among other things, about prayer, and it was not clear to me who Buddhists turn to when they pray.

When we Christians pray, we always have a specific addressee. For us, prayer is not just some kind of reflection, some words that we utter, but a conversation with God, the Lord Jesus Christ, or with the Mother of God, with one of the saints. Moreover, our religious experience confirms convincingly for us that this conversation is not conducted only in one direction: by turning questions to God, we receive answers; when we make requests, they are often fulfilled; if we are perplexed and pour it out in prayer to God, then very often we receive admonition from God. It can come in different forms, for example, in the form of insight that occurs in a person when he is looking for something and does not find it, rushes about, turns to God, and suddenly the answer to a question becomes clear to him. The answer from God can also occur in the form of some life circumstances, lessons.

Thus, the entire experience of a Christian's prayer is an experience of interaction and dialogue with a living Being, Whom we call God. For us, God is a Person who is able to hear us, answer our questions and prayers. In Buddhism, however, such a Personality does not exist, therefore Buddhist prayer is rather a meditation, reflection, when a person plunges into himself. All the potential for good that exists in Buddhism, its adherents are trying to extract from themselves, that is, from the very nature of man.

We, as people who believe in the One God, have no doubt that God acts in a very different environment, including outside the Church, that He can influence people who do not belong to Christianity. Recently, I talked with our well-known Buddhist Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: he came to a television program that I host on the Russia-24 channel, and we talked about Christianity and Buddhism. Among other things, he talked about how he visited Athos, stood for six or eight hours in the temple for worship and experienced very special sensations: he called them "grace." This man is a Buddhist, and according to the laws of his religion, he should not believe in God either, but meanwhile, in a conversation with me, he used such words as “God”, “Most High”. We understand that the desire to communicate with the Supreme Being exists in Buddhism too, only it is expressed differently than in Christianity.

There are many teachings in Buddhism that are unacceptable to Christianity. For example, the doctrine of reincarnation. According to Christian doctrine (and both Jews and Muslims agree with this), a person comes to this world only once in order to live a human life here and then move on to eternal life. Moreover, during his stay on earth, the soul unites with the body, the soul and body become a single inseparable being. In Buddhism, there is a completely different idea of the course of history, of the place of man in it, and of the relationship between soul and body. Buddhists believe that the soul can wander from one body to another, moreover, that it can move from a human body to an animal body, and vice versa: from an animal body to a human body.

In Buddhism, there is a whole doctrine that a person's actions committed in this life affect his future destiny. We Christians also say that our actions in earthly life affect our fate in eternity, but we do not believe that a person's soul can pass into some other body. Buddhists believe that if a person in this earthly life was a glutton, then in the next life he can turn into a pig. The Dalai Lama, in his book, spoke of a dog who, no matter how much he ate, always found room for another bite. “I think in a past life she was one of the Tibetan monks who starved to death,” writes the Dalai Lama.

In this regard, Buddhism is very far from Christianity. But Buddhism is a good religion. It helps to cultivate the will for good, helps to release the potential for good - it is no coincidence that many Buddhists are calm and cheerful. When I visited Buddhist monasteries in Tibet, I was very struck by the constant calmness and cordiality of the monks. They always smile, and this smile is not worked out, but quite natural, it stems from some kind of their inner experience.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that throughout the history of our country, Christians and Buddhists have been peacefully coexisting in different regions for centuries and there is no potential for conflicts between them.

Answers to questions from the audience

- You spoke about the unique experience of the Russian Empire, in which good relations have developed between Muslims and Christians - the main population of Russia. However, the peculiarity of this experience is that there are much more Christians in the country than Muslims. Is there any long and effective experience of good cooperation and good neighborliness in countries where the majority of the population is Muslim?

“Unfortunately, there are far fewer such examples. There is, for example, Lebanon, where until relatively recently there were probably more Christians than Muslims, then they became approximately equal, but now Christians are already in the minority. This state is built in such a way that all government posts are distributed among representatives of different religious communities. Thus, the president of the country is a Maronite Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, and so on. This strict constitutional representation of religious communities in government bodies helps to maintain the peaceful coexistence of different religions in the country.

– Are we in Eucharistic communion with Ethiopian Christians, with Egyptian Copts?

- The word "Coptic" means "Egyptian" and therefore indicates ethnicity, not religious affiliation.

Both the Coptic Church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Church in Ethiopia, as well as some others, belong to the family of the so-called pre-Chalcedonian Churches. They are also called Eastern or Oriental Churches. They separated from the Orthodox Church in the 5th century due to disagreement with the decisions of the IV Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), which adopted the doctrine that Jesus Christ has two natures - Divine and human. These Churches did not accept not so much the doctrine itself as the terminology with which this doctrine was expressed.

The Eastern Churches are now often referred to as Monophysite (from the Greek words μόνος - "one" and φύσις - "nature, nature"), after the heresy that taught that Jesus Christ was God, but was not a complete man. In fact, these Churches believe that Christ was both God and man, but they believe that the Divine and human natures in Him are united into one divine-human composite nature.

Today there is a theological dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches, but there is no communion in the Sacraments between us.

— Could you tell us about the Jewish holidays? Do adherents of Judaism have any sacred rites, and is it acceptable for a Christian to participate in their rites?

— We forbid our believers from participating in the rites and prayers of other religions, because we believe that each religion has its own boundaries and Christians should not cross these boundaries.

An Orthodox Christian may attend a service in a Catholic or Protestant church, but he must not receive communion from non-Orthodox. We can marry a couple if one of the future spouses is Orthodox and the other is Catholic or Protestant, but we cannot marry a Christian with a Muslim woman or a Muslim with a Christian woman. We do not allow our believers to go to prayers in a mosque or synagogue.

Worship in the Jewish tradition is not worship in our sense, because in the Jewish tradition worship itself was associated with the Temple in Jerusalem. When it ceased to exist - now, as you know, only one wall remained from the temple, which is called the Wailing Wall, and Jews from all over the world come to Jerusalem to worship it - a full-fledged worship service became impossible.

A synagogue is a meeting house, and synagogues were not originally perceived as places of worship. They appeared in the period after the Babylonian captivity for those people who could not make at least an annual pilgrimage to the temple, and were perceived rather as public gathering places where sacred books were read. So, the Gospel tells how Christ entered the synagogue on Saturday, opened the book (that is, unfolded the scroll) and began to read, and then to interpret what He had read (see Luke 4:19).

In modern Judaism, the entire liturgical tradition is associated with the Sabbath as the main holy day, the day of rest. It does not involve any sacraments or sacraments, but provides for a common prayer and reading of the Holy Scriptures.

In Judaism, there are also some rites, and the main one is circumcision, a rite preserved from the Old Testament religion. Of course, a Christian cannot participate in this ceremony. Although the first generation of Christians - the apostles - were circumcised people, already in the middle of the 1st century the Christian Church adopted the doctrine that circumcision is not part of the Christian tradition, that a person becomes a Christian not through circumcision, but through baptism.

- From the point of view of modernity, the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian looks rather ridiculous, because not a single aspect of the evolution of mankind is mentioned there. It turns out that he saw the revelation about the end of the world, but did not see, say, skyscrapers, modern weapons, machine guns. Such statements look especially strange from the point of view of physics, for example, that one third of the sun will close during some kind of punishment. I think that if one third of the sun is closed, then the earth will not have long to live.

- First of all, I note that a person who writes this or that book does it in a certain era, using the concepts accepted at that time and the knowledge that he possesses. We call sacred books divinely revealed, but we do not say that they were written by God. Unlike Muslims who believe that the Quran is a book written by God and dropped from the sky, we say that all the holy books of the Old and New Testaments were written by people here on earth. They wrote about their experience in books, but it was a religious experience, and when they wrote, they were affected by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle John the Theologian describes what he saw in supernatural visions. Of course, he could not see, let alone describe skyscrapers or automata, because such objects did not exist then, which means that there were no words to designate them. The words familiar to us - automatic, skyscraper, car and others - then simply did not exist. Therefore, it is natural that there could not be such images in the book of Revelation.

In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that very often in such books, in particular, in the books of the prophets, various symbols were used. And the symbol always has a diverse interpretation, and in each specific era of human development it can be revealed in a new way. The history of mankind shows how biblical Old Testament and New Testament prophecies came true. You just need to understand that they are written in symbolic language.

And I would also like to advise: if you decide to take up reading the New Testament, then start it not from the end, but from the beginning, that is, not from the Apocalypse, but from the Gospel. Read first one Gospel, then the second, the third, the fourth. Then there are the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles. When you read all this, the Apocalypse will become more understandable to you and, perhaps, will seem less ridiculous.

– I often come across the opinion that if a Jew becomes Orthodox, then he stands above a simple Orthodox person, that he rises to a higher level ...

—For the first time I hear about such judgments and I will tell you right away: there is no such teaching in the Church, and the Church does not approve of such an understanding. The Apostle Paul also said that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free(see Gal. 3:27) - therefore, nationality in moral and spiritual terms does not matter. What matters is how a person believes and how he lives.

Some time ago, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad held the first ever Internet conference for Protestants. It was held on the site Luther.ru, which was then headed by the editor of our portal. Today, after the election of Metropolitan Kirill as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, it seems useful to know his opinion on the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Protestant community.

I know that from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, Lutheran churches are graceless. And how does the ROC think: can a Lutheran be saved without converting to Orthodoxy?
Answer: Orthodoxy is not only the participation of the Church through participation in the Sacraments, the truth of which is confirmed by the continuity of the chain of ordinations from the time of the apostles, but no less - the integrity of faith, way of thinking and life. And if a person lives in harmony with his conscience, follows the path of repentance, strives with all his heart to realize the truth of the Gospel, then for such a person the door of salvation cannot be closed. Both Holy Scripture (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:24) and the faith of ancient Christians testify that the Lord was pleased to do the work of saving people in the Body of Christ, in His Church, which is an unshakable "pillar and the establishment of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). But how can a person be saved outside the Church, and whether he can be saved - this is the great mystery of God, incomprehensible to man.
In addition to salvation, humanity is also busy with such things as science, culture, industry, agriculture, and so on, that is, humanity performs certain work in the material world. How does the Orthodox Church treat this activity from the point of view of activity for the Lord, can it be regarded as a way of serving God for a layman, or a layman should only save himself and save others, and activity is needed only in minimal quantities so as not to die of hunger?
Answer: Let's define what it means to be saved. Does the word imply some kind of action that is superficially different from other human activities? In my opinion, the following idea is very clearly expressed in Holy Scripture: the accomplishment of the salvation of one's soul is a way of life, that is, a way of arranging human existence with all its needs on the basis of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians emphasizes that it is not a change in a person’s occupation that is pleasing to God, but a change in his attitude towards his occupation and towards the people with whom a person communicates.
All those areas that you have listed are of vital importance for a person. And their existence is justified not only by concern for daily bread, but also by the need to develop creative abilities given to man by God. But how can one develop God-given talents without God? Indeed, morning and evening prayers, church attendance, participation in the Sacraments are important parts of the life of a believer. But why can't another part of a person's life be a stand before the Lord? After all, the apostle Paul called on believers to pray "with every prayer and petition" at all times (Eph. 6:8). This means that we can turn to God for admonishment on how to act at work, in family life, and so on. When, for example, a believing physician receives a patient, beginning with an inner prayer for this person, then, I believe, he turns his profession into the work of his salvation.
The attitude of the Orthodox Church towards the work of Metropolitan Anthony of Surozh "On the Calling of Man". How is the correct attitude of humanity to God's Creation understood by the Orthodox Church, does humanity have any tasks in relation to Creation, set before it by God?
Answer: Using earthly riches, we often forget that they are God's. God is the true Owner of heaven and earth. Based on the words of the book of Genesis, St. John Chrysostom calls a person only a steward to whom the wealth of the earthly world is entrusted. The Lord gave the commandment to the first people to cultivate and keep the world (Genesis 2:15). Therefore, man is responsible for it and will have to give an account to God about the treatment of the world He created.
Tell me, please, is the Russian Orthodox Church really so unmanageable internally that in Moscow there is one attitude towards traditional Protestants (Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans), while in local dioceses, right up to the Crusades, there is a struggle against Protestants?
Answer: Do you think that in the Russian Orthodox Church everyone should obey army discipline, and conflicts arise exclusively on command? The question you raise is a complex one. Each conflict requires careful consideration to establish its true cause. You, apparently, want to say that the Orthodox in the capital show greater religious tolerance. Maybe you are right. But this is not a question of "controllability", but a question, firstly, of spiritual enlightenment, since over the course of 70 years of domination by an atheistic regime, people have forgotten how to distinguish Christians from sectarians. And, secondly, active proselytism on the part of some Protestant groups prevents peaceful coexistence and cooperation, which causes a strong protest on the part of the Orthodox. For many of our believers, for example, the massive inviting of people baptized in the Orthodox Church to "healing" sessions accompanied by extreme emotional excitement is unacceptable. So, in order to resolve difficult, and sometimes even conflict situations, dialogue and a desire to solve problems peacefully, in a Christian way, and not an order from Moscow, are necessary.
I have a question about relations between the Orthodox Church and Catholics. For a long time, only the position of the Orthodox was heard. Recently, after the visit of Cardinal Kasper, the website "Portal-Credo" published an article "We are not guests in Russia" by Catholic Pavel Parfentiev, which clearly and reasonably stated the position of a believing Catholic. What is the attitude of Your Eminence to the facts and arguments given in the article, if you have read it?
Answer: The visit to Moscow of the Chairman of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, in February 2004, again drew the attention of Russian and foreign media to serious problems in the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Pavel Parfentiev's article "We are not guests in Russia" is one of the most harsh and unambiguously negative publications in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. The author of this material, who attributes himself to the so-called Russian Greek Catholic Church, criticizes not only the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also the actions of the representatives of the Vatican. The "Russian Greek Catholic Church" is a small group of intellectuals who, through their conversion to Catholicism, expressed their painful desire to "reform" Orthodoxy, and then played a controversial role in the Catholic Church. This group considers itself the successor of the Russian Greek Catholic Church, which was created by the Vatican after the February Revolution of 1917 and was conceived as a tool for the catholicization of Russia. For the same purpose, after the Bolsheviks came to power, the Vatican actively tried to establish contacts with them, sought their patronage at a time when they were conducting the most severe persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The argument given by P. Parfentiev regarding the history and current state of Orthodox-Catholic relations in our country, in my opinion, is more than controversial, as it is a very one-sided and too emotional interpretation of various facts. Therefore, I would not consider this article to be either clear or reasoned. Moreover, as far as I know, the views expressed in it do not reflect the position of all Russian Catholics. The author conducts polemics in a non-appeal manner, which cannot contribute to a calm, objective consideration of the situation in the relationship between the Churches. I am convinced that such speeches are capable of harming the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue and in no way contribute to the improvement of relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
If you base your religion on the Word of God, why is it that icons, candles and other images are given such great importance in Orthodoxy? After all, the Bible is the living God.
Answer: The tradition of using various visible symbols of the presence of God dates back to ancient times. In the Bible, such signs were the altars built by the patriarchs, the Ark of the Covenant, the Jerusalem Temple. Moses, who wrote down the very first lines of Holy Scripture, received from God the command to make images of cherubs, which were to serve as a reminder to the Israelites of the presence of the invisible God. Actually, the Bible itself is also an icon, the image of God, written in words, not paints. Symbolic language is not some artificial invention. The need for it is rooted in the most dual spiritual and bodily nature of man - that nature, which God Himself sanctified by incarnation. People perceive the world around them with the help of all five senses, and not just hearing, therefore, in the practice of the Christian Church, the use of symbols and images has been found since apostolic times. Wall paintings of biblical scenes and a cross were found during the excavations of Pompeii, and the use of lamps by Christians for religious purposes dates back to synagogue practice. Among other symbols, one can mention, for example, oil, which was used to anoint the sick: "Is any of you sick, let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5. 14).
The great theologians of the first centuries of Christianity gave sacred images an important place in the life of the Church. Thus, St. Basil the Great (4th century) wrote: “I recognize the image of the Son of God in the flesh and the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, who gave birth to Him in the flesh. I also recognize the image of the holy apostles, prophets and martyrs. I read and I kiss their images with reverence, for they were handed down to us by the holy apostles; they are not forbidden; on the contrary, we see them in all our churches. During the iconoclastic disputes of the 8th-9th centuries, the veneration of sacred images received a serious theological understanding. The Nicene Council (787) explained that when venerating icons, "the honor given to the image passes to the prototype", that is, veneration (which in itself should be distinguished from worship intended for God alone) is paid not to the material of the icon, but to the image depicted personality on it.
Thus, the rich symbolism that exists in the Orthodox Church not only meets the needs of human nature, serving as a guide to thinking about God, but also has deep roots dating back to the era of early Christianity and even further - to the very first pages of biblical history.
Is today Orthodoxy and Orthodox folklore (Easter divination, carnival, superstition, healing of corruption, divination through Orthodox prayers) one whole? Why doesn't the Orthodox clergy instruct the flock with the right teaching?
Answer: Such phenomena as divination, sorcery, divination are by no means "Orthodox folklore". On the contrary, the Church has severely condemned such activities since ancient times. In answer to your question, I assure you that the Orthodox clergy incessantly instructs the flock with the right teaching. It is enough to go to any Orthodox church to be convinced of this. However, those people who practice various forms of magic using Orthodox paraphernalia, as a rule, are not churched Orthodox believers. Moreover, their very activity is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Their use of prayers and church objects is nothing more than a cover and a means of attracting people, for the majority of whom the authority of the Church is very high.
Vladyka Kirill! In one of your interviews, you stated that the Muslims of Russia are not the object of missionary activity of the Russian Orthodox Church. Does this mean that the Russian Orthodox Church generally refuses to convert non-Christians to Christianity? Another question related to this topic. What do you call proselytism? Is the conversion to Christianity in Protestant churches of people baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, but not attending church, proselytism? Is the conversion of Protestants to Orthodoxy proselytism?
Answer: We are not going to intrusively "convert" anyone. Our Church constantly bears witness to the truth of Christ. But man, having God-given freedom, is always free to make his own choice. The very term "conversion" implies a specific strategy for attracting people who already belong to a different religious tradition.
We call proselytism the enticement of believers of one denomination into another. Therefore, the conversion to Protestantism of people baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, but not yet fully churched, is proselytism, since they are converted not to some abstract Christianity, but to a specific denomination. If pro-Testant missionaries really cared about whether unchurched people were genuine Christians, they might as well advise them to attend an Orthodox church. However, as a rule, they make every effort to literally "drag" a person into their community. Cases of the conversion of Protestants to Orthodoxy are almost always the result of their personal choice, and not the obsessive efforts of the Orthodox.
Your Eminence, what is the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to Freemasonry and, in particular, in relation to the Grand Lodge and the Rosicrucian Society operating in Russia. These organizations are registered with the justice authorities, but how does the ROC evaluate them: as sects, denominations, public organizations, or as associations that are contrary to Christianity in spirit?
Answer: The Russian Orthodox Church does not forbid its children to join various kinds of public organizations, but they should not be in the nature of secret societies. Often such organizations involve exclusive subordination to their leaders, a conscious refusal to disclose the essence of the organization's activities to the church authorities and even at confession. The Church cannot approve the participation in societies of this kind of Orthodox laity, and even more so of clergy, since by their very nature they reject a person from total devotion to the Church of God and its canonical order.
What is your attitude towards Baptists? Do you consider them your brothers and sisters in Christ? Do you really love them, or are these just words? Many churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists from the Smolensk region want to carry the Gospel in hospitals, orphanages, etc., but often experience strong pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church, which often does not allow them to work.
Answer: Orthodox Christians should treat all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, with respect and love, as if they were their neighbors. Even in those cases when a good approach encounters a barrier of alienation and misunderstanding, we should be guided by the words of the Savior: “If you love those who love you, what reward will you have? your brethren, what special thing are you doing? Don't the Gentiles do the same thing?" (Matthew 5:46-47). Those of our neighbors and fellow citizens who bear the name of Christians are especially dear to us, even if they do not share the fullness of the faith of the Orthodox Church. With Evangelical Christians-Mi-Baptists we are brought together by a common faith in the Triune God, in the incarnation of the Son of God for our salvation, in the inspiration of Holy Scripture.
However, there are many things that separate us. As I have already said, the Russian Orthodox Church has a negative attitude towards activities deliberately aimed at converting those who have been baptized in it to another faith. At the same time, we acknowledge that Baptism does not relieve a person of the obligation to comprehend his place in the Church, to take an active part in her life. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot by force keep its members who have consciously and by personal choice decided to leave it. At the same time, we look at baptized, but not churched people, not as external to Orthodoxy and in need of conversion, but as those who especially need pastoral care and support precisely within the Church. When such people, often taking advantage of their religious ignorance, are called upon to renounce the Orthodox faith, which is presented to them in a distorted, caricatured form, we consider such actions unacceptable and contrary to the fundamental foundations of evangelical ethics.
All this does not mean that cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and communities of Evangelical Christian Baptists is impossible in various areas of public life, such as social service, patriotic activity, concern for the preservation of moral norms in the life of the people. We have experience of such cooperation, and we continue to actively develop it. Thus, on April 15, 2004, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists held a joint conference on the topic "The Role of a Christian in Modern Russian Society", during which Orthodox and Baptists revealed the coincidence of positions on many issues discussed. There is reason to hope that examples of such interaction will take place in the future.
Do you, as a representative of your Church, think that participation in the war is incompatible with bearing the title of Christian? If so, please name a document or regulation that would prohibit members of your Church from taking up arms.
Answer: War is a physical manifestation of the hidden spiritual disease of mankind - fratricidal hatred, which is described at the very beginning of the Bible. Unfortunately, wars accompanied the entire history of mankind after the fall and, according to the word of the Gospel, will continue to accompany it: “When you hear about wars and rumors of war, do not be horrified: for this must be” (Mark 13:7) .
Recognizing war as evil, the Church still does not forbid its children to participate in hostilities when it comes to protecting their neighbors and restoring violated justice. Then war is considered, although undesirable, but a forced means. Orthodoxy at all times treated with the deepest reverence the soldiers who, at the cost of their own lives, preserved the lives and safety of their neighbors. The Holy Church has numbered many soldiers among the saints, taking into account their Christian virtues and referring to them the words of Christ: “There is no greater love than if a man lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
Please tell me: in the 19th century, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov wrote that whoever does not read the books of the Holy Fathers now cannot be saved. Is this statement true or false?
Answer: Saint Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) wrote a great deal about the reading of the Holy Fathers. In the first volume of his "Ascetic Experiences" there is a whole chapter devoted to how one should read the works of holy ascetics. The phrase you quoted is somewhat taken out of context. Saint Ignatius had in mind that "from reading the writings of the Fathers we learn the true understanding of Holy Scripture, the right faith, living according to the commandments of the Gospels, the deep respect that should have for the Gospel commandments, in a word, salvation and Christian perfection."
Why do the main Christian religions interpret the Bible and the Gospel in different ways and, accordingly, have completely opposite opinions about certain events and other global differences. Or is it the same situation as "The law, that the drawbar, as you turn, it went there"? Is it possible for the major Christian religions to interpret the Bible and the Gospel in the same way in everything and act accordingly?
Answer: Indeed, there are discrepancies in the interpretation of the Holy Bible between different Christian denominations. However, it is vitally important for a believing Christian to use not those interpretations that would be pleasant and interesting to him personally, but those that authentically convey the teaching of Christ accepted by the Apostles.
The history of Christianity and its current state testify that it is precisely Orthodoxy that has the tradition of apostolic reading of Holy Scripture in its entirety. As you know, the Orthodox Church adds to its faith the definition of "apostolic", because it still bases its teaching and life on the same principles as the first disciples of Jesus Christ. This point is fundamental, since the Apostles put into practice the commandments of Christ, and then passed on the learned way of life to subsequent generations of Christians. But it is wrong to think that the Christian teaching is transmitted by human means, for example, in writing. The Lord told His disciples that they would be guided in faith not only by their memory and their abilities, but would also be guided by the Holy Spirit: “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you everything and remind you of everything, what I told you" (John 14:16). Therefore, it would be a lack of faith to believe that at some historical stage human errors overcame the action of God and clouded the gospel truth. It is easy for an unprejudiced person to discover that through the entire history of the Church of Christ, as well as through the entire history of the ancient Jewish people, there is an uninterrupted thread of cooperation between God and believing people. In the Orthodox Church, the totality of the spiritual experience of Christians is called Sacred Tradition. It is the preservation and adherence to it that makes it possible to interpret Holy Scripture in accordance with the apostolic spirit.
What influence do you think the Protestant churches of various denominations have on the spiritual situation in the country? Does the Russian Orthodox Church see churches of Protestant denominations, in particular, Pentecostals, as its co-workers in the cause of the spiritual revival and strengthening of Russia?
Answer: The relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with the traditional Protestant denominations have always been distinguished by mutual tolerance and openness to dialogue. Today, however, Protestantism in our country is a heterogeneous phenomenon. Very often under the name of Protestants there are not Lutherans or Baptists, but neo-charismatic groups, many of which have a destructive, totalitarian character. Such associations, exploiting the inner weakness of people, have a negative impact on the mental health of their adherents, whose entire spiritual life is replaced by a set of uncontrolled emotional reactions. It is equally clear to both Orthodox and traditional Protestants that such false spirituality is in conflict with biblical teaching.
Please voice the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as your personal one, in relation to the Protestant Churches. I would like to hear about the attitude not only to traditional confessions, like Lutheranism, but also to such, for example, charismatic Pentecostalism.
Answer: The position of the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to Protestant denominations is set forth in the document "Basic principles of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards heterodoxy", adopted at the Jubilee Bishops' Council of 2000. “The Orthodox Church,” the document says, “draws a clear distinction between heterodox confessions that recognize faith in the Holy Trinity, the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, and sects that reject fundamental Christian dogmas. Recognizing the right of heterodox Christians to witness and religious education among population groups traditionally belonging to them, the Orthodox Church opposes any destructive missionary activity of sects.
As you know, Pentecostals fully share the listed foundations of the Christian faith. However, as has already been said, among the groups called "Pentecostal" or "charismatic" there are many who, in their religious practices, have departed very far from the biblical and ecclesiastical tradition of communion with God. We have to deal with situations where being in such communities affects the spiritual appearance and even the mental health of a person in a completely destructive way. It seems to me that both Orthodox and traditional Protestants should jointly testify before society that the manifestations of pseudo-spirituality that take place in some religious communities, including those who call themselves "charismatic", have nothing to do with either the Bible or the Christianity.
Dear Vladyka. I ask you to answer one question that is often asked to me by unbelieving people. What does the crescent moon on the tree of the cross symbolize on the dome of the Orthodox Cathedral?
Answer: There are several interpretations of this symbol. The first interpretation suggests that the semicircular detail is a stylized image of the lower part of the anchor. Even in the ancient catacombs, Christians used the symbol of an anchor with a vertical bar at the top end to reveal the meaning of the Savior's death on the cross. The cross was presented as an anchor "thrown" by God into the world in order to lift a person to the spiritual sky. The second interpretation sees in this combination of the cross and the semicircle the ancient symbol of the Church - a ship with a mast in the form of a cross, on which believers in Christ are saved. Finally, the third meaning: the crescent symbolizes the Mother of God, from whose womb our salvation shone - Christ crucified on the cross.
Dear Metropolitan! Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! I ask you to answer one question: when will the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular the Smolensk diocese, begin a closer dialogue with evangelical Christians in the Smolensk region? Joint prayers for the region, for the leadership of the country, region and city, for solving social problems, problems of drug addiction, alcohol and tobacco addiction. We act one by one, although we believe in the One God and the creed is the same. Thanks to.
Answer: The Russian Orthodox Church is ready to contact and cooperate with all Christian denominations that are disposed to an open, mutually respectful dialogue with her. In our Church there is no tradition of joint prayers with representatives of other confessions, but cooperation in the public sphere, in the field of charity is possible and necessary. And it is already taking place. As an example, I would like to point out that the Smolensk diocese, entrusted to my archpastoral care, carries out a number of events and social projects with the direct participation of representatives of various Christian denominations operating in the region. In September 2003, on the initiative of our diocese, the All-Russian anti-drug action "Train to the Future" was held. The event was attended by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, the Smolensk Regional Administration and various religious organizations, including Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baptists, and Pentecostals.
Representatives of many Christian communities highly appreciate the level of interaction with the Russian Orthodox Church. For example, at the already mentioned seminar of representatives of our Church and the Russian Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists, held at the Department for External Church Relations, Yu.K. Sipko especially noted the good relations that developed between his co-religionists and the leadership of the Smolensk diocese. I hope that our cooperation in the region will continue in the future.
Your Eminence, how do you assess the achievements of the interviews between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland? What are the prospects for these relations?
Answer: The theological dialogue with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland has been going on for almost 35 years. During this time, purely theological topics were also discussed, such as the Eucharist and the nature of the Church, problems of understanding salvation and holiness, and topics dictated by the social tasks of a particular time. An absolute achievement can be considered the destruction of some prejudices and stereotypes in assessing each other, which was facilitated by frank and scientifically based discussions. During the Soviet Union, the dialogue also had an important political significance. Thanks to the contacts of the Russian Orthodox Church with foreign religious organizations, the atheistic authorities were forced to put up with the very existence of the Church. It can be said directly that dialogues with representatives of Western Christians helped the survival of our Church at that time.
In the late 1980s, when religious freedom came to our country, the situation changed dramatically. Many Western Christian denominations, which for decades maintained friendly relations with our Church, instead of the expected help in the revival of normal church life in Russia, engaged in active proselytism. For example, the United Methodist Church in the United States began to do so. At the same time, our Church has maintained strong and truly partnership relations with the Lutherans: with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland and the Evangelical Church in Germany. We continue our theological discussions with these churches. The next theological dialogue with Finnish Lutherans will take place next September. In addition, our Churches have a scholarship exchange program in which students from the Russian Orthodox Church studied in Helsinki and Turku, and Finnish theologians studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In 2001, the first agreements on sister parishes were signed between the communities of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.
What awaits us in the future? It seems to me that over time, Christians have more and more common tasks. In addition, in an era when the countries and peoples of Europe and the world are becoming increasingly interdependent, we need to strive to resolve the problems we face together, using the accumulated experience of dialogue. For example, secularism, spiritual nihilism, betrayal of evangelical ideals within some Christian communities become a serious challenge to Christians. I mean, first of all, the introduction of the practice of ordination of homosexuals and the "blessing" of same-sex marriages. I repeat, there are more and more common Christian tasks.
How do you assess the current state of affairs in the World Council of Churches? Have there been any changes in the work of the WCC after the rather harsh reaction of the Orthodox members of the WCC to the style of work and the decision-making mechanism? Do Orthodox delegates now participate in prayer meetings of the WCC?
Answer: In 2002, after the completion of the work of the Special Commission for the Participation of the Orthodox in the WCC, there was hope for significant changes in the work of this international Christian organization. The discussion itself, which was held at the commission, in many respects brought the positions of the Orthodox and Protestant participants closer, or at least helped to better understand the Orthodox point of view. Now that about two years remain before the final approval of the decisions of the Special Commission at the next Assembly of the WCC, we see signs of positive development: draft amendments to the Constitution and rules of the WCC have already been prepared, thanks to which most of the decisions will be made not by a simple majority of votes, but by consensus. This is especially important when it comes to questions of dogma or tradition of our Church, its ecclesiological self-awareness. The criteria for membership in the Council are also becoming tougher: if before it was enough to agree with the doctrine of the Trinity and the God-manhood of the Lord Jesus Christ, now confession of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is also assumed.
It is also a positive factor that many small Protestant churches of the same direction will now be represented by a single delegate. This will reduce the excessive confessional imbalance in the Council, when the Orthodox have always found themselves in a minority, despite the large number of believers they represent. As for joint prayers, the attitude towards this issue among the Local Orthodox Churches is different. At this stage, after the decisions taken at the inter-Orthodox meeting in Thessaloniki, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church do not actively participate in such prayers, but this does not mean that they cannot attend meetings of heterodox Christians, where prayer is performed in forms acceptable to them or a sermon is delivered. An important contribution to resolving the problems associated with joint prayer was made by the Special Commission I have already mentioned, which proposed a strict distinction between "confessional" and "inter-confessional" prayers. This differentiation made it possible for participants who, for one reason or another, find it impossible for themselves to take part in "ecumenical" prayer at WCC meetings, to choose the worship service inherent in their own church tradition.
What, in your opinion, explains the fact that modern inter-church cooperation (various ecumenical forums) puts the main emphasis on socio-political issues, while religious issues are more and more relegated to the background?
Answer: I think there are at least four reasons for this. First, the formation of the WCC took place in the post-war period, when issues of international peacekeeping were of paramount importance. Then the threat of Nazism, fascism and communism was replaced by the threat of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, the dramas of the cold war, apartheid, racism and poverty in Asia and Africa, and finally globalization. Each time, with the help of the WCC, the Churches sought to make a positive contribution to the strengthening of peace, to alleviate the suffering of people in different parts of the world. The aim was also to weaken and destroy the prevailing anti-Christian ideologies. Secondly, the WCC itself is a kind of fusion of two differently directed movements that originated at the beginning of the 20th century: Faith and Church Organization and Life and Activity. This connection has never been organic enough, in view of the fact that the latter movement did not attach much importance to theology, but at the same time aroused the greatest interest in non-church circles and from donors. Thirdly, there is a growing disillusionment with the course of theological discussions, which turned out to be ineffective. Finally, it must be admitted that among the current members of the "Faith and Church Organization" commission, and indeed in the WCC in general, there are still no theologians capable of making a significant breakthrough in the course of dialogue.
Your Eminence! The Orthodox-Lutheran theological dialogue has been going on for more than 40 years. But this is mainly a dialogue with the Evangelical Church in Germany and the Finnish Lutheran Church. Is such a dialogue possible with Russian Lutheran churches, in particular with the YLC of Ingria?
Answer: Such a dialogue is very possible. And today it should be socially oriented. This is our Russian reality: believers must overcome the consequences of the atheistic era. In addition, we have many common problems connected, for example, with the improvement of legislation on religious organizations, with charity, and youth patriotic work. And in these areas we can and should cooperate.
What, in your opinion, is the “canonical territory of the ROC” and why has the ROC lately been inclined to identify all Russians living in Russia with its flock, while at the same time denying this right to other faiths? Does your Church deny, like Muslims and Jews, the fundamental Christian principle of personal conversion?
Answer: The principle of canonical territory has a very long history. Even the apostle Paul wrote: "I tried not to preach the gospel where the name of Christ was already known, so as not to build on someone else's foundation" (Rom. 15:20). Behind this was by no means an ordinary desire "not to beat someone else's bread", especially since the apostle himself preferred to live by the labor of his own hands. From his pastoral experience, Paul knew how easily divisions into "Cythians" and "Apollos" penetrate into the church milieu; he also knew how important it is for successful evangelism to take into account local national and cultural characteristics. Thus, a deliberate refusal to preach the Gospel where this sermon has already been sounded is not only a requirement of Christian ethics, but also a necessary condition for effective evangelism. In the era immediately following the apostolic age, when the number of Christians increased, this principle was enshrined in a canonical collection known as the Apostolic Canons. In particular, it says: “It is fitting for the bishops of every nation to know the first among them and recognize him as the head, and not to do anything that exceeds their power without reasoning: let the bishop not dare outside the boundaries of his diocese to perform ordinations in cities and in villages not subject to him" (Rules 34, 35). The canonical tradition of the undivided Church formulated a very important principle: in one city there is one bishop, that is, in one city, or more broadly, in one place, there is one Church.
There cannot be several local Churches in one place. The latter is nonsense from the point of view of the tradition of the undivided Church. We do not believe that the subsequent tragic division of the Church and the emergence of so-called confessions are capable of abolishing this principle, which dates back to early Christian times, on the ontological level. That is why Russia, where the word of God was preached by the Orthodox Church, and where it originally existed as a Local Church, that is, the Church of a given place, is considered, according to the norms of canon law, the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Protestant religious organizations are free to accept or not accept this given as much as they recognize the canonical norms of the Undivided Church. But no one has the right to demand that we renounce what constitutes the most important part of Church Tradition. From the time of the Baptism of Russia, Russian Orthodox missionaries became enlighteners and pioneers who played a key role in the Christianization of the country, in the development of the national identity of the peoples to whom they carried the word of God. All this led to the emergence and development of a unique Orthodox culture, which absorbed all the best from previous eras and became the main wealth of many peoples of Russia. Responsibility for evangelical preaching, pastoral work, spiritual upbringing and enlightenment of people living on this earth fell precisely on the Russian Orthodox Church, which in its canonical territory represents the fullness of the universal Church of Christ.
Our Church feels this great responsibility for all its members, that is, for those who have received from us the Sacrament of Baptism, which, we believe, makes a person a member of the Church. The peoples of Russia, who have an Orthodox cultural heritage, expect the gospel word from the Russian Orthodox Church, they see it as a spiritual guide. Here there is no notorious "identification" by the Russian Church of all Russians with their flock. The data of statistical surveys show that the vast majority of the inhabitants of our country, to one degree or another, associate themselves with Orthodoxy. This is their free personal choice. Of course, the fact of belonging to the Church by Baptism does not negate the need for churching, for an individual understanding of one's place in the church community. At present, attracting believers to a more active church life is one of the main tasks of our pastoral work. Thus, when the Russian Orthodox Church speaks of its canonical territory, it also means an awareness of the responsibility for the spiritual destiny of our people, which is the heir to a thousand-year-old Christian culture, which gave the world a host of martyrs and other saints. The service that the Russian Orthodox Church has carried out in our country for many centuries is unique, and its role cannot be replaced for the same reason that history cannot be changed.
Most Lutherans support the introduction of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" in schools as an elective course. Is it possible to work together in educational institutions in the field of cultural and religious education of Orthodox and Lutherans?
Answer: Of course, the teaching of religious subjects at school is necessary, but these disciplines must be closely related to the culture of the particular religion that dominates in a particular region. You can often hear that the introduction of the subject "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" will violate the freedom of conscience of people of other faiths. However, in places where Lutherans are densely populated - as well as in all other places where it is possible to create schools with an ethno-cultural component of education - children from Lutheran families can study their faith. And we need to work together to ensure that the state actually realizes the right of all children to receive knowledge about religion in the spirit of precisely the beliefs that are held in their families.
How do you assess the chances of cooperation between the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches in Russia in the social sphere and in the field of religious education?: Why can't we cooperate in the field of joint evangelism for children and youth?
Answer: Orthodox and Lutherans have a very rich history of relationships that began in the 16th century, at the height of the European Reformation, and has always flowed in line with mutual respect, understanding, and tolerance. It can be said with confidence that in our time, of all the Protestant denominations, the most constructive relations in our Church are formed precisely with the Lutherans. Much has already been said about our connections with the Lutheran Churches in Germany and Finland. Undoubtedly, we should use the experience of this cooperation in Russia as well, especially since our relations with Russian Lutherans are developing very well. Social work, religious education, Christian social thought are the primary field for our interaction. Strictly speaking, such activity will be our joint contribution to the evangelization of all Russians, including children and youth.
Whether the Orthodox Church recognizes the existence of apostolic succession among the Anglicans and Scandinavian Lutherans - Orthodox publications present conflicting views on this issue.
Answer: The question of the Anglican priesthood has been repeatedly discussed by the Orthodox Churches. In the first half of the 20th century, some of them, such as the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Romania, recognized the apostolic succession for the Anglican clergy. The Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, held in Moscow in 1948, adopted a resolution on the question "On the Anglican Hierarchy", which, in particular, stated: "The question of recognizing the validity of the Anglican hierarchy can be considered only in connection with the question of the unity of faith and confessions with the Orthodox Church, in the presence of an authoritative act of the Anglican Church on this, emanating from the cathedral, or the congress of the clergy of the Anglican faith, with its subsequent approval by the Head of the Anglican Church: In this regard, we express the wish that the Anglican Church change its dogmatic , canonical and ecclesiological, and in particular its true understanding of the holy sacraments and more specifically - the sacrament of ordination: We determine that the modern Anglican hierarchy can receive from the Orthodox Church recognition of the grace of her priesthood, if between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches previously the formally expressed unity of faith and confession will be established.
When such a longed-for unity is established, the recognition of the validity of Anglican ordinations can be carried out according to the principle of economy, the only authoritative for us conciliar decision of the entire Holy Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox Church was guided by the same principles in relation to the Scandinavian Lutherans. For Orthodoxy, the decisive condition for recognizing the grace and validity of the Sacrament of the Priesthood is not only the presence of a formal succession from the apostles (without which, of course, there can be no question of any recognition), but a single faith in this Sacrament and uniform canonical principles regarding priesthood and hierarchy.Meanwhile, today many of the Anglican Churches and the Lutheran Churches of the Scandinavian region have the practice of ordination of women and the ordination of women.There are also attempts to revise Christian ethical norms, when open homosexuals are admitted to the priesthood and their relationship is blessed. strongly incompatible with the Orthodox idea of the priesthood, the issue of recognizing Anglican and Lutheran ordinations is losing its relevance.
Is there a prospect of reforming the liturgical language (Old Church Slavonic) used by the Orthodox Church? Is it possible to transfer the liturgical life of the Church to the modern Russian language? If not, then what is the relevance of the Old Church Slavonic language?
Answer: First of all, I would like to clarify: the language used today by the Russian Orthodox Church in liturgical practice cannot be called "Old Slavonic" in a strictly philological sense. Old Church Slavonic is the language spoken by our distant ancestors in Russia. The modern liturgical language is Church Slavonic, which has seriously evolved since the adoption of Christianity by Russia. It is worth noting that already in Ancient Russia, the oral and liturgical forms of the Slavic language differed markedly. The liturgical language was saturated with theological and moral concepts that were unknown before the adoption of Christianity, and therefore were not used in colloquial speech. Many grammatical constructions were borrowed from Greek. Therefore, from the very beginning, the Church Slavonic language had a certain conceptual and grammatical autonomy from the spoken language. In general, I think that it is wrong to talk about reforming the liturgical language. This is wrong, because any reform is revolutionary in nature. A revolution always divides people into its supporters and opponents. The use of this or that language during worship is not dogmatic, and therefore should not cause any divisions within the Church. The history of church reforms in the 17th century has shown us what tragic consequences this can lead to.
It is another matter if we are talking about the activation of the work on the development of the Church Slavonic language, which has always been in the Church. I mean the adaptation of individual words and grammatical forms to the modern literary language. For example, take the phrase from Psalm 90: ": And my sin before me is taken out." A modern person, even if he knows the meaning of the Slavic word "take out", corresponding to the Russian word "always", voluntarily or involuntarily associates it with the verb "take out". In such cases, I fully admit the possibility of replacement. However, with regard to commonly used prayers, the content of which is known to the majority, this should not be done. The situation is much simpler with the use of the literary language for reading the Holy Scriptures in temples. After all, at home, the vast majority of people read the Bible in Russian, and not in Church Slavonic. In my opinion, today, wittingly or unwittingly, we are replacing the problem of using the Church Slavonic language in worship for another more serious problem, which I would call a misunderstanding of the language of Christianity. After all, for example, such words as "love" and "humility", which are familiar to us and purely linguistically understandable, have a completely different meaning in the Christian understanding than in the secular world. Therefore, it is so necessary to strengthen catechism work among believers.
In Alma-Ata, there was a tragic case when a young man was excommunicated by one of the Orthodox ministers from the Sacrament of Holy Communion because he was ill with HIV infection. When a young man came to the sacrament of confession to an Orthodox priest with his urgent problem, confessed (of course, I don’t know the essence of confession), the minister excommunicated him from the Sacrament and motivated this directly by his illness (for fear of infection). A scandal arose, and all this became known not only to the three (the Lord, the servant, the young man), but to the whole parish, and even to secular journalists! Question: could the minister excommunicate him completely from Communion? If yes, for what reasons? Could the minister divulge his confession? And is there an alternative option for receiving the Holy Gifts (for example, a separate bowl, spoon, etc.)? Thank you in advance, with respect Evgeny Mashin. The Lord be with all of us!
Answer: It is impossible to form a clear idea of what exactly happened in Alma-Ata from the description you have given. It seems extremely unlikely that a young man would not be admitted to Communion solely because of his diagnosis. The Church lovingly welcomes all who come to her. But at the same time, in Orthodoxy there is a quite definite penitential discipline. If a person comes to the Church who has lived in sin for many years, regardless of whether he is sick or healthy, then the clergyman, as a rule, having in mind the spiritual state of this person, his determination to live according to the commandments of God and be in unity with the Church, appoints him a certain time for repentance and prayer. In the Orthodox tradition, such a spiritual exercise is called penance. Its fulfillment is a condition for further admission to communion. This is not a punitive, but an educational measure. Perhaps it was the spiritual condition of the young man you mentioned, and not the presence of an illness at all, that was the reason why the clergyman found it impossible to immediately admit him to communion. Another question is whether the young man himself was ready to accept the penance assigned to him? Perhaps he took it as a kind of "punishment" for the diagnosis, as a sign of rejection. Unfortunately, there are times when a person living with HIV does not seem to find understanding in the Church. This is partly due to the following: a stable stereotype has developed in society that HIV-infected people are a particularly dangerous and hostile group of people leading an exceptionally immoral life. In addition, there is also an idea of the extreme contagiousness of such patients.
Knowing this, many HIV-infected people react very sensitively to the attitude of others around them and sometimes tend to unreasonably interpret those actions with which they do not agree as a manifestation of discrimination. It is sometimes difficult for a priest who provides spiritual support to an HIV-infected person to understand his inner state. After all, after learning about their positive HIV status, many people experience severe stress and depression. Spiritual support of a person in such a state requires special knowledge and training. The hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church takes the problem of pastoral care of people living with HIV/AIDS very seriously. For several years now, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have been implementing a church-wide program to combat the spread of the HIV epidemic and work with HIV-infected people. In particular, special seminars are held at which clergy and students of theological schools study the specifics of pastoral and parish diaconal work with the infected. You are talking about a scandal that broke out and that this story became known to the media. In this case, it seems unlikely that a clergyman could become a source of public scandal: he is obliged to keep what he said in confession in secret. Without being able to personally understand this case, I would not make any categorical judgments on such a delicate issue.
In your speech at the Christmas readings in Moscow, the following words addressed to Catholics were heard (and were quoted in many media): "Preach to your flock, but you are not the Local Church in Russia. We are the Local Church. We are responsible before God for our people how you are responsible in Italy, Spain and other countries." Do these words mean that you recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a blessed local Church in Italy, Spain and other countries? Or can schismatics (and even heretics) "bear responsibility before God for the people" on a par with the true Church? I would like to ask a similar question about the Lutherans. Do you think that Lutheranism (or any part of it) is a blessed local Church for any countries and peoples? If not, what is the "status" of Lutherans from your point of view? Dissenters? Heretics? Not Christian at all?
Answer: We must take into account the contribution that this or that Church, representing the majority of the population in a particular country, has made to the creation of faith, morality and culture. Thus, when we talk about pastoral responsibility in a particular territory, we do not mean the dogmatic side of the matter and do not make judgments about the degree of grace of this or that local Christian community, but, recognizing the fact of its long-term existence as a "people's church" or church majority, we declare the inadmissibility of offensive and inappropriate proselytism. Orthodox ecclesiology presupposes the existence of "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (Una Sancta). The One Church continues to exist in communities that have preserved apostolic succession. The Orthodox Church is such a community, but realizing this, she does not pass judgment on other communities (except for sectarian and schismatic ones), for God is the judge of all. Moreover, we are convinced that even with communities separated from Orthodoxy, “despite the break in unity, there remains a kind of incomplete communion that serves as a guarantee of the possibility of returning to unity in the Church, to catholic fullness and unity” (paragraph 1.15. of the Basic Principles of Relations between the Russian Orthodox Churches to heterodoxy).