Why Orthodoxy is the only correct choice, who will be saved except for the Orthodox. What is the attitude of the Orthodox Church towards the Gospel of Thomas? read a book online, read for free

Why is the Orthodox Church so sharply negative about homosexuality? I'm not talking about gay parades, I don't understand it myself, although I live with a woman. How are we different? Why are we more sinful than everyone else? We are the same people as everyone else. Why are we treated like this? Thank you.

Hieromonk Job (Gumerov) answers:

The Holy Fathers teach us to distinguish between sin and a person whose soul is sick and needs treatment from a serious illness. Such a person evokes compassion. However, it is impossible to heal the one who is in blindness and does not see his disastrous state.

Holy Scripture calls any violation of the Divine law a sin (see 1 John 3:4). The Lord the Creator endowed a man and a woman with spiritual and bodily features so that they complement each other and thus constitute a unity. The Holy Bible testifies that marriage as a permanent life union between a man and a woman was established by God at the very beginning of human existence. According to the Creator's plan, the meaning and purpose of marriage is in joint salvation, in common work, mutual assistance and bodily union for the birth of children and their upbringing. Of all earthly unions, marriage is the closest: will be one flesh(Gen. 2:24). When people have sexual life outside of marriage, they pervert the Divine plan for a blessed life union, reducing everything to a sensual-physiological principle and discarding spiritual and social goals. Therefore, the holy Bible defines any cohabitation outside of family ties as a mortal sin, for the Divine institution is violated. An even more serious sin is the satisfaction of sensual needs in an unnatural way: “Do not lie with a man as with a woman: this is an abomination” (Lev.18: 22). This applies equally to women. The Apostle Paul calls this shameful passion, shame, lasciviousness: “Their women replaced natural use with unnatural; likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the female sex, were inflamed with lust against one another, men doing shame against men, and receiving in themselves the due punishment for their error” (Rom. 1: 26-27). People living in Sodomite sin are deprived of salvation: “Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malacia, nor homosexuals nor thieves, nor covetous men, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor predators, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

There is a sad repetition in history. Societies that go through periods of decline are afflicted, like metastases, by some especially dangerous sins. Most often, sick societies are engulfed in mass self-interest and depravity. The offspring of the latter is the sin of Sodom. Mass depravity corroded Roman society like acid and crushed the power of the empire.

To justify the sin of Sodom, they try to bring "scientific" arguments and convince that there is an innate predisposition to this attraction. But this is a typical myth. A helpless attempt to justify evil. There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuals are genetically different from other people. We are talking only about a spiritual and moral illness and the inevitable deformation in the field of the psyche. Sometimes the cause may be childish depraved games that a person forgot, but they left a painful trace in the subconscious. The poison of unnatural sin that has entered a person can manifest itself much later if a person does not lead a correct spiritual life.

The Word of God, sensitive to all manifestations human life, not only says nothing about innateness, but calls this sin an abomination. If it depended on certain neuroendocrine characteristics and sex hormones, which are associated with the physiological regulation of the reproductive function of a person, then the Holy Scripture would not speak of the unnaturalness of this passion, it would not be called shame. Isn't it blasphemous to think that God can create some people with a physiological disposition to mortal sin and thereby doom them to death? The facts of mass distribution of this type of debauchery in some periods of history testify against the attempt to use science as an excuse. The Canaanites, the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities of Pentagrad (Adma, Seboim and Sigor) were infected with this filth without exception. Defenders of Sodomy dispute the notion that the inhabitants of these cities had this shameful passion. However, the New Testament directly says: “As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around, like them, committed fornication and who went after other flesh having undergone the punishment of eternal fire, set as an example, so it will be with these dreamers who defile the flesh ”(Jude 1: 7-8). This is also evident from the text: “They called Lot and said to him: Where are the people who came to you at night? bring them to us; we shall know them” (Gen. 19:5). The words “let us know them” have a very definite character in the Bible and indicate carnal relationships. And since the angels who came had the appearance of men (see: Gen. 19: 10), this shows what disgusting depravity all (“from young to old, all the people”; Gen. 19: 4) inhabitants of Sodom were infected with. The righteous Lot, fulfilling the ancient law of hospitality, offers his two daughters, “who did not know a man” (Gen. 19: 8), but the perverts, inflamed with vile lust, tried to rape Lot himself: “Now we will deal worse with you than with them "(Gen. 19: 9).

Modern Western society, having lost its Christian roots, is trying to be "humane" in relation to homosexuals, calling them the morally neutral word "sex minority" (by analogy with the national minority). In fact, this is a very cruel attitude. If a doctor, wanting to be "kind", inspired a seriously ill patient that he was healthy, only by nature he was not like others, then he would not differ much from a murderer. Holy Scripture indicates that God “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, having condemned them to destruction, turned into ashes, setting an example for the future wicked” (2 Pet. 2: 6). It speaks not only of the danger of losing eternal life, but also about the possibility of being healed of any, even the most serious and rooted spiritual illness. The Apostle Paul not only severely rebuked the Corinthians for shameful sins, but also strengthened their hope with examples from their own midst: “And such were some of you; but they were washed, but they were sanctified, but they were justified by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

The Holy Fathers point out that the center of gravity of all passions (including carnal ones) is in the realm of the human spirit - in its damage. The passions are the result of man's separation from God and the resulting sinful depravity. Therefore, the starting point of healing must be the determination to “leave Sodom” forever. When the angels were leading Lot's family out of this city of vile debauchery, one of them said: “Save your soul; do not look back” (Gen. 19:17). These words were a moral test. A parting glance at the corrupted city, to which God's judgment had already been pronounced, would testify to sympathy for him. Lot's wife looked back, because her soul had not parted from Sodom. We find confirmation of this idea in the book of wisdom of Solomon. Speaking of wisdom, the author writes: “At the time of the destruction of the wicked, she saved the righteous, who escaped the fire that descended on five cities, from which, as evidence of wickedness, there remained a smoking empty earth and plants that did not bear fruit in due time, and a monument wrong souls - a standing pillar of salt (Wisdom 10: 6-7). Lot's wife is called an unfaithful soul. Our Lord Jesus Christ warns his disciples: “On the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all… Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:29, 32). Not only those who have looked into the abyss with their experience, but also all those who justify this vice, one must constantly remember Lot's wife. The path to a real fall begins with the moral justification of sin. One must be horrified by the eternal fire, and then all liberal speeches about the “right” to what the Lord said through the lips of the sacred writers will seem false: “The depraved one is an abomination before the Lord, but with the righteous he has fellowship” (Prov. 3: 32).

It is necessary to enter into the fertile experience of the Church. First of all, it is necessary (without delay) to prepare for the general confession and go through it. From this day on, we must begin to fulfill what the Holy Church has prescribed for its members for centuries: regularly participate in the sacraments of confession and communion, go to feast and Sunday services, read morning and evening prayers, observe holy fasts, be attentive to yourself in order to evade sin). Then the all-powerful help of God will come and heal you completely from a serious illness. “He who knows his weakness from many temptations, from bodily and spiritual passions, will also know the infinite power of God, delivering those who cry out to Him with prayer from the bottom of their hearts. And his prayer is already sweet. Seeing that without God he can do nothing, and fearing a fall, he tries to be relentless with God. He is surprised, thinking about how God delivered him from so many temptations and passions, and thanks the Redeemer, and with thanksgiving receives humility and love, and no longer dares to despise anyone, knowing that as God helped him, so He can help everyone, whenever he wants” (St. Peter of Damascus).

Without comprehending everything that happens in the Church, without elementary knowledge about Orthodoxy, a truly Christian life is impossible. What questions and erroneous judgments are there about Orthodox faith from the beginners, the portal “Orthodox Life” was sorted out.

Myths are dispelled by the teacher of the Kyiv Theological Academy Andriy Muzolf, reminding: one who does not learn anything runs the risk of forever remaining a novice.

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

– According to Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, a person will never be able to perceive Orthodoxy as a personal faith if he does not see 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 aspires - "Christian" by nature, as the church apologist of the beginning of the 3rd century Tertullian speaks of this. And this holiness is incomparable with the 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 like,” is how a famous saying can be paraphrased.

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, we can conclude what the church itself calls for, because the saint is an example for all believers to follow.

–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 an Orthodox saint, the goal of life was, first of all, the struggle with one's own sin, the desire for union with Christ, deification. Holiness in Orthodoxy is not a goal, it is a consequence, the result of a righteous life, the fruit of union with God.

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 denominations holiness was an end in itself and for this reason, voluntarily or involuntarily, gave birth in the heart of such an “ascetic” only pride and ambition. An example of this is the lives of such "saints" as Blessed Angela, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Catherine of Siena and others who were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and some of them were even canonized as Doctors of the Universal Church.

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

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

– The Orthodox Church has never called its followers to any kind of intolerance, especially religious intolerance, because sooner or later any intolerance can turn 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 Patriarch Anastassy of Albania, “the Orthodox position can only be critical in relation to other religions as systems; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always an attitude 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 that 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 like no other abounding in all possible religious cults and beliefs. 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 should show not intolerance to representatives of other confessions, but love, because only by the example of our own love can we show others how much Christianity is higher than all other creeds. 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 happen?

– The Holy Scripture says: “God did not create death and does not rejoice in the perishing of the living, for He created everything for existence” (Wisdom 1:13). The reason for the appearance of evil in this world is the devil, the highest fallen angel, and his envy. The wise one says so: “God created man for incorruption and made him the image of His eternal existence; but through the envy of the devil death entered into the world, and those who belong to his inheritance are testing it” (Wisdom 2:23-24).

In the world created by God, there is no such “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 goodness, but who, nevertheless, from the very beginning, by their nature, were 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 certain action and state of the one who produces evil. Blessed Diadochus of Photiki, an ascetic of the 5th century, wrote: “Evil is not; or rather, it exists 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 the beings 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 the free beings created by God deviate from good.

Based on this, we can argue that evil is unreal, evil is non-existence, it does not exist. According to Blessed Augustine, evil is a lack or, rather, deterioration of good. Good, as we know, can increase or decrease, and the decrease in good is evil. The brightest and most meaningful definition of what evil is, 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 has deified itself."

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

For the transformation of this world, it was necessary to transform the person himself, his deification, and for this, a person had to initially establish himself in goodness, show and prove that he is worthy of the 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 do this only 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, as it seems to me, is the words of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: “God takes full responsibility for the creation of the world, man, for the freedom that He gives, and for all the consequences that this freedom leads to: suffering, death, horror. And the justification of God is that He Himself becomes a man. In the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, God enters the world, clothed in flesh, united with us by all human destiny and bearing all the consequences of the freedom He Himself bestowed.

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

– In his epistle to the Romans, the holy apostle Paul writes: “When the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what is lawful, 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 an uncircumcised one keeps the ordinances of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” (Rom. 2:26). Thus, the apostle Paul suggests that some non-Christians, by virtue of their virtuous life and by fulfilling the Law of God written in their hearts, may still be awarded glory from God and, as a result, be saved.

About those people who, unfortunately, could not or will not be able to accept the Sacrament of Baptism, St. Gregory the Theologian wrote very clearly: some combination of circumstances completely independent of them, according to which they are not worthy to receive grace ... the latter who have not received Baptism will not be glorified or punished by the righteous Judge, because although they are not sealed, they are not bad either ... For they are not everyone ... unworthy of honor is already worthy of punishment.

St. 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 he baptized them, and recreated most of them secretly. The quoted words of the illustrious theologian of the 14th century intimately 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 argue about who can be saved and who cannot, because by making such gossip, we assume the functions of the Judge of human souls, which belong to God alone.

Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova

(23 votes : 4.22 out of 5 )

Anastasius (Yannulatos),
Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania

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

(1) In the early centuries these relationships were confrontational, sometimes more and sometimes less acute. In the religious context of the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, the Church experienced powerful resistance, even persecution, when she proclaimed the Gospel and proposed new premises 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 socio-political stability, the leaders strove 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, nevertheless, religious freedom was far from 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 government oppression, overt and covert, that evoked passive resistance. At the same time in different periods acted enough soft rules, so that Orthodox and Muslims coexisted peacefully with each other, or simply with tolerance, or reaching mutual understanding and respect.

(4) Today, in the context of religious pluralism, we are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church and about the 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 varied.

(1) Turning to the earliest "layers" of the theological thought of the Orthodox East, we see that in parallel with the clear consciousness that the Church expresses the fullness of the revealed truth about the "economy" of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, there were constant attempts to understand religious beliefs, existing outside the Christian confession, with the distinction 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 between the Church and the dominant religions reached its peak, Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and , wrote about the “seed logos”, about the “preparatory stage for renewal in Christ” and “reflections of the Divine Word ”, which can be found in the Greek culture preceding Christianity. However, when Justin spoke of the "seed word", this did not mean that he uncritically accepted everything that had been created in the past by logic and philosophy: "Because they do not know everything that pertains to the Logos, which is Christ, they often contradict themselves." The Christian apologist easily applied the name "Christian" to those who lived "in accordance with reason", but for him it was Christ who was the yardstick by which the theoretical and practical significance earlier forms of religious life.

After crusades the acrimony of the Byzantine polemic against Islam is somewhat reduced, and some form of coexistence is suggested. Political and military expediency also called for further displays of goodwill.

(4) Penetrating into Central, South and East Asia, Orthodox Christianity met with such developed religions as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Hinduism and Chinese Buddhism. This meeting took place in extremely difficult circumstances and requires special study. Among 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 China, in addition to the cross, you can see images related to other religions: the dragon of Confucianism, the crown of Buddhism, the 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 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 Janissaries, pressure in the provinces, proselytizing zeal of dervishes, etc.). In order to preserve their faith, the Orthodox were often forced to adopt a position of silent resistance. Deteriorating living conditions, a heavy tax burden and various socio-political lures from outside civil authorities left the Orthodox two main paths: either renounce their faith, or resist up to martyrdom. There were also Orthodox Christians who were looking for a third way, a compromise solution: outwardly giving 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 in whose midst they lived. The Orthodox gained strength by turning to the liturgical life or by stoking eschatological expectations. During those bitter years of slavery, the belief spread that “the end is near.” Small treatises, written in a simple style, were in circulation 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 extensive Russian Empire The collision of Christianity with other religions and the theoretical position of the Church in relation to them during the Modern Age 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 relation to Islam, the Russians followed the Byzantine models. Orthodox Christians faced serious problems after the onslaught of the Kazan Muslim Tatars, whose state fell only in 1552. In his missionary activities, both within the empire and in neighboring states Far East, the Orthodox of Russia met with almost all known religions: Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, various branches of Buddhism, shamanism, etc. - and they studied them, trying to comprehend their essence. In the 19th century a trend spread among the Russian intelligentsia characterized by agnosticism based on the conviction that God's providence is beyond what we can describe with our theological categories. This did not mean evading the problem, but rather indicated a special reverence for the terrible mystery of God, which is characteristic of Orthodox piety. Everything that concerns the salvation of people outside the Church is the mystery of the incomprehensible God. The 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 spread more widely. 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 mankind

(1) With regard to 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, 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 considered not just as a religious belief, but as the highest expression of religion, that is, as an experienced connection of a person 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 direction of thought set by Augustine, has come to a double understanding of reality. Thus, a clear distinction is made between the natural and the supernatural, the sacred and the voluminous, religion and revelation, divine grace and human experience. The various views of Western theologians on other religions are characterized by this tendency to emphasize 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 conviction that the Trinitarian God is always active 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 transcendent and the mundane has been abolished. It was abolished by the Word of God, who took on flesh and dwelt among us, and by the Holy Spirit, Who, in the course of history, brings about the renewal of creation. The Eastern Church leaves space for personal freedom of thought and expression, within the framework of living tradition. AT Western world the discussion of the theological position in relation to other religions is mainly focused on Christology. In the Eastern tradition this problem is always considered and solved from a trinitarian perspective.

(a) In contemplating this problem, attention should be paid, first, to the radiance of the glory of God spreading all over the world and His constant providence for all creation, especially for 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 tenets of the Christian faith is that God is incomprehensible, inaccessible in His essence. However, biblical revelation breaks the impasse of the unknowability of the 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 theophany, it is not the essence of God that is revealed, but His glory; and only man can comprehend it. The glory of God the Trinity embraces the universe and all things. Therefore, all people are able to perceive and assimilate something from the radiance of the “Sun of Truth”, God, and join His love.

The great tragedy of the disobedience of the human race has not become a barrier to the radiance of Divine glory, which continues to fill heaven and earth. The Fall did not destroy the image of God in man. What has been damaged, though not completely destroyed, is the ability of mankind to comprehend the divine message, to achieve its correct understanding. God has not stopped caring about the whole world that He created. And not so much people are looking for God, how much He is looking for them.

(b) In the Christological dogma we find two main keys to the solution of the problem under consideration: the incarnation of the Word and the understanding of Christ as the "new Adam". In the incarnation of the divine Word, the fullness of human nature was perceived by God. The theme of the deeds of the Word before the incarnation and the deeds of the resurrected Lord is at the center of the Orthodox liturgical experience. The intensified eschatological hope culminates in the amazing expectation that the apostle Paul thus expressed: “... having revealed to us the secret of His will according to His good pleasure, which He had previously placed in Him [Christ], in the dispensation of the fullness of times, in order to unite everything heavenly and earthly under the head of Christ” (). Divine action has a global dimension - and exceeds religious phenomena and religious experience.

Jesus Christ does not exclude people of other religions from His care. At certain points in His earthly life, He spoke to people of other religious traditions (a Samaritan woman, a Canaanite woman, a Roman centurion) and provided them with help. He spoke with admiration and respect of their faith, which he did not find among the Israelites: "... and in Israel I did not find such a faith"(; cf. 15, 28; ). He drew Special attention to 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 the core element of His teaching—the new dimension of love 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 true respect and love.

(c) If we look at non-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 transcends all definition and description. In addition to the "economy of the Word", the Christian East, with firm hope 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 consonant power of the love of God in the Trinity exceeds the capacity of human thought and understanding. Everything sublime and truly good is the result of the influence of the Spirit. Wherever we encounter the manifestations and fruits of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22-23), - we can discern the effects of the influence of the Holy Spirit. And much of what the apostle listed 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 used in a special, limited sense. For their part, the 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 co-heirs and members of the “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 of them have an ecclesiastical character.(John Karmyris). Thus, instead of the negative expression "outside the Church", Orthodox thought emphasizes 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 scope and effect. The prayer of the Church and her care embrace all mankind. The Church celebrates the Divine Eucharist and praises God on behalf of all. She acts on behalf of the whole world. It spreads the rays of the glory of the resurrected Lord to all creation.

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

(a) The history of religions shows that, despite the difference in the 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 transcendent reality, in the direction of Something or Someone that exists on the other side of the sensual sphere. Being the fruit of humanity's striving towards the "Holy", they open the way to human experience leading to the Infinite.

(b) In addressing certain religious systems, we must avoid both superficial enthusiasm and arrogant criticism. In the past, disordered knowledge about 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: on the basis of what we know about one of the religions, geographically and theoretically closest to us, to create a generalized idea about 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" 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 present and functioning in different contexts. Religions are living organisms, and in each of them the individual components are in connection with each other. We cannot extract some 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 acknowledge the presence of innate values, even "seeds of the word," in foreign religious experience, we must also recognize that they have the potential to further grow, blossom, and bear fruit. concludes his brief reflections on the "seed logos" with the statement of a fundamental principle - and, strangely, this is not sufficiently noted by those who invoke his views. He emphasizes the difference between a "seed" and the fullness of life that is in it. He distinguishes between innate "ability" and "grace": “For the seed and some semblance of something, given according to the extent of acceptability, is another matter; and the other is the very thing of which the communion and likeness is bestowed by His [God's] grace.(Apology II, 13).

(e) Since man retains the image of God even after the fall, he remains the recipient of messages from the divine will. However, he often fails to comprehend them properly. To draw an analogy, albeit an imperfect one, with modern technology: a television set that is poorly installed or defective produces an altered picture and sound from that 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 by the rays of Divine truth coming from the Sun of Truth, life experience, various sublime ideas and great inspirations. Such accumulators helped humanity by giving the world imperfect light or some reflections of light. But they cannot be considered as something self-sufficient, they cannot replace the Sun itself.

For Orthodoxy, 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, remains the criterion. Love, which was revealed in His person and 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 witness”

(1) The Orthodox position can be critical in relation to other religions as systems and as organic formations; however, in relation to people belonging to other religions and ideologies, this is always an attitude of respect and love - following the example of Christ. For man continues to be the bearer of the image of God and desires to attain the likeness of God, because he possesses – as innate components of his being – free will, spiritual intelligence, 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 have been shaped by such dialogue. Dialogue belongs to church tradition; he was a major factor in the development of Christian theology. A large part of patristic theology is the fruit of direct and indirect dialogue with the ancient Greek world, both with religious currents and with purely philosophical systems, which sometimes led to antitheses, and sometimes to synthesis.

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

Today, in the grand metropolis called Earth, in the midst of new cultural, religious and ideological ferments, dialogue becomes a new opportunity and challenge. We are all dealing with human achievements and striving for a global community of peace, justice and brotherhood, and therefore each person and each tradition must offer the best of what they have inherited from the past and, in the light of experience and criticism from others, cultivate the most healthy seeds of truth, which he possesses. Dialogue can facilitate the transfer of new seeds from one civilization to another, as well as the germination and development of those seeds that lie lifeless in the land of ancient religions. As noted, religions remain organic entities, and for living people who experience them, they are "living organisms" that can develop. Everyone has their own entelechy. They experience influences, perceive new ideas that come from their environment, and respond to the challenges of the time.

Various religious leaders and thinkers discover 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 other religious traditions around the world. In this regard, dialogue is crucial.

From this perspective, the new questions posed by the recent technological and electronic revolution, and the new challenges shaking the world community, can be considered 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, the protection environment, human rights . Although at first glance all this seems 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 the incarnation, which abolishes the gap between the transcendent and the mundane in the Person of Christ, has a unique value for humanity, for it is impossible in any non-Christian anthropology.

“Orthodoxy, entering the third millennium with confidence, with a sense of fidelity 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, emphasize with all certainty that we are turning 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 peoples… The Orthodox Church rejects religious intolerance and condemns religious fanaticism, wherever it comes from.” .

In general, 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 interreligious dialogue with respect, reason, love and hope. We must try to understand what is important 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 the light of new challenges. Genuine dialogue generates new interpretations on both sides.

At the same time, we have no right, trying to be polite, to underestimate the significance of difficult problems. Nobody needs superficial forms of inter-religious dialogue. Ultimately, the search for a higher truth remains at the core of the religious problem. No one has the right - and it is not in anyone's interest - to weaken this force of human existence in order to achieve a simplistic conciliatory consensus, like those standard agreements that are negotiated at the ideological level. In this perspective, the essential contribution of Orthodoxy is not to hush up its own characteristics, deep spiritual experience and conviction, but to bring them to light. Here we come to the delicate issue of Orthodox mission, or - as I suggested to say thirty years ago - "Orthodox witness."

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

Abandoning the notion of a closed, self-sufficient cosmological system, autonomous and impersonal, Paul began to preach the action of a personal God, who created the universe from nothing, provides for the world, and decisively intervenes in history. In contrast to the idea of ​​an individual living automatically, the emphasis was placed on freedom and love, which are manifested in communion between God and man. With this paradox, which for the Athenians bordered on the absurd, Paul introduced new type 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, 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 revealed in the crucified and resurrected Christ. Here we have a clear example of understanding and respecting ancient religious ideas and at the same time transcending them in the truth and power of Christian revelation. The Orthodox “witness” (or mission) means precisely the testimony of experience and certainty. We confess our faith not as an intellectual discovery, but as a gift of the grace of God. To neglect the duty of such personal testimony is to reject the gospel.

Personal knowledge of "the love of Christ that transcends understanding" () remains the most profound Christian experience and is directly related to authentic Christian mission and evangelism. Love releases inner forces and opens up new horizons in life that the mind cannot imagine. peculiar Orthodox Christian the feeling that he is united with all mankind, and the love he feels for every person compels him to inform every neighbor about the greatest good that has been revealed to him.

The gifts of God cannot be selfishly kept to oneself—they must be available to everyone. Although certain acts of God may apply to some people and to some person, they nevertheless 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 by participating in the love relationship of the Trinity God, we cannot keep that conviction to ourselves. For that would be the worst of injustices. However, all this does not mean that preaching to another can be accompanied by violence, that it can serve as a cover for achieving other goals, political or economic. This is not about imposing anything on others, but about showing confidence, about personal experience. It is significant that in the first centuries Christians talked about martyria - about witness-martyrdom, about witness often at the cost of life. Everything that belongs to the human race should be used, but each person should remain completely free in the choice that he ultimately makes for himself. Respect for the freedom of every human person will always be the basic principle of Orthodoxy.

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

Orthodox “witnessing” 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 so that people can celebrate the sacrament of the Kingdom of God in their own cultural context spreading the glory and presence of God where they live. Thus, Orthodox witness is a personal participation in the spreading of the 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 to use violence or dishonest methods, which sometimes distorted the essence of the “Christian mission”. It respects the peculiarity of man and his culture and uses her own methods - the liturgical life, the celebration of the sacraments, sincere love. The Orthodox mission cannot be limited to participation in the organization of education, the provision of medical care and the provision of funds for external development. It should carry to everyone, especially the poor and humiliated, the belief that each person has a unique value, that, since he is created in the image and likeness of God, his destiny is something of the greatest - 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, beyond any humanistic vision. To accept it or not is a matter of free choice and responsibility of people. Followers of other religions sharply criticize various Christian missions when they see that missionary activity is accompanied by a display 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 identify the Christian mission in general with the errors characteristic of some part of Western Christianity or one historical period (for example, the period of colonialism). The harsh criticism is directed at "Christians" and not at Christ. Everything will change in the world if we Christians live and act and measure 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 only be experienced in the sacrament of love, in outward simplicity.

We need constant honest self-criticism and repentance. This does not mean the limitation of the Orthodox witness, which will lead to a colorless dialogue, but rather the 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 the image of His life and death in constant personal transformation "from glory to glory" (). The goal of the Orthodox is not to limit or minimize their "witness", but to live in accordance with the calling: to follow Christ.

“Those who lived in accordance with the Word (reason) are Christians, even though they were considered atheists: such among the Greeks are 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, tiresome, and for the present time I will refrain from doing so.(Apology 1, 46). Source of knowledge. Part II. About heresies.

Theodore Abu Kurakh. Against the heresies of the Jews and 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 the history of the Church, we do not have a systematic study of this issue. Our topic includes the work of Bishop Chrysanth, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, "The Religions of the Ancient World in Their Relation 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 one.

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 21st Century. – The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 58 (1993).

John Karmyris. The universality of salvation in Christ. – Praktikatis Akadimias Athinon. 1980. V. 55 (Athens, 1981). pp. 261-289 (in Greek); See also: The salvation of God's people outside the Church. - Right there. 1981. V. 56 (Athens, 1982). pp. 391-434.

Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus (d. 1383) remarks: “Muslims prevented their people from entering into dialogue with Christians, of course, so that they could not receive a clear knowledge of the truth during the interview. Christians, on the other hand, are confident in the purity of their faith, and in the rightness and truth of the doctrine that they hold, and therefore they do not create any obstacles for their people, but each of them has complete freedom and power to discuss faith with whomever he wants.(against Muslims).

interesting in this case An observation made by the French thinker René Girard of Stanford University in California: “The value system [Christianity] created 2,000 years ago continues to operate whether or not more people join the 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. True 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 department of theology of MEPhI.

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

Orthodoxy and Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodoxy and Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodoxy and Buddhism

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

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

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

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

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

We, as people who believe in the One God, do not doubt that God acts in the very different environment, including outside the Church, that He can affect people who do not belong to Christianity. Recently, I talked with our well-known Buddhist Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: he came to a television program that I host on the Russia-24 channel, and we talked about Christianity and Buddhism. Among other things, he talked about how he visited Athos, stood for six or eight hours in the temple for worship and experienced very special sensations: he called them "grace." This man is a Buddhist, and according to the laws of his religion, he should not believe in God either, but meanwhile, in a conversation with me, he used such words as “God”, “Most High”. We understand that the desire to communicate with the Supreme Being exists in Buddhism too, only it is expressed differently than in Christianity.

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

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

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

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

Answers to questions from the audience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE MOST SECRET
Candidate of Theology, graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest Dimitry Moiseev answers questions.

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

With God, there are no small things. As a rule, the devil often hides 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, simply speaking, sin without even realizing it. And this ignorance is dangerous for the health of the soul. Moreover, modern believers often possess such sexual practices that other secular womanizers' hair can stand on end from their skill ... Recently I heard a woman who considers herself Orthodox proudly declared that she had paid only $ 200 for "super" -educational sexual training - seminars. In all her manner, intonation, one could feel: “Well, what are you thinking, follow my example, especially since 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 Dimitry Moiseev, to answer the questions of what and how to study, otherwise “teaching is light, and the unlearned are darkness.”

Is intimacy in marriage important to 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 the spouses would learn, by working 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, housekeeping, just communication with each other, etc. are all means to help a married couple achieve the degree of unity available to their condition. Consequently, intimate relationships occupy one of the important places in married life. It is not a center of coexistence, but at the same time, it is not a thing that is not needed.

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

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

- I once read in Orthodox book that one confessor came to his spiritual children and said: "It is God's will for you that you have many children." Is it possible to say this to a confessor, was it really the will of God?
— If a confessor has reached absolute dispassion and sees the souls of other people, like Anthony the Great, Macarius the Great, Sergius of Radonezh, then I think that the law is not written for such a person. And for an ordinary confessor, there is a decree of the Holy Synod forbidding to interfere in privacy. That is, priests can give advice, but they do not have the right to force people to do their will. It is strictly forbidden, firstly, St. Fathers, secondly, by a special resolution of the Holy Synod of December 28, 1998, which once again reminded confessors of their position, rights and obligations. Therefore, the priest may recommend, but his advice will not be binding. Moreover, you can not force people to take on such a heavy yoke.

- So, the church does not call for married couples to be sure to have large families?
— The Church calls married couples to be God-like. And having many children or having few children - it already depends on God. Who can accommodate what - yes it accommodates. Thank God if the family is able to raise many children, but for some people this can be an unbearable cross. That is why the fundamentals of the ROC's social concept 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 many children the Lord gives, so many will give. On the other hand, there is a reservation: those who have not reached such a spiritual level should, in the spirit of love and benevolence, consult with the confessor about the issues of their lives.

— Are there any limits to what is acceptable in intimate relationships among the Orthodox?
These boundaries are dictated common sense. Perversions, of course, are 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 save a 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 is pointless. Because spouses receive the greatest joy from mutual communication, subject to love between themselves. And not subject to the presence of some practices. In the end, any technique gets boring, any pleasure that is not associated with personal communication becomes boring, and therefore requires more and more acuity of sensations. And this passion is endless. So, you need to strive not to improve some techniques, but to improve your love.

- In Judaism, intimacy with a wife can only be entered a week after her critical days. Is there something similar in Orthodoxy? Is it allowed 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 it in the New Testament. A person who touches a woman these days is not unclean. Imagine what would happen if a person who traveled to public transport, on a bus full of people, would begin to figure out which of the women to touch and which not. What is it, “who is unclean, raise your hand! ..”, or what?

Is it possible for a husband to have intimate relations 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, should 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 the very least, refrain from intimacy. In order to devote this time to prayer, spiritual improvement. After all, the period of pregnancy is very important for the formation of the personality of the child and his spiritual development. It is no coincidence that even the ancient Romans, being pagans, forbade pregnant women to read books that were not useful from a moral point of view, to attend amusements. They understood perfectly well that a woman's mental disposition is necessarily reflected in the state of the child that is in her womb. And often, for example, we are surprised that a child born from a mother of not the most moral behavior (and left by her in the maternity hospital), subsequently falling into a normal foster family, nevertheless inherits the character traits of his biological mother, becoming over time the same depraved, drunkard, etc. There seemed to be no visible effect. But we must not forget: for 9 months he was 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, needs to protect herself in every possible way from what may be permissible in regular time.

- I have a friend who has the 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, probably, even to caress her own husband, since this still affects the fetus. What is a man to do?
I'm talking about the ideal here. And whoever has some infirmities - there is a confessor. A pregnant wife is not a reason to have a mistress.

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

- Now petting is in fashion among young people, that is, masturbation, as you said, is this 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 caress during fasting?
Is it possible to smell sausage during fasting? Question of the same order.

- Is erotic massage harmful to the soul of an Orthodox?
- 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 away.

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

How often can spouses have intimacy without this care of the flesh turning into lust?
- I think that every married couple determines for itself a reasonable measure, because here it is impossible to give any valuable instructions, installations. 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 normal from a spiritual point of view? How do you think?
“Maybe it’s okay for them. I don't know these people. There is no strict rule. 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 is to be likened to his wife, and not the wife to her 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 plan 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, by working on oneself, by correcting one's life in the spirit of the Gospel. There is no such option in secular psychology. This is where all the other attempts to solve this problem come from.

- So, the thesis of one Orthodox Christian woman: “There must be freedom between husband and wife 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 be free, it is necessary to limit myself to the Criminal Code in order not to go to jail, although theoretically I am free to break the law. It is the same here: to put the enjoyment of the process at the forefront is unreasonable. Sooner or later, a person will get tired of 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 leaves the Pope sad, and the second - cheerful. One of the other asks: "Why are you so sad?". “Yes, I went to the Pope and asked: can I 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 are naturally naked, and there are icons in the room. Isn't it wrong to do so?
“There is nothing wrong with that. But you don’t need to come to church in this form and you shouldn’t 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.

- Is it okay that there are no clothes on the body?
- Nothing. What about Mary of Egypt?

– But still, 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 baths, having a pectoral cross on ourselves.

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

—Recently, I read from Elder Paisios the Holy Mountaineer that if one of the spouses is spiritually stronger, then the strong must yield to the weak. Yes?
- Of course. "Lest Satan tempt you because of your intemperance." Because if the wife strictly fasts, and the husband becomes unbearable to such an extent that he takes a mistress, the latter will be bitterer than the former.

- If the wife did this for the sake of her husband, then should she come to repent that she did not keep the fast?
- Naturally, since the wife also received her measure of pleasure. If for one this 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. We are talking, of course, about food fasting for monks. Then they repented of this, took on even greater work. After all, it is one thing to show love and condescension to the weakness of one's neighbor, and another thing to allow some kind of indulgence for oneself, without which one could well do without according to one's spiritual dispensation.

- Isn't it physically harmful for a man to refrain from intimate relationships for a long time?
- Anthony the Great once lived for more than 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's bad for her health. And the elder Paisios Svyatogorets wrote that because of this, ladies develop “nervousness” and so on.
– I doubt it, 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 by no means with malice.

- Isn't it harmful for a woman's physical health?
“They also lived for quite a long time. Unfortunately, I am not ready to approach this issue with numbers in hand, but there is no such dependence.

- Communicating with psychologists and reading medical literature, I learned that if a woman and her husband do not have sexual relations, then she has a very high risk of gynecological diseases. This is an axiom among 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 Scripture it says: "Your attraction will be to your husband." It is more difficult for a woman to be alone than for a man. But in Christ all this can be 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 absence of such a weaker sex is more difficult to tolerate. 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 that a person has a correct spiritual life.

- Is it possible to have intimacy with the bride and groom if they have already submitted an application to the registry office, but have not yet been officially scheduled?
- As they filed an application, they can pick it up. Still, the 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 trap. A common phenomenon - a person relaxes: well, what is there, after 3 days the wedding ...
- Well, in three days Easter, let's celebrate. Or on Maundy Thursday I bake Easter cake, let me eat it, it’s still Easter in three days! .. Easter will come, it won’t go anywhere ...

- Is intimacy between husband and wife allowed after registration with the registry office or only after the wedding?
- For 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 in the registry office, but then had intimacy before the wedding, is this a sin?
- The Church recognizes the state registration of marriage ...

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

And even after a week? I have a friend, he went to arrange a wedding in one of the Obninsk churches. And the priest advised him to spread the painting and the wedding for a week, because the wedding is a booze, a party, and so on. And then the deadline was extended.
- Well I do not know. Christians should not have booze at a wedding, and for those for whom any occasion is good, there will be booze even after the wedding.

- That is, you can’t spread 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 I can marry well-known people quite calmly. Because I trust them, and I know that there will be no legal or canonical problems because of this. For people who regularly visit the parish, such a problem, as a rule, is not worth it.

Are sexual relationships 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. Intimacy itself is neutral.

— Just like money is neutral, right?
— If money is a human invention, then these relationships are 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 quite often does it.

- Is shyness in intimate relationships welcome among 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 legal restrictions, just as Islam makes a woman cover her face, etc. This means that it is not possible to write down a code of intimate behavior for a Christian.

Is it necessary to abstain after Communion for three days?
- The "Instructive Message" tells how one should prepare for Communion: to abstain from the closeness 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 ancient practice, we will see: married couples took communion before the wedding, they got married on the same day, and in the evening there was closeness. Here is the day after. If on Sunday morning they took communion, the day was dedicated to God. And at night you can be with your wife.

- For one who wants to improve spiritually, should one 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 for a person. He should not put them at the forefront of his life. There is a direct correlation: the more spiritual a person is, the less 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 ascetics would hardly eat the cake. To each his own. As his spiritual growth.

– 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 to give birth to a child.

- And what if, for example, a woman has become pregnant, but she does not know about it yet and continues to have intimate relationships. 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, it also depends on if the expectant mother takes alcohol, etc. The Lord arranged everything wisely: until a woman knows about it, God Himself cares, but when a woman finds out ... She herself should take care of this (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 Demetrius, 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 matter of personal inner freedom of each family. Often, excessive austerity is the cause of marital quarrels and, ultimately, divorce. The pastor emphasized that the basis of the family is love, which leads to salvation, and if it is not there, then marriage is “just an everyday structure, where a woman is a reproductive force, and a man is the one who earns bread.”

Bishop of Vienna and Austria Hilarion (Alfeev).

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 the Book of Genesis, “A man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife; and the two shall 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 of married couples who had 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 turning of water into wine at a 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 the marriage man and went ... to marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11)."

History knows sects (Montanism, Manichaeism, etc.) that rejected marriage as supposedly contrary to the ascetic ideals of Christianity. Even in our time, one sometimes hears the opinion that Christianity abhors marriage and "permits" the marriage union of a man and a woman only out of "condescension to the infirmities of the flesh." How untrue this is can be judged at least from the following statements of the Hieromartyr Methodius of Patara (4th century), who, in his treatise on virginity, gives a theological justification for childbearing 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 casting of the seed into the bowels of the female womb, so that bone from bone and flesh from flesh, having been perceived by an invisible force, were again formed into another person by the same Artist ... This, perhaps, is also indicated by a sleepy frenzy directed at the primordial ( cf. Gen. 2:21), prefiguring the pleasure of a husband at communication (with his wife), when he, in a thirst for procreation, goes into a frenzy (ekstasis - “ecstasy”), relaxing with the hypnotic pleasures of procreation, so that something that is torn away from his bones and flesh, again formed ... into another person ... Therefore, it is rightly said that a person leaves his father and mother, as suddenly forgetting everything at a time when he, united with his wife by the embrace of love, becomes a participant in fruitfulness, leaving the Divine Creator to take a rib from him so that from son to become a father himself. So, if even now God forms man, is it not bold to turn away from childbearing, which the Almighty Himself is not ashamed to perform with His pure hands? As Saint Methodius further states, when men "throw the seed into the natural female passages," it becomes "participant in the divine creative power."

Thus, conjugal communion is seen as a God-ordained creative act performed "in the image of God." Moreover, sexual intercourse is the way in which God the Artist creates. Although such thoughts are rare among the Fathers of the Church (who were almost all monks and therefore had little interest in such topics), they cannot be passed over in silence when expounding the Christian understanding of marriage. Condemning “carnal lust”, hedonism, leading to sexual promiscuity 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 marriage union.

In marriage, a person is transformed, overcoming loneliness and isolation, expanding, replenishing and completing his personality. Archpriest John Meyendorff defines the essence of Christian marriage in this way: “A Christian is called—already in this world—to have the experience of a new life, to become a citizen of the Kingdom; and it is possible for him in marriage. Thus marriage ceases to be merely 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 "to each other" but also "in Christ"" .

Another prominent Russian pastor, priest Alexander Elchaninov, speaks of marriage as “initiation”, “mystery”, in which there is “a complete change in a person, an expansion of his personality, new eyes, a new sense of life, a birth through him into the world in a new fullness.” In the union of love between two people, both the disclosure of the personality of each of them and the emergence of the fruit of love - a child that turns the two into a trinity - takes place: “... In marriage, complete knowledge of a person is possible - the miracle of feeling, touching, seeing someone else's personality ... , observes it from the side, and only in marriage plunges into life, entering it through another person. This is the pleasure of real knowledge and real life gives that feeling of completeness and satisfaction that makes us richer and wiser. And this fullness deepens even more with the emergence of us, merged and reconciled, the third, our child.”

Attaching such an exceptionally high value to marriage, the Church has a negative attitude towards divorce, as well as a second or third marriage, unless the latter are caused by special circumstances, such as adultery by one or the other party. This attitude is based on the teachings of Christ, who did not recognize the Old Testament regulations regarding divorce (cf. Mt. 19:7-9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18), with one exception - divorce through "the fault of 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 marriages.

In the early Christian Church, there was no special wedding ceremony: the husband and wife came to the bishop and received his blessing, after which they both communed at the Liturgy of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. This connection with the Eucharist is also traced in the modern rites 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 betrothal, during which the bride and groom must testify to the voluntary nature of their marriage and exchange rings.

The wedding itself takes place in the church, as a rule, after the Liturgy. During the sacrament, crowns are placed on those who are married, 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 breakup of the family has become commonplace, and at the first difficulties and trials, spouses are ready to betray each other and break their union, this laying on of martyrdoms serves as a reminder that marriage will only be lasting when it is not based on momentary and fleeting passion, but on the readiness to lay down one's life for another. And the family is a house built on a solid foundation, and not on sand, only if Christ Himself becomes its cornerstone. Suffering and the cross are also reminiscent of the troparion "Holy Martyr", which is sung during the triple circumambulation of the bride and groom around the lectern.

During the wedding, the gospel story about marriage in Cana of Galilee is read. This reading emphasizes the invisible presence of Christ in every Christian marriage and the blessing of God himself on the marriage union. In marriage, the miracle of the transfer of “water” must take place, i.e. everyday life on earth, into "wine" - an unceasing and daily holiday, a feast of the love of one person for another.

marital relationship

Is modern man in his marital relationship able to fulfill the various 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 a believing person since the Old Testament times, and they can be reduced to a verbal formula: nothing too much. That is, the Church simply calls us not to do anything against nature.

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

The entire Gospel and the entire tradition of the Church, dating back to apostolic times, speak of earthly life as a preparation for eternity, of moderation, abstinence, and sobriety as the inner norm of Christian life. And anyone knows that nothing captures, captivates and binds a person like the sexual area of ​​his being, especially if he releases it from internal control and does not want to remain sober. And nothing is so devastating if the joy of being together 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, which is much stronger than a secular family. Nothing preserves the mutual desire of husband and wife for each other so much as the need at times to refrain from marital intimacy. And nothing kills like that, does not turn it into making love (it is no coincidence that this word arose by analogy with playing sports), as the absence of restrictions.

How hard is it for a family, especially a young one, to have this kind of abstinence?

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 church wisdom that a girl and a young man abstained from intimacy before marriage. And even when they were engaged and were already connected spiritually, there was still no physical intimacy between them. Of course, the point here is not that what was definitely sinful before the wedding becomes neutral or even positive after the Sacrament. 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 refrain when it is necessary in the natural course of family life, for example, during the wife’s pregnancy or in the first months after the birth of a child, when most often her aspirations are not directed to physical intimacy with her husband, but to taking care of the baby, and she is simply not physically capable of this. Those who, during the period of grooming and the pure passage of girlhood before marriage, prepared themselves for this, acquired a lot of essential things for their future married life. I know in our parish such young people 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 a year, two, even three before marriage. For example, they fell in love with each other in the first year of university: it is clear that they still cannot create a family in the full sense of the word, nevertheless, for such a long period of time they go hand in hand in purity as a bride and groom. After that, it will be easier for them to refrain from intimacy when it turns out to be necessary. And if the family path begins, as, alas, it now happens even in church families, with fornication, then periods of forced abstinence do not pass without sorrows until the husband and wife learn to love each other without bodily intimacy and without props that she gives. But it needs to be learned.

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

For monastics, especially novice ones, sorrows, mostly spiritual, accompanying their feat, are associated with despondency, with despair, with doubts about whether they have chosen the right path. For the lonely in the world, this is a bewilderment about the need to accept the will of God: why are all my peers already rolling wheelchairs, and others are already raising their grandchildren, and I am all alone and alone or alone and alone? It is not so much carnal as spiritual sorrows. A person living a lonely worldly life, from a certain age, comes to the fact that his flesh subsides, dies, if he himself does not forcibly inflame it through reading and watching something indecent. 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 going through a period of pure abstinence before marriage, when it was achieved exclusively by a voluntary feat, they do not know how to love each other temperately when this has to be done against their will. Like it or not, and the wife is not up to the desire of her husband 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 gets angry at 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 grief, a burden - to abstain next to his beloved, young, beautiful wife, the mother of his son or daughter. And in a sense, it is more difficult than monasticism. It is not at all easy to go through several months of abstinence from physical 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 drawn as a kind of chain of solid amenities, although this is far from being the case.

Is it necessary to try to fast 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 correctly answer it, you need to think about it in the context of the larger and more significant problem of marriage, in which one of the family members is not yet fully an orthodox person. Unlike previous times, when all spouses were married for many centuries, since society as a whole was Christian until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, we live in completely different times, to which the words of the Apostle Paul apply more than ever, that “an unbeliever The husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband” (1 Corinthians 7:14). And it is necessary to refrain from each other only by mutual agreement, 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. Here, in no case should you insist, let alone put forward any ultimatums. A believing family member must gradually lead his companion or life partner to the fact that they will someday come together and consciously 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 power over her own body, but the husband; likewise, the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:4). In this regard, if during fasting one of the Orthodox and churched spouses insists on intimacy, or does not even insist, but simply gravitates towards it in every possible way, while the other would like to maintain purity to the end, but makes concessions, then should he to repent of this, as in a conscious and free sin?

This is not an easy situation, and, of course, it should be considered in relation to different states and even to different ages of people. It is true that not all newlyweds who get married before Shrove Tuesday will be able to go through in complete abstinence. great post. All the more keep and all other multi-day posts. And if a young and ardent husband cannot cope with his bodily passion, then, of course, guided by the words of the Apostle Paul, it is better for the young wife to be with him than to give him the opportunity to "ignite". He or she who is more moderate, temperate, more able to cope with himself, will sometimes give up his own desire for purity in order, firstly, that the worst that occurs due to bodily passion does not enter the life of another spouse, firstly secondly, in order not to give rise to splits, divisions and thereby not to endanger family unity itself. But, however, he will remember that it is impossible to seek quick satisfaction in his own compliance, and in the depths of his soul rejoice at the inevitability of the current situation. There is an anecdote in which, frankly, far from chastity advice is given to a woman who is being abused: firstly, relax and, secondly, have fun. And in this case, it’s so easy to say: “What should I do if my husband (rarely wife) is so hot?” It's one thing when a woman goes to meet someone who cannot yet bear the burden of abstinence with faith, and another thing when, spreading her arms, - well, if it doesn't work out otherwise - herself to keep up with her husband. Yielding to him, you need to be aware of the measure of responsibility assumed.

If a husband or wife, in order to be peaceful in the rest, sometimes has to give in to a spouse who is not weak in bodily aspiration, this does not mean that you need to go all out and completely abandon this kind of fast for yourself. You need to find the measure that you can now fit together. And, of course, the leader here should be the one who is more temperate. He must take upon himself the responsibility of wisely building bodily relationships. Young people cannot keep all fasts, which means that they should abstain for some fairly tangible period: before confession, before communion. They can’t do the whole Great Lent, then at least the first, fourth, seventh weeks, let them impose some other restrictions: on the eve of Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, so that one way or another their life would be tougher than usual. Otherwise, there will be no feeling of fasting at all. Because then what is the point of fasting in terms of food, if emotional, mental and bodily feelings are much stronger, due to what happens to a husband and wife during marital intimacy.

But, of course, there is a time and place for everything. If a husband and wife live together for ten, twenty years, go to church and nothing changes, then here a more conscious member of the family needs to persevere step by step, up to the requirement that even now, when they have lived to gray hair, children have been raised, soon grandchildren will appear, some measure of abstinence to bring to God. After all, we will bring to the Kingdom of Heaven that which unites us. However, it will not be carnal intimacy that will unite us there, for we know from the Gospel that “when they rise from the dead, then they will neither marry nor give in marriage, but will be like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), otherwise that managed to grow during family life. Yes, first - with props, which is bodily intimacy, opening people to each other, making them closer, helping to forget some grievances. But over time, these supports, necessary when the building of marital relations is built, must fall away without becoming scaffolding, 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 canon say about when spouses should refrain from physical intimacy, and at what time not?

There are some ideal requirements of the Church Charter, which should define the specific path that each Christian family faces 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 triumph of the twelfth feast and Lenten 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 Mystery. 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, except by agreement, for a while, for 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 a permission, and not as a command” (1 Kor. 7, 5-6). This means that the family must grow to the day when the measure of abstinence taken by the spouses from bodily intimacy will in no way harm and reduce their love, and when all the fullness of family unity will be preserved even without props 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, that which is involved in eternity will be continued. It is clear that in the relationship of husband and wife, it is not carnal intimacy that is involved in eternity, but that which it serves as an aid to. In a secular, worldly family, as a rule, there is a catastrophic change of orientation, which cannot be allowed in a church family, when these props become the cornerstone.

The path to such an increase must be, firstly, mutual, and secondly, without jumping over steps. Of course, not every spouse, especially in the first year life together, it will be possible to say that they must pass the entire Advent fast in abstinence from each other. Whoever can accommodate this in harmony and moderation will reveal a profound measure of spiritual wisdom. And on the one who is not yet ready, it would be imprudent to place burdens unbearable on the part of a more temperate and moderate spouse. But after all, family life is given to us in a temporary extension, therefore, starting with a small measure of abstinence, we must gradually increase it. Although a certain measure of abstinence from each other "for the exercise in fasting and prayer," the family must have from the very beginning. For example, every week on the eve of Sunday, husband and wife avoid 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 should, from the very beginning of marriage, except for some very special situations, strive to pass in abstinence, as the most crucial period of church life. Even in legal marriage, carnal relations at this time leave an unkind, sinful aftertaste and do not bring the joy that should be from marital intimacy, and in everything else detract 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 must be expanded as the family matures and grows.

Does the Church regulate the methods of sexual contact between a married husband and wife, and if so, on what basis and where exactly is this mentioned?

Probably, when answering this question, it is more reasonable to first talk about some principles and general premises, and then rely on some canonical texts. Of course, by consecrating marriage with the Sacrament of the wedding, the Church sanctifies the whole union of a man and a woman - both spiritual and bodily. And there is no hypocritical intention, dismissive of the bodily component of the marital union, in a sober church worldview. This kind of neglect, belittling precisely the physical side of marriage, reducing it to the level of what is only allowed, but which, by and large, should be shunned, is characteristic of the sectarian, schismatic or extra-church consciousness, and if it is ecclesiastical, then only painful. This needs to be very clearly defined and understood. As early as the 4th-6th centuries, the decrees of church councils said that one of the spouses who avoids bodily intimacy with the other because of the abhorrence of marriage is subject to excommunication from Communion, but if this is not a layman, but a cleric, then deposition from the dignity. That is, the disdain of the fullness of marriage, even in the canons of the church, is unequivocally 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 such a person is also subject to the same punishments and, accordingly, excommunication from receiving the Holy Mysteries of Christ if he is a layman, or deprivation of dignity if he is a cleric. . This is how high the church 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 church consecration of the marital union is not a sanction for indecency. Just as the blessing of a meal and prayer before a meal is not a sanction for gluttony, for overeating, and even more so for drunkenness with wine, 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 the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, it is always common to understand that in the life of a family - as in general in human life - there is a hierarchy: the spiritual should dominate the corporeal, the soul should be higher than the body. And when the bodily begins to occupy the first place in the family, and only those small centers or areas that remain from the carnal are assigned to the spiritual or even the spiritual, this leads to disharmony, to spiritual defeats and great life crises. In relation to this message, there is no need to cite special texts, because, opening the Epistle of the Apostle Paul or the works of St. John Chrysostom, St. Leo the Great, St. Blessed Augustine - any of the Fathers of the Church, we will find any number of confirmations of this thought. It is clear that it was not canonically fixed in itself.

Of course, the totality of all bodily limitations for modern man may seem rather heavy, but in the church canons we are indicated the measure of abstinence to which a Christian must come. And if in our life there is a discrepancy to this norm - as well as to other canonical requirements of the Church, we, at least, should not consider ourselves dead 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 eve 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 temperance and moderation is defined in the Church's consciousness as an unconditional norm in relation to the arrangement of married life.

As for the intimate side of marital relations, 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, childbearing. That is, this kind of union of a man and a woman, which has nothing to do with the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were punished: when bodily intimacy is performed in that perverted form, in which childbirth can never and never occur. This was also mentioned in a fairly large number of texts, which we call "rulers" or "canons", that is, the inadmissibility of this kind of perverted forms of marital communication was recorded in the Rules of the Holy Fathers and partly in church canons in the later era of the Middle Ages, after Ecumenical Councils.

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

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

This analogy can be extended to marital relations. What is a natural continuation of life is good, and there is nothing bad or impure in it. And what leads to the search for more and more pleasures, one more, another, third, tenth point in order to squeeze out some additional sensory reactions from your body - this, of course, is improper and sinful and that cannot be included in life Orthodox family.

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

By itself, the formulation of the question implies the clogging of modern consciousness with such information, which it would be better not to know. In the former, in this sense, more prosperous times, children during the period of mating animals were not allowed into the barnyard so that they would not develop abnormal interests. And if you imagine a situation, not even a hundred years ago, but fifty years ago, could we find at least one in a thousand people who would be aware that monkeys are engaged in oral sex? Moreover, would you be able to ask about it in some acceptable verbal form? I think that drawing knowledge from the life of mammals about this particular component of their existence is at least one-sided. In this case, the natural norm for our existence would be to consider both polygamy, characteristic of higher mammals, and the change of regular sexual partners, and if we bring the logical series to the final, then the expulsion of the fertilizing male, when he can be replaced by a younger and physically stronger . So those who want to borrow the forms of organization of human life from higher mammals must be ready to borrow them to the end, and not selectively. After all, reducing us to the level of a herd of monkeys, even the most highly developed, implies that the stronger will displace the weaker, including in sexual terms. 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. But personally I did not look. What for? If you can't, then you can't. As for the variety of poses... There seem to be no specific prohibitions (with the exception of one not very clearly stated place in the Nomocanon regarding the “woman on top” pose, which, precisely because of the vagueness of the presentation, may not be classified as categorical). But in general, Orthodox people are even recommended to eat food with the fear of God, thanking God. One must think that any excesses - both in food and in marital relations - cannot be welcomed. Well, a possible dispute on the topic “what to call excesses” is a question for which no rules have been written, but there is a conscience in this case. Think for yourself without slyness, compare: why are gluttony considered a sin - gluttony (immoderate consumption of excessive food that is not necessary to saturate the body) and guttural insanity (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, unlike other physiological functions. human body such as 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 yes, then why, because original sin was not prodigal, but was a sin of disobedience to the Creator?

Yes, of course, original sin mainly consisted in disobedience and violation of God's commandment, as well as in impenitence and impenitence. And this totality of disobedience and impenitence 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 Scripture are symbolically referred to as putting on “leather garments” (Gen. 3, 21 ). The Holy Fathers interpret this as the acquisition by human nature of stoutness, that is, bodily fleshiness, the loss of many of the original properties that were given to man. Sickness, fatigue, and many other things entered not only into our spiritual, but also into our bodily composition in connection with the fall. In this sense, the physical organs of a person, including organs associated with childbearing, have become open to diseases. But the principle of modesty, the concealment of the chaste, namely the chaste, and not the hypocritically puritanical silence about the sexual sphere, first of all comes from the deep reverence of the Church for man as before the image and likeness of God. Just like not showing off what is most vulnerable and what most deeply binds two people, which makes them one flesh in the Sacrament of marriage, and gives rise to another, immeasurably sublime connection 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, fights against that which, being pure and beautiful in itself, is so significant and so important for the inner correct being of a person. Understanding all the responsibility and gravity of this struggle that a person is waging, the Church helps him through keeping modesty, silence about what should not be spoken about publicly and what is so easy to distort and so difficult to return, for it is infinitely difficult to turn 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 secrecy of this kind of knowledge and the inviolability of it to the soul of a person, seeks to make him uninvolved in the multitude of crafty contrived perversions and distortions of what is so majestic and well-organized 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, let us remember that they tell lies about a person, not seeing in him the image and likeness of God.

In this case, what is the difference between a chaste silence and a sanctimonious one? Chaste silence presupposes inner dispassion, inner peace and overcoming, what St. John of Damascus spoke of in relation to Mother of God that She had pure virginity, that is, virginity both in body and soul. The sanctimonious-puritan silence presupposes the concealment of what a person himself has not overcome, what boils in him and what he even if he struggles with, is not an ascetic victory over himself with the help of God, but hostility towards others, which is so easily spread to other people, and some of their manifestations. While the victory of his own heart over the attraction to what he is struggling with has not yet been achieved.

But how to explain that in Holy Scripture, as in other church texts, when the Nativity, virginity is sung, then genital organs are directly called by their proper names: the loins, the bed, the gates of virginity, and this in no way contradicts modesty and chastity? And in ordinary life, say someone like that aloud, that in Old Slavonic, that in Russian, it would be perceived as indecent, as a violation of the generally accepted norm.

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

Today it is very difficult to find a context in which this kind of vocabulary and metaphor could be placed and not harm the soul of the reader. It is known that the largest number of metaphors of physicality and human love in the biblical book of the Song of Songs. But today, the worldly mind has ceased to understand - and this did not even happen in the 21st century - 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 carnal aspiration of a girl for a boy, but in essence this is a reduction of Holy Scripture to the level, at best, just a beautiful love story. Although not in the most ancient times, but in the 17th century in the city of Tutaev near Yaroslavl, a whole chapel 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, back in the 17th century, the clean was clean for the clean, 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 fornication?

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

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

There are things that are sinful by 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 applies to physical intimacy. Being legally consecrated by marriage and put in its proper course, it is not sinful, but since it is forbidden in a different form, if this prohibition is violated, it inevitably turns into "fornication."

From Orthodox literature it follows that the bodily side dulls the spiritual abilities of a person. Why, then, do we have not only a black monastic clergy, but also a white one, obliging the priest to be in a marriage union?

This is a question that has long troubled the Universal Church. Already in the ancient Church, in the II-III centuries, an 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 Council of Elvira at the beginning of the 4th century it was voiced in one of its rules, and then under Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (XI century) it became predominant after the falling away of the Catholic Church from the Church Ecumenical. Then obligatory celibacy was introduced, that is, obligatory celibacy of the clergy. The Eastern Orthodox Church went the way, firstly, more appropriate Holy Scripture, and secondly, more chaste: not referring to family relationships, only as a palliative from fornication, a way not to inflame beyond measure, but guided by the words of the Apostle Paul and considering marriage as a union of a man and a woman in the image of the union of Christ and the Church, she initially allowed marriage and deacons, and presbyters, and bishops. Subsequently, starting from the 5th century, and in the 6th century already completely, the Church forbade marriage to bishops, but not because of the fundamental inadmissibility of the marriage state 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 whole diocese, with the whole Church, would be completely devoted to it. Nevertheless, the Church recognized the state of marriage as permissible for all other clerics, and the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, the Gandrian 4th century and the 6th century Trull, directly state that a clergyman who avoids marriage due to abhorrence should be prohibited from serving. So, the Church looks at the marriage of clerics as a chaste and temperate marriage and the most consistent with the principle of monogamy, that is, a priest can be married only once and must remain chaste and faithful to his wife in the event of widowhood. What 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, about accepting all the children whom the Lord sends, the same principle of abstinence, predominantly avoiding 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 clergymen. There is a danger in Catholicism, since the clergy are always being recruited from the outside. However, there is an upside to 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 estate. 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 business, and there were flaws and dangers here. The main falsehood of the Western approach to the celibacy of the priesthood lies in the very abhorrence of marriage as a state that is condoned 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 husband and wife live like brother and sister, for example, like John of Kronstadt with his wife, is called pure. So - in other cases, the marriage is dirty?

Quite a casuistic 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 the Most Pure and Immaculate in comparison with all other people. We also speak of a pure marriage in relation to the marriage of Joachim and Anna or Zechariah and Elizabeth. Conception Holy Mother of God, the conception of John the Baptist is also sometimes called immaculate or pure, and not in the sense that they were strangers to original sin, but in the fact that, compared to how this usually happens, they were abstinent and not filled with excessive carnal aspirations . In the same sense, purity is spoken of as a greater measure of chastity of those special callings 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 speak of the immaculate conception of the Son of God, does this mean that ordinary people is it vicious?

Yes, one of the provisions of the Orthodox Tradition is that the seedless, that is, immaculate, conception of our Lord Jesus Christ happened precisely so that the incarnated Son of God would not be involved in any sin, for the moment of passion and thereby distortion of love for one's neighbor is inextricably linked with the consequences of the fall, including in the ancestral region.

How should spouses communicate during the 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 internal good content. If spouses during the wife’s pregnancy, having abandoned physical intimacy, begin to talk less with each other, and watch TV more or swear in order to give some way out negative emotions, then this is one situation. It is different if they try to pass this time as intelligently as possible, deepening spiritual and prayerful communion with each other. After all, it’s so natural when a woman is expecting a baby, to pray more to herself in order to get rid of all those fears that accompany pregnancy, and to her husband to support her wife. In addition, you need to talk more, listen more carefully 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 their carnal and bodily relations.

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

There are. Only it is not necessary to interpret this concept very broadly. Now many priests hear from their parishioners who say 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, worldly and spiritual wisdom should be achieved. Just as other 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 if they are not marital, 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, one should not rely too much on the advice of doctors alone, especially in matters related to the sexual sphere, since, unfortunately, very often sexologists are frank carriers of non-Christian worldviews.

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

Are affection and tenderness possible during fasting and abstinence?

Possible, but not those that would lead to a bodily uprising of the flesh, to kindling a fire, after which you need to fill the fire with water or take a cold shower.

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 relationships mainly due to his unfamiliarity with the real church worldview in this area, as well as a one-sided reading, not so much of ascetic texts, in which this is almost not mentioned at all, but of texts either by contemporary near-church publicists, or unglorified ascetics of piety, or, which is even more often the case , modern bearers of secular tolerant-liberal consciousness, distorting the church interpretation on this issue in the media.

Now let's think about what real meaning can be attached to this phrase: the Church pretends that there is no sex. What can be understood by this? That the Church puts the intimate area of ​​life in its proper place? That is, it does not make of it that cult of pleasures, that only fulfillment of being, which can be read about in many magazines in shiny covers. So it turns out that a person's life continues insofar as he is a sexual partner, sexually attractive to people of the opposite, and now often the same sex. And as long as he is such and can be claimed by someone, it makes sense to live. And everything revolves around it: work to earn money for a beautiful sexual partner, clothes to attract him, a car, furniture, accessories to furnish an intimate relationship with the necessary surroundings, 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 renunciation of sexual relations - both voluntary, for the sake of God and piety, and forced, in illness or old age - is not regarded 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, something that you yourself can no longer realize in any form, but which still causes some kind of impulses in your decrepit body. Fortunately, this view family life The Church does not have a person.

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

It cannot be said that the Church does not love them... Its position must be formulated in completely different terms. Firstly, always separating sin from the person who commits it, and not accepting sin - and same-sex relationships, homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism are sinful in their very essence, which is clearly and unequivocally mentioned in the Old Testament - the Church refers to a person who sins with pity, for every sinner leads himself away from the path of salvation until such time as 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 rigidity and, if you like, intolerance, what we rebel against is that those who are the so-called minorities begin to impose (and at the same time very aggressively) their attitude to 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 so in the media, in a number of sections 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, unfortunately overwhelmed by it, sin as a norm, which you need to be equal to and which, if you yourself fail, then at least you need to consider it as the most progressive and advanced, this kind of worldview, definitely unacceptable for us.

Is participation married man in the artificial insemination of an outside woman by sin? And does this amount to adultery?

The resolution of the jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000 speaks of the unacceptability of in vitro fertilization when it is not about the married couple itself, not about the husband and wife, who are barren due to certain ailments, but for whom this kind of fertilization can be a way out. Although there are limitations here too: the ruling only deals with cases where none of the fertilized embryos are discarded as secondary material, which is still largely impossible. And therefore, it practically 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 when it happens. That's when this kind of technology becomes a reality (today they apparently exist somewhere only at the most advanced 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 entire unity of the Sacrament of marriage, the result of which is the joint birth of children, for the Church blesses a chaste, that is, an integral union, in which there is no flaw, there is no fragmentation. And what more can break this marriage union than the fact that one of the spouses has a continuation of him as a person, as the 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 marital 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 preserve their bodily purity before marriage. And in this sense, it is even impossible to think that an Orthodox, and therefore chaste, young man would give up his seed in order to impregnate some strange woman.

And if newlyweds who have just married find out that one of the spouses cannot live a full sexual life?

If an incapacity for marital cohabitation is discovered immediately after marriage, moreover, this is such an 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, which began from an incurable disease, how should they behave with each other?

You need to remember that over the years something has connected you, and this is so much higher and more significant than the small ailment that you have now, which, of course, should in no way be a reason for resolving some things for yourself. Secular people allow such thoughts: well, we will continue to live together, because we have social obligations, and if he (or she) can’t do anything, but I still can, then I have the right to find satisfaction on the side. It is clear that such 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 filling one's married life in a different way, which does not exclude affection, tenderness, and other manifestations of affection for each other, but without direct marital communication.

Is it possible for a husband and wife to turn to psychologists or sexologists if something is not going well with them?

As for psychologists, it seems to me that a more general rule applies here, namely: there are such 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 medical. And in this case, the priest and the 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 ongoing disorder, through the acceptance of the Church Sacraments, in some cases, perhaps through the support or advice of the priest, of course, if there is a determination on 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 the doctor for a solution to what is a consequence of the sinful fractures of our soul is hardly fruitful. Here the doctor will not help. As for assistance in the intimate, sexual area by the relevant specialists who work in this field, it seems to me that in cases of either some physical deficiencies 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 we talk about sexologists and their recommendations, most often we are talking about how a person can get as much pleasure for himself with the help of the body of a husband or wife, lover or mistress and how to adjust his bodily composition so that the measure of carnal pleasure becomes larger and larger 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 a single self-name, but also some reliable external evidence. It would be inappropriate to list specific names and organizations here, but I think that whenever it comes to health, mental and bodily, you need to remember the gospel word that “the testimony of two people is true” (John 8, 17), that is, we need two or three independent testimonies confirming both the medical qualifications and the worldview closeness to Orthodoxy of the doctor to whom we are addressing.

What methods of contraception does the Orthodox Church prefer?

None. There are no such contraceptives on which there would be a seal - "by permission of the Synodal Department for Social Work and Charity" (it is he who is engaged in the medical service). There is no and cannot be such contraceptives! Another thing is that the Church (suffice it to recall her latest document "Fundamentals of the Social Concept") soberly distinguishes between methods of contraception that are absolutely unacceptable and allowed out of weakness. Absolutely unacceptable are abortive contraceptives, not only the abortion itself, but also that which provokes the expulsion of a fertilized egg, no matter how quickly it happens, even immediately after the conception itself. Everything that is connected with this kind of action is unacceptable for the life of an Orthodox family. (I will not dictate lists of such means: whoever does not know is better off not knowing, and who knows, he understood without that.) As for other, say, mechanical methods of contraception, then, I repeat, I do not approve and in no way considering contraception as the norm of church life, the Church distinguishes them from those absolutely unacceptable for those spouses who, due to weakness, cannot bear total abstinence during those periods of family life when, for medical, social, or some other reasons, childbearing is impossible. When, for example, a woman after a serious illness or due to the nature of some treatment during this period, pregnancy is highly undesirable. Or for a family in which there are already quite a lot of children, today, according to purely everyday conditions, it is unacceptable to have another child. Another thing is that before God, refraining from childbearing every time should be extremely responsible and honest. It is very easy here, instead of considering this interval in the birth of children as a forced period, to descend to pleasing ourselves, when sly thoughts whisper: “Well, why do we need this at all? Again, the career will be interrupted, 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 kind of relative social well-being, we began to live better, and with the birth of a child we will have to give up a planned trip to the sea, a new car, some other things.” And as soon as this kind of crafty arguments begin to enter our lives, it means that we need to immediately stop them and give birth to the next child. And it must always be remembered that the Church calls on Orthodox Christians who are married not to consciously refrain from having children, neither because of distrust of God's Providence, nor because of selfishness and desire for an easy life.

If the 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 her husband cannot be a priority.

If a believing wife, for some reason, wants to have an abortion?

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

The attitude of the Church towards a woman who, in the years of the godless Soviet power did she have an abortion, not realizing what she was doing, the same as to a woman who is now doing it and already knows what she is getting into? Or is it still different?

Yes, of course, because according to the Gospel parable known to all of us about the servants 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 speaks of the Jews: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin” (John 15:22). So here is one measure of the guilt of those who did not understand, or even if they heard something, but inwardly, did not know in their hearts what a lie was in this, and another measure of guilt and responsibility of those who already know that this is murder ( it is difficult today to find a person who does not know that this is so), and, perhaps, they even recognize themselves as believers, if they later come to confession, and nevertheless they 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-pedagogical attitude towards such a sinner. Therefore, both the priest and the entire Church will look differently at a woman brought up by a pioneer, a Komsomol member, if she heard the word “repentance”, then only in relation to stories about some dark and ignorant grandmothers who curse the world, if she heard about Gospel, then only from the course of scientific atheism, and whose head was stuffed with the code of the builders of communism and other things, and to that woman who is in the current situation, when the voice of the Church, directly and unambiguously testifying to the truth of Christ, is heard by everyone.

In other words, the point here is not a change in the attitude of the Church towards sin, not some kind of relativism, but 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 childbearing, and recommend abstaining from physical intimacy in cases where one spouse is non-church and does not want to have children? How does this compare with the words of the Apostle Paul: “do not deviate from one another” (1 Cor. 7:5) and with the words in the rite of marriage “marriage is honorable and the bed is not filthy”?

It is not easy to be in a situation where, say, an unchurched husband does not want to have children, but if he cheats on 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 involve childbearing, must be considered very specifically. However, this does not in any way abolish the words of the wedding rite “marriage is honest and the bed is not bad”, just this honesty of marriage and this badness of the bed must be observed with all restrictions, warnings and admonitions, if they begin to sin against them and retreat from them.

Yes, the apostle Paul says that “if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Cor. 7:9). But he saw in marriage undoubtedly more than just a way to direct his sexual desire in a legitimate direction. Of course, it is good for a young man to be with his wife instead of fruitlessly inflaming up to thirty years and earning himself some kind of complexes and perverted habits, which is why in the old days they got married quite early. 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, does this mean that they should give up intimacy with each other?

Starting from a certain age, many spouses, even those who are churched, according to the modern view of family life, decide that they will not have any more children, and now they will experience everything that they did not have time when they raised children in their younger years. The Church has never supported or blessed such an attitude towards childbearing. Just like the decision of a large part of the newlyweds to first live for their own pleasure, and then have children. Both are a distortion of God's plan for the family. Spouses, for whom it is high time to prepare their relationship for eternity, if only because they are closer to it now than, say, thirty years ago, again immerse them in corporality and reduce them to what obviously cannot have continuation in the Kingdom of God . It will be the duty of the Church to warn: there is danger here, if not a red, then a yellow traffic light is on here. Upon reaching mature years, to put at the center of one's relations that which is auxiliary, of course, means to distort them, perhaps even destroy them. And in the specific texts of certain pastors, not always with the measure of tact as one would like, but in fact quite correctly, this is said.

In general, it is always better to be more temperate than less. It is always better to strictly fulfill the commandments of God and the Charter of the Church than to interpret them condescendingly towards oneself. Interpret them condescendingly towards others, and try to apply them to yourself with full measure of severity.

Are carnal relationships considered sinful if the husband and wife have come to an age when childbearing becomes absolutely impossible?

No, the Church does not consider those marital relations when childbearing is no longer possible as 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 who wants to marry at sunset, it is better not to do this, because then he it will be much easier to cope with the urges of one's own flesh, without striving for what is no longer appropriate simply by virtue of age.