Why dogs shouldn't go into church: reasons and history

The question is, what does it mean to preserve these ancient rules?

In the Church, a dog is considered an “unclean” animal. What if it's a guide dog? Will the Church make an exception?

Prot. Nikolai Emelyanov, cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznetskaya Sloboda, vice-rector of the Theological Institute at PSTGU.

- This is how modern society is structured - modern society - that any restriction, especially if it is associated with tradition, is perceived as something meaningless, harmful, outdated and limiting human freedom.

This position inevitably has an influence on us, often completely unconsciously. Moreover, often the restriction itself does not have a significant impact on our real life and is easily resolved in practice. But we are annoyed by the very fact of this limitation, we want to act contrary, it begins to seem to us that it is this limitation that is preventing us from achieving our goal, and not something else.

Therefore, an attempt to discuss the canons and rules that dogs are not allowed to enter the temple is obviously doomed to failure. Yes, I could say that for some reason the dog in the Holy Scriptures is a negative image, that the Lord says: “Do not give what is holy to dogs” (Matthew 7:6), that the word “dog” was considered offensive by the Israelites (1 Samuel 24 :15, etc.) and that the Lord Himself compares the pagans to dogs in a conversation with a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:26).

All this despite the fact that, in fact, God’s chosen people were engaged in cattle breeding and they needed dogs, which is also stated in the Holy Scriptures (Is. 56:10). In the same conversation with the Canaanite woman, the domestic dog was meant, since it was under the table of its owners.

Sometimes they try to interpret the image of dogs from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in some sentimental spirit, as dogs who took pity on poor Lazarus, whom people did not take pity on. In fact, dogs are mentioned in this parable for a completely different reason. They were considered eaters of carrion (1 Kings 14:11), so when they licked the scabs of Lazarus, it meant only one thing - that he was almost dead.

There are also canonical rules regarding animals. Canon 88 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (VII) directly states that no animal can be brought into the temple, except in situations involving a direct threat to human life. Obviously, the discussed situation with a guide dog does not imply any threat to life.

At the same time, everyone knows that the same 88 rule about the prohibition of bringing animals into the temple... is constantly violated. Everywhere, especially in the countryside, cats roam freely in churches. The explanation for this fact is purely pragmatic - so that mice don’t eat church books! At the same time, this is an obvious violation of the canon and seems to be significant. After all, if a cat kills a mouse in the altar, blood will be shed and the temple will have to be re-consecrated.

But all this argumentation is usually very unconvincing for modern man, who is far from the animal world in its real, and not decorative, expression. Moreover, some canons will not be convincing. You can always safely say about them that they are outdated! This is how modern society works - everything in it is always, by definition, outdated.

Of course, the church's view of the problem is different. The Church always warns against stereotyping thinking. Whatever it may be - conservative, modernist, postmodernist, liberal and whatever else you want. Therefore, the Church often preserves all these ancient rules in spite of our childish desire to break them or even in spite of their direct violation.

The question is, what does it mean to preserve these ancient rules?

What to do with the dog in this situation?

I think the easiest way to discuss this is with examples. Recently, a touching story that happened in an Italian village, where after the death of its owner, her dog continued to come to mass every day, became very discussed on the Internet. The note was republished many times on social networks and received a lot of comments.

First of all, almost the vast majority of these comments were about how much better dogs are than people. Here I want to immediately make a reservation that the Church will never allow such an attitude, even as a joke. I will try to explain why the situation with the guide dog in the temple may also turn out to be an absurd continuation of such reasoning.

Secondly, many comments showed our usual skeptical and condescending attitude towards “home-grown” Orthodoxy in comparison with “European” Catholicism (after all, the Church accepted Canon 88 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council even before its division). We begin to think: “Well, there, of course, they allowed it, but here we would immediately say: “There is no such rule that dogs are allowed!” In our Church, if a canon has been created, even if it is morally outdated, they will not cancel it, since this is the “rule!”

To try to understand this situation, I want to first make two disclaimers. Firstly, the article is about a small village, where everyone knows each other, everyone has dogs, the church is large, there are few parishioners, and it is easy for a dog to hide under a bench. This means that the dog does not bother anyone and will not scare anyone.

Secondly, since the note appeared on a Catholic resource, then, of course, a very important caveat was made there. This lady, the owner of the dog, specifically asked for the blessing of the priest so that he would allow him to take the dog with him. And he thought it would be right to allow it. In this story, these two factors seem to me to be decisive and make this story at least a little acceptable for me. Because in fact this story seems terrible to me.

I won’t explain why I don’t like this story: I haven’t been to this village, and probably the local priest knew better than me what he was doing. I will try to answer the main question: what to do if a blind person comes to church (now we should say visually impaired, because being blind in an individualistic society is intolerant!) with a guide dog.

My answer is clear: I cannot allow a guide dog into the temple. There are a lot of children there, but parents are now afraid of everything, and many adults are afraid of dogs. Everyone reacts to them differently, and even a dog, even the most well-mannered one, can behave inappropriately and some kind of sacrilege will occur with a sacred object.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is good that dogs are not allowed in the temple. This is very good for the blind person, and for the entire parish too!

If he walks constantly, then this is very good. All children will know that this person needs help, that they need to put him in a special place, take him to communion and confession, and during a long service there will be a reason to go out to rest, because “you need to watch the dog in the yard.” And a person will have to communicate with people: after all, a dog is not allowed to go to church, our Orthodoxy is so “dense”!

I feel so sorry for that poor Italian woman, not at all old - she was 57, who had neither relatives nor friends with whom she could go to church every day, calmly leaving her dog at home. Where were her neighbors?

Because a person must be led into the temple of God by the hand, and not by the leash. The smallest child among the parishioners should understand this. And a blind person should feel like he is sighted in the temple, he should understand that he no longer needs a dog here, he is not alone here!

The division of animals into clean and unclean came from the Old Testament. It says that after the Flood, people were allowed to eat the meat of clean animals. These included only those ruminant mammals that had cloven hooves. All other animals were considered unclean, which means they could not be eaten. Accordingly, both dogs and cats are unclean animals. But the church is more loyal to cats. And there are reasons for this.

How do clean animals really differ from unclean animals?

The division of animals into clean and unclean came from the Old Testament. It says that after the Flood, people were allowed to eat the meat of clean animals. These included only those ruminant mammals that had cloven hooves. All other animals were considered unclean, which means they could not be eaten. Accordingly, both dogs and cats are unclean animals. But the church is more loyal to cats. And there are reasons for this.

Zoroastrianism and dogs

Perhaps the only religion in the world that demonstrates an exclusively positive and respectful attitude towards dogs is Zoroastrianism. The dog was called nothing less than a kind creature and was considered practically equal to man - second in holiness, moreover, possessing, like man, a soul.

The rich written heritage of Zoroastrianism, as well as the works of historians from Antiquity, perfectly reflect the attitude of this religion towards dogs and their role in the life of the ancient Iranian peoples. The connection of dogs with the world of the dead, with ancestors, with higher beings, as well as such traits as fearlessness and vigilance, made these animals an important part of the life of true adherents of Zoroastrianism.

According to Zoroastrian beliefs, after death the soul is also greeted by two four-eyed dogs. They guard the Chinvat bridge, which leads to the world of the dead, and together with a young maiden, personifying a person’s personal faith, they accompany the deceased to the place of final rest (“Videvdat”).

Since a dog was considered almost equal to a person, its death and the death of a person are also equivalent. She also cannot be left without burial, and the burial must be accompanied by the same rites as in the case of a person.

However, practical equality in the status of humans and dogs also imposed certain obligations on the latter - the dog was also subject to trial and severe punishment for attacking a person. The law of Zoroastrianism was as follows: for a bite, the dog was supposed to be deprived of an ear, for a repeated bite, the second ear, then the tail, paw, and so on. Incorrigible criminals were eventually deprived of their lives.

Three things never come back - Time, Word, Opportunity. Therefore, do not waste time, choose your words, do not miss the opportunity!

Moderator: Lilochka

Senate message » 27 Jan 2010, 12:47

Always be happy and find good in everything.

Three things never come back - Time, Word, Opportunity. Therefore, do not waste time, choose your words, do not miss the opportunity!

Post by Yukka » Jan 27, 2010, 12:59 pm

Post by Frosya » 27 Jan 2010, 13:03

Senate message » 27 Jan 2010, 13:24

Always be happy and find good in everything.

Three things never come back - Time, Word, Opportunity. Therefore, do not waste time, choose your words, do not miss the opportunity!

Post by Frosya » 27 Jan 2010, 13:32

Commentary by Patriarch Kirill on the question of whether a dog is really an unclean animal:

“I treat animals well and love dogs very much. I have three dogs in Moscow and two in Smolensk. The Church has never considered dogs unclean animals and has never forbidden them to enter premises. Many people are against allowing a dog to enter a church, but not for theological reasons, but for reasons of a purely traditional, historical nature, rooted, as it seems to me, in ideas about hygiene.

. At the same time, everyone knows that the same 88 rule about the prohibition of bringing animals into the temple... is constantly violated. Everywhere, especially in the countryside, cats roam freely in churches. The explanation for this fact is purely pragmatic - so that mice don’t eat church books! At the same time, this is an obvious violation of the canon and seems to be significant. After all, if a cat kills a mouse in the altar, blood will be shed and the temple will have to be re-consecrated.

How wonderful it is that there are animals like dogs. Friends, add interesting information on different dog breeds, photos, videos, etc.

|Participants
|Photo 1708
|Video 209
|Events 0

No animal should be brought into the temple. Archpriest Nikolai Emelyanov

Prot. Nikolai Emelyanov, cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas in Kuznetskaya Sloboda, vice-rector of the Theological Institute at PSTGU.

. At the same time, everyone knows that the same 88 rule about the prohibition of bringing animals into the temple... is constantly violated. Everywhere, especially in the countryside, cats roam freely in churches. The explanation for this fact is purely pragmatic - so that mice don’t eat church books! At the same time, this is an obvious violation of the canon and seems to be significant. After all, if a cat kills a mouse in the altar, blood will be shed and the temple will have to be re-consecrated.

I recommend: Industrial food or natural food: what to choose for dogs

Rule 88 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Trullo or the Fifth-Sixth Council

To summarize, I will say: in everything you need to try to adhere to the golden mean. The same applies to animals: you need to take care of them, but not make a cult out of this care. After all, animals are not people, and people are not animals. Let us have pity and care for people, help animals and always remember the already mentioned words of the Apostle Paul: “Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial; “Everything is permissible for me, but nothing should possess me” (1 Cor. 6:12).

Having wild animals in the house is very difficult and responsible. Last year an eagle lived with me. My wife and I picked it up on the road. This is a dangerous animal. Those few months while we were nursing him, I was all scratched up, he pecked at my hands, I had to buy gloves for feeding. And one of my friends had piranhas in an aquarium. They seemed harmless, but one day one of them ate all the others. Here's a safe variety for you.

Why not? I myself really like iguanas, snakes, and spiders. But, again, do we remember where these animals live? - in completely different conditions. They are not suitable for captivity. If some believers see in the snake the image of the serpent-tempter, I don’t even know what to tell them. A snake is a snake, a spider is a spider, and God created them. Let every breath praise the Lord! Each of them has its own purpose. I have snails, we feed them, bathe them, take care of them, they are happy with us. Why are spiders worse?

Is it possible to take animals to special salons - is it unusual to cut pets’ hair, dye their fur and claws?

Therefore, you need to love animals, but love them correctly - not to the detriment of people. You cannot devote your life to your beloved cat or dog. We must take care of them, look after them, feed them, treat them, pay attention to them - but not turn them into an idol. After all, not only a cat or a dog needs us - our neighbors need us, God needs us. And if we learn to truly love God and our neighbors, then the animals will be fine with us.

One priest said that a dog is an unclean animal and cannot be allowed into the temple, but a cat is allowed. Why is that?

Archpriest Alexander Elatomtsev, rector of the Church of the Nativity of Christ in the village of Rozhdestveno, Istrinsky district, Moscow region, and confessor of the Orthodox school “Rozhdestvo”, answers the question of a 13-year-old boy.

— Behind this seemingly simple question are hidden very important things that are worth talking about. Connected no longer with dogs and cats, but with human souls. But first I’ll answer about dogs.

Nowadays, dogs and cats are pets for us, we get them because we like them, because they are cute and cute. But in the old days, the attitude towards animals was different, not at all so sentimental. Animals were bred for practical use.

A cat is needed to chase away mice, a dog is needed to protect the house from thieves, and cattle from wolves. By the way, previously in villages it was not customary to keep a dog in a hut. For purely practical reasons: firstly, so as not to steal anything edible, and secondly, what is the use of it in the hut? There is a benefit in the yard - the dog works as a security alarm. In the field, in the pasture, there is a benefit - the dog guards the livestock. But in the hut there is no need. Peasant life in general was organized very rationally.

But the point is also how we should generally treat animals from a Christian position.

And the first thing that needs to be said: all this Old Testament division of animals into clean and unclean does not mean at all that some animals are good and others are bad. As if a cat is better than a dog, a dog is better than a chicken, a chicken is better than a parrot, and so on.

All animals were created by God, and created for us. And not only for practical benefit, but also so that we learn to love.

This is especially useful for children. You have a kitten or a puppy, it may be in pain, it may suffer from hunger, it needs your care, affection, and attention. By caring for animals, a person develops his soul. He learns to empathize, learns responsibility for those who depend on him.

The fact is that it is much easier to love an animal than a person. An animal is dumb, it cannot express its complaints to you, it cannot be rude, it cannot have its own opinion that is unpleasant to you. The animal is completely dependent on you; you are in complete control of its entire life. But it’s not like that with a person. To love a person means to accept him entirely, with his shortcomings, with the oddities of his behavior, to see in him not a toy, but a free person, to feel responsible for him before God.

Therefore, you need to love animals, but love them correctly - not to the detriment of people. You cannot devote your life to your beloved cat or dog. We must take care of them, look after them, feed them, treat them, pay attention to them - but not turn them into an idol. After all, not only a cat or a dog needs us - our neighbors need us, God needs us. And if we learn to truly love God and our neighbors, then the animals will be fine with us.

Source: Foma.ru

Send your news, questions and photos to 89994832896.

Once a week the editors will reward the authors of the best reader news.

By the way, this prohibition must be observed for one more reason - it is believed that angels cannot enter a room where there is a dog or its image (Muslim). Another myth says that the dog was cursed because it allegedly bit the Prophet one day, but this is not recorded in any written source.

Why are cats, unlike dogs, allowed into the temple, despite some prohibitions?

One of the rules of the Ecumenical Council states that animals have no place in the temple. They can be allowed into church only in case of mortal danger. However, in the case of cats, this rule is often violated. The gates of some monasteries even have special openings for these furry pets. Apparently clergy believe that cats are very neat and orderly animals, they are a symbol of comfort and warmth. Accordingly, these animals cannot in any way disrupt the course of the service; on the contrary, cats infect with their calmness and leisurely manner, which encourages parishioners to pray.

In addition, monks allow cats into monasteries purely for pragmatic reasons. These animals easily destroy mice and rats, which means they do not allow them to spoil church property - gnawing prosphora and wax candles. So cats also serve God. And so that they can carry out their work without hindrance, they are even allowed onto the altar.

Zoroastrianism and dogs

Will the cat Barsik be saved?

One of the most frequently asked questions about animals is whether they will go to the Kingdom of Heaven. I heard a story about how in Russia, in some city, a mother abandoned a baby - she left it in the entrance, and the cat lay on him and warmed him with his warmth, and when people wanted to take the baby, he hissed at them. I think that such cats will be saved. There are animals that show such sacrifice that many people are far from them. I’m not sure about this child’s mother, but the cat will certainly be saved. But those cats that steal food from the table will definitely not get into the Kingdom of Heaven, because the owners will not want to see such a cat there next to them - I’m joking, of course.

There is no clear answer in Holy Scripture to the question of whether animals will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The holy fathers and theologians also have different opinions on this matter. However, it is clear that we humans have a responsibility for animals. Because of the fall of man, all of nature suffered, and therefore we simply have to take care of it. By working on ourselves, improving, eradicating our shortcomings, we transform not only ourselves, but also the world around us. If the owner is worried about the present or future of his pet, it is better for him not to spend money on him, buying expensive collars with rhinestones, but to take care of his soul. Now in the lives of many people there is a substitution, and the interests of the animal are sometimes placed above the interests of the person. Have you seen Vasily Lozhkin’s paintings “Who offended the kitten?” and others? That's exactly what they're talking about. Animals sometimes seem better to us than people, but still you can’t talk to them, they won’t respond to our requests, they won’t give advice.

One complete materialism

It is known that as Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the current Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill strongly defended dogs, saying that the Orthodox Church never called dogs “unclean”, and the ban on allowing dogs into churches was due to tradition and hygiene; and there is no canonical prohibition.

It’s just that, unlike dogs, which can be left in the mud, cats are clean animals and “do not create hygiene problems.”

In the most complete breviary of Peter the Mogila - a collection of rites used by priests during services, there is no rite for consecrating the temple after dogs or other animals.

Consequently, the main reason why dogs are not allowed into the temple is the dogs themselves, who can not only trample, but also lift their paws onto the candlestick, start barking, or, being frightened by the crowd, bite someone.