Reincarnation: Why Can't Orthodoxy Accept It? Church etiquette. The behavior of an Orthodox Christian in a church, in a monastery and at home

Entering the house, you must say: "Peace to your home!" - to which the owners answer: "We accept in peace!" Having found neighbors at a meal, it is customary to wish them: "An angel at a meal!" For everything, it is customary to warmly and sincerely thank our neighbors: "Save God!", "Save Christ!" or "God save you!" - to which it is supposed to answer: "To the glory of God." Non-church people, if you think that they will not understand you, in this way it is not necessary to thank. Better to say, "Thank you!" or "I am grateful to you from the bottom of my heart."

How to greet each other. Each locality, each age has its own customs and characteristics of greetings. But if we want to live in love and peace with our neighbors, it is unlikely that the short words “hello”, “chao” or “goodbye” will express the depth of our feelings and establish harmony in relationships. Over the centuries, Christians have developed special forms of greeting. In ancient times they greeted each other with the exclamation: "Christ is in our midst!" - hearing in response: "And it is, and it will be." This is how priests greet each other, shaking hands, kissing each other three times on the cheek and kissing each other right hand... However, priests can greet each other like this: "Bless." Venerable Seraphim of Sarov addressed everyone with the words: "Christ is Risen, my joy!" Modern Christians greet each other in this way on Easter days - before the Ascension of the Lord (that is, for forty days): "Christ is Risen!" - and they hear in response: "Truly he is risen!".

On Sundays and holidays it is customary for Orthodox Christians to greet each other with mutual congratulations: "Happy Holidays!"

When they meet, lay men usually kiss each other on the cheek at the same time as shaking hands. It is a Moscow custom to kiss three times on the cheeks when meeting - women with women, men with men. Some pious parishioners bring to this custom a feature borrowed from monasteries: three times mutual kissing on the shoulders, like a monk.

From monasteries came to the life of some Orthodox custom ask permission to enter the room with the following words: "Through the prayers of the Saints, our Father, Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us." In this case, the person in the room, if allowed to enter, must answer: "Amen." Of course, such a rule can be applied only among the Orthodox, it is hardly applicable to worldly people ... Another form of greeting has monastic roots: "Bless!" - and not only a priest. And if the priest answers: "God bless!"

Children leaving home to study can be admonished with the words: "Guardian Angel to you!", Having crossed them. You can also wish a Guardian Angel who is heading for the road or say: "God bless you!" The Orthodox say the same words to each other, saying goodbye, or else: "With God!", "Help from God", "I ask your holy prayers" and the like.

How to address each other. The ability to turn to an unfamiliar neighbor expresses either our love, or our egoism, disregard for a person. Discussions in the 1970s about which words are preferable to address - "comrade", "sir" and "madam" or "citizen" and "citizen" - hardly made us friendlier to each other. The point is not which word to choose for conversion, but whether we see in another person the same image of God as in ourselves. Of course, the primitive address "woman!", "Man!" talks about our lack of culture. Even worse is the defiantly dismissive "hey you!" or "hey!"

But warmed by Christian friendliness and benevolence, any kind treatment can play with the depth of feelings. You can also use the traditional for pre-revolutionary Russia address "mistress" and "master" - it is especially respectful and reminds all of us that each person should be honored, since each carries the image of the Lord in himself. But one cannot fail to take into account that these days this appeal is more official in nature and sometimes, due to a lack of understanding of its essence, is negatively perceived when addressing in everyday life, which can be sincerely regretted.

To address "citizen" and "citizen" is more appropriate for employees of official institutions. In the Orthodox environment, the heartfelt appeals of "sister", "sister", "sister" are accepted - to a girl, to a woman. TO married women you can address: "mother" - by the way, with this word we express special respect for a woman as a mother. How much warmth and love is in him: "mother!" Remember the lines of Nikolai Rubtsov: "Mother will take a bucket, silently bring water ..." The wives of the priests are also called mothers, but they add the name: "Mother Natalia", "Mother Lydia". The same address was adopted to the abbess of the monastery: "Mother John", "Mother Elizabeth".

You can address a young man, a man: "brother", "brother", "brother", "friend", to older ones - "father", this is a sign of special respect. But the familiar "daddy" is unlikely to be correct. Let us remember that “father” is a great and holy word, we turn to God “Our Father”. And we can call the priest "father". Monks often call each other "father".

At the present time, we are all in such a life situation when we cannot separate ourselves from the surrounding world in any way and by any walls. What is it like? We live in a world of religious pluralism. We have found ourselves in the face of so many preachers, each of whom offers us their ideals, their own norms of life, their religious views, that the previous generation, or my generation, probably would not envy you. It was easier for us. The main problem we faced was the problem of religion and atheism.

You have, if you will, something much bigger and much worse. There is a God or there is no God - this is only the first step. Well, okay, man is convinced that there is God. So what is next? There are many faiths, what should he become? Christian, why not Muslim? Why not a Buddhist? Why not a Hare Krishna? I do not want to list further, now there are so many religions, you know them better than me. Why, why, and why? Well, okay, having passed through the jungle and jungle of this multi-religious tree, a person became a Christian. I understood everything, Christianity is the best religion, the right one.

But what kind of Christianity? It has so many faces. Who to be? Orthodox, Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran? Again, countless. This is the situation facing today's youth. At the same time, representatives of new and old religions, representatives of non-Orthodox confessions, as a rule, declare much more about themselves, and have significantly great opportunities propaganda in the media than we Orthodox. So, the first thing that modern man stops at is a multitude of faiths, religions, worldviews.

Therefore, today I would like to very concisely walk through this suite of rooms, which opens in front of many modern people seeking truth, and see, at least in the most general, but fundamental outlines, why, after all, a person should, not only can, but really should on reasonable grounds become not just a Christian, but an Orthodox Christian.

So the first problem: "Religion and Atheism." We have to meet at conferences, very significant, with people who are really educated, really scientists, not top-minded, and we have to constantly face the same questions. Who is God? Does He exist? Even: why is He needed? Or, if God exists, then why does He not come out from the rostrum of the United Nations and declare Himself? And such things can be heard. What can you say to this?

This issue, it seems to me, is being addressed from the position of the central modern philosophical thought, which is most easily expressed by the concept of existentiality. Human existence, the meaning of human life - what is its main content? Well, of course, first of all, in life... How else? What is the point I experience when I sleep? The meaning of life can only be in awareness, "eating" the fruits of one's life and activity. And no one has ever been able and will never count and assert that the ultimate meaning of a person's life can be in death. This is where the impassable dividing line between religion and atheism lies. Christianity claims: man, this earthly life is only the beginning, condition and means of preparation for eternity, get ready, awaits you immortal life... It says: this is what you need to do for this, this is what you need to be in order to enter there. And what does atheism claim? There is no God, no soul, no eternity, and therefore believe, man, eternal death awaits you! What horror, what pessimism, what despair - frost on the skin from these terrible words: man, eternal death awaits you. I'm not even talking about those, to put it mildly, strange justifications that are given in this case. This one statement makes the human soul shudder. - No, spare me this faith.

When a person gets lost in the forest, looks for a way, looks for a way home and suddenly, finding someone, asks: "Is there a way out of here?" And he replies: "No, and don't look, settle down here as you can," - will he believe him? Doubtful. Will he start looking further? And finding another person who will say to him: “Yes, there is a way out, and I will show you the signs, signs by which you can get out of here,” - will he not believe him? The same thing happens in the field of worldview choice, when a person finds himself in the face of religion and atheism. As long as a person still has a spark of a search for truth, a spark of a search for the meaning of life, until then he cannot, psychologically cannot accept the concept that asserts that he as a person, and, therefore, all people awaits eternal death, for the "achievement" of which, it turns out that it is necessary to create better economic, social, political and cultural living conditions. And then everything will be okay - tomorrow you will die and we will take you to the cemetery. Just great"!

I have just pointed out to you only one side, psychologically very significant, which, it seems to me, is already enough for every person with a living soul to understand that only a religious worldview, only a worldview that takes as its basis the One Whom we call God , allows you to talk about the meaning of life. So, I believe in God. We will assume that we have passed the first room. And, believing in God, I enter the second ... My God, what do I see and hear here? The people are full, and everyone shouts: "Only I have the truth." Here is the task ... And Muslims, and Confucians, and Buddhists, and Jews and whoever is not there. There are many among whom Christianity is now found. Here he is, a Christian preacher, in the midst of others, and I'm looking for who is right here, who should I believe?

There are two approaches, there may be more, but I will name two. One of them, which can give a person the opportunity to make sure which religion is true (that is, objectively corresponds to human nature, human quest, human understanding of the meaning of life) is the method of comparative theological analysis. Quite a long way, here you need to study every religion well. But not everyone can go this way, it takes a lot of time, great strength, if you like, appropriate abilities in order to study all this - especially since it will take so much strength of the soul ... But there is another method. In the end, every religion is addressed to a person, she says to him: this is what the truth is, and not something else. Moreover, all worldviews and all religions affirm one simple thing: what is now, in what political, social, economic, on the one hand, and spiritual, moral, cultural, etc. conditions - on the other hand, a person lives - this is abnormal, it cannot suit him, and even if it personally suits someone, the overwhelming majority of people suffer from this to one degree or another. This does not suit humanity as a whole, it is looking for something else, more. Striving somewhere, into the unknown future, waiting for the "golden age" - the present state of affairs does not suit anyone. Hence it becomes clear why the essence of every religion, of all worldviews is reduced to the doctrine of salvation. And this is where we are faced with what already makes it possible, as it seems to me, to make an informed choice when we find ourselves in the face of religious diversity. Christianity, unlike all other religions, asserts something that other religions (and even more so non-religious worldviews) simply do not know. And not only do they not know, but when faced with this, they reject it with indignation. This statement lies in the concept of the so-called. original sin... All religions, if you want even all worldviews, all ideologies talk about sin. Calling, however, it is different, but it does not matter. But none of them thinks that the nature of man in his present state is sick. Christianity asserts that the state in which all of us, people, were born, are, grow, are brought up, marry, mature, - the state in which we enjoy, have fun, learn, make discoveries, and so on - this is a state of deep illness , deep damage. We are sick. This is not about the flu, or about bronchitis, or about mental illness... No, no, we are mentally healthy and physically healthy - we can solve problems and fly into space - we are deeply sick on the other side. At the beginning of human existence, there was a strange tragic splitting of a single human being into, as it were, autonomously existing and often opposing mind, heart and body - "pike, cancer and swan" ... What absurdity does Christianity assert, isn't it? Everyone is outraged: “Am I crazy? Sorry, there may be others, but not me. " And it is here, if Christianity is right, and the very root, the source, of the fact that human life, both on an individual and on a universal scale, leads to one tragedy after another, is enclosed. For if a person is seriously ill, but he does not see her and therefore does not heal, then she will destroy him.

Other religions do not recognize this disease in a person. Reject her. They believe that a person is a healthy seed, but which can develop normally and abnormally. Its development is due to the social environment, economic conditions, psychological factors, due to many things. Therefore, a person can be both good and bad, but he himself is good by nature. This is the main antithesis of non-Christian consciousness. I do not say irreligious, there is nothing to say, there is generally: "man - it sounds proudly." Only Christianity claims that our present state is a state of deep damage, and such damage that, on a personal level, a person himself cannot heal it. The greatest Christian dogma about Christ as Savior is based on this statement. This idea is a fundamental dividing line between Christianity and all other religions.

Now I will try to show that Christianity, unlike other religions, has an objective confirmation of this statement. Let's turn to the history of mankind. Let's see how it lives all the history available to our human eyes? What are the goals? Of course, it wants to build the Kingdom of God on earth, to create a paradise. Alone with the help of God. And in this case, He is considered no more as a means to good on earth, but not as the highest goal of life. Others are without God at all. But something else is important. Everyone understands that this Kingdom on earth is impossible without such elementary things as: peace, justice, love (it goes without saying, what kind of paradise can be, where there is a war, injustice, anger, etc.), if you like, respect for each other, let us condescend to that. That is, everyone understands perfectly well that without such fundamental moral values, without their implementation, it is impossible to achieve any prosperity on earth. Is it clear to everyone? Everyone. And what is humanity doing throughout history? What are we doing? Erich Fromm said well: “The history of mankind is written in blood. This is a story of never-ending violence. " Exactly.

Historians, especially the military, could, I think, perfectly illustrate to us what the whole history of mankind is filled with: war, bloodshed, violence, cruelty. The twentieth century is, in theory, the century of the highest humanism. And he showed this top of "perfection", surpassing all the previous centuries of mankind combined with the shed blood. If our ancestors could look at what happened in the twentieth century, they would shudder at the scale of cruelty, injustice, deception. Some incomprehensible paradox lies in the fact that humanity, as its history develops, does everything exactly the opposite of its main idea, goal and thought, towards which all its efforts were initially directed. I ask a rhetorical question: "Could such an intelligent creature behave?" History simply mocks us, ironically: “Humanity is truly intelligent and healthy. It's not insane, no, no. It just creates a little more and a little worse than it is done in insane asylums. " Alas, this is a fact that cannot be avoided. And he shows that not individual units in humanity are mistaken, no and no (unfortunately, only a few are not mistaken), but this is some kind of paradoxical all-human property. If we now look at an individual person, more precisely, if a person has enough moral strength to “turn to himself,” to look at himself, then he will see a picture no less impressive. The Apostle Paul accurately described her: "Poor man I am, I do not the good that I want, but the evil that I hate." And indeed, everyone who, at least a little, pays attention to what is happening in his soul, comes into contact with himself, then he cannot help but see how spiritually sick he is, how much he is subject to the action of various passions, enslaved by them. It makes no sense to ask: “Why are you, poor man, overeating, getting drunk, lying, jealous, fornication, etc.? You are killing yourself with this, destroying your family, maiming your children, poisoning the whole atmosphere around you. Why are you beating yourself, cutting, stabbing, why are you ruining your nerves, your psyche, your body itself? Do you understand that this is destructive for you? " Yes, I understand, but I can't help but do it. once exclaimed: "And no more destructive passion than envy was born in the souls of men." And, as a rule, a person, suffering, cannot cope with himself. Here, in the depths of his soul, every reasonable person comprehends what Christianity says: "I do not the good that I want, but the evil that I hate." Is it health or disease ?!

At the same time, for comparison, see how a person can change with the right Christian life. Those who were cleansed of passions, acquired humility, “acquired, - according to the word of the monk, - the Holy Spirit,” came to a state that is most interesting from a psychological point of view: they began to see themselves as the worst of all. said: "Believe me, brothers, where Satan will be cast, I will be cast there"; Sisoy the Great was dying, and his face shone like the sun, so that it was impossible to look at him, and he begged God to give him some more time to repent. What is it? Some kind of hypocrisy, humility? May God deliver. They, even in their thoughts, were afraid to sin, because they spoke with all their souls, said what they really experienced. We don't feel it at all. I am overwhelmed with all kinds of dirt, but I see and feel like a very good person. I AM good man! But if I do something badly, then whoever is without sin, others are no better than me, and it is not so much I who is to blame, but the other, the other, the others. We do not see our souls and therefore are so good in our own eyes. How strikingly different is the spiritual vision of a holy man from ours!

So, I repeat. Christianity claims that man by nature, in his present, so-called normal, state is deeply damaged. Unfortunately, we hardly see this damage. A strange blindness, the most terrible, the most important, which is present in us, is the invisibility of our disease. This is really the most dangerous thing, because when a person sees his illness, he is treated, goes to doctors, seeks help. And when he sees himself healthy, he will send to them the one who tells him that he is sick. This is the hardest symptom of the very damage that is present in us. And that it is, this is unambiguously evidenced by both the history of mankind and the history of the life of each person individually, and, first of all, each person's personal life. This is what Christianity points to. I will say that the objective confirmation of only this fact, this one truth of the Christian faith - about damage human nature- already shows me which religion I should turn to. To the one that reveals my diseases and indicates the means of their cure, or to the religion that gloss over them, nourishes human pride, says: everything is good, everything is fine, you need not to be treated, but to heal the world need to develop and improve? Historical experience showed what it means not to be treated.

Well, okay, we got to Christianity. I go into the next room, and there again the people are full and again shouts: my Christian faith is the best. The Catholic calls: look how much is behind me - 1 billion 450 million. Protestants of various denominations indicate that there are 350 million of them. The Orthodox are the least of all, only 170 million. True, someone suggests: the truth is not in quantity, but in quality. But the question is extremely serious: "Where is it, true Christianity?"

Different approaches are also possible to resolve this issue. At the seminary we have always been offered a method of comparative study of the dogmatic systems of Catholicism and Protestantism with Orthodoxy. This is a method that deserves attention and trust, but it still seems to me not good enough and not complete enough, because for a person who does not have a good education, sufficient knowledge, it is not at all easy to understand the jungle of dogmatic discussions and decide who is right and who is wrong. In addition, there are sometimes used such strong psychological techniques that can easily confuse a person. For example, we are discussing with the Catholics the problem of the primacy of the pope, and they say: “Pope? Oh, this primacy and infallibility of the Pope is such nonsense, what are you !? This is the same as your authority as a patriarch. The infallibility and authority of the Pope, in practice, do not differ in any way from the authority of the statements and authority of any primate of the Local Orthodox Church. " Although in reality there are fundamentally different dogmatic and canonical levels. So the comparative dogmatic method is not very simple. Especially when you are put in the face of people who are not only knowledgeable, but also striving to convince you at all costs. But there is another way, which will clearly show what Catholicism is and where it leads a person. This is also a method of comparative research, but research is already a spiritual area of ​​life, which clearly manifests itself in the lives of the saints. It is here in all its strength and brightness that all, in ascetic language, the "charm" of Catholic spirituality is revealed - that charm that is fraught with dire consequences for an ascetic who has embarked on this path of life. You know that sometimes I give public lectures, and different people come to them. And now they often ask the question: “Well, how does Catholicism differ from Orthodoxy, what is its mistake? Isn't it just another way to Christ? " And many times I was convinced that it is enough to give a few examples from the life of Catholic mystics so that the questioners simply say: “Thank you, now everything is clear. Nothing else is needed. "

Indeed, any Local Orthodox Church or heterodox is judged by its saints. Tell me who your saints are and I will tell you what your Church is. For any Church declares saints only those who have embodied in their lives the Christian ideal, as seen by this Church. Therefore, the glorification of someone is not only a testimony of the Church about a Christian who, in her judgment, is worthy of glory and is offered by her as an example to follow, but, above all, a testimony of the Church about herself. By the saints, we can best judge about the actual or apparent holiness of the Church itself. Here are a few illustrations of the understanding of holiness in catholic church.

One of the great Catholic saints is Francis of Assisi (13th century). His spiritual self-awareness is well revealed from the following facts. Once Francis prayed for a long time (the subject of the prayer is extremely indicative) “for two mercies”: “The first is that I… could… survive all the sufferings that You, Sweetest Jesus, experienced in Your tormenting passions. And the second grace ... is so that ... I could feel ... that unlimited love with which You, the Son of God, burned. " As you can see, it was not the feelings of his sinfulness that worried Francis, but open claims to equality with Christ! During this prayer, Francis "felt completely transformed into Jesus", whom he immediately saw in the form of a six-winged seraphim, who struck him with fiery arrows at the sites of the sores of the cross of Jesus Christ (hands, feet and right side). After this vision, Francis developed painful bleeding wounds (stigmas) - traces of the "sufferings of Jesus" (Lodyzhensky MV Invisible Light. - Pg. 1915. - S. 109.)

The nature of these stigmas is well known in psychiatry: the continuous concentration of attention on the sufferings of Christ on the cross excites the nerves and psyche of a person, and with prolonged exercise can cause this phenomenon. There is nothing gracious here, for in such compassion (compassio) Christ does not have that true love, about the essence of which the Lord directly said: whoever keeps My commandments, he loves Me (). Therefore, the substitution of dreamy feelings of "compassion" for the struggle with one's old man is one of the most difficult mistakes in spiritual life, which has led and continues to lead many ascetics to conceit, pride - an obvious charm, often associated with direct mental disorders(cf. Francis's "sermons" to birds, wolves, turtle doves, snakes ... flowers, his reverence for fire, stones, worms). The goal of life that Francis set for himself is also very indicative: "I worked and I want to work ... because it brings honor" (St. Francis of Assisi. Works. - M., Publishing House Franciscantsev, 1995. - P.145). Francis wants to suffer for others and atone for the sins of others (p. 20). Is this why at the end of his life he frankly said: "I do not recognize any sin that I would not redeem by confession and repentance" (Lodyzhensky. - p. 129). All this testifies to the fact that he did not see his sins, his fall, that is, about complete spiritual blindness.

For comparison, let us cite the dying moment from the life of the Monk Sisoy the Great (5th century). “Surrounded at the moment of his death by the brethren, at the moment when he seemed to be talking with invisible persons, Sisa to the question of the brethren:“ Father, tell us, with whom are you talking? ” - answered: “The angels came to take me, but I pray to them that they leave me on a short time to repent. " When the brethren, knowing that Sisoy was perfect in virtues, objected to him: “You do not need repentance, father,” Sisoy replied: “Truly, I don’t know if I have created even the beginning of my repentance” (Lodyzhensky. - P. 133.) This deep understanding, the vision of one's imperfection is the main hallmark all true saints.

And here are excerpts from the "Revelations of Blessed Angela" (+ 1309) (Revelations of Blessed Angela. - M., 1918.). The Holy Spirit, - she writes, - says to her: "My daughter, my sweet one, ... I love you very much" (p. 95): "I was with the apostles, and they saw Me with bodily eyes, but did not feel Me like that, how you feel ”(p. 96). And this is what Angela reveals about herself: “I see the Holy Trinity in the darkness, and in the Trinity itself, which I see in the darkness, it seems to me that I stand and dwell in the middle of It” (p. 117). She expresses her attitude to Jesus Christ, for example, in the following words: “I could bring my whole self into Jesus Christ” (p. 176). Or: “I screamed out of His sweetness and sorrow about His departure and wanted to die” (p. 101) - while in a rage she began to beat herself so that the nuns were forced to carry her out of the church (p. 83).

One of the greatest Russian religious thinkers of the 20th century, A.F. Losev. He writes, in particular: “Seduction and deception by the flesh leads to the fact that the“ Holy Spirit ”appears to blessed Angela and whispers to her such loving speeches:“ My daughter, My sweet, My daughter, My temple, My daughter, My delight, love Me, for I love you very much, much more than you love Me. " The saint is in a sweet languor, she cannot find a place for herself from amorous yearning. And the beloved still appears and appears and more and more kindles her body, her heart, her blood. The Cross of Christ appears to her as a marriage bed ... What could be more opposed to the Byzantine-Moscow stern and chaste asceticism, if not these constant blasphemous statements: "My soul was received into the uncreated light and lifted up" - these passionate gazes at the Cross of Christ, at the wounds of Christ and on individual members of His Body, this is the violent induction of blood stains on his own body, etc. etc.? To top it all off, Christ embraces Angela with his hand, which is nailed to the Cross, and she, all proceeding from anguish, torment and happiness, says: “Sometimes from the closest embrace it seems to the soul that she is entering the side of Christ. And the joy that she receives there, and the insight is impossible to tell. After all, they are so great that sometimes I could not stand on my feet, but I lay and my tongue was taken away from me ... And I lay, and my tongue and limbs of my body were taken away from me "(Losev AF Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology. - M. , 1930. - T. 1. - S. 867-868.).

A striking evidence of Catholic holiness is Catharina of Siena (+1380), who was raised by Pope Paul VI to the highest rank of saints — the Teacher of the Church. I am reading a few extracts from the Catholic book by Antonio Sicari "Portraits of Saints". Quotes, in my opinion, do not require comment. Catherine was about 20 years old. “She felt that a decisive turning point was about to take place in her life, and continued to pray earnestly to Her Lord Jesus, repeating that beautiful, tender formula that had become familiar to her:“ Combine with me in marriage in faith! ” (Antonio Sicari. Portraits of saints. T. II. - Milan, 1991. - p.11.).

“Once Catherine saw a vision: her divine Bridegroom, embracing, attracted her to Himself, but then took a heart from her chest to give her another heart, more like His own” (p. 12). Once they said she was dead. “She herself later said that her heart was torn to pieces by the power of divine love and that she passed through death,“ seeing the heavenly gates ”. But "come back, My child, - the Lord said to me, you need to return ... I will lead you to the princes and rulers of the Church." “And the humble girl began to send her messages all over the world, long letters that she dictated with amazing speed, often three or four at a time and on different occasions, without getting lost and ahead of the secretaries. All these letters end with the passionate formula: "Sweet Jesus, Jesus Love" and often begin with the words ...: "I, Catherine, the servant and slave of Jesus' servants, I write to you in His most precious Blood ..." (12). “In Catherine's letters, the most striking is the frequent and persistent repetition of the words:“ I want ”(12). From the correspondence with Gregory X1, whom she urged to return from Avignon to Rome: "I speak to you in the name of Christ ... I tell you, father, in Jesus Christ ... Answer the call of the Holy Spirit addressed to you" (13). “And he addresses the king of France with the words:“ Do the will of God and mine ”(14).

No less indicative are the “revelations” also erected by Pope Paul VI in “Teachers of the Church” by Teresa of Avila (16th century). Before her death, she exclaims: "Oh, my God, my husband, at last I will see you!" This extremely strange exclamation is not accidental. He is a natural consequence of Teresa's entire "spiritual" feat, the essence of which is revealed at least in the following fact. After his numerous appearances, “Christ” says to Teresa: “From this day on you will be My wife ... From now on I am not only your Creator, God, but also your Spouse” (Merezhkovsky D.S. Spanish mystics. - Brussels, 1988. - p. 88 .) "Lord, or suffer with You, or die for You!" - Teresa prays and falls exhausted under these caresses ... ”, - D. Merezhkovsky writes. Therefore, one should not be surprised when Teresa confesses: “The Beloved is calling the soul with such a piercing whistle that one cannot but hear it. This call affects the soul in such a way that it becomes exhausted with desire. " It is no coincidence that the famous American psychologist William James, evaluating her mystical experience, wrote that “her ideas about religion were reduced, so to speak, to an endless love flirtation between the admirer and his deity” (James V. Diversity religious experience... / Per. from English - M., 1910. - S. 337).

Another illustration of the concept of holiness in Catholicism is Teresa of Lisieux (Teresa Little, or Teresa of the Infant Jesus), who, having lived 23 years old, in 1997, in connection with the centenary of his death, the "infallible" decision of Pope John Paul II was declared another Teacher of the Universal Church. Here are a few quotes from Teresa's spiritual autobiography, A Tale of a Soul, which speak volumes about her spiritual state(A Tale of a Soul // Symbol. 1996. № 36. - Paris. - p. 151.) “During the interview that preceded my tonsure, I told about the work that I intended to do in Carmel:“ I came to save souls before all - to pray for the priests ”(Not to save yourself, but others!). Speaking about her unworthiness, she immediately writes: “I always keep the bold hope that I will become a great saint ... I thought that I was born for glory and looked for ways to achieve it. And so the Lord God ... revealed to me that my glory will not be revealed to the eye of death, and its essence is that I will become a great saint !!! " (cf .:, whom the companions called the "earthly god" for the rare height of life, only prayed: "God, cleanse me a sinner, as if I did nothing good before You").

The mystical experience of one of the pillars of Catholic mysticism, the founder of the Jesuit order Ignatius Loyola (16th century) is based on the methodological development of the imagination. and the Holy Trinity, and Christ, and the Mother of God, and angels, etc. All this fundamentally contradicts the foundations of the spiritual feat of the saints of the Universal Church, since it leads the believer to complete spiritual and mental disorder. The authoritative collection of the ascetic writings of the ancient Church, Philosophy, strongly prohibits this kind of "spiritual exercise." Here are some quotes from there.
The monk (5th century) warns: "Do not desire to see sensually Angels or Power, or Christ, so as not to go mad, mistaking a wolf for a shepherd, and bowing to the enemies-demons" (St. Nil of Sinai. 153 chapters on prayer. Ch. 115 // Philosophy: In 5 volumes. T. 2. 2nd ed. - M., 1884. - P. 237).
The monk (XI century), reasoning about those who at prayer "imagine the blessings of heaven, the ranks of angels and the abode of saints", bluntly says that "this is a sign of delusion." “Standing on this path, those who see the light with their bodily eyes are deceived, who smell incense with their sense of smell, hear voices with their ears, and the like” (St. Simeon New Theologian... On the Three Images of Prayer // Philosophy. T. 5.M., 1900.S. 463-464).
The reverend (XIV century) reminds: “Never accept, if you see something sensual or spiritual, outside or inside, even if there was an image of Christ, or an angel, or some saint ... who carefully listens to himself, if he, out of fear of deception, does not accept what is from Him ... but more praises him as wise "(St. Gregory of Sinait. Instructions to the silent // Ibid. - p. 224).
How right was that landowner (St.St. writes about this, who, seeing in the hands of his daughter the Catholic book "Imitation of Jesus Christ" by Thomas of Kempis (15th century), snatched it from her hands, and said: "Stop playing with God in a novel "The above examples leave no doubt about the validity of these words. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has apparently ceased to distinguish the spiritual from the spiritual and holiness from daydreaming, and consequently, Christianity from paganism. This is what Catholicism is about."

WITH Protestantism, it seems to me that dogma is enough. In order to see its essence, I will confine myself now to only one and the main statement of Protestantism: "A person is saved only by faith, and not by works, therefore sin is not imputed to a believer." This is the main question in which the Protestants are confused. They begin to build the house of salvation from the tenth floor, having forgotten (if they remembered?) The teaching of the ancient Church about what kind of faith saves a person. Is it not the belief that Christ came 2000 years ago and did everything for us ?! What is the difference in the understanding of faith in Orthodoxy from Protestantism? Orthodoxy also says that faith saves a person, but to the believer, sin is imputed to sin. What kind of faith is this? - Not "brain", according to St. Theophan, that is, rational, but the state that is acquired with the correct, I emphasize, correct Christian life of a person, thanks only to which he is convinced that only Christ can save him from slavery and torment of passions. How is this belief-state achieved? Compulsion to fulfill the commandments of the Gospel and sincere repentance. Rev. says: "Careful fulfillment of the commandments of Christ teaches a person his weakness," that is, reveals to him his powerlessness to eradicate passions in himself without God's help. Himself, one person cannot - with God, “together,” it turns out, everything can. A correct Christian life just reveals to a person, firstly, his passion-illness, and secondly, that the Lord is near each of us, finally, that He is ready at any moment to come to the rescue and save from sin. But He saves us not without us, not without our efforts and struggle. A feat is necessary that makes us capable of accepting Christ, for they show us that without God we cannot heal ourselves. Only when I am drowning, I am convinced that I need a Savior, and when I do not need anyone on the shore, only seeing myself drowning in the torment of passions, I turn to Christ. And He comes and helps. This is where living saving faith begins. Orthodoxy teaches about the freedom and dignity of man as a co-worker with God in his salvation, and not as a “pillar of salt,” according to Luther, who can do nothing. From this it becomes clear the meaning of all the commandments of the Gospel, and not only faith in the salvation of a Christian, the truth of Orthodoxy becomes obvious.

This is how Orthodoxy begins for a person, and not just Christianity, not just religion, not just faith in God. I told you everything, I don't know anything else. However, you can ask questions, but only those that I can answer.

– In disputes with Catholics, using comparative method, we give different arguments, but in the Lives of St. sometimes phenomena are found that seem to resemble Catholic mysticism. And now sometimes just apocrypha are written.

– Good question, to this I will answer the following.

First, regarding the Lives of St. Dmitry of Rostov. It is no secret that St. Dmitry Rostovsky, without sufficient verification, not critically, used, unfortunately, Catholic hagiographic sources after the 11th century. And they, according to research, for example, of the hieromonk are very unreliable. The era in which Dmitry Rostovsky lived was an era of very strong Catholic influence in our country. You know: the Kiev-Mohyla Academy at the beginning of the 17th century, the Moscow Theological Academy at the end of the 17th century, all our theological thought, our spiritual educational establishments until the very end of the 19th century developed under the strongest influence of Catholic and Protestant theology. And now the heterodox influence is very noticeable, almost all textbooks are old, and new ones are often compiled from them, which is why our theological schools had and still have a significant scholastic character. Schools must be in the monastery, all students of theological schools must pass through the monastery, regardless of which path they subsequently choose - monastic or family. So, indeed, in the Lives of the saint there are unverified materials.

– Alexey Ilyich, now we are publishing the Lives of the Saints of the Archbishop, how do you feel about this author?

- To him the most positive attitude. Thank God that you have taken up this edition. Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) is an authority in both historical and theological science. His Lives, with their precision, clarity of presentation, lack of exaltation, I think, are best suited to a modern person who is accustomed to looking at everything critically. I think that your publishing house will make a great gift to both scientists and ordinary readers.

The origins of life

The question before us is: what are the grounds for trusting Christianity, and why is it true? Are there any facts that confirm the belief, is there any unconditional argumentation offered, are there really serious grounds? It seems to me that there are several facts that, of course, will make every person think about it (although now it is somewhat old-fashioned) the truth, a person who cannot relate to Christianity the way, for example, many ordinary believers do.

I'll start with the simplest ones. How did the world's religions come about and develop? For example, Buddhism. Its founder is a prince of high birth who enjoys authority and influence. This most educated person, surrounded by respect and honor, receives a kind of enlightenment. With perhaps the rarest exceptions, he is greeted in the dignity in which he was born. He dies surrounded by love, reverence, the desire to imitate and spread the teachings. There is honor, respect and - a certain glory.

Or Islam, another world religion... How did it originate and how did it spread? A very dramatic story. At least, the force of arms there was enormous, if not paramount importance, in his, as they say, "popularity in the world". Take the so-called "natural religions". They arose spontaneously among different peoples. They revealed in various myths and legends their intuitive sense of another world or God. Again, this was a natural and calm process.

Take a closer look at this background to Christianity. We see a picture that is not only unique in the history of religious movements, but a picture that, if there were no reliable evidence left, it would be impossible to believe. From the very beginning of its emergence, starting with the preaching of Christ, there are continuous conspiracies against Him, eventually ending with a terrible execution, then the publication in the Roman Empire of the law (!), According to which everyone who professes this religion is put to death. Many would now remain Christians if suddenly such a law was issued in our country? Think about it: everyone who professes Christianity is subject to the death penalty and not just any ... Read Tacitus when he writes that in the gardens of Nero Christians were tied to pillars, honored and lit in the form of a torch! What fun! “Christians go to the lions!” And this went on for 300 years, apart from some respite.

Tell me, how could Christianity exist in such conditions ?! In general, how could it even simply survive, how it was not destroyed right there? Remember the Book of the Acts of the Apostles: the disciples were sitting in the house, “for the sake of the Jews,” shutting the locks and doors. This is the state they were in. But what do we see then? An absolutely amazing phenomenon: these timid people, who until recently were in fear, and one of them (Peter) even denied (“No, no, I don’t know Him!”), Suddenly come out and begin to preach. And not one - all! And when they are arrested, they themselves declare: "Tell me yourself, what do you think is fair: who is more to obey - people or God?" People look at them and are surprised: fishermen, simple people and - such courage!

An amazing phenomenon is in the very fact of the spread of Christianity. According to all the laws of social life (I insist on this), it had to be destroyed at the root. 300 years is not a little. And Christianity is not only becoming a state religion, but also spreading to other countries. By what means? Let's think about it here. After all, in a natural order, it is impossible to imagine such a thing. Currently, historical science, regardless of its ideological orientation, recognizes the fact of the historicity of Christ and the historicity of many documented absolutely extraordinary events. This is where we started our conversation. I am not claiming that the early Christians passed through closed doors, but they performed miracles that astounded everyone.

They may say: these are fairy tales from two thousand years ago. Let's turn to our century. Still, probably, people are still alive who have seen the many miracles of the holy righteous. This is no longer a mythical figure, this is a real person of our time. There remained a mass of evidence, mountains of books: after all, they did not write about the "miracles" of Rasputin, they did not write about Tolstoy that he worked miracles. They wrote about John of Kronstadt and wrote amazing things. A prep. ? What thinkers, what writers, what figures of science and art went to him! And they didn't just walk. Read what happened while doing this. It turns out that people passed through the doors not only two thousand years ago, but throughout the history of Christianity, moreover, up to the present time.

These are really facts, not fantasies. How should we treat them? In any case, not the way the famous academicians of the immortal French Academy of Sciences treated. After all, one of them immediately healed: "Even if a meteorite falls in front of my eyes, I would rather reject this fact than believe." Why, you ask? The reason was simple. At the end of the 17th century, everyone was convinced that only God can throw stones from the sky, and since there is no God, there can be no meteorites! It is very logical, you will not say anything. So how should we relate to these facts?

First what needs to be commented on is the miracle of the spread of Christianity. I can't find another word - a miracle!

Second... The amazing facts of the miracles that were performed! throughout the two thousand year history of Christianity.

Third... I would like to draw your attention to the facts of spiritual change in people who sincerely accepted Christianity. I say this not because I was born Orthodox and my grandmother took me to church. I'm talking about people who suffered through Christianity, who even went through denial (like Dostoevsky: “through the crucible of doubts” his faith passed, like the contemporary American Eugene Rose, who later became Hieromonk Seraphim. A man who cursed God, who went through the study of Indian , Chinese philosophical and religious systems, which was looking for, and not just reasoning!).

I believe that even the facts just cited present a person with a very serious question: maybe Christianity points to realities that we do not notice? Maybe Christianity speaks about what we usually do not think about - after all, Christianity could not have arisen naturally. Even Engels understood this when he said that the emerging Christianity came into sharp conflict with all surrounding religions. And rightly so: isn't it madness to preach the Savior of the world, crucified like a robber, like a scoundrel, among two scoundrels? The Apostle Paul understood this perfectly when he said that “we preach Christ crucified - to the Jews a temptation ...” Why a temptation? They were waiting for the Messiah, the conqueror of the world. "... but to the Hellenes - madness." Still: the criminal is the Savior of the world!

Christianity, it turns out, did not grow in a natural way, out of natural hopes, aspirations, and religious searches. No, it affirmed something that was insanity, absurd to the human eye. And the victory of Christianity could take place only in one case: if a truly supernatural revelation was given. For many, this remains insanity to this day. Why was Christ not born an emperor, then everyone would have believed in Him? What kind of Savior of the world is this? What did He do, tell me: He freed you from death? But everyone dies. Fed? Five thousand and nothing more. And all the others? Healed the possessed? It would be better to create a global healthcare system. Maybe He freed someone from social injustice? He even left his Jewish people, and in what position - in a conquered position near Rome! He did not even abolish slavery, and this is the Savior ?! I doubt anyone can speak of the natural origins of Christianity in the face of such egregious facts.

The question, in my opinion, is clear. The source of its origin is completely different. Only how to understand this different? Why He is not the emperor and why He is the Savior, if He did not feed and set anyone free - this is a separate question. I'm not talking about this now, I'm talking about something else: the natural origin of Christianity is inconceivable within the framework of the logic with which we operate. But only by understanding the source of the origin of Christianity, it is possible to understand the sources of life, which we are talking about today. Life, of course, is not just existence. What kind of life is it when a person suffers. He says: no, rather, I'd rather die. Life is a kind of holistic perception and experience of the good. No good - no life! The rest is not life, but a form of existence.

So the question is, what is this good. First, if we are talking to the point, it must be an ongoing good. And if it is given, then taken away, excuse me, it was only in the Middle Ages that Catholics had such a torture of hope. The prisoner suddenly notices, after they brought him a piece of bread and a mug of water, the cell door remained open. It turns out that he is walking down the corridor, no one is there. He sees a crack, opens the door - a garden! Enters stealthily - no one is there. Comes to the wall - it turns out there is a staircase. Everything, set foot! And suddenly: "Son, where do you go from the salvation of your soul?" At the last minute, this prodigal son is "saved." They say this torture was the most terrible of all.

Life is good. The blessing, of course, is unceasing. Otherwise, what good is it? Sweetie before death penalty- good? Hardly anyone would agree with this. The good should also be complete, embrace the entire human being - both spiritual and bodily. You can't sit on a stake and listen to Haydn's Creation of the World! So where is it, this whole, unceasing, eternal? Christians say: "Imams are not here for the abiding city, but for the coming one we will seek." This is not idealism, not fantasy. In the face of what I have said about Christianity, this is reality. Yes, Christianity says that present life is given as an opportunity for upbringing, spiritual growth, and most importantly, self-determination of a person. Life is fleeting: our ship is sinking, I begin to suspect this as soon as I was born. And that while he is drowning, I will seize more wealth from someone? Captured, and, like Turgenev's (remember, in the "Notes of a Hunter") - "our boat solemnly went to the bottom."

The good is possible only on the condition that the personality has the possibility of eternal existence, if it does not cease its existence. Moreover, it does not dissolve and does not die. Christianity says that death is not the end of human existence, it is the moment when an extraordinary swallowtail suddenly appears from the chrysalis. The human personality is immortal. God is the greatest good, and union with Him, the Source of this good, gives a person life.

Why did Christ say about himself: "I am the Way, Truth and Life"? Precisely because of the possible union of man with God. But pay Special attention on the difference between the Christian and many other points of view: what kind of unity with God? In 451, a Council of Bishops of all Orthodox Churches took place. On it, a unique formula for understanding what happened to the appearance of Christ was developed. It was said that there was a union of God and humanity. Which?

First, the non-merged: the two natures - the Divine and the human - did not merge into something in between. Secondly, unchanged: a man remained. Numerous, unchanging, inseparable from now on and inseparable. That is, there was such a union of God with man, which revealed the pinnacle of possible union for each human person, in which it acquires full development and disclosure. That is, a full life begins. The program says: "The origins of life." According to Christian teaching, the origins of life are not at all philosophy, not at all opinions (for opinions, no one would go to the fire and fall into the mouth of the lions). Of course, adherents of other faiths will always have separate units. But Christianity has a scale that exceeds human understanding!

I remember when visiting the Roman catacombs they told me: about five million are buried here. Apparently, they were taken from all over the empire. But it is essentially important: millions and millions of people went to their death when it was enough to say: "I do not believe in any Christ!" All - go, live in peace, prosper! No. People did not suffer for opinions, not for assumptions, but for faith arising from the direct vision of a person, a person's experience of the good for which he strove. At the same time, faith in Christ - how did it make a person? These Christians were really lights, people came to them, they received spiritual comfort from them, they healed the society around them, they were centers of health and light. They were not dreamers and dreamers, not crazy, who got stuck on one idea. No, these were healthy people, sometimes the broadest educated, but who, by their holiness, testified that they had touched the Source of life.

These words, spoken almost 2 thousand years ago by the Apostle Paul to the Galatians (Gal. 5:13), determine the foundations of the behavior of Christians in the temple and at home, the relationship between themselves and the pagan world. Divine love was the basis and essence, measure and model of a Christian's life.

Based on Christian love, on the Law of God, the foundations of Orthodox etiquette, in contrast to secular ones, are not only the sum of the rules of behavior in a given situation, but the ways of establishing the soul in God.

How to behave with others

In the life of a Christian person, everything begins - every morning, and any business - with prayer, and everything ends with prayer. Prayer determines our relationships with neighbors, in the family, with relatives. The habit before any deed or word from the bottom of my heart to ask: "Lord, bless!" - will save you from many bad deeds and quarrels.

If someone upset you or offended, even if unfairly, in your opinion, do not rush to sort things out, do not be indignant and do not be irritated, but pray about this person - after all, it is even harder for him than for you - on his soul there is a sin of resentment, maybe slander - and he needs help with your prayer, as a seriously ill person. Pray from the bottom of your heart: “Lord, save your servant (your servant) ... / name / and forgive my sins by his (her) prayers. As a rule, after such a prayer, if it was sincere, it is much easier to come to reconciliation, and it happens that the person who offended you himself will be the first to come to ask for forgiveness.

When talking be able to listen attentively and calmly to another, not getting hot, even if he expresses an opinion opposite to yours, do not interrupt, do not argue, trying to prove your case.

…Entering the house, I must say: "Peace to your home!", to which the owners answer: "We accept in peace!" Having found neighbors at a meal, it is customary to wish them: "An angel at a meal!"

For everything, it is customary to warmly and sincerely thank our neighbors: "Save, Lord!", "Save, Christ!" or "God save you!" Non-church people, if you think that they will not understand you, in this way it is not necessary to thank. Better to say, "Thank you!" or "I am grateful to you from the bottom of my heart!"

How to greet each other. Over the centuries, Christians have developed special forms of greeting. In ancient times, they greeted each other with the exclamation "Christ is in our midst!" This is how the priests greet each other.

The Monk Seraphim of Sarov addressed all those who came with the words: "Christ is Risen, my joy!"

On Sundays and holidays it is customary for Orthodox Christians to greet each other with mutual congratulations: "Happy Holidays!" , on the eve of the holiday - "With a holy evening", on holidays - "Merry Christmas", "With the Ascension of the Lord", etc.

Monastic roots have the form of greeting "Bless!" - and not only a priest.

Children leaving home to study can be admonished with the words “Guardian Angel to you!” By making the sign of the cross. You can wish a guardian angel heading on the road, or say: "God bless you!" The Orthodox say the same words to each other when saying goodbye, or else: "With God!", "Help from God!", "I ask your holy prayers" and the like.

An appeal to the priest. How to take a blessing. It is not customary to address a priest by his first name and patronymic, he is called his full name - as it sounds in Church Slavonic with the addition of the word “father”: “Father Alexy”, or (as is customary among the majority of church people) - “father”. One can also address a deacon by name, which must be preceded by the word "father" ... But from a deacon, since he does not have the grace-filled power of ordination to the priesthood, it is not necessary to take a blessing.

The appeal “bless” is not only a request to give a blessing, but also a form of greeting from a priest, whom it is not customary to greet with the word “hello”. If at this moment you are next to the priest, then you need to bow, stand in front of the priest, folding your hands, palms up - right over left. Father, overshadowing you with the sign of the cross, says: “God bless”, or “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” - and puts his right, blessing hand on your palms. At this moment, the layman receiving the blessing kisses the priest's hand. It happens that kissing the hand confuses some beginners. We should not be embarrassed - we are not kissing the priest's hand, but Christ himself, who at this moment invisibly stands before us and blesses us ... And we touch with our lips the place where the wounds from the nails were on the hands of Christ ...

The priest can bless at a distance, as well as put the sign of the cross on the bowed head of a layman, then touching his head with his palm. One should not just before taking a blessing from a priest, sign oneself with the sign of the cross - that is, "be baptized into a priest."

The situation during the divine service looks tactless and dishonorable, when one of the priests goes from the altar to the place of confession or to perform baptism, and many parishioners at that moment rush to him for a blessing, crowding each other.

In the Orthodox Church, on official occasions (during a lecture, speech, in a letter) it is customary to address the dean of the priest "Your Reverend", and to the abbot, the abbot of the monastery (if he is an abbot or an archimandrite) they address - "Your Reverend" or "Your Reverend ", If the governor is a hieromonk. The bishop is addressed - "Your Eminence", to the archbishops and metropolitans - "Your Eminence". In a conversation, the bishop, archbishop and metropolitan can be addressed less formally - "lord", and to the abbot of the monastery - "father governor" or "father abbot". It is customary to address His Holiness the Patriarch as “Your Holiness”. These names, of course, do not mean the holiness of a particular person - a priest or Patriarch, they express respect for the sacred dignity of confessors and saints.

(From the book of Archpriest Andrei Ustyuzhanin "How to behave as a believer".)

Christian greetings

So how is it customary to say hello in the Orthodox Church?

How did the early Christians generally address one another? How did Christ Himself greet? Apostles? .. Christ, sending His disciples to preach, instructed: “What house will you enter, first say:“ Peace be to this house ”(Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verse 5). Jesus Himself greeted with the words "Peace be with you." Indeed, peace is the Christian's greatest gain. Peace with God and people. Peace and joy in the human heart. The Apostle Paul teaches that the kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Epistle to Romans 14.17). And at the birth of Jesus, the angels in heaven proclaimed: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will in men! .." (Luke, 2.14)

The Apostolic Epistles provide us with a wealth of material for researching the written greetings of the times of the apostles and early Christians. Thus, the apostle Paul writes to the faithful in Rome:"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ..."In 1 Timothy, the apostle Paul greets with the words:"Grace, mercy, peace from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord ..."The second conciliar epistle of Saint Peter begins with the words:"May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and Christ Jesus our Lord ..."

What kind of greetings are accepted in the modern Orthodox Church?

Preserved early Christian: "Peace to you", to which the Orthodox answer: "And to thy spirit" (Protestants will answer such a greeting: "We accept in peace"). We also greet each other with the words: "Glory to Jesus Christ!", to which we answer: "Forever glory"... To the greeting "Thank God!" - we answer: "Glory to God forever." When are they greeted with words "Christ is in our midst!"- you should answer:

"And is, and will be ..."

On the feast of the Nativity of Christ, the Orthodox greet each other with the words: "Christ was born!"; "We glorify Him!"- sounds in response. For Baptism: "Christ was baptized!" – "In the Jordan River!" And finally, for Easter: "Christ is risen!" –"Truly resurrected! .."

Secondly:

a blessing is appropriate, and in some cases necessary for the benefit of the person asking, to ask before a long trip, in difficult life circumstances, for example, before a surgical operation. An important meaning of blessing is permission, permission, parting words.

Thirdly:

according to church etiquette, a priest is addressed only to "you." This expresses reverence and good blessing for God's servant, who is given "to enjoy such an honor that the Lord did not give to the Angels." (St. John of Kronstadt). “For the lips of the priest must keep knowledge, and they seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal.2.7). If a parishioner meets a priest on the street, then if necessary, you can ask for blessings, or bow your head to greet with a church greeting. They do not ask for blessings from the deacon, but if necessary, they turn to “father deacon”.

Fourthly:

If it is necessary to invite the priest home to perform the service, this can be done either in person or by phone. V telephone conversation also address "Bless, father" and state the essence of the request. Finishing the conversation, you need to thank and, again, ask for blessings.

Orthodox, addressing a brother or sister in Christ, they say: "Brother Ivan", "sister Maria" ...

This is how Christ taught us: "... you have only one Teacher, yet you are brothers," He says in the Gospel of Matthew.

V monasteries do not enter other people's cells, but first they knock on the door and pray out loud: "Through the prayers of the saints, our Father, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us."(v nunnery: “By the prayers of our holy mothers ....)... And they do not enter the one who is in the cell until they hear from behind the door: "Amen."

V Orthodox tradition other appeals to clergy were also accepted, depending on their hierarchical position. So to the bishop, as to the bearer of church authority, we address: "Vladyka." More officially, then "Your Grace"... TO Archbishop and Metropolitan - "Your Eminence"... TO to the patriarch - "Your Holiness".

New believers are often uncomfortable meeting a priest because do not know exactly how to contact him. However, you should not be embarrassed. A priest is a spiritual shepherd, and it is also very important for him to help his parishioners.