On intimate relationships in an Orthodox family. How does the Orthodox Church feel about debunking

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

Intimate theology

Orthodoxy welcomes sex life between married couples as an act of God's blessing. An intimate relationship in an Orthodox family is a God-blessed action that involves not only having children, but also strengthening love, intimacy and trust between spouses.

About the family in Orthodoxy:

God created man and woman in His image, He created a beautiful creation - man. The Almighty Creator Himself has provided for an intimate relationship between a man and a woman. Everything in God's creation was perfect, God created a naked, beautiful man. So why is humanity so hypocritical about the nude 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:

• multiply;
• multiply;
• fill the earth.

Orthodoxy and intimate relationships

As you delve deeper into the New Testament, you can see with what indignation and contempt Jesus treated the hypocrites. Why is sex life in Orthodoxy relegated to the second and third plan?

Before the coming of Jesus Christ, polygamy existed on earth, but these were not casual relationships. King David, a man after God's heart (1 Sam. 13:14), sinned with another man's wife, then married her after the death of her husband, but the chosen one of God had to be punished. The child, born of 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 tie himself by family ties according to the laws of the church. Marriage was then blessed by priests and sanctified by God. Children born of legal marriage became heirs.

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

Intimacy or sex

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

Sex at all times is associated with depravity, which has been known from the beginning of the centuries. For lecherous acts, homosexuality and perversion, God burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire, not finding the righteous in them. Oral and anal intercourse is associated with the concept of sex, which Orthodoxy refers to as perversions according to the Bible.

To save 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 you can have sexual intercourse.

Imagine that the Great Creator Himself pays great attention to intimacy, sexual relations, blessing the intimate life in marriage.

Wedding of spouses

Sex before marriage

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

There are several instances in the Old Testament where fornicators were stoned for adultery. What is the reason for such cruelty?

The film "The Ten Commandments" depicts a gruesome scene of the killing of sinners with stones. The adulterers were tied by the hands and feet to stakes so that they could not hide, defend themselves, and the whole people threw sharp, huge stones at them.

This action had two meanings:

• the first is for intimidation and edification;
• second, children born from such a bond carried a curse to the clan, 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 Mystery 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 based on love . Purity and chastity are the main canons of Orthodox relations, most of all are revealed in the sexual intercourse 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 immerse themselves in God's grace, all Orthodox Christians must grow spiritually:

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

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

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

Prayers for the family:

Relationship between husband and wife

In First Epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 7, the Apostle Paul literally, according to his 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 can only be the birth of a child. When touching an intimate question, it is not said 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 are they no longer making love? God classified gluttony as a sin, and promiscuous sex, excessive passion for sex life is not approved by the church.

1. Everything should happen in love, by mutual agreement, in purity and respect.
2. The wife cannot manipulate her husband, refusing intimate caresses, because her body belongs to him.
3. The husband is obliged to win over his wife, like Jesus Church, to take care of her, respect and love.
4. 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 to perform the feat of fasting, then God also strengthens in limiting the time of close marital relationships.
5. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that touching, and therefore having sex with a woman during the menstrual period, is a sin.

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

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

Archpriest Vladimir Golovin: on the intimate relationship of a husband and wife

Anastasius (Yannulatos),
Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania

The Orthodox Church lived both in conditions of religious pluralism and in a religiously homogeneous environment. Her relations with other religions were significantly influenced by the socio-political structures within which she existed.

(1) In the early centuries, these relations were confrontational, sometimes more and sometimes less acute. In the religious context of the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, the Church experienced strong resistance, even persecution, when it proclaimed the Gospel and proposed new preconditions for personal and social life in the light of the sacrament of the relationship between God and man.

(2) When the time of "Christian" empires came, the attitude of confrontation remained, although its vector changed. For the sake of achieving social and political stability, the leaders strived for religious uniformity, suppressing adherents of other religious traditions. Thus, some emperors, bishops and monks were in the forefront of the destroyers of pagan temples. In the Byzantine Empire and, later, in the Russian, the fundamental principle of Christ "Who wants to follow Me ..." () often forgotten. And if coercion did not reach such a degree as in the West, religious freedom was not always respected. The exception was the Jews, who received some privileges.

(3) In the Arab and Ottoman empires, the Orthodox coexisted with the Muslim majority; they faced various forms of oppression by state authorities, overt and covert, which provoked passive resistance. At the same time, in different periods, rather soft rules were in force, so that Orthodox and Muslims coexisted peacefully towards each other, or simply with tolerance, or reaching mutual understanding and respect.

(4) Today, in conditions of religious pluralism, we are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church and about harmonious coexistence and dialogue between the followers of the Church of different religions, while maintaining respect for the freedom of each person and any minority.

Historical overview of the Orthodox position

The theological understanding of the relationship of the Orthodox Church to other religions throughout history has been uneven.

(1) Turning to the earliest "strata" of theological thought of the Orthodox East, we see that in parallel with the clear awareness that the Church expresses the fullness of the revealed truth about the "economy" of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, there have been constant attempts to understand religious beliefs, existing outside the Christian confession, with the discernment and recognition that some revelation of God to the world is possible. Already in the first centuries, when both in theory and in practice the clash of the Church and the dominant religions reached its peak, Christian apologists, for example, Justin Martyr and, wrote about the "seed logos" about the "preparatory stage for renewal in Christ" and "reflections of the Divine Word ”That can be found in the pre-Christian Greek culture. However, when Justin spoke of the "seed word", this did not mean that he uncritically accepts everything that was created in the past by logic and philosophy: "Since they do not know everything that pertains to the Logos, who is Christ, they often contradict themselves." The Christian apologist easily applied the name “Christian” to those who lived “according to reason,” but for him it was Christ who was the yardstick by which to assess the theoretical and practical significance of earlier forms of religious life.

After the Crusades, the acrimony of the Byzantine polemic against Islam is somewhat reduced, and some form of coexistence is proposed. Political and military expediency also required further displays of goodwill.

(4) Penetrating into Central, South and East Asia, Orthodox Christianity met with such advanced religions as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Hinduism and Chinese Buddhism. This meeting took place in extremely difficult circumstances and requires special study. Among the various archaeological finds in China, we see a symbol of Christianity - a cross next to a symbol of Buddhism - a lotus, clouds of Taoism or other religious symbols. On the famous Xian Fu stele, which was discovered in the 17th century and shows how Christianity penetrated into China, in addition to the cross, you can see images related to other religions: the dragon of Confucianism, the crown of Buddhism, white clouds of Taoism, etc. This composition, which includes various the symbols perhaps indicate the expectation that the Chinese religions will be brought into harmony with the religion of the Cross and will find their fulfillment in it.

(5) At a later time, from the 16th to the 20th century, the Orthodox, with the exception of the Russians, were under Ottoman rule. The coexistence of Christians and Muslims was imposed de facto, but it was not always peaceful, since the conquerors made direct or indirect attempts to convert the Orthodox population to Islam (kidnapping of children by the Janissaries, pressure in the provinces, proselytizing jealousy of dervishes, etc.). To preserve their faith, the Orthodox were often forced to take a position of silent resistance. Deteriorating living conditions, a heavy tax burden, and various socio-political lures from the civil authorities left the Orthodox two main paths: either to renounce their faith, or to resist to the point of martyrdom. There were also Orthodox Christians who were looking for a third way, a compromise solution: outwardly creating the impression that they had become Muslims, they remained faithful to Christian beliefs and customs; they are known as Crypto-Christians. Most of them in the next generations were assimilated by the Muslim majority, among which they lived. The Orthodox gained strength by turning to the liturgical life or stirring up eschatological expectations. In those bitter years of slavery, the belief that “the end was near” spread. Small, simple-style treatises were circulating among the people, the purpose of which was to strengthen Christians in their faith. They revolved around the statement, "I was born a Christian and I want to be a Christian." This laconic confession defines the nature of Christian resistance to Ottoman Islam, which was expressed either in words, or in silence, or through the shedding of blood.

(6) In the vast Russian Empire, the clash of Christianity with other religions and the theoretical position of the Church towards them during the modern era took various forms, in accordance with the pursued political and military goals: from defense to attack and systematic proselytism and from indifference and tolerance to coexistence and dialogue. In their attitude to Islam, the Russians followed Byzantine patterns. Orthodox Christians faced serious problems after the onslaught of the Muslim Kazan Tatars, whose state fell only in 1552. In their missionary activities, both within the empire and in the neighboring states of the Far East, the Orthodox of Russia met with almost all known religions: Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, various directions of Buddhism, shamanism, etc. - and they studied them, trying to comprehend their essence. In the 19th century, a tendency of agnosticism spread among the Russian intelligentsia, based on the belief that God's providence is beyond what we can describe with our theological categories. This did not mean avoiding the problem, but rather indicated a special reverence for the terrible mystery of God, characteristic of Orthodox piety. Everything that concerns the salvation of people outside the Church is the secret of the incomprehensible God. An echo of this position can be heard in the words of Leo Tolstoy: "As for other confessions and their relationship with God, I have no right and power to judge this." .

(7) In the 20th century, even before the Second World War, the systematic study of other religions began in Orthodox theological schools - the subject "History of Religions" was introduced. This interest was not limited to academia, but more widespread. Dialogue with representatives of other religious faiths developed primarily within the framework of the ecumenical movement, the centers of which were the World Council of Churches and the Vatican Secretariat for Other Religions. Since the 1970s, many Orthodox theologians have taken part in various forms of this dialogue. Given this context, Orthodoxy without any difficulty and with complete certainty declares its position on this issue: peaceful coexistence with other religions and mutual contacts through dialogue.

Orthodox theological approach to the religious experience of humanity

(1) As for the problem of the meaning and value of other religions, Orthodox theology, on the one hand, emphasizes the uniqueness of the Church, and on the other hand, it admits that even outside the Church it is possible to comprehend basic religious truths (such as the existence of God, the desire for salvation, various ethical principles, overcoming death). At the same time, Christianity itself is viewed not just as a religious belief, but as the highest expression of religion, that is, as a person's experiential connection with the Holy One - with a personal and transcendent God. The sacrament of the "Church" transcends the classical concept of "religion."

The Christian West, following the line of thought set by Augustine, came to a double understanding of reality. Thus, a clear distinction is made between the natural and the supernatural, the sacred and the spacious, religion and revelation, divine grace and human experience. The different views of Western theologians about other religions are characterized by this tendency to accentuate the gap and then look for ways to connect what is divided.

The theology of the Eastern Church is characterized, first of all, by the belief that the Trinity God always acts in creation and in human history. Through the incarnation of the Word, through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, every gap between the natural and the supernatural, the transcendental and the secular has been eliminated. It was abolished by the Word of God, who took on flesh and dwelt with us, and by the Holy Spirit, who, in the course of history, accomplishes the renewal of creation. The Eastern Church leaves room for personal freedom of thought and expression, within the framework of living tradition. In the Western world, discussion of theological position in relation to other religions has mainly focused on Christology. In the Eastern tradition, this problem is always considered and solved in a trinitarian perspective.

(a) Reflecting on this problem, you need to pay attention, firstly, to the radiance of the glory of God spreading throughout the whole world and His constant providence for all creation, especially about humanity, and secondly, to the fact that all human beings have one source of their being, share a common human nature and have a common purpose. One of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith is that God is incomprehensible, inaccessible in His essence. However, biblical revelation brings us out of the impasse of the unknowable nature of God by assuring us that, although the essence of God remains unknown, the Divine presence is effectively manifested in the world and in the universe through Divine energies. When God reveals Himself through various theophanies, it is not the essence of God that is manifested, but His glory; and only a person is able to comprehend it. The glory of God the Trinity encompasses the universe and all things. Therefore, all people are able to perceive and learn something from the radiance of the "Sun of Truth", God, and join His love.

The great tragedy of the disobedience of the human race did not become an obstacle to the radiation of Divine glory, which continues to fill heaven and earth. The Fall did not destroy the image of God in man. What was damaged, although not completely destroyed, was the ability of humanity to comprehend the divine message, to achieve its correct understanding. God did not stop caring for the whole world that He created. And not so much people are looking for God as He is looking for them.

(b) In the Christological dogma, we find two main keys to the solution of the problem under consideration: the embodiment of the Word and the understanding of Christ as "the new Adam." In the incarnation of the divine Word, God perceived the fullness of human nature. The theme of the deeds of the Word before the incarnation and the deeds of the risen Lord is at the center of the Orthodox liturgical experience. The heightened eschatological hope culminates in the awesome expectation expressed by the apostle Paul: "... revealing to us the secret of His will according to His good pleasure, which He first put in Him [Christ], in the dispensation of the fulness of times, so that everything heavenly and earthly could be united under the head of Christ" (). Divine action has a global dimension - and transcends religious phenomena and religious experience.

Jesus Christ does not exclude people of other religions from His care. At certain moments of His earthly life, He talked with people of other religious traditions (a Samaritan woman, a Canaanite woman, a Roman centurion) and helped them. He spoke with admiration and respect of their faith, which he did not find among the Israelites: "... and in Israel I have not found such faith"(; cf. 15, 28;). He emphasized the feeling of gratitude on the part of the leper Samaritan; and in a conversation with a Samaritan woman, He revealed to her the truth that God is a Spirit (). He even used the image of the Good Samaritan to point to a core element of His teaching — the new dimension of love that He preached. He, the "Son of God", Who at the Last Judgment will identify Himself with the "little ones" of this world (), regardless of their race or religion, calls us to treat every human person with genuine respect and love.

(c) If we look at foreign religious experience from the point of view of pneumatology, we will open new horizons for our theological thinking. For Orthodox theological thought, the action of the Holy Spirit exceeds any definition and description. In addition to the "economy of the Word," the Christian East, with firm trust and humble expectation, pays attention to the "economy of the Spirit." Nothing can limit His action: “The spirit breathes where it wants” (). The action and concordant power of God's love in the Trinity exceeds the capacity of human thinking and understanding. Everything sublime and truly good is the result of the influence of the Spirit. Wherever we meet with the manifestations and fruits of the Spirit - with "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, mercy, faith, meekness, abstinence" (Gal. 5: 22-23), - we can discern the consequences of the influence of the Holy Spirit. And much of what was listed by the apostle can be found in the lives of people belonging to other religions. The statement extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church) appeared in the West and was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It does not express the essence of the Orthodox theological approach, even if it is used in a special, limited sense. For their part, theologians of the Eastern Church, both before and now, emphasize that God acts “also outside the boundaries of the visible Church” and that "Not only Christians, but also non-Christians, unbelievers and pagans can become joint heirs and members of" one body and partakers of the promise of His [God] in Christ Jesus "() – through the Church, to which the pagans, the heterodox can also invisibly belong by virtue of their faith and saving grace given to them by God as a free gift, since both have a church character "(John Karmiris). Thus, instead of the negative expression "outside the Church", Orthodox thought focuses on the positive expression "through the Church." Salvation is accomplished in the world through the Church. The Church, as a sign and as an icon of the Kingdom of God, is the axis that holds and directs the entire process of anakephaleosis, or recapitulation. Just as the life of Christ, the new Adam, has universal consequences, so the life of His mystical body, the Church, is universal in its scope and effect. The prayer of the Church and her care embrace the whole of humanity. The Church celebrates the Divine Eucharist and praises God on behalf of all. She acts on behalf of the whole world. She spreads the rays of the glory of the risen Lord to all creation.

(2) This theological position prompts us to treat the other religious experience of humanity with respect and at the same time with reasoning. As I study the great religions, both as an academic and on research trips to the countries where they exist today, and as a participant in many dialogues with intellectuals from other religions, I would like to make the following points.

(a) The history of religions shows that, despite the different answers they give to the main problems - suffering, death, the meaning of human existence and communication - they all open the horizon in the direction of transcendental reality, in the direction of Something or Someone. , existing on the other side of the sensory sphere. As the fruit of humanity's striving for the "Holy", they open up for human experience the path leading to the Infinite.

(b) When addressing certain religious systems, we must avoid both superficial enthusiasm and arrogant criticism. In the past, disordered knowledge of various religions led to "negative fantasies." Today, receiving fragmentary information about them, we risk coming to "positive fantasies", namely to the idea that all religions are one and the same. There is also another risk: based on what we know about one of the religions, geographically and theoretically closest to us, to create a generalized view of all the others.

In our time, efforts aimed at deciphering the sacred symbols of other religions, as well as studying their doctrines from the sources available to us, require a highly critical approach. As systems, religions contain both positive elements that can be understood as “sparks” of divine revelation, and negative elements - inhuman practices and structures, examples of the perversion of religious intuition.

(c) Religion is an organic whole, not a set of traditions and cult practices. There is a danger of such a superficial reading of the phenomenology of religion, which leads to the identification of elements that are present and function in different contexts. Religions are living organisms, and in each of them the individual components are in connection with each other. We cannot pull out any elements from a certain religious doctrine and practice and identify them with similar elements in other religions - in order to create simple and "beautiful" theories.

(d) If we recognize the presence of innate values, even “seeds of the word,” in a foreign religious experience, we must also recognize that they have the potential for further growth, flowering and fruiting. he concludes his brief reflections on the "seed logos" with the assertion of a fundamental principle - and, strangely, this is not sufficiently noted by those who refer to his views. He emphasizes the difference between the "seed" and the fullness of life inherent in it. He distinguishes between innate "ability" and "grace": “For another matter is the seed and some semblance of something, given according to the degree of acceptability; and the other is the same which the sacrament and the likeness were given by His [God] grace "(Apology II, 13).

(e) Since a person, even after the Fall, retains the image of God, he remains a recipient of messages emanating from the Divine will. However, he often fails to comprehend them properly. Let us draw an analogy, albeit imperfect, with modern technology: a television that is poorly installed or defective gives altered picture and sound compared to those sent by the transmitter; or the distortion is caused by defects in the transmitting antenna.

Everything in the world is in the sphere of influence of God - the spiritual Sun of Truth. Various aspects of religions can be understood as "accumulators" charged with rays of Divine truth coming from the Sun of Truth, life experience, various sublime ideas and great inspirations. Such batteries have helped humanity by imparting imperfect light or some reflections of light to the world. But they cannot be regarded as something self-sufficient, they cannot replace the Sun itself.

For Orthodoxy, the criterion remains the Word of God itself - the Son of God, Who embodies in history the love of the Trinity God, as it is experienced in the sacrament of the Church. The love that was revealed in His personality and in His action is for the Orthodox believer the essence and at the same time the apogee and fullness of religious experience.

Dialogue with people of other religious beliefs is the right and duty of "Orthodox testimony"

(1) The Orthodox position can be critical in relation to other religions as systems and as organic entities; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always a position of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be the bearer of the image of God and wants to achieve godlikeness, since he possesses - as innate components of his being - free will, spiritual reason, desire and the ability to love. From the very beginning, Christians were obliged to be in dialogue with people of other religious beliefs, testifying to their hope. Many of our most important theological concepts were formed through this dialogue. Dialogue belongs to the church tradition; he was a major factor in the development of Christian theology. Most of patristic theology is the fruit of direct and indirect dialogue with the ancient Greek world, both with religious movements and with purely philosophical systems, which sometimes led to antitheses and sometimes to synthesis.

With the spread of Islam, the Byzantines sought an opportunity to enter into dialogue with Muslims, although this search did not always resonate.

Today, in the grandiose metropolis called the Earth, in the midst of new cultural, religious and ideological ferments, dialogue is becoming a new opportunity and challenge. We all deal with common human achievements and strive for a global community of peace, justice and brotherhood, and therefore each person and each tradition must offer the best of what they inherited from the past and, in the light of the experience and criticism from others, cultivate the healthiest seeds of truth. which it possesses. Dialogue can facilitate the transfer of new grains from one civilization to another, as well as the germination and development of those grains that lie lifeless in the land of ancient religions. As noted, religions remain organic wholes, and for living people who experience them, they are "living organisms" capable of developing. Each has its own entelechy. They experience influences, perceive new ideas that come from their environment, react to the challenges of the time.

Different religious leaders and thinkers find elements in their traditions that respond to the new demands of society. Thus, Christian ideas find their way through other channels and develop in the contexts of different religious traditions around the world. In this respect, dialogue is critical.

In this perspective, new questions posed by the recent technological and electronic revolution and new challenges shaking the world community can be addressed with greater constructiveness: for example, the demand for world peace, justice, respect for human dignity, the search for the meaning of human existence and history, protection environment, human rights. While at first glance all of these appear to be “external affairs,” a deeper look from a religious point of view may well generate new ideas and new answers to the questions posed. The doctrine of incarnation, which bridges the gap between the transcendent and the secular in the Person of Christ, has a unique value for humanity, for it is impossible in any non-Christian anthropology.

“Orthodoxy, confidently entering the third millennium, with the consciousness of loyalty to its tradition, is alien to anxiety, or fear, or aggression, and it does not feel contempt for people of other religious beliefs. The Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who gathered for the solemn concelebration in Bethlehem on January 7, 2000, clearly emphasize: we are addressed to other great religions, in particular to the monotheistic religions - Judaism and Islam, with a readiness to create favorable conditions for dialogue with them in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of all nations ... The Orthodox Church rejects religious intolerance and condemns religious fanaticism, wherever it comes from. " .

On the whole, the Church stands for the harmonious coexistence of religious communities and minorities and for the freedom of conscience of every person and every nation. We must engage in interfaith dialogue with respect, with reasoning, with love and hope. We must try to understand what is essential to others and avoid unproductive confrontation. Followers of other religions are called upon to explain to themselves how they can interpret their religious beliefs in new terms, in light of new challenges. Genuine dialogue generates new interpretations on both sides.

At the same time, we have no right to underestimate the importance of difficult problems in an effort to be polite. Nobody wants superficial forms of interfaith dialogue. Ultimately, the quest for the ultimate truth remains at the heart of the religious problem. No one has the right - and it is not in anyone's interest - to weaken this power of human existence in order to achieve a simplified conciliatory consensus of the type of standard agreements negotiated at the ideological level. In this perspective, the significant contribution of Orthodoxy is not in hushing up its own peculiarities, deep spiritual experience and conviction, but in revealing them. Here we come to the delicate question of the Orthodox mission, or - as I suggested thirty years ago - "Orthodox witness."

(2) In any truly spiritual communication, we always reach a critical moment when we are faced with a real problem that generates differences. When the apostle Paul met with the Athenians in the Areopagus, after the dialogue () he switched to direct testimony (17, 22-31). In his speech, he spoke of a common religious foundation, and then he turned to the very essence of the gospel: the meaning of the person and work of Christ. This announcement was completely alien to the ancient Greek worldview and contradicted not only the complicated polytheism of the common people, but also the sophisticated atheism of the Epicurean philosophers and the pantheism of the Stoics.

Rejecting the idea of ​​a closed, self-sufficient cosmological system, autonomous and impersonal, Paul began to preach the action of a personal God, who created the universe out of nothing, provides for the world and decisively interferes with history. In contrast to the idea of ​​the individual living automatically, the emphasis was on freedom and love, which are manifested in the communication between God and man. With this paradox, which, for the Athenians, bordered on absurdity, Paul introduced a new type of thinking. He proposed a radical revision of Greek wisdom through the acceptance of Christ as the center of creation, the One who communicates real existence to the world. Until that time, the understanding of man by the Greek intellectuals was reduced to the idea of ​​a thinking being who is aware of himself and his environment through the development of his mind. For Paul, the fundamental, turning point for humanity - his metanoia (change of mind, repentance) - must be directed towards the love of God, who is inaccessible to reason, but was revealed in the crucified and risen Christ. Here we have a clear example of understanding and respecting ancient religious ideas and at the same time their excellence in the truth and power of Christian revelation. Orthodox “testimony” (or mission) means precisely testimony of experience and confidence. We confess our faith not as an intellectual discovery, but as a gift of God's grace. To neglect the duty of such a personal witness is to reject the gospel.

Personal knowledge of the "love of Christ that transcends understanding" () remains the most profound Christian experience and has a lot to do with truly Christian mission and evangelism. Love releases inner forces and opens up new horizons in life that the mind cannot imagine. The feeling characteristic of the Orthodox Christian that he is united with all of humanity, and the love he feels for each person, compels him to inform every neighbor about the greatest blessing that has been revealed to him.

The gifts of God cannot be selfishly kept to oneself - they must be available to everyone. Although certain actions of God may relate to a certain people and a certain person, they nonetheless affect all of humanity. If we are convinced that the highest human right is the right to transcend the animal and intellectual levels of existence through participation in the relationship of love of the Trinity God, we cannot leave that conviction to ourselves. For that would be the worst injustice. However, all this does not mean that preaching to another can be accompanied by violence, that it can serve as a cover for the achievement of other goals, political or economic. This is not about imposing anything on others, but about testifying to confidence, to personal experience. It is significant that in the first centuries Christians spoke about martyria - about testimony-martyrdom, about testimony often at the cost of life. Everything that is characteristic of the human race should be used, but each person should remain completely free in the choice, which ultimately makes himself. Respect for the freedom of every human person will always be the main principle of Orthodoxy.

The Church, being a "sign" and a sacrament of the Kingdom of God, the beginning of a new humanity, transformed by the Holy Spirit, must be given to the whole world. It should not be a closed community. Everything that she has, and everything that she experiences, exists for the sake of humanity as a whole.

Orthodox “testimony” begins in silence - through participation in the pain and suffering of others, and continues in the joy of proclaiming the gospel, which culminates in worship. The purpose of witnessing is always to create eucharistic communities in new places for people to celebrate the sacrament of the Kingdom of God in their own cultural context, spreading the glory and presence of God wherever they live. Thus, Orthodox witness is personal participation in the spread of a new creation, which has already been accomplished in Christ and which will come to its fulfillment in the "last times." In order to evangelize the world, the Orthodox Church does not need the use of violence or dishonest methods, which sometimes distorted the essence of the “Christian mission”. She respects the peculiarity of a person and his culture and uses her own methods - liturgical life, sacraments, sincere love. The Orthodox mission cannot be limited to participation in the organization of education, the provision of medical assistance and the provision of funds for external development. It should bring to everyone, especially the poor and the humiliated, the belief that each person has a unique value, that, since he was created in the image and likeness of God, his destiny is something great - to become a "Christ-bearer", to partake of divine glory, to achieve deification. It is the basis for all other expressions of human dignity. The Christian faith offers the highest anthropology that transcends any humanistic vision. To accept it or not is a matter of people's free choice and responsibility. Followers of other religions sharply criticize various Christian missions when they see that missionary activity is accompanied by a manifestation of arrogance and pride or is associated with non-religious interests, including the interests of state power. At the same time, it would be wrong to equate the Christian mission in general with errors characteristic of some part of Western Christianity or one historical period (for example, the period of colonialism). Harsh criticism is directed at “Christians,” not Christ. Everything will change in the world if we Christians live and act and proportion our mission, following in the footsteps of Christ. The power of God often manifests itself through the paradox of the absence of worldly power and can be experienced only in the sacrament of love, in external simplicity.

We need constant honest self-criticism and repentance. This does not mean restricting Orthodox witness, which will lead to a colorless dialogue, but rather a free acceptance of the logic of love, the always revolutionary logic of Christ, who “exhausted himself” in order to come and dwell in a special human reality. Following His Way of Life and Death in Permanent Personal Transformation "From glory to glory" (). The aim of the Orthodox is not to limit or minimize their "testimony", but to live in accordance with the vocation: to follow Christ.

“Those who lived in accordance with the Word (reason) are Christians, at least they were considered atheists: such are among the Hellenes - Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the barbarians - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, and Elijah and many others; retelling their actions or names would be, I know, tiring, and this time I will refrain from it. "(Apology 1, 46) .. The source of knowledge. Part II. About heresies.

Theodore Abu Kurah. Against the heresies of the Jews and the Saracens.

Anastasios Yannoulatos. Byzantine and Contemporary Greek Orthodox Approaches to Islam. - Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 33: 4 (1996), pp. 512-528.

Apart from missionary notes and general works on Church history, we have no systematic study of this issue. Our topic is the work of Bishop Chrysanthus, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, "Religions of the Ancient World in Their Relationship to Christianity" (St. Petersburg, 1878). In it, he cites the views of the Church Fathers on paganism and develops some theological considerations regarding the non-Christian world, primarily the ancient.

The novel "Anna Karenina", VII.

For more on this theological position, see: Anastasios (Yannoulatos). Emerging Perspective of the Relationships of Christians to People of Other Faith - An Eastern Orthodox Christian Contribution. - International Review of Mission, 77 (1988); Facing People of Other Faiths from an Orthodox Point of View - Holy Cross Conference, 3rd International Conference of Theological Schools: Icon and Kingdom: Orthodox Face the 21 m Century. - The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 58 (1993).

John Karmiris. The universality of salvation in Christ. - Praktikatis Akadimias Athinon. 1980.Vol. 55 (Athens, 1981). Pp. 261-289 (in Greek); See also: The Salvation of God's People Outside the Church. - In the same place. 1981.Vol. 56 (Athens, 1982). S. 391-434.

Emperor John VI Cantacuzin (d. 1383) remarks: “Muslims prevented their people from entering into dialogue with Christians, of course, so that they could not get a clear knowledge of the truth during the interview. Christians are confident in the purity of their faith, and in the righteousness, and in the truth of the doctrine, which they adhere to, and therefore they do not create any obstacles to their people, but each of them has complete freedom and power to discuss faith with whom he wants. "(Against Muslims).

Interesting in this case is the observation made by the French thinker Rene Girard of Stanford University in California: “The value system created by [Christianity] 2,000 years ago continues to operate, regardless of whether more people join this religion ... Ultimately, everyone joins the Christian value system. What do human rights mean if not the protection of innocent victims? Christianity, in its secular form, has taken such a dominant position that it is no longer perceived as one of the religions. Real globalization is Christianity! "

From the joint message of the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches in the year of the 2000th anniversary of Christianity.

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 Theology Department 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 in our country for centuries. These are Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. I will not go into detail about each of these religions, but I will try to outline in general terms their differences from Orthodox Christianity and talk about how we are building 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 worldwide, but as a national religion. Currently, it is professed 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 basis 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, and followed the customs of the Jewish religion. For some time, Christianity remained somewhat dependent on Judaism. In science, there is even the 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 church services) and the influence of Jewish theology and Jewish ritual for 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 on, the story of the scattering of the Jewish people begins, 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 sources of this conflict already in the polemic of Jesus Christ with the Jews and their religious leaders - the Pharisees, whom He harshly criticized and who treated Him with an extreme degree of hostility. It was the religious leaders of the Israeli people who secured the Savior's condemnation to death on the cross.

The relationship between Christianity and Judaism has evolved over the centuries in a spirit of controversy and mutual rejection. In rabbinic Judaism, the attitude towards Christianity was purely negative.

Meanwhile, Jews and Christians share a significant part of the Holy Scriptures. Everything that we call the Old Testament, with the exception of some later books, is also 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, Mishnah, Halakha. All these books, more precisely, collections of books, were of an explanatory nature. They are based on that Holy Scripture, which is common for Christians and Jews, but interpreted it differently from those interpretations that developed in the Christian environment. If for Christians the Old Testament is an important, but not the primary part of Holy Scripture, which is the New Testament, which speaks of Christ as God and man, then the Jewish tradition of Christ as God-man rejected, and the Old Testament remains the main sacred book.

The attitude towards the New Testament and towards the Christian Church in general among the Jewish community was sharply negative. In the Christian environment, the attitude towards the Jews was also negative. If we turn to the works of the fathers of the Church of the 4th century, 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 polemics that had been waged over the centuries between representatives of the two religions. The essence of the disagreement was in relation to Jesus Christ, because if Christians recognize Him as the Incarnate God and the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One whom the prophets predicted and whom the Israelite people expected, then the Israelite people themselves, for the most part, did not accept Christ as the Messiah and continues to wait the coming of another messiah. Moreover, this messiah is considered not so much a spiritual leader as a political leader who will be able to restore the power 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, therefore many of them did not accept Christ completely sincerely - they were sure that the Messiah would be the person who, first of all, would come and free the Israeli people from the power of the Romans.

The Talmud contains many offensive 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 a tradition dating back to Old Testament times, which generally prohibited any images of the Divine and saints. Therefore, if you go to a Christian church, 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 the Incarnate God, then Judaism is the religion of the Invisible God, who manifested Himself in the history of the Israeli people in a mysterious way and was perceived as God, first of all, of the Israeli people, and secondarily 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 Israelite people perceived God as their own God, unlike the gods of other nations: if they worshiped pagan deities, then the Israeli people worshiped the True God and considered it their legal privilege. Ancient Israel did not have at all, as it still does not in the Jewish religion, any missionary vocation to preach among other nations, because Judaism is thought, I repeat, as the religion of one - the Israeli - people.

In Christianity, the doctrine of God's chosen people of Israel was refracted in different times in different ways. Even the Apostle Paul said that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). He believed that the entire Israelite people would sooner or later believe in Christ. On the other hand, already in the theology of the Church Fathers of the IV century, which, as we remember, was the time of the formation of very many historiosophical concepts within Christian theology, there was an understanding according to which the God's chosen people of the Israelites ended after they rejected Christ, and passed to “ new Israel ”, the Church.

In modern theology, this approach is called "substitutionary theology." The point is that the new Israel, as it were, replaced ancient Israel in the sense that everything said in the Old Testament in relation to the Israeli people already refers 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 Israel.

In the second half of the 20th century, a different understanding emerged in Western theology, which was associated with the development of interaction between Christians and Jews, with the development of Christian-Jewish dialogue. This new understanding practically did not affect the Orthodox Church, but found widespread recognition in the Catholic and Protestant environment. According to him, the Israeli people continues to be God's chosen one, because if God chooses someone, then He does not change His attitude towards a person, towards several people or towards a specific nation. Consequently, God's chosenness remains a kind of stamp that the Israeli people continue to bear on themselves. The realization of this God's chosenness, from the point of view of the Christian theologians adhering to this point of view, consists precisely in the fact that the representatives of the Israelite people turn to faith in Christ, become Christians. It is known that among the people who are Jewish by ethnic origin, there are many who believed in Christ - they belong to different confessions 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 the Jews towards Christians and Christians towards the Jews has existed for centuries in different countries and also reached the everyday level. It took a variety of, sometimes monstrous forms, up to the Holocaust in the 20th century, up to Jewish pogroms.

Here it must be said that in the past, until very recently, in fact, until the 20th century, as we can 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 massive repressions, extermination, primarily from the Nazi regime - a regime that we can in no 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, a regular 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 for centuries lived in peace and harmony, 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 confessions, there is a very high degree of agreement.

Well, and the most important thing, which, probably, must be said: despite the quite obvious differences in the field of doctrine, despite the cardinal difference in the approach to the person of Jesus Christ, between Jews and Christians what is the basis of all monotheistic religions remains: 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 respect, we are talking about a certain doctrinal closeness 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 the order of appearance). And for Christianity, Abraham is a righteous man, and for Christianity, the history of the Israelite people is sacred history.

If you get acquainted with the texts that sound at the Orthodox divine service, 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 into the world of Jesus Christ, while for the Israelite people they are of independent value. For example, if in the Jewish tradition Easter is celebrated as a holiday associated with the remembrance of the passage of the Israeli people through the Red Sea and the 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 holiday of the Resurrection of Christ. There is a certain genetic connection between the two Easter - 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 today to interact, conduct dialogue and work together for the benefit of people.

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, which in the Muslim tradition plays the role of Holy Scripture, is called the Koran, and Muslims believe that it is dictated by God himself, that every word of it is true and that the Koran, before it was written, pre-existed with God. Muslims consider the role of Mohammed to be prophetic in the sense that the words he brought to earth are divine revelations.

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

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 only 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, alms are obligatory - zakat, that is, an annual tax that each of the Muslims with a certain income must pay in favor of their poorer fellows. Finally, it is believed that a devout Muslim, if he has physical and material opportunities, should make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his life, 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 denominations, so Islam is a heterogeneous phenomenon. There is Sunni Islam, to which, according to various estimates, 80 to 90 percent of all Muslims in the world belong. There is Shiite Islam, which is 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 years, an increasing role, including in world politics, has been played by the radical wing of the Islamic world - Salafism (or, as it is now often called, Wahhabism), which the leaders of official Islam repudiate as a perversion of Islam, because Wahhabism calls for hatred, aims to create a world 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.

When talking 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 he has, who his parents were, and so on. In Christianity there is not and cannot be any compulsion to faith. And besides, Christianity is precisely a religious, not a political system. 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 ​​have 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, in Islam, religious elements are very closely intertwined with legal and political elements. It is no coincidence, for example, that in a number of Islamic states, religious leaders are in power, and, unlike Christian ones, they are not perceived as clergy. Only at the everyday level it is customary to talk about "Muslim priests" - in fact, the spiritual leaders of Islam are, in our understanding, laymen: they do not perform any 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 can see this on the example of a number of states, such as Iran, where spiritual leaders are in power.

Turning to the topic of the 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 being 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. There have been no inter-religious wars in the history of Russia. We had interethnic conflicts - this explosive potential remains to this day, which we observe even in Moscow, when in one of the city's microdistricts one group of people unexpectedly revolts against another group - against people of a different ethnic origin. However, these conflicts are not religious in nature and are not religiously motivated. Such incidents can be characterized as manifestations of hatred at the household level, with signs of interethnic conflicts. In general, the experience of the coexistence of Christians and Muslims in our state over the centuries can be characterized as positive.

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

There is also the Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation, which meets quite regularly and in the face of government authorities presents a 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 states of Asia, 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 priests, which is why we are now witnessing a massive 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. We know what is happening in those parts of Syria where the Wahhabis hold power. There is an almost complete extermination of Christians, a massive desecration of Christian shrines.

The growing tension in the Middle East and a number of other regions requires political decisions and the efforts of religious leaders. Now it is no longer enough to simply declare that Islam is a peaceful religion, that terrorism has no nationality or confessional affiliation, because we are increasingly seeing the growth of radical Islamism. Therefore, more and more often in dialogue with Islamic leaders, we tell them about the need to influence our 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 professed by a considerable number of people, while this religion in its doctrinal foundations is far from Christianity than Judaism or Islam. Some scholars do not even agree to call Buddhism a religion, because there is no concept of God in it. The Dalai Lama calls himself an atheist because he does not recognize the existence of God as a Supreme Being.

At the same time, 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 experience of prayer between Buddhists and Christians is completely different.

As a student, I had occasion to visit Tibet and communicate with Tibetan monks. We talked, among other things, about prayer, and it was not clear to me who the 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 meditation, some words that we utter - it is 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 in only one direction: by turning questions to God, we receive answers; when we make requests, they are often fulfilled; if we arrive in bewilderment 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 an insight that occurs in a person when he is looking for something and does not find, 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, which 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 immerses himself in himself. All the potential of good that exists in Buddhism, its adherents try to extract from themselves, that is, from the very nature of man.

As people who believe in the One God, we do not 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 famous 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 church at the service and experienced very special feelings: 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 words such as "God", "the Most High." We understand that the craving for communication with the Supreme Being exists in Buddhism too, only it is expressed in a different way than in Christianity.

There are many teachings in Buddhism that are unacceptable to Christianity. For example, the doctrine of reincarnation. According to the 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 pass into eternal life. Moreover, during his stay on earth, the soul is united with the body, the soul and body become one indissoluble being. In Buddhism, there is a completely different idea about the course of history, about a person's place in it and about the relationship between soul and body. Buddhists believe that the soul can wander from one body to another, moreover, that it can move from the human body to the animal body, and vice versa: from the animal body to the human body.

In Buddhism, there is a whole teaching that the actions of a person committed in this life affect his future destiny. We Christians also say that our actions in earthly life affect our destiny 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 told about one dog, which, no matter how much it ate, always found a place for another piece. “I think that in a past life she was one of the Tibetan monks who died of hunger,” 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 to do 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 quite struck by the constant calmness, the hospitality of the monks. They always smile, and this smile is not developed, but quite natural, it stems from some 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 calmly coexisted for centuries in different regions 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 many more Christians in the country than Muslims. Is there any known long and effective experience of good cooperation and good neighborliness in countries where the majority of the population is Muslim?

- Unfortunately, there are much 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 Christian Maronite, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, etc. 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 “Copt” means “Egyptian” and therefore indicates ethnic and 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 (Chalcedonian), which adopted the teaching that Jesus Christ possesses two natures - divine and human. These Churches did not accept not so much the teaching itself as the terminology with which this teaching was expressed.

The Eastern Churches are now often called 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 full-fledged 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, a theological dialogue is being conducted 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 religious rites, and is it acceptable for a Christian to participate in their rites?

- We prohibit our believers from participating in the rituals 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 can attend a service in a Catholic or Protestant church, but he must not receive communion with non-Orthodox. We can marry a couple in the event that one of the future spouses is Orthodox and the other is Catholic or Protestant, but it is impossible to marry a Christian with a Muslim woman or a Muslim with a Christian woman. We do not allow our believers to go to prayer 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 Jerusalem temple. When it ceased to exist - now, as you know, there is only one wall left of the temple, which is called the Wailing Wall, and Jews from all over the world come to Jerusalem to worship it - a full-fledged divine service became impossible.

A synagogue is a meetinghouse, and initially synagogues were not 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 places of meetings of a public nature, where sacred books were read. Thus, the Gospel tells how Christ entered the synagogue on Saturday, opened the book (that is, unfolded the scroll) and began to read and then interpret what He read (see Luke 4:19).

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

There are also some rituals in Judaism, and the main one is circumcision, a rite preserved from the Old Testament religion. Of course, a Christian cannot participate in this rite. Although the first generation of Christians - the apostles - were circumcised people, already in the middle of the 1st century the Christian Church adopted the teaching 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 John the Theologian looks rather ridiculous, because it does not mention a single aspect of the evolution of mankind. It turns out that he saw a revelation about the end of the world, but did not see, say, skyscrapers, modern weapons, machine guns. Especially strange from the point of view of physics, such statements look, for example, that one third of the sun will be closed during some kind of punishment. I think that if one third of the sun is closed, then the earth will not live very long.

- First of all, I would like to note that the person who writes this or that book does it in a certain era, in terms of the concepts accepted at that time and the knowledge that he possesses. We call the sacred books revealed by God, but we do not say that they were written by God. Unlike Muslims who believe that the Koran is a book written by God and fell from heaven, we say that all the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments were written by people here on earth. They described their experiences in books, but it was a religious experience, and when they wrote, they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle John the Theologian describes what he saw in supernatural visions. He, of course, could not see, let alone describe either skyscrapers or automata, because there were no such objects then, which means that there were no words to designate them. Words familiar to us - machine gun, skyscraper, car and others - simply did not exist then. Therefore, it is natural that such images could not be 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 epoch of human development it can be revealed in a new way. The history of mankind shows how the 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 the reading of 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, third, fourth. Then - the Acts of the Apostles, Epistles. When you read all this, the Apocalypse will become clearer to you and, perhaps, seem less funny.

- 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 ...

- This is 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. Even the Apostle Paul said that in Christ there is no Hellene, no Jew, no slave, no free(see Gal. 3:27) - therefore, nationality is morally and spiritually irrelevant. What matters is how a person believes and how he lives.

ABOUT THE HIGHEST
the questions are answered by the candidate of theology, a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Dimitri Moiseev.

Hegumen Peter (Meshcherinov) wrote: “And, finally, it is necessary to touch upon the delicate topic of marital relations. Here is the opinion of one priest: “Husband and wife are free personalities, united by the union of love, and no one has the right to come to them with advice in the matrimonial bedroom. I consider harmful, and in a spiritual sense as well, any regulation and schematization (“schedule” on the wall) of marital relations, except for abstinence on the night before communion and the asceticism of Great Lent (by strength and mutual consent). I consider it completely wrong to discuss issues of marital relations with confessors (especially monastics), since the presence of a mediator between husband and wife in this matter is simply unacceptable, and never leads to any good ”.

God has no trifles. As a rule, the devil is often hiding behind what a person considers unimportant, secondary ... Therefore, those who wish to improve spiritually need to put things in order with God's help in all areas of their lives, without exception. Communicating with familiar family parishioners, I noticed: unfortunately, many in intimate relationships, from a spiritual point of view, behave “worthless” or, to put it simply, sin without even realizing it. And this ignorance is dangerous for the health of the soul. Moreover, modern believers often have such sexual practices that some secular ladies' men may have their hair on end from their skill ... Recently I heard a woman who considers herself Orthodox proudly declared that she had given only $ 200 for "super" educational sexual trainings -seminars. In all her manner, intonation, one could feel: "Well, what are you thinking about, follow my example, all the more, married couples are invited ... Study, study and study again! ..".

Therefore, we asked the teacher of the Kaluga Theological Seminary, candidate of theology, graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Dimitri Moiseyev, to the questions of what and how to learn, otherwise “the teaching is light, and the uneducated is darkness”.

- Is intimate relationships in marriage important for a Christian or not?
- Intimate relationships are one of the aspects of married life. We know that the Lord established marriage between a man and a woman in order to overcome the division between people, so that spouses learn, through work on themselves, to achieve unity in the image of the Holy Trinity, as St. John Chrysostom. And, in fact, everything that accompanies family life: intimate relationships, joint upbringing of children, household, just communication with each other, etc. - all these are means that help a married couple achieve a measure of unity available for their state. Consequently, intimate relationships occupy one of the most important places in married life. This is not the center of being together, but at the same time, it is not such a thing that is not needed.

- On what days are Orthodox Christians forbidden to have intimacy?
- The Apostle Paul said: "Do not move away from each other, unless only by agreement for the exercise of fasting and prayer." It is customary for Orthodox Christians to abstain from marital intimacy on the days of fasting, as well as on Christian holidays, which are days of intense prayer. If anyone is interested, take the Orthodox calendar and find the days that indicate when the marriage is not performed. As a rule, during these same times, Orthodox Christians are advised to refrain from marital relations.
- And what about abstinence on Wednesday, Friday, Sunday?
- Yes, on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday or major holidays and until the evening of this day, you need to abstain. That is, from Sunday evening to Monday - please. After all, if we marry some couples on Sunday, it means that in the evening the newlyweds will be close.

- Do the Orthodox enter into marital intimacy only for the purpose of having a child or for satisfaction?
- Orthodox Christians enter into marital intimacy for love. In order to take advantage of this relationship, again, to strengthen the unity between husband and wife. Because childbearing is only one of the means in marriage, but not its ultimate goal. If in the Old Testament the main purpose of marriage was procreation, then in the New Testament the priority of the family becomes the likeness of the Holy Trinity. It is no coincidence, according to St. John Chrysostom, the family is called a small church. Just as the Church, having Christ as the head, unites all its members into one Body, so the Christian family, which also has Christ as its head, should contribute to the unity between husband and wife. And if God does not give children to any couples, then this is not a reason to abandon marital relations. Although, if the spouses have reached a certain measure of spiritual maturity, then as an exercise in abstinence they can distance themselves from each other, but only by mutual consent and with the blessing of the confessor, that is, a priest who knows these people well. Because it is unreasonable to undertake such feats on your own, not knowing your own spiritual state.

- I once read in an Orthodox book that one confessor came to his spiritual children and said: "The will of God is for you so that you have many children." Can the confessor say this, was it really the will of God?
- If the confessor has achieved absolute dispassion and sees the souls of other people, like Anthony the Great, Macarius the Great, Sergius of Radonezh, then, I think, the law is not written to such a person. And for an ordinary confessor there is a resolution of the Holy Synod prohibiting interference in private life. That is, priests can give advice, but they have no right to force people to do their will. This is strictly forbidden, firstly, St. Fathers, secondly, by a special resolution of the Holy Synod of December 28, 1998, which once again reminded the confessors of their position, rights and obligations. Consequently, the priest may recommend, but his advice will not be binding. Moreover, you cannot force people to take on such a heavy yoke.

- So, the church does not call on married couples to be sure to have many children?
- The Church encourages married couples to be Godlike. And having many children or having few children - this already depends on God. Who can accommodate what - yes. Thank God if a family is able to raise many children, but for some people this can be an overwhelming cross. That is why, in the fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, they approach this issue very delicately. Speaking, on the one hand, about the ideal, i.e. so that the spouses completely rely on the will of God: as much as the Lord gives children, so much will be given. On the other hand, there is a reservation: those who have not reached such a spiritual level should, in a spirit of love and benevolence, consult with the confessor about the issues of their lives.

- Are there limits of admissibility in intimate relationships among Orthodox Christians?
- These boundaries are dictated by common sense. Perversions are naturally condemned. Here, I think, this question comes close to the following: "Is it useful for a believer to study all kinds of sexual techniques, techniques and other knowledge (for example, the Kama Sutra) in order to preserve the marriage?"
The fact is that the basis of marital intimacy should be love between husband and wife. If it is not there, then no technique will help in this. And if there is love, then no tricks are needed here. Therefore, for an Orthodox person to study all these techniques, I think it makes no sense. Because the spouses receive the greatest joy from mutual communication, provided that they love each other. And not on condition that there are some practices. In the end, any technique is boring, any pleasure not associated with personal communication becomes boring, and therefore requires more and more acuteness of sensations. And this passion is endless. This means that you need to strive not to improve some techniques, but to improve your love.

- In Judaism, intimacy with a wife can only be entered into a week after her critical days. Is there something similar in Orthodoxy? Is it permissible for a husband to “touch” his wife these days?
- In Orthodoxy, marital intimacy is not allowed on the critical days themselves.

- So it is a sin?
- Of course. As for a simple touch, in the Old Testament - yes, a person who touched such a woman was considered unclean and had to undergo a purification procedure. There is nothing like this in the New Testament. A person who touches a woman these days is not unclean. Imagine what would happen if a person who traveled in public transport, on a bus packed with people, began to figure out which of the women to touch and which not. What is this, "if anyone is unclean, raise your hand! .." - or what?

- Is it possible for a husband to have an intimate relationship with his wife, if she is in position and from a medical point of view, there are no restrictions?
- Orthodoxy does not welcome such relationships for the simple reason that a woman, being in a position, must devote herself to caring for an unborn child. And in this case, you need some specific limited period, namely 9 months, to try to devote yourself to spiritual ascetic exercises. At least abstain in the intimate sphere. In order to devote this time to prayer, spiritual improvement. After all, the period of pregnancy is very important for the formation of the child's personality and his spiritual development. It is no coincidence that the ancient Romans, being pagans, forbade pregnant women to read books that were not useful from a moral point of view, and to attend entertainment. They understood perfectly well: a woman's mental arrangement is necessarily reflected in the condition of the child who is in her womb. And often, for example, we are surprised that a child born of a mother of not the most moral behavior (and left by her in the hospital), later falling into a normal foster family, nevertheless inherits the character traits of his biological mother, becoming over time the same lecherous, drunkard, etc. There seemed to be no visible influence. But do not forget: he spent 9 months in the womb of just such a woman. And all this time he perceived the state of her personality, which left an imprint on the child. This means that a woman who is in a position, for the sake of the baby, his health, both bodily and spiritual, must in every possible way take care of herself from what may be acceptable at normal times.

- I have a friend, he has a large family. It was very difficult for him as a man to abstain for nine months. After all, it is not useful for a pregnant woman, perhaps, even to caress her own husband, since this is still reflected in the fetus. What is a man to do?
- Here I am talking about the ideal. And whoever has any infirmities - there is a confessor. A pregnant wife is not a reason to have a mistress.

- If possible, let's return again to the question of perversions. Where is the line that a believer cannot cross? For example, I've read that spiritually speaking, oral sex is generally discouraged, right?
- He is condemned as well as sodom relations with his wife. Handicraft is also condemned. And what is within the boundaries of the natural is possible.

- Now petting is in vogue among young people, that is, masturbation, as you said, is it a sin?
- Of course, it's a sin.

- And even between husband and wife?
- Well, yes. Indeed, in this case, we are talking about perversion.

- Is it possible for a husband and wife to engage in affection during fasting?
- Is it possible to sniff sausage while fasting? The question is of the same order.

- Isn't erotic massage harmful for the Orthodox soul?
- I think, if I come to the sauna, and a dozen girls give me erotic massage, then my spiritual life in this case will be thrown very, very far.

- And if from a medical point of view, the doctor prescribed?
- I can explain it as you like. But what is permissible with a husband and wife is not permissible with strangers.

- How often can spouses have intimacy so that this concern for the flesh does not turn into lust?
- I think that each married couple determines a reasonable measure for itself, because here one cannot give any valuable instructions, guidelines. In the same way, we do not describe how much an Orthodox person can eat in grams, drink in liters per day of food and drink, so that caring for the flesh does not turn into gluttony.

- I know one believing couple. They have such circumstances that when they meet after a long separation, they can do this several times a day. Is this spiritually normal? How do you think?
- For them, maybe it's normal. I don’t know these people. There is no strict norm. A person himself must understand what is in what place for him.

- Is the problem of sexual incompatibility important for Christian marriage?
- I think the problem of psychological incompatibility is still important. Any other incompatibility is born precisely because of this. It is clear that a husband and wife can achieve some kind of unity only if they are similar to each other. Initially, different people enter into marriage. It is not the husband who should be like the wife here, and not the wife to the husband. And both husband and wife should try to become like Christ. Only in this case will incompatibility, both sexual and any other, be overcome. However, all these problems, questions of this kind arise in the secular, secularized consciousness, which does not even consider the spiritual side of life. That is, no attempts are made to solve family problems by following Christ, through working on oneself, and correcting one's life in the spirit of the Gospel. There is no such option in secular psychology. This is where all other attempts to solve this problem arise.

- So, the thesis of one Orthodox Christian woman: "Between husband and wife there should be freedom in sex" - is not true?
- Freedom and lawlessness are two different things. Freedom implies a choice and, accordingly, a voluntary restriction for its preservation. For example, in order to continue to remain free, you must limit yourself to the Criminal Code, so as not to go to jail, although in theory I am free to break the law. It is also here: it is unreasonable to prioritize the enjoyment of the process. Sooner or later, a person will become bored with everything possible in this sense. And then what?..

- Is it permissible to be naked in a room where there are icons?
- In this regard, there is a good anecdote among Catholic monks, when one comes out from the Pope sad, and the second - cheerful. One asks the other: "Why are you so sad?" - “Well, I went to the Pope and asked: can you smoke when you pray? He replied: no, you can’t. ” - "Why are you so funny?" - “And I asked: is it possible to pray when you smoke? He said: you can. "

- I know people who live separately. They have icons in their apartment. When the husband and wife are left alone, they naturally become naked, and there are icons in the room. Is it not a sin to do this?
- There is nothing wrong with that. But you do not need to come to church in this form and you should not hang icons, for example, in the toilet.

- And if, when you wash, thoughts about God come, is it not scary?
- In the bath - please. You can pray anywhere.

- And nothing that there is no clothes on the body?
- Nothing. But what about Mary of Egypt?

- But all the same, perhaps, it is necessary to create a special prayer corner, at least for ethical reasons, and fence off the icons?
- If there is an opportunity for this, yes. But we go to the bathhouse wearing a pectoral cross.

- Is it possible to do "this" during the fast, if it is completely unbearable?
- Here again is a question of human strength. As far as a person has enough strength ... But "this" will be considered intemperance.

- Recently I read from Elder Paisius Svyatogorets that if one of the spouses is spiritually stronger, then the strong must yield to the weak. Yes?
- Of course. "So that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance." Because if the wife fasts strictly, and the husband is unbearable to such an extent that he gets himself a mistress, the latter will be bitter than the first.

- If the wife did it for the sake of her husband, then should she come to repent that she did not observe the fast?
- Naturally, since the wife also received her measure of pleasure. If for one it is condescension to weakness, then for another ... In this case, it is better to cite as an example episodes from the life of hermits who, condescending to weakness, or out of love, or for other reasons, could break the fast. This is, of course, a food fast for monks. Then they repented of this, took on even more work. After all, it is one thing to show love and condescension to the weakness of one's neighbor, and it is another thing to allow some kind of indulgence for oneself, without which he could well manage according to his spiritual constitution.

- Isn't it physically harmful for a man to abstain from intimate relationships for a long time?
- Anthony the Great once lived for over 100 years in absolute abstinence.

- Doctors write that it is much more difficult for a woman to abstain than for a man. They even say it is bad for her health. And Elder Paisiy Svyatorets wrote that because of this, the ladies develop "nervousness" and so on.
- I will doubt this, because there are quite a large number of holy wives, nuns, ascetics, etc., who practiced abstinence, virginity and, nevertheless, were filled with love for their neighbors, and not at all with malice.

- Isn't it harmful for a woman's physical health?
- After all, they also lived for a fairly large number of years. Unfortunately, I am not ready to approach this issue with figures in hand, but there is no such dependence.

- Communicating with psychologists and reading medical literature, I learned that if a woman and her husband have no good sexual relations, then she has a very high risk of gynecological diseases. This is an axiom for doctors, so it is wrong?
- I would question it. As for nervousness and other such things, the psychological dependence of a woman on a man is greater than that of a man on a woman. Because even in the Scripture it says: "Your attraction will be to your husband." It is more difficult for a woman to be alone than it is for a man. But in Christ all this is overcome. Hegumen Nikon Vorobyov said very well about this that a woman has a more psychological dependence on a man than a physical one. For her, sexual relations are not so much important as the fact of having a close man with whom you can communicate. The lack of such is more difficult for the weaker sex to endure. And if we do not talk about the Christian life, then this can lead to nervousness and other difficulties. Christ is able to help a person overcome any problems provided the person's spiritual life is correct.

- Is it possible to have closeness to the bride and groom if they have already submitted an application to the registry office, but are not officially scheduled yet?
- As they submitted an application, they can take it away. Still, a marriage is considered concluded at the time of registration.

- And if, say, the wedding is in 3 days? I know many people who have fallen for this bait. A widespread phenomenon - a person relaxes: well there, in 3 days a wedding ...
- Well, in three days Easter, let's celebrate. Or I bake a cake on Maundy Thursday, let me eat it, it's still Easter in three days! .. There will be Easter, it won't go anywhere ...

- Is the closeness between husband and wife allowed after registration at the registry office or only after the wedding?
- A believer, provided that both believe, it is advisable to wait for the wedding. In all other cases, registration is sufficient.

- And if they signed at the registry office, but then had closeness before the wedding, is this a sin?
- The Church recognizes the state registration of marriage ...

- But do they need to repent that they were close before the wedding?
- Actually, as far as I know, people concerned about this issue try not to do so that the painting is today, and the wedding - in a month.

- And even after a week? I have a friend, he went to negotiate a wedding in one of the Obninsk churches. And the father advised him to spread the painting and the wedding for a week, because a wedding is a booze, a party and so on. And then this period was postponed.
- Well I do not know. Christians should not have drunkenness at a wedding, and those for whom any reason is good will have drunkenness even after the wedding.

- That is, you can't carry the painting and the wedding for a week?
- I wouldn't do that. Again, if the bride and groom are church people, well known to the priest, he may well marry them before painting. I will not marry without a certificate from the registry office of people unknown to me. But well-known ones I can marry quite calmly. Because I trust them, and I know that because of this, there will be no legal or canonical problems. For people who regularly visit the ward, this is usually not a problem.

- Is sexual relations dirty or clean from a spiritual point of view?
- It all depends on the relationship itself. That is, the husband and wife can make them clean or dirty. It all depends on the internal arrangement of the spouses. By themselves, intimate relationships are neutral.

- Like money is neutral, right?
- If money is a human invention, then this relationship was established by God. The Lord created such people, who did not create anything unclean, sinful. So, in the beginning, ideally, the sexual relationship is pure. And a person is able to defile them and often does it.

- Is shyness in intimate relationships encouraged by Christians? (And then, for example, in Judaism, many look at their wife through a sheet, because they consider it shameful to see a naked body)?
- Christians welcome chastity, i.e. when all aspects of life are in place. Therefore, Christianity does not give any such legalistic restrictions, just as Islam forces a woman to cover her face, etc. This means that it is not possible to write down the code of intimate behavior of a Christian.

- Is it necessary to abstain after Communion for three days?
- The "Teaching News" tells how one should prepare for Communion: refrain from the proximity of the day before and the day after. Therefore, there is no need to abstain for three days after Communion. Moreover, if we turn to the ancient practice, we will see: married couples received communion before the wedding, got married on the same day, and in the evening there was intimacy. So much for the day after. If you received the Holy Communion on Sunday morning, you dedicated the day to God. And at night you can be with your wife.

- Anyone who wants to improve spiritually, should he strive to make bodily pleasures secondary (unimportant) for him. Or do you need to learn to enjoy life?
- Of course, bodily pleasures should be secondary to a person. He should not put them at the forefront of his life. There is a direct relationship: the more spiritual a person is, the less some bodily pleasures mean to him. And the less spiritual a person is, the more important they are for him. However, we cannot force a person who has just come to church to live on bread and water. But the devotees would hardly eat the cake. To each his own. As he grows spiritually.

- I read in one Orthodox book that by giving birth to children, Christians thereby prepare citizens for the Kingdom of God. Can the Orthodox have such an understanding of life?
- God grant that our children become citizens of the Kingdom of God. However, for this it is not enough just to give birth to a child.

- And what if, for example, a woman becomes pregnant, but she does not know about it yet and continues to enter into an intimate relationship. What should she do?
- Experience shows that while a woman does not know about her interesting situation, the fetus is not very susceptible to this. A woman, indeed, may not know for 2-3 weeks that she is pregnant. But during this period, the fetus is protected quite reliably. Moreover, if the expectant mother takes alcohol, etc. Everything is arranged wisely by the Lord: until a woman knows about it, God Himself takes care, but when a woman finds out ... She should take care of this herself (laughs).

- Indeed, when a person takes everything into his own hands, problems begin ... I would like to end with a major chord. What can you wish, Father Dimitri, to our readers?

- Do not lose love, which is so little in our world.

- Father, thank you very much for the conversation, which let me finish with the words of Archpriest Alexei Uminsky: “I am convinced that intimate relationships are a question of the personal inner freedom of every family. Excessive asceticism is often the cause of marital quarrels and, ultimately, divorce. " The pastor emphasized that the basis of the family is love, leading to salvation, and if there is none, then marriage is “just a household structure, where a woman is a reproductive force, and a man is the one who earns his bread”.

Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria.

Marriage (intimate side of the issue)
Love between a man and a woman is one of the important themes of biblical evangelism. As God Himself says in Genesis, “a man will leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife; and the two will be one flesh ”(Gen. 2:24). It is important to note that marriage was established by God in Paradise, that is, it is not a consequence of the Fall. The Bible tells about married couples in whom there was a special blessing of God, expressed in the multiplication of their offspring: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel. Love is sung in the Song of Solomon, a book that, despite all the allegorical and mystical interpretations of the Holy Fathers, does not lose its literal meaning.

The first miracle of Christ was the transformation of water into wine at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which is understood by the patristic tradition as a blessing of the marriage union: “We affirm,” says St. Cyril of Alexandria, “that He (Christ) blessed marriage in accordance with the economy by which He became man and went ... to the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2: 1-11) ”.

History knows sects (Montanism, Manichaeism, etc.) that rejected marriage as allegedly contrary to the ascetic ideals of Christianity. Even in our time, one sometimes hears the opinion that Christianity abhors marriage and "allows" the marriage of a man and a woman only out of "condescension to the weaknesses of the flesh." How wrong this is can be judged at least by the following statements of the Hieromartyr Methodius of Patarsky (IV century), who in his treatise on virginity provides the theological justification for childbirth as a consequence of marriage and, in general, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman: “... It is necessary that a person ... acted in the image of God ... for it is said: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). And we should not disdain the definition of the Creator, as a result of which we ourselves began to exist. The beginning of the birth of people is the injection of a seed into the bowels of a woman's womb, so that bone from bones and flesh from flesh, having been perceived by an invisible force, are again formed into another person by the same Artist ... This, perhaps, is indicated by the sleepy frenzy directed at the primordial ( cf. Gen. 2:21), prejudging the husband's pleasure in communicating (with his wife), when he, in the thirst for childbearing, goes into a frenzy (ekstasis - "ecstasy"), relaxing with the sleeping pleasures of childbirth, so that something that is torn from his bones and flesh, formed again ... into another person ... Therefore, it is rightly said that a person leaves his father and mother, as if he suddenly forgets about everything at a time when he, having united with his wife in the embrace of love, becomes a participant in fruitfulness, leaving the Divine Creator to take a rib from son to become a father himself. So, if even now God forms man, then is it not audacious to avert childbirth, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to perform with His clean hands? " As Saint Methodius further asserts, when men "plunge the seed into the natural female passages," it becomes "a partaker of the divine creative power."

Thus, conjugal intercourse is viewed as a divinely established creative action performed "in the image of God." Moreover, the sexual act is the way in which God the Artist creates. Although such thoughts are rare in the Fathers of the Church (who were almost all monks and therefore had little interest in this topic), they cannot be passed over in silence when presenting the Christian understanding of marriage. By condemning "fleshly lust", hedonism, leading to sexual immorality and unnatural vices (cf. Rom. 1: 26-27; 1 Cor. 6: 9, etc.), Christianity blesses sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within the framework of the marriage union.

In marriage, a person is transformed, overcoming loneliness and isolation, expansion, replenishment and completion of his personality. Archpriest John Meyendorff defines the essence of Christian marriage as follows: “A Christian is called - already in this world - to have the experience of a new life, to become a citizen of the Kingdom; and this is possible for him in marriage. Thus, marriage ceases to be only the satisfaction of temporary natural impulses ... Marriage is a unique union of two beings in love, two beings who can transcend their own human nature and be united not only "with each other", but also "in Christ" " ...

Another outstanding Russian shepherd, priest Alexander Yelchaninov, speaks of marriage as a "dedication", a "mystery" in which "a complete change in a person, an expansion of his personality, new eyes, a new sense of life, and birth through him into the world in a new fullness" take place. In the union of love of two people, both the disclosure of the personality of each of them takes place, and the emergence of the fruit of love - a child who turns a two into a trinity: “... In marriage, complete knowledge of a person is possible - a miracle of sensation, touch, vision of someone else's personality ... Before marriage, a person slips over life , observes it from the side, and only in marriage plunges into life, entering it through another person. This enjoyment of real knowledge and real life gives that feeling of complete completeness and satisfaction that makes us richer and wiser. And this completeness deepens with the emergence of the third, our child, from us, merged and reconciled. "

Attaching such an exceptionally high importance to marriage, the Church has a negative attitude towards divorce, as well as a second or third marriage, if the latter are not caused by special circumstances, such as, for example, violation of marital fidelity by one side or the other. This attitude is based on the teaching of Christ, who did not recognize the Old Testament regulations regarding divorce (cf. Matt. 19: 7-9; Mark. 10: 11-12; Luke 16:18), with one exception - divorce due to "fornication" (Matthew 5:32). In the latter case, as well as in the event of the death of one of the spouses or in other exceptional cases, the Church blesses the second and third marriage.

In the early Christian Church, there was no special rite of wedding: a husband and wife came to the bishop and received his blessing, after which they communed together at the Liturgy of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. This connection with the Eucharist is also traced in the modern rite of the sacrament of Marriage, which begins with the liturgical exclamation "Blessed is the Kingdom" and includes many prayers from the rite of the Liturgy, the reading of the Apostle and the Gospel, and a symbolic common cup of wine.

The wedding is preceded by the betrothal, during which the bride and groom must attest to the voluntary nature of their marriage and exchange rings.

The wedding itself takes place in the church, as a rule, after the Liturgy. Crowns are placed on those who are married during the sacrament, which are a symbol of the kingdom: each family is a small church. But the crown is also a symbol of martyrdom, because marriage is not only the joy of the first months after the wedding, but also the joint bearing of all subsequent sorrows and sufferings - that daily cross, the burden of which in marriage falls on two. In an age when the disintegration of the family has become commonplace and at the very first difficulties and trials spouses are ready to betray each other and break off their union, this laying of martyr's crowns serves as a reminder that marriage will only be lasting when it is not based on momentary and transient passion, but on the willingness to give his life for another. And a family is a house built on a solid foundation, and not on sand, only if Christ Himself becomes its cornerstone. The troparion of the Holy Martyr, which is sung during the three-fold circumambulation of the bride and groom around the lectern, also recalls the suffering and the cross.

During the wedding, the gospel story of the marriage in Cana of Galilee is read. This reading emphasizes the invisible presence of Christ in every Christian marriage and God's own blessing of the marriage union. In marriage, the miracle of the transposition of "water" should take place. everyday life of earthly life, in "wine" - an incessant and daily holiday, a feast of love of one person to another.

Spousal relations

Is modern man in his marital relationship able to fulfill the varied and numerous church prescriptions of carnal abstinence?

Why not? Two thousand years. Orthodox people try to fulfill them. And among them there are many who succeed. In fact, all carnal restrictions have been prescribed to the believer since the Old Testament times, and they can be reduced to a verbal formula: nothing is too much. That is, the Church simply calls on us not to do anything against nature.

However, in the Gospel, nowhere is it said about the abstinence of a husband and wife from intimacy during fasting?

The entire Gospel and the entire church tradition, which has been going on since apostolic times, speaks of earthly life as a preparation for eternity, of moderation, abstinence and sobriety as an internal norm of Christian life. And anyone knows that nothing captures, captivates and binds a person like the genital area of ​​his being, especially if he lets it out of his inner control and does not want to remain sober. And nothing is so devastating if the joy of being with a loved one is not combined with some abstinence.

It is reasonable to appeal to the centuries-old experience of being a church family, much stronger than a secular family. Nothing preserves the mutual aspirations of husband and wife for each other more than the need to abstain from marital intimacy at times. And nothing kills, does not turn her into making love (it is no coincidence that this word arose by analogy with playing sports), as the absence of restrictions.

How difficult is this kind of abstinence for a family, especially a young one?

It depends on how people went to marriage. It is no coincidence that before there was not only a social and disciplinary norm, but also the church wisdom that a girl and a young man refrained from intimacy before marriage. And even when they got engaged and were already spiritually connected, there was still no physical intimacy between them. Of course, the point here is not that what was absolutely sinful before the wedding becomes neutral or even positive after the sacrament has been performed. And the fact that the need for abstinence of the bride and groom before marriage, with love and mutual attraction to each other, gives them a very important experience - the ability to abstain when it is necessary in the natural course of family life, for example, during the pregnancy of the wife or in the first months after the birth of a child, when most often her aspirations are directed not to physical intimacy with her husband, but to taking care of the baby, and she is simply not very capable of this physically. Those who, during the period of grooming and the pure passage of girlhood before marriage, prepared themselves for this, acquired a lot of essential for their further married life. I know such young people in our parish who, due to various circumstances - the need to graduate from a university, obtain parental consent, acquire some kind of social status - went through a period of one, two, even three years before marriage. For example, they fell in love with each other in their first year of university: it is clear that they still cannot start a family in the full sense of the word, nevertheless, during such a long period of time, they walk their paths hand in hand cleanly as a bride and groom. After that, it will be easier for them to refrain from intimacy when it becomes necessary. And if the family path begins, as, alas, it now happens even in church families, with prodigal relationships, then later periods of forced abstinence do not pass without sorrow until the husband and wife learn to love each other without physical intimacy and without the props that she gives. But it is necessary to learn this.

Why does the apostle Paul say that in marriage, people will have “afflictions according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 7:28)? But don't the lonely and the monastics have sorrows according to the flesh? And what specific sorrows are meant?

For monastics, especially for the novice, sorrows, for the most part of the soul, accompanying their exploits, are associated with despondency, with despair, with doubts about whether they have chosen the right path. For the lonely in the world, this is bewilderment about the need to accept the will of God: why are all my peers already rolling wheelchairs, while others are already raising their grandchildren, and I am all alone and alone or alone and alone? These are not so much carnal as spiritual sorrows. A person who lives a lonely worldly life, from a certain age comes to the fact that his flesh calms down, is pacified, if he himself does not forcibly inflame it through reading and looking at something obscene. And people living in marriage do have "sorrows according to the flesh." If they are not ready for the inevitable abstinence, then they have a very difficult time. Therefore, many modern families break up while waiting for the first baby or immediately after his birth. After all, without having passed the period of pure abstinence before marriage, when it was achieved exclusively by voluntary deed, they do not know how to love each other with restraint, when it has to be done against their will. Whether you want it or not, the wife has no time for her husband's desire during certain periods of pregnancy and the first months of raising a baby. It was then that he begins to look to the side, and she is angry with him. And they do not know how to painlessly pass this period, because they did not take care of this before marriage. After all, it is clear that for a young man it is a certain kind of sorrow, a burden to abstain next to his beloved, young, beautiful wife, the mother of his son or daughter. And in a sense, more difficult than monasticism. It is not at all easy to go through several months of abstinence from bodily intimacy, but it is possible, and the apostle warns about this. Not only in the 20th century, but also to other contemporaries, many of whom were from pagans, family life, especially at its very beginning, was depicted as a kind of chain of continuous amenities, although this is far from the case.

Should one try to observe fasting in a marital relationship if one of the spouses is unchurched and not ready for abstinence?

This is a serious question. And, apparently, in order to answer it correctly, you need to think about it in the context of the broader and more essential problem of marriage, in which one of the family members is not yet a fully Orthodox person. Unlike earlier times, when all spouses were married for many centuries, since society as a whole was Christian until the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, we live in completely different times, to which the words of the Apostle Paul are more applicable than ever, that “the unbeliever a husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband ”(1 Cor. 7:14). And it is necessary to abstain from each other only by mutual consent, that is, in such a way that this abstinence in marital relations does not lead to an even greater split and division in the family. In no case should you insist here, let alone put forward any ultimatums. A believing family member should gradually lead his companion or companion in life so that they someday together and consciously come to abstinence. All this is impossible without serious and responsible churching of the whole family. And when this happens, then this side of family life will fall into its natural place.

The Gospel says that “the wife has no authority over her body, but the husband; likewise, the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife ”(1 Cor. 7: 4). In this regard, if during fasting one of the Orthodox and church-going spouses insists on intimacy, or does not even insist, but simply gravitates towards it in every possible way, and the other would like to keep cleanliness to the end, but makes concessions, then should he to repent of this, as in a deliberate and voluntary sin?

This is a difficult situation, and, of course, it should be considered in relation to different conditions and even to different ages of people. It is true that not all newlyweds who are married before Shrove Tuesday will be able to go through Great Lent in complete abstinence. Moreover, keep all other fasts for many days. And if a young and ardent spouse cannot cope with his bodily passion, then, of course, guided by the words of the Apostle Paul, it is better for a young spouse to be with him than to give him the opportunity to "kindle". The one or the one who is more moderate, abstinent, is more able to cope with himself, sometimes will give up his own desire for purity in order, firstly, that the worst thing that happens due to bodily passion does not enter the life of another spouse, secondly, in order not to generate splits, divisions and thereby not endanger the very family unity. But, however, he will remember that one cannot look for quick satisfaction in one's own compliance, and, deep down, rejoice in the inevitability of the current situation. There is such an anecdote, which gives, frankly, advice far from chastity to a woman subjected to violence: firstly, to relax and, secondly, to have fun. And in this case, it’s so easy to say: “What should I do if my husband (less often my wife) is so hot?” It is one thing when a woman goes to meet someone who cannot yet bear the burden of abstinence with faith, and another thing is when, spreading her arms - well, if it doesn't work out otherwise - keep up with her spouse herself. When yielding to him, you need to be aware of the measure of the assumed responsibility.

If a husband or wife has to give in to a spouse who does not exist in the body in order to otherwise be peaceful, this does not mean that it is necessary to indulge in all grave problems and completely abandon this kind of post for oneself. It is necessary to find the measure that you can now accommodate together. And, of course, the one who is more abstinent should be the leader here. He should take on the responsibility of building up bodily relationships wisely. Young people cannot keep all the fasts - so let them abstain for some rather tangible period: before confession, before communion. The entire Great Lent cannot, then at least the first, fourth, seventh weeks, let others impose some restrictions: on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, so that somehow their life would be tougher than usual. Otherwise, there will be no feeling of fasting at all. Because what is then the point of fasting in terms of food, if the emotional, mental and bodily feelings are much stronger, due to what happens to the husband and wife during marital intimacy.

But, however, of course, everything has its own time and time. If a husband and wife live together for ten, twenty years, go to church and nothing changes, then a more conscientious family member needs to be persistent step by step, even demanding that even now, when they live to gray hair, they raised children, soon grandchildren will appear, bring some measure of abstinence to God. Indeed, into the Kingdom of Heaven we will bring that which unites us. However, it will not be carnal intimacy there that will unite us, for we know from the Gospel that “when they rise from the dead, then they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but they will be like angels in heaven” (Mark 12, 25), otherwise that I managed to grow up during my family life. Yes, at first - with props, which is physical closeness, opening people to each other, making them closer, helping to forget some insults. But over time, these props, which are necessary when the building of marital relations is being built, should fall away, without becoming forests, because of which the building itself is not visible and on which everything rests, so that if they are removed, it will fall apart.

What exactly does the church canons say about when spouses should refrain from bodily intimacy, and when not?

There are some ideal requirements of the Church Ordinance, which should determine the specific path facing each Christian family in order to fulfill them informally. The charter presupposes abstinence from marital intimacy on the eve of Sunday (that is, Saturday evening), on the eve of the celebration of the twelveth feast and fasting Wednesday and Friday (that is, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening), as well as during many days of fasting and fasting days - preparation for the reception of the Saints of Christ Tain. This is the ideal norm. But in each specific case, the husband and wife need to be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not deviate from each other, unless by agreement, for a while, to exercise in fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, I said this as permission, and not as a command ”(1 Kop. 7, 5-6). This means that the family must grow up to a day when the measure of abstinence from physical intimacy adopted by the spouses will not harm or diminish their love in any way, and when the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without the support of physicality. And it is precisely this integrity of spiritual unity that can be continued in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, from the earthly life of a person will continue that which is involved in eternity. It is clear that in the relationship between husband and wife, not carnal intimacy is involved in eternity, but that which it serves as an aid. In a secular, secular family, as a rule, there is a catastrophic change in landmarks, which cannot be allowed in a church family when these supports become cornerstones.

The path to such an increase should be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps. Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year of marriage, can be said that they should go through the entire Christmas fast in abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this by agreement and moderation will reveal a deep measure of spiritual wisdom. And on someone who is not yet ready, it would be unwise to place burdens unbearable on the part of a more abstinent and moderate spouse. But family life is given to us in a temporal extent, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although a certain measure of abstinence from each other "for exercise in fasting and prayer" the family should have from the very beginning. For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, a husband and wife shy away from marital intimacy, not because of fatigue or busyness, but for the sake of more and higher in communion with God and with each other. And Great Lent is necessary from the very beginning of marriage, except for some very special situations, to strive to pass in abstinence, as the most responsible period of church life. Even in a legal marriage, carnal relationships at this time leave an unkind, sinful residue and do not bring the joy that should be from marital intimacy, and in all other respects detracts from the very passage of the field of fasting. In any case, such restrictions should be in place from the first days of married life, and then they need to be expanded as the family grows up and grows.

Does the Church regulate the ways of sexual contact between married husbands and wives, and if so, on what grounds and where exactly is this said?

Probably, in answering this question, it is more reasonable to first speak about some principles and general premises, and then rely on some canonical texts. Of course, by sanctifying marriage with the Sacrament of the wedding, the Church sanctifies the complete union of man and woman - both spiritual and physical. And there is no sanctimonious intention, disdainful of the bodily component of the conjugal union, in the sober church worldview. This kind of neglect, belittling the physical side of marriage, bringing it down to the level of what is only allowed, but which, by and large, should be abhorred, is characteristic of a sectarian, schismatic, or out-of-church consciousness, and if it is churchly, then only painful. This needs to be very clearly defined and understood. Already in the 4th-6th centuries, in the decrees of church councils, it was said that one of the spouses who avoided bodily intimacy with another because of the abhorrence of marriage was to be excommunicated from Communion, if it was not a layman, but a cleric, then deposed. That is, the oppression of the entire completeness of marriage, even in the canons of the church, is unambiguously defined as improper. In addition, the same canons say that if someone refuses to recognize the validity of the Sacraments performed by a married clergyman, then that one is also subject to the same punishments and, accordingly, excommunication from accepting the Holy Mysteries of Christ, if he is a layman, or deprivation of dignity, if he is a cleric. ... This is how highly ecclesiastical consciousness, embodied in the canons included in the canonical code, according to which believers must live, places the bodily side of Christian marriage.

On the other hand, the ecclesiastical consecration of the conjugal union is not a sanction for lewdness. As a blessing of a meal and a prayer before a meal is not a sanction for gluttony, for overeating, and even more so for drinking wine, also the blessing of marriage is in no way a sanction for permissiveness and a feast of the body - they say, do whatever you want, in whatever quantities and at any time. Of course, a sober church consciousness, based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, is always characterized by the understanding that in the life of the family - as in human life in general - there is a hierarchy: the spiritual should take precedence over the physical, the soul should be higher than the body. And when in the family the bodily begins to occupy the first place, and only those small foci or areas that remain of the carnal are assigned to the spiritual or even the soul, then this leads to disharmony, to spiritual defeats and major life crises. In relation to this message, there is no need to cite special texts, because when opening the Epistle of the Apostle Paul or the creation of St. John Chrysostom, St. Leo the Great, St. Augustine - any of the Church Fathers, we will find as many confirmations of this idea as we want. It is clear that it was not canonically fixed by itself.

Of course, the totality of all bodily limitations for a modern person may seem quite heavy, but the church canons indicate to us the measure of abstinence to which a Christian must come. And if in our life there is a discrepancy with this norm - as well as with other canonical requirements of the Church, we, at least, should not consider ourselves deceased and prosperous. And not to be sure that if we abstain during Great Lent, then everything is fine with us and everything else can be ignored. And that if marital abstinence takes place during fasting and on the eve of Sunday, then one can forget about the eves of fasting days, which would also be good to come as a result. But this path is individual, which, of course, must be determined by the consent of the spouses and by reasonable advice from the confessor. However, the fact that this path leads to abstinence and moderation is defined in the church consciousness as an unconditional norm in relation to the arrangement of married life.

As for the intimate side of marriage, here, although it does not make sense to discuss everything publicly on the pages of the book, it is important not to forget that for a Christian those forms of marital intimacy are acceptable that do not contradict its main goal, namely, childbirth. That is, this kind of union of man and woman, which has nothing to do with the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were punished: when bodily intimacy occurs in that perverted form, in which no childbirth can ever occur. This was also said in a fairly large number of texts, which we call "correct" or "canonists", that is, the inadmissibility of this kind of perverse forms of conjugal intercourse was recorded in the Rules of the Holy Fathers and partly in the church canons in the later era of the Middle Ages, after Ecumenical Councils.

But I repeat, since this is very important, the carnal relationship of a husband and wife is not sinful in itself, and as such is not considered by the church consciousness. For the sacrament of the wedding is not a sanction for sin or for some kind of impunity in relation to it. In the Sacrament, that which is sinful cannot be sanctified, on the contrary, that which in itself is good and natural, is raised to a degree that is perfect and, as it were, superior to nature.

Having postulated this position, we can give the following analogy: a person who has worked a lot, should have done his work - it does not matter whether physical or intellectual: a reaper, a blacksmith or a soul fisher - having come home, of course, has the right to expect from a loving wife delicious lunch, and if the day is not fast, then it can be rich meat soup, and a chop with a side dish. There will be no sin in the fact that after the labors of the righteous, if you are very hungry, and ask for more and a glass of good wine to drink. This is a warm family meal, looking at which the Lord will rejoice and which the Church will bless. But how strikingly different from those relationships that have developed in the family, when a husband and wife prefer instead to go somewhere to a social event, where one delicacy is replaced by another, where the fish is made to taste like a bird, and a bird tastes like an avocado, and so that she does not even remind her of her natural properties, where guests, already fed up with a variety of dishes, begin to roll caviar grains across the sky in order to get an additional gourmet pleasure, and from the dishes offered by the mountains they choose when an oyster, when a frog leg, in order to somehow tickle their dull taste buds with other sensory sensations, and then - as it has been practiced since ancient times (which is very characteristicly described in the feast of Trimalchion in Petronius's Satyricon) - by habitually causing a gag reflex, free the stomach in order not to spoil your figure and be able to indulge in dessert. This kind of self-indulgence with food is gluttony and sin in many ways, including in relation to one's own nature.

This analogy can be applied to the conjugal relationship. That which is the natural continuation of life is good, and there is nothing bad and unclean in it. And what leads to the search for more and more new pleasures, another, another, third, tenth point, in order to squeeze out some additional sensory reactions from your body, is, of course, the inappropriate and sinful and that which cannot enter into life of an Orthodox family.

What is permissible in sexual life and what is not, and how is this criterion of permissibility established? Why is oral sex considered vicious and unnatural, because in highly developed mammals, leading a complex social life, this kind of sexual relationship is in the nature of things?

The very statement of the question implies the contamination of modern consciousness with such information, which it would be better not to know. In the previous, in this sense more prosperous, times, children were not allowed into the farmyard during the mating period of animals, so that they would not develop anomalous interests. And if we imagine a situation, not even a hundred-year-old, but fifty years ago, could we find at least one in a thousand people who would be aware of the fact that monkeys are engaged in oral sex? Moreover, would you be able to ask about it in some acceptable verbal form? I think that it is at least one-sided to draw knowledge of this very component of their existence from the life of mammals. In this case, the natural norm for our existence would have to be considered both polygamy, inherent in higher mammals, and the change of regular sexual partners, and if we bring the logical series to the final, then the expulsion of the male fertilizer, when it can be replaced by a younger and physically strong ... So those who want to borrow the forms of organization of human life from higher mammals should be ready to borrow them to the end, and not selectively. After all, reducing us to the level of a monkey herd, even the most highly developed, implies that the stronger will oust the weaker, including sexually. Unlike those who are ready to consider the final measure of human existence as one with that which is natural for higher mammals, Christians, without denying the co-nature of man with another created world, do not reduce him to the level of a highly organized animal, but think as a higher being.

in the rules, recommendations of the Church and church teachers there are TWO specific and CATEGORICAL prohibitions - on 1) anal and 2) oral sex. The reasons can probably be found in the literature for information. But personally, I have not looked. What for? If it is impossible, then it means that it is impossible. As for the variety of poses ... There seem to be no specific prohibitions (with the exception of one not very clear passage in the Nomokanon regarding the pose "woman on top", which precisely due to the ambiguity of the presentation may not be categorized as categorical). But in general, it is recommended for the Orthodox even just to take food with the fear of God, thanking God. One must think that any excesses - both in food and in marriage - cannot be welcomed. Well, and a possible dispute on the topic "what to call excesses" is a question for which the rules are not written, but there is a conscience in this case. Ponder for yourself without guile, compare: why are gluttony considered a sin - gluttony (excessive consumption of excessive food that is not necessary for saturating the body) and gutturalness (passion for delicious dishes and dishes)? (this is the answer from here)

It is not customary to speak openly about certain functions of the reproductive organs, in contrast to other physiological functions of the human body, for example, eating, sleeping, and so on. This area of ​​life is especially vulnerable, many mental disorders are associated with it. Is this due to original sin after the Fall? If so, why, since the original sin was not prodigal, but a sin of disobedience to the Creator?

Yes, of course, the original sin mainly consisted in disobedience and violation of the commandment of God, as well as in non-repentance, unrepentance. And this combination of disobedience and unrepentance led to the falling away of the first people from God, the impossibility of their further stay in paradise and all those consequences of the Fall that entered human nature and which in the Holy Scriptures are symbolically called the dressing of "leather vestments" (Genesis 3:21 ). The Holy Fathers interpret this as the acquisition by human nature of weight, that is, bodily flesh, the loss of many of the original properties that were given to man. Sickness, fatigue and many other things entered not only our mental, but also our bodily composition in connection with the Fall. In this sense, the physical organs of a person, including organs associated with fertility, have become open to diseases. But the principle of bashfulness, the concealment of the chaste, precisely the chaste, and not the sanctimonious-puritanical silence about the sexual sphere, first of all comes from the deep reverence of the Church for man as for the image and likeness of God. As well as not showing off what is most vulnerable and what binds two people most deeply, which makes them one flesh in the Sacrament of marriage, and gives rise to another, immeasurably sublime union and therefore is the object of constant enmity, intrigues, distortion on the part of the evil one. ... The enemy of the human race, in particular, is fighting against what, in itself, being pure and beautiful, is so significant and so important for the inner correct being of a person. Understanding all the responsibility and the severity of this struggle that a person is waging, the Church helps him through keeping bashfulness, keeping silent about what should not be spoken about in public and what is so easy to distort and so difficult to return, because it is infinitely difficult to convert acquired shamelessness into chastity. Lost chastity and other knowledge about oneself, with all the desire, cannot be turned into ignorance. Therefore, the Church, through the concealment of this kind of knowledge and the inviolability of their soul, strives to make him not involved in the multitude of perversions and distortions invented by the crafty that are so majestically and well-arranged by our Savior in nature. Let us listen to this wisdom of the two thousand year existence of the Church. And no matter what culturologists, sexologists, gynecologists, all kinds of pathologists and other Freudians tell us, their name is legion, we will remember that they tell lies about a person, not seeing in him the image and likeness of God.

In this case, how does a chaste silence differ from a sanctimonious one? A chaste silence presupposes an inner dispassion, inner peace and overcoming, that which St. John of Damascene spoke about in relation to the Mother of God, that She had a pure virginity, that is, virginity both in body and soul. The sanctimonious-puritanical silence presupposes the concealment of what the person himself has not overcome, what is boiling in him and with which he even fights, not by an ascetic victory over himself with the help of God, but by hostility towards others, which is so easily spread to other people. and some of their manifestations. At the same time, the victory with one's own heart over the gravitation to what it is struggling with has not yet been achieved.

But how to explain that in the Holy Scriptures, as in other church texts, when Christmas and virginity are glorified, then directly, by their names, the reproductive organs are called: loins, false, gates of virginity, and this does not in any way contradict modesty and chastity? And in ordinary life, say someone like that aloud, either in Old Church Slavonic or in Russian, it would be perceived as indecency, as a violation of the generally accepted norm.

This just suggests that in the Holy Scriptures, in which there are many of these words, they are not associated with sin. They are not associated with anything vulgar, fleshly, exciting, unworthy of a Christian precisely because in church texts everything is chaste, and it cannot be otherwise. For the clean, everything is pure, the Word of God tells us, but for the unclean, the clean will be unclean.

It is very difficult to find now such a context in which this kind of vocabulary and metaphor could be placed and not damage the soul of the reader. It is known that the largest number of metaphors for physicality and human love in the biblical book of Song of Songs. But today the worldly mind has ceased to understand - and not even in the 21st century it happened - the story of the love of the Bride for the Bridegroom, that is, the Church for Christ. In various works of art since the 18th century, we find the fleshly aspiration of a girl for a young man, but in fact this is the relegation of Holy Scripture to the level, at best, of just a beautiful love tale. Although not in the most ancient times, but in the 17th century in the city of Tutaev near Yaroslavl, a whole side-altar of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ was painted with the plots of the Song of Songs. (These frescoes are still preserved.) And this is not the only example. In other words, even in the 17th century, the pure was pure for the pure, and this is another evidence of how deeply man has fallen today.

They say: free love in a free world. Why is this word used in relation to those relationships that, in the church's understanding, are interpreted as prodigal?

Because the very meaning of the word "freedom" is perverted and it has long been invested in a non-Christian understanding, once accessible to such a significant part of the human race, that is, freedom from sin, freedom as unboundness to the low and base, freedom as the openness of the human soul for eternity and for Heaven , and not at all as its determination by its instincts or external social environment. This understanding of freedom has been lost, and today freedom is understood primarily as self-will, the ability to create, as they say, “I turn what I want”. However, behind this is nothing more than a return to the realm of slavery, submission to your instincts under the pathetic slogan: seize the moment, use life while you are young, pluck all permitted and unlawful fruits! And it is clear that if love in human relations is the greatest gift of God, then to pervert love, it is to introduce catastrophic distortions into it, is the main task of that original slanderer and parodist-perverter, whose name is known to everyone reading these lines.

Why is the so-called bed relationship of married spouses no longer sinful, and the same relationship before marriage is referred to as “sinful prodigal incitement”?

There are things that are sinful in nature, and there are things that become sinful as a result of breaking the commandments. Suppose it is sinful to kill, rob, steal, slander - and therefore it is forbidden by the commandments. But by its very nature, eating food is not sinful. It is sinful to enjoy it excessively, therefore there is fasting, certain restrictions on food. The same is true for physical intimacy. Lawfully sanctified by marriage and put on the right track, it is not sinful, but since it is forbidden in a different form, then if this prohibition is violated, it inevitably turns into "prodigal incitement."

It follows from Orthodox literature that the bodily side dulls a person's spiritual abilities. Why, then, do we have not only a black monastic clergy, but also a white one, which obliges a priest to be in a marriage union?

This is a question that has long troubled the Ecumenical Church. Already in the ancient Church, in the II-III centuries, the opinion arose that the more correct path was the path of a celibate life for all the clergy. This opinion prevailed very early in the western part of the Church, and at the Elvir Council at the beginning of the 4th century it sounded in one of its rules and then under Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (11th century) became prevalent after the Catholic Church fell away from the Ecumenical Church. Then compulsory celibacy was introduced, that is, compulsory celibacy of the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church went the way, firstly, more in line with Holy Scripture, and secondly, more chaste: not referring to family relationships, only as a palliative against fornication, a way not to be inflamed beyond measure, but guided by the words of the Apostle Paul and considering marriage as the union of man and woman in the image of the union of Christ and the Church, she originally permitted marriage to deacons, elders, and bishops. Subsequently, starting from the 5th century, and in the 6th century already finally, the Church forbade marriage to bishops, but not because of the fundamental inadmissibility of marriage for them, but because the bishop was not bound by family interests, family cares, concerns about his own and his own. so that his life, connected with the entire diocese, with the entire Church, was entirely given to her. Nevertheless, the Church recognized the marital state as permissible for all other clergymen, and in the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, the Gandrian IV century and the Trullian VI century, it is directly stated that a cleric who avoids marriage due to oppression should be prohibited from serving. So, the Church looks at the marriage of clergy as a chaste and abstinent marriage and the most consistent with the principle of monogamy, that is, a priest can be married only once and must remain celibate and faithful to his wife in the event of widowhood. That which the Church treats with condescension in relation to the marriage relations of the laity should be fully realized in the families of priests: the same commandment about childbearing, the acceptance of all children whom the Lord sends, the same principle of abstinence, the preferential avoidance of each other for prayer and post.

In Orthodoxy, there is a danger in the very estate of the clergy - in the fact that, as a rule, the children of priests become priests. Catholicism has its own danger, since the clergy is constantly recruited from the outside. However, there is a plus in the fact that anyone can become a cleric, because there is a constant influx from all walks of life. Here, in Russia, as in Byzantium, for many centuries the clergy were actually a certain class. There were, of course, cases of taxable peasants entering the priesthood, that is, from the bottom up, or vice versa - representatives of the highest circles of society, but then for the most part into monasticism. However, in principle it was a family-estate affair, and there were its flaws and its own dangers. The main untruth of the Western approach to priesthood celibacy is the very abhorrence of marriage as a condition permissive for the laity, but intolerable for the clergy. This is the main lie, and the social order is a matter of tactics, and it can be assessed in different ways.

In the Lives of the Saints, a marriage in which the husband and wife live as brother and sister, for example, as John of Kronstadt with his wife, is called pure. So - in other cases, the marriage is dirty?

Quite casuistic formulation of the question. After all, we also call the Most Holy Theotokos the Most Pure, although in the proper sense only the Lord is pure from original sin. The Mother of God is Most Pure and Most Immaculate in comparison with all other people. We are also talking about a clean marriage in relation to the marriage of Joachim and Anna or Zechariah and Elizabeth. The conception of the Most Holy Theotokos, the conception of John the Baptist is also sometimes called immaculate or pure, and not in the sense that they were alien to original sin, but in the fact that, compared to what usually happens, they were abstinent and not fulfilled excessive carnal aspirations. In the same sense, purity is spoken of as a greater measure of chastity of those special vocations that were in the lives of some saints, an example of which is the marriage of the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt.

When we talk about the immaculate conception of the Son of God, does this mean that with ordinary people it is vicious?

Yes, one of the provisions of the Orthodox Tradition is that the seedless, that is, immaculate, conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place precisely so that the incarnate Son of God would not be involved in any sin, for the moment of passion and thus the distortion of love for one's neighbor is inextricably linked with the consequences of the Fall, including in the clan area.

How should spouses communicate during their wife's pregnancy?

Any abstinence is then positive, then it will be a good fruit, when it is not perceived only as a denial of anything, but has an inner good filling. If spouses during their wife's pregnancy, abandoning physical intimacy, begin to talk less with each other, and watch more TV or swear in order to give some outlet to negative emotions, then this is one situation. Otherwise, if they try to pass this time as wisely as possible, exacerbating spiritual and prayer communication with each other. After all, it is so natural, when a woman is expecting a child, to pray more to her herself in order to get rid of all those fears that accompany pregnancy, and to her husband in order to support his wife. In addition, you need to talk more, listen more attentively to the other, look for different forms of communication, and not only spiritual, but also spiritual and intellectual, which would dispose the spouses to be together as much as possible. Finally, those forms of tenderness and affection with which they limited the closeness of their communication, when they were still bride and groom, and during this period of married life, should not lead to an aggravation of the carnal and bodily relationship in their relationship.

It is known that in case of certain diseases, fasting in food is either completely canceled or limited, are there such life situations or such diseases when the abstinence of spouses from intimacy is not blessed?

There are. Just do not need to interpret this concept very broadly. Now many priests hear from their parishioners that doctors recommend men with prostatitis to "make love" every day. Prostatitis is not the newest disease, but only in our time, a seventy-five-year-old man is prescribed to constantly exercise in this area. And this is in such years when life, everyday and spiritual wisdom should be achieved. Just as some gynecologists, even with a far from catastrophic illness, women will definitely say that it is better to have an abortion than to bear a child, so other sex therapists advise, in spite of everything, to continue intimate relationships, even not marital ones, that is, morally unacceptable for a Christian but, according to experts, necessary to maintain bodily health. However, this does not mean that such doctors should be obeyed every time. In general, you do not need to rely too much on the advice of only doctors, especially in matters related to the sexual sphere, since, unfortunately, very often sexologists are outspoken carriers of non-Christian ideological attitudes.

The doctor's advice should be combined with advice from a confessor, as well as a sober assessment of one's own bodily health, and most importantly, with internal self-esteem - what a person is ready for and what he is called to. Perhaps it is worth considering whether, for reasons beneficial to a person, this or that bodily ailment is allowed to him. And then make a decision about abstaining from marital relations during the fast.

Are affection and tenderness possible during fasting and abstinence?

Possible, but not such, which would lead to a bodily revolt of the flesh, to kindling a fire, after which a fire must be poured with water or a cold shower must be taken.

Some say that the Orthodox pretend that there is no sex!

I think that this kind of representation of an external person about the view of the Orthodox Church on family relations is mainly explained by his unfamiliarity with the real church worldview in this area, as well as a one-sided reading of not so much ascetic texts, in which this is almost not said at all, as texts either modern near-church publicists, or unremarkable ascetics of piety, or, which even more often happens, modern bearers of secular, tolerant liberal consciousness, distorting church interpretation on this issue in the media.

Now let's think about what the real meaning can be put into this phrase: the Church pretends that there is no sex. What can be understood by this? That the Church is putting the intimate area of ​​life in its proper place? That is, it does not make it that cult of pleasure, that only fulfillment of being, which can be read about in many magazines with shiny covers. So, it turns out, a person's life continues insofar as he is a sexual partner, sexually attractive to persons of the opposite, and now often the same sex. And as long as he is and may be in demand by someone, there is a sense to live. And everything revolves around this: work to make money for a beautiful sexual partner, clothes to attract him, a car, furniture, accessories to furnish an intimate relationship with the necessary entourage, etc. etc. Yes, in this sense, Christianity clearly states: sex life is not the only content of human existence, and puts it in an adequate place - as one of the important, but not the only and not the central component of human existence. And then the refusal of sexual relations - both voluntary, for the sake of God and piety, and forced, in illness or in old age - is not considered as a terrible catastrophe, when, according to many suffering, one can only live out one's life, drinking whiskey and cognac and looking on TV what you yourself cannot realize in any form, but what else causes some impulses in your decrepit body. Fortunately, the Church does not have such a view of a person's family life.

On the other hand, the essence of the question asked may be linked to the fact that there are certain kinds of restrictions that are supposed to be expected from believers. But in fact, these restrictions lead to the fullness and depth of the marriage union, including fullness, depth and, fortunately, joy in intimate life, which people do not know when they change their companions from today to tomorrow, from one night out to another. And collectors of sexual victories will never know that integral completeness of giving themselves to each other, which a loving and faithful married couple knows, no matter how they swagger on the pages of magazines about cosmopolitan girls and men with pumped-up biceps.

This is not to say: the Church does not like them ... Her position should be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating sin from the person who commits it, and not accepting the sin - and same-sex relationships, homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism are sinful in their very essence, which is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Old Testament - the Church refers to the person who sinns with pity, for every sinner leads himself away from the path of salvation until the time when he begins to repent of his own sin, that is, to move away from it. But what we do not accept and, of course, with all the measure of harshness and, if you will, intolerance, against which we rebel, is that those who are so-called minorities are beginning to impose (and at the same time very aggressively) their attitude towards life, to the surrounding reality, to the normal majority. True, there is a certain kind of area of ​​human existence, where for some reason minorities accumulate to the majority. And therefore in the media, in a number of sections of contemporary art, on television, we now and then see, read, hear about those who show us certain standards of modern "successful" existence. This is the kind of presentation of the sin of the poor perverts, unhappily overwhelmed by it, sin as a norm to which you need to be equal and which, if you do not succeed yourself, then at least you need to consider it as the most progressive and advanced, here is this kind of worldview, certainly unacceptable to us.

Is it a sin for a married man to participate in artificial insemination of an outside woman? And does that amount to adultery?

The decree of the jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000 speaks of the inadmissibility of in vitro fertilization when it is not about the married couple themselves, not about the husband and wife, due to certain ailments, are sterile, but for whom this kind of fertilization can be a way out. Although there are limitations here: the resolution only deals with cases where none of the fertilized embryos is discarded as secondary material, which is for the most part impossible. And therefore, in practice, it turns out to be unacceptable, since the Church recognizes the full value of human life from the very moment of conception - no matter how and whenever it happens. When this kind of technology becomes a reality (today they apparently exist somewhere only at the most perfect level of medical care), then it will no longer be absolutely unacceptable for believers to resort to them.

As for the participation of a husband in the fertilization of a stranger or a wife in bearing a child for some third person, even without the physical participation of this person in fertilization, of course, this is a sin in relation to the complete unity of the Sacrament of the marriage union, the result of which is the joint birth of children. for the Church blesses the chaste, that is, an integral union in which there is no flaw, there is no fragmentation. And what can break this marriage union more than the fact that one of the spouses has a continuation of him as a person, as an image and likeness of God outside this family unity?

If we talk about in vitro fertilization by an unmarried man, then in this case, the norm of Christian life, again, is the very essence of intimacy in a conjugal union. No one has canceled the norm of church consciousness that a man and a woman, a girl and a young man should strive to maintain their bodily purity before marriage. And in this sense, it is impossible even to think that an Orthodox, and therefore a chaste young man, would donate his seed in order to impregnate some outsider woman.

And what if newly married newlyweds find out that one of the spouses cannot live a full sexual life?

If an inability to cohabitation is found immediately after marriage, moreover, this is a kind of inability that can hardly be overcome, then according to church canons it is the basis for divorce.

In the case of impotence of one of the spouses that began from an incurable disease, how should they behave with each other?

It must be remembered that over the years something has connected you, and this is so much higher and more significant than the small ailment that now exists, that, of course, in no way should be a reason to allow yourself some things. Secular people admit such thoughts: well, we will continue to live together, because we have social obligations, and if he (or she) cannot do anything, and I still can, then I have the right to find satisfaction on the side. It is clear that such a logic is absolutely unacceptable in a church marriage, and it must be cut off a priori. This means that it is necessary to look for opportunities and ways of other filling of one's married life, which does not exclude affection, tenderness, other manifestations of affection for each other, but already without direct conjugal communication.

Is it possible for a husband and wife to turn to psychologists or sexologists if something goes wrong with them?

As for psychologists, it seems to me that a rule of a more general nature operates here, namely: there are situations in life when the union of a priest and a church doctor is very appropriate, that is, when the nature of mental illness gravitates in both directions - and in the direction of spiritual illness, and towards the medical. And in this case, a priest and a doctor (but only a Christian doctor) can provide effective assistance to both the whole family and its individual member. In cases of some psychological conflicts, it seems to me that the Christian family needs to look for ways to resolve them in themselves through the awareness of their responsibility for the disturbances that occur, through the acceptance of Church Sacraments, in some cases, perhaps, through the support or advice of a priest, of course, if there is the determination of both sides, both husband and wife, in case of disagreement on this or that issue, rely on the priestly blessing. If there is this kind of unanimity, it helps a lot. But running to a doctor for a solution to what is a consequence of the sinful fractures of our soul is hardly fruitful. The doctor will not help here. As for assistance in the intimate, genital area by appropriate specialists who work in this field, it seems to me that in cases of either some physical disabilities or some psychosomatic conditions that impede the full life of the spouses and need medical regulation, it is necessary just see a doctor. But, by the way, of course, when today they talk about sexologists and their recommendations, then most often it is about how a person can get as much pleasure for himself as possible with the help of the body of a husband or wife, lover or mistress, and how to adjust his body composition so that the measure of carnal pleasure becomes more and more and lasts longer and longer. It is clear that a Christian who knows that moderation in everything - especially in pleasures - is an important measure of our life, will not go to any doctor with such questions.

But it is very difficult to find an Orthodox psychiatrist, especially a sex therapist. And besides, even if you find such a doctor, maybe he only calls himself Orthodox.

Of course, this should not be one self-name, but also some reliable external evidence. It would be inappropriate to list specific names and organizations, but I think that whenever it comes to health, mental and physical, one should remember the Gospel word that “the testimony of two people is true” (John 8:17), that is, we need two or three independent certificates confirming both the medical qualifications and the ideological closeness to Orthodoxy of the doctor to whom we apply.

What contraceptive measures are preferred by the Orthodox Church?

None. There are no such contraceptives on which there would be a seal - "with the permission of the Synodal Department for Social Work and Charity" (it is he who is in charge of the medical service). There is not and cannot be such kind of contraceptives! It is another matter that the Church (it is enough to recall her latest document "Fundamentals of the Social Concept") soberly draws a distinction between methods of contraception, absolutely unacceptable and tolerated due to weakness. Contraceptions of abortive action are absolutely unacceptable, not only the abortion itself, but also what provokes the expulsion of a fertilized egg, no matter how quickly it happens, even immediately after the very conception. Anything connected with this kind of action is unacceptable for the life of an Orthodox family. (I will not dictate lists of such means: he who does not know, it is better not to know, and who knows, he understood without that.) As for other, say, mechanical methods of contraception, I repeat, not approving and in no way Considering protection as the norm of church life, the Church distinguishes them from those who are absolutely unacceptable for those spouses who, due to weakness, cannot bear complete abstinence in those periods of the family's life when, for medical, social or some other reasons, childbearing is impossible. When, for example, a woman after a serious illness or by the nature of some treatment during this period, pregnancy is extremely undesirable. Or for a family in which there are already a lot of children, today, due to purely everyday conditions, it is unacceptable to have another child. Another thing is that before God, abstinence from childbearing should always be extremely responsible and honest. Here it is very easy, instead of considering this interval in the birth of children as a forced period, to come down to pleasing ourselves, when crafty thoughts whisper: “Well, why do we need this at all? The career will be interrupted again, although such prospects are outlined in it, and then again a return to diapers, to lack of sleep, to seclusion in our own apartment "or:" Only we have achieved some relative social well-being, began to live better, and with the birth of a child we will abandon the planned trip to the sea, a new car, and some other things there. " And as soon as this kind of crafty arguments begin to enter our life, it means that we need to stop them right there and give birth to the next child. And one must always remember that the Church calls on Orthodox Christians who are married not to consciously refrain from childbearing, neither because of distrust of God's Providence, nor because of selfishness and the desire for an easy life.

If a husband demands an abortion, up to a divorce?

So, you need to part with such a person and give birth to a child, no matter how difficult it may be. And this is exactly the case when obedience to a husband cannot be a priority.

What if a believing wife wants to have an abortion for some reason?

Put all your strength, all your understanding to prevent this from happening, all your love, all the arguments: from resorting to church authorities, the advice of a priest to simply material, practical, whatever arguments. That is, from stick to carrot - everything, just not to. admit murders. Definitely, abortion is murder. And murder must be resisted to the last, regardless of the methods and ways in which it is achieved.

The attitude of the Church towards a woman who, during the years of the godless Soviet regime, had an abortion without realizing what she was doing, is the same as towards a woman who is now doing and already knows what she is doing? Or is it different?

Yes, of course, because according to the well-known gospel parable of the slaves and the steward, there was a different punishment - for those slaves who acted against the will of the master, not knowing this will, and those who knew everything or knew enough and nevertheless did ... In the Gospel of John, the Lord says about the Jews: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin ”(John 15:22). So there is one measure of the guilt of those who did not understand, or even if they heard something, but inwardly, in their heart did not know what untruth was in this, and another measure of the guilt and responsibility of those who already know that this is murder ( it is difficult today to find a person who would not know that this is so), and, perhaps, they even recognize themselves as believers, if they later come to confession, and nevertheless go for it. Of course, not before church discipline, but before one's soul, before eternity, before God - here is a different measure of responsibility, and therefore a different measure of the pastoral and pedagogical attitude towards the sinner. Therefore, both the priest and the entire Church will look differently at a woman raised by a pioneer, a Komsomol member, if she has heard the word "repentance", then only in relation to stories about some dark and ignorant grandmothers who curse the world, if she has heard about The Gospel, then only from the course of scientific atheism, and whose head was filled with the code of the builders of communism and other things, and on the woman who is in the current situation when the voice of the Church, directly and unequivocally testifying to Christ's truth, is heard by everyone.

In other words, the point here is not a change in the Church's attitude to sin, not in some kind of relativism, but in the fact that people themselves are in varying degrees of responsibility in relation to sin.

Why do some pastors believe that marital relations are sinful, if they do not lead to childbirth, and recommend refraining from physical intimacy in cases where one spouse is not a church and does not want to have children? How does this correlate with the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not shy away from each other” (1 Cor. 7: 5) and with the words in the wedding ceremony “marriage is honest and the bed is not shameful”?

It is not easy to be in a situation where, say, an unchurched husband does not want to have children, but if he is unfaithful to his wife, then it is her duty to avoid bodily cohabitation with him, which only indulges his sin. Perhaps this is exactly the case that the clergy warn about. And each such case, which does not imply fertility, must be considered very concretely. However, this does not in any way abolish the words of the wedding rite "marriage is honest and the bed is not bad", it is just that this honesty of marriage and this lack of faith in the bed must be observed with all restrictions, warnings and admonitions if they begin to sin against them and abandon them.

Yes, the apostle Paul says that “if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to kindle ”(1 Cor. 7: 9). But he saw in marriage undoubtedly more than just a way to channel his sexual desire in a legal direction. Of course, it's good for a young man to be with his wife instead of fruitlessly kindling up to thirty years and earning some kind of complexes and perverted habits, therefore, in the old days, they got married early enough. But, of course, not everything about marriage is said in these words.

If a 40-45-year-old husband and wife who already have children decide not to give birth to new ones anymore, this does not mean that they should give up intimacy with each other?

Starting from a certain age, many spouses, even those who are churchgoers, according to the modern view of family life, decide that they will not have more children, and now they will experience everything that they did not have time when they raised their children in their young years. The Church has never supported or blessed such an attitude to childbearing. As well as the decision of a large part of newlyweds to first live for their own pleasure, and then have children. Both are distortions of God's plan for the family. Spouses who are long overdue to prepare their relationship for eternity, if only because they are now closer to it than, say, thirty years ago, once again immerse them in physicality and reduce them to the fact that they obviously cannot have a continuation in the Kingdom of God ... It will be the Church's duty to warn: there is danger here, here if not a red, then a yellow traffic light is on. Upon reaching adulthood, placing at the center of your relationships that which is auxiliary, of course, means distorting them, maybe even ruining them. And in the specific texts of these or those pastors, not always with the measure of tact as we would like, but in fact it is absolutely correct, this is said about it.

In general, it is always better to be more abstinent than less. It is always better to keep the commandments of God and the Church Rite more strictly than to interpret them condescendingly towards oneself. To others, treat them condescendingly, and try to apply them to yourself with full measure of severity.

Is a carnal relationship considered sinful if a husband and wife come at an age when childbearing becomes absolutely impossible?

No, the Church does not consider those marital relations, when childbearing is no longer possible, sinful. But he calls on a person who has reached maturity and either retained, perhaps, even without his own desire, chastity, or, on the contrary, who had negative, sinful experiences in his life and wants to marry at the end of his years, it is better not to do this, because then he it will be much easier to cope with the urges of your own flesh, without striving for what is no longer appropriate simply because of age.

Without understanding everything that happens in the Church, without elementary knowledge about Orthodoxy, a truly Christian life is impossible. What questions and erroneous judgments there are about the Orthodox faith among the novices, the portal "Orthodox Life" examined.

Myths are dispelled by the teacher of the Kiev Theological Academy Andrei Muzolf, reminding: those who do not learn anything run the risk of remaining a novice forever.

- What are the arguments in favor of the fact that a person should make the only correct choice on his spiritual path in favor of Orthodoxy?

- According to Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, a person will never be able to perceive Orthodoxy as a personal faith unless he sees the light of Eternity in the eyes of another Orthodox. One modern Orthodox theologian once said that the only important argument in favor of the truth of Orthodoxy is holiness. Only in Orthodoxy do we find that holiness to which the soul of man strives - a "Christian" by nature, as the church apologist of the beginning of the 3rd century Tertullian says about it. And this holiness is incomparable with ideas about the holiness of other religions or denominations. “Tell me who your saint is, and I will tell you who you are and what your church is,” - this is how you can paraphrase a well-known proverb.

It is by the saints of a particular church that one can determine its spiritual essence, its core, because the ideal of the church is its saint. By what qualities the saint possessed, one can draw a conclusion, to which the church itself calls, because a saint is an example to follow for all believers.

–How to relate to the saints and shrines of other religions?

- The holiness of Orthodoxy is the holiness of life in God, the holiness of humility and love. It is fundamentally different from the holiness that we see in other Christian and non-Christian denominations. For the Orthodox saint, the goal of life was, first of all, the struggle with one's own sin, the striving for union with Christ, deification. Holiness in Orthodoxy is not a goal, it is a consequence, a result of a righteous life, the fruit of union with God.

The saints of the Orthodox Church considered themselves the most sinful people in the world and unworthy even to call themselves Christians, while in some other confessions holiness was an end in itself and for this reason, willingly or unwillingly, gave birth in the heart of such a “ascetic” only pride and ambition. An example of this is the lives of such "saints" as Blessed Angela, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius Loyola, Catherine of Siena and others, who were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and some of them were even numbered among the Teachers of the Universal Church.

The canonization of such saints is the glorification of human vices and passions. The true Church, however, cannot do that. What should be the attitude of Orthodox Christians towards such "saints" - the answer, I think, is obvious.

–Why is the Orthodox Church so intolerant of other religions?

- The Orthodox Church has never called on its followers to any intolerance, especially religious, because any intolerance sooner or later can develop into anger and anger. In the case of religious intolerance, hostility can easily be redirected from the religious teaching itself to its representatives and supporters. According to the Patriarch of Albanian Anastasia, “the Orthodox position can be critical only in relation to other religions as systems; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always a position of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be the bearer of the image of God. " Blessed Augustine warns: “We must hate sin, but not the sinner,” and therefore if our intolerance leads to anger at this or that person, then we are on the road that leads not to Christ, but from Him.

God acts in all creation, and therefore even in other religions there are, albeit weak, but still reflections of the Truth, which is fully expressed only in Christianity. In the Gospel we see how the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly praised the faith of those whom the Jews considered pagans: the faith of a Canaanite woman, a Samaritan woman, a Roman centurion. In addition, we can recall an episode from the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, when the Apostle Paul arrived in Athens - a city that, like no other, was replete with all possible religious cults and creeds. But at the same time, the holy Apostle Paul did not immediately reproach the Athenians for polytheism, but tried, through their polytheistic inclinations, to lead them to the knowledge of the One True God. In the same way, we must show to the representatives of other confessions not intolerance, but love, because only by an example of our own love can we show others how much Christianity is higher than all other faiths. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

–Why does God allow evil to be done?

- The Holy Scripture says: "God did not create death and does not rejoice in the destruction of the living, for He created everything for being" (Prem. 1:13). The reason for the appearance in this world of evil is the devil, the highest fallen angel, and his envy. The Wise says so: “God created man to be incorruptible and made him the image of His eternal existence; but death entered the world through the envy of the devil, and those belonging to his inheritance test it ”(Wis. 2: 23-24).

In the world created by God, there is no “part” that in itself would be evil. Everything created by God is good in itself, because even demons are angels who, unfortunately, did not retain their dignity and did not stand in good, but who were nevertheless originally, by their nature, created good.

The answer to the question, what is evil, was well expressed by the holy fathers of the Church. Evil is not nature, not essence. Evil is a definite action and condition of the one who does evil. Blessed Diadochus of Fotikias, an ascetic of the 5th century, wrote: “Evil is not; or rather, it is only at the moment when it is performed. "

Thus, we see that the source of evil lies not at all in the arrangement of this world, but in the free will of creatures created by God. Evil exists in the world, but not in the same way as everything that has its own special "essence" exists in it. Evil is a deviation from good, and it does not exist at the level of substance, but only to the extent that free beings created by God deviate from good.

Based on this, we can assert that evil is unreal, evil is non-existence, it does not exist. According to the blessed Augustine, evil is a defect or, rather, a corruption of good. Good, as we know, can increase or decrease, and here the decrease of good is evil. The most vivid and meaningful definition of what is evil, in my opinion, is given by the famous religious philosopher N.A. Berdyaev: "Evil is a falling away from absolute being, accomplished by an act of freedom ... Evil is a creation that deified itself."

But in this case, the question arises: why did not God from the very beginning create the universe without the possibility of the emergence of evil in it? The answer is this: God allows evil only as a certain inevitable state of our still imperfect universe.

For the transformation of this world, the transformation of man himself, his deification was necessary, and for this a person had to be initially affirmed in goodness, to show and prove that he was worthy of those gifts that were laid in his soul by the Creator. Man had to reveal in himself the image and likeness of God, and he could only do this freely. According to the English writer K.S. Lewis, God did not want to create a world of obedient robots: He wants to have only sons who will turn to Him only for love.

The best explanation of the reason for the existence of evil in this world and how God Himself can tolerate its existence, it seems to me, is the words of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: “God takes full responsibility for the creation of the world, for man, for the freedom that He gives, and for all the consequences to which this freedom leads: suffering, death, horror. And God's justification is that He Himself becomes man. In the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, God enters the world, clothed with flesh, uniting with us with all human destiny and bearing on Himself all the consequences of the freedom He Himself has given. ”

–If a person was born in a non-Orthodox country, did not receive an Orthodox upbringing and died unbaptized–is there no salvation for him?

- In the Epistle to the Romans, the holy Apostle Paul writes: “When pagans, who do not have the law, do what is lawful by nature, then, having no law, they are their own law: they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as evidenced by their conscience them and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another ”(Rom. 2: 14-15). Having expressed such a thought, the Apostle asks the question: "If the uncircumcised one observes the provisions of the law, then his uncircumcision will not be imputed to him for circumcision?" (Rom. 2:26). Thus, the apostle Paul suggests that some non-Christians, by virtue of their virtuous life and due to the fulfillment of the Law of God written in their hearts, can still be awarded glory from God and, as a result, be saved.

Saint Gregory the Theologian wrote very clearly about those people who, unfortunately, could not or would not be able to receive the Sacrament of Baptism: some coincidence completely beyond their control, according to which they are not worthy to receive grace ... the last who did not receive Baptism will not be glorified or punished by the righteous Judge, because although they are not sealed, they are not bad either ... everyone ... unworthy of honor is already worthy of punishment. "

Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, a well-known Orthodox theologian of the 14th century, says something even more interesting about the possibility of saving unbaptized people: “Many, when they were not yet baptized with water, were baptized by the Bridegroom of the Church Himself. To many he sent a cloud from heaven and water from the earth beyond expectation, and thus baptized them, and recreated most of them in secret. " The cited words of the renowned theologian of the XIV century secretly indicate that some people, finding themselves in the other world, will become partakers of the life of Christ, His Divine Eternity, since it turns out that their communion with God was accomplished in a special mysterious way.

Therefore, we simply do not have the right to talk about who can be saved and who cannot, because by committing such gossip, we assume the functions of the Judge of human souls, which belong only to God.

Interviewed by Natalia Goroshkova