Entry into and exit from monasticism. Part 3
<< Part 1 << Part 2
The editors of the Pravoslavie.Ru website continue the series of publications of diplomas of graduates of Sretensky Theological Seminary, which began several years ago. The work of Hierodeacon Nikon (Gorokhov), a graduate of the SDS in 2009, a resident of the Holy Dormition Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, “Entering monasticism and leaving it” (scientific supervisor - Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin) is devoted to extremely relevant and topical problems of modern church life. At the same time, the author not only relies on the works of the Fathers of the Church, canonical decrees and studies on the history of the Church, but also takes into account the rich experience of the elders and spiritual fathers of the Pskov-Pechersk monastery, and the entire structure of monastic life in it.
Venerable John Cassian the Roman
“Reverend John Cassian the Roman was for some time a monk of the Bethlehem monastery, from there he undertook a journey to Egypt to become acquainted with the life of the hermits and monasteries there and spent 390–400 years here.”[1]. According to the fair remark of M. Skaballanovich, at the time when the Monk John visited the Egyptian monasteries, they had already reached the apogee of their development, and it is natural that their charter underwent significant changes towards expansion and detailed regulation of internal life. The Typikon was still in the development stage, and monastic traditions had a very strong influence on it[2].
Regarding admission to the monastery, the rules of St. Pachomius underwent virtually no changes. The Monk John Cassian says this: “We will briefly talk about the conditions under which it is necessary to accept into the hostels those who want to turn to God, borrowing them from the rules, partly from the Egyptian and partly from the Tavenian monks.”[3] .
Firstly, the rule remains in force, which determines the ten-day period of stay of the novice outside the gates of the monastery to test him in patience and humility. “He must throw himself to the ground in front of the passing brethren, who suspect him of insincerity, as if he wanted to join a monastery not out of piety, but out of need; must endure various insults and reproaches”[4] .
Secondly, the commanding monks of the monastery carefully examine whether the newcomer has any property, and offer those who wish to enter monasticism to leave all wealth in the world, “even if it were one coin,” and come to the monastery completely free from any worldly care. That is, the person coming must be absolutely free from things and money. This condition was observed because, from the experience of previous monks, it was known that if internal or external warfare against an ascetic intensifies, his hope in God may waver towards hope in worldly wealth; Unable to withstand the severity of monastic life, he can run away back into the world if he has any property left there. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). A person who has even a little wealth left in the world “cannot long obey the monastic rules, nor endure the poverty and severity of the community”[5] .
The abbas of the monasteries strictly determined that newcomers would not have any debts either to relatives, or to the state, or to society. They did not accept fugitive slaves, criminals, deserters, debtors fleeing from debt or state service, or breadwinners fleeing family.
Subsequently, they did not even accept money from newcomers for the benefit of the monastery. There was no such prohibition in the initial rules. But later the monasteries ceased to be in dire need of funds and considered that it would be much more useful if all those who came were accepted on equal terms. For if the newcomer does not take root in the monastery, then “if it is impossible for him to stay in the hostel, upon leaving, he would not, with offense to the monastery, sacrilegiously demand what he sacrificed out of zeal at the beginning of his renunciation”[6] .
Since such cases also occurred when some, out of zeal, brought something with them and gave it to the monastery, be it money or property, and then, due to cooling or temptation, they lost the fervor of their faith, abandoned the monasteries and went into the world. Then, upon their return, they illegally demanded the return of their estate back, at a time when it had long been spent on the needs of the monastery. These defectors turned to secular courts and started litigation with the monastery. After such cases, the holy fathers decided not to take anything from the newcomers, in order to exclude in advance any temptations arising from them.
Candidates for monasticism were first given obedience to an elder living not far from the monastery. Here they, under the leadership of the elder, were engaged in receiving wanderers and serving them. And only after a year of resigned obedience to the elder, the newcomer was brought into the monastery and entrusted to another experienced monk to lead him. The new elder monk was the boss of ten younger monks, and the newcomer was assigned to him. The elder monk was obliged to teach the newcomer all monastic virtues and was responsible for him before the abbot of the monastery.
After many tests of the firmness of intentions, the newcomer was brought into the monastery and his secular clothes were changed into monastic ones. This was usually done by the Abba of the monastery himself, after which the newcomer became a monk. All monks were fully supported by the monastery. Another rule was that no one dare call anything his own: everything was considered common.
They prudently did not throw away secular clothing immediately after becoming a monk, but left it in the custody of the monastery steward. And only then did they get rid of it (they gave it to the poor) when they made sure that the new monk did not weaken in his efforts, did not lean towards grumbling, was not lazy or discouraged, but firmly adhered to his chosen path, succeeding from strength to strength.
If the newcomer did not live up to expectations and began to grumble, be lazy, condemn, showed disobedience and was faulty in everything related to the monastic way of life, then “they took off his monastic clothes and put on his own, and they kick him out. No one is allowed to leave wearing monastic clothes, because they consider it indecent to wear them for someone who has lost interest in their intentions.”[7] .
This was done, of course, in order to avoid criticism of true monks from those who could sow temptations for those living in the world. These were feigned false monks who wore monastic robes, often moved from place to place, interfered in worldly and church affairs, begged, led an idle lifestyle, exploiting the external image of the monks for personal gain, parasitizing on the church body.
The Monk John Cassian says that there was only two exits from the monastery: in the first case, it was the escape of a self-willed person into the world, which took place secretly at night, and in the second case, careless people were kicked out of the monastery. Then the process of removing a careless monk from the monastery was carried out by a general verdict of all the brethren. Unworthy monks were publicly removed from the monastic robes in front of everyone and put back into secular ones, and so were sent out of the monastery into the world in shame.
These orders were noticed by St. John when he visited Egyptian monasteries many years after the death of the founder of cenobitic monasticism, St. Pachomius the Great.
Venerable Benedict of Nursia
The Venerable Benedict of Nursia repeats almost verbatim the provisions of the Venerable John Cassian the Roman, including in the section of his charter dedicated to admission to the monastery, which was called “Test outside the monastery and confiscation of all property upon entry into it.”.
It briefly listed the basic rules for entering monasteries.
It specifies the ten-day trial to which those coming to the monastery were subjected, and the testing of the identity of the subject, and the same requirements were imposed on non-covetousness, completing obediences, studying the Holy Scriptures and other duties of monks [8] .
All of the above statutes go back to the same patristic tradition, developed in the East (in Egypt) in the earliest periods of the emergence of monastic life, and differ only in particulars. And in terms of strength and meaning, they are the unanimous opinion of the reverend fathers on the view of acceptance into monasticism and of leaving it.
Saint Basil the Great
The second representative of the patristic tradition, who more than others influenced the formation of cenobitic monastic rules, is St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. If it can be said about St. Pachomius that his charter appeared as a result of revelation from above, then the charter of St. Basil can be called the fruit of his deep reflections on what an ideal life in Christ should be, built exclusively on the Gospel commandments.
The “ascetic regulations” written by Basil the Great do not constitute a regulation of the particulars of monastic life, like the “Rules” of St. Pachomius the Great. They represent, as it were, a general theory of asceticism and therefore fit very easily into different conditions of monastic life and can be applied as a general guide to different types of monastic life. “What was important in this charter was that it ignored those little details and particulars of the monastic system, to which the later edition of the “Rules” of St. Pachomius attached so much importance”[9].
Saint Basil’s idea of monasticism was formed by the contemplation of many contemporary ascetics of piety, whom he saw during his travels through Syria, Palestine and Egypt. In addition, his own ascetic life, which he spent in the deserted places of Pontus and Cappadocia, played a significant role in shaping his views on monasticism. Basil the Great was the leader of many monks who gathered in the monasteries he founded in these areas. He himself drew up the rules for these monks.
Saint Basil came from the Asia Minor regions of the Roman Empire. His parents belonged to a wealthy landowning aristocracy and owned many estates in these areas. Basil received an excellent education at various schools in Caesarea Cappadocia, Athens and Constantinople. He completed the entire course of the sciences of that time and, according to the opinions of his contemporaries, achieved perfection in all of them. Soon after completing his education, he returned to his hometown of Caesarea to teach rhetoric and practice as a lawyer.
But Saint Basil was burdened by worldly concerns; he sought the highest perfection, which he found in the monastic lifestyle. “When Saint Basil decided to begin the ascetic life, he “desired to find some brother who had chosen this kind of life” to guide him. In the homeland of Saint Basil - in Cappadocia - there were already many hermits, but they were in constant communication with the world and did not have close communication with each other (like the Egyptian hermits), therefore they did not satisfy the ideal of Saint Basil"[10]. Then Vasily makes a pilgrimage to the holy places of Syria, Egypt and Palestine, where he becomes closely acquainted with the monastic life of many devotees of piety. Upon returning from the trip, he settled in the family estate of Anis, where, together with his brother Naucrates, he lived a secluded life. Saint Gregory the Theologian came here to see him. Here he wrote the first rules for living the (ideal) monastic life. “The fruit of Saint Basil’s hermitage was the compilation of a collection of fragments from the works of Origen, Philocalia. He also compiled a collection of “Monastic Rules”, sketches for which were two of his letters: Er.2 and Er.22 (Amand de Mendieta. 1949. P. 86–102). Saint Basil returned to this work throughout his life, responding to the requests of the inhabitants of the communities he founded (Humbertclaude. P.38)”[11].
Even before the ordination of Saint Basil as bishop, the so-called Moral Rules[12] (Regulae morales), written c. 360–361. After his ordination as a priest, he, on behalf of the local bishop, cares for the Eustathian ascetics and writes for them the “Small Asceticon,” consisting of questions and answers to various problems of monastic life. After 370, having already become a bishop, Saint Basil the Great led a strict ascetic life and continued to minister to the monasteries he founded. For them, he writes more extensive rules, which became known as the “Great Asceticon” - this is the “Monastic Rules of St. Basil the Great.” These rules can be considered as “an integral systematic treatise in which the emerging discipline of monastic life, imbued with the Gospel spirit, is reflected”[13].
Rules of St. Basil the Great
So, let us indicate the basic rules for admission to a cenobitic monastery according to the rules of St. Basil, which are given in translation and with comments by St. Theophan the Recluse in the book “Ancient Monastic Rules” published by him.
The first thing that is required of those wishing to enter monastic life is extreme attention and prudence: “there is no need to rush into a monastery without self-examination”[14].
The second thing the saint points out is that moment, which says something about the person who is entering, namely: whether he is taking the step of entering monasticism with guile or self-indulgence. Saint Basil says that when choosing a monastery, one should go to the strictest one, and not find out where they will make more concessions to infirmities. Otherwise, it will turn out that in the very renunciation of the world, the applicant seeks self-gratification, and not the correction of bad inclinations[15].
Thirdly, Saint Basil strongly advises those who are going to a monastery to settle accounts with the world so wisely, so that then, while living in the monastery, they no longer worry or be distracted by any worries about the world[16]. It is no coincidence that Saint Basil draws attention to this, because he himself was not a poor man and later showed an example of wise management of his estate. So, in his life there was an incident that speaks for itself, when during a famine in Cappadocia he sold his estate and with the proceeds he fed the poor and wretched, and called on the rich to distribute bread to the starving. His good example and call had an effect, and many rich people opened their granaries for the poor people, so that the famine was overcome.
In all his actions the saint was guided by the living word of Holy Scripture. In the case of wealth, these are the words: “Sell your possessions and give alms. Create for yourself vaginas that do not wear out; there is an infinite treasure in heaven” (Luke 12:32, 33).” Further, the saint sums up: “This is all that he who renounces the world must do; further actions upon receiving him into the monastery belong to those already receiving him”[17].
Fourthly, the saint said that anyone can be accepted into monasticism, but with an appropriate test, which is arranged in order to find out the character of the person coming[18].
This is done so that
eccentricity
and
momentary whim
would not be the reasons for coming to monasticism.
A person endowed with weak character traits, such as frivolity and inconstancy
, cannot “carry” the monastic cross and soon, under the influence of passions, “falls off” it.
The previous life is examined in order to determine who comes and why. So, § 51 talks about this in more detail. Here, as it were, general instructions are given to the abbots of the monasteries, leaving the very form of research to their will[19] .
Fifthly, it is necessary to arrange such tests for newcomers that could reveal their disposition towards obedience, patience, humility and other monastic virtues[20].
Here the saint also recommends one of the effective methods of testing, which is a general rule for all who come. It consists in giving the subjects the lowest jobs, where it is clear whether he is capable of humility and obedience. Such tests are especially useful for those who occupied some noble position in worldly life and had many reasons for vanity, and therefore, accustomed to him, they could no longer get rid of him painlessly[21].
The test should be as thorough and long-term as possible, but the duration of the test is not determined, leaving this issue to the discretion of the abbot of the monastery. The saint deliberately pointed out the importance of the test, because at this time experienced spiritual mentors establish the candidate’s suitability for the world-denying life. The saint claims that it is better to detect shortcomings (weaknesses) at an early stage and turn them away from monasticism
rather than cause pain and damage to the brotherhood in the future[22]. This is a very important remark, making it clear that not everyone who comes to monasteries can be monks.
Sixthly, when a newcomer has acquired sufficient skills in spiritual work and has been tested by the abbot and the brethren in the firmness of his intentions, he is advised to accept such a person after the general consent of all the brethren
so that joy (and responsibility) would be common to everyone.
If someone does not agree, he must notify everyone about this and justify his disagreement or, for example, announce something that others do not know about the new brother. In any case, the decision of the entire brotherhood is law, because they represent one family
and have the right to decide who to take in and who not to take[23]. This is one of the most important wishes, because most often the shortcomings of individuals are not visible to the administration due to pretense. But what the abbot cannot see can be freely noticed by the brotherhood of the monastery, from whom nothing can be hidden. It is difficult for the abbot to judge objectively, since both he himself and the person entering the monastery are interested persons, and between them the purely human factor of likes and dislikes is of no small importance, from which even holy people cannot get rid of. Therefore, in some monastic regulations, the abbot is given recommendations not to believe his sympathies, because they may be false. The monastic brotherhood judges much more objectively.
The last, seventh, point in the series of rules for admission to monasticism is the solemn vow of renunciation from the world. As we said above, the actual vows (public and solemn promises) of abstinent life for the sake of Christ were first introduced by St. Basil the Great in the Cappadocian monasteries[24]. Then they spread throughout the ecumene. Later they were supplemented by two more vows (non-covetousness and obedience).
Thus, for the first time we read from Basil the Great that “the very renunciation of the world, on the one hand, and, on the other, acceptance into the brotherhood were a special action
, different from the preliminary speeches about that.
The renunciation is made publicly before the abbot and the brethren (Letter 23). In the reasoning of such renouncers, it is considered proper to “ask them first and accept a clear vow from them”
(Letter 191 to Saint Amphilochius)”[25]. The solemn vow was pronounced before all the brethren in the monastery church at a certain time of the service. This was a special action or a special rite, which was called “Renunciation of the World” and was accompanied by the pronouncing of vows and cutting the hair on the head of the person entering monasticism.
Monastic tonsure according to the rules of St. Basil the Great
The rules do not describe the rite of admission to monasticism itself, but according to some written evidence (in the works of St. Basil) one can see that during tonsure:
- they solemnly pronounced a vow of renunciation from the world and took a vow of virginity: “In the reasoning of such renunciants, it is considered proper to “ask them first and accept a clear vow from them”” (Letter 191 to St. Amphilochius. Rule 19);
- they changed the name of the newly tonsured: “Letter 10 gives reason to conclude that at the same time the name was changed, for, sending a monk’s son to his mother with a letter, with the intention of attracting her to the monastery of wives, and calling him Dionysius, he adds that this is the former Diomede”;
- changed clothes from secular to monastic: “The clothes of those who were acceptable were given different clothes. For the 22nd rule from the “Expansive” says that a monk’s clothing should be different from the worldly, but when is it more appropriate to change it, if not during the pronouncement of a vow”;
- handed over to the elder-confessor as obedience: “An experienced monk who has made a vow and is accepted into the monastery is given a leadership position, who teaches him everything.”[26]
The outstanding Russian liturgist of the last century N. Palmov in his work “Tonition into monasticism. The ranks of monastic tonsure in the Greek Church,” tracing the formation of the rank of monastic tonsure from ancient sources, concluded that “St. Basil the Great should be considered the author of the solemn pronunciation of the vows of celibate life and renunciation of the world in the temple before the altar in the presence of the clergyman and other persons”[ 27]. To confirm his conclusion, Palmov finds the first mention of the vow of celibacy in the 19th canon of the 2nd canonical letter of St. Basil to Bishop Amphilochius. Similar allusions to the vow of renunciation are found in the saint’s letters No. 23, 173, 45 and in the “Sermon on Asceticism,” in question 93 of the “Rules Briefly Stated” and in the “Ascetic Rules.”
“The next step regarding the origin of the vow of permanent residence in the monastery and the vow of obedience to the abbot and the entire brethren of Palms is seen in the 4th rule of the Council of Chalcedon (451)”[28]. It is difficult to disagree with the reasoned conclusions of Palmov and M. Arranz. In the charter of the Monk Pachomius there are no clear instructions on the pronouncing of vows and tonsure, and the very rite of accepting the monastic image is quite simple and undeveloped. Here only the differences in clothing and lifestyle of monks from the laity are visible. M. Arrantz, in the conclusions to his work, points out that “in the works of Palmov and Vavrik one can find many stories about the primitive simple rites of accepting newcomers into monastic communities. The first real liturgical rite of tonsure appeared in the work of Pseudo-Dionysius “On the Church Hierarchy” quoted and commented by these authors. Probably, the described rank already existed somewhere in the East, but there is no exact written evidence of this.”[29]
Admission of children to the monastery
In addition to adults wishing to enter monasticism, Saint Basil also accepted children of different ages, but this phenomenon differed from simple orphanages in that children were accepted for the purpose of raising future monks. Saint Basil did not immediately force the children to take monastic vows and tonsure. However, since the children were at the monastery, they participated in the life of the monastery, in divine services, in fasting, in the labors of the brethren, but most importantly, the children were raised separately and taught to read and write[30] .
Monastic vows were taken only upon reaching adulthood (17 years old) and then certainly with their voluntary consent. There was no coercion in anything, and the desire for monastic life was instilled by the good example of the adult brethren: «
When the mind opens and reason comes into action, then one must accept the vow of virginity as already firm, pronounced according to one’s own disposition and reasoning.”
If the young man refused to enter the monastery, then he was released without any violence: “And he who does not accept the virgin life, as incapable of caring for the Lord, in the presence of the same witnesses, let him be released .
Exit from monasticism in the Rule of St. Basil the Great
As for leaving monasticism, Basil the Great believed that a person who has offered himself as a gift to God no longer possesses himself. He dedicated himself to God, so what kind of return to the world can we talk about? [32] The gift to God has already been given - this is virginity and immaculate life, who can take it back? Therefore, the saint argues, such an act can only be considered as sacrilege, that is, the theft of God’s property[33] .
Such people are prohibited from entering monasteries as disorderly persons. However, the saint did not throw them away, otherwise this action would have been contrary to the words of the Gospel about the lost drachma or the missing sheep. On the contrary, he commanded in every possible way to seek out those who had fallen away and try to return them to their former pure life. And only from those who, after long exhortations, still remained unhealed, the saint commanded to distance themselves and transfer everything into the hands of God for His judgment and mercy[34].
We see that Basil the Great classified violators as “blasphemers” and “walking disorderly.” Violation of the vow of virginity is considered by him to be “adultery,” and those who sinned bear the penance of the adulterer, that is, they do not receive communion for fourteen years. This penance was later reduced to seven years. The difference here is that the former leave the monastery on their own, but do not break their vows. While the latter, completely trampling on their vows and violating their virginity, are guilty of a more serious sin and deserve greater punishment. “St. Basil gave instructions full of wisdom and knowledge of life on those cases, frequent in ancient society, when married people insisted on being admitted to a monastery, when slaves sought refuge in them, when parents brought their children to them.”[35] .
Saint Basil the Great, having examined all kinds and types of monastic life, remained of the opinion that the most convenient path to God is strict community life, but he did not exclude other types of monastic feat. Thus, Saint Theophan the Recluse pointed out the opinion of Saint Basil regarding the silent: “It’s another matter when someone, having strengthened himself in monasticism among brotherhood and learned to overcome passions, wants to retire to solitude so that in silence he can always abide with the One God. Saint Basil does not forbid such a person to retire, he only inspires him not to do this of his own free will.”[36] .
Basil the Great is a strict champion of obedience and an opponent of self-will, even in cases where this is done with the best intentions.
Reform of St. Basil the Great
As a lawyer (advocate) by training, Basil the Great understood the depth of a person’s responsibility before the Church and God when he enters the ranks of monasticism and makes a promise to keep his vows inviolably pronounced. The tonsure itself turns from a private matter into a church-wide matter, when everyone who embarks on the path of renunciation of the world takes an oath of allegiance before God and people, and the violator of the vows is a violator of the oath given to the Church and God. It can be said that by means of a public vow a direct legal liability is introduced. From a private matter, tonsure takes on the force of a public act. In this act, the entire Church becomes a guarantee before God for the monk. After such an act, the monk no longer has the right to break his vow, which is equated to the “oath of allegiance” given to God, because then renunciation of monasticism will be equated to a violation of this public act, a violation of the oath given to God.
We can consider tonsure as an act that has the force of an official public contract given by a person, and this is a much more serious step than the manifestation of private initiative. For example, if a person wanted to fast - please, he did not pronounce solemn oaths and vows, and if he breaks his fast, he does not bear responsibility for this. But if he violates the fasts approved by the Church, then he is legally responsible and must, by law, bear corrective punishment (penance) because he violated the law. In the same way, temporary, albeit long-term, abstinence from marriage is not punishable if a person decides to leave it and get married. This is a private initiative.
Violation of vows made for oneself does not bear legal responsibility either before God or before the Church, and those who violate these vows are innocent and do not bear public punishment in the form of church-wide penance. However, violation of public obligations is punishable by penance.
The custom established in the Church of Caesarea to pronounce vows of celibate life and renounce the world “openly, in the temple before the altar, in the presence of the clergy and other persons,” who in this case are witnesses to the truth of the vows being pronounced, is nothing more than an oath given in the presence of witnesses to God and the Church.
In Roman legal law, the conclusion of a trade and any other transaction was recognized as correct and had the force of law if a certain form of the transaction was observed. In order for a transaction to be recognized as legal, it was necessary to pronounce the necessary verbal formula three times in the presence of at least five witnesses to this transaction, and then it was recognized as completed, and its violation was punishable by law in the form of a fine or imprisonment.
Here, during tonsure, the same thing happens, except that only one side assumes obligations, namely the seeker of monasticism, while the other side does not give any obligations. When a seeker of monasticism three times hands the scissors to the priest and three times assures the entire Church of the truth of his intentions to enter monasticism, then he must understand perfectly well that for breaking his vows, for deceiving the entire Church, he will sooner or later be punished.
Saint Basil the Great, as a lawyer and attorney, understood perfectly well that the public pronouncing of vows entails great responsibility and forces the one who gave them to obligatory fulfillment of the latter, raising the bar of the value of monastic vows from a private case to a general church matter. Thus, according to the thoughts of Saint Basil, “monasticism” acquires the meaning of a church-wide service and approaches in strength and in the meaning of its content the sacrament of the Church. One can even say that monasticism is being churched by Saint Basil and called to a special church service and, ceasing to be a private matter, turns into a church-wide matter.
(To be continued.)
From the editor
The book offered to the reader is intended for the widest range of readers - those just beginning to become acquainted with the teachings of the Church, and even those not familiar with it.
It contains a small, but bright and instructive moral and edifying work by the famous Father of the Church - St. Basil the Great (330-379), Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. This saint of the 4th century was revered not only in the Greek East, but also in the West and also, of course, in Rus', as evidenced by the temples built in his honor. The subject of this book is Christian morality and the “basics” of the science of salvation: the Divine commandments, their understanding and fulfillment, the purpose of Christian life, that is, everything that is briefly expressed in the two most important commandments of Christ the Savior: love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all with your soul and with all your mind: this is the first and greatest commandment; the second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
(Matt. 22:37–40). And although the truths presented are simple in their formulation and accessible to everyone, including people who do not even know how to read and write, the implementation of these “moral rules” in practice is by no means simple, so that a whole life is unlikely to be enough for their complete and perfect implementation , and if anyone comes close to this, then such a person will rightfully be called saved, blessed and holy.
“Moral Rules” is a selection of quotations from the Holy Scriptures on the topic of what are the main and generally binding standards of life for a Christian on his path to salvation. And these norms are unchanged - they do not depend on the era, or on the nationality of a person, etc. “Moral rules” of Basil the Great show what is necessarily required of every Christian, no matter who he is - a catechumen, a layman, a monk or a clergyman, a man either a woman, a youth or an old man.
The text of the “Moral Rules” is given according to the edition: St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia.
Creations: in 2 volumes. T. 2. Ascetic creations. Letters. M.: Siberian Blago-Zvonnitsa, 2009. (Complete collection of the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church and church writers in Russian translation; vol. 4). pp. 19–101.
The editors hope that this book will become for domestic readers a source of knowledge of the spiritual light of Christ's truth.
Login to the site
Rule 7.
Sodomists, and bestialists, and murderers, and poisoners, and adulterers, and idolaters are worthy of the same condemnation. Therefore, the rule that you have about others, observe also about these: but about the acceptance of those who repented for thirty years of uncleanness, which they committed in ignorance, we should not have doubted. For ignorance makes them worthy of leniency, and voluntary confession, and the passage of such a long time: for they were devoted to Satan for almost the entire human age, so that they would learn not to act outrageously. Therefore, command them to urgently accept them, and especially if they have tears that incline you to mercy, and show a life worthy of mercy.
(Trul. 61, 87; anchor. 16, 17, 20, 22, 24; Basil the Great 58, 62, 63, 65; Gregory of Nyssa 4).
This rule imposes heavy church punishments on a certain type of criminals, among whom sodomists (άρρενοφθόροι) are mentioned in the first place. The crimes of such persons are the lowest and most shameful kind of crime, and belong to the so-called crimes against nature (παρά φύσιν, contra naturam); These crimes are also called the sin of Sodom, after the biblical city of Sodom, whose inhabitants aroused the wrath of God by all kinds of criminal acts (Gen. 18:20 et seq.). Basil the Great also mentions a man who showed fury in the male field in his 62nd rule, and prescribes the same punishment as for adulterers. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in his 4th rule, calls this crime παιδεραστία. In the present (7) rule of St. Basil, the cattle-breakers are then mentioned, or, as it is said in the 63rd rule of the same holy father, “those who showed their wickedness on cattle.” Old Testament legislation for this type of criminals prescribes the death penalty (Lev. 20:15-16). The present rule subjects them to punishment on the same basis as adulterers.
Further mention is made of murderers, and especially those who committed voluntary murder, who are subject to the same punishment as the above-mentioned criminals. Murderers are discussed in more detail in the following (8) rule of this holy father. Poisoners, who are equated to free murderers, are subject to the same punishment. Further mention is made of adulterers, for whom the Holy Father prescribes a fifteen-year penance; but Basil the Great speaks about adulterers in his 9th and 21st rules.
Finally, idolaters are also mentioned in this rule, for whom the same punishment is prescribed as for adulterers. Here, by idolaters (είδωλολάτραι), according to Zonara’s interpretation of this rule, one should not understand those who make sacrifices to idols, for, having made a sacrifice to idols, a Christian is condemned to repentance for life; here by idolaters we mean sorcerers (γόηται) and all those who are engaged in similar dark deeds, for by practicing magic, they call on the devil to help and thereby serve him and honor him. Regarding this kind of idolaters, as well as about other sinners, Saint Basil says that they are worthy of equal condemnation (τής αυτής καταδίκης είσίν ήξιωμένοι). Next, the rules mention those who remain in uncleanness (επί τή άκαθαρσία), into which they fell out of ignorance, for which they must repent for thirty years. By this uncleanness we must understand, notes Balsamon in the interpretation of this rule, αίμομιξίαν (incestum), incest, and not any other sins, for they do not by their nature relate to sins of ignorance.
Rules of Saint Basil the Great
Rule 9.
The Lord's saying that it is not permissible to leave marriage unless the word is adulterous (Matthew 5:32), according to his mind, is equally appropriate for both husbands and wives.
But that is not the case. We find many strict sayings about wives. The Apostle says: he who has intercourse with a harlot becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:16). And Jeremiah: if a husband lets his wife go, and she leaves him and becomes the wife of another husband, can she return to him? (Jer. 3:1). And again: he who contains an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Prov. 18:23). Custom commands wives to restrain their husbands, although they commit adultery and are in fornication. Therefore, I don’t know whether someone living with a husband abandoned by his wife can directly be called an adulteress: for here the accusation falls on the one who left her husband, for what reason she departed from the marriage. For if it were because she was beaten and did not endure the blows, then it was more fitting to endure it than to be separated from her partner; if it was because she could not bear the loss of her property, this excuse is not worthy of respect. Even if it is because her husband lives in fornication, we do not observe this in church custom: but the wife is not commanded to separate from an unfaithful husband, but to remain with him, due to the unknown of what will follow. Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband (1 Cor. 7:16)? Therefore, a wife who leaves her husband is an adulterer, even if she moves on to another husband: but a deserted husband is worthy of condescension, and the one who cohabits with him is not condemned. If the husband, having departed from his wife, understands otherwise: then he himself is an adulterer, since he commits adultery, and the woman living with him is an adulteress: because she has attracted someone else’s husband to herself. (Ap. 48; trul. 87, 93; ankir. 20; carf. 102; Basil the Great 18, 21, 35, 77).
We became acquainted with the teaching of the Orthodox Church on divorce in the interpretation of Trullo Rule 87. In it, the Trullan fathers refer to the present rule of Basil the Great and to the passages of Holy Scripture that Saint Basil also cites. To the question of Amphilochius, whether a wife can demand a divorce when her husband is caught in adultery, what right does the husband of an adulterous wife enjoy, Saint Basil quotes the words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:32) and notes that this commandment applies in the same way to both husband and wife (εξ ίσου καί άνδράσι, καί γυναιξίν αρμόζει, ex aequo et viris et mulieribus convenit), i.e., that the husband can seek a divorce if his wife is adulterous, and the wife can also demand the same, if husband her adulterer.
What Saint Basil said on the basis of the cited passage of Holy Scripture is confirmed by other places thereof. When the Pharisees, tempting Christ and trying to convict him of a mistake, asked Him about divorce, He referred them to the law of Moses, which, due to their hardness of heart, allowed that a husband could let his wife go, but added that this was not the case. beginning, so that he who takes a divorced woman also commits adultery (και ό άπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχάται) (Matthew 19:3-9), thereby equating the adultery of a husband entirely with the adultery of a wife (cf. Mark 10:11-1 2). Meanwhile, this church teaching about the identity of the conjugal rights of husband and wife, which is based on divine right and which Saint Basil cites at the beginning of this canon, could not be established in Christian society for a long time, but the pre-Christian custom was firmly preserved, according to which only the husband had the right to break off the marriage. bonds in the event of a wife’s infidelity, and the wife had to tolerate her adulterous husband. Saint Basil mentions this custom in this rule and notes that it was still in force then.
According to pre-Christian Roman laws, the wife was a powerless member of society, subordinate to her husband in everything. This power was the basis for the social improvement of that time, and the subject of legislation was the protection of the rights of the husband, but no one even thought about protecting the rights of the wife. As a result, in married life only the rights of the husband were protected by law, and the wife’s infidelity was punished as adultery, while the husband’s infidelity was not punished by law and the wife, as a person without rights, had to submit to the despotic power of the husband and his relatives and endure, put up with her husband’s infidelity, who sometimes knew no boundaries in this.[1]
Some change in this regard came only in the time of Augustus, or rather, there were then attempts to do something in this regard. Namely: the lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis invalidated many of the laws that had been issued before that time and in which free, in addition to the legal wife, communication between a husband and strangers was depersonalized, and declared any relationship between a husband and wife illegal and worthy of punishment. , with third parties.[2] One might think that with the publication of this law, promiscuity would cease in Roman society and the equality of husband and wife in marriage relations would be established - equality, which is required by both divine laws and nature, and which determines the happiness and prosperity of the family itself. However, public promiscuity was so deeply rooted that neither this law of Augustus, nor the punishments for adulterers provided for in it, could destroy the evil custom. And what’s worse is that this vice was carried over into Christian society by persons converting to Christianity from Roman-pagan society. In Christian society, of course, all marital infidelity was condemned, both by the wife and the husband; however, according to the traditional concept of the wife's subordination and the husband's advantages in marriage, the husband's infidelity was punished much more leniently than the wife's infidelity. For treason, the husband was considered only a fornicator, while the wife was considered an adulteress (Basily the Great 21).
The Church Fathers strictly condemned this perverse concept of the conjugal rights of husband and wife. In the 3rd century, Tertullian raised his voice against this, calling everyone an adulterer, qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit.[3] Subsequently, civil legislation came to the aid of the church, and the law of Emperor Constantine the Great prescribes the death penalty for anyone caught committing adultery.[4] The church fathers of subsequent centuries did not cease to teach, in their works, about the conjugal rights of married persons. Objecting to those who denied the right of a wife to complain about a husband guilty of adultery, Athanasius the Great explains that the sin of adultery (μοιχεία) always occurs, whether a husband commits fornication (πορνεύση) with another woman, or a wife with a stranger.[5]
John Chrysostom puts this forward even stronger and more decisively: “It is not adultery only when a man commits fornication with a married woman, but adultery also occurs when a husband commits fornication with an unmarried and unmarried woman” (άφετήν καί λελυμένην, liberam et solutam).[6] That Basil the Great also judges this issue, like other fathers and teachers of the church, is evidenced by both the beginning of his present rule and further words that an adulterer (μοιχαλις, adultera) is every wife who has cheated on her husband, and an adulterer (μοιχαλίς, adulter) any husband who has cheated on his wife; the same is said in the 77th rule of Basil the Great, where anyone who cheats on his wife is condemned for adultery (τψ της μοιχείας κρίματι), and reference is made precisely to the mentioned place of Holy Scripture (Matthew 19:9).
Adultery, therefore, according to the teaching of Basil the Great, as well as all other fathers and teachers of the church, is a reason for divorce for both the wife and the husband. As for the Roman custom, which also existed in the time of St. Basil (IV century), according to which the husband had all the rights in marriage matters, but the wife had none, then St. Basil certainly does not approve of this, but mentions it only because it existed even in his time; and that this is so is evidenced by both the method and the uncertainty (ούκ οίδα) with which he generally speaks about it.
However, we also talk about the same thing in the interpretation of the 21st rule of Basil the Great.
Rule 10.
Those who swear not to accept ordination when they have taken an oath, let them not be forced to break it. For although there seems to be a certain rule condescending to such, we have learned from experience that those who act against an oath do not prosper. One must consider the image of the oath, and the words and disposition with which they swore, and the subtle additions in the words: and if on any side there is no relief from the power of the oath, then it is appropriate to completely abandon them. The case of Sevier, or the presbyter appointed by him, in my opinion (even if yours agrees with mine), receives some resolution of the oath in the following way. This village, to which this man was brought, subordinated to this day to Mysthia, was ordered to be numbered among the Masadas: for in this way he will not be an oathbreaker, without leaving the place, and Loggin, having Cyriacus with him, will not abolish the church, and will not subject his soul to condemnation for the desolation of it: and we will not dare to do anything against the rules, condescending to Cyriacus, who swore to stay in Mindan, but agreed to be transferred. For his return will be in compliance with the oath: and his obedience to the order will not be charged as a crime of oath: since his oath was not added to the fact that he would not leave Mindan for a short time, but would remain there for the rest of the time. We will forgive Sevier, who apologizes through oblivion; reksha, as a leader of the secret, will not allow his church to suffer harm from someone who at the beginning did not act according to the rules, but bound himself with an oath contrary to the Gospel: who by moving taught perjury, now lies with feigned oblivion. But since we are not judges of hearts, we judge because we hear: then we will leave vengeance to the Lord, and we ourselves will undoubtedly accept it, giving forgiveness to oblivion, like human weakness.
(Ap. 25; Trul. 95; Basil the Great 17, 28, 29, 64, 81, 82).
In several of his rules, Basil the Great talks about the oath, its meaning and those who violate it. In this rule he talks about the latter, and in 64 he defines the punishment for them. In the interpretation of this last rule we are talking about this subject.
In this canon, Saint Basil tells Amphilochius his opinion about the oath of a certain Kyriakos that he will forever remain a presbyter in some village. It happened in the early days of the church that some took a vow that they would never enter the priestly rank, or, if they did, they would never leave the village or place for which they were ordained, and therefore would not accept any of the highest hierarchical honors. Many did this out of fear that they would subsequently not be forced to accept the episcopal rank, which seemed difficult to them and which, perhaps, they were unworthy of. Their vow, or oath, became generally known, which is why they subsequently had to take this into account. Such an oath, in itself, could not have any special significance, since it was difficult to justify it with reasonable arguments, and, therefore, the one who violated it would not be subject to the strict canonical punishment prescribed for violating a solemnly given oath (Ap. 25). However, Saint Basil disapproves of trampling such an oath, since from experience we know, he says, that it is rarely good for someone who does not fulfill his vows. However, adds Saint Basil, it is necessary, in such cases, to take into account how the oath was given: whether the name of God was invoked, in what words the oath was expressed, what was the mental state of the one taking the oath and, on the basis of all this, one must judge the oath. After these preliminary remarks, Saint Basil gives his conclusion about the oath of Cyriacus, as Amphilochius asked him to do.
The point was as follows. A certain Longinus built a church at his own expense in the village of Mindanakh, Mysthian diocese. Sevier, bishop of Masada, ordained Cyriacus as presbyter of this church, who vowed to remain forever with this church. The Mysthian bishop forbade Kyriakos to serve in it, since he was ordained by someone else's bishop, and not by him, the diocesan bishop. As a result of this, Cyriacus transfers to the service of another church; and the angry ktitor Longinus threatened to close the church. It was necessary to prevent this: that is why Saint Basil concludes that the village of Mivdani should be subordinated to the Masada diocese, although it previously belonged to another, and Cyriacus should return to the church in Mindan, for in this way he will remain faithful to his vow and Longinus will not have reasons to close the church and thereby cause harm to your soul. Bishop Sevier was also to blame in this matter, having ordained a presbyter for a church not in his diocese; but since Sevier, in his justification, referred to the fact that he did not know that the disputed church was not his diocese, Vasily recognized this explanation as respectful, leaving God's court to test the fidelity of the given justification.[7]
Rule 11.
The one who involuntarily committed the murder was contentedly punished, being excommunicated for a period of eleven years. For it is clear that for those who received wounds we must keep the Law of Moses (Ex. 21:18 and 19), and one who lay down on a bed from wounds received, but then walked again, with the help of a rod, is not considered dead: even if he did not get up after his wounds , but the one who beat him did not want to kill him: that is, although he is a murderer, however, by intention, he is involuntary.
(Ap. 65; ankir. 23; double cr. 9; Basil the Great 2.8, 13, 54, 57; Gregory of Nyssa 5).
In his 57th rule, Basil the Great subjects an unintentional, unwitting murderer to ten years of penance; here, to the question of Amphilochius, he answers that an involuntary murderer who has been excommunicated from Holy Communion for eleven years is even more likely to be awarded it.
Rule 12.
The rule completely forbade bigamists from being ministers of the church.
(Ap. 17; trul. 3; neokes. 7).
Here Basil the Great refers to 17 Apostles. rule. In the interpretation of this rule, we said that, according to divine law, only one who has been married once can be a priest, and this prescription has been in force in the Orthodox Church through all centuries to this day. A bishop who dares to ordain a second marriage is subject to deposition.[8]
Rule 13.
Our fathers did not charge murder in battle with murder, excusing, as it seems to me, the champions of chastity and piety. But perhaps it would be good to advise that they, as having unclean hands, should refrain from communing only the holy mysteries for three years.
(Ankyr. 22, 23; Athanasius the Great 1; Basil the Great 8, 43, 55; Gregory of Nyssa 5).
“It is not permissible to kill: but to kill enemies in battle is both lawful and worthy of praise,” says Athanasius the Great in his letter to Ammun (right 1); this is precisely what Basil the Great means here when he mentions our fathers (οί πατέρες ημών). Saint Basil adds to this that soldiers who shed human blood should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion for three years. Saint Basil justifies this advice with examples from the Old Testament church (Num. 31:17-24), moreover, striving to relieve the souls of warriors from the burden of shedding human blood. However, Zonara and Balsamon note, this advice of Saint Basil seemed to have not been implemented anywhere, and the mentioned words of Athanasius the Great, cited by Basil, served as guidance. At the same time, Balsamon gives the example of some clergy who participated in battles and, therefore, killed people, and for this, nevertheless, they were not only not deprived of the right to perform sacred functions, but were also awarded awards.[9]
Rule 14.
He who takes usury, even if he desires to squander unrighteous gain on the poor, will henceforth be free from the disease of covetousness and may be accepted into the priesthood.
(Ap. 44; I ec. 17; Trul. 10; Laod. 4; Carth. 5; Gregory of Nyssa 6).
Many rules speak about the fact that none of the clergy should engage in extortion and that those caught in this should be defrocked.[10] Hence, it was completely natural not to accept into the clergy lay people who were involved in covetousness. When asked about this by Amphilochius, Basil the Great answers in this canon that a layman who traded in extortion could be awarded the priesthood only if he distributed the profits unjustly obtained through extortion to the poor with the promise that such extortion would never happen again study.
Rule 15.
I am amazed that you demand literal accuracy from the scripture, and think that the speech of the translation is forced when it well expresses the object it signifies, but does not convey the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, the question proposed by the inquisitive husband should not be ignored. The birds of the air and the fish of the sea, even at the creation of the world, had the same origin: since both of these kinds of animals were brought out of the water: the reason for this is the same, since both have the same property. For some swim in the water, while others swim in the air. That is why they are mentioned collectively. The composition of the words of the psalm[11] is not precisely calculated in relation to fish, but in relation to all creatures living in the waters, it is completely correct. For man is subject to the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and not only these, but also all creatures that pass along the paths of the sea. For not everything that lives in the water is fish, such as cetaceans, whales, siegen, dolphins, seals, also horses, dogs, sawfish, and sword fish, and sea crabs: and there are, if you please, crabs and combs, and all skull-skinned creatures, of which not a single one is a fish, are still the transitory paths of the sea. Thus, there are three kinds: the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and those living creatures that live in the waters, which are different from the fish, but also pass through the paths of the sea.
By the way, Amphilochius asked Basil the Great to explain how to understand the words of David (Ps. 8:9): τά διαπορευόμενα τρίβους θαλασσών (birds of the air and fish of the sea, everything that passes along the paths of the sea); Saint Basil's answer to this question constitutes the present rule, which, however, does not contain any canonical decree.
Rule 16.
Naaman was not great with the Lord, but with his master: that is, he was one of the nobles of the king of Syria. And so delve into the scripture with precision, and in it itself you will find the solution to the question.
And the present rule of Basil the Great is an answer to Amphilochius’ question about Naaman (2 Kings 5:1), and, like rule 15, it does not contain any canonical decree.
[1] See about this the excellent chapter de la condition des femmes in the book M. Troplong, De l' influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains (Paris, 1868, p. 280 et seq.), where all relevant here are the decisions of the law.
[2] Digest.XLVIII, 5, 6, § 1.
[3] Tertull., De monog., p. 9 [Migne, sl, t. 2, col. 941].
[4] Cod. de adult. c. thirty.
[5] Athanas., Quaest. 95, ad Antiochum [Migne, sg, t. 28, col. 656].
[6] Chrysοstοm., Hom. 5 in I ad Thessalon. [Migne, sg, t. 62, col. 425]. Cp. the same holy father Nom. in 1 Cor. VII, 2 [Migne, sg, t. 52, col. 213 et seq.).
Bl. Augustine writes about this: Hujus autem fidei violatio dicitur adulterium, cum vel propriae libidinis instinctu, vel alienae consensu cum altero velaltera contra pactum conjugale concumbitur (de bono conjug., p. 4) [Migne, sl, t. 40, col. 376]. About the mutual duties of husband and wife to maintain marital fidelity, St. Matthew says: nes viro licet quod mulieri non licet: eadem a viro, quae ab uxore debetur castimonia (de Abrah. I, 4) [Migne, s. l, t. 14, col. 431]; Jerome too: quidquid viris jubetur, hoc consequenter redundat in foerainas (de epitaph. Fab.).
[7] Interpretation of Zonara in Af. Synth., IV, 125.
[8] Wed. definition of the Patriarch of Constantinople Alexius (1025-1043) in Af. Synth., V, 28, and also in Alf. Syntagme M. Vlastarya, G, 4 (Af. Synth., VI, 155 et seq.).
[9] Af. Synth., IV, 132, 133.
[10] See interpretations of 44 Ap. and 17 rules I universal. Council in this edition, vol. I, 113-114, 229-230.
[11] Kn.
right: This refers to the Greek words of psalm 8, verse 9: πορευόμενα τρίβους θαλασσών, in which the appearance of grammatical inconsistency gave rise to Saint Amphilochius to question, and Saint Basil to this explanation. Note The page was generated in 0.08 seconds!
